Quote:
|
You mean Europe didn't want the inspectors back in? This was a negotiating point?
|
IIRC europe did want inspection. There were inspections till US/UK started their bombing campain (remember no fly zone?) and inspectors had to be removed for safety reasons.
You wanted inspectors back even tho you were part of a reason they left.
Quote:
|
We got everything we wanted except a resolution to the problem by the UN.
|
A resolution that would start a war based on fake evidence...
Quote:
|
See, resolving international problems is what the UN is all about. That's its purpose.
|
So resolving international problems = giving US/UK war resolution based on fake evidence?
Quote:
|
Good. I'm glad. There's some who would argue that US actions in Iraq have made the world a much more dangerous one. I'm glad you don't subscribe to that.
|
Nothing to do with it... Only that my country is small so its hard to spot by wannabe terrorists.
Quote:
|
Europe likes to claim that anything done without the express permission of France and Germany is a "unilateral" and illegal action.
|
Bullshit. There was no resolution for war so anyone can claim its illegal.
Quote:
|
Your statement denigrates the contribution, even if it's simply moral support, of every nation involved in the coalition
|
So?
Quote:
|
As if their moral contribution is nothing without the involvement of France and Germany. That's arrogant and insulting.
|
Wtf is with you and France and Germany?
Their contribution is meaningless since it has close to zero support among population. If US/UK actually found any reason for invasion you would have gotten a LOT larger support as well as lot larger army with wich to go in war.
Quote:
|
And what does democracy have to do with it?
|
Ask Bush... hes the one bullshitting about spreading democracy.
Quote:
|
To my knowledge, no country in the coalition over-rode a national vote against Iraq involvement.
|
Umm no vote at all?
Wasnt there an incident when Rumsfield was bitching about Turkey for not negotiating directly to generals insted of parlament/president. Or something like that...
Quote:
|
Then placing this reactor in France is the best thing to do from a scientific point of view? The science would be poorly served if it were placed in Japan?
|
France and some other countries want it in France. They build it in France.
US, Japan, S. Korea, ???, want it in Japan. They build it in Japan.
Problem solved. If 2 sides want to build something and disagree on something than each side has every right to build it by themselfs.
How many Europeans did you see bitching at US for "unilateraly" landing on moon?
Quote:
|
The US joins with the rest of the world to study global warming and solutions if necessary. The US asks the world to be reasonable and do more research on global warming. But that won't accomplish the goal of putting the US in her rightful place. That won't sufficiently undermine the US economy or cost the US enough. So the world says, "No. You must do it our way." We decide that if the world won't listen to reason then we just won't participate. We walk away and do our own thing. As a result, we are lambasted, and chastised, and insulted, and accused of every heinous natural disaster for years to come.
|
So world is after US? Thats based on...?
And destruction of enviroment hurts ALL countries, building an experiment hurts NONE.
Quote:
|
That nations abide by a common set of international rules. That resolutions and judgements passed down by the UN be followed and respected. But the world says, "No. We are not interested in that."So we decide that if the world won't do what the UN is supposed to do, then we'll just do it ourselves.
|
rofl
So no resolution was passed to attack Iraq, majority of the world followed UN law and didnt attack Iraq, you disreagarded UN law and now your bitching at the world for following laws which you helped to set up?
Also note that you wanted world to attack Iraq based on LIES. No one cares about your lies? Too bad.
Quote:
|
France, together with the EU, joins with 5 other nations (the US included) in order to create a new source of energy. A group of nations joined together to work together to accomplish a goal; as in the previous two examples. The EU asks the other nations to spend the money in France. When they refuse, the EU, working as a single unit, threatens to dissolve the partnership and go it alone.
|
EU and some other country(ies)... dunno which since linke to that article is outdated.
There are only 2 choices. EU/... wants it in France, Japan/... wants it in Japan. No progress has been made in 2 years of talking so your suggesting it should stay as it is? Your mad since one side decided to do experiment alone because alternative is NO experiment at all. Oh wait... they can always do what US wants...
Quote:
|
So, if you tell me that, had the US tried to do what the EU is trying to do with this; if the US had said, "Build it in America or we'll find others who will agree with us"
|
Id say go for it. Actually you already have a chance. EU and its partners will go alone, US and its partners can go alone as well.
Quote:
|
if you tell me that there wouldn't have been an uproar in Europe then I'll believe you and I'll drop the subject. If you can tell me, honestly, that you think Europe would've been wrong to condemn the US for wanting to undertake the project without them then I am wrong and you are right
|
I dont know if that would happen. If it would id be first to cuss at whiners... No country has any right to dictate if others should do certain experiments unless those countries signed a treaty they wont...
Quote:
|
I would like to see either more anger directed at the EU for threatening "do it our way, or else" or a little less anger directed at the US when we do the same.
|
IIRC that article said something about if this is not resolved in near future than they will go for it alone. Nothing about "do it my way, or else". Dont see whats wrong with trying to push things foward.
