French cowardice

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Cowards, surrender monkeys, ... French are false allies ...

Interested by historical facts, rather than insults or rude statements ? Then read this - written by an American journalist:

www.bigeye.com/050103.htm

France is still involved in many conflicts troughout the world, Afghanistan for example. It has never stopped pulling with the Americans in the war on terror, sharing out intelligence and even special ops forces. Whatever you may think, we are on the same side of the fence. We know what terrorism is, we have been stricken several times. We know the price of involvement in foreign wars (Balkans, Africa, ...). It might be convenient to elude some important questions by demonizing us. All right for the scapegoat role: if cowardice consists in assuming one's opinion, then most of us are indeed cowards.

FRENCH SUCK

A couple of quotes in case you didn't read the article

Eric S. Margolis:

France lost 210,000 dead in 1940 fighting Germany and Italy; America lost 292,000 men during the entire war. Let's keep the historical record accurate.

The French commander, Gen. Nivelle, ordered his 2nd Army defending Verdun: `No surrender; no retreat, not even an inch: die where you stand.' And so they did. In the end, the French held Verdun. In this battle alone, France lost almost 1.5 times total US losses in all of World War II, and 20% of its nearly 2 million dead from 1914-1918.

my main problem with the french stance on the iraq war is that the only reason they were opposed to it is because they were lining their pockets with iraqi "oil for food" money. they didn't want to kill their cash cow.

Sorry, Larke2000, I don't accept your point. Every sensible citizen here KNEW that war was going to be waged anyway. The US has been too far in the preparation of it, Bush and buddies could not step back unless losing face: impossible. If we have been motivated by venal issues ... we just had to get with the program and negociate a piece of the cake prior to be military involved. For thorough analysis on this issue please read Vaisse contribution on www.inthenationalinterest.com : making sense of French foreign policy. This author tells it like it is. The money argument does not make any sense: we have too much to lose economically by opposing to the US will.

Every sensible citizen here KNEW that war was going to be waged anyway.

Ofcourse. It's not easy to move 300,000 troops across the ocean...

If we have been motivated by venal issues ... we just had to get with the program and negociate a piece of the cake prior to be military involved. For thorough analysis on this issue please read Vaisse contribution on www.inthenationalinterest.com : making sense of French foreign policy. This author tells it like it is. The money argument does not make any sense: we have too much to lose economically by opposing to the US will.

Here is a quote from that site:

I remain intrigued by the question of why other states ? including the major powers apart from Britain ? continue to use Iraq as a way to stymie American leadership. After all, other states recognize the value of American leadership in maintaining an ?international system, which provides for open seas, open trade and open societies lightly defended.?(1) Very few countries would consider it to be in their interest to see the United States disengage from the world, especially if the alternative would mean a resumption of regional rivalries, destabilizing arms races and accelerating tensions.

Even China, which for several decades rejected the legitimacy of the post-World War II international system, has found that its ?market-oriented reforms and growing economic interdependence, both regionally and globally, have begun to challenge these principles.? Beijing has found that it too benefits from an American-led international system that has enabled it to modernize and develop via free trade with other states, especially the United States. As a result, some within the Chinese foreign policy establishment are calling for Beijing to ?forge a new type of security relationship with the United States.?

What do you mean by 'losing too much economically by opposing US will'? France did oppose US in Iraq's case - did US take a counter-action? No. Did US ban imports from France? No.

"The French see the invasion of Iraq as a step backward in the war against terrorism, as quite a few experts do. They feel that the invasion has made their daily life less secure" so basically the french leaders are cowards. they don't want to stir the hornets' nest because they're afraid of getting stung. the U.S. is doing exactly what needs to be done to these thugs. has there been another attack on U.S. soil since 9-11? no. using french logic there should be rivers of blood in the streets of America by now. if you cower before the terrorists then they've already won. but i stand by what i said. the france opposition was mainly from a lust for iraqi oil.

btw JY and Dave: i appreciate your responses. i just disagree.

"What do you mean by 'losing too much economically by opposing US will'? France did oppose US in Iraq's case - did US take a counter-action? No. Did US ban imports from France? No."

Right. But top American executives, even recently, threatened to do so. Not so long ago we could hear "forgive Russia, forget Germany, punish France". Numerous calls for French products boycotts were launched and are still on the air. It had some impact, if I believe what I heard from some wine producers here (the dollar depreciation versus euro is however part of the explanation).
French did not oppose serenely, this concern has been debated a lot. Motives are not that venal, even if I understand how convenient it is for some hawks in Washington to let such assertions being spread to the people.

Concerning the fact that we feel that this war is a bad development for the war on terror: we French and more generally Europeans (most of them were opposed to the war - the vast majority, with the highest opposition ... in the countries that officialy supported it, let's say: Spain, Italy, ...) did not react so because we were afraid of being stung by terrorists. WE ARE ALREADY AT WAR, WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN STUNG and France plays an active role in that war, acknowledged by your leaders (intelligence, special ops forces actions behind enemy lines, terrorist networks disruption, ...). We simply have some acquaintance with the Arabs mentality and know how to deal with.
Reading a lot of American people comments and reactions, I understand yours. This is legitimate: "we have been attacked, our military is mighty and technologically invincible: let's roll, kick their ass".
The problem is that the enemy is not a country with an infrastructure and recognizable targets in this country: the enemies are convictions deep-rooted in millions of fanatic brains spread on this Earth. Should we sit down and wait ? Certainly not: the problem is far more complex to be treated by a conventional war and requires multiple appropriate responses: education, sustainable development, of course ponctual military actions when required. Such country-scaled military actions as against Iraq helped toppling a bastard, that's fine; there was simply other means to do so. Unfortunately islamo-fascits just waited for that: fantastic opportunity to recruit and reinforce their networks, furthermore facilitated by the destabilization of the whole region (gun-running, drug trafficking, ...). Good job, indeed. While chickenhawks are discoursing about our cowardice and pronounce warmongering speeches to the people from their comfortable offices (tell me ... who knows personally among the Bush team what war trully is, apart Colin Powell ?), valorous Americans are killed day after day on the ground. Well, I forgot, sorry, as a coward French, I am not qualified to work out this notion of courage.

Right. But top American executives, even recently, threatened to do so.

Who did? Can you provide us with names, evidence, dates, times?

Not so long ago we could hear "forgive Russia, forget Germany, punish France". Numerous calls for French products boycotts were launched and are still on the air.

Boycotts were launched among american population, not by some authority!

It had some impact, if I believe what I heard from some wine producers here (the dollar depreciation versus euro is however part of the explanation).

France lost maybe a few million in sales - while US lost hundreds of billions in EVERYTHING, including war. Poor poor France. There goes your socialism that depends on few millions coming from the US.

French did not oppose serenely, this concern has been debated a lot. Motives are not that venal, even if I understand how convenient it is for some hawks in Washington to let such assertions being spread to the people.

What hawks are you talking about? Why do you think that it's profitable for SOMEBODY to launch a war against another country? Even if this person starts making money out of the war, it can be easily tracked and he or she will be prosecuted. There are so many bureacracy layers... What you accuse Bush of doing is simply impossible.

Concerning the fact that we feel that this war is a bad development for the war on terror: we French and more generally Europeans (most of them were opposed to the war - the vast majority, with the highest opposition ... in the countries that officialy supported it, let's say: Spain, Italy, ...) did not react so because we were afraid of being stung by terrorists. WE ARE ALREADY AT WAR, WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN STUNG and France plays an active role in that war, acknowledged by your leaders (intelligence, special ops forces actions behind enemy lines, terrorist networks disruption, ...). We simply have some acquaintance with the Arabs mentality and know how to deal with.

You, YOU, Europeans, were afraid of some crazy-head arabs with bombs in their *******. Why didnt France support this war? I think because it was afraid of millions of muslim arabs who live inside it.
So, it WAS "French COWARDICE".

Reading a lot of American people comments and reactions, I understand yours. This is legitimate: "we have been attacked, our military is mighty and technologically invincible: let's roll, kick their ass".
The problem is that the enemy is not a country with an infrastructure and recognizable targets in this country: the enemies are convictions deep-rooted in millions of fanatic brains spread on this Earth. Should we sit down and wait ? Certainly not: the problem is far more complex to be treated by a conventional war and requires multiple appropriate responses: education, sustainable development, of course ponctual military actions when required.

Education? Sustainable development? I thought that's what US is doing in both Afghanistan and Iraq... Or no?

Such country-scaled military actions as against Iraq helped toppling a bastard, that's fine; there was simply other means to do so.

No! What means? Diplomacy? "Listen Saddam, under resolution 352 get the f*ck out, if you dont, we'll have to pass another resolution." Is that how you suggest kicking him out?

Unfortunately islamo-fascits just waited for that: fantastic opportunity to recruit and reinforce their networks, furthermore facilitated by the destabilization of the whole region (gun-running, drug trafficking, ...).

So what do you suggest to do to stop gun-running, drug trafficking, terrorist network expansion, and so on? Pass a resolution?

Good job, indeed.

At least SOME JOB DONE.

While chickenhawks are discoursing about our cowardice and pronounce warmongering speeches to the people from their comfortable offices

Do you want Bush and Rice together with Powell get a rifle and go fight? I dont understand your point.

(tell me ... who knows personally among the Bush team what war trully is, apart Colin Powell ?),

Why should they? The result was a quick war with record-beating low death rate. What else do you want?

Right. But top American executives, even recently, threatened to do so.

Who did? Can you provide us with names, evidence, dates, times?

Top officials openly talked of punishment: the quote about "forgive Russia, forget Germany, punish France" is from Condoleeza Rice. Wolfovitz (I am not sure of the spelling) talked about possible retaliations in an interview broadcasted by a French channel. It is possible to search in the archives to find more details. Bush explained in another interview that he was disappointed with the French stance, but that the eventuality of retaliations was not looked at. Indeed we did not see any.

Boycotts were launched among american population, not by some authority!

Right. However we saw less American officials at recent exhibitions such Le Bourget dedicated to the aircraft industries.

France lost maybe a few million in sales - while US lost hundreds of billions in EVERYTHING, including war. Poor poor France. There goes your socialism that depends on few millions coming from the US.

What we lost in sales is not the more important concern ; by the way we spend billions too in foreign conflicts. Our economy is not socialist regarding admitted international economical standards. If you don't agree, I would appreciate to know the facts you rely on to consider this.

What hawks are you talking about? Why do you think that it's profitable for SOMEBODY to launch a war against another country? Even if this person starts making money out of the war, it can be easily tracked and he or she will be prosecuted. There are so many bureacracy layers... What you accuse Bush of doing is simply impossible.


The hawks I am talking about are people, most of them members of so-called "think tanks", advisors of Bush.
My understanding about this war is that it costs a huge sum to the US, while some american subcontractors such as Halliburton, which vice-president Cheney is a former top executive, have gained fruitful contracts for the reconstruction of iraqi infrastructures. You might disagree, however it seems to me that this mix-up between public and private interests is the subject of a debate in the US.

You, YOU, Europeans, were afraid of some crazy-head arabs with bombs in their *******. Why didnt France support this war? I think because it was afraid of millions of muslim arabs who live inside it.

No, damn no ... To assert this, you do not know the situation here. Muslim arabs are indeed a few millions, but they do not determine the french policy, either inside the country or abroad.
We French people belong to the western world, definitely. We already have been stricken by islamist terrorists, the country is on alert with policemen and militaries patrolling in public places. France is a target at the first place for these guys, at least as much than the US are. Our stance for or against the war on Iraq does not make a lot of difference. We have been stricken not so far ago in Pakistan and in Yemen.

Education? Sustainable development? I thought that's what US is doing in both Afghanistan and Iraq... Or no?

Indeed it does it, with the French and other allies in Afghanistan. But it might not be enough, this effort is to be overmultiplied. Countries such as Pakistan - officialy an US ally - are ruled by people not certain of their leadership because of the millions of extremist muslims supporting the Talibans and Al-Quaeda. Do we carry out appropriate measures there ? I am not certain. Our tomorrow's worst problem is located there.

Such country-scaled military actions as against Iraq helped toppling a bastard, that's fine; there was simply other means to do so.
No! What means? Diplomacy? "Listen Saddam, under resolution 352 get the f*ck out, if you dont, we'll have to pass another resolution." Is that how you suggest kicking him out?

Resolutions ? Why not, at one condition: it should have been question of Saddam's crimes on his population, rather than supposed WMD, with a precise agenda about his duty to leave the power and run in exil. The motive of the war would have been clear then; not endorsing it would have meant refusing to assume one's responsibility as a democracy. In such a case, France's stance would have been highly criticizable.

So what do you suggest to do to stop gun-running, drug trafficking, terrorist network expansion, and so on? Pass a resolution?

No need for a resolution on these issues. Involving UN institutions and international forces with a commission to operate in the whole area would be appropriate.

[b]Good job, indeed.[/b]

At least SOME JOB DONE.

While chickenhawks are discoursing about our cowardice and pronounce warmongering speeches to the people from their comfortable offices

Do you want Bush and Rice together with Powell get a rifle and go fight? I dont understand your point.

No, that is not what I mean. My point is that I am not sure these people are really conscious of their responsibilities while sending fellow Americans to a possible death. Veterans having experienced combat express sensible opinions on that issue.
My point is furthermore that soldiers on the ground make perfect targets for terrorists day after day. They are mostly considered as occupiers and foreign invaders. There is quite a difference to intervene in such conditions, rather that in the frame of a mandate issued by the international community, among other countries as equals in the distribution of duties and risks.

What it all boils down to is this Gulf war 1 and in Bosnia (even though I accept that was a NATO operation) it was a case of yeah great we got France helping out welcome aboard. Now it like everyone against France, apprently the Bush admin is to scared to blast Germany, Russia or China ( the three other countries who were planning or seriously considering using thier veto) it was simply a case of we need a scapegoat. It seems to be working a lot of people just seem to be saying screw France and they are only doing that because some parts of the US media and government are at some level telling them to do it, most people are unsure why they are doing it. Yeah you could talk about oil contracts etc well if that is the case all France had to do was get involved and when it was all said and done could re - negotiate with the new Iraq government so why didnt they? maybe becasue it runs a little deeper maybe France saw something when the saw people protesting throughout the world, maybe they didnt want to end up like the US,UK and Austrailia and become huge terror targets.


People talk about the Frenach beig cowardly and doing things to thier own agenda well those people should look at the facts everytime a resolution that couyld damage Israel caem up the US vetoed, take Kyoto the US pulls out and thats the end of that. If Framnce is being cowardly for looking out for her own intrests well the US has done the same time and time again.

Great. Instead of any argument, this poor picture. My answer, in case you have a few seconds to read it: www.bigeye.com/050103.htm
It has an inconvenient: it is far less comic that your picture. But far more instructive.

Originally posted by JY_French

Top officials openly talked of punishment: the quote about "forgive Russia, forget Germany, punish France" is from Condoleeza Rice. Wolfovitz (I am not sure of the spelling) talked about possible retaliations in an interview broadcasted by a French channel.

Words mean nothing.

It is possible to search in the archives to find more details. Bush explained in another interview that he was disappointed with the French stance, but that the eventuality of retaliations was not looked at. Indeed we did not see any.

What was needed to prove.

Right. However we saw less American officials at recent exhibitions such Le Bourget dedicated to the aircraft industries.

Do you consider that to be a 'retaliation'?

Our economy is not socialist regarding admitted international economical standards. If you don't agree, I would appreciate to know the facts you rely on to consider this.

France's economy is way too socialized capitalism. Just like here in Canada.

The hawks I am talking about are people, most of them members of so-called "think tanks", advisors of Bush.
My understanding about this war is that it costs a huge sum to the US, while some american subcontractors such as Halliburton, which vice-president Cheney is a former top executive, have gained fruitful contracts for the reconstruction of iraqi infrastructures. You might disagree, however it seems to me that this mix-up between public and private interests is the subject of a debate in the US.

First, Bush didnt start this war to benefit a company that WAS owned by Cheney. Second, i didnt expect americans to sign reconstruction contracts with companies in other countries. It's simple. Every person would choose to benefit somebody from his surrounding rather than anybody else. I would do the same.

No, damn no ... To assert this, you do not know the situation here. Muslim arabs are indeed a few millions, but they do not determine the french policy, either inside the country or abroad.

How do YOU know? Maybe French intelligence is aware of possible terrorist acts inside France? Maybe extremists promised France peace and security in exchange for France's inactivity in war on terror? You would say that there french forces in a lot of places including Afghanistan - but they serve together with others, in a joint international mission. When it came to one person decision, France turned back.... And that is a FACT.

We French people belong to the western world, definitely. We already have been stricken by islamist terrorists, the country is on alert with policemen and militaries patrolling in public places. France is a target at the first place for these guys, at least as much than the US are. Our stance for or against the war on Iraq does not make a lot of difference. We have been stricken not so far ago in Pakistan and in Yemen.

If a plain raised your Eiffel tower, i am sure France would wage as many wars as needed to fight back. But since it's the US that was hit, why would France bother?

Indeed it does it, with the French and other allies in Afghanistan. But it might not be enough, this effort is to be overmultiplied.

If US got bashed so much for one military strike in Iraq, i cant even imagine what could happen if US followed your suggestion to overmultiply it's efforts.

Countries such as Pakistan - officialy an US ally - are ruled by people not certain of their leadership because of the millions of extremist muslims supporting the Talibans and Al-Quaeda. Do we carry out appropriate measures there ? I am not certain. Our tomorrow's worst problem is located there.

Afghanistan and Iraq today, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - tomorrow... Even the US cant invade, occupy, control and rebuild 3-4 countries at the same time - especially during this recession.

Resolutions ? Why not, at one condition: it should have been question of Saddam's crimes on his population, rather than supposed WMD, with a precise agenda about his duty to leave the power and run in exil. The motive of the war would have been clear then; not endorsing it would have meant refusing to assume one's responsibility as a democracy. In such a case, France's stance would have been highly criticizable.

Tell me now, what's the difference if US chose WMD or human rights abuse, or any other crime Saddam has committed? You propose to go the same way - inspections, resolutions, warnings, etc. While the US just went in and kicked the guy out.

No need for a resolution on these issues. Involving UN institutions and international forces with a commission to operate in the whole area would be appropriate.

Doesnt matter if it's UN or US or anybody else, drugs and guns trading will not be stopped easily. Most importan part of it would be making LOCAL authorities to take immediate actions. But in those countries local authorities use their power more to benefit themselves than to do their primary job.

No, that is not what I mean. My point is that I am not sure these people are really conscious of their responsibilities while sending fellow Americans to a possible death.

Oh They understand very well what a war is and that there maybe casualties both among military and civilians. Trust me.

Veterans having experienced combat express sensible opinions on that issue.

And express weakness when deciding on 24 millions' lives. Not too nice, isnt it?

My point is furthermore that soldiers on the ground make perfect targets for terrorists day after day. They are mostly considered as occupiers and foreign invaders.

Not so. I have read pretty many opinions and they show that more than half of the iraqis welcome americans and consider them to be their liberators.

There is quite a difference to intervene in such conditions, rather that in the frame of a mandate issued by the international community, among other countries as equals in the distribution of duties and risks.

Who refused to send in peacekeepers to Iraq? Was it France and Germany? Or i am wrong? Note: peacekeepers, who's job is to ensure safety for iraqis.

First, Bush didnt start this war to benefit a company that WAS owned by Cheney. Second, i didnt expect americans to sign reconstruction contracts with companies in other countries. It's simple. Every person would choose to benefit somebody from his surrounding rather than anybody else. I would do the same .

Right. I was simply recording facts. That's up to the american people to decide what's correct or not in the sharing out of the cake by their leaders.

How do YOU know? Maybe French intelligence is aware of possible terrorist acts inside France? Maybe extremists promised France peace and security in exchange for France's inactivity in war on terror? You would say that there french forces in a lot of places including Afghanistan - but they serve together with others, in a joint international mission. When it came to one person decision, France turned back.... And that is a FACT.

And French militaries went serving together with others in Ivory Coast recently ?
What are the facts that allow you to assert France might be negociating "peace" with islamist terrorist ? We know far well that there is no other choice left but to fight them. French officials would be bloody stupid to negociate with such extremists. Let me tell you moreover that the people would not admit it in case this kind of agreement could be possible ( I am deeply convinced it is not).

The country in Europe which is the most blamable regarding this issue is definitely not France. Great Britain used to tolerate - and still does, even less - demonstration of fanatism on its soil, at the one condition that people should look up to the local laws. You could see then some muslims calling "legaly" for jihad against other western countries, openly collecting funds for buddies in training camps, in Afghanistan and other countries, and recruiting then brain washing new members for their evil networks. Moussaoui, indicted in the US for his probable participation to the preparation of attempts, is a perfect example. For years, official french requests for extradition of a terrorist convinced of having organized an attempt in a parisian train was met with silence... some comments here were that it was a convenient way for the Brits to avoid terrorist retaliations.

Just search the web if you want to know more about the numerous attempts we have been victims of. The 9/11 was a very sad day - it was a tragic recall, at a far bigger scale unfortunately, of events we have already experienced.

If a plain raised your Eiffel tower, i am sure France would wage as many wars as needed to fight back. But since it's the US that was hit, why would France bother?

The 9/11 infamy was not "only" an attempt against the US: it was a crime against humanity, against civilization. I am ashamed by your statement. WE ARE ALL CONCERNED. This day was a painful day of awe and sorrow.

If US got bashed so much for one military strike in Iraq, i cant even imagine what could happen if US followed your suggestion to overmultiply it's efforts.

The effort - our effort - should not only consists in large-scale military actions.

Afghanistan and Iraq today, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - tomorrow... Even the US cant invade, occupy, control and rebuild 3-4 countries at the same time - especially during this recession.

My previous comment applies here too. Who tells you these countries should be "treated" with this process ?

Tell me now, what's the difference if US chose WMD or human rights abuse, or any other crime Saddam has committed? You propose to go the same way - inspections, resolutions, warnings, etc. While the US just went in and kicked the guy out.

The difference ? Human rights abuses are already established facts - no need for inspections, resolutions, warnings. Just proceed like in former Yougoslavia. Indict criminals, pick them up, judge them in The Hague international penal court ( an institution unfortunately not backed by the US ...) within the legal frame of the UN.

I have read pretty many opinions and they show that more than half of the iraqis welcome americans and consider them to be their liberators.

Well. What about the other half, with part of them involved in terrorist acts against Americans (with the assistance of foreigners terrorists gathering on the ground - it seems that the former Afghanistan haven has moved.

There is quite a difference to intervene in such conditions, rather that in the frame of a mandate issued by the international community, among other countries as equals in the distribution of duties and risks.

Who refused to send in peacekeepers to Iraq? Was it France and Germany? Or i am wrong? Note: peacekeepers, who's job is to ensure safety for iraqis.

... refused till now. It is probable that sooner or later they will be engaged. With a legal mission issued by the international community. By the way, if arab countries could step in the program, this would make a clear difference.

Originally posted by JY_French

And French militaries went serving together with others in Ivory Coast recently ?
What are the facts that allow you to assert France might be negociating "peace" with islamist terrorist ?

I dont have ANY facts regarding this issue - just a suggestion. I dont know anything about it, and i am sure you dont. So lets keep it at that - France didnt join the war for some reasons.

We know far well that there is no other choice left but to fight them. French officials would be bloody stupid to negociate with such extremists.

But same French officials in UNSC didnt support the action to overthrow a dictator, who is not an extremist in our understand of this word, but still a tyrant who oppressed his nation for 30 years. Why is it so wrong to overthrow a dictator?

The country in Europe which is the most blamable regarding this issue is definitely not France. Great Britain used to tolerate - and still does, even less - demonstration of fanatism on its soil, at the one condition that people should look up to the local laws.

True.

You could see then some muslims calling "legaly" for jihad against other western countries, openly collecting funds for buddies in training camps, in Afghanistan and other countries, and recruiting then brain washing new members for their evil networks.

What can i say. Bltches!

The effort - our effort - should not only consists in large-scale military actions.

What should our effort consist of then? What would be your plan? You just became a president, and after a huge economic slowdown, there is 9/11. What would you do?

My previous comment applies here too. Who tells you these countries should be "treated" with this process ?

Existing evidence of various groups, charities, organizations, thru out Pakistan and Saudi Arabia collecting money that actually go in to terrorists' hands. Maybe Saudi king refuses these accusations... Again, i trust Bush more than Saudi king.

The difference ? Human rights abuses are already established facts - no need for inspections, resolutions, warnings.

WMDs are already established facts too! Fact that Saddam have hidden or destroyed them without letting the UN inspectors know doesnt make him a good boy. He still did produce and use WMDs.

Just proceed like in former Yougoslavia. Indict criminals, pick them up, judge them in The Hague international penal court ( an institution unfortunately not backed by the US ...) within the legal frame of the UN.

What is the difference? Why should be Saddam judged, when it is so easier just to kill the bastard?

Well. What about the other half, with part of them involved in terrorist acts against Americans (with the assistance of foreigners terrorists gathering on the ground - it seems that the former Afghanistan haven has moved.

I am sure that with time Iraqis will see the benefits of western-style democracy US imposes on them. They see benefits already - first time in 30 years, iraqis watch satellite TV! Isnt that an accomplishment?

... refused till now. It is probable that sooner or later they will be engaged. With a legal mission issued by the international community. By the way, if arab countries could step in the program, this would make a clear difference.

Believe it or not but i trust US more than international community. What about you?

But same French officials in UNSC didnt support the action to overthrow a dictator, who is not an extremist in our understand of this word, but still a tyrant who oppressed his nation for 30 years. Why is it so wrong to overthrow a dictator?

It is not wrong to topple such a bastard. As any sensible people, we APPLAUSED the toppling of this evil - by the way we were ashamed to hear Fox News comments such as "I would like to see Chirac's face right now" while Saddam's big statue was pulled down by an American tank... it is not a democratic country's concern to support any dictator of this kind. The problem is the method. Saddam himself is not the problem. The problem is the billion of Muslims, more or less already anti-western countries. Doing the things with a legal procedure, with the support of arab countries, makes a huge difference in term of perception of justice by them. Don't talk to me about the former resolutions and Saddam refusal to comply with them: all the countries involved in the USNC are responsible. WMD presence was being assessed by Blix and his team, with the help of the US military pressure - this help was acknoledged, even by Chirac himself. Why then such an urgent necessity to break this process ? If Saddam needed to be toppled, why was not it possible to indict him and his henchmen under the inculpation of crime against humanity ? We had everything at our disposal for that. My belief is that Bush decision to wage war in this condition was clumsy.

What should our effort consist of then? What would be your plan? You just became a president, and after a huge economic slowdown, there is 9/11. What would you do?

The efforts consist in launching actions against countries openly backing terrorism: this has been done in Afghanistan, fine. Dictators guilty of human rights massive abuses ? Indictment, use of an international force to get rid of if needed. People from underdeveloped countries, under terrorist manipulation thumb ? Mass education programs, backed by the UN, military training of more numerous antiterrorist squadrons, help to sustainaible development. Real democratization of the area - free mainstream media available for everybody.

WMDs are already established facts too! Fact that Saddam have hidden or destroyed them without letting the UN inspectors know doesnt make him a good boy. He still did produce and use WMDs.

Established facts ? Well, I believe that the US, like other suppliers, among which France, knew that WMD probably existed for having sold them. Sorry, but the "established facts" Bush and Powell had discoursed about were this established that they had to admit later the whole accusation was not relevant. Remember of the story about aluminum tubes used for uranium enrichment ...

What is the difference? Why should be Saddam judged, when it is so easier just to kill the bastard?

Easy ? Well, at present he is still somewhere in the nature, but that's not the problem. The problem is justice as it is perceived by public opinions - arab ones particularly. In our modern countries, do we shoot down someone because he has been caught out blatantly killing people ? No .. at least he is judged first. If we want our principles to be respected, then we should apply them to everybody.

I am sure that with time Iraqis will see the benefits of western-style democracy US imposes on them. They see benefits already - first time in 30 years, iraqis watch satellite TV! Isnt that an accomplishment?

Hmmm ... Wishful thinking ? The Saudis watch satellite TV for quite a long time ... it did not prevent the majority of the 9/11 terrorists to come from that country. Explain to the iraqi terrorists attacking US convoys they sould better watch satellite TV. Arab mentality is really different from ours, this point might be elaborated.

Believe it or not but i trust US more than international community. What about you?

I acknowledge the fact that Americans generally do what they tell. The international community has an advantage: it is supposed to represent everybody. The UN might have failed to its duty in some cases: it is not impossible to look at some reforms to make it work better. After all, it is an american creation, and this wise act has led to some successes. Why should not we continue that way ?

JY French,

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....9657&forumid=13


______

'Tough tooties for you foreigners who don't like Bush. If he gets voted out of office by Americans, so be it — it is the will of the citizenry. Non-Americans simply have no say in the matter.'

We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!

NEVER FORGET 9/11/01

http://www.ddaymuseum.org

is that cartoon your answer to everything? i think its pretty funny actually..but you put it on like every third one of your posts..its getting old y'know? grow up and fight the issues at least 90% of the time aight?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kickace999
is that cartoon your answer to everything? i think its pretty funny actually..but you put it on like every third one of your posts..its getting old y'know?

A picture is worth a thousand words. If you don't think it's funny, don't laugh.

grow up and fight the issues at least 90% of the time aight?

Fight the issues? I'll fight the only fight that really matters—I'll place my vote when the time comes in Novemer of 2004. Care to guess who I'll be fighting for?

______

'Tough tooties for you foreigners who don't like Bush. If he gets voted out of office by Americans, so be it — it is the will of the citizenry. Non-Americans simply have no say in the matter.'

We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!

NEVER FORGET 9/11/01

http://www.ddaymuseum.org

You are right, keep on with your comical pictures. Above all, don't search more thorough appreciations on this kind of issue: not good for neurons. Laughing is so good. www.mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/frenchbash.htm

Originally posted by JY_French

It is not wrong to topple such a bastard.

Then why not DO it? Think about practical results for a minute without looking back at legitimacy and you will get it.

As any sensible people, we APPLAUSED the toppling of this evil

Oh yea? Why did you oppose the war then?

- by the way we were ashamed to hear Fox News comments such as "I would like to see Chirac's face right now" while Saddam's big statue was pulled down by an American tank.

Dont pay attention to US media - they can make a big story out of everything.

The problem is the method. Saddam himself is not the problem. The problem is the billion of Muslims, more or less already anti-western countries. Doing the things with a legal procedure, with the support of arab countries, makes a huge difference in term of perception of justice by them. Don't talk to me about the former resolutions and Saddam refusal to comply with them: all the countries involved in the USNC are responsible. WMD presence was being assessed by Blix and his team, with the help of the US military pressure - this help was acknoledged, even by Chirac himself. Why then such an urgent necessity to break this process ? If Saddam needed to be toppled, why was not it possible to indict him and his henchmen under the inculpation of crime against humanity ? We had everything at our disposal for that. My belief is that Bush decision to wage war in this condition was clumsy.

Really, i dont understand why did he even try to get support from other countries instead of just going in right away. First, countries outside western world usually dont acknowledge international community's decisions and legal actions. Second, arab countries would never support toppling of Saddam - not because they want him in power but for the sake of opposing US. Third, Blix and his team didnt find anything. WMDs may not exist or may be destroyed or hidden, who knows? Fourth, how would you prove to the international community Saddam's human rights violations? 'Legal' EU would ask for evidence that US most certainly wouldnt find. Just like WMDs.

The efforts consist in launching actions against countries openly backing terrorism: this has been done in Afghanistan, fine.

You actually agree to overthrowing of Taliban! WOW!!!!

Dictators guilty of human rights massive abuses ? Indictment, use of an international force to get rid of if needed.

As i said before - picking any other legal reason to go to war would lead to what we have today.

People from underdeveloped countries, under terrorist manipulation thumb ? Mass education programs, backed by the UN, military training of more numerous antiterrorist squadrons, help to sustainaible development. Real democratization of the area - free mainstream media available for everybody.

Who is going to let you do all this stuff? King Abdulla of Jordan? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Only way to spread education programs and establish anti-terrorist forces is to have influence in the region. Free mainstream media is what iraqis have ALREADY. After 30 years of seeing Saddam's face...

The problem is justice as it is perceived by public opinions - arab ones particularly. In our modern countries, do we shoot down someone because he has been caught out blatantly killing people ? No .. at least he is judged first. If we want our principles to be respected, then we should apply them to everybody.

Ofcourse if US manages to capture Saddam he is going to be judged in some instance - either Iraqi or international court. Actually i dont even care what happens to Saddam.

Hmmm ... Wishful thinking ? The Saudis watch satellite TV for quite a long time ...

Satellite TV with one of the most restricted set of rules censoring each and every program not to allow western style in muslim society. And iraqis watch what THEY want to watch. See the difference?

I acknowledge the fact that Americans generally do what they tell. The international community has an advantage: it is supposed to represent everybody.

Not every nation's ambitions are for the better of the world. Once again: i believe US more than international community consisting not only of well-respected western countries but also a bunch of under-developed countries with corrupt governments.

Then why not DO it? Think about practical results for a minute without looking back at legitimacy and you will get it.

Legitimacy ... YOU get it.

Really, i dont understand why did he even try to get support from other countries instead of just going in right away. First, countries outside western world usually dont acknowledge international community's decisions and legal actions. Second, arab countries would never support toppling of Saddam - not because they want him in power but for the sake of opposing US. Third, Blix and his team didnt find anything. WMDs may not exist or may be destroyed or hidden, who knows? Fourth, how would you prove to the international community Saddam's human rights violations? 'Legal' EU would ask for evidence that US most certainly wouldnt find. Just like WMDs.

Bush tried to get support with his own customized agenda, and with his own rules for the play to come. "Hi everybody, here is the paper, sign here. Save your time, don't read it, everything is ready. Just get in the program. What ? Evidence? Hey, Colin, come over here. This guy wants to know why ? (Laugh) Decidedly, this UN is a bunch of comics ..."
Ask for evidence about human rights abuses ? These facts are established. 5000 deads in a village north of Iraq thanks to "Chemical Ali", a relative of Saddam, under the supervision of the latter. Evidence ? Collected facts by an inquiry held on the ground. Survivors with terrible aftermaths.

You actually agree to overthrowing of Taliban! WOW!!!!

Why is it surprising ? They obviously supported Al - Quaeda by hosting Ben Laden and his henchmen: they were in collusion with them, so where's the problem ? Could you say the same about Saddam ? Even though Saddam is an evil man, Bush acknowledged recently that the links with Al-Quaeda were not that strong ... a diplomatic way to admit that things are not that obvious ...

As i said before - picking any other legal reason to go to war would lead to what we have today.

With quite a difference in term of legality.

Who is going to let you do all this stuff? King Abdulla of Jordan? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Only way to spread education programs and establish anti-terrorist forces is to have influence in the region. Free mainstream media is what iraqis have ALREADY. After 30 years of seeing Saddam's face...

Who ? All of us western countries, within the frame of the UN!

Satellite TV with one of the most restricted set of rules censoring each and every program not to allow western style in muslim society. And iraqis watch what THEY want to watch. See the difference?

So part of them launch terrorist attacks after their daily session of CNN. I see the difference.

Not every nation's ambitions are for the better of the world. Once again: i believe US more than international community consisting not only of well-respected western countries but also a bunch of under-developed countries with corrupt governments.

This is a point of view. There is another one: these under-developed countries might change their corrupt governments if democracy was reinforced and in parallel middle-class enlarged thanks to a promoted sustainable development ... a few more billion dollars in these programs instead in guns .. it might help.

Originally posted by JY_French

Legitimacy ... YOU get it.

So the only difference between our stands on this issue is that you care about legitimacy and i dont, right?

Bush tried to get support with his own customized agenda, and with his own rules for the play to come. "Hi everybody, here is the paper, sign here. Save your time, don't read it, everything is ready. Just get in the program. What ? Evidence? Hey, Colin, come over here. This guy wants to know why ? (Laugh) Decidedly, this UN is a bunch of comics ..."
Ask for evidence about human rights abuses ? These facts are established. 5000 deads in a village north of Iraq thanks to "Chemical Ali", a relative of Saddam, under the supervision of the latter. Evidence ? Collected facts by an inquiry held on the ground. Survivors with terrible aftermaths.

OK Imagine yourself that this was the official reason for war. Would you support it then? Would you support a war which you opposed before only because the papers now say 'human rights' instead of 'WMD'?

Why is it surprising ?

You are new to these forums, arent you? If you want, you could read thru some of the threads. You will find US being accused of everything it has ever done. One person even suggested that US intervention in WW2 was dictated by it's greedy interests.

Could you say the same about Saddam ?

No, since Saddam is a different case.

Even though Saddam is an evil man, Bush acknowledged recently that the links with Al-Quaeda were not that strong ... a diplomatic way to admit that things are not that obvious ...

Neither Bush, nor any other top decision-makers have ever said that 'Saddam has links to Al Qaida'. I dont know why this myth is so widely spread...

Who ? All of us western countries, within the frame of the UN!

I meant who is going to let us in those countries and push our education, our media, our ideals? NOBODY! Now that taliban and Saddam are gone we can do it in Afghanistan and Iraq - and there is pretty much chance that neighboors will follow it's example.

So part of them launch terrorist attacks after their daily session of CNN. I see the difference.

Seems like you just needed to say something and you had nothing better on your mind...

This is a point of view. There is another one: these under-developed countries might change their corrupt governments if democracy was reinforced and in parallel middle-class enlarged thanks to a promoted sustainable development ... a few more billion dollars in these programs instead in guns .. it might help.

Reinforcing democracy? Wait a sec, isnt that what you accuse Bush of deliberately doing? But anyways...
So western countries should give few more billions to corrupt governments in these under-developed countries? Do you have any idea of how much money Clinton gave to Russia? Over 60 billion over 8 years. AND????.... You think these moneys helped Russia in any way? NO!
Do some research - find out how much the US has given to different developing countries across the world - and how weak were these handouts' effects.

JYFrench wrote: Just proceed like in former Yougoslavia. Indict criminals, pick them up, judge them in The Hague international penal court ( an institution unfortunately not backed by the US ...) within the legal frame of the UN.

Do you really think we could have just sent in a couple police to arrest Sadam and haul him off for trial?

Of course no. But launching military actions, backed by the UN, to get him and his henchmen, indicted by an international penal court, judged as they deserve to be, would have had another impact than going there in the actual conditions. The message to all the dictators of this Earth would have been much more universal: "we are watching you and what you are doing to your people ...". Perhaps Castro would not have dared to seize the opportunity of the international trouble to launch a new wave of arrests and persecutions as he did recently, for example.

So the only difference between our stands on this issue is that you care about legitimacy and i dont, right?

Don't summarize things in such a way that I would demonize your stand ... Anyway, some of your remarks reflects that approach indeed.

OK Imagine yourself that this was the official reason for war. Would you support it then? Would you support a war which you opposed before only because the papers now say 'human rights' instead of 'WMD'?

Depending on how the procedure would have been conducted, why not. But you use the word "papers" contemptuously, as if this was a preoccupation of notary. The papers are not my concern - justice is.

You are new to these forums, arent you? If you want, you could read thru some of the threads. You will find US being accused of everything it has ever done. One person even suggested that US intervention in WW2 was dictated by it's greedy interests.

Hmmm ... I come here as a sensible citizen, with the will to discuss with everybody enjoying to do so too. Those coming with insults and provocations don't come to debate.

Neither Bush, nor any other top decision-makers have ever said that 'Saddam has links to Al Qaida'. I dont know why this myth is so widely spread...

I beg you pardon ? Is information this biased in Europe that we would not have understood that the right way ? Wow!

I meant who is going to let us in those countries and push our education, our media, our ideals? NOBODY! Now that taliban and Saddam are gone we can do it in Afghanistan and Iraq - and there is pretty much chance that neighboors will follow it's example.

Who ? Us ! This is what I would call an interference right, backed by the UN.

So part of them launch terrorist attacks after their daily session of CNN. I see the difference.

Seems like you just needed to say something and you had nothing better on your mind...

Nothing better ? Well ... The terrorists of the 9/11 were scientists for some of them, they lived and studied in western countries were they had virtually access to any kind of media ... Those recruited in London even right now have the same access to information .... as have, even more recently perhaps, those in Iraq. But you are right on this issue, it is indeed a positive thing.

Reinforcing democracy? Wait a sec, isnt that what you accuse Bush of deliberately doing? But anyways...
So western countries should give few more billions to corrupt governments in these under-developed countries? Do you have any idea of how much money Clinton gave to Russia? Over 60 billion over 8 years. AND????.... You think these moneys helped Russia in any way? NO!
Do some research - find out how much the US has given to different developing countries across the world - and how weak were these handouts' effects.

No money for corrupt govenments ... cut immediatly any expense at the benefit of dictators. Money directly for those who need it ... Those corrupt government do not agree and interfere ? Legal procedures against them.
Instead of using biased pretexts such as WMD ... if only responsible countries (democracies) could find agreements on issues such as human rights abuses .... and act together accordingly ... there would not be Tibet annexation by China allowed ... Chechnya genocide, .... So many mistakes and dereliction of duty from the UN - from all the democracies part of it. And this war in Iraq that is a step back in the progress of international justice.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Americaaah
[B]

Shoulda, coulda, woulda..... that ship has long sailed, French.

Yes ... how right you are. This is the past: now it is useless to argue. No need also to discuss of the future: now that we are used to doing things that way, why change anything ? UN is impotent, disagreeing allies are ****ing morons, we are mighty and we don't care. Fine ...

Yes, isn't it ? Easy: I just have to disconnect some neurons and suddenly what I write becomes relevant. Fantastic game.

Originally posted by JY_French

Depending on how the procedure would have been conducted, why not. But you use the word "papers" contemptuously, as if this was a preoccupation of notary. The papers are not my concern - justice is.

I believe that justice was held this time.

I beg you pardon ? Is information this biased in Europe that we would not have understood that the right way ? Wow!

I dont know about Europe but he really never said that 'Saddam has ties with Al Qaida'. He mentioned 'terrorists', but not exactly Al Qaida.

No money for corrupt govenments ... cut immediatly any expense at the benefit of dictators. Money directly for those who need it ... Those corrupt government do not agree and interfere ? Legal procedures against them.

Legal law says that nobody can interfere in other countries' internal affairs. West simply cant pressure each and every corrupt government for stealing money from their people.

Instead of using biased pretexts such as WMD ... if only responsible countries (democracies) could find agreements on issues such as human rights abuses .... and act together accordingly ... there would not be Tibet annexation by China allowed ... Chechnya genocide, .... So many mistakes and dereliction of duty from the UN - from all the democracies part of it. And this war in Iraq that is a step back in the progress of international justice.

Quite opposite, i think this war in Iraq was a big step forward. Issues like Chechnya are completely different.

You know what ? I know and respect sensible and generous Americans. They have made their country this great. Concerning some others, well ... let's say they counterbalance them. Why not ... that's mother Nature's concern to make us sometimes so different. I don't bother. But I am not ready to disconnect neurons to make you happy. Keep on with your assurance ... I was told arrogance was a French particularity ?

Was it not Colin Powell or Dick Cheney who at one point did say that Al - Qaida were involved in 9/11, and Bush had to distance himself from those comments

What is relevant is that the documents found in Bagdad during the first week linked Al-Queada to Saddam and that there were indeed Al-Queda training on iraqi soil. This doesn't neccesarliy mean Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. However the training camps found in Iraq did include Airline shells used for terroist training.
It's not real hard to put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

Yeah but there is Al Quida cells all over the world including America. In fact the pilots were trained in the US as I recall

the fact is by going into iraq the US has created more terrorists than they realize

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Curley Joe
[B]

Come now, lodgebo, what does that have to do with USA1's statement below. You don't really think Saddam was unaware of terrorists training in Iraq do you? 2 + 2 still equals 4.

What I meant Joe was this instaed of sending troops all over the wrold to take out other countries terrorists maybe the US should get her own house in order

Not confidence dave stupidity

Yeah just a shame Bush and Blair ignored those very same warnings months ago. Dont worry about the geniuses worry about those who ignore their advice.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Curley Joe
[B]

What the heck is you point? (shrug)

Whatever, I don't worry 'cause there's one less Mideast regime providing WMD to Islamic terrorists.

Yeah I forgot about those really dangerous WMDs the ones that have become invisible and in a few weeks the ones that probably did not exsist.

AS for my point Joe if Blair and Bush had listened to the specialists who told them this was a bad idea and that a lot of the intel was inaacurate instraed of surronding themselves with spinless "yes" men then maybe a lot of this would never have happend.

Americahh I mentione it before but there is a report that was requeted by the coaltion leaders in to Iraqs WMDs now this report is 99.9% finished and will very soon be presented. A leak from this report says that Iraq did not have WMDs and cetainly did not have the labs mobile or otherwise to create such weapons.
So what do you make of that?

Im very very sure that the report or at least one of them will say that Iraq did not have these weapons. But even still inconclusive is a long long way from being 100% sure that Iraq did have them and the coalition knew where they were.