PDA

View Full Version : Do you believe these guys?????



kenmac
03-25-2003, 07:58 PM
Top Stories - AP

France Seeks Big Role in Post-War Iraq
Tue Mar 25, 4:11 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By KIM HOUSEGO, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - Worried it could be shut out of business deals in postwar Iraq (news - web sites), France is drawing up plans to win French companies access to lucrative oil and reconstruction contracts, officials said Tuesday.

The government is determined that French companies will be part of rebuilding Iraq, despite President Jacques Chirac's vigorous opposition to the war, a Finance Ministry official said.


Gilles Munier, an executive board member of the French-Iraq Association for Economic Cooperation, said business leaders and government representatives were studying how to gain a foothold in postwar Iraq.


He said a meeting between France's most powerful business federation, government leaders and the French-Iraq Association for Economic Cooperation was scheduled for April 3.


The Finance Ministry official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed discussions were underway with business leaders about Iraq.


Some French are concerned that a U.S.-led administration in Iraq will favor companies from the United States and other pro-war countries while penalizing companies from France and other war opponents.


The Bush administration awarded a $4.8 million contract Monday to a Seattle-based company to rebuild Iraq's only deep-water port. Washington is expected to announce similar deals soon.


Officials in Paris say French firms' experience in working in Iraq would be an advantage.


French companies — many with ties to Baghdad stretching back decades — have established themselves as the largest suppliers of goods to Iraq since a U.N. trade embargo was partially lifted in 1996.


In 2001, France exported $705 million worth of goods to Iraq within the framework of the United Nations (news - web sites)' now-frozen oil-for-food program. Communications equipment maker Alcatel clinched a $75 million contract to upgrade Baghdad's phone network, and Renault sold $75 million worth of tractors and farming vehicles to Iraq.


French oil giant TotalFinaElf probably has the biggest stake. It spent six years in the 1990s doing preparatory work on two giant oil fields and has signed two tentative agreements with Saddam to develop them.


Munier said he believes American companies will have difficulties in Iraq because of widespread anger against the U.S.-led bombing campaign.


"I don't see how American executives can work when their lives will be at risk," he said. "There will be such hatred toward Americans."


Munier criticized French companies for negotiating with American companies for a piece of their businesses in Iraq, saying that such "collaboration" would damage the image of French business among Iraqis.


Differences over how to run Iraq after the war have put added strain on already tense relations between the United States and several European countries.


France opposes any U.S. reconstruction plan that would sideline United Nations development agencies, multilateral organizations and non-governmental aid groups.


Chirac has warned that France would vote against any U.N. Security Council resolution that would give "the American and British belligerents the right to administer Iraq."

France Seeks Big Role in Post-War Iraq




Do you believe it???

Meaty
03-25-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by kenmac
Some French are concerned that a U.S.-led administration in Iraq will favor companies from the United States and other pro-war countries while penalizing companies from France and other war opponents.

AS WELL THEY SHOULD BE!!! Those who front the lions share of the cost and effort should reep the lions share of the benifits from the war. But maybe we can leave the urinal cleaning and cake replacement contracts to the French.

ted
03-26-2003, 12:21 AM
I'll keep buying domestic wine and avoid Paris Paris at NAB!:p

CTRL+X
03-26-2003, 01:49 AM
All should be invited to the party, no matter how spineless,,, but how much sweeter the wine for those that actually did the work!!!,, nothing beats being able to say "I told you so"

Epita
03-26-2003, 03:13 AM
even though im agains this war!

I still think someone should be responcible, and im glad its not America because they would just want to take over the oil productions. france isnt likly to do that so its better for Iraq

Epita

CTRL+X
03-26-2003, 04:38 AM
what do you mean " glad its not???"... it already is.....bought and paid for

Rory_L
03-26-2003, 05:02 AM
I'll keep buying domestic wine and avoid Paris Paris at NAB!
Your loss Ted! Don`t let politics upset your stomach. Get a good French red and drink to the war! It`s the French politicians you have a beef with, not the vintners, surely!

R

LSlugger
03-26-2003, 07:42 AM
Good point, Rory. I find the anti-French bigotry petty and not a little disturbing. War carves its biggest scars in bodies and buildings, but all too often leaves a legacy of bigotry, too: krauts, frogs, japs, gooks, commies, skinnies, towel heads, etc.

Look, would you boycott Afghani, Iraqi, or Korean restaurants in your home country because of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Il? Why would you boycott French products for Jacques Chirac's "crime" of disagreeing with George Bush?

I understand the resistance to letting the French in on lucrative reconstruction contracts, but if you treat these contracts as pork barrel, you're just as much a carpet bagger as this article implies the French are. Regardless, you wouldn't catch my American derriere within a hundred miles of Iraq after this war.

Meaty
03-26-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by LSlugger
Good point, Rory. I find the anti-French bigotry petty and not a little disturbing. War carves its biggest scars in bodies and buildings, but all too often leaves a legacy of bigotry, too: krauts, frogs, japs, gooks, commies, skinnies, towel heads, etc.

What is really interesting is all names you have mentioned there are all of people the U.S. has been in recent conflict with, EXCEPT the French. Hmm.. so why is everyone so pissed at them for not standing with us on this. I have an idea.

66,033 Americans are buried or missing in France.
Thousands more who died fighting for France are buried or honored in the US.

ted
03-26-2003, 10:49 AM
My reason for being discusted with France is that they won't stand up and put a foot forward, but in a scavanger fashion, they will pick up all the scraps they can.

Shame on them for trying to benefit from this war they don't support! It's that simple.
If you don't support it, why are you willing to make a profit from it??? No moral stand that I can see.

By not buying products made in France, I'll be stopping France from getting any fees or taxes on thier products. Along with making a moral decision to buy American. That's all I can do, and I will. Besides, California has plenty of great wines!;)

kenmac
03-26-2003, 12:36 PM
Ted,
I can't agree more....
Ken Mac

mastermesh
03-26-2003, 01:16 PM
maybe some of the French out there should voice in on this?!? I know of at least one LW user out there in France.

CTRL+X
03-26-2003, 04:30 PM
The way I look at it is just because they are not "with us today" does not mean they won't be the next day. i

t took america a long time to jump into the fray back in ww2, it sat by and remained in a deep soul search while europe was run over and leveled.

don't be to harsh on the French... we don't know what tommarrow will bring.

hrgiger
03-26-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by CTRL+X
The way I look at it is just because they are not "with us today" does not mean they won't be the next day.



Good. Then when that next day comes is when they can rightfully make a claim to be a part of administering but I say right now, the French shouldn't have anything to do with Iraq. They don't want to support the war, then they shouldn't play a part in the administration of the new Iraq.

CTRL+X
03-26-2003, 06:46 PM
right now your right...

errrr left... I mean right,,, right?

ted
03-26-2003, 07:53 PM
The difference in WW2 was that the Americans did jump in the battle and spent a fortune re-building.
Sorry, I can't agree that France should get any contracts after the fact.

I'm not angry with individuals in France, just their countries firm stance that they will not join us "under any circumstances". Except to pursue after war revenue???

Hervé
03-27-2003, 01:52 AM
in a sense you're right...! French president is an opportunist... but as a french, there is nothing I could do about. Sorry.:(

kenmac
03-27-2003, 08:37 AM
March 13, 2003, Thursday
EDITORIAL DESK


The French Connection

By WILLIAM SAFIRE ( Op-Ed ) 733 words
WASHINGTON -- France, China and Syria all have a common reason for keeping American and British troops out of Iraq: the three nations may not want the world to discover that their nationals have been illicitly supplying Saddam Hussein with materials used in building long-range surface-to-surface missiles.
We're not talking about short-range Al Samoud 2 missiles, which Saddam is ostentatiously destroying to help his protectors avert an invasion, nor his old mobile Scuds. The delivery system for mass destruction warheads requires a much more sophisticated propulsion system and fuels.


If you were running the Iraqi ballistic missiles project, where in the world would you go to buy the chemical that is among the best binders for solid propellant?

Answer: to 116 DaWu Road in Zibo, a city in the Shandong Province of China, where a company named Qilu Chemicals is a leading producer of a transparent liquid rubber named hydroxy terminated polybutadiene, familiarly known in the advanced-rocket trade as HTPB.

But you wouldn't want the word ''chemicals'' to appear anywhere on the purchase because that might alert inspectors enforcing sanctions, so you employ a couple of cutouts. One is an import-export company with which Qilu Chemicals often does business.

To be twice removed from the source, you would turn to CIS Paris, a Parisian broker that is active in dealings of many kinds with Baghdad. Its director is familiar with the order but denies being the agent.

A shipment of 20 tons of HTPB, whose sale to Iraq is forbidden by U.N. resolutions and the oil-for-food agreement, left China in August 2002 in a 40-foot container. It arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus (fortified by the Knights Templar in 1183, and the Mediterranean terminus for an Iraqi oil pipeline today) and was received there by a trading company that was an intermediary for the Iraqi missile industry, the end user. The HTPB was then trucked across Syria to Iraq.

Syria has no sophisticated missile-building program. What rocket weaponry it has comes off the shelf (and usually on credit) from Russia, so it therefore has no use for HTPB. But cash-starved Syria is the conduit for missile supplies to cash-flush Saddam, as this shipment demonstrates. We will have to wait until after the war to find out how much other weaponry, for what huge fees, Saddam has stored in currently un-inspectable Syrian warehouses.

The French connection -- brokering the deal among the Chinese producer, the Syrian land transporter and the Iraqi buyer -- is no great secret to the world's arms merchants. French intelligence has long been aware of it. The requirement for a French export license as well as U.N. sanctions approval may have been averted by disguising it as a direct offshore sale from China to Syria.

I'm also told that a contract was signed last April in Paris for five tons of 99 percent unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine, another advanced missile fuel, which is produced by France's Société Nationale des Poudre et Explosifs. In addition, Iraqi attempts to buy an oxidizer for solid propellant missiles, ammonium perchlorate, were successful, at least on paper. Both chemicals, like HTPB, require explicit approval by the U.N. Sanctions Committee before they can be sold to Iraq.

Perhaps a few intrepid members of the Chirac Adoration Society, formerly known as the French media, will ask France's lax export-control authorities about these shipments. U.N. inspectors looking at Iraq's El Sirat trading company might try to follow its affiliate, the Gudia Bureau, to dealings in Paris.

Is this account what journalists call a ''keeper,'' one held back for publication at a critical moment, made more newsworthy by the Security Council debate? No; I've been poking around for only about a week, starting with data originating from an Arab source, not from the C.I.A. (Anti-Kurdish analysts at Langley have it in for me for embarrassing them for 18 months on Al Qaeda's ties to Saddam, especially in the terrorist Ansar enclave in Iraqi Kurdistan.)

This detail about the France-China-Syria-Iraq propellant collaboration makes for dull reading, but reveals some of the motivation behind the campaign of those nations to suppress the truth. The truth, however, will out.







The problem is France has skeletons in the closet. That is why they oppose the war.
No other reason.
Don’t let them fool you.

Ken Mac

kenmac
03-27-2003, 08:43 AM
Actually that is also why China and already proven Russia didn't join us. They have their #@&%'s so far up Saddams [email protected]# they are afraid to show the world they have been supporting this goon for a long time AGAINST THE UN RESOLUTION concerning supplying weapons.
And they are upset for us invading.
Shame on them!!!!!

Don't give a dime to France Russia and China when this is over.
The three of them should just shut up.

Hervé
03-27-2003, 10:16 AM
Bush's father used to be friend with Bin Laden and US helped him out providing weapons.... in the war they were doing in Afganisthan, but at that time it sounded FOR the US, not against, things change... remark I am saying all this, when I dont care, and you're like me Kenmac, if your gov F....ks up big time, what can you do about it.... so no , French people have no skeletons in their closet, they are good people in majority, like americans. I dont say you wont find any as.....les, but as.....le is not a nationality as far as I am concerned....

Souriez, vous êtes filmés....
(smile, you're on camera...)

kenmac
03-27-2003, 10:27 AM
Herve,
I have nothing against French people, for that matter I have nothing against any people. To be honest I just don't care much for Chirac. I think he is an opportunist.
Ken Mac

Hiraghm
03-27-2003, 02:27 PM
We would still be friends with Usama bin Laden, if he hadn't turned terrorist. We helped him and the taliban toss the Soviets out of Afghanistan. This was good for Afghanistan, and it was good for the U.S. It was good for the Russians too, since it helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

That the Taliban would set up such a theocratic dictatorship is not something we could have easily predicted, however. That bin Laden would get pissy because we "infidels" dared to soil Arab land with our boots while tossing another communist dictator out of another Arab nation that he invaded, was even less predictable.

So, there was nothing wrong with us being "friends" with bin Laden prior to his becoming an international terrorist. But supplying Hussein AFTER he's committed his heinous acts, in contravention of U.N. resolution, while condemning others for trying to put an end to him, is hypocritical.

btw, if you have no control over your gov't, that makes it a dictatorship. Want us to come kick its butt for you?

Hervé
03-28-2003, 12:24 AM
..... because from the corner of your little bedroom, you have big control over a miss-elected president

"the real terrorists are hiding behind the Bushes"....

Already GrandFather Bush sold petrol and weapons to Hitler, when Germany was under total embargo, and this I bet you did not know...

CTRL+X
03-28-2003, 01:39 AM
LOL it still makes me laugh how people use these little tid bits of news to prove their points,,,

Hiraghm
03-28-2003, 03:52 AM
Boy, Europe must be behind on U.S. politics. We didn't miss-elect the President, otherwise the Democrats would have succeeded in stealing the election and AlGore would be President.
Actually, I have control over President Bush via my telephone, computer, and mailbox. I've spoken on several occassions with my representatives in Congress. The people protesting, to one degree or another, are controlling the President. If you don't want to make the effort to have your voice heard by your government, don't just shrug it off as universal impotence.

Joe Kennedy sold gas and ammunition to the Germans (made his fortune as a bootlegger, before that. Yes, daddy to JFK, the Jelly Doughnut.)


Originally posted by Hervé
..... because from the corner of your little bedroom, you have big control over a miss-elected president

"the real terrorists are hiding behind the Bushes"....

Already GrandFather Bush sold petrol and weapons to Hitler, when Germany was under total embargo, and this I bet you did not know...

kenmac
03-28-2003, 08:20 AM
Question...

Are the Iraqi people better off living under Saddam or are they not?

A simple yes or no will do.

Ken Mac

kenmac
03-28-2003, 08:36 AM
Maybe this story might help with making a decision.



Top Stories - AP

British: Iraqis Fire on Basra Civilians
2 hours, 31 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer

CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar - Iraqi paramilitary forces in Basra fired mortars and machine guns Friday on a "couple of thousand" Iraqi civilians trying to leave the besieged city, British military officials said.


Members of Britain's 7th Armored Brigade were trying to neutralize the fire, evacuate the civilians and preparing to treat any casualties, said Lt. Col. Ronnie McCourt, a spokesman for British forces in the Gulf.


A senior British defense official said there had been reports in recent days of significant numbers of Iraqi civilians coming out of Basra on a daily basis to get food aid from points outside the city and then returning.


The official, who asked not to be identified further, said that scenario appeared to be the case again Friday, but that Iraqi paramilitary forces opened fire on them to block them from getting out.


"Our interpretation of this is here perhaps are the first pieces of evidence of Iraqi people trying to break free from the Baath party regime and the militia," Col. Chris Vernon, a spokesman in southern Iraq (news - web sites) for British forces, told Sky News Television. "And clearly the militia don't want that. They want to keep their population in there, and they fired on them to force them back in."


McCourt said a "couple of thousand" Iraqi civilians had tried to break out of the city in the north and west, but came under fire from Iraqi paramilitary forces inside.


"We are trying to save the people, return fire and rescue civilians," he said.


He said forces of the 1st Black Watch battalion in Warrior armored fighting vehicles were trying to wedge themselves between the militia fire and the civilian targets.


British forces have ringed the southern city — Iraq's second largest with a population of 1.3 million — in hopes of eliminating units still loyal to Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and opening the way for badly needed humanitarian aid.


U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) has warned of a humanitarian catastrophe if aid doesn't reach the city soon.


On at least three separate occasions, British units and coalition aircraft have fired on enemy Iraqi tanks and other armored vehicles that have streamed out of the city.


On Thursday, at least 14 T-55 tanks heading south out of Basra toward the al-Faw peninsula were destroyed by coalition airpower and groundfire, British officials said.


Air Marshall Brian Burridge, the top British commander in the Gulf, said Thursday that Saddam's paramilitary forces in Basra were forcing regular army troops to fight, threatening to kill them or to harm their families.


"In Basra we've come up against some stiff oppostion from a mixture of regime paramilitary and the remnants of the Iraqi army's 51st division who we believe have been coerced by the regime," Burridge said.


The British say they are coming to the defense of Shiite Muslims who they say rose up in the streets against Saddam Hussein's Sunni Muslim regime on Tuesday.


British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) has promised backing for the insurgents.


Coalition forces have made no secret of their hopes to spur such uprisings in the strategic southern city. Iraq has denied there was an uprising.

Meaty
03-28-2003, 11:14 AM
What is amazing is that through this conflict, the United States and her allies will have killed a number of civilians, without doubt this has happend, and will continue to happen, regrettably. Even though most of these are Saddam's fault for putting his armament inside or near non-military targets, there is an interesting observation to be made here, and that is that Saddam's troops will have directly killed more iraqi non-combatants in this conflicts than the coalition troops will have. Nice guy that Saddam is.

Lightwolf
03-31-2003, 10:48 AM
Meaty:

It also looks like most coalition troop casualties come from friendly fire.

It is an f***ing war. What do you expect? Both sides want to win, both sides use all tricks they have to do that.

I'm just glad that no ABC weapons were used on either side (...yet), but even that wouldn't surprise me. (No A on Iraq's side though).

And it has been a long time since war didn't threat civilians lives.

Hiraghm
03-31-2003, 03:00 PM
That is a sad, and thankfully erroneous assertion, Lightwolf. Obviously both sides are *not* yet using all the tricks to do that. We could easily carpet-bomb Iraq. In fact, we could depopulate Iraq. We could use nukes. We don't do these things. Thus far, the Iraqis haven't used biochem weapons, either. Therefore, we're not either of us using all of our tricks. War is not simply a slaughterfest, whoever is left standing wins. That's barbarism. We do not fight Total War but Just War. The Iraqis are fighting Total War, because they agree with you that "anything goes".
This is not about body counts, or terror, for us. This is about the enemy's ability to wage war, for us. For the Hussein regime, it *is* all about body counts and terror, because that is how they have ruled. They only care about power. It's obvious from Hussein's regime's history that they would rather rule over a dungheap, than serve in a prosperous nation. They don't care who dies, so long as they end up in charge when the smoke clears. We care who dies, and have gone to great lengths to minimize the number of people who die. When the smoke clears, we want the Iraqis to be in charge, not a dictator, and not us. Hussein's regime holds the Iraqi people in contempt, and distrusts them. We have shown them respect and compassion, and will trust them with their own rule.

They've shot innocent civilians, starved, tortured, and hidden behind them. They've executed our soldiers. We've carried their wounded on our back.

There's a world of difference between the inevitable accidental casualties of war, and intentionally inflicted casualties. We've had accidental casualties, they've committed outright murder.



Hitler used tanks to conquer France, we used tanks to liberate France. not the same thing.
- George Will to Phil Donahue during the 1st Gulf War

Ernest
04-01-2003, 12:55 AM
I don't see any contradictions in France's positon. France did not want a war in Irak because Elf has numerous, long term oil extraction contracts with Hussein and France was afraid to lose them if the US invaded.

It's not like they want the US to bake the pie and then they can eat it. They already had half the pie, with Russia having the other half. The US decided to break that pie and recook it into a new, nicer pie without their approval. They say, "If you broke our pie and made a new one without our consent we deserve a part. Their position is consistent. If we forget about the moral issues, they would be stupid to have any other position.

Ernest
04-01-2003, 01:43 AM
Are the Iraqi people better off living under Saddam or are they not?
It's not that simple as that.
There is another possible question. "Could we have gotten rid of Sadaam without a war?"
I think the answer is yes. The main reasons why that didn't happen were miscalculation and momentum. Bush was playing a very convincing bad cop. Most of the world thought he overdid it but to make Hussein cooperate, a TJ Hooker type of bad cop wasn't enough. You needed a Russel Crow in LA confidential "I'll throw the DA out the window" type of bad cop. France and Germany were playing a very convincing good cop. The problem was that when the climatic turning point came (Powell's WMD-proofs speech at the UN), the good cops got stuck in their "good guy momentum" forgot they were cops and decided to be just good. As a result, the bad cops, who've never been known for self control, also forgot they were cops and decided to be just plain bad. If Germany and France had stood up and made clear to Sadaam that they were not going to tolerate and more stupid games, instead of playing that stupid "There is no definite proof, so Sadaam is all fine and dandy" routine, the regime could have been broken without war and France and Russia would have had a better chance of keeping their beloved oil extraction contracts. They really miscalculated how many rules Georgie is capable of breaking when gets mad.

I understand and even approve anti-war demonstrations at that time. Now that the war is already on and Iraqui civilians have already had to endure hell for so many days, the protestors must be running in neutral, because going in and pulling out before finishing is the worst possible scenario. Sadaam would not even be fighting anymore if he wasn't convinced that if he can drag the war a little longer, the world will force the coalition to withdraw.

Hiraghm
04-01-2003, 02:51 PM
Your last statement is very very true. Hussein's regime is trying everything to get the rest of the world to stop us for them.

But I doubt that's Hussein's thinking. He's probably thinking at the moment, "Wow.. there really *is* a hell!"

He missed his scheduled news conference today.

As for "good cop-bad cop", it's an interesting theory. But it wouldn't have worked anyway. You don't get rid of Ginghis Khan or Atilla the Hun, or Hitler with diplomacy. You kill them. Why the world refuses to recognize Hussein for what he is (or was,) is beyond me.

He would have been gone 11 years ago if it weren't for the diplomats :mad:

kenmac
04-01-2003, 03:06 PM
You know, I support our troops, our mission and my country, but one thing is for sure......war sucks.........
Ken Mac

ted
04-01-2003, 07:51 PM
I couldn't agree more. War does indeed suck.
But when you have a bully laughing at the world and murdering his neighbors and own people, some times you gotta kick ***.

12 years of saying PLEASE has only allowed him to bloat his ego and continue with his behavior.

Funny how everyone says "we should have stopped Hitler earlier", but hasn't learned anything from history?:confused:

Ernest
04-02-2003, 03:33 AM
Well we got rid of the murderous, communist dictator of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, with diplomacy (or rather we didn't, the leader of a tiny country without even an army did.) And that after the US's financing of a guerrilla war against him that failed to weaken his regime for over a decade...
So it can be done but it requires incredible intelligence in the negotiations and an iron will.

kenmac
04-02-2003, 10:02 AM
>You might have missed it in the rush of news around the 10th of
>January 2003, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan
>had published in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed
>an American ? any American.
>
>So, an Australian dentist wrote the following to let everyone know
>what an American is, so they would know when they found one:
>
>English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian
>or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African,
>Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or
>Arab, or Pakistani, or Afghan. An American may also be a Cherokee,
>Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other
>tribes known as Native Americans.
>
>An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or
>Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in
>Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to
>worship as each of them chooses. An American is also free to believe
>in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the
>government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and
>for God.
>
>An American is from the most prosperous land in the history of the
>world.
>The root of that prosperity can be found in
>the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of
>each person the pursuit of happiness
>
>An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every
>other nation in the world in their time of need. When the Soviet army
>overran Afghanistan 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies
>to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning
>of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the
>poor in Afghanistan.
>
>Americans welcome the best, the best products, the best books, the
>best music, the best food, the best athletes. But they also welcome the
>least.
>
>The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes your
>tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the
>homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built
>America. Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of
>September 11, 2001 earning a better life for their families. I've
>been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30
>other countries, cultures, and first languages including those that
>aided and abetted the terrorists.
>
>So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did
>General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Dong, and every bloodthirsty
>tyrant in the history of the world. But, in doing so you would
>just be killing yourself. Because Americans
>are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the
>embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone
>who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

mattclary
04-02-2003, 01:07 PM
Can't remember who said this....

The only time France wants to go to war is when the Germans are sitting in Paris drinking wine.

p.s. Good post, Ken!

anieves
04-02-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Epita
even though im agains this war!

I still think someone should be responcible, and im glad its not America because they would just want to take over the oil productions. france isnt likly to do that so its better for Iraq

Epita

ok dude, with this post you have proven to all that you are not well informed. The truth of the matter is that if we wanted the damn oil we would have taken it a long time ago. Did we take over the Kuwati oil fields NO WE DIDN'T we saved them in a fraction of the time that was estimated.

Let me rimind you that the Fench are the ones with huge contracts with Iraq not the US. Do you even know who the hell is our primary oil resource? probably not and I'm not going to tell you, find out for yourself. Another thing, Who has been a close friend of Hussein??? Shiraq is! The french have millions of unpaid debt with Iraq which they will never see get paid back. The French have alot to loose.

Now who the hell is desecrating tombs of fallen WWII soldiers? the French are, lack of respect to the people that gave them back their freedom.

I am glad that this administration has the balls to stand up for people that rather die than keep living under Hussein dictatorship. Freedom has a high price no body is arguing that but some people need to be reminded of how precious freedom trully is.

I for one haven't seen an Iraqi LightWave user living in Iraq... have you?

anieves
04-02-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Ernest
It's not that simple as that.
There is another possible question. "Could we have gotten rid of Sadaam without a war?"
I think the answer is yes. The main reasons why that didn't happen were miscalculation and momentum. Bush was playing a very convincing bad cop. Most of the world thought he overdid it but to make Hussein cooperate, a TJ Hooker type of bad cop wasn't enough. You needed a Russel Crow in LA confidential "I'll throw the DA out the window" type of bad cop. France and Germany were playing a very convincing good cop. The problem was that when the climatic turning point came (Powell's WMD-proofs speech at the UN), the good cops got stuck in their "good guy momentum" forgot they were cops and decided to be just good. As a result, the bad cops, who've never been known for self control, also forgot they were cops and decided to be just plain bad. If Germany and France had stood up and made clear to Sadaam that they were not going to tolerate and more stupid games, instead of playing that stupid "There is no definite proof, so Sadaam is all fine and dandy" routine, the regime could have been broken without war and France and Russia would have had a better chance of keeping their beloved oil extraction contracts. They really miscalculated how many rules Georgie is capable of breaking when gets mad.

I understand and even approve anti-war demonstrations at that time. Now that the war is already on and Iraqui civilians have already had to endure hell for so many days, the protestors must be running in neutral, because going in and pulling out before finishing is the worst possible scenario. Sadaam would not even be fighting anymore if he wasn't convinced that if he can drag the war a little longer, the world will force the coalition to withdraw.

Which rules did "Georgie" broke exactly, Ernest? The fact of the matter is that we didn't have to even ask the UN to approve military action... it was approved back in 91. The first war ended with a CEASE FIRE with the assurance that S.H. dissarmed... he DIDN'T 1441 is pure diplomacy that didn't work thanks to countries that put their selfish self interest first.

Ernest
04-03-2003, 01:25 AM
I didn't say he broke laws (I'm sure lawyers will have fun with ridiculous semantic games on that).
I said he broke rules.
Since the fall of the iron curtain and, especially since the Gulf WarI, a set of unwritten rules began to be generally agreed upon by all the "civilized" countries of the world. Basically a system of respect. It was expected that no "civilized" country would get into armed conflicts in this era. It was expected that, if "evil" appeared in the world, the "international community" as a whole would recognize the evil as such, determine the course of action and leave it up to the top military powers, acting as an alliance, to enforce it. That's how it worked in the 1st Gulf War, in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. It seemed to be working nicely and nobody seemed to be deviating from that etiquette so, internationally, it was considered the "course of action to be expected in any international crisis".
Those are the "rules" I was talking about.
I'm not saying that it was wrong to break them (I do kindof think so but with very little certainty); what I'm saying is that France, Germany and Russia didn't expect the US to dare break them and that was a fatal miscalculation.


The first war ended with a CEASE FIRE with the assurance that S.H. dissarmed... he DIDN'T 1441
Weeelll, yeeeah, the cease fire wasn't really with the US but with the international coalition so it cooould be argumented that it wasn't up to the US to decide by itself if the cease fire was broken and that it was up to the UN, as a "transparent and incorruptible entity" (whaaatever) to judge if Saadaami had disarmed or not but, then again, that's lawyers semantic play which I hate...

anieves
04-03-2003, 08:09 AM
ok dude, I didn't say laws I said rules as you stated. Unwritten rules? WTF? This doesn't make scence. Let me tell you, The US were the leader of the coallition just like it is now. The UN has proven itself that as is it doesn't work. Coutries self interests will always get in the middle (cough, France, cough) I say stop the veto power crap, and let it be majority rules, yet again such new resolution would have been worthless since it was approved in unanomously(sic?) the first time to begin with!

Another fact of the useless UN. There have been 26 major international conflicts since the UN inaguration. Just three of them were "approved" by the UN. All of those three taken to the security council by the US. I'll let you do the rest of the research to find out wich 3 conflicts were those. As for the rest 23... they were never taken to the security council including France, Russia among others. Now the US is the only one that has to get "approval"???

Ernest
04-03-2003, 08:25 PM
This doesn't make scence.
It doesn't have to make sense. It's just a fact that if you walked around the streets of continental Europe, Latin America, Singapore... the people you'd meet took those rules for granted. Many tiny countries felt that the world had become a big democracy and that the small and weak had as much of a say in enforcing international law as the big and strong. Even Georgie cared about keeping this apparent order of things (up to a limit). Proof is all the effort he wasted during all those months of negotiation in the UN.

There have been 26 major international conflicts ...
I'm not talking about the cold war era. I'm talking about what the masses of the world considered to be the "new order" after the cold war and the resolution of recent conflicts.

Now the US is the only one that has to get "approval"???
That's the price to be paid for being the good guys. People's expectation on you are so much higher....
But no, remember all the demonstrations and protests when France decided to make nuclear test in the Muroroa atoll? They weren't invading anyone, just testing one nuclear weapon in their own atoll. Still all the world has the right to protest. What about all the marches every time Castro so much as visits a summit? The world doesn't protest ONLY against the US.

Put it in perspective. If it hadn't been the US. If two months ago Syria, Iran or, better yet, North Korea had said that it had proof that Sadaam wasn't disarming and went ahead and invaded Irak, invoking 1441 and promising to turn it into a democracy, do you think we'd have been cheering on, "Go Kimmi Go!"? For us it's easy to say that with the US it's different but for other countries the difference is not so clear. After all, the US has given power to, or kept in power, so many pro-american genocidal dictators in the past that it's reasonable that some countries have doubts. If they see that the US really gives Irak to the Iraqui people so they can elect fanatic shiite ayatollahs if they so choose, then they will have to shut up but until then, we're asking for a leap of faith. It's OK if not everybody takes it.