http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/05/international/europe/05SCHR.html If you do not subscribe to the NYtimes online here are a few excerpts. HANOVER, Germany, Sept. 1 — Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, believes that the Bush administration is making a terrible mistake in planning a war against Iraq, and he is not afraid to say so. A new war in the Middle East, he says bluntly, would put at risk all that has been gained so far in the unfinished battle against Al Qaeda. The arguments against a war with Iraq are so strong, he said, that he would oppose one even if the Security Council approved. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Consultation is important, he said, "but consultation cannot mean that I get a phone call two hours in advance only to be told, `We're going in.' " "Consultation among grown-up nations has to mean not just consultation about the how and the when, but also about the whether," he said. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Recalling Sept. 11, he praised President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell for their skill in quickly rallying an international coalition against terror. With the terrorist strikes, he said, the world understood it was facing "a privatized form of war, waged by terrorist organizations," that must be fought "using appropriate means, including military means." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Senior officials in Washington are angry at his presumption that the American debate over Iraq is finished and his failure to give his closest ally the benefit of the doubt. They believe he is damaging the alliance for electoral advantage and is running against America. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. Schröder threw up his hands. "How can you exert pressure on someone by saying to them, `Even if you accede to our demands, we will destroy you'?" he asked. "I think that was a change of strategy in the United States — whatever the explanation may be — a change that made things difficult for others, including ourselves." Referring to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Schröder said: "The problem is that he has or seems to have committed himself so strongly that it is hard to imagine how he can climb down. And that is the real problem, that not only I have, but that all of us in Europe have." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The war against Osama bin Laden is not finished, he said. "My concern," he said, "is that we have not even begun to achieve in Afghanistan anything that could be called nation-building." You will have to take one minute and register to read the actual article and then the transcript of the interview.
We got elections on Sep 22 and Schröder is against a war as the voters of his party don't like it. Schröder himself is someone without political conviction, he's just caring to stay in office. After the elections I wouldn't wonder to see him change his position regarding this matter. With the opposition a war with German support would be easier to realise though until the elections they'll also claim to be against it. Chancellor candidate Stoiber said that he can't exclude a war and warned Schröder to do so as this would take away the pressure for Hussein. Stoiber is demanding a UN decision and refuses to invade Iraq just for the matter of getting rid off Hussein.
you should've learned before you entered grade school, that not giving a fack about what others think is not the best way to learn, and make decisions.
Listening to others is one thing, not doing what you know is right because it's unpopular is another. We especially shouldn't listen to anti-war ravings from someone who has been on the fence until recently, and whose coalition government needs to bring in more ultra-left votes in order to stay in power. Just a bit of a conflict of interests there. "The continent" can go screw itself, we know who our true allies are (Britain, Australia, Canada, maybe 1 or 2 others). Alex
The Arab league is calling for unlimited access to suspected weapons sights in Iraq. Warns that attack would open up the "gates of hell" in the region. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...86&u=/nm/20020905/wl_nm/mideast_arabs_iraq_dc It very well may be that we are waving our sabre in order to force the hand of Iraq and all concerned to get access and make changes...I certainly hope this is what we are doing.
So Saddam can simply move his weapons facilities around (he'll certainly have plenty of warning before inspectors come)? Might delay the problem by a few months, but it won't solve it. There's only one solution, and that is democracy in Iraq. If that comes without war, great, but I don't think it's going to. The great irony in all of this is that, if we don't go to war and 5 years down the road a nuclear weapon explodes in Manhattan and is traced back to Saddam, the same people who are screeching the loudest against war now will be the same ones screeching that Bush should have "done something about it" when he had the chance. We already made the mistake once of waiting to act until it was too late. Everyone makes mistakes, but only true fools do not learn from their mistakes. Not taking whatever steps are appropriate to ensure (with as close to 100% accuracy as possible) that Iraq is incapable of attacking us would be foolish. Alex
While hind sight is always 20/220, and I agree that we walk a fine line between anticipating what might happen and risking being a world agresssor. I think we just need to walk with a bit of caution in this matter. The stability of the region and the backlash that an attack could create might prove worse than anyting we are trying to prevent. Do we and the western govt's agree that we need democracy in Iraq...YES How do we go about that? I happen to think that going about it by invasion is completely hypocritical.