|
Le France hard headed or what?
"No matter what evidence is brought forth, France will veto any war in Iraq" France UN idiot
I swear I can't figure these people out! Regardless of evidence they will oppose the war, no matter what. Now I know where people get their hard heads. |
That's a little unreasonable. They should atleast explain why.
|
Too much red wine.
|
Obviously they're not Klingons, the Klingons were war mongers. I think we'd be the Klingons and they'd be the appeasing federation.
|
No evidence has been provided as of yet, and the deadline to the US resolution is impossible to meet, which is why France, Russia and China must and will use their veto right, thus making the US intervention in Iraq illegal.
I wonder why you people don't cut the French some slack, there's only three countries who agree to the war right now, USA, UK and Spain, all the others are against it, don't believe the media, no country I know of has a majority of its inhabitants in favor of a war against Iraq bar the US and Israel... It is a known fact that Blair's position will cost him his seat as prime minister, same thing goes for Aznar. That's what happens when you don't listen to what the population you're supposed to represent has to say. 85% of the Brits are against the war, 90% of the Spanish, Blair and Aznar are just Bush's little puppies and are politically finished already. Good thing. I quite honestly believe that the US will be on their own for the attack. |
No evidence as of yet, o' boy where have you been the last twelve years? What about yesterday when Hans was getting nailed for covering up information?
|
Manu,
You're probably right about the US being all alone. I'm afraid of what the consequences might be in the long run. We're taking on this unitary war and we're complaining that Iraq is a rogue state. Funny. But anyway, I'm not completely anti-war, but I agree that probably about 90% of the world's population is against it. Alex |
Quote:
|
Surely this issue should be about the ability of the UN to enforce its resolutions.
If 1441 is inappropriate then it is the fault of the UN for approving it. 1441 received unanimous approval. The UN should for once enforce the resolution in whatever means is necessary, not US, UK or Spain. I am not conviced any nation would favour military action, as opposed to "war", in preference to diplomacy. Whilst France, Russia et al are prevaricating they are the ones perhaps who should be showing their commitment to the UN by actively engaging, as UN representatives, Iraq in diplomacy to remedy the situation. If all the diplomatic efforts have genuinely failed then a last resort surely must be invoked. The more the US displays signs of acting alone the more this is seen as a US vs Iraq situation (war). If the US can be convinced to be acting as part of the UN and not alone then the whole issue will proceed with a far greater degree of legitimacy. The failure of the UN to enforce a resolution, which must be assumed to be properly conceived and well thought out, poses a far greater threat to world peace and stability than any single dictator. All the UN nations must work out what it is the UN stands for and support that objective. |
Quote:
It is perfectly all right for France to be against the war. It would be disingenuous though for the French to claim resistance to war for humanitarian reasons. The French are against the war for the simple reason it does not benefit their economic interest. The French get along fine with Saddam the thug, and to hell with the Iraqi people. Undermining the US is also in their best interest. French bashing aside, it is important to see what motivates France and Germany in a true light. glenmore 1991 300CE |
Quote:
It's not a matter of applying UN resolutions : There is a country called Israel who is as we type in violation of more than 10'000 different UN resolutions over a 50 year course, yet no sanctions against them are ever approved because systematically vetoed against by the US? Why is this? The violations are proven, they're not speculations but facts... And I respectfully disagree about the motivations of the French and German government. The bottom line is that war should be used as a last resort, it is not time now to consider that all the other options have failed. Hans Blix is I think very qualified for his job and if he says that cooperation is improving and that progress is being made, then it means the inspections are working. And I'm really sorry if I do not believe that the Iraqis would be better off with a war. The population is absolutely terrified and I'd rather see them alive under dictatorship than dead from some misdrop. Look at that monster 21'000 pounds bomb they're planning to use. I dread the consequence of a "surgical" strike with one of those.:( |
Manu...
You have the right to speak your opinions. I, however, have the equally important right to ignore the views of someone who hails from a country that, in spite of its claims to neutrality, gave comfort and assistance to the Nazis during WWII and in the years following the end of the war.
When it is YOUR country that is bombed, when it is YOUR buildings that are attacked by terrorists, when it is YOUR people who are killed by maniacal terrorists just for BEING Americans, when all of those things happen, then you can come to me with your opinion about the war, and then I may listen. Until such time , however, you are just another one of the misinformed cadres of ungrateful American-haters. I've had a bellyful of all the whining, hand-wringing and self-important criticism coming from people who have no right to judge America or America's actions. America has made the world safe for countries like Switzerland, so you can go on being the "bankers" to the world's terrorists and narco-dealers (and so you can continue to peddle that tasteless crud you call Swiss chocolate). If you are not going to support us, that's fine, but at least have the decency to get out of the way and stop interfering. If you are not tough enough or man enough to do what needs to be done, then let those who are do their job and stop criticizing. To all of you who call President Bush a greater threat to world peace than Husseim I ask you the following question: under whose government would you rather live: the U.S. or Iraq? Think about it. The anti-war protesters showed their true colors over the weekend in a small town just south of Los Angeles. There, "peace" demonstrators burned American flags and tore up hand-made posters that had been set up as a memorial to the victims of 9-11 (Manu, in case you've forgotten that was the day when terrorists, who probably keep their money in Switzerland, killed over 3,000 innocent American CIVILIANS, along with a few other people from other countries). The memorial had nothing to do with the impending war, it was just American flags, flowers and other items honoring the victims of 9-11. These so-called peace demonstrators burned the US flags and kicked the memorial to pieces. These peace demonstrators are not interested in finding a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Iraq, all they want to do is vent their anti- America hatred. Everyday of my life I thank God for America and the American people for giving a home, and a second opportunity, to a refugee from a Communist country. For the life of me, I cannot understand where all of you ungrateful complainers get off thinking that you have a right to criticize what you obviously do not understand. Maybe it is time to revive that old saying: "America, love it or leave it..." and while you are at it, please take Alec Baldwin and his friends along with you. OK, I'll step down from my soapbox now. |
There's three things I want to react on after this post :
1) Switzerland has to date the most complete and tought anti-laundering laws in the world. True, lots of business has been made with blood-stained money, doesn't mean it continues to happen today. I happen to work in a bank. Every other day I receive a list of terrorist groups and organisations and I have to check in the archives to see wheter my bank has had some sort of business with them. To date there's about 5000 of us throughout the country carrying out similar tasks, while the ENTIRE US governement service whose job it is to track down and block terrorist funds has got like 22 people in it. The day you come down here, work in a bank for a couple of years, understand banking secrecy laws, know-your-customer rules, then you can talk about what banks have supposedly done. I can open an account over the internet in a couple of large American banks and deposit 500'000 $ on it without ever seeing anyone asking where the money's from. 2) How am I being ungrateful? I don't owe you ANYTHING. Were you in Normandy in '44? No... Thank you and goodbye.. WWII was 50 years ago, time to move on...If the French used the same sort of thinking they could call the US ungrateful because they helped them kick out the Brits during the independence war. Hell we could take this as far back as Christopher Columbus. Irrelevant and non-constructive thinking at its best. If the US liberated Europe in World War II, then it sure should mean that we have the right to have an opinion, be it a different one than the US's, otherwise it wouldn't have been a liberation, right? 3) I don't see a simple valid point or argument relevant to the situation of today in your post. All you do is flame me because my opinion is different then yours. Your idea of banning your fellow countrymates who dare disagree with you and the gratuitous, stereotypical and uneducated attacks against my country show how much commitment you have with what you call "Freedom of speech". At least over here people have the right to agree or disagree without being aggressed. 4) I still want to thank you for your post though, cause all the stereotypes, hate and whining you do only comfort me in my opinion. I definitely do NOT want to agree with someone who thinks like you. There's more to life than Fox News... But hey rejoice! The war is gonna happen no matter what, that should make you a happy camper. Just don't whine when payback comes within the next 5 years. A lot of dangerous people are going to be pissed against the US in the near future, that's guaranteed. They'll want revenge, that's guaranteed as well... |
Quote:
I fear that things may go in the opposite direction of the desired goal of a making a safer America by removing a pitiful Middle Eastern despot from power. -Sam |
Sam,
There are several dangers here: 1) We don't really know what kind of mess we're about to step in to. I'm not talking about the Iraqis, I'm talking about the Kurds and Turks. The Turks have already begun to move their troops into the Kurdish areas (with our consent because we want Turkey's support so badly) and there WILL be a civil war there. How will we solve that? We largely will have started that conflict, we owe some aid to end it. 2) This war has the potential to be highly polarizing. It could be an "us" against "them" war, not a United States against Iraq war. This has the potential for mobilizing more terrorists and more Arabs against the USA. What is even more disturbing is that Bush, in his rhetoric, has invoked the idea of Providence and the idea that we (or he) has a "mandate" to rid the world of this evil. It's very dangerous when you use fate to justify your actions. 3) Domestically, I think this will give people, AND government, a false sense of security AND it will put Bush back in office for another term. On top of that, it will do NOTHING for the economy. Wars only bump up economies when there is some kind of industrial revolution (major or minor) to accompany it. Regarding what somene said to Manu, I think it's unfair to say "your country" in regards to those who aided Nazism over 60 years ago. I mean come on, sit a think about that for a second, are you really going to relate Manu to those who actually funded the Nazis? You can't ignore the views of someone just because of what country they're from. Are you going to discredit what I'm saying because my parents lived in China until they were 4 years old? Do my slanty, pointy eyes make me a Commie? Again, with the sweeping generalizations, you say that all those who don't want to go to war NOW are anti-American? You really should temper what you say. It's this extremism, on BOTH sides, your's and the liberal side, that make productive discourse very difficult. Every day of your life you thank God for America. I do too, so does that mean tht I have differing opinions? Am I ungrateful for America if I double think this war? I want people to think about the idea that this war, this whole issue with Iraq, the Turks, the Kurds, and terrorism, is much much more complex than ANYONE, me, you, liberals, conservatives can fathom. It NEEDS to be approached with caution and prudence. If we had rushed in to Cuba after our discovery of nuclear weapons in their country like the hawks had wanted, we would have been in big trouble and the world would be much different than it is now. Taking a tiny bit more time for thought and reflection has much less consequences than rushing bull headed in to war. That said, I am still deliberating whether or not this is a good idea. Alex |
Quote:
In my profession (and especially in my line of work) we like to say that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Judging from Saddam's past behavior is not hard to predict what he will do next if he is not stopped now. Sam, you can choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend that by playing "nice-nice" with Saddam he will go away. I am glad, however, that the leaders in the White House do not think like you. |
On the subject of war....
Quote:
Alex, Actually I am glad that you brought up Cuba, since that is a subject on which I have some experience. I hope that your own knowledge about the missile crisis is not limited to Oliver Stone's take on the subject. At the time of the missile crisis, the U.S. had the ability to force Russia to back down. And Russia backed down, hauling their missiles from Cuba. The U.S. intercepted Russian boats, carrying nuclear weapons to Cuba and forced them to return. Had Kennedy not used force, Cuba would have become Russia's forward nuclear base. What if Russia had not backed down and forced a confrontation? The U.S. would probably have invaded Cuba and taken out the missile sites. Would Russia have come to Castro's rescue? It is doubtful. As it stands, Castro was furious that the Russians would agree to pull the missile out of Cuba without even as much as consulting with him. CVastro was furious with Kruschev and to this day he has not forgiven the old farmer. If Russian military history is any indication, Russia would have allowed the U.S. to take the missiles out of Cuba without so much as firing a shot. Either way, it was Kennedy's show of strength, and not some paralyzing hand-wringing that forced the issue and made the Western Hemisphere safer for for everyone. And as long as we are on the subject of the Cuban missile crisis, remember how Russia denied, denied and then again denied some more the presence of Russian missiles in Cuban soil. Gee, what does that remind me of...??? Alex and Sam and Manu, you can all sit around and politely debate the wisdom of going to war to disarm a despot with a track record of atrocities. I suppse that had any of you been alive in 1939 you'd be doing the same even after Hitler invaded Checzkoslovakia, after he invaded Poland and even after he invaded France. You'd all have probably said, c'est la vie! every time Hitler added another country to his trophy case. Look, you have a right to your opinion. But when men and women of strength and resolve decide to take action, when you are either unwilling or unable to do so, then for god's sake stand aside and don't get on the way. |
Look, Benz-LGB, I have said several times that I'm not necessarily against going to war. Actually, I have said several times that I'm FOR going to war provided that we can clean up the mess well and leave the region in stability and balance. How is that? I live in NYC and when I saw all those people rushing to protest war, I thought they were highly unreasonable. I thought that many of them were the types that would protest ANYTHING. It's like they're sticking it to the 'man' or something. I'm FOR removing Saddam, and that being said, I'm just advocating more prudence. Unfortunetely, we don't know how Bush intends to leave the region once this is done with.
Speaking as a pragmatist, and having studied the mathematical probabilities and game theory of international politics, I think this war is inevitable and therefore think we should do it soon to save costs, and to save complicaton. I think the longer we wait, the more complicated the situation will be. I do think Bush owes us more of an explanation of his plans, and he needs to make a final address showing us his evidence. Reasonable? And just as a matter of point, I am just as disgusted with the under the table alliance between the Swiss and the Nazis. I think though, that every country has something at stake in this conflict. This has the potential to complete upset the global balance. Again, not saying that we SHOULDN'T go to war, just something to think about. |
There have been a lot of people thinking about post war Iraq since WJ Clinton first floated the idea of 'Nation Building' in that country during his second term in office. (Now that the Dems are not in power, they refer to it as the 'dangerous game of regime change') Reports from some of the working groups of that era are on the net and discuss the issues. (Shiite, Kurds, Turkey, regional antipathy to change, Saudi reluctance to see a BIG stable oil producer undercut their influence over the west, etc.) One of the more interesting examples of these older papers is at http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/IraqNationOptions111898.PDF . Ironically, this 1998 report also discusses Iraqi options for supporting terrorist, specifically mid eastern extremists, in their actions within the US. It also discusses their potential for purchasing nuclear material, biochemical attacks on neighbors or western countries, using their own people or resources as hostages, invading a neighboring state and using them as hostages, using WMD for holding western states hostage, etc.
There are currently Governmental groups looking at these issues and more under the general oversight of the State department, and includes Kurdish leaders-in-exile and representatives from neighboring countries. Non governmental organizations are also providing input. I think the report linked above had a good perspective - the goal is not to create a perfect Iraq (too many diverse groups and special interests in Iraq and the neighbors for that). A stable Iraq, lacking a history of existing as anything but artificial lines drawn on the map arbitrarily by the British when they left the region, will probably require some degree of authoritarian controls in the new government to hold all the diverse regional interests together. The point is, groups of people in and out of government are addressing the issues. |
John,
That was very interesting. I hope the information and analysis is being presented to Pres. Bush in a way he can understand it. It's so crucial that we do this right. Unfortunetely, democracy doesn't really work without well entrenched, long established civil institutions, institutions that Iraq lacks. I think you're right about needing some sort of authoritarian rule post-Saddam. I hope someone good who is accountable to us AND the UN is installed when this is all over. Alex |
Quote:
You're basically saying that you appreciate the short-term goal of removing Saddam (who is a tyrant in his own right in his little corner of the world) to the long-term goal of fending off more terrorism against the United States. If anything, I can't help but think that this "war" will make Dubya one of Al Quaeda's best recruiters. And that I don't like. -Sam |
Sam,
That is a possibility but not a definite. Saddam is not very well liked in the region. He runs a secular country and is in very open competition with Saudi Arabia and Iran in what he thinks is a race to emerge as the hegemon of the region. Saddam wants to control the middle east. Religious extremists can't really relate to Saddam but who knows, they may decide that the enemy of their enemy is their enemy and form some kind of coalition against the US just because they both dislike the US. Who knows. That's just another variable we need to think about. Alex |
This 2 page report from CSIS to world leaders summarizes what Powell gave as evidence against Iraq before the UN. The details are a lot more elaborate and compelling than what the newspapers reported. http://www.csis.org/burke/comment_powell.pdf
At one point I wished that the presence of the troops on the border with Iraq would inspire one of the colonels to 'double tap' their leader. Unfortunately, given the lack of power sharing by Sadam and no apparent designee to take over the reins, and the multiple mutually hostile special interest groups outside of power, this may actually be worse on everyone than a war - a multi-faction civil war like Lebanon that could go on for decades! Maybe that is one of the reasons for an invasion: A means of limiting the various groups who might otherwise create another Balkans! |
"I am not trying to hold Manu personally liable for his country's past collaboration with the Nazis, such as accepting gold deposits that came directly from the fillings of massacred Jews. And I am not even trying to hold Manu liable for his country's current practice of protecting the privacy of depositors, even where the source of the deposits is drug traffic. Hey, if the Swiss think that they can be safe by selling out to the Devil himself, well, more power to them."
Once again, that statement is inaccurate and incomplete. Banking secrecy does NOT mean that you can just deposit money without giving some kind of justification for it. I think you should REALLY gather up some more information because I'm sorry to say but that it just pure propaganda as far as I'm concerned, it is obvious you have no idea of what you're talking about. I dare you to come over here and try to make a deposit without giving some justification about the origin of the assets. Once again, you're not a banker, obviously not very good at history either... And I'm sick and tired of those unjustified attacks attack what my country supposedly did with the jewish gold/assets. My country's banks have been accused of witholding assets. What about the BILLIONS that have been kept and not turned over to the nazis, even when they were increasing pressure everyday? Look at the map if you will and picture Europe during World War II, we're right in the middle of it, yet we resisted giving up these informations and we held and those billions were returned to their rightful owners. Ever thought about that? "Selling out to the devil"... What B-S...Which country still produces anti-personal mines? Not mine. Which country supports the state terrorism of Israel no matter what? Not mine. Which country is gonna go on an illegal war which will kill and maim thousands of innocent people? Not mine. Which country droped nukes on non-military objectives killing hundreds of thousands? Not mine. Which country was built over the blood and tears of the native habitants of it? Still not mine. I can go and find hundred of things the US did which are horrible as well. The reason I don't is because it is NOT RELEVANT. This topic is about Iraq. Tell us about Iraq. Where are your points? You mention something about law school. Don't they teach you to have valid information and proof? I still don't see any in your posts...Just the spreading of hate and misinformation. Are you even capable of debating about any subject at all? Or do you just aggress anyone who disagrees with you? Go to college or something, learn about things such as debate, discussion, point, proofs and stuff and then you can talk. Objectivity comes with education. And since you're so obsessed with all what the nazis have done, how can you drive a german car? You implicitely call me a nazi supporter because I live in Switzerland yet you roll in GERMAN cars? You support the german economy by buying your little trains? What sort of coherence is that? If you had any sort of moral integrity you could never do that. So call me a nazi if you will, I could care less really, but the bottom line is YOU are supporting an illegal war which is gonna kill thousands of innocent people, I'm not, that's the difference...Doesn't mean I don't like Americans. If you can understand that, good. If not, you should just go back to playing with your little trains, cause really, you didn't contribute to this debate in ANY way. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: |
True, he may be driving a German car, but Mercedes was a Jew :)
|
Too many variables
Iraq has the potential of becoming a mess much worse than Vietnam, this time the enemy and enemies to be have discovered the ability to reach across the ponds and really create havoc.
The variables involved in this campaign are just too many to control specially when there is a lack of quorum in the global community. There was once a Quorum where Mr. Hussein could have been dethroned/eliminated without protest but that opportunity has slipped and now it is difficult for many world leaders to agree with us on the issue of forcing a regime change as this opens the gates for the process to be repeated say in China, Cuba or where ever else. Frankly we were asleep at the switch during the gulf war and missed an opp and were snoozing the past decade or more, when deadline after deadline were missed. Now all of a sudden it is difficult to make things happen a rush to judgment when we are dealing with a skilled opponent who plays the game of stalling and making micro sacrifices to mollify the world. (Its hard to get people to block bullets when you are doing it!) That said, once we see a tangible threat ie.. discovery of a large cache of biological/chemical bombs etc. Push the button and be done with overwhelming force. Perhaps that is what is being done now: have everything locked and ready. When such proof is delivered the whole UN etc will be supportive. It would help if the UN security council got a little ballsy and put some concrete consequences behind their peace brokering requirements in the middle-east and the world as a whole. I say philosophically we (democracies of the world) should use capitalism as the Juggernaut to change the world, provide opportunities and partner with only the democratic nations of the world while excluding the non democratic nations. This will fuel the fires of change faster than feeding a regime or dictatorial/communistic government with trade and aid wealth. Ability to see an increase in standard of living when a democratic government is put in place will speak volumes louder than the threat of a bomb. Its a matter of tangibalizing the benefits of democracy. There is an inherent issue in the logic of Regime change we should be causing a fundamental change in government not replacing one dictator with another. Specially when so many hand picked/assisted dictators/regimes can and or have gone sour. |
Wasnt Mercedes just the name of the guys niece or something? Not the guy who created the company.
|
I'm not a diehard Mercedes fanatic, so this might be wrong:
Emil Jellinek, an Austo- Hungarian Consul General partnered up with Daimler to produce race cars around 1900, 1901. providing investment capital and sales rights, Daimler insisted that the cars be named after his daughter Mercedes. Yadda yadda yadda, some time passed, the cars were successful, engines were built in the US with a partnership with the Steinway piano company and cars were sold in the US and all over Europe. Benz at this point was a separate company making their own cars. The defeat of Germany in WWI and the resulting economy, Benz almost went bankrupt due to some ********* speculator who would order and buy cars but then wouldn't pay for them. Wilheml Kissel, the director of the Benz company set up a merger with Daimler and the two came together in 1926 (or so). Daimler made up of 65% of the company and Benz 35%, so Daimler came first in the name. BUT, since Jellinek insisted on the use of his daughter's name, Mercedes came first. Mercedes-Benz. Of course this is terribly over simplified. There's a whole history of different engine designs, aircraft making and racing, but I don't remember any of that, I read this story a long ime ago. Hope this helps. Alex |
It was the dealers daughter!
Hi All,
From http://www.mbcags.org/mercedes.htm On 16th September 1889, a third child was born to businessman Emil Jellinek in Vienna. Rachel and Emil Jellinek gave their daughter a Spanish Christian name which means"grace"and later became world-famous: Mercedes. Emil Jellinek moved his operations to Nice, taking his family with him. As Mercedes grew up, her father developed a passionate interest in automobiles,then in their infancy, and it was not long before the Daimler-Motoren Gesellschaft caught his attention. In 1893, Emil Jellinek travelled to Cannstatt and made the acquaintance of Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach. In the years which followed he bought a number of Daimler vehicles. In 1898,Jellinek ordered a Daimler Phoenix, requesting it to be delivered with a four- cylinder engine. He then drove the car in the Tour de Nice. Since it was chic at the time to enter automobile competitions under a pseudonym, Jellinek appeared in the competitors' lists under the name Mercedes. Emil Jellinek, alias "Monsieur Mercedes",first won the Tour de Nice on 21st March 1899, when his daughter was just nine and a half years old. In 1900, the Daimler- Motoren Gesellschaft again improved on the design, by enlarging the wheelbase, lowering the centre of gravity and increasing engine power. Emil Jellinek was so taken with this design that he put in an order for thirty-six cars, worth 550,000 gold marks. He made his order subject to two conditions: firstly he must be made sole agent in Austria-Hungary, France and America. Secondly, the vehicles must be named after his daughter, Mercedes. The name caught on so well that soon the Daimler-Motoren Gesellschaft used it for all its cars and in 1902, a trademark was taken out. The "Mercedes" era had begun. |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Manu
[B]I don't think the absence of proof of their destruction proves that they exist. I think this argument is not valid enough when the lives of innocent women and children are at stake. Cooperation with Iraq will not happen overnight, it will take time, and not enough time was given. Iraq has admitted to having these weapons in 1991. We know they have poison gas, they've used it. Since they have offered no proof of destruction, they still exist. Why are't you asking for "proof of destruction"? Proof of destruction would : 1) Prevent war 2) Lift sanctions that harm innocent women and children. "And I respectfully disagree about the motivations of the French and German government. " Why would you disagree? The French have come right out and said so. Ahhhhh!!!!! The real money quote: "I'd rather see them alive under dictatorship than dead from some misdrop. " Excuse me if I rather respond to the pleads of the oppressed Iraqis than ignore them. |
Manu
I am not going to engage on a point-by-point response to your post. My position on the war against Iraq, the U.S. and the American people are well-known to everyone who reads this forum. Quite frankly, I don't think that the rest of the people who visit this forum are interested on a one-on-one debate.
Besides (and as long as your brought up the point of "studying" law), since I earn a living by "arguing" in court, I don't think it would be fair for me to engage you on an argument. It would be sort like the Iraqui air force trying to take on the U.S. Air Force...see my point? Your reference to my playing with German trains is a good try, but it misses the point by a country mile. I personally know some members of the family who owns and operates the LGB toy factory, makers of LGB trains. And this is what I know. During WWII, the Nazi government seized LGB's assets. They were not able to fully get back to the business of making toys and trains until after the Allies liberated Germany from the Nazi government (sort of like what the U.S. is planning to do in Iraq, liberate the Iraquis from Saddam's rule). When I buy German trains made by LGB I am supporting a business that was hurt by the Nazis, I am not supporting the Nazi government. But when a person banks with a Swiss bank that willingly engaged in business with the Nazis they are...well, you get the point. Oui? Switzertland's vaunted neutrality (its alleged neutrality, to put it in other terms) came at a price. Selling out to the Nazis was just a small part of that price. As for driving a German car, i.e., a Benz, I see no lack of logic either. MB made engines for German warplanes and I believe that they also made diesel engines for tanks. So did BMW. Both companies, however, were "drafted" into the war effort by the Nazi government. Had they had a choice, I am certain that both MB and BMW would have rather gone on making fast cars and motor bikes than making airplane or tank engines for the war effort. So, again, I see no inconsistencies or lack of logic in preferring to drive a Mercedes or any other German car. What your country did to aid the Nazi war effort is well-documented and merits no further comment. The fact that you are "sick and tired" of the attacks on your country does not change, for a moment, the historical record. Look, the Vatican still refuses to admit that it aided the Nazis during WWII. and there is a new generation of Germans who still deny the existence of a Holocaust. So I don't really expect Switzerland to 'fess up any time soon. History, however, cannot be re-written, no matter how revisionist one may wish to be. When you accuse the Israeli government of conducting terrorism, you are clearly showing: (a) a willful failure to ignore current history, (b) a complete ignorance of current events, as they apply to the Middle East, (c) an anti-Semitic streak, or (d) all of the above. Israel is trying to survive in a hostile world, surrounded by people who want nothing better than to wipe Israel form the map and in the process kill all Israelis and Jews. I don't want to get into a Middle East discussion (but I will if I have to) but you cannot call the Israeli government a terrorist nation while ignoring the fact that it is the PLO, backed in part by Iraq, that continues to engage in acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. If the majority of the Swiss people REALLY do believe that the Israeli government is a terrorist state, than that would help explain Switzerland's conduct towards the Jews during WWII. Seems like anti-Semitism is hard to wipe out, oui? Your comments about the U.S. being built over the blood and tears of innocent indegenous people demonstrates that your knowledge of American history is probably based upon watching too many bad Westerns. The U.S. was also built upon the strength, the courage, the valor of men and women who conquered a wild country and have turned it into a model for the rest of the world. It is funny, all of you people who like to bash the U.S. would not hesitate, for a second, to beg the American people for its help if your country was being attacked. You like to rely upon the might of our armed forces and the stength of our people, yet you feel justified in commdeming our country. That takes some nerve. If you wish to bring the debate back to Iraq, that's fine. But this thread was about France's apparent lack of (insert here word for the gmale glands responsible for making sperm). To be honest, however, the point has been debated back and forth ad nauseum. If your starting point is that the U.S. is a lawless country, a murdering country, an aggressive country, then Manu, there is not much point in trying to reason with you. You have already made up your mind and there is no point in preaching to the choir. Good luck to you, may you and your country continue to feel safe assisting drug dealers and terrorists in hiding assets. May you and your country continue to feel safe peddling Nestle's chococalte (yuck!). And actually, I'd like to say that the French people, and not necessarily its government, fought valiantly during the resistance. And even if the French hissed and booed Lance Armstrong when he won his 4th Tour de France for the most part I still like the French. My issue is with le worm Chirac, and not with the French (see Dr. AMG, I can be reasonable :) ) In conclusion, I am proud to have been adopted by this country. I am proud to call the American people my brothers and sisters. I am proud of a President who spends less time worrying about how to get a (insert street term for oral copulation) from an intern (and then lying about it on national television) and more time on protecting us from future attacks. I am proud of a U.S. military who is ready to do the right thing. And, most of all, I am proud of living in a country where even the most blind, the most hateful, the most ignorant person still has the right to have his or her ideas heard, without fear of reprisal. Sign me a Proud American. Oui! Oui! |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DieselHead
[ Actually, I have said several times that I'm FOR going to war provided that we can clean up the mess well and leave the region in stability and balance. Unfortunetely, we don't know how Bush intends to leave the region once this is done with. I do think Bush owes us more of an explanation of his plans, and he needs to make a final address showing us his evidence. These argments are all well and good but why would you prioritize them over the desire to eliminate WMDs and a brutal regime? You comment on the motives of anti-war protesters and I agree, most of them aren't really anti-war. If they were, you'd expect at least some request for Saddam to also not make war, but not a peep out of them. I've come to the conclusion that anti-war protestors are really of two camps. The anti-America camp usually populated by the Euros, U.N., etc.. And the anti-Bush camp of liberal Democrats. This following comment of yours makes me think you are part of the later. "That was very interesting. I hope the information and analysis is being presented to Pres. Bush in a way he can understand it. " |
Here is a very short and concise article from the Washington Post.
For those with the President, a calming and reassurind read. For those opposed to the war, read it and weep. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13019-2003Mar11.html |
Quote:
All these issues have nothing to do with whether or not I think we should go in to Iraq. As I've stated, and as you have quoted, I think we should. These issues have to do with the planning, and I think Bush, as you have said very wisely, owes us a briefing of his plans. Not the strategic plans (if I didn't add this disclaimer, someone on this forum would jump in and yell that he would be compromising security). He owes it to us to present his ideas and his goals: his vision. Does this make my opinions clearer to you? Don't group me in to a camp. I evaluate everything objectively and without bias. I have my definite opinions, but I won't write off someone just because of a predisposition. Alex |
Glenmore
Thank you somuch for the link to the Post's article. Excellent read and a powerful argument for removing Saddam.
Again, thanks. |
isn't it true that france is the country with the biggest investment in iraq? they have a number of huge projects going on over there some of which do not have signed contracts:(
and maybe they are hard headed... |
JSmith,
Yes, they are the largest exporter of goods in to Iraq and one of the largest oil patrons. There are definitely political motives behind what they are doing. Alex |
Quote:
Mike |
Quote:
Mike |
Quote:
The US is NOT alone in out position (read post above), but if we were to be...so be it. We are still within our right to defend our country and our interests. Mike |
Quote:
Cooperation CAN happen overnight, and should have. He has been UN-cooperative for 12 years, and continues to do so, with no hint of any intention of stopping. mike |
On our own? So what.
|
Mike, excellent article...
If we have to go at it alone, then so be it. One of America's founding principles was the notion that the rugged individualist was preferable to the mindless automaton.
In Spanish there is saying: "Mejor solo, que mal acompanado." "Better to be alone than with bad company." I just hope that when it is all said and done, that we remember those who stood next to us and that we never forget those who abandoned us. |
Mike,
That article is just pure propaganda. Any media is supposed to have a neutral point of view. This article is no more valid than what you could find from anti-war media. They probably claim the return of Elvis on page 2... B-S redneck tabloid. LGB, Since you're all that, a lawyer, and so much better than anyone else, how about answering those question one after the other using the little ref. numbers? Before making a racist anti-Swiss comment, please note that the person who asked them is not Swiss, but American, just like you. I seriously doubt that you can or will answer any of them directly. You probably are gonna try to find dirt to discredit this Mister Ron Paul, just like you did for me. That what US lawyers do. It's up to you to prove me wrong. If you can, answer them one after the other. I'm calling you out on this... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives September 10, 2002 QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war. 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat? 3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? 4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation? 5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? 6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism? 7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place? 8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds? 9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies? 10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"? 11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted? 13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country? 14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war? 15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq? 16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died? 17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States? 18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there? 19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? 20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad? 21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations? 22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? 23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president? 24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? 25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported? 26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy? 27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? 28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals? 29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted? 30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? 31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change? 32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? 33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory? 34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? 35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress? http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2...02/cr091002.htm |
Quote:
First...nowhere on that site does it say that it is a "news" site, or and unbiased source. The writer has written from the point of view that we must defend US interests, with or without help, and no neutrality was implied or required. Secondly...there is no false or misleading information in his writing...It is merely an account and evaluation of the current state of affairs, and of what he feels we must do about it. You automatically label it "propagnada" because you don't like what it says, which makes your comment irrelevant, much like many of the irrelevant questions you have asked LGB to answer. Mike |
Mike,
Yes I agree to not being objective on this subject. I just am a very peaceful man who is horrified at what's gonna happen. I understand that you feel differently. You think those questions are irrelevant, but that's because your mind is made up as well. Being able to exchange point of views is what it's all about, without having some fascist come in and attack you because of your views or the country you're from. If you truly can live with the thought of condoning the death of innocent women and children, all the best for you. I know what is right from what is wrong, the big Man above will probably know it too... And I think you should re-read questions number 12, 19 and 23 because they are VERY relevant. As other people have said, everything has a consequence. I love the USA, been there and been welcomed with open arms, I just feel terrible to see them go into a conflict which will eventually yield more violence towards the US than before... again, innocent people are gonna die because of some Buffoon, and that is just regrettable...That's all I'm saying really. You want war, I want peace... There is no but or if to add to that. I just believe that there's a price for everything and the US will have to pay that price someday. I have absolutely no fear of a terrorist attack in my country, or Europe for that matter (except for Spain and the UK...) |
Quote:
SADDAM is the buffoon here, no one else. HE can prevent ALL of this, yet he chooses to continue his lies and deceptions. I DO NOT condone the death of innocents. THAT is a huge part of the reason Saddam must go! Are you unaware of the way Saddam has been treating his own people for decades? Forget about US or any other interests for a moment...Humanitarian reasons ALONE are enough justification for removing him. He has imprisoned, tortured, and slaughtered more of his own than will ever be counted! We are not going there to attack innocent Iraqis! We are going there to LIBERATE them from HIM! This diplomatic dance that we're enduring for the benefit of the UN is pointless. No intelligent person can possibly think it is still going to work after all these years! We are beating a dead, rotting skeleton of a horse with this "diplomacy". Saddam has no intention of relenting--ever. I know it, you know it, and everyone else knows it. If all the anti-war protesters were TRULY anti-war, and TRULY cared about the plight of the innocent Iraqi people, they would be protesting against SADDAM at LEAST as much as they protest against the US! You hear NOTHING of any protesters finding fault in ANYTHING Saddam has done. It's as if WE are the bad guy, and HE has done nothing wrong! It is possibly the most backwards, uninformed, misled situation I have witnessed in my lifetime. HE started this mess more than 12 years ago...We should have finished him them, we MUST finish him now. Mike |
A fascinating glimpse into the mindset during the Cuban Crisis:
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/031403/031403r.htm The money quote: "My main reason for opposing war was that I believed that Saddam was deterred from using weapons of mass destruction as both the United States and Soviets were deterred during the Cold War. However, in reviewing the 1962 Cuba crisis, I found that when the United States was putting pressure on the Soviets to remove their missiles from Cuba in 1962, Castro was screaming at Moscow to launch a nuclear attack on the United States from Cuba -- even though Castro knew that Cuba would have faced destruction from the U.S. response. This unnerved Khrushchev because he knew the conflict would then probably escalate to full-scale nuclear war. Khrushchev was perfectly willing to threaten to use nuclear weapons but was constrained from using them; Castro, however, would not have been so constrained had he had them. " |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Manu
how about answering those question one after the other using the little ref. numbers? I am just your typical conservative knucklehead, far from articulate, but even I can easily refute all these arguments. But why should I? As if you would change your mind? When I find the time, I'll take on the most egregious arguments. Don't try and hide behind the "I'm for peace" banner, you are pure and simply anti-American and anti-Bush. |
"If all the anti-war protesters were TRULY anti-war, and TRULY cared about the plight of the innocent Iraqi people, they would be protesting against SADDAM at LEAST as much as they protest against the US! You hear NOTHING of any protesters finding fault in ANYTHING Saddam has done. It's as if WE are the bad guy, and HE has done nothing wrong! It is possibly the most backwards, uninformed, misled situation I have witnessed in my lifetime. HE started this mess more than 12 years ago...We should have finished him them, we MUST finish him now.W
Where do you see me condone the actions of Saddam? I am definitely in favor of his elimination. I just happen to believe that this can be done without prejudice to his people. Don't tell me that the US can't just send some Super-Hardcore Gi-Joe commando squad and eliminate him without fuss...And I'm sorry to say but the people you are going to "save" don't seem as enthusiastic as you make it sound. Maybe they know better. What happened to the 300'000 Irakis who helped the allies during the first war but were cowardly abandoned by those same allies and massacred? Where's your guarantee that this won't happen again? Again, while responding to this, please re-read question Number 23 and answer it please. Why Iraq and not Pakistan, for example.???..And what about Staline? He murdered millions of people yet he is still loved and missed and honored back in Russia. Look at Pinochet, look at Castro, being a dictator doesn't mean that all or the majority of the inhabitants of the country are against it... And why do you feel that the US is qualified to decide who is best to lead another country's government? I think this is typically something which should be left to the UN. Or do you just think that the US is better than the entire rest of the world, and the only organisation which allows the opinion of every country in the world to be heard? Basically this allows to push for democracy, while condoning unilateralism, or the law of the bully... |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website