The French never learn, it appears they have lost all of their history books...
Not too mention the fact that they will have huge financial loss if the USA removes Saddam.
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/68775.htm
Printable View
The French never learn, it appears they have lost all of their history books...
Not too mention the fact that they will have huge financial loss if the USA removes Saddam.
http://www.nypost.com/commentary/68775.htm
One of my friends who I play C&C Generals with is French. The other day, on IRC, someone asked another Generals player a question about him:
<cetacean> so billy how do you beat gui in generals..i can't see how you get past the message that says "can't engage enemy until more u.n. inspections are complete"
:evil:
http://insertcoin.2y.net/chiracandsaddam.jpg
SCREW FRANCE!!!
Saddam Hussein at a nuclear reactor in France in 1975. Current French President Jacques Chirac is at right in the glasses. Saddam wanted a nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. France supplied its Osiris reactor which was named Osirak (Osiris + Iraq]. It was being erected when it was destroyed in a Sunday strike [June 7, 1981] by the Israelis, timed to save the lives of the French scientists helping with the construction.
I'm surprised the debate has gone on for so long. I thought France would have given up by now...
You just a linked to the NY Post and you're talking about "history books"?!?!? :lol::lol::lol:
I guess the French are not as well read as the average NY Post reader. :p
XXXX EDITXXXXX
This post is now complaint to the Patriot Act...
When it hits you in the ass maybe you and the French will wake the fuck up...
You two wouldnt be canadian would you? :)
I didn't even read the article, but I'm guessing it's about us helping France in WW2. A bunch of bullshit if I've ever heard it. I mean sure, we could have let Germany keep possesion of France, and then take England, and then the rest of the world. We wouldn't have minded, right?
french women should shave their armpits.
Some of us are.Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
You two wouldnt be canadian would you? :)
Some of us are immensely fond of the French...
Keep in mind, people in France (and Canada) have interesting thoughts about American propoganda too...
French women are sexy...
What hits who in the ass? Saddam presents no threat.Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
When it hits you in the ass maybe you and the French will wake the fuck up...
You two wouldnt be canadian would you? :)
Also, the Post is a rag maybe one notch more credible than the Enquirer. Maybe. You linking to it destroys any credibility you may have had in this argument.
You think that Saddam cant and wont give his weapons biological or chemical to terrorist organizations to use on an attack in the U.S?
If so you are naive....
Do I think Saddam is a direct threat? NO but if his weapons get into the wrong hands they will be.
And what about the crimes he has commited against his own people? Do you not want to free them of this ruthless dictator?
This passive attitude is what got millions of people killed in WW2, the French have millions to loose if Iraq tumbles and new leadership comes in.
This is simply a financial thing for the French otherwise they wouldnt give a shit about Iraq.
The only propoganda is the brainwashing that Canada and France among other countries seem to have about anything dealing with USA politics.
Again, France shouldnt forget their past and who has saved their asses before....
Just come out and say that you risk loosing millions if Saddam is toppled...
We know you are spineless but at least be honest about the real reasons behind fighting this....
Ive said before that the USA should enclose itself in a giant bubble, within 50-100 years the rest of the world will have either destroyed itself or would be controlled by some dictatorship.
Europes failed job to police their own damn back yard would be their downfall, Nazi Germany was because of this same attitude...
Yeah and fuck you too.
Honestly I can't believe I am reading this bullshit from you JMET, I thought you were more intelligent than that.
-Sidez (French)
Wah wah wah.
I find your "debate" amusing.
"Amusing" here meaning on the level of hippie "war" protesters carrying anti-meat, anti-fur and PETA-slogan signs.
Yes, the French are being weenies about taking out an identified and proven threat to international stability. They have monetary interests with Teh Big Bad, so of course they don't want to piss him off or lose his "investment".
However, our Congress started taxing the hell out of Americans who work overseas some years ago, so any impetus for Americans to get in the situation the French find themselves in is long gone -- otherwise, we might at least have reason to react the same way Chirac is.
Sidez: The fact stands that France will loose money if the USA attacks Iraq.
In the least since we pay everyone else off for help, the USA should pay these millions to France instead, then we would see them do a 180...
I dont have anything against the French except when they fight this war happening on the grounds that they have something to loose regardless of the cause.
Then they deny support to Turkey, arent we supposed to help and protect ALL alies during conflicts or war?
Do you think the USA would deny protection to France? No....
Instead of insulting me, why not give me the French's point of view...
And prove to me that france wont loose money in all of this...
France accused of oil-for-peace deal with Iraq
14/02/2003
A senior Pentagon adviser today accused France of striking a deal with Saddam Hussein to oppose military action in return for a lucrative oil contract.
Richard Perle, a former US Assistant Defence Secretary, said the French anti-war stance was driven by economic interests. French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq, he said. “What’s distinctive about the Total contract is that it’s not favourable to Iraq, it’s favourable to Total,” Mr Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defence Policy Board, said during an address in New York.
“One can suspect that there’s some arbitrage there, that in between the real value of that contract and the cash value of that contract there’s a certain amount of political support. “It’s entirely possible that Saddam negotiated that deal because that along with the revenues, he could get something else.”He said oil experts who had analysed the deal described it as “extraordinarily lopsided” in favour of the French company.
“This is not your normal oil exploration contract.”
Total is currently barred from working on the oil fields because of the economic sanctions against Iraq.
If Saddam is overthrown the new regime is likely to nullify existing contracts and invite oil companies from around the globe to compete for new deals.
“The French interest in the propagation of contracts that will only go forward with this regime is perfectly obvious.” Mr Perle also said the dispute over whether to invade Iraq had exposed France’s determination to shape the European Union as a “counterweight” to the US.
French president Jacques Chirac saw the role of the EU to neutralise America rather than to work with it, he said. “A relationship that can be described in terms of a counterweight is not a relationship of alliance.”
Mr Perle said the “extremity” of the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and the “petulance” of Mr Chirac in their stance on Iraq could alter the US-European partnership forever. “I think that’s going to cause a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic to rethink the post-war alliance. “It may well be the case that we are witnessing history in the making in this transatlantic relationship."
France gave 5 times as many lives as the Americans in the World Wars, so all you France bigots can go fuck yourselves.
Way to back up your anti war stance. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by sleeveboy
France gave 5 times as many lives as the Americans in the World Wars, so all you France bigots can go fuck yourselves.
The numbers would interest me however, care to post your sources?
And as I have stated, I have nothing against France except their lame attempt at trying to protect financial interests over National safety...
"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't
help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"
---Jay Leno
"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
--David Letterman
What do you expect from a culture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting against Disney World and Big Mac's than the Nazis?
--Dennis Miller
BBC NEWS:
Chirac sparks 'New Europe' ire
French President Jacques Chirac's criticism of the East European EU applicants' support for the US stance on Iraq has generated a wide debate and angry reaction in the press in those countries. The following are quotes from newspapers from across the region.
The Czech Republic
The French president is without doubt walking on thin ice when he tries to base European foreign policy on the principle of anti-Americanism. His theory does not even have the support of the majority of EU member states.
Hospodarske Noviny
All right, Monsieur Chirac, perhaps we are poor, perhaps we were not raised properly - but we do not repay those who have helped us and who continue to help us with ingratitude
Latvia's Neatkariga Rita Avize
All Central European nations are used to the interpretations that some countries have more rights than others. They are also used to furious tirades, followed by tanks. If Chirac wants to revive the spirit of Leonid Brezhnev and renew the doctrine of limited sovereignty, which means fewer rights for some countries, it is his own affair.
Mlada Fronta Dnes
The EU is a realistic kind of club where it's all about political power and pushing through the aims of individual states. And when it gets uncomfortable for EU politicians to take on board new countries, they calmly throw them overboard, for instance over their attitude to the USA.
Lidove Noviny
Hungary
Chirac is probably not alone in his views, even if the politicians of other EU states put things more diplomatically. However, the two camps, split over the Iraq affair, both seek the favours of the central and east-central European states which, owing to their Nato and expected EU membership, have grown in value.
Magyar Hirlap
Specific eastern European views has now become an unavoidable presence in the set of values of the expanding EU. It was no coincidence that, following the adoption of the joint stance, the French president criticized in unusually sharp language those candidate states which had been urging a firmer EU-US stand on Iraq.
Nepszabadsag
Latvia
After enlargement, the EU will be different. Less French or German, less Chirac's. However, not the worse for it
Pravda, Slovakia
All right, Monsieur Chirac. Perhaps we are poor. Perhaps we were not raised properly. We do not know about fine wine and the various directions of avant-garde art. But we do not repay those who have helped us and who continue to help us with ingratitude.
Neatkariga Rita Avize
Perhaps there are some in Paris who want to be the patriarch of Europe's "family", letting others in the family "knock on the door" humbly. By denying the right of others to hold independent views, however, France runs a risk of being alone with its own view.
Diena
Lithuania
Paris's attempt to ruin EU enlargement may lead to a rift in the EU. But this scenario would be a nightmare even for France itself, which is trying to proclaim itself as the strongest EU power.
Lietuvos Rytas
It seems France, the nation with old pedagogical traditions, decided to continue educating the European juniors.
Verslo Zinios
Poland Chirac allowed himself to say things which should not have been said... Poland can make its own sovereign decisions about its views. EU membership must not deprive us of this right. Loyalty towards Paris should not mean subordination. Loyalty brings obligations on both sides.
Rzeczopolita
Romania
French President Jacques Chirac's harsh criticism of Romania and Bulgaria for bad behaviour and recklessness for their support for the USA on Iraq is without precedent... During the Gulf War Romania was criticised for supporting Iraq and it is now criticised for supporting the USA.
Adevarul
Slovenia
Most senior politicians of sovereign states have no right to their own opinion, even if it is even more controversial than the "Vilnius declaration". The "cold shower" was sudden but it did not come completely out of the blue.
Delo
Slovakia
Jacques Chirac's degrading message to the candidate countries can actually be taken as a compliment. The French President admitted defeat in his rage. Suddenly the 15 [EU members] succeeded in resolving within a couple of hours a matter on which they were not able to agree for months. It was the "new Europe" which forced "the old" to overcome itself.
Sme
Neither Slovakia, nor any other candidate country will enter the EU to keep silent but in order to make their voice be heard more... After enlargement, the EU will be different. Less French or German, less Chirac's. However, not worse for that.
Pravda
"When [Chirac] reproached the candidate countries for not having discussed their attitudes with the others to a minimal extent at least, he forgot that it was mainly France and Germany who, since the very beginning, have taken a negative stance on a possible use of force against Iraq and on Turkey's request for ... military aid without asking about positions of other countries.
Narodna Obroda
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/2780881.stm
i like how this fucking clown is quoting talk show hosts.
of course not. Every non-American knows much more than any American, and whenever an American has news to shed not-so-pleasant light on European 'favorites,' the American is clearly wrong. Even if they aren't - the fact that they're American automatically nulls any factuality they have with them.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
You just a linked to the NY Post and you're talking about "history books"?!?!? :lol::lol::lol:
I guess the French are not as well read as the average NY Post reader. :p
Isn't that right?
Moral of the story - news articles and conspiracy theories are enough ground to stand on for anyone who wants to hate America(ns), but it doesn't cut the other way around. It's just the plain, ugly truth in the world of 'open debate'
Feh.
He's a clown because he quotes talk shows; he's deserving of your hate, not your rebuttal, right? But I mean, for anyone to call YOU a clown for you belief, viewpoint, stance, or sources...Quote:
Originally posted by catty
i like how this fucking clown is quoting talk show hosts.
I'm guessing it doesn't cut that way.
I threw those in for abit of humorouse truth...Quote:
Originally posted by catty
i like how this fucking clown is quoting talk show hosts.
Some of you guys cant seem to back anything up with actuall proof....
Perhaps you should be the one to "try" to talk Saddam into following the U.N sanctions.. :rolleyes:
I don't see how, during such a premature rush to war, we can look down on anyone who isn't jumping into it.
Premature as in 8 years of not following U.N sanctions right?Quote:
Originally posted by Masters
I don't see how, during such a premature rush to war, we can look down on anyone who isn't jumping into it.
How much longer do we give him?
Until he poses an actual threat.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
of course not. Every non-American knows much more than any American, and whenever an American has news to shed not-so-pleasant light on European 'favorites,' the American is clearly wrong. Even if they aren't - the fact that they're American automatically nulls any factuality they have with them.
Isn't that right?
Moral of the story - news articles and conspiracy theories are enough ground to stand on for anyone who wants to hate America(ns), but it doesn't cut the other way around. It's just the plain, ugly truth in the world of 'open debate'
Feh.
He's a clown because he quotes talk shows; he's deserving of your hate, not your rebuttal, right? But I mean, for anyone to call YOU a clown for you belief, viewpoint, stance, or sources...
I'm guessing it doesn't cut that way.
Ive noticed this as well, it seems to be common belief that anything American including ANY American veiws are wrong..
No reason as to why, they just are because they are American...
I am simply pointing out what France is doing..
#1 They are siding with Iraq for financial gaines only...
#2 As always they are anti war, regardless of the reason or need to protect themselves or the world.
#3 The Americans want it so it must be wrong right?
Im simply pointing out facts that are blatant, for this I am wrong?
Well, in World War I, yes.Quote:
Originally posted by sleeveboy
France gave 5 times as many lives as the Americans in the World Wars, so all you France bigots can go fuck yourselves.
France & Empire 1,630,000 (Eckhardt) - Remember this is France + their empire. Not just France the country.
U.S. 126,000 (S&S; Eckhardt)
However, in World War 2, the casualty count was different. According to Rummel counts.
USA: 0.4M
France: 0.21M
Five times as many? No.
And yes, the French are annoying. They'd rather sell you out than help you out. World War 2 anyone? Poland, Czhechoslovakia, Norway, etc. All sold out so that France (and England, too) wouldn't have to lift a finger.
The fact that a mad man such as himself has biological and or chemical weapons is enough threat, remember we are trying to be proactive and get these out of his hands before they become a reality in our back yards.Quote:
Originally posted by Masters
Until he poses an actual threat.
And what of the U.N sanctions that he has ignored for many many years, is he somehow exempt from them?
Some anti war people are "anti war" regardless of the truths in front of them, these same people would still be anti war if he supplied terrorists with these weapons and half your family got wiped out.
Ill say it again, Saddam must be removed for his ignoring of the U.N sanctions for the last 8+ years we need no other reasons.
Without this the U.N continues to be a spineless non enforceable joke and should be dissassembled....
Without the threat that the U.N, standing together as individual countries will police and come down on mad men, ruthless dicators, and terrorists then the world is without law and these people have nothing to fear....
Nazi Germany didnt have to happen, it was allowed to happen untill they were marching into your back yards and it was too late...
The world needs laws/sanctions to be followed period....
Yep, you are.Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
Ive noticed this as well, it seems to be common belief that anything American including ANY American veiws are wrong..
No reason as to why, they just are because they are American...
I am simply pointing out what France is doing..
#1 They are siding with Iraq for financial gaines only...
#2 As always they are anti war, regardless of the reason or need to protect themselves or the world.
#3 The Americans want it so it must be wrong right?
Im simply pointing out facts that are blatant, for this I am wrong?
1) If they side with anyone for financial gains, that's fine. We're the capitalist warmongers who want to kill babies and feed their blood to our children. Was that too harsh? Sorry, I get carried away...In reality, it looks like any country can have any backdoor dealings, skeletons in the closet, and blood on their hands and be fine. As long as it's not us. Fair enough?
2) Most of the world is anti-war, including a big part of our population. Not just in this instance; in any time where conflict seems on the horizon, people will rebell against it. Remember the flowery catch-phrase - War is NEVER the Answer. On that concept alone, I think it's a very childish and selfish thing to think. I don't want people dying, fighting, or going to war, but there will be instances where it is what is needed to prevent potential larger loss of life. It's not fair, but people aren't reasonable either - there will be times where the only thing to do is either forcefully remove a threat, or sit peacefully as death is brought down on your head. I think the latter is selfish because even though I don't like it, if it has to be a fight to keep others safe, I'd rather fight. I'd hate to see inaction cost the lives of others.
Then again, war also takes lives. Either side a catch-22. That's why we suck.
3) If you haven't figured this out by now, then life's gonna suck. Don't ask it as a rhetorical - it IS true. Either you get in line with the collectivist mentality or get crushed under its weight. The only way to not be condemned is to be live everyone else. Not just in this instance - politically, morally, economically, sociologically - if you don't fit in with everyone else, prepare to be a monster.
Everything is relative, and it makes me sick.
So after someone somewhere is already dead, just to fuel a different fire. Then people will ask "Where was the US to prevent this?"Quote:
Originally posted by Masters
Until he poses an actual threat.
Either way, its a loss. So better to shut up and take it than fight.
Bravo. I am the lone member of the audience clapping at the moment, it seems.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
Everything is relative, and it makes me sick.
Carter, any facts you place on this side of the fence is automatically wrong. Even if they're right. Nice effort, but don't exhaust yourself.Quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
Well, in World War I, yes.
France & Empire 1,630,000 (Eckhardt) - Remember this is France + their empire. Not just France the country.
U.S. 126,000 (S&S; Eckhardt)
However, in World War 2, the casualty count was different. According to Rummel counts.
USA: 0.4M
France: 0.21M
Five times as many? No.
And yes, the French are annoying. They'd rather sell you out than help you out. World War 2 anyone? Poland, Czhechoslovakia, Norway, etc. All sold out so that France (and England, too) wouldn't have to lift a finger.
I thought I was the only American in here that happened to be pro removal of Saddamn..
Hero and Carter, you are my 2 new best freinds. :)
And Hero, thanks for speaking the truth when it comes to the worlds view on America..
They wont admit it but its the damn truth, or are we wrong on this also? :p
And my questions werent that.. they were statements, as in here is the proof and yet somehow I am still wrong regardless of the power of the proof...
We're wrong on even our own opinions for being wrong. We're always wrong - learn to live with it. Then you too can be a self-loathing American.
/me is now self loathing american
*shrugs* I thought everyone hated the French.
/me smokes cigarette
NOW FUCK YOU AMERICA
Hah, that's one of the best things I've read on this board in a long time.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
Everything is relative, and it makes me sick.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :DQuote:
Originally posted by DArque Bishop
One of my friends who I play C&C Generals with is French. The other day, on IRC, someone asked another Generals player a question about him:
<cetacean> so billy how do you beat gui in generals..i can't see how you get past the message that says "can't engage enemy until more u.n. inspections are complete"
:evil:
Count me in, too. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
I thought I was the only American in here that happened to be pro removal of Saddamn..
Philadelphians should be automatically "in" :)
Why? I thought our state was mostly liberal?Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
Philadelphians should be automatically "in" :)
Because of the importance of your city to this countries early history...
I guess it can be an opt in thing. :)
Exactly. For blanket hating a huge and diverse group of people, yes, he is deserving.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
he's deserving of your hate, not your rebuttal, right?
Kudos to JMET, Hero, The Alternate Dimension Ex-President and the other take-action-now types.
Appeasement didn't work in WW2, and it won't work now. I would ask why the French haven't learned this yet, but I'm tempted to believe that would be asking too much.
I dont hate any 1 group of people...Quote:
Originally posted by catty
Exactly. For blanket hating a huge and diverse group of people, yes, he is deserving.
But you see it as that because I dissagree with your government because they are wrong as I have proven...
You are using blanket statements and not backing anything with truth...
I don't see him blanket-hating anyone...unless you mean the French. I think that's more out of frustration than hate, but I'm not him. And I'm willing to guess his frustration stems from this irony:Quote:
Originally posted by catty
Exactly. For blanket hating a huge and diverse group of people, yes, he is deserving.
In general, European sentiment is anti-war. France and Germany are directly opposed to any US action. Then JMET finds these articles which put France in comfortable company with Saddam, meaning that they wouldn't loose much with him still being around. Here's the ironic part...France can say all it wants how the US is in this for oil, or is being premature, or has no factual evidence (those satellite photos were obviously PhotoShoped...), but could France themselves be against this not for peace, but for their own political interests? The mind boggles.
I personally have no hate on the French, but I'm amazed at the French government, and the general collectivist mentality of the world populace. That's a whole other thread though...
Then again, I'm not JMET, so hey...maybe he is this close-minded, French-hating bigot. Or not.
I do not hate the French. I plan on, gasp, visiting France someday. I just find their belligerance (sp) annoying in the face of danger.
Quote:
i'd clap, but im downloading porn at the moment, so no second hand >rimshot<
See? I take a whole paragraph to say what you can in one sentence. Good job =pQuote:
Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
I do not hate the French. I plan on, gasp, visiting France someday. I just find their belligerance (sp) annoying in the face of danger.
You know after thinking about this.. you shouldnt be talking.. your breaking the Patriot act.. and by doing so your a terrosist, and your citzenship will be taken away.. so shhh.. their watching...
I think i should go edit my other post....
The US is Israels bitch:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/263923.html
U.S. official says Syria, Iran will be dealt with after Iraq war
U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.
Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings about preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
In a meeting with Bolton on Monday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that Israel is concerned about the security threat posed by Iran. It's important to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned toward Iraq, Sharon said.
Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.
It is abouth the oil dude:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro." (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)
"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq - or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq - is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran ? the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports).
Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our 'client state,' the Saudi regime appears increasingly weak/ threatened from massive civil unrest. Some analysts believe a "Saudi Revolution" might be plausible in the aftermath of an unpopular U.S. invasion of Iraq (ie. Iran circa 1979) (1). Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post-Saddam era, just in case we need to grab and secure Saudi's oil fields in the event of a Saudi coup by an anti-western group. But first back to Iraq, and to my friend's lucid comments on the Iraq enigma.
"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) - at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can - short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime."
Big Picture Perspective: "Everything else aside from the reserve currency and the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and international criticism) is peripheral and of marginal consequence to this administration. Further, the dollar-euro threat is powerful enough that they'll rather risk much of the economic backlash in the short-term to stave off the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to euros. All of this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India, China."
This information about Iraq's oil currency is *censored* by the U.S. media and the Bush administration as the truth could potentially curtail both investor and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/ spending, create political pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off middle-eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards war in Iraq. This 'quasi state secret' can be found on a Radio Free Europe article discussing Saddam's switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros on Nov. 6, 2000 (2).
"Baghdad's switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington's hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European currency."
At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was willing to give up millions in oil revenue for what appeared to be a political statement. However, contrary to one of the main points of this November 2000 article, the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the euro since late 2001 means that Iraq has profited handsomely from the switch in their reserve and transaction currencies. The euro has gained roughly 17% against the dollar in that time, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq's U.N. "oil for food" reserve fund that was previously held in dollars has also gained that same percent value since the switch. What would happen if OPEC made a sudden switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition? My expert analyst friend had this to day:
"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You;d have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario.
The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)."
In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no "exit strategy" in Iraq, as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed Iraqi regime, and perhaps send a message to other OPEC producers that they too might receive "regime change" if they convert their oil exports to the euro... The following is another underreported story from this summer regarding the other OPEC 'Axis of Evil' country, Iran, who is vacillating on the euro issue (3)
"Iran's proposal to receive payments for crude oil sales to Europe in euros instead of U.S. dollars is based primarily on economics, Iranian and industry sources said. But politics are still likely to be a factor in any decision, they said, as Iran uses the opportunity to hit back at the U.S. government, which recently labeled it part of an "axis of evil."
The proposal, which is now being reviewed by the Central Bank of Iran, is likely to be approved if presented to the country's parliament, a parliamentary representative said. "There is a very good chance MPs will agree to this idea ...now that the euro is stronger, it is more logical," the parliamentary representative said."
More over, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of reserve funds in Iran's central bank have been shifted to euros. It appears imminent that Iran intends to switch to euros for their oil currency (4)
"More than half of the country's assets in the Forex Reserve Fund have been converted to euro, a member of the Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad Abasspour announced. He noted that higher parity rate of euro against the US dollar will give the Asian countries, particularly oil exporters, a chance to usher in a new chapter in ties with European Union's member countries.
He said that the United States dominates other countries through its currency, noting that given the superiority of the dollar against other hard currencies, the US monopolizes global trade.
As mentioned by ariana Huffington it is all bout the bottom line:
http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?ItemID=14533
Arianna Huffington
Arianna Online
02.20.03 Printer-friendly version
Email this item to a friend
Most e-mailed stories
The bottom line on Iraq: It's the bottom line
There's money to be made in post-war Iraq -- just like last time
Boys, boys, you're all right. Sure, it's Daddy, oil, and imperialism, not to mention a messianic sense of righteous purpose, a deep-seated contempt for the peace movement, and, to be fair, the irrefutable fact that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein.
But there's also an overarching mentality feeding the administration's collective delusions, and it can be found by looking to corporate America's bottom line. The dots leading from Wall Street to the West Wing situation room are the ones that need connecting. There's money to be made in post-war Iraq, and the sooner we get the pesky war over with, the sooner we (by which I mean George Bush's corporate cronies) can start making it.
The nugget of truth that former Bush economic guru Lawrence Lindsey let slip last fall, shortly before he was shoved out the oval office door, says it all. Momentarily forgetting that he was talking to the press and not his buddies in the White House, he admitted: "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."
To hell with worldwide protests, an unsupportive Security Council, a diplomatically dubious Hans Blix, an Osama giddy at the prospect of a united Arab world, and a panicked populace grasping at the very slender reed of duct tape and Saran Wrap to protect itself from the inevitable terrorist blow-back -- the business of America is still business.
No one in the administration embodies this bottom line mentality more than Dick Cheney. The vice president is one of those ideological purists who never let little things like logic, morality, or mass murder interfere with the single-minded pursuit of profitability.
His on-again, off-again relationship with the Butcher of Baghdad is a textbook example of what modern moralists condemn as "situational ethics," an extremely convenient code that allows you to do what you want when you want and still feel good about it in the morning. In the Cheney White House (let's call it what it is), anything that can be rationalized is right.
The two were clearly on the outs back during the Gulf War, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense, and the first President Bush dubbed Saddam "Hitler revisited."
Then Cheney moved to the private sector and suddenly things between him and Saddam warmed up considerably. With Cheney in the CEO's seat, Halliburton helped Iraq reconstruct its war-torn oil industry with $73 million worth of equipment and services -- becoming Baghdad's biggest such supplier. Kinda nice how that worked out for the vice-president, really: oversee the destruction of an industry that you then profit from by rebuilding.
When, during the 2000 campaign, Cheney was asked about his company's Iraqi escapades, he flat out denied them. But the truth remains: When it came to making a buck, Cheney apparently had no qualms about doing business with "Hitler revisited."
And make no mistake, this wasn't a case of hard-nosed realpolitik -- the rationale for Rummy's cuddly overtures to Saddam back in '83 despite his almost daily habit of gassing Iranians. That, we were told, was all about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
No, Cheney's company chose to do business with Saddam after the rape of Kuwait. After Scuds had been fired at Tel Aviv and Riyadh. After American soldiers had been sent home from Desert Storm in body bags.
And in 2000, just months before pocketing his $34 million Halliburton retirement package and joining the GOP ticket, Cheney was lobbying for an end to U.N. sanctions against Saddam.
Of course, American businessmen are nothing if not flexible. So his former cronies at Halliburton are now at the head of the line of companies expected to reap the estimated $2 billion it will take to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure following Saddam's ouster. This burn-and-build approach to business guarantees that there will be a market for Halliburton's services as long as it has a friend in high places to periodically carpet-bomb a country for it.
In the meantime, Halliburton, among many other Pentagon contracts, has a lucrative 10-year deal to provide food services to the Army that comes with no lid on potential costs. Lenin once scoffed that "a capitalist would sell rope to his own hangman." And, while the man got more than a few things wrong, he's been proven right on this one time and time again: from Hewlett-Packard and Bechtel helping arm Saddam back in the 80s, to the good folks at Boeing, Hughes Electronics, Lockheed Martin, and Loral Space whose corporate greed helped China steal rocket and missile secrets -- and point a few dozen long-range nukes our way.
Clearly, our national interest runs a distant second when pitted against the rapacious desires of special interests and the politicians they buy with massive campaign contributions. Oil and gas companies donated $26.7 million to Bush and his fellow Republicans during the 2000 election and another $18 million in 2002. So does it really come as any surprise that Cheney's staff held secret meetings in October with executives from Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips -- and, yes, Halliburton -- to discuss who would get what in a post-Saddam Iraq? As they say, to the victors -- and the big buck donors -- go the sp-oil-s.
Here's my bottom line: At a time of war, at what point does subverting our national security in the name of profitability turn from ugly business into high treason? See more in the Arianna Huffington archives.
Meanwhile US media is playing a game of deception(footage):
http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?...&group=webcast
Low Quality (400kbps/30megs) ftp://videodropbox:peacenow@f15.nyci...ssTape-low.mov
High Quality (1200kbps/70megs)
ftp://videodropbox:peacenow@f15.nyci...-PressTape.mov (article 1)
This is the footage that was released to the commercial media after it was aired at the United For Peace press conference (2/18).
The changes between this version and what we showed at the press conference is the music track (Frank Sanatra, New York New York) has been removed and some of the slow motion effects have been removed.
Compare this footage to that which the commercial media is airing, notice that they concentrate on the horses charging into crowds and cut out scenes containing pepper spray (which the NYPD claims was not used) and the more serious scenes of police blatently beating protesters.
p1r8.
Okay, heh, Almaci, 1st - that article about us going to war over currency fluctuations is a complete joke. Do you even understand what the thing is implying?
Iraq's currency use (or even OPEC's currency use) is a drop in the ocean - there's absolutely no fucking way that a switch to euros in that market could actually change cash prices...especially when its as transparent of a political move as it is.
The point, though, is that the writer of the article, and the people who distribute it, don't understand what the article's about.
Again, it also doesn't address why we've been slamming the area with sanctions (and why we've been keeping Iraq's oil out of the market). None of these people seem to be able to reconcile their war-for-oil accusations with 10 years of sanctions - if we really wanted what Iraq offers economically, then being the largest proponent of crushing sanctions doesn't really make much sense, does it?
This stuff you're posting is worthless.
stones back.. i knew he couldnt resists a thread like this...:p
Making sense yet?
Put these things with the other articles I linked to in other threads, the examples of deception by the government and the mediabias I exposed and open youre eyes.
Scare people into submission by all means necesarry, dehumanise youre enemy so people wont see them as human beings and believe everything you claim about them and demonise youre opponents so people will refuse to even listen to whatever points they might have.
Its happening with regards to france right now, as wel as against everyone who seems opposed to this war.
From Rumsfeld handshakes with Saddam to Cheney´s treachery in using past gulf war and the coming one to fill his pockets to Powells spread of halftruths and downright WW2 stykle propaganda to Bush his belief that he is doing the Lords work the evidence AGAINST this war and the lack of moral ground to start this war is plain to see.
yet as I mentioned before, most of you seem unable to think outside of the boundaries set by youre media and government, you seem to be unwilling to look at the other side of the fence and to see whats really going on.
You have been scared into submission.
Here have some ductapeto make you feel safer, to further brainwash you into believing that you too can be part of this war on terrorism wich seems to be failing on all fronts(more terrorists attacks from Al Queda worldwide since 9/11 then in the years prior, and still no sign of Osama)while this time we blame oure favourite whipping dog while preparing to rape a country wich has suffered tremendously on crimes wich we too are guilty of.
The following is an entry into my life journal from october 28th:
10:47pm: And the times, they are a changing
Not too long ago I was talking about mankinds seeming inability to learn from its mistakes.
Sadly plenty of proof of that has been doing the rounds lately.
Lets just take a look at some of the more recent events that catched my attention.
The attacks by Jewish settlers against Palestinian farmers and all people who aid them in the long overdeu harvest of olives to the latest suicide bombing OUTSIDE the green line zone that killed 4 people.
________________________________
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...&itemNo=224145
This ongoing persecution - which has been accompanied by gunfire directed at the farmers and their homes, the torching of the Yanoun village generator and the contamination of the well in the area - has already caused most of the village residents to abandon their homes. The village, which was once home to 150 families, now has less than 10 families living there.
Dozens of complaints dating as far back as 1998 and concerning the vandalization of property have been filed by the village residents with the Israel Police, but these have gone no further than a confirmation of their receipt. Till now, no one has stood trial and no indictments have been served against the persecutors.
The villages of Yanoun and Akrabeh are, in fact, under Israeli control. Nevertheless, it turns out that the Israel Defense Forces and the police are in no hurry to uphold the law. Instead, representatives of the security forces are trying to forge "understandings" and "agreements" between the settlers and the villagers, as if they were mediators and not law enforcement authorities.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1035723566180
"Do you want to be dead?" a settler asked James Delaplain, 74, of Wisconsin, as he hit him in the face with a rifle butt Sunday afternoon. Delaplain was one of eight olive harvesters injured Sunday afternoon outside the village of Khirbat Yanun.
Israel Police spokesman Gil Kleiman confirmed settlers had attacked olive harvesters, injuring four foreigners, two Israelis, and two Palestinians. He added that he did not know any specific details about the attack.
He said the incident occurred shortly after Sunday's suicide attack in Ariel, in which three people were killed, including a soldier from the settlement of Itamar. Israel Radio reported that according to witnesses on the scene, the settlers were from Itamar.
____________________________
There is more that is sadly underreported tough.
France recently came back to its decision to call products from outside of the green line Produce of Palestine.
The Produce of Palestine label angered Israel, not becouse of the mention of Palestine but for the implications it brings with it.
Ill explain why.
Israeli products like a lot of other countries that have good economic relations with the European Union are not taxed as they enter the EU.
France´s reasoning was that the products coming in from outside the greenline are not recognised as Israeli regions and thus should not be subject to that tax exemption.
An admirable stand considering the fact that the so called settlers recently have seriously stepped up theyre provocations against the native palestine´s and have been reported to even steal theyre crops and sell em of as theyre own, that despite often having already seized the best plots of land from theyre rightfull owners.
Sadly France has for now halted the taxation of goods harvested or produced by Israelis in the occupied territories.
While all that was happening Israel developed a national crisis that could result in early elections since the labor party wants to use funds set aside for the settlements(yup illegal Jewish settlements in the ocupied territories get a lot of government aid and cost a truckload of money to protect)to help out the poorest people inside Israel itself and for a few social programs wich now with the worsening economy and increased millitary spending have had theyre allocations seriously slashed.
In Moscow we had more fallout from another war no one cares about.
Chechen terrorists seized a theater and the dramatic ending has been one of the worst yet in Russian history.
It reminded me of another hostage situation by Chechens a few years ago, one where close to 100 hostages died, those hostages died by bullets, bullets fired by Russian troops.
Reports of that hostage situation speak of Chechens helping hostages escape Russian bullets when the Russian army came barging in.
This one however was clearly different, I fully believe this time the terrorists wanted to kill most people who were taken hostage.
The pictures of young woman with bomb belts around theyre waste killed by single bulletshots to theyre temples while past out from the gas speaks volumes of what went on theyre.
The situation also speaks volumes for the desperation the regular Chechens are facing in everyday life.
This time the death toll was higher then the last high profile hostage situation, and again all but 2 from the actions of the Russian elite troops.
Russian authorities have a lot of explaining to do, sadly they refuse to do so, even goin as far as refusing to tell doctors treating the survivors what sort of gas they have used, thus putting even more lives at risk.
And in the US we had the sniper case wich finnaly came to an end.
The following is from thorn in side of Republicans AND Democrats everywhere, Michael Moore whose newest movie Bowling for Columbine recently premiered and wich is an incredibly strong and tought provoking dark(almost morbid)comedy documentary about Americans love for firearms.
Yesterday, Larry Bennet, a 16-year old, was shot in the head after he was involved in a minor traffic accident. You probably didn't hear about it because, well, how could he be dead if he wasn't shot by The Sniper?
Yesterday, an unidentified woman was shot to death in her car in Fenton, MI. You probably didn't hear about it because she had the misfortune of not being shot by The Sniper.
Two nights ago, Charles D. Bennett, 48, an apartment security guard, was shot to death after confronting two teenagers in his parking lot in Memphis, TN. You probably didn't hear about it because the sniper was too busy sleeping in his car that night, and thus, poor Charles was not shot by The Sniper.
Yes, The Sniper has apparently been caught, so we can go back now to NOT reporting the DOZENS of gun deaths that occur every day, the ones that just aren't newsworthy because they happen in all those old boring ways -- unlike the ways of The Sniper, who was interesting and creative and exciting and scary! He played so much better on the news.
________________________________
Tumultous times, tumultous times indeed.
And sadly it doesnt look like it will get better anny time soon.
The ongoing troubles in the middle east wont be solved annytime soon, the 500.000 Chechens who survived 200 year of Soviet oppresion will remain to live life under a horrible siege, North Korea admitting to developing nuclear weapons (IMO this is just for bargaining reasons).
Then there is Saddam who in less then 6 weeks weeks went from Nuclear capabilities in 7 years (Benjamin Ben Elizier, defense minister Israel) to 2 to 3 years ( Tony Blair, Prime minister UK) to within a year ( George nucular Bush Jr, president of the US of A) and in one week went from He poses no threat to us and has no weapons that can harm us (Ben Elizier again) to he has weapons of mass destruction and poses an immediate threat to the entire free world(Bush again).
Bush and Blair of course have been claiming they have proof of all of theyre allegations for 6 months now, so why they havent shared it with a single one of theyre allies is kind of a mistery to me.
After all if ya have the proof and seek International support and especially support from UN Veto holders why not share it with the decision makers in those countries.
I understand that to protect sources inside Iraq making certain info public would put those sources at risk but surely iff you seek the aid of the president of France you could share the info with him right?
Personnaly I feel Saddam has terrorised his people and the region for far too long, none of his neighbouring countries has ever liked the guy EVER, sadly he was the wests in general and the US in particulars preffered partner in the region in the 80s.
On a BBC documentary recently I saw footage from the 80s with Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and calling him a great friend and close ally of the US.
That support allowed him to tighten his grip as a dictator and provided him with foreign aid to start his weapons programs.
Its a grave historical error and one that should have been taken care of long ago but sadly has not, meanwhile of course the needles suffering of the majority of the Iraqi people continues.
At times it seems like we have a verry tumultous time ahead of us, as always however I fear for the worst and hope for the best.
There is a lot more I have on my mind, wich i could mention or talk about.
This has however once again become longer then I intended so ill end it here.
And this is from February 13th also in my life journal, its a post I made in the Sony ad thread, nobody was able to take me to task on this one:
12:12am: http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...threadid=15427
Im sure most of you know that I have no love lost for Sony, and I do believe that the ad is simply playing into popular euro sentiment(troughout Europe, including the countries whose governments support the US support for a war at this moment stands at less then 20%).
The reactions here scare me tough, theyre proof that the Bush administrations policy of lying and deceiving and hatemongering and scaremongering of its own people are working.
I see people in this thread likening not attacking Iraq to allowing terrorists to roam the streets freely, I see people who want to gag oposing vieuws and I see people and a company get attacked for voicing an oppinion that in the end wont matter one bit.
We have newspapers calling France and germany the axis of weasel and further stirring up anti euro sentiment by claiming an anti war stance is akin to spitting on the graves of the soldiers who died in WW2, never once actually do they talk about real justification for war and instead tow the government line without any question.
It took US media 2 days to pick up on the news that the document powell was quoting at the UN to rally support was plagiarised from a school paper.
It took US media 3 days to report that the footage of a plane Powell showed was a decade old.
No one questioned the scaremongering tactics and CG he used since he seemed to lack REAL evidence and real fotos of the alleged mobile chemical labratories(18 big trucks surely are visible to satelite yet instead we get CG) and no one in American media mentioned that the only proof they were goin by for that were claims from Iraqi defectors wich yet again were over a decade old.
Instead those who are actually asking those questions, those who want to debate the isseu and want to be shown real proof are blasted as being anti american or terrorist supporters, we are called weasels and have concerted media campaigns against us.
The US used lies and propaganda to get support for the first Gulf war.
Bush Sr and his cabinet claimed Iraq had moved 230.000 troops and several batalins of tanks towards the Saudi border and that iraq was preparing to invade Saudi Arabia as well and they claimed to have satelite pictures to prove it.
As it turned out they didnt and Russian satelite pictures of the border disproved what they had been claiming.
Bush Sr and his cabinet brought before US congress a teenage girl claiming to be a Quwaiti nurse who told horror stories about Iraqi soldiers killing newborn Quwaiti babies.
After the war it turned out that the girl not only was born in the US but had never even been outside of US borders.
These arent some wild claims by some anti US conspiracy theorist(im a sane person and I absolutely love the US) these are things easily verifyable by legit sources if you do a simple internet search.
Now we have the same sort of sentiment used in every build up to war, propaganda, demonisation and dehumanisation.
Use propaganda and what flimsy knoledge you might or might not have to sway and scare people into supporting youre cause.
Demonise those who oppose youre views.
Dehumanise youre enemy so youre followers wont feel guild and wont see them as humans.
We have the US media being used as a great tool to further the US government agenda right now.
they seem to have lost theyre ability to ask tough questions or look for proof of the governments claims.
The examples I gave were all first reported on by Euro media and only reluctantly and much later picked up by US media and even then they were quite low key compared to the headlines that read SMOKING GUN ON IRAQ(even before Powell presented his flimsy case.
Bush Sr used lies and deception to gain support for his war so why wouldnt his son, just something to think about.
Yet here we are in a community where those who refuse to be scared into compliance and who refuse to be silenced by threats and rhetoric are the once who are being prosecuted for actually asking the questions that should be asked and seeking the truth behind both sides propaganda.
As for me, back in the 80s back when rumsfeld shook Saddam´s hand and called him a great friend of the US and early 90s when US ambassador for Iraq Glaspie told Saddam that the US would consider Iraqs pending invasion of Quwait as an internal Iraqi affair(again do a search for the transcript, she explicitly told Saddam the US would not interfere)I have been expressing my disgust about Saddam and his reign of terror.
The guy has been a menace to his people all his life and I wont shed a tear for his demise.
Fact remains tough that the Iraqi people have been suffering under him and under the Wests compliance for several decades now.
he was the wests preffered dictator so Europe and the Us didnt care he killed hunderds of thousands of his people and used mustardgas on the Kurds and Iran, and in the 90s over a million people have died in Iraq becouse of the draconian sanctions on the country.
meanwhile Saddam hasnt missed a meal over it.
We have failed the Iraqi people big time, first by supporting the person who oppreses them and then by the sanctions upon the country.
The Bush family doesnt have blood on its fingers, theyre swimming in it.
Before flaming me here and in email please do some searches online about the things I mentionend here
It always amuses me when Americans accuse Europeans, who gave TENS of MILLIONS of lives so the world could be free in the World Wars, "cowardly."
French combat deaths in World War II: 201,568
U.S. combat deaths in World War II: 298,000
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html
French combat deaths in World War I: 1,357,800
U.S. combat deaths in World War I: 116,516
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004617.html
TOTAL French combat deaths: 1,559,368
TOTAL U.S. combat deaths: 414,516
So in terms of combat deaths alone, those cowardly French gave three times as many lives as the Americans. That's not even counting civilian deaths which are much harder to count. If they were included, the difference would probably be even more than five times as great.
Of course let's not even bring up Russia, another current opponent of the war, which lost over ten million soldiers in World War II alone.
So show some fucking respect. Americans have no right to call the French cowards.
Yes I do, apparently you dont.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Okay, heh, Almaci, 1st - that article about us going to war over currency fluctuations is a complete joke. Do you even understand what the thing is implying?
Iraq's currency use (or even OPEC's currency use) is a drop in the ocean - there's absolutely no fucking way that a switch to euros in that market could actually change cash prices...especially when its as transparent of a political move as it is.
The point, though, is that the writer of the article, and the people who distribute it, don't understand what the article's about.
Again, it also doesn't address why we've been slamming the area with sanctions (and why we've been keeping Iraq's oil out of the market). None of these people seem to be able to reconcile their war-for-oil accusations with 10 years of sanctions - if we really wanted what Iraq offers economically, then being the largest proponent of crushing sanctions doesn't really make much sense, does it?
This stuff you're posting is worthless.
For the longest time International trading of oil and most other goods has been done with the US Dollar, now with the strength of the Euro and the recent drops in the worth of the US$ a lot of countries want to switch to the Euro, wich would be a disaster for the US.
The US doesnt want what Iraq can offer the US economicaly, the US wants to control what Iraq and the middle east can offer Europe economicaly so that the European economy cant become as globally powerfull as the US economy is now.
They seemingly can no longer beat Europe on a level playing field so they will hold hostage those who can help achieve European economic superiority despite further globalisation of the economy.
I'll go ahead and give that to you, but every other source points to 400,000-500,000 US combat deaths.Quote:
Originally posted by sleeveboy
French combat deaths in World War II: 201,568
U.S. combat deaths in World War II: 298,000
Funny, you said five earlier; guess you changed your mind.Quote:
So in terms of combat deaths alone, those cowardly French gave three times as many lives as the Americans.
And do you know why they lost so many people? Because they had no clue what they were doing. Their fighting was awful. They had subpar weapons, subpar machines and subpar training. They took these subpar units and sent them in droves against the better weapons, better machines and better training of the German army. Turn back from the Germans? Get shot and killed by your own men.Quote:
Of course let's not even bring up Russia, another current opponent of the war, which lost over ten million soldiers in World War II alone.
The only reason Russia was able to advance to Berlin was because Hitler was a strategic moron. He went after Moscow in the middle of the harsh Russian winter, which his men were not prepared for. A lack of clothing, breaking down of tanks and general quagmire do to the weather caused them to pull back. This in turn, allowed the Russians to chase them out and by numbers, advance to Berlin.
I love Russia, to be honest. Vladamir Putin rocks. But their leadership during World War II was awful and cost millions of lives.
Yeah we do. World War II again. You're trying to back up your "French are not cowards" claim with World War II, so I will reprise with World War II. I refuse to see how giving the Czechs (sp), the Poles, the Norwegians and countless other people over to Nazi rule, is brave. It's gutless. It's weak. It's downright disgusting.Quote:
So show some fucking respect. Americans have no right to call the French cowards.
Almaci: So why didn't we do this the first time? Why wait til now? Why didn't we use Hussein's violence against the Kurds as an excuse to move in? There are scores of other reasons we could have used before now, so why didn't we?
And no, it's not the agenda of the President. Bush's proposals can get shot down at any time, regardless of presidential war powers. The whole Executive Branch has to be involved, and I don't think the Congress would go along with the President's plan if it were just a revenge strike...
Your argument also does not account for the numerous other nations (including Europeans) that are aligned with us in this. Given that the US is the biggest user of oil in the group, why are the other countries supporting us? Why are European countryies supporting us? Shouldn't they be afraid that their economy is going to suffer if we're successful?
sleeveboy:
No.
The past does not equal the present.
The French government is presently acting in a cowardly and self-serving fashion. Thus, they may be called cowards.
I will show them some respect when they decide to stand for something. At the moment, they are forsaking international security in the name of profits.
If Hussein decides to use whatever he's got against someone, he wouldn't use it against the French. It's best to not bite the hand that feeds you -- that's why the French aren't doing anything. They "know" they have no fear of getting hit since they are part of the group that supports Hussein through business transactions at a high profit (yes, they charge him an extreme premium -- but he can't get it anywhere else, so good for them, I guess).
The only way they will act is if they feel threatened, and right now they do not. That's a very self-serving attitude; "Who the hell cares about the world? We know we're secure." It's logical, but it's also very cowardly to not look out for your fellow man. That is why we're pissed off at the French, especially considering all the good the US does in the world.*
* Before someone starts ranting about what evils this country perpetrates, understand that while we may hack off some fringe group now and then, by and large the US does the right thing. I don't really want to hear about all the crap we supposedly have done, since no government as large as this can be expected to keep itself in-check -- thus those actions that may or may not have happened don't really speak for the true intentions of the government or the people. In other words, stuff it.
Proof?Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci
Yes I do, apparently you dont.
For the longest time International trading of oil and most other goods has been done with the US Dollar, now with the strength of the Euro and the recent drops in the worth of the US$ a lot of countries want to switch to the Euro, wich would be a disaster for the US.
The US doesnt want what Iraq can offer the US economicaly, the US wants to control what Iraq and the middle east can offer Europe economicaly so that the European economy cant become as globally powerfull as the US economy is now.
They seemingly can no longer beat Europe on a level playing field so they will hold hostage those who can help achieve European economic superiority despite further globalisation of the economy.
Cmon... Almaci doesn't give any proof to his outlandish and bombastic claims. Doing so would be un-Almaciesque.Quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
Proof?
Not when the terrorist organizations are as much of a threat to Saddam as they are to us. Of course, when unrest in the area causes Pakistan to fall into the hands of fundamentalists, we won't have to worry about Saddam's toy missiles.Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
You think that Saddam cant and wont give his weapons biological or chemical to terrorist organizations to use on an attack in the U.S?
Cry me a river. We let worse dictators alone when it suits us.Quote:
And what about the crimes he has commited against his own people? Do you not want to free them of this ruthless dictator?
Funny, I always thought it was Nazi Fucking Germany.Quote:
This passive attitude is what got millions of people killed in WW2, the French have millions to loose if Iraq tumbles and new leadership comes in.
Because money plays no part whatsoever in the US' interests.Quote:
This is simply a financial thing for the French otherwise they wouldnt give a shit about Iraq.
France saved our ass in the Revolution.Quote:
Again, France shouldnt forget their past and who has saved their asses before....
Millions of barrels of oil.Quote:
Just come out and say that you risk loosing millions if Saddam is toppled...
Are you really this stupid?Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
The numbers would interest me however, care to post your sources?
The Post is a rag. You should pay attention to who you're defending.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
of course not. Every non-American knows much more than any American, and whenever an American has news to shed not-so-pleasant light on European 'favorites,' the American is clearly wrong. Even if they aren't - the fact that they're American automatically nulls any factuality they have with them.
It doesn't. Open your eyes.Quote:
He's a clown because he quotes talk shows; he's deserving of your hate, not your rebuttal, right? But I mean, for anyone to call YOU a clown for you belief, viewpoint, stance, or sources...
I'm guessing it doesn't cut that way.
Hitler himself said that had the French attacked them when they remilitarized the Rhineland, they would have had to retreat because at the time they were underpowered.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Funny, I always thought it was Nazi Fucking Germany.
But France did not attack. Nor did England. The Rhineland was a declared demilitarized zone, Germany was not allowed to have their military in that zone. Had France or England acted, the rest of the war would have been a much different history.
But that wasn't the only instance that caused World War II to grow that France (and England, to be fair) was involved in. When Hitler withdrew from the League of Nations (a joke as it was), when he announced the recreation of the Luftwaffe or when he announced a vastly expanded Wehrmacht, France- even the world -should have known better.
The powerful Nazi Germany which waged European World War II was bred from pacifism and appeasement. It grew because neither France nor England would take a stand against Germany until the problem became personal and by that time, Germany was too powerful to hold back. France was invaded, Britain beaten back to their homeland at Dunkirk and the Battle for Britain just beginning. Had the two countries stopped Hitler/Nazi Germany when they took Czechoslovakia, or when they took Poland (with Russia), or when they took Norway, or when they took any number of country, things could have been held back.
But were not.
If you ignore the fucking Holocaust, maybe.Quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
Five times as many? No.
I think you're forgetting that the US didn't declare war on Germany until Germany declared war on it - and that was only after Pearl Harbor.Quote:
And yes, the French are annoying. They'd rather sell you out than help you out. World War 2 anyone? Poland, Czhechoslovakia, Norway, etc. All sold out so that France (and England, too) wouldn't have to lift a finger.
It's the UN's responsibility to enforce its decrees. I like how the US is considering invading in the face of INTERNATIONAL LAW, yet we compare Saddam to Hitler.Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
Ill say it again, Saddam must be removed for his ignoring of the U.N sanctions for the last 8+ years we need no other reasons.
You have no idea how disappointed that makes me.Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
Hero and Carter, you are my 2 new best freinds. :)
I could direct you to some French and german sites but then again why would you believe those right?Quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
Proof?
You refuse to believe the links I gave from US sources, you dont talk about(nor do you care) the proof I gagve with regards to the press playing puppy for the government and the government willfully lying.
It isn't appeasement. It's just a fact that Saddam isn't a threat and as long as an eye is kept on him he never will be.Quote:
Originally posted by Lhadatt
Kudos to JMET, Hero, The Alternate Dimension Ex-President and the other take-action-now types.
Appeasement didn't work in WW2, and it won't work now. I would ask why the French haven't learned this yet, but I'm tempted to believe that would be asking too much.
You're bonking mad.Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci
Yes I do, apparently you dont.
For the longest time International trading of oil and most other goods has been done with the US Dollar, now with the strength of the Euro and the recent drops in the worth of the US$ a lot of countries want to switch to the Euro, wich would be a disaster for the US.
The US doesnt want what Iraq can offer the US economicaly, the US wants to control what Iraq and the middle east can offer Europe economicaly so that the European economy cant become as globally powerfull as the US economy is now.
They seemingly can no longer beat Europe on a level playing field so they will hold hostage those who can help achieve European economic superiority despite further globalisation of the economy.
If you fully beleive this then you arent fully aware of the terrorist organizations that he is in good standing with.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Not when the terrorist organizations are as much of a threat to Saddam as they are to us. Of course, when unrest in the area causes Pakistan to fall into the hands of fundamentalists, we won't have to worry about Saddam's toy missiles.
So what your saying is that because we have left some alone that all should be as well regardless of the threat they present, the crimes they have commited or the sanctions they have thumbed their nose at? You seem to have tunnel vision...Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy Cry me a river. We let worse dictators alone when it suits us.
Another ignorant comment, Nazi Germany was allowed to do these things because of the "as long as it isnt happening to us" attitude of many european countries of which France was a huge part of. Then turning over other countries in hopes of saving their own asses.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy Funny, I always thought it was Nazi Fucking Germany.
Please explain to me the financial gain we will get from spending billions of dollars policeing Europes own back yard? It isnt about oil or we would have allready taken it.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy Because money plays no part whatsoever in the US' interests.
And we have stood by their side in times of need, not been ungratefull snobs.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy France saved our ass in the Revolution.
Iraq gives oil to France at a cheap ass price to gain their support in times like this, this saves France millions over buying the oil for actual cost elsewhere. Not to mention the secretive trading France does that its not supposed too and in doing so charges Iraq inflated prices because no one else will trade with him..Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy Millions of barrels of oil.
No, I ask because my sources state different figures...Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy Are you really this stupid?
International law is not being enforced. What good is it?Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
It's the UN's responsibility to enforce its decrees. I like how the US is considering invading in the face of INTERNATIONAL LAW, yet we compare Saddam to Hitler.
You have no idea how disappointed that makes me.
We aren't really beholden to anyone on this international law thing, nor is anyone else. It's all a bunch of treaties that may be broken, reshaped and replaced when it suits us or anyone else (probably would need a majority of the member nations or nations with influence in the situation to agree to a change, but anyway...). The responsibility to the State thing that we as citizens are held to within our own countries just doesn't hold up on the international scale, especially when the agencies responsible for enforcing those laws (UN, NATO, etc.) don't do anything about it.
In other words, why should we keep to "international law" when the UN doesn't do squat to make sure that law is enforcable? It might as well not be there in the first place -- which is why there is now talk that we might just part ways with the UN, given their current attitude of irrelevance and indifference to the true nature of the international situation.
Why didnt the US do it before?Quote:
Originally posted by Lhadatt
Almaci: So why didn't we do this the first time? Why wait til now? Why didn't we use Hussein's violence against the Kurds as an excuse to move in? There are scores of other reasons we could have used before now, so why didn't we?
And no, it's not the agenda of the President. Bush's proposals can get shot down at any time, regardless of presidential war powers. The whole Executive Branch has to be involved, and I don't think the Congress would go along with the President's plan if it were just a revenge strike...
Your argument also does not account for the numerous other nations (including Europeans) that are aligned with us in this. Given that the US is the biggest user of oil in the group, why are the other countries supporting us? Why are European countryies supporting us? Shouldn't they be afraid that their economy is going to suffer if we're successful?
sleeveboy:
No.
The past does not equal the present.
The French government is presently acting in a cowardly and self-serving fashion. Thus, they may be called cowards.
I will show them some respect when they decide to stand for something. At the moment, they are forsaking international security in the name of profits.
If Hussein decides to use whatever he's got against someone, he wouldn't use it against the French. It's best to not bite the hand that feeds you -- that's why the French aren't doing anything. They "know" they have no fear of getting hit since they are part of the group that supports Hussein through business transactions at a high profit (yes, they charge him an extreme premium -- but he can't get it anywhere else, so good for them, I guess).
The only way they will act is if they feel threatened, and right now they do not. That's a very self-serving attitude; "Who the hell cares about the world? We know we're secure." It's logical, but it's also very cowardly to not look out for your fellow man. That is why we're pissed off at the French, especially considering all the good the US does in the world.*
* Before someone starts ranting about what evils this country perpetrates, understand that while we may hack off some fringe group now and then, by and large the US does the right thing. I don't really want to hear about all the crap we supposedly have done, since no government as large as this can be expected to keep itself in-check -- thus those actions that may or may not have happened don't really speak for the true intentions of the government or the people. In other words, stuff it.
There wasnt a single european currency for a start, the East European countries were in Turmoil and Iraq was easily containable with the sanctions put on them.
Now you said something verry intresting with regards to the evils the US has brought upon other countries, I quote: Since no government as large as this can keep itself in check.
Read it again IT CANT KEEP ITSELF IN CHECK, so why bitch when others tell you whats wrong and what not to do in order not to make the world a worse place for everyone the US included.
Remember this the next time someone posts this Saddam = Hitler horseshit.Quote:
Originally posted by Lhadatt
The past does not equal the present.
Saddam has not followed sanctions handed down to him by the U.N for the last 8 years or so.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
It isn't appeasement. It's just a fact that Saddam isn't a threat and as long as an eye is kept on him he never will be.
By that logic if someone was to shoot their neihbor but you dont perceive them as a further threat to society then they should be left alone and not punished....
His situation is much like probation, a drunk driver has his liscense revoked, if cought driving he is put in jail..
By your train of thought this person should be left alone because he wont be a further threat..
I dont see any of you refuting even 1 tenth of the things I said and the sources I quoted.Quote:
Originally posted by diffusionx
Cmon... Almaci doesn't give any proof to his outlandish and bombastic claims. Doing so would be un-Almaciesque.
Are those not proof, why do you disregard a ton of links and articles from youre own damn sources mostly and instead choose to attack me on a single point?
Are you that desperate and is my reasoning that strong that you have to fearfully cling to one single thing in order to not have to listen to the ton of sense I make with the other things I say?
Certainly seems like it, moron.
Show me even one tenth of proof with regards to the things you guys are claiming compared to the things i am claiming and i might take you a bit more seriously.
Wow. You're delusional if you think this isn't appeasement.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
It isn't appeasement. It's just a fact that Saddam isn't a threat and as long as an eye is kept on him he never will be.
UN: "Here ya go Saddam, a slap on the wrist for that little violation of international law."
Saddam: "Hey thanks for not taking over my country!"
UN: "No prob bud, anytime."
---
UN: "Hey, Saddam, buddy, let our inspectors in for a bit will ya? We got to check out some stuff cause Unca Sam's getting all puffy over there."
Saddam: "Sure heck yeah, come on in! Just wait a moment, I got to clean up the living room."
UN: "Okey dokie!"
etc.
Gosh no, that's not appeasement. :rolleyes:
Never mind all the articles he quoted. JMET has Letterman!Quote:
Originally posted by diffusionx
Cmon... Almaci doesn't give any proof to his outlandish and bombastic claims. Doing so would be un-Almaciesque.
... who ignored the Holocaust?Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
If you ignore the fucking Holocaust, maybe.
It was after Pearl Harbor because we declared war on Japan and since the Japanese were allies to Germany (and because Hitler was insane), Germany declared war on us.Quote:
I think you're forgetting that the US didn't declare war on Germany until Germany declared war on it - and that was only after Pearl Harbor.
But I think your insinuation is that we did nothing to stop them as well, which I will (somewhat) agree with. I, however, do not see how we could have mobilized against Hitler in time as we were across the ocean.
A lot of it has to do with vicinity as well. Had Canada been attacked, you know very well that we would have helped them do to their vicinity.
Heh. It's still appeasement.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Remember this the next time someone posts this Saddam = Hitler horseshit.
Yes yes, now lets oust saddam and after that go after that other madman of the middle east.Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
Saddam has not followed sanctions handed down to him by the U.N for the last 8 years or so.
By that logic if someone was to shoot their neihbor but you dont perceive them as a further threat to society then they should be left alone and not punished....
His situation is much like probation, a drunk driver has his liscense revoked, if cought driving he is put in jail..
By your train of thought this person should be left alone...
A guy who already has nukes and chemical weapons who in the past called his opponents subhuman and cockroaches, someone who ordered the deaths of thousands of woman and children in his neverending quest for expansion, someone who is in violation of 64 UN council resolutions and who refused to promis not to use nukes pre emptively you know, lets go after Ariel Sharon next.
Oh wait, that madman is still protected by the US.
My bad, please carry on with the rest of youre hipocrasy
Thanks, at least one person actually seems to have the ability to read here.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Never mind all the articles he quoted. JMET has Letterman!
Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
Iraq gives oil to France at a cheap ass price to gain their support in times like this, this saves France millions over buying the oil for actual cost elsewhere. Not to mention the secretive trading France does that its not supposed too and in doing so charges Iraq inflated prices because no one else will trade with him..
No, I ask because my sources state different figures...
My turn.
PROOF?
The LEDDERMAN thing was for humor as i stated.
You guys need to find Michael Moorer and move to Iraq, you really are fucking clueless...
No they weren't. We had to go in there and force them out of Kuwait.Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci
Why didnt the US do it before?
There wasnt a single european currency for a start, the East European countries were in Turmoil and Iraq was easily containable with the sanctions put on them.
There is no single Euro currency, not yet. It's not a factor.
Again, why did we not take him out the first time?
Answer: We were holding to the UN resolution authorizing us to take action. We held back from taking him out becaue they said not to. If we were interested in their oil then, we could have just taken the whole country and told the international community to jump off a cliff.
Heh. That was to anyone trying to bring up Vietnam, Iran-Contra, etc.Quote:
Now you said something verry intresting with regards to the evils the US has brought upon other countries, I quote: Since no government as large as this can keep itself in check.
Read it again IT CANT KEEP ITSELF IN CHECK, so why bitch when others tell you whats wrong and what not to do in order not to make the world a worse place for everyone the US included.
In this case, we have a clear-cut goal: Saddam is trying to pull crap he's not supposed to, thus he must be deposed.
Al Qaeda is not a big fan of a secular Shiite state in Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
If you fully beleive this then you arent fully aware of the terrorist organizations that he is in good standing with.
I'm saying that he presents no threat, the crimes committed do not justify an invasion based on our past foreign policy and that the sanctions are the UN's problem.Quote:
So what your saying is that because we have left some alone that all should be as well regardless of the threat they present, the crimes they have commited or the sanctions they have thumbed their nose at? You seem to have tunnel vision...
Iraq isn't invading anywhere and hasn't since Desert Storm.Quote:
Another ignorant comment, Nazi Germany was allowed to do these things because of the "as long as it isnt happening to us" attitude of many european countries of which France was a huge part of. Then turning over other countries in hopes of saving their own asses.
1. US deposes Saddam.Quote:
Please explain to me the financial gain we will get from spending billions of dollars policeing Europes own back yard? It isnt about oil or we would have allready taken it.
2. US sets up US-friendly goverment in Iraq.
3. US-friendly government sells oil to US.
Maybe that explains France. What about the rest of the global community that opposes this war?Quote:
Iraq gives oil to France at a cheap ass price to gain their support in times like this, this saves France millions over buying the oil for actual cost elsewhere. Not to mention the secretive trading France does that its not supposed too and in doing so charges Iraq inflated prices because no one else will trade with him..
Its in one of the many article links I posted, YOU need to read the fucking thread not others...Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci
My turn.
PROOF?
You did, in your death totals. Plenty of French died at the hands of the Germans - not so many soldiers, perhaps, but that was because their army didn't even have a chance to mobilize.Quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
... who ignored the Holocaust?
We didn't even do anything diplomatically. Had we mobilized at Hitler's first aggression, we may have been able to hold France. Sure, Europe was in a much better position to react qucikly, but she was not alone in sitting on her hands.Quote:
It was after Pearl Harbor because we declared war on Japan and since the Japanese were allies to Germany (and because Hitler was insane), Germany declared war on us.
But I think your insinuation is that we did nothing to stop them as well, which I will (somewhat) agree with. I, however, do not see how we could have mobilized against Hitler in time as we were across the ocean.
A lot of it has to do with vicinity as well. Had Canada been attacked, you know very well that we would have helped them do to their vicinity.
It's only appeasement if the appeasee presents a threat, which Saddam does not.Quote:
Originally posted by Lhadatt
Heh. It's still appeasement.
Our stance on North Korea right now? That's fucking appeasement.
Duh, we were talking about the who gives a shit approach of France and other Eropean countries, stay on the same topic..Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Iraq isn't invading anywhere and hasn't since Desert Storm.
Tiny compared to those that are FOR this war...Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Maybe that explains France. What about the rest of the global community that opposes this war?
They didnt have a chance to mobilize because they sat on their asses untill it was too late..Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
You did, in your death totals. Plenty of French died at the hands of the Germans - not so many soldiers, perhaps, but that was because their army didn't even have a chance to mobilize.
So which is it? You blame the USA for what happened with Nazi Germany because we didnt jump right in and take care of things, but yet you are currently telling us that we should mind our own business and leave them alone..Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
We didn't even do anything diplomatically. Had we mobilized at Hitler's first aggression, we may have been able to hold France. Sure, Europe was in a much better position to react qucikly, but she was not alone in sitting on her hands.
Make up your mind...
No, we were discussing soldier deaths. Given deaths.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
You did, in your death totals. Plenty of French died at the hands of the Germans - not so many soldiers, perhaps, but that was because their army didn't even have a chance to mobilize.
And France had plenty of time to mobilize. They knew Germany was coming but depended on their asinine WWI-era wall they'd built. They were annihiliated and surrendered.
Close. It's diplomacy.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Our stance on North Korea right now? That's fucking appeasement.
By putting off North Korea, we get time to deal with other problems at hand. Once those are done, we'll coax North Korea into getting rid of their bomb program.
I'm not too certain on the background of the North Korean thing, but I believe they have a major power shortage there right now, thus nuclear alternatives to coal resources are what they are using their nuclear program for. A nuclear weapons program is a logical extention of a power program, and if I were NK's leader I'd certainly want to investigate it. I don't believe NK wants conflict, but I sort of understand their situation -- they appear to think they're being pushed up against the wall due to this nuclear thing.
By diverting attention away from NK, I think the Bush people are buying themselves a bit more time to figure out how to sort things out in order to help NK, yet avoid the profileraiton of nukes.
It is the same topic. Comparing attitudes requires comparable situations, and Iraq isn't Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
Duh, we were talking about the who gives a shit approach of France and other Eropean countries, stay on the same topic..
I suggest you do some research. Maybe Letterman will cover this soon? The only major nations is favor of a war are the US and Britain, and even Britain is vacillating.Quote:
Tiny compared to those that are FOR this war...
True.Quote:
They didnt have a chance to mobilize because they sat on their asses untill it was too late..
I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who blame the rest of the world for appeasement that America is no less blameless.Quote:
So which is it? You blame the USA for what happened with Nazi Germany because we didnt jump right in and take care of things, but yet you are currently telling us that we should mind our own business and leave them alone..
Make up your mind...
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
No, we were discussing soldier deaths. Given deaths.
And France had plenty of time to mobilize. They knew Germany was coming but depended on their asinine WWI-era wall they'd built. They were annihiliated and surrendered.
Coax North Korea? Are you mad?Quote:
Originally posted by Lhadatt
Close. It's diplomacy.
By putting off North Korea, we get time to deal with other problems at hand. Once those are done, we'll coax North Korea into getting rid of their bomb program.
I'm not too certain on the background of the North Korean thing, but I believe they have a major power shortage there right now, thus nuclear alternatives to coal resources are what they are using their nuclear program for. A nuclear weapons program is a logical extention of a power program, and if I were NK's leader I'd certainly want to investigate it. I don't believe NK wants conflict, but I sort of understand their situation -- they appear to think they're being pushed up against the wall due to this nuclear thing.
By diverting attention away from NK, I think the Bush people are buying themselves a bit more time to figure out how to sort things out in order to help NK, yet avoid the profileraiton of nukes.
Why don't we coax Saddam then, avoid an international incident, the deaths of American soldiers, and the hatred of one billion Muslims?
And don't say "We've been trying to coax Saddam for 10 years now," because we've been trying to coax an even nuttier North Korean dictator for 50.
As for why other countries align themselves with the US.
Turkey reluctantly does it for 6 billion dollars straight and 20 billion dollars in loan guarantees from the US(in case turkey doesnt pay back those loans are excempt so basically its 20 billion dollar for free)and 1 billion dollar of free oil from SA and Quwait.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...625/index.html
Aznar does it(in Spain 8 out of 10 people are opposed to the war) to attract US investors for its crappy economy.
Berlusconi(in Italy as well 8 out of 10 oppose) is a fascist and hates everything muslim(he made some very colourful comments after 9/11) and is under investigation for mob connections and murders.
Blair is British and theyve been US lapdog for the longest time despite again overwhelming opposition from the Brits themselves against the war.
That and Britain had the opportunity to stop Hitler late 30s but they didnt so they said never again.
The east european countries again without support from the people are playing oportunistic games(as Chirac mentioned) they want to join the EU AND cozy up to the US for economic hand downs.
I dont personally think war is the best answer.
I personally think that the USA should spend all the money going towards the war on homeland security.
Let europe and its forgiving passive attitudes destroy themselves in the end...
But alas sooner or later it will come to our borders, therefore we can sit back and let the U.N or the european nations which have no back bone whatsoever police things...
or
Be proactive
So, we either act in a proactive fashion or we sit on our asses untill something big happens like a nuke and then do something...
Force is the only thing Saddam knows. Unfortunately, he's also put us in a position to have to do something by continuing his weapons programs.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Coax North Korea? Are you mad?
Why don't we coax Saddam then, avoid an international incident, the deaths of American soldiers, and the hatred of one billion Muslims?
And don't say "We've been trying to coax Saddam for 10 years now," because we've been trying to coax an even nuttier North Korean dictator for 50.
Kim knows he's toast if he pisses us off, he doesn't want his little empire fried. He's said so in public, it's been reported in American media. He'll cooperate.
JMET no you did not, you quoted a single US official who said he SUSPECTS, how can that be considered proof?
Funny, you completely ignored the rest of my post in which I pointed out that those figures included combat deaths only. Figure in civilian deaths and that number skyrockets, hence my original "five times" guesstimate.Quote:
Funny, you said five earlier; guess you changed your mind.
Those other figures you're looking at are probably the total U.S. casualties, which of course include MIAs and injured soldiers.
Does it matter whether their leadership was awful or not? Fact is, the Russians won World War II on the ground, in the Eastern Front. It may be inconvenient to U.S. hagiographers to admit that WWII was largely won by the efforts of a totalitarian dictatorship and its citizens, but there you go.Quote:
And do you know why they lost so many people? Because they had no clue what they were doing. Their fighting was awful. They had subpar weapons, subpar machines and subpar training. They took these subpar units and sent them in droves against the better weapons, better machines and better training of the German army. Turn back from the Germans? Get shot and killed by your own men.
You could say the same for the Americans and the British. I don't recall either country raising a finger when those countries were invaded, nor when the Jews were shipped off to the death camps.Quote:
Yeah we do. World War II again. You're trying to back up your "French are not cowards" claim with World War II, so I will reprise with World War II. I refuse to see how giving the Czechs (sp), the Poles, the Norwegians and countless other people over to Nazi rule, is brave. It's gutless. It's weak. It's downright disgusting.
By your standards, the actions of all three nations were "cowardly." Can't say I disagree with you there.
Do schools outside of America teach a lot about American history? I was always curious about this.
The French make good films. I do know that much.
Jmet is sounding like he just stayed up and watched The Two Towers like 5 times in a row.
Just fuckin' with you buddy :D
Yeah we get US history, and its pretty difficult over here to be uninformed about the US since we are literally bombarded with US pop and other culture.
Thats the thing, people over her watch Friends and buffy, we have McDonalds and listen to US pop music, we read American literature and are largely assimilated by US products, we dont hate the US we rather like a lot of things coming from the US and we like the US as a country and the people there.
Doesnt mean we have to agree with the foreign policy of the US or its style of government, disagreeing with those things doesnt make us anti US becouse we simply are not.
If you see youre best friend cheating on his girlfriend what will you do?
Stop being his friend altogheter or tell him that what he is doing is wrong while trying to use youre friendship with him to improve his ways?
Quote:
Originally posted by catty
Jmet is sounding like he just stayed up and watched The Two Towers like 5 times in a row.
Just fuckin' with you buddy :D
How did you know? Are you watching me? :confused: :D
Im done venting, both sides have their oppinions and neither will change.
This is proof as why the world has turmoil like it does...
1 person can see something as written in concrete and another see's the opposite...
I love all of you guys regardless of your political beliefs. :D
YO!
(edit: to reinforce Burgandy's post, of which I just noticed)
Remember your history:
Your statue of Liberty is from France. They gave it to you to celebrate your independence. See, America, in there war for freedom had no navy, at all, and was getting raped against the English. Who helped your asses? THE FRENCH!
I gots nothing against you, or Americans, but you can't totally say that each side isn't spewing propoganda (vis a vis, the war in Iraq). Besides, both sides have economic interests (allegedly). What mitigates the claims against US involvement based on oil versus France's.
You also can't say the French are forgetting their history. The same way you feel about the French (being snooty, difficult, etc.,) many nations feel about you! Fact!
Besides, you wouldn't be here without them...
Am I the only one who thinks that giving Saddamm a reason to use the weapons that he may have is fucking stupid?
God forbid we not invade Iraq and give him a chance to continue not being a threat. We really should invade as soon as possible, and back him into the corner so that he actually does unleash whatever he has.
BTW, do you know why they (Europeans) were passive and forgiving during WWII? They just went through WWI. This was was widely regarded as the war to end all wars. It was extremely devastating. Any steps to avoid war was taken because the memories of the previous war were too powerful.
It's pscychology. See WWI was caused by "Time Pressure." All the world leaders had limited time to react to a generally ramped up situation. It's been argued that if they sat down and analyzed the situation a little better the war could have been avoided. They (like many leaders in situations like this) prepare for the present situation with info from the past. Given what they knew, and what they'd been through, their actions, though regrettable are understandable.
Another factor contributing to WW2, was the "crystal ball effect." Back in 1914, they had no idea of what the consequences of the war were,(ie., they had no "crystal ball") so they marched into battle, nary a care in the world. In 1936-9 the leaders were well aware of the devastation and took all measures to avoid it.
And how dare the Americans (isolationists till 1900) complain about passive Europeans after the (continent) Europe fell into ruin twice in one century.
BTW, I'm for invading. I'm just against this needless France bashing. Really, it's just unnecessary.
Ha ha! It was mostly this line:Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
How did you know? Are you watching me? :confused: :D
"But alas sooner or later it will come to our borders"
HAHAHAHA you bastage!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by catty
Ha ha! It was mostly this line:
"But alas sooner or later it will come to our borders"
And yes I have seen LOTR and Two Towers way too much. :)
Briscobold: Im not closed minded so I can understand and agree with allot of what you are saying...
These anti vs. for war threads have gotten out of hand with which I am also apart of.
Thanks for your enlightment and the fair manner in how you have posted!
Sigh.
:(
I'm French..
ºTracer
Not quite what I expected you to say...Quote:
Originally posted by JMET
Briscobold: Im not closed minded so I can understand and agree with allot of what you are saying...
These anti vs. for war threads have gotten out of hand with which I am also apart of.
Thanks for your enlightment and the fair manner in how you have posted!
but coo!
Im upset with France that I wont deny, but I will admit I have been having a go at seeing how people would react over this issue.Quote:
Originally posted by Briscobold
Not quite what I expected you to say...
but coo!
This demonstrates the fact that if we on a forum cant agree to disagree on 1 issue then it shows the kind of battle the people of the mid east and elsewhere have when facing many problems that have been embedded into them for hundreds of years in their back yard.
I am a very open minded, melow, and nice person, the people that know me know this..
I have my oppinion on this matter but I played it for all it was worthe, and you can see the outcome....