France -- Its Selfishness Knows No Bounds

JavaFox · Mar 1, 2003, 07:52 PM

Nevermind that France has been blocking American and British war efforts, and nevermind that the French thought it more important to send a message than to defend its friend and ally, Turkey. Nevermind that France has bullied Eastern European nations that support the US, basically stating that they should have kept quiet. And nevermind that the French, with its oil company (TotalFinaElf) poised to benefit intensely from extensive Iraqi oil contracts, have decided to put their economic interests at #1 on their list of priorities. Nevermind that -- that's not what this thread is about.

But France, in its infinite disregard for the peace and safety of the world, not only opposes war, but would have been perfectly content to do absolutely nothing about the Iraq situation. Consider this. France, Iraq's largest import partner, could have set the world's agenda. They could have told Iraq to disarm --pure and simple-- and banded with Austral0ia (Iraq's number two import partner) to threaten an economic embargo. Would Saddam not have to comply then, with 44% of their imports cut off? France could have done this. They could have been the ones leading this fight against the proliferation of WMD. Instead they chose to do nothing. Instead they chose to simply disagree with the US.

France could have been the hero here. Yet instead they did nothing.

CherryPopper · Mar 1, 2003, 08:08 PM

actually I'm glad to see France and other european countries standing up to Bush and his Administration..... here here i say....the world needs a balance of power, not one nation that thinks it can do whatever the hell they want to

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 1, 2003, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Nevermind that France has been blocking American and British war efforts, and nevermind that the French thought it more important to send a message than to defend its friend and ally, Turkey. Nevermind that France has bullied Eastern European nations that support the US, basically stating that they should have kept quiet. And nevermind that the French, with its oil company (TotalFinaElf) poised to benefit intensely from extensive Iraqi oil contracts, have decided to put their economic interests at #1 on their list of priorities. Nevermind that -- that's not what this thread is about.

But France, in its infinite disregard for the peace and safety of the world, not only opposes war, but would have been perfectly content to do absolutely nothing about the Iraq situation. Consider this. France, Iraq's largest import partner, could have set the world's agenda. They could have told Iraq to disarm --pure and simple-- and banded with Austral0ia (Iraq's number two import partner) to threaten an economic embargo. Would Saddam not have to comply then, with 44% of their imports cut off? France could have done this. They could have been the ones leading this fight against the proliferation of WMD. Instead they chose to do nothing. Instead they chose to simply disagree with the US.

France could have been the hero here. Yet instead they did nothing.

I still havent heard your opinion on that Usa let Saddam fight their war against Iran.Nothing about how they armed him.Nothing..about how they kept doing so after he killed 5000 kurds with nervegas using American helicopters...Nothing..about the massdestruction arms technology they made available to him and that he also used against Iran...Nothing..about that your current whiner and insult expert himself Donald Rumsfeld was one of the major persons administrating this......Nothing....

Not one single word....Instead the whining about Germany and France continues endlessly...endlessly...

Why?

I really have a problem understanding why?

Do you have more of a moral right to do these things than France?

Would you even have the nerve to claim that you are better than anyone else in these matters?

Finally...If the UN sets up a program with Iraq in order to supply the people with food medication etc etc...and they are allowed to sell oil for that ..and nothing else.....'

Is it then relevant to individually for each country to make a complete embargo?!

I figure the idea of getting rid of Saddam is and was NOT to starve his population to death was it??

So..if France and Australia did...buy oil..according to the "Oil for food program" they did exactly the right thing.

Or are you claiming they broke internatinal agreéments and gave him arms in place of money!!??

Before the "Food for oil" program was launched the mortality among children was skyhigh in Iraq.At first Saddam refused to go along with it...but..sheer reality forced him to do so....because people(especially children) were actually dying in hordes due to shortage of medication and food.

After the program was launched and had been on a while tjhese things changed for the better.

What you are saying is...That despite the decisaions in the UN everyone should refude byuing Irqì oil and thus let people die in great numbers.....

For the benefit of what??!!

You probably refused to buy oil according to the Oil for food program.....so much better then that others didnt.

BlueLight

Bluelight

raid517 · Mar 1, 2003, 09:04 PM

Well what do you do about the French?

At the end of the day though everyone is on very wobbly ground if they start shouting about occupying the moral high ground. The French can be a pain in the butt, the British have known this for the last 300 years or more. You just have to learn the knack of dealing with them. When you understand how to make the French feel they have won a significant concession (when usually they haven't) very often they will only be too happy to play ball. The French mind works in a very peculiar way, when you understand their various subtleties and motivations, doing business with them isn't so hard.

Q

JavaFox · Mar 1, 2003, 09:38 PM

CherryPopper, Bluelight, you're missing my point and going off on tangents. If you actually read my post, you'd see that it wasn't a condemnation of the French for being anti-Bush, anti-war, or anti-American. My point was this: WMD are dangerous. Saddam shouldn't have WMD. Nobody disagrees with this. What I was saying is merely that France had the political and economic clout to make disarmament happen in a peaceful manner, but chose not to. They decided that instead of being leaders, they would do nothing until the US took the initiative. Whether or not the US is right isn't the issue here, and it wasn't the point. The point was that the French were in a unique position to lead the disarmament campaign and didn't.

raid517 · Mar 1, 2003, 10:28 PM

Mmm, that kind of depends if anyone but you JF has thought that way. Maybe if someone had explained this to the French, it would have given this whole thing the 'spin' it needed to bring them on board. The French acting as world leaders to free the world of a serious threat? I think a lot of French politicians might have liked that.

Unfortunately they decided on another tactic to try to exert world influence, which was to take a stand against a world power that it perceived as acting against French interests. Since you say this isn't a moral issue (and if you want to start arguing from a moral standpoint, I can dig up some very stinky stuff that will make such arguments look empty) then its not much more than a toss up over which position is likely to gain the French the greatest advantage. And in that regard I can agree, that in this instance the French do appear to have played a loosing game.

Q

CherryPopper · Mar 1, 2003, 10:46 PM

Iraq is currently one of the Least armed nations of the middle east..., it is in reality pretty much a toothless dictatorship; Iran, North Korea and a slew of other nations posess far more menacing weapons and appear just as, or even more willing to use them as Iraq has done in the past. It is almost a joke to use the argument of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction as a pretence for invading Iraq. The true motive of the bush administration is becoming increasingly clear; "Regime change". Bush believes he has the right to forcibly remove the leadership of another country and replace it with one better suited to his liking. He is clearly trying to settle an old score.

Bush is a small man with a small mind focused exclusively on finishing what he thinks his father did not, regardles of the consequences to the rest of the world.

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 1, 2003, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Mmm, that kind of depends if anyone but you JF has thought that way. Maybe if someone had explained this to the French, it would have given this whole thing the 'spin' it needed to bring them on board. The French acting as world leaders to free the world of a serious threat? I think a lot of French politicians might have liked that. Unfortunately they decided on another tactic to try to exert world influence, which was to take a stand against a world power that it perceived as acting against French interests. Since you say this isn't a moral issue (and if you want to start arguing from a moral standpoint, I can dig up some very stinky stuff that will make such arguments look empty) then its not much more than a toss up over which position is likely to gain the French the greatest advantage. And in that regard I can agree, that in this instance the French do appear to have played a loosing game.

Q

As opposed to Usa?.............................................. ....................................

BlueLight

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 1, 2003, 11:18 PM

Is it a moral issue or not to see to it that civialins do not die from lack of ordinary medication water and food?

BlueLight

JavaFox · Mar 1, 2003, 11:33 PM

Obfuscations abound.

raid517 · Mar 1, 2003, 11:42 PM

Q

Quote:

As opposed to Usa?

Yeah yeah, yada yada... Both the French and the Americans claim to be doing things from a moral standpoint. The truth is that I doubt either perspective is wholly accurate or wholly admirable. Remember Madelin Albright's 1996 interview with 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl (5/12/96)?

Quote:

Stahl: We have heard that over half a million children have died. I mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Albright: I think this is a very hard choice. But the price-- we think the price is worth it.

And this is supposed to be the soft fuzzy wuzzy weak livered liberals who were talking. If the hardball conservatives get in on the game, who knows what their motivations are or where they might take them?

The bottom line is that all politicians suck - and they treat the public like the poor ignorant saps that a lot of them seem to be.

I wouldn't trust the French govenment any more than I would consider sleeping with a viper a particularly 'safe' practice. When it comes to politicians and what they deem to be their 'national interests' (which too often are almost indistinguishable from their own interests) the French and the Americans are just as bad as each other (or most others for that matter).

Morality pah! People may be moral, poloticians are not.

CherryPopper · Mar 2, 2003, 12:23 AM

comon there Java... let's at least see an attempt at a responce to arguments you are unwilling (or unable) to address...

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 2, 2003, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
I still havent heard your opinion on that Usa let Saddam fight their war against Iran.Nothing about how they armed him.Nothing..about how they kept doing so after he killed 5000 kurds with nervegas using American helicopters...Nothing..about the massdestruction arms technology they made available to him and that he also used against Iran...Nothing..about that your current whiner and insult expert himself Donald Rumsfeld was one of the major persons administrating this......Nothing....

Not one single word....Instead the whining about Germany and France continues endlessly...endlessly...

Why?

I really have a problem understanding why?

Do you have more of a moral right to do these things than France?

Would you even have the nerve to claim that you are better than anyone else in these matters?

Finally...If the UN sets up a program with Iraq in order to supply the people with food medication etc etc...and they are allowed to sell oil for that ..and nothing else.....'

Is it then relevant to individually for each country to make a complete embargo?!

I figure the idea of getting rid of Saddam is and was NOT to starve his population to death was it??

So..if France and Australia did...buy oil..according to the "Oil for food program" they did exactly the right thing.

Or are you claiming they broke internatinal agreéments and gave him arms in place of money!!??

Before the "Food for oil" program was launched the mortality among children was skyhigh in Iraq.At first Saddam refused to go along with it...but..sheer reality forced him to do so....because people(especially children) were actually dying in hordes due to shortage of medication and food.

After the program was launched and had been on a while tjhese things changed for the better.

What you are saying is...That despite the decisaions in the UN everyone should refude byuing Irqì oil and thus let people die in great numbers.....

For the benefit of what??!!

You probably refused to buy oil according to the Oil for food program.....so much better then that others didnt.

BlueLight

Bluelight

you guys ERRRR (flamewarzone) .... You guy go and load you mouths given by forengn websites etc... may that that states may times oh don't belive every thing I say couse I might be lieing ... try getting you iformation from credable sources! ex.... other than al-quada.com

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 2, 2003, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CherryPopper
actually I'm glad to see France and other european countries standing up to Bush and his Administration..... here here i say....the world needs a balance of power, not one nation that thinks it can do whatever the hell they want to

They say were worried about our oil? they ( France and other european ) are worried about their oil thats all.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 2, 2003, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Well what do you do about the French? At the end of the day though everyone is on very wobbly ground if they start shouting about occupying the moral high ground. The French can be a pain in the butt, the British have known this for the last 300 years or more. You just have to learn the knack of dealing with them. When you understand how to make the French feel they have won a significant concession (when usually they haven't) very often they will only be too happy to play ball. The French mind works in a very peculiar way, when you understand their various subtleties and motivations, doing business with them isn't so hard.

Q

yea my experiance gota learn how to deal with selfish, vien, snobby, pricks (the french ...my opinon basted on contact with french that have moved here not attacking the genral french population). " You just have to learn the knack of dealing with them. When you understand how to make the French feel they have won a significant concession " - Like what leadership of the wourld? or at least a giant mirror so they can look at them selfs all day?

raid517 · Mar 2, 2003, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
yea my experiance gota learn how to deal with selfish, vien, snobby, pricks (the french ...my opinon basted on contact with french that have moved here not attacking the genral french population). " You just have to learn the knack of dealing with them. When you understand how to make the French feel they have won a significant concession " - Like what leadership of the wourld? or at least a giant mirror so they can look at them selfs all day?

Lol... Well you know what they say, vanity is often in the eye of the beholder. The only question is, who's beholding to who right now? From what I can see its pretty damn hard to tell.

Q

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 2, 2003, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
you guys ERRRR (flamewarzone) .... You guy go and load you mouths given by forengn websites etc... may that that states may times oh don't belive every thing I say couse I might be lieing ... try getting you iformation from credable sources! ex.... other than al-quada.com

Well what i am saying is facts.That is why Java fox will not answer me.He knows that what im saying is true so he steps out.
You take a slightly differnt position by first explaining that you would like to adress me as you would in the flame zone (with insults) and then by denying any possibility of truth in what im saying.How very original.
You dont know shit about is since your media do NOT..report about...YOUR ...faults...But ..

So....i suggest you make a search.....try nervegas usa helicopters Rumsfeld Iraq weaponexport etc etc etc.....

What you will come up with is a large number of articles in both American and other press etc etc..

Usa supported Iraq with guns from the fall of the Shah of Iran up until the Kuwait war.

They supported Iraq with knowledge and possibly technology of chemical and biologocal arms.

They continued delivering even after Iraq had killed 5000 kurds with Nervegas and didnt stop until tbne outbreak of the Kuwait war.

Usa supported Bin Ladin in Afghnistan.They didnt do shit when the Talibans slaughter ther UN provisory government that was in place after the Russians were gone.

Now Neon Cowboy i suggest you go hide somewhere from the once you have read this again and also that you continue throwing sludge at other nations for crimes that you yourself have comitted to an even higher degree than any other nation.

Do so and confirm my belief that...some...Amnericans....as ususally...nmever acts other than in their own interests ..or.....that the Anmerican propaganda machime works so infernally good that some of you are...actually brainwashed.

BlueLight

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 2, 2003, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
yea my experiance gota learn how to deal with selfish, vien, snobby, pricks (the french ...my opinon basted on contact with french that have moved here not attacking the genral french population). " You just have to learn the knack of dealing with them. When you understand how to make the French feel they have won a significant concession " - Like what leadership of the wourld? or at least a giant mirror so they can look at them selfs all day?

You know something....Your ignorance and ways much resembles something that is very similar to what normally is called racsism.

Very similar.

Can you also make a clear description as to what Americans are like?

Bluelight

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 2, 2003, 04:05 PM

Here´s a couple og links with "lies" planted by terrorists to discredit you nation.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...15&ItemID=2177

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special...rns090502.html

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/l...rful/iraq2.php

BlueLight

FuNsTeR · Mar 2, 2003, 06:45 PM

so basically youy want the French to do as you want of them ... if they don't ... your gonna pack your toys away?? ... sounds very childish IMO ... the French can do as they please as it is [COLOR=red]THEIR CHOICE[/COLOR] to veto a new resolution ... [COLOR=red]NOT AMERICA'S[/COLOR] .... not every country has a spineless , gutless leader like Tory Blair in charge ... his time is fast running out ... no second resolution and he is out if he goes to war ... [COLOR=red]FACT[/COLOR]

JavaFox · Mar 3, 2003, 01:17 AM

Thanks for not reading the post, Funster. I said that the French missed an opprotunity to SET THE AGENDA. If they actually cared about disarmament, they could have said "Let's do this" and the USA would have to follow them! I didn't say "the French are being difficult, that's annoying" and you'd know that if you read my post. That's not what this thread is about. What I said was that the French were in a unique position to bring this conflict to a close WITHOUT WAR. But they didn't.

JavaFox · Mar 3, 2003, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Well what i am saying is facts.That is why Java fox will not answer me.He knows that what im saying is true so he steps out.

Bluelight, I'm mostly ignoring your claims because they are irrelevant in the context of this debate. If you are really curious --remember, it's not honest intellectually to ask a question when you don't want to hear the answer-- then start another thread, and I will respond in there.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 3, 2003, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Here´s a couple og links with "lies" planted by terrorists to discredit you nation.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...15&ItemID=2177

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special...rns090502.html

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/l...rful/iraq2.php

BlueLight

ahh one agin websites posted with all listing /(focus on) all supossade bad things the US goverment has done ... and only that (like 95%).. that constitues an anti-american/anti-goverment website..... again you find the same info on say ...an al-quida wesite.....

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 3, 2003, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FuNsTeR1970
so basically youy want the French to do as you want of them ... if they don't ... your gonna pack your toys away?? ... sounds very childish IMO ... the French can do as they please as it is [COLOR=red]THEIR CHOICE[/COLOR] to veto a new resolution ... [COLOR=red]NOT AMERICA'S[/COLOR] .... not every country has a spineless , gutless leader like Tory Blair in charge ... his time is fast running out ... no second resolution and he is out if he goes to war ... [COLOR=red]FACT[/COLOR]

who give then the un? the U.S. so who gave them that vote the U.S.

yes it's THEIR CHOICE to be selfish, worried about thier oil, them self's only not others.... if there anything like the canadian french I did bussiness with thier stuck up bastards.

So it's the UN's own responcability to inforce the U.N.'s own resloutions NOT AMERICA'S ... but when that body fails to act or to enforce thier own policy the become 101% powerless and useless (they turn into a new leage of nations flop) use your brain for once.

mabwe tis will reach you...
ok make govement... make police ... make law ok ... now law is broken and thw govement or police don't act! then laws men nothing ...so the law (resolution) does nothing unless it is inforced!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

your from Scotland .... I love all there contires that you never about hear from WW1 WW2.... news or anything like to stand and shout from the highest point what should be done with the fact they have no stake in it.....

no second resolution and he is out if he goes to war ... no the UN will basicly resolve it self unless something more is done. Inspectiors will take 200 years!!!!!! war is the fastest answer..... what france proposes will only take 100 years wow! thats fast.... NOT

raid517 · Mar 3, 2003, 03:38 AM

Is it just me or is this whole record getting a tad repetitive? From what I can see the American's accuse the French of being arrogant, the French accuse the Americans of being arrogant and each is convinced that they and they alone are 110% right. Well I have an easy answer. How about if you just accept that both of you are right??? Ahh but then part of being overbearingly arrogant is never being able or prepared to admit that you could ever be wrong. So I guess that isn't going to happen any time soon. If you look at some French notice boards, there are just as many French people posting threads with these dumb (blame everybody but ourselves) titles. Oh well, I guess this will go on for a while yet. I think all anyone sensible would say is that this is your own mess, quit blaming anyone else for it - and if after screwing things up for so long not everything goes your way as and when you want it, well hey, that is as they say, pretty much just hard cheese.

I think the idea that inspections would go on forever is in any case just plain stupid. The French have said 120 days and that would be it. For me 120 days would be way too long. I always said 8 weeks would be enough of a concession to make everybody happy. If all it took was 8 weeks (the French could be persuaded on this I am certain) then the inspectors would be able to complete their job - a job BTW that they have conducted with an excellent degree of success there last couple of months) then what would be the harm in it? The French would have their extra time, the UN inspectors would be able to finish their jobs, The UN and international law will have been seen to have acted justly, America would no doubt still have her little war that she seems so desperate for and all in all everyone would be happy.

I still don't understand how this is about terrorism and Al Qaeda, especially as the Pakistanis have just caught Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, reputed to be Osama's number two. This proves my point that terrorism is better fought through good police and covert intelligence work and that this has a higher success rate at taking these guys out of action than by any number of big wars, or mass air strikes could ever possibly hope to achieve.

Mind you it took a third world intelligence service to grab these guys, so I think the CIA still has a way to go to catch up in this department.

But for some reason the US thinks that mass bombing can solve this problem (though I still doubt that's the real motivation. Maybe the US does want to beef up its covert activities and sees Iraq as a convenient Mid East base? Who knows....). Personally I think it is overkill. I wonder how many known 'terrorists' will be apprehended as a result of this activity? My guess is that there will be zero from the US' most wanted list that will be caught this way. Indeed I bet you will have to look a very long way down the list before you find any. (If of course, you ever do at all).

Q

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 3, 2003, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
Is it just me or is this whole record getting a tad repetitive? From what I can see the American's accuse the French of being arrogant, the French accuse the Americans of being arrogant and each is convinced that they and they alone are 110% right. Well I have an easy answer. How about if you just accept that both of you are right??? Ahh but then part of being overbearingly arrogant is never being able or prepared to admit that you could ever be wrong. So I guess that isn't going to happen any time soon. If you look at some French notice boards, there are just as many French people posting threads with these dumb (blame everybody but ourselves) titles. Oh well, I guess this will go on for a while yet. I think all anyone sensible would say is that this is your own mess, quit blaming anyone else for it - and if after screwing things up for so long not everything goes your way as and when you want it, well hey, that is as they say, pretty much just hard cheese.

I think the idea that inspections would go on forever is in any case just plain stupid. The French have said 120 days and that would be it. For me 120 days would be way too long. I always said 8 weeks would be enough of a concession to make everybody happy. If all it took was 8 weeks (the French could be persuaded on this I am certain) then the inspectors would be able to complete their job - a job BTW that they have conducted with an excellent degree of success there last couple of moths) then what would be the harm in it? The French would have their extra time, the UN inspectors would be able to finish their jobs, The UN and international law will have been seen to have acted justly, America would no doubt still have her little war that she seems so desperate for and all in all everyone would be happy.

I still don't understand how this is about terrorism and Al Qaeda, especially as the Pakistanis have just caught Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, reputed to be Osama's number two. This proves my point that terrorism is better fought through good police and covert intelligence work and that this has a higher success rate at taking these guys out of action than by any number of big wars, or mass air strikes could ever possibly hope to achieve.

Mind you it took a third world intelligence service to grab these guys, so I think the CIA still has a way to go to catch up in this department.

But for some reason the US thinks that mass bombing can solve this problem (though I still doubt that's the real motivation. Maybe the US does want to beef up its covert activities and sees Iraq as a convenient Mid East base? Who knows....). Personally I think it is overkill. I wonder how many known 'terrorists' will be apprehended as a result of this activity? My guess is that there will be zero from the US' most wanted list that will be caught this way. Indeed I bet you will have to look a very long way down the list before you find any. (If of course, you ever do at all).

Q

but will you wait 200 years?
Estimates state complete inspection will take 200 years!!! given the curent rate inspecors etc... double them (like) under the french plan and it still takes 100 years!!!!!!!!! with war we sovle the problem swiftly and get on with our lives to more important problems...

raid517 · Mar 3, 2003, 04:08 AM

On another planet it might take 100 years. But on this planet the French plan takes 120 days. No one would be prepared to see inspections continue indefinitely, at least certainly without achieving very real results. That's just silly. In any case as I said, even 120 days is way too long. Three months takes you too far into the Summer. So 8 weeks just seems reasonable. I don't see where you got the figure of 100 or 200 years or whatever, it sounds like some radio station, or some newspaper or some Republican politician is banging the propaganda drum again. People soon seem get the hang of dancing to its beat.

But I don't think that was the main point I made. I said that good police work had caught more terrorists since September 11th than any of the military actions the US has so far been involved in put together. I have no doubt the same will be the case when you go after Iraq. Which is why a lot of people are still scratching their heads wondering what all this is supposed to be about?

Well no doubt that will out in the wash too. Though when the truth does emerge I will not be surprised if it is just dismissed as Al Qaeda propaganda. (Curious that though isn't it? This is a fairly new phenomenon too, that even when irrefutable evidence is presented, if it is inconvenient it is simply dismissed as Al Qaeda propaganda). Something stinks about the whole thing. The sums and facts just don't add up. After all that has passed to date, you really can't blame people for doubting your motives.

Q

raid517 · Mar 3, 2003, 05:38 AM

Lol just as suspected... This is America's most wanted in connection with international terrorism list http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm As you will note, there is not a single Iraqi on this list whatsoever. Do you think this omission is because the FBI, reputedly one of the most professional law enforcement agencies in the world forgot to include old Saddam somewhere near the top? No! It’s because for everyone on this list the FBI and CIA possess real and quantifiable evidence against these individuals. The omission of an Iraqis, even any lesser ranking Iraqis, is simply because none of your law enforcement and intelligence agencies has been able to provide any evidence whatsoever to link any Iraqi citizens with international terrorism. Although it seems almost impossible for you to accept it, all this hoo-ha about 'international terrorism' is simply empty. It is propaganda plain and simple and you are being manipulated and told what to think in a cynical attempt by the political establishment to whip up a mob frenzy for revenge against those they perceive to be their enemies, not yours. How good are they at this? The fact that you are unable to accept it is I think evidence enough for that. You are nothing more than a bunch of puppets on strings. It is just such a shame that you are so utterly willing to let those you view to be 'in charge', to yank your strings as easily as they do.

Q

Ps

There are other lists too. But even down as far as America's most moderately wanted list, to America's least wanted list, I haven't yet been able to find any Iraqis. So I guess I will just have to trust the FBI on this one... (Like the CIA they have simply refused to be politicised by recent events). This is quite a blatant example of the Truman syndrome at play. Your world is so controlled for you, you no longer know what's real any more. Maybe little omissions like this will serve to arouse your suspicions? I sure hope so. Even Truman woke up in the end...

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 3, 2003, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raid517
On another planet it might take 100 years. But on this planet the French plan takes 120 days. No one would be prepared to see inspections continue indefinitely, at least certainly without achieving very real results. That's just silly. In any case as I said, even 120 days is way too long. Three months takes you too far into the Summer. So 8 weeks just seems reasonable. I don't see where you got the figure of 100 or 200 years or whatever, it sounds like some radio station, or some newspaper or some Republican politician is banging the propaganda drum again. People soon seem get the hang of dancing to its beat.

But I don't think that was the main point I made. I said that good police work had caught more terrorists since September 11th than any of the military actions the US has so far been involved in put together. I have no doubt the same will be the case when you go after Iraq. Which is why a lot of people are still scratching their heads wondering what all this is supposed to be about?

Well no doubt that will out in the wash too. Though when the truth does emerge I will not be surprised if it is just dismissed as Al Qaeda propaganda. (Curious that though isn't it? This is a fairly new phenomenon too, that even when irrefutable evidence is presented, if it is inconvenient it is simply dismissed as Al Qaeda propaganda). Something stinks about the whole thing. The sums and facts just don't add up. After all that has passed to date, you really can't blame people for doubting your motives.

Q

I don't rember exacly cnn said something about it I forget who said it but was a creditable sourse a collage or something....

"I said that good police work had caught more terrorists since September 11th than any of the military actions the US has so far been involved in put together. "-raid517

That becouse they were busy being shot and blown up!!!! Ok you can shoot them . I don't feel bad about shooting first and asking questions later. what I mean is you go areast the group of heavly armed al-quida... um don't think so... these guy belive life is meaningless and worthless and knothing matters but the afterlife... they figt to the death ... hard to arrest a dead body!

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 3, 2003, 07:45 AM

any ways did you here some of the earlier statement made by france? they said even if inspectors found weapons of massdesuction (chemial/nukes what ever) (smokeing gun whatever)... They would still veto any U.S. resolition that brang about millitary action on iraq....

so if they found fields of long range nukes the freachs stance would be...what? ok who cares? now suddom thats a bad boy now we trust you to get rid of those on your own.... ok

Mar 1, 2003, 08:08 PM	#2
CherryPopper DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 132 Rep Power: 0	actually I'm glad to see France and other european countries standing up to Bush and his Administration..... here here i say....the world needs a balance of power, not one nation that thinks it can do whatever the hell they want to __________________ Dell Precision 530 Workstation w Dual Xeon Processors @ 2 GHZ each 768 Megs PC 800 Rambus Ram ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256 Meg DDRII Viewsonic VG191b Flatpanel Display Audigy 2 with 240 W THX Altec Lansing 5.1 Surround Speakers Fujitsu 36 Gig 10,000 rpm Ultra 160 SCSI HD Fujitsu 73 Gig 10,000 rpm Ultra 320 SCSI HD Windows XP Professional SP1 Build 2600

Mar 1, 2003, 10:46 PM	#7
CherryPopper DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 132 Rep Power: 0	Iraq is currently one of the Least armed nations of the middle east..., it is in reality pretty much a toothless dictatorship; Iran, North Korea and a slew of other nations posess far more menacing weapons and appear just as, or even more willing to use them as Iraq has done in the past. It is almost a joke to use the argument of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction as a pretence for invading Iraq. The true motive of the bush administration is becoming increasingly clear; "Regime change". Bush believes he has the right to forcibly remove the leadership of another country and replace it with one better suited to his liking. He is clearly trying to settle an old score. Bush is a small man with a small mind focused exclusively on finishing what he thinks his father did not, regardles of the consequences to the rest of the world. __________________ Dell Precision 530 Workstation w Dual Xeon Processors @ 2 GHZ each 768 Megs PC 800 Rambus Ram ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256 Meg DDRII Viewsonic VG191b Flatpanel Display Audigy 2 with 240 W THX Altec Lansing 5.1 Surround Speakers Fujitsu 36 Gig 10,000 rpm Ultra 160 SCSI HD Fujitsu 73 Gig 10,000 rpm Ultra 320 SCSI HD Windows XP Professional SP1 Build 2600

Mar 2, 2003, 12:23 AM	#12
CherryPopper DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 132 Rep Power: 0	comon there Java... let's at least see an attempt at a responce to arguments you are unwilling (or unable) to address... __________________ Dell Precision 530 Workstation w Dual Xeon Processors @ 2 GHZ each 768 Megs PC 800 Rambus Ram ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 256 Meg DDRII Viewsonic VG191b Flatpanel Display Audigy 2 with 240 W THX Altec Lansing 5.1 Surround Speakers Fujitsu 36 Gig 10,000 rpm Ultra 160 SCSI HD Fujitsu 73 Gig 10,000 rpm Ultra 320 SCSI HD Windows XP Professional SP1 Build 2600

Mar 2, 2003, 06:45 PM	#20
FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darkest Ayrshire Posts: 1,305 Rep Power: 88 System Specs	so basically youy want the French to do as you want of them ... if they don't ... your gonna pack your toys away?? ... sounds very childish IMO ... the French can do as they please as it is [COLOR=red]THEIR CHOICE[/COLOR] to veto a new resolution ... [COLOR=red]NOT AMERICA'S[/COLOR] .... not every country has a spineless , gutless leader like Tory Blair in charge ... his time is fast running out ... no second resolution and he is out if he goes to war ... [COLOR=red]FACT[/COLOR] __________________ "They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

Mar 3, 2003, 03:38 AM	#25
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Is it just me or is this whole record getting a tad repetitive? From what I can see the American's accuse the French of being arrogant, the French accuse the Americans of being arrogant and each is convinced that they and they alone are 110% right. Well I have an easy answer. How about if you just accept that both of you are right??? Ahh but then part of being overbearingly arrogant is never being able or prepared to admit that you could ever be wrong. So I guess that isn't going to happen any time soon. If you look at some French notice boards, there are just as many French people posting threads with these dumb (blame everybody but ourselves) titles. Oh well, I guess this will go on for a while yet. I think all anyone sensible would say is that this is your own mess, quit blaming anyone else for it - and if after screwing things up for so long not everything goes your way as and when you want it, well hey, that is as they say, pretty much just hard cheese. I think the idea that inspections would go on forever is in any case just plain stupid. The French have said 120 days and that would be it. For me 120 days would be way too long. I always said 8 weeks would be enough of a concession to make everybody happy. If all it took was 8 weeks (the French could be persuaded on this I am certain) then the inspectors would be able to complete their job - a job BTW that they have conducted with an excellent degree of success there last couple of months) then what would be the harm in it? The French would have their extra time, the UN inspectors would be able to finish their jobs, The UN and international law will have been seen to have acted justly, America would no doubt still have her little war that she seems so desperate for and all in all everyone would be happy. I still don't understand how this is about terrorism and Al Qaeda, especially as the Pakistanis have just caught Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, reputed to be Osama's number two. This proves my point that terrorism is better fought through good police and covert intelligence work and that this has a higher success rate at taking these guys out of action than by any number of big wars, or mass air strikes could ever possibly hope to achieve. Mind you it took a third world intelligence service to grab these guys, so I think the CIA still has a way to go to catch up in this department. But for some reason the US thinks that mass bombing can solve this problem (though I still doubt that's the real motivation. Maybe the US does want to beef up its covert activities and sees Iraq as a convenient Mid East base? Who knows....). Personally I think it is overkill. I wonder how many known 'terrorists' will be apprehended as a result of this activity? My guess is that there will be zero from the US' most wanted list that will be caught this way. Indeed I bet you will have to look a very long way down the list before you find any. (If of course, you ever do at all). Q Last edited by raid517; Mar 3, 2003 at 04:11 AM.

Mar 1, 2003, 07:52 PM	#1
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	France -- It's Selfishness Knows No Bounds Nevermind that France has been blocking American and British war efforts, and nevermind that the French thought it more important to send a message than to defend its friend and ally, Turkey. Nevermind that France has bullied Eastern European nations that support the US, basically stating that they should have kept quiet. And nevermind that the French, with its oil company (TotalFinaElf) poised to benefit intensely from extensive Iraqi oil contracts, have decided to put their economic interests at #1 on their list of priorities. Nevermind that -- that's not what this thread is about. But France, in its infinite disregard for the peace and safety of the world, not only opposes war, but would have been perfectly content to do absolutely nothing about the Iraq situation. Consider this. France, Iraq's largest import partner, could have set the world's agenda. They could have told Iraq to disarm --pure and simple-- and banded with Austral0ia (Iraq's number two import partner) to threaten an economic embargo. Would Saddam not have to comply then, with 44% of their imports cut off? France could have done this. They could have been the ones leading this fight against the proliferation of WMD. Instead they chose to do nothing. Instead they chose to simply disagree with the US. France could have been the hero here. Yet instead they did nothing.

Mar 1, 2003, 09:04 PM	#4
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Well what do you do about the French? At the end of the day though everyone is on very wobbly ground if they start shouting about occupying the moral high ground. The French can be a pain in the butt, the British have known this for the last 300 years or more. You just have to learn the knack of dealing with them. When you understand how to make the French feel they have won a significant concession (when usually they haven't) very often they will only be too happy to play ball. The French mind works in a very peculiar way, when you understand their various subtleties and motivations, doing business with them isn't so hard. Q

Mar 1, 2003, 09:38 PM	Thread Starter #5
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	CherryPopper, Bluelight, you're missing my point and going off on tangents. If you actually read my post, you'd see that it wasn't a condemnation of the French for being anti-Bush, anti-war, or anti-American. My point was this: WMD are dangerous. Saddam shouldn't have WMD. Nobody disagrees with this. What I was saying is merely that France had the political and economic clout to make disarmament happen in a peaceful manner, but chose not to. They decided that instead of being leaders, they would do nothing until the US took the initiative. Whether or not the US is right isn't the issue here, and it wasn't the point. The point was that the French were in a unique position to lead the disarmament campaign and didn't.

Mar 1, 2003, 10:28 PM	#6
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Mmm, that kind of depends if anyone but you JF has thought that way. Maybe if someone had explained this to the French, it would have given this whole thing the 'spin' it needed to bring them on board. The French acting as world leaders to free the world of a serious threat? I think a lot of French politicians might have liked that. Unfortunately they decided on another tactic to try to exert world influence, which was to take a stand against a world power that it perceived as acting against French interests. Since you say this isn't a moral issue (and if you want to start arguing from a moral standpoint, I can dig up some very stinky stuff that will make such arguments look empty) then its not much more than a toss up over which position is likely to gain the French the greatest advantage. And in that regard I can agree, that in this instance the French do appear to have played a loosing game. Q

Mar 1, 2003, 11:18 PM	#9
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Is it a moral issue or not to see to it that civialins do not die from lack of ordinary medication water and food? BlueLight

Mar 1, 2003, 11:33 PM	Thread Starter #10
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Obfuscations abound.

Mar 2, 2003, 04:05 PM	#19
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Here´s a couple og links with "lies" planted by terrorists to discredit you nation. http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...15&ItemID=2177 http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special...rns090502.html http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/l...rful/iraq2.php BlueLight

Mar 3, 2003, 01:17 AM	Thread Starter #21
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Thanks for not reading the post, Funster. I said that the French missed an opprotunity to SET THE AGENDA. If they actually cared about disarmament, they could have said "Let's do this" and the USA would have to follow them! I didn't say "the French are being difficult, that's annoying" and you'd know that if you read my post. That's not what this thread is about. What I said was that the French were in a unique position to bring this conflict to a close WITHOUT WAR. But they didn't.

Mar 3, 2003, 04:08 AM	#27
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	On another planet it might take 100 years. But on this planet the French plan takes 120 days. No one would be prepared to see inspections continue indefinitely, at least certainly without achieving very real results. That's just silly. In any case as I said, even 120 days is way too long. Three months takes you too far into the Summer. So 8 weeks just seems reasonable. I don't see where you got the figure of 100 or 200 years or whatever, it sounds like some radio station, or some newspaper or some Republican politician is banging the propaganda drum again. People soon seem get the hang of dancing to its beat. But I don't think that was the main point I made. I said that good police work had caught more terrorists since September 11th than any of the military actions the US has so far been involved in put together. I have no doubt the same will be the case when you go after Iraq. Which is why a lot of people are still scratching their heads wondering what all this is supposed to be about? Well no doubt that will out in the wash too. Though when the truth does emerge I will not be surprised if it is just dismissed as Al Qaeda propaganda. (Curious that though isn't it? This is a fairly new phenomenon too, that even when irrefutable evidence is presented, if it is inconvenient it is simply dismissed as Al Qaeda propaganda). Something stinks about the whole thing. The sums and facts just don't add up. After all that has passed to date, you really can't blame people for doubting your motives. Q

Mar 3, 2003, 05:38 AM	#28
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Lol just as suspected... This is America's most wanted in connection with international terrorism list http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm As you will note, there is not a single Iraqi on this list whatsoever. Do you think this omission is because the FBI, reputedly one of the most professional law enforcement agencies in the world forgot to include old Saddam somewhere near the top? No! It’s because for everyone on this list the FBI and CIA possess real and quantifiable evidence against these individuals. The omission of an Iraqis, even any lesser ranking Iraqis, is simply because none of your law enforcement and intelligence agencies has been able to provide any evidence whatsoever to link any Iraqi citizens with international terrorism. Although it seems almost impossible for you to accept it, all this hoo-ha about 'international terrorism' is simply empty. It is propaganda plain and simple and you are being manipulated and told what to think in a cynical attempt by the political establishment to whip up a mob frenzy for revenge against those they perceive to be their enemies, not yours. How good are they at this? The fact that you are unable to accept it is I think evidence enough for that. You are nothing more than a bunch of puppets on strings. It is just such a shame that you are so utterly willing to let those you view to be 'in charge', to yank your strings as easily as they do. Q Ps There are other lists too. But even down as far as America's most moderately wanted list, to America's least wanted list, I haven't yet been able to find any Iraqis. So I guess I will just have to trust the FBI on this one... (Like the CIA they have simply refused to be politicised by recent events). This is quite a blatant example of the Truman syndrome at play. Your world is so controlled for you, you no longer know what's real any more. Maybe little omissions like this will serve to arouse your suspicions? I sure hope so. Even Truman woke up in the end... Last edited by raid517; Mar 3, 2003 at 05:51 AM.

Mar 3, 2003, 07:45 AM	#30
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	any ways did you here some of the earlier statement made by france? they said even if inspectors found weapons of massdesuction (chemial/nukes what ever) (smokeing gun whatever)... They would still veto any U.S. resolition that brang about millitary action on iraq.... so if they found fields of long range nukes the freachs stance would be...what? ok who cares? now suddom thats a bad boy now we trust you to get rid of those on your own.... ok __________________