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

#1 03-11-2003, 07:37 PM

"No matter what evidence is brought forth, France will veto any war in Iraq" France UN idiot

I swear I can't figure these people out! Regardless of evidence they will oppose the war, no matter what. Now I know where people get their hard heads.

DieselHead · #2 03-11-2003, 07:39 PM

That's a little unreasonable. They should atleast explain why.

#3 03-11-2003, 08:31 PM

Too much red wine.

DieselHead · #4 03-12-2003, 01:27 AM

Obviously they're not Klingons, the Klingons were war mongers. I think we'd be the Klingons and they'd be the appeasing federation.

#5 03-12-2003, 07:53 AM

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 wonder why you people don't cut the French some slack, there's only three countries who agree to the war right now, USA, UK and Spain, all the others are against it, don't believe the media, no country I know of has a majority of its inhabitants in favor of a war against Iraq bar the US and Israel...

It is a known fact that Blair's position will cost him his seat as prime minister, same thing goes for Aznar.

That's what happens when you don't listen to what the population you're supposed to represent has to say. 85% of the Brits are against the war, 90% of the Spanish, Blair and Aznar are just Bush's little puppies and are politically finished already. Good thing.

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

#6 03-12-2003, 08:13 AM

No evidence as of yet, o' boy where have you been the last twelve years? What about yesterday when Hans was getting nailed for covering up information?

DieselHead · #7 03-12-2003, 08:18 AM

Manu,
You're probably right about the US being all alone. I'm afraid of what the consequences might be in the long run. We're taking on this unitary war and we're complaining that Iraq is a rogue state. Funny. But anyway, I'm not completely anti-war, but I agree that probably about 90% of the world's population is against it.

Alex

#8 03-12-2003, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rsbiomedical
No evidence as of yet, o' boy where have you been the last twelve years? What about yesterday when Hans was getting nailed for covering up information?

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...

#9 03-12-2003, 10:44 AM

Surely this issue should be about the ability of the UN to enforce its resolutions.

If 1441 is inappropriate then it is the fault of the UN for approving it.

1441 received unanimous approval. The UN should for once enforce the resolution in whatever means is necessary, not US, UK or Spain.

I am not conviced any nation would favour military action, as opposed to "war", in preference to diplomacy. Whilst France, Russia et al are prevaricating they are the ones perhaps who should be showing their commitment to the UN by actively engaging, as UN representatives, Iraq in diplomacy to remedy the situation. If all the diplomatic efforts have genuinely failed then a last resort surely must be invoked.

The more the US displays signs of acting alone the more this is seen as a US vs Iraq situation (war). If the US can be convinced to be acting as part of the UN and not alone then the whole issue will proceed with a far greater degree of legitimacy.

The failure of the UN to enforce a resolution, which must be assumed to be properly conceived and well thought out, poses a far greater threat to world peace and stability than any single dictator.

All the UN nations must work out what it is the UN stands for and support that objective.

glenmore · #10 03-12-2003, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Manu
...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... [/B]

You have a serious misunderstanding of the facts here. The US or it's allies are not required to FIND proof. Resolution 1441 REQUIRES Iraq to prove they have no WMDs. Since they had WMDs before and they have provided no proof that they have destroyed them, ergo, they still have them.

It is perfectly all right for France to be against the war. It would be disingenuous though for the French to claim resistance to war for humanitarian reasons. The French are against the war for the simple reason it does not benefit their economic interest. The French get along fine with Saddam the thug, and to hell with the Iraqi people. Undermining the US is also in their best interest. French bashing aside, it is important to see what motivates France and Germany in a true light.

glenmore
1991 300CE

#11 03-12-2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by glenmore
[B]You have a serious misunderstanding of the facts here. The US or it's allies are not required to FIND proof. Resolution 1441 REQUIRES Iraq to prove they have no WMDs. Since they had WMDs before and they have provided no proof that they have destroyed them, ergo, they still have them.

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.

It's not a matter of applying UN resolutions : There is a country called Israel who is as we type in violation of more than 10'000 different UN resolutions over a 50 year course, yet no sanctions against them are ever approved because systematically vetoed against by the US? Why is this? The violations are proven, they're not speculations but facts...

And I respectfully disagree about the motivations of the French and German government. The bottom line is that war should be used as a last resort, it is not time now to consider that all the other options have failed. Hans Blix is I think very qualified for his job and if he says that cooperation is improving and that progress is being made, then it means the inspections are working.

And I'm really sorry if I do not believe that the Iraqis would be better off with a war. The population is absolutely terrified and I'd rather see them alive under dictatorship than dead from some misdrop. Look at that monster 21'000 pounds bomb they're planning to use. I dread the consequence of a "surgical" strike with one of those.

BENZ-LGB · #12 03-12-2003, 02:20 PM

You have the right to speak your opinions. I, however, have the equally important right to ignore the views of someone who hails from a country that, in spite of its claims to neutrality, gave comfort and assistance to the Nazis during WWII and in the years following the end of the war.

When it is YOUR country that is bombed, when it is YOUR buildings that are attacked by terrorists, when it is YOUR people who are killed by maniacal terrorists just for BEING Americans, when all of those things happen, then you can come to me with your opinion about the war, and then I may listen. Until such time , however, you are just another one of the misinformed cadres of ungrateful American-haters.

I've had a bellyful of all the whining, hand-wringing and self-important criticism coming from people who have no right to judge America or America's actions. America has made the world safe for countries like Switzerland, so you can go on being the "bankers" to the world's terrorists and narco-dealers (and so you can continue to peddle that tasteless crud you call Swiss chocolate). If you are not going to support us, that's fine, but at least have the decency to get out of the way and stop interfering. If you are not tough enough or man enough to do what needs to be done, then let those who are do their job and stop criticizing.

To all of you who call President Bush a greater threat to world peace than Husseim I ask you the following question: under whose government would you rather live: the U.S. or Iraq? Think about it.

The anti-war protesters showed their true colors over the weekend in a small town just south of Los Angeles. There, "peace" demonstrators burned American flags and tore up hand-made posters that had been set up as a memorial to the victims of 9-11 (Manu, in case you've forgotten that was the day when terrorists, who probably keep their money in Switzerland, killed over 3,000 innocent American CIVILIANS, along with a few other people from other countries). The memorial had nothing to do with the impending war, it was just American flags, flowers and other items honoring the victims of 9-11. These so-called peace demonstrators burned the US flags and kicked the memorial to pieces. These peace demonstrators are not interested in finding a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Iraq, all they want to do is vent their anti- America hatred.

Everyday of my life I thank God for America and the American people for giving a home, and a second opportunity, to a refugee from a Communist country. For the life of me, I cannot understand where all of you ungrateful complainers get off thinking that you have a right to criticize what you obviously do not understand.

Maybe it is time to revive that old saying: "America, love it or leave it..." and while you are at it, please take Alec Baldwin and his friends along with you.

OK, I'll step down from my soapbox now.

#13 03-12-2003, 05:49 PM

There's three things I want to react on after this post :

1) Switzerland has to date the most complete and tought anti-laundering laws in the world. True, lots of business has been made with blood-stained money, doesn't mean it continues to happen today. I happen to work in a bank. Every other day I receive a list of terrorist groups and organisations and I have to check in the archives to see wheter my bank has had some sort of business with them. To date there's about 5000 of us throughout the country carrying out similar tasks, while the ENTIRE US governement service whose job it is to track down and block terrorist funds has got like 22 people in it. The day you come down here, work in a bank for a couple of years, understand banking secrecy laws, know-your-customer rules, then you can talk about what banks have supposedly done. I can open an account over the internet in a couple of large American banks and deposit 500'000 $ on it without ever seeing anyone asking where the money's from.

2) How am I being ungrateful? I don't owe you ANYTHING. Were you in Normandy in '44? No... Thank you and goodbye.. WWII was 50 years ago, time to move on...If the French used the same sort of thinking they could call the US ungrateful because they helped them kick out the Brits during the independence war. Hell we could take this as far back as Christopher Columbus. Irrelevant and non-constructive thinking at its best. If the US liberated Europe in World War II, then it sure should mean that we have the right to have an opinion, be it a different one than the US's, otherwise it wouldn't have been a liberation, right?

3) I don't see a simple valid point or argument relevant to the situation of today in your post. All you do is flame me because my opinion is different then yours. Your idea of banning your fellow countrymates who dare disagree with you and the gratuitous, stereotypical and uneducated attacks against my country show how much commitment you have with what you call "Freedom of speech".
At least over here people have the right to agree or disagree without being aggressed.

4) I still want to thank you for your post though, cause all the stereotypes, hate and whining you do only comfort me in my opinion. I definitely do NOT want to agree with someone who thinks like you. There's more to life than Fox News...
But hey rejoice! The war is gonna happen no matter what, that should make you a happy camper. Just don't whine when payback comes within the next 5 years. A lot of dangerous people are going to be pissed against the US in the near future, that's guaranteed. They'll want revenge, that's guaranteed as well...

#14 03-12-2003, 06:41 PM

Quote:

When it is YOUR country that is bombed, when it is YOUR buildings that are attacked by terrorists, when it is YOUR people who are killed by maniacal terrorists just for BEING Americans

My big question regarding the impending "war" with Iraq has always been, and will continue to be, "Will anything we do to Iraq change things to make Americans safer, here or abroad?"

I fear that things may go in the opposite direction of the desired goal of a making a safer America by removing a pitiful Middle Eastern despot from power.

-Sam

DieselHead · #15 03-12-2003, 07:08 PM

Sam,
There are several dangers here:

1) We don't really know what kind of mess we're about to step in to. I'm not talking about the Iraqis, I'm talking about the Kurds and Turks. The Turks have already begun to move their troops into the Kurdish areas (with our consent because we want Turkey's support so badly) and there WILL be a civil war there. How will we solve that? We largely will have started that conflict, we owe some aid to end it.

2) This war has the potential to be highly polarizing. It could be an "us" against "them" war, not a United States against Iraq war. This has the potential for mobilizing more terrorists and more Arabs against the USA. What is even more disturbing is that Bush, in his rhetoric, has invoked the idea of Providence and the idea that we (or he) has a "mandate" to rid the world of this evil. It's very dangerous when you use fate to justify your actions.

3) Domestically, I think this will give people, AND government, a false sense of security AND it will put Bush back in office for another term. On top of that, it will do NOTHING for the economy. Wars only bump up economies when there is some kind of industrial revolution (major or minor) to accompany it.

Regarding what somene said to Manu, I think it's unfair to say "your country" in regards to those who aided Nazism over 60 years ago. I mean come on, sit a think about that for a second, are you really going to relate Manu to those who actually funded the Nazis? You can't ignore the views of someone just because of what country they're from. Are you going to discredit what I'm saying because my parents lived in China until they were 4 years old? Do my slanty, pointy eyes make me a Commie? Again, with the sweeping generalizations, you say that all those who don't want to go to war NOW are anti-American? You really should temper what you say. It's this extremism, on BOTH sides, your's and the liberal side, that make productive discourse very difficult. Every day of your life you thank God for America. I do too, so does that mean tht I have differing opinions? Am I ungrateful for America if I double think this war?

I want people to think about the idea that this war, this whole issue with Iraq, the Turks, the Kurds, and terrorism, is much much more complex than ANYONE, me, you, liberals, conservatives can fathom. It NEEDS to be approached with caution and prudence. If we had rushed in to Cuba after our discovery of nuclear weapons in their country like the hawks had wanted, we would have been in big trouble and the world would be much different than it is now. Taking a tiny bit more time for thought and reflection has much less consequences than rushing bull headed in to war. That said, I am still deliberating whether or not this is a good idea.

Alex