France is a "Pain in the Ass"

by JH 131 Replies latest jw friends

  • JH
    JH

    My Solution is to kick out France and maybe Germany out of Nato !

    Rumsfeld: France, Germany are 'problems' in Iraqi conflict

    McCain predicts easy victory if war comes

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday dismissed French and German insistence that "everything must be done to avoid war" with Iraq, saying most European countries stand with the United States in its campaign to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

    "Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem," said Rumsfeld, a former NATO ambassador. "But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

    Germany and France represent "old Europe," and NATO's expansion in recent years means "the center of gravity is shifting to the east," Rumsfeld said.

    French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said Wednesday in Paris they were not convinced a war with Iraq was necessary while U.N. arms inspectors were still searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

    "Any decision belongs to the Security Council and the Security Council alone, which will address the issue after having examined the latest inspectors' report," Chirac said. "Secondly, as far as we're concerned, war always means failure." (Full story)

    France holds a veto on the Security Council as one of its five permanent members, while Germany is a key NATO ally and will hold the council's rotating presidency in February.

    "If the inspectors ask for more time, we need to give them more time," said Schroeder, who has already said he would not send German troops to a war against Iraq.

  • Realist
    Realist

    Yeru,

    your naivity would be cute if this kind of credulousness just wouldn't bring so much harm to the people.

    i guess the concept of propaganda is new to you. may i ask you why none of these secret documents etc. were given to inedpendent investigators (like the UN) ? if it is important to the US to get allies in this war then why don't they distribute these convincing findings to everyone?

    my i remind you of what was said about iraq before the last war started? 5th strongest army in the world, high tech weapons, slautered babies in kuwait etc. ... strange that all of this turned out to be lies. i bet that if you are honest and look back you have to admit that you believed everything that was said.

    i am sorry but i am just amazed that you think the arabs are the cause of this whole problem and that the US has the right to do what it does...

    funny that you fail to notice who started the whole conflict and why. it were not the arabs or islam that started to mess with americans. it was first britain and france which were replaced after WWII by israel and the US who exploited and occupied arab land. seriously if you can't see who is responsible for the conflict and who started it then i can't help you.

    further if you can't see what interest groups in the US will profit from this war and who has to pay for it then i can't help you either. bush signed a 34 BILLION dollar (11%) increase in military spending at a point where the US holds already about 50% of world wide military spendings....for what i ask you? who has to pay for this? the average american who will gain nothing from it.

    you said this war will bring peace and a better life to the iraqies. i bet you now that this war will bring destruction to iraq and nothing else. the oil will be taken away from them and the country will remain poor. US and british oil companies will exploit the oil bringing billions of dollars into the hands of a few already filthy rich people.

    will this war have any positive effects for the 270 million americans? no it won't. it will increase the threat of retaliations from desperate and frustrated arabs and it will cost the americans about 100 Billion dollars. it will secure oil imports to the US which could have been achieved for a fraction of the cost by just doing peaceful trading without trying to screw the arabs.

    you are right...this war will probably start in less than a month and after its over we will see who was right me or you.

    PS: the role of the weapons instepctors is to verify that iraq has destroyed its WMD and the programs that could produce such. As Blix has said even the best-hidden weapons can now be detected with new technology. the funny thing is even if they don't find any evidence of a weapons program the US will count that against iraq and start the war.

  • Realist
    Realist

    JH,

    LOL ... you are not to far away from your witness past huh? who dares to disagree with the all mighty GB has to be kicked out your precious club! do it! a) france has disassociated from NATO already to a significant degree and would prefer the formation of a european military structure anyway and b) it is the US who wants support for their actions not the other way around.

    "If the inspectors ask for more time, we need to give them more time," said Schroeder

    what an outragous demand! kill schroeder this bastard!

    Edited by - realist on 23 January 2003 8:16:26

  • Perry
    Perry

    funny that you fail to notice who started the whole conflict and why. it were not the arabs or islam that started to mess with americans. it was first britain and france which were replaced after WWII by israel and the US who exploited and occupied arab land. seriously if you can't see who is responsible for the conflict and who started it then i can't help you.

    What utter non-sense. Please explain how arab land was exploited.

  • dubla
    dubla

    xander-

    (In any case, even if true, since when is consorting with terrorists - even being 'good buddies' with them - a reason to treat someone as Satan himself?

    since when? since 9/11.

    aa

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    UN-Realist,

    Let's talk. First, RE: the inspectors. What is their job? What mandate do they carry, and what does the UN Resolution demand of Saddam? What are the consequences mentioned in the resolution if he fails to follow through?

    The UN Resolution states that Iraq must turn over all WMD (to include those little warheads already found). This includes accounting for the over 29,000 warheads the Inspectors says he has. He either has to turn them over or SHOW EVIDENCE that they've been destroyed or rendered harmless. He's not complied with this, he didn't even declare them in his Weapons Declaration.

    Saddam was also to turn over ALL documents dealing with the development of WMD. Yet, 3000 documents dealing with the enrichment of Uranium were found in the home of the chief scientist of Iraq's Nuke program, documents that were to be declared, but weren't.

    He was to declare and account for all dual use items, yet, with evidence of the purchase of atomized aluminium (used uniquely for rocket fuel), and the production of chlorine way beyond the needs of the country for commercial purposes, which is also a precursor agent for some nasty chemicals weapons, all undeclared.

    All the scientists were to be made available for interviews WITHOUT having Iraqi "minders" present during the interviews. This has yet to happen.

    Even Hans "Inspector Cleuoseu" Blix has said there are holes in the declaration that you could drive a star ship through.

    The Inspectors job, by the UN resolution, was not to FIND weapons, it was to supervise the destruction and disarming of Iraq. Iraq was to do the work. It's not been done. Saddam is in material breech of the UN Resolution. He's not complied.

    The consequences, while not spelled out, were noted to be "severe consequences". The inspections program is failed because Saddam hasn't lived up to his part of the bargan. Why give the inspectors more time when Saddam ain't doing any of what he's supposed to do?

    Why are France and Germany oppossed? Aside from France grasping for relevance in the world theatre, it stands to possibly loose out on money it gave to Iraq. Further, as has already been shown with Germany, it's suspected that France has sold a lot of forbidden items to Iraq, and they want to avoid the embarrassment of these revelations.

    NOW to the rest of your most ridiculous post...

    guess the concept of propaganda is new to you

    Sooo, the anti-war folks don't produce propoganda? Is it important to you that the organizers of the anti-war march in Washington was the US Communist Party? That these guys absolutely love Kim jung EEL and love tweaking the nose of the US.

    Some knuckleheads say it isn't important who organized it because of the sentiment expressed, yet I dare say if the organizers of a march supporting the war effort were from the military-industrial complex or from the KKK that this would be the only point the "Peaceniks" would talk about.

    may i ask you why none of these secret documents etc. were given to inedpendent investigators (like the UN) ?

    I wouldn't give the UN toliet paper. But we don't know to whom these documents have been given. They WERE given to the US. Generally speaking...secret documents are just that, secret. And with the Anti semetic attitude of the UN and most of europe, it's no suprise Israel doesn't try to pass off this info.

    5th strongest army in the world, high tech weapons, slautered babies in kuwait etc. ... strange that all of this turned out to be lies.

    These were lies? Iraq had the 5th LARGEST army, which was the comment made. They did have high teck weapons, or don't SCUD's, HAWK missiles, and MIG Jets count? and they did slaughter babies in Kuwait. and people, this has never been discounted by anyone. Talk about buying into propoganda.

    it were not the arabs or islam that started to mess with americans. it was first britain and france which were replaced after WWII by israel and the US who exploited and occupied arab land

    While I agree France and Britian did cause a lot of problems, you failed to mention the Turks before them. Ummm, last I looked Israel was established by your vaunted United Nations, that doesn't matter to you? FACT: Pre Arab Israeli war, all the land the jews were on was bought and paid for. Exactly how is it that the US and Israel exploited arabs? We developed and bought their oil bring their standard of living up significantly. We occuppied Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebenon, Saudi Arabia? When?

    further if you can't see what interest groups in the US will profit from this war and who has to pay for it then i can't help you either. bush signed a 34 BILLION dollar (11%) increase in military spending at a point where the US holds already about 50% of world wide military spendings....for what i ask you? who has to pay for this? the average american who will gain nothing from it.

    OK, make the case, who is going to profit from this. Weapons producers, that's for sure, I don't deny this. Big Oil? They'd make more profit if there were peace and the sanctions were lifted. As it stands now the oil concessions after the war will be mostly with France Russia and Turkey. While I won't dispute the figures about defense spending because I haven't seen them lately, let me assure ya, the US spends less of it's Gross Domestic Product on defense than many countries, and less of the GDP of the US goes to defense now than in ages. The 34 billion, WASN'T ENOUGH! I say this as a guy on the inside.

    you said this war will bring peace and a better life to the iraqies. i bet you now that this war will bring destruction to iraq and nothing else. the oil will be taken away from them and the country will remain poor. US and british oil companies will exploit the oil bringing billions of dollars into the hands of a few already filthy rich people.

    You think this war will NOT bring a better life to Iraq. Iraq, where people disappear off the streets and from their homes because of a misspoken word about Saddam or the Bath Party (remeniscient of Vince Foster with the Clintons huh). With no free press, no free speech, with Iraqis being jailed, killed, gassed for opposing a dictator, nothing will get better for Iraq?

    Actually, with the war plan as I understand it most of Iraq will be spared. Bagdad MIGHT take a beating, but the US is pretty good about rebuilding infrastructure which is the plan. I'd say Germany and Japan are great examples of that.

    The oil will be taken away? Says who? Currently the plan is to allow those countries that have concessions to continue with those concessions, and to use the Iraqi revenues from these oil sales to feed the people and rebuild the nation. Again, YOU are being naive, the "big oil" companies would profit more from peace and the end of UN Sanctions, not from war.

    will this war have any positive effects for the 270 million americans? no it won't. it will increase the threat of retaliations from desperate and frustrated arabs and it will cost the americans about 100 Billion dollars. it will secure oil imports to the US which could have been achieved for a fraction of the cost by just doing peaceful trading without trying to screw the arabs.

    I love that arguement "it will increase the threat of retaliations " That's the same reason people in drug neighborhoods often don't report crimes. It will increase the threat of retaliation from the drug lords. Your neighbor gets killed by a drug pusher, you see the whole thing, but don't react for fear of retaliation. WHAT BS. Fact is NO MATTER WHAT we do, we will be exposed to terrorism. The object of the terrorists is to get the US to withdraw from the world stage so they can push their radical Islamic agenda. In the mean time they get stronger and pretty soon BAM! They have the power to take out the US.

    As Blix has said even the best-hidden weapons can now be detected with new technology.

    Ummm, hardly, yes NUCLEAR WEAPONS MIGHT be detected, but not chemical weapons. First, ya gotta know whereabouts their hidden, which Blix has NO IDEA. Besides, it isn't the job of the inspectors to FIND weapons, Saddam is to turn them over. So far, by the UN's figures, there are over 29,000 chemical warheads UNACCOUNTED for, but why should you be bothered with facts, you're anti war and anti american in spite of the facts.

  • Realist
    Realist

    yeru,

    i never said the anti war side doesn't produce propaganda. nevertheless tons of unsubstantiated claims and horror stories and interviews with a defected iraqi soldiers is hardly enough to declar war on a country... especially if these claims could be easily verified but are not for miraculous reasons (i guess these secret weapon depots etc. are so secret that not even the UN inspectors can be informed by the US about where they are!?... very logical indeed).

    i didn't even know the US has a communist party ...how many members do they have? 10, 20? besides to compare communists with racists is not quite valid in my opinion. communism is an idealistic and unfortunately unrealistic dream while racism is projecting hate on people who are different from you.

    And with the Anti semetic attitude of the UN ...

    totally unsubstaniciated claim. i am sorry where exactly is the UN antisemitic?...if the UN were indeed antisemitic then israel would not exist or would at least be put under a boycott for occupying foreign territories.

    also which european countries show an antisemitic attitude? germany? britain? france? total nonsense. not siding with israel on every issue is NOT equivalent to antisemitism. if they would be antisemitic then they would not support israel all the time.

    These were lies? Iraq had the 5th LARGEST army, which was the comment made. They did have high teck weapons, or don't SCUD's, HAWK missiles, and MIG Jets count? and they did slaughter babies in Kuwait. and people, this has never been discounted by anyone. Talk about buying into propoganda.

    WOW! this is just too good....you still believe that?! HAHAHAHA

    did he destroy a single US tank or airplane? did they kill any allied soldiers? the few us troops that died did so because of friendly fire.

    high tech weapons are weapons that can compete with new weapon technology. could his weapons compete? obviously not. the iraqi tanks were destroyed before they even new the US tanks were approaching.

    you as military guy should know that it is pointless to use equipment from the 60ties and 70ties against modern (high tech tanks, helicopters and aircraft) machinery. and please don't tell me you consider scuds as high tech weapons. then the VII was high tech too i suppose.

    his gigantic army was a pile of bullshit.

    about the babies....there was exactly ONE eyewitness of the slautering of the babies...the daugther of the swiss embassador. and as EVERYBODY knows she withdrew her testimony after the war!!!

    this is like the story about the german emperor cutting off the hands of denish kids during WWI. utter nonsense indeed!

    you failed to mention the Turks before them

    oh right...because the turks had occupied arab land makes it valid for others to do the same? strange logic.

    i never said i value the UN...it is a puppet institution used to desguise the actions of the powerful nations.

    FACT: Pre Arab Israeli war, all the land the jews were on was bought and paid for.

    yes i don't think i disagreed with that.

    does that make the later occupation rightful? if so how?

    also i find it very understandable that arabs opposed the creatioon of israel...would it be ok for instance if the japanese would annex hawaii now just because they own most of the land there? can you name a single country that would allow something like this to happen on their territory?

    US, british and french oil companies exploited the only valuable thing that the arabs have...which is oil. how much of the profit did they give to iraq before hussein took over the oil production? ahh thats right...exactly 5% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how much did they give the iranis before mussadig took over and after he was overthrown by the US? ohh thats right exactly 10% !!!!!!! how very generous!!!!!!!!

    does the US give a flying shit about how criminal the dictators are that rule the countries which obey to US control? obviously not because otherwise they would have to eliminate the kuwaiti and the saudi regime.

    did the US support the region to become developed? LAUGHABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! every ruler who tried to do something for his country was overthrown. as little money as pssible was given to the contries and what they recieved was given to criminal rulers.

    OH YEAH the arabs should really be more greatful to the US for giving them peace democracy and wealth !!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Currently the plan is to allow those countries that have concessions to continue with those concessions, and to use the Iraqi revenues from these oil sales to feed the people and rebuild the nation. Again, YOU are being naive, the "big oil" companies would profit more from peace and the end of UN Sanctions, not from war.

    interesting...bush said however that it is not clear yet if deals signed by hussein will be valid after the war. are you telling me the US and british oil companies won't get a higher profit after the war??? we will see who gets the rights to produce the oil after the war is over! the french, the russians as it is now? LOL ... i bet my favorite lollipop that the US and BP will take over!

    The 34 billion, WASN'T ENOUGH! I say this as a guy on the inside.

    wasn't enough for what? to conquer the entire globe??? can you tell me what you need 3000 new stealth fighters for? to fight against saddams old migs? against whom are you palnning to fight? there is no country that poses the slightest threat to the US...especially not these stone age arabs. this military spending has nothing to do with self defense but with argressive foreign politics.

    I love that arguement "it will increase the threat of retaliations "

    well if you like it or not doesn't matter. the war will understandably increase anti american sentiments in the arab population...just like the 911 attack did increase sentiments in the US.

    so last but certainly not least...

    i am sick and tired of having to explain that i am not anti american. i like all americans am not obligated to love this unscrupulous US government and US foreign politics just because you believe in their propaganda.

    i will continue the relationship with my american friends...i will continue to come to the US and i will continue to like your country. because your country has the same percentage of lovely, nice, generous, rational people as any other civilized nation.

  • Crazy151drinker
    Crazy151drinker

    xander,

    I think you forgot the Romans..................The British sure owned a lot 2........

    What I dont understand is why you think that Saddam should keep his WMD???? You state that we have them. Yes we do. So what. Have we gassed anyone lately? Saddam did in the 80's and 90's. Thats the whole problem Xander, we might have them be we dont use them. Our citizens would flip if we decided to gas Mexico. Saddam doesnt have to worry about that because he is a DICTACTOR. China could do it but it doest because China makes $$$$$$$$$$$$$ trading with us, Asia, and the EU. Sanctions would cripple China. It pays to be a nice guy in this world. Saddam is NOT a nice guy. He is starving his people while increasing his military. I fail to see why you think this guy should stay in power when we could get rid of him???? The Iraqi's dont want him, the Middle East doesnt want him, so why in the Hell should he stay??? What rights do SADDAM have?

    Realisticly on Acid,

    Hey, Saddam did have the worlds 5th biggest army. Granted we shredded it. Its not our fault our weapons are 1-2 generations ahead of his. Thats his bad. He should have bought better stuff from the Soviets. However, that doesnt mean that he is not a threat. He could still roll right into his neighbors and raise some hell. Defensivly, his army could be a problem. We'll have to see. Either way he's going down. I realize that you are still convinced that this whole thing is about oil. Even if it was, wouldnt you rather have some oil-lovin Americans there than Saddam with a couple of Nukes??????

    We need to hurry up and get this thing over with so N. Korea will shut the @#$% up.

  • MitchM
    MitchM

    <P>Saddam and French Oil Businesses are in bed together. ; ;If and when ;UN sanctions are removed, the French stand to make billions in profits. This all will go down the toilet if the Anglo plan suceeds.</P> <P>On CBN today, a former UN inspector stated ;that the UN inspection teams knew that French UN inspectors acted as spys for Saddam during previous inspection tours, tipping off the Iraqis which sites would be visited beforehand. Sometimes as many as three different plans would have to be drawn up. The first plan everyone knew was a fake. The second was for the French Spys to assume was the real plan and to give to the Iraqis, and the third was hopefully one that could be gotten to before the French could figure it out.</P>

  • Xander
    Xander

    since when? since 9/11

    Did you even read the rest of my post? Guess not, well hell, I can run with this....

    SO, by your reasoning, it's okay for us our allies to fund terrorists? Support attacks on other nations? Until suddenly, someone returns the favor? Then, suddenly, it's all "whoah, time out, back up here, terrorism is WRONG now!"

    Noble attitude to have. Punching people in the face is only okay until you sock your enemy a good one. Then, just when he gets up to punch you, it's wrong. Very convenient.

    My point, that you obviously don't want to address, is that the US has supported just as much terrorism as Iraq has, and neither nation had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

    So, if your justification for war is "They need to have had something to do with 9/11", well, sorry, that's not Iraq. If, on the other hand, your justification for war is "They support terrorism"....oops, your own government is just as guilty.

    Have we gassed anyone lately

    Vietnam ring any bells? Or, do we have to only account for the last 20 years, 30 years back too far?

    Or, perhaps, 60 years? How many countries have dropped nuclear weapons on civilian populations?

    And we are in a position to judge others then, how?

    Edited by - Xander on 23 January 2003 12:6:32

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit