Sovereignity

[Heavyarms]

I'm gonna take a stab at this: Tie Guy they aren't like the US in that they vote close to party lines, I think they vote for what they want, because they still represent their parties, but there is more than one liberal and so on, so alliances and such in their parliament probably exist.

 

As you say though that what the US did was wrong, well, do I need to go tell you what Iraq did wrong? Instead of using a hospital as normal people do, they filled it with soldiers, 3000 chem suits, and had antidote vials for mustard gas. I don't think they have chemical weapons [/sarcasm]

 

Now for Soverignty: you are right, the definition of soverignty should change, as well as some things at the UN, particularly no more veto power, because in particular, the UN showed that a couple of members don't like something, but the rest do (most of the swing states were eventually for war, but no vote was called because of veto threats) which means things happen which everyone else wants to. Not a great system, IMO.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

But how can you get anything done with 8 parties. No one side would have the ability to pass legislation (assuming your "congress" works in similar fashion to the US's).

 

I'm guessing it doesn't, though I'm not sure.

 

The last century, my country has had only minority governments, meaning that the parties in the government had less than 50% of all the mandates, which in turn means they couldn't pass legislation on one damn thing without counseling the opposing side.

 

Did we get anything done? Yes. More laws have been passed compared to your country. They're forced to cooperate, and thus forced to represent the entire political spectrum in my country.

 

So yes, we did get things done, in fact, more than your government. Then again, most of all the parties here are interested in preserving the welfare state so it makes things go a bit more smoothly. But we also have our fair share of rabid nationalists and communists (though they're in moderation compared to certain other countries).

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Heavyarms

Now for Soverignty: you are right, the definition of soverignty should change, as well as some things at the UN, particularly no more veto power, because in particular, the UN showed that a couple of members don't like something, but the rest do (most of the swing states were eventually for war, but no vote was called because of veto threats) which means things happen which everyone else wants to. Not a great system, IMO.

 

Ahem.

 

Again, lets bring up the facts for a change.

 

Your country has used its veto power over 70 times since WW2. France, which you claim stops UN decision making in its tracks, have used it 6 times.

 

38 times USA has used its veto power to prevent intervention against Israel's breaking of UN resolutions.

 

Say again?

[C'jais]

Americans do things their own way.

 

The Irish do things their way.

 

Happily, rumours of growing pessimism have been proved wrong.

 

And if all else fails, you can always make your own UN, now that the old has been rendered defunct.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Myself, I like soveriegn nations. But that doen't mean I agree with a given war.

[Heavyarms]

yeah, but I'm ready to give up that power, that power brought around as much hate against the Americans. Oh, it didn't? Let's see... France,Russia,Germany, and China were the main 4 nations against the war, and might have been the only 4. The US, Spain, and GB had enough votes to win support for war, except they were afraid of a veto. If a vote had been won, there wouldn't be protesters. I think Bush would give up some power, I don't think he is on a power trip with the presidency. (enter c'jais to try to prove to me the president is on a power trip.)

[Breton]

They would not be able to get the 9 votes they needed, and that is why they didn't bother to start the voting. There are many more countries opposing the war, and all over Europe, the people are opposing the war.

 

BTW, Russia, China and Germany were the three countries who suffered most from WW2.

[Heavyarms]

yeah, so I guess what I hear in the US from the media is complete and utter Bullsh*t, isn't it? I was told we were only one vote away. Ya know, I could be wrong, maybe you have heard different.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Heavyarms

I was told we were only one vote away. Ya know, I could be wrong, maybe you have heard different.

 

You were one vote away because you bullied, threatened and bought the loyalty of many security council members.

 

I guess the US media didn't tell you this either.

[Heavyarms]

that's funny, c'jais, I didn't know you tapped the presiden't phone line. I don't know how you got that load of BS.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Heavyarms

that's funny, c'jais, I didn't know you tapped the presiden't phone line. I don't know how you got that load of BS.

 

Through the European media, perhaps?

 

And please drop that hostile attitude right now.

[Heavyarms]

So I guess Cnn and Sky News are now just lying political tools, huh, C'Jais?

 

 

And don't tell me ever to lose my attitude.

[Artoo]

@ Qui-Gon

 

Japan

 

@ Heavyarms

 

I ask you to do 2 things, take the chip off your shoulder, and take a deep breath, getting an attitude about it only weakens your arguments, I should know this one from experience.

 

@ Discussion

 

I'm personnally done debating over the war with Iraq. It's already happening, vote or no. Yes the US most-likely was "persuading" countries to vote pro-war, but the even if it did pass the veto most likely would have come. But the time was right, so the coalition went in. All you can do now is support the quick end of a dictatorship, and help clean up afterwards.

 

On the cleaning up note, after the war has already been fought France has agreed to take the lucrative rebuilding contracts in Iraq fo itself to help out.

 

[sarcasm] They're a huge help offering to take care of the big-money deals that offer maximum profit with little input into the war effort. [/sarcasm]

[Dagobahn Eagle]

But how can you get anything done with 8 parties.

Yes, actually a lot gets done with 8 parties, although I agree, it should be more like 3 or 4 parties, not necessarily 8?

 

Heavyarms (I think) is right in assuming that our parties ally and cooperate.

 

So I guess Cnn and Sky News are now just lying political tools, huh, C'Jais?

11News and at least one other channel which name I have now forgotten are biased. This is a fact.

 

Now with that out of the way, let's get back on topic.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Artoo

@ Qui-Gon

 

Japan

 

Japan didn't lose nearly as much as the countries I listed.

 

German losses: 3-5 million soilders, 2-4 million civillians.

 

Chinese losses: 1,3 million soilders, 10 million civillians

 

And on top of the list: Russian losses: 7 million soilders, 7-13 million civillians

 

Behind these three countries comes Poland, with 350 000 military losses and 5-6 million civillian losses.

 

Then comes Jugoslavia with 400 000 ML and 1.0-1.4 CL

 

Then comes Japan, 1.0-1.3 ML, 300,000 CL

 

Then comes Romania, with 520,000 ML and 465,000 CL

[Breton]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

11News and at least one other channel which name I have now forgotten are biased. This is a fact.

 

Were you thinking about Fox News too? Don't know what 11News is, but Fox News are not to be trusted, as they are buddies with Bush and extremely biased.

[Artoo]

Nice double-post BTW.

 

Anyway you thing CNN and can be trusted? They are in cohorts with the liberals and extremely biased.

 

 

 

 

 

If you thought the above statement was ridiculous, you now know how I felt about your statement about FoxNews. FoxNews is targeting a republican audience, the audience that until it had no news that gave things a conservative slant. They are merely doing the same thing as CNN except CNN gives theirs a liberal slant.

 

There is not a news station out there that does not put it's spin on what's happening, it's what makes it worth watching, they are competing for a thing called ratings ya know. So if you want the facts, watch both and divide the opinions down the middle.

 

Personally my heroes are Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Shepard Smith, but to each his own as the slogan goes.

 

Also now I have reason for people not to riot peacefully demosntrate in America at least. It's a threat to the nation. Police forces are having to detain people who get out of hand in the riots instead of devoting themselves to looking for terror threats.

 

Any opinion on that?

[Breton]

Personally, my opinion is that CNN is actually pretty Bush-friendly. FoxNews, however, is little more than Republican and Bush-supporting propaganda. I went to their website, and it's at least as bad as I thought, if not worse. Each single article supports the war, none of them critizise it, and they make a very false view of stuff. I mean, FoxNews even have their own show where a guy goes and talks crap about Germany and France. That is extremely childish, to bash them just because they don't agree with you.

 

Nearly all of the France-bashers here doesn't know anything about their opinions anyway. For your information, they aren't directly anti-war, they just think the UN inspectors should be able to continue their work on disarming Saddam, as the weapon inspectors asked for themselves. Now, after 12 years, the working on disarming Saddam is finally getting results, but then US comes and ruins it all.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Although u must admit, it was thanks to US pressure that the whole disarming thing started.

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

Personally, my opinion is that CNN is actually pretty Bush-friendly. FoxNews, however, is little more than Republican and Bush-supporting propaganda. I went to their website, and it's at least as bad as I thought, if not worse. Each single article supports the war, none of them critizise it, and they make a very false view of stuff. I mean, FoxNews even have their own show where a guy goes and talks crap about Germany and France. That is extremely childish, to bash them just because they don't agree with you.

 

I suppose you are talking about Bill O'Reilly. He's not even a Republican, he's a registered independent.

 

Oh, and i've heard plenty of reports, from FoxNews, CNN, and others that the news in France, for instance, has almost nothing but anti-war stories, and that is coming from reporters in France. A BBC reporter even admited and chastised the BBC for putting an extreme anti-war slant on one of his reports. Maybe you don't want to trust American news stations, but i'm willing to bet it's mostly because you are only watching European news stations. It certainly works in reverse for my case.

 

Nearly all of the France-bashers here doesn't know anything about their opinions anyway. For your information, they aren't directly anti-war, they just think the UN inspectors should be able to continue their work on disarming Saddam, as the weapon inspectors asked for themselves. Now, after 12 years, the working on disarming Saddam is finally getting results, but then US comes and ruins it all.

 

Like CDog said, the US made the progress happen. The inspectors were getting nowhere until 280,000 coalition troops entered the area. Coincidence? I think not. It was all just a time game, a delay tactic, he wasn't really giving up anything major at all.

[Heavyarms]

Now, after 12 years, the working on disarming Saddam is finally getting results, but then US comes and ruins it all.

 

Yeah, um... they did have twelve years, right? And the US put the pressure to try to get him out, but it was just one big delay tactic, anyone will tell you that.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Oh, and i've heard plenty of reports, from FoxNews, CNN, and others that the news in France, for instance, has almost nothing but anti-war stories, and that is coming from reporters in France. A BBC reporter even admited and chastised the BBC for putting an extreme anti-war slant on one of his reports. Maybe you don't want to trust American news stations, but i'm willing to bet it's mostly because you are only watching European news stations. It certainly works in reverse for my case.

 

But the difference between USA and Europe is that USA is one nation, Europe is lots of nations, and therefore loads of different news channels, so there is few here who watches very much BBC, and no one are watching French news channels. And if you absolutly want to know, our goverment has not taken any real stand in the Iraq-case, but they won't support in the war unless approved by UN. So I guess the gov's pretty neutral. Anyway, there are two main tv channels, NRK and Tv2. Tv2 is pretty neutral in the case, while NRK is slightly more Bush-supporting. Of course, I also read the papers. You have BT, wich is a tiny bit against war, but not much. Then there is VG, wich is much more positive to Bush and war. And also Dagbladet, wich I don't really know.

 

Like CDog said, the US made the progress happen. The inspectors were getting nowhere until 280,000 coalition troops entered the area. Coincidence? I think not. It was all just a time game, a delay tactic, he wasn't really giving up anything major at all.

 

It was partly because of the military pressure. But the inspections were getting somewhere, Blix said so himself. He also said that it wasn't any minor weapons that had been destroyed.

 

Anyway, now UNICEF have reported that 100,000 children below 5 years are in danger of dying of malnutrition, diarrhea and dehydration in Basra because the fights have cut the power and the water supplies. Wich proves my point about civillians doesn't die of bombs in wars, but of other things.

[Artoo]

@ Qui-Gon

 

Hmmmmm, I see what you mean about bashing something that doesn't agree with you. (FoxNews)

 

And you say nearly all don't know why they have their opinions, well I know why I have mine, and I've stated it already in other threads as much as you'd like to think me ignorant, I'm not.

 

Also as previously stated, 11 years... nothing was found, all of a sudden he has pressure put on him by the Coalition, and a few small things start to appear. Hmmmmmmmm... why didn't they appear before I ask you.

 

Also if you think the UN inspectors were doing a good job, no less than 3 days ago, Coalition forces captured a "supposed" chemical weapons facility in southern Iraq. If they were doing such a good job, why didn't the inspectors find in 12 years what the Coalition forces took merely a week to get to.

 

And guess what the first thing coalition forces are doing when they get into areas like that? They are handing out food, water, and supplies to the needy. The first person treated on the battlefield in the first battlefield hospital was an Iraqi soldier for crying out loud, this is unheard of. If children are dying it is because of the Saddam regime, not because of what the Coalition is doing.

 

@ Debate

 

Have you heard of what is on the front page of both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times? Front page articles talking about the horrors of the war. How the US troops are encountering fierce resistance. And also the Los Angeles Times printed an interview they had with a Saddam appointed translator in the city, how the war is sooo horrible, and things are sooo bad, and you know what was in the background of her picture? Coalition forces handing out supplies with people flocking to them.

 

They might as well have had an interview with the Saddam propaganda machine itself, can we at least sell them the space instead of letting them spread their propaganda for free?

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

It was partly because of the military pressure. But the inspections were getting somewhere, Blix said so himself. He also said that it wasn't any minor weapons that had been destroyed.

 

Can you really expect anyone to admit their own futility? Especially when Blix was the one being fooled and led around. Of course he thought the inspections were working, because he has an inate desire to validate his own existance and job. If the inspections fail, he fails, and he doesn't want that. Plus, he's clearly an anti-war advocate, he's said so many times in numerous interviews. Can you really expect a unbiased opinion out of him, especially on such a subjective matter?

[pbguy1211]

Looks at profile...

Don't bad mouth Uncle Rupert!