Where are the Apologies?

[Davros]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: Magik said 'if it wasn't for *WAR* you'd(referring to Kaltia, and, by extension, all British) all be speaking German'. Nowhere in his post, or anywhere else in this thread did he ever add "if not for us". That is why I made my statement defending Magik's post. Sometimes you, and others, are too quick to take offense and read things into a statement that are simply not there. Just my [img]graemlins/2cents.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] TTYL Dav [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

Hi Nacht [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] - I have no problem at all with you leaping to MagiK's defense [img]smile.gif[/img] - be a little surprised if you didn't really. If you will harken back to my original post, it expressed that I was seeing an increasing trend and roughly quote "not limited to the quoted poster" to throw out WWII (and a percieved debt for it) as a reason why Europe shouldn't be arguing with the US position. I have seen a lot less of this since I started to point it out to people. Am I happy with that - YES.

Agitate for Europe [img]smile.gif[/img] - interesting turn of phrase - in case you hadn't picked up, I actually disagree with the French position, but repsect their right to make their own choice.

[ 02-12-2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Davros ]

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by MagiK: 1. I think it is wrong for France, Germany and Belgium to deny Turkey protection that it is due under the NATO treaty. 2. I believe that the war on Iraq is just and is in fact a fight against international terrorism and it's sponsors. 3. I believe that the President of the USA was accused of several things by people here, and that those accusations have proven false. 4. I didn't say my parting thoughts would all be connected or would form a coherent thought.

1. The problem is that Paragraph 5 of the NATO-treaty (the musketeer-oath) is for defense - not attack. It states that an attack on one member is an attack on all - and it was activated after sept.11. after USA was attacked. In this case however Turkey isn't being attacked (or threatened - Paragraph 4) - rather the opposite. Not only does Turkey have (IIRC) 12.000 men inside Iraq at the moment - they also want to aid USA in it's upcomming war with Iraq. The NATO-treaty does not cover here.

2. I have yet to see any real evidence of the link between international terrorism and Iraq. The war in Afghanistan (and terrorism in general) is justified because the Taliban regime was helping Al-Queda.

3. What accusations I have to ask.

4. That's OK [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Davros: Agitate for Europe [img]smile.gif[/img] - interesting turn of phrase - in case you hadn't picked up, I actually disagree with the French position, but repsect their right to make their own choice.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: 1. The problem is that Paragraph 5 of the NATO-treaty (the musketeer-oath) is for defense - not attack. It states that an attack on one member is an attack on all - and it was activated after sept.11. after USA was attacked. In this case however Turkey isn't being attacked (or threatened - Paragraph 4) - rather the opposite. Not only does Turkey have (IIRC) 12.000 men inside Iraq at the moment - they also want to aid USA in it's upcomming war with Iraq. The NATO-treaty does not cover here. Only 3 of the 19 voting members see it that way. Do France, Belgiam, and Germany get to decide for everyone? Hey maybe they're discriminating against Turkey because it's the only Muslim member of NATO! Discrimination at this level is disgusting 2. I have yet to see any real evidence of the link between international terrorism and Iraq. The war in Afghanistan (and terrorism in general) is justified because the Taliban regime was helping Al-Queda. You and I, as private citizens, will never see all the evidence prior to a military action and isn't it silly to think we should? Of the governments that have seen the evidence, the overwhelming majority think that the evidence is actionable. Only a very few governments choose not to believe or to delay their belief. Are those governments the only ones that are seeing the REAL picture? Are they gifted with some magical insight? Is everyone else blind?

[Djinn Raffo]

First of all why does Turkey need to have protection?

Secondly, after that one is answered: why didnt they need protection before right now?

First and Secondly: if what Ar-Cunin says about no.1 is the way it is.. Then i agree totally the treaty does not apply n this instance.. but i do not know what the treaty says or not.. just from Ar-Cunins text.

Thirdly for Ronn and others (this is more of a question and hypothesis i would like to see analyzed a bit).. the whole protection of spies argument really irks me for some reason. I can understand the nature of that reasoning and the plausability of it. But the number of people acting as liasons between the Iraqi government and Al-Queda cannot be very large. that is a total guess on my part and i freely admit it but I can't see it being any other way, i dont think that there could be many operatives interacting between the two sides. That number grows even smaller when you account for operatives who might be able to filter intel to western intelligence agencies. Do you think that is the case? That their would not be many people who would have access to be a liason between secular iraqi government and the hardline islamist terrorists? Does that sound reasonable that it would be a small number of people?

If it does sound reasonable, which it does imo, then just by virtue of the fact that their cannot be that many operatives who would be involved in dubious affairs between the two.. any information, even source protected in the press, would put said spies in danger of being exposed and without doubt imo under intense scrutiny.

Can't tell the people to protect the spies theory is bogus and hereafter this post.. debunked!

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: 1. The problem is that Paragraph 5 of the NATO-treaty (the musketeer-oath) is for defense - not attack. It states that an attack on one member is an attack on all - and it was activated after sept.11. after USA was attacked. In this case however Turkey isn't being attacked (or threatened - Paragraph 4) - rather the opposite. Not only does Turkey have (IIRC) 12.000 men inside Iraq at the moment - they also want to aid USA in it's upcomming war with Iraq. The NATO-treaty does not cover here. Only 3 of the 19 voting members see it that way. Do France, Belgiam, and Germany get to decide for everyone? Hey maybe they're discriminating against Turkey because it's the only Muslim member of NATO! Discrimination at this level is disgusting 2. I have yet to see any real evidence of the link between international terrorism and Iraq. The war in Afghanistan (and terrorism in general) is justified because the Taliban regime was helping Al-Queda. You and I, as private citizens, will never see all the evidence prior to a military action and isn't it silly to think we should? Of the governments that have seen the evidence, the overwhelming majority think that the evidence is actionable. Only a very few governments choose not to believe or to delay their belief. Are those governments the only ones that are seeing the REAL picture? Are they gifted with some magical insight? Is everyone else blind?

[/QUOTE]Ron, your first point is really bad and offensive (and yes i did see the smiley). My country (Belgium) has never said anything about not defending Turkey in case of a war but as Ar-Cunin said, there is no war at the moment. Secondly, if those are the rules then live with it. If 3 countries can hold off a decision then that's the way it is. It sound a lot like whining to me. Whining that a few aren't going to listen to the USA.

Another point is that it's not only the defence of Turkey that is so big an issue over here. Other things in that treaty state the releaf (sp) of US troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans. Now where do you think these troops are going to be sent ? It's a way to strongarm, undirectly, the doubters into the war rethoric and as far as we are concerned, there is no war yet.

[ 02-12-2003, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: the new JR Jansen ]

[Moiraine]

Nachtrafe, that is what MagiK textually said : "the person claiming that war is never the answer would in fact be speaking German right now had not the US waged war along side her own country". I have heard this morning that a famous US newspaper (I don't remember which one) published this morning a photo of a French graveyard for US soldiers, along with the statement that France is forgetful. I am willing to give MagiK the benefice of the doubt though - but it seems other US voices use that argument.

I personnally find this argument "under the belt" (do you get my meaning ? I mean it is unfair). I mean, I am feeling confused about the necessity or not of a war, but if there is one argumentation that doesn't convince me at all, it is "you owe us gratitude for the help we gave you 50 years ago" ...

Well, gratitude you had, back then - for 30 years, everything that came to us from the US was great. We copied your music, your clothing, your movies, we read your books, followed your causes - we tried to imitate you in every way. But I don't think we imagined that you were expecting us to shut up as a given.

What I mostly feel right now is sadness. Because, over the disagreements, it seems to me, from what I read and hear, that dissension and hate are showing their ugly faces (I am not talking about Ironworks, mainly from what I read in papers and hear at the radio). People are calling each others names, which will stick as poisoned darts in our hearts no matter what happens.

Bin Laden and his terrorists must be laughing right now. For hate is their goal - and we are kindly obliging them ...

I don't know if a war will happen or not. I don't know if the war is necessary, if it is for the good, or not. But I wish with all my heart that, whatever happens, we people stand united.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Nachtrafe, that is what MagiK textually said : "the person claiming that war is never the answer would in fact be speaking German right now had not the US waged war along side her own country". I have heard this morning that a famous US newspaper (I don't remember which one) published this morning a photo of a French graveyard for US soldiers, along with the statement that France is forgetful. I am willing to give MagiK the benefice of the doubt though - but it seems other US voices use that argument. I personnally find this argument "under the belt" (do you get my meaning ? I mean it is unfair).

Not only that, I still think the entire argument is complete and utter bollocks. As if there wasn't already a war going on before the US got involved! His exact wording:

So war is pointless and no one should ever go to war....would that mean you would rather be speaking German right now? Just curious.

I agree that no one should ever go to war. The mistake in MagiK's reasoning however (and the reason why I called it a sophism earlier on) is that he reasons that if no one should ever go to war, it automatically seems to implicate the entirety of Europe would be under German command now; as if the first part of his argument only seems to apply to US involvement in the War, and not to other countries like oh, I don't know... Italy, Germany and Japan?
His reasoning is faulty, because if war is pointless and no one should ever go to war, World War II never would have happened in the first place and we'd all be speaking whatever language we want.
However, I think that when a war is already going on, International involvement is practically inevitable in the end; when Iraq invaded Kuwait, I may have preferred the idea of diplomacy over declaring war, but I can understand the latter a lot better during the Gulf War when a country was being invaded than is the case with Iraq nowadays. If a war can be avoided, I'm all for it; I simply do not understand why a war with Iraq is seen by some as "inevitable".

Anyways, I'd like to change MagiK's starting-point to "War is pointless and no one should ever start a war". Actually getting involved in a war that's already been going on is an entirely different matter alltogether and it depends on the case, the methods used in the war and the number of human lives being at stake (including the question if getting involved will actually *save* innocent human lives instead of ruining even more by dropping bombs) whether I'm in favour of getting involved in such a war or not.

[ 02-13-2003, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Moiraine: What I mostly feel right now is sadness. Because, over the disagreements, it seems to me, from what I read and hear, that dissension and hate are showing their ugly faces (I am not talking about Ironworks, mainly from what I read in papers and hear at the radio). People are calling each others names, which will stick as poisoned darts in our hearts no matter what happens. Bin Laden and his terrorists must be laughing right now. For hate is their goal - and we are kindly obliging them ... I don't know if a war will happen or not. I don't know if the war is necessary, if it is for the good, or not. But I wish with all my heart that, whatever happens, we people stand united.

I see a total repeat of what happened at the beginning of the last century. Only a few years into the new century and already the old alliances and established frameworks of treaty and diplomatic order are fraying at the seams... The same cycle of doing away with the order of the past is playing out, only with different names, different ideologies, different aggression-motivators.

In the next few years and decades, the shit is most heinously going to hit the fan... get ready!

[Davros]

Thanks to Moiraine and George Lake (or Groj ) for making the points (re WWII) that I have been trying to make, and for expressing them better than I seem to be able to.
[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Please note though that my preference reamins for a united front of nations backed by the UN to take Saddam out of the picture.