Europe eight back Bush on Iraq - Page 3

Ozz · January 30, 2003, 16:15

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark 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.

Chretien from the start wanted to see "good" evidence
before committing, Maybe he got a sneak preview of
what Bush is giving the UN soon. Thats the only way
he'd shift.

We want a warrant before kickin' in Iraq's door (again).

Lord Merciless · January 30, 2003, 16:19

Schroeder is a machiavellian politician. To get reelected, he made tons and tons of promises, including one against any war in Iraq. Barely a month after his reelecting, he renegated most of his promises. and the anti-war stance is really the last promise he hasn't broken yet. So he basically forced himself into a corner with no way out.

Drake Tungsten · January 30, 2003, 16:21

Damn you, Oerdin! How do you steal my thread idea and end up with more posts?!?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=75581

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz

Chretien from the start wanted to see "good" evidence
before committing, Maybe he got a sneak preview of
what Bush is giving the UN soon. Thats the only way
he'd shift.

We want a warrant before kickin' in Iraq's door (again).

I thought the Blix report was the tilting factor. The change seems to have come right after that.

DinoDoc · January 30, 2003, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz
Chretien from the start wanted to see "good" evidence
before committing,

I wonder how the US deciphered this:

When asked exactly what kind of proof he needs, he put it this way:

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/09/05/iraq_pm020905

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz

Chretien from the start wanted to see "good" evidence
before committing, Maybe he got a sneak preview of
what Bush is giving the UN soon. Thats the only way
he'd shift.

We want a warrant before kickin' in Iraq's door (again).

oops my bad - i attributed this to Chretien - apparently only Manley and FM Graham have indicated this support - theres now talk of division with Canadian govt.

Ozz · January 30, 2003, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."[/i]

Can't pin Chretin down.

The burden of proof is with the proscution, not the jury.

Tripledoc · January 30, 2003, 16:38

http://www.eosgallupeurope.com/

Quote:

EMBARGO 29/01/2003 at 23.00 GMT

Press release

Europeans refuse to participate in a war against Iraq
if the United States intervenes unilaterally

For the first time since the beginning of the Iraqi crisis, citizens of 30 European countries have the opportunity to speak and respond to the same opinion poll. Given the eminent changing nature of current events, EOS Gallup Europe conducted this exceptional opinion poll in the space of only 6 days (from the 21st to the 27th of January) with 15 080 people aged 15 years and over.

Refusal to participate in military action without the cover of the United Nations

30 European countries interviewed by EOS Gallup Europe are unanimous. They believe that military intervention in Iraq by their country is unjustified if the United States decides to intervene without a preliminary decision by the UN. Regardless of whether we look at positions at the level of the current European Union (82%) or at the level of the 13 candidate countries for enlargement of the Union (75%), the rejection of this hypothesis remains strong and is homogenously shared.

Similarly, the vast majority of interviewees (80% within the EU and 74% among the candidate countries) cannot accept the idea that the United States should launch a military attack without the United Nations giving their formal agreement.

In fact, only three other proposed hypotheses could justify the military participation of European countries: the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (59%); an Iraqi threat to other countries in the region (59%) or indeed a decision by the United Nations Security Council. However, opinions appear to be divided on this last hypothesis: while 57% of citizens of the Union are of this opinion, only 42% support this hypothesis among the 13 candidate countries. It is true that if we project ourselves to 2004 and calculate an average for a European Union of 25 countries, we see that the results are close to the current EU of 15 (56%). In other words, the positioning of Turkish citizens (33%) has a marked influence on the average at the level of the 13 candidate countries: a result that recurs throughout the whole of the EOS Gallup Europe study.

Is oil the main motivation for intervention by the United States in Iraq?

The majority of interviewees (around 72%, of which 43% are absolutely in agreement with this opinion) agree that oil is the main reason for which the United States wants to intervene in Iraq through military means. It is worth noting that even in the United Kingdom 60% of the population shares this opinion.

Nevertheless, two thirds of those interviewed recognize that Iraq presents a threat to World peace (this rate rose to 74% in the United Kingdom and even to 87% in Slovakia as opposed to 43% in Turkey). However, is it not towards the Iraqi leader rather than the country that we point the finger: in fact within the European Union citizens remain dubious about the real support of the Iraqi people for the Saddam Hussein regime (47% consider that the Iraqi president can rely on his people as opposed to 43% who are of the opposite opinion).

Collective action is favoured

We should not be mistaken here, citizens of the European Union (but also others) recognize that the Iraqi crisis is a major stake and its resolution should be given top priority (40%) ahead of the problem of international terrorism (28%) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (15%). However, two remarks on this subject: on the one hand those interviewed do not want a “double-measure” policy and would like as much attention to be given to North Korea as to Iraq. On the other hand, nothing should be undertaken outside of collective action or decision. In this regard, action by the United Nations on the international scene is considered positive (70%) as for the European Union (66%) even if those interviewed call for an even more active role to be taken by the European Union in matters related to foreign policy (84% within the 15 Member States and 78% among the 13 candidate countries).

On the contrary, only 41% of European Union citizens (47% in candidate countries) consider that action taken by Americans on the international scene is positive, as opposed to 54% who believe the opposite. It is perhaps in this regard that the greatest variations among countries interviewed can be observed: 15% of Swiss consider American action to be positive, 23% in Turkey, 58% in the United Kingdom and 69% in Romania.

Finally, NATO also enjoys positive perceptions among European public opinion (59% in the 15 countries of the Union, 63% in the 13 candidate countries). It is noted that the results are even more positively pronounced among countries that have recently been invited to join the Organisation in May 2004: 83% in Romania or even 79% in Slovakia.

However the threat of terrorists still hovers

Today terrorism continues to be feared and principally so within countries of the European Union. Thus, 55% of citizens of the 15 Member States consider that the threat of terrorist attacks in their country is high (only 27% share this opinion among the 13 candidate countries). Countries where the threat appears to be greatest are the United Kingdom (83%), Spain (70%, terrorism here is certainly linked to separatist groups), France and Italy (59%). Moreover, the perception of this threat is reinforced by the very fact that Al-Quaeda still presents a great threat to World peace for 84% of citizens of the Union.

However, once again, the United Nations Organisation (30%) is clearly designated as the actor best placed to effectively fight against international terrorism, ahead of the United States (26%), NATO (15%) and the European Union (14%).

In other words, the problem of terrorism like the Iraqi crisis, are real international issues requiring an international response. Otherwise, the 70% of people interviewed within the European Union, confirming their pessimism with regard to the global situation could even further increase their ranks.

__________________
EOS Gallup Europe is a coordination centre of international studies specialised in conducting opinion polls. Its network covers the entire European territory. In the annex, you will find some graphs presenting the main results of this study. You may obtain the complete results by contacting: info@eosgallupeurope.com or tel: + 32 10 24 56 16 or www.eosgallupeurope.com

Oerdin · January 30, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Damn you, Oerdin! How do you steal my thread idea and end up with more posts?!?

Easy. I started mine first and you just copied me after the fact.

Drake Tungsten · January 30, 2003, 16:48

Quote:

Easy. I started mine first and you just copied me after the fact.

Really? Then why does Poly say that my thread was started over three hours before yours?

BeBro · January 30, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Schroeder is a machiavellian politician. To get reelected, he made tons and tons of promises, including one against any war in Iraq.

He has ruined his reputation with this, the Iraq issue is the last promise he didn´t break. That is why I´m pissed of with our current position - I get more and more the impression that Schröder´s "peace" project hasn´t much to do with peaceful conflict management.

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid

Other European countries that did not sign:

*Slovakia

(snip rest of list)

Slovakia has announced that it supports the declaration.

One more "New Europe" state in the "axis of vassals"

Paris · January 31, 2003, 03:59

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.

This is the BIGGEST difference between a US and European administration! (not citizens). This is the significant point for understand how Europeans are thinking. The USA administration for another time can't MANAGE the power that it has in its hands!

After two Word Wars as Europeans we understand that you HAVE TO use the war as a weapon against REAL situations. USA hasn't face HISTORICALLY destroyes involving in a war. European countries build it in 20th century from the begining. We believe that ANY country/citizen is much important for EVERYONE (and this isn't well-understanding by USA administration).

- Thanks to Netherland goveroment which didn't sign this paper. The issue don't concern the statement o rtheir opinion but their behaviour as the MEMBER of a UNION. Netherland goveroment was respecting the common desicion which taken by 15 EU 'Foreign State' ministers last week.

1) Now Poland, Hungary & Chech Republic HOW ARE GOING TO CONVIENCE the Parliaments of other European countries (as German, Ireland, Swedish, Belgian, Greek etc) to sign the ENTRY-paper for EU?
Are they so sure that French Parliament is going to sign? Didn't thinking of it? Or they belive that Bush administration is going to help them to being full members of EU???
MAYBE THIS FEAR HAS BEEN FORCED CHECH GOVEROMENT TODAY TO STATES "THAT THE SIGN OF THIS PAPER ON "TIMES" ISN'T A DESICION BY GOVEROMENT BUT A PERSONAL DECISION OF CHECH PRESIDENT HAVEL"

2) Thanks to Tony Blair/José María Aznar/Barroso/Silvio Berlusconi (MEMBERS of EU) we stopped yesterday to have a discussion about our future: Now we know WHO WANTS to built a EU SUPERSTATE which depending on common defence, foreign policy, economy. Thanks to these administrations we know much better the 'friends' of European idea and how we are going to forward in a common EU administration.
Maybe some of Apolytoners (Europeans) have to think about our "Europe" as a state in the NEAR-FUTURE (3-5 years). This letter by 8 leaders becomes the reason for the acceleration of European unification!

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 04:26

you go ahead and unify, but do it in the open so we can decide not to join

Mazarin · January 31, 2003, 04:53

Britain will join...they're not the fastest but euro, eu-superstate and brussels will get you

LaRusso · January 31, 2003, 05:20

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"axis of vassals"

axis of vassals (mostly runaways from the evil kingdom) versus axis of evil

slovakia, hungary, czech rep and poland

vs.

iran, iraq, n. korea

who are you betting on?

cinch · January 31, 2003, 05:31

Quote:

oops my bad - i attributed this to Chretien - apparently only Manley and FM Graham have indicated this support - theres now talk of division with Canadian govt.

Division within the Canadian government? You don't say?

I think Chretien's coolness on the War on Iraq is probably the only good thing he's done in... a very long time. And the only good thing about Manley is that he's anti-monarchy.

But we all know Martin's gonna steamroll the leadership and be sleep-voted into the Prime Ministership... It's almost not worth trying anymore.

Well, I sure added alot to this thread.

Good night.

Heresson · February 1, 2003, 16:05

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

You didn't have to sign it to be against.
Albania for example officially supported USA...

raghar · February 2, 2003, 19:24

Quote:

The newspaper article signed by Britain's Tony Blair, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, Spain's Jose Maria Aznar, Portugal's Jose Barroso, Denmark's Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel, Poland's Leszek Miller and Hungary's Peter Medgyessy was hailed by the Bush administration as evidence of wider support in Europe than had been reported

I have writen it before, but for this thread it's good enought.
This is piece of crap. Havel is complete idiot and signed it becose of his rich "friend" advice. He is no longer president now and he did it agains will of parliament. BTW parliamant would like UN resolution.
Poland and Hungary are simple lickassers that would like to go to EU and they would like to have US "friendship".

I could estimate that Blair wouldn't be against war, so who is left...
Denmark?? Spain and Portugal. They had some debts or something

Italy? Could someone from Italy tell us why was it signed by Berlusconi? Then again IT IS Berlusconi. So, why should we be surprised?

raghar · February 2, 2003, 21:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Paris

MAYBE THIS FEAR HAS BEEN FORCED CHECH GOVEROMENT TODAY TO STATES "THAT THE SIGN OF THIS PAPER ON "TIMES" ISN'T A DESICION BY GOVEROMENT BUT A PERSONAL DECISION OF CHECH PRESIDENT HAVEL"

Don't laught so much it's truth largely. That dumb idiot has few last days of presidency and now is out. Yes paper is signed and they would be forcet to do... well prabably nothing... Play dead. It would happen somehow.