A reply to gmat's last comment

[phreenet]

Something's wrong here. I wouldnt call the US breaking worlds diplomacy, M.E. equilibrium, and giving the finger to the UN "a good thing".

I do believe it was your president, Chirac, that broke the diplomactic process. He basically stated he would veto anything that the US had to offer, telling Saddam, "Hey do what you want, I got your back". .

[gmat]

Originally posted by phreenet
He basically stated he would veto anything that the US had to offer, telling Saddam, "Hey do what you want, I got your back"

This is completely wrong, and you know it.
All proponents of peace offered solutions, and compromises. The US didnt offer any compromise, and even hardened their stance and moved objectives to suit their needs. It's not me saying that, but around-the-world diplomats.

Besides Russia opposed a veto as well. And China is against. So is Germany. That accounts for a large part of the world.

[phreenet]

But I guess that is the French way, advert war at all cost and pray some one bails you out, maybe we should have let Germany just keep France through right of conquest seeing how they did it TWICE!!

So we should be so sympathic to the French while they make money off of it right? Selling Saddam military equipment and supplies while his own people starve and/or can't read.

And did anyone ever mention the ~12 French scientist and technicans that were killed during the Israeli air attack on Saddam's nuclear facility in the 80s? Ohh wait they probably weren't suppose to be there. They probably told their families they were killed in an automobile accident. :shrug:

[gmat]

Originally posted by phreenet
maybe we should have let Germany just keep France through right of conquest seeing how they did it TWICE!!

What the HELL does it have to do with Bush invading Iraq ????!!!

Originally posted by phreenet

So we should be so sympathic to the French while they make money off of it right? Selling Saddam military equipment and supplies while his own people starve and/or can't read.

This is ludicrous and unsupported. Selling anything to Iraq has been forbidden for more than 10 years by international treaties. There's a blockade, and it's not there for nothing.

Originally posted by phreenet

And did anyone ever mention the ~12 French scientist and technicans that were killed during the Israeli air attack on Saddam's nuclear facility in the 80s? Ohh wait they probably weren't suppose to be there. They probably told their families they were killed in an automobile accident. :shrug:

Dude, in THESE times, the US and France (and other countries) ALL supported Saddam in his war against Iran. Dont skew history to make a point when there's no relation with current events.

(edit) ah and please cease the slander: "the French don't think like our President. We must bomb em / We should have let em die / i whish someone kill em / etc" -> This is very offensive and gratuitous.

[phreenet]

Well I was pointing out that we can't let France make war time decissions with such a poor track record like they have. And second, yes France does sell Saddam weapons, they do fly Mirage fighter jets and they do have the Thompson Radar system. I wonder what country those came from :shrug: . And yeah supporting Iraq in the Iranian war is one thing, but... Building them a place to build large high quality nuclear weapons is another.


And Note.... I never said anything about hurting or killing French people.

[gmat]

"I never said anything about hurting or killing French people"
->
"we should have let Germany just keep France through right of conquest"

This was totally gratuitous and had no relation with the topic at hand.

"France does sell Saddam weapons, they do fly Mirage fighter jets and they do have the Thompson Radar system."
It was in the 80's. When Saddam was the good friend of the Western nations.
And it's Thomson. Thompson is an US brand for guns.

NO ONE supports Saddam. No one. Did you ever hear what Chirac or Poutine said ? They're 100% for doing something. But not carpet bombing and aggressively taking over oil wells.

[gmat]

"we can't let France make war time decissions with such a poor track record like they have"
This is a very poor statement, historically. All common anti-French jokes set aside.
Besides who talked about "war time decisions". The fact that "war" was considered was put aside as a "serious mistake" by Vladimir Poutine. Do you think Poutine is dumb ? Really ?

[Gungrefjaert]

First of all :
Cool it girls :-)

For my part I only know what I have read in the press and to be honest I really find it hard to see through the smoke.
Everybody knows that the world will be a better place without Saddam and his followers, but how to get rid of him is not an easy question. I don't think he will be caught ! There is alot of "stinkers" in the area who makes "the little guy's" life miserable and only takes care of them selfes and their families. Saddam is not a "one of a kind". If we (the west) want to have peace in the middeleast we have to make it a complete solution and that includes the problems with Israel. The saudi's have dictatorship too but they are alies. What the difference? They have proberly done their part of breaking human rights too. Israel does it. I could go on.

I'm not against a war in Iraq, I'd just like it to be clear why it should be now and what goals there is to be fullfilled. If its about oil its wrong! if its about balance of power and religions. It's wrong. If its about getting rid of Saddam and his regime, making Iraq a better place to live for the iraqies and maby try to build a bridge between worlds. It could be the way to go. My goverment here in Denmark supports the Cowboy president too. But its only about 35% of the population who does the same.

I find it hard to know what is right. But it would be perferable to have a UN Mandate behind a war. This not an US matter only !!

phreenet -
Don't talk about France selling weapons to dictators. the US have done more than their part in that matter!

[winewood]

This is ludicrous and unsupported. Selling anything to Iraq has been forbidden for more than 10 years by international treaties. There's a blockade, and it's not there for nothing.

It is a well documented fact that all materials and parts for Saddams airforce come from France. And the international treaties aren't stopping that nor, the missle and radar technology that is being used against us daily in the no flight zone. I guess its ok to be shot at daily if its not your country.
Where did that stuff come from? I guess you have created for yourself a good reason showing that the blockades aren't working. (its called a violation.. get it?)
NOT to speak of the 30 billion in oil contracts pending with France as soon as sanctions are lifted. Who do those contracts exist with? Whos regieme will it support? The US has declared that oil proceeds will go to restoring the reconstruction of Iraq and to the people. France would be happy with the dictator there, and keeping the people under oppression for their monetary benefit. NOW who is the humanitarian here?
If you think this is about oil, you are right. France and Russia are poised to gain MUCH more by keeping war away. Once the regieme change is over, who will gain? Just look at Kuwait and tell us if that 1991 skirmish was for oil. We (US) kept our contracts and asked to buy it at market price. That isn't conquest or colonization. Its called freedom. Im sure the Iraqi's would enjoy it if the French didn't see so much dollar signs for their continued domination.
The best gauge for future action is the past. Who rules Afghanistan? Their people. Who rules Kuwait? Their people. Don't make the US to be something is isn't. Freedoms important to us, and we don't take that lightly.

I dont mean for this to come across harsh. That is not my intention. Its only politics, and no one is 100% right. Please pardon the tone that this post has taken on. Just food for thought.

[Gungrefjaert]

It's sad, but im convinced that this kind of conflicts allways have to do with money. That goes for the european contries as well as the US.

[Gungrefjaert]

Easy winewood

I'm not out to spit at the US and not to make the policies of France Russia China Germany.... the right either.
As i said: it's sad that money plays as big a part in this matter as it does.
I tried to state that none of us knows half of whats going on, which makes it damn hard to know whats right and wrong.

Don't get pissed Winewood. I just try to be as objective as I can to find out where i stand.

You didn't comment on Israel :-)

Did France sell their weapons directly to Iraq? The might have bought them through another country ( which doesn't make it right either)

[gmat]

Originally posted by winewood
It is a well documented fact that all materials and parts for Saddams airforce come from France.

The core ones, dating from the 80's. After the first Gulf War, everything was frozen. Saddam had to equip with 2nd hand ex-USSR hardware (even for the 1st Gulf War btw). THAT is a well known fact as well, and more acurate to today's situation.

Originally posted by winewood

NOT to speak of the 30 billion in oil contracts pending with France as soon as sanctions are lifted. Who do those contracts exist with? ... NOW who is the humanitarian here?

Not the US. You totally forgot to mention a program called "Food versus Oil" installed by the UN (no less) to lighten the effects of the blockade on populations.
Russia and France contributed to that program, and Oil companies were complying to UN resolutions and to the blockade rules.

Your implying that France supports Saddam is plainly ludicrous. And implying that Russia does the same would be just as wrong. Again, tell me, what did Chirac said about Saddam ? Did you hear what he said ?

Originally posted by winewood

If you think this is about oil, you are right. (...) That isn't conquest or colonization. Its called freedom.

YOUR freedom stops where your neighbours freedom starts. That's a basic principle. If a country attacks another *without* the consent of worlds authorities (ie the UN), that's called a crime.

Originally posted by winewood

The best gauge for future action is the past. Who rules Afghanistan? Their people. Who rules Kuwait? Their people.

Afghanistan. The situation there is dire, to say the least. The US only went there after LONG years of Taliban occupation, because those Talibans asked for a tax on a huge pipeline crossing the north of the country. Besides it's the US who gave a nod to Talibans in the first place, when they were installed there by the Pakistan, a good US ally.
Kuwait is basically an US colony. Nothing more.

PS Gungrefjaert: We may not know much. But do you think that Poutine (or Russian intel), or the Mossad (Israeli intel) know nothing ?

[winewood]

Please take note.. I added a comment to the end of my post. It did sound ripe didnt it?

France didn't import directly into Iraq. They imported their hardware via a 3rd party. Its referred to as laundering the source. However, as a producer of high tech military parts, no manufacturer produces enough for 30 jets and doesn't know where it is going. Its too many millions of dollars, and near impossible to loose track of. Only France makes the mirage parts they were investigating. Very shady indeed. Its like finding a North Korean with a fleet of F-16's. It wouldn't happen unless the US wanted it to.

Isreal is a non-factor in this discussion. They are busy doing their own thing, and really don't play a part in the Iraq conflict except for Saddam saying this entire mess is a Zionist plot. I don't know why the Arabs blame everything in the entire region on Jews. I believe it is a culture thing, and the Koran calls for them to be wiped off the earth as infidels. So I guess that places them in there for religious reasons. (not a good reason if you ask me) The US begged the Israelies not to attack the Arabs, as the Arabs region would use it as an excuse for a full scale invasion. Other than religious nonsense, there is no reason or excuse to blame nor include anything on the Jewish people.

[gmat]

Originally posted by winewood

France didn't import directly into Iraq. They imported their hardware via a 3rd party.

Through a major oil company. But again it's pre-91. Many western countries (i include Russia in that) always had these practices with shady regimes, so public opinion wouldnt be shocked like "whoo we are supporting a dictator". The kings of that game were of course the USA and USSR. France did it, albeit at a smaller scale. Note that i'm not saying someone is white someone is black. Those practices are still existing today. France ain't better or worse than any other western country.

Originally posted by winewood

Isreal is a non-factor in this discussion.

Not exactly. They are supposed to be the prime target of Saddam. Be sure that the Mossad knows about each square inch of Iraqian sand, and everything up to the number of hairs on Iraqian generals' moustaches.

(edit) France selling weapons to Iraq even in '90 was considered as 'left wing propaganda' in this region of the world... So i assume you're a left-wing voter ?

[Gungrefjaert]

Gmat - I'm not talkink about what goverments know, only what i know.

Winewood - The Israelies doesn't exactly help either. They could go a bit more easy on the refugee camps. I know they have to defend them selfes, but again they do it quit agressivly. They could also give up terratories which doesn't belong to them.

[bigben2k]

For What it's worth...


France stance is that the diplomatic effort should be continuing, and that now is not the time for a war. Russia is of the same opinion.

What ya'll are arguing about is pointless: the US position is that Iraq is an immediate threat, either directly, with WMD, or indirectly, through Al Quaeda.

What I don't understand is how the US can view Iraq as an immediate and direct threat, after the UN inspector has made it clear what the extent of the WMD situation is, and even has a plan, albeit spread over a few months.

Someone please tell me how Iraq is an immediate and direct threat to the US, or even to US interests, in light of the massive amount of troops bordering Iraq, even stationed over 1/3 of the whole country of Kuwait!!!

Bush is being criticized severely here within the US, for failing at a diplomatic effort.

What has not been mentionned either is that the resolution put to the UN would have (veto notwithstanding) passed, except that the Mexican premier/rep got sick, and wouldn't have made it to vote in favor of the resolution. This will go down in history as a quirky fact.

[phreenet]

Bush is being criticized severely here within the US, for failing at a diplomatic effort.

I do believe there has been ~10-12 years of diplomatic attempts. This isn't a new issue, just because Bush is a new Preident doesn't mean he should discount all the attempts in the past. He should pick up where Clinton left off. And no this isn't even an attack on Clinton, he did his "best" to try to curb the situation. Now its time to take action. And Chirac has his own motives for being against the war. France has a lot to loose either way it goes. They have 1.2 Billion in oil assests inside Iraq already that they could risk loosing or being destroyed by Saddam on his way out. But being a little girl about it and not stepping up to the plate isn't the way to solve problems.

The US begged the Israelies not to attack the Arabs, as the Arabs region would use it as an excuse for a full scale invasion. Other than religious nonsense, there is no reason or excuse to blame nor include anything on the Jewish people.

It wouldn't be the first time everyone has tried to gang on Israel, they know how to handle the Arabs on their own.

I was watching an interview of some former UN inspectors that were on the first team. They stated in the interview that they had plenty to believe that the French where helping the Iraqis. Because their suprise inspections where never really a suprise. And when they did a suprise inspection without including the French members of the team or notifing base command it worked very sucessfull.

And I would also like to know why the CNN Liberal media omitted 800 lines from the Blix report they had on TV the other day. They only included the happy thoughts from Blix and failed to mention the active Iraqi research found for treating uranium for weapons with lasers. Sounds fishy to me. But hey Saddam is a nice guy, we should keep him there until there is a mushroom cloud over Israel or New York right?

[winewood]

They aren't a threat with 300k troops. Should we have to keep 300k people over there constantly just not to break a few eggs? That is not a reasonable tactic or approach. Should we have to keep them there for peace?
They have not found the chemical weapons.. thats the problem. Under the last UN weapons report. The UN knows of 21 THOUSAND lbs of chemical and biological weapons. 10k lbs of Anthrax alone. It isn't being released as to the whereabouts or destruction field so we can anylize the site. This is why they are a threat. They aren't coming forth with that much information, and its NOT the job of the inspectors to play find the weapons, under UN resolution is Saddams responsibility to reveal these weapons. He is not doing so. How much hide and seek do you guys want? They already passed a resolution 15-0 calling for IMMEDIATE discovery of all this 21k lbs of material. It still isn't found, it still isn't accounted for. He has not complied, nor is doing so. 21 Thousand lbs of agent is nothing to take lightly. You don't hide something unless you want to keep it.
Field intercepts have been captured from Saddam to his field generals authorizing use of these agents. How can they use them if they don't have them??? makes you think...

gmat: oil companies dont export Mirage jet parts.
Also, Saddams airforce was out of commission after the last gulf war. These parts were shipped in the last 7 years. Mirage parts are manufactured almost soley in France. (the parts in question)They have been constantly shipped over the ban period. Total denial isn't going to work on this isssue im afraid.

Saddam is the threat we are removing. As long as he is there, he will remain a threat. Lets just review that 100% vote he got as dictator of Iraq. Do you know ANY free country that has a popluation vote 100% for anything. I guess that choice is easy if you have a gun pointed to your head. But freedom isn't exactly a concern I see for the French people, is it? You guys weren't thinking that when the US and Brits restored Frances freedom from Germany. Do we OWN you? Do we control your government? Do we own western Germany? Who did attempt to control it last time? Lets try not to TOTALLY ignore the past.

[gmat]

Gungrefjaert (i had to copy/paste your nickname, honest ): yes, my point was, if world leaders say something, maybe there's some intelligence and reasoning behind. And Poutine has a lot of that 'intelligence'... This guy gives me the chills (didn't he act as a super villain in a James Bond ? could be)

Originally posted by bigben2k

France stance is that the diplomatic effort should be continuing, and that now is not the time for a war. Russia is of the same opinion.

Actually France and Russia proposed more constructive solutions, more geared towards pleasing the US.
Like, for instance, sending way more experts. And surveying the territory with spy planes. All of which Iraq would eventually agree with. There's far more to this of course - following the UN council meetings was very instructive on that.

Originally posted by bigben2k

Iraq is an immediate threat,[...] through Al Quaeda.

That one still makes ppl laugh all around the world (apart from the Iraqi who may find that joke less than funny, i suppose)

Originally posted by bigben2k

What I don't understand is how the US can view Iraq as an immediate and direct threat, after the UN inspector has made it clear what the extent of the WMD situation is, and even has a plan, albeit spread over a few months.

Hey You're asking the same questions that were asked to Colin Powell. The answer was something like (from my memories) "Saddam is a threat to the world. He plays with the UN and makes a mockery of the resolution 1441. Therefore we must employ military force, with no delay". No don't worry, there was no other answer. Just be confident.

Originally posted by bigben2k

Someone please tell me how Iraq is an immediate and direct threat to the US, or even to US interests, in light of the massive amount of troops bordering Iraq, even stationed over 1/3 of the whole country of Kuwait!!!

He has wooden scout drones that can poison countries with chemicals, and 180km range missiles that can wipe the US east coast. He must disarm, and quickly.

Originally posted by bigben2k

Bush is being criticized severely here within the US, for failing at a diplomatic effort.

I wonder why...

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by winewood
They aren't a threat with 300k troops ... You don't hide something unless you want to keep it. ... Saddam is the threat we are removing. As long as he is there, he will remain a threat.

Exactly: they aren't much of a threat, right now.

Of course they want to keep it: wouldn't you want to keep a backup, if you had a gun pointed to your head, asking you to disarm? Wouldn't you want to hold on to something, because you know that when the US leaves, the surrounding countries might jump you, just because you're defenseless?

He is a threat, granted, but how much of a threat? If he has biochemical/nerve agents, what delivery method would he use?

Iraq is known for having used some nerve agents during the gulf war, but in very small quantities, and out on the front line (from US troop commanders). Why? because the Iraqi troops don't have the necessary equipment to protect their own themselves...

Us commanders are assesing the war proceeding as follows: Northern and Southern Iraq will fall within a couple of days. Bagdhad will be surrounded, and that's where the real battle begins. We are currently attempting to negotiate with Iraqi field commanders, the terms of surrender: their officers can hold on to their sidearms, and keep their troops cool-headed, instead of us holding on to them as POWs. In exchange, we'll be able to move forward a bit faster.


As far as I can see, I don't have any information to show me that France's position is without merit. As such, I have to applaud the stance for a diplomatic resolution. Someone prove me wrong here!

[gmat]

Originally posted by winewood

gmat: oil companies dont export Mirage jet parts.

You missed a lot of things here. Our oil companies exported not only fighter jets, but missile frigates, and various weapons, to banned countries. This is a major scandal and the trial of a select few has only started recently.

Originally posted by winewood

These parts were shipped in the last 7 years.

This is the most blatant speculation i've ever seen.

Originally posted by winewood

As long as he is there, he will remain a threat.
[...]
Do you know ANY free country that has a popluation vote 100% for anything.

I know of a lot of countries where it is the case. And US don't give a damn.

Originally posted by winewood

But freedom isn't exactly a concern I see for the French people, is it?

I'll take that as a personal insult. Please retire what you said here. My family fought in the Resistance and the FFL. You are insulting my family and the French Resistance.

Originally posted by winewood

You guys weren't thinking that when the US and Brits restored Frances freedom from Germany.

PLEASE ANSWER:
1 - WHAT are we thinking exactly, according to you ?
2 - Where is the relation with the topic at hand (the US invading Iraq)

Originally posted by winewood

Do we OWN you? Do we control your government? Do we own western Germany?
Who did attempt to control it last time? Lets try not to TOTALLY ignore the past.

I'm not sure how to interpret that. I'll take a guess: the USA owns Europe ?
So, where is the "restored freedom" part you mentioned earlier, we exchanged Hitler against Bush ?

[winewood]

Lets say you have a repeat offender.. say murder of thousands of innocent people. He has gas and chemicals that can be held in a suitcase or thermos or plastic container and kill thousands with so much as unscrewing the lid and flushing down a drain. Now lets say that he has no problem selling to the highest bidder, and has in the past.
Lets also pretend that this yet unnamed repeat offender is scowering the world for delivery vehicles. Lets also say he had billions to pay for such technology.
If such a man existed. wink wink. How long are you going to pray that your babysitter wont miss the ONE time that you aren't looking and deliver on past promises and threats. You only have to be wrong once and you loose.
France CANT field any resistance. Their military is in such disarray that the only opinion they could hold is one of non-participation.
Allow me to refer to a recent article I found on this..

A confidential report by the general armed forces board, leaked to the economic magazine Capital, concluded that more than a third of Leclerc tanks - which at a cost of £10.4 million each were intended to be the pride of France's ground forces - are currently out of use. A shortage of spare parts meant that the army was having to cannibalise part of its fleet to keep the rest in action.

Around half of France's Puma, Cougar and Gazelle helicopters are grounded awaiting repairs and only a fraction of the air force's planes are fit to fly, defence experts say. "While the air force has 517 fighter planes, only 12 aircraft are ready to take off within two minutes in order to defend our country in the event of an attack," wrote Thierry Fabre, Capital's defence correspondent. "The others might take hours or even days to get up in the air. A large part of our aircraft are in fact nailed to the ground because of insufficient maintenance."

While admitting that it had budget problems, the French ministry of defence contended that "reports of a crisis are exaggerated". "Of course only 12 planes are on standby to fly as part of the air defence mission. No country has all its entire air force on red alert 24 hours a day, 365 days a year," a spokesman said.

However, Pierre Dabezies, a military expert and adviser to Jean-Pierre Chevenement, the former interior minister, said that at the military air base at Metz "half the planes aren't able to fly".

The navy is faring little better, with only 32 of its 76 ships reported to be in a state of seaworthiness. An alarming cross-party report by MPs Charles Cova of the Right-wing RPR party and Jean-Noel Kerdraon of the ruling socialist party blames "staggering delays" and disorganisation at French shipyards for holding up vital repairs.

"It would be better to carry out small repairs in other European ports. The minesweeper Verseau was repaired in several hours in the United Kingdom compared with the four weeks minimum it would have taken if the boat had gone to Brest," the report said.

The Rafale fighter plane is another example of the style over substance extravagance. The air force should have taken delivery of 137 aircraft, commissioned in 1988, almost a year ago. To date only five of the 294 planes ordered have been delivered by the manufacturer, Dassault.

Hopes of recovering some of the vast cost through exports have been dashed because the plane will compete for sales against the Eurofighter, being developed by a European consortium that includes Britain, and America's Joint Strike Fighter combat plane being produced by Lockheed Martin. Each rival is three times cheaper.

Jean-Paul Hebert, a military economist, believes that the French defence ministry gave in too quickly to pressure from private manufacturers when negotiating defence contracts. "It has never tried to reduce the final bill by threatening to purchase from abroad as the English have done," he said.

The most expensive folly in French military history remains the Charles de Gaulle, commissioned for the French navy in 1986. It was the pet project of the country's then president, François Mitterrand. The carrier was intended to be a potent symbol of military might but was so riddled with faults it proved to be more of a humiliating French farce.

France itself couldn't defend against a suburb of LA if it had too. I guess that makes it easy to refuse any support or stand clinch fisted against any assistance for any reason, at any time. Makes me wonder why they signed on at all to the UN's last resolution authorizing force if Saddam didn't comply. I guess they were joking right? Either that or lying. Your pick. Yes, I think money plays a big part in this. Its easy to sit on the sideline when you know you couldnt join the field if you had to. France doesn't care because they don't belive themselves to be a target. However, deals with the devil don't last long.

And bigben2k.. you don't see the point. If you have to keep 300k troops for there to be no threat, there is a fundamental problem with that. Don't ya think? An ounce of prevention.. (oh you know the rest) Should we wait anther year or two until we can be gassed at will before we react? What city are you willing to give up before we say, "oh.. those chemical weapons sure do suck". Guess we should have done something sooner. To err on the side of caution is a much better defence than playing tag with armed missles flying at you, or tourists with anthrax thermos' that were purchased at the local pawn shop.

[winewood]

I'll take that as a personal insult. Please retire what you said here. My family fought in the Resistance and the FFL. You are insulting my family and the French Resistance.

I am afraid you have taken that out of context. I was referring to peoples freedom other than your own. Its easy to defend your own freedom, but others is quite a different trait altogether.

PLEASE ANSWER:
1 - WHAT are we thinking exactly, according to you ?
2 - Where is the relation with the topic at hand (the US invading Iraq)
I'm not sure how to interpret that. I'll take a guess: the USA owns Europe ?
So, where is the "restored freedom" part you mentioned earlier, we exchanged Hitler against Bush ?

Im afraid I wasnt clear enough to be understood by you. The entire point is this. Using the most accurate predictor of the future.. which is the past. You cannot name a country that the US has defended this century that was not given complete control back to its hosts. This is to dispute the notion that the US is doing this to gain a stranglehold of oil, natural resouces, or take over the government. This is in direct refute of your quote stating

Kuwait is basically an US colony. Nothing more.

Apparently you view Kuwaiti citizens freedoms from a dictator a meer inconvienience and the governments appreciation some form of burden? Does freedom leave that bad a taste in your mouth? By you stating or attempting to make comments like "Does the USA own Europe" or "Bush replaced Hitler" is total and utter disregard for historical context and a spit in the face for the Americans that were slaughtered defending your freedoms from Germany TWICE! If you are going to slant my words in this regard or even attempt to insult the blood price on your own freedom given by my countries patriots, then I can see how easily you could support Saddam, and I see no reason to continue this converstation until a more reasonable person takes up the arguement. Anyone else for a civil discussion?

Edit: User experiencing regret over the last 2 sentences. Please kindly disregard. Politics gets my blood flowing, and patriotic slams may yield to heart failure Not removed in case someone is responding already.

[Gungrefjaert]

This is getting out of order guys !

At least make things a bit more polite. Before this damn Iraqi crisis people around this forum mostly flamed each other on their choice of hardware and how to cool it down! Now you shoot at each others with insults.

Yesterday our primeminister was attacked with red paint, because our legaly electet goverment chose to sent a submarine and a few other things to help the US in the gulf. I might just be symbolic, but it's not the democratic way in my eyes (looked funny tho).

My last words (It's kind of hard arguing in another language than your own) in this matter will be:
We all have a few things we did wrong in the past, so does Countries!
This war might be wrong or right. I don't know. I hope Bush is right and the middeleast will be a better place for all. If not, and another agenda is exposed, I'll hope for the people in the US at least vote him in to oblivion.

Now i'll get back to building my airtrap from all the parts i just bought at the local plumber.

Go easy boys :-)

[bigben2k]

Winewood:

You should review that article, with a magnifying lens: exactly the same could be said of the US's power. There are some very clear exagerations in it.

I agree that keeping 300K+ troops isn't economical nor practical, but the US chose to put them there. The inspectors were doing just fine without them.


The point is that there were two options:

1-Let the UN inspectors do their job

or

2-provoke Iraq into either using those alledged weapons and/or remove the source of the threat (Saddam and WMDs).

France (and Russia, and many other countries) is opting for #1.

The US (and coalition) has chosen #2, and as a result, has made #1 impossible.


To state (or advance) that France is incapable of any type of significant defense is grossly exagerated, and only serves to demonstrate/express animosity over its position.