Our wonderful French Allies

Doug Goulden

Chris Losinger wrote: big difference there. Is there? You willing to risk your life or anyone elses that two madmen aren't willing to work together to destroy a common enemy? Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Hey when the mexicans start knocking down buildings.... get back to me ;P As far as drug runners... unfortuanetly we are slitting our own throats, we are the ones buying the stuff No demand = No drug runners Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

I'm sticking to American fries ;) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Brit

Chris Losinger wrote: tell me, have you boycotted tacos too? cause Mexico isn't on GWB's side in this mess, either. And French kissing! (It's called "freedom kissing" now.) :-D ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

Doug Goulden

All that we (the blah blah blah people) are really looking for is to not have the French and other people stand in the way of the US's right to prevent Iraq from developing and using the weapons they have. The idea that somehow the inspections are working is insane.... Its taken 12 years, 17 resolutions, and 255,000 American troops to get to the point we can even have inspectors in the country. I never ceases to amaze me how quickly people forget why the US might feel they could be attacked by some half baked tyrant..... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Chris Austin

Thanks for the reply Doug. I feel that the French (and Germans) are two faced when on the one hand they say that they have simpathy for the US and what happened on 9/11, when on the other hand they will turn around and watch a tyrant develop weapons that the UN has specifically forbidden him to have. I don't think it is that they want to allow SH to develop these weapons. I just think that they disagree with war as a means right now. The French don't owe us anything other than giving a country that hasn't done them any wrong the benefit of the doubt. There is only so much benefit that can be given. Were not talking about something simple. It is an invasion of a sovereign country with no *publicly* proven links to the attacks on our country. I think if the administration could put indisputable proof on the table, the rest of the UN SC would have to fall into line regardless of special interests. Also, I think it is healthy to have our whim / will challenged diplomatically and politically. Otherwise we will be looking at a pretty boring world. The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

Chris Losinger

Doug Goulden wrote: You willing to risk your life or anyone elses that two madmen aren't willing to work together to destroy a common enemy? the plan is to drop something like 5000 bombs and 300 cruise missiles into a city of 5 million. GWB is using the certainty of Iraqi civillian and american military deaths to prevent the outside chance of american civillian death. selfishly, i'd be willing to back the war, if there was any real, credible proof that Saddam is a direct and current threat to the US. but there isn't any proof like that. you can't just go around killing people because you're nervous about what they might do. that's the kind of thing that despotic dictators, like Saddam, Stalin and Pinochet use to stay in power. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

Doug Goulden

Chris Austin wrote: I don't think it is that they want to allow SH to develop these weapons. I just think that they disagree with war as a means right now. I think that if you look at the information that has been made public to this point, it pretty hard to believe that SH doesn't have weapons of mass distruction. He has had, and probably still does have anthrax (coincidence?) and VX nerve gas and has used it in the past. The French and German government give the impression that they don't particularly care if SH does have weapons as long as they don't interfere with business. The US has made the mistake in the past of making deals with people that in the short term fit our supposed interests... and look where it has gotton us. The Saudi government is an example of the type of people that we have played along with in the past feeling that we could control the situation. And we found out we can't. Tyrants and dictators will turn on us and because of the deals we have made in the past we end up with UBL. Why not call a spade a spade, if someone would harm our country and presents a credible threat, show them the stick. Someone who needs help and is peaceful (and at least not a murderer) show the carrot. The US can be the best friend of a country, or their worst enemy. Chris Austin wrote: Also, I think it is healthy to have our whim / will challenged diplomatically and politically. Otherwise we will be looking at a pretty boring world Boring is good, smoking holes in the ground are bad..... Let the smoking holes be in some other country that would do us harm. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Chris Losinger wrote: GWB is using the certainty of Iraqi civillian and american military deaths to prevent the outside chance of american civillian death How far outside? The guy has developed drone aircraft and tested them by dropping simulated chemical and biological weapons... You think he couldn't or wouldn't use them against the US? Less than 2 years ago UBL killed 3000 civilians, the US isn't going to target any civilians. Will innocent people be killed? Probably they will and thats the real tragedy, but the idea we should take a wait and see attitude is nuts. You almost sound like you don't believe SH could or would use the weapons he has. Question for you, why is he making them? He used them on the Kurds. Chris Losinger wrote: you can't just go around killing people because you're nervous about what they might do. that's the kind of thing that despotic dictators, like Saddam, Stalin and Pinochet use to stay in power. Are you trying to compare the US or GWB to these guys? You have to be kidding me. The US has a pretty good reason to be nervous, in the last 2 years we have seen a couple of buildings wiped from the skyline, and had a biological weapon attack. When you honestly look at Saddaam, its not to difficult to see him passing weapons he has on to other people (UBL, Hamas, etc) who would be more than happy to use them on the US. Thats not despotism, thats survival Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

:-D

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons

Chris Losinger

Doug Goulden wrote: Less than 2 years ago UBL killed 3000 civilians UBL is not from Iraq. none of the 9/11 gang was from Iraq. 75% of them were from a country we just love to death (Saudi Arabia); and they got funding from every other country in the mid-east except Iraq. al-Q leadership is apparently currently hiding out in a country ruled by a military dictator, which sold nuke tech to North Korea, which we also love to death (Pakistan). Iran is close to building nukes, has NK's ballistic missiles, has given much money to al-Q, etc.. NK is happily demonstrating to the world just how crazy a country can be. each of those countries are far more of a threat to the US than Saddam is. Iraq is step one in the Bush administration's grand plan to reshape the mid-east - and it has been since well before GWB was even elected. all this 9/11 tie-in stuff is merely a convenient way to sway public opinion. they have dreams of US-friendly democracies blossoming all over the region, calming the savage arabs and ensuring the safety of US interests. but of course he can't say that - he has to come up with things like UN resolutions (even though he says he'll do it without the UN's approval) or WMDs (even though he's willing to essentially ignore raging psychos like NK's leader) or the 9/11 tie-in (of which there is no evidence). Doug Goulden wrote: Are you trying to compare the US or GWB to these guys? of course not. i'm saying that killing people because they make you nervous is something these guys do. I assume the US is better than that. Doug Goulden wrote: The US has a pretty good reason to be nervous, in the last 2 years we have seen a couple of buildings wiped from the skyline, and had a biological weapon attack. but not from Iraq. Doug Goulden wrote: its not to difficult to see him passing weapons he has on to other people it's also not difficult to see him not handing out weapons to people he can't control. this is a guy who kills people for simply speaking ill of him. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

Doug Goulden

Actually I think a large number of the hijackers were from Egypt. But your right UBL is not from Iraq, however, the one thing they do have in common is their Muslim roots. Before I say anymore, I think the Islamic religion and the Muslims who practice it are good people( My doctor is Muslim and we have had many good conversations, he hate the fact these nuts have used the name of his religion to foment hate). I don't really believe that SH practices Islam other than as a ploy to influence others into thinking he should be supported by them as some sort of hero. Chris Losinger wrote: Iraq is step one in the Bush administration's grand plan to reshape the mid-east - and it has been since well before GWB was even elected. all this 9/11 tie-in stuff is merely a convenient way to sway public opinion. they have dreams of US-friendly democracies blossoming all over the region, calming the savage arabs and ensuring the safety of US interests And the problem with this is? The majority of the countries in the region have atrocious human rights records, and the idea that they might actually lose powr is very appalling. The Saudis tendency to play their own people against the US in their Madrassas while they make nice with the US is appaling. The Saudis hate their government. Hell the people in Iran are realizing that the revolution that they had back in the 80' against the Shah jut replaced on despot with a group of them. Would the idea that after we removed SH we helped to allow the people of Iraq to vote in a democratic government be so bad? As far as the threat from Iran and NK, NK has had a history of trying to posture and influence the US and it neighbors through threats. In reality NK is probably doing one of two things 1. Trying to influence the world and the US into providing relief for the govenment and the people of NK from famine and the collapse of their economic system. The leaders of NK are nuts, and their policies have resulted in the near collapse of their country. They may see the US as the people to help them out and their posturing is a way of saving face. 2. Trying to raise the morale of their own military. By posturing as they are, if they can cause the US to give in to some demands the leadership looks better in the eyes of their power base. If the NK military were to become unhappy enough they could remove the government in power. This may all be a play for power and control. I honestly believe that if the US jumps into talks directly with the NK under the

pankajdaga

Cannot put it in better words than that :) It is amazing that most Americans expect their allies to wag their tails to everything they deem is correct. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress

Chris Losinger

Doug Goulden wrote: And the problem with this is? those plans also include regime change in China - backed by the US military. call me anti-American, but i don't think a military adventure in China is in the US's best interest. these people want nothing short of Pax Americana (their phrase, not mine). they want the US to actively enforce its will over the rest of the world. remember, GWB campaigned on the idea that the US should avoid being the world's policeman - all the while knowing that his cabinet was dedicated to doing exactly the opposite. in fact, the report put out by these people in 2000 talks about the "constabulary duties" that the US will have to undertake in order to make this happen. so, all of you who voted for GWB on the idea that he would disentangle the US from policing the world - he sure fooled you. what's wrong with this? empire building doesn't work - history is full of examples. Doug Goulden wrote: Which way do you wanna bet, if your wrong people all over could die, if I'm wrong then the US military removes a tyrant that we should never have helped before. those are the only choices? let's brainstorm: option 3: after we remove Saddam, who is, by most accounts, holding Iraq's various factions (Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, etc) together, these factions start fighting each other. maybe Iran seizes the opportunity to grab a little land wile Iraq is disorganized. maybe Turkey jumps in to do a little kurdish business. i read an article last week about how Iraqis are buying guns as fast as they can (guns are legal in Iraq, B.T.W.) - not only to fight off the US invaders, but to fight off the other factions, once Saddam's ruling fist is lifted. option 4: we're there for 10 long years of urban combat. after which we pull out with our tails between our legs - someone takes a photo taken of the last group of US advisors being air-lifted off the top of the Baghdad Hilton. option 5: arabs all over see this as a war against Islam. suddenly, al-Q can't print up membership cards fast enough. there are so many ways this can go wrong, and very few ways it can go right. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

Chris Austin

pankajdaga wrote: It is amazing that most Americans expect their allies to wag their tails to everything they deem is correct. Actually most Americans don't. It is just a few loud idiots that are acting this way. The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

Doug Goulden

Chris Losinger wrote: what's wrong with this? empire building doesn't work - history is full of examples. I agree empire building doesn't work, but I don't see the US trying to build one. We kicked the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and now the UN and the US are building schools and supporting what is probably( by Arab standards) a fair and liberal government. We stood nothing to gain monetarily there. As far as Iraq, we aren't going to go occupy the country and turn it into the 51st state or some kind of client state. That was Chiraq's country that was doing that back in the 50's and 60's with their colonialism. The US will end up fighting the die hards in Baghdad probably for quite some time, but I would be suprised if Joe Blow in the streets wouldn't be thrilled to see SH gone along with his sons and their henchmen. As far as the problems with the Kurds and other groups, yeah that is going to be tough. Just like Yugoslavia when Tito died, a tyrant who oppresses his people so they have to worry about him is great in the hort term, maybe thats why France want him there. But isn't that the Arabs big problem with the US, we support tinpot dictators who are convenient for us, like the Shah. The US will end up a lot better off than most people think when this is done. I honestly think that when the 82 airborne rolls into Baghdad they are going to face the same kind of problems they did in 91, what to do with the conventional army troop who are surrendering. It will probably be jut a matter of time before the population ees that the US is taking pains not to harm innocents and start pointing out the people in their midst with Al Quada and Republican Guard ties. There are a lot of assumptions there but the alternative i to cross out fingers and hope that SH and his group don't decide that they have the reason they need to attack us either directly or through intermediaries. What is going to be really interesting is what the Iraqi people and the rest of the world are going to have to say when the war is over and the French and German involvement with Hussein during the arms embargo is exposed. I honestly think that is why both governments are so opposed to the US effort to finally deal with SH. Before Bush put 255,000 troops around Iraq and forced the inspections to resume, France was all for lifting the embargo because they believed that SH wasn't threat and wasn't armed. Makes yah wonder what Chiraq and the French have to worry about us finding out about..... Uptight

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

So you're telling me you base your political views on nationalist jokes? Get a life :mad: Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++

Doug Goulden

Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: So you're telling me you base your political views on nationalist jokes Not even close, I read these things called books, and listen to both sides any topic, which generally is more than what most liberals do. Don't let Uptight or the Republican part fool you, I try to see where others are coming from and what there motivations are. I by no means have all the answers, which is again more than you can say about most liberals;P. And as far as nationalist jokes, when was the last time you defended an American? I would be more than a little suprised if 2 or 3 months from now Chirac and his government aren't wiping egg off their faces when their involvement with Iraq over the last 12 years is exposed. Lets wait and see Eh? BTW. I am of French descent :-O but so far no one has tried to kick me outta the country Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Chris Losinger

Doug Goulden wrote: It will probably be jut a matter of time before the population ees that the US is taking pains not to harm innocents and start pointing out the people in their midst with Al Quada and Republican Guard ties. for everyone's sake, i hope you're right. and i hope the new Iraqi democracy stands as a shining beacon in the mid-east (even though the self-determined democracy in Qatar hasn't made any other mid-east country follow suit) and the citizens of all the other mid-east countries see this (tho they get CNN over there and can see democracies from around the world 24/7, in addition to Qatar) then they stand up and overthrow their governments and install wonderful democracies. but, what does democracy have to do with calming anti-american terrorism? nothing, that's what. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Sorry Doug, but the post you started this thread with was not poking fun at stereotypes - it was pandering to nationalism, and in the current climate that's a really dumb idea. I thought better of you than that. Had I posted the converse, you and others would have been quite within your rights to jump on me. But I didn't, did I? If you read back over my posts you'll see that while I don't trust the current US government I'm not anti-American. There may be parts of your culture or politics I find distasteful, but that's another thing. You should know me better than that by now. FYI: I don't agree with the French government either. They're playing politics with the situation. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk

"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch

Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++