I think Busg totally handled this situation wrong. He is alienating the very poeple we need to stop the terrorist from acting out thier deads. The war on terror is not directly linked to Iraq. The threat Iraq poses is the same threat the crumbaling soviet unoin gave; unloyal troops with thier own agenda, lack of security of weapons stockpiles, ease of sale for soldiers looking for an extra buck


Iraq isn't a threat because of a terrorist connection, it is a threat because of the ability to sell or just give WMD to anyone.

1)
An Iraqi general decides to sell a VX agent to someone. Saddam doesn't know or care.

2)
Iraq hides a stockpile of weapons. The regime colapes and know one except the people who hide the weapons knows there are there. They sell them or someone finds it

3)
Iraq has been under major disarmament sactions for over 15 years with over 10 resolution

4)
Unlike France, Germany, Russia, USA, Mexico, Canada, South Korea, England who have weapons, Iraq is unstable and more likely to use it on its own people or other nations under attack to control

5)
There is a global network of terrorists who are willing to buy.


As against the war that I am no one on my side has yet to say Saddam has no weapons and prove it, that Saddam has a stable country, that Saddam treats his people fairly, thats Saddam's military wouldn't just sell or give weapons on the open black market.

Can someone give me something that clearly states that peace has a chance against Saddam?

Nope

And BTW Frogboy, you totally misinterpreted what I asid about EU.
I am not pro EU. I am pro balance of power. I am for having two diffent military powers to police each other, make sure no one steps out of line. I am extermely uncomfortable with having one one country having all elbow room to do what it pleases.
Or else, if the US is going to rule the World by itself, lets have the World elect the president then, whouldn't that be fair?

mackerson: I don't know you so I can't say. I haven't put anybody in any niche. I just said that the more one is patriotic, the easier he can be manipulated. It's true for any patriotism, from Islamic patriotism, French patriotism, Canadian patriotism, any.
And no, I'm not patriotic. I just happen to live in Canada, I don't feel any special bond for this country. It's just where I live. I consider myself a citizen of this planet. And no, it's not BS.

understandable frogboy

btw frogboy is what i said in posts 93 and 97 accurate?
I heard about it in civics class just thought i should share what i knew about the issue

I'd rather have the US with the elbow room rather than Iraq, or a 100 other countries for that matter. I've seen the masses at work to stop a democratic government's actions against the will of the people...

Paxx:
You are correct, I do believe that the majority of people here who are anti-war are not very well informed on the issues. That doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with my view is misinformed. I can only judge based on what is written here.

However, you are stating explicitly that those who disagree with you are brainwashed. And unlike me, where I present evidence arguing forth my position, you don't back up your claim with any evidence.

Sure, you miss blaance of power. I suppose you miss the USSR then? You say you're not pro-EU, you're just pro balance of power. The USSR provide a balance. Yea, those were the days..

"Doctor Strangelove and how I learned to love the bomb"....

"I really hope that EU develops strong, both economically and militarely. Only then will we live in peace, when World powers are balanced."

paxx, we had that close, strong balance for decades with the US and the Soviet Union and it was terrifying (at least to a former Strategic Air Command bomber toad who took off more than once with a bombbay full of nukes not knowing if we would be turned around or not). balance of power in itself doesn't help much unless both parties are reasonable.

BTW - we have never given a thought to invading canada since the old "Fifty-four-forty or Fight" days, and fortunately we had the sense to quickly drop that notion way back then.

i do agree that i would not use the past six months as a primer in a diplomat training course. i believe if we look backward we can see many times where we've handled things much more adroitly on the diplomatic front.
i suspect that no amount of diplomacy will accomplish anything concretely good with respect to saddam, so the question is: do i go through the negotiating hoops and demonstrate to everyone what i already know is going to happen - nothing. diplomacy usually answers "yes" to that question.

If anyone would like to thank the good guys,you can do it at this link,I did.
The good guys are the troops on the side of the US.
I say thanks to all the troops from all the coalition country's.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/nmam.html

I just want to jump in and say the say the us is standing up for Freedom and Justice. Anyone who doesn't like what is going in america now can leave. Go to Iraq, if you are a women have your genitals sliced up so you have no pleasure from intercourse, starve to death at the hands of Sadam Huesein, or be put to death for having your own beliefs. Have you forgotten what America Stands for??? This is a wonderfull nation and I am American I don't cheat, steal, or lie. I beleve in an all knowing and just god. I have a choice to be what I want to be with my life, because I am American. I won't give up on democracy, because it never gave up on me. As America grows people always say what's wrong with it. Well screw anyone against America, if you don't like it you can kiss Uncle Sam's butt. and if you try to mess with us you will find Uncle sam's foot in your ass... This nation was founded on the basis of freedom, and grew by fixing what was a good idea, but wasn't perfect. America, may still not be perfect, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. So if you don't like me bite me... it's too bad those who say these things about america weren't in New York on September 11th 2001... the men, and women that died are in heaven watching wondering why you would let them die in vein... George Bush sure didn't

understand being up set and all, but a bit over the edge or right next to it don't you think?

Objectivity is difficult in times like this. With Bushes last speech i do not think Saddam will last 20 hours. His military remembers the Gulf war. They are being bombarded with US propaganda. And I doubt the hopeful in the higharky in Iraq want to deal with an exiled marter. Either way he is done.

isn't that what started this? Love?

frogboy,
"France is currently in the Ivory Coast and had gone down there without UN Approval." For your information, you should go there : http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7657.doc.htm

Yes, France granted the authorization from UN to go to Ivory Coast.

"And France is the only reason why there wasn't a second resolution explicitly authorizing force" Oh, really ? Then why didn't Bush put his second resolution to vote in order to get a "moral victory" by winning the 9 necessary votes ?
That's quite weird because France is seen as the only culprit of the war issue. What about all others countries (like Russia and China with also veto powers) ?

I'm not anti-american at all (I went there several times to visit some friends) but I really don't understand all those reactions. What's all that, only because we're not on the same track than the US government (and some american ppl) means that we're wrong ? Come on, as some of you say, everyone has the right to express his own view.

Veto threat has nothing to do with trying to increase France place over the world. It's just a matter of "is war the only issue to disarm saddam".
I agree that saddam is evil and must be removed but until now, I'm still waiting the evidence that he has something to deal with al-qaida or he owns WMD. Well, if it's clear that he owns those kind of weapons, then why didn't Bush admistration told us how they're sure about that ? It has been said that one of the UK/US report presented at a UN security council was a plagia of an american student. Do you think that we should go to war only because a report made 10 years ago is arguing that saddam owns those kind of weapons ? If saddam owns WMD, then of course, all must be done to destroy them, but until now, anything proved that. If you can, then please give me a link, I would be more than interested by reading that evidence.

I'm reading a lot of news websites, not only french ones (like cnn, abcnews, foxnews, bbcnews, nypost and some spanish ones) in order to get as many informations as I can, and to avoid falling only in the french point of view.
Besides the fact that some american ppl are acting strangely against france (like pooring wine and Evian water - which is btw owned by 51% by Coca-Cola), there is a huge feeling that inspections are getting results and should continue. Of course, they can't continue forever, that's why inspectors should say if they can achieve their work in a resonable delay or not. That's the goal of UN inspectors. If they say that they can't work efficiently, then sure another solution should have to be found but until now, they didn't say that.

As for France's interests in Irak, France is importing about 7% of Irak oil -which is almost nothing -. Main oil importations are coming from Norway, Saoudian Arabia, UK. Deals with Irak represents about 3% (while they were about 15% in 1996)
Are there some other hidden interests between Irak and France ? I honestly don't know.

I'm not specially pro-Chirac, but for once, I must admit that I agree with his position. War has nothing to deal with being a coward or not as you seem to insinuate "France, btw, didn't think Hitler was evil enough to even fight for their own capital".
Did you ever live in an occupied city ? You can't tell that. It's an offense to ppl who resisted and lost their lives. Sure, in any war and any place, you'll always find some unscrupulous ppl making profit of it, but don't say that the majority did.

You can agree with the war issue, but don't blam France or french because they don't. At the very beginning of that crisis, Bush always said that he didnd't need UN agreement to
go to war. That's a fact, he said it. So what's the real pb with that veto ? After all, he doesn't need any vote, no ? I think that he was looking for UN agreements only to share the war costs. That's my personal opinion (not necessary france's one)

I'm not for war, I'm not anti-american nor pro-saddam. Too bad to see that UN has collapsed just because some thinks that war is the only issue to resolve a crisis.
I respect all point of views, so I hope others will respect the ones from countries which are thinking in a different way without falling into the so easy "blam him because he doesn't agree" !

I wish i could remember the name of it, but I watched a documentary the other day. It was about how France was occupied by Germany, and how the process worked. After about 15 minutes i was scratching my head.

It was a long series of interviews with teary-eyed French men and women, but they were teary-eyed because of the memories of their German friends. 'So-and-So was a perfect gentleman, and paid us well for the time he stayed with us'. It recounted how many french landowners actually rented their property to the Germans, and how they employed the widows and orphans in the community, and were just polite and nice folks. One lady sat and cried about the wonderful dinners she had had in her home hosting a Nazi officer, saying they were the best times of her life.

I was, as you may imagine, disgusted. The people interviewed seemed to have no regard for the criminal nature of the occupation and the evils done during it. I came into the show a bit late, but during the time i watched there was only haphazard reference to 'resistance', and even then the people involved seemed confused as to what the big deal was. There was no mention of the holocaust while i was watching.

Did anyone else see this? I'd like to go back and watch it again now, in light of recent events. At the time i remember thinking, "This is one ugly piece of revisionist history." But in the last few weeks I am inclined to believe that france would just overlook most of WW2. I wonder if it is insight into the most modern historical theory in europe.

Thibald, this nation feels insulted and stabbed in the back...

Dunno why, everyone wants to make claims that our involvment with Saddam is old history and we made a mistake, etc...

Yet history is then used as a tool to prove Frances ignorance and back stabbing, etc...

double standards...

shocked?

I'm not, and it is not an American phenom either, this is something that all people make use of on this planet and it does not matter if you live in the most modern or worst 3rd world nation either.

by the way HDesk rocks

here here...Thibaud.. you have made some points that I agree with. yet I am still bothered by anti-war people (like me) not having a answer to disarming Iraq exept that "we don't want war" cry.

A few points; I don't quite understand the "don't eat French food or call them freedom fries instead of french fries" I think that is childish.

When it comes to Frances veto, it was a major block for the vote. Other members did not want to vote on a resolution that France said it would veto. Others backed away from saying they would vote specifically for that reason.

I do not think France has any sustantial profit in Iraq and I am not sure why people are hinting that since France disagrees then it means they have money interests in the country


It still comes back to the same points that I just don't have an aswer for:

Is Saddam someone who you would trust to disarm? As against the war that I am no one on my side has yet to say Saddam has no weapons and prove it, that Saddam has a stable country, that Saddam treats his people fairly, thats Saddam's military wouldn't just sell or give weapons on the open black market.

Can someone give me something that clearly states that peace has a chance against Saddam?

*sigh*
I think I need to repeat myself, or at least try to clarify my position a bit more.
I am not pro EU. I dislike one country rules the planet. Whoever that country is. Now, no, I don't miss the USSR, but I must admit that, back then, chances of the US and the USSR getting involved directly (they indirectly sold arms, though, I admit) in a war were next to nul. Ironically, we lived better times of peace during the cold war. But I admit, the situation was tense, mainly because there was so much hate between the USSR and the USA. But that would not be the case with EU. Are you comparing Europe with the USSR? Really, why do you ask if I miss the USSR? That is a strange comparison, I must say. If EU developped strong, even only half as strong as the US, they would not be the vilains, like the USSR were. They would just be Europe, good guys. Like the US is the good guys too. Not two ennemy countries, just two selarate military powers. Both of them being good. With the exception that if the EU were to say invade Guatemala, the US could asy "Wait a minute", and the same for the other way.

About "brain washing". Listen... I strongly believe that "patriotic" rimes with "fanatic". Again, whoever the patriot is. We have some of those guys here too. The kind of people who's heart accelerates as soon as they hear the word Quebec. The problem is that those people, because they have such a strong passion, can so easily be channeled into a given direction when another country is being vilified. The stronger the passion, the easier it is. It's not something I meant to say concerns only Americans, it doesn't. Patriotism tends to blind people. But I must say that I find that, although good people in general, the Americans do tend to be some of the most patriotic people I know. To me, that's one of their flaws. But I'm sure most people would see it as a quality. I don't.
Now, I'm not saying that EVERYONE who is in favor of that war is a blind fanatic. Absolutely not. There are a few who maybe have their opinion seperatly. Some are not even patriot no American and are still in favor of that war. What I said about manipulating patriotism is for the masses in general.

And BTW, I just realised that what you said about Cameroon and Rwanda is rather insulting for non-Western countries. So you think that the US is not enought West-centered as it is? The fact that the West (or maybe I should say the North instead) has 5 permanent members of the security counsil out of 15, with veto power, is not good enough? Other countries on the planet should have no saying?

And once more, as Thibaud pointed it, it DOES make a difference 3 vote or 9. 3 votes is complete defeat, while 9 votes, even with a French veto is a moral victory. And your governement knows it, that's why there were no vote. A defeat without a French veto would have looked very bad. It was much preferable to go at war with the previous resolutions in the pocket.