Author Topic: The French Were Right (Read 15926 times)

mars01 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 25, 2003, 06:36:26 PM »

Yeah,

The war with Iraq - If Saddam did harbor WMD and was a credible threat then we were right to take him down. So far no proof as of yet, nor much to say he was harboring Terrorist on a mass scale.

Quote

Originally posted by: Muck
Most importantly, though, we've sent a message. If you harbor terrorism, or sponsor it, you will face our wrath.

I disagree with this. If we were going after all harborers of terrorism we'd be hitting Iran, Syria and Somalia because they are harboring terrorism as much as Saddam was. All we did was make them change countries and drive them further under ground.

I agree we had to dismantle the Taliban in Afganistan. They far and away promoted more terrorism than the aforementioned.

So why am I pissed about Iraq -

1. Bush lied and our boys are dieing for his war. We are no safer because of Iraq than we were 9-11-1. But he and his cronies are much richer.

2. Has anyone tried to buy a sheet of plywood lately. Wonder why it has become so expensive? Because of all the materials being sent over to rebuild Iraq. Building materials are 30% more expensive and it is directly contributable to Iraq. Have we seen oil prices drop? Nope! Not to mention the every day costs of fighting a continuing war. Our children's children will be paying for this one long after we are gone.

3. Doesn't it make you sick to know that companies like Hal Burton (Dick Cheny's) is going to make Billions rebuilding Iraq. Not to mention others ie. Bush Senior's. Makes the lack of WMDs and real terrorism threat very fishy.

4. The French and Germans should be pissed they were making money on a corrupt dictator and that has stopped because we decided we should occupy Iraq under the guise of terroism. If Iraq was such a threat Why didn't Bush Senior take him down the first time. I am not saying that the Germans and French were right but they are no more wrong than we are trading with China.

So Bush fked us were in, So I Say we must support our boys and finish the job. But I am potato peelin pissed about it. The only message we sent is if we can exploit you under the guise of terrorism we will. I feel sorry for the guys out there getting slaughtered every day. What are they really fighting for, besides thier life.

muckmaw · « **Reply #16 on:** November 25, 2003, 06:54:26 PM »

Disagree Mars...

1) Bush did not lie. Clinton Lied. I believe Bush was misinformed and though the buck stops with him, did not intentionally lie. If he had such a lack of integrity, why not just plant the WMD's in Iraq and say "Hey, I told you"? And don't tell me we can't make that happen.

3) Your telling me a guy who's worth a fortune needs to commit political suicide to drive his stock price up another 10%? Come on. There are plenty of more lucritive ways to be on the take as president, and much more discreet.

Should we go after Iran, Syria and Somalia? Sure, but let's take this one at a time. Notice how Syria and Iran have fallen into line since Iraq? There is cooperation that never existed before. Perhaps we don't need to fight everyone who harbors a terrorist. Perhaps Iraq and Afghanistan were the examples we needed to set.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #17 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:02:33 PM »

So you are saying a multimillionaire with enormous power and ability to affect the economy (he is president of USA) would find starting a war the best way to enrich his friends?

This is about as intelligeng an argument as the post 911 conspiracies that bush alloewd the WTC attacks to occur so he could enrich (somehow...) his evil oil industry buddies. Yea I bet the oil industry simply loved the drop in demand for oil( airline indutry near collapse and less car travel due to terror fear) and higher crude prices (you see the evil oil companies need to buy the stuff - if crude costs a bunch more they gotta charge more at pump - and a higher price at pump means people buy less gas which means less sales and less profit for the evil oil companes) and mid east instability ( where the oil is, doh) on account of 911. They were rolling in dough after 911, best thing ever for the oil biz!

Some of you Bush haters are plain stupid, no other words describe you better - so again let me say...

[SIZE=20]PLAIN STUPID [/SIZE]

Or is it that you expect most people are so stupid to belive you?

Curval · « **Reply #18 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:05:12 PM »

If I was French I'd be feeling pretty chuffed about the fact that they do appear to have been correct in their assessment of the Iraqi situation.

I for one was highly critical of the French in the lead-up to the invasion.

Crow doesn't taste very good, but I'll eat it when I deserve to.

Ouaibe · « **Reply #19 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:06:01 PM »

I'd like to know how many of you have read the article to the end.

I havn't done a comment nor will do one. I don't think this article or type of post will change your mind as i haven't change mine reading your post / sources.

I was just happy to find a different way to analyse the situation and wanted to share it with you.

Now fight as long as you want, it won't change a damn thing of what happens down there, i'm pretty sure that no one from the 'White House' nor the 'Elysée' had, have read this board...

[Edited for spelling]

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #20 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:16:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
France surrendered to Saddam a long time ago, it's no wonder they were so in awe of him and still are..

Actually my offhand sarcastic remark wasnt that far off the mark - the whole article is based on the French defeat (was there every doubt about this being part of it) in Algeria. You see the French were trying to opress, terrorize and subjegate an entire poulation - natually (as with most things french) they failed. Curiously they did this in the 1960s after supposedly suffering the horrors of ww2 and ww1 and having learned that war is bad ans immoral.

So no the French arent right, they may have got their butts handed to them in Algeria bbut we arent trying to supress the iraqi people or colonize their country. Unlike the French in algeria who were racist imperialists bent on domination we are simply coming in and deposing a hated murdering despot. The resisatance is from the usual terorists and saddam loyalits who now have turened again to their hobby of murdeing iraqi innocents and terrorizing patritic iraqis who wish to rebuild their nation with US help.

So no as usual the french are wrong, they operated in algeria as imperialist subjegators and they made a polular revol agains them. In Iraq there is no such thing - its just saddam fanatics and islamic terorists.

So Curval dont be taken in with this idiotic french propaganda, spit out that crap in your mouth and stand proud,

Hortlund · « **Reply #21 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:24:01 PM »

%¤# Frogs...

Hortlund · « **Reply #22 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:29:39 PM »

LOL I was gonna say something about surrendering, but I thought better of it. This quote from that article speaks for itself:

"In their first stab at constructing a policy to deal with the strange new threat of Islamic terrorism, the French adopted a policy of appeasement -- an approach that included tacit permission for globally oriented terrorist groups to use French soil as a base, so long as the groups did not make France itself a target."

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #23 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:30:41 PM »

Yeaa GScholz ever the eager french apologist...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #24 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:32:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL I was gonna say something about surrendering, but I thought better of it. This quote from that article speaks for itself:

"In their first stab at constructing a policy to deal with the strange new threat of Islamic terrorism, the French adopted a policy of appeasement -- an approach that included tacit permission for globally oriented terrorist groups to use French soil as a base, so long as the groups did not make France itself a target."

And this is a pro france article? Is French military and diplomatic history so poor that even a propaganda aricle cannot do better than to post that little tidbit?

Hortlund · « **Reply #25 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:34:53 PM »

The sad part is that its true.

Unbelievable.

I mean look at this (from the same article) :

"The French were among the first to note that terrorism was a global movement," he said. But before they came to this realization, they floundered. In the 1980s, a wave of bombings struck Paris targets, including department stores and subways. Not only were the French unable to prevent these attacks, they were also clueless about the perpetrators and motives. At first they thought that domestic neo-Nazi militants were behind an assault on a synagogue in a wealthy section of Paris. Only belatedly did they realize that responsibility lay with terrorists from the Middle East.

The French had descended to this low point through their adoption of what Shapiro calls the "sanctuary doctrine" -- a morally repugnant effort to isolate France from international terrorism by taking a neutral stance toward global terrorist groups. The idea was to give the terrorists no reason to attack France. (Better they hit someone else.)

It didn't work. Other countries actively battling terrorism, such as Spain and Israel, were understandably outraged that France was sheltering their enemies. Some splinter terrorist bands failed to recognize France as a "sanctuary" and targeted French interests anyway. And amid the Paris attacks, the French public demanded a get-tough approach.

Hortlund · « **Reply #26 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:43:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
So they do have more experience with terrorism.

Wow...I'd say you managed to miss the point with about a mile.

Yes, they do have experience with terrorism, and their weapon of choise in dealing with it was surrendering to the terrorists. Did you read the parts I quoted?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #27 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:44:49 PM »

If you call surrendering to terrorists at every step "experience" then yes they do.

Oh yea, lets ask New Zealanders what they think about france and terrorism...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #28 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:50:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Naw, I missed your point by more than a mile I'd say, but intentionally. I'm no fan of French foreign policy, they are self centered, arrogant and don't give a crap about anyone but themselves. However they do have more experience with terrorism and occupation, and they were right in their analysis on the situation. Like it or not.

Analisys of their situation in Algeria maybe. But Iraq in 2003 is not 1960s Algeria, not by a bunch of miles...

Hortlund · « **Reply #29 on:** November 25, 2003, 07:54:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
they do have more experience with terrorism and occupation, and they were right in their analysis on the situation.

I disagree with both these statements.

Yes, they have more experience with occupation, but that comes with the territory when surrendering in a war.

But no, they do not have more experience with terrorism, unless you want to define exactly what you mean with "more experience". Have they endured more attacks than the US? Have they been attacked by terrorists for a longer period in time? What do you mean when you say that?

And they were oh-so-definitively-NOT right in their "analysis of the situation" in Iraq.