EU as joke (modified)

You were told not to do it.You did it anyways. Quit whining and pay the
bill.

The US whining? This must be European hipocrit day on RAM.

Subject of this thred : EU as joke. So this is just objective critisism, I
stand corrected ...


If you want to play humane world helper, why don't you start from Africa?


This from a European? Pot-kettle.

So what was the reason behind invasion of Iraq?
Was it :
a) weapons of mass destruction
b) getting troops from Saudi-Arabia to Iraq to please wahhabis in SA
c) help people in need
d) increase influence of USA in middle-east
e) election campaign
f) fight against international terrorism
g) big bad Saddam being mean to my daddy
h) lack of GWB's experience in foreign policy leading him into just doing
what he's told by his advisors
i) evil masterplan by really really really secret organization
j) some that I missed

Quite simply I believe it was combination of points a) to h) with some j)'s
added to it.
And why is that? The amount of money spent would could have been more
usufully spent in any single one of these points.

begin emulation of USA regarding crisis in Iraq

So we have concluded that regime change in Iraq wouldn't be that bad. Now we
just have to sell it to the people. People in USA are still suffering from
the shock of WTC, so we decide to use that fear as a leverage : we mention
WMD and terrorism.
Now we are ready to wage war against evil empire of Saddam! But dang, those
boring bureaucrats of UN and (most off the) rest of the world aren't so
enthusiastic, but it would be kinda nice to have them on board. So we try
again WMD, terrorism. (and forget the thing about target groups, buzzword
humanitarian crisis would have done better in Europe). It still doesn't
quite work and there are questions about the proof of these claims. Well we
don't need them anyways so we show them the finger and tell them how we can
do this alone if we have to.
We attack Iraq and sweep it's army (and Saddams control mechanisms) aside.
Now different groups all try to grab power in Iraq as much as they can. When
you combine this with Iraq and foreign Darwin awards winners blowing
themselves up here and there, remnants of Saddam loyalists doing their
stuff, general suspicion of USA by the population and Iran admiring shia
clerics you notice that managing this might me difficult (and expensive).
So now you use buzzword : "humanitarian crisis" for Europe but many
countries there are still sulking. Outside (and inside) Europe countries are
weary because they were just walked over in UN and now wonder if it really
is good idea to support someone that really doesn't care what they think. So
now we have to pay the bill in $$'s and risk Iraq being really turned into
chaotic state where terrorist organizations are going to have a field day.
d'oh

end

PS
The point i) is available for those who have a thing for conspiracy theories
(NWO, UFO, CIA etc).
PPS
The abundance of TLA's is purely coincidental and doesn't in any way imply
that i'm mr. Kurt Plummer.

So what was the reason behind invasion of Iraq?
Was it :

snip

Quite simply I believe it was combination of points a) to h) with some j)'s
added to it.

I disagree, probably a through f. Which in and of itself is reason enough. If
Saddam had no ties to international terrorism, can someone explain why Abu
Abbas was there? And why was Abu Nidal killed in a Baghdad hotel? This is where
Germany, Belgiam, Russia and France differ with the US. We believed he was
hiding chemical and/or biological weapons (so did the UN) and we believed his
ties to terrorism were enough to make him an immediate threat. A large chunck
of western Europe disagreed, fine. France threatened to veto a UN resolution
authorizing force, fine. But don't expect the US to have its foreign policy
dictated by the UN. No one in the UN, particularly France would put up with
that so why the huge outcry when the US, feeling its national security is
threatened, bypasses the UN? Its hipocritical, on one hand many western
Europeans gripe about being "targeted" by anger from the US simply because they
didn't agree with the US on Iraq and on the other hand, can't accept the US
disagreeing with them and acting in Iraq.

So we have concluded that regime change in Iraq wouldn't be that bad. Now we
just have to sell it to the people. People in USA are still suffering from
the shock of WTC, so we decide to use that fear as a leverage : we mention
WMD and terrorism.

Which, true or not, was what we perceived to be the facts. Good article in the
Washington Post today (and they don't write many!) on why, if there really are
no chem or bio weapons found in Iraq, Hussain led the US, the UN and the rest
of the world into believing he *may* have them. Also of note in the article is
the assistance and guidance provided by France and Russia to Hussain up till
the final hours before OIF began.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 03 Nov 2003 17:54:23 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

Good article in the Washington Post today (and they don't write many!) on
why, if there really are no chem or bio weapons found in Iraq, Hussain
led the US, the UN and the rest of the world into believing he *may*
have them. Also of note in the article is the assistance and guidance
provided by France and Russia to Hussain up till the final hours before
OIF began.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55022-2003Nov2?language=printer

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com