- #1
GENIERE
How will the French handle their hostage situation?
JohnDubYa said:Dunno, but I have heard that it is wise to never bet against anyone fighting the French.
Dunno, but I have heard that it is wise to never bet against anyone fighting the French.
JohnDubYa said:Look up the term "Vichy France" in the dictionary.
The US is at war! Can you understand this? We are at war! You are a friend, an enemy, or not worth consideration. Are you friend, a foe, or a pesty gnat?
Gza said:Now I'm just appalled. Are you still bitter over the French having enough sense to not want to be involved in something as blatantly wrong as the invasion of Iraq? If a friend tries to stop you from driving drunk, do you verbally abuse them, and hate them for their sober perspective? I was shocked by the hatred people in the American media, as well as in people such as yourself at the French during the beginning of the war. Don't be angry at people with common sense, it just makes you look devoid of it.
humanino said:I am french. Thank you Gza. I would like to add that it is not easy for us either to keep in this attitude. We do feel guilty for not helping a friend at war. Usually, once the decision has been taken, everybody goes to war, even the ones that were against war before the begining. In the present case, not only did we think there were alternative solutions, we also think the situation has/will become impossible to handle. But today, I feel like Switzerland people : we are on the side of the field. We are not part of the "game" (sorry, just don't know a better word for this thought) ... feel useless.
GENIERE said:Bitter [over the French]? No! Simply not worth considering, small change, irrelevant…
GENIERE said:Had the French joined the coalition I believe the war in Iraq would not have been necessary.
Gokul43201 said:A flip-flop ?
<all in jest ! >
Wasn't the whole point of the "coalition of the willing" to get people on-side for the US invasion?GENIERE said:Had the French joined the coalition I believe the war in Iraq would not have been necessary.
Nice to see some truth! wish my country had, had the b! to say no!Gza said:Now I'm just appalled. Are you still bitter over the French having enough sense to not want to be involved in something as blatantly wrong as the invasion of Iraq? If a friend tries to stop you from driving drunk, do you verbally abuse them, and hate them for their sober perspective? I was shocked by the hatred people in the American media, as well as in people such as yourself at the French during the beginning of the war. Don't be angry at people with common sense, it just makes you look devoid of it.
Gza said:Now I'm just appalled. Are you still bitter over the French having enough sense to not want to be involved in something as blatantly wrong as the invasion of Iraq? If a friend tries to stop you from driving drunk, do you verbally abuse them, and hate them for their sober perspective? I was shocked by the hatred people in the American media, as well as in people such as yourself at the French during the beginning of the war. Don't be angry at people with common sense, it just makes you look devoid of it.
Mercator said:I cannot understand that anyone still supports the disaster in Iraq and blames the French for doing the right thing. Iraq was contained and the US invasion has done exactly what we in Europe expected: make a bigger mess. It has de facto helped the fundamentalist cause in a country that before the invasion was rather a buffer against muslim radicalism.
Mercator said:Islam clerics regard France as a country they can discuss with. This should ring a bell if you are looking for solutions for the Iraq disaster.
I, and the French for that matter HAVE been constructive from the beginning.
Somebody just did not listen. Which hatred are you talking about? No false accusations please. As for Iraq, you make me think about a kid who just wrecked his car during a trip which his friend did not want to join, and now he wants his friend to get him out of the mess.
Islam clerics regard France as a country they can discuss with.
JohnDubYa said:Okay, so the sanctions designed to force Saddam Hussein into obeying UN resolutions were killing tens of thousands every year, what was your country's STATED solution to ending the sanctions?
Except the kid was driving over to fix another mess that the friend was involved in creating. The UN resolutions and ensuing sanctions were imposed by France just as much as the US. The US and its true allies were willing to enforce the resolutions, which ultimately led to the end of the sanctions.
Translation: They think your country can be rolled.
Erm, exactly why can't it be both?Mercator said:So Islam clerics are automatically thugs for you? Nice departure point to start a discussion.
Tell me, what was the invasion in Iraq for, humanitarian purposes or the perceived threat? Because all Americans I discussed with switch between these options whenever convenient to save them in the discussion. It cannot be both, so take your pick before we discuss further.
Okay, so the sanctions designed to force Saddam Hussein into obeying UN resolutions were killing tens of thousands every year, what was your country's STATED solution to ending the sanctions?
I, and the French for that matter HAVE been constructive from the beginning.
I would like to see what twisted logic you will use to state that the Iraqi invasion was a move against terrorism AND a humanitarian action.
Mercator said:I dunno. YOU have attacked Iraq, not me, and not the French either, so YOU are liable for an explanation. After all, the situation was contained. If you want to know the details, read Blix's book. There were no WMD in Iraq (the last US supply offered with compliments of Mr. Rumsfeld were used up), Saddam's reign was on it's knees and despite his defiant rethoric he was complying with the UN resolutions. Everybody in Europe with open eyes and mind knew this. We told you but you did not listen. With a good reason. Personaly I have supervised tons of weapons, steel, chemicals and other toys being shipped into Iraq. I talked to Tarek Aziz, not an Islamic radical, but a Christian who believed, like most of the governments in the West that Iraq was the answer to the radicalisation of Islam in the middle east and particularly in Iran. A lot of the toys came from the US (yes, we also shipped German tanks and French planes) It stopped after the first gulf war. By 2003 it was all outdated. The US waited until they knew for sure that Saddam, whom they installed in the first place, was powerless and then they attacked. All you had to do was wait for the right occasion to remove your puppet from power. Clinton knew this, but Mr. W rong chose to act before the spoils of the sanctions were distributed and take the biggest part of the cake for himself. Problem is that the American taxpayer has to pay for most of his adventures, because the Iraqi people (surpirse, surprise) are not so co-operative as to hand over their black gold without a fight. Don't use the humanitarian argument because when Saddam used chemical weapons against his people, they were SUPPLIED BY THE US. The chemical attacks and most of the brutalities you cite date from the time that YOU supplied Saddam. That may be a triviality to you, but most of the world knows this and wonders how you can be so cynical.
So let me recapitulate: you want me to believe that the same guy (Rumsfeld) who supplied the terrible chemical weapons to Saddam in order to wipe out the "Islamic danger" coming from Iran and watched the horrible results of it without a word of dissaproval, later wanted to attack his old friend for humanitarian reasons? On top of this you only want me to believe this when your first argument, that Iraq was a terrorist threat (which it obviously WAS not, but may now become one THANKS to your invasion) has not really the desired effect? What else? Elton John does not like men?