Why do UK people see Bush as a bigger threat than Hussein ?

[Mapraputa Is]

Well, during his speech to the international community, he took off his shoe, slammed it on the table, and promised, "We will bury you all [capitalist countries]".
In one of interviews, his son said that Khrushev got new shoes before this day and he did not feel comfortable in them. So he took his shoe off and put it on tribune. Then during one of emotional moments of his speech he used it to help him make his point. You do not have to believe in this version, I only gave it as a possible explanation. Do you believe that Khrushev wanted to destroy the USA?
Subsequently, he loaded an arsenal of nukes on a carrier and sent it to our friend Fidel with the intention to install them 60 miles from Miami.
"The new documentation, combined with recent testimony by Soviet and Cuban officials, also sheds light on what is perhaps the most important puzzle of the missile crisis, namely, what motivated the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons in Cuba. The declassified record shows that U.S. officials were well aware that their deployment of Jupiter missiles near Soviet borders in Turkey and Italy in 1959 would be deeply resented by Soviet officials; even President Eisenhower noted that it would be a "provocative" step analogous to the deployment of Soviet missiles in "Mexico or Cuba.(9) A declassified military history of the Jupiter system reveals that the rockets became operational in April 1962—an event that may have contributed to Khrushchev's proposal, made the very same month, to deploy similar weapons in Cuba.(10)
In addition, the documents lend credence to Khrushchev's claim that a primary Soviet motivation was the defense of Cuba against a U.S. invasion. For years, U.S. analysts have dismissed this as a face-saving, after-the-fact rationale that enabled the Soviets to declare victory in the confrontation rather than admit defeat. But formerly top-secret documents, released to the National Security Archive in January 1989, provide a detailed description of a 1962 U.S. covert action program known as OPERATION MONGOOSE, which combined sabotage, infiltration, and psychological warfare activities with military exercises and contingency operations for a possible invasion to overthrow the Castro government. Guidelines for OPERATION MONGOOSE, tacitly approved by President Kennedy in March 1962, noted that the "final success" of the program would "require decisive U.S. military intervention." Although Kennedy never formally authorized an invasion, former administration officials acknowledge that Cuban intelligence had infiltrated the CIA's exile groups and learned of plans for a potential invasion—which, ironically, was scheduled for October 1962.
If the new documents illuminate how the crisis began, they also clarify how it ended. For years, conservative analysts have alleged that, in return for the Soviet withdrawal of the missiles, Kennedy made a secret deal with Khrushchev not to invade Cuba. The recently declassified Kennedy-Khrushchev correspondence published here, reveals that no such U.S. commitment was made. Khrushchev repeatedly urged Kennedy to "formalize through the U.N." a noninvasion pledge to end the crisis. The letters show Kennedy repeatedly refused, citing the Soviets' inability to meet U.S. inspection and verification demands. Highly classified State Department memoranda, released in April 1992 to the National Security Archive, reveal the Kennedy administration's internal arguments against finalizing an agreement on the crisis: a settlement would limit the United States in its ongoing efforts to overthrow Fidel Castro. In the end, U.S. officials preferred free rein to intervene in Cuba over an international accord that would settle the Cuban missile crisis.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/declass.htm

[Nikita Khrushev]

...
But, Mr. President, do you really seriously think that Cuba can attack the United States and that even we together with Cuba can attack you from the territory of Cuba? Can you really think that way? How is it possible? We do not understand this. Has something so new appeared in military strategy that one can think that it is possible to attack thus. I say precisely attack, and not destroy, since barbarians, people who have lost their sense, destroy.
You have asked what happened, what evoked the delivery of weapons to Cuba? You have spoken about this to our Minister of Foreign Affairs. I will tell you frankly, Mr. President, what evoked it.
We were very grieved by the fact — I spoke about it in Vienna — that a landing took place, that an attack on Cuba was committed, as a result of which many Cubans perished. You yourself told me then that this had been a mistake. I respected that explanation. You repeated it to me several times, pointing out that not everybody occupying a high position would acknowledge his mistakes as you had done. I value such frankness. For my part, I told you that we too possess no less courage; we also acknowledged those mistakes which had been committed during the history of our state, and not only acknowledged, but sharply condemned them.
Why have we proceeded to assist Cuba with military and economic aid? The answer is: We have proceeded to do so only for reasons of humanitarianism. At one time, our people itself had a revolution, when Russia was still a backward country. We were attacked then. We were the target of attack by many countries. The USA participated in that adventure. This has been recorded by participants in the aggression against our country. A whole book has been written about this by General Graves, who, at that time, commanded the US Expeditionary Corps. Graves called it "The American Adventure in Siberia."
We know how difficult it is to accomplish a revolution and how difficult it is to reconstruct a country on new foundations. We sincerely sympathize with Cuba and the Cuban people, but we are not interfering in questions of domestic structure, we are not interfering in their affairs. The Soviet Union desires to help the Cubans build their life as they themselves wish and that others should not hinder them.
You once said that the United States was not preparing an invasion. But you also declared that you sympathized with the Cuban counter-revolutionary emigrants, that you support them and would help them to realize their plans against the present Government of Cuba. It is also not a secret to anyone that the threat of armed attack, aggression, has constantly hung, and continues to hang over Cuba. It was only this which impelled us to respond to the request of the Cuban Government to furnish it aid for the strengthening of the defensive capacity of this country.
Khrushchev to Kennedy:
Be Sensible — We Want Peace http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/archive/khrushchev/1962/10/26.htm

[Nikita Khrushev]

You have been alarmed by the fact that we have aided Cuba with weapons, in order to strengthen its defense capability--precisely defense capability--because whatever weapons it may possess, Cuba cannot be equated with you since the difference in magnitude is so great, particularly in view of modern means of destruction. Our aim has been and is to help Cuba, and no one can dispute the humanity of our motives, which are oriented toward enabling Cuba to live peacefully and develop in the way its people desire.
You wish to ensure the security of your country, and this is understandable. But Cuba, too, wants the same thing; all countries want to maintain their security. But how are we, the Soviet Union, our Government, to assess your actions which are expressed in the fact that you have surrounded the Soviet Union with military bases; surrounded our allies with military bases; placed military bases literally around our country; and stationed your missile armaments there? This is no secret. Responsible American personages openly declare that it is so. Your missiles are located in Britain, are located in Italy, and are aimed against us. Your missiles are located in Turkey.
You are disturbed over Cuba. You say that this disturbs you because it is 90 miles by sea from the coast of the United States of America. But Turkey adjoins us; our sentries patrol back and forth and see each other. Do you consider, then, that you have the right to demand security for your own country and the removal of the weapons you call offensive, but do not accord the same right to us? You have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call offensive, in Turkey, literally next to us. How then can recognition of our equal military capacities be reconciled with such unequal relations between our great states? This is irreconcilable.
I therefore make this proposal: We are willing to remove from Cuba the means which you regard as offensive. We are willing to carry this out and to make this pledge in the United Nations. Your representatives will make a declaration to the effect that the United States, for its part, considering the uneasiness and anxiety of the Soviet State, will remove its analogous means from Turkey.
Khrushchev to Kennedy:
We Will Remove our Missiles from Cuba
Written: Moscow, October 27, 1962, 5 p.m.
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/archive/khrushchev/1962/10/27.htm

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

So Ravish, your claim is that the only purpose of the war is so we can show everyone how cool our weapons are?

I think Ravish has a point, the US has been known to test new weapons in every war, witness the noise in the media about the "mother of all bombs". I guess its ok to drop such bombs on iraqis, after all their lives are meaningless and the US will only be liberating them by blowing them to bits.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
I think Ravish has a point, the US has been known to test new weapons in every war, witness the noise in the media about the "mother of all bombs". I guess its ok to drop such bombs on iraqis, after all their lives are meaningless and the US will only be liberating them by blowing them to bits.

You totally miss the point of that weapon. It is more for psychological effect in this case. In the first Gulf War we would drop a slightly smaller cousin of the MOAB in the vicinity of a concentration of Iraqi troops. After that we would drop leaflets on the Iraqi troop concentration telling them that we would drop one on them the next day if they did not surrender. The Iraqis would promptly surrender and many lives were saved. The US needs the Iraqi military to maintain order after the war, so we would rather leave as much of it intact as possible.

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

You totally miss the point of that weapon. It is more for psychological effect in this case. In the first Gulf War we would drop a slightly smaller cousin of the MOAB in the vicinity of a concentration of Iraqi troops. After that we would drop leaflets on the Iraqi troop concentration telling them that we would drop one on them the next day if they did not surrender. The Iraqis would promptly surrender and many lives were saved. The US needs the Iraqi military to maintain order after the war, so we would rather leave as much of it intact as possible.

Wow, that is so kind, we would only kill a small number of iraqi people so we can use the remaining troops to prop-up a puppet regime in iraq.That is very thoughtful indeed.

[Mapraputa Is]

Map seems to believe that a system of government is OK as long as the average person who keeps their mouth shut is treated OK.
Not me, Russian population. Do you remember poll results I quoted? I am trying to explain them. Do you prefer to pretend they do not exist? "a system of government is OK" - this is too imprecise language for me. What exactly do you mean by "Ok"?
Her claim that Germany was better during Nazism for the average person shows her inability to see the underlying truth.
It's like to say "her claim that 2x2=4 shows her inability to see that 3x3=9" :roll: I would also claim that an average Russian was better off immediately before WWII than she was immediately after. What does this prove?
In Germany, was the average Jew better off in 1938 or 1948?
In 1948, I would imagine :roll:
What about the average communist? What about the average socialist?
Most likely the same.
Map, would a system of government that treated 90% of its citizens like princes but murdered 10% of its citizens every year be OK? How about 5%? So what percentage would be OK?
It would be much better if the government did not kill any single person in its own country or in other countries.
The one thing I will never understand about you, Map, is how you can not see the inherent evil in communism.
Because I do not want this vision to blind me and prevent me from better understanding. One-dimensional model doesn't give any particular satisfaction, sorry for that. Already Russian people make their mind about their former leaders based on "made in the USA" anti-Soviet propaganda, how far else this should go?

[shay Aluko]

I saw this very interesting article in newsweek that would shed some light on this thread and i hope most people reading this thread will take some time to revierw the article: the link is below:
Its called "The Arrogant Empire"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0cv=KA01

[Bert Bates]

Gotta go back to page one - how much money did the US make in the Kuwait war?
Hmmmm... I remember paying my taxes back then, but I don't recall getting a refund check from any of the arms manufacturers... :roll:

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by shay Aluko:

Its called "The Arrogant Empire"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0cv=KA01

I am half through. This is a great article.

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
Gotta go back to page one - how much money did the US make in the Kuwait war?
Hmmmm... I remember paying my taxes back then, but I don't recall getting a refund check from any of the arms manufacturers... :roll:

It all got blown when Clinton lobbed 400+ cruise missiles into Iraq, some caves and aspirin factories.

[Anonymous]

I think I may be able to offer some solid insight regarding this particular thread. I am a former US Marine. My wife is from Europe. We maintain homes both in the US and in Europe. I have lived, traveled, been stationed in and trained in Europe for the better part of the last 15 years. I fought in many covert battles for my country and my country�s allies, sometimes alongside their soldiers.
The 50,000-foot view is much clearer than the �trench-fighting� that has taken place thus far in this thread. So let us back up, take a deep breath, and elevate to 50,000 feet, shall we.
On Anti-Americanism
Europeans have an old (WWI) saying regarding US military (which extends to all things American) on European soil, we're supposedly, "Over-paid, Over-sexed, and Over here!" Well, as one of those rowdy bunch of unwanted US military on European soil, I can tell you that this statement says it all.
Although most Europeans begrudgingly feel a need for alliance with the US, there is a deeply seeded wish that this need did not exist (read jealousy), and that we "cowboys," "yanks," or whatever else you want to use to degrade us, were not on or near precious European soil at all. Europeans merely put up with us because they feel they have to, at least until now. Make no mistake, there truly is a general (least, although highly prevalent, in the UK; by far the worst in France) European feeling of loathing toward the US (its citizens, its system, its military, its government, its economic strength, everything that smells like America). Why they go to McDonalds and Burger King, and buy Coca Cola and Budweiser in droves is quite a perplexing issue in itself, given their sentiment.
This anti-American sentiment has zero to do with Iraq, the Middle East, or any other issue that Europeans may currently embrace to drudge up those old feelings of resentment. Every decision and every view related to the USA by Europeans is clouded by this ingrained view toward America. President Bush, The War on Terror, and Iraq are simply deemed as current opportunities by European leaders to exploit these old feelings in an attempt to malign, and re-align American world dominance. It has only to do with a desire to have what American�s are perceived to have. It is no more complicated than that.
The rest of the world is either drawn to or repelled away from this European-driven (again, largely French) resentment, depending on the current political climate. As much as we�d like to make this subject more interesting and provocative by introducing the here and now, and whatever else, it is not required. This is it for this subject in a nutshell, and it will never change as long as the USA is at the top of the heap.
On President Bush
Any debate here about George Bush�s intelligence is an attempt to veer off subject, through ridicule, by people who cannot muster the material and ability to carry a logical debate on serious issues. I will only say that this man went to Yale University, Harvard Business School, and has been elected President of the United States of America. Need anymore be said. I�d like to see anyone else here measure his/her own accomplishments up to this man�s before they next make negative reference to him. How many of you have gone to Yale undergrad or its equivalent? Not many. How many of you have gone to Yale undergrad, or its equivalent, and have also gone on to Harvard Business School? I would venture to say none of you, but perhaps one or two of you is this fortunate. How many of you would-be George Bush maligners have been, or ever have an inkling of a chance to be elected for the US Presidency? Well, this latter question is just a dumb question, considering you probably have far better chances at winning your local or national lottery. The man�s achievements speak for him, even if you don�t.
On The War On Terrorism
On September 11, 2001 the USA was broad sided by an act of war that left 3,000 plus people, mostly American citizens, dead. I worked for 3 years in one of the buildings directly across from the North Tower of the World Trade Center. I happened not to be in that building on that day, but those who were saw the rubble from the North Tower smash forcefully through all of the windows around them. That of course followed the seemingly impossible: one of the Twin Towers collapsing before their eyes. Over 200 of my own friends and colleagues are no longer with us as an immediate and direct result of this act. Now I really don�t care in this instance whether George Bush, Peter Pan, or Elmer Fud is the leader of my country. What I do care about is that the leader of my country, whom just by fate happens to be George Bush at this time, respond quickly and ferociously to this act of war perpetrated against us.
Hmmm, well who or whom do we retaliate against? Do we simply blame 19 angry Muslim guys and call it a day? Did someone help them? Or, are they capable of the world�s largest single terrorist attack in history without any assistance? Ah, they belong to a terrorist network, you say. Well, how big is that terrorist network? 3,000 plus you say. Where does this terrorist network exist? Well, it exists inside most countries and maybe even all of them, you say. By the way, I suppose I should introduce here that my specialty in the Marine Corps was anti-terrorism.
Well, all terrorist networks have a supply chain, a lifeline, if you will. Right? Where does that supply chain lead?
Here�s where it gets both ugly and complicated. Ponder that question for a moment. Hmmm, what a profound and revealing question it is. Now, if anyone in this thread really wants to know what�s got the entire world shivering in its britches, then explore the potential answers to this, and only this, question and you have all the answers your little heart and mind may desire to satisfy that quest to know. A whole new nettle patch worth of questions arises. Was this act of war state-sponsored? Or, was it really just the result of a loose network put together by an angry Saudi multi-millionaire, turned afghan freedom fighter, turned terrorist? The previous members of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan know first-hand what the answer to that question is, and so do we, albeit second-hand. But are there other countries that assist or assisted Osama?
It took the professional Japanese military, backed by the country we know as Japan, to accomplish similar damage in Pearl Harbor. Hmmm, I don�t know about you, but 2+2 just isn�t coming out to 4, and for that matter, neither is 3*3 computing to 9. Let us now picture a weighing scale and on one side place Osama and his relatively small network of thugs, plus the ragtag Taliban, and on the other side place the professional Japanese military, backed by the country of Japan, of 1942. This picture reminds me of a Sesame Street song I used to like as a kid, �One of these things is not like the other�.� Remember that song?
Well, something tells me that the rabbit hole goes much, much deeper than meets the eye. The question is how far does the rabbit hole go? What isn�t being reported in the media is that there are many dozens of countries, including some of our own �allies,� in terrible fear of some indirect connection that could seemingly link them to the act of war that got The United States of America flexing its military muscle.
But what about countries with hidden direct connections to this act of war? Who are they? How close to us are they? Are those relationships under scrutiny? An act of war on this scale requires skill, expertise, funding channels, training, and supplies and support on a grand scale.
The CIA, FBI, and NSA, among others, are working tirelessly to save face and track down all of those direct and indirect connections that lead to the worst attack ever on American soil. We citizens, for reasons of national security, are not privileged to know what those agencies and their counterparts all over the world have dug up thus far. One thing we can surmise is that the Bush Administration has been given information that links Iraq to the act of war that took place on 9/11/2001, either directly or indirectly.
George Bush, Dick Chaney, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld have all given sound-bite indications that the war on terror will last many years, and cost untold sums of money and resources to carry out. Hmmm, now, the Taliban has been toppled and the �shock and awe� battle campaign in Iraq is surely to be swift. Translation on all of this: Iraq is not our last, or even close to our last, stop in the War on Terror. Again, how deep does that rabbit hole go? And may the rest of the guilty in this world continue to lose sleep at night and shiver your britches during the day until we mow down every last war criminal in this war. For those of you with no direct or indirect connection to the atrocities of terror committed against the United States, then fear not. For those of you connected to terrorism of any kind, most notably in relation to 9/11, I would not want to be in your shoes at this point in history. My advice to our government and intelligence agencies, although I doubt they need this advice, is look first in this war at those that voice their fear of us the loudest.
AmericanEagle

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by <AmericanEagle>:

Well, something tells me that the rabbit hole goes much, much deeper than meets the eye. The question is how far does the rabbit hole go? What isn�t being reported in the media is that there are many dozens of countries, including some of our own �allies,� in terrible fear of some indirect connection that could seemingly link them to the act of war that got The United States of America flexing its military muscle.

are you serious or is it some sort of special humour?
What countries? France? Germany? Russia? China?
[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Thomas Paul]

Axel, there are rumors going around that French companies have been selling chemicals to manufacture WMDs to Iraq over the last couple of years with a wink and a smile from the French government. In fact, some people believe that the French don't want an invasion because they are a fraid of a paper trail being discovered that leads right back to the French government. Of course, it's just a rumor.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Axel, there are rumors going around that French companies have been selling chemicals to manufacture WMDs to Iraq over the last couple of years with a wink and a smile from the French government. In fact, some people believe that the French don't want an invasion because they are a fraid of a paper trail being discovered that leads right back to the French government. Of course, it's just a rumor.

There has been a similar rumor concerning German companies.

[Axel Janssen]

...and if your media repeat that rumours 100 times everybody thinks its the wholy truth.
There are some other true facts about France, which don't fit very well in the picture painted here.
- Le Monde - the newspaper which allegedly did not inform their readers about 09/11 - have published a very often cited article in those highly emotional days. I don't know France very well. Maybe its an evening newspaper?
Here is [url=http://www.callcentres.com.au/We%27re_all_American.htm]english traduction:[/url].
- your jokes about the french inability to defend themselves reminds me too much on popular german misestimation at WWI eve. Great parts of the german population believed that the french were only good for drinking and dancing. The french showed them something completly diferent. Schlieven plan did not work. The german attack were stoped in the very north of the country. What followed were 3 years of the I think fiercest static warfare of war history.

[Melvin Menezes]

AmericanEagle: ...
Great stuff. Agreed with most of it. Except a few simple points.
AE: Well, something tells me that the rabbit hole goes much, much deeper than meets the eye. The question is how far does the rabbit hole go? What isn�t being reported in the media is that there are many dozens of countries, including some of our own �allies,� in terrible fear of some indirect connection that could seemingly link them to the act of war that got The United States of America flexing its military muscle
1. Are you trying to sell that there are many dozens of countries, including some of our own �allies,� in terrible fear of some indirect connection with 9/11??
Or
2. Are you trying to sell that there are many dozens of countries, including some of our own �allies,� in terrible fear of some indirect connection that could seemingly link them to the act of war on terrorism?
Or
3. Are you trying to sell that there are many dozens of countries, including some of our own �allies,� in terrible fear of some indirect connection that could seemingly link them to the act of war on IRAQ?
I can only buy the last one, not the first two.

AE: We citizens, for reasons of national security, are not privileged to know what those agencies and their counterparts all over the world have dug up thus far
Fine. But your post seems to be claiming a two-step link between 9/11 --- Iraq --- and dozen other countries. There may be a link between Iraq and dozen other countries that the government does not want the people to know right now. But don't you think that if there were even a remote link between 9/11 and Iraq, the government would have already given great details of that by now?

Note: It is not that i am against the whole story, just that i don't agree with a few abrupt twists in this episode. cheers!

[Jason Menard]

...and if your media repeat that rumours 100 times everybody thinks its the wholy truth.
You are correct. Maybe after the war we'll see if there is any truth to any of it. Until then it shouldn't really be given all that much credence I guess.
- Le Monde - the newspaper which allegedly did not inform their readers about 09/11 - have published a very often cited article in those highly emotional days. I don't know France very well. Maybe its an evening newspaper?
I think that was published on the 12th, but I could be wrong. The article quotes Sen John McCain from a quote he reportedly made on the 12th. While some might, I don't ascribe any malicious motives towards not covering it in that edition. I simply suspect the paper was put to bed earlier than most and therefore didn't have a chance to cover it in time.

[Anonymous]

Original quote posted by Axel Janssen:
are you serious or is it some sort of special humour? What countries? France? Germany? Russia? China?
Axel
Since you do not really specify any specific disagreement, I will just do my best to clarify. Firstly, I am quite serious, and more accurately, so is the US Government on this very subject. This is not humor or any kind of laughing matter.
The part of my argument you chose to ask if I�m serious about includes a very important keyword �indirect.� In the context of an indirect link to both terrorism and the issue of Iraq, you must understand that all of the above countries meet this test, as even the USA and many others do. If you live and breath in this world, chances are you meet this test (well maybe not if you�re part of an indigenous tribe with little contact outside its own community).
America is at work dividing intelligence between �direct� and �indirect� support of terrorism. Beyond that intelligence forces will analyze and segregate deliberate cases from inadvertent cases. A country is not deemed a threat to US national security if it somehow indirectly and inadvertently has supported, in the past, terrorism and reports this intelligence diligently. On the other side of the spectrum is a country that commits terrorist acts deliberately, both directly and indirectly, and then actually has the arrogance to hide it. Iraq falls into this category, but it is not the only country that does. This is beside the fact that Iraq is deliberately attempting to produce and hide WMD, and to top it all off, kills its own citizens in truckloads to make a point.
We have already begun dealing with inadvertent US support of terrorism and/or government regimes that, in turn, are believed to have been deliberately assisting terrorism. America has already begun dealing with its own cases internally. Companies such as HP and others have been fined some $35 million a piece for selling rocket technology to the Chinese. There have been quiet �retirements� and �layoffs� at the CDC in Atlanta, for its part in having delivered controlled biological and chemical agents to states we now consider to be �rogue.�
America, in its War on Terror, is taking every county�s deliberate or inadvertent assistance, both directly and indirectly, to terrorism as very serious, including its own. Since we are dealing head-on with our own mishaps regarding this issue, we expect the same from all other countries on our side of this war. However, it is not a good sign when our intelligence agencies turn up recent proof that indirect arms sales, chemical and biological agents sales, and rocketry sales are covered up by France, Germany, Russia, and China. Given that these four countries are also the very same four that are giving us the most trouble at the UN, (of course Germany does not have a vote this time around) it will only cause our intelligence sources to dig deeper in their direction. What this issue really boils down to is that any country seriously against terrorism, including the USA, to paraphrase George Bush, �needs to show their cards now.� Any country, at this point found to be hiding a card up their sleeve or in their sock is going to find too soon (or perhaps too late, depending on your view) that they have been distanced by the US. France comes to mind the loudest in this regard. Countires that meet this last test and are considered rogue will eventually find US forces on their soil.
Is that clearer?
AmericanEagle

[Axel Janssen]

If you think, your country can deal this way with countries like Germany, France, Russia or China, you are mistaken.
Should be clear from the posting that I am not a friend of european peace movement and even have some sympathy for the US, as long as you don't talk trash.
quoting myself for another thread:

The long term result of all this mess will be the end of the unipolar world.
It just does not work.
Germany, France are just bandwaggoning taking no unpopular decisions for their own population. Letting US do the dirty work.
US is getting more and more hysteric, begining to see an axis of evil Paris, Berlin, Moskau, Bagdad, Teheran, Pjoenyang.
Alienating their few allies with frases like: We don't need them.
This is just another augury for the fact that our funny postmodernistic wellfare state will be seriously changed in the years to come: Unemployment rate of 11% and rising.
My company tanked and I found new job in this national mess. 3 interviews and without the input I've got here, think I would not have passed.
I expect increasing military budgets in say 3 years in France, Germany, Russia and China.
That's ok. Every bigger nation has to take its share of the burden.
[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Anonymous]

Original post:
1. Are you trying to sell that there are many dozens of countries, including some of our own �allies,� in terrible fear of some indirect connection with 9/11??
Or
2. Are you trying to sell that there are many dozens of countries, including some of our own �allies,� in terrible fear of some indirect connection that could seemingly link them to the act of war on terrorism?
Or
3. Are you trying to sell that there are many dozens of countries, including some of our own �allies,� in terrible fear of some indirect connection that could seemingly link them to the act of war on IRAQ? I can only buy the last one, not the first two.
Melvin,
Read my response to Axel where I explain the differentiation between the classifications of direct and indirect involvement. I will add the following:
Unfortunately, most countries may ultimately find that they have inadvertently and indirectly supported terrorism, including the USA. Most will deal with it both internally and with coordinated US involvement. Many will not and will pay that price. All are afraid of what will be found within their own borders. Heck, I�m afraid of what is here still in NYC.
Mainly what I was implying above as far as fear, is that any link to terrorism at all, no matter how indirect or inadvertent, has become a sort of taboo in international politics now that it is the main focus of the US military machine. This alone is sending massive ripples throughout the international diplomatic community.
That being said, I�m really implying potentially all three of your above scenarios. The context, however, is quite important. Finding a link to 9/11 within ones own borders and making arrests has actually helped some countries to shore up allegiance to the US position on the War on Terror. Countries must be honest and open about potential links even though it is a hot potato. Pakistan is a perfect example. Pakistan has been vigorously assisting the US to uncover direct links to terrorism on its own soil. In contrast, Iraq is foiling every effort to have any links exposed, whether direct, indirect, inadvertent, or deliberate. Unfortunately, we are finding that France finds itself in denial on proven links to both Iraq and terrorism. This from a major Nato ally. Not good.
We already know how this will play out for Iraq, and other countries eventually deemed to be similar in links and denial. What will be most interesting is how things will play out with France, China, and Russia, given severe efforts to thwart the US War on Terror, UN Resolution 1441 (as well as any following resolution), very near-term weapons links to Iraq, etc. etc. Keep in mind that Germany has left the door open to redeem itself with the US further down this path. Russia has been floundering back and forth, and I cannot really make heads or tails with them. France and China are resolute.
AmericanEagle
ff

[Anonymous]

Axel:
You must understand the dynamics behind the announcement that the US military can fight in Iraq without the Brits. I understand that you may view that statement, at face value, to be a let down to Britain and Tony Blair. This is actually not so.
That statement was actually a coordinated effort by Bush and Blair. Blair is under extraordinary pressure in the UK to seek UN support, since the majority of Brits believe that overthrowing Saddam Hussein is is a just cause, as long as it gains UN signoff. Blair is pressed to come up with ways to generate support for Britains role in toppling Saddam in the sticky situation where there is no second UN resolution passed.
Well, how about telling the British public that there troops are not required? For the most part, this strategy worked although not as good as I think Blair was hoping. The poles showed that Brit's favorable rating to war in Iraq increased both in terms of a new UN resolution and in terms of going around the UN. However, there is still not the support Blair is looking for should he decide to go forward with war in Iraq outside UN agreement.
The US and Britain are like old school buddies when it comes to supporting one another. Therefore any announcements of non-support in one direction or the other should be studied with a keen eye. I hope that sheds some light on the subject.
AmericanEagle

[Mohanlal Karamchand]

We will overlook Iraq. But will they stop there ?
What if they attack France next ? Merde!

[Anonymous]

France is a Nato ally, even if they are currently intent on proving us wrong. Nato members do not attack one another. France's performance of late will certainly have political and economic consequences, but don't expect them to be attacked militarily by an ally.
AmericanEagle

[Thomas Paul]

Unless they are supporting terrorists or start attacking their neighbors with mustard gas.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Unless they are supporting terrorists or start attacking their neighbors with mustard gas.

This is true. I think we are all keeping our fingers crossed that there are no Nato allies found to be deliberately and covertly supporting terrorism. France seems to be the most worrisome in this regard. I'm not even sure exactly how the Bush Administration would begin to deal with such a tragedy. Perhaps naively, I would like to side with the belief that our allies hands are clean. As for China, I'm not so sure. what do you think?
AmericanEagle