Is France Bashing Unwarranted? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-08-2003, 07:17 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:59 PM
The scenario you have described does not sound like the United States was in immediate danger. It sounds like there was room for negotiations. If there was immediate danger, then shame on the President for not acting as if there was immediate danger. All of the negotiations, and talking at the UN, and not doing anything after 9/11 provide enough evidence for me to believe there was NOT an immediate danger.

The scenarios do not match up. I would expect that if there were and immediate danger, then the time to act was immediately. Months of negotiations, and claiming we are in an immediate danger during the negotiations, lead me to believe that this is a negotiations ploy, and not reality.

Of course, I support the disarmament. I prefer the straight facts that 12 years is long enough, that sanctions were killing more people than a war would, that for future security we needed to act. I do not believe that we were in IMMEDIATE danger.

Peace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-08-2003, 12:19 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Interpol is based in France. They are working with U.S. agents and other people to recover stolen artifacts from the National Museum in Baghdad. There are U.S, French, British, Canadian, and Turkish scholars working together with Iraqis to help preserve Iraq's history. Many artifacts and manuscripts have been found and are in the process of being put back in the museum. This is very important to the Iraqi people and wouldn't be possible if people weren't working together on a common purpose.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-08-2003, 07:47 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Dreadsox,

There was techinically always an immediate danger that Saddam could invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia or another neighbor again and use WMD. That was always a possibility at any time. It was hoped that Saddam would see the light of day and disarm with Peaceful UN inspections. I'm not sure what negotiations your talking about because what Iraq had to do was set in stone. There was nothing to negotiate about. Comply or else. Those were the terms of 1991 ceacefire agreement.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-08-2003, 08:55 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Sting,

I agree with Dread. The Administration over played the risk to get support for their invasion.

I am glad Saddam is out of power. The Administration has lost a lot of credibility. All their bluster about WMD appear to be either grossly exaggerated of just plain false.

If they offer very little evidence maybe their supporters will be satisfied but that is not the issue. Based on all their claims a substantial find is required for credibility.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-08-2003, 09:19 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Sting,

I agree with Dread. The Administration over played the risk to get support for their invasion.

I am glad Saddam is out of power. The Administration has lost a lot of credibility. All their bluster about WMD appear to be either grossly exaggerated of just plain false.

If they offer very little evidence maybe their supporters will be satisfied but that is not the issue. Based on all their claims a substantial find is required for credibility.

I agree with you guys.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-08-2003, 10:30 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76



I agree with you guys.
Ditto.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 04:04 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Deep,

"Based on all their claims a substantial find is required for credibility."

This is totally incorrect. First, the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement stated that it was incumbent upon Iraq to PROVE that it no longer had Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Member States were not required to do anything except verify and ensure that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction. The only one that had to prove anything was Saddam.

"I am glad Saddam is out of power. The Administration has lost a lot of credibility. All their bluster about WMD appear to be either grossly exaggerated of just plain false."

In 1998, the United Nations and IRAQ both said that Iraq had 10,000 Liters of Anthrax and 30,000 Shells capable of delivering them. Thats not the Bush administration which would not be in office for another three years, but the UN report at the time. When inspectors were let back in 2002, Iraq claimed that it destroyed the above weapons between 1998 and 2002(when inspectors were not there), BUT provided no evidence to back up that claim. They are required by the Ceacefire Terms of the First Gulf War to fully account and hand over the WMD or destroy it and allow member states to verify the destruction. 30,000 shells is in incredible amount of metal. It does simply vanish into thin air when someone disposes or renders useless such material.

With a 72% approval rating, it appears the general public understands these things unlike many liberals. Its not surprising that in light of the administrations success in foreign policy that liberals continue to search for walnuts they can throw at the administration. Why is it so hard to give credit where credit is do? The zealots have a hard time doing that.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 04:08 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:59 PM
"It does simply vanish into thin air when someone disposes or renders useless such material." Correction: It does NOT simply vanish into thin air.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 07:40 AM   #39
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:59 PM
STING2:

noone thinks that Iraq is a innocent country.
But some of us think that there were alternatives to this UN sancitions which were abused by some UN members and ignored too many countries (without consequences for them) and a war.

Your funny typo brings back something other in my memories...
...do you know how long the ABC weapons which the US thought can be found in Iraq can be stored before they have to be refurbished?

OK, back to the topic "France Bashing"
I've met lots of exchange students from the United States here in germany and most of them were surprised that instead of laughter about their France-jokes they just saw surprised faces. Maybe we have a different kind of humore here.

I disslike every sentence that starts with "The French..", "The Germans.." "The Americans.." or any platitude like that.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 11:05 AM   #40
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


You surprise me. You know very well there was a difference between then and now, particularly since our "Allies" in World War II were involved in the war before us. After all, the fall of World War II has credited the rise of the U.S. as a superpower and Europe's "fall from power" in a sense--but that happened post-World War II. Plus, if I remember my history with Japan, our allies wanted nothing to do with Japan.

The difference between then and now is that there is no contest. The U.S. doesn't need allies. This same outcome, without any allies at all, would have been assured. And you know that perfectly well.

All this talk of coalition building was merely an attempt to placate the public, and, theoretically, I do give the U.S. credit for going that route through the U.N. An excellent tactical move. However, we all know that there was no room for debate. There was no room for negotiation, and whatever other nations in the U.N. could have discussed, it was irrelevant. War was the only route, and, as we see, even the U.S. cannot find these "weapons of mass destruction." Now, in another tactical move, the rhetoric is gradually shifting, justifying this conflict in human rights terms and regime change terms. All good and well--Saddam is certainly not the cuddliest dictator we ever once supported--but his primary selling point was the WMDs.

In other words, the U.S. wanted to transform the U.N. into a rubber stamp, perhaps, ironically, making the U.N. irrelevant no matter what it did. And now we are to punish France and other nations for not accepting Bush's bullying moves? It certainly is appropriate for a bully--after all, bullies certainly do not rationalize well--but it is not something I can support.

Like it or not, we are delving into a new era: the U.S. as the sole hyperpower. It is an interesting change of events, casting off, officially, the specter of the 20th century. I would explain this fascination further, but I need not ruin my potential thesis topics.

Despite all this, the last thing I want to hear is the same old media crap. The last thing I need is romanticized rationalizations to interpret what really happened: the U.S. came in, the U.S. demanded, the U.S. won. Period.

Melon
Excellent post, Melon
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 11:18 AM   #41
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Melon,
...There cannot be any negotiation when it comes to a major threat to US National Security abroad. We can explain and debate the facts and the use of force, but at the end of the day, the USA is not going to sacrifice its and the regions security for naive French and Russian interest...
But we in Russia are happy that US sound pragmatism has finally prevailed over our naivete...
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 12:18 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


Excellent post, Melon
Yes.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 06:49 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Klaus,

"noone thinks that Iraq is a innocent country.
But some of us think that there were alternatives to this UN sancitions which were abused by some UN members and ignored too many countries (without consequences for them) and a war."

Please tell me how you disarm a country that does not want to be disarmed and has 430,000 troops and 2,700 tanks to stop anyone that tries to disarm them? How would you disarm such a country without military force?

Success in prior WMD inspections was due to Saddams willingness to give up WMD that was found in order to get sanctions lifted on his country. It was the strategy of giving a little in order to keep the rests.

At any moment, the Iraqi army could stopped the entire UN team of inspectors, killing all of them if they had to. But since the unarmed inspectors would never challenge armed Iraqi troops, they never had to do that. It was enough to stand in their way while they emptied a building out with trucks throught the back alley or road.

"Your funny typo brings back something other in my memories...
...do you know how long the ABC weapons which the US thought can be found in Iraq can be stored before they have to be refurbished?"

Storing such anthrax for a long time is not a problem with refridgeration. Its when you put the Anthrax into the shells that they can only be stored that way for a few days. The shells themselves are empty until a day or two before they are used in battle because of that. Its illegal for Iraq to have the empty Bio/Chem capable shells as well as the Anthrax.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 07:44 PM   #44
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:59 PM
STING2:

there were 2 threads about alternatives how to dissarm him without a war, we can bring one of them up again and continue discussion, i guess repeating these arguments isn't neccessary here

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-10-2003, 05:25 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Klaus,

What you fail to understand is that any attempt to disarm Saddam without a war requires that Saddam cooperate on some level. He never did. Again, UN inspectors are unarmed and can't stand up to Saddams military if they are lucky enough to find something. That is if Saddam even lets them in the country or stay in the country.

So again, how do you disarm a dictator with a 430,000 man military, who is unwilling to cooperate?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com