Le France hard headed or what? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

BENZ-LGB · #31 03-13-2003, 05:03 PM

I am not going to engage on a point-by-point response to your post. My position on the war against Iraq, the U.S. and the American people are well-known to everyone who reads this forum. Quite frankly, I don't think that the rest of the people who visit this forum are interested on a one-on-one debate.

Besides (and as long as your brought up the point of "studying" law), since I earn a living by "arguing" in court, I don't think it would be fair for me to engage you on an argument. It would be sort like the Iraqui air force trying to take on the U.S. Air Force...see my point?

Your reference to my playing with German trains is a good try, but it misses the point by a country mile. I personally know some members of the family who owns and operates the LGB toy factory, makers of LGB trains. And this is what I know.

During WWII, the Nazi government seized LGB's assets. They were not able to fully get back to the business of making toys and trains until after the Allies liberated Germany from the Nazi government (sort of like what the U.S. is planning to do in Iraq, liberate the Iraquis from Saddam's rule). When I buy German trains made by LGB I am supporting a business that was hurt by the Nazis, I am not supporting the Nazi government. But when a person banks with a Swiss bank that willingly engaged in business with the Nazis they are...well, you get the point. Oui? Switzertland's vaunted neutrality (its alleged neutrality, to put it in other terms) came at a price. Selling out to the Nazis was just a small part of that price.

As for driving a German car, i.e., a Benz, I see no lack of logic either. MB made engines for German warplanes and I believe that they also made diesel engines for tanks. So did BMW. Both companies, however, were "drafted" into the war effort by the Nazi government. Had they had a choice, I am certain that both MB and BMW would have rather gone on making fast cars and motor bikes than making airplane or tank engines for the war effort.

So, again, I see no inconsistencies or lack of logic in preferring to drive a Mercedes or any other German car.

What your country did to aid the Nazi war effort is well-documented and merits no further comment. The fact that you are "sick and tired" of the attacks on your country does not change, for a moment, the historical record. Look, the Vatican still refuses to admit that it aided the Nazis during WWII. and there is a new generation of Germans who still deny the existence of a Holocaust. So I don't really expect Switzerland to 'fess up any time soon. History, however, cannot be re-written, no matter how revisionist one may wish to be.

When you accuse the Israeli government of conducting terrorism, you are clearly showing: (a) a willful failure to ignore current history, (b) a complete ignorance of current events, as they apply to the Middle East, (c) an anti-Semitic streak, or (d) all of the above. Israel is trying to survive in a hostile world, surrounded by people who want nothing better than to wipe Israel form the map and in the process kill all Israelis and Jews. I don't want to get into a Middle East discussion (but I will if I have to) but you cannot call the Israeli government a terrorist nation while ignoring the fact that it is the PLO, backed in part by Iraq, that continues to engage in acts of terrorism against innocent civilians.
If the majority of the Swiss people REALLY do believe that the Israeli government is a terrorist state, than that would help explain Switzerland's conduct towards the Jews during WWII. Seems like anti-Semitism is hard to wipe out, oui?

Your comments about the U.S. being built over the blood and tears of innocent indegenous people demonstrates that your knowledge of American history is probably based upon watching too many bad Westerns. The U.S. was also built upon the strength, the courage, the valor of men and women who conquered a wild country and have turned it into a model for the rest of the world.

It is funny, all of you people who like to bash the U.S. would not hesitate, for a second, to beg the American people for its help if your country was being attacked. You like to rely upon the might of our armed forces and the stength of our people, yet you feel justified in commdeming our country. That takes some nerve.

If you wish to bring the debate back to Iraq, that's fine. But this thread was about France's apparent lack of (insert here word for the gmale glands responsible for making sperm). To be honest, however, the point has been debated back and forth ad nauseum. If your starting point is that the U.S. is a lawless country, a murdering country, an aggressive country, then Manu, there is not much point in trying to reason with you. You have already made up your mind and there is no point in preaching to the choir. Good luck to you, may you and your country continue to feel safe assisting drug dealers and terrorists in hiding assets. May you and your country continue to feel safe peddling Nestle's chococalte (yuck!).

And actually, I'd like to say that the French people, and not necessarily its government, fought valiantly during the resistance. And even if the French hissed and booed Lance Armstrong when he won his 4th Tour de France for the most part I still like the French. My issue is with le worm Chirac, and not with the French (see Dr. AMG, I can be reasonable

)

In conclusion, I am proud to have been adopted by this country. I am proud to call the American people my brothers and sisters. I am proud of a President who spends less time worrying about how to get a (insert street term for oral copulation) from an intern (and then lying about it on national television) and more time on protecting us from future attacks. I am proud of a U.S. military who is ready to do the right thing. And, most of all, I am proud of living in a country where even the most blind, the most hateful, the most ignorant person still has the right to have his or her ideas heard, without fear of reprisal.

Sign me a Proud American. Oui! Oui!

glenmore · #32 03-13-2003, 06:54 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DieselHead
[ Actually, I have said several times that I'm FOR going to war provided that we can clean up the mess well and leave the region in stability and balance.

Unfortunetely, we don't know how Bush intends to leave the region once this is done with.

I do think Bush owes us more of an explanation of his plans, and he needs to make a final address showing us his evidence.

These argments are all well and good but why would you prioritize them over the desire to eliminate WMDs and a brutal regime?

You comment on the motives of anti-war protesters and I agree, most of them aren't really anti-war. If they were, you'd expect at least some request for Saddam to also not make war, but not a peep out of them. I've come to the conclusion that anti-war protestors are really of two camps. The anti-America camp usually populated by the Euros, U.N., etc.. And the anti-Bush camp of liberal Democrats. This following comment of yours makes me think you are part of the later.

"That was very interesting. I hope the information and analysis is being presented to Pres. Bush in a way he can understand it. "

glenmore · #33 03-13-2003, 07:01 PM

Here is a very short and concise article from the Washington Post.

For those with the President, a calming and reassurind read.

For those opposed to the war, read it and weep.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13019-2003Mar11.html

DieselHead · #34 03-13-2003, 07:10 PM

Quote:

This following comment of yours makes me think you are part of the later.

People like to make these sweeping generalizations and like to catagorize in to groups of extremes. Yes, I am not the biggest fan of Bush, but I am not what you imply. I won't oppose Bush's policies just because they are his policies. If he proposes something that I agree with, then great, I would agree and applaud him for it. There are people that would oppose Bush NO MATTER WHAT simply to act in opposition. I'm not like that. I would evaluate a liberal president the same way I would evaluate Bush. There are 14 major intelligence gathering agencies/institutions in the US, all working very hard gathering information, analyzing information, and briefing information. I hope they present what they have to Bush in a way that makes the difficulties of intervention in the middle east clear. Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. Not many people know that. They are waiting to see what happens after we go in to Iraq and then they are going to use their nuclear leverage against us in diplomacy. There is the Kurdish problem. There's the Saudi problem in that they don't want a competitor to undercut them in the oil business (should we, or someone else, begin to revive the oil reserves in Iraq). How will we provide medical aid for the people who will be inevitably injured during our attacks? How will we provide food? There is a shortage as it stands now. How will we provide fresh water? If we bomb their water processing plants and energy plants, fresh water will be hard to find, they have no large natural sources.
All these issues have nothing to do with whether or not I think we should go in to Iraq. As I've stated, and as you have quoted, I think we should. These issues have to do with the planning, and I think Bush, as you have said very wisely, owes us a briefing of his plans. Not the strategic plans (if I didn't add this disclaimer, someone on this forum would jump in and yell that he would be compromising security). He owes it to us to present his ideas and his goals: his vision. Does this make my opinions clearer to you? Don't group me in to a camp. I evaluate everything objectively and without bias. I have my definite opinions, but I won't write off someone just because of a predisposition.

Alex

BENZ-LGB · #35 03-13-2003, 07:26 PM

Thank you somuch for the link to the Post's article. Excellent read and a powerful argument for removing Saddam.

Again, thanks.

jsmith · #36 03-13-2003, 07:55 PM

isn't it true that france is the country with the biggest investment in iraq? they have a number of huge projects going on over there some of which do not have signed contracts

and maybe they are hard headed...

DieselHead · #37 03-13-2003, 08:16 PM

JSmith,
Yes, they are the largest exporter of goods in to Iraq and one of the largest oil patrons. There are definitely political motives behind what they are doing.

Alex

mikemover · #38 03-13-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DieselHead
But anyway, I'm not completely anti-war, but I agree that probably about 90% of the world's population is against it.

Alex

What?! We are SO far from acting alone! We have 18 Western European countries as allies, several in Central and South America, and 16 of the 19 NATO members. So how do you arrive at this "90%"?

Mike

mikemover · #39 03-13-2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Manu
I thought that the official/politically correct reason for the war against Iraq is the presence of weapons of mass destruction. Blix "covered" up the discovery of some sort of very large drone which COULD be used to spread toxic agents, but the fact that this drone (only one!) could be used as a weapon of mass destruction doesn't make it one...No proof has been produced about the presence of weapons of mass destructions in Iraq, no proof either has been shown about a connexion between Iraq and Al-Quaïda...Don't mean to piss anyone off but those are just the facts, or absence thereof, which is why this war will be illegal and unilateral...

The FACTS are that the UN resolution says Iraq must PROVE it has disarmed, and must list ALL of it's weapons, surveillance, potential weapons and developmental programs. The "drone" is just one (actually 3) of a LONG list of flagrant violations of the resolution. The resolution DOES NOT say that WE must prove ANYTHING. Saddam has the ability to stop this "war" against him, and he chooses to play cat-and-mouse, hide-and-seek instead. Read the UN resolution, THEN comment.

Mike

mikemover · #40 03-13-2003, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Manu
No evidence has been provided as of yet, and the deadline to the US resolution is impossible to meet, which is why France, Russia and China must and will use their veto right, thus making the US intervention in Iraq illegal.

I quite honestly believe that the US will be on their own for the attack.

I addressed the "evidence" issue already. The next issue is the "illegality" issue. This is a NON-issue. The United States is a soveriegn country, and IS NOT a province, state, ward, or any other kind of "subsidiary" of the UN, and neither is ANY other country. Iraq is in "violation" of the UN resolution, but their actions are not "illegal", because the UN is NOT a "world government", even though they'd like everyone to think they are, and no UN resolution or decree is legally binding to ANYONE. By the same token, any action the US or anyone else takes against Saddam is not "illegal", for the reasons stated above.

The US is NOT alone in out position (read post above), but if we were to be...so be it. We are still within our right to defend our country and our interests.

Mike

mikemover · #41 03-13-2003, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Manu
I don't think the absence of proof of their destruction proves that they exist. I think this argument is not valid enough when the lives of innocent women and children are at stake. Cooperation with Iraq will not happen overnight, it will take time, and not enough time was given.

The validity of the argument lies in the fact that the resolution REQUIRES that Iraq document the destruction of ALL banned weapons. They have not. This is very simple. What is so hard to grasp about this?

Cooperation CAN happen overnight, and should have. He has been UN-cooperative for 12 years, and continues to do so, with no hint of any intention of stopping.

mike

mikemover · #42 03-14-2003, 01:00 AM

http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-031203B

Mike

BENZ-LGB · #43 03-14-2003, 01:30 AM

If we have to go at it alone, then so be it. One of America's founding principles was the notion that the rugged individualist was preferable to the mindless automaton.

In Spanish there is saying: "Mejor solo, que mal acompanado." "Better to be alone than with bad company."

I just hope that when it is all said and done, that we remember those who stood next to us and that we never forget those who abandoned us.

#44 03-14-2003, 07:15 AM

Mike,

That article is just pure propaganda. Any media is supposed to have a neutral point of view. This article is no more valid than what you could find from anti-war media. They probably claim the return of Elvis on page 2... B-S redneck tabloid.

LGB,

Since you're all that, a lawyer, and so much better than anyone else, how about answering those question one after the other using the little ref. numbers? Before making a racist anti-Swiss comment, please note that the person who asked them is not Swiss, but American, just like you. I seriously doubt that you can or will answer any of them directly. You probably are gonna try to find dirt to discredit this Mister Ron Paul, just like you did for me. That what US lawyers do. It's up to you to prove me wrong. If you can, answer them one after the other. I'm calling you out on this...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2...02/cr091002.htm

mikemover · #45 03-14-2003, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Manu
Mike,

That article is just pure propaganda. Any media is supposed to have a neutral point of view. This article is no more valid than what you could find from anti-war media. They probably claim the return of Elvis on page 2... B-S redneck tabloid.

Propaganda?

First...nowhere on that site does it say that it is a "news" site, or and unbiased source. The writer has written from the point of view that we must defend US interests, with or without help, and no neutrality was implied or required.

Secondly...there is no false or misleading information in his writing...It is merely an account and evaluation of the current state of affairs, and of what he feels we must do about it. You automatically label it "propagnada" because you don't like what it says, which makes your comment irrelevant, much like many of the irrelevant questions you have asked LGB to answer.

Mike