Boycotting USA?

quote:

---

Original post by dcgeek
60 % of the danish people are ready to boycott all american products if the United States go to war without UN''s permission. I love United States of America, so how do I persuade the danish people, that it''s not good to boycott american products? It wouldn''t be nice to live in an anti-american country

---

Anti-americanism is not caused by the people of Denmark. If the US is doing something that the people of Denmark disagree with, then they are allowed to feel however they want to.

Im not sure how much the US exports to denmark. But I guess that most of the boycott would deal with cinema...or cars.

Honestly, this anti-usa stuff needs to stop. If we didn''t do something in the middle east, we''d get shit for it. If we do, we get shit for it. We''re damned either way. It''s the same as WWII.

Join the World Wide Revolution:

quote:

---

60 % of the danish people are ready to boycott all american products if the United States go to war without UN''s permission.

---

That''s a good idea... Actually, I think I might do so myself (thus making me the GDNet impopular of the year)...

---

Your opinion is wrong, have a nice day!

quote:

---

Original post by neurokaotix
Honestly, this anti-usa stuff needs to stop. If we didn''t do something in the middle east, we''d get shit for it. If we do , we get shit for it. We''re damned either way. It''s the same as WWII.

Join the World Wide Revolution:

---

If the US would let inspections finish the duration of their natural lifetime, then perhaps there would not be so much anti-us sentiment around the world? Besides, people are anti-US for a reason, figure out the reason and fix it, if you''re really worried about anti-US sentiment.

quote:

---

That''s a good idea... Actually, I think I might do so myself (thus making me the GDNet impopular of the year)...

---

I take it you won''t be coming here then?

Seriously, though, you can boycott all you want, but I honestly don''t think that''s going to do anything, and I think it''s really stupid. Not quite as stupid as the people over here who boycotted "French" things, but that''s another story...

I''m not debating if the USA is right or wrong. I personally would want the USA to wait for a UN decision. That said,

But what is considered enough time Firahs? The inspectors worked for 7 years, then Saddam expelled them... The USA said they were going to kick the crap out of Iraq, so Saddam let inspectors back in... How much time is necessary from this time on? Dubya gave them 3-4 months, and found missles that exceeded UN resolution limits, and no trace of where their Anthrax from previous years was. No word out of Saddam on their where abouts.

How much time is necessary? Do you think in a country the size of California the inspector team of x number of people would be able to dig up/track down and find something? They practically have to turn each stone. Thats why they wanted to get support from Iraq on these matters. All Iraq had to say was "The Anthrax was destroyed/burried here!" and point them in a direction. Iraq did not. That leads people to the conclusion that they are not cooperating either because they want to be a pain in the butt or they are hiding their anthrax... Bush ain''t beating around the bush.

quote:

---

But what is considered enough time Firahs? The inspectors worked for 7 years, then Saddam expelled them...

---

Actually, they were ordered out by the US government (Clinton-era) ahead of cruise missile strikes. I''m always skeptical of people who say that they were thrown out. The rest of the information you have on Iraq is probably also deficient.

The weapons inspectors seem to think that inspections are working, and that there is cooperation from the Iraqi regime. Whether or not the US government believes this is irrelevent. Of course there was going to be skepticism and duping on Iraq''s part, they sensed that this was never about WMD''s but more about regime change.

To answer your question, enough time is when the inspectors feel that they have done all they can do. It is for the security council to decide, and, technically, the security council still thinks more time is necessary. There was never a deadline in Resolution 1441, the US is pushing for war now because of the cooler climate, and they hope to get this whole thing wrapped up before people start campaigning for the 2004 presidential election. It seems as if the US was always more concerned with regime change than with alleged WMDs.

Just think, 10 years from now people will be saying that this war started when Saddam threw the inspectors out... again...

sigh.

Just think, 10 years from now people will be saying that the US freed Iraq.

-----------
Érdely!

Just think, 30 years from now we''ll be telling our kids how all this went and they''ll say:

"So, Bush said that they''d go to war if they found out Saddam had ABC-weapons?"
"Yes."
"And then they didn''t find anything, but went to war anyway?"
"Yes."
"And everyone was okay with that?"
"Er..."

quote:

---

Original post by firahs
Actually, they were ordered out by the US government (Clinton-era) ahead of cruise missile strikes. I''m always skeptical of people who say that they were thrown out. The rest of the information you have on Iraq is probably also deficient.

---

And the reason the missile strikes were ordered? Because Iraq was keeping the inspectors from doing their job.

quote:

---

The weapons inspectors seem to think that inspections are working, and that there is cooperation from the Iraqi regime. Whether or not the US government believes this is irrelevent. Of course there was going to be skepticism and duping on Iraq''s part, they sensed that this was never about WMD''s but more about regime change.

---

What is the job of the inspectors? To assist in disarmament. It is Iraq''s responsibility to bring forth any and all information it has on its WMD''s. Why is it that every week Iraq comes up with something new that it "found", but what it "finds" is never what the inspectors actually want? It''s been over 4 months now, and Iraq still has not accounted for the basic demands.

quote:

---

To answer your question, enough time is when the inspectors feel that they have done all they can do. It is for the security council to decide, and, technically, the security council still thinks more time is necessary. There was never a deadline in Resolution 1441, the US is pushing for war now because of the cooler climate, and they hope to get this whole thing wrapped up before people start campaigning for the 2004 presidential election. It seems as if the US was always more concerned with regime change than with alleged WMDs.

---

UN 687 provides legal grounds (it''s still in effect), if UN 1441 isn''t enough. And you''re right, the US is more interested in regime change than WMD''s, because Saddam has not complied with the original UN resolution demands following the Gulf War. If it takes 12 years for a country''s leadership to comply with international orders, then something is wrong, and something needs to change.

quote:

---

And the reason the missile strikes were ordered? Because Iraq was keeping the inspectors from doing their job.[quote]

Or to cover up a scandal, which seems much more likely. The timing was extremely fortunate for Mr. Clinton.

About Iraq not following UN resolutions. Israel is breaking at least 64 of them, why not bomb israel? Certainly, they''re as guilty as sadaam in human rights violations.

The ispection team, and most of the security council are happy with the results of inspections so far. As long as this is the case, how can you justify a war? If its been twelve years, why not just way 10 more months, like the inspectors want? What is so important that they must go now?

Its political.

---

quote:

---

Original post by firahs

If the US would let inspections finish the duration of their natural lifetime, then perhaps there would not be so much anti-us sentiment around the world?

---

Natural lifetime of any typical human?

natural lifetime of the inspection process.

quote:

---

Original post by firahs
Or to cover up a scandal, which seems much more likely. The timing was extremely fortunate for Mr. Clinton.

About Iraq not following UN resolutions. Israel is breaking at least 64 of them, why not bomb israel? Certainly, they're as guilty as sadaam in human rights violations.

The ispection team, and most of the security council are happy with the results of inspections so far. As long as this is the case, how can you justify a war? If its been twelve years, why not just way 10 more months, like the inspectors want? What is so important that they must go now?

Its political.

---

Is it? http://www.uvm.edu/~fgause/gulf.htm

A little basic, but it's a good overview of the history of the Iraq-US-UN stuff.

Of particular interest:

1998

January-February 1998: Iraq prevents inspections of "presidential sites" by UNSCOM. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan negotiates an agreement with Saddam Hussein allowing inspections, as U.S. threatens military strikes.
March 1998: Expansion of the U.N. "oil for food" program in Iraq.
August 1998: Iraq announces end of cooperation with UNSCOM on inspections.
October-November 1998: Iraq closes down UNSCOM monitoring facilities; U.S. orders airstrike but pulls planes back at last minute as Iraq agrees to return of UNSCOM
December 1998: U.S. air strikes on Iraq after UNSCOM head Richard Butler reports on Iraqi non-cooperation. UNSCOM personnel withdrawn from Iraq.

from the US government''s perspective. Iraq invaded Kuwait because they were slant-drilling into Iraq''s reserves.

quote:

---

Original post by dcgeek
60 % of the danish people are ready to boycott all american products if the United States go to war without UN''s permission.

---

HAHA. No way. Danish people might talk tough when polled, but they won''t last more than 2 weeks.

60%. Where did you get that number ?

By the way, WE ARE JOINING THE WAR !!!! WOHUU!
(Of course our lame ship and lame uboat won''t make any difference, but it''s of symbolic importance).

That means that those 60% should boycott our OWN products !!!




-------------
Resist UN !

quote:

---

Original post by firahs
from the US government''s perspective. Iraq invaded Kuwait because they were slant-drilling into Iraq''s reserves.

---

Iraq invaded Kuwait because of their economic crisis, and they did it on the basis of historical land rights. This has been stated in television interviews by Iraq''s Tariq Aziz.

Granat - I got the results at DR''s TextTV.