|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Kuwait had no treaty obligation with the US.
OK, a short history lesson. Back in the 1500s-1600s in Europe, there was a dreadful war called The Hundred Year War, which caused tremendous disruption and massive loss of life.
A the end, all the great European powers signed something called the Treaty of Westphalia. The fundamental principle to this treaty is sovereignty. In other words, you can do what you like in your country, and no one outside your country can do anything about it.
Respect for sovereignty is the fundamental principle of the UN, too. Many countries' leaders are tyrants and torturers, yet they can all sit at the UN and speak on behalf of their country.
In WW2, when Germany invaded Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany because of the lack of respect for Westphalian principles by Germany. They wanted to preserve Polnd's sovereignty.
When Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, the UN allowed the allies to push Iraq out of Kuwait, to restore Kuwaiti sovereignty. The Kuwaiti government are not nice people (one sheik said why fight myself when I have my white slaves from America to do this for me), but the idea is that their sovereign government should be preserved. The Allied colation was not allowed to go into Irq, because it was entitled to preserve its sovereignty, too.
Unfortunately as a way of putting pressure on Saddam, Bush 1 called on the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam, but didn't back them up with troops because of the lack of UN mandate. Many Iraqi military units switched sides, but without allied backing were wiped out by Saddam's loyal Republican Guard. (See the excellent George Clooney / Mark Wahlberg movie Three Kings for more on this). Same goes for the Kurds in the north, and the Shi'ite Muslims in the south. To stop their annihilation by helicopter gunship, the allies did impose a no-fly zone, but did not take any further steps.
One of the complaints about the current US/UK plans against Iraq is that it breaches Westphalian principles. Iraq has not done anything, and an invasion on a pre-emptive basis undermines the sovereign system of government and international affairs which has been in place since the 1600s.
Personally I think Westphalian principles are flawed, a view I recently found is shared by Kofi Annan in so far as it comes to cries against humanity. Other than Iraq, though, the US is a big supporter of Westphalian principles, refusing to compromise its sovereignty on stuff like the International Criminal Court (Us soldiers on trial for war crimes by foreign judges doesn't appeal to the US).
That's the long and the short of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Re-reading this, rather than amend what I've written, I should add that I do appreciate your comments, Cowgirl Jack. Rob has told me before that I can sound snide, and I do get carried away with the slow venom drip.
dave is good people.
yeah, his opinion may occasionally seem snide or even (blindly) anti-american at times, but... its not. certainly not intentionally, anyway. and more than likely on the same level as my (blindly) pro-american rhetoric.
at worst, his opinion helps to see the other side of things, or perhaps more aptly, the "outside view"
good stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I admit the French are acting in a Gaullist tradition of seeing themselves (as the leader of Europe) as being a "natural" counterbalance to American influence, and that this is tainting their views, to their discredit.
personally, i feel this is the entire issue. if france had a point, its merit was lost long ago. i think, more and more (especially with chirac's attack on smaller european powers) france is doing their best to flaunt the fading power they have left.
this whole ordeal and their entire stance has completely lost all regard for what it should be focused on. france is so busy trying to make themselves look big and/or combat the US that they've otherwise forgotten about saddam being a ruthless dictator, the millions of poverty-striken innocents in iraq, the defense of a close ally in turkey, and/or the defense of a post 9-11 world.
thats both embarassing and globally unfortunate.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
something something OIL something
(no specific quote i wanted to highlight -- justa general commentary)
the anti-american oil issue is silly. america uses saudi oil, not iraqi. if we were to invade iraq again, our goal is not to steal all of the oil. in gulf war 1, one of our missions was to prevent saddam from burning all of it away -- we had our opportunities to take it then, and did not.
contrarily, as far as i know, countires like france and germany do use iraqi oil. if anything, this shows that they have oil-related motives in this ordeal.
and the thought that america would invade simply to steal or take control of iraqi oil (and, thus, take it from the french, or what have you) is also a silly one, considering powell went on a very public record, both in front of all american governments and the UN, promoting that an american-led regime in post-saddam iraq would ensure the people of iraq got the oil and/or the value of the oil (something they currently have never seen).
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
smart bombs cannot prevent the famine, infant mortality and disease that will follow an invasion. {snip} I really respect the fact that the US military and policy-makers has sufficient humanitarian concern (a cynic would say an eye on the TV-watching voting public) to use smart bombs. But no amount of munitions will stop the predicted deaths from the destruction of public infrastructure.
thats true. innocent deaths and loss and destruction are an unfortunate and substantial casualty of this entire conflict. yes, the US's newer war tech is amazingly accurate and effective -- the first gulf war is an incredible testamant to that, with the casualties incredibly minimal. however, 99% is not 100% -- there's no way to completely remove the casualty factor, and were we to invade, there will be unfortunate, accidental deaths and victims.
i dont want to sound cold or careless, so i hope i dont come off as such with the following, but....
if 1000 innocents are lost due to the horrible actions of war... isn't that still lightyears better than the treatment the country's people is receiving now? i mean, which is worse? the condition the iraqi people currently suffer through? or one 2 years from now, were america and other allies to lead a regime?
how many thousands of people in iraq are currently suffering because of their "elected" official? how many are currently starving, living in poverty or famine? how many have been put to death unnecessarily over the years? how many reporters have documented saddam's higher ups, and even his own brother, systematically raping and murdering innocent women at their leisure?
further, america would fuel the newly growing, newly democratic economy with millions or billions of dollars to rebuild (something the country has done in most every war situation they've ever been in). infrastructure would be rebuilt infinitely stronger than it was before (than it is now).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Couple of things in that:
1. I agree with you on France, except that I think that part of the motivation of the French and Europeans generally is that a change in regime, much like what happened in Eastern Europe, can occur without the need for the brutality of a war. In the meantime, weapons inspectors can keep Saddam from developing WMD. The European experiece of war is 60 years old but still shadows the continent. They don't see the point when the political implosion of Eastern Europe demonstrates that there is an alternative way.
2. One thing investors know is not to put all their eggs in one basket. This is a strategic concern to diversify and its equally applicable to national strategy. Why put all your oil eggs in the Saudi basket? By controlling Iraq, the monopoly of OPEC is broken, new contracts come up for US oil companies, the US isn't toally reliant on the goodwill of the Saudis, and the US has a new offshore Strategic Oil Reserve. There are too many long-term economic benefits to oil companies from a successful war in Iraq.
3. I was gratified Powell spoke on this issue, but everyone knows, most of all the US govt., that the task of nation-building is not something they do well, or even like (Republicans used to scorn the idea, when Clinton wanted to do this in Somalia.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Two things the US government will never admit to because the Clinton presidency covered them up are :
Iraq was a direct contributor to the Oklahoma City bombing...there are too many ties and links to really deny this if you do any investigating.....
flight 800 out of New York had some sort of terrorist connection...
Both incidents are very iffy, even in the mainstream news and if you check with alternative sources you can make your own decisions.....
Yet more reasons to trounce Iraq and Al queda....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by Pig Iron:
Two things the US government will never admit to because the Clinton presidency covered them up are :
Iraq was a direct contributor to the Oklahoma City bombing...there are too many ties and links to really deny this if you do any investigating.....
flight 800 out of New York had some sort of terrorist connection...
Both incidents are very iffy, even in the mainstream news and if you check with alternative sources you can make your own decisions.....
Yet more reasons to trounce Iraq and Al queda....
Another attack on Clinton's stand on terrorism!
I found this, elsewhere:
quote:
The following is from a Washington Post article, written by staff writer, Barton Gellman, December 20, 2001:
"President Bill Clinton and his advisers reached a pivot point in their grasp of the terrorist threat by the end of 1995. In his second term, the president reshaped his government in response. By degrees the national security establishment shifted its view of terrorism from tactical nuisance to strategic challenge, sharpening its focus on bin Laden after the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa.
"By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him. His government doubled counterterrorist spending across 40 departments and agencies. The FBI and CIA allocated still larger increases in their budgets and personnel assignments. Clinton devoted some of his highest-profile foreign policy speeches to terrorism, including two at the U.N. General Assembly. An interagency panel, the Counterterrorism Strategy Group, took on new weight in policy disputes from the Justice Department to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And the foreign policy cabinet, by the time it left office, had been convening every two to three weeks to shape a covert and overt campaign against al Qaeda."
I have a lengthy timeline of the terrorist attacks and Clinton's response - too long for this forum. To very briefly summarize: the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred on Feb. 23, 1993 (6 killed) - hard to blame Clinton on this one since he had been in office for a month. A subsequent attack occurred in Saudi Arabia in 1996 (19 US soldiers killed); US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in 1998 (223 killed); and the USS Cole was bombed in October 12, 2000 (17 soldiers were killed).
In the 80s - terrorist attacks included the Lebanon Marine barracks, the Lebanon embassy, hijackings, the Achille Lauro and Pan Am 103.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I agree with you on France, except that I think that part of the motivation of the French and Europeans generally is that a change in regime, much like what happened in Eastern Europe, can occur without the need for the brutality of a war.
if you mean to otherwise-rid iraq of saddam, then thats the same as war (as saddam stated in his interview he'd sooner die. lets help!)
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
In the meantime, weapons inspectors can keep Saddam from developing WMD.
is this your opinion? or what you think france thinks?
personally, i feel that its been clearly shown the only thing keeping saddam in check is military action (as is, sadly, often the case with nutty dictators). for 15+ years, iraq was inspected and "proven" clean. it took military intervention in desert storm to display (and dispose of) saddam's WMD and other illegal arms.
again, last week, it was only the threat of a US-enforced friday deadline that helped saddam and company suddenly discover a whole buncha new warheads and begin to destroy other mandated illegal arms.
inspectors aren't producing results.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Why put all your oil eggs in the Saudi basket? By controlling Iraq, the monopoly of OPEC is broken, new contracts come up for US oil companies, the US isn't toally reliant on the goodwill of the Saudis, and the US has a new offshore Strategic Oil Reserve. There are too many long-term economic benefits to oil companies from a successful war in Iraq.
thats true. and obviously more than possible. but i still dont think it likely -- at least not near that extreme. especially with powell so publically stating the opposite (something that would surely haunt the US were they to take control of the oil like that)
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
but everyone knows, most of all the US govt., that the task of nation-building is not something they do well, or even like (Republicans used to scorn the idea, when Clinton wanted to do this in Somalia.)
well, the US did a good enough job rebuilding (or helping to rebuild) countries to the point where those countries are strong enough now to defy the US in the UN (im lookin at you, france, germany, and japan!)
then there are places like cuba or saudi arabia, where there were now-obvious mistakes.
rebuilding is really a lose-lose scenario, and i cant fault any government official to loathe the idea. its money spent outside of the country (that could easily be spent on internal poverty), and something that must now be kept in check for years and years afterward, to ensure it doesnt "go bad"
however... even considering all the possible fuck-ups and a worst-case-scenario of a US-rebuilt iraq... its still light years better than the current option.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545 |
"We want Hitler!!!!!! We want Hitler"!!!!! Is that what Europe yelled during the late 1930's? I was just wondering. Because that is what they got in spades. Hey,,,,,, if you let it happen it will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
I just heard a report on Am radio, Glen Beck, that a few americans were traveling in France and the only mention of America they saw at all were Americans over there protesting....hmmmm..
Glen is usually pretty reliable too....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Lesbo:
"We want Hitler!!!!!! We want Hitler"!!!!! Is that what Europe yelled during the late 1930's? I was just wondering. Because that is what they got in spades. Hey,,,,,, if you let it happen it will happen.
Democracy is a flawed institution eg. Harding, McCarthy, Nixon.
And when is the West going after the other would be Hitlers in North Korea (nukes), Myanmar (systematic rape), Iran (soon-to-have nukes), Libya, Zimbabwe, Sudan and half a dozen other African countries?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
And when is the West going after the other would be Hitlers in North Korea (nukes), Myanmar (systematic rape), Iran (soon-to-have nukes), Libya, Zimbabwe, Sudan and half a dozen other African countries?
cuz we've had so much sucess in getting support against the mid-east hitler, right?
regarldess, when will the west handle the other problems? like so often, before everyone else. and in bigger fashion. for example, here is an article about the US bringing bombers and other artilary to north korea
nk should really (i think) be a major chinese focus. especially since they're fellow communists, deal in daily trade, and right next door to one another (not to mention the US is obviously trying to handle other things at the moment). however, i've heard little-to-nothing about china taking any type of action to their now-nuclear powered and embittered little neighbor.
nor have i heard any aggressive statements from france, germany, or russia on the nk build up (or iraq's, for that matter), chosing instead, to focus on american or british policy, and various levels of success in debating it.
confronting and dealing with our world's various hitlers should be an easy decision. it should be overtly logical to depower any dictator in that fashion. it should be something that is apparent or obvious to not only government higher-ups, but their children.
however, and confusingly, its not.
look at all of the opposition just against saddam's removal. and this isn't a fight from a hippie or whatever -- its opposition from highly educated individuals: country leaders, government officials, etc. hell, there are thousands, if not millions, of people living in a post 9-11, hated-by-iraq america that feel we shouldn't rid ourselves of saddam.
and dcu fans were confused how luthor be prez!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Yeah, China has been slack in NK, because of a domestic focus (we should all fear an externally proactive China, so I'm not complaining too much) and its short-sighted because SK is one of China's chief trading partners.
Just thinking about it some more, the last two times the US went into a country to do something about the local politics were in the cases of Somalia and Haiti. I don't recall any opposition back then from other countries.
Part of this mess is a total fuck-up on the public sell: a better public relations job, focussing more on human rights and less on thus far non-existent WMD would have won more global support.
Instead, we have Europeans accusing the US of an oil-grab, and these allegations of Europeans wanting to protect their contracts with Iraq.
(Public relations disaster - but what can you expect of an adminstration which has been club-footed in its unilateralism from the beginnning?)
I watched an interview with the foreign mnisters of Russia, France and Germany last night. The Russian foreign minister acknowledged that there seems to be litle anyone can do now to avert war, but both he and the French foreign minister said they would use their veto on a second resolution.
Because of this, I'm doubting there will be a second resolution: the US and UK will argue the first resolution gives them a legitimate reason for a war, and a second failed resolution would simply take away that legitimacy.
As it is, pinning legitimacy to the UN, and having such staunch opposition at the UN was a serious tactical blunder which the French and Russians have taken advantage of. The other blunder was to mis-estimate the mood in Turkey.
Setting aside the merits of the matter (human rights, prevention of proliferation of WMD, the uselessness of war as a tool of diplomacy, the effect of an invasion on the Middle east, the hypocrisy of wanting to enforce UN resolutions against Irraq but not Israel etc etc), the entire thing plays to the French advantage: it has effective rallied the world against the US, fulfilling its perceived role as a counter-balance.
George Bush's learning curve on the pitfalls of unilateralism is steep: I can't help but think that this is partly payback for Kyoto, and the International Criminal Court, leaving Bush and Blair in the position of embarking on an illegal or at least illegitimate war.
Legitimacy means a lot to people: for all its flaws, the UN is the place which can give its stamp of approval to a war, to render it "bridled aggression" rather than "unbridled aggression". A lot of polls have said that people the world over would support a UN-sanctioned war. The lack of the UN stamp of approval will mean attacks on US and UK embassies, boycotts of US and UK products, and threats against US and UK citizens.
Like I said, the entire thing is a fuck-up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Yeah, China has been slack in NK, because of a domestic focus (we should all fear an externally proactive China, so I'm not complaining too much) and its short-sighted because SK is one of China's chief trading partners.
agreed
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Just thinking about it some more, the last two times the US went into a country to do something about the local politics were in the cases of Somalia and Haiti. I don't recall any opposition back then from other countries.
if i remember correctly, france had issues with somalia.
and many had umbrage with US's afghanistan development.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Part of this mess is a total fuck-up on the public sell: a better public relations job, focussing more on human rights and less on thus far non-existent WMD would have won more global support.
in retrospect, sure.
but i cant imagine it was suspected countries like the US and UK would have problems pointing a finger at a modern day hitler like saddam.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
the entire thing plays to the French advantage: it has effective rallied the world against the US, fulfilling its perceived role as a counter-balance.
which in my mind, and many others, shows the utter "ass holery" (howzat?) of the country, as their entire goal here is seemingly to profess they're still around and/or "one-up" the US. never a word is uttered of the suffering. the french might succesfully win a UN debate by shifting the focus and similar strategies, but respect from their opposed nations they've lost in spades because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545 |
The French are doing what they are doing because they make up 22% of Iraq's import business. Follow the money. By the way, America has the best system in the world Dave. The French know this all to well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
I'm fairly sanguine about the allegations of "'assholery": Europeans (and in fact most of the world) felt the same way when America pulled out of Kyoto especially, and is weaseling about on the ICC trying to get excemptions for its troops (ie put them above the law). quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Lesbo:
The French are doing what they are doing because they make up 22% of Iraq's import business. Follow the money. By the way, America has the best system in the world Dave. The French know this all to well.
What's "the best system in the world"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Passing on some quotes regarding the French, for your amusement:
"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks, it is a fine country.
France has usually been governed by prostitutes."
---Mark Twain
"I just love the French. They taste like chicken!"
--- Hannibal Lecter
While speaking to the Hoover Institution today, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked this question:
"Could you tell us why to date at least the Administration doesn't favor direct talks with the North Korean government?
After all, we're talking with the French."
The Secretary smiled and replied: "I'm not going there!"
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
--- General George S. Patton
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
--Norman Schwartzkopf
"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
---- Marge Simpson
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
---Jacques Chirac, President of France
"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
--- Regis Philbin
A Frenchman, an Englishman and Claudia Schiffer were sitting together in a carriage, in a train going through Provence.
Suddenly the train went through a tunnel and as it was an old style train, there were no lights in the carriages and it went completely dark.
Then there was a kissing noise and the sound of a really loud slap.
When the train came out of the tunnel, Claudia Schiffer and the Englishman were sitting as if nothing had happened and the
Frenchman had his hand against his face as if he had been slapped there.
The Frenchman was thinking:
'The English fella must have kissed Claudia Schiffer and she missed him and slapped me instead.'
Claudia Schiffer was thinking:
'The French fella must have tried to kiss me and actually kissed the Englishman and got slapped for it.'
And the Englishman was thinking:
'This is great. The next time the train goes through a tunnel I'll make another kissing noise and slap that French bastard again.'
"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in
Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."
--- P.J O'Rourke (1989)
Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.
An old saying:
Raise your right hand if you like the French....
Raise both hands if you are French.
"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s
who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for
it."
---John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates
America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people !"
--Conan O'Brien
"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
REPLACEMENTS FOR THE
FRENCH NATIONAL ANTHEM:
"Runaway" by Del Shannon,
"Walk Right In" by the Rooftop Singers,
"Everybody's Somebody's Fool" by Connie Francis,
"Running Scared" by Roy Orbison,
"I Really Don't Want to Know" by Tommy Edwards,
"Surrender" by Elvis Presley,
"Save It For Me" by The Four Seasons,
"Live and Let Die" by Wings,
"I'm Leaving It All Up To You" by Donny and Marie Osmond,
"What a Fool Believes" by the Doobie Brothers,
"Don't Worry, Be Happy" by Bobby McFerrin
"Raise Your Hands" by Jon Bon Jovi
How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb?
One.
He holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
---Jacques Chirac, President of France
heh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
The wisdom of President Bush (news - web sites)'s upcoming war against Iraq (news - web sites) is arguable. So may be some of his anti-terrorism tactics. But there should be no argument about condemning these two turncoat countries whose governments are thumbing their noses at us over those two issues:
* France, which threatens to use its veto in the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council over Iraq. That veto power is undeserved, because France was a World War II wimp.
* The Philippines, which refuses to let our combat troops in to hunt down the terrorists it is harboring. That despite this week's bombing at a Philippine airport that killed 21, including a missionary from the U.S.
Muscle-flexing over the Iraq debate by once-superpower Russia and wannabe-superpower China is no surprise. Both pine to be power brokers. We simply need to understand from whence they came and where they want to go and especially that they helped us win World War II.
But France and the Philippines now telling us to shove it? A history lesson is in order.
France laid down its arms just 44 days after Hitler's invasion in 1940. We and our allies freed them four years later. The cost included 30,426 U.S. WWII troops buried under small white crosses on French soil.
The Philippines fell within six months of the Japanese invasion in 1941. We freed the country three years later. The cost included 17,206 U.S. servicemen and servicewomen buried in Manila's American Cemetery. Nearby, marbled walls carry rows of names of 36,280 U.S. troops missing in action in that area.
This nose-thumbing by the French and Filipinos may have many of my buddies in our 86th Infantry Division, which served in both Europe and the Pacific in WWII, returning the gesture from their graves.
-Al Neuharth
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Looks like the French are about to tell the US to shove it, with most of th rest of the world behind them.
I've said before that this is an enormous and frankly inept failure in diplomacy. Its a shame.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
My first true disdain for the French government started during the first Gulf war when France wouldn't let us fly through their airspace with our stealth bombers during the liberation of Kuwait.......
I can see hesitation with this action, but the liberation of Kuwait is a completely different story....
Some friend....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
The Washington Times and Fox News are reporting that a French defense company has been selling Mirage fighter and Gazelle helicopter parts to Iraq. The allegation stems from the fact that the company sold the parts to the UAE who doesn't have any such aircraft. The UAE then transferred them to an unnamed 3rd country who supplied them to Iraq...this has been tracked to atleast january of this year and prior to that.
Interesting....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 23,091
The Once, and Future Cunt 15000+ posts
|
|
The Once, and Future Cunt 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 23,091 |
If nobody has mentioned yet that France kind of rymes with underpants it both pleases and scares me to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Pig Iron:
The Washington Times and Fox News are reporting that a French defense company has been selling Mirage fighter and Gazelle helicopter parts to Iraq. The allegation stems from the fact that the company sold the parts to the UAE who doesn't have any such aircraft. The UAE then transferred them to an unnamed 3rd country who supplied them to Iraq...this has been tracked to atleast january of this year and prior to that.
Interesting....
yeah, i was actually listening to a report of that on cnn last night.
french officials denied it up to about 11pm last night. since then, they've denied comment
i dunno what kinda truth is in there or what will come with it, so its not fair to simply assume it has merit. however, if it does, it woudl then instantly link 3 of the strongest anti-war countries (france, germany, and russia) as three of the most deal-doing countries with iraq (and those still waitin for some big ass checks!)
further, france, selling a country arms that should not be receiving arms, due to various UN-carried suspensions, would be in a whole heap o' trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
i say we bomb attack france, the will be zero loss of life as they will immediatley surrernder, and we dont have to worry about them going to the UN at least not trying to go get a resolution....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 23,091
The Once, and Future Cunt 15000+ posts
|
|
The Once, and Future Cunt 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 23,091 |
After WWII France had a big sale on thier military issue rifles "Never fired, only dropped once."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
believe it or not, tons o'resteraunts (non-chain) in the metro area over here have changed the name of their fries from french to freedom.
obsoive!
French Fries Get New Name in Congress
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Show the flag and pass the ketchup was the order of the day in House cafeterias Tuesday. Lawmakers struck a lunchtime blow against the French and put "freedom fries" on the menu.
And for breakfast they'll now have "freedom toast."
The name changes follow similar actions by restaurants around the country protesting French opposition to the administration's Iraq war plans.
"Update. Now Serving in All House Office Buildings, 'Freedom Fries,'" read a sign that Republican Reps. Bob Ney of Ohio and Walter Jones of North Carolina placed at the register in the Longworth Office Building food court.
Jones said he was inspired by Cubbie's restaurant in Beaufort, N.C., in his district, one of the first to put "freedom fries" on the menu instead of french fries.
"This action today is a small but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France," said Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee.
Ney, whose panel oversees House operations, ordered the menu changes.
The French Embassy in Washington had no immediate comment, except to say that french fries actually come from Belgium.
Ney said he was of French descent and "once the French government comes around we can get back to talking about french fries."
On a more serious note, Republican Jim Saxton of New Jersey has proposed a ban on Pentagon participation in this year's Paris Air Show and restrictions on French participation in any postwar construction projects in Iraq.
But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said at a news conference that applying legislative sanctions to France was not necessary. "I don't think we have to retaliate against France. They've isolated themselves pretty well," he said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016 |
Probably have to change the name of all European named products anyway. Zod has seen a news piece where the EU has thought about passing legislation banning non-European companies to not use descriptive words that suggest a European Origin, claiming it hurts the original makers of the product. Such products that would be affected would be Budweiser, Parmasean cheese, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by Pig Iron:
The Washington Times and Fox News are reporting that a French defense company has been selling Mirage fighter and Gazelle helicopter parts to Iraq. The allegation stems from the fact that the company sold the parts to the UAE who doesn't have any such aircraft. The UAE then transferred them to an unnamed 3rd country who supplied them to Iraq...this has been tracked to atleast january of this year and prior to that.
Interesting....
If an American company was breaking the sanctions, would that implicate the US government?
A company's illegal conduct of itself does not indicate that a government has given consent to ithe company's actions.
Waiting for the big fat veto...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
If it was a US defense company , yes. As you know defense companies, are watched veeery closely by our goverments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
yeah... selling missles to iraq is much different than a mcdonalds.
at least according to UN "banned" sentiment (i.e; no arms!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Next..on to Mexico. What if they veto or abstain??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
i think mexico is strongly leaning in the US direction (they dont have the power to veto). its possible they'd abstain, but i think, in a worst case scenario, they'd vote in favor of the US as an effort of diplomacy and neighboring political relations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
i think mexico is strongly leaning in the US direction (they dont have the power to veto). its possible they'd abstain, but i think, in a worst case scenario, they'd vote in favor of the US as an effort of diplomacy and neighboring political relations.
No, they're shitty about the tightening of border restrictions following 9/11. Mexicans were going to be able to find it easier to get into the US before that because Bush and Fox were so pally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
If it was a US defense company , yes. As you know defense companies, are watched veeery closely by our goverments.
Yeah, that's true. Things are different elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
[QUOTE]No, they're shitty about the tightening of border restrictions following 9/11. Mexicans were going to be able to find it easier to get into the US before that because Bush and Fox were so pally.
ahh, but they were still steadily leaning in the direction of the US.
up until mid week this week, where they claimed they were undecided.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81079,00.htmlThis is a partial transcript of Special Report with Brit Hume, March 12, that has been edited for clarity. Watch Special Report With Brit Hume weeknights at 6 p.m. ET BRIT HUME, HOST: Despite its record of seeming solicitude for Saddam Hussein's regime, France has never gone as far out on a limb for the Iraqi dictator as it appears to have done this time. For more on the reasons why, we turn to FOX News contributor Marc Ginsberg, former U.S. ambassador to Morocco, and the man who's advised presidents on the Mideast going back 25 years and more. Marc, welcome; nice to have you. MARC GINSBERG, FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR, MOROCCO: Thanks Brit. HUME: How much does this relationship between Iraq and France have to do with Jacques Chirac himself? I remember covering the first President Bush, Francoise Mitterand was the president of France, and he gave that Bush administration some trouble. But it wasn't like this. GINSBERG: Brit, this is an odd couple relationship. It goes back to 1974 when Chirac, the youngest Prime Minister in France under then, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the president went to Baghdad on his debutant diplomatic trip into the Middle East. His first stop was Baghdad and that is where he and Saddam developed a personal relationship that now has spanned a period of almost three decades. HUME: Now, personal relationships alone probably would not account for policy at this level being so strikingly favorable, at least compared to much of the rest of the world anyway, to Baghdad. I've heard all these stories about business relationships and I always thought well, maybe that's a factor. How big a factor? GINSBERG: It is significant a factor. It doesn't explain the whole story, Brit. But, essentially, when you look at the numbers and understand the history here, ever since 1967 when Charles de Gaulle invested a strategic partnership with Israel, and then when Israel essentially went to war and against de Gaulle 's wishes, the French invested in Iraq as their next strategic partner. From the period of time that when Chirac helped organize the sale of two nuclear reactors to Saddam, Saddam went to Paris, by the way, to visit his nuclear reactors as well as France training... HUME: You mean when they were being built? GINSBERG: Right, when they were being built. One of those nuclear reactors were taken out by Israel in 1981. The amount of trade in military hardware alone between France and Iraq totaled $25 billion. Yet France essentially provided most of Iraq's air force, as well as military equipment. Since sanctions were imposed, that was an additional $3.5 billion ... HUME: Since sanctions were imposed? GINSBERG: Since sanctions were imposed, $3.5 billion, and just in the year 2001 alone, that number now of trade of $650 million made France the largest trading partner with Iraq. HUME: Now, the French obviously have you know, more at stake in this, of course, the business, Chirac's personal relationship. It's been speculated by people that even at this late hour, that France might come around. Do you see any way that's possible at this stage? GINSBERG: Chirac is gambling with the future of his relationship with the United States. And it is quite clear that as a man who actually believes that providence has designated him as the next intermediary between the Muslim world and the Anglo Saxon world, he actually believes that war is the worst-case scenario. But given when you get below the surface and you look at not only the way in which Chirac is operating, but what France has at stake, a 20 percent Muslim population, its investment in France, its utilization... HUME: Twenty percent? GINSBERG: Twenty percent. HUME: I thought it was more like 10 percent. GINSBERG: Twenty percent of its population is Muslim. When you look at the amount of money that French oil companies have at stake in Iraq, when you look at the long-term investment in the relationship, it is not just Chirac, it goes throughout the French political establishment where the relationship between France and Saddam has been a core relationship of its ties in the Middle East. It says a great deal of why France believes that we are picking on its number one client state in the region. HUME: Now France, of course, is -- I've heard the relationship with France and Saudi -- France and Iraq likened to the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. Is that a fair comparison? GINSBERG: Yes, in some respects it is. When you look at the commitment that indeed the French have made to lift sanctions, to provide military equipment, to condemn countries that have stood in the way. Look, a French parliamentary delegation went to Iraq just a few years ago and called sanctions a creeping genocide of the Iraqi people. There is a clear investment of a bilateral tie where the French, political and business establishment has invested heavily in its future with Saddam. Removing Saddam is a threat to all of these ties. HUME: All right. GINSBERG: And that is one of the concerns that I think that many of us have about this particular predicament that we find with Chirac right now. HUME: But here was France only months ago with -- involved deeply in the drafting of U.N. Resolution 1441, which was, when it was finally passed unanimously, quite a tough document. I mean, the French were saying today they don't believe in ultimatums. But, that was an ultimatum. It was disarm now or else face serious consequences. It called - it used the word "immediate," it was very strong. How to account for that? GINSBERG: I think it could come down, and this is just my own opinion, Brit. I think in the end, where this got complicated and where the French decided to make a total retreat from 1441 is because they thought that they could get Iraq to disarm without regime change. The minute the United States began inserting regime change as the overall objective, and that is in effect the ending of Saddam's relationship over his ties, his control over Iraq. That's when I think when the French decided this is going too far because, removing Saddam undermines the entire investment that the French have started since 1974. Had we stuck clearly and only to disarmament, perhaps maybe the French would have stayed with us. HUME: All right, Marc Ginsberg, good to have you, sir. Thank you very much. GINSBERG: Thank you Brit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 545 |
Fox News Sunday (3/16/03) played part of a Chirac speach from November of 2002 where he laid claim that Saddam had Bio and Chemical weapons and a very slight chance he had Nuke's as well and that Saddam must be dealt with sooner than later. Since November of 2002 what has change with Chirac?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
Once upon a time (allegedly) in a nice little forest, there lived an
orphaned bunny and an orphaned snake. By a surprising coincidence, both
were blind from birth.
One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was
slithering through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake and
fell down. This, of course, knocked the snake about quite a bit.
"Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to hurt
you. I've been blind since birth, so, I can't see where I'm going. In fact,
since I'm also an orphan, I don't even know what I am."
"It's quite OK," replied the snake. "Actually, my story is much the
same as yours. I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew
my mother. Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work
out what you are, so at least you'll have that going for you."
"Oh, that would be wonderful" replied the bunny. So the snake slithered
all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're covered with soft fur; you
have really long ears; your nose twitches; and you have a soft cottony
tail. I'd say that you must be a bunny rabbit."
"Oh, thank you! Thank you," cried the bunny, in obvious excitement. The
bunny suggested to the snake, "Maybe I could feel you all over with my
paw, and help you the same way that you've helped me."
So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, "Well, you're smooth
and slippery, and you have a forked tongue, no backbone and no balls.
I'd say you must be French".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure."
Jacques Chirac, President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
Rush Limbaugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Heh.
I read something interesting the other day, about how to view the anti-French sentiment in the US right now. While the US has been repeatedly vetoing European resolutions on Israel for years, the US is having a temper tantrum because of the threatened French veto on Iraq.
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
i think its incredibly unfortunate that a major issue in global politics at this point has become the fact that two friendly countries disagree on something. a "fight" amongst the good guys is stealing away much of the spotlight from what should really matter at this point.
even more unfortunate is that france seems to be revelling in the above -- using this as an opportunity to assert themselves, defying the mega powers.
just incredibly unfortunate.
for the past few weeks/months, people in france have grown in a nationalistic surge as they counter american or british tactics. thats sad.
and, admittedly just as wrong, america is now really retaliating, holding "pour out your french wine" parties, in a mirroring of the boston tea party.
i feel powell and cheeney summarized it best. to paraphrase: "france shouldnt be an issue. they're not that important."
|
|
|
|
|
