Why France, Germany and Russia are pissed about Iraq

[Fishu]

Originally posted by anonymous
so let me get this straight. its not enough that we spend more money on other countries every year than anyone else. were in the dog house because our percentage of gnp isnt also the highest? you need to be an ex wife instructor.

Well.. let's put it this way...

Theres Average Joe and Rich Joe.
Average Joe in this example earns $2000 in a month and Rich Joe earns $7000 in a month.

Average Joe donates 7 dollars to aid, which is roughly 0.35% of his monthly income.
Rich Joe donates 10 dollars to aid, which is roughly 0.14% of his monthly income.
Average Joe now has 99.65% to spend on other things, while Rich Joe still has 99.86% to spend on other things.
Therefor for Rich Joe the impact is not as big as for Average Joe.


So simply said..  the USA has more people than most of the countries and naturally has more money and therefore its less bigger impact for them to pay 20 million than for some other country with less people.
Why should smaller countries pay 0.30% of their GNP, if USA doesn't?
For the smaller countries lesser sums are a bigger deal.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by AKIron
Well, guess most of us are guilty of generalizing from time to time. In my post I meant specifically what I said.

Here's my bottom line:

Even if Bush had doubts about his intelligence, ousting Saddam was the still the right thing to do for two reasons:

1. Even if Saddam didn't have the weapons as suspected, he would have rebuilt them at the first opportunity and had already proven himself an aggressor and willing to use whatever weapons he had.

2.  He sorely oppressed the Iraqi people. America has gone to war on many occasions for this reason.

and my thoughts of it are:

1. USA didn't care about Saddam warring Iran and gassing them - USA did use the veto right in UN to save Saddam from Iran's complaint of the use of WMD.

2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US diplomats acted in a way as if it was OK -> Saddam invaded Kuwait and USA declared war on Iraq. (thats something which I find interesting, raises questions whether Saddam would have attacked had the US diplomats acted in a way that its not OK)
WMD becomes a bad bad bad thing... had something to do with the fear of it raining on the US troops and israelis instead?

3. Many times I hear badmouthing of UN's incapability, but all the while USA is every once in a while vetoing in UN for Israel's benefit.
Many other countries sees Israelis as the oppressors in palestine.


So alot of things seems like simple excuses, whatever fits for the current political climate.

Guantanamo prison is perhaps the most obvious example of it: US Goverment thinks it's OK if their lawyers have found enough holes in the laws and excuses its presence based on that, regardless what the other countries and organizations thinks of their lawyers achievements.
However it's a big deal if some unfavored country does something alike - they WILL find a way to turn it illegal and what not.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Fishu
and my thoughts of it are:

1. USA didn't care about Saddam warring Iran and gassing them - USA did use the veto right in UN to save Saddam from Iran's complaint of the use of WMD.

2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US diplomats acted in a way as if it was OK -> Saddam invaded Kuwait and USA declared war on Iraq. (thats something which I find interesting, raises questions whether Saddam would have attacked had the US diplomats acted in a way that its not OK)
WMD becomes a bad bad bad thing... had something to do with the fear of it raining on the US troops and israelis instead?

3. Many times I hear badmouthing of UN's incapability, but all the while USA is every once in a while vetoing in UN for Israel's benefit.
Many other countries sees Israelis as the oppressors in palestine.


So alot of things seems like simple excuses, whatever fits for the current political climate.

Guantanamo prison is perhaps the most obvious example of it: US Goverment thinks it's OK if their lawyers have found enough holes in the laws and excuses its presence based on that, regardless what the other countries and organizations thinks of their lawyers achievements.
However it's a big deal if some unfavored country does something alike - they WILL find a way to turn it illegal and what not.

1. I can't find it here Fishu: http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

What resolution are you referring to?

[-dead-]

Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe a few Americans were mixed up in this scandal. However, they did not influence their country to avoid ousting this dangerous and murderous dictator. There is a pretty significant difference between having a few criminals as citizens with no influence over their government versus countries that balked at removing this genocidal maniac for profit. I know some of you are so blinded by your hate for America that you will refuse to see this.

And maybe the same is true for the other countries - maybe a few individuals and companies had no influence over their government's policies either.

Perhaps the other countries just felt that there wasn't enough evidence of WMDs or rearming to justify an invasion. Because the issue in front of the UN was not whether or not Hussein was a bad man, it was whether Iraq had disarmed or not.  If the US wanted to make it about Hussein being a bad man, they should have introduced a resolution along those lines to the UNSC. They didn't, so the countries have to go on the issue at hand - WMDs. They said there wasn't enough evidence of them to invade, and they were right.

[Torque]

"He sorely oppressed the Iraqi people. America on has gone to war on many occasions for this reason."

Can you point out all those other occasions Iron,  Cuz the more i look into American post WWII policies regarding countries like Iran, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, East Timor and Indonesian just to name a few, the exact opposite seems to be true.

[AKIron]

I'll grant you the possibility that governments weren't influenced to keep Saddam in power for the money, time may reveal otherwise.

A significant issue before the UN was cooperation to which Saddam had agreed and yet refused for many years. If for no other reason he should have been removed so the UN could maintain some semblance of functionality.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Torque
"He sorely oppressed the Iraqi people. America on has gone to war on many occasions for this reason."

Can you point out all those other occasions Iron,  Cuz the more i look into American post WWII policies regarding countries like Iran, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, East Timor and Indonesian just to name a few, the exact opposite seems to be true.

If I had the energy I could argue that our involvement in the very places you have listed were for the sake of democracy which most of us view as liberating.

[Torque]

I'll make it easy for you Iron pick the first country Iran, knock yourself out chasing your own tail.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Torque
"He sorely oppressed the Iraqi people. America on has gone to war on many occasions for this reason."

Can you point out all those other occasions Iron,  Cuz the more i look into American post WWII policies regarding countries like Iran, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, East Timor and Indonesian just to name a few, the exact opposite seems to be true.

yeah all those places it was us trying to opress the natives. no involvement by any-cough-communist countries in any instance. nosiree. and even if the commies were trying to put up their own govt everyone knows that at worst communism no more evil than democratic republic.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by GScholz
Just give up Fishu, they understand perfectly ... they're just being stunninghunks.

yeah we dont agree with him. how dare us. americans should just learn to not have an educated opinion so others can keep the walls to their fantasy world intact.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Torque
"He sorely oppressed the Iraqi people. America on has gone to war on many occasions for this reason."

Can you point out all those other occasions Iron,  Cuz the more i look into American post WWII policies regarding countries like Iran, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, East Timor and Indonesian just to name a few, the exact opposite seems to be true.

since your looking appears to be in all the wrong places let me start you out down a less indoctinated path. what countries were backing the sandinistas? what other countries were conducting covert and clandestine operations in and around congo? are you seriously trying to say that the only country to interfere in other parts of the world on its own behalf is the us? do you really think that every country with any type of intelligence service has not been doing these things for the last couple hundred years at least? id say your naive or your hatred of america above all else is showing.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by anonymous
yeah we dont agree with him. how dare us. americans should just learn to not have an educated opinion so others can keep the walls to their fantasy world intact.

Mister Aryan speaking I see

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Fishu
Mister Aryan speaking I see

uhm okay. didnt get that one. youre too smart for me now get back to the nuclear reactor and continue with your experiments.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by anonymous
uhm okay. didnt get that one. youre too smart for me now get back to the nuclear reactor and continue with your experiments.

Well..  just had a though of you thinking of yourself as better person and better educated than the foreigners, who live in the fantasy world.. which reminded me of the aryans.

Which was also powered by this what you said: "id say your naive or your hatred of america above all else is showing." - they're out to get us!

For better educated person, you don't seem to have much insight into the foreign cultures or politics.
But that isn't a big surprise... the other world gets news of US politics every day, while in US people could care less of the foreign politics, unless it has something to do with them.

[straffo]

Originally posted by anonymous
educate me oh great one.

1.were the vichy french leaders frenchmen or germans?
1a.did the vichy french leaders round up jews?
2.did wilson speak out against versaille treaty?
3.whats your point about fdr and vichy govt? if vichy govt is ruling power in france is it better for statesman to recognize it or ignore it? degaulle and free french were capable of responsible for absolutely nothing at time fdr recognize vichy no? and while youre talking about free french who equipped them and delivered them to france to "liberate" their own country? was it the evil us again?

your soldiers are top notch worked with them many times. your govt and political leaders almost always have been useless and your own worst enemy. commies in french govt did best not to give your army fighting chance against germans. then withdraw from nato. then protect genocidal scum in bosnia because they killing the muslims that gave you such a hard time in algeria. then against deposing hussein over your precious contacts in hussein govt. and you have the gall to come here and act like us is evil. heres a tip us hasnt been around long enough to get even close to france and others in the race for evil govt points. dont be mad at me because your own frenchmen collaborated with genocidal nazis. be mad at them.

Please document yourself next time ....

I'll give you some insight anyway :

1.corrupted Frenchman who believed Germany will be the next superpower and "flip flipped" like fishes ...
1a. they did help the Gestapo like the *****es they were.
2. yes an so ?
3. FDR supported 1st Vichy, an illegal and illegitimate governement
Next recognizing his error he played some political stunt , supported Darlan and next played the Giraud card to get ride of De Gaulle (essencially because of personal reason).
Meanwhile Churchill recognized the legitimacy of De Gaulle years before.
The free french were equipped by the English not the US.
It's exact anyway the USA provided lot of equipement  after the invasion of N. Africa and the renaissance of the French army

concerning the act of our different governement (and especially algeria and Bosnia , I can't disagree...)

commies in french govt did best not to give your army fighting chance against germans. then withdraw from nato.

Plain wrong it's not the commie that made France leave NATO.

dont be mad at me because your own frenchmen collaborated with genocidal nazis. be mad at them.

I'm mad at them , but you should know it's a grey area some fought the German other collaborated, in my own familly we had the 2 sides of this coin for reasons I'll not post here (mostly the collaborator where weak minded and misled).