[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

[minipol]

Originally posted by Greybeard:
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

I wonder how Europe would ever be able to defend itself. Europe has a history of struggles and wars and even to this day, as clearly shown the Last couple of days, they quarrel amongst themselves.
I really really wonder how this could be an effective force.
It's not IMO. More action, less talk. Debating is fine but when somebody slaps you in the face, you slap back and preferably a bit harder so they get the message (that's my way of doing things)
Reminds me of when i turned 12 and went to high school. For some reason, the kids of one class started pestering me. Talking to them or teachers
intervening didn't help. Then i punched one of them so hard in the face, a tooth flew out of his mouth. Case closed. Now when i was walking in the hall way, kids made room for me.
Of course that's not really a comparison and not meant to be, just a thought.

Anyway, i still find it hard that so many countries have trouble giving Saddam an ultimatum or whatever to really bring him down. Although i don't think an ultimatum would help.

[God Emperor]

The whole problem about the Iraq affair is that the world community knows that the planned US invasion (Bush has intended to invade from day 1, have no doubt about that) is not being done solely because of altruistic reasons. Control of oil supplies and the middle-east and the USA's need to dominate the world (to support its economy) is a significant factor.

The above statement is not intended to pooh-pooh the fact that the strength of the USA over the Last 80 years has made it possible for western democracy to flourish. Its just to make the point that US policy is directed at ensuring the best outcomes for the US people, even if it is to the detriment of others (no different really from what other countries try to do).
The difference of course though is that the US is the only super-power, spends more on its military budget than the rest of the world combined, and maintains battle fleets in five of the worlds major oceans. With the USSR gone, the negative aspects of US foreign policy are more likely to become a source of friction between the US and its allies.
Comments by hardliners such as Rumsfeld (old Europe) and by Bush I think have exacerbated the differences - "if you are not with us, you are against us". Although the statement was referring to the War on Terror, it is clearly the approach that the current US administration takes to all of its dealings with other countries and just reinforces the message that the US "empire" will not tolerate dissenters.
I find it quite concerning actually that anyone the US disagrees with is automatically considered to be wrong, negative, etc.....

Just hope you Americans can keep your politicians under control and maintain your democracy and freedoms in the form that your founding fathers had in mind.
Regards,
GE

(the perspective of an Australian who doesnt like the way his Prime Minister says "how high" when Bush says "jump").....

[Captain Kwok]

If I have to hear the the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction' one more time...

Here is a letter that I read in a recent Toronto Star newpaper opinion page that I thought hit the hammer on the head about those weapons...

Dubious Weapons of Mass Destruction

Feb. 6.

In would appear that there are three classifications of weapons of mass destruction: atomic, biological and gas. According to U.N. inspectors, there appears to be virtually no evidence that Iraq has constructed atomic weapons. As biological weapons go, the one most often mentioned is anthrax. But, unless some truly inspired work has been done with this agent, I have a lot of difficulty including it as a problem.

In his recent U.N. presentation, Colin Powell suggested that anthrax was a particularly deadly thing, that a teaspoonful shut down most of the Senate for a long period of time, and that two people died. While I do have sympathy for the survivors of those lost, two people do not make up a very great mass. What shut down the Senate was paranoia, not anthrax. Study of the history of recent infections suggests that it is extremely hard to develop an effective vector and that, to date, nothing has been developed that allows one to conclude that anthrax has any truly "mass" capability.

In regard to gas of whatever type, an understanding of the history of its deployment during warfare suggests that it is an extremely difficult weapon to use. Its use is complicated by wind patterns, geography and counteractive agents. As we discovered during World War I, it often blew back over the very people deploying it, rendering its use extremely questionable. It is also difficult to deliver any real quantity any real distance. A warhead filled with it might, if precisely aimed, kill a few dozen, or perhaps a few hundred, but again, classifying it as even a distant relative to the H-bomb is highly questionable. While Saddam Hussein may have even a large quantity, he has no effective means of delivery.

Given this discussion, the American rush to war seems even more questionable. I listened to Powell's presentation, hoping to hear a proper military briefing, complete with a description of weapons, weapons capability, weapons quantity and estimates of potential casualties if those weapons were deployed. I heard none of this. What I did hear was sound bite propaganda. And nothing that could not be verified by on-the-ground inspection.

How many people could the Iraqis possibly kill? How many would die if the Iraqis were attacked? Given the weapons available to each side, it seems that the Iraqis are in far more danger than we are.

The major worry seems to be that Saddam might follow a scorched earth policy. If this is truly what American officials believe, how can they still present the case that any really effective weapons of mass potential are still in Saddam's hands?

Hmm.

[primitive]

First of all, a statement.
- I am no friend of Saddam.
- I do belive there are some weapons of mass destruction stashed away.
- I do belive Saddam is doing everything in his power to keep these hidden.
- I do recognize this violates the cease-fire, and US have the mandate to go to war.

Yet I strongly oppose the war.

Why ?
It won't solve any problems, just move them to another location. The third worlds resentment agaist what they perceive as US/Western oppresion and aggression will increase even faster, and new terrorist bases will pop up somewhere else. It's far better to have one weak enemy you know and can control, then to have enemies you don't know.
And Weapens of mass destruction can be made with a chemistry-set in a basement. It's transporting them to the place they will be used that is the problem.

Greybeard:
American troops in Europe was needed (and greatly appreciated) until the fall of the Soviet Union. After that they are just a waste of tax-payers money. I really don't mind, because its not my taxes. But it makes me wonder if the real reason for the war is to justify the huge US defence budget.

Damien and God Emperor:
You are a wise (and well informed) men.

Puke:
There is much wisdom in your post, but I think You give the "people in charge" to much cred if you think they actually understand whats going on.