Why France opposes US war on Iraq

[ibrodsky]

http://www.alisrael.com/tamuz/

[ibrodsky]

Where President Bush tells Ilan Ramon's children "Your father started the job... and I will finish it."

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Where President Bush tells Ilan Ramon's children "Your father started the job... and I will finish it."


I hope Bush is true to his word.


Israel ended up with the F-16’s that were originally scheduled for delivery to Iran. The revolution in Iran and the subsequent hostage taking stopped the delivery.

If my memory serves me the planes were stripped down so they could deliver their payload (not enough fuel for the range).

[Communication]

The French now argue that, instead of war, the inspections in Iraq should be strengthened. But the truth is that they, and the Russians, weakened the previous inspections team. The previous French ambassador to the United Nations, for example, mocked inspectors' claims that the Iraqis escaped in cars from an inspections site before the inspectors arrived - saying, perhaps the Iraqis were going on a picnic.

In their consistent position to the various proposals raised by the inspectors, the French and Russians buttressed Iraqi stubbornness. Every time there was French and Russian opposition to inspectors' proposals, the Iraqis took another step toward throwing them out. First they demanded the removal of the Americans among the inspectors, and finally demanded a cessation of all inspections by UNSCOM at the end of 1998, expelling the entire team from the country.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=264401&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=264401

[Mediocrates]

Yes that was the perspective from sp!ked magazine. Basically the French were looking for permission to deploy a bloodless invasion thinking that somehow this would not incur the wrath of Iraqis and other muslim/arabs around the world.

I'm sceptical. Ostensibly the Saudis attacked us on 911 because our own troops, invited there by their very leaders and doing nothing other than being the outsourced Saudi army were reason enough. Yet the French would have us believe that t a 'soft' invasion would be perceived in nothing but the most benign ways.

[Communication]

I'm much more skeptical about the French position. The French are shaking hands with hezbollah for Christ's sake! I think their position has much more to do with the economics of oil than the American position, although oil no doubt figures into the American position. I think from an American perspective, having control over Iraqi oil would free the West from the grips of the Saudis, and I think peeople underestimate the level of hostility between the House of Saud and the US right now.

What's happening now in NATO and the Security Council is exactly what Saddam wants- division. If the West was united in its position, it would be much harder for Saddam to maneuver around compliance. We have given him 12 years of diplomacy and only now with intense pressure from the US, we are starting to see some compliance, which is being withered by the French position.

That doesn't mean I'm not concerned about the real problem of war, which I have mentioned, the managing of a military victory. It's been over 50 years and our troops are still in Japan. Japan is a homogeneous country that welcomed their conquerors after the war. That won't be the case with Iraq.

[cerulean]

This report is from the paid section of the Stratfor site(http://www.stratfor.com and http://http://www.us-iraqwar.com), so there is no direct link. However, it is reproduced at FreeRepublic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/846787/posts

In short, Chirac and Hussein have a personal friendship that goes back to 1974, and was alive in the mid-80s. This led to French involvement with the nuclear reactor program in Iraq. There are numerous rumors, possibly unfounded, about Hussein providing financial assistance to Chirac.

[ibrodsky]

Did anyone bother to try the link I provided?

The page after the first Flash animation includes a picture of a young Saddam with his pal Chirac visiting a nuclear facility.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Did anyone bother to try the link I provided?

I did. I recommend it (for anyone who hasn't seen it, it's a Flash animation about the bombing of the Iraqi reactor by Israel in 1981, and also a tribute to the shuttle astronaut Ilan Ramon who took a leading role in the operation).

It's also important to remember that Israel did not have US support for this operation at the time, but as the years have gone by, it's become very clear just how important it was.

[chrisjohn316]

I think the French are making a mistake by not supporting the liberation of Iraq.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
http://www.alisrael.com/tamuz/
Thanks for reminding this
But I'm sure that this is not the good reason why France opposes US war on Iraq

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by djnvcm
Thanks for reminding this
But I'm sure that this is not the good reason why France opposes US war on Iraq

Please tell us what is.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Please tell us what is. Well it is to avoid that the muslim frustration is increased drastically. There is a difference in facing few thousands of totally mad terrorists and facing 24 millions inhabitants who will defend their country not with B1 to 52 but with human bombs. If you listen carefuly to stupid sayings of Al-Qaeda/Binladin and co. today they only have one dream it is that the US start the war

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by djnvcm
Well it is to avoid that the muslim frustration is increased drastically. There is a difference in facing few thousands of totally mad terrorists and facing 24 millions inhabitants who will defend their country not with B1 to 52 but with human bombs. If you listen carefuly to stupid sayings of Al-Qaeda/Binladin and co. today they only have one dream it is that the US start the war

I think your first point, if you are saying what I think, is valid: France is opposed to war against Iraq because they fear the large Muslim population in France could cause serious trouble.

But let's step back for a moment and analyze that. France is afraid that if the US deposes Saddam Hussein (to ensure his bio and chem weapons are not passed to terrorists or used against neighbors) that there could be a wave of terrorism in France.

What does this say about France's Muslim inhabitants? It tells me that France is worried that Muslim immigrants will voice their displeasure not by writing, speaking, demonstrating, and voting - but by killing and bombing.

In other words, France sees its Muslim inhabitants as a potential source of terrorism, but hopes that by not rocking the boat it can head off an explosion.

This is simply appeasement in the age of terrorism.

What is needed urgently, and what I see as the main reason to go to war with Iraq, is to make it clear that WMDs and support for terrorists among rogue states will not be tolerated. If French Muslims take up terrorism, then the French government should start monitoring them and rounding up suspects.

Weakness, whether inability or lack of will, is what creates more terrorism.

Deposing Saddam will, along with recent successes against Al Qaeda & friends, do more to demoralize and decimate terrorist groups.

The fact that Al Qaeda wants the US to "start" a war is irrelevant, because these people are mass murderers and irrational. What they want is not a factor to be taken seriously, it is merely a data point to remind us of how dangerous and bloodthirsty they are.

This is what so many peaceniks don't seem to get: if we did what Al Qaeda and the Arab/Muslim street wanted, we would get more terrorism, more blackmail, and more wars. Like Hitler before them, the Islamists (militant Islam) are not going to be softened by concessions. Instead, they will be emboldened by our display of weakness.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I think your first point, if you are saying what I think, is valid: France is opposed to war against Iraq because they fear the large Muslim population in France could cause serious trouble.
.......................ed by our display of weakness.

No you misunderstood me, France does not fear about trouble from muslims living in France; all of us are mediteraneans with same culture. The fear is for USA itself because if the war is started against poor people of Irak USA will be definitely the axis of evil for those poor people (with good reasons).

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by djnvcm
No you misunderstood me, France does not fear about trouble from muslims living in France; all of us are mediteraneans with same culture. The fear is for USA itself because if the war is started against poor people of Irak USA will be definitely the axis of evil for those poor people (with good reasons).

This is utter nonsense.

The large Muslim population in France is already a source of problems. Over the last year, there have been hundreds of antisemitic attacks in France. There has been a long-running conflict regarding religious dress in public schools. There are five million Muslims in France - and half of them are not citizens.

Interestingly, French teachers are the ones most opposed to Muslim dress in classrooms. They feel that Muslim students are hostile to French culture, and that Muslim girls want to wear head scarves to indicate they have no desire to integrate with their adopted home. Muslim youth have been a source of rising crime, and this is what has driven many of France's citizens to embrace Le Pen.

It's clear from your comment that you think the US could be evil but that Iraq certainly is not. Perhaps you can tell us what Iraq plans to do with 2 million pounds of deadly biological and chemical agents?

You are worried that the poor Iraqi people might be hurt by the US, but apparently it doesn't bother you that Iraqis have been murdered, tortured, and oppressed for decades under Saddam's totalitarian dictatorship.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
This is utter nonsense.

The large Muslim population in France is already a source of problems. Over the last year, there have been hundreds of antisemitic attacks in France. There has been a long-running confli.................ns to do with 2 million pounds of deadly biological and chemical agents?

You are worried that the poor Iraqi people might be hurt by the US, but apparently it doesn't bother you that Iraqis have been murdered, tortured, and oppressed for decades under Saddam's totalitarian dictatorship.

Your reply shows that you don't know France.

France is a republic which has strictly no link with any religion since 1905. The public school being the one of the republic this is the reason why these head scarves were forbidden at school (ditto for crosses or kippas). Few muslim girls went to catholic church (private) to wear head scarves. You will never hear the french president (this one or another) speaking about god or praying god as the president or refering to god in political matters. It is very strange that both Bush and Saddam are starting to refer to god these strange days. I'm not sure even that this kind of argument is used by politicians in Israel (non religious party). When a government starts to refer to god the evil is not far away........

I have no confidence at all with the capacity of the wrongly elected president Bush to have a clear view in this chaotic world

Regarding Iraki people, you should ask them if they welcome democracy brought with bombs

[Alfred]

Originally posted by djnvcm
When a government starts to refer to god the evil is not far away........



Well said. This explains why France can be so typically ammoral on the subject of Iraq. America and most of the UK founded countries still believe in morality. It seems that continental europe has lost theirs.

[yehudi]

.

Tonight on french TV, Chirac very clearly stated that "France will vote no whatever the circumstances" and that she shall "reject" any resolution trigerring a war on Iraq".

In my opinion his is the first time such an irrevocable statement is made. In the past, France never excluded the use of force - like Germany did -.


Chirac added the most likely hypothesis is that the new resolution "won't get a majority anyway". in such a case, according to the rules of the security council, a "no" vote by a permanent member is automatically a veto.


_____________________

Chirac added mainly that
- the inspections lead from 1991 to 98 "destroyed more weapons than the gulf war itself", ".. they allowed for an almost total eradication of the nuclear programme"
- "a country with the political structure and the past of Iraq is always dangerous" he added. "But such a country is really dangerous only if it can agress another" and "inspectors say they can reach that goal given time and the necessary means".
- He added "under inspections the regime of Saddam Hussein cannot last" "this regime cannot resist the inspections because they imply transparency and a dictatorship cannot resist transparency"
- he reaffirmed that the war is the worst of all solutions, "the only victors of war will be those who whish to see a clash of civilizations, cultures and religions"
- such a war would "lead to the development of terrorism" and would "shatter the world coalition against terrorism"


There is intense diplomatic activity by France and the US around three african countries : Cameroon, Angola and Guinea which are temporary members on the security council.
They are probably the last, not to have irrevocably taken side and can make the difference in passing a resolution.


(short excerpt of the original report by Le Monde)
"La France votera non quelles que soient les circonstances", a déclaré lundi soir le président Jacques Chirac, évoquant la position française sur l'Irak, lors d'un entretien télévisé retransmis en direct sur TF1 et France 2. La "France n'acceptera pas et donc refusera" une résolution autorisant la force contre l'Irak, a-t-il dit. M. Chirac a estimé que, selon "l'hypothèse la plus probable", la deuxième résolution n'avait de toutes façons pas de majorité au Conseil de sécurité. Si tel était le cas, le vote de la France, qui est membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité, équivaudrait de fait à un veto automatique.

[Alfred]

I believe that the only reason the US is going through this painful charade is to provide political cover for Tony Blair.

Either way, we will invade unless a miracle happens. The UN however, is dead for the majority of Americans. Maybe this joke has been worthwhile afterall.

I doubt you will see the US come to the UN again on such heavy matters.

I predict that we will bomb the Iranian nuke sites during the war with Iraq.l

[ibrodsky]

Good will come of this if, in the end, the US at least begins to pull out of the UN.

It's clear that something is up with France, Germany, and Russia.

Maybe they have something to hide. It is hard to believe that they would be so opposed to enforcing the resolution (1441) they voted for. In fact, France helped craft that resolution.

Either that, or they simply have decided to be outfront about the fact that they see UN resolutions as mere exhortations not to be taken seriously.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by djnvcm
Your reply shows that you don't know France.

France is a republic which has strictly no link with any religion since 1905...

Your reply shows that you didn't understand my post. I never said there isn't strict separation of church and state in France.

What I said is that France already has a problem with its Muslim population. One of the problems is that when Muslims immigrate to Western countries many of them demand special religious privileges. In this case, it's the Muslims who are demanding that France let girls wear headscarves in public schools.

I also said that you accuse the US of being evil while conveniently overlooking Saddam Hussein's crimes. Ask the Kurds if they prefer being gassed by Saddam. Ask the many thousands of Iraqi exiles if they want the US to stay out. Ask countries like Kuwait and Israel that are threatened by Saddam's WMD arsenal.

Thanks, but we don't need your permission to take out Saddam. Our country was attacked on 9/11/01 and >3,000 people murdered for the sick amusement of Islamists. No one claimed responsibility, no one even pretends this crime was perpetrated for a legitimate cause.

Fortunately, we have a President who is smart enough to understand that the people who attacked the US represent more than just Al Qaeda. They represent a jihad-genocide movement that runs through most of the Islamic world. We know there are dozens of Islamist groups that are bent on murdering civilians - not just Al Qaeda, but Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and others.

The main goal is not to bring freedom to the Iraqi people (though that would be a nice side benefit). The main goal is to send a very loud message to the world: terrorist groups and the states that support them will not be tolerated.

Complain all you want. We took the Taliban out of power. And now we are going to take Saddam and his thugs out of power. And Iraq will not be the last stop. Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran and Syria, are also going to get their just deserts when the time is right.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Good will come of this if, in the end, the US at least begins to pull out of the UN.
The US has already pulled out from many UN organizations actually. I don't know the list, but I know the US stopped funding UNICEF a long time ago (because they did not agree with birth control).

There was a very important backlog in the US contributions to the UN as well, which have caused a lot of trouble in the organization's functionning.
I think Clinton caught up on some of the backlog, with a lot of opposition from the congress.

=> All this explains why the US has now lost a great deal of its weight in the UN, even being expelled from the human rights commission. (A completely stupid thing btw, if you look at some of the countries which took their seat).

It is this "pulling out" that is causing a nation that would otherwise get "what it wants, when it wants it" to be in such a disastrous situation now.
This thread is blaming the french for the trouble in the UN, but they are only saying out loud what numerous weaker nations are thinking. "The US are very rich, but not helping building an international order, which should we help them ?".



Originally posted by ibrodsky
Good will come of this if, in the end, the US at least begins to pull out of the UN.
And, as a personal opinion, I think this is not good at all. International relations are ruled by laws.
These laws help that there is a mininimum of civilization when nation's interests are opposed, which is very frequent situation.

For example war is considered illegal. And the nation which declares war first is considered guilty.
The only case when "war is legal" are
- resistance to aggression by another country
- security council resolution

Having the most powerful country on earth shatter these rules makes a very very grave precedent (we call it a "Jurisprudence" I don't know the translation).
North Korea could claim it has the legal right to do the same, with dire consequences. Same thing for other states like Pakistan or India, which would apply the new "preventive war" principle... and all of these have nukes threatening 20% of the world's population.




Moreover
========
What is at stake with 'making legal' the US attack is really very important.
In the balance "for or against the veto" it is a point which weights a lot with a reasonning like : "even if we think this war is going to be a massacre and a likely disaster, is it not better to approve it than to destroy international law ?". The UK is very much on this side now and that's why they are pushing a resolution.

"why ? because having the US illegally attacking Iraq will open the door for a destruction of international order and will lead to increased international chaos".



If I try to word it from a israelian POW, Israelians are sometimes in an excellent legal situation because "they did not start the wars, they were attacked".
This gives an important legitimation to seizing territories from the nations which attacked them
( Some israelis could go as far as to "thanking heartedly the arabs for 'loosing their nerve' and attacking first" ;) ).


=> International right is not automatically against Israel (having a more peaceful world is not automatically a bad thing for Israel either).





The solution for the US in the UN is not to "pull out", but to "jump in" and become a leader in the UN. Of course this is much more lengthy and costly strategy than the present short-sighed strategy.
It is the very strengh of the US which is turning into a handicap.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by yehudi
The solution for the US in the UN is not to "pull out", but to "jump in" and become a leader in the UN. Of course this is much more lengthy and costly strategy than the present short-sighed strategy.


You have it completely backwards. The UN is an instrument of dictators and appeasers. The US is required to pay more than its share while totalitarian countries like Libya chair the "Human Rights Commission."

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that there is something downright sinister about having one of the foremost human rights abusers chair the "Human Rights Commission."

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that there is something downright sinister about a "Conference against Racism" that turns into an orgy of anti-Semitism.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that there is something downright sinister about having Iraq chair a "Conference on Disarmament" with Iran as Co-Chair.

The US should pull out of the UN completely and immediately. I would give UN diplomats just enough time to collect their belongings and leave the UN complex in NYC.

What few good things the UN did were actually done by the US. The UN is only there to claim undeserved credit.

The UN has increasingly become an organization dedicated to thwarting the interests of the US while making the US pick up the tab. It is to a large extent a organization that simply gives voice to the jealousy backwards societies harbor towards more industrious and prosperous societies like the US and Israel.

The very idea that a world body can make and enforce laws is flawed. There are only two things the UN is good for, and to attempt more is to mislead at best and serve tyrants at worst.

* The UN or a similar body can provide a forum for discussions between hostile nations during times of crisis. However, it is utter folly to think the UN can resolve conflicts without the parties to the conflict committed to the same.

* The UN can manage international disaster relief.

Most of the rest of what the UN does is improper and/or impractical.

Like the League of Nations before it, the UN has proved it is totally unable and unwilling to address the new threats of Islamist fascism and mass murder. The security of the US (and Israel) can only be assured by prosecuting war against the Axis of Evil through to complete victory.

Each day we delay attacking the terrorist sponsoring thugs in Baghdad hands another small victory to terrorists. The only way to ensure US security is to depose by force Saddam, Baby Assad, and the Iranian Mullahs. Plus, we should encourage and support Israel in crushing Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
You have it completely backwards. The UN is an instrument of dictators and appeasers.
For good or ill, the United Nations are the place where all nations can meet and discuss.

The UN has done a lot in peacekeeping, resolving conflicts and helping refugees (more than the US which are particularly selfish in this domain).



The use of the veto in the SC :
=======================
Since 1946 : 252 uses of the veto. Since 1996, 8 vetos among which 6 by the US (2 for China).

USA : 76 vetos. Last time Washington used veto was the 20th dec. 2002, to prevent a resolution protesting the "killing of several UN employees" by Israël with 12 favourables votes.

UK : 32 vetos. Last time on Panama in 1989.

France : 18 vetos. Last time on Panama in 1989.
France vetoed a USA resolution on a single occasion on the franco-british expedition on the Suez canal.



1/ there is no way of pretending "France is abusing his veto right "
2/ no way of pretending "France is abusing his veto right against the US" either
3/ on the number of vetos the US is second after the USSR (121 ).

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by yehudi


The UN has done a lot in peacekeeping, resolving conflicts and helping refugees (more than the US which are particularly selfish in this domain).


Nonsense.

Some examples of UN "peacekeeping" efforts:

In 1967, Egypt told the UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai so they could prepare to "drive the Jews into the sea." The UN force responded like sheep and left.

UN peacekeepers have done nothing to prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel after Israel withdrew 100% from Lebanon. However, the "UN peacekeepers" did lend Hezbollah a UN van so they could kidnap four Israeli soldiers. The UN also denied they had a video of the affair, then admitted they had it and refused to turn it over. What liars!

The UN has done nothing to pressure Arab countries to resettle the Palestinian refugees.

The only time the UN has done anything requiring force (Korea, Persian Gulf War I, Kosovo) it was actually the US doing the heavy lifting and the UN bureaucrats pretending to be in charge.

on the number of vetos the US is second after the USSR (121 ).

Boo hoo. We should now use the ultimate veto and evict the UN from New York City.

[Mediocrates]

The UN has done a lot in peacekeeping, resolving conflicts and helping refugees (more than the US which are particularly selfish in this domain).



where, when, who, how many, for instance?

[Johnny Yuma]

It is well known that the French oil company Total Fina Elf (Stock Ticker: TOT) stands to lose lucrative oil contracts, or, at the very least, watch their profit margins decline, with the overthrow of the corrupt Iraqi regime. Along with this, it is believed, they -the French- have, also, supplied Iraq -under the nose of the UN- with proscribed technology and chemicals.

For this reason, I believe, when we -meaning the United States of America's military forces- invade Iraq, will find "fresh" French fingerprints all over their weapons of mass destruction program.

That's why, to borrow a line from Shakespeare, methinks the lady doth protest too much.....

We now know from whom they're purchasing the components for the solid propellant for the missles they intend to launch on Israel and our troops, and who has aided them in the transit of the same:


The French Connection

March 13, 2003
By WILLIAM SAFIRE


WASHINGTON

France, China and Syria all have a common reason for
keeping American and British troops out of Iraq: the three
nations may not want the world to discover that their
nationals have been illicitly supplying Saddam Hussein with
materials used in building long-range surface-to-surface
missiles.

We're not talking about short-range Al Samoud 2 missiles,
which Saddam is ostentatiously destroying to help his
protectors avert an invasion, nor his old mobile Scuds. The
delivery system for mass destruction warheads requires a
much more sophisticated propulsion system and fuels.

If you were running the Iraqi ballistic missiles project,
where in the world would you go to buy the chemical that is
among the best binders for solid propellant?

Answer: to 116 DaWu Road in Zibo, a city in the Shandong
Province of China, where a company named Qilu Chemicals is
a leading producer of a transparent liquid rubber named
hydroxy terminated polybutadiene, familiarly known in the
advanced-rocket trade as HTPB.

But you wouldn't want the word "chemicals" to appear
anywhere on the purchase because that might alert
inspectors enforcing sanctions, so you employ a couple of
cutouts. One is an import-export company with which Qilu
Chemicals often does business.

To be twice removed from the source, you would turn to CIS
Paris, a Parisian broker that is active in dealings of many
kinds with Baghdad. Its director is familiar with the order
but denies being the agent.

A shipment of 20 tons of HTPB, whose sale to Iraq is
forbidden by U.N. resolutions and the oil-for-food
agreement, left China in August 2002 in a 40-foot
container. It arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus
(fortified by the Knights Templar in 1183, and the
Mediterranean terminus for an Iraqi oil pipeline today) and
was received there by a trading company that was an
intermediary for the Iraqi missile industry, the end user.
The HTPB was then trucked across Syria to Iraq.

Syria has no sophisticated missile-building program. What
rocket weaponry it has comes off the shelf (and usually on
credit) from Russia, so it therefore has no use for HTPB.
But cash-starved Syria is the conduit for missile supplies
to cash-flush Saddam, as this shipment demonstrates. We
will have to wait until after the war to find out how much
other weaponry, for what huge fees, Saddam has stored in
currently un-inspectable Syrian warehouses.

The French connection - brokering the deal among the
Chinese producer, the Syrian land transporter and the Iraqi
buyer - is no great secret to the world's arms merchants.
French intelligence has long been aware of it. The
requirement for a French export license as well as U.N.
sanctions approval may have been averted by disguising it
as a direct offshore sale from China to Syria.

I'm also told that a contract was signed last April in
Paris for five tons of 99 percent unsymmetric
dimethylhydrazine, another advanced missile fuel, which is
produced by France's Société Nationale des Poudre et
Explosifs. In addition, Iraqi attempts to buy an oxidizer
for solid propellant missiles, ammonium perchlorate, were
successful, at least on paper. Both chemicals, like HTPB,
require explicit approval by the U.N. Sanctions Committee
before they can be sold to Iraq.

Perhaps a few intrepid members of the Chirac Adoration
Society, formerly known as the French media, will ask
France's lax export-control authorities about these
shipments. U.N. inspectors looking at Iraq's El Sirat
trading company might try to follow its affiliate, the
Gudia Bureau, to dealings in Paris.

Is this account what journalists call a "keeper," one held
back for publication at a critical moment, made more
newsworthy by the Security Council debate? No; I've been
poking around for only about a week, starting with data
originating from an Arab source, not from the C.I.A.
(Anti-Kurdish analysts at Langley have it in for me for
embarrassing them for 18 months on Al Qaeda's ties to
Saddam, especially in the terrorist Ansar enclave in Iraqi
Kurdistan.)

This detail about the France-China-Syria-Iraq propellant
collaboration makes for dull reading, but reveals some of
the motivation behind the campaign of those nations to
suppress the truth. The truth, however, will out. __


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/opinion/13SAFI.html?ex=1048563222&ei=1&en=a23928db5b4b035b

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

Each day we delay attacking the terrorist sponsoring thugs in Baghdad hands another small victory to terrorists. The only way to ensure US security is to depose by force Saddam, Baby Assad, and the Iranian Mullahs. Plus, we should encourage and support Israel in crushing Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah.

Right on!!!!! Right on, right on, right on, my brother, from a different mother!

And as soon as we're done in Iraq, since we've got all those men and all that material in the neighborhood, we might as well turn, face the East, and march right over to Iran, and clean out that rat's nest, as well.....

Never forget:

If you spray for roaches, and your neighbors don't, eventually, you're going to have roaches, again. Consider these operations as taking care of "the bad houses" at the end of the street.....

[JustPat]

Originally posted by djnvcm
Your reply shows that you don't know France.

France is a republic which has strictly no link with any religion since 1905. The public school being the one of the republic this is the reason why these head scarves were forbidden at school (ditto for crosses or kippas). Few muslim girls went to catholic church (private) to wear head scarves. You will never hear the french president (this one or another) speaking about god or praying god as the president or refering to god in political matters. It is very strange that both Bush and Saddam are starting to refer to god these strange days. I'm not sure even that this kind of argument is used by politicians in Israel (non religious party). When a government starts to refer to god the evil is not far away........

I have no confidence at all with the capacity of the wrongly elected president Bush to have a clear view in this chaotic world

Regarding Iraki people, you should ask them if they welcome democracy brought with bombs
OK, so you and takeo are atheistic in your approach to life, why bring that into this discussion? This isn't about whose G_d is bigger or badder. This is about a dictator who has thumbed his nose at all that is good about mankind. This is about a man whose government is still lying to UNMOVIC and who is inviting cataclysmic results. He cares nothing about Iraq, he cares about Saddam.

And regarding our President, his election was certified to be sanctioned under our Constitution, our republic elected him, and our nation is now backing him in his efforts to bring this criminal to justice. Don't like his view of the world? No problem, stay in France and smell the cheese.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by yehudi Tonight on french TV, Chirac very clearly stated that "France will vote no whatever the circumstances" and that she shall "reject" any resolution trigerring a war on Iraq".
In my opinion his is the first time such an irrevocable statement is made. In the past, France never excluded the use of force - like Germany did -.
Chirac added the most likely hypothesis is that the new resolution "won't get a majority anyway". in such a case, according to the rules of the security council, a "no" vote by a permanent member is automatically a veto.
I liked Ari Fleisher's response: "France rejected the UK's proposal before Iraq did." Something is afoot in Chiracville.

Originally posted by yehudi Chirac added mainly that
- the inspections lead from 1991 to 98 "destroyed more weapons than the gulf war itself", ".. they allowed for an almost total eradication of the nuclear programme"
- "a country with the political structure and the past of Iraq is always dangerous" he added. "But such a country is really dangerous only if it can agress another" and "inspectors say they can reach that goal given time and the necessary means".
- He added "under inspections the regime of Saddam Hussein cannot last" "this regime cannot resist the inspections because they imply transparency and a dictatorship cannot resist transparency"
- he reaffirmed that the war is the worst of all solutions, "the only victors of war will be those who whish to see a clash of civilizations, cultures and religions"
- such a war would "lead to the development of terrorism" and would "shatter the world coalition against terrorism"
Reading the Blix report is like reading a fairytale. How anyone on the UNSC could stand and say that Iraq should have the trust of the world community and that the inspectors should be given more time as a result of their "cooperation" is beyond me. The only "evidence" of weapons destruction en masse is the Iraq's claim that they unilaterally destroyed them, which of course they have had to recant on numerous occasions when defectors exposed their lies.
According to Blix, in the four years since UNSCOM Iraq has rebuilt many of its weapons manufacturing facilities, hidden WMD in dual function plants, and has continued to pursue WMD development at a rapid pace. And we are to trust these people? This was with the eyes of the world on them! I think terrorism will suffer a great defeat at the liberation of Iraq.

Originally posted by yehudi There is intense diplomatic activity by France and the US around three african countries : Cameroon, Angola and Guinea which are temporary members on the security council.
They are probably the last, not to have irrevocably taken side and can make the difference in passing a resolution.
Unless the resolution has teeth that will bite Saddam in the butt, we needn't waste our time.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi


For example war is considered illegal. And the nation which declares war first is considered guilty.
The only case when "war is legal" are
- resistance to aggression by another country
- security council resolution

Having the most powerful country on earth shatter these rules makes a very very grave precedent (we call it a "Jurisprudence" I don't know the translation).
North Korea could claim it has the legal right to do the same, with dire consequences. Same thing for other states like Pakistan or India, which would apply the new "preventive war" principle... and all of these have nukes threatening 20% of the world's population.

First, whether a war is judged to legal or illegal, is determined by those who "win" said war. The winner writes history, always.
Secondly, America doesn't need permission from anyone to protect itself. If you kick sand in our face, we'll drop a truck load of it on you. (Our expression is: Paybacks are hell.)
Thirdly, what about Kosovo? Would you argue that the United States set a precedent when it "invaded" that country, and rescued the Muslim population from tyranical domination and ethic cleansing? I'd say that it wasn't the first time we'd saved a people from genocide, even though there were "nay sayers" on both sides of the pond.


Moreover
========
What is at stake with 'making legal' the US attack is really very important.
In the balance "for or against the veto" it is a point which weights a lot with a reasonning like : "even if we think this war is going to be a massacre and a likely disaster, is it not better to approve it than to destroy international law ?". The UK is very much on this side now and that's why they are pushing a resolution.

"why ? because having the US illegally attacking Iraq will open the door for a destruction of international order and will lead to increased international chaos".

France never seems to have a problem ignoring what you call "international law". They invade Africa, almost daily. They detonated nuclear weapons in the Pacific island chain, with a total disregard for the test ban treaties. Would you say that increased international chaos? Do you believe that gave other countries the green light to pursue their own weapons of mass destruction programs? The French are supplying/have supplied the Iraqis with proscribed materials, ignoring the UN mandated embargo. Yet they're the ones squealing the loudest about international order.



If I try to word it from a israelian POW, Israelians are sometimes in an excellent legal situation because "they did not start the wars, they were attacked".
This gives an important legitimation to seizing territories from the nations which attacked them
( Some israelis could go as far as to "thanking heartedly the arabs for 'loosing their nerve' and attacking first" ;) ).

It is well known that Saddam Hussein has given refuge to Al Qaeda, after 9/11. He has terrorist training camps in his country. He pays rewards to the families of the suicide/homicide bombers. And he has openly vowed the destruction of Israel. So.... since the "civilized" world is at war against terror, and, he has aligned himself with the same, does that not make him the enemy?


The solution for the US in the UN is not to "pull out", but to "jump in" and become a leader in the UN. Of course this is much more lengthy and costly strategy than the present short-sighed strategy.
It is the very strengh of the US which is turning into a handicap.

I can tell you, from the average tax paying American's perspective, that many of us are sick and tired of participating in the United Nations. We are a country where the focus is on results; measurable, quantifiable results.

Also, we are a people the view the "journey" as far less important than getting to the "destination". In the United Nations, it is obvious, to many of us, that the opposite is true. And because of that, we see it as nothing more than a forum where diplomats like to talk to themselves, and muse about the way the world should be. In other words, they like to hear themselves talk, but they have no concrete actions to get from point A to point B. It's as though it's a game where winning isn't important. What is more important is how the game is played.

In America, the object of the game is to win, because we hate losers. I repeat...., the object is to win; always. And we will isolate ourselves from and shun losers. Our entire culture is wrapped around this concept and we are inculcated with this, from birth to the grave.

If you are viewed as the sissy kid that can't play the game, or, one who will drag the team down, you will be the last one picked, or you get to sit on the bench and watch the rest play. If you cry about it, you just magnify what everyone already believes about you....

If we perceive the UN as sissies, or cry babies, or losers, or those not willing to play to win, or those that can't play, or those that will drag the team down, we will find others who will play to win, or go it alone, and leave you sitting on the sidelines.

However, even if you didn't get to play in the game, if you are on the team, you still get to go to the party, afterwards. No one on the winning team goes home a loser. Even the kid who throws the ball and it lands three feet (a meter) behind him.....

[minusthejihad]

Welcome to Israel Forum Johnny Yuma, I like your analogies!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Welcome to Israel Forum Johnny Yuma, I like your analogies!

Glad to be here!

Thanks for the welcoming words.

Johnny Yuma

"Hey boys! Let's play Cowboys and Iraqis!" :D

[yehudi]

Let me try to comment

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
First, whether a war is judged to legal or illegal, is determined by those who "win" said war. The winner writes history, always.
I'm not so sure about that.

Loosing doesn't mean you are wrong. I'm thinking about Massada but there are many such episodes in history. Would you say "Jesus died on a cross - aha he lost".

Maybe you can see what I mean: loosing or even dying in a war or for a cause doesn't mean you are wrong.



Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Secondly, America doesn't need permission from anyone to protect itself.
No one need, defense is legitimate when your life is endangered. I just do not understand how your very life is threatened by a country on its knees for ten years.

From the point of view of public opinion (not gvts) THIS is the real problem. Much more than any "anti-americanism".

We simply do not understand.


For me I'm afraid I still do not understand why it is necessary to bomb the iraqis. Please compare the number of people you will kill with those murdered in the twin towers and try to understand my POW is not utterly stupid.
Twin towers were the act of a madman, while Gulf War II is a deliberate act perpetrated by a western democracy.

If there is any hope in the world to do otherwise it is criminal not to seize that option.


Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
France never seems to have a problem ignoring what you call "international law". They invade Africa, almost daily.

- First "Imperialism" and "invading" are different things.
- Second even Imperialist powers do help developping countries sometimes. The US as well as France are examples of this.

In my life I spent plenty of my time doing what you call "invading" Africa. I think that was for the best though.


Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Do you believe that gave other countries the green light to pursue their own weapons of mass destruction programs?

I see your point. I find the WMD a major issue to say the least. I'm sure we'll revert to this.

I just think the US are tackling the WMD issue the wrong way, with wrong priorities. "Squashing" Irak is kinda simple. Americans are delighted when they are designated a simple target and a villain they can bring down.

But the real issues are not addressed and the US are actually wasting their time and energy there. When the time will come to address the real issues, the US will be exhausted. And their degraded relationships with their allies (and yes, I mean Allies. even if it irritates you) will mean they will not receive proper help.

What I hate in this veto thing, is that desperate loose/loose situation.
Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
The French are supplying/have supplied the Iraqis with proscribed materials, ignoring the UN mandated embargo. Yet they're the ones squealing the loudest about international order.
Yes - so did many other countries including the US. This has already been discussed on this forum. We developped countries are doing it wrong selling weapons and dangerous technology to such regimes.

Will the US stop this ? Will Israel and other advanced countries stop "playing with fire" in this manner ? Not ever alas.



Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
[I]I can tell you, from the average tax paying American's perspective, that many of us are sick and tired of participating in the United Nations. We are a country where the focus is on results; measurable, quantifiable results.
This is one of your great qualities, but I guess you know what I would add...

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Also, we are a people the view the "journey" as far less important than getting to the "destination". In the United Nations, it is obvious, to many of us, that the opposite is true. And because of that, we see it as nothing more than a forum where diplomats like to talk to themselves, and muse about the way the world should be. In other words, they like to hear themselves talk, but they have no concrete actions to get from point A to point B.
I hear you loud and clear

But I'm having a big problem picturing where this train (or this plane?) you are embarking us on is going. What is the destination ? Where is point B ? Is there a point C ? What is the new world you are building there ?

I see Europe now divided, anger between allies growing and growing reaching a never-seen crazy level, the world opinion turning against the US and the western world.... and it's only a beginning, now the war - and the occupation - are next.


Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
In America, the object of the game is to win, because we hate losers. I repeat...., the object is to win
A"winner culture". Let me give you an example of you last big win:


A thing of great amazement to me was what happened after the ending of Gulf War I.

The US army killed army 50 000 soldier of the iraki army in a matter of days., while taking losses of around 200. If you withdraw accidents and "friendly fire" from the 200, your "quantifiable" ratio is amazing (0.001).
(I'm not even counting the 50 000 civilians killed, mainly babies and elderly mainly because of the destruction of electricity plants that cut drinkable water supplies).



And then the "boys" came back home ... they had a huge "party afterwards" in New York....


Why were you parading ? Gulf War I was not a war, it was a mere massacre .



But hoora IT WAS A WIN !


I like your analogies.

[Johnny Yuma]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by yehudi
Let me try to comment


[B]I'm not so sure about that.

Loosing doesn't mean you are wrong. I'm thinking about Massada but there are many such episodes in history. Would you say "Jesus died on a cross - aha he lost".

Maybe you can see what I mean: loosing or even dying in a war or for a cause doesn't mean you are wrong.

No. It just means you're dead. The cause becomes meaningless.


No one need, defense is legitimate when your life is endangered. I just do not understand how your very life is threatened by a country on its knees for ten years.

From the point of view of public opinion (not gvts) THIS is the real problem. Much more than any "anti-americanism".

We simply do not understand.

Okay. I'll see if I can explain it to you in terms you can easily understand, and then you can see it they way we see it.

You have biological agents. You now modify fuel drop tanks and are video taped using them. You also build radio controlled, and GPS guided drones capapble of using said drop tanks. You defy an embargo and import proscribed items, 12 years after you were mandated to stop producing weapons of mass destruction. You allow terroist training camps to operate in your country. You offer rewards to families whose members become human bombs.

You vow the destruction of Israel.

Finally, you decide that without the United States, Israel can be easily overcome.

Should the United States feel threatened by you? Seems reasonable to me....

[Johnny Yuma]

For me I'm afraid I still do not understand why it is necessary to bomb the iraqis. Please compare the number of people you will kill with those murdered in the twin towers and try to understand my POW is not utterly stupid.
Twin towers were the act of a madman, while Gulf War II is a deliberate act perpetrated by a western democracy.

If there is any hope in the world to do otherwise it is criminal not to seize that option.

Look.... we're not playing a numbers game. Americans don't do the "eye for an eye" thing. If you kick sand in our face, we'll bring a ton of hurt, when we come after you. And we don't bring knives to gun fights. We come to win. Period.

- First "Imperialism" and "invading" are different things.
- Second even Imperialist powers do help developping countries sometimes. The US as well as France are examples of this.

In my life I spent plenty of my time doing what you call "invading" Africa. I think that was for the best though.

France was in Africa for imperialistic reasons, the same as when you were in Indo-China. You can't put lace on a turd and expect anyone to believe it's anything other than what it is.....


I see your point. I find the WMD a major issue to say the least. I'm sure we'll revert to this.

I just think the US are tackling the WMD issue the wrong way, with wrong priorities. "Squashing" Irak is kinda simple. Americans are delighted when they are designated a simple target and a villain they can bring down.

Wrong! We would much rather be sitting around drinking whatever we like to drink(beer, wine, whiskey, pernod?), and laughing, and loving, and having a good time. We hate war.

It costs money, and we would rather eat our children than part with our money, and we're very fond of our children. And speaking of our children, just who do you think is fighting these wars? It's our children. Do you think we like sending our precious babies to fight these wars? Do you really? Don't you know how that eats our guts out?

But the real issues are not addressed and the US are actually wasting their time and energy there. When the time will come to address the real issues, the US will be exhausted. And their degraded relationships with their allies (and yes, I mean Allies. even if it irritates you) will mean they will not receive proper help.

Whether or not we are wasting our time there or not, is yet to be known. That will only come afterwards. Both Japan and Germany, did surprisingly well, after we wrested them from the grips of military authoritarian control. And Japan thought that Hiro Hito was a diety. But since there are already Iraqi soldiers surrendering, and the war hasn't even started, it looks as though the odds are in our favor that deposing this other deity won't take too long.

As far as allies go, we have an old expression, here in America:
With friends like these, who needs enemas?

And as far as being exhausted, don't count on it. We have a lot of people here and we can easily convert our economy to a wartime footing. That hasn't been done since WWII. We currently spend about 1% of our gross domestic producton our military,.. Not much.... We are talking about upping that to around 5%. When that happens, it could get ugly for the people on whom it gets spent.

We could quit sending out American aid (money that American tax payers pay the government) to other countries, like some of our fine "allies". (Bear in mind that the American government doesn't create wealth. The wealth of the American government comes exclusively from the money that is paid to it by "we the people" of the United States, and or money that "we" lent to the government and received interest on.)

Otherwise, if you mean we become exhausted because the troops we have in Iraq will get tired of fighting, guess again. We don't have near as many troops on the border of Iraq as you might think. Our military is a magnitude larger than what we have deployed overseas in Iraq. There's still plenty of men and women in uniform here, and other places in the world, not to mention those that join every day. And don't forget that we still have a mandatory selective service registration.... The draft can be enacted very rapidly....

What I hate in this veto thing, is that desperate loose/loose situation.

Veto? What veto? We don't need no stinking veto.....

Going to the UN for a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq was America trying to be inclusive. It's the politically correct flavor of the month.

The governing bodies in our country operate as though we're a corporation. Everything is politically correct, and that correctness changes every year, just like the jargon that surrounds it.

Right now, it's politically correct to be inclusive. The buzz words are "inclusive", "multi-cultural", "diversity", and "partnering". And just for your edification, you will hear the words, "core competencies" used just as readily in the corporate board rooms, as you will in, military headquarters. It's another of the politically correct buzz words....... this year...

So, basically, President Bush sent Colin Powell to the the United Nations for a "diverse", "multi-cultural", and "inclusive" coalition, because he thought he was being politically correct and polite.
In corporate America, we have the politically correct "partnering meetings" where we all the agencies involved, no matter how little their involvement, agree to put aside our differences and pledge to work together, for the goal put forth by the agency calling for the partnering. To not do so is simply politically incorrect. It's simply not done.

Because our leaders behave as though the United Nations is the great partnering meeting, when they decline to participate, they commit a heresy.

So yes. The financial ramifications to our "allies" for not "partnering up" with us will, in all likelyhood, be severe, for at least the next ten years, at a very minimum. Better get ready for massive unemployment, shrinking economies, and all the other miserable stuff that accompanies the same; high crime rate, etc.


Yes - so did many other countries including the US. This has already been discussed on this forum. We developped countries are doing it wrong selling weapons and dangerous technology to such regimes.

Will the US stop this ? Will Israel and other advanced countries stop "playing with fire" in this manner ? Not ever alas.

In the future, I hope we choose a little wiser. It's difficult to know, from one leader to the next, who will use the power/knowlege you bestow upon them for good, and who will use it for evil, isn't it. We all struggle on this question. It's a shoot....

But I'm having a big problem picturing where this train (or this plane?) you are embarking us on is going. What is the destination ? Where is point B ? Is there a point C ? What is the new world you are building there ?

I see Europe now divided, anger between allies growing and growing reaching a never-seen crazy level, the world opinion turning against the US and the western world.... and it's only a beginning, now the war - and the occupation - are next.

My wish... no... my prayer is, that we could go back to September 10th, 2001. The Cold War was over, our economies were strong, there was not a cloud in the sky. But those days, alas, are gone for the foreseeable future.

What we are going to do, since we only seem to have a couple of allies, is make the world safe for "us". All those that seemingly aren't too concerned about our security should be ashamed when they come to us for help when their security is threatened and we know it will be, eventually, unless they roll over and become the lap dogs of those trying to oppress them.

A"winner culture". Let me give you an example of you last big win:


A thing of great amazement to me was what happened after the ending of Gulf War I.

The US army killed army 50 000 soldier of the iraki army in a matter of days., while taking losses of around 200. If you withdraw accidents and "friendly fire" from the 200, your "quantifiable" ratio is amazing (0.001).
(I'm not even counting the 50 000 civilians killed, mainly babies and elderly mainly because of the destruction of electricity plants that cut drinkable water supplies).



And then the "boys" came back home ... they had a huge "party afterwards" in New York....


Why were you parading ? Gulf War I was not a war, it was a mere massacre .



But hoora IT WAS A WIN !

There was nothing mere about it. Se la guerre.....

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma

My wish... no... my prayer is...
.....
I do not know what god you pray, I'm not sure wether there is one really.
May He forgive you.

As for me my decision is taken I have to go demontrate against the war.

but I am powerless, I cannot stop it. I cannot reach you either. I wish my words you change something but it is clear I am failing.
I'm having problems with my conscience too, I guess that means I am simply a looser.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by yehudi
I do not know what god you pray, I'm not sure wether there is one really.
May He forgive you.

As for me my decision is taken I have to go demontrate against the war.

but I am powerless, I cannot stop it. I cannot reach you either. I wish my words you change something but it is clear I am failing.
I'm having problems with my conscience too, I guess that means I am simply a looser.
Before writing Johnny off, perhaps you should go and read the Psalms. Read some of the prayers David prayed over his enemies. G_d is not opposed to destroying the wicked. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi
I do not know what god you pray, I'm not sure wether there is one really.
May He forgive you.

Sure you're sure. Why else would you personify it as a "him"?

As far as what I believe, I will reveal this much to you: Nothing can cause itself, and the cause comes before the effect. So if you try to impose an infinite regression of cause and effect, you come upon a paradox. That's where you will find what I believe to be the truth.

When you say "May He forgive you", you're just talking to youself, pal. It certainly won't effect what I believe.


As for me my decision is taken I have to go demontrate against the war.

Isn't she pretty in pink?

but I am powerless, I cannot stop it. I cannot reach you either. I wish my words you change something but it is clear I am failing.
I'm having problems with my conscience too, I guess that means I am simply a looser. [/B]

Oh... your message is received, loud and clear. The problem is that your arguments are weak and your reasoning is fallacious.

A loser? Stop! You're breaking my heart.... :rolleyes: Try putting forth an argument using something other than an appeal to emotions.

[Communication]

Ah, the hubris flows out of the UN and on to the message boards...


Yehudi, I don't know how I feel about the war simply because I don't know how the US is going to manage the victory that it will surely win. Some places may not adhere well to democracy, maybe Iraq is one of those places. It's not going to be like Japan, where they actually welcomed their conquerors after WWII. 50+ years later, and our troops are still there.

In terms of loss to civilian life, what is the loss of 12+ years of sanctions to try and get Hussein to comply with his agreements? Those sanctions have killed more people than the Gulf War ever did, and yet Hussein has managed just fine for himself throughout the entire period through selling oil on the black market through countries like Syria. He doesn't care about his people, and so the status quo won't work.

As for my take on the UN, it's not a humanitarian organization, it's a debating forum for world governments, all of which have their own strategic and geo-political agendas. The two countries that have the most resolutions against them in the UN are Turkey and Israel. Do you honestly think that the world's greatest humanitarian crisis over the past say 50 years has been in either of these countries?

There are UN countries that are never condemned, which are responsible for hundreds of thousands, even millions of murdered lives. There are countries with horrible human rights records that have seats on the Security Council. In fact Syria, no stranger to violence, civil oppression or terrorism, an occupying nation, headed up the human rights commission of the UN last year.

I have no faith in the UN other than as an organization where delegates from other countries go to meet and debate. It started out as a good idea but it has been abused for too long.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Communication
I have no faith in the UN other than as an organization where delegates from other countries go to meet and debate. It started out as a good idea but it has been abused for too long.
And your suggested solution to the problem is?

[Communication]

Originally posted by JustPat
And your suggested solution to the problem is?

Oh...I dunno, how about the Legion of Super-Heros? So then I reckon your next question will probably which Legion? The carefree Adventure era? The grownup Levitz era? The angst-ridden Gap era? The post-Zero Hour reboot?

How about just recognizing it for what it is and stop asking the United States to spot the bill?
_________________

So let me now ask you a couple of questions, JustPat:

1. Do you believe that blowing up innocent civilians is a legitimate means by which to resist "occupation," even if the word occupation is meant to include a soverign nation that the UN itself gave legitimacy to?


2. Do you believe that the Jewish people are entitled to self-determination in some portion of the land formerly known as Palestine, formerly known as Syria, formerly known as the Ottoman Empire, formerly known as Palestine, formerly known as Judea/Summaria, formerly known as Israel?

3. Do you believe that if a soverign nation is attacked with rockets by a neighboring country, that it has the right to retaliate against that neighbor without such retalization being defined as an act of aggression?

4. Would you agree that if two nations enter into an agreement to leave the final status of disputed territory open for a future final agreement, that the UN cannot unilaterally declare that piece of property the territory of one side or the other?

Ok, that's four questions. I'll start there.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
...
I guess I have to use this 'ignore' function one more time. You are simply too self-assured and impossible to reach. Talking to you cannot change anything.

It was a dreadfull sight to watch people dancing in the street after the twin towers collapsed when but I guess you can understand this, since you'll be probably have a smile on your face when the bombs fall on Iraq, killing thousands.

Have a nice bloodbath, winner

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Communication Oh...I dunno, how about the Legion of Super-Heros? So then I reckon your next question will probably which Legion? The carefree Adventure era? The grownup Levitz era? The angst-ridden Gap era? The post-Zero Hour reboot? I like it! :D

Originally posted by Communication How about just recognizing it for what it is and stop asking the United States to spot the bill?
Two for two! :D :D
_________________

Originally posted by Communication So let me now ask you a couple of questions, JustPat:

1. Do you believe that blowing up innocent civilians is a legitimate means by which to resist "occupation," even if the word occupation is meant to include a soverign nation that the UN itself gave legitimacy to?

2. Do you believe that the Jewish people are entitled to self-determination in some portion of the land formerly known as Palestine, formerly known as Syria, formerly known as the Ottoman Empire, formerly known as Palestine, formerly known as Judea/Summaria, formerly known as Israel?

3. Do you believe that if a soverign nation is attacked with rockets by a neighboring country, that it has the right to retaliate against that neighbor without such retalization being defined as an act of aggression?

4. Would you agree that if two nations enter into an agreement to leave the final status of disputed territory open for a future final agreement, that the UN cannot unilaterally declare that piece of property the territory of one side or the other?

Ok, that's four questions. I'll start there.
Such complex questions, such simple answers.
1. No
2. May the Jews of today possess all that was promised to Abraham, water on every side!
3. Self defense is, by definition, not an act of aggression but a response to it.
4. I believe the UN should pack up and go back to its third world hut and let the civilized world determine its own destiny.
5. Palestinians, we don't need no stinkin' Palestinians. Let them go to France and eat cake.

[Communication]

Originally posted by JustPat


Such complex questions, such simple answers.
1. No
2. May the Jews of today possess all that was promised to Abraham, water on every side!
3. Self defense is, by definition, not an act of aggression but a response to it.
4. I believe the UN should pack up and go back to its third world hut and let the civilized world determine its own destiny.
5. Palestinians, we don't need no stinkin' Palestinians. Let them go to France and eat cake.

Wow! Five answers to four questions. Are you sure you're not Jewish?

So here are the UN's answers:

First- the legitimization of terror by the UN:

Abu Ain case: Not only did the UN declare that the US could not extradite a terrorist from the United States to Israel under a US-Israeli extradition treaty so that he could be tried in an Israeli court, but countries like CHina went so far as to say that they endorsed "all available means" to combat "colonialism" and "alien" rule, " thereby legitimizing the killing of innocent civilians for political purposes. And this coming from China, an occupier themselves...well I'm at a loss for words at how disgustingly hypocritical...

Second- the discriminating application of self-determination:

Before answering this, I will refer you to my original question, which was whether the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in SOME portion of that land. Setting aside the fact that no Arab government was ever admonished for the dispossesion and expulsion of some 900,000 Jewish refugees from their native Arab homelands, or the fact that you would be hard pressed to find any modern nation-state that did not come into existence without some blood being shed...on November 10, 1975, the General Assembly voted 67 nations in favor, 55 opposed, 15 abstained, to declare that "Zionism is a form of racism" and that "Israel is an inherintly racist state."

Third: What is agression?

When Hezbollah fires rockets into Northern Israel, the UN actually declared that if Israel were to return fire, that such fire would be labeled an "act of agression." No !

Fourth- Final status of disputed territory

Israel and the PA agreed under the Oslo Accords that the final status of Jerusalem would be determined in a final agreement. Yet, every chance that the Arab governments have had to put forward sresolutions, they have bargained and barrtered to declare Jerusalem as "occupied Arab territory." They did this on April 28, 1981, relating to another incident where a Jewish nutball went on a ballistic shooting spree at the Dome of the Rock. Not only was the Israeli government held responsible for this individual's senseless crime and thus condemned at the UN, but the resolution also declared Jerusalem as "occupied Arab territory." The resolution passed with that language by a vote of 130 to 26 with 14 abstentions.

[JustPat]

That's why the planes hit the WTC instead of the UN.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by yehudi
[quote]I guess I have to use this 'ignore' function one more time. You are simply too self-assured and impossible to reach. Talking to you cannot change anything.


I wasn't aware that the purpose of the forum was to try and change anything; especially my mind... I was under the impression that it was "a forum" where we simply exchange our ideas and opinions.

There's a logic proposition called, The Principle of Plenitude.
Simply stated: Given infinite time, no possibility can go unrealized.

However, since you've pitched a temper tantrum and have decided to use the ignore function on my replies, I suppose I have to let you in on something that you don't know about yourself. (Remember those window panes I told you about, previously? Here's one I can see through, from the outside, that you can't.)

You've already adopted the "Loser" tag, but I've a new one for you. It's connotation is far worse, in American culture, than "loser". It's "Quitter". As in: "No one likes a quitter.... and a quitter never wins".

But that's okay. Go ahead and stamp off to your house and hurt hurt the cat.

It was a dreadfull sight to watch people dancing in the street after the twin towers collapsed when but I guess you can understand this, since you'll be probably have a smile on your face when the bombs fall on Iraq, killing thousands."

Actually, I won't. I'll be saying something to the effect of, "God help the people that live under that rain. God help them...."

Have a nice bloodbath, winner

I like warm baths..... especially with gurgles. (Darn it! I meant to say bubbles...) :rolleyes: