Our wonderful French Allies

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: Just a precision, this part of the middle east was under the influence of the British Empire, not France (sykes-picot agreement), and UK is the one who created artificial borders for an artificial country in 1922 Didn't mean to imply that France had colonized the Arab world, if memory serves they were colonizing Africa. KaЯl wrote: Prove it. Or I can say Bush has f*cked a donkey in the backyard of the white house For all I know you are saying that already, but your wrong it was Bill Clinton ;P KaЯl wrote: The current US administration has made considerable damages to the World stability in 1 year Yeah by kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and bombing the WTC right? KaЯl wrote: The intransigent attitude of your foreign policy put at stake international organizations as the UN, NATO and the European Union, creating severe crisises Like deciding back in the 90's to get involved in Kosovo while the Security Council said no? If the UN can't even enforce the need to inspect Iraq and to have someone follow its resolutions, without the 255,000 American troops showing up, then isn't it just a paper tiger anyway? Unfortunately, although the idea of enforcing a common international law is good, it isn't going to work if there is no way or will to enforce it. France and Russia are placing their financial gain above the law the UN is supposed to represent, so who is really causing the problem. As far as the world being against the US going to war, I think you have to put that in perspective. People don't look forward to war and they don't protest for one. I don't look at the idea of war with Iraq as being a good thing, just at this point a necesity. If Saddaam wanted to go ahead and destroy all of his weapons and retire to Cuba that would be fine with me, but its not going to happen. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Well all I can say is that the people I've met from outside the UK - be they French, German, Danish, Croatian, American, Canadian, Lebanese, Swedish or Australian (to name but a few) have all been the same - well informed, friendly and open to discussion. None of them would base a view of anyone on a national stereotype, and neither would I. I'll say it again. In the current climate, a post like that which started this thread is ill-advised at best. It's damn obvious what's going to happen. 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

Chris Losinger wrote: for instance, Anne Coulter is an honest and factual source of pure information; as is Rush Limbaugh. neither of them would ever leave of 3/4 of a story in order to make some kind of irrelevant political point. no, it's those "liberals" who resort to half-truths, lies and slander Hey don't ask me to defend these folks ;P, I'm just defending myself, I do try to be impartial. But you gotta wonder about people who would agree with Richard Gere Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: I'll say it again. In the current climate, a post like that which started this thread is ill-advised at best. It's damn obvious what's going to happen. No offense intended at all, so I will apologize ahead of time, but why be political correct about it? I'm not advocating nuking Paris... Didn't even joke about it. But I think its fair to say that this ( the impending war) is something that is on peoples minds. And again being here in the States, people do feel betrayed by the French viewpoint. Most of us do see them as being condescending and self serving. So why not poke a little bit of fun at them? We came to their aid in WW1 and after they shafted the German's in the Treaty of Versaice, we got their country back for them. The US payed a high price to help them. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Doug Goulden wrote: No offense intended at all I'm glad, I really am. I really didn't want to have to jumnp on you! Doug Goulden wrote: And again being here in the States, people do feel betrayed by the French viewpoint. Most of us do see them as being condescending and self serving The problem is you - like everybody else - only sees a bit of the picture. You wouldn't believe how many people are upset at your own government's apparent intransigence - arguably the US administration's insistance on going it alone at the outset pre-empted a lot of the political opposition. Doug Goulden wrote: So why not poke a little bit of fun at them? We came to their aid in WW1 and after they shafted the German's in the Treaty of Versaice, we got their country back for them. The US payed a high price to help them. We haven't forgotten hun. However, the Europe of today is a long, long way from the Europe of then, and the people of europe are pretty solidly against a non-UN backed intervention. Their governments (with the exception of the UK, which is getting into bigger and bigger trouble over this) reflect that. To me, it seems the intransigence of the US government has made the whole thing far, far worse. GWB may be many things, but an ambassador for your country I'm afraid he's not. 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++

Mike Gaskey

Brit wrote: freedom kissing Watching FoxNews, are we? Mike

Brit

Mike Gaskey wrote: Watching FoxNews, are we? Uh, no. I don't have a TV. I take it that FoxNews has said something similar? ------------------------------------------ "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

Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: The problem is you - like everybody else - only sees a bit of the picture And we realize that. Most of the people in the US realize that the US government isn't going to lay down all the cards in its hand and try SH in the media or the court of public opinion. Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: We haven't forgotten hun. However, the Europe of today is a long, long way from the Europe of then, and the people of europe are pretty solidly against a non-UN backed intervention. Their governments (with the exception of the UK, which is getting into bigger and bigger trouble over this) reflect that Is Europe really that different? Yeah there is the EU, and the Europe that I see turns a blind eye to what happens in front of it. That doesn't seem all that different from the late 1930' when France and England ignored the buildup of Germany. They turned a blind eye when the Germans helped Spain and didn't react until it was to late. The people in the US remember that, my Grandpa went over there. Just because the people don't think something is right, doesn't make it wrong. The "old" Europe hid their heads in the sand and tried to pretend the problem would go away. Hell so did the US, we waited until Pearl Harbor. Even the Vatican tried to whitewash the extermination of the Jews at the time pretending it wasn't happening. So the US gets a wakeup call on 9/11, and we find out that we aren't safe behind the defense we have relied on for 200 years. Someone can get on a jet and travel a few hours, to destroy our buildings or kill our people. So the US got a wakeup call, and found out that people in the world want to harm us. What we learned is that we can't wait to respond to what someone does, we have to prevent it. Not to be to paranoid, but can you imagine what would happen if someone managed to walk into and stay at a Las Vegas casino who had been infected on purpose with small pox? By the time somebody figured it out it would be to late. SH has worked and probably has those kind of weapons, UBL is the type of person who would be willing to do those sort of things and can you really trust SH isn't? The "new" Europe specifically Germany and France are keeping their head in the sand thinking war is bad for business. I honestly doubt they are opposed to war because of any moral principles, they just find it inconvenient. I wouldn't place to much stock in those anti war protests that you see from here in the States. Most of

Doug Goulden

Go FoxNews :-D Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

brianwelsch

I'm not saying I agree with the French, just that they every right do whatever they want. We are. I understand that had everyone put the pressure on together the way it appeared might happen in the fall, we probably would have been more successful in either our inspections or maybe even getting rid of Saddam, and war might not even be issue at this point. But that can't be undone, and at this point we don't need their help anyway. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

Doug Goulden

I can agree with that, its just a shame we can't all work together for a common cause... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Anna Jayne Metcalfe

Doug Goulden wrote: And we realize that. Most of the people in the US realize that the US government isn't going to lay down all the cards in its hand and try SH in the media or the court of public opinion. I'm glad to hear it. But I'll say it again - the US Government screwed it its diplomacy royally at the outset, and got enough diplomatic backs up that it guaranteed opposition to future resolutions. Had it been handled better, maybe the outcome would have been different. BTW, why on earth didn't initially they push for a UN sponsored enforcement force to go in with the inspectors? That would have been a lot more palatable to many nations. Doug Goulden wrote: Is Europe really that different? Yeah there is the EU, and the Europe that I see turns a blind eye to what happens in front of it. That doesn't seem all that different from the late 1930' when France and England ignored the buildup of Germany. They turned a blind eye when the Germans helped Spain and didn't react until it was to late. The people in the US remember that, my Grandpa went over there. Just because the people don't think something is right, doesn't make it wrong. The "old" Europe hid their heads in the sand and tried to pretend the problem would go away. Hell so did the US, we waited until Pearl Harbor. Even the Vatican tried to whitewash the extermination of the Jews at the time pretending it wasn't happening. You have to remember that Europe's history has been blighted by war constantly up to and including WWII. As a result, there's now a very strong culture of avoiding war at almost any cost - and particularly so in Germany (I'll leave France out of it as I think there's politics at work there). In contrast (I believe) to the US, the countries of Europe now bear very, very, little relationship to those of the past. In many ways the social history of most European nations restarted after the last War, and our social and political views reflect that. The Franco-German alliance was born out of the need to avoid future conflicts at any cost. Don't underestimate the importance of the EU in this either. It's importance is likely to increase greatly in the future - it may have started out as a trade alliance, but it's become far, far more. I wouldn't be at surprised to see the EU turn into a Federation in due course. Doug Goulden wrote: So the US gets a wakeup call on 9/11, and we find out that we aren't safe behind the defense we have r

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: Didn't mean to imply that France had colonized the Arab world, if memory serves they were colonizing Africa. Before WWII, France presented itself as a muslim power. I think it may still have influence on our foreign policy because of a special relationship with some of our ex-colonies or protectorates. Doug Goulden wrote: Yeah by kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and bombing the WTC right :wtf: are you mentionning WTC? Did I made the slightest allusion to 9/11? Doug Goulden wrote: For all I know you are saying that already, but your wrong it was Bill Clinton :laugh: Ok, let's negociate for a threesome ;P Doug Goulden wrote: If the UN can't even enforce the need to inspect Iraq and to have someone follow its resolutions, without the 255,000 American troops showing up Did anybody contest that? As said Chirac yesterday's, following Chrétien, the US have already won, they are reaching their goal by having a real disarmement of Iraq according to the UN inspectors. Doug Goulden wrote: France and Russia are placing their financial gain above the law the UN is supposed to represent, so who is really causing the problem * pure speculation * some could say US wage a war for oil * States have no morality, but have to use moral arguments to decide its people. Doug Goulden wrote: If Saddaam wanted to go ahead and destroy all of his weapons and retire to Cuba that would be fine with me, but its not going to happen. There are two points here: 1)the disarmement. 2)SH exile. The first point is going to be fixed by the UN inspections, enforced by the presence of the US and British armies. The second point will IMHO never happen. SH knows that if he looses the power he will probably lose his life with too. At best he could face a trial for all his crimes, but outside of Iraq he would more probably end with a bullet in the head. Removing a dictator is a good intention, but Hell is paved with good intentions.

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 y

KaRl

IMHO you can't compare the 30's and today's situation, as you can't compare SH and Adolf (even if SH is a great admirer of Adolf). SH has been defeated once, and doesn't have successfully invaded all his neighbourgs. Who rebuilt the German Power after WW1 if it isn't US and UK, causing a big sensation of betrayal in France in those days ? This point is often avoided. And about the Versailles Treaty, isn't it correct to say that when the US representants refused to ratify it it lost the protection of the US? Doug Goulden wrote: Even the Vatican tried to whitewash the extermination of the Jews at the time pretending it wasn't happening This is an unfair and wrong lie. As said Stalin, how divisions had the Pope? Before attacking the Vatican, we should first see the behaviour of the ones who had the means. The western allies knew all about the genocides perpetrated by the Nazis, but they didn't made a move to stop them during all the war, as they didn't move during WW1 to stop the turkish genocide against the armenians. Doug Goulden wrote: SH has worked and probably has those kind of weapons, UBL is the type of person who would be willing to do those sort of things and can you really trust SH isn't? Pure speculations, once again. No proof, no evidence, as for the WMD owned by SH as for a connection between SH and UBL. You are always going back to the 9/11, and I can understand the considerable impact it had on US mentality. The US weren't used to be target of terrorists attacks as Europeans could be, and this one was the biggest ever seen. But I still don't understand how you connect this to Iraq: it's totally separate. Did ever Iraq in the past attack directly the US :confused: ? IMHO the US administration is using your feelings and anger to follow its goals. Doug Goulden wrote: 12 years is enough tim" for the inspections and diplomacy and they aren't working The inspections have had more effect about the weapons destruction than the Gulf War 1. See for example the arguments presented by Scott Ritter, a US republican who leaded the previous inpections teams Look also tho this Q&A, and tell me if they are wrong (demonstration needed :)) Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq

KaRl

Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: You have to remember that Europe's history has been blighted by war constantly up to and including WWII I think I'm the first generation in France who hasn't ever known a War since the fall of the roman empire :|

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

Michael A Barnhart

KaЯl wrote: As said Chirac yesterday's, following Chrétien, the US have already won, they are reaching their goal by having a real disarmament of Iraq according to the UN inspectors. My conflict with this is how slow it is going. How long do US troops have to be there? It can not be forever, both due to cost and the desire of many Arabic people not to have the troops presence. Ignoring US diplomatic comments, I am disappointed in the French not appreciating time is a factor and not finding some compromise fixed end. Now maybe this has been done behind the scenes but any effort has not been reported here in the states. To me it appears both sides are blindly taking a path of I want it my way and nothing else. With at least a little effort on the US part to suggest they can work with an altered time frame with no response. But that last sentence is also based on what the US media is reporting. KaЯl wrote: * pure speculation with regard to France/Russia financial interests. Do you deny these countries signed contracts with Iraq for $38 billion in oil development in 2002? This was reported in the US media. Now does this influence the position of these nations governments? You can argue no, but the perception that is does definitely exists. ""

Michael A Barnhart

Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: But I'll say it again - the US Government screwed it its diplomacy royally at the outset, and got enough diplomatic backs up that it guaranteed opposition to future resolutions. I agree with you. To many stupid statements made "off the cuff" etc. Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: In contrast (I believe) to the US, the countries of Europe now bear very, very, little relationship to those of the past. In many ways the social history of most European nations restarted after the last War, and our social and political views reflect that. Actually I think the world changed after WW2. The influence that the cold war had on the US totally dominated actions taken. Iran, Vietnam direct fall out. We are not the same nation either. Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: And why oh why didn't you finish the job the first time round when you had the support?? Because that was not the point the first time. I believe the Saudi's were very strong about the limits of the engagement. Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: I just hope it's over soon, one way or another. I am going to say I hope not. Anything quick and it will be with a lot of anger following that will take a long long time to work through. If only a firm schedule can be agreed to. Let the US troops go home and have the world act if the schedule is not met. ""

KaRl

AFAIK, the french official attitude about Time was that this element has to be evaluated by the inspectors, who are the ones who can say the time needed to do their task. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Do you deny these countries signed contracts with Iraq for $38 billion in oil development in 2002? I would rather say companies from these countries signed contracts, which is IMO a little bit different, when the comapines aren't state-owned. I don't know if these companies are lobbying, I suppose they do. IMo, there are several possibilities to explain the position of the french government. 1) There' no evidence yet a war is necessary, and the risks caused by such an adventure are potentially very high for everybody. 2) With the events which occured during the last presidential elections here, Chirac has not the possibility to go against the french public opinion (80% of the french oppose a war today). 3) It's a good occasion to reinforce the links with Germany 4) there's a concern about the seizure of a strategical raw material by another power, which already "control" the other oil fields in the middle east. 5) There was a possibility to unite Europe even if it was against the US 6) The French Republic defends an internationalist point of view, and believes the problems between countries should be fixed by a supranational organization There's probably others I don't see for now, but I'm sure the ultras will invent some others ;)

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

Michael A Barnhart

KaЯl wrote: AFAIK, the french official attitude about Time was that this element has to be evaluated by the inspectors, who are the ones who can say the time needed to do their task. Not to be argumentive but that does not really address what I was trying to convey. Infinite time is not an option for the issues I stated and that is what is being perceived by myself and those around me. Will the French people still accept statements "If the Iraqi Government starts to cooperate with the inspection team, we can make better progress" in another 12 years? I agree one week is equally ridicules and do not support that. I would like to here what the other limit is, given infinite will likely mean certain war. KaЯl wrote: I would rather say companies from these countries signed contracts, which is IMO a little bit different, when the comapines aren't state-owned. Again not looking for an argument but sharing perception. Many of these reports either state or indicate that France has large ownership of these companies. http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/2003/02/02/news/editorial/5088466.htm[^] http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/france.html[^] "France is one of the most centralized countries in Europe with a strong history of state ownership in the aviation, telecommunications, and energy industries." It does go on to say this is changing. But the perception of involvement is there. :rose: ""

sajid hassan

Chris Losinger wrote: 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). Pakistan is helping USA by capturing any Al-Q member found, and blindly handing them over to your authorities, recently the second most top leader was handed over to your authorities and now the only left is Osama who, if caught will definitely be handed over to you. And what you have given in the past ?? Just taken the money from Pakistan to sold F-16s and in return provided them soyabean oil.