Author Topic: The French Were Right (Read 17041 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #30 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:01:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Well I see we're still very far from agreeing to almost anything Hortlund. Same old same old I guess. Time will tell.

hehe yeah

mars01 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:07:15 PM »

GRUNHERZ your not even worth replying to, if you act like that. So I'll act in kind so maybe you wont reply *). There were many more atrocities carried out in history for less. So you go back to bl@wing Bush under the desk and then you can Bl@w me. PS get some on you dress and you will have a case later.

Id like to believe that Muck, not sure what it has to do with Clinton, except that he inherited it from Bush's dad. There is very little to gain for the American people with this war and it all hinged on the fact that he had the ability to devistate the USA with some type of WMD. The inspectors were there, they couldn't find anything. All our great satelite imagery etc. and we have nothing. Take North Korea, we know they have and are producing WMD but yet they are barely a blip on the radar.

I dont think he is on the take I merely am asking the questions. It is undeniable the amount of money US companies are making. Do you really think it had nothing to do with it.

I think the cost to the average American is far superior to the very small gain if any of security. There on the other hand are a very small few, who obviousely gained a great deal at a huge cost to every American.

I agreed with the war on the basis that Saddam had verifiable WMDs, without that I would have been against it.

maslo · « **Reply #32 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:07:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Were they right to continue to sell weapons to Iraq after Gulf War I?

why they should not sell convetial weapons to iraq ?

Cerceuilvolant · « **Reply #33 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:08:52 PM »

Grunherz:

Quote

Unlike the French in algeria who were racist imperialists bent on domination

Grunherz:

Quote

natually (as with most things french) they failed

Poor Grunerdz... I wish you had the opportunity to read books, have debates or go to the university. You recall me one of these commies puking on the fascists, saying that they oppress the working class and so on: different shape, same background. You're closer to an antisemitic islamist, as a francophobic rascist, you're using the same rhetoric.

muckmaw · « **Reply #34 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:09:11 PM »

WOW!

Hotlund out-Gunherzed Grunherz!

Where do I send the fan mail?

BTW, if the world has not already realized it, you cannot appease terrorists. They want you dead, unless you are exactly like them.

Anyone feel like converting to radical islam?

Unless the answer is yes, they want to kill you.

Hortlund · « **Reply #35 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:09:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by maslo
why they should not sell convetial weapons to iraq ?

Wasnt it illegal and in violation of several UN resolutions?

maslo · « **Reply #36 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:10:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
We've not found and WMD's yet, and we may never. IIRC correctly, this was one of 4 reasons we invaded Iraq and not the sole reason.

and those 3 other reasons are ?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #37 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:12:19 PM »

Quote

You're closer to an antisemitic islamist, as a francophobic rascist, you're using the same rhetoric.

How is that?

Hortlund · « **Reply #38 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:13:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mars01
GRUNHERZ your not even worth replying to, if you act like that. So I'll act in kind so maybe you wont reply *). There were many more atrocities carried out in history for less. So you go back to bl@wing Bush under the desk and then you can Bl@w me. PS get some on you dress and you will have a case later.

Careful Grunherz, I think this one has a thing for you.

mars01, I think you might be looking for "Dowding" in case you are looking for oral sex with men. He admitted to being homosexual a while ago.

Kieran · « **Reply #39 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:15:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Post proofs.

And not the Roland 3 affair that was a hoax, nor the F1 spare parts that was a hoax, not the propellant stuff for the iraqi missiles that was prooved to be an hoax too.

Thank you, have a nice day.

Now before I go through the effort (and not much) of proving you wrong, let me make sure I am clear; you are saying France did not sell weapons or weapons-related technology to Iraq between 1991-2003? Are you SURE you want to stand by that?

We'll see whose day is nice in the end.

I'll give you a little hint... France wanted and needed Iraqi oil. What did France have that Iraq needed?

maslo · « **Reply #40 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:15:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw

I love the way the get all superior and start speaking in French. Too bad that language is only useful in France, Quebec, and crappy restaurants.

to ze se dement a jinak se nedomluvis, za to ti nikdo nemuze.

taky se francouzsky domluvis ve Svicarsku, Madagaskaru, Nove guineji,Nigerii, pulce africe

and its second world diplomatic language my dear ignorant

Cerceuilvolant · « **Reply #41 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:16:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
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.

You need to learn to read.

As for surrendering to the terrorist, if Grunerdz & so on insult the memory of the french people who died to the terrorist, then can I go piss on the 9/11 memorial? According to that logic, I would theorically ve allowed to do so.

As for all that surrender rhetoric, hehe, then I'd say that the wank... errh yankees are even more cowards, after all, they lost just 300 000 men in 3 years, while the French lost 120 000 in six weeks.

And pleeeease, Hortlund, don't make me troll by talking on how Sweden surrendered to Germany during the last two world wars to stay out of the big business... (well, aside of the ore it sold to make german guns

)

Kieran · « **Reply #42 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:16:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Wasnt it illegal and in violation of several UN resolutions?

I would think so. Iraq was still under sanctions in that time frame.

muckmaw · « **Reply #43 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:18:26 PM »

My point with Clinton, mars, is that he DID lie. He knew he got a BJ from Monica and Denied it. Thats a lie. Bush..did he know there are NO WMDs....I don't think so.

Think about it. If you make a bold statement, and KNOW that your going to invade Iraq and KNOW your going to carpet the place looking for WMDs and KNOW the world will be watching...would you make WMDs the lynchpin of the reasoning unless you were DAMN sure they were there?

Ridiculous tangent time:

The Pope is a liar. He told me there is God, but no one has been able to prove He exists! LIAR!!!

Now tell me what Bush needs crony money for? He is rich. He is powerful. He could have spent the rest of his life Binge drinking and living off his Dads money.

So according to your thinking, he decided to invade Iraq to enrich himself, and these companies. Why? To get more support for the '04 election? This war was a sure fire way to lose the presidency before the first body bag came home. Any political strategist could tell him that. Look at the numbers before the war...50-50 split over the war.

So, why would you commit political suicide for a war if your already rich, and if engaging in this battle will lose you 50% of the vote? Answer me that.

You know what I think. Because Bush believes what he is doing is the right thing for America. Whether or not he is correct, we shall see, but I believe he is doing what he thinks is right for our country, not himself.

Cerceuilvolant · « **Reply #44 on:** November 25, 2003, 08:21:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran

I'll give you a little hint... France wanted and needed Iraqi oil. What did France have that Iraq needed?

read that:

Quote

No more persuasive is the widely voiced (in the U.S.) argument that the French were defending wide-reaching and profitable commercial relationships with Saddam's regime. The truth is that France enjoyed minor economic ties with Saddam. Under the United Nations' now-defunct Oil for Food program with Saddam's Iraq, the French were only the 13th-largest participant. The U.S. under that program bought more than 50 percent of Iraq's total oil exports, the French 8 percent.

From the article posted above.

What I know, it's that the US troops secured immediately the iraqi oil ministery, while the Baghdad antiquities were being plundered, and that the archeological sites are STILL being plundered.