Peace between France and the USA

Now that we know that there were no Massive Destruction Weapons in Irak, how can this war be justified ? We can speak about the caught of Saddam Hussein but that's not enough I think. Democracy ? the current situation is not better today. What else ?

I wrote this mail to remember to some Americans who have been very angry about French (there has been anti-French actions) that Bush's government and also Blair's were maybe wrong.
Isn't it the time of reconciliation between France (Jacques Chirac was maybe too sure of himself) and the USA (Bush was not right) ?

Since the Irakis war and the anti French manifestations, anti American sentiment has also increased in France. That's a pity for two friends countries. The French Kingdom helped the USA for the Independance (1776) and the USA helped France for the Libération in 1944 (D Day 6/6/44).

.... well, the idea is there ! I'm tired and my English is poorer than usually ! :D
Regards,
Michaël de Villebois Mareuil

The anti french people need to get a life. They're mad because they know Bush made the wrong choice, but they can't bear the thought that our own leader could be so inept, and so they have to let out their frustration on somebody else, and defend a terribly useless war that was a complete waste of their tax money.

For the cost of the war -I'm not sure at all- but we can wonder if the USA will not "win" money with the Irakis petrol....

The anti french people need to get a life. They're mad because they know Bush made the wrong choice, but they can't bear the thought that our own leader could be so inept, and so they have to let out their frustration on somebody else, and defend a terribly useless war that was a complete waste of their tax money.

I think it's more likely, (at least in my case it is), because the French were the ones doing everything possible to get the UN to say 'NO' to a war, not that they were getting everyone to say no, but how they were getting everyone to say it.

This wouldn't be all that bad if it weren't for people accusing the US of attacking Iraq for its own best interests and using the UN to do its deeds, when France worked over the UN to block the US because it was in Frances best interests, not Iraqs best interests. Yeah, the US is the only country in the world that does that kind of shit, so lets hate it!

IMO France didn't go against the war for humanitarian reasons or even because they didn't believe Iraq had WMDs but because they were going to loose a cheap source of oil. Same goes for Germany. I don't dislike French people or Germans but I do dislike their leaders. But then again they are no different that any other leader.

Now that we know that there were no Massive Destruction Weapons in Irak, how can this war be justified ? We can speak about the caught of Saddam Hussein but that's not enough I think. Democracy ? the current situation is not better today. What else ?

I wrote this mail to remember to some Americans who have been very angry about French (there has been anti-French actions) that Bush's government and also Blair's were maybe wrong.
Isn't it the time of reconciliation between France (Jacques Chirac was maybe too sure of himself) and the USA (Bush was not right) ?

Since the Irakis war and the anti French manifestations, anti American sentiment has also increased in France. That's a pity for two friends countries. The French Kingdom helped the USA for the Independance (1776) and the USA helped France for the Libération in 1944 (D Day 6/6/44).

.... well, the idea is there ! I'm tired and my English is poorer than usually ! :D
Regards,
Michaël de Villebois Mareuil

The current situation is better then before http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&ncid=586&e=4&u=/nm/20040316/wl_nm/iraq_poll_dc

I think Jacques Chirac is a terrible leader but he was elected by the French people which is their choice.

When did Chirac say Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction? He whined about letting the UN continue to inspect, but he never said he didn't have them. Thats a big difference that many of you have chosen to overlook.

I am not angry at the French. I've gone the gambit from leaning the language and studying the culture to wanting nothing to do with them. They're like the Pygmies of Africa. I know they're out there, but I really don't give a shit.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

What do you mean by "They're like the Pygmies of Africa" ?......

Chirac was against the war. And many Europeans were against this war (look at the demonstrations everywhere in Europe and in the world).
Chirac didn't say that Saddam hasn't WMDs.... I agree, and what ? He said that nobody were sure that there were WMDs in Iraq. And he wasn't wrong ! He just said that (as the UNO) a war was not a good idea in the short term, that we could have continued the inspections whithout killing people.
For the interest of France, isn't it a little bit too easy ?.... Of course, some French big companies were presents in Iraq (TotalFinaElf mainly). But France would have won more in beeing involved with the Americans (choice of Spain, United Kingdom and Italy) than in doing what Chirac did.
There is a problem of public opinion who didn't want this war (a big majority) : electoralist ? maybe, but all politicians in the Democraties are like that.
Bush is a "warrior" who wanted to finish the job of Bush senior... and have petrol. Don't say the contrary, even in your country, it is now said.

So, Yog, if you are so narrow minded and nationalist, let your country become something like the URSS. The politic of Bush is freigtening, either international or national. The democracy in the biggest .... democracy in the world is going to disappear. I hope I'm wrong.

What do you mean by "They're like the Pygmies of Africa" ?......

Chirac was against the war. And many Europeans were against this war (look at the demonstrations everywhere in Europe and in the world).
Chirac didn't say that Saddam hasn't WMDs.... I agree, and what ? He said that nobody were sure that there were WMDs in Iraq. And he wasn't wrong ! He just said that (as the UNO) a war was not a good idea in the short term, that we could have continued the inspections whithout killing people.
For the interest of France, isn't it a little bit too easy ?.... Of course, some French big companies were presents in Iraq (TotalFinaElf mainly). But France would have won more in beeing involved with the Americans (choice of Spain, United Kingdom and Italy) than in doing what Chirac did.
There is a problem of public opinion who didn't want this war (a big majority) : electoralist ? maybe, but all politicians in the Democraties are like that.
Bush is a "warrior" who wanted to finish the job of Bush senior... and have petrol. Don't say the contrary, even in your country, it is now said.

So, Yog, if you are so narrow minded and nationalist, let your country become something like the URSS. The politic of Bush is freigtening, either international or national. The democracy in the biggest .... democracy in the world is going to disappear. I hope I'm wrong.

Pygmies of Africa - read the whole sentence, the point was at the end of it.

The politics of Crirac and the bulk of the EU is quickly leading the sheep of your countries into oblivion. Its to bad the poeple there are to dumb to see it.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

It's strangley sad, Yogs, that what you said about the EU and Chirac, could easily be switched to the USA and Bush.

It's strangley sad, Yogs, that what you said about the EU and Chirac, could easily be switched to the USA and Bush.

If that is what your opinion is. The difference is that I don't immediately start insulting you (such as calling you small minded like Stefen does) for thinking that - I might say you're wrong, but that doesn't make you small minded.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I could care less about insults like "narrow minded" "dumb" and "smelly" I just find it strangely ironic, that one could say that Bush is leading the USA down the wrong road, and most people are so blind to the obvious that they can not see it, but that you said the same thing with Chirac substituting for Bush, and the EU substituting for the USA - and how that comment represents fairly well the point I made with my original post in this thread.

Its all about perspective.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Perspective? I know we can't argue about a complex subject such as this in terms of black or white, but perspective? No matter where you stand, from any angle (except that of paid speech writers, and Ad wizzards for Bush) our president and his cohorts, made a mistake in going into Iraq. And his continuing insisting that his missinformed choice was the correct one, is absolutely rediculous. Even Bill C. owned up to his choices with Monica after the Public found out the truth, we now know the truth about Iraq, and Bush continues to defend a poorly informed choice. I'd honestly vote for him if he had enough of a backbone to own up to his mistake.
What he's doing is like a judge sentencing somebody to death without getting his facts straight first, and then after the execution, evidence is found clearing the the dead criminal, and the Judge justifies his mistake by saying that the man he killed was a jerk anyway so it doesn't matter that he was improperly sentenced to death.

That may be getting a little off topic, but I still hold my opinion that people would rahter not admit their own country is wrong, because it's always easier to start pointing fingers elsewhere to make yourself feel good, even when you're certainly not one to be talking about making poor choices.

Perspective? I know we can't argue about a complex subject such as this in terms of black or white, but perspective? No matter where you stand, from any angle (except that of paid speech writers, and Ad wizzards for Bush) our president and his cohorts, made a mistake in going into Iraq. And his continuing insisting that his missinformed choice was the correct one, is absolutely rediculous. Even Bill C. owned up to his choices with Monica after the Public found out the truth, we now know the truth about Iraq, and Bush continues to defend a poorly informed choice. I'd honestly vote for him if he had enough of a backbone to own up to his mistake.
What he's doing is like a judge sentencing somebody to death without getting his facts straight first, and then after the execution, evidence is found clearing the the dead criminal, and the Judge justifies his mistake by saying that the man he killed was a jerk anyway so it doesn't matter that he was improperly sentenced to death.

That may be getting a little off topic, but I still hold my opinion that people would rahter not admit their own country is wrong, because it's always easier to start pointing fingers elsewhere to make yourself feel good, even when you're certainly not one to be talking about making poor choices.

:iagree: The problem with 85% of the United States, is that they were brought up "knowing" that the United States were the "good guys" and that anyone who the United States was against were the "bad guys." Its how this nation has been brought up not knowing anything about their own country or just politics in general. I must agree though that Bush is in fact a flagrant moron. Sorry, but its true. Two years ago after Sept. 11 the United States had many countries behind its back ready to help out in many ways. However, the Bush administration, being as bright as they are, decided to lie to their own people, and to other countries about the reasons for going into Iraq. "To Protect our individual liberties" Are you kidding me. Any politician who states something like this is either: A. LYING or B. A FLAGRANT MORON. Absolutly no country does something like this unless they are attempting to improve their economic or strategic standpoints. Now....The United States has essentially NO support at all. I mean shit, when we went into Iraq, al qaeda was already present. They were not there trying to attack the United States. They were attempting to take down Saddams regime. All Bush had to do was to say listen Saddam (AFTER HE AGREED TO LET US TROOPS IN TO SEARCH FOR WMD), we are going to be coming in to search your facilities...Let us take care of al qaeda while we are here. Now lets think about his options. 1. Agree and be seen as a cooperting country on the world scale or 2. Not allow this, and Bush could simply consider him as being a world terrorism supporter. At least he would have been telling everyone the truth about why we were in there to begin with. It just pisses me off that he can use a reason so stupid as "To protect our liberty and freedom." If you ask me, he needs to get a new speech writer. (Sorry if i offended anyone)

Bloke, thats why perspective plays such a big role. I do not think going into Iraq was a mistake at all.

If the topic is a list of mistakes made by the politician of the US the list will be long enough to down the server. But going into Iraq (which is where this thread headed even though it wasn't the subject line) isn't one of them.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Two years ago after Sept. 11 the United States had many countries behind its back ready to help out in many ways.

Right there. Actually it's that countries were with us...so long as it didn't cost them anything. Once we decided to get active in the middle east, France got uppity because it would cost them money in contracts with Iraq and they went to the UN about it, got the UN to side with them, then when Bush said 'stick it' it made us look like a bunch of isolationists.

Right there. Actually it's that countries were with us...so long as it didn't cost them anything. Once we decided to get active in the middle east, France got uppity because it would cost them money in contracts with Iraq and they went to the UN about it, got the UN to side with them, then when Bush said 'stick it' it made us look like a bunch of isolationists.

I notice this attitude is very common in the right wing.

"France .... went to the UN about it, got the UN to side with them"

France went to the world, particularly to the powerful countries that make up the UN's permanant security council. The UN is an organization to represent the opinions and policies of it's member countries. The UN is not an entity unto itself, it's a group of representatives of almost every country in the world.

To say "the UN" means "the majority of the world". Bush tried to go to the UN, tried to convince the world that what he was saying was true, and nobody bought it. The UN(the world) was even willing to go to great lengths and considerable costs to try to prove what Bush claimed.

Sorry to chop up that post, justacruiser, but I felt it would better emphasize the sentiment.

Right there. Actually it's that countries were with us...so long as it didn't cost them anything. Once we decided to get active in the middle east, France got uppity because it would cost them money in contracts with Iraq and they went to the UN about it, got the UN to side with them, then when Bush said 'stick it' it made us look like a bunch of isolationists.


False, it would have been more profitable for France to go behin the Americans in this war as UK, Spain and Italy did.
I think that if most Europeans didn't want this war is a question of history and culture. Today, Europe is ruted in a culture of non-violence and anti-war because of her past : First and Second Wars mainly. But also with the souvenir of the URSS and the Berlin's wall.
So, our government (and some European's) heard people.
Another point, if we have a more "black" view, is that there is a big muslim community in Europe, and maybe we could think that European governments didn't want to create tensions.


Concerning the post of YogsVR4 : I spoke about the war in Iraq because it was the start point of the crisis between France the the USA.
From one side, I could understand that Americans could be angry versus Frenchs because nobody were sure that if there were WMDs or not in Iraq (in this case, the war could have been maybe justified). But now that we know that there are no WMDs in Iraq, this war isn't jutified any more at all ! Give me only one argument.
So, from this notice, I thought that the relations between these two countries could become as before the iraqi's war. That's the point of this topic.

But now that we know that there are no WMDs in Iraq, this war isn't jutified any more at all ! Give me only one argument.


I'll refute this with Bush's brilliant argument.

"But he's an eeevil maaan!"

Yeup, that's sure worth American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Bloke, thats why perspective plays such a big role. I do not think going into Iraq was a mistake at all.
:screwy:
And the Titanic hitting an iceberg and sinking wouldn't have been a mistake if GWB was at the helm, would it? :shakehead
If GWB burned down the whitehouse smoking in bed, it wouldn't be a mistake. :icon16:
If he accidentally mistook an elderly woman with a walker for Osama Bin Laden, and strangled her to death, he'd still not have made a mistake right? :)
Oh and most outrageous, if he ordered our troops to invade a country because they had WMDs, and then it turned out that they had absolutely NOTHING and he wasted billions and billions of our tax dollars, it's be all O.K. because GWB is never wrong, no matter how wrong he ever is! :iceslolan :grinyes: :biggrin:
What a funny president. He could drown twenty five orphan children under the impression that they were terrorists, and he'd still have made the right choice, no matter what logic, or common sense has to say about. :lol2:

Anyway, I'm not angry with France. We can't force everybody to do what the USA wants, if anything I'm proud that they decided to go against the grain, as the world would be pretty boring without the liberty to do what you want to do.

False, it would have been more profitable for France to go behin the Americans in this war as UK, Spain and Italy did.

Another point, if we have a more "black" view, is that there is a big muslim community in Europe, and maybe we could think that European governments didn't want to create tensions.

Just curious how it would have been more profitable for France?

European governments don't want to create tensions between them and the Muslim comunity? Do I understand this is what you are saying?
Is that why the French government banned the wearing of a certain religious head garb in schools that Muslim women wear? I believe I heard on National Public Radio the other day that an unnamed Islamic militant stated that France will be a target because of that.

Indeed, scarves have been prohibited from French schools. But, between going in war versus a country and forbid the scarf, there is a difference... and even if this is a far less important decision, you've seen the reactions (France would be a target for Al Quaidas). So immagine if we followed the US (as Spain did)...

It'd have been more profitable if we had followed the USA, because the behaviour of Jacques Chirac has affected the relations between US and France, the exportations of French products for example ! And petrol in Iraq would have been shared with French as it is done with Spanishs and Englishs.

Well I guess we will see how your government reacts when and if France does become a target.

Well I guess we will see how your government reacts when and if France does become a target.

Depends who attacks them. The world is becoming ever wiser to the use of false flag ops.

The French are no strangers to such tactics - and neither are the Russians and Germans for that matter. You can bet the contingencies are already in place.

As I said....We will see.

DGB : France has already been attacked by terrotists (cf. bombs in the parisian métro in 1995). And the hijacking of the flight Paris-Marseille. Terrorists are present for a long time, and before the 11th September 2001... But some Americans see only what is happening in their country.

I remember those. Some French only see things from their point of view.

mhhh... very interesting. No need to discuss, you avoid true debates.
Vous semblez trop frustre... vous évitez les vrais débats. Tant pis, mais ne vous étonnez pas si les américains patissent d'une piètre image dans le monde.

I remember those. Some French only see things from their point of view.

Just like some Americans! Actually, most Americans :iceslolan

mhhh... very interesting. No need to discuss, you avoid true debates.
Vous semblez trop frustre... vous évitez les vrais débats. Tant pis, mais ne vous étonnez pas si les américains patissent d'une piètre image dans le monde.
Vous êtes les une insultes faisant vers les Américains. Je vous donnais soutient ce que vous gaxe me. Si vous ouvrirait vos yeux et voit que votre Gouvernement était aussi tordu que creuse alors peut-être nous aurait quelque chose pour débattre.

In other words when you make statements like "But some Americans see only what is happening in their country." Then you should expect the same type of statement back.

:screwy:
And the Titanic hitting an iceberg and sinking wouldn't have been a mistake if GWB was at the helm, would it? :shakehead
If GWB burned down the whitehouse smoking in bed, it wouldn't be a mistake. :icon16:
If he accidentally mistook an elderly woman with a walker for Osama Bin Laden, and strangled her to death, he'd still not have made a mistake right? :)

Oh and most outrageous, if he ordered our troops to invade a country because they had WMDs, and then it turned out that they had absolutely NOTHING and he wasted billions and billions of our tax dollars, it's be all O.K. because GWB is never wrong, no matter how wrong he ever is! :iceslolan :grinyes: :biggrin:

What a funny president. He could drown twenty five orphan children under the impression that they were terrorists, and he'd still have made the right choice, no matter what logic, or common sense has to say about. :lol2:

I think I must have been giving you to much credit in understanding the difference between supporting a cause and supporting the president. Its pretty clear you're either unable or unwilling to see the difference. :disappoin

Let me try again. It doesn't matter who the president is/was. Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Just like some Americans! Actually, most Americans :iceslolan


Do I really need to comment on this?

I notice this attitude is very common in the right wing.

"France .... went to the UN about it, got the UN to side with them"

France went to the world, particularly to the powerful countries that make up the UN's permanant security council. The UN is an organization to represent the opinions and policies of it's member countries. The UN is not an entity unto itself, it's a group of representatives of almost every country in the world.

To say "the UN" means "the majority of the world". Bush tried to go to the UN, tried to convince the world that what he was saying was true, and nobody bought it. The UN(the world) was even willing to go to great lengths and considerable costs to try to prove what Bush claimed.

Sorry to chop up that post, justacruiser, but I felt it would better emphasize the sentiment.
The UN does not, however repersent the policies of the US in anyway, which is why we chose to not go through the UN and why we should withdraw our interests and funding from it. The UN is not an organization that has any interests. It is a puppet for 5(actually now 4) countries that have controil of the security council. The bottom line is that the other 4 countries in the security council would never justify the US going to war with anybody, especially a country they have interests in. It is an anti-US policy, not an anti-isolationist policy that the UN has now formed.

Let me try again. It doesn't matter who the president is/was. Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do.
I don't care who made the choice, Jesus could've been president, and it's still have been a mistake. If you go into a country claiming they're a threat to us, and saying they have weapons of mass destruction, and then they don't that's a mistake. No ifs, ands, or buts about it!
If you say going to Iraq was the right thing to do, then I hope you are at least seeing it on the level that Sadaam was unjust dictator that needed to be gotten rid of, and not that Iraq was building weapons to destroy America with.

If you say going to Iraq was the right thing to do, then I hope you are at least seeing it on the level that Sadaam was unjust dictator that needed to be gotten rid of, and not that Iraq was building weapons to destroy America with.

Think about the statement you just made. Saddam is an unjust and evil dictator. He has a history of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and has proven he is not afraid to use them. He has no regard for human life, especially that of Americans. So you have to reach a conclusion somewhere that he is a threat to Americans. He hates Americans more than any other group and certainly would not hesitate to use whatever he had on Americans.

Bush had the hard decision of weighing whether is was worth the risk of not talking care of Saddam to save American lives or leaving him be with many red flags going off that he might have WMD's. Do we think he had WMD's? Yes. Did he? Maybe not. We still don't know. But a few things were there:

1) the ability to produce WMD's
2) evidence that he had interest in making or obtaining WMD's
3) a previous history of noncompliance to international law
4) long range missiles that were covered by UN sanctions that we found the first week of the war
5) he was allowing Al-Quieda to operate and train within his country
6) a vulgar hatred for Americans
7) a desregard for human life


Yes. We should have gone to Iraq based simply on the reasons posted above. WMD's? Maybe. A real pain in the world's ass? Yes.

Just like some Americans! Actually, most Americans :iceslolan

And you're an anti american prick, just like some Canadians. Actually, most Canadians!

Your point of view is better somehow? Your point of view is worth just as much as any other here, nothing, except to piss anyone reading it off. Except those with your point of view that is.

And you're an anti american prick, just like some Canadians. Actually, most Canadians!


Because I don't agree with and support every action of the US, that makes me anti-American, eh? I'm beginning to see why you guys think the world is anti-American.

Before you go off labeling me an anti-American prick, you should know that for the last year I've been dating an American girl, and spending a good deal of time in Seattle with her. I'm certainly not anti-American, any more than a democrat who doesn't agree with the policies of the Bush administration is. So stuff it. :iceslolan


Your point of view is better somehow? Your point of view is worth just as much as any other here, nothing, except to piss anyone reading it off. Except those with your point of view that is.

If you get pissed off from reading my point of view here, you're reading way too much into it. Politics are a game, the interpretation of an event or the words of another. I may disagree with what you say, but I'm not going to get worked up to the point where I'm angry, that's pointless. It won't achieve anything except raising my blood pressure.

It's important to try to understand the other sides point of view. I understand the right wing point of view, I just don't agree with it. I understand the left wing point of view, I don't particularly agree with it either. The only mainstream ideals that appeal to me are those of social democracies in Europe. Freedom to pursue whatever goals you'd like, and a social security net broad enough to help you achieve those goals. Taxes are somewhat higher, yes, but what's more important to you, money or lifestyle?

Think about the statement you just made. Saddam is an unjust and evil dictator. He has a history of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and has proven he is not afraid to use them. He has no regard for human life, especially that of Americans. So you have to reach a conclusion somewhere that he is a threat to Americans. He hates Americans more than any other group and certainly would not hesitate to use whatever he had on Americans.


1) Saddam is evil and unjust... Evil is a label, used to vilify an enemy. No one will seriously claim to be evil, and if they are, they are pathetic. Unjust? Defend that statement.

2) He also has a history of destroying those weapons under the watchful eye of UN inspectors, and allowing inspectors free run of Iraq to prove he has no more.

3) Hussein never announced any intentions of attacking America, he never had the capabilities, and he wouldn't want to anyways, at it would have given the west ample opportunity to invade. Hussein understood diplomacy, and he understood that the US couldn't garner enough support to attack him. That only changed when Bush took over.


Bush had the hard decision of weighing whether is was worth the risk of not talking care of Saddam to save American lives or leaving him be with many red flags going off that he might have WMD's. Do we think he had WMD's? Yes. Did he? Maybe not. We still don't know. But a few things were there:

1) the ability to produce WMD's
2) evidence that he had interest in making or obtaining WMD's
3) a previous history of noncompliance to international law
4) long range missiles that were covered by UN sanctions that we found the first week of the war
5) he was allowing Al-Quieda to operate and train within his country
6) a vulgar hatred for Americans
7) a desregard for human life


I think it's safe to assume there are no WMDs in Iraq, or the US would have found them by now. Is it safe to say Bush lied? Of course, he had "rock solid proof", satellite photos, spies bringing back proof, etc. Turns out that was all bullshit, almost as if Bush had made up his mind to invade long ago, and was just trying to sway the public opinion to justify it. To the rest of world, it looked like Bush had made a bunch of bogus claims, couldn't back them up, and was becoming increasingly more desperate to justify what couldn't be justified.


1) Every country has the ability to build WMD's.

2) Refer to above statement.

3) If you notice, Iraq was complying with international law, and had been for quite a few years, at least according to the UN. Of course, according to the US, they were not.

4) Actually, those were short range missiles, with range of not more than 200kms. Long range missiles are referred to as ICBMs.

5) Another bogus claim. Not even Bush would say that. He said there were links, not government sanctioned Al Qaeda camps in Iraq. Al Qaeda hated Husseins regime, remember? Secular socialist government running a muslim country with a Shiite majority, remember?

6) A vulgar hatred. Hate, possibly yes, but that's not reason to attack him. It's only reasonable for someone to hate you after you've bombed them for a decade, destroying their power and water infrastructure.

7) Bush has demonstrated a disregard for human life as well, should we all invade the US? Sharon has as well, is Israel next on the hitlist?
Yes. We should have gone to Iraq based simply on the reasons posted above. WMD's? Maybe. A real pain in the world's ass? Yes.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Cbass]

3) Hussein never announced any intentions of attacking America, he never had the capabilities, and he wouldn't want to anyways, at it would have given the west ample opportunity to invade. Hussein understood diplomacy, and he understood that the US couldn't garner enough support to attack him. That only changed when Bush took over.

[QUOTE]

That's not a very intelligent statement. When did the 9/11 hijackers announce they were going to attack America? Before 9/11, Saddam was more of a threat to the US than Al-quieda. To deny that Saddam was a threat to the US is just ignorance. He had the capabalities. You know it. He had the will. There's not a shade of doubt in my mind he was a threat to the US.

Just one point over the problem of knowing if the USA were right or not to atttack Iraq (the answer seem quite obvious TODAY, but was not so clear at the beginning of the war) :
Who are the USA to overpass the decisions of UNO ?!!!!! The war against Iraq was totally ILLEGAL.
And that's a very important point not to avoid speaking about this war.

Because I don't agree with and support every action of the US, that makes me anti-American, eh? I'm beginning to see why you guys think the world is anti-American.

Before you go off labeling me an anti-American prick, you should know that for the last year I've been dating an American girl, and spending a good deal of time in Seattle with her. I'm certainly not anti-American, any more than a democrat who doesn't agree with the policies of the Bush administration is. So stuff it. :iceslolan

She must be delirious. I mistakenly thought that Taranaki was just someone who didn't like America, mostly because every time he posted an anti-bush comment YOU would parrot him with some other comment that would help solidify those thoughts. Turns out it was you, not him who was one like that. As for 'labeling' people, take a look at what you said to piss me off.

If you get pissed off from reading my point of view here, you're reading way too much into it. Politics are a game, the interpretation of an event or the words of another. I may disagree with what you say, but I'm not going to get worked up to the point where I'm angry, that's pointless. It won't achieve anything except raising my blood pressure.

It's important to try to understand the other sides point of view. I understand the right wing point of view, I just don't agree with it. I understand the left wing point of view, I don't particularly agree with it either. The only mainstream ideals that appeal to me are those of social democracies in Europe. Freedom to pursue whatever goals you'd like, and a social security net broad enough to help you achieve those goals. Taxes are somewhat higher, yes, but what's more important to you, money or lifestyle?

I don't give a shit about your point of view, I hear liberal BS every day, that's not what I'm mad at. What I'm mad at is how you come off with not only 'I hate America' BS, but 'Just like some Americans! Actually, most Americans' comments as well, mixed in with your posts. You DATE an American, but you generalize them? Stuff it.

Just one point over the problem of knowing if the USA were right or not to atttack Iraq (the answer seem quite obvious TODAY, but was not so clear at the beginning of the war) :
Who are the USA to overpass the decisions of UNO ?!!!!! The war against Iraq was totally ILLEGAL.
And that's a very important point not to avoid speaking about this war.


Illegal? The UN isn't a governing body (yet) . God forbid it would ever get that much power?

Just one point over the problem of knowing if the USA were right or not to atttack Iraq (the answer seem quite obvious TODAY, but was not so clear at the beginning of the war) :
Who are the USA to overpass the decisions of UNO ?!!!!! The war against Iraq was totally ILLEGAL.
And that's a very important point not to avoid speaking about this war.

The UN is a useless pile of fuckups. The organization cannot fall into the dustbin of history fast enough.

There is nothing illegal about the war with Iraq. UN approval is neither needed or wanted. I am dissappointed that anyone in our government gives a shit about the UN.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

What do you have against the UN? The UN has done more good than it has bad - are you saying that they're useless because they disagreed with the U.S. over Iraq, and other things?

What do you have against the UN? The UN has done more good than it has bad - are you saying that they're useless because they disagreed with the U.S. over Iraq, and other things?

I've railed against the UN for twenty years. Nobody in our goverment should give them the time of day. The US should pull out of and stop funding the UN.

The UN has not done more good then bad. Not a single success story (and there are very few for an organization thats over fifty years old) couldn't have been done by countries working together of their own fruition and not have the administrative boneheads at the UN taking their cut.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I see your point Yogs. Not only that but some people seem to think that the UN is the supreme rulers of the world.

yog and dgb : being so narrow minded is frightening. But your are rude people, that's not a problem to me.
Stay in your ingnorance.

yog and dgb : being so narrow minded is frightening. But your are rude people, that's not a problem to me.
Stay in your ingnorance.

And you're small minded and arrogant.

Live in your little shell.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)