 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
Is it good that NATO is taking over in Afghanistan? I dont know much about NATO in this context so educate me people!! 
"1.) Did the French people view this as a "crisis" ?"
I presume so, we certainly did in Britain, especially when most of us were against the war. Now our numbers have suffered from collective pragmatism, and have been reduced to hardcore believers in peace  , and intellectual opponents of war, rather than popular opponents. We viewed it as a crisis because there was an impending war, that the British government *said* that they didnt want. They obviously did though.
2.) Was Chirac's position Pacifism? I thought that he said he would support military action at "the correct time" ?
Probably a mix of pacifism and political convenience, if I were to be realistic. As a pacifist, I would support military action at the correct time, which would be if a nation was directly coming under attack, like Gulf War I.
3.) If Anti-Americanism was small scale before the war, then what was the general feeling toward the US then?
In Britain, US was and is viewed (certainly where I live) as a bit of a joke. Even those I talk to who support the war use America as the butt of their jokes. Critisisms of patriotism, the economy, the corruption, the attitudes, and especially the south are not exactly rare here. I dont like it, I try to stick to reason not xenophobia, but I understand why.
4.) How do the French people think Chirac's policy of multi-polarism worked?
This is what you get for answering other peoples questions Hope Spiffor doesnt mind!
5.) Is the new consensus on the UNSC seen as a defeat of Chirac by the French people?
Its not seen as a defeat by those I have spoken to today (most of whom were pro-war). They separate the issues of the war with the issues of reconstruction. I personally think it is a mistake to lift the sanctions now, because the US is now free to sell Saddams glut of stockpiled oil to lower global oil prices and negotiate contracts at that cheaper price, without the eyes of the UN watching them (and reporting them), but that is my view.
Sorry for answering Spiffors questions, thought it would be interesting comparing different european nations view on this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
The CNN article clear states that Poland will secure a central region north of Basra. (I don't know how they are going to do it, though, with only 7000 troops.)
As to Germany, I had heard that it was the US and the UK that had vetoed the idea of German participation in Iraq even as part of a NATO force.
For some reason, I also do not believe French troops will be asked to participate.
Last edited by Ned on 23-05-2003 at 02:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
I don't have an issue with using companies from the countries that sent troops and/or are going to foot the bill (US, UK, Australia, Poland... hmm, I'm sure there were more. What was it again, Micronesia?).
The part that worries me is that it doesn't seem like there is proper competition for the contracts. But as for excluding French, German, etc. businesses, I don't really care.
-Arrian |
UK POV - we're a bit pi**ed off about the constitutional reasons why no UK contracts - but on the other hand it saves us paying for them too.
It keeps things simple - we don't have to worry about attacks on UK companies that are rebuilding Iraq. So it's not a big issue.
On the other hand, there is are a lot of people who want to see more humanitarian and infrastructure aid. The UN vote closes a lot of the uncertainty for the aid agencies, so in general this vote is seen as a crucial first step.
As for Bush asking European states to be as generous as the US - he's whistling in the wind (nothing new there).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I doubt very much that the US would have permitted the Soviet Union to take over Europe.
|
What was it going to do? Declare war first? Monroe forbade this.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
That's one big reason why the US joined the European war and why FDR was itching to do so.
|
FDR was itching to join the war because he didn't have much time for fascists OR communists. The reason the US joined the war in Europe was because Germany declared war on them. Go read history instead of making up your own.
The fact that the US oil embargo forced the Japanese hand to bomb Pearl Harbour just goes to show that FDR was no fool. A declaration of war was no possible - so he scaled a demand that the Japanese could not tolerate (no oil, no war in China).
If Hitler hadn't declared war on the US, things would have been very different. Being the complete loon that he was, he did.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Look, much of what I've been claiming in this thread is based on the premise that foreign policy is generally formulated for purely selfish reasons and thus it is often despicable.
What's controversial about that? |
Shh... don't tell the Yanks their Govt is actually a front for the rich corporate elite - they might actually listen and start to think, instead of letting Rupert Murdoch (aka FOX news) do their thinking for them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Well the Germans were on the back foot from Stalingrad onwards. My guess is that they didn't want to see either Germany or the USSR win. A win for either side would have been geostrategically disastrous for the US. |
I would hardly call the German counteroffensive of 1942 being on the back foot (prelude to Kursk).
Not content with rewriting history you are also inventing words never seen before in the English language. If you mean strategically please say so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Put it another way - if FDR had wanted a war he would have had to get Congress and the Senate on his side. Almost impossible at the time.
He knew it was inevitable, so he did what he could to prepare for it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-05-2003 00:19
Agathon. 
|