Finally a GOOD poll about Iraque / war / pacifism

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



Texan/Canadian?
I know you're ignorant; I just don't know in what/how many way(s).

Your confused by the statement, and then you call me ignorant

Figure it out yourself

[Dis]

I don't get it.

Don't the pacifists realize that Iraq has denied the U.N. like 17 times? What are we supposed to do about it? Just keep giving them new resolutions that they can break. Keep calling him a bad boy?

The U.N. is worthless without enforcement.

What I'm really pissed about is these pacifists aren't very pacifist. They punched an unarmed horse hurting it. They also dragged the horse to the ground. The thing that gets me is many of these pacifists are also PETA guys. WTF!! Makes me wonder that PETA doesn't really care about animals, and their organization is a bunch of bullshit.

[Robert Plomp]

Dissident, can't you see that we should give Sadam another very very last change?

I'm positive that he'll listen this time!
After all he's a reasonable man!

[Dis]

good point. We'll give him one more chance to accept the U.N. resolutions.

[Robert Plomp]

And if he fails we'll give him another resolution to obey!

If the man doesn't obey the resolution, make the resolution obey the man.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by CyberShy


Don't mix up the French with the rest of Europe.
(somebody should tell this to the french as well btw)

Well since most other countries have no backbone and keep following the USA (throw and keep them out the EU I'd say, especially those candidate countries), I hav no problem at all with a further European unification led by France and Germany.

[Pekka]

Yeah, but what if France is wrong? Why should we keep following France? After all, Chirac just called the candidates infantales or what ever, and that IS insult to members too, it was indirectly aimed to them too.
That is close to blackmailing 'change your views, or you're not aloud to enter our union'.. that's complete BS. He can't talk for the rest of the EU. He's nothing but an old man who forgot his real position in this world and also not to pee in his pants when he sleeps.

[Pekka]

Besides, France is acting like the center of the Europe, making axis with Germany. They act like they are the Europe, and the rest are just part of Europe. Germany has not maybe acted so big though, but France has. THere's no denying it, and I'm sorry, but we are not in Europe to please them. We are all different countries, and we will NEVER recognize foreign power coming outside of our countries. We will NEVER submit to that kind of blackmailing of aggressive attitudes. We will not take foreign values and praise them as superioir, and you can take that to the bank. This only makes them look stupid in our minds. That kind of talk will only contribute to coalition lead by the US, and not the other way around.

What Chirac should do, is to be more nice to people. He should explain his views etc, and not fire up like that. What does it tell you? That he can not control himself, and that his emotions get in the way, and he really do not appreciate eastern europeans equal to him, but lesser folks. He thinks France is the rightfull leader of the Europe, and the heart of it, and everyone should just shut up and do things their way. They tell they won't do things the US way because they don't take orders. What does Chirac think when he think he can do the same thing to others then? He's the kind of man who could actually brake a bone if he farts.

Besides, why should we get behind France, as they have showed their ability to treat friends like kaka? That's right, Chirac can surrender and go away.

[Robert Plomp]

Well since most other countries have no backbone and keep following the USA (throw and keep them out the EU I'd say, especially those candidate countries), I hav no problem at all with a further European unification led by France and Germany.

Conclusion:
If you are pro-war (simply stated) you're following the USA
If you're anti-war you have an opinion on your own.

this is pathatic.
In fact you say "People who are free to their own opinion should have our opinion"

this is seriously laughable.

[Pekka]

CyberShy, yeah.. Chirac is telling 'don't take orders from the US, take orders from me!'.
This only shows how 'flexible' EU is. If someone is not agreing with the big ones, they start bullying you.

[Pekka]

I mean look at Tony Blair. He's nice to everyone. His views are challenged all the time and he really has to defend his position on this Iraq thing. But he doesn't go calling people names.. He is trying to get people understand his view better, and is not just going 'Well I'm going to veto no matter what happens'.
And even more, he is keeping the alliance going on strong, even when the people are starting to be against the action. He is in tough spot now, and he keeps smiling and explaining in civilized manner. That's the way leaders should do talking, not trashing everyone when they don't like someones views. Even Bush is being more reasonable. He is using strong rhetorics yes, but still he is NOT calling people names and really trashing them. He is also trying to exlpain his views. Rumsfeld was tough, maybe too tough on his words, but can we ever talk about it in the same day, comparing what Chirac said? I don't think so.

[CerberusIV]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Chirac or the way the French are tackling this but what is going on is traditional european politics.

Basically the French make all the noise and try to get their own way whilst someone else does the real work and brings about a result in the background. The comments about the new countries joining the EU is most likely meant as a slap down after the near row about how much EU aid they would be eligible for when they joined. It is more about the French feeling important that of real substance.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Straybow
Drogue is just trying to force his morals onto others. I don't see why Drogue's morals are better than anyone elses, it's just he has the blather to spew it here…

My morals aren't better than anyone elses, and I'm not trying to force them onto others. I'm simply staing my case. I'm not using force to make people agree with what I say. Can someone tell me why I'm wrong? What other reason is Bush wanting to attack for? WHat is his motivation? Is he not guided by his morals? What makes America so different, that other countries abide by the UN and America doesn't?

[Japher]

Had there a been the option that Sadam is a Banana and Bush should eat him, I would of taken the banana option as I usually do. Instead... I took the lets kick Sadam's Madas.... hehe


Blah, blah, on morals... Morals are like opinions, which are like bungholes... everyone has one, everyone's stink.

Stick to your own morals, if they are strong enough, no one can force theirs on you... What a sensles notion; forcing morals on someone... that can't happen!

[Straybow]

Well put, CyberShy.

Drogue, the US isn't using force on any of the Euroweenies. Bush wants to attack Iraq because Saddam is a rabid dog who needs to be put down. He got his tail kicked, signed a treaty to stay in power, and has obstructed and defied the treaty ever since. Time to pay the piper.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Straybow
Drogue, the US isn't using force on any of the Euroweenies.

No, I never said he was. He's using force against Saddam (or rather, wants too) and thus inflicting his, American/Western morals onto Saddam. Although I take your point about the UN resolutions, not that I'd put it quite like that, but who were we to say those resolutions in the first place? We don't abide by them, so why should he?

[Maniac]

CyberShy:

Ok I take back the "no backbone" thing. I said it in an impulse, on a less intellectual moment, being dragged away in a simplistic way of thinking like everyone in the US . My actual opinion is:
If you are pro-war you're following the USA.
If you're anti-war you're following France.
But since I am a strongly pro-Europe I'd rather have all the European countries agreeing with France than with our rival the United States. It's a simple pragmatic game of power politics. It has nothing to do with being right or wrong. France and the USA are just behaving the same.

Pekka:

Besides, France is acting like the center of the Europe, making axis with Germany.

Big news. Germany is the biggest economic power of Europe, France the third. Like it or not, they ARE the centre.

We are all different countries, and we will NEVER recognize foreign power coming outside of our countries. We will NEVER submit to that kind of blackmailing of aggressive attitudes.

*shrugs* That's your personal opinion with which I respectfully disagree. I want a stronger unified Europe, so the less power the individual countries have, the more I like it.

We will not take foreign values and praise them as superioir, and you can take that to the bank.

Values? Aren't you a little overexaggerating? France wants Europe to follow their foreign policy, not that every Fin starts speaking French and drinking wine. I don't see why we couldn't have stronger supranational institutes and cooperation, and at the same time keep our own culture and values.

He should explain his views etc

France, Belgium and Germany haven't been doing anything else... Unlike the USA which can't come up with serious proof of weapons of mass destruction.

What does it tell you? That he can not control himself, and that his emotions get in the way

Have you actually see him say it on tv? He looked perfectly in control of his emotions to me. He was just playing a studied act.

That is close to blackmailing 'change your views, or you're not aloud to enter our union'..

And I completely agree with this 'blackmail'. The deal is like this: You are allowed into our Union, with all the economical advantages, but in return you have to give up part of your national sovereignity to European institutions. That also involves a common foreign policy. And it is not in the advantage of Europe as a whole that the USA, our closest economic competitor, gets more influence in Iraq. Hence...

[orange]

Originally posted by Maniac
Let France/Europe rule the world!

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Dissident
The U.N. is worthless without enforcement.

Wow, that sentence works even without the last two words.
Although, I prefer without them because they imply that the UN has some sort of authority.

[Kramerman]

well said Pekka

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drogue

My morals aren't better than anyone elses, and I'm not trying to force them onto others. I'm simply staing my case. I'm not using force to make people agree with what I say. Can someone tell me why I'm wrong? What other reason is Bush wanting to attack for? WHat is his motivation? Is he not guided by his morals? What makes America so different, that other countries abide by the UN and America doesn't?

Drogue, Two points:

1) What do you mean that the US does not abide by the UN?

2) As a proposition, can the UN control the behavior of any of the permanent members? After all, they have a veto.

[Straybow]

[Bush is] inflicting his, American/Western morals onto Saddam. Although I take your point about the UN resolutions, not that I'd put it quite like that, but who were we to say those resolutions in the first place? We don't abide by them, so why should he?

Drogue, it isn't just UN resolutions that Saddam has defied; resolutions he did not vote for. Just about every nation ignores UN resolutions they don't like. He is defying the treaty he did sign with the US and his Arab neighbors. Our ceasation of hostilities was conditional on the terms of that treaty, and for breaking that treaty we should kick his butt all over again.

[Robert Plomp]

Maniac: Ok I take back the "no backbone" thing. I said it in an impulse, on a less intellectual moment, being dragged away in a simplistic way of thinking

You have my respect for saying this

If you are pro-war you're following the USA.
If you're anti-war you're following France.
But since I am a strongly pro-Europe I'd rather have all the European countries agreeing with France than with our rival the United States. It's a simple pragmatic game of power politics. It has nothing to do with being right or wrong. France and the USA are just behaving the same.

France and the USA aren't behaving exactly the same.
In fact the USA has an opinion, and France is (automaticly) against, but in the end France will join the war, because it wants to be a part of it anyway.

France is more power-hungry than the USA. That's not so strange, the USA already has all the power france longs for.

Besides that, the french point of view is actually not the european point of view. Only belgium and germany share it completely. Majority of the countries has a more neutral point of view, and a big minority is with the US. (England, Italy, Spain) and a small minority is somewhere between neutral and pro USA (Netherlands in example)

I disagree that it's all power-politics from the USA side.
We know that the french have done this before, and it's all power-politics on their side.
We know that the german's point of view was born during the 2002 elections.

We know that the american point of view was born on 09-11.
Pherhaps the american have the wrong reaction on 09-11, but you can't blame them for power-politics being their nr1 reason for a war.

Big news. Germany is the biggest economic power of Europe, France the third. Like it or not, they ARE the centre.

England is 2nd, Italy is 4th.
They're not the center, eventhough they are important.
But the sum of the 'more or less pro USA' countries is bigger than the sum of France and Germany.

*shrugs* That's your personal opinion with which I respectfully disagree. I want a stronger unified Europe, so the less power the individual countries have, the more I like it.

I agree with you on this.
But that makes me wonder again why France and Germany are acting solo.

France wants Europe to follow their foreign policy

that's bad enough.

France, Belgium and Germany haven't been doing anything else... Unlike the USA which can't come up with serious proof of weapons of mass destruction.

come on, you can't be serious on that.
All France / Germany have come with is some vague argument that with protecting Turkey the war has come closer. I think it's a valid argument, but a vague one.

It can't stand against the request of one friend who asks for help.

people who say this:

Sadam is bad but Bush is worse. No war, no sanctions

should we take them serious?
(for the sadam is bad but Bush is worse part, not the 'no war, no sanction' part which is a reasonable point of view)