h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I should have qualified my question further by outside the contenital US and perhaps not an apology for *not* doing something.

When was the apology to SA. Before or after being made known of the class action suit?

For example - Nagasaki?

Still a genuine question.

It may be a genuine question, Apparition, but it is none the less inflamatory. It doesn't really have anything to do with the title of this thread. You're just trying to bait the 'other side'. I know your style - you don't think you're acheiving anything without a good fight. Which is fine, I suppose, but why rake over old coals when this thread's just started to settle down again?

Post 508 was me, I'm afraid. I called Dubbya some names, and the mods think I shouldn't because they're potential libellous.

Apparition, one of the first things they teach you in law school is *do not ask a quetion you do not know the answer to* the reason being is obvious now I should think.

If you do ask it and you get a answer that is in direct opposition to your views then it is best to take the hit and move on. The worst you can do is qualifie the question.

From an article in today's "Guardian" stating the position of countries re: support for a US war with Iraq.

UK: Keeping options open. Believes every effort should be made to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

Canada: Unlikely to participate unless strong evidence of Iraqi threat is presented.

France: Wants action to be decided by UN. Has not ruled out possibility of military involvement if this demand was met.

Italy: Likely to provide logistical and possibly more military support to the United States in event of a US-led attack. However, would likely want proof and UN-approval.

Israel: Has pledged support to the US in the event of a war. Will "not show same restraint" as in Gulf War.

Turkey: Unlikely to get involved.

Jordan: May provide facilities for US but unlikely to become otherwise involved.

Australia: Will not become involved without evidence of Iraqi WMD or Iraqi links to terrorist networks.

Malaysia: Will not become involved without "stronger evidence".

Germany, Russia, Belgium, China, Pakistan etc have all said they will not get involved in a war with Iraq.

***************************************************

This scotches a few myths. First off, it is Israel, not Britain which is America's "unwavering ally" in this instance. Secondly, Australia has not "pledged troops" to the war (neither has Britain and we look increasingly unlikely to do so).

Danish Foriegn Minister Per Stig Moeller speaking for the European Union stated the Iraq goverment must allow UN inspectors in to decern whether or not WMD exsist or not. He stated that Iraq is in violation of UN directives.

However he did not state whatthe UN would do if Saddam did not comply.

[Frogbit] - "It may be a genuine question, Apparition, but it is none the less inflamatory. It doesn't really have anything to do with the title of this thread. You're just trying to bait the 'other side'. I know your style - you don't think you're acheiving anything without a good fight. Which is fine, I suppose, but why rake over old coals when this thread's just started to settle down again?"

[Zagreb, one post before my origional question] - " The United States has caused a great deal of animosity in the Middle East but I think those bridges can be repaired. One thing it could do, if it removes Saddam, is to apologise for the "policy of containment" and for the harm it has done to the Iraqi's. That won't appeal to the Dick Cheney's of this World, but a little penitence can go a long way."

Well frogbit, since you "know my style" or think you do, reality might not apply to you.

Starbirth - Since you want to use law as an analogy, precedence, In most circumstances politics can reliably be judged on the past.

There seems to be a trend on what constitutes inflamatory at this site.

"This scotches a few myths. First off, it is Israel, not Britain which is America's "unwavering ally" in this instance. Secondly, Australia has not "pledged troops" to the war (neither has Britain and we look increasingly unlikely to do so)."

grrr Media mess me up again. Well that's it for TV3

>Starbirth - Since you want to use law as an analogy, precedence, In most circumstances politics can reliably be judged on the past.<

Yes you are right Apparition in this case it can. Saddams politics can be reliably judged on the past. Once a totlitarian dictator who uses WMD on his own people always a totlitarian dictator will to use WMD.

Excellent point.

Iraq didn't suddenly become a breading ground for terrorism post Sep 11, the approch of governments, specifically the US, to blanket call a "war against terrorism", is a neat handle to put on taking the action against Iraq they wish had of been taken the first time round. It seems that if UN inspectors are allowed full access to examine the situeation in relation to arms manafacture, and particularly nuclear and biological weapons, then the US wouldn't have much political armour to their desire to finish off what was started in Iraq during the Gulf war, and, as for that war, the need for a clear objective is paramount.
If that aim is to remove Saddam then there should also be some kind of relief and support plan preempted to allow for engaguement of the Iraq population into "democratic" politics and establishment of a elected form of rule, rather than dictator.
However, if the USA, and possibly other nations (maybe/maybe not UN nations), take this attitude, then pressumbably we will see the machinary of war trundling into every country where dictators (which come in many forms) rule country's.

My faith in reality has been shaken

Starbirth has gotten the point but only half. Both sides of this have their long histories and I have a tough time beliving that either side will do anything new.

"Well frogbit, since you "know my style" or think you do, reality might not apply to you."

Takes a (confusing) hit, moves on.

misstype. The word "the" should be inserted before the word "reality"

You p****d me off by making assumptions instead of reading carefully.

Now look and what you went an did !!!

I've just read this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2228294.stm

Apparition see post 546 and leave thr green one alone.

Apparition see post 546 and leave thr green one alone.

What's 546 got to do with the link

only to show that europeon leaders are becoming increasingly unhappy with Iraqs blatent disregard for UN imposed weapon inspections.