Where were they when Turkey,a member of NATO and which is promoted by west as democracy,destroyed more than 4000 (four thousand) kurdish villages causing 2.000.000(two million)internal immigration,killed more than 200.000 people by paramiliters,destructed economy in kurdish areas,since foundation of it,1923,kurds have no cultural right ,Kurdish is banned even at homes not talk about media,u cant give your children a kurdish name and so on.There is 25 million kurds only in Turkey ,population of turkey is 70 million,total population of kurds are 40.million,a nation on his land with no right,in front of the eyes of peacelovers
And in iraq 200.000 kurds dissappeared in anfal company and literally 5.000 villages in this part of kurdland(kurdistan) were destroyed .not to mention other few hundreds of thousands kurds killed here and there by iraqi arab paramiliters.
and in iran,where include sanother big part of kurdland,score of ethnic cleansing is so much different.I again ask where were there when these were taking place.
i wonder why we can here and see them now ,becoming so much in love with cruel,racist,dictator ,whose hands are red with the blood of kurds.
of course saddam should be extiminated. but how?These confused ones by manipulation of anti-american block only for the blocks greedy interests.They will be confused again to forget iraq and human rights=kurds right when saddam is displaced for another one
You dont think so,you wont wait a long time to see the reality
...They said to me the earth is rond,you went then why you didnt come back?...To my loved one

Kendal
To stand against war is not to stand with Saddam Hussein. I am against war and against Saddam. I just think that a war would cause more harm to Iraqi people, including kurds, than it would solve problems.
War should be the last option. I see more hope in international pressure and weapons controls.

I think everybody would agree that war is the last option - but the French & the Germans play directly into Saddams hands by creating a rift in the message. Make no doubt that he will exploit all that the french have created. The French position is more likely to create a war than not.

The US are not going to be swayed by the French position - so in the end the French are in a lose-lose position on this one.

It's interesting that Schroder back in 1991 was a regional leader in Germany & was very vocally against the gulf war with Iraq saying it would lead to disaster and a 3rd world war.

Saddam is an outlaw. If he existed within our society would we tolerate it? or would the law be very clear & strong - it certainly would not be divided & weak willed. Yet when it comes to international law many countries are scared to act.

The NATO veto is a total disgrace. This was only to allow defensive measures to be put in place. Germany has benefited for 40 years from NATO. In fact most of Europe has benefited from NATO - Europe has no will to create a coherent defense policy & has a close to pathetic military capability. Lets face it - All of Europe would be speaking german right now if it wasn't for the US.

Lets hope war can be averted, but it doesn't look like it will be - you can thank Iraq 1st for that & the French 2nd

Originally posted by DrewM


1- I think everybody would agree that war is the last option - but the French & the Germans play directly into Saddams hands by creating a rift in the message. Make no doubt that he will exploit all that the french have created. The French position is more likely to create a war than not.

(…)

2- Yet when it comes to international law many countries are scared to act (…)

3- The NATO veto is a total disgrace. This was only to allow defensive measures to be put in place. (…)

4- Europe has no will to create a coherent defense policy & has a close to pathetic military capability. Lets face it - All of Europe would be speaking german right now if it wasn't for the US.



1- This is a real issue. The question is : is the US govt only willing to disarm Iraq or does it mostly plan to control Iraq and throw Saddam away ?
If weapons control is the main purpose, I think war can be avoided since the inspectors can play their role. But if Bush really want to overthrow Saddam, nothing but war can do it. In this case, you may be right, I must admit.

2- I do not think this is a matter of "being scared" or "having guts". It is a matter of geopolitical intestests, moral principles and foreign policy. Also of economic interests, of course.

3- The message from the 3 countries that opposed to military measures for NATO in Turkey was : nothing yet makes these measures necessary. If taken, they would show that Nato is already engaging into war. But if a threat to Turkey was clear, this country would have our full support.

4- You're right on both points. And I feel sorry that Europe is divided on this question (at least, European govts, for public opinions have proven to be quite unanymous against war).

The germans must have a strange national psyche. Twice they tried to dominate via aggressive military action & unspeakable crimes against humanity - and they failed miserably.

Now they are pacifists - and they are going to fail even in that.

2- I do not think this is a matter of "being scared" or "having guts". It is a matter of geopolitical intestests, moral principles and foreign policy. Also of economic interests, of course.

Yes - you are right, but I do think to a large degree it is a fear of the uncertainty ahead after such an action. The US is far away & Iraq is on Europe's doorstep. Where the US has failed so far is to create credibility in a real post-war scenario. Afganistan is not a good example of the US staying the course - the Bush camp has basically walked away from that.

The majority of the countries look at it is a potential payday in handouts from the US for compliance. Turkey is pushing for billions in aid to allow US troops to use Turkey as a staging ground (all the while the generals in Turkey who really run the country have already cut all the necessary deals with the Pentagon)

For the french - a once great colonial power, they see themselves as the counterbalance to the US. This is rooted in the french elitist culture (not so much the guy on the street). It's plain dumb on their part to make this issue the US vs France - They can only lose that match-up & lose face big.

I read about a bumper sticker floating about right now - kind of amusing

Iraq 1st, France 2nd

Well, again, this is not "France against America". This is "What is the best way of dealing with Iraq - inspections od war ?".
Most people here, including "the man from the street", think that Bush and his team are on the verge of committing a very big mistake. That doesn't mean that they are hotile to the USA and the american people.
I have seen no sticker against america in France. And during the big demonstartions saturday, there were many messages saying "we are against Bush but not against american people". There were also many american people living in France in these demonstrations, and they were welcomed by the crowd.

It really bugs me that this issue is being depicted as a "conflict" between France (and Germany) and the USA. Our countries share many interests and values, and have many bonds. Still, we have the right to disagree on some matters. We should not forget that democracy is based on the variety of opinions.

I agree with you. The American people have never really liked the French much anyway - so it doesn't take much. They are seen as being unreliable, but there will always be many bonds.

Its not that this is a US vs France issue - its just that the French (& germans) have made the issue more focused on that rather than Iraq.

Focused on what ?

the issue is now much more focused on France vs US etc than the world vs Iraq. It is not the case, but a casual observer could think France was on Iraq's side.

Chirac showed his true colors yesterday with his message to the new EU entrants "Keep your mouth shut & tow the line - or you risk your EU entry" - That was a disgrace. Truth be known - France is worried they will become marginalized with more members. France has a huge amount to offer, but they must understand that they are not an incredibly relevant player.

Originally posted by DrewM
the issue is now much more focused on France vs US etc than the world vs Iraq.


(About Chirac's statement, as I already said on another thread, I agree that his comment was stupid and insulting.)

About the "issue focus"
From the "pro war" point of view, the most important issue should of course be Iraq, since they consider Iraq is a major threat, dangerous enough to start a war.
But I do not suscribe to this analysis. I think Iraq is a minor threat to the world peace, and that, for example, North Korea or Pakistan are much more dangerous.
I think the big issue now is American foreign policy. Will the USA start a war that could deepen the gap between third and first worlds and strengthen the anti-western positions, thus increasing the terrorist danger instead of reducing it ?
The present american policy seems a much bigger threat to world stability than Iraq. I hope the american will make their govt change its plans before it is too late.