Bush addresses the world- Pending War

[Coney]

Originally posted by Sween
well deplomicy has worked in the past with them so we can only hope it works again i would not want the americans going to the negotion table with the line 'look what we did to sadam we can do the same to you' thats bound to piss them off

And that is one country nobody wants to piss off.........gonna be a tricky situation that one

[Sister Golden Hair]

I wondered what would happen to this thread after the invasion was over, didn't see it becoming the new Anti-American thread tho'

Give it time.

[Cirdan]

The Baath first came to power in 1963, in a coup organised by the CIA They overthrew the regime run by Abd al-Karim Qassim, a nationalist army officer.
The coup, and the reasons why the CIA supported it, are described by journalists Andrew and Patrick Cockburn as follows:

In early 1963, Saddam had more important things to worry about
than his outstanding bill at the Andiana Cafe. On February 8, a mil-
itary coup in Baghdad, in which the Baath Party played a leading
role, overthrew Qassim. Support for the conspirators was limited. In
the first hours of fighting, they had only nine tanks under their con-
trol. The Baath Party had just 850 active members. But Qassim
ignored warnings about the impending coup. What tipped the bal-
ance against him was the involvement of the United States. He had
taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. In 1961, he threat-
ened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum
Company (IPC), the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq's oil.
In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. "We really had the ts
crossed on what was happening," James Critchfield, then head of the
CIA in the Middle East, told us. "We regarded it as a great victory."
Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. "We came to
power on a CIA train," admitted Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party sec-
retary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of
terror. CIA assistance reportedly included coordination of the coup
plotters from the agency's station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad
as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of
advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be
eliminated once the coup was successful. To the end, Qassim retained
his popularity in the streets of Baghdad. After his execution, his sup-
porters refused to believe he was dead until the coup leaders showed
pictures of his bullet-riddled body on TV and in the newspapers.

The above comes from "Out of the Ashes, The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein", by Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, published by Verso, 2000.

I guess the bullet-riddled corpse should have been a clue that he was not such a nice guy. *sigh*

[Coney]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Give it time.

Maybe we should have an ant-Belgium or an anti-Brit thread for a change?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Coney


Maybe we should have an ant-Belgium or an anti-Brit thread for a change?

Yes, those Belgians have been using chocolate to control us for years.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Coney
Maybe we should have an anti-Belgium or an anti-Brit thread for a change?

I'm looking forward to that

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Earniel, it doesn't have to do with the people who voted for the government, but with the people who are in support of his actions. I am not talking about the ones who voted for him, but those who support him.

I was trying not to say 'support' too much. You know, showing off that my vocabulary goes further than that one word. Though if you vote for someone, it'd imply some support as well at least in the beginning. It stays the same however. Dislike of a government does not necesarily equals dislike of the people who support it. Besides you're just being nitpicky, nah!

Originally posted by Coney
Maybe we should have an ant-Belgium or an anti-Brit thread for a change?

Oh, we have ants here in Belgium. Though I doubt those insects make a good conversation topic. No seriously I'd find it interesting to see what people think about my little country. I doubt we have such a good international reputation. So actually: do your worst. Give it a try.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Yes, those Belgians have been using chocolate to control us for years.

But they're so tasty.... just admit. You wantss it. *waves with a delicious chocolate bar*

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Eärniel
But they're so tasty.... just admit. You wantss it. *waves with a delicious chocolate bar*

Yes, it is precious to me...

But I can quit anytime. *little beads of sweat on forehead*

[BeardofPants]

Hey... didn't Belgium side with the French? Nasssty Belgium. We'll all have to hate you now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Actually, "You the People" chose Al Gore.
A quirk in the system chose George Bush.

That's amazing - in all the years I have NEVER heard of the Constitution of the United States of America called a "quirck in the system" It DESIGNED that way on purpose. The Constitution survived, America survived, there was no anarchy in the streets. The system played out as INDENDED in the Constitution.

Maybe you should read the Constitution before saying that it was a "quirk in the system"

I haven't stated it in a while - I think it needs stating again. Basically the US is made up of 50 different countries who have joined together to form a Union (this was far more true in the early days of the United States though). Congress is made up of the states' representative to the Federal Government. The electorial college is there to make sure that all states have a say and voice in the Presidential Elections. Without the electorial college the only states the candidates would have to worry about in order to win would be the largest ones (10% of the US population lives between NY and Philadelphia). The smaller states would have no voice. Through the use of the electorial college the smaller states CAN affect the election and all states must be taken into consideration in order for a president to win.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
So now the French are all smugglers.......I think the Americans are much more prone to racist remarks than most other countries..I've seen a plethora of derogatory cartoons aimed at countries that disagree with presidential policy......*shrugs* .... I'm glad I don't live there, that's all I can say.

Oh - you must ignore the political cartoons that appear in English papers or other European papers which are directed negatively at the US.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
About the aid bit, you used to- currently you're 28th in per capita giving, behind most other developed countries (0.1%, as compared to 1.06% for Denmark and the other northern Europeans; even Spain is twice as much).

And who pays for our military when it supports the UN or the European countries? There is far more in aid than just giving money.

You did NOT defeat Germany (you did defeat Japan.)

I guess we shouldn't have entered the war against Germany and then see where you would have been. England would have folded - and Russia would not have lasted either.

Two years after the conquest of Poland, after the other democracies had been begging you to get involved, you entered the war because Japan had attacked you- no other reason.

It was a EUROPEAN war - a war less than 20 years after you got us into another major war. Why should we have come in? I think we should have come in on humanitarian reasons - but you guys didn't care about the Jews. Remember - Europe made DEALS with Germany to ALLOW him to take over Austria and Czechloslovakia - it wasn't until Hitler broke the agreements and invaded Polands did Europe stand up to him. By that time Germany was a military powerhouse.

You went to war against Germany because Hitler declared war on you first- luckily, because it's not likely that Roosevelt could have got Congress to declare war on Germany.

Yeah - but we were supplying you with arms, etc while the people did not support another war.

For the war itself, 75% of the Germany Army was destroyed by the Russians; American supplies (especially trucks) played a vital role in enabling the Soviets to take the offensive, otherwise the war might have ended in a stalemate.

Direct American involvement (Band of Brothers and all that) probably shortened the war by a year or so, and stopped the Soviet Union from taking all of Germany and installing Communist governments in France and Italy.

But if anybody defeated Hitler, it was the Red Army.

The Soviet Union would NOT have defeated Germany if Roosevelt did NOT push for Churchhill to go through France. Without the us - Europe would either be living under facism or communism - most likely both. The Soviet Union initially had deals with the Soviet Union too - but Hitler broke those by invading Russia.

By the way - AMERICA was fighting a TWO front battle - no thanks from help from Europe. We were fighting TWO very powerful empirial countries (Germany and Japan). Imagine what we could have done if we had just had to deal with Germany.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Oh - you must ignore the political cartoons that appear in English papers or other European papers which are directed negatively at the US.

Have you been reading The Sun newspaper again JD?

(we know you only buy if for page 3..........naughty, naughty )

Oooh it's turning into history debate now

But they're so tasty.... just admit. You wantss it. *waves with a delicious chocolate bar*

Chocolate ...........I want chocolate

Ironically enough, it was Belgium that actually invented the French Fry:/.......go figure

Ok, I'll stop waffling now, thread needs another coconut influx anyway

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
GW, although I understand your point, I must agree with Earniel on this one. There are many times that I have voted in a presidential candidate because I agreed with his views and supported his stand on many different things. That's not to say that throughout his four year term in office that I will agree with everything he will do. I support President Bush in the war on Iraq. That doesn't mean I will agree with all that he decides to do until he leaves office. I doubt that there is any Americans that stay completely in agreement with the commander and chief throughout his entire term in office.

Yeah - but people who criticise American foreign policy don't seem to have any problem painting it in a big brush. I haven't seen too many people on this board come out and actually say anything the US does right.

What is going on in Iraq is supported by OVER 70% of Americans. Do I agree with everything the president does? NO. Did I refuse to support things that Clinton did just because I didn't like him? No - I thought it was important to go into Bosnia, I was upset though that he didn't follow through with Somalia or going after Osama Bin Ladin - because of public opinion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Have you been reading The Sun newspaper again JD?

I can watch British shows - what about the puppet shows? I can't remember what they're called - but they rutinely ridicule the US. I can also go on the web and see the foreign press political cartoons - and it is NOT just the Sun. I've also BEEN to England - unlike you who have NEVER been to the US. So your talking from hearsay and opinion - and I'm talking from experience.

[markedel]

Countries don't have friends but interests. I think in discussions of foreign policy it's important to remember that. The U.S was not founded to create global liberal-democracy-it was created to perpetuate American liberal-democracy, and it has done a good job of achieving its goal. To ask of the U.S anything more then that is highly hypocritical, as every country acts in its self-interest (if you think Britain would have minded a Soviet-German War in 1939 I have some swamp land in florida availible). The fact that U.S self-interest lies in making other people live under liberal-democratic governments so they can live in peace and prosperity (there's no need for subservient trade partners, only stable ones) IMO makes it better then Europeans-whose self-interests are largely inwardly directed at this point, or China-whose interests lie in making people subservient to China. Since those are the two regions with the potential to have global power at this point (only China really), I know who I'd support.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
North Korea has always been a messier more dangerous situation then Iraq was and exposed the hypocrisy of the current approach we took on Iraq. I dont see us invading North Korea. But its definitely something that needs to be addressed and soon. Hopefully this is something that is already being done behind the scenes as we speak most likely with the chinese playing a significant role.

I don't see it as hypocrosy - each situation has to be weighed on it's own. We could hav tried containing Iraq - isn't that what had been done with North Korea for years? Look at where that got us. I agree that we can't go into North Korea the way we did with Iraq. It doesn't mean that it's hypocritical - it just means that different action is required for the two different countries. Something needs to be done about North Korea - but it's not an easy thing to resolve after attempting appeasement and trying to conjole them into not building nuclear weapons.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I can watch British shows - what about the puppet shows? I can't remember what they're called - but they rutinely ridicule the US. I can also go on the web and see the foreign press political cartoons - and it is NOT just the Sun. I've also BEEN to England - unlike you who have NEVER been to the US. So your talking from hearsay and opinion - and I'm talking from experience.

Actually I was talking about the cartoon yourself and Dunedain posted on here........I presumed they were from newspapers originally.

Puppet show? I wonder if it is Spitting Image your talking about, that hasn't been on our tv for a number of years....and yes it was incredibly good at Lampooning all politicians (the Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher sketches are part of comic history).

Yup, I've never been to North America....it's quite worrying that all my opinions come from the media and second-hand accounts from friends that have lived there *shrugs*......oh well, if I ever win a free holiday to the States then I might worry about it

[Earniel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hey... didn't Belgium side with the French? Nasssty Belgium. We'll all have to hate you now.

Nanah nananah! Bite me!

Originally posted by Coney
Chocolate ...........I want chocolate

Ironically enough, it was Belgium that actually invented the French Fry:/.......go figure

Alright! Finally a non-belgian who realises it. French fries! Hah!

*gives Coney a virtual chocolate bar for the right answer*

Originally posted by Cirdan
Yes, it is precious to me...

But I can quit anytime. *little beads of sweat on forehead*

Can you? Are you sure? Really sure?... you won't find any better, you know. *waves a bar of chocolate in front of Cirdan's eyes*

[Coney]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Alright! Finally a non-belgian who realises it. French fries! Hah!

*gives Coney a virtual chocolate bar for the right answer*

*burp*

Thanks

Edit: 'Scuse me *forgettin' his manners*