Peoples...
Ok.. Vichy France folded to the Nazi onslaught.
But remember that many in France did fight in the resistance.
Didn't they?
Peoples...
Ok.. Vichy France folded to the Nazi onslaught.
But remember that many in France did fight in the resistance.
Didn't they?
and who came to their assistance!
Isnt it a fact that Saddam needs to be removed from power in Iraq. The world owes it to the Iraqi people. Will Saddam voluntarily step down.
Tell me what is the alternative..
Dear Rashguy,
You ask legimate questions. Absolutely.
Smart questions.
Myself, I can't answer them. I disagree that war is an absolute necessity. The reason I say this is because I have not seen any convincing proof. I might be considered stupid. Likely I am.
What do I know? Nothing...and thats the point..
Does the rest of the U.S. know as much as me? LIKELY.
which = nothing
Don't get me wrong. I worry about all those young Americans in the desert. They all are heros, IMHO. I want them home tomorrow and not have to fight a fight of politics. They deserve better.
I cannot quote newsworthy subjects to support my ideas.
Or perhaps..I could...if ..looking around...searching..
I would like to see personal statements on the issues, rather than...
Media thoughts.
Would rather see...print in peoples' own words.
Some darn good newsworthy writer..might say something I think and feel..but wouldn't be me completely.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by RashGuy: *
Isnt it a fact that Saddam needs to be removed from power in Iraq. The world owes it to the Iraqi people. Will Saddam voluntarily step down.
Tell me what is the alternative..
[/QUOTE]
YES the world owes alot to the Iraqi people, the previous Bush Administration was the mastermind behind an absolutely horrendous sanctions regime which led to the deaths of over 1.6 million Iraqi children and has left the Iraqi economy and civilian infrastructure close to total collapse... Btw, only the Iraqis should be able to decide if or when Sadam is ousted from power and there is currently **no justification* for war!
Lovely article: "OK, sign me up for the Bush program. I’m aboard. Who else can we insult, offend, bribe, blackmail, threaten, intimidate, wiretap or otherwise infuriate?
…we haven’t done anything to Paraguay yet. How about doing something to annoy the Paraguayans?
We could have Rumsfeld make one his statesmanlike remarks such as, “Nyah, nyah, Asuncion sucks.” And why leave out Mali? Mali is a silly name for a country. This is fun. Let’s go insult some goobers in the South Pacific, too - say, Tonga. Don’t leave out the Scots. Their guys wear skirts. Burkina Faso, now there’s a dump. Only morons would name their capital Ouagadougou. Hee-hee. This is more fun than junior high school.
…] This was in addition to Republicans trading tasteless anti-French jokes publicly during a hearing with Colin Powell. Just for the record, there are 6,000 French troops currently serving as peacekeepers in Afghanistan and the Balkans. As they keep watch in places they’d rather not be, I’m sure they all appreciate your gestures. Likewise, the Germans - described by Rumsfeld as a “pariah state” - have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans.
Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence?
Chickens coming home to roost all around. Turns out the reason some of the African nations are sticking with the French is because they get more in foreign aid from the French than they do from us. Thank you, Jesse Helms, for your many years of work destroying American aid programs.
Of course, we don’t need the United Nations. Why should we worry about peacekeeping, nation-building or international cooperation on global problems when we can buy our friends, bully our allies and bomb everybody else? What a glorious future."
Ticking Everyone Off, Molly Ivins, Boulder Daily (via the Commondreams.org website)
Stop praising countries opposed to war. FYI france, russia and germany have strong contracts with Iraq. Its in their best interest America doesnt enter Iraq. They have a reason for apposing war. And its not that they fear for the civilians in Iraq.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by hskhan: *
**Stop praising countries opposed to war.* FYI france, russia and germany have strong contracts with Iraq. Its in their best interest America doesnt enter Iraq. They have a reason for apposing war. And its not that they fear for the civilians in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
hskhan its very sad that anyone can support an ILLEGAL war against Iraq which UN experts state could lead to the deaths of up to 1 million Children. :(
Btw Vive La France !
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
hskhan its very sad that anyone can support an ILLEGAL war against Iraq which UN experts state could lead to the deaths of up to 1 million Children. :(
Btw **Vive La France !*
[/QUOTE]
It is sad indeed, but the reason for France's opposition is not entirely due to the possible death of innocent people. They also dont want America to claim their contracts.
BTW Do you know who provided Iraq with nuclear reactors? France did. Who destroyed them? Israel did (with intelligence provided by the USA). Iraq is in the process of rebuilding the reactors, and they are seeking France's help. France surely wouldnt want a pro american gov to hand over the contracts to America.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hskhan: *
It is sad indeed, but the reason for France's opposition is not entirely due to the possible death of innocent people. They also dont want America to claim their contracts.
BTW Do you know who provided Iraq with nuclear reactors? France did. Who destroyed them? Israel did (with intelligence provided by the USA). Iraq is in the process of rebuilding the reactors, and they are seeking France's help. France surely wouldnt want a pro american gov to hand over the contracts to America.
[/QUOTE]
hskhan, as long as France stands up to the warmongering antics of Mr. Bush & co than thats all that matters. Chirac knows that by supporting the Bush Administrations illegal pre-emptive action against Saddam could endanger the existance of the United Nations and spell disaster for the Middle East. Btw, your reference to France's help in building a nuclear reactor in Iraq is OLD NEWS. As for Iraqs alleged Nuclear weapons program, perhaps you should follow the news a little more, the accusations against Iraq have been discovered to be based on falsified reports and the IAEA have found NO EVIDENCE suggesting that Iraq currently has a Nuclear weapons program!
France's opposition to this war has nothing to do with saving the poor, suffering Iraqi people. It has everything to do with their trying to re-claim some kind of relevance in world affairs. It has to do with continuing their lucrative business relationships with Iraq. It has to do with standing up to the United States to try and position themselves as an economic and political power in the post Cold War era. It has to do with covering up their illegal and immoral business dealings.
France's insolent and hypocritical stance will do more to harm innocent Iraqis than if they took serious the UN charge of Iraqi disarmament. They have consistently been an impediment to this process and are even apologists for Iraq. This after 12 years of lies and deceit and 18 UN Resolutions that Iraq continues to violate - they want more time without any consequences. 1441 demanded IMMEDIATE, COMPLETE and UNCONDITIONAL disarmament. Iraq has failed on all accounts. Perpetual negotiations were not part of Saddams agreed to terms when he surrendered 12 years ago.
France has done huge damage to the UN's future relevance. If they didn't intend to follow through with 1441, they should have never voted for it. They make a mockery of UN resolve and legitimacy. Funny how France doesn't think it necessary to get UN approval when they plunder through West Africa.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole:
France's opposition to this war...
[/QUOTE]
What about the other 10 countries of the UNSC that have refused to as yet support the US-UK war mongering? This is not just about France's opposition, but Russia, China, Gemany, Syria, and the other six states of the UNSC that have not supported US war plans. You only have the support of two members of the UNSC who will come out support your resolutions - the UK and Spain.
What about ALL these countries? At the end of the day it's only 3 countries v the rest of the UNSC...
I thought this thread was about the French. The other countries that flat out oppose a 2nd resolution: China, Russia, Germany and Syria have their own reasons (that have nothing to do with saving the poor, suffering Iraqi people). The bit players (temporay members) are going to go with the flow to appease public opinion. No since sticking their neck out since France already showed its cards. If it wasn't for the threatened French veto, this 2nd resolution would have already passed. If it wasn't for Blair's necessity to get a second resolution, all of this would be a moot point anyway. 1441 already authorizes forced disarmament.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole:
If it wasn't for the threatened French veto, this 2nd resolution would have already passed.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong again on two counts. Russia has also threatened a veto in case you have not been reading. But putting aside the veto 'threats' of France and Russia, you need 9 votes to get a resolution passed in the first instance if there is no veto. The US has only three votes - name me the other countries that have come out in support of the US resolution - even Bulgaria which first supported the US refused to co-sponsor the US-UK-Spanish resolution.
So come on name the other countries apart from the UK and Spain who have said they would vote for the US resolution? Let's see the evidence...
btw, not many people outside the borders of the US believes for one minute that US is out to help the poor and suffering Iraqi people.
France will continue to oppose the US even after the military campaign. If this goes well, I mean best case scenario, for the US they will still have to keep a foreign military presence in Iraq for a long time. This is not Afghanistan, can't be forgotten so easily.
This US presence will naturally anger, if not the Iraqis themselves, the surrounding lands - KSA, Syria, Iran, etc - it is a direct threat to their rule. The people of these countries and the expats in Europe and elsewhere will most likely let their dissent be known in some ways the Americans wouldn't like. France, by opposing the US, will come off as the hero; they are standing up for the Arab people and the common people of the World. You can expect more European countries to gradually shift to their side. It saves them all from the scorn of the Arabs.
This war will probably cause divisions greater than those between Israel and Palestine, not only on the regional level but the entire world. It could possibly lead to a new kind of Cold War where many countries band together to oppose the US hegemon. If the US couldn't manage the UN Security Council, how will they handle the world?
Anti-war Chirac hits top voter rating in 30 years](Clarifying the Complex | Homepage | Thomson Reuters) :k:
16 Mar 03
PARIS, March 16 (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac, propelled by his stand against war in Iraq, reached the highest presidential popularity rating of the last 30 years in a survey published on Sunday. Chirac, who went on television on Monday to state bluntly that he would veto any attempts to get United Nations approval for war in Iraq, jumped 10 percentage points to a satisfaction level of 67 percent in the opinion poll by the Ifop agency.
The poll, conducted between March 6 and 14 with soundings of nearly 1,900 people, drove Chirac past the top 61 percent score that late Socialist President Francois Mitterrand achieved during his first mandate between 1981 and 1988.The highest scores on Ifop records went to Charles de Gaulle with 74 percent during his first term from 1959 to 1965, and in second place to Georges Pompidou with 69 percent during his term from 1969 to 1974.
“This is the popularity of peace…the rejection of war that has lifted the president to the pinnacle,” said Jean-Luc Parodi, a French political analyst and Ifop polling consultant. Parodi had a word of caution too, though. Mitterrand was enjoying solid ratings before the more widely supported Gulf War in 1991 but tumbled to his all-time low of 22 percent support by end-1991, Parodi said in Sunday newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche, which published the Ifop poll
I also think we didn't go ahead with another U.N. vote to authorize military action because our U.S. government knew there would be a veto..and the poles were saying that the majority of Americans would not support military action without U.N. approval.
Be some mighty poor media coverage there.. course the Hawks would be blaming France....
Now doesn't anyone find it strange that today the news channels are reporting the up to 73% of the American Public now supports Bush? HUH? Suddenly overnight the American public opinion changed?
I truly hoped that their would not be any military action without the full approval from the U.N. and that the inspections would continue. Missles were being destroyed without bombs having to fall.
Yes Saddam is ruthless, cruel, murdering dictator. But did the Iraqi's invite us to depose him for them? No. But were gona do it anyway.
Let us hope with zero civilian casualties and that all of our young men return home alive and well.
There won’t be any regime change in France for a long time…