U.S. Senate Calls For UN Help In Iraq,

[yehudi]

I knew that was going to happen... but really not expecting it so soon


US senate calling for U.N. Support in Iraq


Earlier Thursday, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed an amendment to a foreign aid bill containing an appeal to the White House to "formally and expeditiously" consider requesting a NATO peacekeeping force for Iraq.

In a 97-0 vote, the senators said President George W. Bush "should consider requesting formally and expeditiously that NATO raise a force for deployment in post-war Iraq similar to what it has done in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo."

(…)

Shortly after the vote, senior Democrats in the U.S. Senate held a press conference denouncing U.S. policy in Iraq, calling on the U.S. administration to end its quarrel with France and Germany and to ask foreign reinforcements to back up U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

(…)

The measure also called for U.N. troops and expertise in the operation.

Biden said it was time U.S. officials made up with Paris and Berlin -- prime opponents of the U.S. led war in Iraq -- in order to demonstrate "a measure of maturity."

"It's childish," Biden said, at a press briefing.

"There's a need to internationalize this and to bring in NATO in particular," he said adding that he supports the addition of U.N. forces in Iraq as well.

Getting extra forces in Iraq is in Washington's best interest, Biden said.

"We need more forces ... and we have to make it clear that we're not a force of occupation," he said.

Internationalization is increasingly seen as a way of not only defraying the mounting cost of U.S. military occupation of Iraq, but stemming the daily attacks U.S. soldiers there have encountered.

(…)

But a report published Thursday in the newspaper USA Today poured cold water on expectations of quick foreign help, saying many nations were "balking" at jumping into the Iraqi cauldron with both feet.

It said India, Pakistan and Portugal, which the Pentagon had hoped would deliver between 25,000 and 30,000 soldiers, were now insisting that the United Nations approve a U.N. mandate for the force first.

(…)

A number of countries approached by the United States have also expressed reservations about their troops serving under U.S. command, according to defense officials.





Iraq Problems Stack Up For Bush

Meanwhile, the near daily deaths of Americans soldiers, the lack of weapons of mass destruction and the cost of the Iraq conflict are taking a toll on the administration of President George W. Bush.

With problems mounting on the ground in Iraq after what once seemed a clear-cut victory, and opposition Democrats back home slamming lack of evidence on weapons of mass destruction, a poll also showed Thursday that Americans' disenchantment with their government's war on Iraq is growing.

Less than half U.S. citizens now believe the United States is in control in Iraq , according to a CBS News poll. And just over half think removing Saddam Hussein from power was worth the cost.

Only 45 percent of those asked said they thought the U.S. was in command on the ground, compared with 71 percent in April.

In early May, shortly after Saddam's ouster, 65 percent of Americans said they thought the war was worth the cost. Today, the figure is 54 percent .

Some 55 percent said they thought weapons of mass destruction (WDM) would eventually be found in Iraq -- down from 44 percent last month.

And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday the cost of operations in Iraq had soared to some 3.9 billion dollars a month, double April's estimates.

Opposition Democrats meanwhile stepped up criticism of the president and calls for an inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war.

from http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-07/11/article02.shtml, but I guess you won't be in trouble finding other references, like
- Reuters http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wbur/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=520205
- what seems to be a US local newspaper : http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/showdown_with_iraq/article/0,1375,VCS_9220_2102240,00.html
- The BBC too US 'needs help in Iraq'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3058469.stm.

[yehudi]

From correspondents in Paris


FRANCE would send soldiers to join a peacekeeping effort in Iraq only under a mandate from the United Nations, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said in an interview published today.

The comments dampened prospects that France would join US-led occupation forces in Iraq. Yesterday, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Washington would welcome help from other countries - including France.

An eventual French role "could only be envisaged within the framework of a United Nations peacekeeping force", under a specific mandate from the UN Security Council, de Villepin was quoted as saying in Le Figaro newspaper.

"For us, it would suffice that the political transition in Iraq is placed under the responsibility of the United Nations," he said.
(...)

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6734815%255E401,00.html

[MGB8]

Do you know the difference between NATO and the UN, yehudi. Please change your headline accordingly, to reflect the larger truth of the article. The UN seems to be a sidenote...




Originally posted by yehudi
From correspondents in Paris


FRANCE would send soldiers to join a peacekeeping effort in Iraq only under a mandate from the United Nations, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said in an interview published today.

The comments dampened prospects that France would join US-led occupation forces in Iraq. Yesterday, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Washington would welcome help from other countries - including France.

An eventual French role "could only be envisaged within the framework of a United Nations peacekeeping force", under a specific mandate from the UN Security Council, de Villepin was quoted as saying in Le Figaro newspaper.

"For us, it would suffice that the political transition in Iraq is placed under the responsibility of the United Nations," he said.
(...)

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6734815%255E401,00.html

[Northlander]

Its not about NATO necessarelly. Apparently USA hoped for India and Pakistan as well but they wanted a UN decision as well.

Since the russians said they have no intention of sending troops its not impossible they have been asked as well. My guess is they have since troops from France,Germany and Russia in that order would more than anything legitimate the occupation.

If USA succeds in getting those countries involved IN Iraq Im impressed. It would be the best political move imaginable.
The whole idea that this is an illegal occupation would disapear if French and Russian troops were seen in Iraq. I hardly think Iraqis will belive that soldiers from countries very critical to the war to begin with are there to occupy them.

Also it saves alot of money and as mentioned in the articles USA doesnt need to worry much about such troops since those countries can pull the operations themselves without as much support as smaller countries need.

This is a situation where USA has everything to win and nothing to lose. But it will probably take a UN decision for it to succed.
If it happens I think USA have finally pulled this one home. That means victory in every aspect regardless of what happens in Iraq later on.

Needless to say Im personally against a UN operation in Iraq since it would make the occupation legitimate but it probably will come to that in the end. Hope Im wrong.

[MGB8]

Thier is no "occupation" of Iraq. Thier is a peace keeping force, their to protect Iraqi's from the remnants of an outlaw regime. No one has said that Saddam was a good guy, or that he shouldn't be gone. Well, maybe Yehudi has. But all the European nations agreed in principle.

The problem with Europe, that we in the US are just starting to understand, is that Islam has ALREADY CONQUERED it. Just quietly. When the Arab league - the oil kabal (and drug cartel - literally and figuratively) tells the European nations to jump, Europe responds "how high?"

The opposition to this war was mainly because it threatened the Arab League's Oil Monopoly. They told the European nations to oppose the war at all costs, and Europe obeyed its new masters.



Originally posted by Northlander
Its not about NATO necessarelly. Apparently USA hoped for India and Pakistan as well but they wanted a UN decision as well.

Since the russians said they have no intention of sending troops its not impossible they have been asked as well. My guess is they have since troops from France,Germany and Russia in that order would more than anything legitimate the occupation.

If USA succeds in getting those countries involved IN Iraq Im impressed. It would be the best political move imaginable.
The whole idea that this is an illegal occupation would disapear if French and Russian troops were seen in Iraq. I hardly think Iraqis will belive that soldiers from countries very critical to the war to begin with are there to occupy them.

Also it saves alot of money and as mentioned in the articles USA doesnt need to worry much about such troops since those countries can pull the operations themselves without as much support as smaller countries need.

This is a situation where USA has everything to win and nothing to lose. But it will probably take a UN decision for it to succed.
If it happens I think USA have finally pulled this one home. That means victory in every aspect regardless of what happens in Iraq later on.

Needless to say Im personally against a UN operation in Iraq since it would make the occupation legitimate but it probably will come to that in the end. Hope Im wrong.

[Communication]

U.N. mulls new troops resolution
Thursday, July 17, 2003 Posted: 1:43 AM EDT (0543 GMT)



The U.S. is now calling attacks on its troops in Iraq guerrilla warfare.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Tools



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED
Map: U.S. military deployments

Interactive: Fighting in the streets

Audio Slide Show: Letter from Iraq

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Ex-Iraqi soldiers unhappy
• Democrats widen war criticism
• CNN Access: Condoleezza Rice

SPECIAL REPORT

• Transition of Power
• Life after War
• CNN/Money: Rebuilding Iraq
• War in Iraq
• Special Report

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The U.N. is facing calls from a number of nations for a new resolution authorizing them to send troops to Iraq.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov phoned United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan Wednesday to discuss the idea.
Both Annan and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell have said discussions were ongoing between the United States and other nations on the potential need for authority from the U.N. for nations willing to send troops to help stabilize Iraq.

"Other governments have raised it with me, including the Russian foreign minister on the phone today, and so there are quite a lot of discussions going on," Annan told reporters.

The secretary general also said he discussed the issue with Powell and with U.S. senators, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, when he was in Washington Monday.

Annan said those senators "felt that the operation needs to be internationalized and other governments brought in."

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte told reporters the subject had been raised between Annan and President Bush on Monday as well.

Negroponte said no specific resolution proposal was under discussion.

"There are countries who feel that in order to contribute troops they would require some kind of additional mandate," Negroponte said.

"That fact has been the subject of discussion between ourselves and a couple of other parties, but no one has put a specific proposal on the table."

Any new resolution would present an ironic return to the U.N. for the United States after it failed to gain support in March for a resolution authorizing military action in Iraq.

Annan said any need for a new resolution on Iraq should not become a source of serious controversy for the Security Council, which had been so dramatically divided over the issue of Iraq.

"I think what is important is for all of us to accept the responsibility of a stable Iraq, because a peaceful and stable Iraq is in the interest not only of the Iraqis but of the region and of the entire world. "Where we had divisions before the war, and governments held their views with conviction, but I think that now that the war is over we should focus on stabilizing and building a peaceful and prosperous Iraq," Annan said.

Powell told reporters in Washington that the United States believes Resolution 1483 has "sufficient authority for nations who are looking for a U.N. mandate to participate in stabilization or peacekeeping activities."

The resolution acknowledges U.S./coalition sovereignty in Iraq and some nations have expressed a desire for more of a mandate from the United Nations, Powell said.

One paragraph in 1483 -- which Powell referred to as "cover" for countries wanting to offer troops -- appeals for nations "to assist" in Iraq.

The U.N. ambassadors from France, China and Pakistan all said Wednesday that a new resolution would be needed to send troops.

Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.N. said his country was willing to send troops to Iraq but that "we need legal authority" from the United Nations.

[Mediocrates]

What's facinating is that all of this 'quarmire' utterly disproves the Left's agitprop that we an occupying, colonialist.....yadda yadda nation. Why you ask? Because clearly we are not that good at the job. We seemingly don't have a way to do this kind of thing well (granted the Raj took 200 years of anarchy before it settled down) And the reason for that is that, we, as a nation alone have not had to 'occupy' an entire nation, put down by war since maybe the Philippines in 1898. All of the instances since then were Allied projects in Europe, Japan, the Balkans or countries that we didn't actually fight, like Panama, Hati, Grenada, Hawaii. All the other instances we didn't even manage to quell the fighting, like in Somalia, or, as in the case of VN the fighting didn't stop, or in the case of Iraq 1, we just went home. In other words we really don't do that job often if ever which is why we appear to have difficulties with it now.

Which leads me to my main point, being that this highlights brilliantly the non occupation of Yesha. There is no occupation. Martial Law, maybe in some places and that is abating, but occupation, NO. The IDF is not the military or civil government of the Palestinians, the IDF is not trying to 'get the lights back on' - the PA does that already. The IDF is not creating a people's council, the IDF is not delivering and rationing food, they're not rounding up 'good' PA staffers to run a new government. The IDF doesn't not control the news outlets there....and thousand other things the US is excoriated for doing in Iraq as 'proof' of occupation.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Communication
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The U.N. is facing calls from a number of nations for a new resolution authorizing them to send troops to Iraq.Excellent news, I hope they hurry up now.

(your cut and past is a big wild, comm)

[Johnny Yuma]

Sending in UN troops (read French, German, and Russians) is a great idea. It will, once and for all, remove the question of why American troops are being fired upon. Since the UN didn't support the invasion, why, then, would Iraqi guerillas kill UN troops? They could have the country under control in a matter of days. :cool:

[Northlander]

The only valid reason for UN to go to Iraq is to force the occupiers to leave. I know there are many ways to make an occupation look legitimate. The colonial powers as well as nazi germany and others were really good at that. You can come up with new ways or use the old rethorics but the american/british military presence in Iraq now is occupation. So was the british in the 20´s.

[Mediocrates]

Interesting spin - now you specifically don't want to be involved at all.

[Northlander]

For a good reason it seemed. The US created a war, there is no need for UN personell to become casualties in a conflict they couldnt prevent or cant stop.

[Mediocrates]

I have money on October 15th as the date by which you will start to hear in the mainstream media, from Europe west, that Iraqis are now suddenly 'refugees' in their own country and that now suddenly Iraqis are penned in 'refugee camps' administered by the UN. At that point Iraq as a distinct political entity will cease to exist and the UN can look forward to decades of handouts and underclass management in Iraq. I hope you packed for a long trip.

[Da Chuckstar]

What I want to know is why the countries that supported the U.S. in its war on Iraq haven't sent any troops in to help? Apart from Britain, Australia, and Poland, no one else is sending troops to help. Why won't Italy or Spain give a helping hand? That way we won't have to wait for the arrogant French and their bed buddies to wake up and smell the coffee.

[TDidier]

There is a thing which I does not understand:

Why do you need so much French, since according to you they are so arrogant or German or Russian?

This operation is a success, american position is supported by many countries, of which powerful "New-Europe", which of other do you need?

Stop calling for the aid in Iraq one could mistake and think that this operation is not a success!

SeeU, Didier.

[danholo]

It might be me but I really didn't understand a word TDidier had to say - no offence though.

[TDidier]

I'm not offenced.
It's not simple to speech english for me but I will try again...

SeeU, Didier. :D

[MGB8]

The US doesn't NEED help....but it could use it, so that some American troops could go home and so that the Iraqis could get ELECTRICITY and WATER, where they don't yet have it, more quickly, and get a self-goverment up FASTER so that the "US Occupation" would end.

Why should other nations help...because the price of failure is terrorism against THEM too....and the benefits of a democratic Iraq are potentially mind blowing....

They should help for those noble humanitarian ideals that they spout. You know - help the Iraqi people?

But, the bottom line is that France and Germany are simply puppets of OPEC...and they do what their Arab masters tell them to do.

And OPEC doesn't WANT a democratic Iraq (it threatens their regimes) or another OIL competitor.

France is a morally bankrupt and corrupt country full of simplistic people who believe what their oil-wealthy dealers tell them to believe.

[TDidier]

You said:"Why should other nations help...because the price of failure is terrorism against THEM too...."

France fight terrorisme for long years ago, when US created AlQaida against Russians in Afghanistan and britain protected terrorists convict of bombing in France in 80'-90'years...
One attempt of crashing an aicraft on Paris was stoped by french police in 1993...

You said "But, the bottom line is that France and Germany are simply puppets of OPEC...and they do what their Arab masters tell them to do."

What is an arab's(OPEC) pupet for you, when US don't publish 28 pages of senatorial report on 9-11. 28 pages about SaudiArabia complicity ?

You said:"France is a morally bankrupt and corrupt country full of simplistic people who believe what their oil-wealthy dealers tell them to believe."

Maybe are you right about the french people but don't you think that the over-simplification of some point of view are stupid (if you are not with me, you are against me... For exemple) ?
Don't come in France you will certainly be desapointed...

About corruption: US lobby which give billion dollars to politics, what is it ? In France, corruption is small rating and ILLEGAL...

SeeU, Didier.
ps: sorry for my poor english

[MGB8]

Don't worry about the English.

France is famous for its corruption - in the US our lobbying and campaign laws are at least open to the public to see. Yours are behind closed doors.

Sometimes its CAN be as simple as "you are either with us or against us." The friend of my enemy is oftentimes my enemy.

The US DID NOT create al-quaida. The US trainined the MUHAJADEEN in Aghganistan - related, but not near the same things as "the US created Al-Quida" - THAT is simplistic and plainly wrong.

Did you notice that France's line on the war was EXACTLY the same as the Arab leagues and OPECs? To the point of CAMPAIGNING against the war?

Do you notice that it is FRANCE that gave Saddam his nuclear program in the 70's and 80's and continued to try to undermine the Sanctions (instead of forcing Saddam to give the oil-for-food money TO HIS PEOPLE for FOOD, etc.) and most likely continued to sell him weapons?

As for the redacting of the document - THE SAUDI'S WANT IT PUBLISHED!!!

Try again.

I'm a Jew - I remember France's history towards us - Dreyfus, Vicci, last years sinagoge bombings, using Israel to keep the Suez open (along with Britain) but embargoing it for defending itself in 1967 (as ties with the Arabs had grown closer), trying to arm Saddam with Nukes...."that sh!tty little country" comment from a French dignitary.....France has made its attitude towards Jews perfectly clear.



Originally posted by TDidier
You said:"Why should other nations help...because the price of failure is terrorism against THEM too...."

France fight terrorisme for long years ago, when US created AlQaida against Russians in Afghanistan and britain protected terrorists convict of bombing in France in 80'-90'years...
One attempt of crashing an aicraft on Paris was stoped by french police in 1993...

You said "But, the bottom line is that France and Germany are simply puppets of OPEC...and they do what their Arab masters tell them to do."

What is an arab's(OPEC) pupet for you, when US don't publish 28 pages of senatorial report on 9-11. 28 pages about SaudiArabia complicity ?

You said:"France is a morally bankrupt and corrupt country full of simplistic people who believe what their oil-wealthy dealers tell them to believe."

Maybe are you right about the french people but don't you think that the over-simplification of some point of view are stupid (if you are not with me, you are against me... For exemple) ?
Don't come in France you will certainly be desapointed...

About corruption: US lobby which give billion dollars to politics, what is it ? In France, corruption is small rating and ILLEGAL...

SeeU, Didier.
ps: sorry for my poor english

[Mediocrates]

Lobbying is not 'corruption'. It is part of the political process. Unlike in France where an unelected technocrat class administers goverance with literally zero accountability the process in US has a feedback loop to connect the legislatures to actual issues. For example did you know what the largest lobby in the US is?

AARP: The American Association of Retired Persons.

#2? The NRA: National Rifle Association.

Included in the top ten are the UAW and AFLCIO. The two largest WORKER UNIONS in the US.

[TDidier]

When I spoke of legal corruption, I don't of course spoke about this normal syndical job of which you said, but about defense and petroleum industry which seem to give orders to this administration...(this point of view is the most retained in the world).

Certainly administration scheme in France is not perfect, but it works... That's right that we have to improve it but like US with their unperfect administration and systems like everywhere in this unperfect world.

CIA support BinLaden and his networks 25 years for... That's a real backfire!

"Sometimes its CAN be as simple as "you are either with us or against us." The friend of my enemy is oftentimes my enemy."
What is simplification is to do a generality with one case...

That's right that France sell a civilian nuclear plan to Irak. It was an error despite the fact of connection between civilian and militarian nuclear are very small... France give Jericho rocket to Israel, was it a mistake to your eyes?
US sell the biological and chimical militarians technologies to SHussein. Us representant send to SHussein was Rumsfeld the great!
The "oil-for-foods" program was totaly justified by the undred-thousands child-dead by privations, visibly you don't have same idea, probably a difference in objetives(goal).

I understand your grief to Vichy french government. They were very closed with the nazi in their minds and Petain stole the power despite the fact he was the man who make German invasion of France possible (Petain was the most important french officer before WWII and rules the strategic views). That was a shame. French are angry too against Vichy government and Petain.

For Dreyfus affair. Have you ever seen a country where half of the population was prepared to civilian war just for the honnour of a "little jew officer"?

If corruption in France is "famous", then it has to be true.
There are many "famous" things about american people in the world and I really hope that all are not true...

SeeU, Didier.

[MGB8]

"The connection between civilian and military nuclear are very small"

Only from a European.

You need (A) to get to (B)....and Iraq doesn't exactly need Nuclear Civilian Energy now, does it...considering its oil and gas and potential solar and wind???

You kid yourself if you think that the French government didn't know that it was helping to try to arm Saddam with Nukes (just like it did along with the US during the Cold War, but, UNFORGIVABLE, also AFTER the Gulf War!)

The "oil-for-food" program FAILED - BECAUSE SADDAM USED THE MONEY TO BUY WEAPONS!!!! Food was held up - it is well documented.

But instead of putting pressure on Saddam to allow the food to go in, France tried to undercut the Sanction and sell him MORE weapons, and French Oil companies made contracts WITH Saddam for "after the sanctions". French hands are soaked in the Blood of Iraqi's that Saddam killed post the cold war - at least the US realized after the cold war that the little satan was no longer necessary to contain Iran and the USSR....France kept playing with him for $$$$ at the expense of the Iraqi people.

As for Israel missles - has Israel EVER fired those missles at any of the states around it? (not air-to-ground in all of the wars of Arab agression - and except for the 56 war they all were - and the 56 war was ordered by FRANCE and BRITAIN over the SUEZ - Israel would have gained more had Egypt NATIONALIZED the canal, so that goods would have passed Tel Aviv - to - Eilat as an alternative Route!!!!)

Like has been repeated many times - if the Jews put down their guns there would be no Israel. If the Arabs put down their guns there would be no war.

[TDidier]

Hi, MGB8,

Where does your informations coming from? FoxNews ? The Simpsons ? :cool:

You respond:""The connection between civilian and military nuclear are very small"

Only from a European."

A civilian nuke plant produce uranium waste, it is the only connection between civilian and militarian nuke for a country which had not develop the both technologys. If Irak buy a nuke plant (that's true for anybody else of course!), he don't buy nuclear technology, only the possibility to produce some low efficient uranium (many years of producing just to build a militarian program). It is not easy to hide nuclear waste... There is very close control.
Irak don't need a nuke plant when he is able to buy one billon tons of uranium in Niger and Mars planet by holyspirit intervention! :D
Do you know that?: when Donald, Duke of Rumsfeld, was at board of directors from ABB (Swiss-Swedean society), this firm sell some important parts for North-Korean nuke plants !

You said:"You kid yourself if you think that the French government didn't know that it was helping to try to arm Saddam with Nukes (just like it did along with the US during the Cold War, but, UNFORGIVABLE, also AFTER the Gulf War!)"

Do you have any information about that, it does interrest me...
That is an american practice to sell weapons to his own enemy, not a french one...(look to Iran-contra scandale)!

You said: "The "oil-for-food" program FAILED - BECAUSE SADDAM USED THE MONEY TO BUY WEAPONS!!!! Food was held up - it is well documented."

I know ! Your informations are coming from foxnews, "The Simpsons" are too credible.

Oil-for-food was an UN program no one dollar serve to SHussein but only to buy food and medicaments.
Iraqui prez make money with smuggling petrol with border-country : Kuwait, SaudiArabia, Syria,Turkey and Iran... three US ally on five...
Some food hold-up can't be prevent but essential of the aid goes to people.
To buy what? Does USarmy found anything else but old tanks and materials ?...

You said: "But instead of putting pressure on Saddam to allow the food to go in, France tried to undercut the Sanction and sell him MORE weapons"

What weapons ? :rolleyes:

You said: "and French Oil companies made contracts WITH Saddam for "after the sanctions"."

Yes, like Russia and others... US oil company try to made same contract with SHussein but have no success.

About 1956 war: Israel participate only in accordance with her interests, for nothing else. You spoke about "all the arab agression war", but there was only two arab agressions against Israel : 1948 and 1973 (but strike-back from precedent 1967 war), all the others were Israeli agressions( 1956, 1967, 1982)...
This is another question for another forum...

SeeU, Didier.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
SeeU, Didier.

I have yet to see you make any constructive remarks about what should be done with Iraq? Why not quit the blame game, cut to the chase, and tell us what the point is you're trying to make?
Try and do it in less than fifty words. It gets tedious.

[MGB8]

TD....

Several things:

1 - you still have not answered several of my original questions (on p.2) - PARTICULARLY about the French line being the same as OPECs....what is your rationale for that.

2 - It WAS NOT in Israel's interest to go to war in '56 - EXCEPT to please the French and British, thinking that they would get loyalty in return (nope.)

3 - Please explain exactly WHY Iraq, with its oil and gas, would ever need a nuke plant except as cover to enrich Uranium?

4 - If Uranium is so easy to monitor, why was North Korea and Iran able to do so behind the eyes of the world?

5 - BIG POINT - READ YOUR HISTORY - in 1967, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (an act of war), blockaded Israel (an act of war), kicked out the peace keepers in the Sinai and moved their tanks and soldiers into it (an act of war), while Jordan, Syria and Iraq mobalized its forces, too, Iraq's troops entering Jordan! (An act of war). HOW IS THAT NOT ARAB AGGRESSION???

If you repeat the line that 67 was Israeli aggression as opposed to pre-emptive self defense (by HOURS, supposedly, and almost not at all because the Arabs had almost struck earlier but the Russians held them off for a little....) then you are repeating a lie of propagandists and will be regarded simply as one of them.

You reveal yourself with this statement.

Oh - and call 1973 by its NAME - the YOM KIPPUR WAR...do not let the Arab leaders forget their Cowardice.

[MGB8]

PS - where is your evidence that US Companies tried to make contracts with Iraq post-Gulf War. I believe that it would be illegal under US law to do so, and thus would not have been done.

It probably is illegal under French law too (dealing with a country under sanction)....but it didn't seem to stop you.

As for French Sales of Weapons to Iraq - I'm willing to let history play this out. I could be wrong....and I'm sure the French and Germans will try very hard to cover up the evidence....but circumstantail evidence points to the notion that the French and Germans sold weapons to Iraq post Gulf War.

[TDidier]

"1 - you still have not answered several of my original questions (on p.2) - PARTICULARLY about the French line being the same as OPECs....what is your rationale for that."

You spoke about Opec's puppet, I just show you what a puppet is... Then if on some points France and Opec are ok, where is the problem ? On Irak there were not just France, but the major part of world's governments and quite the totality of populations...

If sometime I don't respond to your questions, maybe was I ok with you. For exemple, if you say: Chirac is a monkey, I will agree you, but If you say that Chirac does anything wrong on Irak with GWBush, then I do not agree.

"2 - It WAS NOT in Israel's interest to go to war in '56 - EXCEPT to please the French and British, thinking that they would get loyalty in return (nope.)"

Is it not an interest? France was the only country in the world which support Israel when it was born... And all hit to Israel's great opponent was a victory for him.
On France/Israel relation, that is another question for another forum as I say to you.

"3 - Please explain exactly WHY Iraq, with its oil and gas, would ever need a nuke plant except as cover to enrich Uranium?"

You are right, SHussein was certainly interest by atom's power, like many others. But this job will be too big for him. A nuke plant contract include treatment of the waste, impossible to hide it.
Give a nuke plant to SHussein was a fault like all occidental attitude with SHussein and all the other psychopathes supported in the world just in cause of USSR threat.

"4 - If Uranium is so easy to monitor, why was North Korea and Iran able to do so behind the eyes of the world?"

You don't only found uranium in nuke plant wastes. Has France sell a nuke plant to this country?

"5 - BIG POINT - READ YOUR HISTORY - in 1967, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (an act of war), blockaded Israel (an act of war), kicked out the peace keepers in the Sinai and moved their tanks and soldiers into it (an act of war), while Jordan, Syria and Iraq mobalized its forces, too, Iraq's troops entering Jordan! (An act of war). HOW IS THAT NOT ARAB AGGRESSION??? "

Was it the first time some belligerant are mobilizing their troops? Every weeks India and Pakistan do that and it was not the first time in Israel/Arabs conflicts.
Has Israel do wrong by attacking arabs, I really don't know. But Israel attacked the first, it is reason for my count of it in the agressions I'm not sionnist and then have no problem to not follow any propaganda. The only thing I agree that it was a great victory.

"where is your evidence that US Companies tried to make contracts with Iraq post-Gulf War. I believe that it would be illegal under US law to do so, and thus would not have been done. "

Have you ever seen an american company which don't try to make money ?

"It probably is illegal under French law too (dealing with a country under sanction)....but it didn't seem to stop you."

It was not illegal because it concern the end of sanctions.

"As for French Sales of Weapons to Iraq - I'm willing to let history play this out. I could be wrong....and I'm sure the French and Germans will try very hard to cover up the evidence....but circumstantail evidence points to the notion that the French and Germans sold weapons to Iraq post Gulf War"

When you found something...

SeeU, TDous.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I have yet to see you make any constructive remarks about what should be done with Iraq? Why not quit the blame game, cut to the chase, and tell us what the point is you're trying to make?
Try and do it in less than fifty words. It gets tedious.

I agree with you, this is long to give nothing.
I'm still waiting for an answer to mi first post on this forum.
All I received seems more french bashing than anything else...And a bashed french is very agressive (but no one lie in my post)! :p

This thread is on UN call by Senat, but if you open a new one on "what should be done with Iraq?", it will certainly be very interesting.

For the fifty words...hum!... Impossible for me! :D ! ;)

SeeU, TDous.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
I agree with you, this is long to give nothing.
I'm still waiting for an answer to mi first post on this forum.
All I received seems more french bashing than anything else...And a bashed french is very agressive (but no one lie in my post)! :p

This thread is on UN call by Senat, but if you open a new one on "what should be done with Iraq?", it will certainly be very interesting.

For the fifty words...hum!... Impossible for me! :D ! ;)

SeeU, TDous.

Yeah.... I know what this thread is called, mon ami. I'm asking you to tell us what you think should be done about Iraq, in the context of the US Senate saying that Europe and the UN should get involved in Iraq.

You are bashing the US, as to motive for going into Iraq in the first place. It should come as no surprise that some, especially Americans, would question the motives of why France and the others in what has been called "the axis of weasels" did nothing but block the United States at the onset and bad mouth them throughout the conflict.

All I want to know, and others besides myself, is what you think Europe and the UN have to contribute to Iraq, sans all the bashing, as the US Senate has suggested.

[Mediocrates]

You wade in and swing a big stick around pretty much condeming everything and everyone American and Israeli in order to affix blame for the entire mideast since 1956. And then you pretty much blow off any counter claim with a Gallic shrug and a 'we'll see'. I also noted that you rarely if ever answer a direct charge directly which pretty much makes you a troll.

Sorry for my poor English -

CUL8R

[Mediocrates]

I suspect you can spit in a Frenchman's eye, screw his wife and send him the DVD, tell him his cooking sux and his wine is piss but the one thing you can never say to a Frenchman is that you don't take him as seriously as he does.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I suspect you can spit in a Frenchman's eye, screw his wife and send him the DVD, tell him his cooking sux and his wine is piss but the one thing you can never say to a Frenchman is that you don't take him as seriously as he does.



when the insults come, the bottom of the thought is seen. :rolleyes:

Seeu, Didier.

ps: when you write CUL8R, is that an invitation to make sex at 8 o'clock? If you read it in french of course! :D
Sorry, I'm not gay. Don't dream, you don't interest me for that...

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
when the insults come, the bottom of the thought is seen. :rolleyes:

Seeu, Didier.

ps: when you write CUL8R, is that an invitation to make sex at 8 o'clock? If you read it in french of course! :D
Sorry, I'm not gay. Don't dream, you don't interest me for that...

Have you given any thought as to how the EU and the UN can answer the US Senate's call for support in Iraq? Are the EU and UN interested in helping stabilize Iraq and the Middle East?

BTW, did you see the arrest made for the truck bomb incident at the UN headquarters in Baghdad? It was four Palestinians and two Kuwaitis, so far. Those guys have strayed a little far from the WB and Gaza, don't you think?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by TDidier
when the insults come, the bottom of the thought is seen. :rolleyes:

Seeu, Didier.

ps: when you write CUL8R, is that an invitation to make sex at 8 o'clock? If you read it in french of course! :D
Sorry, I'm not gay. Don't dream, you don't interest me for that...

No affront taken - to each their idiom. But I guess I sort of nailed it.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Have you given any thought as to how the EU and the UN can answer the US Senate's call for support in Iraq? Are the EU and UN interested in helping stabilize Iraq and the Middle East?

BTW, did you see the arrest made for the truck bomb incident at the UN headquarters in Baghdad? It was four Palestinians and two Kuwaitis, so far. Those guys have strayed a little far from the WB and Gaza, don't you think?


Sorry but some others participants on this board needed a response and I send my posts only when I have time for that.

"Have you given any thought as to how ...", is that an exam ? Have you send a response on my first question ?

The real question is: why US Bush administration hyjacked the "war on terror" ? That is what the whole world do not understand !

Bush received allegence from all occidental world and a major part of others country to fight terrorisme. Some states known as terrorist supporter seemed on the way to drop them. Most important: USA seemed to drop all the psychopathes leaders support by CIA. It was a really hope for many people and they agreed to give US the plein-power.
It has well begun, the terrific taliban regime, that the world look at with terror has been renversed from Kaboul and...

...nothing :confused:

A colonial war to a small regional dictator when at the same time North korea reinforced his nuke power, Iran developed intercontinental missiles and the job was not finish in Afghanistan. . .
Today the talibans are on the point to reconquer power !
USA deal at egal-to-egal with a dictator who has killed by privation more than 2 millions of his own people. Iran is on the point to be augmented by a new chiite power in Irak and develop officialy a militar nuke program.

And to end, the top of the top: Irak which was exempt from all muslim extremist is now their training-area (you have now your respons for: "It was four Palestinians and two Kuwaitis, so far. Those guys have strayed a little far from the WB and Gaza")

I have nothing against american people but against Bush administration. Do not dream anytime more on "anti-americanisme", there's just some citizen of the world who are angry against bush lies...

Did I reach the 50 words? Yes, then I will continue in another post. After "why is Iraq invasion condamn by the whole world", it will follow by: "what should be done with Iraq?"

Just a point I was not "You are bashing the US, as to motive for going into Iraq in the first place", I send answers to some participants, all what I said was exact ...

SeeU, Didier.

[minusthejihad]

Saying "the whole world condemns" or "everybody" or "every person" or "every country" or whole this or all that is basically like regressing into 5th grade speak.

Unless you have travelled around the world, spoken to all its inhabitants and polled every person, please try not to make generalizations like that. It really makes you look like a poor debator.

Lastly, here is the point that you may not get:

You can come in here and hurl insults at Americans, Israelis, Jews or whomever you like and get your rocks off, but really all you are doing, is trying to make yourself feel better.

Persoanlly I don't spend more than a second of each day caring about what you, the French people, the haters, the anti-semitists, the Whole World, the Arab world, or anyone thinks about us or me. We simply, "don't give a F!"

P.S. You sure must watch a lot of Simpsoms.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by TDidier
Today the talibans are on the point to reconquer power !

Irak which was exempt from all muslim extremist

LOL. 2 statements that made me laugh today. Thanks Frenchie!

[TDidier]

I will certainly show this signature on all my posts: "sorry for my poor english" but it does not allow all my fault of language of course... :o ...


But now, the war!

You said"Saying "the whole world condemns" or "everybody" or "every person" or "every country" or whole this or all that is basically like regressing into 5th grade speak."

I never used to speech english with anybody, just read some paper and web pages. All of this is not so bad at all ? !

by "whole world" I try to said the immense majority of the world. American people were alone to support this war, even the british were against that, and america is a very minor part of world population...

You said:"You can come in here and hurl insults at Americans, Israelis, Jews or whomever you like and get your rocks off, but really all you are doing, is trying to make yourself feel better. "

When did I insult anybody ? I think that you are looking for unstress yourself...

You said "Persoanlly I don't spend more than a second of each day caring about what you, the French people, the haters, the anti-semitists, the Whole World, the Arab world, or anyone thinks about us or me. We simply, "don't give a F!""

Who is now a hater, a racist ? That is pitty minus my friend...

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
LOL. 2 statements that made me laugh today. Thanks Frenchie!

There'is just kaboul which is in the hands of Karzaï, Taliban are everywhere in the country.

No one islamists terroristes in Irak befor invasion. They are entering now, that what said USarmy...

SeeU, minus my friend.

Didier.

[Johnny Yuma]

Look, TDidier, I don't care how we got to where we are; it doesn't matter. The point is that we are there and I'm asking you to tell me what should be done about it. It's much easier to complain and find fault than it is to offer a solution. Tell us, specifically, and in great detail, precisely how to "fix" the problem in the middle east, and how to stop terrorism. You're French. You're the smartest people on the planet, aren't you? Tell us how to make everything right. Personally, of all the people on this forum, only you are sure to have the correct answers. Dazzle us with your superior French intellect, please.

[MGB8]

TD...

You have not yet responded to any of my 5 points, in particular the last one. This weakens whatever credibility you had.

Nor have you answered Johnny's question...

or, to broaden it...why exactly did France go to such lengths to oppose the US War in Iraq?

Was it because of humanitarian concerns? but if so, what about the fact that Saddam Hussein killed more of his people, and was continuing to do so, and tortured and raped more...than the US could ever hope to do? That doesn't make sense.

OR, was it that a combination of reasons: (1) OPEC's telling their French pawns what to do, (2) French oil contracts with Saddam, and (3) to cover up French & German sale of weaponry to Iraq during the Sanctions and other French actions or complicity in subverting the UN Resolutions.

As for US reasons to go to war in Iraq - 3 main reasons:

#1 - The Arab dictators had begun to see the US as "paper tigers" who could not enforce consequences on hostile actions (ie. funding terrorism). Saddam was at the forefront of hostile actions towards the US - continuing to violate the terms of the cease fire WHICH IT AGREED TO. Moreover, since he was an evil regime anyways, who paid families of suicide bombers as incentive for terrorist actions, who was ammassing weapons of mass destruction in further violation of the cease fire (we know that the programs were continuing post UN - remember that it was defectors who showed us how he was decieving UN inspectors, not the inspections...and we know that they had THOUSANDS of Chem. Suits at front line positions during the war, along with antidotes, KNOWING that the US and UK wouldn't use chemical weapons...begging the question - if they had suits to protect themselves from weapons that they knew that the US and UK wouldn't use...whose weapons where they protecting themselves from????) ... I digress...these factors made Saddam Hussein a perfect example to the region.

#2 - To break up OPEC's oil Kabal by having a democratic state deal/compete with them.

#3 - To CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT that was producing terrorism - namely to bring republican democracy and respect for the individual and the right to be different into the Arab world. Iraq is perfect for this because it is a Pluralist nation (Kurds, Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs, Assyrians) and will not survive w/out a democracy that respects the rights of these groups to be different from the majority.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Look, TDidier, I don't care how we got to where we are; it doesn't matter. The point is that we are there and I'm asking you to tell me what should be done about it. It's much easier to complain and find fault than it is to offer a solution. Tell us, specifically, and in great detail, precisely how to "fix" the problem in the middle east, and how to stop terrorism. You're French. You're the smartest people on the planet, aren't you? Tell us how to make everything right. Personally, of all the people on this forum, only you are sure to have the correct answers. Dazzle us with your superior French intellect, please.

You said: "Look, TDidier, I don't care how we got to where we are..."

That is an error!

How to take the good way if you don't know where you come from ? :D

""No matter where you go, there you are."
Buckaroo Bonzai"

That is nice, but for hollydays only...

You do not see the relationship but that enables me to better understand you.

You said "Dazzle us with your superior French intellect, please."

Thank you very much you are nice ! but you know, it exists of French more intelligent than me... Yes, it's true... :D

The intelligence is with the stupidity the thing best partaged in the world ... No racial supperiority.
I don't have always right, but I just answered to the most erroneous sendings and only when I had something to say...

You said "It's much easier to complain and find fault than it is to offer a solution"

Work on the causes of the conflict. Find the true consequences. Then we will be able to discuss the possible solutions... But do not dream, no miracle solution does not exist, nothing in white or black, with me or against me, as you like them so much...

SeeU, Didier.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
You said: "Look, TDidier, I don't care how we got to where we are..."

That is an error!

How to take the good way if you don't know where you come from ? :D

""No matter where you go, there you are."
Buckaroo Bonzai"

That is nice, but for hollydays only...

You do not see the relationship but that enables me to better understand you.

You said "Dazzle us with your superior French intellect, please."

Thank you very much you are nice ! but you know, it exists of French more intelligent than me... Yes, it's true... :D

The intelligence is with the stupidity the thing best partaged in the world ... No racial supperiority.
I don't have always right, but I just answered to the most erroneous sendings and only when I had something to say...

You said "It's much easier to complain and find fault than it is to offer a solution"

Work on the causes of the conflict. Find the true consequences. Then we will be able to discuss the possible solutions... But do not dream, no miracle solution does not exist, nothing in white or black, with me or against me, as you like them so much...

SeeU, Didier.

Ahhh..... all you have to offer is what you believe the "cause" of the conflict is and have no cure. This forum, therefore, is nothing more than a place for you to come and have your own personal protest parade . This means that you are no different than those who have already come, and some, gone, before you, since that is precisely what they, like you, have said and done; just circled around the issues and avoided commiting to any resolution to the various conflicts; not willing to take a chance of being wrong, and are nothing more than a continuation of a long line of cowards, and poseurs of French intellectualism.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Ahhh..... all you have to offer is what you believe the "cause" of the conflict is and have no cure. This forum, therefore, is nothing more than a place for you to come and have your own personal protest parade . This means that you are no different than those who have already come, and some, gone, before you, since that is precisely what they, like you, have said and done; just circled around the issues and avoided commiting to any resolution to the various conflicts; not willing to take a chance of being wrong, and are nothing more than a continuation of a long line of cowards, and poseurs of French intellectualism.

What is a simplification ! No easy answer means no answer... :rolleyes:

SeeU, Didier.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:



Bush received allegence from all occidental world and a major part of others country to fight terrorisme. Some states known as terrorist supporter seemed on the way to drop them.


Which states?


Most important: USA seemed to drop all the psychopathes leaders support by CIA.


Which leaders? And why the CIA?


It was a really hope for many people and they agreed to give US the plein-power.
It has well begun, the terrific taliban regime, that the world look at with terror has been renversed from Kaboul and...

...nothing


Nothing what? Please continue....



A colonial war to a small regional dictator when at the same time North korea reinforced his nuke power, Iran developed intercontinental missiles and the job was not finish in Afghanistan. . .


Saddam is not a small regional dictator but was a huge player in the politics of the Arab world. At the least Iraq maintained the biggest army in the Middle East and in the Arab world. Not to mention that Iraqi oil reserves are one of the largest in the world which makes Iraq a very important world player....

But please elaborate on the word "colonial." If anything it was France that was the largest buyer of Iraqi oil.


Today the talibans are on the point to reconquer power !


Really?!!!!!!! Source, proof....


USA deal at egal-to-egal with a dictator who has killed by privation more than 2 millions of his own people. Iran is on the point to be augmented by a new chiite power in Irak and develop officialy a militar nuke program.


So? Iran and North Korea can be approached diplomatically.... By the way is there anything on the French diplomatic front?


And to end, the top of the top: Irak which was exempt from all muslim extremist is now their training-area (you have now your respons for: "It was four Palestinians and two Kuwaitis, so far. Those guys have strayed a little far from the WB and Gaza")


What are you talking about?


I have nothing against american people but against Bush administration.


I have all against the French people and your propoganda filled government. I heard anti-semitism is on the rise - can you explain?


Do not dream anytime more on "anti-americanisme", there's just some citizen of the world who are angry against bush lies...


Did you agree with the bombing of Serbia? The entire Eastern Europe was against it - but of course France was not...


Did I reach the 50 words? Yes, then I will continue in another post. After "why is Iraq invasion condamn by the whole world", it will follow by: "what should be done with Iraq?"


Specifically what will France's role be given the current complete fiasco of acting anything approaching a country with any kind of a plan....

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
What is a simplification ! No easy answer means no answer... :rolleyes:

SeeU, Didier.

According to the principle of Ocham's Razor, the simplest answer tends to be the best answer, but you have no answers, so the argument is moot; unresolved, in other words; and the simplification is........you simply like to hear yourself bitch.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by TDier:



Bush received allegence from all occidental world and a major part of others country to fight terrorisme. Some states known as terrorist supporter seemed on the way to drop them.


Which states?

All these states ! All affraid by 9-11 consequences and the response of US and occidental world...


Most important: USA seemed to drop all the psychopathes leaders support by CIA.


Which leaders? And why the CIA?

CIA is not an angel nest. All arab kings, lords of war in Afghanistan (at this time the talibans and bin laden!), lords of war in central and west Africa. Old connection with south-american former juntas, protected for their silence on "condor operation".
The others occidental intelligence services have their own crimes to hide but CIA is the most important, and if CIA does something the others must follow...


It was a really hope for many people and they agreed to give US the plein-power.
It has well begun, the terrific taliban regime, that the world look at with terror has been renversed from Kaboul and...

...nothing


Nothing what? Please continue....

Just have to look down... :rolleyes:

A colonial war to a small regional dictator when at the same time North korea reinforced his nuke power, Iran developed intercontinental missiles and the job was not finish in Afghanistan. . .


Saddam is not a small regional dictator but was a huge player in the politics of the Arab world. At the least Iraq maintained the biggest army in the Middle East and in the Arab world. Not to mention that Iraqi oil reserves are one of the largest in the world which makes Iraq a very important world player....

Did you sleep for the past 12 years? which is the relationship with the Iraqi petrol ?

But please elaborate on the word "colonial." If anything it was France that was the largest buyer of Iraqi oil.

A customer is not a colonialist, a conquerer is one... Especially if it comes to adapt a richness (oil and bases...)


Today the talibans are on the point to reconquer power !


Really?!!!!!!! Source, proof....

There is one source...
http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EG30Ag01.html

and taliban forces are rising in all Afghanistan now...


USA deal at egal-to-egal with a dictator who has killed by privation more than 2 millions of his own people. Iran is on the point to be augmented by a new chiite power in Irak and develop officialy a militar nuke program.


So? Iran and North Korea can be approached diplomatically.... By the way is there anything on the French diplomatic front?

Don't you think that there's a problem with the causes of Irak war? I agree that it is easyer to conquer a country with no army than this two powerfull states... But this two country are making a real threat on the US and the world.


And to end, the top of the top: Irak which was exempt from all muslim extremist is now their training-area (you have now your respons for: "It was four Palestinians and two Kuwaitis, so far. Those guys have strayed a little far from the WB and Gaza")


What are you talking about?

something which don't concern you...


I have nothing against american people but against Bush administration.


I have all against the French people and your propoganda filled government. I heard anti-semitism is on the rise - can you explain?

France was quite exampt from antisemitism before 2nd intifada (do you know that the arabs are semites?). With 6 millions arabs and 700000 jews, the ME tensions are growing in France and that is pitty for us. What is an antisemit act in france : a tag, an insult, sometime (but fortunately it is rare) an agression. The ratio (for global antisemite acts) was on 2 per days(for 700.000 persons) in the heat.
You see, nothing to compare with ME, or insecurity in USA...



Do not dream anytime more on "anti-americanisme", there's just some citizen of the world who are angry against bush lies...


Did you agree with the bombing of Serbia? The entire Eastern Europe was against it - but of course France was not...

I agree Kosovo liberation before some serbian ethnic killer would finished their job... I'm against all sort of "lebensborn".


Did I reach the 50 words? Yes, then I will continue in another post. After "why is Iraq invasion condamn by the whole world", it will follow by: "what should be done with Iraq?"


Specifically what will France's role be given the current complete fiasco of acting anything approaching a country with any kind of a plan....

Are you saying that US creat himself a quagmire without any plan to to leave the place ?!!?


SeeU, Didier.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


All these states ! All affraid by 9-11 consequences and the response of US and occidental world...


I still don't understand you. but that's okay - I guess you are confused.


CIA is not an angel nest. All arab kings, lords of war in Afghanistan (at this time the talibans and bin laden!), lords of war in central and west Africa. Old connection with south-american former juntas, protected for their silence on "condor operation".
The others occidental intelligence services have their own crimes to hide but CIA is the most important, and if CIA does something the others must follow...


Blah - Blah - Blah. You still did not put out anything of substance to what exactly the CIA did outside the X-File type conspiracy theories. So it's irrelevant.



Just have to look down...


Are you trying to saduce me?


Did you sleep for the past 12 years? which is the relationship with the Iraqi petrol ?


Huge!!!! 80% of Iraqi national revenues come from oil!!!! As far as Iraqi army is concerned it was actually one of the biggest in the world and all supported by oil revenues. I can throw out some numbers - especially as they applied to the 80s - but then again who is interested?


A customer is not a colonialist, a conquerer is one... Especially if it comes to adapt a richness (oil and bases...)


So generally after WWII US colonized France and Germany for a while. Actually it is still a colonial power in Germany. Please elaborate.


There is one source...
http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EG30Ag01.html

and taliban forces are rising in all Afghanistan now...


Okay. In comparison to what. The article is pretty weak.



USA deal at egal-to-egal with a dictator who has killed by privation more than 2 millions of his own people. Iran is on the point to be augmented by a new chiite power in Irak and develop officialy a militar nuke program.


I still don't understand of what exactly you are complaining about.



Don't you think that there's a problem with the causes of Irak war?


None what's so ever. Of course given that you know at the least some history or rather political history of the Arab world and the Middle East in general. But I guess outside of what they show on FP and print in La Monde your knowledge ends and the conspiracy theories begin. Read.




I agree that it is easyer to conquer a country with no army than this two powerfull states... But this two country are making a real threat on the US and the world.


I don't understand..... But that's okay. I guess in France the school system does not teach word cohision.


something which don't concern you...


No? Interesting. You made a claim now support it with evidence.


France was quite exampt from antisemitism before 2nd intifada (do you know that the arabs are semites?).


Not all Arabs are semites. But in any case you know exactly what anti-semitism is and it does not in any way shape or form absolve to what's happening in France.


With 6 millions arabs and 700000 jews, the ME tensions are growing in France and that is pitty for us.


That's a shame on you. Where are the mass demonstrations? Where is the media? I am not asking the French to be pro-Israeli at least protect and defend your own Jews!!!! Yet - Europe sleeps.


What is an antisemit act in france : a tag, an insult, sometime (but fortunately it is rare) an agression.


Please don't apologize. Agression is the least of anti-semitism. If anything of the sort was happening in America the demonstrations would line up from LA to NY.


The ratio (for global antisemite acts) was on 2 per days(for 700.000 persons) in the heat.
You see, nothing to compare with ME, or insecurity in USA...


Again - who cares? What are the French people doing about it?


Do not dream anytime more on "anti-americanisme", there's just some citizen of the world who are angry against bush lies...



Who cares. America has been solving world problems since WWII and who cares if some idiot does not agree with it.


I agree Kosovo liberation before some serbian ethnic killer would finished their job... I'm against all sort of "lebensborn".


But you don't go out or even organize a demonstration against French anti-semitism. Interesting. I am really concerned of your moral stands.


By the way the expulsion of Albanian Kosovars started with the bombing of Serbia and not prior. And by the way bombing of Serbia broke each and every article of the International law and every chapter of the UN Charter. The latter makes me believe that France only supports of what it deams as profitable rather than applicable to some moral code - which France says it represents. If you remember there were huge demonstrations in China and Russia against bombing Serbia but then you didn't care.... Or did you?



Are you saying that US creat himself a quagmire without any plan to to leave the place ?!!?


I am saying that countries like France cannot make commitments. France cannot do much but react and comment.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
[B]According to the principle of Ocham's Razor, the simplest answer tends to be the best answer, but you have no answers, so the argument is moot; unresolved, in other words; and the simplification is........you simply like to hear yourself bitch.

have patience... I will give your answer (in limits of what I am able to give of course).
For this moment I answer somebody else and then we will speak.
I can't spend all my time on this forum. I have a 35hours per weeks job! :D

"the simplest answer tends to be the best answer"

Yes, but the simplest answer need many much smartness than you seemed to think...

"you simply like to hear yourself bitch. "

That is something that we do very well, us the french...as you see. :D

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by MGB8
TD...

->"You have not yet responded to any of my 5 points, in particular the last one. This weakens whatever credibility you had."

That's not a problem. Have I lied one time in my precedent posts ? It will be enougth for my credibility.

->"or, to broaden it...why exactly did France go to such lengths to oppose the US War in Iraq?"

There give a war against terrorisme why stop the effort just for to destitute this little psychopate SHussein? US credibility has crashed at this time. For many people they have to persuade that there is no future for terroristic actions.

->"Was it because of humanitarian concerns?"

It was one of the reasons.

->"but if so, what about the fact that Saddam Hussein killed more of his people, and was continuing to do so, and tortured and raped more...than the US could ever hope to do? That doesn't make sense."

This war make quite 37.000 deads (iraqui hospitalian sources, but you can to not trust that)
--(do you know that US hospitalian sources give 4000 injuried, but you can to not trust them, but US officials only count less than 1000.?.)--
For the precedent Gulfwar, the estimations are around 200.000 deads.
Do you know that the chiite revolte in 1991 was reduce in blood directly under GI's eyes? Even your president G.Bush(1st) ask them to fight SHussein... But when his brillant councelors done comprehension that if SHussein falled it was a new chiite power which was hable to rise behind Iranian one in ME, Bush condamn them imediatly!


->"OR, was it that a combination of reasons: (1) OPEC's telling their French pawns what to do, (2) French oil contracts with Saddam, and (3) to cover up French & German sale of weaponry to Iraq during the Sanctions and other French actions or complicity in subverting the UN Resolutions."

That's feareys, and you told me about propaganda! CIA, NSA, FBI and Men In Black are still looking for this weapons. Please talk me about that only when it will be found.

You spoke about relations between Opec and France... I don't understand. Where is the problem if they agreed on some specific points (the major part of the world agreed with anti-war positions, are they all buy by Opec?).
USA is the most important customer of oil and when you saw how quickly they withdraw the 28 page of senat report, just on one phone call from an ambassador (not an dirigeant, just intermediary one), how not to smile as reading what you said about Opec's puppet?

->"As for US reasons to go to war in Iraq - 3 main reasons:

#1 - The Arab dictators had begun to see the US as "paper tigers""

You are wrong, american power was very impressive. Now they look US as "paper tiger"

->"who could not enforce consequences on hostile actions (ie. funding terrorism). Saddam was at the forefront of hostile actions towards the US - continuing to violate the terms of the cease fire WHICH IT AGREED TO. "

SH paid kamikases familly and Israel erase theyre houses. Israel create more kamikase vocation by doing that than SH to paid for that. This systeme feed himself.
SH has no one time have the possibility to agress US and he never do that.
What cease-in-fire? Anglo-saxon strikes have never really finished.
When it give no any lonely old radar to strike they erase phone center with everithing setting around...

->"Moreover, since he was an evil regime anyways, who paid families of suicide bombers as incentive for terrorist actions"

Exact. He have to pay for that, not iraqui people. Many iraqis died and SH is still running...

->"who was ammassing weapons of mass destruction in further violation of the cease fire (we know that the programs were continuing post UN - remember that it was defectors who showed us how he was decieving UN inspectors, not the inspections...and we know that they had THOUSANDS of Chem. Suits at front line positions during the war, along with antidotes, KNOWING that the US and UK wouldn't use chemical weapons...begging the question - if they had suits to protect themselves from weapons that they knew that the US and UK wouldn't use...whose weapons where they protecting themselves from????) ... I digress...these factors made Saddam Hussein a perfect example to the region."

Unexact. No weapons found, all you said was based on total virtualism. The fact are that no WMD were found and that US and UK used tons of URANIUM shells on Irak. The major part of informations said that any WND programme did no longer exist.
And many of US and UK justifications has convict of mensonger affirmations...

->"#2 - To break up OPEC's oil Kabal by having a democratic state deal/compete with them."

You see, you are able to found some true reason: stole oil.

->"#3 - To CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT that was producing terrorism "

Environment that produce terrorisme is the injustice, privations and the shame of the defeat.

->" namely to bring republican democracy and respect for the individual and the right to be different into the Arab world. Iraq is perfect for this because it is a Pluralist nation (Kurds, Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs, Assyrians) and will not survive w/out a democracy that respects the rights of these groups to be different from the majority. "

Great and generous idea. Good luck, you trust the futur of democracy and of our civilisation. I hope that it will not be simply destoyed... :(

SeeU, Didier.

[Mediocrates]

There appears to be a factual dichotomy here and someone has got to start getting their stories straight.

If we assume that depleted Uranium is such a huge problem that thousands of Iraqis are evaporating before our eyes from the stuff, how is it that years of weapons inspectors looking for weapons grade fissile material including Uranium couldn't find anything? Or more precisely how could they say with a straight face that they found no evidence of anything whatsoever.

Seems that one of those stories is bunk.

[Mediocrates]

Hello Brother Racoons!

We should have no expectation that there is anything we can do that can result in modern western style liberal democratic republicanism in Iraq or any other similar country. The very notion that those are valuable things to them is as alien and requiring them to all speak a new language. We love to point to WW2 as examples but what about them? Japan was crushed, an order of magnitude more crushed than Iraq and they had no power to voice or resist anything we pushed on them. Likewise Germany - more than 15% of their people were dead and every city lay in rubble. Plus they already had a weak tradtition of western norms.

Iraq is still largely functioning, mostly with the same people we were sent there to kill. And they have NEVER EVER had any of prerequisites for such a thing. They were living hundreds of years in the past until around 1938. Since then it's been war, civil war, tyranny, neglect. We might as well require them all to become Jews.

So let's get off this "instill democracy" garbage and decide which somewhat benign tyrant, general, military committee, people's revolutionary guard or supreme council of mullahs we and they can live with with a minimum of us having to stay there or come back to kick their asses again.

I guarantee that the biggest dumbass political mistake ever in the region was the Iranian takeover of the American Embassy. Without that they would still be our friends. We don't care what they do to themselves and neither does anyone else. Did we ever hear the EU make a peep about human rights in Iran/q or make the sale of some dangerous and expensive technology contingent on some internal political action or statement or foreign relations policy that might stabilize the region? Of course not.

They are and have always been there to be used for our own purposes whenever they have let us. And whatever Wazoo runs the crazyhouse is of almost no importance. I could rip a page from the service instructions of my TV translated from Chinese to Japanese to English and slash out a constitution as worthy as any that's bound to mean anything to them.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


Environment that produce terrorisme is the injustice, privations and the shame of the defeat.


Actually it's mostly failed aspirations of various Arab leaders. Have you ever read on the history of post WWII Iraq? I can recommend some things..... Are you up for a challenge? Or we can start with Syria then progress to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan. Pick your choice.

[Mil]

Posted by Mediocrates:

Likewise Germany - more than 15% of their people were dead and every city lay in rubble. Plus they already had a weak tradtition of western norms.


Yep. You are 100% right. Apparently Europe periodically forget that the battle scream of our boys in both of the wars that Europeans have started was: "Make the world safe for Democracy!" And they did - All of Europe that America invaded is Democratic and even Germany is a Democracy. The latter is amazing given the history of Germany.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
[B]According to the principle of Ocham's Razor, the simplest answer tends to be the best answer, but you have no answers, so the argument is moot; unresolved, in other words; and the simplification is........you simply like to hear yourself bitch.

have patience... I will give your answer (in limits of what I am able to give of course).
For this moment I answer somebody else and then we will speak.
I can't spend all my time on this forum. I have a 35hours per weeks job!

"the simplest answer tends to be the best answer"

Yes, but the simplest answer need many much smartness than you seemed to think...

"you simply like to hear yourself bitch. "

That is something that we do very well, us the french...as you see. :D

SeeU, Didier.

[MGB8]

TD...your post didn't make a lot of sense.

The only thing I got from it was that you "can't trust the Iraqi hospital numbers" or something like that. There is a difference between civilian and military casualties.

What is this about a Shi'ite power?

TD...do you understand that the rule of the Majority - the rule of the mob/masses...that is "pure" democracy is just one step shy of tyranny? A Shi'ite rule would quickly become tyranny over none shi'ite groups - repressing those groups brutally (like Iran) just like Saddam repressed them.

The Founding fathers of the US feared this as much as they feared the tyranny of the dictator, and so they created a system with checks and balances, so that no one faction became to powerful, and also a system that was limited in its powers by its constitution so that it would respect the rights of the minorities.

THAT is what Iraq is a test case for - a system where all arabs and all muslims, and non-arabs and non-muslims, may worship as they wish, but may not opress there brethren.

This is NOT pure democracy....but it is the only democracy that really WORKS in a pluralistic society!


Originally posted by TDidier
"

Great and generous idea. Good luck, you trust the futur of democracy and of our civilisation. I hope that it will not be simply destoyed... :(

SeeU, Didier.

[MGB8]

Oh, I understood one other thing...and to counter - Strikes ONLY OCCURRED AFTER Saddam Hussein would violate a cease fire.

Of course, you put the cart before the horse and say that the CONSEQUENCE to a violation is a violation in of itself - just like the Pal Arabs do....

Your credibility is sinking...


Originally posted by MGB8
TD...your post didn't make a lot of sense.

The only thing I got from it was that you "can't trust the Iraqi hospital numbers" or something like that. There is a difference between civilian and military casualties.

What is this about a Shi'ite power?

TD...do you understand that the rule of the Majority - the rule of the mob/masses...that is "pure" democracy is just one step shy of tyranny? A Shi'ite rule would quickly become tyranny over none shi'ite groups - repressing those groups brutally (like Iran) just like Saddam repressed them.

The Founding fathers of the US feared this as much as they feared the tyranny of the dictator, and so they created a system with checks and balances, so that no one faction became to powerful, and also a system that was limited in its powers by its constitution so that it would respect the rights of the minorities.

THAT is what Iraq is a test case for - a system where all arabs and all muslims, and non-arabs and non-muslims, may worship as they wish, but may not opress there brethren.

This is NOT pure democracy....but it is the only democracy that really WORKS in a pluralistic society!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MGB8

This is NOT pure democracy....but it is the only democracy that really WORKS in a pluralistic society!

That's absolutely correct. We're not a democracy, we're a republic that's democratic in form.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Hello Brother Racoons!

.......We don't care what they do to themselves and neither does anyone else.


When I see Shi'ittes killing Sunnis, and vice versa, on the television, I feel like popping a bag of popcorn, propping up my feet, turning the sound down and putting "The Sound Of Music" soundtrack on the stereo.....

[TDidier]

There's something which I'm totaly ok with. And you would have no problem of language comprehension (I gess).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1034603,00.html

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Difference between what official said and what hospital recived...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1011691,00.html

For the moment...

SeeU, Didier.

[Mediocrates]

That ratio is entirely normal. That it's unreported is unremarkable. Did you know that nearly all casualties in Afghanistan are because of accidents, equipment failures and 'off time' incidents? Did you know that for example the high altitude, thin air and mountainous terrain in Afghanistan makes low speed plane and helicopter sorties some of the most dangerous in the world?

I would gander that in Iraq the constant stress of the high temperature contributes greatly to the fatigue the leads to accidents and mistakes. Have you ever tried it?

[Mediocrates]

Of course since one large contingent was turned over today to Polish control we'll, of course, if the Poles are any better at this.

Oh wait, no we won't. We'll never hear a peep out of the Guardian about that.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

I would gander that in Iraq the constant stress of the high temperature contributes greatly to the fatigue the leads to accidents and mistakes. Have you ever tried it?

He could spend a week here; in Arizona. I could house him in a tent in the backyard. It's not 127 degrees, like in Iraq, but I bet he wouldn't be able to tell much difference between that and the 116 he'd find here. I'd give him about a hour, 'til he melted....

If he didn't succumb to the heat, outright, we could move to the next level; paintballs and full camo. It's fun, around noon.... :D

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
That ratio is entirely normal. That it's unreported is unremarkable. Did you know that nearly all casualties in Afghanistan are because of accidents, equipment failures and 'off time' incidents? Did you know that for example the high altitude, thin air and mountainous terrain in Afghanistan makes low speed plane and helicopter sorties some of the most dangerous in the world?

I would gander that in Iraq the constant stress of the high temperature contributes greatly to the fatigue the leads to accidents and mistakes. Have you ever tried it?

I know what you said, just have to read this:

http://figaro.concileo.com/user/non-frames/message.asp?forumid=224&messageid=208795&threadid=208756&parentid=3

Look at the dates.

You are completly right this is a real war like Afghanistan(USSR) or Vietnam or decolonisation one which is beginning in Irak... :(

That is the only important things you have to understand. :rolleyes:

SeeU, Mediocrates my friend.

[Mediocrates]

Yes I undertand what you're saying but this is entirely normal nonbattlefield casualties always outnumber battlefield casualties and injuries always outnumber deaths. It's sad but true that soldiers get hurt a lot more frequently when not fighting than when fighting. That's because the army needs them to fight when their fighting.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
He could spend a week here; in Arizona. I could house him in a tent in the backyard. It's not 127 degrees, like in Iraq, but I bet he wouldn't be able to tell much difference between that and the 116 he'd find here. I'd give him about a hour, 'til he melted....

If he didn't succumb to the heat, outright, we could move to the next level; paintballs and full camo. It's fun, around noon.... :D

Thank you for the invitation, maybe, if I come in Arizona one day...

What sort of desert do you have ? :)
I survived the "canicule", I gess I will survive in your desert.
There was 116° in my court just at front of my house one month ago(I live near from Paris(in the north of France)) no doubt I will spend good holydays in your home!
For the food, be quiet, I will bring my own.

Paintball, nice idea, I never shoot with that!

SeeU, JYuma my nice hollydays friend.

Didier.(a future happy tourist in USA)

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Yes I undertand what you're saying but this is entirely normal nonbattlefield casualties always outnumber battlefield casualties and injuries always outnumber deaths. It's sad but true that soldiers get hurt a lot more frequently when not fighting than when fighting. That's because the army needs them to fight when their fighting.

The problem is that the causualty will increase... :(

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
Thank you for the invitation, maybe, if I come in Arizona one day...

What sort of desert do you have ? :)
I survived the "canicule", I gess I will survive in your desert.
There was 116° in my court just at front of my house one month ago(I live near from Paris(in the north of France)) no doubt I will spend good holydays in your home!
For the food, be quiet, I will bring my own.

Paintball, nice idea, I never shoot with that!

SeeU, JYuma my nice hollydays friend.

Didier.(a future happy tourist in USA)

Uhh... sorry Didier. It wasn't an invitation. It was a hypothetical scenario. But if it was, you could leave the breads, cheeses, cold soup, snails, and frogs at home; I have plenty of them at my place, along with some great California wines. :D

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
There's something which I'm totaly ok with. And you would have no problem of language comprehension (I gess).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1034603,00.html

SeeU, Didier.


And what about this one? I don't think we'll ever get a straight answer from any frog....

France Insists It Wants U.S. to Win War (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030328_925.html)

[TDidier]

->"Uhh... sorry Didier. It wasn't an invitation. It was a hypothetical scenario. But if it was, you could leave the breads, cheeses, cold soup, snails, and frogs at home; I have plenty of them at my place, along with some great California wines. "


You moved from virtualistic scenario to possible reality...
You are on the good way.

US has failed in leading occidental world on Irak.
By their lies they have completly discredited us (occident).
Our systeme is based on equity, justice and honesty.
How stand at front any dictatorial systeme and to say :"we are the good one and we are right!" now as Bush comport himself as a predator?
That is a desastre what have done Bush and his chiken-hawk administration.
We don't have to support US to achieves their colonial conquest but only help them to repair their faults.

This is my answer to your article, to a quick end of war we have to help US, but not any profits for them.

SeeU, Didier.

ps: That's realy a bizarre desert that you got, a rainy one to be able to found snails ! :D !

[Mil]

You moved from virtualistic scenario to possible reality...
Posted by TDier:


You are on the good way.

US has failed in leading occidental world on Irak.
By their lies they have completly discredited us (occident).
Our systeme is based on equity, justice and honesty.
How stand at front any dictatorial systeme and to say :"we are the good one and we are right!" now as Bush comport himself as a predator?
That is a desastre what have done Bush and his chiken-hawk administration.
We don't have to support US to achieves their colonial conquest but only help them to repair their faults.

This is my answer to your article, to a quick end of war we have to help US, but not any profits for them.

SeeU, Didier.



Again, our French posters cannot put out anything but slogans over-repeated by their politicians.

TDier I ask you again why don't you organize a demonstration to protest the increasing anti-semitism in your country? Or at least would you participate in one?

[Mediocrates]

The Falseness of Anti-Americanism

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13852#

Pollsters report rising anti-Americanism worldwide. The United States, they imply, squandered global sympathy after the September 11 terrorist attacks through its arrogant unilateralism. In truth, there was never any sympathy to squander. Anti-Americanism was already entrenched in the world's psyche�a backlash against a nation that comes bearing modernism to those who want it but who also fear and despise it.

By Fouad Ajami

“America is everywhere," Italian novelist Ignazio Silone once observed. It is in Karachi and Paris, in Jakarta and Brussels. An idea of it, a fantasy of it, hovers over distant lands. And everywhere there is also an obligatory anti-Americanism, a cover and an apology for the spell the United States casts over distant peoples and places. In the burning grounds of the Muslim world and on its periphery, U.S. embassies and their fate in recent years bear witness to a duality of the United States as Satan and redeemer. The embassies targeted by the masters of terror and by the diehards are besieged by visa-seekers dreaming of the golden, seductive country. If only the crowd in Tehran offering itstired rhythmic chant "marg bar amrika" ("death to America") really meant it! It is of visas and green cards and houses with lawns and of the glamorous world of Los Angeles, far away from the mullahs and their cultural tyranny, that the crowd really dreams. The frenzy with which radical Islamists battle against deportation orders from U.S. soil� dreading the prospect of returning to Amman and Beirut and Cairo� reveals the lie of anti-Americanism that blows through Muslim lands.


read more at the url provided.

[minusthejihad]

This reminds me of a good movie with Audrie Tatuo, "Dirty Pretty Things" You'll should see it.

Its funny that the same people who scream, "I hate the USA" are the same people waiting for their visas to be approved. The same people who would scream "I love USA" the second someone waved a Passport in their face!

[Mil]

Absolutely awesome article.

[TDidier]

->"TDier I ask you again why don't you organize a demonstration to protest the increasing anti-semitism in your country? Or at least would you participate in one? [/B][/QUOTE] "


No, I did not participate to any demonstration against anti-semitism.
It doesn't mean that I don't care about that.
The problem was that many demonstrations were lead by sionnists groups, which were promoting emigration to Israel and supporting Sharon's politic of violence.

You said where were the media? Each days TV and newspaper told about that and french are very sensible on this question despite what you think (the shoa is still in all minds).
An agression with knife to a rabbin has lead the news some days, but when he was suspected of mythomania(?!) the medias decreased their covering...
The problem was that Sharon's government and propagandist do a campaign for increase immigration to Israel based on the problem of anti-semitism in France. "Come in Israel, you will be in secure, but by staying in France you are in danger" was their propaganda!! :rolleyes:
You saw in my precedent post how hight was the danger...

You think that french are anti-semits just because they consider anti-semitism as ordinary racism and not as "crime against humanity".
That you don't understand with all your sionnist propaganda is that french consider all type of racism as "crime against humanity".

The israeli-palestinian conflict was the reason of anti-semitism increasing. Some young low educated arabs were the cause of the problem, and some far-right extremists have certainly played with antagonism between jews and arabs by doing some provocation acts...

French position on Irak has considerably reduced tensions between the two community, you see, with respect and equity you will certainly be able to do something...I hope.


->"Again, our French posters cannot put out anything but slogans over-repeated by their politicians. "

But that's what I think, sorry I'm not able to invent somethink else just to please you, I don't like lie. Virtualism about live or death of any humans, is not for me.

I just answer to questions... Nobody give any response to my own...

Was something not true in my differents post?
You don't have to trust in me.
But a propagandist is someone who is modifiing reality to correspond to his fantasy. Did I lied anytime?

SEEU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil
Absolutely awesome article.

Impatient guy! :D
You see, an answer has come... :rolleyes:

By, Didier.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:



No, I did not participate to any demonstration against anti-semitism.
It doesn't mean that I don't care about that.


Good to know that you care - at least.


The problem was that many demonstrations were lead by sionnists groups, which were promoting emigration to Israel and supporting Sharon's politic of violence.


That's not what I asked. I asked if you would organize an ethnic French demonstration against anti-semitism. Not a pro-Israeli demonstration but a one against anti-semitism.



You said where were the media? Each days TV and newspaper told about that and french are very sensible on this question despite what you think (the shoa is still in all minds).


I know - but the anti-semitism is growing never-the-less. Do you know what would happen in America if such occured?


An agression with knife to a rabbin has lead the news some days, but when he was suspected of mythomania(?!) the medias decreased their covering...


Actually he was stabbed. But if you consider that a myth - then...


The problem was that Sharon's government and propagandist do a campaign for increase immigration to Israel based on the problem of anti-semitism in France. "Come in Israel, you will be in secure, but by staying in France you are in danger" was their propaganda!!
You saw in my precedent post how hight was the danger...


I don't think in your life you have ever immigrated anywhere else. I did. Immigrating to another country is not an easy decision.

Most Jews leaving France are immigrating because they are scared and it has nothing to do with propoganda. But again I guess its normal for Jews to be scared of Europe; it only has been some 60 years. Right? And why aren't you stopping these Jews from immigrating? Why not tell them that there is another France? You probably simply don't care...


You think that french are anti-semits just because they consider anti-semitism as ordinary racism and not as "crime against humanity".


Europe killed 6 million Jews.... you make your choice. I am Jewish and it makes me very nervous as a person scared for my own well-being.... Half of my family has been killed in Europe by Europeans for belonging to a certain race group. Should I warry - definetly. So I ask you - what are you personally willing to do to confront the growing anti-semitism in France?


That you don't understand with all your sionnist propaganda is that french consider all type of racism as "crime against humanity".


So why don't you prosecute all the anti-semites in France and send them straight to the Hague?


The israeli-palestinian conflict was the reason of anti-semitism increasing. Some young low educated arabs were the cause of the problem, and some far-right extremists have certainly played with antagonism between jews and arabs by doing some provocation acts...


They are still French... are they not? Why don't you send them to the Hague?


French position on Irak has considerably reduced tensions between the two community, you see, with respect and equity you will certainly be able to do something...I hope.


Which two communities? Arabs and French? Apparently Jews are still immigrating...


But that's what I think, sorry I'm not able to invent somethink else just to please you, I don't like lie. Virtualism about live or death of any humans, is not for me.


That's why France was a staunch supporter to bomb Serbia. Right? People died - you know.


I just answer to questions... Nobody give any response to my own...

Was something not true in my differents post?
You don't have to trust in me.
But a propagandist is someone who is modifiing reality to correspond to his fantasy. Did I lied anytime?


I am not calling anyone a lier. I don't like the word - lier. I like the word - confused, dissillusioned, marooned, uneducated, sceptable to emotional outbursts and etc.... You get the drift.


But my question still stands. Would you organize a demonstration against ANTI-SEMITISM as such?

[Mil]

By the way? What is Le Pen still doing in France I thought he should already be in the Hague for "crimes against humanity" ? And we all know what his agenda was....

[danholo]

It's 'liar' not 'lier' because I don't think you were talking about lying down.

Just correcting.

[Mil]

It's 'liar' not 'lier' because I don't think you were talking about lying down.

Just correcting.



Thanks :) Still learning my ABCs... yet I heard Finnish is next to impossible.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
->"Uhh... sorry Didier. It wasn't an invitation. It was a hypothetical scenario. But if it was, you could leave the breads, cheeses, cold soup, snails, and frogs at home; I have plenty of them at my place, along with some great California wines. "


You moved from virtualistic scenario to possible reality...
You are on the good way.

US has failed in leading occidental world on Irak.
By their lies they have completly discredited us (occident).
Our systeme is based on equity, justice and honesty.
How stand at front any dictatorial systeme and to say :"we are the good one and we are right!" now as Bush comport himself as a predator?
That is a desastre what have done Bush and his chiken-hawk administration.
We don't have to support US to achieves their colonial conquest but only help them to repair their faults.

This is my answer to your article, to a quick end of war we have to help US, but not any profits for them.

SeeU, Didier.

ps: That's realy a bizarre desert that you got, a rainy one to be able to found snails ! :D !

I'm sorry, Didier. I can't make head or tails out of what you're trying to say. Perhaps it would be better if you used the Babelfish translator to translate it from French to English.

I did catch "chicken-hawk", however, and I know what that is...

This is a Chicken Hawk (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=63094#post63094) :cool:

[Enuff]

Didier, although I could be wrong, I suspect that those who harbor sentiments similar to yourself will be tragically disappointed by both the request, and its reasons, to U.N. and/the resolve of the U.S..

Be that as it may, as I’m an american, stupid and duped by my government, I am completely befuddled by certain French positions on Iraq and Israel - could you answer a couple of questions for me?

(1.) When the U.S. went to the U.N. and requested the humanitarian aid program be reinstalled, your government, et al, were adamantly opposed to reopening the program under the grounds as it was deemed to lend U.N. legitimacy to the actions of the coalition.. In the course of discussion it was determined the humanitarian program could be allowed to go forth with a coalition concession that a “Special Representative and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq, should play a vital role in Iraq, as set out in relevant paragraphs of resolutions 1483 (2003) and 1500 (2003), including by providing humanitarian relief, promoting the economic reconstruction of and conditions for sustainable development in Iraq, and advancing efforts to restore and establish national and local institutions for representative governance.�

Do the French, et al, deem the U.N. humanitarian missions negotiable trade for political or economic consideration and/ remuneration?

And by the same token(in light of current events): Do the French, et al, deem U.N. peacekeeping missions/sanctions negotiable trade for political or economic consideration and/ remuneration within the U.N. domain or individually as a vetoing member of the security council?

(2.) On the same day as the U.N. bombing in Iraq, Israeli’s also suffered a bombing which targeted the civilian population. The terrorist organization Hamas credited itself with the attack against Israeli citizens. The government of France can find no justification of the inclusion of Hamas into the list of recognized ‘terrorist groups’ in France or, as in larger part, of the EU charter. Hamas current enjoys the right of ‘political’ funding within France and I would presume the EU.

How does the French government/the EU judiciously monitor such accounts or cash received on part of the organization, its members(known and unknown) or all its various constituents, the transfer and distribution of funds - within/without its borders purview - and ensure said funds are not diverted to terrorist aims and goals?

P.S. sorry about the length of my first post here

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Enuff
sorry about the length of my first post here


:D :D :D

Welcome aboard!

[Enuff]

why thank you Johnny :D :D :D

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
ps: That's realy a bizarre desert that you got, a rainy one to be able to found snails ! :D !

You won't found any snails in this desert. You have to found them in a store.

[TDidier]

->"That's not what I asked. I asked if you would organize an ethnic French demonstration against anti-semitism. Not a pro-Israeli demonstration but a one against anti-semitism. "

Of course I give an answer: I didn't participate to any demonstration and there is no reason do create any now.
(but don't think that demonstration against racism and anti-semitism doesn't exist in France...).

->"You said where were the media? Each days TV and newspaper told about that and french are very sensible on this question despite what you think (the shoa is still in all minds).

-I know - but the anti-semitism is growing never-the-less."

Growing ? It has grow in response to an internationnal particular situation... Now, it has decrease...

->" Do you know what would happen in America if such occured? "

Yes, I know, you repeated it many times...


->"An agression with knife to a rabbin has lead the news some days, but when he was suspected of mythomania(?!) the medias decreased their covering...

-Actually he was stabbed. But if you consider that a myth - then..."

Many mystics are able to do self-mutilation if they think that's good for their cause, look at "jihadists" or "martyrs".

->"I don't think in your life you have ever immigrated anywhere else. I did. Immigrating to another country is not an easy decision. "

I'm sure that you are right.

->"Most Jews leaving France are immigrating because they are scared and it has nothing to do with propoganda."

I'm not sure that you are right. For some of them, they were afraid by the ratio jews/arabs in France(700.000/6.000.000) and they think that they will be in danger in the future (not now!).
For the major part of emmigrating jews it was a militant act to support Israel.

->"But again I guess its normal for Jews to be scared of Europe; it only has been some 60 years. Right? And why aren't you stopping these Jews from immigrating? Why not tell them that there is another France? You probably simply don't care..."

The emmigration from France to Israel is not massive and for the major part due to sionnists militantists... The new France that you told exit, french jews have contributed to her construction.


->"Europe killed 6 million Jews.... "

Human stupidity killed 6 millions Jews and many million others...
Jews people is a traumatised one, I understand that, and understand that they are looking for security.
That is now History and we have to never forget this age of darkness that we called "modern".
You are reducing the whole Europe to the nazis (german nazi and assimilated in the others country), but is racism able to fight racism?
Do you know that at the end of war there was still 180.000 jews in France ? How many french have risqued their life to protect this people ?
Do you know that 80.000 jews were bring in deportation and quite the same number of non-jews french...
How much dozen of thousand have been conduced in security out of France and how many french people risqued their life for that ?

->"you make your choice."

What choice did I do? Can you explain?

->"I am Jewish and it makes me very nervous as a person scared for my own well-being.... Half of my family has been killed in Europe by Europeans for belonging to a certain race group. Should I warry - definetly. So I ask you - what are you personally willing to do to confront the growing anti-semitism in France? "

No real important anti-semit sentiment in french population as we saw it, sorry.
I will do nothing which risq seems to support sionnism(colonial) and Sharon's politic of violence. As you see the political recuperation by sionnist groups and Sharon's administration have killed all form of support by french population.


->"That you don't understand with all your sionnist propaganda is that french consider all type of racism as "crime against humanity".
So why don't you prosecute all the anti-semites in France and send them straight to the Hague?"

The Hague(La Hague)? The nuke plant ? Do you want we push them into a radioactive swimming-pool?. :D

->"The israeli-palestinian conflict was the reason of anti-semitism increasing. Some young low educated arabs were the cause of the problem, and some far-right extremists have certainly played with antagonism between jews and arabs by doing some provocation acts...

They are still French... are they not? Why don't you send them to the Hague? "

Be quiet french police have done his job and justice will follow... Where is the difference if they are french or not ?


->"Apparently Jews are still immigrating... "

Where is mass emmigration from France to Israel ?


->"...France was a staunch supporter to bomb Serbia. Right? People died - you know. "

Right. In Serbia there was a government and an army which were still at work in Kosovo in what we called ethnic-epuration(humanity crimes, similar to what nazi have done), they were recidiviste (theire action in Bosnia and Croatia) where we did not do the sufficient action when we would have to do it.

I repeat the important words: They were still doing their job of ethnic-epuration when we acted.

Do you know that French action was critiqued by the anglo-saxon part of coalition by not allowing actions against some target too risky for serbs civilian and France has refused all action against Montenegro (a part of Yougoslave federation not angaged in Kosovo).

Are my answers sufficient to you?

SeeU, Didier.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by TDidier
->"That's not what I asked. I asked if you would organize an ethnic French demonstration against anti-semitism. Not a pro-Israeli demonstration but a one against anti-semitism. "

Of course I give an answer: I didn't participate to any demonstration and there is no reason do create any now.
(but don't think that demonstration against racism and anti-semitism doesn't exist in France...).

->"You said where were the media? Each days TV and newspaper told about that and french are very sensible on this question despite what you think (the shoa is still in all minds).

-I know - but the anti-semitism is growing never-the-less."

Growing ? It has grow in response to an internationnal particular situation... Now, it has decrease...

->" Do you know what would happen in America if such occured? "

Yes, I know, you repeated it many times...


->"An agression with knife to a rabbin has lead the news some days, but when he was suspected of mythomania(?!) the medias decreased their covering...

-Actually he was stabbed. But if you consider that a myth - then..."

Many mystics are able to do self-mutilation if they think that's good for their cause, look at "jihadists" or "martyrs".

->"I don't think in your life you have ever immigrated anywhere else. I did. Immigrating to another country is not an easy decision. "

I'm sure that you are right.

->"Most Jews leaving France are immigrating because they are scared and it has nothing to do with propoganda."

I'm not sure that you are right. For some of them, they were afraid by the ratio jews/arabs in France(700.000/6.000.000) and they think that they will be in danger in the future (not now!).
For the major part of emmigrating jews it was a militant act to support Israel.

->"But again I guess its normal for Jews to be scared of Europe; it only has been some 60 years. Right? And why aren't you stopping these Jews from immigrating? Why not tell them that there is another France? You probably simply don't care..."

The emmigration from France to Israel is not massive and for the major part due to sionnists militantists... The new France that you told exit, french jews have contributed to her construction.


->"Europe killed 6 million Jews.... "

Human stupidity killed 6 millions Jews and many million others...
Jews people is a traumatised one, I understand that, and understand that they are looking for security.
That is now History and we have to never forget this age of darkness that we called "modern".
You are reducing the whole Europe to the nazis (german nazi and assimilated in the others country), but is racism able to fight racism?
Do you know that at the end of war there was still 180.000 jews in France ? How many french have risqued their life to protect this people ?
Do you know that 80.000 jews were bring in deportation and quite the same number of non-jews french...
How much dozen of thousand have been conduced in security out of France and how many french people risqued their life for that ?

->"you make your choice."

What choice did I do? Can you explain?

->"I am Jewish and it makes me very nervous as a person scared for my own well-being.... Half of my family has been killed in Europe by Europeans for belonging to a certain race group. Should I warry - definetly. So I ask you - what are you personally willing to do to confront the growing anti-semitism in France? "

No real important anti-semit sentiment in french population as we saw it, sorry.
I will do nothing which risq seems to support sionnism(colonial) and Sharon's politic of violence. As you see the political recuperation by sionnist groups and Sharon's administration have killed all form of support by french population.


->"That you don't understand with all your sionnist propaganda is that french consider all type of racism as "crime against humanity".
So why don't you prosecute all the anti-semites in France and send them straight to the Hague?"

The Hague(La Hague)? The nuke plant ? Do you want we push them into a radioactive swimming-pool?. :D

->"The israeli-palestinian conflict was the reason of anti-semitism increasing. Some young low educated arabs were the cause of the problem, and some far-right extremists have certainly played with antagonism between jews and arabs by doing some provocation acts...

They are still French... are they not? Why don't you send them to the Hague? "

Be quiet french police have done his job and justice will follow... Where is the difference if they are french or not ?


->"Apparently Jews are still immigrating... "

Where is mass emmigration from France to Israel ?


->"...France was a staunch supporter to bomb Serbia. Right? People died - you know. "

Right. In Serbia there was a government and an army which were still at work in Kosovo in what we called ethnic-epuration(humanity crimes, similar to what nazi have done), they were recidiviste (theire action in Bosnia and Croatia) where we did not do the sufficient action when we would have to do it.

I repeat the important words: They were still doing their job of ethnic-epuration when we acted.

Do you know that French action was critiqued by the anglo-saxon part of coalition by not allowing actions against some target too risky for serbs civilian and France has refused all action against Montenegro (a part of Yougoslave federation not angaged in Kosovo).

Are my answers sufficient to you?

SeeU, Didier.

You think that emigrating to Israel from France is a militant act and not because of fear of anti-semetism!

No wonder so many French Jews became Israeli citizens. At least they don't have to deal with the snobby likes of you any more. Mazel Tov!

[minusthejihad]

Look Frenchie,

Its Zionism, get it right!

Zionism is: A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

Please don't throw terms around that you have no idea about. Otherwise you will find the the word French has new meaning.

[Mil]

Posted TDier:


Right. In Serbia there was a government and an army which were still at work in Kosovo in what we called ethnic-epuration

No. The ethnic-epuration or ethnic cleansing or whatever you want to call it started after the bombing has begun and not before. By the way do you know how many Serbs were killed in terrorist attacks in Kosovo?


(humanity crimes, similar to what nazi have done), they were recidiviste (theire action in Bosnia and Croatia) where we did not do the sufficient action when we would have to do it.

In the Balkan wars of the 90s it was the Serbs who suffered the most killed and the most displaced people. And by the way Serbs did not start shooting first in 1992... do you know who did?


I repeat the important words: They were still doing their job of ethnic-epuration when we acted.

I guess me and you live in different historical dimension....


Do you know that French action was critiqued by the anglo-saxon part of coalition by not allowing actions against some target too risky for serbs civilian and France has refused all action against Montenegro (a part of Yougoslave federation not angaged in Kosovo).


Blah, Blah, Blah.... Given the way France is acting now referring to the United Nations and the International Law as it reflects Iraq - I did not hear any French rumbling when it happened when an independent country of Yugoslavia was bombed by an outside NATO force. Bombing of Serbia was against the UN Charter and the International Law - I can name specific chapters in the Charter that were broken. Where was France then?


Are my answers sufficient to you?


No. From what I understand you try to avoid the issue of growing anti-semitism in France and Europe in general by giving me unclear inconclusive answers which still don't explain increasing Jewish immigration out of France. By the way if those immigrants were true "Zionists" they would go settle straight into the occupied territories, however, over 85% actually settle in Israel proper mostly in Tel Aviv and Haifa. There was a great article in Haaretz on that matter - I'll try to look for it.

As far as being Jewish in Europe. I am Jewish and I lived in Europe and you do feel you are not accepted. May be that's why each and every sinagogue in Europe has a clearly visible machine-gun armed guard or may be you have some other explanation for the phenomenah? Do churches have armed guards or masques? Nope - only synagogues. Shame.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


Human stupidity killed 6 millions Jews and many million others...


I'll will attribute your assumptions to the "stupidity" part as the lack of knowledge of the English language. What killed 6 million people of a specific targeted racial group was well accepted and defined cultural prejudices. Otherwise it would never happened. Of course Hitler killed 12 million ethnic Russians, which is twice the number, but he did not target them specifically. Only two racial groups were targeted - Jews and Gypsisies.


Jews people is a traumatised one, I understand that, and understand that they are looking for security.[/'b]


Jews have long lost looking for security in Europe. They just wanted to be accepted in Europe. But they figured out that they would never be accepted in Europe. In the beginning of the 20th century over 80% of all Jews lived in Europe at the end only 80% live outside of Europe. Shame.


[b]That is now History and we have to never forget this age of darkness that we called "modern".


It was only 60 years ago. Remember? You parents might still remember it...


You are reducing the whole Europe to the nazis (german nazi and assimilated in the others country), but is racism able to fight racism?


What racisim? We are talking about anti-semitism...


Do you know that at the end of war there was still 180.000 jews in France ? How many french have risqued their life to protect this people ?


No. Most of the 180,000 came back to France from Britain, Spain, and the United States. Most of the French Jews who were left were killed.



Do you know that 80.000 jews were bring in deportation and quite the same number of non-jews french...


Yes I know. However, France had almost no Jews left after the Nazis left.


How much dozen of thousand have been conduced in security out of France and how many french people risqued their life for that ?


Not that many. Only a few brave ones.


No real important anti-semit sentiment in french population as we saw it, sorry.


Still does not explain immigration and rising anti-semitism...


I will do nothing which risq seems to support sionnism(colonial) and Sharon's politic of violence.


Again this is not what I asked you.... I don't care if you support Israel's political doctrine or not; it's your business.


As you see the political recuperation by sionnist groups and Sharon's administration have killed all form of support by french population.


So this is why there is anti-semitism? This is the most comprehandble statement I heard out of you yet. So anti-semitism in France is growing because of what's happening in Israel? So basically you support racism against the Jews justifying it by what's happening in Israel? I think you are lost.

[Mediocrates]

I will do nothing which risq seems to support sionnism(colonial) and Sharon's politic of violence.


This is list of things the French are willing to watch die in order for them to feel noble about themselves is quite long. I wonder though if after 5 or 6 or 7 years of complaining that the conditions on the ground in Iraq prevent them from saving one person so they don't even try will garner them any friends in the region. I wonder who will hear France's call if ever there is one or will we simply ignore you.

It's a simple matter of practicality - if you insist on sitting on the sidelines forever, how long do you think you can trade on your Security Council seat as the ONLY tool in your Foreign Policy?

[MGB8]

Exactly....look at their actions now.

SOO concerned about humanitarian risks....but when it comes time to guard Iraqi's praying or help get more electricity and water online....No No No....

What is disgusting about the French (and German) Gov't's is that they PRETEND to be noble when in reality they are the most ruthlessly (and amorally) self-interested countries on the planet.

It is no coincidence that it was the French who created the problems in Algeria, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc.

Nor is it any coincidence that it is the French who are willing to seel weapons to anyone who will bye....or let their relatives die in the heat and won't return from vacation to pick up the bodies of their family...

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MGB8

....or let their relatives die in the heat and won't return from vacation to pick up the bodies of their family...

Isn't it interesting how this country, France, has completely reversed itself in just two (short) generations? Look what it has come to, since 1945; Communist/Socialist, virtually aetheists, and totally narcissistic. And we've heard it in the tone of every single post by a Frenchman that's been on this site. So I'm wondering..... if they treat their own blood relatives that way, I wonder how long it will be before they turn on the Arab population, in the highly probable not to distant future, when they decide they're impinging on their lifestyle, or becoming the majority? Think they'll pick up the bodies, and what will they use?

[Mediocrates]

France has left the realm of rational action. Now they are threatening to veto the UNSC proposal to lift sanctions on Libya. Which will do serious harm to their relations with the Arab world, the rest of the UN, the US and Italy. I think they're just running around screaming for attention at this point.

[Frans_1]

Communist/Socialist, virtually aetheists, and totally narcissistic.

lolol so true.

J.Y. , I like your way with words.

France : Communistic, Socialistic, Atheistic and totally Narcissistic.

[TDidier]

Nacissique is somebody who does not speak to you about you... :D


SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

For past years immigration France->Israel: 1150
In 2002 : 2300, 13% in colonies.

200% of increase, it is much but the starting number (1150) is very low. Much of emmigrant had envisaged to leave and did nothing but advance this departure. We will not know if there is a reel migratory movement that if that is prolonged over several years...

SeeU, Dider.

Sorry for the 180.000, you are right Mil.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
Nacissique is somebody who does not speak to you about you... :D


SeeU, Didier.

Being narcissistic means to be totally self-absorbed......

[TDidier]

for a return at the origin of this forum:


http://www.iht.com/articles/108993.html


SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

No links between Irak and terrorism before invasion...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32862-2003Sep5.html

SeeU, Didier.

[Enuff]

What greater link does one need when the whole of Saddam's Ba'athist regime had been hard at work perfecting internal terrorism for 30 yrs? How many mass graves have been unearthed how many more would have been created? How fast did external terrorist organizations hop on the bandwagon in support of maintaining a regime of oppression and terror for their so called "brothers"?

[minusthejihad]

Great point Enuff!

(TDidier)

When I hear people say that Iraq has no connection to terrorism it makes me want to squeeze my fists so hard that they start to bleed, like some Bruce Lee movie.

Explain this to me Frenchie:

Do you not call the 35,000 dollar checks to suicide bombers families from Saddam Hussein a connection to terrorism?

[TDidier]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Great point Enuff!

(TDidier)

When I hear people say that Iraq has no connection to terrorism it makes me want to squeeze my fists so hard that they start to bleed, like some Bruce Lee movie.

Explain this to me Frenchie:

Do you not call the 35,000 dollar checks to suicide bombers families from Saddam Hussein a connection to terrorism?

Would you do a suicide for 35.000$ ?

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Enuff
What greater link does one need when the whole of Saddam's Ba'athist regime had been hard at work perfecting internal terrorism for 30 yrs? How many mass graves have been unearthed how many more would have been created? How fast did external terrorist organizations hop on the bandwagon in support of maintaining a regime of oppression and terror for their so called "brothers"?


on this 30 years there was 18 years of total occidental complicity and during 12 years, occidental world (US-UK for the major part) has killed more Iraqis than SHussein. No necessary to call somebody "brother" to kill him.

I have a good news for you Enuff: yesterday, the political part of the hamas has enter on EU list of terroristics organisation. The militar part were still on this list.

SeeU, Didier.

[minusthejihad]

no, but for roughly $35,000, I can get you wacked.

[MGB8]

TD,

That's a GROSS Distortion - a LIE.

How has the Western World "killed more Iraqi's?"

You will answer with the Sanctions, no?

But there was the Oil for Food program. Why didn't that work?

Answer: BECAUSE SADDAM HUSSEIN DIDN'T WANT IT TO!

You are showing your true colors, frenchman.



Originally posted by TDidier
on this 30 years there was 18 years of total occidental complicity and during 12 years, occidental world (US-UK for the major part) has killed more Iraqis than SHussein. No necessary to call somebody "brother" to kill him.

I have a good news for you Enuff: yesterday, the political part of the hamas has enter on EU list of terroristics organisation. The militar part were still on this list.

SeeU, Didier.

[Mediocrates]

Tdidier do you have any insight as to why France is threatening to derail the lifting of sanctions aginst Libya in the wake of the long painfull Lockerbie case which was finally settled? Do you have any insight why the payment of 10 million dollars per family does not warrant the lifting of sanctions per the agreement floated jointly by England and Bulgaria?

One would think that France would not want to further risk its position in the UN. Why would France want to imperil it's relationship with the Arabs?

Have they gone mad?

[TDidier]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
no, but for roughly $35,000, I can get you wacked.

I think it will best for you to find a real job in McDonald... :D

when the wise spend two years at work, the idiot spends twenty years in jail. :D

Chinese proverb from me.


SeeU, Didier.

[Frans_1]

when the wise spend two years at work, the idiot spends twenty years in jail.

Chinese proverb from me.

You must have found that in a fortune cookie, monseiur.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by MGB8
TD,

That's a GROSS Distortion - a LIE.

How has the Western World "killed more Iraqi's?"

You will answer with the Sanctions, no?

But there was the Oil for Food program. Why didn't that work?

Answer: BECAUSE SADDAM HUSSEIN DIDN'T WANT IT TO!

You are showing your true colors, frenchman.


Not a lie, a point of view...
Iraqui people was between the hammer(anglo-saxons) and the anvil(SHussein).

The principal opposition to "food for oil" programme has come from US. Remember your post: a way for France and Germany to sell more weapons to SHussein... That was a fairy tale, the truth was the dead of 500.000(at least) Irquis, childrens in majority, by privation.
Someone asked to Madeleine Albright if it was true that childrens are dieing in Irak by sanctions, she answered: "it's a risk."

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Tdidier do you have any insight as to why France is threatening to derail the lifting of sanctions aginst Libya in the wake of the long painfull Lockerbie case which was finally settled? Do you have any insight why the payment of 10 million dollars per family does not warrant the lifting of sanctions per the agreement floated jointly by England and Bulgaria?

One would think that France would not want to further risk its position in the UN. Why would France want to imperil it's relationship with the Arabs?

Have they gone mad?

There was Lockerbie but a french aircraft was bomb by libyans at the same time: the DC-10 from UTA.
France has just say that it will be no ends of sanction if the familly of victims of UTA's DC10 do not receive comparable contributions from Kadhafi.

Kadhafi has annouced at TV that the UTA familly will receive what french were asking for... You see commerce of oil and gas betwenne UK and Libya will not be suspend for a long time...

Do you know that France was at war against Libya in 80' ?

Kadhafi is a clown even Arabic knows that.

SeeU, Didier.

[Enuff]

Didier, did you know that your government had security council voting rights in both the establishment of the sanctions, the establishment of the 'food-for-oil' program and all resolutions which called for continuation of the sanctions programs? do you know how they voted throughout the years?

have you ever wondered why your government would want to legitimize Saddam and perpetuate the regime? did you know your government was one of the primary nations which brought to light the crimes Saddam's regime had committed against his people and was instrumental in developing a resolution which addressed those crimes and stated throughout that the humanitarian policies of the regime in themselves were a threat to regional and international world peace? have you wondered why your government has conveniently forgotten these crimes along with the violations under which the original 'ceasefire' was established?

P.S. yes i was happy with the EU blacklisting Hamas. Strange how the media has payed so little attention to the fact.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Enuff
->"Didier, did you know that your government had security council voting rights in both the establishment of the sanctions, the establishment of the 'food-for-oil' program and all resolutions which called for continuation of the sanctions programs? do you know how they voted throughout the years? "

Yes, I know. We have to punish SHussein not punish Iraquis with the same weapons as SHussein did.

->"have you ever wondered why your government would want to legitimize Saddam and perpetuate the regime?"

Not ligitimize SHussein, prevent a war to iraqui people.

->"did you know your government was one of the primary nations which brought to light the crimes Saddam's regime had committed against his people and was instrumental in developing a resolution which addressed those crimes and stated throughout that the humanitarian policies of the regime in themselves were a threat to regional and international world peace?"

Yes, France stopped his weapons sending at the end of Iran/Irak war and refused to sell him modern aircraft and materials. The major reason was that Irak used probably a "MirageF1" fighter to gaz Kurdes. We were at war against Iran, our weapons were simply a gift from France to Iraqui war against Iran... SHussein never paid for them.

->"have you wondered why your government has conveniently forgotten these crimes along with the violations under which the original 'ceasefire' was established?"

No crimes were forgoten, When SHussein will be captured he must pay for them and his complices have to pay too (in many occidental countrys and others, not exclusively those you think...).
For the 'ceasefire' violation it has in major part come from US-UK than from Irak. France stop his participation to this type of agressive raids to protest against anglo-saxon behaviour.

SeeU, Didier.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by TDidier
There was Lockerbie but a french aircraft was bomb by libyans at the same time: the DC-10 from UTA.
France has just say that it will be no ends of sanction if the familly of victims of UTA's DC10 do not receive comparable contributions from Kadhafi.

Kadhafi has annouced at TV that the UTA familly will receive what french were asking for... You see commerce of oil and gas betwenne UK and Libya will not be suspend for a long time...

Do you know that France was at war against Libya in 80' ?

Kadhafi is a clown even Arabic knows that.

SeeU, Didier.


Ah I see. The settlement the French negotiated openly was about what, USD$260,000 per and now they simply want to come to the well again. Well I understand the motive, greed, but why would they risk such a loss to their SC status, their stature in the Arab world as well as relations with Italy who is the largest foreign investor in Libya?

[Mediocrates]

U.N. Sanctions on Libya to Lift Despite French Veto Threat
Aug 21, 2003

Summary

France is threatening to veto the consensus that the United Nations Security Council finally should lift sanctions on Libya. In the end, the French position is bluster. France cannot afford the heavy price a veto would levy. While Paris' anti-American policies are wildly popular at home, they are affecting France in meaningful ways that will continue to impact French prestige, power and the country's bottom line for years to come.

Analysis

Britain and Bulgaria jointly presented the United Nations Security Council with a resolution on Aug. 18 that formally would end all U.N. sanctions against Libya. A vote is expected within the next few days.

The sanctions were enacted after the 1988 Lockerbie bombing in which Libyan agents were implicated. After years of negotiation, Tripoli finally agreed to take responsibility for its agents' actions and pay out $2.7 billion in compensation, about $10 million to the families of each victim. In exchange, the United Nations would lift sanctions -- and that, as they say, should be that.

Paris sees things differently.

France is strenuously hinting that it will veto the kiss-and-make-up resolution. On Aug. 19, France formally requested that the U.N. Security Council delay consideration of the resolution, and on Aug. 20, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin telephoned both his American and British counterparts to make his case.

The rationale is that in 1989 a Libyan agent destroyed a French jet departing Brazzaville. Long before the Lockerbie situation reached settlement, the French government came to a compensation agreement with the Libyans in 1999 for $200,000 per victim; lawyers' fees absorbed most of this payment. Now that Paris has seen Washington extract a much higher price, the French want more money.

If this sounds like sour grapes, that is because it is.

As one American diplomat at the United Nations bluntly put it, "We're getting a better deal and they're upset. It's not our fault that the French let their people get screwed." U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was only slightly less blunt in calling the French action "last minute" and "extraneous," and he reminded all concerned that the French government had lobbied for lifting U.N. sanctions against Libya even before the 1989 compensation agreement had been reached.

Paris' veto threat is a bluff -- and a bad one at that.

The British-Bulgarian resolution already has both U.S. and Russian support and, French opposition aside, is expected to be a shoo-in when it comes up for a vote in the days ahead. A French veto would matter little to the United States, which -- despite relenting to the lifting of U.N. sanctions -- has no intention of loosening its own sanctions at this time.

However, it would upset almost everyone else.

First and foremost, Tripoli will be quite put out. France's energy major, TotalFinaElf, has substantial holdings in Libya that it could pretty much kiss good bye. Ironically, Libya's rogue state status is a boon to French foreign policy. So long as Libya remains beyond the fringe of respectability, France can use it as a pawn in its geopolitical chess game vis-ÃÂ-vis the United States. Should Libya become a "normal" country, Paris knows it cannot compete with American money or Italian proximity. Unfortunately, threats are not a particularly smart means of keeping Libya in France's back pocket. As Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel Raman Shalgham said Aug. 20, "France is using pressure and blackmail and we do not accept this."

Second, France also greatly prizes its influence in the Arab world. Voting -- alone -- to keep sanctions in place on an Arab state when even the Americans are willing to live-and-let-live would not be interpreted as anything less than extremely bad form. French diplomatic efforts throughout the region would suffer as a result.

Third, the French position is rubbing Paris' European partners the wrong way. The foreign company with the largest operating presence is Italian oil firm Agip/ENI. Rome would not appreciate it if Paris blocked the lifting of sanctions. With Italy currently holding the rotating European Union presidency, angering Italy takes on another layer of significance.

Fourth, a French veto would be very damaging to a United Nations that already has had its credibility stripped to the bone because of the recent Franco-American spat over Iraq. The United States already considers the Libyan matter closed and is only letting the matter pass through the Security Council to humor its British ally. In the case of a French veto, Washington -- and other players -- then simply would ignore the U.N. sanctions, undermining the United Nations as a whole. That would critically injure one of the final bastions of international authority to which Paris -- by virtue of its veto power -- still can cling.

Finally, there's the United States itself. While Washington isn't exactly Tripoli's best friend, it does approve of the path that the country is following and would like to encourage it by removing the sanctions and setting the stage for the lifting of EU sanctions as well. There also is the significant fact that the mere action of lifting sanctions will unlock a large chunk of the compensation payments.

In short, all vetoing Libya's rehabilitation would accomplish would be the generation of considerable ill will in Europe and the Arab world toward all things French. (It is likely that already there is so much ill will toward Paris in Washington that no one would notice the difference.)

If the Libyan sanctions had been up for discussion as recently as two years ago, France probably would have been able to convince Washington to delay a deal until Paris could hammer out a better package. Those good old days are gone. Paris' staunch opposition to the Iraq war and the U.S. administration's newfound distrust of Paris have knocked France's standing in Washington down to such a level that the country no longer factors into consideration.

The bulk of the change in American mindset occurred because of the French government's position to the war in Iraq. When Paris looked into the future last year, it saw a powerful United States that was unchallenged on the global scene. It saw a United States that could act anywhere -- anytime -- without so much as a spare thought of Paris' position or interests. Therefore, Paris fought tooth and nail to prevent the Iraq war.

The French government's position on the Iraq war gained it much popularity, both domestically and abroad. Most non-Americans strongly opposed the war and were offended by what they perceived as Washington's steamrollering. But at the same time most governments were pragmatic enough to realize that Washington either was their ultimate security guarantor (Poland), their primary source of economic support (Morocco), or both (Japan), and that opposing Washington would be counterproductive in the long term. Therefore, the French policy not only ruptured Paris' relations with the United States, but also strained them with most of its European allies.

Second, France also greatly prizes its influence in the Arab world. Voting -- alone -- to keep sanctions in place on an Arab state when even the Americans are willing to live-and-let-live would not be interpreted as anything less than extremely bad form. French diplomatic efforts throughout the region would suffer as a result.

Third, the French position is rubbing Paris' European partners the wrong way. The foreign company with the largest operating presence is Italian oil firm Agip/ENI. Rome would not appreciate it if Paris blocked the lifting of sanctions. With Italy currently holding the rotating European Union presidency, angering Italy takes on another layer of significance.

Fourth, a French veto would be very damaging to a United Nations that already has had its credibility stripped to the bone because of the recent Franco-American spat over Iraq. The United States already considers the Libyan matter closed and is only letting the matter pass through the Security Council to humor its British ally. In the case of a French veto, Washington -- and other players -- then simply would ignore the U.N. sanctions, undermining the United Nations as a whole. That would critically injure one of the final bastions of international authority to which Paris -- by virtue of its veto power -- still can cling.

Finally, there's the United States itself. While Washington isn't exactly Tripoli's best friend, it does approve of the path that the country is following and would like to encourage it by removing the sanctions and setting the stage for the lifting of EU sanctions as well. There also is the significant fact that the mere action of lifting sanctions will unlock a large chunk of the compensation payments.

In short, all vetoing Libya's rehabilitation would accomplish would be the generation of considerable ill will in Europe and the Arab world toward all things French. (It is likely that already there is so much ill will toward Paris in Washington that no one would notice the difference.)

If the Libyan sanctions had been up for discussion as recently as two years ago, France probably would have been able to convince Washington to delay a deal until Paris could hammer out a better package. Those good old days are gone. Paris' staunch opposition to the Iraq war and the U.S. administration's newfound distrust of Paris have knocked France's standing in Washington down to such a level that the country no longer factors into consideration.

[Mil]

TDier I still did not hear from you on what you personally plan to do against rising anti-semitism in France....

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil
TDier I still did not hear from you on what you personally plan to do against rising anti-semitism in France....


What do I plan to fight rising of anti-semitism in France?

hum...I will continue to give you answer when I'm able to do that... And not become anti-semite :D

Are you sure that I don't answer you before about that? I don't agree you.

SeeU, Didier.

[Northlander]

I have another scenario. Not that I necessarely belive its the reason but maybe the result.

Italy plays along with EU because Berlusconi has to for known reasons.

USA ignores the sanctions.

American arrogance and hypocrisy reaches new levels in the eyes of the world when they are dealing with a "blowing up aeroplanes, terrorist sponsoring wacko as Khadaffi". And of cource by once again ignoring the UN.

I hardly think France has lost their minds. If they are good at anything historically its the diplomatic game and maybe even more so the "non-diplomatic" dirty one.

As someone said, why would they risk their relations with Italy? My answer is they wouldnt.

[Mediocrates]

So it's hot air? I tend to agree but that further weakens their already tenous position in the UN SC which is a cornerstone of the entire French foreign policy aparatus.

[Northlander]

Is it really? A cornerstone I mean. The SC is useless for France as long as USA ignores it if not the ignoring itself starts to mean something.

Anyway I think we can discard the theory that the french are pissed of because USA got a better deal. Well, some might be but thats not enough to risk anything, for sure.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by TDidier
I think it will best for you to find a real job in McDonald... :D

when the wise spend two years at work, the idiot spends twenty years in jail. :D

Chinese proverb from me.


SeeU, Didier.


Sorry kid. Finish Highschool first, get over the acne, and then make stupid jokes.

don't worry Frenchie, I took your answer as several things:

- You are a poor debator, and when confronted with a direct question such as, "Do you not agree that donating 35,000 dollars to families of suicide bombers is known as linked to terror or supporting terrorism?", you answered with your dumb joke, thus failing to answer the question and automatically defaulting on your chance to refute the point.

- I take it you agree that Saddam WAS linked to terrorism, since you did not provide any prrof or even an answer to back your claim.

Thank you. It makes my day when I call someone out and they can't answer or basically change the subject. Thanks a lot. Thanks for proving my point. Now, up to your room to do your homework, little tike!

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
Is it really? A cornerstone I mean. The SC is useless for France as long as USA ignores it if not the ignoring itself starts to mean something.

Anyway I think we can discard the theory that the french are pissed of because USA got a better deal. Well, some might be but thats not enough to risk anything, for sure.

Yes their veto power is a cornerstone of their foreign policy. It's one of the biggest hammers they can wield. You may discount the report but then that leaves you with no rational reason at all.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by minusthejihad
Sorry kid. Finish Highschool first, get over the acne, and then make stupid jokes.

Warning minus, you can insult me on many things but not on my jokes ! ! ! It is very important for a french :D

don't worry Frenchie, I took your answer as several things:
- You are a poor debator,

I'm the worst that is right, and with bad level in english speaking !

and when confronted with a direct question such as, "Do you not agree that donating 35,000 dollars to families of suicide bombers is known as linked to terror or supporting terrorism?", you answered with your dumb joke, thus failing to answer the question and automatically defaulting on your chance to refute the point.

Don't you understand that by my joke, my answer was "no I don't think that" ?

- I take it you agree that Saddam WAS linked to terrorism, since you did not provide any prrof or even an answer to back your claim.

No proof needed, just look at the evidence:
SHussein don't paid them to bomb, SH paid their familly to rebuild their houses. I think that first cause to bombing in Israel is the injustice for palestinians and I think that Sharon (and all palestinians terroristic organisations of course) play with that.

Thank you. It makes my day when I call someone out and they can't answer or basically change the subject. Thanks a lot. Thanks for proving my point. Now, up to your room to do your homework, little tike!

Happy to give you this pleasure, minus my friend.

SeeU, Didier.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by TDidier
[QUOTE]Originally posted by minusthejihad
Sorry kid. Finish Highschool first, get over the acne, and then make stupid jokes.

Warning minus, you can insult me on many things but not on my jokes ! ! ! It is very important for a french :D

don't worry Frenchie, I took your answer as several things:
- You are a poor debator,

I'm the worst that is right, and with bad level in english speaking !

and when confronted with a direct question such as, "Do you not agree that donating 35,000 dollars to families of suicide bombers is known as linked to terror or supporting terrorism?", you answered with your dumb joke, thus failing to answer the question and automatically defaulting on your chance to refute the point.

Don't you understand that by my joke, my answer was "no I don't think that" ?

- I take it you agree that Saddam WAS linked to terrorism, since you did not provide any prrof or even an answer to back your claim.

No proof needed, just look at the evidence:
SHussein don't paid them to bomb, SH paid their familly to rebuild their houses. I think that first cause to bombing in Israel is the injustice for palestinians and I think that Sharon (and all palestinians terroristic organisations of course) play with that.

Thank you. It makes my day when I call someone out and they can't answer or basically change the subject. Thanks a lot. Thanks for proving my point. Now, up to your room to do your homework, little tike!

Happy to give you this pleasure, minus my friend.

SeeU, Didier.

I don't do "friends" with despicable people who justify terrorism and murder of Jews because "the poor Palestinians have no other choices". You are the wort kind of human being:

One with a big heart and a small brain.

[Mil]

Posted by Northlander:


I have another scenario. Not that I necessarely belive its the reason but maybe the result.

Italy plays along with EU because Berlusconi has to for known reasons.

USA ignores the sanctions.

American arrogance and hypocrisy reaches new levels in the eyes of the world when they are dealing with a "blowing up aeroplanes, terrorist sponsoring wacko as Khadaffi". And of cource by once again ignoring the UN.

I hardly think France has lost their minds. If they are good at anything historically its the diplomatic game and maybe even more so the "non-diplomatic" dirty one.


Boo-hoo. And who is going to commit to the diplomatic game? France? To make diplomatic guarantees one needs resources and physical commitments and what the Iraq fiasco has shown is that France, and Europe in general, have none to offer and USA does. Diplomacy is as valid when there are physical things on the table...

And if anything the Arabs would be much happier doing business with US then with Europe.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


No proof needed, just look at the evidence:

Which evidence?


SHussein don't paid them to bomb,


He gave them political legitimacy and financial support. Did you know that all the terrorist groups in the Arab world were created, sponcered and financed by other Arab states?

I think that first cause to bombing in Israel is the injustice for palestinians and I think that Sharon (and all palestinians terroristic organisations of course) play with that.


As if Sharon is not a democratically elected leader of a state? Sharon or not is paid to represent the people of Israel and that what he does. If the people in Israel felt he was not doing a good enough job he and his party would not have over-whelmingly survived the two elections. But who knows what's going to happen during the next election. Agreed?

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by minusthejihad
->"I don't do "friends" with despicable people who justify terrorism and murder of Jews because "the poor Palestinians have no other choices". "

Nothing justify the murder for jews or for palestinians.
Nothing justify the murder of iraquis.

->"You are the wort kind of human being:

One with a big heart and a small brain. "

happy the simple-minds, the world will belong to them. ;)

SeeU, minus my Hydrocefalian non-friend.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mil

->"No proof needed, just look at the evidence:

Which evidence? "

That injustice improve terrorism (and fanatism of course, but in palestinian case the no-future sentiment is the most important factor)


->"SHussein don't paid them to bomb,
He gave them political legitimacy and financial support. Did you know that all the terrorist groups in the Arab world were created, sponcered and financed by other Arab states? "

Yes, I know it, the old practice from "cold-war"... But palestinians seems droped by the other arabs, that do them more desesperates, dangerously deseperate. And for legitimacy that SHussein was hable to give, my sentiment is that he was himself at quest for legitimacy. All the time arabs felt umiliated by Israelian acts, SHussein was renforced and bomber seemed as "martyrs".

never not to wedge a rat in a corner, it is the first of all the war technique.

->"I think that first cause to bombing in Israel is the injustice for palestinians and I think that Sharon (and all palestinians terroristic organisations of course) play with that.

As if Sharon is not a democratically elected leader of a state? Sharon or not is paid to represent the people of Israel and that what he does. If the people in Israel felt he was not doing a good enough job he and his party would not have over-whelmingly survived the two elections. But who knows what's going to happen during the next election. Agreed? "

Agreed. Because Israel is a democracy we ask her more than we ask to palestinians.
That is pitty to see israelian people to agreed Sharon violence politics.
Sometimes democracy create her own monster. We saw it in France with the horrible "Le Pen" épisode in 2001.

SeeU, Didier.

[Mediocrates]

You ask nothing of the Palestinians.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


That injustice improve terrorism (and fanatism of course, but in palestinian case the no-future sentiment is the most important factor)


Injustice does create terrorism. I agree.



Yes, I know it, the old practice from "cold-war"...


Not just the Cold War. It was happening post-Cold War as well.



But palestinians seems droped by the other arabs, that do them more desesperates, dangerously deseperate.


If it was not for other Arabs Palestinians would have had a state long time ago. Back in 1948.



And for legitimacy that SHussein was hable to give, my sentiment is that he was himself at quest for legitimacy.


Actually not. Hussein was a very legitimate leader in the eyes of the West till he invaded Kuwait.


All the time arabs felt umiliated by Israelian acts, SHussein was renforced and bomber seemed as "martyrs".


How was Iraq or lets say Morocco was embarrased by Israel? The only two countries that can be directly embarrassed by Israel are Syria and Lebanon. The answer is that the Palestinian issue for the Arabs was never about the Palestinians but about Israel.

never not to wedge a rat in a corner, it is the first of all the war technique.


No. No Arab leader was ever pushed into a corner as it concerns Israel.... I don't understand.


Agreed. Because Israel is a democracy we ask her more than we ask to palestinians.


Yes, you are right. As long as Israel remains civil and Democratic.


That is pitty to see israelian people to agreed Sharon violence politics.


Again, Sharon represents the will of the people of Israel. It's public opinion and public demand for the government to do what it does. 90% of Israelis want tough measures taken by the government against Palestinian violence. This has nothing to do with Sharon but with popular demand of the population.

Sometimes democracy create her own monster. We saw it in France with the horrible "Le Pen" épisode in 2001.


Whatever.... And there are no suicide bombers in France thus it's completely irrelivent to compare the situations.

[MGB8]

Now you sound like Takeo....its not a lie if its untrue as long as its my opinion.

WRONG.

Did the US, via the UN, help get food and medicines into Iraq...yes or no?

Did Saddam Hussein allow that food to reach his people...yes or no?

Only one answer is true for each of the above questions. Yes for the first. No for the second.

Any other answer is A LIE.

By saying that the US is responsible for those deaths, even though it was Saddam's actions - YOU LIE.

PERIOD.

Nor did the US oppose the Oil for Food program (we would have vetoed it, like the French do to things that they oppose.)

ANOTHER LIE.



Originally posted by TDidier
Not a lie, a point of view...
Iraqui people was between the hammer(anglo-saxons) and the anvil(SHussein).

The principal opposition to "food for oil" programme has come from US. Remember your post: a way for France and Germany to sell more weapons to SHussein... That was a fairy tale, the truth was the dead of 500.000(at least) Irquis, childrens in majority, by privation.
Someone asked to Madeleine Albright if it was true that childrens are dieing in Irak by sanctions, she answered: "it's a risk."

SeeU, Didier.

[MGB8]

Injustice DOES NOT create terrorism. POLITICAL DESIRES, a LACK OF MORALITY (yes, you heard me right - a lack of morality) and the unwillingness to compromise or negotiate to get the political aim....THOSE THINGS CREATE TERRORISM.

Religious fanaticism is a useful grease, but also in of itself does not create terror.

Do the Pal Arabs have it any worse off than their Arab neighbors?

NO, THEY DO NOT. Before their terror war, they had a BETTER ECONOMY and MORE RIGHTS and MORE REPRESENTATION (albeit not a full sovereign democracy - but no Arab in the middles east has that except and Israeli Arab.)

What motivated this terror war was their inability to compromise to what was offered to them at Camp David (the best offer that they will ever get.) Yasser Arafat himself said so. Clinton put the blame, rightly, on Arafat and his unwillingness to compromise on ANY points (they answer with - why should we compromise - any existence of Israel is compromise - to which Israel should say - anything short of expulsion of the Pal Arabs is compromise on our part....)

So they started a PRE-PLANNED (admittedly by their own officers) WAR! A terror war - an IMPERIALIST WAR to expand Islam.

As for asking more of Israel - that is HYPOCRICY. You must ask the same of the Arab nations as you ask of Israel...or else YOU REWARD TYRANNY, OPRESSION and CORRUPTION.

Why doesn't Israel just make itself a monarchy - then "the world" will ask less of it, under your logic...


Originally posted by Mil
Posted by TDier:


That injustice improve terrorism (and fanatism of course, but in palestinian case the no-future sentiment is the most important factor)


Injustice does create terrorism. I agree.



Yes, I know it, the old practice from "cold-war"...


Not just the Cold War. It was happening post-Cold War as well.



But palestinians seems droped by the other arabs, that do them more desesperates, dangerously deseperate.


If it was not for other Arabs Palestinians would have had a state long time ago. Back in 1948.



And for legitimacy that SHussein was hable to give, my sentiment is that he was himself at quest for legitimacy.


Actually not. Hussein was a very legitimate leader in the eyes of the West till he invaded Kuwait.


All the time arabs felt umiliated by Israelian acts, SHussein was renforced and bomber seemed as "martyrs".


How was Iraq or lets say Morocco was embarrased by Israel? The only two countries that can be directly embarrassed by Israel are Syria and Lebanon. The answer is that the Palestinian issue for the Arabs was never about the Palestinians but about Israel.

never not to wedge a rat in a corner, it is the first of all the war technique.


No. No Arab leader was ever pushed into a corner as it concerns Israel.... I don't understand.


Agreed. Because Israel is a democracy we ask her more than we ask to palestinians.


Yes, you are right. As long as Israel remains civil and Democratic.


That is pitty to see israelian people to agreed Sharon violence politics.


Again, Sharon represents the will of the people of Israel. It's public opinion and public demand for the government to do what it does. 90% of Israelis want tough measures taken by the government against Palestinian violence. This has nothing to do with Sharon but with popular demand of the population.

Sometimes democracy create her own monster. We saw it in France with the horrible "Le Pen" épisode in 2001.


Whatever.... And there are no suicide bombers in France thus it's completely irrelivent to compare the situations.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
You ask nothing of the Palestinians.

Why nothing to ask to palestinians ? Less than Israelians but only because we are waiting for more from a democracy.


You do what you have to do, when you do what you are hable to do. :D

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mil

->" And for legitimacy that SHussein was hable to give, my sentiment is that he was himself at quest for legitimacy.
Actually not. Hussein was a very legitimate leader in the eyes of the West till he invaded Kuwait. "

He was questing legitimacy by paying kamikhazes famillys. He was finished even for the others arabs.


->"All the time arabs felt umiliated by Israelian acts, SHussein was renforced and bomber seemed as "martyrs".
How was Iraq or lets say Morocco was embarrased by Israel? The only two countries that can be directly embarrassed by Israel are Syria and Lebanon. The answer is that the Palestinian issue for the Arabs was never about the Palestinians but about Israel. "

As you said, Israel is a democracy (despite Sharon), the arabs nations are dictatorals states. The dictators keeps their legitimacy by designation of some enemies (real or not). Palestinians's drame is an excellent exemple for them.

->"never not to wedge a rat in a corner, it is the first of all the war technique.
No. No Arab leader was ever pushed into a corner as it concerns Israel.... I don't understand. "

I spoke about palestinians. They have no real support in other arabs nations, that make them dangerous.
A rat attacks only when it does not have exits anymore to escape him.


->"Agreed. Because Israel is a democracy we ask her more than we ask to palestinians.
Yes, you are right. As long as Israel remains civil and Democratic. "

Israel have to not become an apartheid state, but Sharon politic...


->"That is pitty to see israelian people to agreed Sharon violence politics.
Again, Sharon represents the will of the people of Israel. It's public opinion and public demand for the government to do what it does. 90% of Israelis want tough measures taken by the government against Palestinian violence. This has nothing to do with Sharon but with popular demand of the population. "

Sharon create himself the need for his politic! He provocated palestinian (by the best way to create a new confrontation, he knew exactly what he done) when it was possible to do peace...

->"Sometimes democracy create her own monster. We saw it in France with the horrible "Le Pen" épisode in 2001.
Whatever.... And there are no suicide bombers in France thus it's completely irrelivent to compare the situations. [/B]"

What is the connection: in France the OAS lose but in Israel the Hagana won! At the same time this two guys were very similar!
For France, the war was far behind Mediterranee, but for Israel the war was at the gates, that is right.

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by MGB8
WRONG.
Did the US, via the UN, help get food and medicines into Iraq...yes or no?"
Did Saddam Hussein allow that food to reach his people...yes or no?
Only one answer is true for each of the above questions. Yes for the first. No for the second.
Any other answer is A LIE.
By saying that the US is responsible for those deaths, even though it was Saddam's actions - YOU LIE.
PERIOD.
Nor did the US oppose the Oil for Food program (we would have vetoed it, like the French do to things that they oppose.)
ANOTHER LIE. [/B]


Needs Iraqi for the food and medicaments was indicated from 1991. But the program was established only in 95 or 96.
The reason of this delay be mainly the US stubbornness has to impose always more conditions in this helps. SHussein thus opposed for a long time in this agreement which always looked like more a humiliation for him.
He has finishes by surrender him.
Even at this moment US and UK have often do their veto (contracts food-for-oil were all aimed by the security council) , so slow down the good functioning of the program.

I give you the number of 500.000 victims, but many care sources give a number between 1.000.000 and 1.500.000 victims of the embargo.


"...LACK OF MORALITY...CREATE TERRORISM."

Exactly what I think about GWBush administration !
But for palestians I think they are desesperates...

SeeU, Didier.

[Mediocrates]

Stratfor
Aug 14, 2003

Summary

The current situation in Iraq requires revisiting the basic concepts behind counter-insurgency. Iraq now is an arena in which counter-insurgency doctrine is being implemented. Historically, counter-insurgency operations by large external powers have not had positive conclusions. Vietnam and Afghanistan are the obvious outcomes, although there have been cases where small-scale insurgencies have been contained. The actual scale of the Iraqi insurgency is not yet clear. What is clear is that it is a problem in counter-insurgency, which is itself a doctrine with problems.

Analysis

The current situation in Iraq, Chechnya and Afghanistan demonstrates the central problem of modern warfare. Contemporary warfare was forged during World War II when the three dominant elements of the modern battlefield reached maturity: the aircraft carrier-submarine combination in naval warfare, the fighter and bomber combination in aerial warfare and the armored fighting vehicle-self-propelled artillery combination on land. Tied together with electromagnetic communications and sensors, this complex of systems has continued to dominate modern military thinking.

It was not the weapons systems themselves that defined warfare. Rather it was the deeper concept -- the idea that technology was decisive in war. The armed forces of all major combatants in the 20th century were organized to optimize the use of massed technology. The neatly structured echelons in each sphere of warfare were designed not only to manage and maintain the equipment, but also to facilitate their orderly deployment on the battlefield. Even the emergence of nuclear weapons did not change the basic structure of warfare. It remained technically focused with the military organization being built around the needs of the technology.

The modern armored division, carrier battle group and fighter or bomber wing represent the optimized organization built around a technology designed to assault industrialized armies and societies. They remain the basic structure of modern warfare and they carry out that function well. However, as the United States discovered in Vietnam and the Soviet Union discovered in Afghanistan, this force structure is not particularly effective against guerrilla forces.

The essential problem is that the basic unit of guerrilla warfare is the individual and the squad. They are frequently unarmed -- having hidden their weapons -- and when armed, they carry man-portable weapons, such as rifles, rocket-propelled grenades or mortars. When unarmed, they cannot be easily distinguished from the surrounding population. And they arm themselves at a time and place of their choosing -- selected to minimize the probability of detection and interception.

Guerrilla war, particularly in its early stages, is extremely resistant to conventional military force because the massed systems that dominate mainstream operations cannot engage the guerrilla force. Indeed, even if collateral damage were not an issue -- and it almost always is -- the mass annihilation or deportation of a population does not, in itself, guarantee the elimination of the guerilla force. So long as a single survivor knows the location of the weapons caches, the guerrilla movement can readily revive itself.

Therefore, in modern military thinking, a second, parallel military structure has emerged: counter-insurgency forces. Operating under various names, counter-insurgency troops try to overcome the lack of surgical precision of conventional forces. They carry out a number of functions:

1. Engage guerrilla forces on a symmetrical level, while having access to technologically superior force as needed.
2. Collect intelligence on guerrilla concentrations for use by larger formations.
3. Recruit and train indigenous forces to engage guerrilla forces.
4. Organize operations designed to drive a wedge between the guerrillas and population.

The basic units carrying out these counter-insurgency missions have two components. First, there are Special Forces -- highly trained and motivated light infantry -- intended to carry out the primary missions. Second, there are more conventional forces, either directly attached to the primary group or available on request, designed to multiply the force when it becomes engaged.

During the first stages of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, counter-insurgency units -- designated Special Forces or Green Berets -- carried out these operations. There were two fundamental and unavoidable weaknesses built into the strategy.

There number of trained counter-insurgency troops available was insufficient. The measure to be used for sufficiency is not the number of guerrillas operating. Rather, the question is the size of the population -- regardless of political inclination -- that must be sorted through and managed to get through to the guerrillas. This means there is a massive imbalance between the guerrilla force and the counter-insurgency force that is intensified by the need for security. Guerrillas operate in a target-rich environment. The need to provide static security against attacks on critical targets generates an even greater requirement for forces, although not necessarily of counter-insurgency forces.

The huge commitment of forces needed to begin the suppression of a guerrilla force cannot be managed by an external power. Unless the target country is extremely small both in terms of population and geography, the logistical costs of force projection for a purely external force is prohibitive. That means that a successful force must recruit and utilize an indigenous force that serves two purposes. First, they serve as the backbone of the main infantry force, both defending key targets and serving as follow-on forces in major engagements.

Secondly, since the counter-insurgency force normally needs intense cultural and political guidance to separate guerrillas from the population, these forces provide essential support -- from interpreters to intelligence -- for the counter-insurgency team.

This leads directly to the second problem. The guerrillas can easily penetrate an indigenous force, particularly if that force is being established after the guerrilla operation has commenced. Recruiting a police and military force after the guerrillas are established guarantees that guerrilla agents will be well represented among the ranks. Since it is impossible to distinguish between political views using technical means of intelligence, there is no effective way to screen these out -- particularly if the first round of recruitment and organization is being carried out by the external power.

[Mediocrates]

This means that from the beginning of operations, the guerrillas have a built-in advantage. Having penetrated the indigenous military force, the guerrillas will have a great deal of information on the tactical and operational level. At that point, the very sparseness of the guerrilla movement starts to work to its advantage. Hidden in terrain or population, armed with information on operations, guerrillas can either decline combat and disperse, or seize the element of surprise.

The reverse always has been the intention for counter-insurgency forces, the idea being that they would mirror the guerrillas' capability. This sometimes happened on a tactical level. However, the ability of foreign forces to penetrate guerrilla movements on the operational level was severely limited for obvious reasons. It was tough for an American to masquerade as a Vietnamese. It could potentially be done, but not on a decisive scale. That means that penetration on the operational level -- knowing plans and implementation -- depended on indigenous allies whose reliability was often questionable. Therefore, the ability of the counter-insurgency forces to mimic the guerrillas was constrained. In neither Vietnam nor Afghanistan was the operational intelligence of the counter-insurgency forces equal to that of the guerrillas.

The normal counter to this was to use imprecise intelligence and compensate for it with large-scale operations. So, one counter for not having precise knowledge of the location of guerrillas was to use large, mobile formations to move in and occupy a region, in an attempt to identify, engage and destroy guerrilla formations. This had two consequences. First, it meant a violation of the rules of the economy of forces as battalions were used to search for squads. In this case, massive superiority in forces did not necessarily translate to strategic success. The guerrillas, disaggregated in the smallest practicable unit, could not be strategically crushed.

Second, the nature of the operation created inevitable political problems. Operations of this sort were not dominated by specialized counter-insurgency units, which were at least trained in discriminatory warfare -- trying to distinguish guerrillas from neutral or friendly population. By the nature of the operation, regular troops were used to seize an area and search for the guerrillas. Since the area was frequently populated and since the attacking troops had little ability to discriminate, it resulted frequently in the mishandling of civilian populations, hostility against the attackers and sympathy for the guerrillas. Then, counter-insurgency troops, already handicapped in their own way, were bought in to pacify the region. The result was unsatisfactory, to say the least.

This points to the essential problem of guerrilla war. At its lowest level -- before it evolves into a stage where it has complex logistical requirements supplied from secure areas in and out of the country -- guerrilla war is political rather than military in nature. The paradox of guerrilla war is that it is easier to defeat militarily once the guerrilla force has matured into a more advanced, and therefore more vulnerable, entity. However, by the time it has evolved, the likelihood is that the political situation has deteriorated sufficiently that even heavy attrition will be overcome through massive recruitment within the disaffected population.

The loss of the political war makes a war of attrition extremely difficult. As both the Soviets and Americans discovered, the ability of the outside force to absorb casualties is inferior to that of the indigenous force -- if the indigenous force is politically motivated. Since the process of suppressing early stage guerrilla movements almost guarantees the generation of massive political hostility, the later war -- which should be favorable to the counter-insurgency forces -- turns out to be impossible to win. Even extreme attrition ratios are overcome by recruitment.

The dilemma facing the United States in Iraq is to surgically remove the guerrilla force from the population without generating a political backlash that will fuel a long-term insurgency regardless of levels of attrition. This is much easier to say than to do. The heart of the matter is intelligence -- to deny the guerrillas intelligence about U.S. operations while gathering massive intelligence about the guerrillas. The only way to win the war is to reverse, at the earliest possible phase, the intelligence equation. The guerrillas must be confused and blinded; the Americans must maintain transparency of the guerrillas.

That is clearly what the U.S. now is attempting to do. It is limiting its search and seize operations while massively increasing its intelligence capabilities. This is happening both in terms of human intelligence and technical means of intelligence. It is unclear whether this will work. Human intelligence is political in nature and requires extreme expertise with the culture without dependency on indigenous elements that might be unreliable. It is very difficult for someone from Kansas, however gifted in the craft of intelligence, to make sense of a tactical situation -- and at this point, the guerrillas present only a tactical face.

It is nevertheless the key to any hope for success. It also is an operation that will take an extended period of time. The U.S. hope obviously is that by curtailing its own large-scale operations and moving into an intense intelligence phase, the guerrilla operations will alienate the population. It is possible but difficult. It also will take time. But it is clear that the United States is in the process of rewriting parts of the counter-insurgency book and, therefore, is beginning to write a new -- and as yet uncertain -- chapter in military history.

[Northlander]

Boo-hoo. And who is going to commit to the diplomatic game? France? To make diplomatic guarantees one needs resources and physical commitments and what the Iraq fiasco has shown is that France, and Europe in general, have none to offer and USA does. Diplomacy is as valid when there are physical things on the table...

Iraq fiasco? An american fiasco maybe. Its not over. Bush is begging on his knees for more involvment from others, especially Russia, Germany and France. This costs USA more than France so who cares about your childish views of it? Here in europe France have gained alot of respect and USA are more or less considered to have made a stupid move by letting themselves into a terrorist/guerilla warfare without any end in sight. Its you taxmoney and your boys that are vanishing in Iraq, not ours.


Injustice DOES NOT create terrorism. POLITICAL DESIRES, a LACK OF MORALITY (yes, you heard me right - a lack of morality) and the unwillingness to compromise or negotiate to get the political aim....THOSE THINGS CREATE TERRORISM.

Lack of morality has nothing to do with it. You fail to see that for them its just about collateral damage. A target sometimes legitimate for winning the war. Same thing as for our western militaries in other words. We are not targeting civilians now because we do not have to, when we have to we do it aswell. I would like to see your US army wage war on Russia for example. Both side would instantly go back to targeting civilians just as in WWII. Same with Israel if they risked total military defeat, or France.
Everyone has a limit when they start to kill anyone for whatever purpose they might have. Nuclear bomb on hiroshima to save american soldiers for example.

[Mil]

Posted by Northlander:



Iraq fiasco? An american fiasco maybe.


European fiasco. Europe has shown that it is commitless and would rather back out then get involved. EU participation in the Quartet, for example, is getting smaller every minute for exactly the reason.

Its not over. Bush is begging on his knees for more involvment from others, especially Russia, Germany and France.


Begging? Bush already accomplished whatever he wanted to accomplish - remove Saddam and start remaking the Middle East.


This costs USA more than France so who cares about your childish views of it?


Childish views? If France does agree to send troops it will not be anything significant - may be 10,000.


Here in europe France have gained alot of respect and USA are more or less considered to have made a stupid move by letting themselves into a terrorist/guerilla warfare without any end in sight. Its you taxmoney and your boys that are vanishing in Iraq, not ours.


Give it a year and nobody would care about France. Yet, on the diplomatic front it has shown that France is COMMITLESS!!! Who would want to deal with a country which:

1. Betrays its biggest ally
2. Hides behind UN resolutions
3. Hides its true intentions for non-involvement
4. Generally is un-appriaciative to the United States even in solving France's own issues. Such as liberating it from the Nazis.





Lack of morality has nothing to do with it. You fail to see that for them its just about collateral damage. A target sometimes legitimate for winning the war. Same thing as for our western militaries in other words. We are not targeting civilians now because we do not have to, when we have to we do it aswell. I would like to see your US army wage war on Russia for example. Both side would instantly go back to targeting civilians just as in WWII.


Russia and US would simply use nuclear weapons.


Same with Israel if they risked total military defeat,


In 1973 Israel did risk military defeat but it did not try to cause as much collateral damage as possible. However, the French in Algiers did. And the Germans - they just killed people for the hack of IT!!!!! You know it - you are from Europe.... Or may be you should defend the Nazis with your "collateral damage" logic?


or France.


And France did.


Everyone has a limit when they start to kill anyone for whatever purpose they might have. Nuclear bomb on hiroshima to save american soldiers for example.


The Nuclear bomb on Hiroshima had nothing to do with saving the lives of American soldiers. It had more to do with the Soviet Union and the beginnings of the Cold War where WWII had to be finished as soon as possible. At the time the Nuclear bombs were dropped the Soviets attacked Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria, a million strong battle group, and have completely destroyed it in the matter of two weeks. The fear in the American, British and French administrations was that the Soviets would not stop in Manchuria and under the existing pre-text of on-going conflict would go further then needed in Asia picking-up on the political gap created in the former British, French and Dutch colonies in the region. They were right - but in the 40s and 50s most of the former colonial regimes have left Asian colonies anyways where the Soviet Union took many of the new countries under its patronage.

Or lets discuss Dresden!!!! I love this WWII stuff. Or 1967 - I love it too.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mil

->"European fiasco. Europe has shown that it is commitless and would rather back out then get involved. EU participation in the Quartet, for example, is getting smaller every minute for exactly the reason. "

Would not the reason be rather Israel's refusal to see the European at the table of the negotiations?

->"Begging? Bush already accomplished whatever he wanted to accomplish - remove Saddam and start remaking the Middle East."

Ok, he done what he want to do, and now?

->"Childish views? If France does agree to send troops it will not be anything significant - may be 10,000. "

For France, 10.000 troops is not unsignificant. But why send more troops if the commandement Does not take into account his past errors and does not try to correct them?

->"Give it a year and nobody would care about France. "

Maybe, but France (and the rest of the world) existed before Irak war and will still exist after.

->" Yet, on the diplomatic front it has shown that France is COMMITLESS!!! Who would want to deal with a country which:

1. Betrays its biggest ally
2. Hides behind UN resolutions
3. Hides its true intentions for non-involvement
4. Generally is un-appriaciative to the United States even in solving France's own issues. Such as liberating it from the Nazis. "

-France is still the most powerful ally from US.
-Saved UN from the shame of US diktat and saved this institution at world's eyes.
- Hides is true intention for non agression.
-France will always be grateful in for having been freed in 44 by US troops. But all always ammused to see US forgetting that they owe to France.
( Independence, half of their territory-Louisianne-, served as shield during the WW1, to have been their most powerful ally during the cold war, etc.)

->"The Nuclear bomb on Hiroshima had nothing to do with saving the lives of American soldiers. It had more to do with the Soviet Union and the beginnings of the Cold War where WWII had to be finished as soon as possible. "

An enormous terroristic action... Yes is was monsterous.

->"Or lets discuss Dresden!!!! I love this WWII stuff. Or 1967 - I love it too. "

Congratulations.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


Would not the reason be rather Israel's refusal to see the European at the table of the negotiations?


Not really. It was mostly a European decision. Plus the Arabs don't want to see individual Europeans on the quartet either.


Ok, he done what he want to do, and now?


Nation building takes time. No one said it was that simple. It took much more American billions, American lives, and American commitment to rebuild France, Germany, Britian, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Korea.


For France, 10.000 troops is not unsignificant. But why send more troops if the commandement Does not take into account his past errors and does not try to correct them?


What are the past errors? Everyone talks about them but yet no one has outlined these in the comparible context proper context. Can you?


Maybe, but France (and the rest of the world) existed before Irak war and will still exist after.


France's fit at the UN in the last half a year would be remembered in the diplomatic circles for ages. That much I agree with.


-France is still the most powerful ally from US.

Post Iraq - I really doubt it.

-Saved UN from the shame of US diktat and saved this institution at world's eyes.


No. France did not save anything - it just exacirbated the situation. During the bombing of Serbia it was exactly the same thing where it was Russia and China that refused to act. Yet France did not save the day at that time because apparently back in 1999 France was very interested in putting down the last remaining European conflict; even at UNs expense. So it was NATO to the rescue. Do you remember how much Greece was against the bombing of Serbia? And Greece is in the EU.

So why the hypocracy? Or was it all done in the name of French domestic politics?

- Hides is true intention for non agression.


Yes. France did hide its true intentions.


-France will always be grateful in for having been freed in 44 by US troops.


Keep on remembering. Actually it was two wars and decolonizationl.


But all always ammused to see US forgetting that they owe to France.


Quebec. :) And the stupid Canadians.....


Independence


Ah, okay. France saved American REVOLUTION!!!!! No, French military had some limited role in the American revolution yet the French just love to keep reminding the US that it was really them.

half of their territory-Louisianne-,


That was a Finacial decision by Napoleon. We also owe Russia for Alaska - for the same reason... Right?


served as shield during the WW1,


This is dumbest one I heard so far!!!!!!!!! And who exactly was threatening US during WWI? Germany may be? Or Mexico?


to have been their most powerful ally during the cold war,


Really? I always thought it was Great Britain. France, especially from DeGaulle's time was always passive.

etc.)


Yeah, I know 30% of French revenues come from tourism and 40% of all tourists are Americans. Though I do have to admit - I love Pierre Ferrand.


An enormous terroristic action... Yes is was monsterous.


Look who is talking!!!! 1,000,0000 killed during the civil war in Algiers and about the same in Indo-China. Not to forget that France was one of the main culprits behind starting WWII and WWI which caused the death of tens of millions of Europeans.


Congratulations.


Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!


France did screw up big time. I recommend you just follow the events to come.

[MGB8]

"As a Sheild in WWI???" - WHAT??? The US did not want to go to war because they were not involved - the war was a GERMAN-FRANCO WAR, mainly. So was the European theater of the WWII.

Had the US decided not to send supplies to the Allies, the German subs may well have not targetted US ships, and you would be speaking German right now...

That said, the French did help a lot in the Revolution, although they were very much Johnny Come latelys. Still, their blockade at Yorktown was essential to the victory being what it was. However, time favored the American's in this war, being that the Brits where fighting far from home, and the costs rising...




Originally posted by Mil
Posted by TDier:


Would not the reason be rather Israel's refusal to see the European at the table of the negotiations?


Not really. It was mostly a European decision. Plus the Arabs don't want to see individual Europeans on the quartet either.


Ok, he done what he want to do, and now?


Nation building takes time. No one said it was that simple. It took much more American billions, American lives, and American commitment to rebuild France, Germany, Britian, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Korea.


For France, 10.000 troops is not unsignificant. But why send more troops if the commandement Does not take into account his past errors and does not try to correct them?


What are the past errors? Everyone talks about them but yet no one has outlined these in the comparible context proper context. Can you?


Maybe, but France (and the rest of the world) existed before Irak war and will still exist after.


France's fit at the UN in the last half a year would be remembered in the diplomatic circles for ages. That much I agree with.


-France is still the most powerful ally from US.

Post Iraq - I really doubt it.

-Saved UN from the shame of US diktat and saved this institution at world's eyes.


No. France did not save anything - it just exacirbated the situation. During the bombing of Serbia it was exactly the same thing where it was Russia and China that refused to act. Yet France did not save the day at that time because apparently back in 1999 France was very interested in putting down the last remaining European conflict; even at UNs expense. So it was NATO to the rescue. Do you remember how much Greece was against the bombing of Serbia? And Greece is in the EU.

So why the hypocracy? Or was it all done in the name of French domestic politics?

- Hides is true intention for non agression.


Yes. France did hide its true intentions.


-France will always be grateful in for having been freed in 44 by US troops.


Keep on remembering. Actually it was two wars and decolonizationl.


But all always ammused to see US forgetting that they owe to France.


Quebec. :) And the stupid Canadians.....


Independence


Ah, okay. France saved American REVOLUTION!!!!! No, French military had some limited role in the American revolution yet the French just love to keep reminding the US that it was really them.

half of their territory-Louisianne-,


That was a Finacial decision by Napoleon. We also owe Russia for Alaska - for the same reason... Right?


served as shield during the WW1,


This is dumbest one I heard so far!!!!!!!!! And who exactly was threatening US during WWI? Germany may be? Or Mexico?


to have been their most powerful ally during the cold war,


Really? I always thought it was Great Britain. France, especially from DeGaulle's time was always passive.

etc.)


Yeah, I know 30% of French revenues come from tourism and 40% of all tourists are Americans. Though I do have to admit - I love Pierre Ferrand.


An enormous terroristic action... Yes is was monsterous.


Look who is talking!!!! 1,000,0000 killed during the civil war in Algiers and about the same in Indo-China. Not to forget that France was one of the main culprits behind starting WWII and WWI which caused the death of tens of millions of Europeans.


Congratulations.


Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!


France did screw up big time. I recommend you just follow the events to come.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mil

->"Not really. It was mostly a European decision. Plus the Arabs don't want to see individual Europeans on the quartet either. "

That is your point of view.

->"Nation building takes time. No one said it was that simple. It took much more American billions, American lives, and American commitment to rebuild France, Germany, Britian, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Korea. "

Those nations were rebuilt by their own populations with US help (important help). But for Irak the war is not finished... And what Bush wanted is oil, he don't have it yet (by sabotages).

->"What are the past errors? Everyone talks about them but yet no one has outlined these in the comparible context proper context. Can you? "

Look at olds Bush speechs and you will find the errors (that is simple: what he said in past but now he is saying the opposite...).

->"France's fit at the UN in the last half a year would be remembered in the diplomatic circles for ages. That much I agree with. "

US are not the world, US are not UN. By his action at UN, France was renforced to a level that you seem not able to understand...

->"-France is still the most powerful ally from US.
Post Iraq - I really doubt it. "

Post GWBush, it will be.

->"-Saved UN from the shame of US diktat and saved this institution at world's eyes.
No. France did not save anything - it just exacirbated the situation. "

Are you really sure?

->" During the bombing of Serbia it was exactly the same thing where it was Russia and China that refused to act. Yet France did not save the day at that time because apparently back in 1999 France was very interested in putting down the last remaining European conflict; even at UNs expense. So it was NATO to the rescue. Do you remember how much Greece was against the bombing of Serbia? And Greece is in the EU. "

As I said to you, in Kosovo the ethnic-cleaning was at work. And it was no possible doubt about Milosevic's intentions(he showed what he is able in former Yougoslavia.).
Greece has an ennemy and a fair: the ennemies are turks and the fair is the rising of Macedonia. No long calcul to see why greeks were against an intervention in Kosovo (turkoman country).

->"So why the hypocracy? Or was it all done in the name of French domestic politics? "

I'm sure that it would be easyer for you if it was true, but...


->"-France will always be grateful in for having been freed in 44 by US troops.
Keep on remembering. Actually it was two wars and decolonizationl. "

WW2, only.
For WW1, US have just sed troops which allowed to relieve French forces to be able to strengthen.
At the end of the war the French army possessed several divisions and thousand tanks and planes in reserve to invade Germany.
If there was no US intervention, France would have used these forces instead of preparing them for the invasion.
France would anyway have won this war because Germans did not lose it militarily but by the uprising of the population which wanted no more this war.
For decolonization US forced France to do that and it was a good thing. But US created is own decolonizations war...

->" Independence
Ah, okay. France saved American REVOLUTION!!!!! No, French military had some limited role in the American revolution yet the French just love to keep reminding the US that it was really them. "

Not saved the revolution, saved the constitution.
France sended weapons to US (France was the only power able to counter english on sea) and troops, the only really trained to faced english troops. Washington has never won a battle... France have force englishs to withdraw...

->" half of their territory-Louisianne-,
That was a Finacial decision by Napoleon. We also owe Russia for Alaska - for the same reason... Right? "

France sell a aircraft-carrier to Brazil just to permit him to enter in security council, for Louisiane it was the same raisonnement: improve power of an ally.

->" served as shield during the WW1,
This is dumbest one I heard so far!!!!!!!!! And who exactly was threatening US during WWI? Germany may be? Or Mexico? "

If France was lost, Britain would quickly fall and US democracy would have to faced to a great danger .

->"Really? I always thought it was Great Britain. France, especially from DeGaulle's time was always passive. "

I said most powerfull not closest... Power is more important in strategic views, closest is just interristing in tactical operations.

->"Yeah, I know 30% of French revenues come from tourism and 40% of all tourists are Americans. Though I do have to admit - I love Pierre Ferrand. "

Good news, this year was difficile but not Catastrophic for tourism industrie in France (but in US...)


->"An enormous terroristic action... Yes is was monsterous.
Look who is talking!!!! 1,000,0000 killed during the civil war in Algiers and about the same in Indo-China. Not to forget that France was one of the main culprits behind starting WWII and WWI which caused the death of tens of millions of Europeans."

You spoke about war, I spoke about murder of civilians to won some profits...


SeeU, Didier.

[Mil]

I am just wandering if they teach critical thinking or history at French schools? Or their "critical thinking" lessons all focus on anti-Americanism?


TDier I can congradulate you. You don't know much history - especially European history - for me to even consider you in anyway seriously outside the regular sarcastic rhetoric. Hell - they taught me better in the Russian school.... but then again given the quality the present leaders in Europe it is no suprise that they keep on messing up. I solely contribute it to the European education system.

[danholo]

Mil, don't make me laugh. I don't know about France but Finnish schools are among the worlds best and the literacy rate is extremely high (99.9% or something like that) and reading comprehension has been ranked the best in the world. What I've learned about history is mainly in Finnish schools and it has taught me a lot.

The US education system on a public level is a joke. As far as I know, collectively Americans are one of the more ignorant people on this planet, especially when it comes to history - even US history - while America does have the best schools in the world and houses massive amounts of "intellectuals". This shouldn't be the case.

[Mil]

Posted by Dahnolo:


Mil, don't make me laugh.

I am not trying to.


I don't know about France but Finnish schools are among the worlds best and the literacy rate is extremely high (99.9% or something like that) and reading comprehension has been ranked the best in the world.


Given that Finish is the official language in Finland and the population is just over a few million it is very normal.

What I've learned about history is mainly in Finnish schools and it has taught me a lot.

But sorry to disappoint you - what I learned in American high-school history classes also taught me a lot. And especially in college.


The US education system on a public level is a joke.


I would not say so. Depends which high-school.


As far as I know, collectively Americans are one of the more ignorant people on this planet,


Collectively you are wrong.


especially when it comes to history - even US history - while America does have the best schools in the world and houses massive amounts of "intellectuals".

That probably reflects the calibre of people you hang out with. Most of the Americans I know are very intellectually advanced.

This shouldn't be the case.


There is a reason why America is the strongest, the most successful, the richest and the most powerful country on the planet. If the stupid people were in charge of USA do you think it would be the case? America is the most important economic, scientific and political entity on Earth and that is due to something.

[minusthejihad]

Mil, for once, I completely agree!

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil


As far as I know, collectively Americans are one of the more
There is a reason why America is the strongest, the most successful, the richest and the most powerful country on the planet. If the stupid people were in charge of USA do you think it would be the case? America is the most important economic, scientific and political entity on Earth and that is due to something.



Are you trying to explain us that GWBush is:

:eek: FRENCH !!! :confused:


:D

[minusthejihad]

No, I think Mil is just trying to say:

Enjoy the view from the sidelines while the "French opinion" slithers its way into obscurity!

Oh, and that your knowledge of History is pretty pathetic. But most of us figure you still have time left in high school to learn a bit more, so its not all that depressing.

[Northlander]

There is a reason why America is the strongest, the most successful, the richest and the most powerful country on the planet. If the stupid people were in charge of USA do you think it would be the case? America is the most important economic, scientific and political entity on Earth and that is due to something.

Absolutely. But its a tendency among americans to belive that means that others are less educated or maybe even intelligent.
Your position in the world today is not because of a widespread general knowledge among ordinary americans. On the contrary probably. If I where to invent the perfect superpower for the 21st century I would clearly keep a part of the population fairly uneducated while the elite would be highly educated. The benefits of that would be many. Danholo is absolutely right about Finland vs US education, I just think the two nations have different goals with their systems.

There is alot to say about why USA is the leading nation besides education. And I think its fair to say americans must have done something right. That however doesnt mean coming or current governments cant make a load of misstakes which weakens your position. Historically usually that is what happens when the people of great powers get to content. The question the next 100 years I guess is, can you keep your position as the leading economical and military power?

Im not sure, you probably can, but right now many are surprised how you act as a nation. This terrorist thing is not handled very impressive. We are seeing now one of those rare moments when there are clear signs of pure stupidity in the white house.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Northlander
Im not sure, you probably can, but right now many are surprised how you act as a nation. This terrorist thing is not handled very impressive. We are seeing now one of those rare moments when there are clear signs of pure stupidity in the white house.

What terrorist thing are you talking about. Please be specific. You've thrown around heavy words before, no one knows what you call terrorism any more?

Secondly, I'll tell you why America is the greatest nation. Because the world's smartest and brightest people yearn to be free and they come here, just like my parnets did and so many others do every single day.

[danholo]

That probably reflects the calibre of people you hang out with.

Actually the people I "hang out" with are educated and have degrees in something. Of course at work the "support staff" are mainly minorities and don't know much - sorry to say.

If the stupid people were in charge of USA do you think it would be the case?

Well I don't consider our current leader in high esteem when it comes to intellect. But otherwise I agree with you.

America is the most important economic, scientific and political entity on Earth and that is due to something.

Of course. I don't deny that at all. I am very aware that the US, at the moment, is the leader at research and even education - and I never said the US has only stupid people, did I? And you, for example, I think of as very intelligent, full of knowledge etc.
But what I do know is that there are a lot of uneducated people in this country and very ignorant. Might be because of high population and a constant flood of immigrants. But the US would have the capacity to educate everyone. Think of how powerful this country would be then?!

But what I love about this country is that even complete morons can get ahead. Now that's a land of opportunity and freedom. :)

[Northlander]

What terrorist thing are you talking about. Please be specific. You've thrown around heavy words before, no one knows what you call terrorism any more?

By terrorist thing I mean Americas war on terror. 9-11 and events after that.


Secondly, I'll tell you why America is the greatest nation. Because the world's smartest and brightest people yearn to be free and they come here, just like my parnets did and so many others do every single day.

Im sure your parents are intelligent folks and obviously your nation is based on immigration but its hardly the reason for world domination.

[minusthejihad]

More excuses from someone who can't stand to see Americans and Israelis defending themselves.

Make all the noise you want. Who cares!

[danholo]

Originally posted by Northlander
Im sure your parents are intelligent folks and obviously your nation is based on immigration but its hardly the reason for world domination.

Yes. In one sence the US does dominate the world - its culture dominates the world. There has always, since the beginning of human civilization, been some sort of hegemonious power and always will be. To be honest, I'd rather see the US as the world leader at the moment then anything else. Or would you like to see political Islam rise? I'll fight to death before that'll happen.

[Mil]

Posted by Northlander:


Absolutely.


So what's the problem?


But its a tendency among americans to belive that means that others are less educated or maybe even intelligent.


I am an immigrant to the United States and thus can make a good comparison. Thank you very much.


Your position in the world today is not because of a widespread general knowledge among ordinary americans. On the contrary probably.


Sure - it's because we are stupid.


If I where to invent the perfect superpower for the 21st century I would clearly keep a part of the population fairly uneducated while the elite would be highly educated.


WHAT????????? Are you on drugs? What kind of garbage is this?


The benefits of that would be many. Danholo is absolutely right about Finland vs US education, I just think the two nations have different goals with their systems.


Sure, for US it's the PAX-Americana and for Finland it's the education. Again, garbage.


There is alot to say about why USA is the leading nation besides education. And I think its fair to say americans must have done something right.


Yep.


That however doesnt mean coming or current governments cant make a load of misstakes which weakens your position.


Weakens? Okay - porky.


Historically usually that is what happens when the people of great powers get to content. The question the next 100 years I guess is, can you keep your position as the leading economical and military power?


Don't warry.


Im not sure, you probably can, but right now many are surprised how you act as a nation.


I've been suprised how educated Europe has acted in the last century myself. With World Wars, genocides (well into the 90s), and such.


This terrorist thing is not handled very impressive.


Actually it's been handled very impressively. The entire Arab world is shaking.


We are seeing now one of those rare moments when there are clear signs of pure stupidity in the white house.


Or rather stupidity in the EU. Apparently outside their own borders and some peace-keeping in Afganistan EU has done absolutely nothing to fight terror even though they know exactly of where the source is. They are all busy philosiphying on the matter and blaming US for all of their faults. It's all typical. I am from Europe myself.... My grandparents fought your wars, they suffered during your wars, they paid for your social experimentation, for your economical failures, for you political irresponsibility. And you blame the US which was solving the problems and is still dealing with the environment you created in the past many centuries? What's happening in the Arab world lies squerly on the shoulders of European colonialism.... as one of the things Europe has still to answer for. Why don't you resolve it? Ah? COMMON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mil]

Posted by Northlander:



Im sure your parents are intelligent folks and obviously your nation is based on immigration but its hardly the reason for world domination.


US is the most tolerant, the most socially, economically, legally and politically advanced nation in the world. Europe is still far back rotting their in the dust. You think legalizing drugs and prostitution is the peak of social freedom - think again ? Nope. We are a superpower because we who we are, they way we act...

Actually I would take all the immigrant countries much higher then Europe. Canada, Australia also leave European idiocy far out there.

[TDidier]

Why US is the most powerful nation actually in the world, hum...

A low educated french would certainly said that is because Europeans wars: WW1 and WW2.
At the end of WW1, US have sell to european all they were able to pay for and then US were owner of the most fabulous gold reserve in history...
This gold permited to US to build their domination on world by economics actions.
Was it a good thing? Certainly yes, despite some awfuls acts of agression and despite GWBush.
provided that the USA remain a democracy of course... :D

Your uncontested empire is 10 years old... That is a bit few to make any conclusion about your impact on global human history, don't you think?

SeeU, Didier

[danholo]

Originally posted by Mil
US is the most tolerant, the most socially, economically, legally and politically advanced nation in the world. Europe is still far back rotting their in the dust. You think legalizing drugs and prostitution is the peak of social freedom - think again ? Nope. We are a superpower because we who we are, they way we act...

I'll say that the drug policies of the Netherlands work much better than a phony "War on Drugs" that the US trying to wage isn't working at all. Rehabilitation crack/coke/heroin addicts is a much better way to go than incarcerating an 18-year old for having a gram of pot on him. Drug addicts are mainly treated like some kind of evil people - while they should actually be helped.

I have nothing at all to say about prostitution however.

[Mil]

I'll say that the drug policies of the Netherlands work much better than a phony "War on Drugs" that the US trying to wage isn't working at all. Rehabilitation crack/coke/heroin addicts is a much better way to go than incarcerating an 18-year old for having a gram of pot on him. Drug addicts are mainly treated like some kind of evil people - while they should actually be helped.


Actually it is a huge problem in Netherlands and the guidelines to if it works or not are also questionable. Plus Netherlands is small and US is big and everyone drives. In US it will never work - period.

[danholo]

But you think a person who carries a minimal amount of marijuana on him has to be put in jail for, actually, no good reason at all?

The "War on Drugs" has proven very ineffective as well.

[minusthejihad]

Dude, speaking from experience ;) , that stuff doesn't happen. The "war on Drugs" sucks, but you may be over-exagerating it.

[Mediocrates]

So you did community the service option? ;)

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


Why US is the most powerful nation actually in the world, hum...

A low educated french would certainly said that is because Europeans wars: WW1 and WW2.


Ah?


At the end of WW1, US have sell to european all they were able to pay for and then US were owner of the most fabulous gold reserve in history...


Two things:
1. In 1913 US with the population of some 60 million was the third largest producer in the world behind the British Empire and Germany.
2. It's not the American problem that your stupid idealogues have fought wars which they themselves initiated and also had to pay for in Gold or whatever else. And then come to US and beg for intervention TWICE!!!


This gold permited to US to build their domination on world by economics actions.

Gold? That's something new.


Was it a good thing? Certainly yes, despite some awfuls acts of agression and despite GWBush.

Or despite Serbia, two world wars, colonialism, genocide, anti-semitism and the rest of the garbage like Communism.

provided that the USA remain a democracy of course...


US is the oldest and the most advanced modern Democracy in the world and it will stay that way.


Your uncontested empire is 10 years old...


Empire? How is American an empire. I love this stuff - start singing....


That is a bit few to make any conclusion about your impact on global human history, don't you think?


Apparently Europe made a huge mark on world history. We are still paying for it. May be you, the French, should have listened to Wilson in 1918. What do you think? Apparently our stupid presidents have been giving you some good advices but I guess you were too smart to take these seriously. Sorry - my parents took me out of Europe and I am very grateful to them.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil


Apparently Europe made a huge mark on world history. We are still paying for it. May be you, the French, should have listened to Wilson in 1918. What do you think? Apparently our stupid presidents have been giving you some good advices but I guess you were too smart to take these seriously. Sorry - my parents took me out of Europe and I am very grateful to them.

We are grateful to them too... ;)

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


We are grateful to them too...


I wouldn't laugh. But we can start from the beginning:

1. One of my grandpa's fought in the mechanized infantry of the 4th Guards Tank Army under Marshal Lelyshenko going all the way from Kursk to Prague. He has two Red Stars, Medal for "Bravery", Medal for the "Liberation of Warsaw", medal for the "Liberation Belgrade", medal for the "Storming of Bucharest", medal for the "Storming of Budapest", medal for the "Storming of Vienna." He also has a Guards pin and a specia Yugoslavian medal awarded by Marshall Tito himself. Granpa's older brother was classified as missing in action under Stalingrad.

2. My other grandpa was building tanks in the city of Gorkiy, he was 14 when the war started and 18 when it ended. His older brother went into Peoples' Brigades in the terrible days of 1941 and came back in the February of 1942 without an arm.

3. Both of my grammas were evacuated to Khazakstan and were picking cotton and tobacco for the war effort.



I can go on, and on, and on... I can start talking about my fiance's side of things. On her side this stuff really becomes scarry - concentration camps and stuff.

I know Minus probably has the same story to tell as do many other European immigrants on this forum. My family contributed a lot to your idiotic continent it's only a shame that most, mostly as many who were left after the Nazis, don't live in Europe anymore.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mil

We are grateful to them too...
->"I wouldn't laugh. But we can start from the beginning:

Be cool Mil my friend, I said that just for you: we (europeans) are gratfull to your ancester to emmigrate in US and make you born in US.
No doubt on the qualities of your familly. It need a lot of courage to emigrate. But I presume nothing on genetic or ethnics values, then I spoke only about you, what you said here and what I understood of your way of thinking.

"1. One of my grandpa's fought in the mechanized infantry of the 4th Guards Tank Army under Marshal Lelyshenko going all the way from Kursk to Prague. He has two Red Stars, Medal for "Bravery", Medal for the "Liberation of Warsaw", medal for the "Liberation Belgrade", medal for the "Storming of Bucharest", medal for the "Storming of Budapest", medal for the "Storming of Vienna." He also has a Guards pin and a specia Yugoslavian medal awarded by Marshall Tito himself. Granpa's older brother was classified as missing in action under Stalingrad.

2. My other grandpa was building tanks in the city of Gorkiy, he was 14 when the war started and 18 when it ended. His older brother went into Peoples' Brigades in the terrible days of 1941 and came back in the February of 1942 without an arm.

3. Both of my grammas were evacuated to Khazakstan and were picking cotton and tobacco for the war effort. ""

congratulations.
No doubt that they would prefere have a quiet life in their home, but humanity is that what we know...
If you would be a horse, I would say that you have a good pedigree, but we don't judge the men like horses. Only your thinking is important here and what you understand about history, how to change human old tradition of violence

For my part I'm lorrain(Frank) my ancesters conquiered the world and built occidental civilisation...
But I accept to continue the speech. :D

->"My family contributed a lot to your idiotic continent it's only a shame that most, mostly as many who were left after the Nazis, don't live in Europe anymore. "

Never forget that those who stay here have the same history.

I think that you are confusionning about Europe (west) and Russia(more asiatic in the way of government)...

->"Empire? How is American an empire. I love this stuff - start singing...."

An empire compared with US actual power and your network of sattelites vassals states.

->"1. In 1913 US with the population of some 60 million was the third largest producer in the world behind the British Empire and Germany."

Yes you are right, US rising began with european fall at WW1 and continue with WW2. :cool:

->"US is the oldest and the most advanced modern Democracy in the world and it will stay that way."

Exact and it will continue as long as US people will not permit to one of their government to lie to them.

SeeU, Didier.

[danholo]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Dude, speaking from experience ;) , that stuff doesn't happen. The "war on Drugs" sucks, but you may be over-exagerating it.

Well, well. :D

So what I hear are lies? Isn't it true that there's a disproportionate amount of "drug offenders" that really don't even deserve to be in jail? The DEA focuses too much on petty thieves or normal college kids who want to get high then real drug lords, which are the real bad guys? And the tax payer has to pay for those in jail for just carrying a bag of weed or like what happened to Tommy Chong yesterday for selling paraphernalia (hand crafted bongs)! I believe he was set as an example. How ridicilous, don't you think? The government sometimes chooses to pick on the "little guy" which is disguisting.

Eh, whatever. This doesn't belong on this thread.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006DF0A.htm

Excerpt ...

The 'rule of law' of the international bureaucrats in charge of these war-torn states makes a mockery of the law itself. 'Rule of law' should not mean merely that there is a set of rules and regulations, backed up by the military, police and the courts. After all, any old dictator could do that. What distinguishes the 'rule of law' is that this framework is predicated on consent and the equality of rights, rather than on claims of 'special knowledge', whether that of the 'divine right', of Kings or the 'civilising' mission of a colonial administration. Without consent and popular engagement in the law-making process, the ruling authority in Iraq will not be able to generate government legitimacy or cohere Iraqi society.


The danger of prioritising the 'rule of law' above the political process is the risk of unregulated and arbitrary power. In Bosnia, the High Representative regularly dismisses presidents and prime ministers if they do not do his bidding. A similar danger is all too apparent in Iraq, under US and British administration, where there is no constitutional process of appeal for wrongful detention or capacity to challenge the rule of international administrators. Once the rule of law is separated from the democratic process, it becomes the rule of tyranny rather than the rule of justice.


To escape the hubris brought on by their military power, the Washington administrators would do well to heed the warning of the late Hans Morgenthau, the founder of 'realism' in international relations, who argued that while hubris was brought to ground through the political pressures of domestic politics, it was in the international field 'that the belief in the limitless power' of political doctrinaires was particularly dangerous, for here 'the panaceas engendered by this belief have no connection whatsoever with the forces which determine the actual course of events'.

[Communication]

Arab states take new Iraq aboard


Iraq's US-appointed caretaker government has formally joined the Arab League, filling the vacancy left by the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3091026.stm

[TDidier]

News from the front line...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1041822,00.html

SeeU, Didier.

[Northlander]

Mil, no one is "ungrateful" of your grandparents efforts. Belive me. I think we could all sit and discuss WWII for days and feel exactly the same way about both russian and american troops and their sacrifice. We shouldnt even need to argue on this since I have as much respect for those doing the fighting as anyone of you. Im not leftwing pacifist.

On the other subject of USA being superpower... yes a large part of uneducated population is imperative for a superpower. A MILITARY superpower. Anyone having read any of the various theories of why the southern regiments were worth more than the northern regiments during your civil war knows why.

USA have succeded in making the quality of the individual soldier mean less in warfare, sure, but its still there when you have equal material strenght. In short, poor people make better soldiers and the recruitment of soldiers benefits from an underclass.

I could use Israel as an exeption maybe since education generally are excellent there but their military tradition is different and there we have a unique conscription I would say.

For a country of USAs size, a fairly uneducated, fairly poor workingclass population is a must. You dont win a war with 500 000 harvard students in the frontline if they are also supposed to be volunteers.

[Mediocrates]

That was your typical racist rant. The US on an annual basis collects more patents than the rest of the world combined. Half of our advanced scientific and medical school enrollment is foreign born (it must be good for something), The US spends more on R+D than the rest of the world, combined.

So take your "we are so charmed with our opinion of ourselves' nonsense somewhere else.

The fact is - the army IS volunteer and the average soldier spends more time in front of a keyboard than carrying a gun. Try speaking about something you know about next time.

[Enuff]

Saddam and Islam, using the French and Germans vested interests, found a weakness in the U.N. similar to the German and Italian quest which crippled and destroyed the League of Nations. The program would ‘re-legitimize’ and perpetuate the Iraqi regime under the U.N.’s umbrella and allow further expansion of Islam‘s goals with financing from Iraq oil reserves. The leagues failures were simple: article 10 , required the members to collectively preserve "the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members" and that the Council would make recommendations on how that pledge would be fulfilled. Article 5, dealt with the leagues voting procedure and provided that decisions by the Council required unanimity among the members in attendance where members had to unanimously agree on punitive action against aggressors. But what the League failed to see that if one of the members themselves committed an aggression, it could successfully veto any League action against itself.

The U.N.‘s failures were simple also: Under the U.N.’s program/proposal by the French and Germans, if inspections failed to turn up evidence of the weapons programs, the Iraq regime would be freed to pursue its policies unhindered in whatever direction of its choice. If weapons or evidence were found, the weapons could simply be destroyed and the inspection process continued ad infinitum; most likely, with sanctions removed due to the humanitarian considerations and pressures of world opinion.

But what Islam and France failed to realize was the U.S.'s awareness to the U.N.‘s weakness and that they could not, nor would not, allow the regime to continue - as it presented both a regional threat to any Israel-Palestinian peace initiative but also a real possibility expansion of Islamic policies utilizing worldwide terrorism. U.N. institutional policy deficiencies had to be exposed necessitating a pre-emptive measures to remove the tyrannical regime and expose the very real Islamic threat and the U.N.’s failure.

As a result, we watch the terrorism in Iraq, a belligerent Europe(failing to help with measures to stabilize and ensure the freedom of the Iraqi’s) and an emboldened Islam with its increasing threats of terrorism worldwide.

[Mil]

Posted by Northlander:



Mil, no one is "ungrateful" of your grandparents efforts. Belive me. I think we could all sit and discuss WWII for days and feel exactly the same way about both russian and american troops and their sacrifice. We shouldnt even need to argue on this since I have as much respect for those doing the fighting as anyone of you. Im not leftwing pacifist.


What really upsets me is how much USA has done for Europe in comparison to how much Europe has done for the USA.


On the other subject of USA being superpower... yes a large part of uneducated population is imperative for a superpower.


Northlander - what are you talking about? Is this the kind of stuff they say in Europe? No offence but this is really stupid to what you just said and that is as much as I am going to comment on the issue.

On a different note USA is the largest inventor in the world this includes over 80% of all the drug research, 60% medical research and etc.... I'll look for all the statistics - time permitting. There is quite a lot of information out-there.


A MILITARY superpower. Anyone having read any of the various theories of why the southern regiments were worth more than the northern regiments during your civil war knows why.


Why? Why were southern regiments worth more? If anything the Southern Regiments were mostly made of farm boy with even the literacy rate lower than that of the North. The reason why the South performed just a bit better militarily was because the military leadership of the South was better. The Southernerss were always connected and associated closer with the social elites of the United States and especially Europe. Thus the quality of commanders and generals was better over-all.

But again Southern superiority is hugely over-rated.


USA have succeded in making the quality of the individual soldier mean less in warfare,


Are you crazy? American army is a PROFESSIONAL army and if anything the quality of an individual soldier went up.


sure, but its still there when you have equal material strenght.


What are you talking about? American army is not a conscripted army - what you are describing applies in some sence more to the Soviet Union than the United States but even that comparison is very far-fetched. Again American army is not a conscripted army.


In short, poor people make better soldiers and the recruitment of soldiers benefits from an underclass.

I don't understand your point.... The recruitment into the army is encouraged from all levels of society. The problem is that it's the poor classes that find the army attractive due to economic benefits which they otherwise would not enjoy - but that's a different story. Again - American army is not a conscripted army.

I live an in affluent suburb of Chicago and personally know people who have joined the army.


I could use Israel as an exeption maybe since education generally are excellent there but their military tradition is different and there we have a unique conscription I would say.


Northlander - I think you are very confused on the issue of military doctrines, military economics and such and I would recommend you abondon the topic before going into the lah-lah land.


For a country of USAs size, a fairly uneducated, fairly poor workingclass population is a must.

???????? For a country of Sweden it's important for everyone to fish because if hard times would hit at least there will be food on the table. Sounds as stupid.


You dont win a war with 500 000 harvard students in the frontline if they are also supposed to be volunteers.

I think you mis-understand the term Professional army vs. a Conscripted Army as practiced in places like the Soviet Union. I am very familiar with the topic and this is not the time or the place to discuss this.

[TDidier]

To Northlander:

About the low education rate which improve military competence I think that you are wrong. Look at antics Persian/greek wars.
The most important social improvement (in France) after the 1870 war between Prusse(Germany)/France was the creation of compulsory school for everybody. In really it was not a social measure but a militar one!
During the war it appared that german soldiers were more educated than frenchs and if the courage was at same level, efficiency and comprehention of war techniques were on German side...
During WW1, this measure give some results: despite total incompetence of some commanders and massives deaths, the soldiers stand front german army best commanded and best equiped.
Conscripted army have always give the best in wars (if they have an ideal only!).

But that is right that low educated population is indispensable to an Empire.

To Mil:

"What really upsets me is how much USA has done for Europe in comparison to how much Europe has done for the USA."

Europe have done many, be sure, to comfort actual leadership of USA during past 50 years.

To Enuff:

"Saddam and Islam, using the French and Germans vested interests, found a weakness in the U.N. similar to the German and Italian quest which crippled and destroyed the League of Nations."

The League of Nation was weak in cause of US refusal to enter in.
US stopped commerce with nazi Germany only at Pearl-Harbour attaque but some business-man continued to trade with nazis by off-shore company intermediary (look to Bush familly's fortune comming in part from a jews slaves camp nearly from Auschwitz).

"As a result, we watch the terrorism in Iraq, a belligerent Europe(failing to help with measures to stabilize and ensure the freedom of the Iraqi’s) and an emboldened Islam with its increasing threats of terrorism worldwide."

And all that is Europe failing (France's fault be sure :rolleyes: )

SeeU, Didier.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


About the low education rate which improve military competence I think that you are wrong. Look at antics Persian/greek wars. The most important social improvement (in France) after the 1870 war between Prusse(Germany)/France was the creation of compulsory school for everybody. In really it was not a social measure but a militar one!


Mostly social.


During the war it appared that german soldiers were more educated than frenchs and if the courage was at same level, efficiency and comprehention of war techniques were on German side...


German army was also better equipped and Bismark was no Napoleon.


During WW1, this measure give some results: despite total incompetence of some commanders and massives deaths, the soldiers stand front german army best commanded and best equiped.


What always worked against the French in battle was complete incompetence of the political leadership and not the quality of individual soldiers.

Conscripted army have always give the best in wars (if they have an ideal only!).


It's not that simple. It all depends on so many things.....


But that is right that low educated population is indispensable to an Empire.


Why?


Europe have done many, be sure, to comfort actual leadership of USA during past 50 years.


Like what?


The League of Nation was weak in cause of US refusal to enter in.

The League of Nations was weak because it was headed by France and Britain :)


US stopped commerce with nazi Germany only at Pearl-Harbour attaque but some business-man continued to trade with nazis by off-shore company intermediary (look to Bush familly's fortune comming in part from a jews slaves camp nearly from Auschwitz).


Blah-blah-blah.... blah-blah... blah-blah.... As if US was behind WWII - but I guess in Europe they rewrite history. If anything it was the French historical fear of the Germans that has caused the war in the first place.

The reason why the League did not work was because at its conception the most important and the strongest world players were actually missing in the membership and were physically excluded from the process. The main world players were USA, USSR and Germany followed by Britain and then France.


Now let me ask you a question what did happen between Germany, USSR, USA vs. the League of Nations?

Why was USSR excluded? Why was Germany? And what happened to USA?

[Northlander]

My god you are ignorant. Yes Mediocrates I know some about this topic and Yes I know the difference between conscription and professional armies.


That was your typical racist rant. The US on an annual basis collects more patents than the rest of the world combined. Half of our advanced scientific and medical school enrollment is foreign born (it must be good for something), The US spends more on R+D than the rest of the world, combined.

How was it racist? Isnt it fair to say you benefits as a nation from BOTH uneducated immigration and educated?

Yes USA spends most on R+D but you dont have most scientists per capita, far from, which is a better meassurments on AVERGAGE education. Why wont you agree that your educational system is based on having an elite whereas Finlands is not?
Surely you must see the difference if you know anything about Finland at all.


The fact is - the army IS volunteer and the average soldier spends more time in front of a keyboard than carrying a gun. Try speaking about something you know about next time.

*Sigh* From where are those soliders generally recruited?
Workingclass with low education or over/middleclass with high education? If the workingclass is overrepresented I am right and you are wrong.

Its not possible to present warfare as carreer choice which USA does if you dont have enough people in the population that would see it as an opportunity. In Finland it wouldnt work that way since their workingclass are not that desperate.

I think it says alot about US society when you hear young people talking about US Army as a possibility for education and a profession. What about ordinary education? Not an option?
For many no.


On a different note USA is the largest inventor in the world this includes over 80% of all the drug research, 60% medical research and etc.... I'll look for all the statistics - time permitting. There is quite a lot of information out-there.

I´ve done it before and its timecousuming but I can easily come up with numbers that shows that you are not the top scientific nation PER CAPITA. That was what we where talking about remember. That americans GENERALLY are not that educated. That was what Danholo compared with Finland.

If a nation of USA size only have highly educated people you will soon have probelems with both recruitment to your PROFESSIONAL army, that is my point, AND for industrial production and agriculture and so on. You are very naive if you think there is no need for a less educated workforce in a nation.


Are you crazy? American army is a PROFESSIONAL army and if anything the quality of an individual soldier went up.

Yes I know its professional, still my point. The quality is always higher among professionals than conscripts for sure. But your technological advantage has made quality less important on the battlefield from a traditional POV. It doesnt matter if the enemy has trained their infantry since childhood and they only sent in elite troops now, AS MUCH as it did before when the technological advantage were less.

I see you dont get my point even though its a wellknown military subject which you should know about if you are "educated" in military things.
The difficulty in having motivated soliders in a peaceful democracy with high education and plenty of careerchoices are well-known and old. Rome built its army upon the career method as well and succeded just as USA are. the elite in society is never a problem and are usually overepresented among officers and so on. The bulk of the roman army consited of people from the provinses. People seeing the roman army as a way to rise in roman society which would have been difficult doing otherwise. In USA the gap between classes are not as large of cource but its still there for sure. It IS a careerchoice and a possibility which it would have been if the possibilities for a civil career where limitless.

Its not an attractive careerchoice for people to join the army when you have close to 100 percent literacy, 60 percent go through university and every potential soldier make a load af cash every month as a civilian. Conscription becomes the only choice.

What you would want as a strong military nation is a large population that sees military life as kinda ok, its better than the civilian life and pays better.
The take it even a level beyond its possible to say that poor people especially with a violent and harsh background makes better soldiers individually. Its possible to boost their self-esteem and bond by making them belive that they all have the same traits that differs them from the "ordinary" less competent soldiers and humans. This becomes close to fascism but has been done effectivly throughout history and still is done. "You are special since you have endured alot which others would not manage". Not my idea, I dont like it, so dont attack my for it but the means have always been the same when building competent armys that were not nobility. Soldiers from the higher classes had the same views from childhood and didnt need that encouragment.
The foreign legion is built like that even today. People with a load of problems behind and nothing to lose and then with the right training and officers you have people that develop a very strong military code. Very different from what some students from Harvard or Stockholm university would.

Israel of cource have succeded in having a great quality among their soldiers even though they have conscription, to an unique level I would say. Their strength is not just technological as we all know. Motivation in Israel is not a problem considering the threats but the social and educational strenght of Israeli society COULD and WOULD be a problem in another developed country.
They are special also in that conscription serves as a advantage in civil life as well, isnt usually like that in western countries. Longer time in the army etc. A special case as I said.

Nevertheless the best thing to have is professional sodiers and to have that in large numbers you must have men with few options. That is the lowerclass. Always have been always will be.

[Mediocrates]

My god you are dull. You are basically and essentially talking to yourself. You are tweaking and shirking statistics to reinvent reality.

My God you are a waste of typing.

Go back to twaddling about the Euro.

[Mil]

Posted by Northlander:



If a nation of USA size only have highly educated people you will soon have probelems with both recruitment to your PROFESSIONAL army, that is my point, AND for industrial production and agriculture and so on.


Given that our agriculture is completely subsidized that's not a problem.


You are very naive if you think there is no need for a less educated workforce in a nation.


Then it's true for Sweden as well - there is a class of people in Sweden which are kept un-educated to work at factories, fish, serve as sailors, sweep streets, and of course work at the oil refinaries.



Yes I know its professional, still my point. The quality is always higher among professionals than conscripts for sure. But your technological advantage has made quality less important on the battlefield from a traditional POV.


What are you talking about? What's quality on the battlefield?


It doesnt matter if the enemy has trained their infantry since childhood and they only sent in elite troops now, AS MUCH as it did before when the technological advantage were less.


No military on this planet trains their infantry since childhood or trains their soldiers as much as the US does - for that matter. Most militaries are comparitevily very small, mostly made of conscripts, and are mostly under-funded. Do you know how much an AK-47 magazine costs? Or M-16 for that matter?


I see you dont get my point even though its a wellknown military subject which you should know about if you are "educated" in military things.


Don't make me laugh.


The difficulty in having motivated soliders in a peaceful democracy with high education and plenty of careerchoices are well-known and old.


That much I agree - but that does not detract from the fact of having an army as a professional career choice. If US would be loosing soldiers to private sector or would be competing with the private sector it would rather increase salaries or find some other way to go around the problem such as finding new technologies. Plus with the introduction of technologies people are coming out of the army much better fit for the private market then ever before.


Rome built its army upon the career method as well and succeded just as USA are. the elite in society is never a problem and are usually overepresented among officers and so on.


You are comparing a society 2000 years ago with the present? Screw me stupid.


The bulk of the roman army consited of people from the provinses. People seeing the roman army as a way to rise in roman society which would have been difficult doing otherwise.


You were guaranteed citizenship as well.

In USA the gap between classes are not as large of cource but its still there for sure.


As in any industrialized modern nation. So?

It IS a careerchoice and a possibility which it would have been if the possibilities for a civil career where limitless.


Army is a well paid career choice.


Its not an attractive careerchoice for people to join the army when you have close to 100 percent literacy, 60 percent go through university and every potential soldier make a load af cash every month as a civilian.


Do you know what the salary and other benefits for an American soldier are?


Conscription becomes the only choice.

Conscriptions entails so much that I don't even want to go into the issues where at the end you are much better off investing into professionalism - at least for Western oriented countries. For example - all Soviet/Russian tanks are built with an auto-loader for the shells where in the Western designs shells are loaded manually. Do you know why? It's not that the Russian boys are stupid, USSR had 100% literacy rate, and they cannot load a gun but because this completely un-motivated recruits didn't give a rat's butte about the tank since they knew the service will be over soon. The Soviets needed weapons in which you would could jump, spent five minutes to learn, and drive into battle without figuring out which extra button to press to get better accuracy. Not to forget that a crew of a Soviet tank had three people where any Western design has five - you know why? Because there was a lack of qualified personal to drive those tanks given conscription and the number of things that can go wrong with a machine. Have you ever drove a Soviet BTR? You can learn to drive the machine in five minutes - literally.... However, putting simplicity of operations into machines to accomodate to the level of the users does not necesserely means quality or assures victory on the contrary....


Also going into military doctrines... I don't want to go.

Conscription vs. Professional army have their pluses and minuses and is a discussion all of its own. I can talk a lot about this but this is not the place. There are military forums and tons of books that deal with the issue. You can probably go to the local library and read up or search on the Web. One thing you have to remember is that keeping an army going is HUGE FINANCIAL burden and doing it the smart way is the trick. At the end it all depends on the economics system, political systems, geo-policial situation of a country and other.... What works for one does not work for the other and so on.



What you would want as a strong military nation is a large population that sees military life as kinda ok, its better than the civilian life and pays better.

Okay. You got me. A normal computer programmer in Europe earns around $45,000. An American soldier earns around $32,000 for a much less education demanding job.


The take it even a level beyond its possible to say that poor people especially with a violent and harsh background makes better soldiers individually.


So?


Its possible to boost their self-esteem and bond by making them belive that they all have the same traits that differs them from the "ordinary" less competent soldiers and humans. This becomes close to fascism but has been done effectivly throughout history and still is done.


Like in Sweden - I imagine. The real answer is social-economics. Most of the recruits, and you are right on the issue, come from lower income backgrounds. But that does not mean in any way shape or form that they make better soldiers, cannot make a career in the army or cannot make it in the private sector.


"You are special since you have endured alot which others would not manage". Not my idea, I dont like it, so dont attack my for it but the means have always been the same when building competent armys that were not nobility. Soldiers from the higher classes had the same views from childhood and didnt need that encouragment.

Now you are speaking about European traditions not American.


The foreign legion is built like that even today. People with a load of problems behind and nothing to lose and then with the right training and officers you have people that develop a very strong military code. Very different from what some students from Harvard or Stockholm university would.

The foreign legion in France is a complete waste of time. It consumes money for no particular purpose in mind. Plus it is very small. At the least in order for an army to be affective it has to be made of national recruits.


Israel of cource have succeded in having a great quality among their soldiers even though they have conscription, to an unique level I would say.


The army consumes over 38% of the national budget. Israel is getting killed by it's military expendetures and there is always talk for switching the organization to a professional one. There are tons of problems in the Israeli army and its conscription policies. At the least I recommend you read Van Crevald.


Their strength is not just technological as we all know.


In big part it is - especially post 1973 Israel started to invest into technologies like never before.


Motivation in Israel is not a problem considering the threats


It is a huge problem - they just never write about it. There are teenagers who try to skip service, there are moral issues, there are financial issues. Many Israelis are not very happy with the conscription service the way it is practiced at the moment.


but the social and educational strenght of Israeli society COULD and WOULD be a problem in another developed country.


No one has a conscription or the reserve service the size of Israel. No one eve comes close. Hell for a five million country it has a 80,000 army on stand with 500,000 reservists. That's over 10% of the population.


They are special also in that conscription serves as a advantage in civil life

It does and it doesn't.

as well, isnt usually like that in western countries. Longer time in the army etc. A special case as I said.


As I said there are very huge problems with the system in Israel.


Nevertheless the best thing to have is professional sodiers and to have that in large numbers you must have men with few options. That is the lowerclass. Always have been always will be.


I do agree. But if you are arguing that US is keeping people intentionally uneducated so to serve in the armed forces - that's complete garbage.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mil

->"The most important social improvement (in France) after the 1870 war between Prusse(Germany)/France was the creation of compulsory school for everybody. In really it was not a social measure but a militar one!
-Mostly social.

Completly militar.
I told you about about the "small history", your opinion has nothing to do with that. ;)

->"During the war it appared that german soldiers were more educated than frenchs and if the courage was at same level, efficiency and comprehention of war techniques were on German side...
-German army was also better equipped and Bismark was no Napoleon. "

Everybody knows that, I told you about the "small history" and nothing else...

->"During WW1, this measure give some results: despite total incompetence of some commanders and massives deaths, the soldiers stand front german army best commanded and best equiped.
-What always worked against the French in battle was complete incompetence of the political leadership and not the quality of individual soldiers. "

At this time the war was lost (1914), germans were marching on Paris, but soldiers have stand and stand more despite the massives deaths.

->"Conscripted army have always give the best in wars (if they have an ideal only!).
-It's not that simple. It all depends on so many things..... "

This is a very important data in war: how educated are forces.
Look how many domages wehrmach done to red army.


->"But that is right that low educated population is indispensable to an Empire.
-Why? "

An small "elite" would be able to rule them and conserve power.. Any lies and nation stand immediatly with no one objection despite evidences.


->"Europe have done many, be sure, to comfort actual leadership of USA during past 50 years.
-Like what? "

Like supporting US economie and support gold/dollar exchange (they were weak but able to reinforce themselves, what they done and they were still supporting US).
Europe was the shield of US capitalism against communism this 50 past years, never forget that.

->"The League of Nation was weak in cause of US refusal to enter in.
-The League of Nations was weak because it was headed by France and Britain :) "

The League of Nation would be more efficent by US support, but...

->"US stopped commerce with nazi Germany only at Pearl-Harbour attaque but some business-man continued to trade with nazis by off-shore company intermediary (look to Bush familly's fortune comming in part from a jews slaves camp nearly from Auschwitz).
-Blah-blah-blah.... blah-blah... blah-blah.... As if US was behind WWII - but I guess in Europe they rewrite history. If anything it was the French historical fear of the Germans that has caused the war in the first place. "

Blah, blah, blah ?
France has done mistakes, Britain has done mistakes and US has done mistakes, which all conduced to WW2.

->"-The reason why the League did not work was because at its conception the most important and the strongest world players were actually missing in the membership and were physically excluded from the process. The main world players were USA, USSR and Germany followed by Britain and then France. "

I know that you are US ultranationnalist but please, look at evidence, at this time US was considerably renforced economicaly and military, yes but prefer to stay in secure in is continent-island, USSR was a medieval state, and Germany ruined. We know history and what happend but at this time you are wrong.

->"Now let me ask you a question what did happen between Germany, USSR, USA vs. the League of Nations?
Why was USSR excluded? Why was Germany? And what happened to USA? "

...?... Certainly do you have a smart answer... US (by Wilson president) created The League of Nation, but US refused to enter in!
For Germany and USSR, if they can't enter in at 1920 they entrered later...

In French army when conscription existed, the best contingent was known to be the August one, when student have finished school and join their regiment.
All "elites" bataillons received their troops at this moment.

When I was in army (conscripted of course ! :D ), our officers were coming in part from foreign legion and they were more confiant in our capacity than professionnal troopers ...

SeeU, Didier.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


->"The most important social improvement (in France) after the 1870 war between Prusse(Germany)/France was the creation of compulsory school for everybody. In really it was not a social measure but a militar one!
-Mostly social.

Completly militar.

I told you about about the "small history", your opinion has nothing to do with that.


Listen I can type you up a huge list of reasons to why an educated population would be of benefit. This is childish.


->"During the war it appared that german soldiers were more educated than frenchs and if the courage was at same level, efficiency and comprehention of war techniques were on German side...
-German army was also better equipped and Bismark was no Napoleon. "

Everybody knows that, I told you about the "small history" and nothing else...


I told you why the French lost where it had really nothing to do with the education of the French army.


->"During WW1, this measure give some results: despite total incompetence of some commanders and massives deaths, the soldiers stand front german army best commanded and best equiped.
-What always worked against the French in battle was complete incompetence of the political leadership and not the quality of individual soldiers. "

At this time the war was lost (1914), germans were marching on Paris, but soldiers have stand and stand more despite the massives deaths.


Yeah and if it was not for the British the French would have collapsed in 1914. And if was not for the Americans the British/French would have collapsed in 1917.


->"Conscripted army have always give the best in wars (if they have an ideal only!).
-It's not that simple. It all depends on so many things..... "

This is a very important data in war: how educated are forces.
Look how many domages wehrmach done to red army.


The reason for massive German victories in 1941 during Barbarossa had nothing to do with the education level of a German soldier. It had mostly to do with the fact that the Soviet Army was completely unprepared to conduct a war. In 1941 it was a political failure on the part of Stalin...



->"But that is right that low educated population is indispensable to an Empire.
-Why? "

An small "elite" would be able to rule them and conserve power.. Any lies and nation stand immediatly with no one objection despite evidences.


US has over 88,000 elected officials and over 10,000,000 people if not more working for the government excluding the army!!! Compared to US, percent wise, it's France that is ruled by the small elite.



->"Europe have done many, be sure, to comfort actual leadership of USA during past 50 years.
-Like what? "

Like supporting US economie and support gold/dollar exchange (they were weak but able to reinforce themselves, what they done and they were still supporting US).


Okay dude. Europe was supporting AMERICAN ECONOMY!!! I don't know what exactly you were smoking. I heard Marijuana is already legal in France.


Europe was the shield of US capitalism against communism this 50 past years, never forget that.

Really it's the other way around. It was the USA protecting Europe with its nuclear weapons and a huge American contigent in Europe. Please don't forget that.


->"The League of Nation was weak in cause of US refusal to enter in.
-The League of Nations was weak because it was headed by France and Britain "

The League of Nation would be more efficent by US support, but...


You are right - the League of Nations would have been stronger if US participated. One point for you.


->"US stopped commerce with nazi Germany only at Pearl-Harbour attaque but some business-man continued to trade with nazis by off-shore company intermediary (look to Bush familly's fortune comming in part from a jews slaves camp nearly from Auschwitz).
-Blah-blah-blah.... blah-blah... blah-blah.... As if US was behind WWII - but I guess in Europe they rewrite history. If anything it was the French historical fear of the Germans that has caused the war in the first place. "

Blah, blah, blah ?
France has done mistakes, Britain has done mistakes and US has done mistakes, which all conduced to WW2.


Again it was 99% Europe which was responsible for WWII. Please don't make up things.


->"-The reason why the League did not work was because at its conception the most important and the strongest world players were actually missing in the membership and were physically excluded from the process. The main world players were USA, USSR and Germany followed by Britain and then France. "

I know that you are US ultranationnalist but please, look at evidence, at this time US was considerably renforced economicaly and military,


I am actually a very liberal person - thank you very much. In 1939 or in 1918 US, compared to its European counter-parts, was not much of a military power at all.

yes but prefer to stay in secure in is continent-island,


The reason why US never joined the League was a fear on the part of the American administration that Europe would drag America in yet another war or would use America to fight its wars, for example colonial wars. Apparently it happened anyways.


USSR was a medieval state,


Not really. It was a super-power. It took WWII to prove it.

and Germany ruined.


The reason not to include Germany was a political decision - specifically French political decision. France did not want Germany with any power what's so ever.... God how wrong was France....


We know history and what happend but at this time you are wrong.


Nope. I am right.


->"Now let me ask you a question what did happen between Germany, USSR, USA vs. the League of Nations?
Why was USSR excluded? Why was Germany? And what happened to USA? "

...?... Certainly do you have a smart answer... US (by Wilson president) created The League of Nation, but US refused to enter in!


See above.


For Germany and USSR, if they can't enter in at 1920 they entrered later...


USSR never really entered and Germany was admitted in 1927 to only exit a few years later when Hitler came to power.


In French army when conscription existed, the best contingent was known to be the August one, when student have finished school and join their regiment. All "elites" bataillons received their troops at this moment.



France lost wars because it's political leadership was an absolute failure. It lost the war in 1870, it almost lost the war in 1914, it lost in 1940, it lost the war in Indo-China, it lost the war in Algiers, it even had to capitulate in 1956 during the Sinai compaign. Hell most of the war from 1870 France lost.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mil

->"Listen I can type you up a huge list of reasons to why an educated population would be of benefit. This is childish. "

What are you talking about, I just give you a particular point in History ? I'm sorry if this point doesn't please you, I didn't say that the less educated population was the only reason of France's defeat.


->"I told you why the French lost where it had really nothing to do with the education of the French army. "

I thing that you hare wrong.

->"Yeah and if it was not for the British the French would have collapsed in 1914. And if was not for the Americans the British/French would have collapsed in 1917. "

That is not so simple Mil my simplist friend... Of course France was not able to contain alone GermanEmpire, but in this war France done an effort that no one other nations done. French soldiers gone to war persuaded that they will be defeated, but...
For US entry, it was important but german have never be able to bring their East troops to West battlefields. Russia stopped war in 1917 and US enter in war many months later. US entry gove some fresh troops and permited to France to constitute reserve for 1919 great offensive (many US troops in France were reserved for this offensive) but how to compare 120.000 US deads to 1.500.000 frenchs ? How to compare more than 7.000.000 frenchs mobilised to 3.000.000 US (1.000.000 in France at the end of war)?
US were very important for Europe and democracy in WW1, but please stop to play with History...

->"This is a very important data in war: how educated are forces.
Look how many domages wehrmach done to red army.[/b]
-The reason for massive German victories in 1941 during Barbarossa had nothing to do with the education level of a German soldier. It had mostly to do with the fact that the Soviet Army was completely unprepared to conduct a war. In 1941 it was a political failure on the part of Stalin..."

Not only in Barbarossa, the entiere war was deadly for russians.

->"An small "elite" would be able to rule them and conserve power.. Any lies and nation stand immediatly with no one objection despite evidences.
US has over 88,000 elected officials and over 10,000,000 people if not more working for the government excluding the army!!! Compared to US, percent wise, it's France that is ruled by the small elite. "

May be are you right... May be not...
Don't try to compare your chiffres to the same in France, you will be seriously desapointed !:p
(the lone education systeme has more than 3.000.000 employees, in France we call that the "the red army" :D !!!)

->" I heard Marijuana is already legal in France. "

Not yet, but maybe soon...


->"Europe was the shield of US capitalism against communism this 50 past years, never forget that.
-Really it's the other way around. It was the USA protecting Europe with its nuclear weapons and a huge American contigent in Europe. Please don't forget that. "

And Europe support USA and permit them to build their supremacy by their huge economic deficit (who paid in reallity for US arsenal...? Do you know that ?)

->"->"US stopped commerce with nazi Germany only at Pearl-Harbour attaque but some business-man continued to trade with nazis by off-shore company intermediary (look to Bush familly's fortune comming in part from a jews slaves camp nearly from Auschwitz).
-Blah-blah-blah.... blah-blah... blah-blah.... As if US was behind WWII - but I guess in Europe they rewrite history. If anything it was the French historical fear of the Germans that has caused the war in the first place. "
--Blah, blah, blah ?
France has done mistakes, Britain has done mistakes and US has done mistakes, which all conduced to WW2.
---Again it was 99% Europe which was responsible for WWII. Please don't make up things. "

That is childish...

->"The reason why US never joined the League was a fear on the part of the American administration that Europe would drag America in yet another war or would use America to fight its wars, for example colonial wars. Apparently it happened anyways. "

They built LoN but refused to enter in...

->" USSR was a medieval state,
-Not really. It was a super-power. It took WWII to prove it. "

In 1918 USSR was a medieval state...

->"and Germany ruined.
The reason not to include Germany was a political decision - specifically French political decision. France did not want Germany with any power what's so ever.... God how wrong was France...."

That not so simple...
France finaly stop vetoing german entry and US refused all responsability in anything... The suite is history...

->" We know history and what happend but at this time you are wrong.
Nope. I am right. "

In 1918 Mil my friend, you forget that... For 1918 you are wrong.


->"Now let me ask you a question what did happen between Germany, USSR, USA vs. the League of Nations?
Why was USSR excluded? Why was Germany? And what happened to USA? "
-...?... Certainly do you have a smart answer... US (by Wilson president) created The League of Nation, but US refused to enter in!
--See above. "

Nothing new in what you said above...

->"France lost wars because it's political leadership was an absolute failure. It lost the war in 1870, it almost lost the war in 1914, it lost in 1940, it lost the war in Indo-China, it lost the war in Algiers, it even had to capitulate in 1956 during the Sinai compaign. Hell most of the war from 1870 France lost. [/B]"

Certainly are you right, Germany surrender to US not to escape from RedArmy's avance and ferocity, Korea war was a complete success against communism and China, Vietnam war was a splendide US military action and, Afghanistan (US war) is still free from all taliban presence and...Irak is not a quagmire with a government which is not lieing on everything...

Goodnight for your american dream...

Be sure that we will always be there if you (USA) need help...But please stop before the Idiocy.


SeeU, Didier.

[Enuff]

hey didier, i've got to say i'm in complete awe. Matter of fact, if you came over here and presented in an evening of "The Real Truth's In U.S. Recent History" for us on a tv program; your government's forces could over-run the nation and re-install Saddam - in a single evening without a single shot being fired - from the "Shock and Awe" of how it would be received.

i'm impressed. :eek:

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Enuff
hey didier, i've got to say i'm in complete awe. Matter of fact, if you came over here and presented in an evening of "The Real Truth's In U.S. Recent History" for us on a tv program; your government's forces could over-run the nation and re-install Saddam - in a single evening without a single shot being fired - from the "Shock and Awe" of how it would be received.

i'm impressed. :eek:

With our 3.000.000 teatchers "red army", marching from NewYork to Seatle !! :D

(with bicycles to go faster, one night that is short even for trained sport-teachers avant-guarde!)

SeeU, Didier.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


->"Listen I can type you up a huge list of reasons to why an educated population would be of benefit. This is childish. "

What are you talking about, I just give you a particular point in History ? I'm sorry if this point doesn't please you, I didn't say that the less educated population was the only reason of France's defeat.


Your point of discussion is that educated German soldiers fought better then apparently less educated French soldiers and it somehow contributed to the French defeat in 1870. I am just repeating what you said.


->"I told you why the French lost where it had really nothing to do with the education of the French army. "

I thing that you hare wrong.


The French lost in 1870 because the organization of the French army was very inadequate to meet a better organized and equipped Germans. The reason to the conditions of the French army in 1870 was the fault or rather the responsibility of the Government.


->"Yeah and if it was not for the British the French would have collapsed in 1914. And if was not for the Americans the British/French would have collapsed in 1917. "

That is not so simple Mil my simplist friend... Of course France was not able to contain alone GermanEmpire,


Germany was not an EMPIRE!!!! France, Britain and Russia were Empires. Germany only owened some land in Africa. Lets continue.

but in this war France done an effort that no one other nations done. French soldiers gone to war persuaded that they will be defeated, but...


Russia mobilized over 4.5 million people fighting on a front of over 2.5 thousand miles dealing with the entire Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany, Turkey and Bulgaria. Basically the number of Axis that Russia fought was physically larger then what was encountered on the West by the French and the British.


For US entry, it was important but german have never be able to bring their East troops to West battlefields.


You are right. If Germany did bring at least the 1,000,000 that were stationed in the East in 1914 Kaiser would have been drinking Shnopps in Paris back in those hot summer days - sort of like Bismark before.


Russia stopped war in 1917 and US enter in war many months later.


Following Brest-Litovsk Germany transferred over 500,000 men from the East and French would have crumbled.


US entry gove some fresh troops and permited to France to constitute reserve for 1919 great offensive (many US troops in France were reserved for this offensive) but how to compare 120.000 US deads to 1.500.000 frenchs ?

Or rather France fighting the four years and America for less then half a year. Too bad for France - what can I say.


How to compare more than 7.000.000 frenchs mobilised to 3.000.000 US (1.000.000 in France at the end of war)?
US were very important for Europe and democracy in WW1, but please stop to play with History...


I am not. I pretty much agree with your assessment. All I said is that French would have crumbled alone without Britain in 1914 and without the United States in 1917. Here we agree.


->"This is a very important data in war: how educated are forces.

Not only in Barbarossa, the entiere war was deadly for russians.


By the end of 1943, after the Soviet army recupirated and restored the professionalism of the cadres it lost in 1941, it was deadly for the Germans as well. The kill ratios went to almost 1:1. Plus how Germans behaved in Russia causing over 19 million civilian death alone is very well documented. Also out of the 4.5 million Soviet soldiers captured only 1.5 million came back home. Germans made sure to make some people dead in USSr.



->"US has over 88,000 elected officials and over 10,000,000 people if not more working for the government excluding the army!!! Compared to US, percent wise, it's France that is ruled by the small elite. "

May be are you right... May be not...


May be yes. Most definetly yes.


Don't try to compare your chiffres to the same in France, you will be seriously desapointed !


Please. Show.


(the lone education systeme has more than 3.000.000 employees, in France we call that the "the red army" !!!)


And US does not have public schools? I can give you a number which is, given the population differences, is bigger then that in France. So?


->" I heard Marijuana is already legal in France. "

Not yet, but maybe soon...


I think it's already there.



"And Europe support USA and permit them to build their supremacy by their huge economic deficit (who paid in reallity for US arsenal...? Do you know that ?)


Europe paid for American arsenal????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah - when? In the 60s may be? Or in reality the Lend Lease program alone accounted for the overall 40% of the entire British WWII military supplies. And of course not to forget is the infamous MARSHALL PLAN!!!! TD can you please give us the statistics.


->"->"US stopped commerce with nazi Germany only at Pearl-Harbour attaque but some business-man continued to trade with nazis by off-shore company intermediary (look to Bush familly's fortune comming in part from a jews slaves camp nearly from Auschwitz).

--Blah, blah, blah ?
France has done mistakes, Britain has done mistakes and US has done mistakes, which all conduced to WW2.
---Again it was 99% Europe which was responsible for WWII. Please don't make up things. "

That is childish...


That's what I say. Europe caused TWO World Wars that cost Europe 60 million dead alone and that excludes all the Balkan wars and other inter-colonial squables.


->"The reason why US never joined the League was a fear on the part of the American administration that Europe would drag America in yet another war or would use America to fight its wars, for example colonial wars. Apparently it happened anyways. "

They built LoN but refused to enter in..


LON was initiated by US but built entirely by the British and the French. Please don't blame US for WWII.


->" USSR was a medieval state,
-Not really. It was a super-power. It took WWII to prove it. "

In 1918 USSR was a medieval state...


It was a super-power and the fifth largest economy in the world.


->"and Germany ruined.
The reason not to include Germany was a political decision - specifically French political decision. France did not want Germany with any power what's so ever.... God how wrong was France...."

That not so simple...


It was that simple.


France finaly stop vetoing german entry and US refused all responsability in anything... The suite is history...


So it was American fault for not letting Germany into the League? What else does the "Red Army" teach you? Is history rewriting, conspiracy theories and pure/simple Anti-Americanism part of the school curriculum?



->" We know history and what happend but at this time you are wrong.
Nope. I am right. "

In 1918 Mil my friend, you forget that... For 1918 you are wrong.


Yes - I know what happened in 1918. Do you?



->"Now let me ask you a question what did happen between Germany, USSR, USA vs. the League of Nations?
Why was USSR excluded? Why was Germany? And what happened to USA? "
-...?... Certainly do you have a smart answer... US (by Wilson president) created The League of Nation, but US refused to enter in!
--See above. "

Nothing new in what you said above...


Apparently above you blamed US for not admitting Germany into the League of Nations. Apparently Wilson was very wrong to advocate Germany's entrance into the league back in that wanderful 1918. READ!!!!


->"France lost wars because it's political leadership was an absolute failure. It lost the war in 1870, it almost lost the war in 1914, it lost in 1940, it lost the war in Indo-China, it lost the war in Algiers, it even had to capitulate in 1956 during the Sinai compaign. Hell most of the war from 1870 France lost. "

Certainly are you right,[/b]


I am right.


Germany surrender to US not to escape from RedArmy's avance and ferocity,


I don't understand. From 1941 to 1945 USA has defeated the Africa Corps in 1942 - 300,000 Germans/Italians, 1943 Italy - over 1,000,000 Italians/Germans, and Normandy to Germany in 1944/45 fighting over 750,000 Germans. Compared to the limited involvement of the Americans compared to the Russians they did quite a good job for Europe. Something that you still are ungrateful for.


Korea war was a complete success against communism and China,

It was a great success. I agree.


Vietnam war was a splendide US military action


It was. Otherwise communism would spread further through Asia and you would have many more idiotic French/Dutch/British post-colonial regimes. US was doing your JOB.


and, Afghanistan (US war) is still free from all taliban presence and...Irak is not a quagmire with a government which is not lieing on everything...


Apparently I don't see it this way. But again keep on rewriting history - from the many French I have talked to it's a very good exercise they love to engage in. And of course blame it all on USA - heck may be you'll start WWIII after all? Three is a magic number... right?

Goodnight for your american dream...

Be sure that we will always be there if you (USA) need help...But please stop before the Idiocy.


Apparently we've been there for you most of the time. Strange for you to say that.... after at the least we fought two World Wars for you.

[TDidier]

->"-Your point of discussion is that educated German soldiers fought better then apparently educated French soldiers and it somehow contributed to the French defeat in 1870. I am just repeating what you said.
-The French lost in 1870 because the organization of the French army was very inadequate to meet a better organized and equipped Germans. The reason to the conditions of the French army in 1870 was the fault or rather the responsibility of the Government. "

Many reasons to France's defeat in 1870, of course I agree you and everybody knows that.
The important point was the constatation of superiority of education even for soldiers in war ...
NapoleonIII was a clown, no problem with that!

->"Germany was not an EMPIRE!!!! France, Britain and Russia were Empires. Germany only owened some land in Africa. Lets continue. "

What is a "reich"? What is a "Kaiser"?

but in this war France done an effort that no one other nations done. French soldiers gone to war persuaded that they will be defeated, but...


->"Russia mobilized over 4.5 million people fighting on a front of over 2.5 thousand miles dealing with the entire Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany, Turkey and Bulgaria. Basically the number of Axis that Russia fought was physically larger then what was encountered on the West by the French and the British. "

? and... What is the connection with education of soldiers ?

->"You are right. If Germany did bring at least the 1,000,000 that were stationed in the East in 1914 Kaiser would have been drinking Shnopps in Paris back in those hot summer days - sort of like Bismark before. "

If Russia don't declare war to Austrian Empire, German Empire wouldn't (yet) declare war to Russia and France wouldn't declare war to German Empire, and...

Russia stopped war in 1917 and US enter in war many months later.


Following Brest-Litovsk Germany transferred over 500,000 men from the East and French would have crumbled.

Maybe yes, maybe not...

->" US entry gove some fresh troops and permited to France to constitute reserve for 1919 great offensive (many US troops in France were reserved for this offensive) but how to compare 120.000 US deads to 1.500.000 frenchs ?
-Or rather France fighting the four years and America for less then half a year. Too bad for France - what can I say. "

That give a rate of 10 years of battles for US...

->"I am not. I pretty much agree with your assessment. All I said is that French would have crumbled alone without Britain in 1914 and without the United States in 1917. Here we agree. "

Certainly yes. Especialy Britain during the "run to sea" in 1914.
They were protected themselves. Imagine the threat caused by a German Empire preparing an invasion in Pas-de-calais ? Aviation was not so evoluate than in 1939, impossible to RNavy to stop Germanics Empire (german+austrian) on a so short channel...

->"By the end of 1943, after the Soviet army recupirated and restored the professionalism of the cadres it lost in 1941, it was deadly for the Germans as well. The kill ratios went to almost 1:1. Plus how Germans behaved in Russia causing over 19 million civilian death alone is very well documented. Also out of the 4.5 million Soviet soldiers captured only 1.5 million came back home. Germans made sure to make some people dead in USSr. "

And germans were pesuaded that russians were asking for a revenge...

->"->"US has over 88,000 elected officials and over 10,000,000 people if not more working for the government excluding the army!!! Compared to US, percent wise, it's France that is ruled by the small elite. "
-May be are you right... May be not...
--May be yes. Most definetly yes."

Not sure...

->"Don't try to compare your chiffres to the same in France, you will be seriously desapointed !
-Please. Show."

One exemple:
Only for mayors it give more than 36.000 elected peoples, plus the rest of "municipal council" for each cities and towns, all elected...
Just with that, percent wise...


->"And US does not have public schools? I can give you a number which is, given the population differences, is bigger then that in France. So? "

Percent wise ?... (it will give something like 15.000.000 teachers and employees)

->"->" I heard Marijuana is already legal in France. "
-Not yet, but maybe soon...
--I think it's already there. "

It's easy to found, that's right...

->"Europe paid for American arsenal????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah - when? In the 60s may be? Or in reality the Lend Lease program alone accounted for the overall 40% of the entire British WWII military supplies. And of course not to forget is the infamous MARSHALL PLAN!!!! TD can you please give us the statistics. "

As soon as possible.

->"LON was initiated by US but built entirely by the British and the French. Please don't blame US for WWII. "

Nobody blame US for WW2, it would be stupid... I just said that faults were partaged between greats democracys (US, UK and France). Why blame the democracys ? Because we have nothing to wait for from dictatorials states but war and misery.
We have to remember past to not re-live it.
It is important to take the good conclusion about history...

->"It was a super-power and the fifth largest economy in the world. "
Russia was still at war :wihtes vs reds... An immense territory with mediaval coutume for the major part...
Russia ever has a huge potential but at this time: civil war.

->"->"and Germany ruined.
The reason not to include Germany was a political decision - specifically French political decision. France did not want Germany with any power what's so ever.... God how wrong was France...."
-That not so simple...
--It was that simple. "

You are simple... You can't resume a so complexe situation to that . France do mistakes that is right...

->"it was American fault for not letting Germany into the League? What else does the "Red Army" teach you? Is history rewriting, conspiracy theories and pure/simple Anti-Americanism part of the school curriculum? "

:rolleyes:
Nobody said that US was resposable for WW2, I just said that US has done mistakes...

->" - I know what happened in 1918. Do you? "

What is your opinion about that ? :))

->"apparently above you blamed US for not admitting Germany into the League of Nations. Apparently Wilson was very wrong to advocate Germany's entrance into the league back in that wanderful 1918. READ!!!!"

That is not so simple. Now we know history, but...


->"->"France lost wars because it's political leadership was an absolute failure. It lost the war in 1870, it almost lost the war in 1914, it lost in 1940, it lost the war in Indo-China, it lost the war in Algiers, it even had to capitulate in 1956 during the Sinai compaign. Hell most of the war from 1870 France lost. "
-Certainly are you right,[/b]
--I am right. "

Yes you are right. But are you able to transpose your conclusions to a similar case ?

->" Germany surrender to US not to escape from RedArmy's avance and ferocity,
-I don't understand. From 1941 to 1945 USA has defeated the Africa Corps in 1942 - 300,000 Germans/Italians, 1943 Italy - over 1,000,000 Italians/Germans, and Normandy to Germany in 1944/45 fighting over 750,000 Germans. Compared to the limited involvement of the Americans compared to the Russians they did quite a good job for Europe. Something that you still are ungrateful for. "

You have a funny look on WW2, I like that!

Be sure we are completly grateful to US for what they done in WW2 and they done a very good job, be sure of that Mil my funny friend... :))

But please don't forget UK, at least against Afrikakorps, maybe too in Italie (do you know that the most important battle in Italie was won by a french-arabs offencive ? Monte-cassino does it mean something ...), and in Belgium/Nederland they were there too... And in Germany...
Do you know that the first Rhin crossing was done by french first army...

->" Korea war was a complete success against communism and China,
-It was a great success. I agree.
Vietnam war was a splendide US military action
-It was. Otherwise communism would spread further through Asia and you would have many more idiotic French/Dutch/British post-colonial regimes. US was doing your JOB.
and, Afghanistan (US war) is still free from all taliban presence and...Irak is not a quagmire with a government which is not lieing on everything...
Apparently I don't see it this way. "

No comments...

->" But again keep on rewriting history - from the many French I have talked to it's a very good exercise they love to engage in. And of course blame it all on USA - heck may be you'll start WWIII after all? Three is a magic number... right?"

Are you cabalist ?

->"Be sure that we will always be there if you (USA) need help...But please stop before the Idiocy.
-Apparently we've been there for you most of the time. Strange for you to say that.... after at the least we fought two World Wars for you."

That you don't understand is that it was not only for us (but we are gratful for that) but it was to save US constitution too (and we are grateful for that too)...

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

ERRATUM:

The officials numbers of "education nationale" 's employees is around 1.500.000 ( :o ).

Oups! Sorry...

For the rest of gorvenment's employees is around 5.000.000 (including nationalized companies.)

. . .

[TDidier]

News from thz front line:

http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=7602639&fb=Y&partnerID=60

[TDidier]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51543-2003Sep23.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54800-2003Sep23.html

:)

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:

The following is the article from TDier post above

By Seth Porges

NEW YORK -- Updated at 1:45 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

For months leading up this year's war on Iraq, the Bush administration implied that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The argument was well-received by Americans, and might have been the single leading factor behind public support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. An oft-cited poll conducted by The Washington Post last month revealed that 69% of Americans continue to believe it likely that Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.

No real evidence to support this has emerged, however, leading some (including E&P, just last week) to declare that the media had failed in its duty to correct the public misperception.

So when President George Bush admitted on Wednesday, for the first time, that there was "no evidence that Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks, one would assume that would be big news and an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings.

And according to some newspapers, it was a big story. The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune (both owned by the Tribune Co.) ran front-page stories on the revelation Thursday. But an analysis of most major American newspapers found the story either buried deep within the paper -- or completely absent.

Of America's 12 highest-circulation daily papers, only the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, and Dallas Morning News ran anything about it on the front page. In The New York Times, the story was relegated to page 22. USA Today: page 16. The Houston Chronicle: page 3. The San Francisco Chronicle: page 14. The Washington Post: page 18. Newsday: page 41. The New York Daily News: page 14.

The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention it at all.

Large papers outside of the top 12 that ran the news on Page One include The Boston Globe, The Seattle Times, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

The story was even more dramatic because Bush's remarks came on the heels of an assertion to the contrary made by Vice President Dick Cheney Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." When asked about the poll that shows Americans overwhelmingly believe Hussein was involved in 9/11, Cheney replied that he thinks "it's not surprising that people make that connection. ... If we're successful in Iraq then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."



My question is: When did Bush say that Saddam was behind 9/11?

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil

My question is: When did Bush say that Saddam was behind 9/11? [/B]


From: entrefilets.com

18/03/2003 George W. Bush threw an ultimatum of 48 hours to Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave their country, otherwise the United States would throw a war against Iraq. In his speech, he asserts that Saddam Hussein's regime " helped, trained and accommodated terrorists, including agents of Al-Qaïda ".

03/12/2002 During a speech pronounced in Denver (Colorado, centre) and the text of which was made public to Washington, the real boss of the White House, Dick Cheney, declared about Saddam Hussein that " his regime had high-level contacts these last ten years with al-Qaïda and helped in the training of terrorists of al-Qaïda ". And to add: " it is for it that the war against the terrorism will not be so much won that Iraq will not, in a total and verifiable way, be deprived of its weapons of massive destruction. "

9/10/2002 The director of CIA, George Tenet, in a letter at the Congress, asserts possessing of " robust information establishing the existence of contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaïda for ten years ", based notably on the confessions of prisoners arrested for one year in Afghanistan...

15/10/2002 Surfing on the wave of international indignation aroused by the attempt of Bali, Doobleyou asserts that Saddam Hussein tried to use Al-Qaïda as " the avant-garde of his army ", during a political assembling in Michigan.

16/09/2002 " Iraq has clearly links with the terrorism, including Al-Qaïda, yes ", declared on Sunday Condoleezza Rice, the counselor for the national security of the president Bush, on the American television channel Fox. She asserted that " members of Al-Qaïda were seen in Bagdad ".

etc...

SeeU, Didier.

[Enuff]

all those statements concern contact between the regime and al-qaeda, none mention the events of 9-11 - your point is what didier?

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Enuff
all those statements concern contact between the regime and al-qaeda, none mention the events of 9-11 - your point is what didier?

When you said "Irak trained AlQuaida men" and you said "9-11 attack was coming from AlQuaida" and if the people who are saying that are the President of USA and is whole administration, It is normal that you understand (if you are american): "9-11 attack was coming from Irak"... :mad:
All those statements made it possible that 70% of american people are still trusting that SHussein was behind the 9-11 attack.
All those statements forced GWBush to announce that were was no contact between SHussein and AlQuaida at UN (the rest of world never trusted this version).

SeeU, Didier.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


When you said "Irak trained AlQuaida men" and you said "9-11 attack was coming from AlQuaida" and if the people who are saying that are the President of USA and is whole administration, It is normal that you understand (if you are american): "9-11 attack was coming from Irak"...


No, that's you have made up. In our previous discussions you asserted that since America was doing business with Nazi Germany - USA was a Nazi state. Any reflections?


All those statements made it possible that 70% of american people are still trusting that SHussein was behind the 9-11 attack.


Or for the French to assume that America is Iraq to get a colony. Same thing.


All those statements forced GWBush to announce that were was no contact between SHussein and AlQuaida at UN (the rest of world never trusted this version).

He cleared the assumed conclusion. So What? When putting out arguments try to keep focused rather than making ideological statements.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mil


No, that's you have made up. In our previous discussions you asserted that since America was doing business with Nazi Germany - USA was a Nazi state. Any reflections?

I think that the connection between AlQuaida and Irak was a real construction from Bush administration. They are not some kids all what they say has a goal.
They build the belief that SHussein done 9-11 attacks, and 70% of US people believe in that.
It is a real spin-doctor job.

Of course USA was not a nazi states and only some businessmen continued commerce with nazis, I just give an exemple (but what an exemple!) :mad:

All those statements made it possible that 70% of american people are still trusting that SHussein was behind the 9-11 attack.
-Or for the French to assume that America is Iraq to get a colony. Same thing.

We know how to colonize a country and what US done in Irak is colonisation!
Remember the goals of war :
1) Preserve oil ressource from 2nd world reserve.
2) Own military bases in a strategic area.
3) Stop iraki (hypothetical) threat on Israel. And make an exemple to Syria and Iran.

The administration don't try to hide this goals...

All those statements forced GWBush to announce that were was no contact between SHussein and AlQuaida at UN (the rest of world never trusted this version).
-He cleared the assumed conclusion. So What? When putting out arguments try to keep focused rather than making ideological statements.

He begun to recognize his fault on Irak that is what the others states are waiting for at UN.
The first step was to say truth on Irak-AlQuaida alliance : none!
Never forget that Bush Hijacked the "War on terrorisme" and many country are angry against him for that.

But his hope that this tiny step will give him the possibility to receive troops and money for HIS Irak is desesperate.

He have to do more...

SeeU, Didier.

[Mediocrates]

It's rather hard to tease meaning out of that. It is largely unimportant what you think we think is a good enough rationale for being there. You should evaluating your own criteria on their own.


But as far as what France is willing to do, who really cares? Your motives are obscure and whatever you are looking for you purposefully hide or don't communicate. Do you want to play a guessing game? No thanks. Please sit on the sidelines for another year or two. That in and of itself is rapidly becoming the French policy. And I imagine you understand that. You are looking for so much antiamericanism to build up that you can rush in later and slap French corporate logos on everything. It's been your standard operating procedure in Iran since 1980 and there is no reason to think you've suddenly, after 20 odd years taken a different tack in the mid east.

All you say is more more more but you never say what what what.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mediocrates


"...It's been your standard operating procedure in Iran since 1980 and there is no reason to think you've suddenly, after 20 odd years taken a different tack in the mid east. "


What about france/Iran relations for this 20 past years ?

[Mil]

What about france/Iran relations for this 20 past years ?


It has nothing to do with politics but economics.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil
What about france/Iran relations for this 20 past years ?


It has nothing to do with politics but economics.


...and ?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by TDidier
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mediocrates


"...It's been your standard operating procedure in Iran since 1980 and there is no reason to think you've suddenly, after 20 odd years taken a different tack in the mid east. "


What about france/Iran relations for this 20 past years ?


Thats exactly my point, thanks for highlighting it. France has always had unique relations with Iran so it's absurd to think that France's current objections about US policy in the Mid east/West Asia aren't about protecting those special relationships.

Purely parochial. There is no grand vision, just mundane contracts and whatnot.

[TDidier]

Where is the problem to commerce with Iran?

:cool:

[Mil]

Where is the problem to commerce with Iran?


The problem is that it's not a POLITICAL relationship.

[TDidier]

What relationship between Irak war and Iran-France(Europe) commercial relations ?

What special relationships between France and Iran this 20 past years ? War (at least during Iran/Irak war and during many Lebanon crisis...) ?

When Iran Bomb US Marines in Lebanon, US sold weapons to iranians mollhas.
When Iran Bomb french troopers in Lebanon, France gove as gift more than 120 modern jet-fighters to Irak. ;)

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Zinni for president! ;)

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=977

[TDidier]

To Mil:

How economic support by the allieds built American arsenal...
This article give a part of the response.
It show how US are dependent of the position that they hold at Bretton-Wood by the support of their europeans allieds to counter the threats on democratie in the post-WW2 world.

http://www.surf.net.au/gheard/03-03-27%20Iraq%20war%20&%20econom.html

And just for the fun :

http://www.surf.net.au/gheard/03-03-28%20Justifying%20war.html

SeeU, Didier. :cool:

[Mil]

HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You got it this time!!!! Geoffrey Heard!!!!!!!! Listen why don't you post somebody actually doing research rather then someone famous for plagarizing on conspiracy theories.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil
HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You got it this time!!!! Geoffrey Heard!!!!!!!! Listen why don't you post somebody actually doing research rather then someone famous for plagarizing on conspiracy theories.


Maybe is he famous for his conspiracy theories (I don't know this guy), but what about the first article ?

:cool:

[TDidier]

When Bush spoke, Cheney didn't care !
Who is the real WhiteHouse master ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14901-2003Sep28.html

... ! :D

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:

Maybe is he famous for his conspiracy theories (I don't know this guy), but what about the first article ?



Complete garbage!!!!!!! All he forgets to mention is that US is also the largest oil consumer in the world with overall 45% of total consumption. In comparison Europe and Russia only make up around roughly 20% of the entirity.

As far as the Arabs doing business with EU or switching to EU for an alternative - this would never happen!!!!!!! The Arabs are much rather do business with US then with the Europeans.

Listen the entire article is a one huge conspiracy theory where I can physically show the guy is wrong on almost every occassion given historical precedence and economic realities.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mil

Complete garbage!!!!!!! All he forgets to mention is that US is also the largest oil consumer in the world with overall 45% of total consumption. In comparison Europe and Russia only make up around roughly 20% of the entirity.

Are you sure about 45%/20% ?
Ins't it something like 25% for USA and a bit more for EU+Russia ? :cool:
But we promise you to continue to decrease our oil consumation. :D

As far as the Arabs doing business with EU or switching to EU for an alternative - this would never happen!!!!!!! The Arabs are much rather do business with US then with the Europeans.

Not only the arabs... They need a concurrence between theyre customers and US agressivity will quickly push them to look for equilibrated economic power.

Listen the entire article is a one huge conspiracy theory where I can physically show the guy is wrong on almost every occassion given historical precedence and economic realities.

I found this article as a good exemple of actual balance of power in post-coldwar world.
The war is economic and nothing else...

SeeU, Didier.

[Mil]

I found this article as a good exemple of actual balance of power in post-coldwar world.
The war is economic and nothing else...

Not really. The article is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. The simplistic view that it's only the money that makes the world-go-around is a 19th century garbage.

The second largest oil consumer after the United States is Japan.

[Mil]

But we promise you to continue to decrease our oil consumation

It's not that simple. Refurbishing industries is a very expensive task. I believe that the Western world will start changing to alternative fuel types sometime in 10-20 years.

[MGB8]

He purposefully ignores the fact that there is a distinction between anything that Bush has said and even an implication that Saddam was in any way behind 9-11.

Iraq had ties to terrorists, and may well have trained some. Iraq is very much part of the war on terror - to send a message to Fascist Arab regimes, to break up the OPEC monopoly, and to hopefully introduce things like TOLERANCE and INDIVIDuAL RIGHTS BASED DEMOCRACY into the mid east.

But the left wants to make it out like Bush said - Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that's why we went after him. Never was said. Never was implied.

However, Saddam WAS part of the PROBLEM SOCIETY in the mideast that BREEDS TERROR!



Originally posted by Enuff
all those statements concern contact between the regime and al-qaeda, none mention the events of 9-11 - your point is what didier?

[TDidier]

Originally posted by MGB8
He purposefully ignores the fact that there is a distinction between anything that Bush has said and even an implication that Saddam was in any way behind 9-11.

That GwBush does only say stupidities I am persuaded of it . :D

Iraq had ties to terrorists, and may well have trained some. Iraq is very much part of the war on terror - to send a message to Fascist Arab regimes, to break up the OPEC monopoly, and to hopefully introduce things like TOLERANCE and INDIVIDuAL RIGHTS BASED DEMOCRACY into the mid east.

Wrong... What did GWBush say at UN ? Probably his first speech with sens...

But the left wants to make it out like Bush said - Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that's why we went after him. Never was said. Never was implied.

Wrong... Cheney insist on Irak-AlQuaida links.

However, Saddam WAS part of the PROBLEM SOCIETY in the mideast that BREEDS TERROR!

Irak was totaly weak, how it would be able to treath one other state ?
The only terrorist state in ME was SaudiArabia with massive help from US.

Oil is the key of this problem... :rolleyes:

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

http://www.iht.com/articles/111652.html



SeeU, ;)

[MGB8]

WRONG.

The fact remains, that a link between Iraq and Al-Queda is A VERY DIFFERENT THING than a link Between Iraq and the attacks on 9-11. Al-Queda is a big organization...its like saying that ties to the US is the same as supporting the the US Government and the War in Iraq....

There are probably some very distant links between some learning that some Al-queda operatives did and 9-11...very attentuated....that is the most that has ever been implied.

And again, you CANNOT discount the fact that regimes that preach Pan-Arab imperialism and Islamofascism, which included (note the past tense) Iraq and still includes Saudi Arabia (although they've started behaving better since the war in Iraq...hmm, I wonder why?) and Syria (see S.A.) are what breed terror. Lands where intolerance is LAW.

You are simply wrong, TD.

You can disagree with the war in Iraq, but the bottom line is that it (1) sent a message to the mid-east states that support terror, that the US was not afraid to go in and kill the leadership, and (2) the liberal-democratization of Iraq is the ONLY current chance we have of ending the terror war.


Originally posted by TDidier
Originally posted by MGB8
He purposefully ignores the fact that there is a distinction between anything that Bush has said and even an implication that Saddam was in any way behind 9-11.

That GwBush does only say stupidities I am persuaded of it . :D

Iraq had ties to terrorists, and may well have trained some. Iraq is very much part of the war on terror - to send a message to Fascist Arab regimes, to break up the OPEC monopoly, and to hopefully introduce things like TOLERANCE and INDIVIDuAL RIGHTS BASED DEMOCRACY into the mid east.

Wrong... What did GWBush say at UN ? Probably his first speech with sens...

But the left wants to make it out like Bush said - Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that's why we went after him. Never was said. Never was implied.

Wrong... Cheney insist on Irak-AlQuaida links.

However, Saddam WAS part of the PROBLEM SOCIETY in the mideast that BREEDS TERROR!

Irak was totaly weak, how it would be able to treath one other state ?
The only terrorist state in ME was SaudiArabia with massive help from US.

Oil is the key of this problem... :rolleyes:

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

What US showed in Irak:

1)Theyre difficulties to fight poor geared and weaponed milicians... US troops were able to avance only when Irak's army stopped the fighting (victory for dollars to Irakies generals? No-one fight against the only trained and fitted troop in Irak: republican guard...).

2)If you support them and procure them oil or some other avantages, you can rule your state tyranicaly with intollerance(SaudiArabia, Kuwait, Pakistan...).

3)US showed the avantage to develop WMD, Irak was invaded ( of course: everybody ever knows that they don't have WMD) and NorthKorea was courtised... Be sure that many states are now seriously looking for WMD technologies...

4)That they totaly don't care about other states and world justice instances...

SeeU, Didier :rolleyes:



Originally posted by MGB8
WRONG.

The fact remains, that a link between Iraq and Al-Queda is A VERY DIFFERENT THING than a link Between Iraq and the attacks on 9-11. Al-Queda is a big organization...its like saying that ties to the US is the same as supporting the the US Government and the War in Iraq....

There are probably some very distant links between some learning that some Al-queda operatives did and 9-11...very attentuated....that is the most that has ever been implied.

And again, you CANNOT discount the fact that regimes that preach Pan-Arab imperialism and Islamofascism, which included (note the past tense) Iraq and still includes Saudi Arabia (although they've started behaving better since the war in Iraq...hmm, I wonder why?) and Syria (see S.A.) are what breed terror. Lands where intolerance is LAW.

You are simply wrong, TD.

You can disagree with the war in Iraq, but the bottom line is that it (1) sent a message to the mid-east states that support terror, that the US was not afraid to go in and kill the leadership, and (2) the liberal-democratization of Iraq is the ONLY current chance we have of ending the terror war.

[TDidier]

Good news for you, I heard that at the radio this afternoon in my car !

The coalition of two+powerfull newEurope has finally found illegal imported weapons in Irak !!

Some german and russian firms participated in this traffic but at the head of this mafia were POLISH firms with the help of some US firms !!! :D

SeeU, MGB8 my friend...
Regards, Didier. :D

[MGB8]

Wow...you have nerve. A frenchman telling the US that THEY fought poorly (which is COMPLETELY BOGUS, but still).

LOL. You are a bad joke, TD.

[TDidier]

English troops do a real fight in Basraa, US troops just run in desert without any real opposition (no one real anti-tank weapons use in Irak, but maybe 2 Abrahams shot but it seem it was more a warning to US from Irakies generals what it could happend if they don't paied them in dollars ).


SeeU, Didier.



Originally posted by MGB8
Wow...you have nerve. A frenchman telling the US that THEY fought poorly (which is COMPLETELY BOGUS, but still).

LOL. You are a bad joke, TD.

[danholo]

So Basra is some kind of main battle ground in Iraq and the Brits are fighting the "real fight"? Oh stop bickering...

[MGB8]

That war in Iraq did remind me of the French and their Maginot line resistance to the Blitzkreig...

Yup...the US military stinks...that's why the victory was as fast a victory over that strech of land as any has ever been accomplished...why the Arab world was shocked at the quickness of the defeat...why the Western world, including france, relied on the US to protect them from the Soviets.

What lunacy...




Originally posted by TDidier
English troops do a real fight in Basraa, US troops just run in desert without any real opposition (no one real anti-tank weapons use in Irak, but maybe 2 Abrahams shot but it seem it was more a warning to US from Irakies generals what it could happend if they don't paied them in dollars ).


SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by MGB8
That war in Iraq did remind me of the French and their Maginot line resistance to the Blitzkreig...

Yup...the US military stinks...that's why the victory was as fast a victory over that strech of land as any has ever been accomplished...why the Arab world was shocked at the quickness of the defeat...why the Western world, including france, relied on the US to protect them from the Soviets.

What lunacy...

Blitzkrieg was not a run in a desert MGB8...

I'm surprised I expected that you will very happy to learn that illegal sold weapons were found in Irak...

[TDidier]

Third atemp to enrole UN in Iraky quagmire...
With no real new concessions...

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Today the security council has vote US resolution on Irak.

But no real help for US in further without concessions have they announced...

[Mediocrates]

So what. Since when is the UN about practical concerns and actual action plans? For if it were, it would have completed the Nazi's Final Solution long ago. But luckily the UN is long on rhetoric and light on ability.