France - corrupt sanction breakers and Saddam supporters

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by bushblows
I bet you like French wine, too.
Commie.

Actually I like french wine but I find the french man to soft, but they have done nothing wrong to me so is not reason to dislilke them just because they were doing what US has done in the past.

marg6043.
This bushblows guy? He called you something that he probably doesn't have any idea what it means! *shaking head* Some people got a lot of nerve!

Originally posted by Intelearthling
marg6043.
This bushblows guy? He called you something that he probably doesn't have any idea what it means! *shaking head* Some people got a lot of nerve!

Thanks, for the point Itelearthing, I just take it as a joke my husband once in a while calls me the same thing because my radical views.

Sometimes is better to laugh than to argue.

Originally posted by crossfire
Ever wondered why the French opposed the removal of Saddam? A principled opposition to war? Concern about the plight of the Iraquis?

no chance!

Cynical, corrupt and hypocritical French politicians and businessmen were making millions from Saddam and wanted the gravy train to continue.


""Saddam bought UN allies with Oil"

www.timesonline.co.uk...

funny - no mention of USA or UK in this article - might be becuase we are principled nations committed to the removal of tyrants, while France is usually in the pay of them?

Maybe they realized it'd be smarter to keep Saddam there instead of removing him. Seems they were correct, as 40,000 dead Iraqis and Americans can probably testify to.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
������..
My point is directed to the statement that the US is not any fault and that the US went to war to liberate the people. The way the author made it sound is that the US started this war purely in the interests of the Iraqi people, which is definitely not true. If we want to go further with the US, we can start talking about the dealings with Iraq during the Reagan and Bush administration as well.

Well I guess we�ll just have to disagree�..I didn�t get the US cleaner than a whistle thing�I felt the post was pointing to the fact that France is governed by a corrupt government. Maybe he was driving at squeakiness I don�t know I can�t and wouldn�t answer to that.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
But presently, I'd say that the US government is pretending to be for this war for moral reasons, which I believe is in untrue.

Do you think the US is hypocritical at times with the way they conduct this war and the reasons they continue to give for it?

I don�t get that either�.I believe that humanitarian issues are part of the equation, and i don't feel that they have substantively altered there pitch�but I�ve always felt that anyone who gives one or a few reasons for war is just playing to the simple minded�.do I believe that we should be there hell yes and I�ll list the reasons�

1. We have not seen all the evidence but first gulf war senate support 52-48, current 77-23(+/- one).�.if you believe that what we have seen is all there was; then I have some water front property that you might like to buy. Now many might like to discount all US intelligence, however I would submit that we have been shown the weakest of the evidence available.
2. �Salman Pak�
3. Russian president warns of plans against US by Iraq
4. whether or not Iraq was actively collaborating with OBL, the fact remains that they had a relationship sooner or later it would have been a collaborative relationship
5. Saddam�s prior activities against his own people
6. Saddam�s activities against Iran
7. Iraq giving aid and comfort to world renown terrorists
8. the many defectors warning of his illicit activities
9. concerns for instability in the region�both Saddam and Iran were in the chase for nuclear weapons�does anyone think if one or the other had them they would have hesitated to use them against each other.

There are other reasons that I just can�t remember now, but that is more than enough for me. Are there other countries that support terrorism and are just as bad if not worse�.yes but I believe what brought Iraq to the head of the list is that we were embroiled in a dispute with them that they had ample opportunity to resolve in the prior decade. We have been flying over a large portion of the country and that has cost us financially and through the daily bombings of Iraq for a decade. Now we are on the ground and things are worse short term. But, if things go well we�ll be out of there in a year or two without having to do 7/24 combat missions for an indefinite period.

Iraq fought Iran as a US proxy.

Iraqi ties to terrorism are false.

Iraq having developing nukes was false.

Two former Centcom commanders said Iraq had no ability to project even conventional force against its neighbors. How could they be a threat to the US?

This war has only strengthened actualy enemies of the US.

Originally posted by keholmes
1. We have not seen all the evidence but first gulf war senate support 52-48, current 77-23(+/- one).�.if you believe that what we have seen is all there was; then I have some water front property that you might like to buy. Now many might like to discount all US intelligence, however I would submit that we have been shown the weakest of the evidence available.
2. �Salman Pak�
3. Russian president warns of plans against US by Iraq
4. whether or not Iraq was actively collaborating with OBL, the fact remains that they had a relationship sooner or later it would have been a collaborative relationship
5. Saddam�s prior activities against his own people
6. Saddam�s activities against Iran
7. Iraq giving aid and comfort to world renown terrorists
8. the many defectors warning of his illicit activities
9. concerns for instability in the region�both Saddam and Iran were in the chase for nuclear weapons�does anyone think if one or the other had them they would have hesitated to use them against each other.

1. This time around Congress did note vote for invasion specifically. They voted for various means necessary to diffuse the Iraqi situation, one of which was war if it came to it. But the President decided it was best to skip more diplomacy and economic sanctions and go straight to war.
2. I haven't seen evidence suggesting that it was state-sponsored. I'm sure you would agree there are sleeper cells all over the world. There have also been many notable cases of terrorist camps in the US.
3. I really dislike this one because Putin made this statement after the Iraq War begun. Noone has ever found Putin saying these comments before the war started.
4. They were at odds with one another. This is speculation and almost at the level of paranoia.
5. I'll give you that one.
6. Yet, we don't like Iran either. These two countries were at odds in the '80s in which we supported both sides of conflict.
7. I'm assuming you are talking about Palestinians? I wasn't aware of any state-sponsored terrorism against the US.
8. Key-word: defectors. They say what they need to and we haven't found much evidence for their assertions, especially in the way of WMDs.
9. Perhaps, but I very much doubt it. It would be interesting to ponder on where Iran and Iraq want/wanted to take their countries. But, I assume that the nukes were for defensive purposes. Surely they know its a lose-lose situation if they launch and I doubt they are that stupid.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
1. This time around Congress did note vote for invasion specifically. They voted for various means necessary to diffuse the Iraqi situation, one of which was war if it came to it. But the President decided it was best to skip more diplomacy and economic sanctions and go straight to war.
2. I haven't seen evidence suggesting that it was state-sponsored. I'm sure you would agree there are sleeper cells all over the world. There have also been many notable cases of terrorist camps in the US.
3. I really dislike this one because Putin made this statement after the Iraq War begun. Noone has ever found Putin saying these comments before the war started.
4. They were at odds with one another. This is speculation and almost at the level of paranoia.
5. I'll give you that one.
6. Yet, we don't like Iran either. These two countries were at odds in the '80s in which we supported both sides of conflict.
7. I'm assuming you are talking about Palestinians? I wasn't aware of any state-sponsored terrorism against the US.
8. Key-word: defectors. They say what they need to and we haven't found much evidence for their assertions, especially in the way of WMDs.
9. Perhaps, but I very much doubt it. It would be interesting to ponder on where Iran and Iraq want/wanted to take their countries. But, I assume that the nukes were for defensive purposes. Surely they know its a lose-lose situation if they launch and I doubt they are that stupid.

1. I�ve heard the lame a$$ excuse that congress only voted for the authorization of force and it flies like a brick�..when you authorize marines to go to a foreign land and use force�.it�s called war�.kerry may want to pretend to be ignorant and fight over the meaning of 'usage of force' and 'war' but its silly. Wow, arguing of the meaning of a word, isn't that unique.
2. Funny, I didn�t mention state-sponsored. And it wasn�t a sleeper cell iraq declared salman pak to the UN.
3. If you read the reports rumors had been floating for some time, a reporter finally asked directly and was told�. Let�s see you did what I told you not to�..it has cost me a lot in bribes and other compensation�..what story can I make up to help you out know. Does that even make sense to you?
4. You should check out page 315-338 of the 9-11 commission report.
5. Come on you could have if you tried.
6. My point wasn�t that we liked Iran, the point was that they didn�t hesitate to use WMD against one another�this would kind of go to #10 as well.
7. Abu Nidal among others�.I believe it was abu that an investigative reporter used the Baghdad phone book to locate�.wow what an investigation, man was he hiding well. As well as abu zarqawi ??? and this would also be tied into #2
8. they found �Salman Pak� the mobile chemical labs�.the scientist with the centrifuges also came forth and is saying that the nuclear program just needed the end of sanctions.
9. so you think that they would differentiate that some WMD are just too much�.come on if they were willing to use WMD without a second thought, even on their own citizenry you think that they would all of a sudden see the light?


[edit on 3-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by crossfire
It is not about morality it is about phoney morality and hypocrisy and lies. The French opposed the removal of Saddam, they argued the UN line must prevail

Yet there is ample evidence they have constantly undermined the UN sanctions regime in Iraq and opposed the invasion because of it yet pretended it was for "moral" reasons.

can you not see the truth? it stares you in the face

Fill in the blanks on the below (24;26). Then tell us make your case about phoney morality and hypocrisy is exclusive to East of the Atlantic, West of the Pacific and North of the 49th parallel.

Number 1

N------- S------- D------- D-------- 114
We have recently received additional information confirming ----- use of chemical weapons. We also know that ---- has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiary. In keeping with our policy of seeking to halt CW use wherever it occurs, we are considering the most effective means to halt ----- CW use including, as a first step, a direct approach to ----. This would be consistent with the way we handled the initial CW use information from Southwest Asia and Afghanistan, i.e, private demarches to the Lao, Vietnamese and Soviets.

As you are aware, presently ---- is at a disadvantage in its war of attrition with ----. After a recent SIG ,meeting on the war, a discussion paper was sent to the White House for an NSC meeting (possibly Wednesday or Thursday this week), a section of which outlines a number of measures we might take to assist ----�

Number 2. I have reviewed and approved the Terms of Reference to govern our political and military consultations with our key Allies and the ---- ---- states. Political consultations should begin immediately followed by military consultations with those Allies and regional states which express a willingness to cooperate with us in planning measures necessary to deter or defend against attack; on or interference with non-belligerent shipping or on critical oil productions and transshipment facilities in the Persian Gulf.

In our consultations we should assign the highest priority to access arrangements which would facilitate the rapid deployment of those forces necessary to defend the critical oil facilities and transshipment points against air or sapper attacks...

�Because of the real and psychological impact of curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic...

(signed)

------ ------

end


Subjective analysis gives way to facts. Can you see the truth which stares you in your face?

OK Keholmes, let's pretend that all the bull# lies given to authorize what we now know is probably the worst military decision ever made by a President since the Bay of Pigs were actual truth.

Are you glad we went to war? Iraq is so much better off, isn't it? And we are so free of terror that only 5 Americans have had their heads cut off, 1100 Americans killed, 8,000 grievously wounded, 40,000 Iraqi civilians killed and 120,000 wounded. But isn't it great to know that the war ended when President Bush landed on the carrier in his Top Gun outfit and the country is in perfect peace and democracy?

Isn't it nice that oil is flowing out of Iraq, and the war paid for itself?

Isn't it great to know that Iraqis have clean water, and electricity, and security?

It makes me feel warm inside when I think about how much good our country did over there by invading.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by taibunsuu]

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Iraqi ties to terrorism are false.

do you even have a glimmer of what might be called hard evidence to that ridiculous statement?

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Iraq having developing nukes was false.

all a big lie huh�so why did the UN believe it.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Two former Centcom commanders said Iraq had no ability to project even conventional force against its neighbors. How could they be a threat to the US?

you would think after 9/11 no one would utter such whoops again. Try a google search for �world trade center planes boom� what you find might give you a glimmer of how they could be a threat to the US?

Originally posted by taibunsuu
This war has only strengthened actualy enemies of the US.

And that would be opinion, which you are very welcome to but I don�t agree. We are a long way from determining just what the outcome will be. I for one don�t easily start to shudder as soon as something I don�t want to hear is uttered�..especially since statistically speaking, this war so far is as soft as any we as a nation have faced since revolutionary times.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
................
Are you glad we went to war? Iraq is so much better off, isn't it? And we are so free of terror that only 5 Americans have had their heads cut off, 1100 Americans killed, 8,000 grievously wounded, 40,000 Iraqi civilians killed and 120,000 wounded. But isn't it great to know that the war ended when President Bush landed on the carrier in his Top Gun outfit and the country is in perfect peace and democracy?
.................

Glad would be a little wrong way to word it. As I responded a few post ago I did think it necessary. Would I still, probably with the very clear vision of hind sight, maybe�however I think it�s a little late now.

Originally posted by marg6043

Just remember Sadam was a friend of the US until US decided he was the enemy.

Just like Bin-laden friend first enemey later.

Is it that simple Marg? You are a history teacher right? take a look at the history of why they were friends at first and became enemies, and tell me it was the US choice to make them enemies... Take a look at some of the unfriendly quotes that both Osama and Saddam made concerning the US..... Take a look at what Osama was saying that he and his other radical buddies wanted to do to the west after they finished with Russia back in the 80s....and make note on when Osama made this speech.... I think you have seen this before because i have posted these quotes a few times...

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Maybe they realized it'd be smarter to keep Saddam there instead of removing him. Seems they were correct, as 40,000 dead Iraqis and Americans can probably testify to.

40,000 Iraqis dead?
where do you get these figures?
I hope it is not Al Jazeera.....

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by marg6043

Just remember Sadam was a friend of the US until US decided he was the enemy.

Just like Bin-laden friend first enemey later.

Is it that simple Marg? You are a history teacher right? take a look at the history of why they were friends at first and became enemies, and tell me it was the US choice to make them enemies... Take a look at some of the unfriendly quotes that both Osama and Saddam made concerning the US..... Take a look at what Osama was saying that he and his other radical buddies wanted to do to the west after they finished with Russia back in the 80s....and make note on when Osama made this speech.... I think you have seen this before because i have posted these quotes a few times...

Actually wrong I am a Spanish teacher and I enjoy history actually it was my best subject in college. Now it does not matter how you put in nice words history and politics tells you that US foreign deal has not been in the best interest of this nation most of the time

And the result of most of these dealings has turn out for the worst. I guess US has not been good at choosing friends they take our money and then turn around as stab US and us in our backs.

Yes I had seen you quotes on bin-laden and I wonder what bin-laden was doing during the 80's while he was fighting against Russia I wonder who was helping on the side.

I wonder also as why bin-laden end up hating the US goverment so much.

You know we all know all these answers but is easier to bring them up and debate about them and again the deeds are done mistakes are done and we are stuck with the results.


[edit on 4-10-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Are you glad we went to war? Iraq is so much better off, isn't it? And we are so free of terror that only 5 Americans have had their heads cut off, 1100 Americans killed, 8,000 grievously wounded, 40,000 Iraqi civilians killed and 120,000 wounded. But isn't it great to know that the war ended when President Bush landed on the carrier in his Top Gun outfit and the country is in perfect peace and democracy? [edit on 3-10-2004 by taibunsuu]

Thanks for the hysterical post. The "Top Gun" outfit is always good for a laugh. Speaking of which...do yourself a favor and check out the George Bush Action Figure in the link below. It supposedly depicts GB on the day he landed on the carrier. As you study it ask yourself: is this an accurate depiction of someone who was a cheerleader in an all-boy highschool??

www.probush.com...



[edit on 4-10-2004 by bushblows]