[OT] Cr*ppy Belgium

[minipol]

Hhhmm. I live in Belgium and i'm ashamed by the way our government or better some politicians handle the whole Iraqi situation.
I mean, why o why do they have to be so annoying when it comes to the defence of Turkey. They think that issueing defences to Turkey is admitting the negotiations have already failed. Duh.
Like Saddam is going to comply. Woehahahaha. Right. He'll comply when he's dead.
Only mistake the Americans made was not finishing him of when they had the chance in the Gulf War.
Not that they won't this time.

I just don't get my own country. He's a pain in the rear, is laughing at the whole international community and sponsors terrorists yet our policitians find it necessary to behave like jack*sses. Come'on!
Do i beleive in reason? Yes. But you have to draw the line somewhere and IMHO, Saddam has crossed that line.

Also, a reason why i am not opposed to a war:
The quicker Saddams out, the quicker we can install a new government, the quicker sanctions can be lifted to aid a lot of children who are now suffering because of it.

It's a shame my country probably isn't going to send soldiers. Why do we have highly trained paratroopers if we don't use them? Why am i paying taxes for stuff that isn't used? Saddam is a threat to any civilised nation.

Yes, living in Belgium can be annoying, frustrating and confusing at times.

[primitive]

minipol:
I only wish my own goverment had the wisdom and integrity to do the same as yours.

[Puke]

i dont know what Belgium was thinking, but I have a pretty good idea about France and Germany.

when the trade towers were destroyed, it was the first time in recorded history that article 5 of the NATO charter was invoked. just about every allied nation had troops, ships, tanks, and planes ready to send to war. The US slapped them in the face, took the UK, Spain, and Canada, and told France and Germany to piss off. Thanks, but no thanks.

now they are getting us back. oh, the US is too good for our military alliance? guess what? we dont need to play with you either. thats what they're telling us. and they have every right to. the Alliance is falling appart. It was obvious from the first time the media started talking about "coallition forces." what the hell is that? our own private military alliance, outside of NATO? great...

now, not only do we have a "coallition," but there is talk of a european "federation." what the heck? no more Allies? couldn't find a good enough Axis power? have to make up new names for the new sides? wherever this **** is going, the people in charge have already made up their minds about it, and we are just along for the ride. you can see it in the news, as they feed us a little bit more bull**** every so often, just to get us ready for whatever they are going to do.

There IS going to be a war. NATO is NOT going to play along. we are starting our own team, and the other side is still sorting out what it is going to be about. The Arabs are going to be in the middle of it, but its not really going to be about them. both sides are picking members like schook kids getting ready for a ballgame. The world is changing, again.

[Arkcon]

It was already said by someone wiser than me ... we had disagreements all the time, the threat the Soviet Union provided some "glue" to force an accord in these times. We don't have that anymore -- we're going to have to get used to disagrements like this.

European nations seem obsessed with "spanking" Turkey. Maybe Turkey's civil rights record poses a problem for letting them into the EU, or maybe it's a raceist policy with selective attention to their civil rights record. But NATO does have a job to do. Oh well, it may all sort itself out.

[damien]

NATO is a defensive alliance - the members agree to defend each other from external agressors - they dont agree to automatically support each other in foreign invasions.

Iraq is not threatening to invade Turkey, and if Iraq and Turkey do go to war with each other it will be Iraq acting in self-defence, not to mention the fact that it will more likely be the Kurds fighting the Turks as the Turks move to invade northern Iraq to control the oil there and to squash any ideas of an independant Kurdistan.

I dont think that those kinds of actions were what NATO was formed to support. The turks have a human rights record almost as nasty as the Iraqis, especially where Kurds are concerned.

I do agree, however, that if Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, that he would be less that cooperative in disarming.

On the other hand, can you imagine any circumstance in which the US (possesor of more than 6000 nuke warheads) would comply with a UN order to disarm?

The US, for instance, is a signatory to the now 30 year old Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty, in essence, is an agreement between the nuclear armed states and the non-nuclear armed states that the non-nuclear armed states will remain that way and the nuclear armed states will join them. Theres no sign that the US, or any of the other nuclear states, ever intends to go non-nuclear.

What this means is that any state with ambitions to act on the world stage, in a way contrary to US policy, MUST have nuclear weapons to deter the kind attack that Iraq is looking like it will recieve.

[Greybeard]

I continue to be amazed at how many people don't understand that Iraq has violated the conditions of the cease fire from the previous "conflict." By violating these conditions, they have negated the cease fire. No additional action is necessary to continue the conflict. The "coalition force," or the United States does not need any additional approvals to finish the job.

The inspectors are not in Iraq to find Saddam's weapons, although you wouldn't know it from listening to Hanz Blix. The Iraqis are supposed to be showing the inspectors proof that they have destroyed or eliminated all of the biological, etc. weapons that they had at the end of the Gulf War. To date, Iraq has not cooperated and has not provided proof as required.

Saddam is playing a cat and mouse game and using disagreements between other nations to buy time. As GB said, the game is over.

The United Nations is as ineffective as the League of Nations was. For it to dissolve into nothing would be a great improvement. If you don't believe this, go to the UN web page and read some of the reports that their committees have prepared. These committees want to take away the sovereignty of all of the world's nations.

As for Europe, it's about time for them to defend themselves. Bring our troops home after this war and let Europe do what they wish without our support...Greybeard