So somehow, on the Iraq bill, around 20 republicans exchanged votes with 7 democrats?? I don't understand what you're saying.

Tuss

Some good news, for a change:

http://www.itv.com/news/Related378925.html

It seems Joerg Haider's far-right Freedom Party suffered a major defeat in the Austrian elections this weekend. Hopefully this means that his score in the national election a couple of years ago was indeed mostly the due to protest votes and not the fact that people actually agree with his racist proposals.

Well, I would not be so sure. I see very little difference between his proposals and, let's say, the new anti-immigration referendum in Switzerland. In this referendum, 49.9% of people voted in favor of the stricter policies, which to me indicates there's quite a lot of people who agree with the kind of proposals Haider is known for, not only in Austria...

Tuss: Sorry I forgot about you. Don't know exactly about the rules in the US, but in Britain, where the whip rules originate, a member of parliament who wants to vote against his party line must either find one from the opposing party to vote against his party line or two of them who will not be present at all.

Have to agree with NetDanzr there. The clearly right-winged parties might be at the decline again (same thing which happened to Haider now is also happening to Hamburg's infamous Ronald Schill), but only because the 'established' parties took over some of the ideals which made the 'new' parties successful, thus making them obsolete. The general direction the world is drifting into at the moment is certainly right....

You both have a point there, but I'd like to say this (though I know it won't sound too logical): I'd rather see an "established" party temporarily lean to the right because, from a populist point of view, they think that in that particular point in time that will get them more votes, than see a bona-fide, right-wing extremist party rise in power. Why? Because the large, established, "government" parties always show some elasticity: they will swing left and right according to what they feel are the voters' wishes, but ultimately they tend to take a centrist approach to government. I'm not saying that this isn't a dangerous and worrying trend; but I'm saying I'd be a lot more worried if a saw one of those extremist parties gain a position of power and then grow from there, because it would be very difficult to get them out again.

Ultimately it comes down to economics. If the European economy starts showing signs of recovery and growth in 2003, we'll probably see a continuing decline in the popularity of those extremist parties. If not, there might be some dark times ahead...

Just reviving this thread since the weapons report got the ball rolling on a war on Iraq. It's reached a point where I don't think it will war will not happen. It looks like we'll declare war sometimes in Feb.? I might be wrong on that though.

siggggggh...

Tuss

Can someone tell me: What would be their legitimation if the US attacked Iraq now? I know it's mainly for economical reasons, but they'd never admit that. I always hear "A war becomes more inescapable every day", but why? What's the pretended reason that makes them kill people in this specific country and not in another?

Edited by Tapuak at 10:46 on December, 21st 2002

Tapuak: Because evil Saddam is the new Hitler, he's oppressing his own people who want nothing more than to be rid off him, he commits genocide on his people, he supports terrorists, he owns weapons of mass destruction and is planning to use them against Isreal. If anyone now thinks what I just said is my own opinion, think again

Tuss: what exactly did the report say? I must admit I didn't follow the development that closely...

As far as I've been able to follow the news and all, the US claims that Saddam didn't list all his facilities and weaponry in the report. Bagdad has challenged them to find proof for these claims...

But like I said, I have no idea how accurate this info is so my personal theory which I base on absolutly nothing is this one: after the first gulf war in the early '90s, the us never left Iraq but made it into another state of America like Michigan or North Dakota. They have kept Saddam in power and has let him "rule" without fear of retribution as a front so Bush Sr. can siphon all the oil under Iraq to his own oil fields in texas through an underground pipeline.

Of course, this means that Clinton was no more then a puppet for the bush-clan as is bush jr. this has all been going very well for the last decade untill Bill got greedy and thought he could keep the oil for himself so bush Sr. asked a companion to implicate clinton in a schandal (hence the lowinsky-thingy)... Of course, asking a companion for help doesn't come cheap and Bush Sr. had to give the brain of his son to the companions (which does explain certain things)...

In order not to draw any attention to themselves, they put a small device inside bushs (sp?) head called a cerebral imitator so that he could become president whitout dropping dead by lack of brain... Unfortunatly, two labels got mixed up and he got the cerebral imitator meant for a pigeon-experiment...

So actually, without us knowing, everything is alright in Iraq, there is no war whatsoever and I haven't slept enough this night apparently... anyway, just my less lucid 2 cents

Edited by Pada1 at 14:08 on December, 21st 2002

Er.... yeah....... right

What? What's a matter? Have they gotten to you too?

Just a small example of what my imagination is capable of whilst suffering from nicotine-defficiency (sp?)

Edited by Pada1 at 14:17 on December, 21st 2002

Maybe I'm their head?

Aha! You just proved you can't be because they don't have heads...

Maybe. But maybe you've just fallen for my plan to confuse everyone so much that you won't be taken seriously anymore

Doesn't matter, 'cause I know you are the canundrum and I have the sacred Ir'cha in my possesion... You know what that means

As if anyone ever did...

Yes, I know what that means: that my strategy to ridicule you worked even better than I hoped for I have to give you credit for your theory though: it is on the same level of 'believability' as the US-claims

Mr Creosote: Firstly, all the "reasons" you quoted are plain presumptions and imputations; no one has been able to show a single proof so far. Moreover, even if it was true that Iraq has "wepons of mass destruction", what would it mean? Any country owns these weapons. Why does the US not attack Togo? Why does the so called self determination of independent countries apply to Togo, and not Iraq? Why does Togo not attack the US for owning weapons?

Sorry, what primitive people actually decide about that???

Tapuak: Couldn't agree more, but I was merely answering the question what reasons the USA gives. You asked for the "pretended reason" and I quoted them - didn't claim they make sense

The reasoning they used, was that Iraq did not report on all their weapons on an offical document. This, they say, is very bad. Colin Powell called it a Material Breach, which is a legal term here that makes war a certainy pretty much, but it doesn't have to be immediate. They already have plans to collation build...

basically it doesn't look very good at all for us who don't understand what their problem is.

Tuss

P.S.: I've met a few war supporters... mostly house wives in their 30s that don't understand, and they completely infuriate me when I try to reason with them