IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

[cphilip]

Well it has drifted off course has it not? Oh well...

Alright let me ask you all this...Who else besides me thinks Campbell Brown is hot and is looking forward to seeing more of her in the next few weeks?

[ShooterJM]

Yeah that was probably my fault. But i'm done arguing, it's futile.


mmmm campbell brown. Let's just say I want a private interview....

[aaron_mag]

She is nice looking but there are a lot of good looking ones. I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't help thinking, "she is hot!" while watching serious news trends that should be first and foremost in my mind.

[Collegeboy]

Re: And

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


And if you read it, It was accepted by the Jewish state and rejected by the Arab state!

And do you know the reason for that. It is called Self Determination. Something outlined in Wilson's 14 points that was promised to the Palestinians who held a vast majority at that time.

But just because the Arabs rejected it don't mean it didn't pass.

And CpHillip, I posted that link earlier. The link I posted in my last post was for when someone said the UN never told Israel to move out.

[ShooterJM]

Anybody remember what happened in December of '47? It's not quite coming to me. Then something about '49. Man I have a bad memory. Ahhh geez and I keep having the phrase Vaccum of power and something about liberated territories go through my mind. Must just be me.

[SlartyBartFast]

Didn't read the whole thread in detail, but doesn't seem like that's particularly necessary as much of it seems to be the same. And circumventing the fact it does seem to have drifted recently, I'll comment on the original thread.

The French don't like Americans? Considering the opinions and attitudes in this thread is that any wonder?

The French are cowards? The French know more about Battlefield honour, valour, and horror than Americans ever will. The French have lost more men defending their own country in a few DAYS than the US has lost during it's entire history. It's difficult to find any soil in France that wasn't once a battlefield where thousands or millions died.

If Americans consistently show the attitude of we're your allies only if you do everything we say, we'll help you as long as there's something in it for us, and once we've helped you, you have to eternally grateful. Is there any wonder about world mistrust?

The French don't agree with the US stand against Iraq? Get with the program people. If you'd open your eyes there's quite a long list of countries and oraganisations that are on their side and against war. Including others on the UN security council that hold vetoes and those that don't. Germany, Russia, China, Cameroon, Chile. NATO refused to help. Based correctly IMO on the fact it's supposed to be a defensive organisation and it has spent the last 50 odd years underlining why preemptive strikes were a bad thing. The only involvement of NATO is to help protect Turkey if Iraq attacks. Turkey voted the American troops out even after being promised over 2 billion US dollars if they allowed them in. Cameroon maintains it's anti-war stance despite the US threatening to cut desperately needed foreign aid to them. To the list add the 140 plus US cities whose councils signed declarations that the US should not go to war without UN backing. Those cities include NYC and the groups that have protested in Washington include many families of 9/11 victims.

Seems to me that the singling out of the French for ridicule is more of a high school bully kind of tactic than diplomacy or mature conduct.

The French and Germans are large trading partners with Iraq? So what. Do we want to list the number of dictatorships and questionable regimes the US currently trades with and compare? The US was still pumping money into the Taliban in 2001. The Iraq-AlQueda connection dates back to the same time the US was financing Bin Laden and his horde.

I think the position of trading with Iraq and supplying them legal products under the UN embargo is far more defensible than the US stopping the import of refrigeration equipment for water purification plants, asthma inhalers, and other products into Iraq because they might be used to manufacture weapons. The halting of those shipments has been linked to the deaths of many thousands of civilian Iraqis due to lack of clean water and adequate medical supplies. Sure Saddam could have done more. But we're helping the civilians who were/are ignored and repressed by the warlords in Afganistan.

If French and German trade is wrong now, how about when the US vice president profits from the spoils of the war he pushed for and personally makes hundreds of millions when his company becomes the prime contractor for the oil fields after the war? Will you all be as indignant about that?

How about the abuses the US overlooks that many of the US's favored trading partners commit. "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that...

Saddam is a paper tiger. There is nothing he can/could do outside his own borders without suffering horrendous consequences. And he knows that. Even within his own borders there was little he could get away with for the last 12 years. He couldn't fly anything north or south and the northern area of his country was given to Kurds.

The diplomatic arguments were not over whether Saddam should be disarmed, but how. And even the French have been on record saying that the instant Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons they'll be on side to fight him in armed conflict.

Regardless, President Bush IS going to war after speaking for the American people (and certainly not the world as he claimed). So much of this is moot.

To end this long missive, I'd like the moderators and others to reflect on a reality of the way AO is being run. Pro-US and Anti-France topics have been left to run and even been made classic. Threads with opposing views have been systematically shut down. Certainly underlines the acceptable political discourse on AO.

Every nation has reason to be both proud and ashamed of it's history. Nobody is completely clean in the glare of the bright light hindsight/history. It's a sad statement of the knowledge of one's own history/self worth when you have to boost it by ridiculing someone else.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
The French are cowards? The French know more about Battlefield honour, valour, and horror than Americans ever will. The French have lost more men defending their own country in a few DAYS than the US has lost during it's entire history. It's difficult to find any soil in France that wasn't once a battlefield where thousands or millions died.

where do we even begin with this nonsense....

[1stdeadeye]

Okay?

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Didn't read the whole thread in detail, but doesn't seem like that's particularly necessary as much of it seems to be the same. And circumventing the fact it does seem to have drifted recently, I'll comment on the original thread.

You didn't read it, but you'll comment anyway?

The French don't like Americans? Considering the opinions and attitudes in this thread is that any wonder?

The French are cowards? The French know more about Battlefield honour, valour, and horror than Americans ever will. The French have lost more men defending their own country in a few DAYS than the US has lost during it's entire history. It's difficult to find any soil in France that wasn't once a battlefield where thousands or millions died.

Now who is making opinionated statements. Seeing as how the US has come to the rescue of Europe when called, we don't know? BTW fighting in reverse does not count as valor?

If Americans consistently show the attitude of we're your allies only if you do everything we say, we'll help you as long as there's something in it for us, and once we've helped you, you have to eternally grateful. Is there any wonder about world mistrust?

The French don't agree with the US stand against Iraq? Get with the program people. If you'd open your eyes there's quite a long list of countries and oraganisations that are on their side and against war. Including others on the UN security council that hold vetoes and those that don't. Germany, Russia, China, Cameroon, Chile. NATO refused to help. Based correctly IMO on the fact it's supposed to be a defensive organisation and it has spent the last 50 odd years underlining why preemptive strikes were a bad thing. The only involvement of NATO is to help protect Turkey if Iraq attacks. Turkey voted the American troops out even after being promised over 2 billion US dollars if they allowed them in. Cameroon maintains it's anti-war stance despite the US threatening to cut desperately needed foreign aid to them.


That's right the aid they need is our money! If you take the cash, accept the strings that go with it.

BTW there are 40 countries standing with the US on this!

To the list add the 140 plus US cities whose councils signed declarations that the US should not go to war without UN backing. Those cities include NYC and the groups that have protested in Washington include many families of 9/11 victims.

That is what is great about America. We allow dissent! We allow protestors. What would Saddam do to anyone who did not protest on his behalf?



I think the position of trading with Iraq and supplying them legal products under the UN embargo is far more defensible than the US stopping the import of refrigeration equipment for water purification plants, asthma inhalers, and other products into Iraq because they might be used to manufacture weapons. The halting of those shipments has been linked to the deaths of many thousands of civilian Iraqis due to lack of clean water and adequate medical supplies. Sure Saddam could have done more. But we're helping the civilians who were/are ignored and repressed by the warlords in Afganistan.

Where are you getting your facts from? Saddam? Check out the factbook I posted earlier. This might actually force you to read some of this post though!

As for Afghanistan, we are still working with them. BTW how many public executions has Afghanistan held in Soccer Stadiums since the Taliban was taken down?


If French and German trade is wrong now, how about when the US vice president profits from the spoils of the war he pushed for and personally makes hundreds of millions when his company becomes the prime contractor for the oil fields after the war? Will you all be as indignant about that?

Again Proof? Please! Rumer and inuendo are great weapons aren't they. Also can you say divestiture?

How about the abuses the US overlooks that many of the US's favored trading partners commit. "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that...

Saddam is a paper tiger. There is nothing he can/could do outside his own borders without suffering horrendous consequences. And he knows that. Even within his own borders there was little he could get away with for the last 12 years. He couldn't fly anything north or south and the northern area of his country was given to Kurds.

Yet he still challenges the No Fly zones with SAMs and fighters. He is facing severe consequences now and he did not flinch. He wouldn't sell any WMD cause he is such a nice guy, right?

The diplomatic arguments were not over whether Saddam should be disarmed, but how. And even the French have been on record saying that the instant Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons they'll be on side to fight him in armed conflict.

Regardless, President Bush IS going to war after speaking for the American people (and certainly not the world as he claimed). So much of this is moot.

Actually, that is not what Chirac said. They would help with the clean-up of such attacks. Not fight!

To end this long missive, I'd like the moderators and others to reflect on a reality of the way AO is being run. Pro-US and Anti-France topics have been left to run and even been made classic. Threads with opposing views have been systematically shut down. Certainly underlines the acceptable political discourse on AO.


Maybe you should go back and actuallyREAD this thread. There is plenty of dissent here, that is why it is a debate! Also, the other threads were closed for duplication! The mods are trying to keep the debat in one place. If you wish to debate, join in. That is what we are doing there. Also bring facts, not rumors, eh?

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Every nation has reason to be both proud and ashamed of it's history. Nobody is completely clean in the glare of the bright light hindsight/history. It's a sad statement of the knowledge of one's own history/self worth when you have to boost it by ridiculing someone else.

This is true. We are quick to accuse the French and Russians about having economic motives to their stance but quick to defend ourselves in saying that we are ONLY interested in disarming Saddam. Nevermind the fact that he got his butt kicked in the last war and hasn't been able to kick U.S. forces out of the no fly zone. We have interests in Iraq after the war which is not necessarily a bad thing. It is just hypocritical to accuse the French of having ulterior motives when we have them as well.

I heard one expert say that the initial occupation will be good for the Iraqi people. He wasn't so sure if it would be good for the U.S. people in the long run. We will see.

[aaron_mag]

Re: Okay?

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
That's right the aid they need is our money! If you take the cash, accept the strings that go with it.

I agree with this. If they get our aid then it comes with strings. Internally, however, we must accept that this support is BRIBED support. Internally we cannot look at this and say, "alot of countries see him as a problem so he must be a REAL problem."

That is what is great about America. We allow dissent! We allow protestors. What would Saddam do to anyone who did not protest on his behalf?

As I have said before this is a non issue. Are we going in because to disarm Iraq or are we going in because Saddam is a Tyrant? If it is the latter than we have alot of invading to do....

Yet he still challenges the No Fly zones with SAMs and fighters. He is facing severe consequences now and he did not flinch. He wouldn't sell any WMD cause he is such a nice guy, right?

Yes he ineffectively challenges the no fly zones. This proves he is a threat to the world? If we are going to war because he challenges the no fly zones say that! Don't tell me it is because we need to do a preemptive strike before another 9/11 may happen. Recognize that this is not really about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction but about a shift in U.S. policy. We are now going to be sticking our nose in business all over the world (overtly since there is no more cold war). The question is this a GOOD thing for the U.S.? Personally I do not think this is the path the U.S. should take.....but I'll vote my opinion in the next election.

The mods are trying to keep the debat in one place.

This is true. Moderators not trying to emphasize the Bush point of view.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
where do we even begin with this nonsense....

Attack my logic, question my facts, interrogate my opinions.

That response just shows your lack of reasoning and disrespect for differing opinion.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


Attack my logic, question my facts, interrogate my opinions.

That response just shows your lack of reasoning and disrespect for differing opinion.

my lack of reasoning? my lack of respect maybe.

you post that drivel and expect me to respect you?

don't hold your breath pal.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife

my lack of reasoning? my lack of respect maybe.
you post that drivel and expect me to respect you?
don't hold your breath pal.

And people say our country IS NOT getting xenophobic and arrogant? I wonder why we weren't able to build a coaltion despite Rumsfield's best efforts?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by aaron_mag

And people say our country IS NOT getting xenophobic and arrogant? I wonder why we weren't able to build a coaltion despite Rumsfield's best efforts?

we have a coalition.

it just doesn't happen to include the frogs.

and we're going to find out why in about a week why they didn't want us going in there.

can you say Fabrique en France?

sure, I knew ya could.

[cphilip]

Has ony one else read this one that is floating around? Its one persons thoughts and expressions

I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself,
Why didn't the Jews fight back?"

Now I know why.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself,
"Why weren't we prepared?"

Now I know why.

Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of
evil people.

On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed
themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because
they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.

On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many
Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the
dominance of others.

Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the
carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore
the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation
of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will
assist the healing process by
not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin
Towers.

I will not be manipulated.

I will not pretend to understand.

I will not forget.

I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press
to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.

I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President
Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel
about him, he is still our president."

I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned
President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and
commented "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."

And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters
weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't
"likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference."

I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack
on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.

I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic
terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated
telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising
America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes
and modem communications.

I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like
those perfected by the previous administration.

I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like
the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the
airport.

I will not be influenced by so called, "antiwar demonstrators" who
exploit the right of _expression to chant anti-American obscenities.

I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by
American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers,
airmen, sailors and Marines.

I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose
reassurance over reality.

I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor
Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the
innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but
70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in
it?

There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of
minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice:
defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!"

I will force myself to:

hear the weeping
feel the helplessness
imagine the terror
sense the panic
smell the burning flesh
experience the loss
remember the hatred.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where
did they find the courage?"

Now I know.

We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living.

-- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)
Not as lean, Not as mean, But still a Marine.