Most nations certainly are opposed to the the war: or certainly, their citizens are. Like the Spanish. And these 'waverers' on the Security Council are only 'wavering' because, although their citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to action, these nations have a) have been promised all sorts of trade and aid benefits in the last three weeks or so of negotiations as 'inducements' to vote, but b) see no reason why they should put themselves in domestic political trouble in agreeing to vote as the Americans and British are asking them when France and Russia will use their vetoes anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not agree. They are wavering because they know they are wrong.
Can you name any military action that *wasn't* "unilateral"? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The civil war?
The first Gulf War was just fine. The attack on Afghanistan was just fine. These are recent examples.
It wouldn't matter if every war prior to this one was unjust. That doesn't mean this one, especially when a solution is close at hand, should be unjust as well.
<strong>Bosnia was not wrong even if it didn´t get UN approval. And there are several people I would kill in a heartbeat even if I would get convicted for murder and most of the rest of the world would see it as a wrong act.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, now detail the reasons why US military action in the Balkans was legitimate.
[quote] What nations have we paid off? I'm curious. <hr></blockquote>
we tried with turkey...they didn't bite, so we removed the offer of 15 billion...sounds like an attempted pay off...if we really were worried about turkey's economy post war with iraq we would give them the 15 billion whether they let us use their country as a launch pad or not....
oh well, here comes the war...i hope for the best and that GW looks great after this...it will be a tough road ahead though...
g'rat, i thought you told me there would be UN approval?? i take it you still support war without it....
take care
my thoughts are with our troops and with all on the ground and in the air in iraq...
if the bombs must fly, may they fly true...and if people must die, please let it be few
You'll also notice that I didn't mention every nation that backs the US.
When one can't argue with the logic [snip].
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your deliberate implication was that, since "France, Russia and Germany" aren't "the rest of the world", the "rest of the world" is in favour of the war. You didn't include China so as to make your point stronger. Recently this sort of thing has been your new favourite way to attack arguments with which you disagree.
The domestic populations of all the "waverers", and of Spain - who are more opposed the war than the French people - are opposed to the war.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
What nations have we paid off? I'm curious.
And since when do protests determine policy? I'd hate to live in the world you seem to be advocating</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) America an Britain are trying to 'pay off' Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan. The US just promised Pakistan a colossal aid package: I think this was on Friday. I don't have time to find a link. If you really believe that you're trying diplomacy to convince these waverers, whose populations are OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to this war, then you're being wilfully blind.
2) Since when do protests determine policy? Did I say that they did? Why did you write this to support your argument? Now I'm curious.
3) I'm not "advocating" any kind of world. I'm arguing with you, because I believe your position is wrong.
I do not agree. They are wavering because they know they are wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are wavering, Noah J, because their populations are overwhemingly against this unjustified war. Yet the diplomats and governments think the best way -- economically and strategically -- to protect their citizens is to side with America, to give in to the "arm twisting" and "inducements" of the US.
They are not wavering because they know they are wrong, NO MATTER how much you wish this were the case. It is just incredible, incredible, that you should really believe that.
Must be those invisible bombs, effectless bombs. Don't worry, the bombs will be dropping soone enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eugene, what the hell do you think that B-1 dropped, purely out of interest? Your oh-so-cute "invisible bombs?"
You do hear about these bombing raids in America don't you? Or is it just every other country in the world that gets to hear about the raids New was talking about?
Eugene, what the hell do you think that B-1 dropped, purely out of interest? Your oh-so-cute "invisible bombs?"
You do hear about these bombing raids in America don't you? Or is it just every other country in the world that gets to hear about the raids New was talking about?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps we bomb them because they target our aircraft? Hmmm.
They are wavering, Noah J, because their populations are overwhemingly against this unjustified war. Yet the diplomats and governments think the best way -- economically and strategically -- to protect their citizens is to side with America, to give in to the "arm twisting" and "inducements" of the US.
They are not wavering because they know they are wrong, NO MATTER how much you wish this were the case. It is just incredible, incredible, that you should really believe that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we should add "unjust, IN YOUR OPINION". Just because you call it so doesn't mean it is. Oh wait...I suppose you are not the only one calling it this. There is Fomer President Carter, after all. Of course, he was one of the most ineffective Presdients in history, particularly with the military.
[quote]The US just promised Pakistan a colossal aid package: I think this was on Friday. <hr></blockquote>
That's for a variety of reasons, mostly their support in the war on Al Queda. Musharraf's govt has put a lot on the line in their support for the war on terrorism. And they could use all the propping up that they can get, pseudo-dictatorship or not. Especially when you consider that they have nukes. Pakistan has an immense capacity to mess things up bigtime- perhaps more so than any other country in the world- for US, for the West, for India, for Afghanistan etc.
Unfortunately the Bush administration ****ed them in the first textiles "negotiations" so that Bush didn't have to lose a few voters in the Carolinas textiles industries.
I think we should add "unjust, IN YOUR OPINION". Just because you call it so doesn't mean it is. Oh wait...I suppose you are not the only one calling it this. There is Fomer President Carter, after all. Of course, he was one of the most ineffective Presdients in history, particularly with the military.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Nice side step of two issues we're discussing. Typical.
2) No, I'm not the only one calling it this. To be more accurate, this action has public support in the US. And no-where else. Not in the UK and CERTAINLY not in Spain (otherwise known as 'your allies,' numbnut). Not in Kuwait, not in Saudi, not in Iran, not in Turkey.
The first Gulf War wasn't "one-sided". I'm sure Iraq thought it was.
If you can find the UN resolution authorizing action in Afghanistan that would be fantastic.
Inform yourself.
[quote]<strong>He asked for examples, then I give them, then it's back to avoidavoidavoid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All you provided was that we tried to buy Turkey. That's it. If you can give me a nation that we bought that is behind us now please give me an example.
------
gelding:
[quote]<strong>we tried with turkey...they didn't bite, so we removed the offer of 15 billion...sounds like an attempted pay off...if we really were worried about turkey's economy post war with iraq we would give them the 15 billion whether they let us use their country as a launch pad or not....</strong><hr></blockquote>
So are you saying we haven't bought anyone's support? Hmm.
Surely there's an example. This is a oft-repeated anti-war sentiment. I'd hate for it to be a lie.
[quote]<strong>g'rat, i thought you told me there would be UN approval?? i take it you still support war without it....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I *did* think this was going to be a UN deal. And of course I support war outside the UN. I'm amazed that so many people act like war outside the UN is uncommon. Willful ignorance.
-------
Hassan:
[quote]<strong>Your deliberate implication was that, since "France, Russia and Germany" aren't "the rest of the world", the "rest of the world" is in favour of the war. You didn't include China so as to make your point stronger. Recently this sort of thing has been your new favourite way to attack arguments with which you disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't include China because I didn't think about it.
And there was no implication that the rest of the world was backing the US, if you had bothered to actually read my post you would have seen "Most nations are undecided,". Clear English, right there in the post.
Or maybe that is an "implication" that everyone is behind the US.
Reading is FUNdamental!
[quote]<strong>The domestic populations of all the "waverers", and of Spain - who are more opposed the war than the French people - are opposed to the war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ok
[quote]<strong>
1) America an Britain are trying to 'pay off' Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan. The US just promised Pakistan a colossal aid package: I think this was on Friday. I don't have time to find a link. If you really believe that you're trying diplomacy to convince these waverers, whose populations are OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to this war, then you're being wilfully blind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just asked for some examples of those who are backing us that were paid off. Thanks for not providing any examples to back your argument.
Next time you want to make a statement and condescend about it make sure you have some logic or truth to back it.
[quote]<strong>2) Since when do protests determine policy? Did I say that they did? Why did you write this to support your argument? Now I'm curious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because you try to make the argument that the majority of the world is against the war because of some scattered protests. I think this is foolish.
I believe the French population also oppossed the unjust war in 1991, correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the French population also oppossed the unjust war in 1991, correct me if I'm wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) this war was not unjust, (OK it's a sarcasm not intended for me )
2) the overall majority of french people where for it. Only a small minority including Le Pen and Chevenement where agaisnt it. The 1991 war was almost as popular that the 2003 war is unpopular in France.
The first Gulf War wasn't "one-sided". I'm sure Iraq thought it was.
If you can find the UN resolution authorizing action in Afghanistan that would be fantastic.
Inform yourself.
...
All you provided was that we tried to buy Turkey. </strong><hr></blockquote>
First, since you've obviously crossed posts, should I make a snide "rolleyes", a LOL, tell you to learn how to read and inform yourself, and any other possible forms of childish avoidance I can come up with?
I never said anything about turkey. I gave the recent examples of Iraq & Afghanistan for wars that had UN support.
The first Iraq war was multilateral. That supports my point.
As for action against Afghanistan, on 9/12/2001, the U.N. reaffirmed the U.S.' right to defend herself against the perpetrators of the 9/11 massacre.
Comments
<strong>
Most nations certainly are opposed to the the war: or certainly, their citizens are. Like the Spanish. And these 'waverers' on the Security Council are only 'wavering' because, although their citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to action, these nations have a) have been promised all sorts of trade and aid benefits in the last three weeks or so of negotiations as 'inducements' to vote, but b) see no reason why they should put themselves in domestic political trouble in agreeing to vote as the Americans and British are asking them when France and Russia will use their vetoes anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not agree. They are wavering because they know they are wrong.
<strong>
Can you name any military action that *wasn't* "unilateral"? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The civil war?
The first Gulf War was just fine. The attack on Afghanistan was just fine. These are recent examples.
It wouldn't matter if every war prior to this one was unjust. That doesn't mean this one, especially when a solution is close at hand, should be unjust as well.
<strong>Bosnia was not wrong even if it didn´t get UN approval. And there are several people I would kill in a heartbeat even if I would get convicted for murder and most of the rest of the world would see it as a wrong act.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, now detail the reasons why US military action in the Balkans was legitimate.
[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
we tried with turkey...they didn't bite, so we removed the offer of 15 billion...sounds like an attempted pay off...if we really were worried about turkey's economy post war with iraq we would give them the 15 billion whether they let us use their country as a launch pad or not....
oh well, here comes the war...i hope for the best and that GW looks great after this...it will be a tough road ahead though...
g'rat, i thought you told me there would be UN approval?? i take it you still support war without it....
take care
my thoughts are with our troops and with all on the ground and in the air in iraq...
if the bombs must fly, may they fly true...and if people must die, please let it be few
g
<strong>
Taking a brain vacation
</strong>[/QUOTE]
I think that we need both a brain vacation, in fact everybody need them from time to time
<strong>
..and if people must die, please let it be few
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.
<strong>
You'll also notice that I didn't mention every nation that backs the US.
When one can't argue with the logic [snip].
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your deliberate implication was that, since "France, Russia and Germany" aren't "the rest of the world", the "rest of the world" is in favour of the war. You didn't include China so as to make your point stronger. Recently this sort of thing has been your new favourite way to attack arguments with which you disagree.
The domestic populations of all the "waverers", and of Spain - who are more opposed the war than the French people - are opposed to the war.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
What nations have we paid off? I'm curious.
And since when do protests determine policy? I'd hate to live in the world you seem to be advocating</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) America an Britain are trying to 'pay off' Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan. The US just promised Pakistan a colossal aid package: I think this was on Friday. I don't have time to find a link. If you really believe that you're trying diplomacy to convince these waverers, whose populations are OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to this war, then you're being wilfully blind.
2) Since when do protests determine policy? Did I say that they did? Why did you write this to support your argument? Now I'm curious.
3) I'm not "advocating" any kind of world. I'm arguing with you, because I believe your position is wrong.
<strong>
I do not agree. They are wavering because they know they are wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are wavering, Noah J, because their populations are overwhemingly against this unjustified war. Yet the diplomats and governments think the best way -- economically and strategically -- to protect their citizens is to side with America, to give in to the "arm twisting" and "inducements" of the US.
They are not wavering because they know they are wrong, NO MATTER how much you wish this were the case. It is just incredible, incredible, that you should really believe that.
<strong>
hahaha
Can you name any military action that *wasn't* "unilateral"? How about a Security Council resolution that *wasn't* "unilateral"?
Christ, bunge, you're a riot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ha. He is indeed.
<strong>
Must be those invisible bombs, effectless bombs. Don't worry, the bombs will be dropping soone enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Eugene, what the hell do you think that B-1 dropped, purely out of interest? Your oh-so-cute "invisible bombs?"
You do hear about these bombing raids in America don't you? Or is it just every other country in the world that gets to hear about the raids New was talking about?
<strong>
Eugene, what the hell do you think that B-1 dropped, purely out of interest? Your oh-so-cute "invisible bombs?"
You do hear about these bombing raids in America don't you? Or is it just every other country in the world that gets to hear about the raids New was talking about?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps we bomb them because they target our aircraft? Hmmm.
<strong>
They are wavering, Noah J, because their populations are overwhemingly against this unjustified war. Yet the diplomats and governments think the best way -- economically and strategically -- to protect their citizens is to side with America, to give in to the "arm twisting" and "inducements" of the US.
They are not wavering because they know they are wrong, NO MATTER how much you wish this were the case. It is just incredible, incredible, that you should really believe that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think we should add "unjust, IN YOUR OPINION". Just because you call it so doesn't mean it is. Oh wait...I suppose you are not the only one calling it this. There is Fomer President Carter, after all. Of course, he was one of the most ineffective Presdients in history, particularly with the military.
That's for a variety of reasons, mostly their support in the war on Al Queda. Musharraf's govt has put a lot on the line in their support for the war on terrorism. And they could use all the propping up that they can get, pseudo-dictatorship or not. Especially when you consider that they have nukes. Pakistan has an immense capacity to mess things up bigtime- perhaps more so than any other country in the world- for US, for the West, for India, for Afghanistan etc.
Unfortunately the Bush administration ****ed them in the first textiles "negotiations" so that Bush didn't have to lose a few voters in the Carolinas textiles industries.
<strong>
I think we should add "unjust, IN YOUR OPINION". Just because you call it so doesn't mean it is. Oh wait...I suppose you are not the only one calling it this. There is Fomer President Carter, after all. Of course, he was one of the most ineffective Presdients in history, particularly with the military.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Nice side step of two issues we're discussing. Typical.
2) No, I'm not the only one calling it this. To be more accurate, this action has public support in the US. And no-where else. Not in the UK and CERTAINLY not in Spain (otherwise known as 'your allies,' numbnut). Not in Kuwait, not in Saudi, not in Iran, not in Turkey.
<strong>
Trust me, they both exist. They're not figments of your immagination.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*closes eyes really hard* NO! THEY! DON'T!
<strong>
Ha. He is indeed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, a riot indeed. He asked for examples, then I give them, then it's back to avoidavoidavoid.
Yes, a riot indeed.
The first Gulf War wasn't "one-sided". I'm sure Iraq thought it was.
If you can find the UN resolution authorizing action in Afghanistan that would be fantastic.
Inform yourself.
[quote]<strong>He asked for examples, then I give them, then it's back to avoidavoidavoid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All you provided was that we tried to buy Turkey. That's it. If you can give me a nation that we bought that is behind us now please give me an example.
------
gelding:
[quote]<strong>we tried with turkey...they didn't bite, so we removed the offer of 15 billion...sounds like an attempted pay off...if we really were worried about turkey's economy post war with iraq we would give them the 15 billion whether they let us use their country as a launch pad or not....</strong><hr></blockquote>
So are you saying we haven't bought anyone's support? Hmm.
Surely there's an example. This is a oft-repeated anti-war sentiment. I'd hate for it to be a lie.
[quote]<strong>g'rat, i thought you told me there would be UN approval?? i take it you still support war without it....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I *did* think this was going to be a UN deal. And of course I support war outside the UN. I'm amazed that so many people act like war outside the UN is uncommon. Willful ignorance.
-------
Hassan:
[quote]<strong>Your deliberate implication was that, since "France, Russia and Germany" aren't "the rest of the world", the "rest of the world" is in favour of the war. You didn't include China so as to make your point stronger. Recently this sort of thing has been your new favourite way to attack arguments with which you disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't include China because I didn't think about it.
And there was no implication that the rest of the world was backing the US, if you had bothered to actually read my post you would have seen "Most nations are undecided,". Clear English, right there in the post.
Or maybe that is an "implication" that everyone is behind the US.
Reading is FUNdamental!
[quote]<strong>The domestic populations of all the "waverers", and of Spain - who are more opposed the war than the French people - are opposed to the war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ok
[quote]<strong>
1) America an Britain are trying to 'pay off' Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan. The US just promised Pakistan a colossal aid package: I think this was on Friday. I don't have time to find a link. If you really believe that you're trying diplomacy to convince these waverers, whose populations are OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to this war, then you're being wilfully blind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just asked for some examples of those who are backing us that were paid off. Thanks for not providing any examples to back your argument.
Next time you want to make a statement and condescend about it make sure you have some logic or truth to back it.
[quote]<strong>2) Since when do protests determine policy? Did I say that they did? Why did you write this to support your argument? Now I'm curious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because you try to make the argument that the majority of the world is against the war because of some scattered protests. I think this is foolish.
I believe the French population also oppossed the unjust war in 1991, correct me if I'm wrong.
Does a UN stamp of approval make a war any more just or unjust?
<strong>
I believe the French population also oppossed the unjust war in 1991, correct me if I'm wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) this war was not unjust, (OK it's a sarcasm not intended for me
2) the overall majority of french people where for it. Only a small minority including Le Pen and Chevenement where agaisnt it. The 1991 war was almost as popular that the 2003 war is unpopular in France.
<strong>
The first Gulf War wasn't "one-sided". I'm sure Iraq thought it was.
If you can find the UN resolution authorizing action in Afghanistan that would be fantastic.
Inform yourself.
...
All you provided was that we tried to buy Turkey. </strong><hr></blockquote>
First, since you've obviously crossed posts, should I make a snide "rolleyes", a LOL, tell you to learn how to read and inform yourself, and any other possible forms of childish avoidance I can come up with?
I never said anything about turkey. I gave the recent examples of Iraq & Afghanistan for wars that had UN support.
The first Iraq war was multilateral. That supports my point.
As for action against Afghanistan, on 9/12/2001, the U.N. reaffirmed the U.S.' right to defend herself against the perpetrators of the 9/11 massacre.