That's mighty interesting, since at least 25 of those countries have come out in support of the war. I smell the French at work here...

What is the "Council of Europe"? Never heard of it.

What the hell is the "Council of Europe"???

From the Council of Europe website:

The Council of Europe covers all major issues facing European society other than defence.

Say no more...

Irrelevance...

I truly hope Iraq is pissed at these appeasers and shows it once they are free.

Is this an NGO, or what?

I can't figure it out from their site.

Well, it seems as if the US will obey their command - just not in the way the French thought they would... muahahah!

/ GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

Apparently a regime that tosses people into shredders head first, tortures and murders its own citizens and extorts violence through death threats is "oakie doakie" with most EU countries. But then, they don't have the guts to stand by their condemnation so who cares what they think?

The resolution further stated that the 45 countries are refusing to accept any foreign aid from any of the combatants from this point forward. To do so would be hypocritical.

Screw 'em

"45-nation council slams war
From correspondents in Strasbourg" (france)

More anti war BS

What is wrong with these people???

As a member of the European union and the European community I feel ashamed.

No foreign aid acceptance? Next year's headline will read:

"45-nation Council of Europe declares bankruptcy"

"The Council's parliamentary assembly, which brings together members of parliament from all member countries"

Minority members of palement, eg; elephant party, etc.
Not real ruling party people. Just the usual nut cases.

According to the Council of Europe website, the resolution passed with 81 votes in favour, 28 against and 5 abstentions.

Looking at the list of members it isn't possible to reconcile the public positions of individual members with the vote tally.

Hard to put any credence in an organisation that seems to fly so far below the radar.

Some folks don't care long as it doesn't cost them anything....

You know its funny, when people act on their principles, "we won't take your money," you ridicule them. The duplicity and hypocrisy is thick in here.

Steve,

Well, human rights abuses in Iraq were only something that the pro-war group pointed out when it became convenient to them. Their position on this matter is hypocritical at best. Furthermore, give up on the "opposition to the war = they love saddam" meme. Its at base illogical and untrue.

I see no action other than talk. Nobody of relevance (i.e., actually in power) is going to turn down aid - and they damn well know it -- there's the duplicity.

Sure gary, If heard that before, like people who don't want to pay taxes, but want to drive on our roads and have flush toilets, running water, libraries and schools.
But you won't take aid, but cry when your hungry,
on and on I can go...

Tarmo, I feel the same. But I also feel incredible pride on my president for standing up for what he believes in and entering the coalition, knowing perfectly well the political cost it would bring to his government. For once Spain is doing things well, people refuse to see it at home. You'd think they'd have half a brain and remember what it was to live under a dictatorship say, 30 years ago (!!!)

But saying that, the COE is basically the equivalent of Amnesty International for the eurocrappers.

They loved Saddam enough to arm him, Gary.

Knitting A Conundrum,

Apparently it is costing this group something - foreign aid. Though of course Western Europe is not a recepient of foreign aid from the US or the UK, so giving that up isn't that big of a deal. Perhaps some of the former Soviet Republics take some US dollars, but that's largely going to be in the form of money sent to deal with their left over Soviet nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Actually, Mr. Gunnels, jamesbray was being sarcastic. The Council of Europe has taken no position on foreign aid. I'm afraid you found hypocrisy in the wrong place.

And really, now. It's just another meaningless gesture from yet another worthless "organization." What are we supposed to do, stand in awe and admiration of its pointless resolution? They stated an opinion against something? So what?

"THE 45-nation Council of Europe has said it 'firmly condemns' the US-led war in Iraq and called on the countries involved to bring it to an end."
--
"And if you don't, then we shall be forced to condemn you a second time."

Thank You to Spain, and all who are aiding the side which opposes tyranny and torture.

Sandy P,

So did many nations. So did the US. Those Bell helicopters didn't come out of thin air after all. And the US loved Iran under the Shah (a vicious dictator who had his own secret police, torture chambers, etc.). Quit acting like the US and the UK have clean hands on matters of arming dictatorial thugs.

"The resolution further stated that the 45 countries are refusing to accept any foreign aid from any of the combatants from this point forward. To do so would be hypocritical."

I say that we support their stance and pull our military bases from Germany and France. Then move them to the "new" Europe.

George,

There are no US military bases in France. Duh.

"all major issues facing European society other than defense."

I would assume that the "defense" part is the responsibility of the 'ol US and they think that goes w/o saying..

What parasites.

Wait a second: I didn't redicule them.

Earl1,

No, defense is largely a European affair. Even at the height of the Cold War, as far as men (Germany had a 700,000 man army at the time, as did France, the US army at its height was around 2.2 million, and most of that was deployed outside Europe) and material were concerned, Western Europe had far conventional weapons on the ground than the US ever did. What the US provided Europe, and this was not even true in a totalistic sense, was a nuclear umbrella.

Patton was said when told not to enter a town until Field Marshall Montgomery got there:

'What should I do, give it back?'

E. Nough:

They stated an opinion against something? So what?

So, they expressed their feelings. Don't you understand that feelings are paramount?

C'mon...get in touch with your feelings, man.

GG:

There are no US military bases in France.

Land o' goshen, you're absolutely right. We should address that oversight ASAP.

Of course, then we'll be accused of occupying another Muslim nation.

No, but mosks are popping up EVERYWHERE in france, in fact, evry third person born in france is named "mohammed" now.
Does that tell you something?
How about is some villa's in france that women are being harrased by muslims to wear a burka, rape crimes are sky high, so is crime.
I think France should look in it's own back yard and clean it up before giving opinions of others

As a citizen of the EU I feel the need to say: Scheiss auf Schroeder. Scheiss auf Chirac. Scheiss auf die EU. Clear enough?

I salute the allied soldiers now in Iraq.

apotheosis,

For an armchair warrior, or rather, a keyboard warrior, you sure do talk tough. There is nothing worse on the internet than some blowhard claiming how his country is going to invade nation X. They are like tinpot Saddam Husseins.

Western europe may have provided more men, but GW I & II are proving just how worthless "men" are, those men have to be trained an equiped.

James,

I believe you are referring to Mosques. If anything, its the Muslims in France who feel discrimination, not vice versa. Such is well documented if you care to look.

Aww, now Gary, you're breaking my cold, black little heart.

Lighten up, G-man. Just because you take yourself so seriously doesn't mean we all should.

Oh, but I have, I've done alot of Islam study the last few years.
Why is it Islam is respondible for 99% of all wars/conflicts/genocide in the last 10 years?
it's the religion/cult.
The Osama's ARE reading the koran correctly.

It's a favorite saying of Muslims, 'oh, we are repressed" while they are slaughtering somewhere else. France's turn is comming wait 10 years or so, they are infested with them

Gary,
You obviously know nothing about Iran under the Shah... He was a progressive, leading his people out of the dark ages (following the path set by his father) and his failure was not wiping out the islamists when he had the chance. Oh yeah, and it was the the french (with a little help from Carter) that harbored and assisted the clerics take power. So blow it out you a**!

tell them to wait 48 hours and it'll be over.

France has split Europe and NATO down the middle.

With Britain on one side, accompanied by brave Poland plus Spain and Italy - who have all known what dictatorship means.

In the other corner - the Axis of Weasels.

The Council of Europe is just a talking shop. I'd rather let the guns and missiles of the Coalition do the talking right now.

When the US (and other western powers) have supported dictatators in the past, it was wrong. We're doing something about one of their kind now. It's a start. Cutting the rest of them off from tacit and direct support is another good step. The US might be able to pull that off. The UN wouldn't dream of it. They need them to chair UN commissions.

From what I've been reading out of the French press, it seems the Jews are having a worse time with real (as opposed to felt) discrimination, than Muslims. Not hard to imagine why in a predominantly Catholic nation with a burgeoning Muslim population.

iPoder,

Yeah, the well-documented torture chambers were part of that progressive agenda. Let me ask you a question - if the Shah was so popular, then why hell was there a very popular, broad-based revolution (though the post-revolution government wasn't admittedly) in the first place? If he was so popular why did his regime a special police mirrored after the KGB? Shah apologists make me sick.

apotheosis,

Oh, so you are merely a buffoon? Well, thanks for the warning.

ac,

The French and Germany armies are very well trained. In fact, they are better armies than that which the UK is fielding in Iraq right now, and largely by 1/3 than the UK army.

Anyone who compares US foreign policy from before the end of the cold war, to US policy after the end of the cold war AND expects there to be absolute coherence is retarded. People act like the US was the only actor on the world stage. Give me a break and save all your condemnation for the real turds of the world.

Screw off gary, the germans I trained with 2 years ago, they were Morons, nice tanks, but the buggers couldn't hit a barn 10 feet away.
You call that good training?
The french, never trained with them, I guess they THINK they are good, but history tells us otherwize.
Take a look at the Ivory coast, they are getting their asses kicked.
mentioning Irvory coast, look what your francene frenchies are doing there, and you have nerve to point a finger to americans in iraq?

I've been doing some digging on the procedures and make up of the CoE, and, frankly, I'm unimpressed by the resolution or how it passed. The information presented was taken from the CoE website as www.coe.int.

First, the results, as previously mentioned were 81 votes in favour, 28 against and 5 abstentions for a total of 114 votes total from the Parlimentary Assembly. However, from the site:

"The Parliamentary Assembly's 306 members and their 306 substitutes are elected or appointed by national parliaments from among their own members."

There's 306 members, and only 81 voted in favor of the resolution, or 26.4% of all eligible representatives. Not too impressive. Futhermore, a quorum requires only one-third of the 306 members, allowing a minority to vote and therefore speak on behalf of the CoE as they have in this case.

Taking a look at the number of representatives per country offers this breakdown:

Albania (4), Andorra (2), Armenia (4), Austria (6), Azerbaijan (6), Belgium (7), Bosnia and Herzegovina (5), Bulgaria (6), Croatia (5), Cyprus (3), Czech Republic (7), Denmark (5), Estonia (3), Finland (5), France (18), Georgia (5), Germany (18), Greece (7), Hungary (7), Iceland (3), Ireland (4), Italy (18), Latvia (3), Liechtenstein (2), Lithuania (4), Luxembourg (3), Malta (3), Moldova (5), Netherlands (7), Norway (5), Poland (12), Portugal (7), Romania (10), Russian Federation (18), San Marino (2), Slovak Republic (5), Slovenia (3), Spain (12), Sweden (6), Switzerland (6), "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (3), Turkey (12), Ukraine (12), United Kingdom (18).

Assuming that all the representatives of known vocal opponents to the war are present and vote as a block and that Switzerland supports the resolution presented by one of its representatives, we might be able to assume 18 votes for by France, 18 by Germany, 18 by Russia, 7 by Belgium, and 6 by Switzerland for a total of 67 of the 81 votes, or 80% The remaining 14 votes can be split up between a maximum of 5 other nations, assuming that all reps are present and vote as a block. (3, 3, 3, 3, and 2). Therefore, a minority of up to ten nations out of 45 could vote to condemn the US and could say they speak for the entire 306 member assembly. (Votes can and probably do vary.) Note that the representatitves of 63% of the population of Europe did not vote for any number of reasons.

Yeah, I'm really impressed. Once again, a minority of Europe tries to speak for the majority.

Wake me when the representatives of the majority of Europe's populations speak.

Gary, what is the basis for your claim the Germans and French field better armies than the British? You just made that one up.

LoL good one, Achariyth

Isn't the COE the group that is consistently over budget in running their own show, and have had several corruption scandels in the past 10 years or so?

I'm surprised they are still around. I thought the EU had replaced them.

FPK3

Opposition to the war = opposition to taking out Saddam right here, right now. That is a fact.

To defeat the French, simply put them in uniform

Gary

I lived in Iran at the time. You have no idea what you are talking about. The islamists were a problem that the Shah did not deal with aggressively enough. He didn't want to use force to crush the part of the population which fell for the lies of the clerics, had he been the "vicious dictator" you claim there would have been no devolution. The Shah was overthrown because he didn't want Iran to turn into the filthy islamic state it is now. He was fighting people who were exterminating relgious-minorities like the Zoroastrians (Persians), Christians, Jews, Bahai etc...

I'm no apologist for the Shah, I condemn him for not having the courage to destroy the enemies of my homeland. Had he been a strong leader (like his father) the world would have be saved from the rise of islamism and the terrorism it has fostered.

Gary

You must be crazy to say that the French and German forces are better than the Brits.

The German forces have never seen service since WW2. They are just textbook warriors.

The French only practice in Africa, defending their post-colonial interests. Big deal. The last time they were seriously involved with "Big Game" was in 1991, against the Iraqis. They played a PUNY part. And in Kosovo, they were busy leaking NATO secrets. I'd rate the French a step above the Republican Guard, but not much higher. They are UNTESTED IN BATTLE.

You try to compare that to the Brits ? Sheeesh, read some history willya ?

"No, defense is largely a European affair. Even at the height of the Cold War, as far as men (Germany had a 700,000 man army at the time, as did France, the US army at its height was around 2.2 million, and most of that was deployed outside Europe) and material were concerned, Western Europe had far conventional weapons on the ground than the US ever did. What the US provided Europe, and this was not even true in a totalistic sense, was a nuclear umbrella. "

Excuse me but this is quite skewed. Indeed it is total cack.

Let's take the last point. The vast majority of nuclear weapons of the soviet union were pointed at the US and extremely few toward Europe. The entire US nuclear posture was toward the Soviet Union.

IE the main miliary danger of defending Europe was born by housewives in Kansas, fishermen in New Orleans and school children in Portland, not by German soldiers.

I was living in Europe when the USSR unilaterally began deploying medium range missles. The US began deploying medium range in response and the Germans and French went nuts because, horrors, they were now in as much danger for defending Europe as little old ladies in Miami.

Now lets talk troop numbers. Are you really citing the French troops as contributing? Don't be ridiculous. France took itself out of NATO during the entire dangerous time of the cold war. They returned to NATO when the Soviet Union was all but dead and fielding an army that Albania could beat.

Oh, so only about half of the US army was in Europe during the cold war? Well way less then half of the french army was in Europe during the cold war and they are European!

If you will recall almost the entire French army was in Indochina and Algeria during the cold war. Indeed the 500,000 french troops in Algeria mutinied against the civilian government. Afterwords it was gratly reduced to a token force and remains so.

Now the West German Army. If the French had had their way there would be NO west German army. They opposed every step of the way.

Lastly you refer to conventional weapons. In all of these catagories: ships, bombers, fighters, artillery, main battle tanks the europeans contributed little and what they had was garbage. It is silly to assert otherwise.

I don't think the Europeans gave to do everything we want becasue of our defense of Europe during the cold war, but it did amount actual expense, man hours (or millions of man years) what would be today tend times the entire foreigh aid budgets of all European govenrments combined.

oops ... you get the idea.

I'm spanish and I've never heard of that Council, and I receive many EU press notes because of my website. Its importance must be insignificant.

As decreed by the Council of Europe, the following 25 nations do dutifully condemn this illegal act of war in accordance with international law:

France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France, France and France

Thank you.

Buffoon? Not at all, Gary. Just another annoying little prick who enjoys targeting the occasional hyperinflated ego.

So what's your excuse, cupcake?