can somebody please explain.

[1985_BMW318i]

Different times call for different measures. Saddam has 12 years and countless warnings to disarm. Now he's being disarmed.

[T4 Primera]

Sidetracking a bit and touching on a different argument :

Actually, it is in the financial interest of the French to maintain the status quo in Iraq with the hope that the UN sanctions will eventually be lifted. This is because the French petroleum interests, along with Russian and Chinese petroleum interests had made an agreement with Iraq that they would develop the Iraqi oil fields once the UN sanctions were lifted. On the other side of the coin, the US and UK petroleum interests have been shut out of development opportunities in Iraq altogether for a long time now - even predating the Gulf War and the invasion of Kuwait. The potential profits at stake have been assessed as being in the order of $US3-4 trillion. That amount of moolah cannot be ignored in any decision, by any country, regarding the fate of the Iraqi government. The petroleum company lobby groups, where they exist, in each of these countries will no doubt make sure of that.

And to get back on topic:

1985_BMW318i -

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Like always the French spend more time concerned about themselves. While the US sees the bigger picture. We want safety and freedom for everyone on this planet. Your statement only served to remind me of how many times the US has come to their aid.

While I trust your comment was not meant this way, it can easily be interpreted as an attitude of superiority.

Firstly it derides a foreign country (France) then implies that they are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You want safety and freedom for everyone on the planet - ok, are you implying that others don't? Finally, if the US has in the past come to the aid of a country, does this then mean that they are obligated to go along with whatever the US government determines is the right course of action?

My intention is not to detract from your statements, it is to show how some people will interpret them, and goes to the question of how anti-US sentiment is fuelled - as distinct from anti-US Government or anti-war sentiments.

Hollywood has a helluvalot to answer for as far as anti-US sentiment goes as well, but that is another discussion.

BTW, my American history is not as good as it could be, but didn't the French play a major role in the war for the independence of the US?

[1985_BMW318i]

BTW, my American history is not as good as it could be, but didn't the French play a major role in the war for the independence of the US?

The French came in at the end of the Revolution. However they showed up

[taranaki]

Your comments keep returning to the same lines that we hear from official white house press conferences.These press conferences are a travesty of journalism,pre-scripted to perfection so that only the approved questions get asked,and the same information gets put out again and again until it is accepted as fact.Bush is breaching international law [or the intention of it]by invading Iraq.It is rank hipocrisy to claim that Saddam's failure to abide by U.N. RESOLUTIONS justifies this war.The U.S. is just as guilty of ignoring U.N. resolutions when it suits them.

If you have any thoughts of your own that can reply to my questions,I'd be far more interested in hearing them than the endless repetition ofBush's weak excuses for his behaviour.

[T4 Primera]

Originally posted by taranaki


No,but I can't think of any country that has ever become a stable,civilised and successful democracy as a result of a U.S. military coup such as is happening in Iraq.

And I can't either. Wait, does Kuwait count?

I'd like to know if their are any because then I could discard this as false and maybe admit that sometimes these interventions do work.

Enlighten me - please?

[1985_BMW318i]

If you have any thoughts of your own that can reply to my questions,I'd be far more interested in hearing them than the endless repetition ofBush's weak excuses for his behaviour

To be certain these are my points of view. I need no newspaper or tv news to make up my own mind. My support of President Bush is unwavoring

[T4 Primera]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i


The French came in at the end of the Revolution. However they showed up

The same has been said of America in WWII as well. My father was a Sapper in the Royal Engineers during WWII so I guess I'm bound to be influenced by some of his prejudices with regards to the US.

[1985_BMW318i]

The same has been said of America in WWII as well.

When the US entered WW2 we had already been supplying the allies with guns, ammo, bombs, aircraft and ships. It was because of the isolationist that it took an attack on US Soil to get our troops involved. And Admiral Yamato <sp> said it best. "We've awoken a sleeping giant"

[boingo82]

Originally posted by taranaki


I'll go back to the question at the top of the thread here - why does an attack on Bush constitute an attack on the U.S.?I have no difficulty separating the man from the country,but it would appear that a lot of Americans seem to think that George Bush IS America.

It's not, necessarily...but when you say "Bush, and the fuckwits who elected him" you are insulting quite a few Americans, and if not those people personally, you are insulting their friends, neighbors, and family members. (BTW, that's not a direct quote but I've seen stuff like that).

[Prelewd]

Originally posted by taranaki
Your comments keep returning to the same lines that we hear from official white house press conferences.These press conferences are a travesty of journalism,pre-scripted to perfection so that only the approved questions get asked,and the same information gets put out again and again until it is accepted as fact.Bush is breaching international law [or the intention of it]by invading Iraq.It is rank hipocrisy to claim that Saddam's failure to abide by U.N. RESOLUTIONS justifies this war.The U.S. is just as guilty of ignoring U.N. resolutions when it suits them.

If you have any thoughts of your own that can reply to my questions,I'd be far more interested in hearing them than the endless repetition ofBush's weak excuses for his behaviour.

It doesn't seem like you will believe anything said by the US, right or not, so what does it matter?

Originally posted by boingo82


It's not, necessarily...but when you say "Bush, and the fuckwits who elected him" you are insulting quite a few Americans, and if not those people personally, you are insulting their friends, neighbors, and family members. (BTW, that's not a direct quote but I've seen stuff like that).

Boingo, As a mod, I'd like to make a request that you stay neutral in this argument, and kind of referee it like you have been. I think we need someone neutral to tell what it might sound like from either side.

[Dorikin]

Originally posted by taranaki


No,but I can't think of any country that has ever become a stable,civilised and successful democracy as a result of a U.S. military coup such as is happening in Iraq.

Well theresa first time for everything

[T4 Primera]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i


When the US entered WW2 we had already been supplying the allies with guns, ammo, bombs, aircraft and ships. It was because of the isolationist that it took an attack on US Soil to get our troops involved. And Admiral Yamato <sp> said it best. "We've awoken a sleeping giant"

Ok, getting off-topic again - well not really - bear with me:

In the interest of clarifying where I was coming from when I made the initial statement - My father's attitudes were formed on the basis of his experiences on the battlefield, and on his observations of the behaviour and timing of the arrival of American forces at each city that was liberated. They were not formed based on political views or history books.

Following WWII, as a civil engineer he spent decades rebuilding war torn regions, including Africa, and Persia where he worked laying oil pipelines etc. He also lived for a period of time in the US.

His attitudes, right or wrong, were based on first hand, eye witness experiences. That I should be influenced in my thinking and attitudes is a natural consequence of him being my father. I merely want to reveal how some of these attitudes came to exist - not to promote or defend them.