U.S. Bars War Opponents....

[Kevmaster]

southpaw, the majority of europe believed the war was unjust-- right or wrong. we (along with the brits) felt it had to be done-- right or wrong. We left the majority, thus alienating ourselves. However, we ARE alienated right now--regardless of who did it. We need to work our way back into the NATO community and into friendship with the europeans. Disallowing them from doing squat in Iraq--while then turning around and asking them to forgive billions in debt is contradictory. We wnat their help so long as they lose off the deal...whats up with that?

I KNOW that they have no right to be in Iraq and they have no right to gain any profit off of this, I am simply saying that the US should consider trying to repair ties with France and Germany in particular rather than ripping more--regardless of the cost to us. We are friends with both and they are good friends to have in a world where you don't know who will be with you the next minute. Many have forgotten the work France and Germany have put into Afghanistan.

[Southpaw]

Well, I do understand that they will get the short end of the stick. I say TUFF ****! May be they will think twice next time. We are in what 80 some billion and how many people are DEAD you are damm right they have to pay! How much is your life worth? I don't think that the US is the one that needs to be kissing up to any one THEY do to US they should be happy Bush does not make their leaders come to the people who died Familles and apologize personally for not helping before we let them any where near Iraq!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Southpaw
Well, I do understand that they will get the short end of the stick. I say TUFF ****! May be they will think twice next time. We are in what 80 some billion and how many people are DEAD you are damm right they have to pay! How much is your life worth? I don't think that the US is the one that needs to be kissing up to any one THEY do to US they should be happy Bush does not make their leaders come to the people who died Familles and apologize personally for not helping before we let them any where near Iraq!

I haven't read the others, for I haven't had the time too. But this one came across me the second I clinked.

If the US would have went in the legal way, the way that the international community wanted the community to go in, the US wouldn't have been 80 billion in debt, we wouldn't have our best come home in body bags. Blame that on Bush, he is the one he refused to use other possible actions to solve this "problem.", and chose to go at it practically alone.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I haven't read the others, for I haven't had the time too. But this one came across me the second I clinked.

If the US would have went in the legal way, the way that the international community wanted the community to go in, the US wouldn't have been 80 billion in debt, we wouldn't have our best come home in body bags. Blame that on Bush, he is the one he refused to use other possible actions to solve this "problem.", and chose to go at it practically alone.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
So cutting off the jobs of innocent Palestinenes in Gaza, by not allowing them to go to the West Bank is a brilliant idea.

Yes, as a matter of fact it is. Since it's a simple way to deter terrorists from getting into the areas they're trying to blow themselves in. Do I feel sorry for the people that can't earn a living due to the inconvenience? Yes. Do I think their right to work in Israel is of greater import then the protection of innoncents against brutal murder? No. Remember, if the wall keeps the terrorists out then there won't be any killing of Israeli civillians and thus no reprisal attacks from the IDF. Everybody wins.

All Isreal is doing is adding fuel to the fire, and if you haven't noticed terrorists have been less selective about just taking their enemies down.

Israel IS the fuel to the fire. So long as it exists the Palestinian terrorists will try to attack it. I'm so tired of people trying to explain that if Israel would stop "x" it would all be ok. That's not true. It never was and never will be. Look at the wars of aggression. Look at the land deal Arafat brokered and then turned down. Look at nearly 2 years of non stop attacks. They want to destroy Israel. Israel is allowed to defend itself from attack, and a simple barrier that can be patroled is the least violent solution. The alternative is more incursions into Palestinian territory. Frankly I think the wall is preferable to that.

They are doing whatever is needed for the cause. This wall is just creating an even larger gap for peace in Palestine.

Yeah, and the cause is the destruction of Israel, not peace or freedom or whatever you happen to think they want. They want to destroy Israel. That's it.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevmaster
Newt,

i know that they can and will subcontract and that they will whine whenever the option presents itself, however, right now, it is clear we need all the help of any commited country.

Actually, I would say the opposite. Everyone was going on about how much we needed france and germany and russia and even turkey to be successful, but we went in without them and we won. The war has proven that we in fact don't need every nation at the table to accomplish our goals. Our coalition is of the willing, and those nations that are barred are not willing. I would rather go it without them then try to drag them along.

Be it France or anyone else.

To hell with France. I'm tired of them crying about the consequences of their actions. We didn't MAKE them undercut us every chance they had. They did it of their own accord, and now their upset that directly challengeing our foreign policy carries a consequence. Too bad.

We are in a position where we have alienated ourselves (whether we should have been is not for discussion--we ARE alienated) from the world,

Wrong, we're alienated from Germany, France, and Russia. Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Japan, South Korea, every former eastern bloc state, and Poland still like us fine.

and we need to work to get this back into an international program.

Again, wrong. We're in an international coalition. If the other nations want in it is THEY who need to work to get involved.

However, I certainly do see how france has no right to the contracts in the way the 60-some-odd others do.

At least we can agree on that.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevmaster
southpaw, the majority of europe believed the war was unjust-- right or wrong. we (along with the brits) felt it had to be done-- right or wrong.

That's actually not true. Polls in the majority of European countries showed support for the war, but in weird ways. Nearly everyone wanted Saddam out of Power. Nearly everyone agreed that Saddam had defied the UN and that military force may be needed. The polling numbers dropped sharply when asked if the war should happen without the UN. Most of Europe was pro war, but wanted the UN involved. Which, to be fair to Bush, he tried to get the UN involved, but they said no.

We left the majority, thus alienating ourselves.

If we left the majority, then how do you explain 60 nations being involved in the war. Probably about 80% of the nations capable of helping did so, while the rest were either to poor to help, too politically unstable, or France and their crew.

However, we ARE alienated right now--regardless of who did it.

Again, we're only alienated from a few nations. It's a big world, not everybody is going to agree on everything. So be it.

We need to work our way back into the NATO community and into friendship with the europeans.

Actually, we need out of NATO. I'd rather see us form a new organization with other like minded Demcoracies (Japan, India, Britain, Australia, etc)

Disallowing them from doing squat in Iraq--while then turning around and asking them to forgive billions in debt is contradictory.

No it isn't. What we're saying is "you screwed up before, so you get no contracts. Now, if you want back in to our graces and if you want to back up your talk about helping Iraq you'll forgive those (completely unenforcable) loans."

We wnat their help so long as they lose off the deal...whats up with that?

Huh? We want Iraq to be prospereous. They want the free people of Iraq to pay off illegal debts they incurred with the dictator that oppressed them for 30 years. They should lose out on this deal, they dealt with the devil, on purpose.

I KNOW that they have no right to be in Iraq and they have no right to gain any profit off of this, I am simply saying that the US should consider trying to repair ties with France and Germany in particular rather than ripping more--regardless of the cost to us.

Why? Why are ties to people that want to foil everything we do so important? What do they bring to the table that we should be willing to pay any price for?

We are friends with both and they are good friends to have in a world where you don't know who will be with you the next minute.

They are proof that not all you friends should be. They prove that sometimes the people you thought were your friends were really just folks who's greed sometimes brough them down your path and sometimes doesn't. They're opportunists.

Many have forgotten the work France and Germany have put into Afghanistan.

Not forgotten, but this is a different game now. They were rewarded for their contributions there, and now they're being punished for their obstruction here.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
If the US would have went in the legal way, the way that the international community wanted the community to go in, the US wouldn't have been 80 billion in debt, we wouldn't have our best come home in body bags. Blame that on Bush, he is the one he refused to use other possible actions to solve this "problem.", and chose to go at it practically alone.

Let me traslate from liberal into English

"If the US had bowed to the supreme will of France and allowed them to maintain the status quo by dealing illegally with a Tyrant then none of this would have ever happened. Instead the Americans decided to put an end to his reign and free the people he oppressed while putting an end to the world wide threat (real or perceived) that Saddam was. That operation cost us the lives of many fine young men and women who shouldn't be dead, but are none the less. It also cost us billions of dollars that would have been welcome here at home, but are instead in foreign lands. This action came about after 14 months of dealing with the international community and being contineously rebuffed by France and it's cronies who wanted to maintain their lucrative businesses with the Tyrant. Bush would not bow to their will and would not forsake the Iraqis any longer to that madman. Thus the war began"

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Let me traslate from liberal into English

"If the US had bowed to the supreme will of France and allowed them to maintain the status quo by dealing illegally with a Tyrant then none of this would have ever happened. Instead the Americans decided to put an end to his reign and free the people he oppressed while putting an end to the world wide threat (real or perceived) that Saddam was. That operation cost us the lives of many fine young men and women who shouldn't be dead, but are none the less. It also cost us billions of dollars that would have been welcome here at home, but are instead in foreign lands. This action came about after 14 months of dealing with the international community and being contineously rebuffed by France and it's cronies who wanted to maintain their lucrative businesses with the Tyrant. Bush would not bow to their will and would not forsake the Iraqis any longer to that madman. Thus the war began"

You do know the US companies were some of the biggest profiteers from the Iraq government.

Let me translate from irrational to rational.

The US decided to go into a country and forcibly remove its leader, forcible occupy that country. By doing this they have sparked off nationalistic feelings that Saddam was able to suppress. This in turn will not allow a democracy to be in power, this will not allow the Iraqis to have a better life. This will cause an extended civil war in the area that will cost the lives of thousands, and thousands, if not millions. All because they US would not consider any option other then war.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The US decided to go into a country and forcibly remove its leader, forcible occupy that country. By doing this they have sparked off nationalistic feelings that Saddam was able to suppress. This in turn will not allow a democracy to be in power, this will not allow the Iraqis to have a better life. This will cause an extended civil war in the area that will cost the lives of thousands, and thousands, if not millions. All because they US would not consider any option other then war.

CB, stop being so racist. Arabs are just as capable of governing themselves as the western cultures. I thought youu lefties were supposed to be the tolerant ones. But you think simply because they're different they can't govern responsibly. It's amazing how intolerant you lefties really are.

And SHUT UP ABOUT NOT CONSIDERING ANOTHER OPTION YOU LIAR. We were at the UN for 14 months! FOURTEEN. Why did we do that if we didn't try another option. Powell practically lived in that region trying to avoid war. In the end our "allies" you're so fond of and that peace loving benevolent man Saddan that you love so much refused to cooperate and so a war was fought. Please, for the love of all that is good start paying attention to all the data and not just that which you like.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

[Southpaw]

Well Your buddie Clinton thought there were WOMD when he attacked Iraq! He just didnt have the balls to finish what he started!

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
This time next year no soldiers will be in Iraq

Do you want to make a bet on that? Will you give me 10:1 if so I will take it for as much as you wish to loose!

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Force will never solve a problem like Iraq is in now. Something which I thought you would have learned through countless examples, Philippians, Vietnam, Soviet Afghanistan, etc..... But seems like those who like force will always turn a blind eye away to the realities of it.

Well I posted this eaelier but I thought you might answer it if it was not 2 pages back

What kind of example would Germany be or Japan it seems that when we kicked the British out using force we turned out ok too! But seems like those who DO NOT like force will always turn a blind eye away to the realities of it.