Another non-American point of view
 

We don't need European allies

02feb03

SO much for our allies. So much for the coalition against terrorism with France seeking to thwart any attempt to invade Iraq.

So much for Western unity, with Germany saying it will not yet join the fight against the brutal dictatorship threatening world peace.
We have every right to be aggrieved.

This selfish and cynical partnership has much to do with their substantial trading interests in the Middle East and in Third World countries opposed to an armed response to Saddam Hussein's thuggery.

Germans, more than most, should be alert to the folly of giving an unrelenting dictator time to grow in strength and influence. There is no timid antidote for evil. We can forget appeasement.

As for France, twice rescued from invasion and foreign domination at the cost of untold lives, many of them Australian, British and American, its hypocrisy is breathtaking. For France to lecture us on foreign relations is preposterous.

France is a nation with only the faintest regard for the rights of other sovereign powers.

Remember the Rainbow Warrior? Murderous French military agents were despatched to sink the Greenpeace ship because it was drawing unwelcome attention to France's nuclear testing on Australia's doorstep. Those bombs -- exploded as far from mainland French soil as it is possible to get -- were a sample of Gallic arrogance at its haughty worst.

Australia stands on the brink of joining a justified military campaign against the evil of Saddam Hussein, yet the France we supported through its blackest days is doing all it can in the UN and other forums to frustrate initiatives to secure our safe future.

France and Germany pledged to join the war on terrorism that began with the attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. They pledged to help unravel the terror networks and root out the regimes that sponsored atrocities of the kind that occurred in New York, Washington and then Bali.

It seems, however, they are not willing to dirty their hands in achieving goals that are good for them and the world. The French cockerel, in particular, will be crowing its dissent from the sidelines when America and its true allies do what must be done. Again.

If this war was really just against terrorism I think our governments would join in

I never knew that a war that's likely to result in nuclear bombings was good for us all

What do you think it's about? Oil? Are Germany and France afraid of losing their own interests in the Middle East if there is a war?

How could a country that people are saying has no nuclear weapons use them? The arguments for the anti-war stance is that there is no proof of WMD. Which is it, do they have them or not?

If you don't think that Germany's stance on the war is for purely selfish reasons, the same way you're accusing the US for going to war for selfish reasons...then you are guilty of buying into the propaganda just like you tell us we are.

no. they are more scared that they won't get re-elected.
and yes, i do think it's to a large extend about the oil.
but maybe thats just the propaganda from the german gov't.

at the danger of contradicting myself: yes there is no proof, but i am still scared they might have nuclear weapons. and once the iraq is attacked what do you think they will do? hold back and let america and britain bomb their country? i don't think so. they will fire back, maybe or maybe not with nuclear weapons. and if they use those we all know that america won't be holding back with their own nuclear weapons

Really? Wasn't there recently a re-election of Schroeder in Germany because he decided to go with an anti-American platform, which was in tune with the German public? And afterward, trying to do damage control with Washington?

So you prefer to bury your head in the sand and hope it all goes away? That's what gives people like Saddam power. All his so called "concessions" amount to nothing. He is giving the UN the runaround like he has for years, but that doesn't seem to bother anybody. A tyrant like Saddam doesn't suddenly start cooperating with demands after so many years of non-compliance.

HERE ARE EXCERPTS FROM AN EMAIL THAT TONY BLAIR RECEIVED FROM AN Iraqi exile:


I want to ask those who support the anti - "war" movement (apart from pacifists - that is a totally different situation) their motives and reasoning behind such support. You may feel that America is trying to blind you from seeing the truth about their real reasons for an invasion. I must argue that in fact, you are still blind to the bigger truths in Iraq. I must ask you to consider the following questions:

Saddam has murdered more than a million Iraqis over the past 30 years, are you willing to allow him to kill another million Iraqis?

Out of a population of 20 million, 4 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their country during Saddam's reign. Are you willing to ignore the real and present danger that caused so many people to leave their homes and families?

Saddam rules Iraq using fear - he regularly imprisons, executes and tortures the mass population for no reason whatsoever - this may be hard to believe and you may not even appreciate the extent of such barbaric acts, but believe me you will be hard pressed to find a family in Iraq who have not had a son/father/brother killed, imprisoned, tortured and/or "disappeared" due to Saddam's regime. What has been stopping you from taking to the streets to protest against such blatant crimes against humanity in the past?

Saddam gassed thousands of political prisoners in one of his campaigns to "cleanse" prisons - why are you not protesting against this barbaric act?

An example of the dictator's policy you are trying to save - Saddam has made a law to give excuse to any man to rape a female relative and then murder her in the name of adultery. Do you still want to march to keep him in power? . . . .

Of course it would be ideal if an invasion could be undertaken, not by the Americans, but by, say, the Nelson Mandela International Peace Force. That's not on offer. The Iraqi people cannot wait until such a force materialises; they have been forced to take what they're given. That such a force does not exist - cannot exist - in today's world is a failing of the very people who do not want America to invade Iraq, yet are willing to let thousands of Iraqis to die in order to gain the higher moral ground. Do not continue to punish the Iraqi people because you are "unhappy" with the amount of power the world is at fault for allowing America to wield. Do not use the Iraqi people as a pawn in your game for moral superiority - one loses that right when one allows a monster like Saddam to rule for 30 years without so much as protesting against his rule.

Yes, but your not considering that there are many regimes in the world that are torturing, and repressing it's people, but America don't get involved with these! Just look at the recent events in Zimbabwe. A supressive dicatorship seizes power, targetting people on racial grounds, and what does our goverment do? It uses a cricket mach to make a petty point! Look at the situation 20 years ago in South Africa, and the torture, and descrimination that people were subjected to at this time. The government didn't step in on this did they? where was the morral ground then! Even look into America's own history, and the Ku Klux Klan. The govenrment did little to stop these people torturing, and murdering people!!!!

There may be a moral arguement for war, but this is NOT the reason it's faught. It's about politics, and public relations. France and Germany won't commit because they want to keep the power balance in Europe cenralised. If they commit with America, then the power shift will move to America, and Britain, and Europe will loose some of it's indipendance.

I personally thought hearing the German leader talking about the war, saying he can't go home and tell his people to prepair for a war he doen't believe in is fair enough. At the end of the day, maybe this is the price of democracy, if a war has to be fought and the public opinion doesn't back it, then the war can't be fought. This is what happened in the second world war, and was one of the reasons why Britain were attempting to avoid war at all costs.

Also, I think there are a fair few people out there that think having Bush with 'his finger on the button' is very scary. Should we therefore rid America of nucleur capabilities, because he's not a stable leader.

arrogance
 

to the american arrogance
the world is not stupid, stop trading with the lives of people, stop invading our privacy, stop invading our minds, stop invading our LAND...
this is a message that comes -as you may see- from a place very close to iraq, we are aware what this is all about, and we know the real story...
so stop lecturing, and stop lying, and leave us in peace

This is the reason why the potensial war could be so dangerous to the West. By invading on peoples lives like they are, telling people how they should live, they create enemys. I'm not saying for one second Tooka that you're a terrorist, or in fact anybody in Iraq is a terrorist. My point is, that trying to be the world police that America projects itslef as is the reason why we are living in fear of terrorism!

I'd also say this is a strange situation, becuase as far as I know, there is a lot of opposition to war in America as well. It's not nessesarily American arrogance, so much as the polotics that America is following being arrogant. If was does go ahead, it will be a step back for democracy, as neither the American, or British governments will be representing the wishes of it's people.

Re: arrogance
 

"Intifadah" is a great action! HAMMAS Rules! 8)