2018-06-19, 13:43 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
  Print  
Author Topic: Vive la France!  (Read 19028 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
dev/null
 
Banned
Vadrigar
**********
Posts: 607

« Reply #20 on: 2003-02-24, 16:14 »

The French and the British are the ones that started this in the first place. If it were not for their secret negotiations during World War 1 to divide the Arabic countries, we would not see these current problems. The British screwed the French out of most everything due to oil, which the British navy had switched to right before the war. While they were also screwing over the Arabs, encouraging them to revolt with empty promises of independent kingdoms. Prince Faisel practically sold his own people out, allowing the powers of Britain, France, and America to take hold, which later payed off for him when they gave him the throne of Iraq. But he was a British puppet, nothing more than a face for the Iraqis to recognize while Britain raped them of their resources and attempted to keep them in the dark ages.
« Last Edit: 2003-02-24, 16:15 by dev/null » Logged
Hedhunta
 
Chton
*******
Posts: 231

« Reply #21 on: 2003-02-24, 17:56 »

you know what? i really dont care about this whole thing, im happy just sittin here, playing 'puter games, eating pop tarts and watching cable tv, let all you anti-war nuts have all the fun you want.. oil, or no oil, who really gives a damn, Saddam needs to be gone, we cant send in a SEAL team cause of the Geneva convention which because of the start of WW1(assasination) we arent aloud to assassinate world leaders anymore.... let Bush have his fun, hes only there for a year or two more.. i know i wont be voting for him, but thats just cause i think hes an idiot being controlled by his dad and cabinet, i seriously dont think hes(Bush JR) making ANY of the decisions..
Logged
dev/null
 
Banned
Vadrigar
**********
Posts: 607

« Reply #22 on: 2003-02-24, 18:03 »

I'm perfectly happy here with my material objects as well, with the exception of not having enough DVD?s Slipgate - Wink. But the reason we anti-war "nuts" do take the time to protest is because we're trying to save the world, as well as you, from getting a nuke shoved up it's ass!

I myself have been saying W's a puppet since day one and there's no way in Hell he could have been elected legitly. But I'm not going to let him "have his fun" , because thus far that has done nothing but limit our privacy and freedom in every medium of communication and information to make America more "secure" from some unknown enemy.

So in conclusion, I?d like to say: Drop Bush, not bombs! Thumbs up!
« Last Edit: 2003-02-24, 19:49 by dev/null » Logged
Hedhunta
 
Chton
*******
Posts: 231

« Reply #23 on: 2003-02-24, 22:53 »

well we can always have the next president repeal all of georges junk, or you can goto the supreme court and have it ruled unconstitutional..
Logged
MoJoJoJoe
 
Guest
« Reply #24 on: 2003-02-25, 01:46 »

Slipgate - Laugh Heres one for ya.

Q:why do polish have no head and no neck.

A:When you ask them a question they shrug their shoulders up and keep them there and when you tell them the answer they smack the top of their head into their neck and shoulders.

Oww. Tip for getting shorter. :lol:
Logged
Lilazzkicker
 

Beta Tester
Quad God
**********
Posts: 571

WWW
« Reply #25 on: 2003-02-25, 02:15 »

Q: You know why Disney World in France stopped their evening firework displays?

A: Every evening more then 400 french would surrender.

Slipgate - Tongue

Q: Why should we take the French with us to Iraq negotians?

A: So they can teach the Iraqies how to surrender.


Logged
Moshman
 
Beta Tester
Vadrigar
**********
Posts: 615

Yarg!

« Reply #26 on: 2003-02-25, 05:01 »

you guys are terrible...  Slipgate - Wink

and clever.  Slipgate - Tongue
Logged

Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #27 on: 2003-02-25, 06:08 »

This thread has taken a turn for the racist, good job Joe. Its good to know that some people keep the stereotype of Americans as Racist pricks alive
Logged
Lilazzkicker
 

Beta Tester
Quad God
**********
Posts: 571

WWW
« Reply #28 on: 2003-02-25, 07:28 »

...
« Last Edit: 2003-02-25, 07:37 by Lilazzkicker » Logged
OoBeY
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 299

« Reply #29 on: 2003-02-25, 23:59 »

If it was about oil, why didn't we take the Iraqi oil fields during the first gulf war, huh?
Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #30 on: 2003-02-26, 02:30 »

I was watching CBC and they sent some cameras down there to talk to the troops. One of them said that their orders are to move in and secure the oil fields
Logged
Hedhunta
 
Chton
*******
Posts: 231

« Reply #31 on: 2003-02-26, 02:33 »

thats because saddam has a nice history of setting them on fire...
Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #32 on: 2003-02-26, 02:47 »

If your being invaded its not as if your going to make it easy for your invaders are you?
Logged
McDeth
 

Makron
********
Posts: 388

Wildly Inappropriate

« Reply #33 on: 2003-02-26, 03:42 »

I have to say something here. Mojo, the polish joke was out of line.  The only reason we are making fun of the french is because through out history they have proven themselves to be all of the following:

Wussies, Barbarians, French, Shitheads to their liberators, Jerry Lewis Fans.

Any one of these are reason enough to burn the French. Burning the polish is an outdated practice that was used by middle class working men at the beginning of the 20th century to the 60's for suposedly "taking away jobs". Shame on you Mojo, shame. :angry:
« Last Edit: 2003-02-26, 03:43 by DaMan McDeth 666 » Logged

Beer? I'm down.
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #34 on: 2003-02-26, 05:02 »

Saying that the french are wussies ignores almost all of their history with the exception of the 1900 to 1950s
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8384

WWW
« Reply #35 on: 2003-02-26, 05:39 »

Yes, the French did not used to be this way, and I doubt all of the French people feel as Chirac does.  I do on the otherhand think this entire thread has gotten way off topic, but seing as the current topic has changed I might suggest that some of you ease off on the America-bashing here.  Mojo is definitely in the wrong for taking a swipe at Poles, but calling Americans "racist pricks" isn't casting anyone in much different light either.  Which Americans are racist?  The black ones?  The white ones?  Those descended from the American Indian?  Or from east India?  Hispanic Americans?  Or those who are a mix of many ethnic backgrounds?  America is a melting pot of many races, nationalities, and cultures, so how can an entire country, who allows all to vote regardless of race and hold jobs, be called racist?  It is ironic that if America is so bat that so many people want to get into the USA, and are willing to risk their lives on leaky rafts and barely seaworthy smuggling ships to do so, yet very few seem to want to get out?  That is, except for fools who think that camping out at power plants in Iraq, strumming a guitar like it's the 1960's again are going to offer much protection from a 2,000lb laser-guided bomb.  They know what they're in for, so I certainly hope nobody cries when they get gibbed all over the generators.  Oh well, I suppose that will cleanse a bit of stupidity from the human gene pool if they get blown up.  Darwinism at work, right?  I can't say I'm really pleased though.  I do not take pleasure in the loss of life, no matter how much of an idiot it is that happens to be attached to it.

The world is in a state where two things are certain right now.  The first is that Iraq is going to be invaded by the US, Brittish, and Austrailian militaries if Saddam doesn't go into exile, UN resolution or not, and no amount of protesting or political opposition from France, Germany, Russia, or China is going to stop it.  Countries I might add that have a much larger vested economic interest in Iraq than the US ever did.  It was France, after all, that sold Iraq the nuclear reactor that the now deceased Ramon blew up when Israel decided that Saddam with nukes was a bad idea.  It is Russia who arms Iraq with many weapons.  There are documented paper trails to all four of these countries who THEMSELVES are violating the very UN resolution that was imposed at the end of the Gulf War that was agreed to by Iraq as terms of surrender.  The UN sanctions (read:  UN, not US) were imposed because Iraq violated those terms.  Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors the first time because Saddam obviously wanted to develop his weapons without their presence.  He wanted them out, now he wants them back in?  Let's be realistic here, that's a stall tactic and he's been leading them on wild goose chases since they've been back.  Now he's saying "Oh look, we found this so we'll let you have it" every time the heat is put on him?  Don't be naive people.  Saddam is stalling for time by "turning up" very minor weapons he DENIED having in the first place.  A shell here, a rocket there, but never anything substantial since that would damn him publicly to the world, and all of this because he knows that as long as he can stall for time and as long as the United Nations stays divided HE'S running the show, not them.  He's making a mockery of the United Nations, and the entire inspection process has become a keystone cops bughunt that it's not supposed to be, and now you have a handful of protesters (yes, a handful, not the hundreds of thousands the media would have you believe) all pointing fingers at the US and Brittain, specifically Bush and Blair, for having the guts to stand up and call a spade a spade and be willing to do something about it?  Let's review the facts here instead of the rhetoric, and see who's really to blame:

1)  Saddam invaded Kuwait, and was driven out by a coalition of nations, not just the USA, even if the US provided the bulk of the military arm of it.

2)  Saddam gassed the Kurds in the north with chemical weapon poisons and killed a LOT of people.  Regardless of where he got them, he used them on people in his own country.

3)  People who fled Iraq following the failed uprising against Saddam after the gulf war tell of over a hundred thousand people executed.  These are Iraqi nationals who have said this, and these were Iraqi people who were killed.

4)  Every defector from Iraq at present speaks of a desire of the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam.  THEY do not want him running their country.  Why should anyone else?

5)  The United Nations passed legally binding resolutions, 14 of them so far since 1991, declaring that Saddam has to get rid of ALL chemical, biological, and nuclear (if any) weapons and provide proof of this.  The most recent says Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it fails to comply.  This burden rests on IRAQ to show proof that it no longer has such weapons, as it has been repeated countless times, not for the US, Britain, or God-knows-whatever-land to ferret out what Saddam's hiding and show proof to the world that he's in violation.  The inspectors have themselves said they are NOT a detective agency and Iraq must cooperate fully with them.  Blix has indicated repeatedly that Iraq is being "less than cooperative."

6)  Iraq ADMITTED to having over 4000 TONS of VX nerve gas back in the 90's.  It takes only 1 drop to kill a full grown man.  Now they claim to be unable to provide proof of it's destruction since "that evidence was destroyed", and that's only the tip of the iceberg of what they claimed to have a few years ago and now are saying they do not have.  Are you willing to take them at their word?  Does this kind of weaponry in Saddam's hands, or worse, Al Qaida's, Islamic Jihad's, or Hamas's hands not disturb you?

7)  George Bush and the Bush Administration has been actively seeking UN support for enforcement of the resolution that was UNANIMOUSLY agreed to by the UN security council last year so far by diplomatic means with a military buildup as pressure and as a last resort if those means fail.  Obviously since diplomatic enforcement has failed military enforcement becomes the only alternative.  If war was the only desired option there would be no push in the UN for a consensus at all, even if it's the only remaing option at this point other than turning tail and going home.

Slipgate - Cool  The only alternative to militarily removing Hussein and his weapons is to leave them in place.  Inspections DO NOT work, this was proven in the 90's when Saddam kicked out the inspectors (which he can just as easily do again if the US pulls anchor and goes home).  The end result of that is continued development of these weapons and their being sold to terrorist agencies who will use them on anyone, anywhere, even those opposed to war.  Also it will show that the UN is toothless and ineffective, as it has been at anything dealing with enforcement of resolutions for the past twelve years and counting.

9)  Leaving Saddam in power will embolden EVERY terrorist in the world, making the US and the UN, and all of Europe appear to be gutless cowards.  Potential terrorists only respect the threat of deadly force, and the only way terrorists can be "negotiated" with is at the end of a gun.  Dead terrorists can't hurt anybody anymore.  Live terrorists emboldened by perceived cowardice could then use biological agents to attack the world's food supply if armed by a rogue state, which would affect all nations, not just the US.  Mass famine is not a good thing.  Nuclear weapons in downtown NY, DC, London, Berlin, or Paris aren't much better, nor is nerve gas in a subway tunnel.

10)  The USA has exhausted every diplomatic channel with the UN security council to enforce their own resolution and now is left with the following options:  Enforce the resolution itself by invading and toppling Saddam now, risking casualties from chemical or biological weapons in the process, or allow him to continue in power to eventually develop nuclear weapons and face that kind of weaponry when he again attempts what he did with Kuwait, only this time with Israel, Turkey, Jordan, or who knows what other country in the crosshairs.  Saddam has attacked Israel before, and don't forget that Qusay is ten times WORSE than Saddam, and stands to inherit all that "daddy" has.  If Iraq attacks Israel, unprovoked, with nuclear weapons it WILL start a regional war, but this time with Israel declaring war on Iraq, followed by Arab states declaring war on Israel.  Say hello to WWIII, Israel DOES have nukes, over 400 of them, and they've admitted to this.  Taking out Saddam now could easily PREVENT this.  Does ANYONE like the idea of a regional war, possibly nuclear, in the middle east?

11)  If the protests against war are indeed against war, the quickest way to avoid war is if the entire world condemns Saddam's barbary and overwhelming world opinion and political pressure is leveled at him to step down and dismantle his weapons programs.  Since the world is instead divided, with the protestors intent only on attacking Bush and Blair, this only feeds Saddam's boldness to defy the UN resolutions and make a mockery of the entire system.  War is inevitable as a result of this, and the protests are only acting to divide the world, not unite it.  This is counter-productive to the goal of preventing war, and illogical if preventing war is the only thing desired.  Banners saying "Saddam disarm now, do it for your people", etc, have yet to be seen anywhere in any of these protests.  Just who is the bad guy here anyway in the UN's eyes?

History has a lesson, one that is often overlooked.  Often times the right thing to do, and what needs to be done at the time is unpopular at the time, but historically the world benefits in the long run from unpopular but correct action.  It is a test of character to take a beating and do what's right anyway.  Tony Blair understands this, I think that perhaps many nations in Eastern Europe understand this as well having been trodden over by the iron boot of the Soviet Union for so long.  Dictators intent on murderous conquest and oppression of liberty cannot be appeased or coddled, they can only be toppled.  They tried appeasement with Hitler in the 1930's, and the result was millions of people dead.  Saddam is just such a dictator.  Bush is not, contrary to some of the claims, since he can be replaced with democratic election.  Many have accused Bush of knowing beforehand about the 9/11 attacks, and doing nothing to prevent them.  I will not debate the validity of such accusations here, but now Bush knows about the threat Saddam poses, and yet when confronted with acting to prevent this, is again attacked.  I find no logic in this.  Saddam himself has shown Hitler and Stalin as his role models.  A former general who took part in the uprising against Saddam and later fled the country said he would get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say "Heil Hitler!" jokingly at himself.  No amount of negotiation or political pressure, even the threat of war and the resulting civilian casualties has changed Saddam's mind about what he wants to do.  Do you REALLY want this man in power?  Do you trust Saddam Hussein?  Would you want this man running YOUR country?  As for North Korea, there's an old expression that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Kim Jong Il is doing a lot of squeaking right now, and not much else.  Anyone ever think he might be bluffing?  He wants attention.  Saddam, on the other hand, is developing things covertly.  The loud braggart is all mouth, and is rarely a threat, however the stealthy assassin is lethal and intent on that lethality.  Keep this in mind when thinking about the difference between North Korea and Iraq.

I have some hard questions for you all.  To all those who do not like George Bush and his "unilateral" approach, what about Bill Clinton when the USA "unilaterally" launched attacks against the serbs, and parked aircraft carriers and, under Clinton's order, launched missiles "unprovoked" into Sudan and Afghanistan?  Where is the condemnation for that?  Where is the condemnation for the US under Clinton handing nuclear reactors to North Korea, if North Korea is now such a threat that everyone claims they are?  Where is the condemnation of Saddam Hussein gassing his own people with chemical weapons?  Or for invading Kuwait in the first place?  I've heard all the accusations leveled at the USA and George Bush in particular for misconduct and bullying, now I'm leveling MY accusations at all of you who are doing the accusing.  Where are the facts for your accusations?  I've laid out the generally accepted facts regarding Iraq, that is, accepted unless you're a member of the French, German, Chinese, or Russian parlaiments or are living in Wonderland somewhere.  Truth is in the eye of the beholder, after all.  Show us all the evidence of these conspiracy theories regarding the US wanting oil, and the US causing this and that, if you have any that is.  All I hear is words, angry words, and baseless words blaming the USA and George Bush for all the worlds evils.  Is it because Bush is rich?  Or that he's a Republican and not a Democrat?  Or because he does come from "big oil"?  Is personal dislike the root of these accusations?  Damn the country for the character of the King, so to speak?  Or is it because the USA is a rich and powerful country, the last super-power, and as such the "have-nots" of the world are jealous?  And if the USA and people like Bush are indeed evil, then I suggest you all take up your righteous swords and cut out this evil, since obviously you're in the right and the USA is as much a threat as, no, more of a threat to the world as the terrorists and extremists are.  But then who's to say you're right?  After all, if there is no "absolute right" then the USA is just as right for following its policies as you are for thinking it's in the wrong, isn't it?  Are you merely choosing targets of political convenience for your self-righteous moral high-ground?  That is, guilt by opinion and damn the facts unless you can fit them to match your preconceptions?  Funny, that mentality is often referred to as "lynch mob".  I would only ask you to examine your standards and see if you are applying them evenly to ALL of the variables here, or you run the risk of being guilty of the very things that you are accusing others of doing.

I am not attempting to absolve the USA of any past wrongs, history can be its own judge of that, nor am I defending Bush and saying he is completely blameless either.  All nations, and every individual on this earth has blood on their hands for one thing or another.  Still, there should be no "Oh yeah, but the USA did this" counterpoints to the above statements.  Justifying one evil by pointing out another solves nothing, and absolves neither of wrongdoing.  Answer me these questions honestly if you can.  Otherwise, think about the points I bring up if you're willing to let go of this apparent hatred for the USA.  I'm tired of seeing America bashed repeatedly for everything, along with Israel, so I'm going to take up my own gauntlet here and issue you this challenge.  If America is so wrong always as you say, tell me then, who is right in this?  And what would you have them do, if all that you are willing to do yourselves is nothing at all except accuse?  Complacency leads to slavery.  We would all be wise to remember that.  That is all I have to say about this.  End of rant.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Twilight
 
Pain Elemental
****
Posts: 83

« Reply #36 on: 2003-02-26, 06:27 »

I for one condemn all acts that lead to the loss of innocent life.  Party affiliation or financial status has little to do with it.  If a leader of a country has proven himself to be abusive and unfit to lead, then he most certainly should be removed from power.  However, war is not an answer, nor should it ever be.  I do not believe that economic sanctions are viable either.  I do not feel that a population should be punished for the actions of it leader.  We have destroyed water distribution systems in Iraq that served no militaristic purpose, robbing citizens of clean water.  What did this do to Saddam?  Anything?  Did he lack water to drink?  Somehow I doubt it.  The only thing our actions serve to do is anger entire countries, as the populace suffers from sanctions and shortages THAT DO NOT AFFECT THOSE WE SEEK TO PUNISH.

If Saddam was truly the problem, if his rule and his weapons were what truly motivated our desire to maintain a military force in the Middle East, then he would have been removed already.  I have plenty of faith in the ability of our armed forces to do the jobs they were trained to do.  We don't need ten, twenty, or thirty thousand people there to do it.

My solution, what *I* would choose to do, is simply have the man assassinated.  And don't give me that body double nonsese, I have more bullets at home than Saddam's got doubles.  I think we can manage.  I'm sick and tired of others suffering for a tyrant's folly, and I oppose the war.  I oppose all wars.

There, I'm done.  Flame away.
Logged
OoBeY
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 299

« Reply #37 on: 2003-02-26, 06:31 »

In response to twilight's assassination comment, i'd like to quote hedhunta...
Quote from: Hedhunta
Saddam needs to be gone, we cant send in a SEAL team cause of the Geneva convention which because of the start of WW1(assasination) we arent aloud to assassinate world leaders anymore....
Logged
Devlar
 
Makron
********
Posts: 398

WWW
« Reply #38 on: 2003-02-26, 07:03 »

I'd rather have the US violate the convension than put another generation of innocent iraquis through this crap
Logged
Dr. Jones
 

Team Member
Tank Commander
********
Posts: 168

WWW
« Reply #39 on: 2003-02-26, 07:56 »

Quote from: Devlar
I'd rather have the US violate the convension than put another generation of innocent iraquis through this crap
i do believe that the iraqis are long overdue for a break from the power struggle occurring beyond their control, between hussein and bush, however, we cannot violate the convention.

if we were to violate the convention, we would violate what little remaining trust the international community has left in us.  we helped to create that treaty, and to break our own word would make us no better than saddam or any other tyrannical dictator - doing what they feel is in the best interest of their country (or at least themselves), and to hell with the rest of the world.  the geneva convention is not a just a one-way shield intended to prevent other countries from doing anything that would threaten us, but also binds us to the same rules, offering the other countries protection from us.  after all, the other ratifying countries would not have signed the convention if they received no protection from it.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
  Print  
 
Jump to: