From the BBC __________________________ Belgium to block US Nato request Belgium says it will block an American request for Nato to start preparing a deployment of forces designed to protect Turkey in the event of a US-led war with Iraq. Members states have until Monday to state formal objections to the US appeal. France has also indicated it will oppose the request and wield its veto, despite pressure from the US The rift between Washington and what US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld termed "old Europe" threatens to do lasting damage to NATO solidarity, according to the BBC's Stephen Sackur in Brussels. 'Inexcusable' "We are going to block it between now and Monday - it is settled," Belgium's Foreign Minister Louis Michel said. "When one has to take a slap in the face such as the insulting remarks... by Mr Rumsfeld, who comes to teach a thing or two to 'old Europe', the Europe of democratic values, humanist Europe, the Europe of the Age of Enlightenment, personally I find that this hurts." Officials in Paris have repeatedly warned that a Nato deployment at this time would send the wrong signal - namely that war was inevitable. But Turkey is nervous about possible Iraqi counterattacks on its southern flank. Nato's article IV says: "Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence of security of any of the parties is threatened." The stage is set for a furious behind-the-scenes row at Nato headquarters, our correspondent says. On Sunday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he found the moves to block his government's request "inexcusable". "I hope they will think differently by the time that they have to make a judgment tomorrow."
...and the Pope. I can't believe we're trying to spin the Pope! ____________________ Pope takes issue with America's 'just war' From Richard Owen in Rome, London Times THE POPE launched an eleventh-hour crusade yesterday to avert a war against Iraq, for which he believes there is no justification. The ageing pontiff rebuffed attempts by the Bush Administration to persuade him that impending military action against Baghdad amounted to a Christian “just war”. Today he will dispatch a personal peace envoy to Baghdad to urge President Saddam Hussein to co-operate fully with United Nations weapons inspectors. At the end of the week he will meet Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister and an Arab Christian, in Rome, and will also meet Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General. Diplomats said that Mr Aziz might remain in Rome to meet Mr Annan under the auspices of the Vatican. Looking and sounding like a man rejuvenated by the urgent need to avert the imminent conflict, the Pope, 82, also gave his backing to the new Franco-German plan to resolve the Iraq crisis through beefed-up weapons inspections and the deployment of UN troops. The plan was disclosed to the Pope on Friday by Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister. Diplomats said that the Pope had been “the first world figure to be told of the plan”. Yesterday the Pope made a dramatic and impassioned appeal for world prayers, declaring that only God could stop the conflict now. “At this hour of international worry we all feel the need to look to God and beg him to grant us the great gift of peace,” he told pilgrims and visitors in St Peter’s Square. Only “an act from on high” could offer hope of altering what appeared to be a bleak future. The Pope is sending Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, his diplomatic troubleshooter, to Baghdad. Cardinal Etchegaray, a French Basque, has undertaken sensitive diplomatic missions for the Pope in the past. Last year he helped to negotiate an end to the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where Palestinian gunmen had taken refuge. At the weekend the Pope said that efforts to stave off war must be multiplied. “One cannot do nothing in the face of terrorist attacks, but equally one cannot be idle in the face of the threats now on the horizon,” he said. “War is not inevitable.” The case for a “just war” was made at the weekend by Michael Novak, a conservative Roman Catholic theologian and a close ally of President Bush, in talks with senior Vatican officials, including Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Pope’s Foreign Secretary. Under the principles of “just war”, as formulated by St Augustine of Hippo and later by St Thomas Aquinas, war can be waged only as a last resort and by a “legitimate authority”. It must be fought with “right intentions”, for example in self-defence or to redress a wrong, and with a reasonable chance of success to avoid excessive death and injury. The theory of just war also holds that civilian casualties must be avoided, that the means used must be proportionate and that the ultimate goal should be to establish a peace “preferable to what would have prevailed if the war had not been fought”. Mr Novak, who today will address a conference in Rome on just war organised by James Nicholson, the US Ambassador to the Holy See, insisted that war against Iraq amounted to self-defence. He told Archbishop Tauran that Saddam was using Iraqi scientists “to breed huge destruction in the US and Europe”. He said that those who opposed war would have a lot on their consciences if the United States failed to act and Americans were later killed by Saddam’s weapons. The Catholic catechism also justified the use of force provided that it was sanctioned by those responsible for the common good, Mr Novak said. But the Archbishop, speaking for the Pope, said that US arguments were insufficient and that there was no imminent threat from Baghdad that could justify a war. Civiltà Cattolica (Catholic Civilisation), a Jesuit journal that reflects Vatican views, said that “the Islamic masses, which already harbour a deep hatred of the West, will see it as an act of war against Islam”. The journal said that the real US motive was economic and that the concept of “preventive war” was highly dangerous. “If every country which feels threatened attacks first, there will be war without end on the entire planet,” it said.
I think we can see a common thread. The countries that are strongest in going against our war are those that we can't buy. Bulgaria etc. don't have a pot to piss in so we can buy their support cheap. Unfortunately for the US Germany has a standard of living equal to ours and can't be bought. Now the French more or less do, too, but we are threatening to do away with all the oil deals they have with Iraq when we put in our guys there. (I know you true believers probably think that France has no right to do oil deals with Iraq) Belgium also can't be threatened or bribed. I guess smegg's chocolate boycott could be threatened. The Pope thing is just downright silly and it is sort of wierd that they thought they could turn him. I guess maybe it is because of their successful quid pro quo political deals with the US Christian Right. Do you think that maybe they offered the Vatican some faith based initiative money so that they could proselytize for Catholicism while maybe working in aids clinics in Africa?
You mean we've bought the UK? Wow, what would the Founding Fathers think of that! And Spain? And Australia? And Italy? Holy speeps*it! We don't need to take over the world, we can just buy it! And here I was dreaming up some more imperialistic wars... Damn, guess we will have to invade the Vatican...
i dunno when will u americans will learn, properly a world war 3 or most of the world gang up againist america then u may still think u are right about everything!!! beside the money people can make off american half of the world n its population is already anti-american or becoming more anti american!!!
very happy to see there is still american like u who think from different angle n thnk with a consicence , not american first but the world first!
FatCow, I appreciate that you don't like America, or our way of thinking. I am curious to know if you have ever been in a free country where you can say whatever you like, or go wherever you want. America is the best country in the world, we did not get to be the strongest by luck. We got their by letting everyone have a vote or an opinion, and we value EVERYONE'S life, not just our leaders. Heck, some of us don't even like them, and we are free to discuss it. I would be very interested to hear what you think of your leaders. DD
You are not a voice of reason. Whatever good points you could raise are lost in a sea of propoganda. It's a shame, it's normally helpful to hear the views of someone from elsewhere in the world. (If you're curious, you lost my respect when you claimed that the South Koreans would be better off under the North Korean dictatorship than under their democracy)
usa is the strongest country now its not becuz of its system democracy it becuz of many reasons , a hundred or 2 years ago great britain was the strongest country n military , china once was the stronest country in the world n it was monarchy so is it mean monarchy was good or as good or better!? the problem i have with democrcry in a capitalism country in about money which ever party get the most money for advertisement so they get more popular win! or a leader who is back up by many large company so they so much fund they win election instead of a maybe possible better leader with lesser fun! i do believe democracy is a good system if the peoples in my country , china are educated enough n ready for it , for 5000 years my peoples n culture always believed in the emperor so it wont change overnight n it wont help my country if we are not prepare for it yet, or it will turn to be a political game ! my dream of my country , china would be a one country many system, part of the country under socialism n part of it under capitalism n all parts under democratic election, i think this will solve the problem in taiwan , the chinese in mainland get to vote for their leaders in each villiger n towns now n it will only get better.
first, i dunt care about ur respect second dont twist my point, my point was korea would be much better than now if there were only one korea, the korean war was like the civil war in china which the communist side won so i see no problem of the north side winning the war if the usa didnt jump in but of course now the south korean are better living under their current government than the north
Democracy, free enterprise, and the free press are the reasons that America is the strongest country. I know you don't believe that statement fatfatcow, so I will explain. Humans are ruled by greed/self-interest. Socialism would be a a great system if this wasn't true, but sadly it is. Free enterprise works because people are motivated to produce if it benefits them. The country that produces the most will become the strongest, as long as it is not led by completely incompetent leadership. Democracy works because elected leaders can lose their jobs if the people believe them to be incompetent or corrupt. The free press (news media) does their job here by reporting on politicians. Obviously, the American system is not perfect. Many corrupt politicians stay in power, and it seems that the media and the government are controlled by large corporations. However, I have the freedom to say what I want, talk to who I want, work for who I want, or even to make my own business. I will do well or poorly based on my skills. That is what is great about America. Oh, that and the Houston Rockets!
Originally posted by fatfatcow first, i dunt care about ur respect You spend time posting here, so you would apparently prefer having some credibility than not. second dont twist my point, my point was korea would be much better than now if there were only one korea, the korean war was like the civil war in china which the communist side won so i see no problem of the north side winning the war if the usa didnt jump in but of course now the south korean are better living under their current government than the north I did not twist your point. You had flat-out stated that Korea would be better-off if the US (cor. UN) had not intervened. THUS, you're saying it's better for the South Koreans to have been subjugated to the whims of teh N Korean dictators. Explain to me how that's twisting what you said...I'm all ears.
Wait wait wait...you said the South Koreans are better living under their current government - but you see no problem with the North side winning the war? If the North side won, all of Korea would be living under the terrible conditions the North is living under. I think you are the only one with a twisted point.
Greed/self-interest has a somewhat negative connotation, no? Self-interest I'm ok with, but greed? ...An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves... Pardon, but someone who puts themselves through Grad school and the works 18 hour days for years deserves more, don't you agree? Certainly there are many people that are driven by greed, but I don't think it is integral to capitalism. Self-interest may be integral to it's success though, along with freedom (mostly) to chose one's vocation.
the north korean government 50 years ago is different than now jsut like most government of the world so u never know whats the outcome if the communist side untied the korea 50 years ago
in a ideal socialism or communist country ppl are free to do whatever they want , most ppl have misconcept about communism becuz most bought up to hate it include myself but if u study it or read it the pricinple of communism is not a bad thing if it is democratic . communism is mostly about how to run a country economy so no one will be hungry everyone is eqaul oppurtinity to do what they want the diiferent in capitalism country is that all people are eaual except the their capital are started differently so if one with more money can do mor than the poor n majority of the world popluation is poor! Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
