Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Imp on April 26, 2003, 11:10:20 AM
-
1. Why France is facing US sanction for not joining the coalition of the "Willing"?
If they take actions against France then they are coercing them to do what they want. Thats against youre country's constitution which gives every man the right to his opinions and to choose what he wants to do without anyone pressuring him.
Why arent the French given that right? (I know they arent american citizens.)
2. What gives President Bush the right to make other countries do what he wants them to do by force?
3. Why arent Germany, Russia and other countries who didnt join getting the same treatment.
You guys claim to be for freedom but you dont give the freedom to choose to your allies.
Thats sounds hypocritical from where I sit.
Just something to think about. You can disagree you you want just please dont post personnal attacks (they will be ignored or ridiculed).
-
we do it because the zenophobic french are fun to pick on.
-
1) You are confusing your right to freedom of speech with freedom from responsibility for that speech. To suggest that France should maintain a "most favored nation" status in light of its opposition to the goals of America is to suggest you should bear no responsibility for the decisions you make as a nation.
2) It's generally established GWB started a precedent with the Iraqi invasion. However, Saddam Hussien was a brutal dictator who had to go, in the opinion of the vast majority of America. Agree or disagree, I'm personally glad America is the dominant military power in the world today. Who would you prefer the dominant military power to be- Russia? France? China? Germany, again?
3) What exactly has America done to France on an official basis? Have we instituted trade sanctions? For that matter, what the hell do we owe you? Nothing. If Americans choose not to buy French products or visit Paris then that's OUR freedom of choice. You have proven yourselves to be Anti American in the opinions of many Americans- why should we allow you to benefit off our dollars?
-
On 3 particularly, while Germany's hands are even dirtier than france's in the "support Saddam for oil" axis, it was France that stated it would outright veto any resolution.
Germany is given somewhat of a pass because given their history a reluctance to use military force is understandable (I guess it should be understandable in France's case too, just for different reasons).
Russia firstly is only recently on warm terms with the west, so we don't hold them to as high a standard we would 'old friends.' Secondly, they have not mixed words about the reasons they are reluctant to remove Saddam, they at least readily admit it's oil.
-
i.e. we have childish vindictive propagandists running our government. personally cant wait till they are gone.
alot of Americans dont approve of the war and wont be labeled traitors or whatever the new age facsists are labeling dissent this week. how they got to power is another long fought thing but one thing is for sure more Americans wanted the other guy, keep that in mind.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
i.e. we have childish vindictive propagandists running our government. personally cant wait till they are gone.
alot of Americans dont approve of the war and wont be labeled traitors or whatever the new age facsists are labeling dissent this week. how they got to power is another long fought thing but one thing is for sure more Americans wanted the other guy, keep that in mind.
Choosing the wrong horse and having the inconsistencies of your noisy minority revealed really irritates ya huh.
-
Originally posted by Imp
1. Why France is facing US sanction for not joining the coalition of the "Willing"?
If they take actions against France then they are coercing them to do what they want. Thats against youre country's constitution which gives every man the right to his opinions and to choose what he wants to do without anyone pressuring him.
Why arent the French given that right? (I know they arent american citizens.)
2. What gives President Bush the right to make other countries do what he wants them to do by force?
3. Why arent Germany, Russia and other countries who didnt join getting the same treatment.
You guys claim to be for freedom but you dont give the freedom to choose to your allies.
Thats sounds hypocritical from where I sit.
Just something to think about. You can disagree you you want just please dont post personnal attacks (they will be ignored or ridiculed).
1) Because the French roll over and play dead more times than Rin Tin Tin. It's just fun to watch them.
2) See answer 1
3) They might actually fight back.
-
Regards to #1. France, if they are punished, wll be punished not for refusing to join the coalition, but for their overt actions to thwart the U.S. in the UN.
You can ignore Dorf Vader, his voice is that of the uninformed few who simply need osmething to cry about. His comments are not based inanything approaching fact.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
1) You are confusing your right to freedom of speech with freedom from responsibility for that speech. To suggest that France should maintain a "most favored nation" status in light of its opposition to the goals of America is to suggest you should bear no responsibility for the decisions you make as a nation.
2) It's generally established GWB started a precedent with the Iraqi invasion. However, Saddam Hussien was a brutal dictator who had to go, in the opinion of the vast majority of America. Agree or disagree, I'm personally glad America is the dominant military power in the world today. Who would you prefer the dominant military power to be- Russia? France? China? Germany, again?
3) What exactly has America done to France on an official basis? Have we instituted trade sanctions? For that matter, what the hell do we owe you? Nothing. If Americans choose not to buy French products or visit Paris then that's OUR freedom of choice. You have proven yourselves to be Anti American in the opinions of many Americans- why should we allow you to benefit off our dollars?
1. Im not saying you should like them, im saying you have no right
to put sanctions on them for deciding not to join. They are a democracy, they can choose what they want to do. No country as any right to tell them what they should do. Thats what democracy is all about, FREEDOM. Freedom to choose religion, to have opinion of your own without anyone pressuring you. If the US uses sanction against France then they are pressuring them to not go against them in the future. Its like a bully that takes your lunch money in school, only alot bigger.
2. I never said I liked Saddam, im glad hes gone. I dont care for dominant power much, I prefer equality. Dominance tends to make one arrogant.
3. Powell stated in an interview that France would face sanction.
Hes america's chief diplomat, so he knows.
Steve
Thats not right either since the French have the right to veto if they want to. UN gave them that right, now you got to respect it, plain and simple. Even if you dont like it. I dont like how veto works, but you dont see me complaining about it everywhere.
France should have to right to choose there own path just like US as. You cant say we are for freedom and then sanction someone for using that freedom. Its hypocritical.
If I came to these boards and said someone was a cheater for doing something, and someone showed proof I was doing the same, youd probably call me hypocritical. Thats basically what im saying.
-
Originally posted by Imp
3. Powell stated in an interview that France would face sanction.
Hes america's chief diplomat, so he knows.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has warned that France will face consequences for having opposed the United States over war in Iraq.
consequences are not sanctions.
-
Originally posted by Imp
1. Why France is facing US sanction for not joining the coalition of the "Willing"?
If they take actions against France then they are coercing them to do what they want. Thats against youre country's constitution which gives every man the right to his opinions and to choose what he wants to do without anyone pressuring him.
Why arent the French given that right? (I know they arent american citizens.)
2. What gives President Bush the right to make other countries do what he wants them to do by force?
3. Why arent Germany, Russia and other countries who didnt join getting the same treatment.
You guys claim to be for freedom but you dont give the freedom to choose to your allies.
Thats sounds hypocritical from where I sit.
Just something to think about. You can disagree you you want just please dont post personnal attacks (they will be ignored or ridiculed).
1. France didn't just dissagree with the coalition, they activley campained to undermine it, which is their right to do . America also has a right to choose who it does business with. What's your point exactly?
2. What is America forcing France to do?
3. Because it was France that was sending diplomats to other countries trying to get them to undermine the coalition.
-
real simple..
We are free to buy what we want...
We have chosen to send France a message..FU..you are dirtbag scum with no morals or guts.
You are greedy little batsards that want the sun to always shine on you..guess what...
I am an American...The majority of my friends and family are American.. We will not buy French stuff anymore..
Very Simple..And I see it is working...Maybe next time Your Gov wont side with money and the pompous attaitude you have towards our Country..
And whats funny is you guys have had this attitude well before this War...Common knowledge That there is a large group of French citizens that treat Americans with Disdain...
I think its disgusting and will never spend money on France..----EXCEPt to visit our fallen soldiers and to tour Military -Monuments to the World Wars...I will then proceed to the Eifel Tower and take a Shiitte on it...
I wont answer the rest of this stuff cause its crap..GWB is forcing other countries to go along?? LMFAo...You with USA or with Terroists..you decide..
You guys claim to be for freedom but you dont give the freedom to choose to your allies.
LMFAO..who the hell are you talking about...
Love
BiGB
Axis OF WEAZELS!!!! BURN IN HELL...YA Wheres your deals now with your Boy Soddom..LMFAo...UN..they make me sick..crawling back to table.."We want in on Iraq money"..lmfao...
-
I'm curious, at what point exactly has this percieved bullying even remotely approached Chirac's (albiet impotent) threat to block countries from EU expansion for their support of the US?
-
The current US government is "The Bunch of Evil".
They can do what they want now, blackmailing, put sanctions on other nations or just go to war with them, if they like .
Their right to do all this is the fact that US is the last superpower.
If they feel like they will squeeze all they want out of any other nation with all their WMDs and their economy.
After Soviet Union had vanished there is a power vacuum.
The right way would have been to developp international law with International Court Den Haag, an improved UN and such.
That would have been costs decades but would have been worthy.
Current US government has decided the other,- the bad way.
"Lets get as far as possible for OUR very own interests" : That is the slogan they follow. "We are the new Rom"
Bye, bye free world.
Regards Blitz
Nations of this world, get ready to learn some prettythang licking lessons :D
-
Nice list of quotes you copied all together there, but is there an answer to the question?
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Nice list of quotes you copied all together there, but is there an answer to the question?
Read again, it's all in it :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Who cares about France? Are they more important than say, Mexico or any other 3rd world nation?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Who cares about France? Are they more important than say, Mexico or any other 3rd world nation?
Mexico is devot, France dared to get cheeky against the masters of the universe, That's the difference.
Get 'em! :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
Mexico is devot, France dared to get cheeky against the masters of the universe, That's the difference.
Get 'em! :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
At least you understand who your master is
-
Originally posted by NUKE
At least you understand who your master is
Sure, i do: GOD
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Blitz, your opinions of leaders' motives is not an answer. I am merely asking for a single example of the US using bully diplomacy even remotely approaching that of the french.
Did we threaten to withdraw defense of Turkey when they refused to help us? The axis of oil did when it appeared they were going to help us.
Can you name a single action we have taken or stated we were going to take against France, Germany or Russia? Something approaching France's attempted intimidation of eastern Europe?
You have a list of what you believe the US might do. For each of those there is an example of your Axis of Saddam actually taking that action.
-
Started to consider a reply to Blitz and Dolf, but then realized it wouldnt accomplish anything.
Heres to stupidity.
-
1. Why France is facing US sanction for not joining the coalition of the "Willing"?
Many countries did not join the coalition, but France aggressively tried to interfere with the US operations both diplomatically (UN) and tactically (Turkey).
France's games in the UN made the US threat of force less effective, because Hussein could continue to hope that the war would be politically impossible for the US. And by encouraging Turkey to deny the US from staging on Turkish soil, the US had a tougher military task.
That said, I'm not aware of any formal US sanctions against France at this time.
ra
-
Blitz does the Everly Brothers
Bye bye free world.
Bye bye, happiness.
Hello, loneliness.
I think I'm a-gonna cry-y.
Bye bye, free world.
Bye bye, in my dress.
Hello, emptiness.
I feel like I could di-ie.
Bye bye, free world, goodby-ye.
There goes my bowels
What a smell - pee-ewww.
I hope you're happy.
I sure am blue.
UN gave lip service
'Til Coalition stepped in.
Goodbye to "free" world
That might have been.
Bye bye, free world.
Bye bye, happiness.
Hello, loneliness.
I think I'm a-gonna cry-y.
Bye bye, free world.
Bye bye, I'm verklempt.
Hello, emptiness.
I feel like I could di-ie.
Bye bye, free world, goodby-ye.
I'm not through complainin'.
though it's all in vain.
I'm not through a whinin'
yes I'll still complain
And here's the reason
That I'm verbose:
ain't got a real life
US bashin' is the most.
Bye bye, free world.
Bye bye, happiness.
Hello, loneliness.
I think I'm a-gonna cry-y.
Bye bye, free world.
Bye bye, pope can bless.
Hello, emptiness.
I feel like I could di-ie.
Bye bye, free world, goodby-ye.
Bye bye, free world, goodby-ye.
Bye bye, free world, goodby-ye.
(http://www.gawth.com/~desolate/dieter.jpg)
Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance![/size]
-
Originally posted by NUKE
1. France didn't just dissagree with the coalition, they activley campained to undermine it, which is their right to do . America also has a right to choose who it does business with. What's your point exactly?
2. What is America forcing France to do?
3. Because it was France that was sending diplomats to other countries trying to get them to undermine the coalition.
1. I never said you didnt have the right not to buy from france, I said you have no right to put sanctions on them for not deciding to go your way. Because they have the right to make theyre own decisions just like you do. Its call freedom.
2. They are telling the french that if they go against them, they will face consequences. So go with us or your our ennemy.
Thats what I call bullying.
3. France used there ressources to try to gain country to there cause just like the US did. By your logic the US tried to undermined France's effort for peace.
You guys put way to much emotions in this, this isnt personal. The French didnt agree with you, that happens. They have that right.
I dont believe the french did it because they hate you, thats an oversimplification. The thruth is you dont know the real reasons.
Because youre not in there heads.
Were the french wrong, I dont know.
Were the US right, I dont know.
Did the french have some selfish reason to oppose the US, maybe.
Did the US have some selfish reasons to go to war, maybe.
I dont know, and I dont claim to know. I see alot of people jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts. It sounds like a witch hunt. That makes guys who post it seem narrow minded is all im saying.
Im not accusing anyone. Im just saying this as a neutral observer.
I dont believe in pure evil or good, its all in Shades of Grey.
-
The French had/has the right to disagree with the United States.
The United States has the right to plant sanctions on France.
We are not living under the umbrella of a world government, and the U.S. does not have to answer to the U.N., or France.. and vice versa.
So what's the problem? If France doesn't want to be friends, or even freindly... fine. France shouldn't expect preferencial treatment. If France chooses to actively undermine the U.S., then France should obviously expect to recieve the same in return. Thats not bullying, it's reality. Simple really.
Fool me once.. shame on you. Fool me twice... shame on me.
-
Back up for a second, Colin Powell's remarks were in reponse to Chirac's genuinly insulting (and intended to be threatening, but ended up only being laughable) comments to eastern Europe. She's a big girl, she can handle the consequences of her actions.
There are no sanctions and there will be no sanctions, but there are diplomatic consequences for Chirac's behavior over the last year.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Blitz, your opinions of leaders' motives is not an answer. I am merely asking for a single example of the US using bully diplomacy even remotely approaching that of the french.
Did we threaten to withdraw defense of Turkey when they refused to help us? The axis of oil did when it appeared they were going to help us.
Can you name a single action we have taken or stated we were going to take against France, Germany or Russia? Something approaching France's attempted intimidation of eastern Europe?
You have a list of what you believe the US might do. For each of those there is an example of your Axis of Saddam actually taking that action.
Bush and his famous "Black Gold Team" tried to blackmail countries which dares to withstand their evil will to invade a sovereign country on several occasions.
ex. "We can take our forces out of Germany."
"We can give gouvernment orders to other countries."
I call this economical blackmailing.
ex. "Germany and France are the same level as Lybia"
"It's only old Europe talkin here"
I call this political blackmailing.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Maybe it is because Germany did not give Iraq secret briefings on what the US was thinking. I think France has made its bed. Now it is time for France to lay in it.
Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.
The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington.
One document, dated Sept. 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush.
-
So do you want a military presence in Germany, or not?
That Black Gold Team you seek I would believe is TotalFinaElf. Their contract with Iraq was more than the infamous Haliburton has ever seen in its lifetime, and far more than all US contracts in postwar Iraq will be combined, but required Saddam to stay in power to cash in on.
Please tell me who said "We can give gouvernment orders to other countries.", because that sounds remarkably like something you would make up, not an actual quote.
Again Blitz, I don't expect you to understand this because it has been explained to you many times before, but your opinion on motives behind actions are not the same as actions. I ask for examples and you put your same opinions up again but put quotes around them.
-
These reports are all lies! Just like thje lies saying some left wing anti war western politician got paid $10,000,000 by sddam hussiein.
-
Blitz, to help you out, an example of economic blackmail would be something like this.
Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."
"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."
"I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac said.
"Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to (sign the letter) when their position is really delicate. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way."
-
Fatty only the USA is evil, OK?
-
One of the more charming things done by the Iraqi regime is feeding some prisoners, feet first, into industrial shredders.
Now, I am an American, but I didn't vote for Bush and I won't vote for Bush next time, even if they run Minnie Mouse against him. But any government, France, Russia, Germany ...that passes on the opportunity to remove something like a Saddam Hussein from control over fellow humans ... well, they're not thinking clearly, are they? :)
I think most Russian, German and French citizens understand why your governments chose not to participate: They did not want to do anything that smacked of "American led." They were too concerned about national dignity to let anything get in the way.
Scroom.
curly
-
Something funny here. I don't see anti-USA french here but only anti-French US citizens...
Some of the american board users here said here that Franch are xenophobic. All i can see on this board is the opposite.
You don't know us, how can you say that we are anti-us or xenophobic ? Fox news told you so ? big deal !
The fact is that some of you come to France and actually enjoy it ! I won't put everyone on the same bag because only few of the americans board users animate the anti-french movement.
Unless we are a state of the USA, we have the rights to do what we did and we stand on it. We aren't anti-usa, we aren't pro-sadam, we just believe that war isn't the answer.
You're not agreed ? That's your right, voice it, but being unrespectful to those who voices as you do shows only your stupidity and your lack of common sense.
-
Part of the problem is the premise of the original post simply isn't true. While there may be public opinion against France (mostly due to Chirac), there are no sanctions nor were there ever going to be.
The irony is that it could be directly applied, with examples, to Chirac's treatment of countries within Europe who dared to disagree with him.
-
same old sht from hiipies..are you one? i guess so ...
we just believe that war isn't the answer.
Do you beleive there is never a good reason for war??
If you say yes...then i will group you with the rest of France that thinks US and its real Allies are wrong for kikn Soddoms prettythang$
-
Why is France facing US sanctions
It's just so much fun to abuse them....:rolleyes:
-
It's just so much fun to abuse them.... (french)
If that's not xenophobic...
-
taMAWle,
World, people, thinking isn't black and white.
I'm not hipie because i think war isn't the solution here. Do i have to pull out the definition ?
You're full of prejudice (préjugé ?), leave them and we could talk together.
-
Originally posted by Imp
1. Why France is facing US sanction for not joining the coalition of the "Willing"?
If they take actions against France then they are coercing them to do what they want. Thats against youre country's constitution which gives every man the right to his opinions and to choose what he wants to do without anyone pressuring him.
Why arent the French given that right? (I know they arent american citizens.)
2. What gives President Bush the right to make other countries do what he wants them to do by force?
3. Why arent Germany, Russia and other countries who didnt join getting the same treatment.
You guys claim to be for freedom but you dont give the freedom to choose to your allies.
Thats sounds hypocritical from where I sit.
Just something to think about. You can disagree you you want just please dont post personnal attacks (they will be ignored or ridiculed).
1) Freedom of speech also carries with it "responsibility for speech", much as the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, etc are learning now. That being said, France didn't just "not join" the coalition, it tried it's best to stop it. Both by rallying support, and threatening to use it's veto power. France did exactly what you are claiming the US is doing....coercing people to do as it wishes.
2) Bush can't, short of military action, make a country do what he wants.
3) No other country organized a group to oppose the US. They merely voiced their opinion.
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
Something funny here. I don't see anti-USA french here but only anti-French US citizens...
Some of the american board users here said here that Franch are xenophobic. All i can see on this board is the opposite.
You don't know us, how can you say that we are anti-us or xenophobic ? Fox news told you so ? big deal !
The fact is that some of you come to France and actually enjoy it ! I won't put everyone on the same bag because only few of the americans board users animate the anti-french movement.
Unless we are a state of the USA, we have the rights to do what we did and we stand on it. We aren't anti-usa, we aren't pro-sadam, we just believe that war isn't the answer.
You're not agreed ? That's your right, voice it, but being unrespectful to those who voices as you do shows only your stupidity and your lack of common sense.
We judge by what we see. Go through this board and find a single post by you, political in nature, that isn't in some way bashing the US.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
We judge by what we see. Go through this board and find a single post by you, political in nature, that isn't in some way bashing the US.
No wonder you find them "bashing the US".
You want everyone to praise the fact that US broke International laws with the war?
Your cause is as legitime as the Russian attack on Finland or Germany´s attack on Poland, their anecting of the Chez, Russias act against Hungary/Chez.
Now, show us some WMD´s, please.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
No wonder you find them "bashing the US".
You want everyone to praise the fact that US broke International laws with the war?
Your cause is as legitime as the Russian attack on Finland or Germany´s attack on Poland, their anecting of the Chez, Russias act against Hungary/Chez.
Now, show us some WMD´s, please.
Resolution 687 put limitations on weapons Iraq could possess.
Iraq did not destroy those weapons.
We continue to find them. We continue to destroy them.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Resolution 687 put limitations on weapons Iraq could possess.
Iraq did not destroy those weapons.
We continue to find them. We continue to destroy them.
as I said:
-
Originally posted by crabofix
as I said:
I realize what you said. It bears no relevance to the discussion, though.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
i.e. we have childish vindictive propagandists running our government. personally cant wait till they are gone.
alot of Americans dont approve of the war and wont be labeled traitors or whatever the new age facsists are labeling dissent this week. how they got to power is another long fought thing but one thing is for sure more Americans wanted the other guy, keep that in mind.
Just have to note, this is sterotypical...the above two paragraphs, they run hand in hand. This breed of Americans hates the administration, thus were anti-war. Its selfishness at its finest hour. Even if it is proven in time that it was a "just" war, they'll blindly follow the anti-war stance simply because of who was in power during the conflict, not because of the oppressive, deadly, world-threatening regime that existed.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Resolution 687 put limitations on weapons Iraq could possess.
Iraq did not destroy those weapons.
We continue to find them. We continue to destroy them.
I qute the Präzident of USA.
"Beware that Iraq might have destroyed thier WMD´s"
-
Originally posted by crabofix
I qute the Präzident of USA.
"Beware that Iraq might have destroyed thier WMD´s"
ROFL. You're funny too. Don't you quit your day job, either though. See? I'm interested in your welfare as well. Bork! :D
-
Originally posted by crabofix
I qute the Präzident of USA.
"Beware that Iraq might have destroyed thier WMD´s"
So? Do you have a point, or are you going to continue with your cryptic one liners.
The US saw Saddam's regime as a threat. The US took it out. If you don't like it, do something about it. You've done a lot of posting, but haven't said anything.
Are you angry because we haven't found WMD? So aren't we. 2 weeks is a little too soon to start crying foul, though. We've found labs to make them, we've found vehicles to deliver them, it's only a matter of time before we find "them". If 6 months or a year from now we still come up empty handed, then start whining. It won't cause me to believe they don't exist, though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html?ex=1051502400&en=558d236c00fc7bc9&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
-
Originally posted by Arlo
ROFL. You're funny too. Don't you quit your day job, either though. See? I'm interested in your welfare as well. Bork! :D
"Don't you quit your day job"
I already did, a long time ago, From being a Swedish Chef, to showbiz.
-
(Hits forehead with palm) Oh no! I'm too late! :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
(Hits forehead with palm) Oh no! I'm too late! :D
Yep, 3 years to late. No more: "Sturdi, burdi in thy chiken sopi, BORK, BORK"
-
Originally posted by Martlet
1) Freedom of speech also carries with it "responsibility for speech", much as the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, etc are learning now. That being said, France didn't just "not join" the coalition, it tried it's best to stop it. Both by rallying support, and threatening to use it's veto power. France did exactly what you are claiming the US is doing....coercing people to do as it wishes.
2) Bush can't, short of military action, make a country do what he wants.
3) No other country organized a group to oppose the US. They merely voiced their opinion.
1. The Dixie Chicks said what they thought, which is their right, and now people hate them for this. Thats wrong. You dont respect there opinions, which is the whole point damn it. They have a right to their opinions wether you agree or not. Frreddom of opinion is about respecting other's opinions as well.
(Something I learned in my worker union meeting when some people interupt others who have different opinion and are told to shut up and let the one they interupted speak is mind. That made me realize that they have a right to their opinion and I should respect it even if I think its bull crap. You dont seem to do that, which makes you look narrow minded to me.)
2. But he can threaten consequences on countries that dont agree with him. Which is a way of saying dont go against me.
3. So the US as the right to rally country to their cause, but France doesnt? Thats ridiculeous!!!!!!!!!
-
france was in bed with an evil dictator in the same league as stalin and hitler... france was scared witless that we, and the world would find out. that was the whole reason for them helping saddam.
you guys got caught with dirty hands and no way out.
lazs
-
Imp, I'm curious.
What is your position on Chirac's threats against countries not agreeing with France, since it was those threats that prompted Powell's comments in the first place?
As I said, again and again, there are no sanctions and will be no sanctions against France. But France has stated it may try to deny EU membership to countries who supported the US.
You're also confusing a right to free speech with a right to be popular. They are not the same. Preventing the Dixie Chicks from saying anything would be denying their speech. Not liking them because of what they said is not.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
You want everyone to praise the fact that US broke International laws with the war?
.
BS we had the law on our side, we were not chicken **** to
enforce the resolutions.
-
Originally posted by Imp
1. The Dixie Chicks said what they thought, which is their right, and now people hate them for this. Thats wrong. You dont respect there opinions, which is the whole point damn it. They have a right to their opinions wether you agree or not. Frreddom of opinion is about respecting other's opinions as well.
What in the hell is so hard to understand about this?
Yes...they have the right to say and feel whatever they want. Just the same as I have the right to say that they are idiots and feel that they are morons and choose to exercise my right not to listen to their drivel on the radio anymore.
Freedom of speech is a two-way street. I just dont understand why that concept is so hard to grasp.
-
Originally posted by Imp
1. They have a right to their opinions wether you agree or not. Frreddom of opinion is about respecting other's opinions as well.
BS of the highest order. We have to let them voice thier opinions yes. We have to respect those opinions? NO WAY...
Were do you get these dumb ideas?
I respect opinions sometimes if I agree or not. But I dont respect the dicky cheeks or france's leadership.
Nor do I have to pretend too.
Now thats being american ;)
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
BS we had the law on our side, we were not chicken **** to
enforce the resolutions.
You are wrong, sorry.
By the way, could you just show me the weapons that caused the res. 1441?
quoting Präs. Busk
"Beware, Iraq might have destroyed ther WMD´s"
-
Originally posted by Imp
1. The Dixie Chicks said what they thought, which is their right, and now people hate them for this. Thats wrong. You dont respect there opinions, which is the whole point damn it. They have a right to their opinions wether you agree or not. Frreddom of opinion is about respecting other's opinions as well.
(Something I learned in my worker union meeting when some people interupt others who have different opinion and are told to shut up and let the one they interupted speak is mind. That made me realize that they have a right to their opinion and I should respect it even if I think its bull crap. You dont seem to do that, which makes you look narrow minded to me.)
2. But he can threaten consequences on countries that dont agree with him. Which is a way of saying dont go against me.
3. So the US as the right to rally country to their cause, but France doesnt? Thats ridiculeous!!!!!!!!!
1. Show me where I said they don't have a right to their opinion. Of course they do. It's what makes America great. I also have a right to disagree with their opinion. I also have a right to not support opinions opposed to mine.
2. Yep, he can. Why the hell would we support a country that opposes us? That's just stupid.
3. France can do whatever it likes. Noone said they can't. Just like the US can. Just stop the whining because they do what they like, then face the backlash from their actions.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
As I said, again and again, there are no sanctions and will be no sanctions against France. But France has stated it may try to deny EU membership to countries who supported the US.
If you are refearing to Turkey, they voted not to let you guys to use their country for an attack. Then there was money offered, from US, like 60 billions.
After this, many of the Other Eu members warned turkey, not to go against their parlament: Turkey did a wise choice.
-
The Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution November 8 strengthening the weapons inspection regime for Iraq and giving Baghdad, in the words of the resolution, "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."
The resolution, number 1441, establishes an enhanced inspection regime for Iraq's disarmament, which will be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
All 15 council members voted for the resolution: permanent members China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; and non-permanent members Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria.
The resolution states that Iraq remains in material breach of council resolutions relating to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and requires that Baghdad give UNMOVIC and IAEA a complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles systems, as well as information on other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs that are supposed to be for civilian purposes, within 30 days.
It gives UNMOVIC and IAEA, among other things, unrestricted rights of entry and travel into and throughout Iraq; provides for U.N. security for the inspectors; gives the inspectors the right to freeze sites and declare exclusion zones; and gives them the right to conduct interviews, either inside or outside the country, without the presence of Iraqi officials. Most importantly, it gives the inspectors immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to all sites in Iraq, including so-called presidential sites.
The resolution directs Hans Blix, executive chairman of UNMOVIC, and Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA director general, to "report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations." The council will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security," it says.
Finally, it warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution.
Following is the text of the resolution:
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
-
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:
UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;
UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by reCommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
-
So 1441, indeed warns about it "will face serious consequences".
Now the SC is trying to decide what to do.
(remember, this is a UN resulotion, not a US resolution).
Some of em wants to kick some Iraqian prettythang, some wants to wait and make some more inspections.
When France says that the will lay their Veto, US, together with Britan, takes the whole buisness in their own hands and attacks Iraq.
So they enforced the "seriouse Consequences" that UN had been warning would happend.
Suddenly US is UN?
-
Originally posted by crabofix
You are wrong, sorry.
By the way, could you just show me the weapons that caused the res. 1441?
quoting Präs. Busk
"Beware, Iraq might have destroyed ther WMD´s"
We have to go over it again.
1. Iraq invades Kuwait
2. US kicks Iraq out of Kuwait and stops hostilities with Iraq under the conditions CEASE FIRE agreement.
3. Iraq never complied with the cease-fire agreement.
Any US action from that point on is justified under the original UN action and Iraq's non-compliance with the cease-fire agreement.
The point of every other UN resolution and 1441 was to appease the weak minded hand wringers of the world.
Interestingly, 1441 confirms ALL previous resolutions and gave Iraq ONE final chance to prove it had disarmed.
The whole event from Iraqi begining to USA- led end was Iraq's fault.
Oh, and by the way.... the ONLY REASON UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq was that the USA showed him we have a backbone. UN resolutions would have NEVER gotten Iraq to do anything other than what it felt like doing.
I'll show you a weapon banned in 1441 and then you can explain to everyone just how effective UN resolutions have been regarding Iraq.
I'm just glad we have the UN now that N.Korea is an International problem. Now the UN can really save us all again and show us dummies how to keep the world safe .
After all , I'll bet N. Korea has no greater fear than the UN. They are probably shaking in thier boots at the thought of angering the UN.
A dictator knows he's really in trouble once the UN resolutions start pouring out of that useless debating society.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
So 1441, indeed warns about it "will face serious consequences".
Now the SC is trying to decide what to do.
(remember, this is a UN resulotion, not a US resolution).
Some of em wants to kick some Iraqian prettythang, some wants to wait and make some more inspections.
When France says that the will lay their Veto, US, together with Britan, takes the whole buisness in their own hands and attacks Iraq.
So they enforced the "seriouse Consequences" that UN had been warning would happend.
Suddenly US is UN?
Suddenly the US said enough with the humming and haaaing and saber rattling. The guy's a kook, he's working on developing weapons of mass destruction that he can use on a broader scale that threaten the region's if not the world's stability and safety. He doesn't take us seriously. Some of you may want to give him all the time in the world to comply but that time may get alot shorter than you think if you keep this up. Time to step in and take care of business or close up shop. The resolution supports it. In we go, come if you like or sit on your fingers where you're much more comfortable.
(The part of the evil US member of the security council bent on global conquest was played by Arlo.)
(bows)
Thank you ... thank you very much.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Suddenly the US said enough with the humming and haaaing and saber rattling. The guy's a kook, he's working on developing weapons of mass destruction that he can use on a broader scale that threaten the region's if not the world's stability and safety. He doesn't take us seriously. Some of you may want to give him all the time in the world to comply but that time may get alot shorter than you think if you keep this up. Time to step in and take care of business or close up shop. The resolution supports it. In we go, come if you like or sit on your fingers where you're much more comfortable.
(The part of the evil US member of the security council bent on global conquest was played by Arlo.)
(bows)
Thank you ... thank you very much.
"nosal voice"
Well, its never wrong to slap the fingers of evil dictators.
(aplouse)
But you picked the wrong guy at the wrong time. Should have been done much earlier,
(laughter)
But you would´nt have liked to been caught supplying him with the Chemical weapons that killed a couple of 1000 kurds, now would you?
(aplouse)
(The part of the "justice" bending over was played by crabofix)
-
Originally posted by crabofix
"nosal voice"
Well, its never wrong to slap the fingers of evil dictators.
(aplouse)
But you picked the wrong guy at the wrong time. Should have been done much earlier,
(laughter)
But you would´nt have liked to been caught supplying him with the Chemical weapons that killed a couple of 1000 kurds, now would you?
(aplouse)
(The part of the "justice" bending over was played by crabofix)
Did UN resolutions ever have an effect on Iraq? Perhapse the UN resolutions got Iraq out of Kuwait? Pardon me, but I believe the US military and the coalition got Iraq out of Kuwait.
I recall Iraq kicked all the UN inspectors out. I also recall that the US military buildup is the only reason inspectors were allowed back into Iraq. Start to see the pattern here? Iraq only complies when it is forced to by military action.
Seems that your "justice" means to allow Iraq to indefinetley defy the will of the world.
I don't want your justice thank you.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Seems that your "justice" means to allow Iraq to indefinetley defy the will of the world.
I don't want your justice thank you.
Now, the world did´nt exactly agree with your war, now did they?
My country did not, I am pretty sure of this.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Now, the world did´nt exactly agree with your war, now did they?
My country did not, I am pretty sure of this.
1441 was unanimous. Just like the UN resolution requiring Iraq to leave Kuwait, they are both just paper without the use of force.
Both problems have now been solved, game over justice done.
So sorry this upsets you.
-
-
Originally posted by NUKE
game over justice done.
correct term would be "game over justice gone"
-
Originally posted by Maniac
And the world is still the same as before the war :eek:
minus at least one problem.
-
minus at least one problem.
Can you explain the problem again? please...
-
But the search is only two weeks old yet, right? Time will tell.
Iraq's a big place. Can you imagine burying almost a whole squadron of airplanes? Burying them? Given that mindset, it's going to take some serious time to look for them. Perhaps some of the Iraqi regime that have surrendered will speed up the task.
US testing Iraq chemical find (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979195.stm)
Be careful of the words you say, keep them soft and sweet; You never know from day to day which ones you'll have to eat. - Unknown
-
Originally posted by crabofix
correct term would be "game over justice gone"
no, I meant justice has been done and well served in Iraq.
why don't you tell us what it is exactly that upsets you so much regarding Iraq?
1. Iraq disarmed and Saddam removed
2. Iraqi people freed as a secondary benifit
Looks good to me.
-
why don't you tell us what it is exactly that upsets you so much regarding Iraq?
It could be the reason of the war... or the reason stated anyway... To remove the weapons of mass destruction...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
It could be the reason of the war... or the reason stated anyway... To remove the weapons of mass destruction...
Actually, the reason was non compliance with several UN resolutions.
-
Whatever.... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Can you explain the problem again? please...
Iraq refused to comply with UN resolutions ( problem)
Iraq disarmed, Saddam removed (Problem Solved!)
-
OK, Maniac, you've confused me.
Are you saying you wanted Iraq to have WMD?
-
Yes.
Israel has nukes, djust as bad...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Yes.
Israel has nukes, djust as bad...
LOL, what was that?
Oh, rationality and common sense.... ZOOOOOoooom, right out the window.
-
Doing it American styleeee! :cool:
-
Originally posted by Maniac
It could be the reason of the war... or the reason stated anyway... To remove the weapons of mass destruction...
Oh that narrows it down. Iraq never complied with UN resolutions.
Iraq's actions caused this war and they could have prevented it from happening a long time ago.
Problem solved, sorry that upsets you. It's part history now and maybe your kids will read about it and learn that resolutions alone won't solve problems.
-
Iraq never complied with UN resolutions.
I tought you didnt like the UN?? how can you support the USA go to war over an stupid UN resolution?
-
Originally posted by crabofix
[BBut you would´nt have liked to been caught supplying him with the Chemical weapons that killed a couple of 1000 kurds, now would you?
(aplouse)
[/B]
We have gone over this before.
Some US, SA and EU companies did supply Dual Use equipment and chemicals that were not banned under any UN resolution. They MAY or may not have been used as pre-cursors to chemical weapons.
The democraticly controled (at the time) congress investigated this back in 1993 (led by John Conyers btw) and found no evidence to support the claim that the US supplied any chemical weapons to Iraq.
Number of Companies that have supplied Iraq with dual use equipment and materials-
United States of America - 24
Britain - 17
France - 8
Germany - 11
USSR / Russia - 6
China - 3
Japan- 4
Netherlands - 3
South Africa -2
Spain - 3
Sweden 2
-
Ah, OK. So Maniac WANTED Saddam to have WMD.
How do you feel about Kim Jong Il having a few nukes? That sound good to you too?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
I tought you didnt like the UN?? how can you support the USA go to war over an stupid UN resolution?
you can't give me a good reason why you are upset about the US action in Iraq.
Are you upset at the outcome in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, OK. So Maniac WANTED Saddam to have WMD.
How do you feel about Kim Jong Il having a few nukes? That sound good to you too?
He probably will want to rely on the UN to save the world with some resolutions against NK.
-
How do you feel about Kim Jong Il having a few nukes? That sound good to you too?
To tell the truth i didnt get emotional about that news. We allredy got plenty of countrys capable of "ending the world" allredy so what... Get on with it allredy and let god sort us all out...
-
Where did crabbofix go? I wonder if his new "title" made him go away in shame.
-
you can't give me a good reason why you are upset about the US action in Iraq.
I gave it allredy, The US going to war because IRAK had weapons of mass destruction...
If you would have given us the real reason and djust got on with it it would be another story...
-
I think the Swede's gave up on their own nuke program long ago so they just kinda figure they'll squeak and moan about U.S. policies and actions until we give them a couple of loaners as pacifiers. Not much chance of getting them elsewhere. ;)
-
Originally posted by Maniac
To tell the truth i didnt get emotional about that news. We allredy got plenty of countrys capable of "ending the world" allredy so what... Get on with it allredy and let god sort us all out...
Yeah, don't get too emotional just because N.Korea announces it is preparing for full scale nuclear halocaust and wants to sell it's nuclear fuel to whoever wants to buy. Nothing to worry about there.
-
So then the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty should just be abandoned and maybe we should just give every nation a few nukes? Sorta even things out for everyone?
Because a nuke in the hands of say... Saddam or Kim Jong Il is the same danger to the world as a nuke in the hands of the evil, cowboy Bush warmonger, right?
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
So then the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty should just be abandoned and maybe we should just give every nation a few nukes? Sorta even things out for everyone?
Because a nuke in the hands of say... Saddam or Kim Jong Il is the same danger to the world as a nuke in the hands of the evil, cowboy Bush warmonger, right?
:D
Swedish Nukes! Bork! Bork! Hurty Gurty Schnipp Schnipp!
And meatballs! :D
-
Yeah, don't get too emotional just because N.Korea announces it is preparing for full scale nuclear halocaust and wants to sell it's nuclear fuel to whoever wants to buy
More CNN propaganda...
hands of the evil, cowboy Bush warmonger, right?
Im more worried about Israel to tell the truth, but im shure Bush wouldnt mind to go down in history by Nuking another country...
-
Swedish Nukes! Bork! Bork! Hurty Gurty Schnipp Schnipp!
We would Nuke Finland the second we got em :D
-
Eventually every country will be like america.
-
Originally posted by JoeSmoe
Eventually every country will be like america.
I doubt it but a few have tried and a helluva alot more would like to. ;)
-
Originally posted by Krusher
We have gone over this before.
Some US, SA and EU companies did supply Dual Use equipment and chemicals that were not banned under any UN resolution. They MAY or may not have been used as pre-cursors to chemical weapons.
The democraticly controled (at the time) congress investigated this back in 1993 (led by John Conyers btw) and found no evidence to support the claim that the US supplied any chemical weapons to Iraq.
Number of Companies that have supplied Iraq with dual use equipment and materials-
United States of America - 24
Britain - 17
France - 8
Germany - 11
USSR / Russia - 6
China - 3
Japan- 4
Netherlands - 3
South Africa -2
Spain - 3
Sweden 2
to paint a clearer picture, you should provide some dates with those transactions.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
If you are refearing to Turkey, they voted not to let you guys to use their country for an attack. Then there was money offered, from US, like 60 billions.
After this, many of the Other Eu members warned turkey, not to go against their parlament: Turkey did a wise choice.
You misinterpret the timeline, actually Crab. Turkey was threatened with withdrawal of military support before their vote on the matter if they supported the US. The US offered money (though nothing in the realm of 60 billions) to offset costs of their support if they provided it, but you might note unlike the blackmail above, the US did not remove or threaten to remove existing support when Turkey did not support us.
This is a seperate case of French led blackmail, however. I am actually referring to Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, and Chirac's threats to them.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
This is a seperate case of French led blackmail, however. I am actually referring to Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, and Chirac's threats to them.
Ok, I see.
Thought you where refearing only to turkey.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
This is a seperate case of French led blackmail, however. I am actually referring to Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, and Chirac's threats to them.
What threat ?
Did Chiraq spoke like Powel ?
Did faux news (and other Murdoch minion) start a defamatory campaign ?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
but im shure Bush wouldnt mind to go down in history by Nuking another country...
And I'm shure this kind of statement is one of the reasons it's so easy to ignore many of the Euro "world view" points posted here.
Not all, but a bunch.
-
That would be the threats of keeping them out of the EU because of and if they kept up support of the USA Straffo. Colin Powell's response that there are consequences for that (France's) type of behavior was quite mild by comparison. It is strange though that Powell's response would create such a stir but the catalyst to that response remains unanswered for.
How else would you interpret Chirac's eloquent statements like:
"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."
"I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others,"
"Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to (sign the letter) when their position is really delicate. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way."
Former soviet bloc countries are left scratching their heads and wondering if they were trying to join the EU or rejoining the Warsaw Pact.
-
Part of the problem is that I wouldn't have translated Chiraq speech this way.
-
There was some debate on some of the more inflammatory translations that replaced "keep quiet" with "shut up."
I don't know how the statement in its entirety could be read any other way than saying coutries may not be accepted into the EU if they voice support for the USA. Especially when only countries seeking to join the EU were mentioned, while those already in it were not mentioned.
Now I return the question. Did Powell speak like Chirac?
-
Did Powell speak like Chirac?
I'm not sure because I've not seen Powel speech I dunno the tone he used during his speech.
But having heard Chiraq speaking he was speaking like an elder without agressivity and this canno't be translated (I was not picking on the "shut up", or "frivolous" part).
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Imp, I'm curious.
What is your position on Chirac's threats against countries not agreeing with France, since it was those threats that prompted Powell's comments in the first place?
As I said, again and again, there are no sanctions and will be no sanctions against France. But France has stated it may try to deny EU membership to countries who supported the US.
You're also confusing a right to free speech with a right to be popular. They are not the same. Preventing the Dixie Chicks from saying anything would be denying their speech. Not liking them because of what they said is not.
I did no hear that speech from Chirac actually. But knowing the French I doubt it was as threatening as some make it sound.
I never said you didnt have the right no to like the Dixie Chicks, I said you didnt have the right to call them names because you dont agree with them (it just sounds childish anyway.)
Sling take a deep breath and calm down. Its a double edged balde for sure. Im just saying you dont have the right to insult people because you dont agree with them.
X2Lee, Democracy is based on respect of opinion you know.
Without it things like racism and ethnic purges appear.
Anti French post are hateful and racist, thats the problem.
I grew up in Baie-Comeau, Quebec.
Some people have called the French people names without knowing them. I call that narrow minded.
Not everyone on these boards is american.
Not everyone is narrow minded.
-
Not as threatening as some make it sound?
Please.
You have started a thread taking a single line from Powell and interpreting it as meaning sanctions are coming against France. You then turn around and dismiss the comments that promted his as probably not being as bad as they sounded.
"If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way."
What is the good spin interpretation on that line? Because no matter how benignly it was said, I have trouble reading it other than a threat, and I don't blame Powell for criticizing the attempt at intimidation.
-
Originally posted by Imp
I said you didnt have the right to call them names because you dont agree with them (it just sounds childish anyway.)
Im just saying you dont have the right to insult people because you dont agree with them.
Actually, yeah- we do have the right to call them whatever we want. We also have the right to put them out on the streets by not buying their CDs or listening to them on the radio or going to their concerts.
They excercised their freedom of speech by saying what they wanted, many Americans are excercising their freedom of speech by labeling them how they see fit and/or excercising their freedom of purchase and their freedom of boycott to really drive the point home.
Someone says something you don't like, no where in the defintion of the word "freedom" do you see "you must like it and you can not show your dissatisfaction with them".
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Actually, yeah- we do have the right to call them whatever we want. We also have the right to put them out on the streets by not buying their CDs or listening to them on the radio or going to their concerts.
They excercised their freedom of speech by saying what they wanted, many Americans are excercising their freedom of speech by labeling them how they see fit and/or excercising their freedom of purchase and their freedom of boycott to really drive the point home.
Someone says something you don't like, no where in the defintion of the word "freedom" do you see "you must like it and you can not show your dissatisfaction with them".
-SW
I have no idea why that is so difficult to understand for some people.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Not as threatening as some make it sound?
Please.
You have started a thread taking a single line from Powell and interpreting it as meaning sanctions are coming against France. You then turn around and dismiss the comments that promted his as probably not being as bad as they sounded.
"If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way."
What is the good spin interpretation on that line? Because no matter how benignly it was said, I have trouble reading it other than a threat, and I don't blame Powell for criticizing the attempt at intimidation.
I saw Powell say there would be consequences for France's actions. Thought he meant for not joining the coalition of the willing. So calm down. If France threatened some countries then I dont have a problem with it.
AKS\/\/ulfe
You do have the right to not buy or not like them. But that doesnt mean you have to spread racist hateful things about them now does it?
I never said you didnt have the right to show dissatisfaction.
I said you dont have the right to insult them (or their country) for their opinions.
What id like to see is no more emotional attacks on people.
Id like to see people think before they post, is that to much to ask? Seems that it is :(
Imp out
-
Originally posted by Imp
I saw Powell say there would be consequences for France's actions. Thought he meant for not joining the coalition of the willing. So calm down. If France threatened some countries then I dont have a problem with it.
AKS\/\/ulfe
You do have the right to not buy or not like them. But that doesnt mean you have to spread racist hateful things about them now does it?
How the hell does the race card get played when you are insulting the dixie chicks?
-
what race are the french?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
what race are the french?
lazs
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/anth372.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-definition.html
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/mainpage.htm
http://archaeology.about.com/blpaleoraceweb.htm
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ311.html (This one is great :D )
As you can see above, it's already difficult to define "races" go figure to define "French's race".
;)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
How the hell does the race card get played when you are insulting the dixie chicks?
Hehe, foreigners trying to emulate the critical liberals in the US. Becomes pretty apparent they are interested in mud slinging only with no understanding of the accusations they make.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
what race are the french?
lazs
american
-
Originally posted by Imp
I said you dont have the right to insult them (or their country) for their opinions.
Woah.. thats your OPINION bud. I certainly do have the right to insult who and what I want. Don't like it? Who cares... but don't even try to dictate what rights people do and don't have. We have documents that take care of that for us here in the good'ole (albeit hated) U.S. of A.
And you want people to think before they post?
-
I thought they were mostly white.
Flag white ;) :D
Im not from the US but I live there now, here's my .2 cents:
"1. Why France is facing US sanction for not joining the coalition of the "Willing"?
If they take actions against France then they are coercing them to do what they want.
(I cut the rest, you must NOT put INDIVIDUAL rights with the rights of a NATION. Theres a vast difference between them, particularly in the RESPONSABILITY sector. Read below).
Firstoff, france is not facing sanctions. They will be facing consequences. This may come from reduced economic ties with france and/or little or no political support for anything french.
Second, the "actions" to be taken against france were not coercive as they were not applied NOR threatened before or during France's actions against US interests. You did not see Powell standing in front of the UN telling France to "shut up" before or during gulf war 2 did you? But we did see Chirac engaging in COERCIVE actions against his european neighbors before and during said conflict.
"2. What gives President Bush the right to make other countries do what he wants them to do by force? "
If you reffering to Iraq, please see UN resolutions before and after the first gulf war. UN gave itself the right to make Iraq comply with their resolutions by force if necessary. In this case, the Coalition forces... which Bush erroneously called "coalition of the willing" (I wouldve called them Coalition of the Responsible), acted on that resolution.
"3. Why arent Germany, Russia and other countries who didnt join getting the same treatment."
Wait and see.
"You guys claim to be for freedom but you dont give the freedom to choose to your allies.
Thats sounds hypocritical from where I sit. "
Lets put this one into context shall we?
-Ally is a nation that actively or passively supports you and does not act or voice a PUBLIC opinion against your interests.
-Neutral is a nation that does not act against anyone actively or passively, and has the right to speak for or against either side.
-Enemy/Hostile is the nation that actively or passively acts against your interests and publicly speaks against your interests.
In international relations, there are no other categories.
In this sense, every nation on earth has the freedom of choosing their allies. They also have the freedom of choosing their enemies. France in this case, did NOT act like an ally and did NOT act like a neutral party.
France ACTIVELY acted and spoke against US interests.
They FREELY chose that their oil contracts and underhanded deals with Hussein were worth more than being an ALLY of the US or being a Neutral party to the conflict. By acting and speaking against the US they ALLIED themselves with Hussein (a passive ally).
Germany may soon be joining France in the category of hostile/enemy to the US if their dealings are proven..same for the Russians.
And putting France and Germany and Russia in the category of enemy/hostile does not mean the US will be putting sanctions or putting troops on their shores.. what it does mean is that these 3 nations will not be trusted in any future issue and they will quite probably fall to the bottom of the list of the "who to do bussiness with" list.
On a final note, think about this for a while: A land run by a dictator is not a "Nation" . Its a hostage situation on a massive scale. With this perspective, there is no moral or legal ground for any nation to uphold international law against a dictator. These scum flourish because OF international law. International law which was written to be upheld by nations who'se citizens are FREE.
-
Using cap make not your speech more strutured nor interressant.
-
Its supposed to simulate the emphasis you can put on your voice.
-
Imp, I feel you are fair and open minded in your question, and truly seek understanding on this matter. I do not want to rant or become nationalistic on this issue, but I will tell you how I understand this issue, which I have taken more than a casual interest in.
I do not have issue with the French people who, may or may not support their leaders actions, but I believe that because of their anti-war tendencies, they have not spent enough time on this issue to come to a full understanding of what was at stake on the issue of Iraq.
Americans, also largely uninformed, but in the wake of growing terrorist activity, devastating human rights abuses, and 12 years of interference in the disarmament of Iraq, feel that the elimination of the Iraqi regime was worth the cost of war. Two things that we hold very close to our hearts are freedom, and safety, not only for us, but for people around the world. Weapons inspections had been going on for 12 years. In 12 years the only meaningful results from these inspections came as we sent huge amounts of men and materials to the Middle East. We can't put that much force on Iraq's doorstep, and wait for a year to see if something good can happen. It is like notching an arrow and holding the bow pointed at a target for the whole day. Not even the USA can support that kind of deployment.
Saddam Hussein had called too many bluffs, and we were tired of hearing reports of how the inspections were not working. Most of the people who claim that the inspections were working, forget that this had been a 12 year process. They mistakenly place their hopes of meaningful results from inspections on the last minute insignificant concessions that Iraq made leading up to the war. As soon as the threat of war was removed, the inspections would be doomed to failure again. The lack of action for so long in the UN severely hurt its credibility to enforce its resolutions. Nothing short of war would extract any meaningful changes in Iraq.
The French seemed to appear at the last minute. After so much frustration to get anything done in Iraq, suddenly the French started opposing the only actions that looked like they might put an end to the 12 year process. It wasn’t even a friendly objection either, no give and take, no understanding or negotiation whatsoever. It seemed to fly in the face of the rational process the UN was pursuing, and severely damaged and set back the forceful UN resolution that was unanimously accepted. You don’t take the teeth out of your guard dog because you are afraid it will bite someone. Why have a guard dog then? You can’t ignore the “serious consequences” clause in resolution 1441. Although people might not like it, everyone knew that serious consequences is a nice way to say many bad things, up to and including war. Don’t get weak knees now that the serious consequences part is in effect. You have to follow through, and that is what we support.
I am personally relieved that the war was as short as it was. Vietnam is still a sore topic here, and something we do not want to repeat. Please don’t think that the Americans are warmongers. It is not something that we easily choose to do. If it were, more people in the world would be speaking English right now. As for the bad feelings towards France, I am hopeful that future issues will be less contentious between the French and Americans. By the way, I still like to eat Croissants.
-
Originally posted by OIO
Its supposed to simulate the emphasis you can put on your voice.
Perhaps it your intent but it make your post difficult to read and very difficult to translate (at least for me).
I didn't go past your 2nd sentence because of that.
Not that it make your post stupid but simply unreadable for me.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And I'm shure this kind of statement is one of the reasons it's so easy to ignore many of the Euro "world view" points posted here.
Not all, but a bunch.
Remarks from Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, On 26 January 2003, World Economic Forum:
"
There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power -- and here I think you're referring to military power -- then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.
I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.
So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.
We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. "
If i recall it right, Toni Blair said shortly before the the coalition forces invaded Iraq "that a nuclear strike is possible"
But i can't remember that Bush told us after Tonis announcement that that wouldn't happen!
To the C. Powell speech
Nobody expect a member of this administration to admit that there was a lot of evil done by America after WW2. In fact they know better.
Millions of people have died or were injured because of horrible action taken by the US administration.
10thousands of people were tortured and murdered with the help of american politics and personal.
Iran
Vietnam
Chile
Easttimor
Nicaragua
El Salvador
to name just a few.
This doesn't mean US in general is evil or America is "The bad guy of this World" Nobody says that here because it is a dump simplification!
America is a huge nation and did great things in it's history but to deny that it has made great and sometimes very bloody mistakes also in the past 50 years does not help anyone.
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Blitz, cover your eyes! You may not like what you're about to read! ;)
Sunday, April 27, 2003
Associated Press
CAMP BUCCA, Iraq — Chanting "Saddam no, Bush yes," some 200 Iraqi prisoners of war were let go Sunday at the coalition's main internment camp in the desert near the southern port of Umm Qasr (search).
The men, many of them barefooted, shook hands with the American soldiers guarding the camp before boarding buses and trucks to be driven to nearby Basra, southern Iraq's largest city.
Their departure brought to 700 the number of POWs released since Friday, said Maj. Stacy Garrity of the U.S. Army's 800th Military Police Brigade, which runs the camp. Around 5,800 more prisoners, including some from Jordan and Syria, await screening and possible release, she said.
"Probably half of the camp will be gone in the next week and a half," said Garrity, who is from Athens, Pa.
Wearing a towel on his head as protection from the scorching heat and blowing sand, one smiling POW, Mahdi Saleh, told The Associated Press: "My mother will die when she sees me."
It may take a while. Once in Basra, the penniless Saleh will have to find transportation home to Mosul, a city some 500 miles away in northern Iraq.
Saleh, a junior Iraqi army officer who is the father of four, said he was taken prisoner at the Qadisiya Dam at the beginning of the war that toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein (search).
"I gave orders to my five men not to fight and we surrendered," he said, his eyes red from the sand. "Americans were coming for our own good. ... What has Saddam done for us? I'm 30 and I haven't enjoyed life -- no justice, no piece of land, no car."
Before boarding the buses and trucks, the freed POWs in ragged clothes or blue jumpsuits were each handed cigarettes from a yellow bucket and a package containing sugar, rice, tea and cooking oil provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross (search).
The men gave thumbs-up signs and peppered journalists with questions: "No more Saddam statues?" "No more military service?" "No more executions?"
Hussam Abbas, from Basra, said all he had known in his 25 years were prisons and military service. "I gave myself in so that I would have a chance to be evacuated and not to come back to Iraq," he said. "But now, I am happy. We got rid of Saddam who oppressed us."
Hanging out a bus window, Mussalam Hassan, 22, shouted happily: "We did not fire a single shot!" He said he was taken prisoner in Rumeila on March 21, the second day of the war.
As the men were being processed for release, a helicopter flew in with a 9-year-old Iraqi girl who had been treated for a heart problem on the USS Comfort, a U.S. Navy hospital ship. There was no immediate report of her condition, but she walked on her own.
Her family brought the girl to Camp Bucca after the war started asking for medical help. Her father was given a job at the post, and he and the rest of the family were allowed to live here.
The freed POWs said they were treated well by their captors. Many shook hands with coalition soldiers before being driven away.
"When we heard Americans entered Iraq, we knew it was the end of Saddam," said Falih Rahim, 35, from Baghdad. He said he couldn't wait to see his three children and go back to his job as a cart driver.
Junior officer Jawad Obaid, who said he surrendered March 21 in response to leaflets dropped by coalition planes, said he was praying he would find his family in Basra unharmed.
He was hopes for a new Iraq without poverty. "Our house in Basra still has a tin roof," he said, holding a blanket provided by the U.S. military.
Before Atheer Abdul-Karim, 25, joined his fellow Iraqis in singing a folk song on board a departing bus, he shouted out: "They paid us 17,000 (Iraqi dinars a month) to fight Americans. I would have killed Saddam for one dollar."
-
Originally posted by Imp
1. Why France is facing US sanction for not joining the coalition of the "Willing"?
Imp,
What sanctions are you referring to?
-
QUOTE]Originally posted by Ripsnort
Blitz, cover your eyes! You may not like what you're about to read! ;)
Sunday, April 27, 2003
Associated Press
CAMP BUCCA, Iraq — Chanting "Saddam no, Bush yes," some 200 Iraqi prisoners of war were let go Sunday at the coalition's main internment camp in the desert near the southern port of Umm Qasr (search).
The men, many of them barefooted, shook hands with the American soldiers guarding the camp before boarding buses and trucks to be driven to nearby Basra, southern Iraq's largest city.
Their departure brought to 700 the number of POWs released since Friday, said Maj. Stacy Garrity of the U.S. Army's 800th Military Police Brigade, which runs the camp. Around 5,800 more prisoners, including some from Jordan and Syria, await screening and possible release, she said.
"Probably half of the camp will be gone in the next week and a half," said Garrity, who is from Athens, Pa.
Wearing a towel on his head as protection from the scorching heat and blowing sand, one smiling POW, Mahdi Saleh, told The Associated Press: "My mother will die when she sees me."
It may take a while. Once in Basra, the penniless Saleh will have to find transportation home to Mosul, a city some 500 miles away in northern Iraq.
Saleh, a junior Iraqi army officer who is the father of four, said he was taken prisoner at the Qadisiya Dam at the beginning of the war that toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein (search).
"I gave orders to my five men not to fight and we surrendered," he said, his eyes red from the sand. "Americans were coming for our own good. ... What has Saddam done for us? I'm 30 and I haven't enjoyed life -- no justice, no piece of land, no car."
Before boarding the buses and trucks, the freed POWs in ragged clothes or blue jumpsuits were each handed cigarettes from a yellow bucket and a package containing sugar, rice, tea and cooking oil provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross (search).
The men gave thumbs-up signs and peppered journalists with questions: "No more Saddam statues?" "No more military service?" "No more executions?"
Hussam Abbas, from Basra, said all he had known in his 25 years were prisons and military service. "I gave myself in so that I would have a chance to be evacuated and not to come back to Iraq," he said. "But now, I am happy. We got rid of Saddam who oppressed us."
Hanging out a bus window, Mussalam Hassan, 22, shouted happily: "We did not fire a single shot!" He said he was taken prisoner in Rumeila on March 21, the second day of the war.
As the men were being processed for release, a helicopter flew in with a 9-year-old Iraqi girl who had been treated for a heart problem on the USS Comfort, a U.S. Navy hospital ship. There was no immediate report of her condition, but she walked on her own.
Her family brought the girl to Camp Bucca after the war started asking for medical help. Her father was given a job at the post, and he and the rest of the family were allowed to live here.
The freed POWs said they were treated well by their captors. Many shook hands with coalition soldiers before being driven away.
"When we heard Americans entered Iraq, we knew it was the end of Saddam," said Falih Rahim, 35, from Baghdad. He said he couldn't wait to see his three children and go back to his job as a cart driver.
Junior officer Jawad Obaid, who said he surrendered March 21 in response to leaflets dropped by coalition planes, said he was praying he would find his family in Basra unharmed.
He was hopes for a new Iraq without poverty. "Our house in Basra still has a tin roof," he said, holding a blanket provided by the U.S. military.
Before Atheer Abdul-Karim, 25, joined his fellow Iraqis in singing a folk song on board a departing bus, he shouted out: "They paid us 17,000 (Iraqi dinars a month) to fight Americans. I would have killed Saddam for one dollar." [/QUOTE]
Double post rips :)
Had read it before but no time to answer.
What does this story tells us?
Could this be true or is it just another propaganda lie like the one from the "Tonking event" or the one were the girl (paid by american government) wittnessed she saw Iraq soldiers in Kuwait killing babies by stealing their "Brutkästen".
Later it turns out that all together was a big lie to convince the members of the SC to go to war with iraq better known as "desert storm"
I say this story can be very well true.
Why not? Everybody knew for 30 years that Saddam Hussein was a murderer, user of WMDs on iranian people and his own kurds, an evil dictator who suppressed everybody who did not joined him.
Who knew best was the US administration, tho.
Nevertheless he was supported bigtime by the US administration even after his massive WMD use.
Why? Because they had only minor if any problems with his behaviour as long as he fits into their plans.
They didn't care in the slightest way of his massive violation of human rights as long as he was no enemy of the States.
And he became an enemy just because of 1 false move that has nothing to do with violation of human rights--- OIL
He invaded Kuwait and US government couldn't stand seeing one guy controlling all the oil of Iraq and Kuwaits oil 2.
This is the story.
And all that humanity "Bla,Bla,Bla" from american officials is just for the audience to feel better.
I hope Iraque people benefit from this evil Agression War at least in long terms. Nobody knows by now.
All the kids and innocents that have died because of this war will not cheer anybody, that's for sure.
Regards Blitz
The worst possible scenario: One country alone rules the world
Balance is always needed in life.
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
hey Blits.....FU
I think you are a moron..You think u are so rigth and smart..
All the US gov wants is Oil..and we dont give a crap about humans..YOU ARE A MORON..
I understand everything is not black and white..why dont you??
Ya i guess the BILLIONS THAT we spend,on Aid to the world is just a "front"....God ..i hope u get a big prettythang splinter today
Virtual Stabbing commence...
-
You're totally wrong about my opinions Mawi !
A country that had guys like, Hendrix, Morrison & Zappa can't be bad :D
Regards Blitz
btw The worst possible scenario: One country alone rules the world
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
hey Blits.....FU
I think you are a moron..You think u are so rigth and smart..
All the US gov wants is Oil..and we dont give a crap about humans..YOU ARE A MORON..
I understand everything is not black and white..why dont you??
Ya i guess the BILLIONS THAT we spend,on Aid to the world is just a "front"....God ..i hope u get a big prettythang splinter today
Virtual Stabbing commence...
I agree.
And paper cuts, too.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I agree.
And paper cuts, too.
Your avatar is great, can you send me a poster of it for my living room, please? :D
Regards Blitz
btw The worst possible scenario: One country alone rules the world
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
Your avatar is great, can you send me a poster of it for my living room, please? :D
Regards Blitz
Sure, but I'm a greedy capitalist. It's gonna cost you $25 plus shipping.
-
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Imp
I know its too much to ask people to act like respectable adults so Ill just stop posting about it.
Thank God.
-
Originally posted by Imp
Tumor, when I say insult I mean the kind of crap that made HT post a sticky. HT knows that this game as an international player base.
This kind of horse **** as no place here or anywhere. Its racist crap. If I was French and saw these threads id be insulted.
I saw the same type of crap on Fighter Ace's newsgroup. Most boards seem to have this kind of stuff on it. Im really tired of it.
I believe people should be able to express themselves without being insulted. This is a discussion board not an insult board.
Im only asking peole to stop posting such crap.
I know its too much to ask people to act like respectable adults so Ill just stop posting about it.
What I find amusing about this is that people like you never post asking anyone to stop insulting the U.S. Never. Yet I constantly see the U.S. referred to as war mongers, oil barons, bullies, and a host of other insults. No matter what else happens, the minute I get into a discussion regarding Iraq, the UN, the French, or anything of that nature, I hear the same tired bulltoejam insults. Bush the cowboy, Bush the oil baron, Bush the monkey brained, ignorant ugly Americans, war monger Americans. I NEVER hear YOU, or anyone else complain about that!!
So let me tell you what I think about your incessant whimpering about Americans insulting everyone else: WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND. You get the squauling caterwalling Yeropeons and the rest to stop hurling their toejam, then we'll talk. Otherwise STFU. Having been insulted for a couple of decades by a bunch of holier than thou hypocritical JACKprettythangES from "the continent", who've had more wars of aggression for the sake of empire building than the U.S. could in the next two hundred years, I've had enough of the bulltoejam. Now you know how the other side feels.
-
sry strafo, you can copy and paste the post on notepad, it should take the caps off it.
S oRrY ;)
-
Question #1:
Our Constitution does no apply to foreign nations. France, as it is prone to do, has a false sense of importance. Moreover, they seem to relish being the square peg. Fine, let them think of themselves as important and they can walk any path they as a nation desire. However, they need to understand that every action has consequences, sometimes positive, other times decidedly negative.
Clearly, the French government has been motivated by financial reasoning. Any concern for the Iraqi people or American cencerns was easily swept aside by the almighty Euro. Billions in oil deals was sufficient to throw old alliances onto the trash pile. Amazingly, many French citizens complained that the US was going into Iraq for the oil. Yet, that oil was the primary reason their own government worked so hard to sabotage America in the UN. Considering that we had 200,000 military personnel in Kuwait, isn't it probable that if oil was the motive, the US would simply occupy Kuwait and just take their oil?
In recent days, documents establishing that France supplied the Iraqis with sensitive intelligence provided by the USA have surfaced in Iraq. France not only leaked conversations between Blair and the Italian Prime Minister, they passed along much of the content of American diplomatic discussions. It also appears that France supplied Iraq with intelligence on US war plans. How many American soldiers died due to this? Was Saddam able to avoid US strikes because the French tipped them off in advance? We will soon know the depth of French duplicity. When we do, the consequences will be proportional to their deceit. Bush is not likely to forgive and forget when it comes to behavior this far outside the borders of a "friendly disagreement". See Question #3 for further elaboration.
Question #2:
Think for a minute how the US reacted to the 9/11 attacks. The simple fact that the entire Arabian peninsula is not a giant glass factory indicates immense restraint. Anyone with even the slightest comprehension understands that Saudi Arabia directly bankrolls virtually all Islamic terrorism. The fact that the US has announced a complete pullout from Saudi Arabia should send shivers down the spine of the Saudi mafia. Count on unrestrained pumping of Iraqi oil, flooding the market with the intent of crashing crude oil prices. Count on the Saudis to squeal like pigs over the loss of revenue. Minor payback in my estimation. Someone once suggested targeting several MIRVs on Meca for the purpose of political blackmail. IE, the support of terror leading to additional attacks on the US, especially with WMD, will result in making Meca so hot that the desert will feel like the north pole in comparison. This may be an extreme measure, but does anyone doubt that it would be effective at causing the Islamic world to seriously try to control militant fundamentalists?
Before anyone whines, do they think for a second that Islamic terrorists would not target sacred Hebrew and Christian shrines in Israel with nuclear weapons if they had them? Rumor says that Israel had foiled an attempt to set off a radioactive "dirty" bomb at the Wailing Wall during the past 3 years. Then again, it is estimated that Israel has up to 200 nuclear weapons and a delivery system capable of ranges in excess of 10,000 miles. Had Iraq fired biological or chemical warheads into Israel during the Gulf War of 1991, there was no promise that Israel would not have responded with nuclear weapons. The US knew that, and so did Iraq. Ever wonder what really drove Egypt and Jordan to the peace table? There was far more than international political pressure in play. Even Syria has limited its behavior to support for Hamas and Hezbulah, with absolutely no obvious sabre rattling.
But, let's get back to the question.
Any nation connected to the 9/11 attacks has to realize that their necks are perilously close to the chopping block. All other American political considerations take a back seat to the security of the American people. Any nation worth a damn would adopt that same posture under similar circumstance. The big difference is that the US has the muscle to back up that posture. The right to self defense is not limited to the borders. Had France and Great Britain conducted a military intervention against Germany in 1938, it is entirely possible that the depth and scope of the Second World War would have been avoided.
Question #3:
Germany did not go out of its way to aid Iraq against a supposed ally. By and large, neither did Russia. I can respect a difference of opinion. I cannot tolerate treachery, and neither can most Americans.
France has always been right there when she needed us. Will the US be there the next time France calls? Time will tell. For the short term, American anger will be felt in the average citizen's refusal to purchase French products. Greater, more transcending consequences may come to pass in terms of a forever damaged friendship and the knowledge that trust has been erased from this relationship.
Known for its many contributions to art, bad form has been elevated by the French government to unique art form, not seen since the days of Napoleon III and France's meddling in Mexico during our Civil War.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Question #1:
Our Constitution does no apply to foreign nations. France, as it is prone to do, has a false sense of importance. Moreover, they seem to relish being the square peg. Fine, let them think of themselves as important and they can walk any path they as a nation desire. However, they need to understand that every action has consequences, sometimes positive, other times decidedly negative.
Our Roquefort maker now that since years.
Clearly, the French government has been motivated by financial reasoning. Any concern for the Iraqi people or American cencerns was easily swept aside by the almighty Euro. Billions in oil deals was sufficient to throw old alliances onto the trash pile. Amazingly, many French citizens complained that the US was going into Iraq for the oil. Yet, that oil was the primary reason their own government worked so hard to sabotage America in the UN. Considering that we had 200,000 military personnel in Kuwait, isn't it probable that if oil was the motive, the US would simply occupy Kuwait and just take their oil?
If the only motivation is the money how can you explain we were not backing the Us when we make at minima 40 times more money with the US ?
And koweit oil reserve are very low compared to the Iraqui reserves.
In recent days, documents establishing that France supplied the Iraqis with sensitive intelligence provided by the USA have surfaced in Iraq. France not only leaked conversations between Blair and the Italian Prime Minister, they passed along much of the content of American diplomatic discussions. It also appears that France supplied Iraq with intelligence on US war plans. How many American soldiers died due to this? Was Saddam able to avoid US strikes because the French tipped them off in advance? We will soon know the depth of French duplicity. When we do, the consequences will be proportional to their deceit. Bush is not likely to forgive and forget when it comes to behavior this far outside the borders of a "friendly disagreement". See Question #3 for further elaboration.
The document in question is hightly questionnable.
Especially when found by a Murdoch minion and when Murdoch has conflict of interrest with the Lagardere group.
Previously each time their was such a conflict a french bashing campaign was started by the Sun for example ...
I don't believe in coincidences.
Question #2:
Think for a minute how the US reacted to the 9/11 attacks. The simple fact that the entire Arabian peninsula is not a giant glass factory indicates immense restraint. Anyone with even the slightest comprehension understands that Saudi Arabia directly bankrolls virtually all Islamic terrorism. The fact that the US has announced a complete pullout from Saudi Arabia should send shivers down the spine of the Saudi mafia. Count on unrestrained pumping of Iraqi oil, flooding the market with the intent of crashing crude oil prices. Count on the Saudis to squeal like pigs over the loss of revenue. Minor payback in my estimation. Someone once suggested targeting several MIRVs on Meca for the purpose of political blackmail. IE, the support of terror leading to additional attacks on the US, especially with WMD, will result in making Meca so hot that the desert will feel like the north pole in comparison. This may be an extreme measure, but does anyone doubt that it would be effective at causing the Islamic world to seriously try to control militant fundamentalists?
Nothing to add .
For me this is THE reason of Us intervention in Iraq.
Before anyone whines, do they think for a second that Islamic terrorists would not target sacred Hebrew and Christian shrines in Israel with nuclear weapons if they had them? Rumor says that Israel had foiled an attempt to set off a radioactive "dirty" bomb at the Wailing Wall during the past 3 years. Then again, it is estimated that Israel has up to 200 nuclear weapons and a delivery system capable of ranges in excess of 10,000 miles. Had Iraq fired biological or chemical warheads into Israel during the Gulf War of 1991, there was no promise that Israel would not have responded with nuclear weapons. The US knew that, and so did Iraq. Ever wonder what really drove Egypt and Jordan to the peace table? There was far more than international political pressure in play. Even Syria has limited its behavior to support for Hamas and Hezbulah, with absolutely no obvious sabre rattling.
But, let's get back to the question.
Again no more to add.
Any nation connected to the 9/11 attacks has to realize that their necks are perilously close to the chopping block. All other American political considerations take a back seat to the security of the American people. Any nation worth a damn would adopt that same posture under similar circumstance. The big difference is that the US has the muscle to back up that posture. The right to self defense is not limited to the borders.
Agree
Had France and Great Britain conducted a military intervention against Germany in 1938, it is entirely possible that the depth and scope of the Second World War would have been avoided.
Short reasonning , and you forgive completly the reason why GB and France didn't do such an intervention : death toll of WWI was so hight that they were very reluctant to enter a war.
Question #3:
Germany did not go out of its way to aid Iraq against a supposed ally. By and large, neither did Russia. I can respect a difference of opinion. I cannot tolerate treachery, and neither can most Americans.
France has always been right there when she needed us.
Except 3 27 and 27 april 1954 for example or Suez ...
Will the US be there the next time France calls? Time will tell. For the short term, American anger will be felt in the average citizen's refusal to purchase French products. Greater, more transcending consequences may come to pass in terms of a forever damaged friendship and the knowledge that trust has been erased from this relationship.
To bad you chose to listen to only one voice.
Do you realy think we need to be erased from the map ?
Known for its many contributions to art, bad form has been elevated by the French government to unique art form, not seen since the days of Napoleon III and France's meddling in Mexico during our Civil War.
should I recall that "Badiguet"(*) was a dictator ?
(*) Napoleon III
-
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Imp
Where in my post did I say it was ok to bash americans?
Nowhere, so stop throwin accusations.
What I see the most is French bashing, thats why I use them as an exemple.
I agree with most of what straffo said.
As for Bush: If he had earned is position I would respect him alot more. Without is dad he would not be where he is right now.
I know it, you know it, he knows it, everybody knows it.
At least straffo and friends have the balls to openly crap on the US. You just pretend you aren't. It isn't quite as effective. Next time you troll, make it blatant. Look how well Nuke does it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
At least straffo and friends have the balls to openly crap on the US. You just pretend you aren't. It isn't quite as effective. Next time you troll, make it blatant. Look how well Nuke does it.
I know curiosity killed the cat .... but sometime I cannot resist.
Depending on the proper definition of "crap" (wich I'm not sure ton know)
I pretend having independant though and I'll recognize achievement made by the US and error/misjudgement.
In a word even if actually I'm in a very defensive position because of the actual situation I'm not ever going to spit on the grave of a US soldier(*) just because some disagreement.
My "crap" as you say is the result of the action of some posters here (like you when you falsely pretended my country was actively supporting terrorism.) and result of my education.
I'm different,I don't have the same background nor language and I'll continue to voice my opinion even if it's not the current admitted (by the masses) opinion.
PS I dunno if this post as exactly the meaning my french brain tried to put inside but writing the same post in my native language won't have been read ever ...
(*) it's quite easy I've only 1 hour drive to do.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I know curiosity killed the cat .... but sometime I cannot resist.
Depending on the proper definition of "crap" (wich I'm not sure ton know)
I pretend having independant though and I'll recognize achievement made by the US and error/misjudgement.
In a word even if actually I'm in a very defensive position because of the actual situation I'm not ever going to spit on the grave of a US soldier(*) just because some disagreement.
My "crap" as you say is the result of the action of some posters here (like you when you falsely pretended my country was actively supporting terrorism.) and result of my education.
I'm different,I don't have the same background nor language and I'll continue to voice my opinion even if it's not the current admitted (by the masses) opinion.
PS I dunno if this post as exactly the meaning my french brain tried to put inside but writing the same post in my native language won't have been read ever ...
(*) it's quite easy I've only 1 hour drive to do.
First, I never falsely pretended France was supporting terrorism. I posted links showing where OTHER people showed France was supporting terrorism. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Second, HA! I knew you couldn't resist reading my posts. Keep it up, and you'll lose your coveted "ignored by" status.
-
A few questions for Americans
1. Why France is facing US sanction for not joining the coalition of the "Willing"?
If they take actions against France then they are coercing them to do what they want. Thats against youre country's constitution which gives every man the right to his opinions and to choose what he wants to do without anyone pressuring him.
Why arent the French given that right? (I know they arent american citizens.)
2. What gives President Bush the right to make other countries do what he wants them to do by force?
3. Why arent Germany, Russia and other countries who didnt join getting the same treatment.
You guys claim to be for freedom but you dont give the freedom to choose to your allies.
Thats sounds hypocritical from where I sit.
Just something to think about. You can disagree you you want just please dont post personnal attacks (they will be ignored or ridiculed).
First question: Exactly what "sanctions" are you referring to?
Second question: What "force" are you referring to?
Third question: What "treatment" are you referring to?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
First, I never falsely pretended France was supporting terrorism. I posted links showing where OTHER people showed France was supporting terrorism. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Second, HA! I knew you couldn't resist reading my posts. Keep it up, and you'll lose your coveted "ignored by" status.
Sometime is not always if I'm not mistaken ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Sometime is not always if I'm not mistaken ?
Hah, I've been forced to update your status.
-
insults.....insults you say.
ok....
big fat bellybutton MacDonald eatin double cheese with freedom fries and DIET coke dweeb americans suck ass......
man I love insults......
straffo your french.....so you suck...cause your french:D
I suck cause I'm French too....but see..... I suck better then you...cause I'm French Canadian
but americans suck much better then we do....they suck bigger and better things.....
so all in all everyone sucks to a certain level...determining which level of suckiness we belong too is an endeavor you dweebs will have too agree upon.....
so in closing....
you suck dweeb.....French or American
-
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Imp
I apologize Martlet I was not aware that you could read my mind :rolleyes:
Im not anti american is that clear? Calling anyone who disagrees with something the US does anti american is ridiculeous. Almost everyone fits that description once in there life.
As for the questions, I did not have all the necesary info to make a judgment. I thought Powell was refering to France not being part of the coalition of the willing.
To those who throw insults, go right ahead, see if I care.:D
SLO is French canadian? Thats great :D
apology accepted, now you know.
Disagreeing with the US does not make you anti-american. Many americans do that. What DOES show you as anti-american, is when every single one of your posts and comments is whining about something america does.
I'm still waiting for the day when one of these constant whiners makes a post about one of the many good things that originates here.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Short reasonning , and you forgive completly the reason why GB and France didn't do such an intervention : death toll of WWI was so hight that they were very reluctant to enter a war.
Except 3 27 and 27 april 1954 for example or Suez ...
To bad you chose to listen to only one voice.
Do you realy think we need to be erased from the map ?
should I recall that "Badiguet"(*) was a dictator ?
(*) Napoleon III
I understand why France and Britain were reluctant to take Hitler to task in the years immediately prior to invasion of Poland. Indeed, the loss of a considerable portion of an entire generation will certainly disuade a people from war (unless you were German, and were very angry at the circumstances and events immediately following the end of the war).
Personally, I have always enjoyed the French people. In my months of visiting France in the late 1970s, I found them generally friendly and helpful to an American struggling with the language and culture. I had several ancient French gentleman guide me around the battlefields at the Marne, Argonne and Chateau Thierry so that I could visit the actual locations where my Grandfather fought the "evil Hun" in WWI. To them, I am eternally grateful.
As to "French arrogance", I rarely saw any such behavior. Yes, I did experience some in cosmopolitan Paris, but I find the same thing in New York too. However, out in the countryside, people were helpful and generous.
I have no wish to see the relationship between America and France suffer. But, in point of fact, I have not had a favorable opinion of French Presidents going back to and including DeGaulle. However, I can isolate political leaders from the people in general. Likewise, most French citizens like Americans, even if they dislike our political leaders. Indeed, we are not that different in most respects.
Unfortunately, the political fallout stemming from the events leading up to the Iraqi war will be with us for some time. It should be understood by our European friends that Americans are quick to forgive a mistake, but have a very long memory for treachery, be it real or simply perceived. Either way, it may take years to undo the harm that has been done and soothe the bad feelings many Americans have towards the current French Government.
By the way, Napoleon III was certainly a dictator, but he was elected President only to dissolve the legislature and declare himself Emperor. There are some who might argue that Chirac has done France nearly as great a disservice. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Imp
Whining?????
I was just asking people to be civil.
I was asking for people to discuss instead of insulting each other?
If that makes me anti american then im proud of it.
I called anti french (narrow minded) those that insulted the french nation, not those who said they thought france had been wrong without insulting anyone (civil discussion).
I like a good discussion as much as anyone else, but I hate insult matches just as much.
I never said america as never done anything good. I never even came close to saying anything like that. Im glad Saddam is gone.
So stop putting words in my mouths.
And what group am I a part of anyway? You dont even know me.
I voiced my opinion, which is the point of these boards.
Some people use them to throw insults, I think thats a shame.
I think it show the bad side of humankind.
Didn't you say you were going to stop talking about that?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
First, I never falsely pretended France was supporting terrorism. I posted links showing where OTHER people showed France was supporting terrorism. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Second, HA! I knew you couldn't resist reading my posts. Keep it up, and you'll lose your coveted "ignored by" status.
Don't apologise martlet. You want to talk France and terrorism trying dropping these three words into a conversation with anyone french:
Rainbow
Warrior
Bomb
-
vulcan.. of COURSE the french would attack a green peace vessel.
they needed a win.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
vulcan.. of COURSE the french would attack a green peace vessel.
they needed a win.
LMAO.
Good thing it was at anchor.
-
Ohhh thats low hang ;)
Oh, and Imp, in answer to your original post. Its a simple answer...
"if you want to talk the talk, be prepared to walk the walk".
France picked a fight with the big kid on the block, its not so much you're being punished rather you're losing the 'favours' you've had in the past. The US implements plenty of economic 'sanctions' on other countries (in NZ for example we get hit on steel, dairy, meat, and forestry products). Thats their right as a sovereign nation.
The funny thing was, if the word abstain was used instead of veto those arrogant French politicians wouldn't be in this position right now.
-
Originally posted by Imp
Tumor, when I say insult I mean the kind of crap that made HT post a sticky. HT knows that this game as an international player base.
This kind of horse **** as no place here or anywhere. Its racist crap. If I was French and saw these threads id be insulted.
I saw the same type of crap on Fighter Ace's newsgroup. Most boards seem to have this kind of stuff on it. Im really tired of it.
I believe people should be able to express themselves without being insulted. This is a discussion board not an insult board.
Im only asking peole to stop posting such crap.
I know its too much to ask people to act like respectable adults so Ill just stop posting about it.
One person's opinion can easily be considered an insult to another. Besides... HTC decides who has what rights on this board. Personally, I find quite a number of "personalities" on this bbs an insult to the intelligence of humanity... so I ignore them. Why not edit your ignore list before you try and tell people what they should or should not say?
-
Originally posted by Imp
As for Bush: If he had earned is position I would respect him alot more. Without is dad he would not be where he is right now.
I know it, you know it, he knows it, everybody knows it.
:confused: .... and now I'll take my own advice.
-
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Imp
You just cant have a civil discussion on these boards it seems. I just thought it would be nice to discuss instead of throwing insults.
Poof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets see... you call the Americans hypocrites, bullies, and insult their president.
And then you whine you can't have a civil discussion?
Ummm OK... pot... meet the kettle.
-
@Widewing : I agree mostly with your post ,especially when you make a distingo between the people and their representant ,I generally try to do the same
Btw Arrogant and Parisian are synonymous :)
What was the US reaction when de Gaulle chose to left (partially) NATO ?
I ask this question because the french bashing we have seen since 2 month look un-natural and far from being spontaneous for me ...
it look so "Murdoch" that I'm trying to figure were the propaganda start ..
@Martlet : I dunno if you've posted something for me ,you are back to the limbo.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Lets see... you call the Americans hypocrites, bullies, and insult their president.
And then you whine you can't have a civil discussion?
Ummm OK... pot... meet the kettle.
Insulting him wasnt my intent, I was just saying he got there through influence. Thats a problem with politics though, not Bush.
I shouldnt have aimed it at Bush. Sorry if I offended anyone.
I guess I just dont like politics and politicians.
Unfortunately we cant live without them :(
I said it looked hypocritical, I thought they were going to put sanctions on france for not joining the coalition of the willing. I did not know it was a response to Chirac's apparent threat towards some countries trying to join the EU. Chirac made a big mistake with that statement. Powell's threat seemed justified. I already said that.
I did not say you were all hypocrites or bullies. I did not understand the entire situation. I asked those questions because I was trying to understand your (US) position.
So calm down. Take a deep breath.
Not everyone on these boards uses english everyday.
I sure dont. Sometimes I write things the wrong way.
My english needs alot of work.
-
Imp, you're just another one of the many that thinks "free speech" means everyone else has the right to agree with what you say or post. Anyone who disagrees is "bashing" or "insulting".
You'll just have to take the bitter with the sour like the rest of us.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Imp, you're just another one of the many that thinks "free speech" means everyone else has the right to agree with what you say or post. Anyone who disagrees is "bashing" or "insulting".
You'll just have to take the bitter with the sour like the rest of us.
Im not asking anyone to agree with me, im asking them to not post insulting remarks about a nation or group because they dont like them.
Some of what I wrote was wrong, I admit that.
-
The problem is that you and others like you seem to take ANY disagreement with your own positions as an "insult".
-
What I took as an insult is being called anti american for asking questions.
My first post did not say you (US) are hypocritical and or bullies.
I said it looked like that from the info I had. Looks is not the same as "you are" I think (maybe my english is even worse than I thought though.)
Now that I know more I already said Powell was justified.
I already said Chirac was wrong.
What more do you want?
Im not siding with the french.
Im glad Saddam is out. Ill be happy when they find Osama.
Im just asking not to be called things that I am not.
Whats so damn hard to understand about that?
I made some bad responses because I was a bit angry, that happens. Get over it for god's sake (not that I believe in god.)
-
I don't want anything other than for everyone to understand that while you are free to voice your opinion, so is everyone else.
And when they do so, it isn't an "insult" that they don't agree with you.
That's all.
-
Im aware of that Toad.
Calling me anti american is though. He doesnt even know me and yet he knows im anti american. How would he know that?
I dont know wether your anti french or not. And I dont presume to know. It doesnt really matter much anyway. You have the right to think what you want. But you didnt come into this thread to call me names like a child.
I just put him on my ignore list anyway and its gggrrreeeaaattt!!!
I dont have to see is insults anymore.
He seems to like insulting and attacking people alot.
Im through trying to make people understand that insult match never accomplish anything good though. Ive had my lesson.
<--- Cast this thread into the demon filled Abyss.
-
I call it like I see it. When I see someone start a thread asking questions, then crap on the answers, I see it for being the troll that it is.
When I see the same person hopping on every opportunity to say negative things about the US, I call them as they are.
If you don't like it, then either don't read my posts, or post on BOTH sides of the fence. Doesn't matter to me. Just stop whining when I out you.
-
Originally posted by Imp
My first post did not say you (US) are hypocritical and or bullies.
I said it looked like that from the info I had. Looks is not the same as "you are" I think (maybe my english is even worse than I thought though.)
OK, try this , go to your local dive, find the biggest meanest looking motherf**ker in the bar... then say
"from the info I have you look like you take it up the butt and have a small dick"
See how he takes it ... insult or not?
-
Originally posted by Imp
Calling me anti american is though. He doesnt even know me and yet he knows im anti american.
There's many here that would consider being called "anti american" a compliment.
How are we supposed to sort you all out?
:D
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
OK, try this , go to your local dive, find the biggest meanest looking motherf**ker in the bar... then say
"from the info I have you look like you take it up the butt and have a small dick"
See how he takes it ... insult or not?
If I wanted to insult americans I would do it directly.
I said it "looked like" not "it is", there is a difference:
Looked like is impressions that you are doing something (not accusations, which would be insulting) based on what I know.
It is states that I know, I already stated that I did not. Which would make it a fact (which is insulting because its not based on facts since I dont know).
I did not have all the facts and misinterpreted what happenned.
Some people posted, without insulting me, to explain the context.
I did not attack any of them.
I was asking why Powell threaten France with sanctions for not joining the coalition of the willing. I had not heard of Chirac's threatening statement.
After I got the fact I stated this:
Chirac's statement was out of line.
I also said Powell's statement was justified.
Im sorry if I insultied anyone.
Are you happy?
I was curious, guess I dont have that right here :rolleyes:
If you cant take a question then dont read them is all the advice I can give.
Just let this damn thread go to hell damn it.
-
Originally posted by Imp
If I wanted to insult americans I would do it directly.
I said it "looked like" not "it is", there is a difference:
Looked like is impressions that you are doing something (not accusations, which would be insulting) based on what I know.
It is states that I know, I already stated that I did not. Which would make it a fact (which is insulting because its not based on facts since I dont know).
Yes, people say "looked like" all the time to avoid accountability.
It "looks like" you're a piece of crap anti-american, that knows dogs biblically.
-
Did someone say something?
Nope must be me hearing ghosts.
-
we live in a paranoid world
someone will always feel as if they are being attacked personally.
no matter if your critisisms are true or otherwise.
i used to be a welsh nationalist years ago and even today there is mistrust between the english and the welsh.
and what is the main critisism of the welsh by the english is that we speak welsh to each other even when an english person(who no one present may even know) is present.
welsh is our native langauge.
but the problems that has caused is unbelievable.
when openly critisised for doing this the usual reply is "ok when we in england you speak welsh as well.
people worry about anyone who is not the same as them. we are indeed strange creatures.
and in most cases the media is to blame. if someone important says something it must be true and if they say it on tv then it must be gospel and craved in stone.
if we stood back a pace we would see that we are all as bad and good as each other:D
-
Originally posted by dracken1
we live in a paranoid world
someone will always feel as if they are being attacked personally.
no matter if your critisisms are true or otherwise.
i used to be a welsh nationalist years ago and even today there is mistrust between the english and the welsh.
and what is the main critisism of the welsh by the english is that we speak welsh to each other even when an english person(who no one present may even know) is present.
welsh is our native langauge.
but the problems that has caused is unbelievable.
when openly critisised for doing this the usual reply is "ok when we in england you speak welsh as well.
people worry about anyone who is not the same as them. we are indeed strange creatures.
and in most cases the media is to blame. if someone important says something it must be true and if they say it on tv then it must be gospel and craved in stone.
if we stood back a pace we would see that we are all as bad and good as each other:D
I didnt know the Welsh had theyre own language.
Thanks for enlightening me.
I feel uneasy when american indians use there language around me. Its hard to know if they are laughing at you since you I dont understand a word that they say. Maybe thats part of the reason?
You dont need to tell me about the media, they start more panic than anyone else. People put too much trust in them sometimes, they accept things without questions. They follow blindly.
Im a nationalist too, but I live in Quebec. No I dont hate the english speakers of Quebec (got to cover my arse, since everyone seems to accuse me of something around here).
What makes me angry is people who think they know everything about me even though they dont know me at all.
I didnt come in this thread attacking anyone, I was trying to get some answers.
Next time Ill spell it out so clearly that no one can misinterpret it.
Now lets hope this thread falls into the deepest darkest Abyss.
-
Originally posted by dracken1
we live in a paranoid world
someone will always feel as if they are being attacked personally.
no matter if your critisisms are true or otherwise.
i used to be a welsh nationalist years ago and even today there is mistrust between the english and the welsh.
and what is the main critisism of the welsh by the english is that we speak welsh to each other even when an english person(who no one present may even know) is present.
welsh is our native langauge.
but the problems that has caused is unbelievable.
when openly critisised for doing this the usual reply is "ok when we in england you speak welsh as well.
people worry about anyone who is not the same as them. we are indeed strange creatures.
and in most cases the media is to blame. if someone important says something it must be true and if they say it on tv then it must be gospel and craved in stone.
if we stood back a pace we would see that we are all as bad and good as each other:D
I live in Boston, which like most major US cities has a huge immigrant population. I love walking around listening to people speak other languages. I speak several, so sometimes it's a chance to "eavesdrop" and practice. Other than that, it's just fun to listen to another culture.
What bothers me, is when people work here and don't speak english at all. I had a guy deliver pizza last week, and I tried to ask him if he brought the soda I also ordered, and he couldn't understand I word I said. No matter how hard I tried, he just spoke zero english. Since I don't speak Russian, I couldn't communicate with him at all. That's just wrong. Tourists I understand, but if you are going to come live here, and work here, learn the language.
-
Québécois?
Like Slo?
-
to answer imps querey
the welsh langauge is very old it is very nearly phoenetic.
but wales is famous for being the only country in the world where only 1/6th of the population can speak welsh.
we also have one of the longest place names in the world
that is "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychw yrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch "
which if you knew the welsh alphabet is a piece of cake to pronounce.
but if you dont then it means.
"St Mary's church in the hollow of the white hazel near a rapid whirlpool and the church of St Tysilio of the red cave."
oh but i should add that most know call it llanfair pg.
and our national dish is "welsh rarebit" which is cheese with beer on toast.
and in the middle ages the welsh archers were considered to be the best there where.
but alas to our shame we used that skill against the scots who are in fact celts as we are.
fighting in a war between them and the english.
-
Toad, in a word oui.
dracken1, thanks for the info. The longbow is a famous weapon.
The Englishmen won the battles of Azincourt and Crecy with it.
But you probably knew that already :D
-
Mais oui, I should think. I am not suprised.
BTW, have you had a chat with Slo about insulting people? :D