Reasons for Dissension between France and USA (& about the Far-right in france)
belalady
I'd like to talk about France, since it is a rubric in your newsgroup
and it's a country I know pretty well. Also, I think it's very
important to shed some light for those readers who don't know Europe
and France well, since apparently here in this newsgroup no one thinks
about what I'm going to say, so as to analyze the situation well,
WITHOUT HATRED toward the French, and understand why there have been
such changes in foreign policy in a country that was a strong friend
of the United States. I mean to talk about the existence of the far
right in France, the country in Europe where it is by far the
strongest. The far right creates insecurity, mistrust and worries
among people in France. They threaten, insult and denigrate other
politicians, including the president of the republic, who are all so
used to it by now that they no longer respond (wrongly). There is
spitefulness and disgraceful drawings for example in the media they
own, against those who oppose the opinions of the French "Danube of
Thought", a demagogue who encourages lowly instincts. Victims know
that it's useless to start long and costly lawsuits, as the far right
practically never loses a case, or with only small sentences, and goes
on to repeat the offence anyway. Judges don't dare to or don't want to
punish them, perhaps they actually support them, we might wonder, even
when they pretend to be left-wing. Only ‘they' confiscate the voicing
of opinions when they can and want to have the right to speak. In
those cases, it's only hatred that can be expressed in the media, that
no one seems to (dare to) silence. Such is the deleterious state of
justice and the rest.
They cry WOLF, about insecurity, but they're the wolf. They say
they're opposed to foreign, abusive invasion. But by developing the
worship of their leader, they arouse other callings from fellow
countrymen, rival, jealous big shots who want to be the leaders in
this ‘Superman' political ideology, thereby causing divisions in
national cohesion. They say they fight ‘Islamic terrorism', but by
their racist aggressions against foreign-born communities, including
Muslims (cf. recent attacks against small mosques), they give great
publicity to Muslim terrorist ideology political leaders, with
opportunities for media coverage and roles as victims. People then
tend to listen to and side with the latter, and for fear of reprisals
or out of compassion for the victims of such attacks, show sympathy
and comfort for this Islam. The far right is the BEST ALLY of
ISLAMISM, by fostering its propaganda. It's all grist to each other's
mills. They need each other to make headway.
Using, twisting and corrupting symbols, they succeeded in associating
their political and racist objectives, in people's minds, with the
symbol of a cross inside a circle, which represented the Aura around
Jesus' cross. So this has now become the symbol of total hatred
between peoples, which they leave as their signature after their
attacks. You understand this is a substitute for Nazi ideology, which
was until now only found in Hitler's swastika, and now has this
‘softer-line', less shocking variation. In complete opposition to the
Christian religion. Those stupid criminal actions don't bring about
any solution of course, and they have but one consequence, that of
poisoning our daily lives.
France is the only country in the world, or in Europe at least, where
over the last thirty years or so such a strong Nazi political party
has developed and thrived, to the point of making it to the second
round of the last presidential election, which required the mass
mobilization of all other parties against it in the final vote LET'S
NOT FORGET. Its leaders play a different tune depending on whether
they feel strong enough to express their racist wishes and ulterior
motives, and say again and again that they're against democracy in
their private media, without being confronted with having to come out
and say this to voters. This is the work mostly of one HIGHLY
INTELLIGENT MAN - which his opponents refuse to admit, and would feel
humiliated to acknowledge as such, which goes to show how stupid they
are -, undoubtedly for me alas one of the most experienced and
smartest among the French political class, which sometimes look like a
herd of donkeys next to him. He now has a large support network both
in France and abroad. To counter him, the other French politicians
have chosen to respond, when he wants, where he wants, and every time
they "bring him soup in a chamber pot". It's sad and painful to see
democrats, whom he and his people of the far right despise, on their
knees in front of this braggart Nazi they obey, whose career was one
of a political agitator and troublemaker full of hatred for others,
such as General de Gaulle back when he was alive.
He is full of self-importance now, for he has succeeding in becoming
the central reference of Interior political issues. However, he has a
flaw. Like all proud people, he wishes to be admired like a peacock
all over the Earth, like a providential superman, and he arouses
callings as I mentioned above, among others who envy him and wish to
take his place. He in fact has an abominable little twin brother. They
were the BEST FRIENDS of Saddam in France. They've managed to make
into a freedom of opinion that is as honorable as another the fact of
showing racist hatred, voluntarily quite visibly, toward those who are
not of French origin first and then toward others, who most often shy
away from responding. As if not being French or being of immigrant
origin, i.e. not considered by them as French, were a crime to be
denounced. This accusation that all those donkeys fear is enough to
silence opponents, even those of French stock.
Naturally only the founder is allowed to say who is French and who
isn't. And are only French in his view those who've come out of his
pants, that is no one besides himself maybe. This political party and
movement is the black star of French domestic politics. Let me add
that politics is like Astronomy regarding certain things, with similar
laws. When a star moves close to another, even one much larger than
itself, it manages to change and redirect the trajectory of the bigger
one, like it or not, away from its initial desired path. And those
changing the course of French democracy in recent decades are the
French electors, who used to vote for other extremist but less harmful
parties and now vote for this one, which has managed to even win over
voters who consider themselves as Christians… Through fear or
persuasion after all this time, they've succeeded in carrying out a
‘takeover' (financial style) on part of France's clergy, to secure the
faithful's ideological and electoral support for the ‘great superman'.
After explaining all this, this newsgroup's readers may understand
better the changes in French foreign policy and the move away from the
American traditional Atlantic allies, which is not explained to the
public by supposed specialist, intelligent and well-informed
journalists. The culprit IS NOT America, (and the US President).
This is a humiliating fact to admit and face for the French and a
shameful reality for the French democratic political class, which
feels powerless and often embarrassingly dominated in debates, among
other reasons why, because of anti-democratic rules and practices such
as personal attacks and denigrations, which they allowed from the
start.
In France, like in all other countries as a rule, the far right is A
MAFIA. The neighboring country of Spain has experienced it and keeps
deep traces and marks, with never-ending scars and spirit of revenge,
still undemocratic habits and laws, INJUSTICES that keep reviving
terrorism. Having said that, let's not exaggerate. After all the
extremist votes have been cast, their progress is rather halted now,
and we can say that (for now) their influence has decreased and
they're losing ground. But sooner or later we'll need to find a
solution to this scandal that has gone on too long we think. In
particular France I hope will get rid of this cancer of society, even
using a scalpel if necessary. Those despicable people have brought
only hatred and slander as methods in combat and debates. The only
positive point is that at least the people who didn't experience,
fortunately, the dark times of Nazi occupation of France during World
War II can get sometime an idea of what it was like then.
Last year, the ‘great superman' protested with emotion against the
expulsion of a Islamiq terrorist towards Algery. There would be for
him an attack with freedom of thought of this last. (Including in the
form of blows that one gives to women)
Translations :
In French : http://french.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=192&highlight=
In German : http://www.fes-online-akademie.de/forum/read.php?f=1&i=33&t=33
I added this to my text (some months later)
There were reactions in the forums where I posted this text. But it
was necessary, given the totalitarian ideology that infiltrates our
habits a little more each day, and that (under a PRETEXT OF SECURITY)
terrorizes individuals in their behavior or their private lives.
I believe that, as concerns France where it is most spoken about, the
great majority of politicians pretend to fight the extreme right (and
Judges pretend to use the arsenal of laws against it).
Although the discussion is full of barbed remarks, but the barbs have
been safely covered over with cherries and strawberries. And although
they appear to fight the extreme right with tooth and nail, their
teeth are falling out and their nails have been recently trimmed. Not
only ‘foils are tipped with a button', but moreover they have put
oranges and grapefruits on the end. It is obvious that powerful people
want to give the extreme right a chance to win one day.
In any case, I felt like saying ‘for centuries and centuries', but we
musn't exaggerate and being ridiculous. As a matter of tact, this
expression should not be taken over, in particular by politicians.
Thus I want to say that the History of France and of other surrouding
European countries has never (except for a very brief parenthesis) had
anything to do with Nazism and the Swastika. Whatever my personal
origins or civil status, I have nothing whatsoever in common with
them.
If some ‘Cretins' who call themselves ‘Christians' follow them, that
is and will remain their fault, but will never be mine.
John of Aix
[The extreme right, JM Le Pen]
> Its leaders play a different tune depending on whether
> they feel strong enough to express their racist wishes and ulterior
> motives, and say again and again that they're against democracy in
> their private media, without being confronted with having to come out
> and say this to voters. This is the work mostly of one HIGHLY
> INTELLIGENT MAN - which his opponents refuse to admit, and would feel
> humiliated to acknowledge as such, which goes to show how stupid they
> are -, undoubtedly for me alas one of the most experienced and
> smartest among the French political class, which sometimes look like a
> herd of donkeys next to him.
Yes, I definitely agree with you here. The classic political parties
made the mistake of thinking that the National Front was just another of
the tiny far right parties that exist almost everywhere and occasionally
gain a little bit of force when the People is unhappy. But Le Pen was
not just a run of the mill loony like most of their leaders but a bit of
a visionary (in his way). His project has been very long term and little
by little his party has gained a certain amount of respectability. He
has known how to speak to the bottom level electorate, the ignorant and
uninformed, in a language they understand, collecting up the few per
cent who used to vote Communist in protest while at the same time
tickling the fancy of the old bourgeois who appreciate his culture and
the way he has no 'holy cows' concerning politics and politicians.
> He is full of self-importance now, for he has succeeding in becoming
> the central reference of Interior political issues.
No I don't think that is true at all. He may figure large in some
debates, notably immigration of course, but figures nowhere else, no
particular finance or education programme etc. And, so far, in
the only places where the FN has had a modicum of power, in town halls
for instance, their mandate has often been disastrous.
> After explaining all this, this newsgroup's readers may understand
> better the changes in French foreign policy and the move away from the
> American traditional Atlantic allies, which is not explained to the
> public by supposed specialist, intelligent and well-informed
> journalists. The culprit IS NOT America, (and the US President).
No I think you are completely wrong in this theory. I don't believe the
rise of the far right or the desires or actions of Jean-Marie le Pen and
the Front Nationale have anything whatsoever to do with France's
attitude towards the USA or its opposition to the war in Iraq. For
anyone not brainwashed by US propaganda, the very great majority of
Europeans for instance (not to mention the rest of the world) the USA
was quite patently lying and was quite patently wrong to invade Iraq.
Their heavy handed methods of riding roughshod over world opinion will
not, and should not be forgiven lightly. There is no point in trying to
pretend it was for some arcane reason that the French and others opposed
the USA and are currently extremely wary of it, the reasons are only too
clear: the USA cannot be trusted and represents a danger to the world
because it causes more trouble than it solves.
> In particular France I hope will get rid of this cancer of society,
> even
> using a scalpel if necessary. Those despicable people have brought
> only hatred and slander as methods in combat and debates.
Amen to that.
Bill C
Are you saying that the rift between the US and France was in part forced by
the necessity of centrists to form a coalition with left in order to defeat
a credible threat from a Nazi like right?
You say the Le Pen was best friends with Saddam, but hasn't Chirac had a
close personal relationship with him as well? Wasn't he instrumental in
negotiating Saddam's nuclear power plant that Israel blew up?
With the far left and right firmly anti-war and the center pressing
anti-Americanism to gain a partner on the left, I don't see that this
exonerates the French role the bitterness between our two countries.
"belalady" <belala...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:342c116a.05030...@posting.google.com...
thereac...@mindspring.com
country in Europe where it is by far the strongest."
You are completely wrong here. It is the left wing media in France, as
well as the other European nations, that has attacked the US the most
viciously. Your bad relationship with the US is entirely the product
of the European left.
gggg@w
>"I mean to talk about the existence of the far right in France, the
>country in Europe where it is by far the strongest."
I wouldn't even say that France is the country where far right is the
strongest, for instance the Flemish Vlaam Blok is above 20 % AFAIK
gggg@w
<newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote:
>I'm not too familiar with French politics and not sure if I follow you.
>
>Are you saying that the rift between the US and France was in part forced by
>the necessity of centrists to form a coalition with left in order to defeat
>a credible threat from a Nazi like right?
>
>You say the Le Pen was best friends with Saddam, but hasn't Chirac had a
>close personal relationship with him as well? Wasn't he instrumental in
no.
>negotiating Saddam's nuclear power plant that Israel blew up?
in 1976 yes ... he wasn't even in power IIRC.
>With the far left and right firmly anti-war and the center pressing
>anti-Americanism to gain a partner on the left, I don't see that this
>exonerates the French role the bitterness between our two countries.
exonerate ? ROFL we are the culprits ? who said 'fuck you' to the world and
the UN. Nice embarassing case-law of preemptive war without evidences, nice
!
gggg@w
Bill C
"gggg@w" <g...@w.gg> wrote in message news:42286de7...@news.free.fr...
> >You say the Le Pen was best friends with Saddam, but hasn't Chirac had a
> >close personal relationship with him as well? Wasn't he instrumental in
>
> no.
>
> >negotiating Saddam's nuclear power plant that Israel blew up?
>
> in 1976 yes ... he wasn't even in power IIRC.
From
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/58568.stm
"...Diplomatic and economic ties were given a crucial boost in 1974, when
the then French Prime Minister, and current President, Jacques Chirac,
called Saddam Hussein a personal friend; his government agreed to build an
experimental nuclear reactor near Baghdad..."
> exonerate ? ROFL we are the culprits ? who said 'fuck you' to the world
and
> the UN. Nice embarassing case-law of preemptive war without evidences,
nice
> !
The same FU could be said to have happened from France. When Chirac opposed
us simply because us weakened his geopolitical alliance in the Middle East:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/310
1) Saddam failed to live up to 12th UN resolution requiring his full
cooperation with WMD inspectors
2) Fired on our jets weekly (sometimes daily).
3) Pursued WMD's and sheltered terrorists during our war on terror, becoming
their symbolic strong man against the West, perhaps surpassing OBL in
hiding.
4) Failed to live up the terms of the 92 cease fire by paying reparations to
Kuwait
5) Perpetrated genocide on the marsh Arabs.
6) Tortured and killed tens of thousands of political prisoners (maybe more)
7) Gassed the Kurds.
IMO, any two of those justified invasion after 9/11 demonstrated that we
couldn't let threats build. Unless all wars are "illegal", neither is ours.
Only a hand full of wars have ever been "authorized" by the UN, and we never
have them the authority to authorize us.
All this hate by you is the resonance of sore losers following defeat, like
the resonance of a gong after being hit, it will fade away. Democracy in
Iraq and Palestine. Disarmament in Libya. And the real hope of democracy
in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If the US were ever so profoundly on
the wrong side of history, I wouldn't expect anything less than this
ridiculous hate coming from you "peace" activists. It would break my heart
to see us act as dishonorably as you, but I don't doubt that all people are
capable of it.
I don't have time today to look at and address your threads below. I expect
to have a few minutes tomorrow.
gggg@w
<newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote:
>"gggg@w" <g...@w.gg> wrote in message news:42286de7...@news.free.fr...
>> >You say the Le Pen was best friends with Saddam, but hasn't Chirac had a
>> >close personal relationship with him as well? Wasn't he instrumental in
>>
>> no.
>>
>> >negotiating Saddam's nuclear power plant that Israel blew up?
>>
>> in 1976 yes ... he wasn't even in power IIRC.
>
>From
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/58568.stm
>
>"...Diplomatic and economic ties were given a crucial boost in 1974, when
>the then French Prime Minister, and current President, Jacques Chirac,
>called Saddam Hussein a personal friend; his government agreed to build an
>experimental nuclear reactor near Baghdad..."
so ? when you sell stuff to people you call them friends, where's the
problem o_O
LOL 1974 ... even worse that what I said.
>> exonerate ? ROFL we are the culprits ? who said 'fuck you' to the world
>and
>> the UN. Nice embarassing case-law of preemptive war without evidences,
>nice
>> !
>
>The same FU could be said to have happened from France. When Chirac opposed
?
>us simply because us weakened his geopolitical alliance in the Middle East:
?
>http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/310
>
>1) Saddam failed to live up to 12th UN resolution requiring his full
>cooperation with WMD inspectors
? really ? that's what I've understood. Are you talking about the UNSCOM or
the UNMOVIC ?
>2) Fired on our jets weekly (sometimes daily).
On the jets that were bombings his stuff and intsallations you mean ?
>3) Pursued WMD's and sheltered terrorists during our war on terror, becoming
>their symbolic strong man against the West, perhaps surpassing OBL in
>hiding.
huh ? WTF are you talking about ?
>4) Failed to live up the terms of the 92 cease fire by paying reparations to
>Kuwait
? Is this have anything to do w/ the fact that his country was under the
harshest embargo of the UN history as wanted by the USA and the UK (well,
we now know that he did managed to have more money due to some
disfunctinment in the oil-for-food thing, yet ...)
>5) Perpetrated genocide on the marsh Arabs.
are you refering to this ? (*)
>6) Tortured and killed tens of thousands of political prisoners (maybe more)
>7) Gassed the Kurds.
in 1988 i.e. 15 yrs before ... so ?
The UNSCOm destroyed about 90-95 % of the Saddam's WMDs (not even talking
about the shelf-life)
>IMO, any two of those justified invasion after 9/11 demonstrated that we
>couldn't let threats build. Unless all wars are "illegal", neither is ours.
>Only a hand full of wars have ever been "authorized" by the UN, and we never
>have them the authority to authorize us.
>
>All this hate by you is the resonance of sore losers following defeat, like
You came on soc.culture.french to sprinkle your hate and contempt for
France and French people and you say that I have hate because I fight back
with facts ? ... Do I get it ?
>the resonance of a gong after being hit, it will fade away. Democracy in
>Iraq and Palestine. Disarmament in Libya. And the real hope of democracy
>in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If the US were ever so profoundly on
>the wrong side of history, I wouldn't expect anything less than this
If the good is emerging from this, this is great. Yet the USA played with
the matches above dynamite. Don't expect the other people being reliant on
you.
As for the origin of all this it may be a little more complicated ...
Lebanon is changing for a while (and their changes lokks more like the
Ukrainian one anyway... as for Lybia the change was started long before ...
their international status was a problem for us for a while.
>ridiculous hate coming from you "peace" activists. It would break my heart
I have no hate about the USA I have hate for US people having hate and
prejudices about my country and spreading/believing lies about us.
Plus I am not a peace activist.
>to see us act as dishonorably as you, but I don't doubt that all people are
>capable of it.
I can say the same thing about you.
>I don't have time today to look at and address your threads below. I expect
>to have a few minutes tomorrow.
(*)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer
The Ghosts of 1991
By Peter W. Galbraith
Saturday, April 12, 2003; Page A19
Can it be that the events of 2003 in Iraq have finally dispelled the ghosts
of 1991? The answer may not be quite as obvious as the welcoming throngs
make it seem.
Just 12 years ago, the Shiite Muslims who constitute a majority in Iraq and
in the city of Baghdad were betrayed by the United States -- an act that
may have cost them as many as 100,000 lives. That recent history -- of
which the Shiites are understandably a good deal less forgetful than we --
explains why the Shiites in the south initially greeted invading American
and British forces with a good deal more reserve than expected. And as the
continuing turmoil in southern towns and cities makes clear, building a
democratic state in Iraq over the long term will depend to a large degree
on how strong and lasting a trust we can build among these people.
The spontaneous Shiite uprising of 1991 consumed the southern part of Iraq
right up to the approaches to Baghdad. Rebels came to U.S. troops, who were
then deployed in the Euphrates Valley, begging for U.S. intervention. The
Shiite political parties sent emissaries to the few Americans who would see
them. To this day, I am haunted by the desperation in the appeals made to
me by one group, as they realized time was running out for their
countrymen.
Many of the problems we face now and in the future with Shiites likely have
to do with the way the first Bush administration responded to those
appeals. On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi
military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank
commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits
of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week
later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north.
But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was
caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about
those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to
talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in
caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as
anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the
continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of
the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the
time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."
The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the
military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help.
The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern
cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights,
articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly,
you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the
historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and
executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in
reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities
were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not
to intervene.
In recent years Baghdad has shortchanged the south in the distribution of
food and medicine, contributing to severe malnutrition among vulnerable
populations. Some 100 Shiite clerics have been murdered, including four
senior ayatollahs. Draining the marshes displaced 400,000 Marsh Arabs,
destroying a culture that is one of the world's oldest, as well as causing
immeasurable ecological damage.
The first Bush administration's decision to abandon the March uprising was
a mistake of historic proportions. With U.S. help, or even neutrality, the
March uprising could have succeeded, thus avoiding the need for a second
costly war. (Bush's defenders insist the United States had no mandate to
carry the war to Baghdad, but this is beside the point. The uprising
started after the Gulf War ended, and the United States was positioned to
easily down Iraqi helicopters and halt Iraqi tanks.)
The current President Bush cannot escape these ghosts. An American may
understand what happened in 1991 as carelessness -- inexcusable but not
malicious. An Iraqi Shiite saw a superpower that called for a rebellion and
then ensured its failure. Naturally, he assumed this was intentional. In
the months and years to come, many Shiites may take a lot of convincing
about U.S. motives and reliability.
President George W. Bush has done much right that his father did wrong. His
administration has been in constant contact with the Iraqi opposition.
Humanitarian supplies are being rushed to southern Iraq, and clear warnings
were issued against those who might have committed atrocities in the first
days of the invasion. Unfortunately, the president carries a national and
family legacy that many Iraqis associate with deadly betrayal. Overcoming
that legacy has only begun. It is one of the critical challenges that lie
ahead.
The writer, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, is a professor at the
National War College. He was in rebel-held Iraq during the 1991 uprising.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
thereac...@mindspring.com
problem "
Much the same attitude the French had as they ripped off the oil for
food money. Much the same attitude that they had when they did
everything they could to defend Saddam because they were making big
money off him. Then they pretended that they were taking the moral
high road and that the Americans were the villans. Before 1967 the
French were friends with the Israelis. Then they decided that they
could make more money from the Arabs. So suddenly they started
painting the Israelis as devils and the Islamic terrorists as angels.
"I have hate for US people having hate and prejudices about my country
and spreading/believing lies about us. "
What bullshit. Antiamericanism existed in France long before the
Americans finally got sick of the French stabbing them in the back.
Now you get the reward for your treachery. Talk about spreading and
believing lies; the fucking French bought up a phony book claiming that
the US had attacked the Pentagon themselves. They want badly to
believe any bad thing that they hear. One of your fellow countrymen
was explaining how much he liked the American writer Chester Himes. I
gave him this quote from Himes from 1976. One can see from his quote
that the French were already fueling their hatred for Americans back
then.
"I would sit in my room and become hysterical thinking about the wild,
incredible story I was writing. But it was only for the French, I
thought, and they would believe anything about Americans, black or
white, if it was bad enough. And I thought I was writing realism. It
never occurred to me that I was writing absurdity. Realism and
absurdity are so similar in the lives of American blacks one cannot
tell the difference." (from My Life of Absurdity, 1976)
So fuck you frog. We now understand what scum you are and we will
treat you accordingly.
"Just 12 years ago, the Shiite Muslims who constitute a majority in
Iraq and in the city of Baghdad were betrayed by the United States"
No, they were betrayed by France. Not a single Frenchman came to their
aid.
NilsK
love people that hate us?
gggg@w
>"when you sell stuff to people you call them friends, where's the
>problem "
>
>Much the same attitude the French had as they ripped off the oil for
>food money. Much the same attitude that they had when they did
>everything they could to defend Saddam because they were making big
>money off him. Then they pretended that they were taking the moral
?
>high road and that the Americans were the villans. Before 1967 the
>French were friends with the Israelis. Then they decided that they
>could make more money from the Arabs. So suddenly they started
>painting the Israelis as devils and the Islamic terrorists as angels.
As the USA proved, you can be friend and even ally with Israel and being
ally and have trade with an arab country ... even Saudi Arabia.
>"I have hate for US people having hate and prejudices about my country
>and spreading/believing lies about us. "
>
>What bullshit. Antiamericanism existed in France long before the
>Americans finally got sick of the French stabbing them in the back.
anti-french feelings as well.
>Now you get the reward for your treachery. Talk about spreading and
>believing lies; the fucking French bought up a phony book claiming that
>the US had attacked the Pentagon themselves. They want badly to
"the french" ? 60 millions of people wrote that book .... interesting
concept. I see, and benedict arnold is representative of the whole people
of the USA.
>believe any bad thing that they hear. One of your fellow countrymen
>was explaining how much he liked the American writer Chester Himes. I
>gave him this quote from Himes from 1976. One can see from his quote
>that the French were already fueling their hatred for Americans back
>then.
no hate was fueled.
>"I would sit in my room and become hysterical thinking about the wild,
>incredible story I was writing. But it was only for the French, I
>thought, and they would believe anything about Americans, black or
>white, if it was bad enough. And I thought I was writing realism. It
>never occurred to me that I was writing absurdity. Realism and
>absurdity are so similar in the lives of American blacks one cannot
>tell the difference." (from My Life of Absurdity, 1976)
Want some quotes from Mark Twain, one century earlier ? ...
>So fuck you frog. We now understand what scum you are and we will
>treat you accordingly.
well fuck you, sheep we perfectly understand what lay in you mind... it's
not new.
>"Just 12 years ago, the Shiite Muslims who constitute a majority in
>Iraq and in the city of Baghdad were betrayed by the United States"
>
>No, they were betrayed by France. Not a single Frenchman came to their
>aid.
? that makes no sense. You do realize that ?! right ??
Bill C
opposed
>
> ?
>
> >us simply because us weakened his geopolitical alliance in the Middle
East:
>
> ?
>
> > http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/310
It's in the above article. Not just an "FU I'll do it anyway", it's a
betrayal. People only get the chance to do that once to Bush.
> >
> >1) Saddam failed to live up to 12th UN resolution requiring his full
> >cooperation with WMD inspectors
>
> ? really ? that's what I've understood. Are you talking about the UNSCOM
or
> the UNMOVIC ?
UNSCOM I think.
Here's a list http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm
> >2) Fired on our jets weekly (sometimes daily).
>
> On the jets that were bombings his stuff and intsallations you mean ?
If by installations you mean the influx of anti-aircraft radar painting us,
Yes. We weren't going to allow that threat to build, and even painting us
with targeting radar is a hostile act.
>
> >3) Pursued WMD's and sheltered terrorists during our war on terror,
becoming
> >their symbolic strong man against the West, perhaps surpassing OBL in
> >hiding.
>
> huh ? WTF are you talking about ?
What do you not understand? Saddam's WMD program? His sheltering and support
of terrorism? Or how both of those plus his wealth, presumed military
strength and his agitation of the US/UN set him up as a symbolic leader
among Arab extremists?
> ? Is this have anything to do w/ the fact that his country was under the
> harshest embargo of the UN history as wanted by the USA and the UK (well,
> we now know that he did managed to have more money due to some
> disfunctinment in the oil-for-food thing, yet ...)
[smile] just a little dysfunctional...
>
> >5) Perpetrated genocide on the marsh Arabs.
>
> are you refering to this ? (*)
Just google: "marsh arabs" genocide.
Here:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-41,GGLD:en&q=%22marsh+arabs%22+genocide
> in 1988 i.e. 15 yrs before ... so ?
> The UNSCOm destroyed about 90-95 % of the Saddam's WMDs (not even talking
> about the shelf-life)
The UN claimed that they accuonted for most chemical, but nuclear and
biological were wide open.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html
> You came on soc.culture.french to sprinkle your hate and contempt for
> France and French people and you say that I have hate because I fight back
> with facts ? ... Do I get it ?
You sandwich any facts between childish insults. That frequently hides
bankrupt ideas. When, soc.culture.french misrepresents American culture,
it's proper for me to be here.
>
> >the resonance of a gong after being hit, it will fade away. Democracy in
> >Iraq and Palestine. Disarmament in Libya. And the real hope of
democracy
> >in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If the US were ever so profoundly on
> >the wrong side of history, I wouldn't expect anything less than this
>
> If the good is emerging from this, this is great. Yet the USA played with
> the matches above dynamite.
We just freed 50 million people!
We eliminated the safe haven imperative to train, organize, support and
equip terrorist for WMD operations!
We eliminated two terrorist shelters and virtually closed others by threat.
We turned the imagination of Arab youth away from Islamic fanaticism as
their path to success and toward replicating neighboring democracies!
And it looks like more freedom is coming!
YES!!! THAT'S DYNAMITE!
> Don't expect the other people being reliant on
> you.
We dream of the day.
> As for the origin of all this it may be a little more complicated ...
> Lebanon is changing for a while
Funny how that hardly relates to elections next door last month. [smile]
(and their changes lokks more like the
> Ukrainian one anyway... as for Lybia the change was started long before
...
> their international status was a problem for us for a while.
I hear that the documentation comming out of Baghdad and the image of Saddam
coming out of a rat hole made "international status" even more important to
Qadhafi!
> I have no hate about the USA I have hate for US people having hate and
> prejudices about my country and spreading/believing lies about us.
> Plus I am not a peace activist.
That's good to hear. There's enough hate on this board from both sides.
> >to see us act as dishonorably as you, but I don't doubt that all people
are
> >capable of it.
>
> I can say the same thing about you.
If you ever see me being dishonest, just civilly point it out.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer
>
> The Ghosts of 1991
>
> By Peter W. Galbraith
> Saturday, April 12, 2003; Page A19
>
>
> The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into
southern
> cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights,
> articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You
fly,
> you die.") The consequences were devastating.
I think this part of the story is misleading. Schwarzkopf soon after
claimed that he was tricked at the negotiating tent. Iraq pleaded for helo
exemption, giving examples of humanitarian needs. Schwarzkopf agreed. I
personally never liked that general.
And although I agree that we betrayed the Shiites, it doesn't mention what I
always thought was our reasoning. That in coalition building, we promised
strict limits to our operational scope in order to gain unprecedented
support from Arab nations and Russia. We were more concerned with betraying
that, and incapable of renegotiating the deal on the fly.
> senior ayatollahs. Draining the marshes displaced 400,000 Marsh Arabs,
> destroying a culture that is one of the world's oldest,
Ah, there you go...
> The first Bush administration's decision to abandon the March uprising was
> a mistake of historic proportions. With U.S. help, or even neutrality, the
> March uprising could have succeeded
I think we were neutral. It may be one of those decisions that looks even
more like a mistake in hindsight because of the enormous price paid while
ignoring the greater risk of larger problems from the alternative. Maybe we
were worried about restarting the cold war, or destabilized Arab
governments. That's the kind of thing that won't be spoken about for a long
time. Still, that helicopter screw up was critical.
gggg@w
<newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote:
>> >The same FU could be said to have happened from France. When Chirac
>opposed
>>
>> ?
>>
>> >us simply because us weakened his geopolitical alliance in the Middle
>East:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> > http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/310
>
>It's in the above article. Not just an "FU I'll do it anyway", it's a
>betrayal. People only get the chance to do that once to Bush.
I'm sorry I fail to see the point. It's just a bunch of allegations and as
for betrayal, i don't see why ?
France said that it would go to war, _in last resort_ ... just b4 the USA
attacked, the iraqis were cooperating more and more to the great
satisfaction of the UN inspectors ... so ?
We betrayed you ? most of the world thought like us and even in the staunch
Bush's allies people they were most of the time taking side for us ... Do
you remind the biggest demonstrations ever seen in history ...in Spain,
Italy and UK for instance ? ...
>> >1) Saddam failed to live up to 12th UN resolution requiring his full
>> >cooperation with WMD inspectors
>>
>> ? really ? that's what I've understood. Are you talking about the UNSCOM
>or
>> the UNMOVIC ?
>
>UNSCOM I think.
>Here's a list http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm
Yes if it's UNSCOM I know it. The problem is that it had been said that The
USA did their best to ruin the things ... they were using the UN operation
to spy on Iraqis and when they Found it out they asked the UNSCOM to leave
(as seen in the Ritter's documentary, featuring many people, like thhe
Swedish leader of the UNSCOM and other inspectors ...)
>> >2) Fired on our jets weekly (sometimes daily).
>>
>> On the jets that were bombings his stuff and intsallations you mean ?
>
>If by installations you mean the influx of anti-aircraft radar painting us,
>Yes. We weren't going to allow that threat to build, and even painting us
>with targeting radar is a hostile act.
So to sum it up they were defending themselves, right ?
>> >3) Pursued WMD's and sheltered terrorists during our war on terror,
>becoming
>> >their symbolic strong man against the West, perhaps surpassing OBL in
>> >hiding.
>>
>> huh ? WTF are you talking about ?
>
>What do you not understand? Saddam's WMD program? His sheltering and support
>of terrorism? Or how both of those plus his wealth, presumed military
>strength and his agitation of the US/UN set him up as a symbolic leader
>among Arab extremists?
The whole stuff you wrote contradict the most basic facts that I've heard
of ? Do you care for being more precise (providing evidences for instance
for each of your alegations ..)
BTW LOL at his presumed military strength .... Iraq had already a huge
technoligical gap in 1991 so what did you expect 12 yrs later ? a thirld
world army undergoing a 11 yrs long embargo (despite its holes), a
pauperized country, a bloodless people, unpaid soldiers and officers, etc
.. What did you expect ?
>> ? Is this have anything to do w/ the fact that his country was under the
>> harshest embargo of the UN history as wanted by the USA and the UK (well,
>> we now know that he did managed to have more money due to some
>> disfunctinment in the oil-for-food thing, yet ...)
>
>[smile] just a little dysfunctional...
Less than you seem to think. What do you think you know about it ...
>> >5) Perpetrated genocide on the marsh Arabs.
>>
>> are you refering to this ? (*)
>
>Just google: "marsh arabs" genocide.
>Here:
>http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-41,GGLD:en&q=%22marsh+arabs%22+genocide
See at the end.
>> in 1988 i.e. 15 yrs before ... so ?
>> The UNSCOm destroyed about 90-95 % of the Saddam's WMDs (not even talking
>> about the shelf-life)
>
>The UN claimed that they accuonted for most chemical, but nuclear and
>biological were wide open.
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html
The UNSCOM destroyed about 90-95 % of the Saddam's WMDs (not even talking
about the shelf-life) afaik. Sufficient to not consider Iraq as a real
threat. As for its 'maybe-existing' WMDs being used by islamist terrorists,
it was barely believable to say the least since islamists and Saddam were
somewhat enemies, even after he tried to gain support in the arab world by
trying to act as a muslim leader (despite the fact that his country was one
of the only secular country in the region and that he sent to jail the
islmist leaders in the past), a palestinian cause supporter etc ...
Pakistan and North-Korea were/are far more disquieting in that matter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/06/wblix06.xml
>> You came on soc.culture.french to sprinkle your hate and contempt for
>> France and French people and you say that I have hate because I fight back
>> with facts ? ... Do I get it ?
>
>You sandwich any facts between childish insults. That frequently hides
really can you quote it please I don't remember myself "sandwiching any
facts between childish insults"
>bankrupt ideas. When, soc.culture.french misrepresents American culture,
>it's proper for me to be here.
Soc.culture.french is under the trolling attacks of US meatheads don't
reverse the roles Einstein. The French posting here only defend their honor
and since most of us are posting here for years they become less patient w/
the posters and their 'repeteated 10,000 times' lies, propaganda, and set
ideas ... that's my case too.
>> >the resonance of a gong after being hit, it will fade away. Democracy in
>> >Iraq and Palestine. Disarmament in Libya. And the real hope of
>democracy
>> >in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If the US were ever so profoundly on
>> >the wrong side of history, I wouldn't expect anything less than this
>>
>> If the good is emerging from this, this is great. Yet the USA played with
>> the matches above dynamite.
>
>We just freed 50 million people!
Who are they ? Iraqis ? sorry, not 50 millions ...
Did you go there to free the Iraqis ?
What will be their future ? Will Islamism stay away of this country.
What were the risks and were they real ?
Anyway the freedom of the Iraqis was a fantastic side-effect indeed.
>We eliminated the safe haven imperative to train, organize, support and
>equip terrorist for WMD operations!
huh ?
>We eliminated two terrorist shelters and virtually closed others by threat.
huuuuh ? o_O
>We turned the imagination of Arab youth away from Islamic fanaticism as
>their path to success and toward replicating neighboring democracies!
Actually they hate their old gvnmts for a very long time.
>And it looks like more freedom is coming!
That would be great.
>YES!!! THAT'S DYNAMITE!
>
>> Don't expect the other people being reliant on
>> you.
>
>We dream of the day.
acts palay a important role in it.
>> As for the origin of all this it may be a little more complicated ...
>> Lebanon is changing for a while
>
>Funny how that hardly relates to elections next door last month. [smile]
read below.
>(and their changes lokks more like the
>> Ukrainian one anyway... as for Lybia the change was started long before
>...
>> their international status was a problem for us for a while.
>
>I hear that the documentation comming out of Baghdad and the image of Saddam
>coming out of a rat hole made "international status" even more important to
>Qadhafi!
I don't master your language. I fail to understand your allusion.
>> I have no hate about the USA I have hate for US people having hate and
>> prejudices about my country and spreading/believing lies about us.
>> Plus I am not a peace activist.
>
>That's good to hear. There's enough hate on this board from both sides.
The harshness of most of the French posters comes from YEARs to read sick
insults and overt lies about their country and people.
>> >to see us act as dishonorably as you, but I don't doubt that all people
>are
>> >capable of it.
>>
>> I can say the same thing about you.
>
>If you ever see me being dishonest, just civilly point it out.
here for instance :
1) Saddam failed to live up to 12th UN resolution requiring his full
cooperation with WMD inspectors
2) Fired on our jets weekly (sometimes daily).
3) Pursued WMD's and sheltered terrorists during our war on terror,
becoming
their symbolic strong man against the West, perhaps surpassing OBL in
hiding.
4) Failed to live up the terms of the 92 cease fire by paying reparations
to
Kuwait
5) Perpetrated genocide on the marsh Arabs.
6) Tortured and killed tens of thousands of political prisoners (maybe
more)
7) Gassed the Kurds.
that too :
"Schwarzkopf soon after
claimed that he was tricked at the negotiating tent. Iraq pleaded for helo
exemption, giving examples of humanitarian needs. Schwarzkopf agreed. I
personally never liked that general."
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer
>>
>> The Ghosts of 1991
>>
>> By Peter W. Galbraith
>> Saturday, April 12, 2003; Page A19
>>
>>
>> The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into
>southern
>> cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights,
>> articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You
>fly,
>> you die.") The consequences were devastating.
>
>I think this part of the story is misleading. Schwarzkopf soon after
>claimed that he was tricked at the negotiating tent. Iraq pleaded for helo
>exemption, giving examples of humanitarian needs. Schwarzkopf agreed. I
>personally never liked that general.
that's not at all what I've heard. The decisions are taken by the chief of
the executive power, this was no exception.
>And although I agree that we betrayed the Shiites, it doesn't mention what I
>always thought was our reasoning. That in coalition building, we promised
>strict limits to our operational scope in order to gain unprecedented
>support from Arab nations and Russia. We were more concerned with betraying
>that, and incapable of renegotiating the deal on the fly.
I have my doubts ... Saddam was hated by all his neighbours AFAIK ... The
US troops were based in country like Saudi Arabia (considered by many
muslims as something sacrilegious - that was the reason given by Osama Bin
Laden to the 9/11 for instance)
>> senior ayatollahs. Draining the marshes displaced 400,000 Marsh Arabs,
>> destroying a culture that is one of the world's oldest,
>
>Ah, there you go...
See ? you know the reason of that now.
>> The first Bush administration's decision to abandon the March uprising was
>> a mistake of historic proportions. With U.S. help, or even neutrality, the
>> March uprising could have succeeded
>
>I think we were neutral. It may be one of those decisions that looks even
>more like a mistake in hindsight because of the enormous price paid while
>ignoring the greater risk of larger problems from the alternative. Maybe we
>were worried about restarting the cold war, or destabilized Arab
restarting the cold war ? why ? Anyway Saddam had no way to resist. And all
these people were encouraged in rebelling by Mr Bush Senior, that led to a
gigantic bloodbath ...
Don't make me laugh w/ your Saddam commit a genocide ...
Bill C
gggg@w
>"France said that it would go to war, _in last resort_ ... just b4 the
>USA
>attacked, "
>
>Show me where the French ever said this. Their intention was to stall
>the US. They really didn't care what was in Iraq, and they wouldn't
>have voted for war in the UN not matter what. Saddam had promised them
>billion in business if they were able to get the sanctions lifted, and
>that was their ultimate goal.
Oh gosh ! brainwashed sheep ! I shouldn't have to prove it. Your memory
should be sufficient to remind it ! were you on vacation on Mars at that
moment ?
http://www.un.int/france/documents_anglais/030114_mae_presse_irak.htm
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/France/MFA/france-mfa-011403.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/09/we_522_01b.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2763831.stm
http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/550
etc ...
gggg@w
>"As the USA proved, you can be friend and even ally with Israel and
>being
>ally and have trade with an arab country ... even Saudi Arabia."
>
>Not in the case of the French. They needed a political edge in order
>to get people to trade with them. It's doubtful that the French would
Ha ha ! you're an expert in geopolitics right ? :-) ignorant moron.
>have run all of Iraq's oil services if they had not been special
>buddies with Saddam.
ha ha ... I don't understand why ? what's the problem ?
>"anti-french feelings as well."
>
>Wrong. Those are very new.
LOL
http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/american-francophobia/
--
http://www.twainquotes.com/French.html
--
French diss
Stuart Jeffries
Monday September 15, 2003
The Guardian
Even before Jacques Chirac's unwillingness to countenance war in
Iraq, the Americans dreamed of blowing France off the map. In a 1996
episode of The Simpsons, for instance, the evil megalomaniac Hank
Scorpio, his blackmailer's finger poised over a button that will
destroy a major European country, consults Homer Simpson. "Homer,
what's your least favourite country: Italy or France?" Homer shrugs:
"France." Scorpio chuckles, and then adds: "Nobody ever says Italy."
The Simpsons codifies US francophobia better than anything else.
The French are unhygienic - when Marge throws Homer out, he protests
that he is incapable of looking after himself and that after only a
day he's become "as dirty as a Frenchman". The French are mean and
cruel - two repulsive Frenchmen who put antifreeze in their wine
force Bart into slave labour. The French are cowardly -
groundskeeper Willie (a Scotsman, but no matter) describes
them as cheese-eating surrender monkeys. And this is a far
from comprehensive list.
Simpsonite francophobia suggests a great deal about what
France represents for Americans. The Simpsons has always had
its dubious targets (the British royal family and their terrible
teeth; the duplicitous Italian chef; the grasping Indian storekeeper)
but the sustained contempt for the French is symptomatic of deeper
American feeling. Arguably, it is the mark of an intense attachment,
one which shows that if there's a thin line between love and hate,
there's a thinner one between francophobia and francophilia.
[...]
--
few years after Yorktown and the Paris' treaty : The Jay's Treaty.
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0425920-00&templatename=/article/article.html
http://www.studyworld.com/sedition_act_of_1798.htm
--
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/france.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/nr/16318.htm
--
and so on.
>"60 millions of people wrote that book .... "
>
>I said "bought up" moron, not "wrote".
>
>"no hate was fueled. "
>
>Of course it was. As Himes says, as far back as the 70s, if not
>earlier, the French were ready to believe anything about the US, as
Durig the vietnam war you mean ? that was pretty much the same thing about
everywhere, no ?
>long as it was bad enough. And of course the worse it was, true or
>false, the more the French loved it and the more it gave them the
>excuse they were looking for to hate Americans.
>
>"well fuck you,"
nice edit. You guys have propaganda in the blodd right ? no wonder why you
were/are so strong in advertising and commercials ... it's in your blood,
it's in your culture.
--
>Good. Now we understand each other.
it's better with the context I think :
>>So fuck you frog. We now understand what scum you are and we will
>>treat you accordingly.
>
>well fuck you, sheep we perfectly understand what lay in you mind... it's
>not new.
wasn't I right ? it was better w/ the context ! ;-)
--
>"? that makes no sense. You do realize that ?! right ?? "
>
>It makes as much sense to say that the French betrayed the Shiites as
>it does to say the US did so. Neither country, nor any other, went to
You mean that the french divsion should have left his battle oders under
american command (let alone the ) go all over iraq with its division and
save everyone from the fate Bush senior made up for them with all the
troops of the other nations (huge part of thme US of course) watching
quietly ... funny one. be a man. Be strong and accept your responsibility.
The UN mandate told that any means was allowed to restaure peace in the
region. If Bush had wanted to, he could have invaded Iraq. Iraq was hated
by all the neighbouring country. He could have avoided the accusation of
wanting to take the 2nd oil tank in the world (Iraq) by making an
international force and andministration from the UN lead the country
towards its indeopencdance, right ?
>the aid of the Shiites. In fact, the French never even made such a
>proposal in the UN. The French wanted Saddam to remain in power.
What did the USA want ?
Bill C
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:36:43 -0500, "Bill C"
> <newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote:
> I'm sorry I fail to see the point. It's just a bunch of allegations and as
> for betrayal, i don't see why ?
> France said that it would go to war, _in last resort_ ... just b4 the USA
> attacked, the iraqis were cooperating more and more to the great
> satisfaction of the UN inspectors ... so ?
More and more? The last resolution called for immediate and full
cooperation, not something like 50% now and 10% each month there after.
We were uniquely prepared to militarily rid the world of the WMD/terrorist
threat that Iraq posed, but with each passing month that capability would
vanish. We can no more keep that kind of military team 100% prepared in
theater for years than keep a neurological surgery team 100%
prepared in the operating room for years.
Environmentally:
The summer was virtually impossible to fight in, especially in chem suits,
so another month or two delay would have meant at least a 10 month delay.
Internationally:
Arab governments were getting fidgety with what our force
presence was doing to their domestic opposition. Some of the governments
who went way out on a limb and gave critical support to us would not have
done so if they thought that we would go away leaving them exposed to
retribution. And if Kuwait wobbled, Saddam in my opinion had a free
pass to build whatever he wanted until the next 9/11.
Militarily:
Supplies and equipment deteriorates in the summer dessert. The choreography
of that operation was my times more complex than any staged event or
production system. The last thing we needed was some convincing overtures by
Saddam of cooperation in the final days and then have him renege and have to
slowly restart it. Targets would move and need to be re-identified and
re-prioritized. Troops would need to be rotated and then retrained.
Part-time national guard would have had additional stresses. Moral drops
from being kept like bees in a shaken jar without being let lose for months
or longer. Emotions go nuts and get misdirected. Dialing that down results
in loss of effectiveness and potentially more coalition deaths.
Domestically:
Additional funding from congress would have been required, and
on the eave of an election year, Democrats might have blocked setting up a
war time commander and chief to immediately run against. And every year away
from 9/11 people forget why it's so important to remove that kind of threat.
All this is critical to our ability to win a war so it has to be part of the
equation of going to war, in addition to the Iraqi terrorist threat . All
this was known to all of those wanting another year, 90, 60, 30 days
to finish inspections. Sure, our political opposition willing to twist
virtually anything to their advantage used this to convinced the politically
and militarily unsophisticated that our "eagerness" not to delay was proof
that we were disingenuous in pressing for full and immediate cooperation,
with our finger on the trigger. All people tend to believe what they want
to believe.
Most informed people in the US aren't upset with the protesters. We were
upset with those in power who knew better but fed them propaganda for their
political advantage at our expense. This is why they appeared disingenuous
to us.
>
> We betrayed you ? most of the world thought like us and even in the
staunch
> Bush's allies people they were most of the time taking side for us ... Do
> you remind the biggest demonstrations ever seen in history ...in Spain,
> Italy and UK for instance ? ...
Refusing to cooperate with us and demonstrating against us is not a
betrayal. Even campaigning against us, perhaps even siding against us
militarily is tolerable. But persuading us to pay a substantial tactical
militarily price by delaying action and taking the UN route when we didn't
need to, and then reneging on a promise to support us there is a betrayal:
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/timmerman200403220851.asp
"NRO: Did Chirac actually lie to President Bush before the Iraq war?
"Timmerman: Yes, and this is why the president and Secretary of State Powell
were so taken aback when foreign minister Dominique de Villepin pulled the
rug out from under United Nations negotiations on January 20, 2003, by
announcing, apparently out of the blue, that France would never ever agree
to using force against Saddam Hussein.
Before the first U.N. vote in early November 2002 (actually, it was the 17th
U.N. resolution condemning Saddam and calling on him to voluntarily disarm
or suffer the consequences, which included his forceful ouster), Jacques
Chirac picked up the phone and called President Bush at the White House,
personally reassuring him that France "would be with" us at the U.N. and in
Iraq. To demonstrate his intentions, he said, he was sending one of his top
generals to Tampa, Florida, to work out the details with U.S. Central
Command leaders for integrating French troops into a Coalition force to oust
Saddam.
"Chirac's assurances are what gave the president the confidence to keep
sending Colin Powell back to the U.N.," one source who was privy to Chirac's
phone call to Bush told me. "They also explain why the administration has
been going after the French so aggressively ever since. They lied."
That's why we were so upset!
>
> >> >1) Saddam failed to live up to 12th UN resolution requiring his full
> >> >cooperation with WMD inspectors
> >>
> >> ? really ? that's what I've understood. Are you talking about the
UNSCOM
> >or
> >> the UNMOVIC ?
> >
> >UNSCOM I think.
> >Here's a list http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm
>
> Yes if it's UNSCOM I know it. The problem is that it had been said that
The
> USA did their best to ruin the things ... they were using the UN operation
> to spy on Iraqis and when they Found it out they asked the UNSCOM to leave
> (as seen in the Ritter's documentary, featuring many people, like the
> Swedish leader of the UNSCOM and other inspectors ...)
I don't doubt that we and others spied on Iraq during inspections, but I
doubt that our objective was to persuade Saddam to throw us out. Why would
we want our inspectors thrown out if we were not in a position to
immediately capitalize on it? That wasn't a political reality until after
9/11.
The last resolution that he failed to comply with promised "serous
consequences". That goes a long way toward justifying Saddam's removal on
its own.
>
> >> >2) Fired on our jets weekly (sometimes daily).
> >>
> >> On the jets that were bombings his stuff and installations you mean ?
> >
> >If by installations you mean the influx of anti-aircraft radar painting
us,
> >Yes. We weren't going to allow that threat to build, and even painting us
> >with targeting radar is a hostile act.
>
> So to sum it up they were defending themselves, right ?
Defending themselves by attempting to build the most advanced aerial defense
network oil can buy and testing in on our no fly zone patrols. Right...
Fighting us to build an effective anti air system in an area that we had the
right to patrol goes a long way toward justifying Saddam's removal on its
own
>
> >> >3) Pursued WMD's and sheltered terrorists during our war on terror,
> >becoming
> >> >their symbolic strong man against the West, perhaps surpassing OBL in
> >> >hiding.
> >>
> >> huh ? WTF are you talking about ?
> >
> >What do you not understand? Saddam's WMD program? His sheltering and
support
> >of terrorism? Or how both of those plus his wealth, presumed military
> >strength and his agitation of the US/UN set him up as a symbolic leader
> >among Arab extremists?
>
> The whole stuff you wrote contradict the most basic facts that I've heard
> of ? Do you care for being more precise (providing evidences for instance
> for each of your allegations ..)
>
Terrorism:
Saddam's support of terrorism is difficult to wrap up in a paragraph or
two because of the covert nature of it. This is the best
summary that I've seen, but even it's pretty tedious, and the first 5
paragraphs (before the 4 terrorist photos) simply relate to domestic
opponents of the Iraqi war. http://cshink.com/philanthropy_of_terror.htm .
It lists several high profile terrorist that either operated or were given
asylum in Iraq, Iraq's financial support of Palestinian suicide bombers,
terrorist camps in Iraq, and then evidence of a web of terrorist connections
with Iraqi secret service. Just a fraction of that goes a long way toward
justifying Saddam's removal.
Wealth:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/
"Estimates of how much revenue Iraq earned from these tolerated side sales
of its oil to Jordan and Turkey, as well as to Syria and Egypt, range from
$5.7 billion to $13.6 billion."
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/12/12/us_stance_on_husseins_oil_sales_eyed/
"The report by a CIA weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, found that
oil-for-food corruption generated $1.7 billion for Hussein. It said illegal
oil contracts generated about $8 billion: $4.4 billion with Jordan, $2.8
billion with Syria, and $710 million with Turkey. A short-lived agreement
with Egypt generated $33 million. Overall, Hussein had $10.9 billion in
illicit revenue from 1990 to 2003, Duelfer said.
"The Senate Governmental Affairs investigations subcommittee, using a
different method, came up with a $21.3 billion estimate, including $13.7
billion from smuggling.
"Lawmakers frequently lump together estimates of Hussein's illicit income
from smuggling and from the oil-for-food program, blaming the United Nations
for the full $21.3 billion."
This doesn't include the $100 billion distributed legally in oil for food.
I've seen reports that various groups were preparing the ground to get
sanctions lifted in a short number of years that would have opened the door
for oil industry development and a lot more money from Iraq's great
reserves.
> BTW LOL at his presumed military strength .... Iraq had already a huge
> technoligical gap in 1991 so what did you expect 12 yrs later ? a thirld
> world army undergoing a 11 yrs long embargo (despite its holes), a
> pauperized country, a bloodless people, unpaid soldiers and officers, etc
> .. What did you expect ?
Military strength:
The concern with Iraq's military was not that it would repeat Kuwait or
Iran, but that its well funded terrorist and WMD development
would enable it to covertly act as a force multiplier to attacks from those
with shared objectives, and that along with other capabilities would make it
a safe haven from US conventional military capabilities.
The 3 to 1 requirement for an aggressor to defeat a defender is just a
baseline. It
takes many times that to project and SUPPORT a formative attack force around
the world, especially considering the politics of this.
Iraqi terrorist support is listed above. Here's an anti war
opinion typical of what I used to hear:
http://www.socialismtoday.org/64/editorial.html
"Saddam, unlike the Taliban, has a consolidated state apparatus and, for a
regional power, formidable military forces. Their powers of resistance can
only be gauged in the course of battle. US military commanders, however, are
not so ready to discount their effectiveness as hawks like Wolfowitz and
Richard Perle. Most of the Iraqi army are conscripts, but the regime also
has the Republican guard, the Special Republican Guard and other special
forces. It would be reckless for any assailants to assume that they will not
be prepared to fight. Saddam also has an air force and air defense weapons,
which the Taliban completely lacked.... He might also attack Israel,
provoking counter attacks that would draw Arab regimes into a regional war.
Bush's favorite advisors seem to believe that victory could be achieved
with air strikes, special forces, and a US ground force of between
150-200,000 troops. A range of commanders and ex-commanders, however,
consider that the US would require similar forces to the Gulf War, that is,
around 500,000 troops. Given the refusal of most Arab regimes, with the
exception of Kuwait and possibly one or two tiny Gulf states, to allow their
bases to be used for an attack on Iraq, the logistical problems of
mobilizing such an invasion force appear almost insuperable.
"
One of the concern to our ability to counter Iraq's WMD/Terrorism was it's
advanced air defense capabilities. This site appears to objectively
catalogue it. Here are some highlights:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Missile/3879_4039.html
- 1999 A large Russian corporation signs a five-year contract with Baghdad
to improve Iraq's surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems. The 300 million
pounds deal includes the corporation's providing seven advanced SAM-10
missile systems, the improvement of SAM weapons, and the administration of
technical assistance and maintenance services. Iraq and Russia agree to set
up a high-level Iraqi military and security committee in Baghdad to
coordinate the arrangements. Intelligence sources approximate that 15
Russian air-defense specialists are in Iraq helping with the operation of
the air-defense system. --Michael Evans, "Iraq Intent on Buying Air Defense
System," The Times (London), 4 August 1999.
- Beginning of 1999 - Moscow signs agreements with Iraq worth more than 100
million pounds...
- January 1999 The Iran-based Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in
Iraq (SCIRI) says there is a major deployment of SAMs set up with an army
brigade, Republican Guard troops, and Ba'ath Party units along the
Amara-Basra road that leads to the Kuwait and Saudi borders. In addition, it
is estimated that Iraq deploys 25 missiles near the border, possibly all
SAMs but maybe some Scuds. Iraq also deploys Scud rockets to the southern
provinces of Basra and Nasiriya with more troops for
reinforcement. --"Opposition Group Says Iraqi Troops, Missiles Massing In
South," Agence France Presse, 22 January 1999.
- 12 January 1999 A US F-16 warplane fires a missile at an Iraqi
early-warning radar. According to Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Mike
Doubleday, the early warning radar is linked to at least one SAM
installation near Mosul. --Robert Burns, "Iraq Said to Have Double
Defenses," Associated Press (Online), 13 January 1999.
- 13 January 1999 US officials say that Iraq has nearly doubled the number
of SAM batteries in the no-fly zones. --Robert Burns, "Iraq Said to Have
Double Defenses," Associate Press (Online), 13 January 1999.
- February 1999 Four members of the Yugoslavian air-defense team spend two
days visiting the Iraqi military headquarters in Baghdad. --John Diamond,
"U.S. Intelligence Suspects Yugoslav Military Getting Help from Iraq,"
Associated Press, 29 March 1999, in Lexis-Nexis,
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.
- 1999 According to secret NATO Report MC 161/96, Libya has made missiles
with a range of 1,000 to 3,000km available to Saddam Hussein which,
beginning in the year 2006 or earlier, could target NATO's southern flank
with a chemical and biological charge. --Vladimir Alexe, Bucharest Adevarul,
in Romanian, 6 February 1999, p. 2, in "Saddam, Al-Qadhdhafi Said to Aid
Romania's Tudor," FBIS Document FTS19990226001534, 6 February 1999.
All this is pulled from just the first half of the 1991 missle list. Other
areas of that site relate to other critical military concerns about Iraq. I
just found it. It's well organized and documented, very interesting reading
and to the point. http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/index.html
> >> we now know that he did managed to have more money due to some
> >> disfunctinment in the oil-for-food thing, yet ...)
> >
> >[smile] just a little dysfunctional...
>
> Less than you seem to think. What do you think you know about it ...
-I think that it was the largest financial scandal in history.
-It gave Saddam money to buy and build weapons.
-It gave propaganda value to claims that we were starving children and
oppressing Iraqis.
-It paid off political friends of Saddam working to prevent our attack.
-It demonstrated weakness to enemy, giving them ammunition to claim that we
were not morally right because we allowed all the above.
-It gave the illusion of an alternative to removing Saddam militarily while
really just accomplishing the above.
> The UNSCOM destroyed about 90-95 % of the Saddam's WMDs (not even talking
> about the shelf-life) afaik.
And afaik, they are careful to moderate that claim with a caveat to the
effect of "as far as they know". There were many intelligence services
claiming they were too optimistic.
>As for its 'maybe-existing' WMDs being used by islamist
terrorists,
> it was barely believable
Here's one of many sites attempting to conical the Osama Saddam link:
http://www.thirdsuperpower.com/previously/2003/11/18/01/13/ . Given time, I
could probably find a better one.
> to say the least since islamists and Saddam were
> somewhat enemies, even after he tried to gain support in the arab world by
> trying to act as a muslim leader (despite the fact that his country was
one
> of the only secular country in the region and that he sent to jail the
> islmist leaders in the past), a palestinian cause supporter etc ...
> Pakistan and North-Korea were/are far more disquieting in that matter.
Yea, it's pretty laughable, but it worked on terrorist. What about the
justification of terrorism isn't laughable? They generally take anything
over the US. Here's an amusing recount of Arafat sending holiday greetings
to Saddam http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31246
> really can you quote it please I don't remember myself "sandwiching any
> facts between childish insults"
You're right for the most part, beyond a couple of little snaps, you've been
civil. I had some comments from another confused with yours.
> Soc.culture.french is under the trolling attacks of US meatheads don't
> reverse the roles Einstein. The French posting here only defend their
honor
> and since most of us are posting here for years they become less patient
w/
> the posters and their 'repeteated 10,000 times' lies, propaganda, and set
> ideas ... that's my case too.
As if "Einstein" would know the history of the conflict here? I came
because I wanted to see how members of a population that I respect in many
ways could be so far on the wrong side of history. Disruption of a group
like this in these times is all but inevitable.
> Who are they ? Iraqis ? sorry, not 50 millions ...
Afghanistan + Iraq = 50 million.
> Did you go there to free the Iraqis ?
We would have probably settled for disarming Saddam (like we did with
Qadhafi) if certain "other nations" had cooperated, but we were left with
two choices, capitulate or remove Saddam. Choosing to remove Saddam, the
only intelligent thing to do after that is to help them build a democracy
that frees them. So yes, that's what we went there for.
> What will be their future ? Will Islamism stay away of this country.
I'm not aware of a democracy with such a bright future turning islamo
fascist, but almost anyting's possible.
> What were the risks and were they real ?
Yes there are risk. I'm sorry, but this is taking up too much time to write
off in that direction.
> Anyway the freedom of the Iraqis was a fantastic side-effect indeed.
Absolutely 100% wrong! It was stated from the beginning by everyone in the
administration. Bush's first sentence minutes after the 9/11 attack was
"FREEDOM itself was attacked today." Absent unified international
opposition, bringing freedom to Iraq was inevitable and the only way to
complete the job of removing the threat. We enabled freedom in Japan and
Germany. I'd call the failure to do so the historical way French failed to
build democracies among their Middle East partners and African colonies, but
I don't have time to document it.
>
> >We eliminated the safe haven imperative to train, organize, support and
> >equip terrorist for WMD operations!
>
> huh ?
Explained in my last post and above.
> >We eliminated two terrorist shelters and virtually closed others by
threat.
> huuuuh ? o_O
Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
> >We turned the imagination of Arab youth away from Islamic fanaticism as
> >their path to success and toward replicating neighboring democracies!
>
> Actually they hate their old gvnmts for a very long time.
Yes, but how could the supporters of the old gvnmts feel secure after
watching 2 fall, seeing us retake the fortified city of mosques so
unapologetically and skillfully? If that could fall so quickly, what else
could we do?
How could their opponents not be encouraged? How could the mind set of
aligning with the strong that's so common among young potential terrorists
not make them reconsider? http://www.greatdreams.com/osama_tape.htm
"UBL: (...Inaudible...) when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by
nature, they will like the strong horse."
How could youth with limited futures tempted to be part of the "Great
Islamic Violent Revolution" not have their imaginations turned 180 degrees
to the a "Great Islamic Democratic Revolution? You must have seen this quote
from Walid Jumblatt
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/03/do0302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/03/03/ixopinion.html
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started
because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when
I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was
the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt then went on to say that the spark
of democratic revolt was spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people,
all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see
it."
> >I hear that the documentation comming out of Baghdad and the image of
Saddam
> >coming out of a rat hole made "international status" even more important
to
> >Qadhafi!
>
> I don't master your language. I fail to understand your allusion.
(I don't have an aptitude for languages, and it would take me a life time to
get by in yours.)
I was referring to WMD documents uncovered in Baghdad (Pakistani documents
may more be the source) that enabled US and British secret service to prove
knowledge of Libya's nuclear program and negotiate the disarmament. Qadhafi
agreement came "coincidentally" weeks after Saddam was pulled from his rat
hole.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040909-121930-9087r.htm
"Feith suggested that Gadhafi adopted this approach after the sobering
U.S.-led ousters of the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddam from Iraq.
"At that point, Gadhafi, having tried for years to get off the 'bad list'
[of rogue states] by means short of opening up, decided that he had to open
up," Feith said. "Now, what does one infer from that? I suppose it seems as
if he came to the conclusion that it was too risky being coy, it was too
risky trying these lesser means to get off the bad list.
"And it became more urgent for him to get off the bad list when he saw the
fate of the Taliban regime and the Saddam Hussein regime." "
> The harshness of most of the French posters comes from YEARs to read sick
> insults and overt lies about their country and people.
We both hear our share of lies.
> >If you ever see me being dishonest, just civilly point it out.
>
> here for instance :
All supported above and below.
For what my word is worth to you, I have way better things to do than lie
to anonymous people over the net. I promote my understanding to better
develop it and to teach. If my premises don't stand up to the facts, I'd
much rather change them than "win" and argument by BS.
>
> that too :
>
> "Schwarzkopf soon after
> claimed that he was tricked at the negotiating tent. Iraq pleaded for
helo
> exemption, giving examples of humanitarian needs. Schwarzkopf agreed. I
> personally never liked that general."
>
> >>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer
> >>
> >> The Ghosts of 1991
> >>
> >> By Peter W. Galbraith
> >> Saturday, April 12, 2003; Page A19
> >>
> >>
> >> The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into
> >southern
> >> cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on
flights,
> >> articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You
> >fly,
> >> you die.") The consequences were devastating.
> >
> >I think this part of the story is misleading. Schwarzkopf soon after
> >claimed that he was tricked at the negotiating tent. Iraq pleaded for
helo
> >exemption, giving examples of humanitarian needs. Schwarzkopf agreed. I
> >personally never liked that general.
>
> that's not at all what I've heard. The decisions are taken by the chief of
> the executive power, this was no exception.
I doubt Bush senior would have knowledge of the intimate details needed to
make that decision himself. I suppose as an exception it "could" have
happened, but I've seen no evidence of it.
>
> >And although I agree that we betrayed the Shiites, it doesn't mention
what I
> >always thought was our reasoning. That in coalition building, we promised
> >strict limits to our operational scope in order to gain unprecedented
> >support from Arab nations and Russia. We were more concerned with
betraying
> >that, and incapable of renegotiating the deal on the fly.
>
> I have my doubts ... Saddam was hated by all his neighbors AFAIK ... The
> US troops were based in country like Saudi Arabia (considered by many
> muslims as something sacrilegious - that was the reason given by Osama Bin
> Laden to the 9/11 for instance)
We are hated MUCH more than Saddam. They do not want us setting up another
western colony (like a secular Israel) on their borders. We had a small
air command presence in SA that was light-years less threatening than what
we're now doing in Iraq, much less what they imagined us doing in Iraq, and
even it was bombed and chased out. Islamo fascist dictators don't like
successful Islamic democracies on their borders, especially ones full of US
troops. It tends to give their people direction beyond the anti-western
hate that keeps them empowered.
>
> >> senior ayatollahs. Draining the marshes displaced 400,000 Marsh Arabs,
> >> destroying a culture that is one of the world's oldest,
> >
> >Ah, there you go...
>
> See ? you know the reason of that now.
So your position is that the marsh draining was just a publics works
project that coincidentally killed and displace hundreds of thousands of
the people that Saddam was killing in an insurrection. [smile]
> restarting the cold war ? why ?
It was 3-4 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They were climbing
out of chaos after recently being one of 2 superpowers. They still had a
formidable
military, but their pride, status, and economy was destroyed. There were
still powerful elements that viewed Perestroika and all that followed as a
mistake, and we were worried that they were capable of destabilizing Russia
if they could create enough internal fear among their population at our
encroachment from the south in addition to our encroachment from Europe.
They do not like being surrounded, they did not like seeing the #1 ME
military that they trained and equipped being crushed, and they do not like
us conquering and perhaps colonizing their oil rich trading partners. After
50 years of cold war (and frequently not so cold war) I was freaking amazed
that Bush was able to negotiate our way past them into Iraq. So I was not
surprised in the least that he didn't finish off Saddam.
> Anyway Saddam had no way to resist. And all
> these people were encouraged in rebelling by Mr Bush Senior, that led to a
> gigantic bloodbath ...
> Don't make me laugh w/ your Saddam commit a genocide ...
I argee that we shouldn't have encurraged them to rebel without supporting
it. But they were an oppessed people and their rebellion was more there's
than ours.
Saddam killed and displace an entire culture and community of hundreds of
thousands of southern Shiite Marsh Arabs in order to stay in power,and then
oppressed what was left. What do you call that? Self defense? Is there ever
an excuse that makes it okay? If so, feel free to go on record giving your
support to it. Otherwise, it looks like genocide and goes a long way toward
justifying the removal of a dictator from power.
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:snokXpBX0EMJ:www.emmanicholson.org.uk/downloads/Case%2520for%2520Genocide%2520-%2520article.pdf+genocide+%22marsh+arabs%22&hl=en
According to various reports, the population of the Marsh Arabs was
According to various reports, the population of the Marsh Arabs was
approximately 400,000 in the 1950s. By the early 1990s, this"According to
various reports, the population of the Marsh Arabs was
approximately 400,000 in the 1950s. By the early 1990s, this
number had fallen to approximately 250,000.
Currently only approximately 40,000 remain in the Marshland. Tens of
thousands
have been killed by military action or died through starvation or
disease. At least 100,000 additional people have been displaced
recent report has concluded that of the 250,000 Marsh Arabs
remaining in the early 1990s, '40,000 made it into Iran as refugees,
and another estimated 20-40,000 remained in their homes. This
leaves 170,000 to 190,000 who are either dead or displaced.'"
Currently only approximately 40,000 remain in the Marshland. Tens of
thousands"
I apologize, but this took several hours to research and I don't have time
to
continue this kind of dialogue. If you ask a single focused question or two,
I can respond.
Best regards,
Bill
Bill C
"gggg@w" <g...@w.gg> wrote in message news:422db6b5...@news.free.fr...
> On 7 Mar 2005 14:39:15 -0800, thereac...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >"France said that it would go to war, _in last resort_ ... just b4 the
> >USA
> >attacked, "
> >
> >Show me where the French ever said this. Their intention was to stall
> >the US. They really didn't care what was in Iraq, and they wouldn't
> >have voted for war in the UN not matter what. Saddam had promised them
> >billion in business if they were able to get the sanctions lifted, and
> >that was their ultimate goal.
>
> Oh gosh ! brainwashed sheep ! I shouldn't have to prove it. Your memory
> should be sufficient to remind it ! were you on vacation on Mars at that
> moment ?
You are probably both right. The French did say that, and they said other
things that constitute a betrayal:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117672,00.html
KEN TIMMERMAN, AUTHOR, "FRENCH BETRAYAL OF AMERICA": Well, you're right,
Brit. There was that resolution. And I find it a little bit hard to believe
that Mr. Kerry thinks committee go to the U.N., and all of a sudden, undo
things that have been done and undo lies and commitments that have been
done.
Here is what happened behind the scenes. President Chirac (search) called up
President Bush in late October of 2002 and he promised the U.S. president
that he would be with us at the United Nations and that he would be with us
if it came to using force against Saddam Hussein.
HUME: Now, to place that in time, October of 2002 is about the time that the
U.S. Congress, attacking ahead of the U.N. in this instance, had passed a
resolution authorizing the president to use force at his discretion to get
Iraq to comply with the U.N. resolution and a number of other things?
TIMMERMAN: That's absolutely correct. And this was just days before the U.N.
finally passed 1441. Now, so what is Mr. Kerry going to do? He is going to
get lied to, as Mr. Bush got lied this is the problem. See, this is the
problem. Chirac lied to the president of the United States, and then he
ordered his Foreign Minister Dominick de Villepin, to do the same thing with
Colin Powell. The extraordinary thing is that Powell and Villepin were
having dinner in New York on the 19 of January 2003...
HUME: Well, hold on just a second. Let me just stop you just a second. So at
the time -- let's go back to October for a moment. So the U.S. Congress has
acted or is in the process of doing so.
The reality is the U.S. is building up in the area. Other countries are
going along or going to join, and Chirac tells Bush I'll be with you in the
end, and de Villepin says to Powell, at about the same time, the same thing
TIMMERMAN: Well, Villepin says this in January. He's saying this all along.
This was their message all along, but what Chirac also says in October, he
says, I'm going to send over one of my top generals to Tampa, Florida, to
the United States Central Command to work out the details of how we include
French forces in a U.S.-led coalition. So this was not just talk. He was
also starting the actions and telling the French military they should get
prepared to go into Iraq as part of a U.S.-led coalition.
So this was a pretty extraordinary deception effort by the French.
HUME: Are you convinced the French were attacking deceitfully from the
start? Or is it more likely the case that, for whatever reason, the French
high command, Chirac and others decided to change their minds?
TIMMERMAN: No, I don't think they changed their minds. I think they knew
what they were doing. The key to this, Brit, is the $100 billion that Saddam
Hussein had agreed to pay French oil companies in exchange for their
political support at the United Nations. I think this was the biggest
political payoff in history...
HUME: How do we know that?
TIMMERMAN: Well, I have a copy of one of the contracts, which I describe in
my book, "The French Betrayal Of America." And there were two of them; they
were going to give the French a lock on Iraq's oil in the southern part of
the country, in exchange for their political support at the United Nations.
HUME: Now, so what then happened? Events moved forward. The U.S. is working.
It is now the turn of the year. We're at the end of January. The U.S. is
working to get a second resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force
to enforce U.N. resolutions. What happens then?
TIMMERMAN: That's right. The second resolution was actually the 18
resolution requiring Iraq to give up its weapons of mass destruction, or
else face consequences, serious consequences.
Powell and de Villepin, the French foreign minister, negotiating in New
York; they have dinner together, one-on-one at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel on
January 19. They're going over the specific wording for that resolution. And
Powell had thought everything was worked out.
HUME: And he had -- in fact, his visit to New York, Powell's visit to New
York, was at the de Villepin behest or invitation, what?
TIMMERMAN: It was at behest. De Villepin had demanded, had requested, that
the United States back him to hold a U.N. Security Council session, while
France was the president. So Villepin could be the president of the Security
Council session.
It was really a puff job for him so he could preen himself in front of the
cameras; everybody understood this. It was going to be on the terrorism, not
the war in Iraq. And so he turned it around that next day, after that
session which dealt with nothing of significance. He held a press conference
on the...
HUME: So there was, in fact, a session at the U.N. that day. De Villepin is
in his seat, and the issue of Iraq is not on the table.
TIMMERMAN: Absolutely not. They talked about the war on terror, the war
against terrorism in general. So then de Villepin goes outside at noontime.
Powell and all the other foreign ministers have gone to the French
ambassador's residence for lunch. They thought nothing was going to happen.
Powell is actually watching Fox News in the video cameras in the French
ambassador's residence as de Villepin goes on TV, and he says what? After
about a half a minute's introduction, he says and now I would like to say a
few words about Iraq. And that's when he announces to the world that France
will never ever support the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
HUME: And Colin Powell (search) and the rest of the U.S. administration had
no idea that this was going to happen?
TIMMERMAN: Slack-jawed. Powell's jaw dropped to the floor, is the way it was
described to me by one of his confidant, somebody who was there. We had no
idea.
We thought -- our administration thought that the French were with us, that
French had dispatched the top general to Centcom, Chirac had promised the
president, Villepin the foreign minister had promised Powell. They said they
were with us, and they weren't.
HUME: All right. Kenneth Timmerman, very interesting account. Thank you very
much, sir.
TIMMERMAN: Thank you, Brit.
newbie
I'm French and i can tell you that
Saddam had nothing to do with sept 11.
A 6 years old child in Iraq knew that.
Is French right to refuse doing war if we
judge it was not the right thing to do.
You are inventing plot.
For USA war has become a business.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/30/deception/index_np.html
France is still with of USA when they are right.
Stop your crap about plot.
Bill C
friends (writing leftist propaganda on Salon) have lied to you. They make
you believe America is accusing Saddam of something that we NEVER accused
him of: We NEVER accused him of assisting in 9/11.
Don't believe me? Google up where any responsible US official or public
personality said that.
If we ever said such a stupid thing, millions of anti-war people would have
not just repeated the claim, but documented it on the web, right? So if
it's not there, it's absolute proof that we didn't say it, right? So if you
can't find it, question who is REALLY lying to you.
From the beginning, two weeks after 9/11, we announced that the focus of our
fight was on the foundation of terror, not a single person like Osama Ben
Laden and not a single organization like al Qaeda. We bring up 9/11 simply
to reminded us that we can not avoid the fight, not to blame every target
directly for that incident.
The combination of Saddam's many terrorist connections, WMD programs, oil
wealth, external aggression, internal genocide, strategic location and
political vulnerability made disarming him a moral imperative.
"newbie" <new...@new.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.09....@new.com...
> You see plot everywhere,
> I'm French and i can tell you that
> Saddam had nothing to do with sept 11.
> A 6 years old child in Iraq knew that.
>
> Is French right to refuse doing war if we
> judge it was not the right thing to do.
> You are inventing plot.
>
> For USA war has become a business.
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/30/deception/index_np.html
>
98% of Salon one sided FAR leftist propaganda, many lies.
gggg@w
<newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote:
>"gggg@w" <g...@w.gg> wrote in message news:422b4f12...@news.free.fr...
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:36:43 -0500, "Bill C"
>> <newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote:
>> I'm sorry I fail to see the point. It's just a bunch of allegations and as
>> for betrayal, i don't see why ?
>> France said that it would go to war, _in last resort_ ... just b4 the USA
>> attacked, the iraqis were cooperating more and more to the great
>> satisfaction of the UN inspectors ... so ?
>
>More and more? The last resolution called for immediate and full
>cooperation, not something like 50% now and 10% each month there after.
So let's raze the country ... they were cooperating more and more that's
all I know. War is exciting when it's thousands of miles away from your
country and that's not your family under the bombs, couch warrior.
The result is the most important.
>We were uniquely prepared to militarily rid the world of the WMD/terrorist
>threat that Iraq posed, but with each passing month that capability would
>vanish. We can no more keep that kind of military team 100% prepared in
>theater for years than keep a neurological surgery team 100%
>prepared in the operating room for years.
years ? ... What are you talking about ?
>Environmentally:
>The summer was virtually impossible to fight in, especially in chem suits,
>so another month or two delay would have meant at least a 10 month delay.
Not virtually impossible but far more difficult AFAIK. UIraq was on the
knees anyway right ?
>Internationally:
>Arab governments were getting fidgety with what our force
>presence was doing to their domestic opposition. Some of the governments
>who went way out on a limb and gave critical support to us would not have
>done so if they thought that we would go away leaving them exposed to
>retribution. And if Kuwait wobbled, Saddam in my opinion had a free
>pass to build whatever he wanted until the next 9/11.
so far the USA was there with the UN "flag" ... it was legal ... either
saddam cooperated or no ... the neighboring countries had nothig to say.
Actually most of the Arab govnmt would have been happy that Saddam
disappear of the region.
>Militarily:
>Supplies and equipment deteriorates in the summer dessert. The choreography
>of that operation was my times more complex than any staged event or
>production system. The last thing we needed was some convincing overtures by
>Saddam of cooperation in the final days and then have him renege and have to
>slowly restart it. Targets would move and need to be re-identified and
That was a last attempt, his last chance, if he wouldn't be cooperating it
was finished for him.
>re-prioritized. Troops would need to be rotated and then retrained.
>Part-time national guard would have had additional stresses. Moral drops
>from being kept like bees in a shaken jar without being let lose for months
don't exggerate the difficulties (though I admit they're real)
>or longer. Emotions go nuts and get misdirected. Dialing that down results
>in loss of effectiveness and potentially more coalition deaths.
?
>Domestically:
>Additional funding from congress would have been required, and
>on the eave of an election year, Democrats might have blocked setting up a
>war time commander and chief to immediately run against. And every year away
>from 9/11 people forget why it's so important to remove that kind of threat.
What's the link between Iraq and 9/11. Afghanistan I can easily understand
but I fail to see the link w/ Saddam. As for the WMDs, already talked
about.
>All this is critical to our ability to win a war so it has to be part of the
>equation of going to war, in addition to the Iraqi terrorist threat . All
>this was known to all of those wanting another year, 90, 60, 30 days
>to finish inspections. Sure, our political opposition willing to twist
>virtually anything to their advantage used this to convinced the politically
>and militarily unsophisticated that our "eagerness" not to delay was proof
>that we were disingenuous in pressing for full and immediate cooperation,
>with our finger on the trigger. All people tend to believe what they want
>to believe.
The US military presence at the door in Iraq was the condition of the
cooperation of Saddam, indeed. The goal was (officially) the destruction of
the WMDs
>Most informed people in the US aren't upset with the protesters. We were
>upset with those in power who knew better but fed them propaganda for their
>political advantage at our expense. This is why they appeared disingenuous
>to us.
Pure allegations. biased unproved allegations.
>> We betrayed you ? most of the world thought like us and even in the
>staunch
>> Bush's allies people they were most of the time taking side for us ... Do
>> you remind the biggest demonstrations ever seen in history ...in Spain,
>> Italy and UK for instance ? ...
>
>Refusing to cooperate with us and demonstrating against us is not a
>betrayal. Even campaigning against us, perhaps even siding against us
>militarily is tolerable. But persuading us to pay a substantial tactical
>militarily price by delaying action and taking the UN route when we didn't
>need to, and then reneging on a promise to support us there is a betrayal:
.... This makes no sense. you don't care about the internatinal order
that's your problem but don't despise the people that want it respected.
>http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/timmerman200403220851.asp
>"NRO: Did Chirac actually lie to President Bush before the Iraq war?
>"Timmerman: Yes, and this is why the president and Secretary of State Powell
>were so taken aback when foreign minister Dominique de Villepin pulled the
>rug out from under United Nations negotiations on January 20, 2003, by
>announcing, apparently out of the blue, that France would never ever agree
>to using force against Saddam Hussein.
>
>Before the first U.N. vote in early November 2002 (actually, it was the 17th
>U.N. resolution condemning Saddam and calling on him to voluntarily disarm
>or suffer the consequences, which included his forceful ouster), Jacques
>Chirac picked up the phone and called President Bush at the White House,
>personally reassuring him that France "would be with" us at the U.N. and in
>Iraq. To demonstrate his intentions, he said, he was sending one of his top
>generals to Tampa, Florida, to work out the details with U.S. Central
>Command leaders for integrating French troops into a Coalition force to oust
>Saddam.
>
>"Chirac's assurances are what gave the president the confidence to keep
>sending Colin Powell back to the U.N.," one source who was privy to Chirac's
>phone call to Bush told me. "They also explain why the administration has
>been going after the French so aggressively ever since. They lied."
Already read.
No offenses but that's typically the kind of thing in which I want prooves,
after all they were it seems an orchestrated anti-french propaganda (wrong
allegations given to newspaper (Hi Washington Times !) about informations
incriminating France by anonymous officials (How convenient !) - We still
wait for the evidences 1-2 yrs later.
>That's why we were so upset!
How being sure.
>> >> >1) Saddam failed to live up to 12th UN resolution requiring his full
>> >> >cooperation with WMD inspectors
>> >>
>> >> ? really ? that's what I've understood. Are you talking about the
>UNSCOM
>> >or
>> >> the UNMOVIC ?
>> >
>> >UNSCOM I think.
>> >Here's a list http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm
>>
>> Yes if it's UNSCOM I know it. The problem is that it had been said that
>The
>> USA did their best to ruin the things ... they were using the UN operation
>> to spy on Iraqis and when they Found it out they asked the UNSCOM to leave
>> (as seen in the Ritter's documentary, featuring many people, like the
>> Swedish leader of the UNSCOM and other inspectors ...)
>
>I don't doubt that we and others spied on Iraq during inspections, but I
>doubt that our objective was to persuade Saddam to throw us out. Why would
>we want our inspectors thrown out if we were not in a position to
>immediately capitalize on it? That wasn't a political reality until after
>9/11.
>
>The last resolution that he failed to comply with promised "serous
>consequences". That goes a long way toward justifying Saddam's removal on
>its own.
Serious consequences ? ... You prefer bomb civilians to have what you want
rather than having the same thing without 1 dead ? ... Nice people.
Come on !
The result is important. That's what we tried to have. A peaceful
inspections (w/ the help of the US army - since it's obvious that w/o
pressure Saddam wouldn't have cooperated.
We said that we would go to war in last resort, and for us there was still
a hope ... Blix (leader of the UNMOVIC) thought the same when USA decided
that it was time to let the bombs fall.
>> >> >2) Fired on our jets weekly (sometimes daily).
>> >>
>> >> On the jets that were bombings his stuff and installations you mean ?
>> >
>> >If by installations you mean the influx of anti-aircraft radar painting
>us,
>> >Yes. We weren't going to allow that threat to build, and even painting us
>> >with targeting radar is a hostile act.
>>
>> So to sum it up they were defending themselves, right ?
>
>Defending themselves by attempting to build the most advanced aerial defense
>network oil can buy and testing in on our no fly zone patrols. Right...
huh ?
>Fighting us to build an effective anti air system in an area that we had the
>right to patrol goes a long way toward justifying Saddam's removal on its
>own
you werent snipe at in the zone protected by US-UK or they shot only when
they were attacked AFAIK. right ?
>> >> >3) Pursued WMD's and sheltered terrorists during our war on terror,
>> >becoming
>> >> >their symbolic strong man against the West, perhaps surpassing OBL in
>> >> >hiding.
>> >>
>> >> huh ? WTF are you talking about ?
>> >
>> >What do you not understand? Saddam's WMD program? His sheltering and
>support
>> >of terrorism? Or how both of those plus his wealth, presumed military
>> >strength and his agitation of the US/UN set him up as a symbolic leader
>> >among Arab extremists?
>>
>> The whole stuff you wrote contradict the most basic facts that I've heard
>> of ? Do you care for being more precise (providing evidences for instance
>> for each of your allegations ..)
>>
>Terrorism:
>Saddam's support of terrorism is difficult to wrap up in a paragraph or
>two because of the covert nature of it. This is the best
>summary that I've seen, but even it's pretty tedious, and the first 5
>paragraphs (before the 4 terrorist photos) simply relate to domestic
>opponents of the Iraqi war. http://cshink.com/philanthropy_of_terror.htm .
HA HA HA HA HA .... Do I need to comment that ? I don't think so. :-)
You really searching the bottom of the basket ...
>It lists several high profile terrorist that either operated or were given
>asylum in Iraq, Iraq's financial support of Palestinian suicide bombers,
Yeah ... a handful retired old terrorist of the 80s ... nice counterattack
tyo the 9/11 ... please don't assume that I am dumb, that's impolite.
>terrorist camps in Iraq, and then evidence of a web of terrorist connections
Yes in part not controlled by Saddam, in the northeast in Kurdistan IIRC,
so ?
>with Iraqi secret service. Just a fraction of that goes a long way toward
>justifying Saddam's removal.
>
>Wealth:
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/
>"Estimates of how much revenue Iraq earned from these tolerated side sales
>of its oil to Jordan and Turkey, as well as to Syria and Egypt, range from
>$5.7 billion to $13.6 billion."
hmmm ...so ? weren't we talkin about terrorism ?
USA new the illegal oil stuff through Syrai or Jordan (I don't remind) and
let it exist because it was useful to that country, and prevented a
collapse of that country whichever it was (sorry I don't remind which one
it was)
>http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/12/12/us_stance_on_husseins_oil_sales_eyed/
>"The report by a CIA weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, found that
>oil-for-food corruption generated $1.7 billion for Hussein. It said illegal
>oil contracts generated about $8 billion: $4.4 billion with Jordan, $2.8
>billion with Syria, and $710 million with Turkey. A short-lived agreement
>with Egypt generated $33 million. Overall, Hussein had $10.9 billion in
>illicit revenue from 1990 to 2003, Duelfer said.
>"The Senate Governmental Affairs investigations subcommittee, using a
>different method, came up with a $21.3 billion estimate, including $13.7
>billion from smuggling.
>
>"Lawmakers frequently lump together estimates of Hussein's illicit income
>from smuggling and from the oil-for-food program, blaming the United Nations
>for the full $21.3 billion."
>
>This doesn't include the $100 billion distributed legally in oil for food.
>I've seen reports that various groups were preparing the ground to get
>sanctions lifted in a short number of years that would have opened the door
>for oil industry development and a lot more money from Iraq's great
>reserves.
uh sorry ... were we talking of terrorism ?
>> BTW LOL at his presumed military strength .... Iraq had already a huge
>> technoligical gap in 1991 so what did you expect 12 yrs later ? a thirld
>> world army undergoing a 11 yrs long embargo (despite its holes), a
>> pauperized country, a bloodless people, unpaid soldiers and officers, etc
>> .. What did you expect ?
>
>Military strength:
>The concern with Iraq's military was not that it would repeat Kuwait or
>Iran, but that its well funded terrorist and WMD development
ROFLMAO... Sorry I ca,'t help it ... they really succeeded in convincing
you ... good job, 2 thumbs up. Yeah Iraq was a hotbed of international
terrorism and they were full of the most modern and deadly weapons of mass
destruction.
>would enable it to covertly act as a force multiplier to attacks from those
>with shared objectives, and that along with other capabilities would make it
>a safe haven from US conventional military capabilities.
>
>The 3 to 1 requirement for an aggressor to defeat a defender is just a
>baseline. It
>takes many times that to project and SUPPORT a formative attack force around
>the world, especially considering the politics of this.
>Iraqi terrorist support is listed above. Here's an anti war
>opinion typical of what I used to hear:
?
>http://www.socialismtoday.org/64/editorial.html
>"Saddam, unlike the Taliban, has a consolidated state apparatus and, for a
>regional power, formidable military forces. Their powers of resistance can
>only be gauged in the course of battle. US military commanders, however, are
>not so ready to discount their effectiveness as hawks like Wolfowitz and
>Richard Perle. Most of the Iraqi army are conscripts, but the regime also
>has the Republican guard, the Special Republican Guard and other special
>forces. It would be reckless for any assailants to assume that they will not
>be prepared to fight. Saddam also has an air force and air defense weapons,
>which the Taliban completely lacked.... He might also attack Israel,
>provoking counter attacks that would draw Arab regimes into a regional war.
>Bush's favorite advisors seem to believe that victory could be achieved
>with air strikes, special forces, and a US ground force of between
>150-200,000 troops. A range of commanders and ex-commanders, however,
>consider that the US would require similar forces to the Gulf War, that is,
>around 500,000 troops. Given the refusal of most Arab regimes, with the
>exception of Kuwait and possibly one or two tiny Gulf states, to allow their
>bases to be used for an attack on Iraq, the logistical problems of
>mobilizing such an invasion force appear almost insuperable.
>"
ROFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Gosh ! sorry I can't take it anymore.
All this wasn't allowed by the sanctions AFAIK, so that's the result that I
would like to know rather than hypothesis and allegations. Facts just facts
TIA.
>All this is pulled from just the first half of the 1991 missle list. Other
>areas of that site relate to other critical military concerns about Iraq. I
>just found it. It's well organized and documented, very interesting reading
>and to the point. http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/index.html
Please do not talk of 1991, it does not count.
>> >> we now know that he did managed to have more money due to some
>> >> disfunctinment in the oil-for-food thing, yet ...)
>> >
>> >[smile] just a little dysfunctional...
>>
>> Less than you seem to think. What do you think you know about it ...
>
>-I think that it was the largest financial scandal in history.
why ?
>-It gave Saddam money to buy and build weapons.
not really now. embargo = no auctions of weapons.
qame for buildings since there were an embargo on the dangerous substances.
...
>-It gave propaganda value to claims that we were starving children and
>oppressing Iraqis.
you're refering of the oil for food program not to his failure... bjt USA
and UK were the one wanting this embargo in this harshest form ... blame
yourself.
>-It paid off political friends of Saddam working to prevent our attack.
not that much AFAIK.
>-It demonstrated weakness to enemy, giving them ammunition to claim that we
>were not morally right because we allowed all the above.
but you did allow it right ? like all the countries implied.
>-It gave the illusion of an alternative to removing Saddam militarily while
>really just accomplishing the above.
I disagree.
>> The UNSCOM destroyed about 90-95 % of the Saddam's WMDs (not even talking
>> about the shelf-life) afaik.
>
>And afaik, they are careful to moderate that claim with a caveat to the
>effect of "as far as they know". There were many intelligence services
>claiming they were too optimistic.
US and UK ones ? some other ones ?
>>As for its 'maybe-existing' WMDs being used by islamist
>terrorists,
>> it was barely believable
>
>Here's one of many sites attempting to conical the Osama Saddam link:
>http://www.thirdsuperpower.com/previously/2003/11/18/01/13/ . Given time, I
>could probably find a better one.
sorry nothing convincing to me.
>> to say the least since islamists and Saddam were
>> somewhat enemies, even after he tried to gain support in the arab world by
>> trying to act as a muslim leader (despite the fact that his country was
>one
>> of the only secular country in the region and that he sent to jail the
>> islmist leaders in the past), a palestinian cause supporter etc ...
>> Pakistan and North-Korea were/are far more disquieting in that matter.
>
>Yea, it's pretty laughable, but it worked on terrorist. What about the
>justification of terrorism isn't laughable? They generally take anything
>over the US. Here's an amusing recount of Arafat sending holiday greetings
>to Saddam http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31246
>
>> really can you quote it please I don't remember myself "sandwiching any
>> facts between childish insults"
>
>You're right for the most part, beyond a couple of little snaps, you've been
>civil. I had some comments from another confused with yours.
Thank you. So were you. Nice change from the usual poster. Thanx for the
break.
>> Soc.culture.french is under the trolling attacks of US meatheads don't
>> reverse the roles Einstein. The French posting here only defend their
>honor
>> and since most of us are posting here for years they become less patient
>w/
>> the posters and their 'repeteated 10,000 times' lies, propaganda, and set
>> ideas ... that's my case too.
>
>As if "Einstein" would know the history of the conflict here? I came
>because I wanted to see how members of a population that I respect in many
>ways could be so far on the wrong side of history. Disruption of a group
>like this in these times is all but inevitable.
If we are on the wrong side of the planet we are not alone ... AFAIK most
of the planet (even in the country whose govnments were backing the US
stance, the popualtion was often against the war) is with us in that wrong
side.
Yeah the US stance seemed shady for a lot of people in 2003 ...
>> Who are they ? Iraqis ? sorry, not 50 millions ...
>
>Afghanistan + Iraq = 50 million.
ow ... OK ...
>> Did you go there to free the Iraqis ?
>
>We would have probably settled for disarming Saddam (like we did with
>Qadhafi) if certain "other nations" had cooperated, but we were left with
>two choices, capitulate or remove Saddam. Choosing to remove Saddam, the
>only intelligent thing to do after that is to help them build a democracy
>that frees them. So yes, that's what we went there for.
>
>> What will be their future ? Will Islamism stay away of this country.
>
>I'm not aware of a democracy with such a bright future turning islamo
>fascist, but almost anyting's possible.
I don' treally understand what you mean. but since most of the Iraqis seem
avid to have a "normal" life in peace ... I guess that's our best chance to
see a peaceful nation despite the risks.
>> What were the risks and were they real ?
>
>Yes there are risk. I'm sorry, but this is taking up too much time to write
>off in that direction.
>
>> Anyway the freedom of the Iraqis was a fantastic side-effect indeed.
>
>Absolutely 100% wrong! It was stated from the beginning by everyone in the
>administration. Bush's first sentence minutes after the 9/11 attack was
>"FREEDOM itself was attacked today." Absent unified international
so ?
>opposition, bringing freedom to Iraq was inevitable and the only way to$
huh ? We don't live on the same planet.
>complete the job of removing the threat. We enabled freedom in Japan and
>Germany. I'd call the failure to do so the historical way French failed to
>build democracies among their Middle East partners and African colonies, but
>I don't have time to document it.
?
That's completely different ... and I guess that you put all the colonizers
from UK to Portugal in the same group ... Iraq, pakistan, Zimbabwe and
Sudan (etc ...) were under british rule after all ...
>> huuuuh ? o_O
>
>Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
terrorsim is readicated from these zones ? that's a news ! Is it recent ?
since today ? yesterday ?
>> >We turned the imagination of Arab youth away from Islamic fanaticism as
>> >their path to success and toward replicating neighboring democracies!
>>
>> Actually they hate their old gvnmts for a very long time.
>
>Yes, but how could the supporters of the old gvnmts feel secure after
>watching 2 fall, seeing us retake the fortified city of mosques so
>unapologetically and skillfully? If that could fall so quickly, what else
>could we do?
>
>How could their opponents not be encouraged? How could the mind set of
>aligning with the strong that's so common among young potential terrorists
>not make them reconsider? http://www.greatdreams.com/osama_tape.htm
>"UBL: (...Inaudible...) when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by
>nature, they will like the strong horse."
Yeah ... I don't know what to think ... I still can't have a real opinion
on the final results of all that. But even if the "reckless" policy of the
Bush administration end up with good effects ... don't expect a blank check
for the future from everyone ... you play a dangerous game ... And
basically you said f*ck you" to almost everyone... You felt interested in
middle east and its tyrants only when some wackoes blew up the twin towers
... havein business with these bastards in the past was not a problem.
It's trur for most of the govnments but being the most powerful nation in
the world we'll be suspicious with you. Easy to unsderstand I think.
>How could youth with limited futures tempted to be part of the "Great
>Islamic Violent Revolution" not have their imaginations turned 180 degrees
>to the a "Great Islamic Democratic Revolution? You must have seen this quote
>from Walid Jumblatt
>
>http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/03/do0302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/03/03/ixopinion.html
>"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started
>because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when
>I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was
>the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt then went on to say that the spark
>of democratic revolt was spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people,
>all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see
>it."
good .... But I expressed my feelings and my doubts above ... the way you
act is important and the reason as well ... not only the result (in case
the final upshot would be really good)
>> >I hear that the documentation comming out of Baghdad and the image of
>Saddam
>> >coming out of a rat hole made "international status" even more important
>to
>> >Qadhafi!
>>
>> I don't master your language. I fail to understand your allusion.
>
>(I don't have an aptitude for languages, and it would take me a life time to
>get by in yours.)
>
>I was referring to WMD documents uncovered in Baghdad (Pakistani documents
>may more be the source) that enabled US and British secret service to prove
>knowledge of Libya's nuclear program and negotiate the disarmament. Qadhafi
>agreement came "coincidentally" weeks after Saddam was pulled from his rat
>hole.
>
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040909-121930-9087r.htm
arrrhhh .... washingtontimes ...
>"Feith suggested that Gadhafi adopted this approach after the sobering
>U.S.-led ousters of the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddam from Iraq.
> "At that point, Gadhafi, having tried for years to get off the 'bad list'
Yes definitely. I think that alone is sufficient to explain the lybian
events ... though I admit the timing coulsd make think there is a link ...
But since the USA have no means (AFAIK) to start a new war anywhere else
(even in Iran AFAIK) ... i'm dubitative ...
>[of rogue states] by means short of opening up, decided that he had to open
>up," Feith said. "Now, what does one infer from that? I suppose it seems as
>if he came to the conclusion that it was too risky being coy, it was too
>risky trying these lesser means to get off the bad list.
>"And it became more urgent for him to get off the bad list when he saw the
>fate of the Taliban regime and the Saddam Hussein regime." "
>
>> The harshness of most of the French posters comes from YEARs to read sick
>> insults and overt lies about their country and people.
>
>We both hear our share of lies.
But you are on soc.culture.french not soc.culture.america. Any accusations
about France makes you an agressor.
>> >If you ever see me being dishonest, just civilly point it out.
>>
>> here for instance :
>
>All supported above and below.
>
>For what my word is worth to you, I have way better things to do than lie
>to anonymous people over the net. I promote my understanding to better
>develop it and to teach. If my premises don't stand up to the facts, I'd
>much rather change them than "win" and argument by BS.
Well. The facts you gave so far make me doubt that version but you look
honest saying that ... I don't know. Let's say it's true.
it wsa ll about politics. I disagree.
>> >And although I agree that we betrayed the Shiites, it doesn't mention
>what I
>> >always thought was our reasoning. That in coalition building, we promised
>> >strict limits to our operational scope in order to gain unprecedented
>> >support from Arab nations and Russia. We were more concerned with
>betraying
>> >that, and incapable of renegotiating the deal on the fly.
>>
>> I have my doubts ... Saddam was hated by all his neighbors AFAIK ... The
>> US troops were based in country like Saudi Arabia (considered by many
>> muslims as something sacrilegious - that was the reason given by Osama Bin
>> Laden to the 9/11 for instance)
>
>We are hated MUCH more than Saddam. They do not want us setting up another
>western colony (like a secular Israel) on their borders. We had a small
hmm not that much secular actually. It could be better on that matter.
>air command presence in SA that was light-years less threatening than what
>we're now doing in Iraq, much less what they imagined us doing in Iraq, and
Yeah. But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So maybe all that stories about
WMDs were just pretences to change the middle-east (if it works ... cool
!). The way it was done raises questions and muddle the vision we can have
of the future ... well, we'll see.
>even it was bombed and chased out. Islamo fascist dictators don't like
>successful Islamic democracies on their borders, especially ones full of US
>troops. It tends to give their people direction beyond the anti-western
>hate that keeps them empowered.
>> restarting the cold war ? why ?
>
>It was 3-4 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They were climbing
>out of chaos after recently being one of 2 superpowers. They still had a
>formidable
<snip>
There is no way Russia could be in a new cold war w/ the USA.
>> Anyway Saddam had no way to resist. And all
>> these people were encouraged in rebelling by Mr Bush Senior, that led to a
>> gigantic bloodbath ...
>> Don't make me laugh w/ your Saddam commit a genocide ...
>
>I argee that we shouldn't have encurraged them to rebel without supporting
>it. But they were an oppessed people and their rebellion was more there's
>than ours.
>
>Saddam killed and displace an entire culture and community of hundreds of
>thousands of southern Shiite Marsh Arabs in order to stay in power,and then
>oppressed what was left. What do you call that? Self defense? Is there ever
>an excuse that makes it okay? If so, feel free to go on record giving your
>support to it. Otherwise, it looks like genocide and goes a long way toward
>justifying the removal of a dictator from power.
I don't agree - it's not a genocide (anyway the shiite population is like
60 % of the population IIRC so this is not about genocide, it's about
mass-killing to keep the rebelling population with a leash, but don't think
I regret this fuckhead is gone. it's nice for the Iraqis. A very good
side-effect of the war. Let's hope the things will go well now.
>I apologize, but this took several hours to research and I don't have time
>to
>continue this kind of dialogue. If you ask a single focused question or two,
>I can respond.
>
>Best regards,
>Bill
same for me regards. it's overlong.
and we don't live on the same planet it's useless.
Kvebekski
"Bill C" <newsg...@REMOVETHISnobsysAndThis.net> wrote in message
news:AmDXd.18015$5T6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> You misunderstand. The reason you misunderstand is that Michael More and
> friends (writing leftist propaganda on Salon) have lied to you. They make
> you believe America is accusing Saddam of something that we NEVER accused
> him of: We NEVER accused him of assisting in 9/11.
No need to compromise themselves. They can do it undercover with their
ministry of propaganda. Nobody thrusts USA to tell the thruth now.
Confidence takes a long time to build, but is very quick to disappear.
Watching US news is as worthy as reading soviet times pravda. Wake up!
http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=491&pageID=177&subSiteID=44
"White House critics were quick to recognize that "strategic influence" was
a euphemism for disinformation. Rumsfeld had proposed establishing the
country's first Ministry of Propaganda.
The criticism was so severe that the White House backed away from the plan.
But on November 18, several months after the furor had died down, Rumsfeld
arrogantly announced that he had not been deterred. "If you want to savage
this thing, fine: I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have
the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be
done -- and I have."
Gardiner's dogged research identified a long list of stories that passed
through Rumsfeld's propaganda mill. According to Gardiner, "there were over
50 stories manufactured or at least engineered that distorted the picture of
Gulf II for the American and British people." Those stories include:
a.. The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11
a.. Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta
a.. Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.
a.. Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.
a.. Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.
a.. Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons
a.. The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.
a.. Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.
a.. The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.
a.. The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.
a.. Iraq executing Coalition POWs.
a.. Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.
a.. The exact location of WMD facilities
a.. WMDs moved to Syria.
Every one of these stories received extensive publicity and helped form
indelible public impressions of the "enemy" and the progress of the
invasion. Every one of these stories was false.
"I know what I am suggesting is serious. I did not come to these conclusions
lightly," Gardiner admits. "I'm not going to address why they did it. That's
something I don't understand even after all the research." But the fact
remained that "very bright and even well-intentioned officials found how to
control the process of governance in ways never before possible.""
gggg@w
yeah I have already read it. Is it true ? Is it false ? I don't know.
Difficult to prove. If it's true that was indeed a trap, but how could we
know, I need more than the allegation of that person. definitely.
Bill C
belalady
belalady
First , Do you think, really, that many people believe what say
extreme left politicians, now days??. Even if they are able to make
move the crowd, it is only because crowds want to move for anything,
for any pretext very often. But they don't do that very much for
conviction.
Secondly, I don't think that there is a very big difference between
the extreme left and the extreme right in the bottom, sometime.
Both are against democracy ant freedom.
Kind regards
kodok
"Roll up your mats, French rats".
Biermats ? Difficult to roll 8
Kodok