Europe Supports War on Iraq

[Texan]

Wall Street Journal
January 30, 2003

European Leaders In Support Of U.S.

By Jose Maria Aznar, Jose-Manuel Durao Barroso, Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel, Peter Medgyessy, Leszek Miller and Anders FoghRasmussen

The real bond between the U.S. and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the United States of America. Today they are under greater threat than ever.

The attacks of Sept. 11 showed just how far terrorists -- the enemies of our common values -- are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defense of these principles, the governments and people of the U.S. and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the U.S. we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the U.N. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the U.N. route, and our support for the Security Council at the Prague NATO Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime be disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the U.N. weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq's current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The U.N. Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

Messrs. Aznar, Durao Barroso, Berlusconi, Blair, Medgyessy, Miller and Fogh Rasmussen are, respectively, the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark. Mr. Havel is the Czech president.

[BesigedB]

Please note: this document was not offered to the French or Germans.

[wu_trax]

traitors :-(
i understand uk and those countries in eastern europe, but i do not at all understand the rest

[Curufinwe]

it wasnt offered becaused they wouldnt have signed it anyways
and right wu_trax, germany and france are traitors :P

[Phang]

And the prize for 'most histrionics and ass-kissing in a document signed by world leaders' goes to...

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Phang
And the prize for 'most histrionics and ass-kissing in a document signed by world leaders' goes to...

i didnt want to be that direct

[Zither]

Originally posted by Phang
And the prize for 'most histrionics and ass-kissing in a document signed by world leaders' goes to...

So people saying what they think of the current situation, as well as mentioning the BIG part the USA made to allow you the freedom of speech to critisise goverment policy is 'ass-kissing'?

[LHC]

Agreeing is the same as brownnosing nowadays.

[Phang]

Originally posted by Zither
So people saying what they think of the current situation, as well as mentioning the BIG part the USA made to allow you the freedom of speech to critisise goverment policy is 'ass-kissing'?

We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the U.S. we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security.

yes

[Starbucks]

Originally posted by wu_trax
traitors :-(
i understand uk

i ****ing well dont

tony blair is a ****tard so is IDS, the only person worth supporting is kennedy, so im going that route

can i just point this out again:

BLAIR IS A ****TARD
BLAIR IS A ****TARD
BLAIR IS A ****TARD
BLAIR IS A ****TARD
BLAIR IS A ****TARD
BLAIR IS A ****TARD

[Add]

Originally posted by Texan
Wall Street Journal
January 30, 2003
We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism.

ok then.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Zither
So people saying what they think of the current situation, as well as mentioning the BIG part the USA made to allow you the freedom of speech to critisise goverment policy is 'ass-kissing'?

sorry, but supporting a friend, although you know he is wrong and will damage himself (and the whole world), simply because you are scared of him and all this against the will of the own population, is 'ass-kissing' in my book.

[Zither]

Originally posted by wu_trax
sorry, but supporting a friend, although you know he is wrong and will damage himself (and the whole world), simply because you are scared of him and all this against the will of the own population, is 'ass-kissing' in my book.

Or it could be that as leaders of their countries they have more knowlage of the situation than their populations do and actually agree with the policy.

[LHC]

Originally posted by Starbucks
iBLAIR IS A ****TARD

Why? Because he "SUCKS BUSH'S ASS OMG"? I hope that is not the reason, because that is what every Prime Minister has done to American Presidents for the last ten years.

[Zither]

Originally posted by Starbucks
BLAIR IS A ****TARD

I agree he is one for domestic politics, but for foriegn policy i think he does a very good job.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Starbucks
i ****ing well dont

tony blair is a ****tard so is IDS, the only person worth supporting is kennedy, so im going that route

can i just point this out again:

BLAIR IS A ****TARD
BLAIR IS A ****TARD
BLAIR IS A ****TARD
BLAIR IS A ****TARD
BLAIR IS A ****TARD
BLAIR IS A ****TARD

well, so is schröder, live with it.
i mean how dumb is it to say we will vote against the war (or we will not vote 'yes' as he said it), without knowing about that report of the weapons inspectors ?
the french were somewhat more clever.
and then his talking about the 'german way' if there can only be an european way. ffs, that 'gerrnan way' used to be to bomb the **** out of everyone around.
all politicians are retraded :/

[ParraCida]

Aahaha


my country isn't in there




\o/

yay

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Zither
So people saying what they think of the current situation, as well as mentioning the BIG part the USA made to allow you the freedom of speech to critisise goverment policy is 'ass-kissing'?

the point is not what they are saying in this document but rather WHY they say it. it's obvious why the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland have signed it.
the simple fact that they have all signed it makes the rest of them fall into the same category as the aforementioned 3 countries.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Zither
Or it could be that as leaders of their countries they have more knowlage of the situation than their populations do and actually agree with the policy.

and what information would that be, they know about but the security council doesnt ??

[Zither]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
the point is not what they are saying in this document but rather WHY they say it.

At a guess they wrote it to point out to citizens of the USA (and any political leader who may be lacking in intelligence) that germany and france are not all of europe.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by wu_trax
that 'gerrnan way' used to be to bomb the **** out of everyone around.

welcome to the year 2003

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Zither
At a guess they wrote it to point out to citizens of the USA (and any political leader who may be lacking in intelligence) that germany and france are not all of europe.

guess again

[Zither]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
guess again

Seeing how you are obviously one of the leaders or advisers involved in the writing of the document then i accept that i may be wrong. If however you are not one of the leaders or advisers then you cannot know why they wrote it, you can only make a speculative guess.

[LHC]

It's okay, the Americans already know that we support them

"If it weren't for your Tony Blix, where would we be today?"

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
welcome to the year 2003

die formulierung war trotzdem einfach nur dämlich :/

[Curufinwe]

it is not a german way, but a schröder way, which is usually bull**** by default...

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
it is not a german way, but a schröder way, which is usually bull**** by default...

i still ike it more than the cdu-way of "shut up and wait for someone else to say something"

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
i still ike it more than the cdu-way of "shut up and wait for someone else to say something"

since when do they do that, sounds new to me

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
since when do they do that, sounds new to me

so what interpretation of 'everything must be decided by the security council' do you have? to me this just sounds like lets 'lay back and let the other decide what to do'.
i mean, what else is schröder doing?? its not like we would leave the nato and ally with iraq in case of a war

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Zither
Seeing how you are obviously one of the leaders or advisers involved in the writing of the document then i accept that i may be wrong. If however you are not one of the leaders or advisers then you cannot know why they wrote it, you can only make a speculative guess.

alright let's stop all these arguments now since none of us is a world leader. for all we know they could have been playing drinking games and the losers had to sign this paper.

...just realise that this type of support doesn't come at no cost

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Zither
Or it could be that as leaders of their countries they have more knowlage of the situation than their populations do and actually agree with the policy.

And you dont see the problem with this?

[Deffeh]

There you ****ing go again with that ****ing "europe" bull****

8 countries supported it - only 5 of those in the EU
10 countries havent

So, If your going to make any sweeping generalisations

THINK ABOUT THEM FIRST

[Sandsnake]

the document clearly states that Weapons inspectors have confirmed that Iraq is in non-compliance.

The question to you is are you so paranoid that everything the governments of the world say is a lie? Are they incapable of taking information that the public is NOT privy to and act upon it? Or are you one of those people that think it's a vast world conspiracy whenever things don't comply with your personal beliefs?

The document does NOT state "We'll do whatever the US wants us to do." It states VERY clearly that Europe intends to do what the UN decides to do, but urges it to put it's money where it's mouth is and back up it's resolutions with whatever is necessary to do so. This is what the US has been urging the UN to do this entire time.

If you're going to make rules, enforce them. If you're not going to enforce them, then get the hell out of our way because you're worthless. The UN stands on the cusp of having more power than ever before. The US and it's allies have pushed the UN into showing some backbone.

[Black Dog]

It's not exactly 'Europe' supporting war on Iraq now is it?

It's only 8 countries.

Really it's largely due to Spain and Italy being annoyed at France and Germany believing they speak for the whole of Europe rather than an ideological link with America.

In fact it's all a bit of a nonsense.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Are they incapable of taking information that the public is NOT privy to and act upon it?

yes

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Deffeh
There you ****ing go again with that ****ing "europe" bull****

8 countries supported it - only 5 of those in the EU
10 countries havent

So, If your going to make any sweeping generalisations

THINK ABOUT THEM FIRST

well, the 4 who so far said 'no' are only old europe, so that doesnt really count :/

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Nodrog
And you dont see the problem with this?

if you think that "free flowing information" is ok, then I'm glad you're NOT a world leader.

Information is dangerous. When you get information, you can find it's source. We vote for our governments and we decide who to vote for based on who we feel will make the right decisions.

If you didn't think these people could make the right decisions with information you're personally not privvy to, why the hell did you vote for them? We put people into power that we trust to make the right decisions, that are capable of making long-range decisions with a wisdom and intelligence that the average individual is incapable of.

The fact is there is information only the governments have seen, implications and consequences to various actions that they're extremely well-prepared to predict, and resources that each pours billions into every year to utilize that no one else has.

If the weapons inspectors say something is wrong, something is wrong. This is only a call to disarm as it's always been. If saddam refuses to disarm illegal weapons that every other country has or is in the process of disarming, what exactly do you propose is done?

[Black Dog]

I cannot believe you place such blind trust and unerring faith in government.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
if you think that "free flowing information" is ok, then I'm glad you're NOT a world leader.

Information is dangerous. When you get information, you can find it's source. We vote for our governments and we decide who to vote for based on who we feel will make the right decisions.

If you didn't think these people could make the right decisions with information you're personally not privvy to, why the hell did you vote for them? We put people into power that we trust to make the right decisions, that are capable of making long-range decisions with a wisdom and intelligence that the average individual is incapable of.

The fact is there is information only the governments have seen, implications and consequences to various actions that they're extremely well-prepared to predict, and resources that each pours billions into every year to utilize that no one else has.

If the weapons inspectors say something is wrong, something is wrong. This is only a call to disarm as it's always been. If saddam refuses to disarm illegal weapons that every other country has or is in the process of disarming, what exactly do you propose is done?

Do you believe that the actions of your government over the last 50 years or so gives anyone any reason whatsoever to trust them? I cant think of any reason whatsoever for keeping information private - saying "We have evidence, but its too dangerous to show you - youll just have to believe us!" only works if either a) your intented audience is stupid, or b) you have a previous history of being trustworthy, hence giving rational people a reason to believe you. I dont say how you can say the second point applies to the American government, so we're left with only one option.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Nodrog
I cant think of any reason whatsoever for keeping information private

To be fair, protecting your sources (and to some extent the public interest, but this justifiication is abused constantly) is a sensible enough reason for witholding information.

Yet with regards to the present situation there is absolutely no point in saying you have evidence unless you are prepared to release it.

[Flayer]

Actually a poll (heard in the news) in *the whole* of europe pointed out that 80% of europeans are *against* a war in iraq

so..

NO

[Phang]

I can see Bush as a child:

GWB:I have a pet leprechaun!
Kid2:Cool! Can I see it?
GWB:No, he doesn't like anyone except me. He gets frightened.
Kid2:Oh, go on, let me see it.
GWB:No, but you can see my daddy's hunting rifle.
Kid2:Ok. You have a pet leprechaun.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Flayer
Actually a poll (heard in the news) in *the whole* of europe pointed out that 80% of europeans are *against* a war in iraq

In a poll of three people I just decided that opticians don't exist.

The only ones I would even remotely credit are the Gallup ones out atm. They measured the support with and without UN backing. Greece, Germany, France and Austria were the only ones touching the 70-80% mark in both cases.

[Sandsnake]

They will not release any information that would endanger their sources. The world of espionage is very unforgiving of such occurrences. You endanger one source, you have none.

The current problem is that if they have evidence that was obtained via espionage, they have to wait until sources have plausible deniability. ie inspectors come across something that "obviously tipped them off" rather than some source deep inside the iraqi regime told them.

It's a very dangerous business, but it's how the world has operated since time immemorial. To expect that to suddenly change is not only irrational, but exhibits a belief that the world is full of cuddley teddy bears taht would only "slap tattle-tails on the wrist."

We depend on our intelligence agencies to obtain information for us that isnt public. It has to remain that way or we lose the value of those sources. Just because you don't beleive the government is making the right moral decision doesn't mean they aren't making the RIGHT decision. Morality has very little to do with anything on any scale.

[JonnyBGood]

I wonder if Bush'll get nominated for an oscar performance for his state of the union address. For a moment I almost believed him!

[Phang]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
They will not release any information that would endanger their sources. The world of espionage is very unforgiving of such occurrences. You endanger one source, you have none.


Morality has very little to do with anything on any scale.

1)Newsflash: They're intent on replacing all the people who would try to obstruct their sources with smoking craters. Irrelevant, particularly in a case like this.

2)OMFG

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
They will not release any information that would endanger their sources. The world of espionage is very unforgiving of such occurrences. You endanger one source, you have none.

The current problem is that if they have evidence that was obtained via espionage, they have to wait until sources have plausible deniability. ie inspectors come across something that "obviously tipped them off" rather than some source deep inside the iraqi regime told them.

It's a very dangerous business, but it's how the world has operated since time immemorial. To expect that to suddenly change is not only irrational, but exhibits a belief that the world is full of cuddley teddy bears taht would only "slap tattle-tails on the wrist."

We depend on our intelligence agencies to obtain information for us that isnt public. It has to remain that way or we lose the value of those sources. Just because you don't beleive the government is making the right moral decision doesn't mean they aren't making the RIGHT decision. Morality has very little to do with anything on any scale.

Youve still not answered the question - why should anyone believe it? Why do you think that your actions in the past justifies belief in the present? Are you honestly claiming that the US government has acted 'properly' on the previous occassions it withheld important information from the public?

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Morality has very little to do with anything.

At least we agree on something.

[Dibdevlin]

Originally posted by Phang
1)Newsflash: They're intent on replacing all the people who would try to obstruct their sources with smoking craters. Irrelevant, particularly in a case like this.

2)OMFG

You don't get it do you? Lets take an example from the war in Afganistan. It was leaked that Bin Laden was being tracked by his use of a satellite phone.

Guess what?

He stopped using it.

People who think the government is going to tell you how they got all the information they got, or show you all the information they got have never worked under cover.

Go down to you local police force and work as an undercover agent and then you can figure out how much of your identity you would like revealed.

[Dibdevlin]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Youve still not answered the question - why should anyone believe it? Why do you think that your actions in the past justifies belief in the present? Are you honestly claiming that the US government has acted 'properly' on the previous occassions it withheld important information from the public?


At least we agree on something.

You don't have to believe the United States, you should believe your elected officals. The US should show foreign powers whom they trust the information they have.

My guess is they have shown it to Blair.

[Phang]

no, you don't get it. this isn't a matter of 'aha, we can accomplish things with our source', it's a matter of 'the information from this source may well cause WW3'.


HMMZES!