Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Tim Cooke
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • paul wheaton
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
Bartenders:
  • Piet Souris
  • Himai Minh

no war

 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
check your history, this guy was a creation of previous US administrations and armed by previous administrations

As my mom always said, you made the mess now clean it up. the fact(?) that he is our fault is even more reason for us to remove him.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <ToLazy2Register>:
quotes from Iraqi Ambassador:


Well there's an unbiased source if ever there was one. Care to back up any of what he said with some facts?
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
These polls are sometimes interesting in comparison...
There were two polls arout the same time, March-January 1999. On the first the question was formulated as "Would you favor or oppose the United States increasing economic aid to Russia?"
Results:

Favor43%
Oppose53%
No opinion 4%

On the second poll the question was:

"As you may know, Russia continues to experience economic difficulties that some fear may threaten the country's stability. Do you think that the United States should or should not participate with other countries to provide financial assistance to help stabilize Russia?"
Results:
Should55%
Should not 33%
Depends (vol.)6%
Not sure6%

http://www.pollingreport.com/russia.htm
[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

Well we are talking of billion dollars going to the US weapons industry. And you're asking me how good it is for the economy?


Younes for me this is bad economics. Whats the share of the US weapons industry in the total US economy? Its not that big.
I am still to lazy to go googling for figures, but believe me, the economic impact of those transfers is insignificant.
What does "hand on oil reserves mean"? The Iraqs oil won't belong to an US company but to some Iraqui company. The oil market is not controlled by the US but by OPEC. If Opec price is above some level countries like Norway, UK, Canada and Mexico start pushing offer in the market, bringing prices to reasonable level. In relation to the costs of production in a lot of middle eastern nations oil is an expensive primary good. Unfortunatedly they invest a much too low share of that easy earnings for investment in diversification or formation of their youth.

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

Axel, I think you're the one who said " I'm sick of those anti-americans...".


Yup. Though I don't like lots of things in US-politics, for me the current US bashing going on here is plain emotions, based on poor informations and general stupidity.
They are going out on the street, having warm peace feeling in their hearts and 3000 kilometers to the east in Bagdad, Iraquis live under the rule of a dictator.
Last week has shown that there is nothing like a common european foreign policy. There is a fundamental lack of unity of interests. The smaller middle east european nations want their own voice. "German-France axis" wants to coerce them under their hegemony. Brits tend to act as 51th state of USA.
Europe can only get united on the side of the USA like before, because we share lots of common values. Serving the anti-american sentiment in the population to get re-elected just opens ditches inside europe.
And this black and white view about USA.
USA is a democracy with a long tradition, whose inhabitants produce a lot of useful things like Java, Oracle database, javaranch discussion forum or unix os, seems to buy everything they see (their low saving rate is good for our economy) and who for some yet undiscovered reasons often react very thin skinned when being critiziced by foreigners. And more shades of gray.
[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Younes,
what really disconcerts me is this black and white view.
USA controls the economy. USA controls the media. Replace USA with jews and we get "good old" european anti-semitism. I don't say that anti-americans are like nazis, but in some patterns of "argumentation" I don't see much diference.
 
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
When this whole Iraqi mess started, Bush and most of his team wanted to attack immediately. It was Colin Powell who took a considerable risk and convinced the team to use diplomacy and work with France one more time.
Now Colin Powell is a sitting duck as France reneges on its original statements. Why is France not putting massive pressure on Iraq rather than East-European states and why don't they support Sec. Powell?? France may very well end up destorying the one person that was willing to work with them.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Younes for me this is bad economics.


I've never said that it was good politics neither good economics.

USA controls the economy. USA controls the media. Replace USA with jews and we get "good old" european anti-semitism. I don't say that anti-americans are like nazis, but in some patterns of "argumentation" I don't see much diference.


The difference is big, we are not talking about a people but about a govt. It is just about criticizing the politics, I think there is a long way before being a nazi.


what really disconcerts me is this black and white view.


Isn't it the proper of USA, the manicheist view?
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Isn't it the proper of USA, the manicheist view?
Well, I'm sure that will help promote contructive discussion. You believe your opponents use flawed arguments, therefore you should use flawed arguments against them? :roll:
[ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
YE: I've never said that it was good politics neither good economics.
AJ: I meant I found your conception of economic policies not very convincing.
Military spending does actually constrain economic growth.
You have much more growth if money is directed towards R&D or better maschines, streets, schools or other infrastructure.
Weapons have no other positive efect than to prevent others from starting a war or for using them in a war. Using them is mostly destroying them.
Germany opted in 91 that paying money is more digestable than cofins of young men coming back to Frankfurt Airport.
YE: Isn't it the proper of USA, the manicheist view?
AJ: no. some people. But in general? I made NYTimes my default online newspaper (after El Pa�s wants $$$ this year). There are lots of dissenting views. And Paul Krugman writes there. Its not El Pa�s, but its o.k.
YE: The difference is big, we are not talking about a people but about a govt.
AJ: Again: I said that I see some paralels in the way of argumentation. The government is elected by the people and represents the people.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:
When this whole Iraqi mess started, Bush and most of his team wanted to attack immediately. It was Colin Powell who took a considerable risk and convinced the team to use diplomacy and work with France one more time.
Now Colin Powell is a sitting duck as France reneges on its original statements. Why is France not putting massive pressure on Iraq rather than East-European states and why don't they support Sec. Powell?? France may very well end up destorying the one person that was willing to work with them.


I for one do not care much if he is damaged in the process. He already damaged himself and his credibility by joining this admninistration.That is my opnion mind you
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator


Originally posted by shay Aluko:
I for one do not care much if he is damaged in the process. He already damaged himself and his credibility by joining this admninistration.


Hmmm... seems to me that lots of people here are against war and Powell is the one guys that didn't want immediate war.
So, you don't want folks here talking war.
but you don't want to support the Doves.
What exactly do you really want??
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:

Hmmm... seems to me that lots of people here are against war and Powell is the one guys that didn't want immediate war.
So, you don't want folks here talking war.
but you don't want to support the Doves.
What exactly do you really want??


How about 'no war' and skip the 'immediate'?
kind regards
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:

Hmmm... seems to me that lots of people here are against war and Powell is the one guys that didn't want immediate war.
So, you don't want folks here talking war.
but you don't want to support the Doves.
What exactly do you really want??


So Colin Powell is a dove preaching for peace and no war
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:
When this whole Iraqi mess started, Bush and most of his team wanted to attack immediately....


And exactly when did that whole Iraqi mess start that Bush wanted to attack immediately?
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

TP: We don't get a lot of oil from the Middle East and since Iraq is a member of OPEC they won't be pumbing out billions of gallons to drive the price down.


JM: People have been asking how we're going to pay for this war. I believe much of it will be paid through Iraqi oil subsidies. In other words, the Iraqis will be footing the bill.


US will invade Iraq to liberate the oppressed iraqi people. And since they are going to be liberated, they will have to pay a price for it, right? Subsidised oil! That makes some sense
---------------------------------------------
just wanted to bring this thread up ahead of 'absolutes'
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
just wanted to bring this thread up ahead of 'absolutes'
That's not fair! Do not bring this thread up with fake posts!
Oops...
 
Greenhorn
Posts: 6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
no lies,
OIL, OIL, OIL is a very good reason to fight a war
when, in history, the bigger empire at some time
did not made a war for some vital resouce ?
now, for instance,
US militar power is about 10 times bigger of all
the 10 less major militar counties, taken together
by 2010, it is extimated that more than 80% of
US oil needs will be satisfied with Perfian Gulf production
(from italian edition of scientific american)
China, India (and, of course, Africa and Asia) oil
needs are growing very fast every year
Saudi Arabia is at risk of muslim fundamentalism,
like Iran (and Iraq lays between these two ...)
(ah, do you remenber how CIA (& 7 sisters)
removed Iran leader Massadeq, who nationlized iran oil ...)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
Bush (jr & Sr), Cheney, Rumsfild, Rice were all oil
businessmen
Bush won the w2k democratic election with less votes than Gore, & a lot of founds from Enron & Microsoft
(Clinton was busy only in love affairs ...)
Rumsfild & Cheney were behind hidden US operations
of (cornvention?) militar trade with iraq
(maybe iran-contras too)
And what about South-America ?
what do you think of Argentina,
where FMI took a rich country to hunger dying ?
and what about Chile, Bolivia, Colombia ...
and what about WATER ?
Will Water be the reason of next
21-century resource war ?

--------------------------------------------
do not count on Italy 4 war,
we love to badogliate
80% people against war
a pope
3 million manifesting for peace
1 crazy millionar that shots a lot of balls
with 6 tv channels, for obscuring his trials
under the noise ...
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Yeah it's about oil.
Oil pays for Saddam Hussein's bad decisions.
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

So Colin Powell is a dove preaching for peace and no war


uhhh yeaaaah... he was, until the French pulled the rug out from underneath him
Chirac managed to piss off the biggest dove in the administration.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Yep, those anti-war folks sure are paving a path for peace. :roll:
Hussein Emboldened by Antiwar Sentiment
This just goes to drive home the point I made earlier about how these people are actually making the situation much more dangerous, and helping to drive us towards a war, instead of away from it.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
For those who might appreciate the French position:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/rauch2003-02-19.htm
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Jason,
read above link:
France & Iraq
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 53
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Recommended book: Fannon's "Wretched of the Earth" to understand how the violence can be justified.
 
John Dunn
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator


Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:

And exactly when did that whole Iraqi mess start that Bush wanted to attack ~immediately~?


Good point, I probably should have said, 'push for a quick invansion'. I was refering to all the Iraqi b.s. that has gone on since 9/11, in George W's reign. (But you knew that...)
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator



Who is (was) putting weapons in terrorists hands?
Syria, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Palestinian Authority, and Libya off the top of my head. Afghanistan was, but that problem has been taken care of.
Who gave money to train Al Qaida members?
Same list as above.


Another

However we are placing heavy political pressure on them to reign in their extremists. As the President's policy has stated, not every situation calls for military intervention.
[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]


I think I am not expected here...
Cant you see.. US is trying best to stop the sorces of terrorism by political pressure.
Iraq is different story altogether.
Dont mix "war on terrorism" and "Iraq war".
One is cleaning the mess in Jughead style and another does not see any mess created at all .
Bye... Happy debating...
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
By thw way, if you had the nerve to register instead of hiding behind an anonymous id I might take you more seriously.



One can take horse to lake but cant make him to drink water.
Now I wont say to see the view NOT the name.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
One can take horse to lake but cant make him to drink water.


I think you mean, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
Or
"You can lead a whore to culture (horticulture) but you can't make her think."
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Cant you see.. US is trying best to stop the sorces of terrorism by political pressure.


Different circumstances call for different kinds of pressure. Sometimes diplomacy will work, and sometimes military measures will be needed.

Iraq is different story altogether.
Dont mix "war on terrorism" and "Iraq war".


Iraq and the War on Terror are related. There are other dynamics involved with Iraq, but terrorism is one such dynamic. In Iraq's case, diplomacy as a means to alter Hussein's behavior has failed, particularly as it has been undercut by forces such as France, Russia, Germany, and the "peace" movement, so the remaining options are somewhat limited.
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:
Good point, I probably should have said, 'push for a quick invansion'. I was refering to all the Iraqi b.s. that has gone on since 9/11, in George W's reign. (But you knew that...)


no! no! you didn't get my point. It has been a well established fact that 9/11 was the handiwork of Al-Queda and Taliban in Afghanistan. Most of the highjackers were Saudis and a couple of Egyptians. Most of the captured fighters were Arabs from various countries majority of them Saudis, and many of them from Pakistan, etc. I bet many people must have already forgot the fact by now that money trails have been found between saudi royal's bank accounts and the highackers' not very long ago.
But [i]neither the highackers, nor the taliban fighters were from Iraq, nor has there been any link established between the banks of Iraqi officials and 9/11.
So my question is, exactly since which day did the whole 9/11 thing suddenly become an Iraqi thing that Bush wanted to push for a quick invasion? Got to credit the media. They are so damn good at diverting our focus from one to another.
Wanna bomb iraq?, go bomb it. But don't mix the facts just make it sound a better case. (yes i knew what you meant and that is why i replied.)
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
So my question is, exactly since which day did the whole 9/11 thing suddenly become an Iraqi thing that Bush wanted to push for a quick invasion?


I don't think anybody has ever said Iraq is a 9/11 thing. It is a "terror" thing though. Back when Bush made his speech declaring war on international terrorism, he was very careful to mention that it was not against just Al-Qaeda. Iraq does have links to international terrorism, that is a fact. Whether or not you choose to believe that they have links specifically with al-Qaueda would depend I guess, but it doesn't really matter.
Iraq certainly does have links with Abu-Sayyaf, and Hamas, among others. It is also clear that al-Qaeda has links to these same groups. Therefore, even if somebody is only worried about al-Qaeda and no other terrorist organization, it is evident that there is a very likely chance that al-Qaeda could purchase weapons from Iraq through an intermediary organization.
But I see know reason to get hung up specifically on al-Qaeda. They are all international terrorists, so they are all on the hit list. Logically then it is clear that any attack on Iraq furthers the aims of the overall war on terror.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Why is everyone talking about a "quick" invasion? We have been playing this game with Iraq since the Gulf War ended. 9/11 was a year and a half ago. If Sadaam had any intention of cooperating he would have done it be now. What I really want to know is, how last chances do France and Germany want to give to this guy?
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What I really want to know is, how last chances do France and Germany want to give to this guy?


I'm not sure whether or not I understand 'how last chances ...', but nevertheless -- these two countries want the UN to come to a 'verdict' after the inspectors have reported their stuff. That's all. No single nation has the right to conduct an attack before what 'we' have all agreed upon a verdict from the UN. That's what NATO 'allies' are all about. No dictatorial school bullying and pushing from the USA, just a simple verdict, no matter whether or not some red neck folks have concluded their own sort of vendetta.
kind regards
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Whether or not you choose to believe that they have links specifically with al-Qaueda would depend I guess, but it doesn't really matter.
It does matter. Idealogoy-wise, Baa'th party is totally different from Al-queda. Saddam wants to remain in power. Initally, he wanted to fight Iranian aggression and Ayatolaah. He wanted to remain in control of the oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, and whereever he could. He wants to keep Shiites and Kurds away.
Whereas the sole aim of Al-queda is to destory anything that is non-islam. Bin Laden probably had enough of money to buy a acres of land in California, but money, power, and/or presidentship of a nation was not what he wanted. He wanted to destroy 'the West' and spread talibanistic ideas and law of sharia everywhere.
We never heard of any links between the two before. They probably hated each other too. It is now, that they just happen to have a common enemy, the U.S, that's what bringing them closer.
It is a "terror" thing though.
I never denied that!
JM: I don't think anybody has ever said Iraq is a 9/11 thing.
It appeared to be that way from John's post when talking about Powell.
 
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Iraq certainly does have links with Abu-Sayyaf, and Hamas, among others.
As for supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations, that is because Saddam hates Iserail as much as he does the US. And he sees Iserail as the closest nation to US. But there is a difference. Saddam does not run any organization himself like laden did. He probably provides financial assistance like Saudis did. I agree, terrorism is terrorism, and that Saddam must stop that, but then people are bound to think that why isn't someone doing anything about Yassar Arafat? Because he only has suicide squads that can reach Tel Aviv (who cares?), but he does not have any missiles tipped with chemical weapons that can reach the West? or because Palestine does not have oil?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
As for supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations, that is because Saddam hates Iserail as much as he does the US.


Abu-Sayyaf is a Philipino terrorist organization that most experts seem to agree is very closely related to al-Qaeda.

He probably provides financial assistance like Saudis did. I agree, terrorism is terrorism, and that Saddam must stop that,


He provides all kinds of assistance. Which is why he is a legitimate target for the war against terror (hereafter the WOT). He is somebody who we have run out of any diplomatic options for dealing with.
If you remember the purpose for the WOT was to target those who provide any support for international terrorist orgs, and that there was a variety of methods that could be employed depending on the target. The Iraqi regime is a rogue regime that both supports international terrorism, and possesses weapons of mass destruction (as well as the demonstrated willingness to use them). Unlike chocolate and peanut butter, those are two tastes that don't go great together. So I'm not seeing why people cringe at making the obvious connection between Iraq and the WOT, even though we have other reasons not directly related to the WOT for taking him down.

but then people are bound to think that why isn't someone doing anything about Yassar Arafat?


We are. We fund Israel and probably provide them with intelligence. Much in the way that Europe and the Arab states fund the PA and friends. Additionally we apply diplomatic pressure. We have all those Palestinian terrorist orgs on our shit-list, and in fact recently convicted somebody in the US of supporting Hamas.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
I'm not sure whether or not I understand 'how last chances ...', but nevertheless -- these two countries want the UN to come to a 'verdict' after the inspectors have reported their stuff.


Actually France is doing everything they can to maintain the status quo. They have no interest in seeing Hussein removed from power under any circumstances.

No single nation has the right to conduct an attack before what 'we' have all agreed upon a verdict from the UN.


What on earth makes you think that your country should have any say about US national security?

That's what NATO 'allies' are all about.


This isn't a NATO operation.

No dictatorial school bullying and pushing


You mean like France and Belgium have been trying with Eastern Europe?

no matter whether or not some red neck folks have concluded their own sort of vendetta.
kind regards


Your insults grow tiresome. If you want to sit at the big-boy table, please behave accordingly. And you may drop the "kind regards", nobody is buying it.
 
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

but then people are bound to think that why isn't someone doing anything about Yassar Arafat?


If memory serves me, the US has worked at finding a solution to the west bank problem since 1967. I'm sure the US would be devoting more resources to it if it weren't intractable and the US did not have more pressing issues.
Was Iraq's firing of SCUD missles at Isreal not international terrorism?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 107
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

What on earth makes you think that your country should have any say about US national security?


US national security? If its about that not through our lawn!!

They have no interest in seeing Hussein removed from power...


Sure they want SH being removed, even by force, AFTER everything else is being tried!
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Erik Dark:
Sure they want SH being removed, even by force, AFTER everything else is being tried!


Leaving aside the fact for a moment that we have been playing with Iraq for the past 12 years, and also leaving aside for a moment that the only reason they are currently showing any level of cooperation is because of the threat of force levied by the US, UK, and Australia, all evidence indicates that the French do not want Hussein removed from Iraq.
I've posted all this before (with links), but to summarize: the French have done everything they can to water down all UN resolutions concerning Iraq, right up to and including the drafting of 1441 the French have been doing their best to hamstring the inspection process, the French are currently undermining the credibility of the threat of force that has made the Iraqis even remotely show interest in compliance, France has undermined the credibility of NATO, France has undermined the credibility of the security council and is on the eve of making it go the way of the League of Nations, France has obstructed the entire UN process vis-a-vis Iraq for 12 years, France has $50 billion in oil contracts, along with other investments, tied up with Iraq, and don't be surprised to hear that France and Germany have been violating sanctions against Iraq. Let's not forget that the French agreed to UN 1441 (and all the previous resolutions), which Iraq is clearly in violation of, and now refuse to follow through with what it calls for. Now please show me what France has done of any substance to help the process.
Aside from blatantly obstructing things, France has chosen this time to try to make a grab a glory long lost and to try to claim the place in the world scene she feels she deserves. Additionally France wants to ensure that if they can't keep force from being unleashed against Iraq, that it will be they who determine when it will happen. Which is of course absurd since we're the ones who are paying to maintain the threat of force and we are the ones who will be doing all the dying. But that's nothing new.
As far as the "not on my lawn" comment, I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about.
[ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
No dictatorial school bullying and pushing from the USA, just a simple verdict, no matter whether or not some red neck folks have concluded their own sort of vendetta.kind regards


For a guy who complains about personal attacks you sure do dish them out. So why don't you grow up and learn something about America instead of basing it on the childish opinions that you have apparently acquired while putting on your chicken suit when your country called you to serve your time.
 
Politics is a circus designed to distract you from what is really going on. So is this tiny ad:
Free, earth friendly heat - from the CodeRanch trailboss
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/free-heat
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic