US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 9 of 85 | |
|
|---|
IPlural
Reply #162 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:31 AM
Reply #162 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:31 AM
oh hell, I wonder just how many of the others were hiding smiles and swallowing sighs?
"we don't have to vote!" I wonder how many actually, honestly *fear* the US and or the current leaders of the US?
I wonder how many have sat back and watched things unfold and remember... and end up sitting for hours questioning and then re-questioning, their own thoughts, what they feel they are seeing and what they remember....
anway...
"we don't have to vote!" I wonder how many actually, honestly *fear* the US and or the current leaders of the US?
I wonder how many have sat back and watched things unfold and remember... and end up sitting for hours questioning and then re-questioning, their own thoughts, what they feel they are seeing and what they remember....
anway...
paxx
Reply #163 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:37 AM
Reply #163 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:37 AM
Bakerstreet: 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.
And what made you change your mind? I hope not the recent events because that would be a bit absurd.
BTW: if your documentary was even hinting that those were the majority of the French, then it was way wrong. Most French were against occupation (how can you be for it?), while the majority was just too scared (understandable) to do much about it. But the French interior resistance made a big difference.
And what made you change your mind? I hope not the recent events because that would be a bit absurd.
BTW: if your documentary was even hinting that those were the majority of the French, then it was way wrong. Most French were against occupation (how can you be for it?), while the majority was just too scared (understandable) to do much about it. But the French interior resistance made a big difference.
paxx
Reply #164 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:45 AM
Reply #164 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:45 AM
OK, I understand how hard it is to see the danger of one single ruling contry when you live in that country. So lets play a pretend game.
Imagine that the US just has an average military power, but that France has 50 times the military power of all the other countries together. Would that not scare you? Although you know that France is good, and probably won't start invading other countries just for the hell of it, I'm sure it would still make you worried.
Well, if that's how you would feel about France, then imagine that it's how most other contries feel about the US.
Imagine that the US just has an average military power, but that France has 50 times the military power of all the other countries together. Would that not scare you? Although you know that France is good, and probably won't start invading other countries just for the hell of it, I'm sure it would still make you worried.
Well, if that's how you would feel about France, then imagine that it's how most other contries feel about the US.
IPlural
Reply #165 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:51 AM
Reply #165 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:51 AM
without a doubt, and frankly the CIA where the best choice to send out around the globe to win the hearts and minds of new friends and people
Lecrayon
Reply #166 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:38 AM
Reply #166 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:38 AM
I think it's time to accept that everyone has his opinion. Apart from one person that states things in a pompous way, it's a good debate with factfinding and links. However, everyone can make up their own mind and choose sides, or choose not to choose side and stay neutral. I agree with Paxx and Thibault, but also accept Frogboys point of view. However, with polls saying so many people support this or that may vary from hour to hour, and isn't really a motive to choose a certain path. Like Paxx said, the path is chosen first, then you try to find support. Whether you buy it with money or in another way. Yes, maybe the US may choose his president, but the party decides who runs for president...
craeonics
Reply #167 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:03 AM
Reply #167 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:03 AM
It doesn't matter anymore now. Alea iacta est. Let's see what happens. And especially afterwards.
Sukothai
Reply #168 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:25 AM
Reply #168 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:25 AM
Tont Blair is now on BBC FIVE LIVE from the UK parliament debating the Iraq issue and will vote later, perhaps the most important for the UK for some time.
Thibaud
Reply #169 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:00 AM
Reply #169 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:00 AM
Adam,
France never said it would use its veto no matter what the evidence, but only if the second resolution was including an ultimatum, which would automatically be interpreted as a "let's go for war" without giving inspectors enough time to see if there is some WMD. That's rather different. I don't think that France gvt with the veto threat is threading the existence of the UN. A majority of the UN members asked that more time should be given to the inspections.
You're surely right, Blair has everything to loose so he must have good reasons to support a war action. Too bad we've not been told what are those evidence, I'm pretty sure that it would have changed some UN permanent members mind (maybe including france).
I wouldn't call war a *Test* like you. War has nothing to do with a test or a game. Russia just "decided to indefinitely put off a vote on ratification of a U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty because of the U.S. threat of war against Iraq" (Abcnews source).
Is that the *Test* result you were expecting ?
France never said it would use its veto no matter what the evidence, but only if the second resolution was including an ultimatum, which would automatically be interpreted as a "let's go for war" without giving inspectors enough time to see if there is some WMD. That's rather different. I don't think that France gvt with the veto threat is threading the existence of the UN. A majority of the UN members asked that more time should be given to the inspections.
You're surely right, Blair has everything to loose so he must have good reasons to support a war action. Too bad we've not been told what are those evidence, I'm pretty sure that it would have changed some UN permanent members mind (maybe including france).
I wouldn't call war a *Test* like you. War has nothing to do with a test or a game. Russia just "decided to indefinitely put off a vote on ratification of a U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty because of the U.S. threat of war against Iraq" (Abcnews source).
Is that the *Test* result you were expecting ?
da_zman20
Reply #170 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:11 AM
Reply #170 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:11 AM
I just want to tell Thiubud he has some good points, that I can understand well...and I appreciate that he didn't do any america bashing 
paxx
Reply #171 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:20 AM
Reply #171 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:20 AM
If my posts were perceived as America bashing, then apologize. It certainly isn't meant that way.
To understand where I stand please do the exercice I proposed in post #164. It's not specifically about America, it's about ANY country who would stand in a unique power position in the World.
I guess, you could make the parallel with having one unique party governing a country, or having multiple parties. Even if the unique party is a very good one, I will always prefer to have more than one.
To understand where I stand please do the exercice I proposed in post #164. It's not specifically about America, it's about ANY country who would stand in a unique power position in the World.
I guess, you could make the parallel with having one unique party governing a country, or having multiple parties. Even if the unique party is a very good one, I will always prefer to have more than one.
IPlural
Reply #172 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:45 AM
Reply #172 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:45 AM
na paxx, people no bette rthan you doing something like that. just an emotional topic is all. hell, I take more offence at another american telling other americans to pack up and leave just because they do not fall into line as to exactly how they think they sould be to be a good american...
and even then I know the person is a good person and just tired of ti all, saturation point gets that way sometimes...
it's all good
and even then I know the person is a good person and just tired of ti all, saturation point gets that way sometimes...
it's all good
Frogboy
Reply #173 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:56 AM
Reply #173 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:56 AM
Thibaud, you are incorrect regarding Ivory coast. While France did eventually get UN support, it was only AFTER they had already sent troops there.
And incidentally, the double standard is quite breathtaking. Why was it okay for France to invade a sovereign country but there is aproblem with the US?
The US doesn't need an additional UN resolution for lots of reasons. For one thing, resolution 678, which was the cease fire for the first gulf war, stipulated that Iraq had to disarm. Since Iraq hasn't the cease fire becomes null and void.
But even if they didn't have that, resolution 1441 said the same thing.
Paxx: Like it or not, it's the anti-war people who have failed to come up with a reasonable alternative. If you want to talk about brain washed, perhaps you should look at those who support your position. You have on the one hand people who can lay out a lengthy set of reasons for military action and on the other hand people who spew out one line nonsense "It's about oil, give peace a chance, let the inspectors work, won't someone think of the children? Yadayadayda".
Americans have had a long time now to consider the issues with Iraq and they have concluded that Iraq needs to be dealt with. You don't agree. Fine. But that doesn't make most Americans blindly patriotic. You have never once been able to come up with any reasoning that invalidates any of the multitudes of reasons I've used for military action.
And yes Paxx, not all countries are equal. Cameroon and Guinea are tiny countries. That their vote counts as much as say China is absurd.
There are a lot of Americans, myself included, who feel the US should leave the United Nations and kick the UN out of New York. It is a useless, corrupt organization. What good it does do could be picked up by more efficient NGOs. The US pays a quarter of the UN dues which i think is similarly absurd. The UN security council should be USA, UK, Russia, China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and 1 country from the EU and 1 country from Africa. It should represent the powers capapble of providing security in the world at least theoretically.
And incidentally, the double standard is quite breathtaking. Why was it okay for France to invade a sovereign country but there is aproblem with the US?
The US doesn't need an additional UN resolution for lots of reasons. For one thing, resolution 678, which was the cease fire for the first gulf war, stipulated that Iraq had to disarm. Since Iraq hasn't the cease fire becomes null and void.
But even if they didn't have that, resolution 1441 said the same thing.
Paxx: Like it or not, it's the anti-war people who have failed to come up with a reasonable alternative. If you want to talk about brain washed, perhaps you should look at those who support your position. You have on the one hand people who can lay out a lengthy set of reasons for military action and on the other hand people who spew out one line nonsense "It's about oil, give peace a chance, let the inspectors work, won't someone think of the children? Yadayadayda".
Americans have had a long time now to consider the issues with Iraq and they have concluded that Iraq needs to be dealt with. You don't agree. Fine. But that doesn't make most Americans blindly patriotic. You have never once been able to come up with any reasoning that invalidates any of the multitudes of reasons I've used for military action.
And yes Paxx, not all countries are equal. Cameroon and Guinea are tiny countries. That their vote counts as much as say China is absurd.
There are a lot of Americans, myself included, who feel the US should leave the United Nations and kick the UN out of New York. It is a useless, corrupt organization. What good it does do could be picked up by more efficient NGOs. The US pays a quarter of the UN dues which i think is similarly absurd. The UN security council should be USA, UK, Russia, China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and 1 country from the EU and 1 country from Africa. It should represent the powers capapble of providing security in the world at least theoretically.
Frogboy
Reply #174 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:00 AM
Reply #174 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:00 AM
BTW Paxx, I strongly urge you to look closely at the EU proposed constitution. It is quite socialist in design -- closer to the soviet model than the US model. You know the USSR had elections too right? They just didn't matter. In the EU, the people running it would also not have to answer to the people.
WOM
Reply #175 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:05 AM
Reply #175 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:05 AM
Paxx may get his wish. I think the EU will have one uniform in about 10 years. All EU members will provide men, equipment and money for an EU armed services.That will be a power to be watched.
Frogboy
Reply #176 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:05 AM
Reply #176 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:05 AM
Thibaud: Regarding French interest in Iraq:
1) Iraq was from the 70s on, France's #1 buyer of military hardware.
2) Saddam has a 60 billion oil contract with Total that would become active when sanctions are lifted. Those who have looked at it say it is incredibly one sided.
These are significant economic interests.
Now, you ask why Americans are feeling hostile towards the French? Because the French have been doing anything they can to screw us on this. We don't need or want France to help fight in Iraq. But they have gone and lobbied various countries, including Turkey to try to thwart US efforts. That's not how you treat an "ally".
In the end, France will get what it deserves out of it. The UN is finished now as a meaningful body. The US won't be asking for UN authorization in the future because no US president is going to want to deal with it. And it was only in the UN that a minor power like France had any clout.
But it didn't have to be that way. France could have simply abstained and said they didn't see the need for action. But no, they had to go and lobby other countries to vote against the US and lobby countries in the region not to support the US.
I suspect after this is through we'll learn that French inolvement in Iraq was much greater than we knew. We'll see.
1) Iraq was from the 70s on, France's #1 buyer of military hardware.
2) Saddam has a 60 billion oil contract with Total that would become active when sanctions are lifted. Those who have looked at it say it is incredibly one sided.
These are significant economic interests.
Now, you ask why Americans are feeling hostile towards the French? Because the French have been doing anything they can to screw us on this. We don't need or want France to help fight in Iraq. But they have gone and lobbied various countries, including Turkey to try to thwart US efforts. That's not how you treat an "ally".
In the end, France will get what it deserves out of it. The UN is finished now as a meaningful body. The US won't be asking for UN authorization in the future because no US president is going to want to deal with it. And it was only in the UN that a minor power like France had any clout.
But it didn't have to be that way. France could have simply abstained and said they didn't see the need for action. But no, they had to go and lobby other countries to vote against the US and lobby countries in the region not to support the US.
I suspect after this is through we'll learn that French inolvement in Iraq was much greater than we knew. We'll see.
Frogboy
Reply #177 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:09 AM
Reply #177 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:09 AM
I personally would like to see EU countries get more military might. Then they would be open to other solutions other than chattering.
I think if say Germany had a reasonable military today they would have been open to other solutions with regards to Iraq. When endless diplomacy is your ONLY option, one tends to jump through amazing logical hoops to justify that lone option.
I don't see the EU counter balancing the US unless the EU is significantly undemocratic, which it may become. Democracies don't counter balance one another. Let us not forget that the UK has sufficient military might to counter balance the US if it wanted to. No, it's not as powerful but you don't have to be. If UK said "No, you will not invade Iraq." that would have been the end of the story. The nonsense with the UN these past few months was to help Tony Blair. Without the UK, I doubt Bush would have had sufficient domestic support for going into Iraq.
I think if say Germany had a reasonable military today they would have been open to other solutions with regards to Iraq. When endless diplomacy is your ONLY option, one tends to jump through amazing logical hoops to justify that lone option.
I don't see the EU counter balancing the US unless the EU is significantly undemocratic, which it may become. Democracies don't counter balance one another. Let us not forget that the UK has sufficient military might to counter balance the US if it wanted to. No, it's not as powerful but you don't have to be. If UK said "No, you will not invade Iraq." that would have been the end of the story. The nonsense with the UN these past few months was to help Tony Blair. Without the UK, I doubt Bush would have had sufficient domestic support for going into Iraq.
KarmaGirl
Reply #178 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:19 AM
Reply #178 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:19 AM
I think we also have to think at this "war" in its entirety.
The main objective of the US is to go in, eradicate Saddam and his supporters, then help the people rebuild their government (and, help them prosper).
Say, that instead, the people somehow got enough of an edge to overthrow Saddam and his army. (Which, first Saddam would have to be disarmed of WMD and the people would somehow have to get arms, which would be hard, but just say that they did). So, how many people (civilians) do you think would die? How would they then be able to rebuild? (Wouldn't they be looking for assistance from the US like many other countries have?)
The way I see it, we are helping Iraq. We are removing a dictator, then we will be assisting the people in rebuilding their nation. (We have already sent food supplies for them, set up stocked medical facilities, and will continue to send relief to them.) I can only see how there will be less lives lost this way, and the country won't have to suffer for generations rebuilding their nation.
Also, I really don't think that this war is an "economic" decision. Does anyone have any idea how much (%) oil we import? Compare the loss of that to how much this war (plus financial support) will cost? Now, the way I look at it, The US is losing money in a major way. It would take the rest of my life plus some to say that it is financially in our best interest to go to war. I don't have those stats, but I'd like to see somebody prove it wrong.
I am not pro-war, but I am pro-freedom. And, that's freedom for everyone, not just the US.
The main objective of the US is to go in, eradicate Saddam and his supporters, then help the people rebuild their government (and, help them prosper).
Say, that instead, the people somehow got enough of an edge to overthrow Saddam and his army. (Which, first Saddam would have to be disarmed of WMD and the people would somehow have to get arms, which would be hard, but just say that they did). So, how many people (civilians) do you think would die? How would they then be able to rebuild? (Wouldn't they be looking for assistance from the US like many other countries have?)
The way I see it, we are helping Iraq. We are removing a dictator, then we will be assisting the people in rebuilding their nation. (We have already sent food supplies for them, set up stocked medical facilities, and will continue to send relief to them.) I can only see how there will be less lives lost this way, and the country won't have to suffer for generations rebuilding their nation.
Also, I really don't think that this war is an "economic" decision. Does anyone have any idea how much (%) oil we import? Compare the loss of that to how much this war (plus financial support) will cost? Now, the way I look at it, The US is losing money in a major way. It would take the rest of my life plus some to say that it is financially in our best interest to go to war. I don't have those stats, but I'd like to see somebody prove it wrong.
I am not pro-war, but I am pro-freedom. And, that's freedom for everyone, not just the US.
Thibaud
Reply #179 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:25 AM
Reply #179 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:25 AM
frogboy,
Ivory Coast is a totally different pb since it was a french colony and there is a permanent treaty of mutual assistance in case of the gvt in place has any pb. That's why french troops are permanently based over there. What have been sent to Ivory coast are policemen and NOT military ppl. That makes a big difference. Nothing to see with invasion...
As for oil interest, I've read on several websites that contracts between US and iraki companies were already on negociation. Hmmm.., as you said, we'll see. If you're right, then for sure, it will be a great deception over there.
For you, we deserve that bad feeling from american ppl. Fine, that's your opinion. Being an ally doesn't mean that france must always agree with US gvt. After all, US put a veto to france several years ago and you never saw that kind of reaction inside france.
Sure, you're right to say that UN is useless if all members should always say OK to any US resolution. That's why vote -and democracy- exists. Everyone has the right to express his own opinion and say that he doesn't agree with others.
About lobbying other countries, what do you think about US gvt trying to *buy* yes votes to poor countries ? Was that moral ?
Ivory Coast is a totally different pb since it was a french colony and there is a permanent treaty of mutual assistance in case of the gvt in place has any pb. That's why french troops are permanently based over there. What have been sent to Ivory coast are policemen and NOT military ppl. That makes a big difference. Nothing to see with invasion...
As for oil interest, I've read on several websites that contracts between US and iraki companies were already on negociation. Hmmm.., as you said, we'll see. If you're right, then for sure, it will be a great deception over there.
For you, we deserve that bad feeling from american ppl. Fine, that's your opinion. Being an ally doesn't mean that france must always agree with US gvt. After all, US put a veto to france several years ago and you never saw that kind of reaction inside france.
Sure, you're right to say that UN is useless if all members should always say OK to any US resolution. That's why vote -and democracy- exists. Everyone has the right to express his own opinion and say that he doesn't agree with others.
About lobbying other countries, what do you think about US gvt trying to *buy* yes votes to poor countries ? Was that moral ?
Thibaud
Reply #180 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:31 AM
Reply #180 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:31 AM
Oh and again about the ally thing, I'm pretty sure that France would help US if things would turn in a bad way in Irak (eg. irak using gaz etc...). I can't swear it but that's my own feeling. That's what an ally is : we can disagree, but if one or other have troubles, then we're there to help. It's called friendship.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 9 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #161 Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:22 AM
I just have a pb with the war issue since inspections were getting results (and of course mostly due to the US pressure over there, that's right).
I'm pretty sure that without war fear, UN inspectors wouldn't be able to work in an efficient way.
Does peace have a chance against saddam ? I dunno, but if saddam can be removed, like destroying his weapons with the UN inspections, he wouldn't represent a threat anymore, and maybe his own population would rebel. I'm not sure about that, but it would be interesting to see the final results without war since irak is not representing -at least for now- an immediate threat for the world.
backerstreet : i agree with you, that's weird. Is that some kind of Stockholm syndrom ? I don't know. For ex, some iraki ppl are thinking that saddam is a great man though he's a dictator. Same happened in Spain with Franco. Fortunately, the majority of the oppressed population does not think like that. As I said, there will always be some unscrupulous ppl to make profit of war/occupation. That's the obscure part of the human nature