Long Range WMD's Found!

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Fishu
So.... if US doesn't have anything to hide, why doesn't it let red cross etc. inspect guantanamo prison as they wish it to be done?

..and of course US was spying on french prior to Iraq war.
Like listening to Chirac's phone conversations.
At least Israelis have thought it to be good idea to spy on US soil... but alas, americans didn't like the idea.


So let me sum this up again... that gives the french a right to listen US presidents calls, right?


Or is the easier equation better: double stantards...?

the red cross did inspect gitmo.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Fishu
So.... if US doesn't have anything to hide, why doesn't it let red cross etc. inspect guantanamo prison as they wish it to be done?

..and of course US was spying on french prior to Iraq war.
Like listening to Chirac's phone conversations.
At least Israelis have thought it to be good idea to spy on US soil... but alas, americans didn't like the idea.


So let me sum this up again... that gives the french a right to listen US presidents calls, right?


Or is the easier equation better: double stantards...?

you must sleep soundly at night knowing that the french would never eavesdrop on their allies and the only people that would dare do such a thing are the evil bad americans.

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by rpm
In Iran.

WMD's, clear and present danger...why isn't Bush invading?

Iraq is next door remember????

[Fishu]

Originally posted by anonymous
the red cross did inspect gitmo.

"as they wish it to be done"

[babek-]

Originally posted by rpm
In Iran.

WMD's, clear and present danger...why isn't Bush invading?

Maybe because he fears to get such a great and impressive "victory" like in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Gixer]

Originally posted by slimm50
Give us time...first things first, and all that, ya know.

Yeah, can only mess up one country at a time.



...-Gixer

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by babek-
Maybe because he fears to get such a great and impressive "victory" like in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Hey Napoleon,

I've got an original idea for ya. Go invade Russia again and see how it works out for you.

[Gh0stFT]

without Bush we would not know the non-existens of WMA,
so we have to be thankfull to Bush & co.



R
Gh0stFT

[babek-]

Originally posted by Wolfala
Hey Napoleon,

I've got an original idea for ya. Go invade Russia again and see how it works out for you.

The question is who acted like Napoleon? (... ok - I have to apologize to the french people here for comparing something like Bush with an historic important person like Napoleon )

Napoleon invaded Russia and was able to win military battles and to capture Moscow but not the peace after these military victories.
So finally all these victories were useless.
He lost the political battle.

The same is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan - where after the official "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"-gag of the great hero Bush the fightings are still going on.
The puppet regimes of Karsai and Allawi have no real power over "their" countries.

So - after these are the results in battered and small countries like Iraq or Afghanistan - do you really want the same szenario in a much larger country like Iran with its 60 million people?

Its easy to start a war - and also to win military battles with all the material the USA has.
But to start a war without thinking what will happen after the victory is extremely stupid.
Q.e.d. by Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Fishu
..and while you're putting down UN,  the USA has vetoed once again in UN to save Israel.

So why exactly is UN performing badly?

Because the UN sucks. Simple enough.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Fishu
As I recall he demanded to withdraw american UN inspectors, due to spy suspections.
Not so surprisingly US denied this and keenly wanted to keep theirs in Iraq.

Probably because the US is expected to clean up the mess when the UN screws up. Or because the US was the country that provided the vast majority of forces and resources to deal with Saddam the last time, with all due respect to the countries who provided forces and resources to help make it happen. Because when you have sanctions against you and you lost the war, you don't get to pick who does the inspections that verify compliance with the cease fire that saved your ass. Because the US had large numbers of troops in the areas most likely to be affected if Saddam used such weapons, because the UN, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar asked us to.

[Maniac]

And the Americans keeps on blocking their ears with their hands and go "LALALALALALA".

What do you guys think about what Rumsfeldt said according to Alqaida and Iraq?