FRANCE BE WARNED
Basil Oglenthorn
Remember France, "you're either with America or you're with the
terrorists". The time has come to choose.
Thursday, March 27, 2003
France Won't Say It Wants Us to
Win
Cowardly, envious France still has no
favorites in the war against its genocidal
business and military partner Saddam
Hussein.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de
Villepin, taking questions after a talk at
London's International Institute for
Strategic Studies, refused to answer one
question: "Who do you want to win the war?"
He said that the United Nations must be at the
heart of reconstruction in Iraq, after a crisis
that has "shattered" the established world order.
Nestor le pingouin pour la France
> Remember France, "you're either with America
Nous sommes contre.
Et en plus on vous emmerde.
--
« Coin coin coin, coin ! Coin coin : coin. » Saturnin le canard.
BF
I guess you can read English but are too much of a coward to respond so we
can understand you. I just hope our Government is smart enough to see to it
you wimps never see another U.S. dollar.
STEPHEN BROWN
DO NOW
good luck to all our troops
"Basil Oglenthorn" <oglen...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:jna88vgo0d59c53nr...@4ax.com...
Dune Runner
"BF" wrote:
> I guess you can read English but are too much of a coward to respond so we
> can understand you. I just hope our Government is smart enough to see to
it
> you wimps never see another U.S. dollar.
>
Already happening. I just read that Fance has just fallen off the 50 most
visited places list at PriceWatch.com.
Binou
don't understand french ?
"BF" <bf...@adelphia.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
tCNga.7568$FN.41...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
jur2jur
What a simplicity. Everything has to be black or white for you to make
sense?
Isn't it possible to be against Saddam, and against the invasion of
Iraq by the Americans,British and a few minor allies, when the UN
security council itself is against it?
Since when is a unilateral war on sovereign state a 'just war'?
If Iraqi people want to get rid of Saddam, they'll have to get rid of
him. It's their country, not yours!
Laughing Mushrooms
>> terrorists".
I thought America and The Terrorists were one and the same?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
The US - A flagrant and sickening breach of the Geneva Convention
Joel Chappel
What kind of newspaper was the journalist working for ? Another one of
these pro-war tabloids ? That really was a stupid weird biased
question to ask : what do the personnal wishes of Dominique de
Villepin have to do with that war ?
Nothing !
That's just another variation of the "friend or foe ?" question the US
keep on asking to everybody since 9/11 (weird : default answer is
"foe"). It seems they really don't know who's a friend and who's a
foe.
After all, they created Ossama Bin Laden and his Al Quaeda group. They
helped the Talibans against the Russians if Afghanistan, and let them
govern the whole land after that. They created Saddam Hussein as ruler
of Iraq in the sixties, and massively provided him with guns and
financial help up to the late eighties. They're still in the best
terms with Saudi Arabia, a land still quite tied to Al Quaeda. They
supported Manuel Noriega in Panama during years, and had to send
troops when they found out he was no "good guy".
It's really amazing how they took tremendous risks back in the
eighties with Bin Laden, the Talibans, Saddam Hussein... and how we're
all paying for that now because we all now have to face the
consequences of their failures. So it's quite possible they really
don't know...
Because you know the consequences of a long war ! Bush already had to
ask billions of dollars more to go on in Iraq, during one more month.
What if it takes more than that to finish the job ? What if the troops
in Iraq are unable to pacify the country ? What if you have to keep
permanent troops there for years, like the Russian have to keep in
Chechnya, fighting a neverending guerilla ? In the worst scenario, the
deep economic crisis which is now dawning will be the least of our
problems.
Stop blaming the french because you failed in convincing the world
that Saddam Hussein was a major threat. If you had had the slightest
proof, UN resolution 1442 would have been adopted, with France and
Russia voting "Yes". And in any case of veto, it would have been easy
to adopt the resolution anyway during a general assembly of all
members of the UN.
Focus on winning that war, it seems not so easy and that's bad news to
everybody.
Most Iraqis don't seem to consider US & UK troops as welcomed
liberators, so keep your "friend or foe" questions for Iraq
battlefields.
hammr
"We are against"
"and furthermore we shit on you"
He must be French-Algerian, because I heard it is an honor to be
gotton up against and shat on for them.
"BF" <bf...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<tCNga.7568$FN.41...@news2.news.adelphia.net>...
Errant_Eye
joel.c...@free.fr (Joel Chappel) wrote in message news:<58d6904f.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> That's just another variation of the "friend or foe ?" question the US
> keep on asking to everybody since 9/11 (weird : default answer is
> "foe"). It seems they really don't know who's a friend and who's a
> foe.
In part that is true, some Americans thought France was a friend.
> After all, they created Ossama Bin Laden and his Al Quaeda group.
Al Qaeda was formed with bin-Laden's inherited money. Bin Laden was
active in Afghanistan and one of his splinter factions fighting the
Soviets received an infinitesimal amount of the funds spent by the US
and other western states supported those who were fighting the
Soviets.
> They
> helped the Talibans against the Russians if Afghanistan, and let them
> govern the whole land after that.
We 'let' them? Are you saying that we should not have 'let' them
rule? Are you saying the US is obligated to remove tyrannical
governments wherever they exist?
> They created Saddam Hussein as ruler
> of Iraq in the sixties, and massively provided him with guns and
> financial help up to the late eighties.
When the Baathists took over Saddam was a low level thug. Even if you
want to blame the US for putting the Baathists in power there is no
way the US is responsible for Saddam comming to power. He paved his
road own road to power with the blood and bones of his opponents.
> They're still in the best
> terms with Saudi Arabia, a land still quite tied to Al Quaeda.
You certainly show your ignorance when you think US/Saudi relations
are on the best terms.
> They
> supported Manuel Noriega in Panama during years, and had to send
> troops when they found out he was no "good guy".
"had to send troops" - are you again saying we have an obligation to
remove evil rulers? What does "support" mean? Do we "support" every
regime that we recognize diplomatically, are you going to argue that
we "support" North Korea?
> It's really amazing how they took tremendous risks back in the
> eighties with Bin Laden, the Talibans, Saddam Hussein... and how we're
> all paying for that now because we all now have to face the
> consequences of their failures. So it's quite possible they really
> don't know...
The US? Did the French, Germans (East & West), Italians, British,
Spanish, Russians, Poles, Rumanians take tremendous risks too, is it
in any way their fault - or is all of this the somehow the fault of
the US? Whoever's fault it is, at least the US/UK have the guts to do
something about it. Not like the fucking French.
Joel Chappel
> Fuck you Joel
As usual, you start insulting people. You've just been ranked #1 in my
assholes list !
> joel.c...@free.fr (Joel Chappel) wrote in message news:<58d6904f.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> > That's just another variation of the "friend or foe ?" question the US
> > keep on asking to everybody since 9/11 (weird : default answer is
> > "foe"). It seems they really don't know who's a friend and who's a
> > foe.
> In part that is true, some Americans thought France was a friend.
Well, it is !
Now, what does the term "friend" mean to you ? Looks like it means
"slave" of something like that, isn't it ?
To you, is a friend allowed to say : "No, sorry, you're wrong, let's
try something else !" ?
Answer me clearly please, I really want to read your opinion about
that.
> > After all, they created Ossama Bin Laden and his Al Quaeda group.
> Al Qaeda was formed with bin-Laden's inherited money. Bin Laden was
> active in Afghanistan and one of his splinter factions fighting the
> Soviets received an infinitesimal amount of the funds spent by the US
> and other western states supported those who were fighting the
> Soviets.
Oh, no kidding ? What was the amount of his inherited money ? Are
Ossama Bin Laden's parents dead anyway ? What was the family fortune
then ? How many brothers did he have ? Do you think he got enough
money to fund such a terrorist movement ?
> > They
> > helped the Talibans against the Russians if Afghanistan, and let them
> > govern the whole land after that.
> We 'let' them? Are you saying that we should not have 'let' them
> rule? Are you saying the US is obligated to remove tyrannical
> governments wherever they exist?
Just saying you should get your tools back to the toolshed after use.
Now, you shouldn't interfere with foreign governments without the
backing of a UN decision. Or would you tolerate that the
chineses/russians... interfere with your own internal politics ?
> > They created Saddam Hussein as ruler
> > of Iraq in the sixties, and massively provided him with guns and
> > financial help up to the late eighties.
> When the Baathists took over Saddam was a low level thug. Even if you
> want to blame the US for putting the Baathists in power there is no
> way the US is responsible for Saddam comming to power. He paved his
> road own road to power with the blood and bones of his opponents.
Who was ruling Iraq just before Saddam Hussein ? What was his last
decision ? What happened then ?
> > They're still in the best
> > terms with Saudi Arabia, a land still quite tied to Al Quaeda.
> You certainly show your ignorance when you think US/Saudi relations
> are on the best terms.
So what decisions were taken exactly against Saudi Arabia ? Did you
stop buying their oil ? The Saudi/Al Quaeda links are obvious : are
you bombing Ryad ?
> > They
> > supported Manuel Noriega in Panama during years, and had to send
> > troops when they found out he was no "good guy".
> "had to send troops" - are you again saying we have an obligation to
> remove evil rulers? What does "support" mean? Do we "support" every
> regime that we recognize diplomatically, are you going to argue that
> we "support" North Korea?
Are you pretending Noriega was no CIA creature ? In a land as
strategic to you as Panama ? Everybody knows central America is a kind
of private garden to the USA, with the exception of Cuba and Nicaragua
(regimes you tried to remove, remember, with no success).
> > It's really amazing how they took tremendous risks back in the
> > eighties with Bin Laden, the Talibans, Saddam Hussein... and how we're
> > all paying for that now because we all now have to face the
> > consequences of their failures. So it's quite possible they really
> > don't know...
> The US? Did the French, Germans (East & West), Italians, British,
> Spanish, Russians, Poles, Rumanians take tremendous risks too, is it
> in any way their fault - or is all of this the somehow the fault of
> the US? Whoever's fault it is, at least the US/UK have the guts to do
> something about it. Not like the fucking French.
Every major country has a responsibility in what is happening in Iraq
right now.
Everybody knows Saddam should be removed. Everybody knows Iraq must be
disarmed if Saddam is still there.
But once again, your poker gamblers government is gambling the future
of the world, with no clear idea, and maybe no interest, on the
consequences.
A major war in Middle East is no game !
Errant_Eye
> assholes list !
start off with insults. Only when the poster has made an ass of
himself by parroting anti-american lies.
> Now, what does the term "friend" mean to you ? Looks like it means
> "slave" of something like that, isn't it ?
> To you, is a friend allowed to say : "No, sorry, you're wrong, let's
> try something else !" ?
> Answer me clearly please, I really want to read your opinion about
> that.
Yes, a friend is allowed to say "No, sorry, you're wrong, let's try
something else !" But that is not even close to what happened. What
the French did was say to the US "OK we agree that that Iraq poses a
threat to international peace and security, we'll agree to this
resolution that gives Iraq one last final chance to disarm and if it
doesnt disarm there will be 'serious consequences'". Then when Iraq
did not disarm France said "OK lets keep doing the same things we have
been doing unsuccessfully for 12 years, lets keep on inspecting".
Chief Inspector Hans Blix has himself said that in the absence of full
cooperation by Iraq the Inspectors can NOT disarm Iraq, Iraq never
fully cooperated and nothing Iraq had done suggested they would and
the French made absolutely no offers or suggestions of 'something
else' that had any chance of getting Iraq to cooperate.
1) "Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council
resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"...
2) "2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq,
by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament
obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly
decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime "...
3) "3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament
obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual
declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the
IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this
resolution"...
4) "13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly
warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its
continued violations of its obligations;"
> > > After all, they created Ossama Bin Laden and his Al Quaeda group.
> > Al Qaeda was formed with bin-Laden's inherited money. >
> Oh, no kidding ? What was the amount of his inherited money ? Are
> Ossama Bin Laden's parents dead anyway ? What was the family fortune
> then ? How many brothers did he have ? Do you think he got enough
> money to fund such a terrorist movement ?
He inherited an estimated $300,000,000. Yes it is enough to fund a
terrorist movement.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/osama_b_laden.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,550665,00.html
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/08/terror.groups/info.html
http://www.plp.org/misc/oblncia.html
http://havenworks.com/world/afghanistan/bin-laden/
http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp
http://www.twain.d21.k12.il.us/afghanistan/bin_laden.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/programmes/panorama/1547227.stm
http://www.news-star.com/stories/092901/spe_letter.shtml
> > > They
> > > helped the Talibans against the Russians if Afghanistan, and let them
> > > govern the whole land after that.
> > We 'let' them? Are you saying that we should not have 'let' them
> > rule? Are you saying the US is obligated to remove tyrannical
> > governments wherever they exist?
> Just saying you should get your tools back to the toolshed after use.
Meaning what? Either we should have helped the resistance - which was
fundamentalist in nature or we should not have helped. Once the
Soviets were tossed out just what we were to do get the 'tools' back
to the shed? We were to supress them somehow? Are you again
advocating that we should have agressively inserted ourselves into
their post-liberation developement?
> Now, you shouldn't interfere with foreign governments without the
> backing of a UN decision. Or would you tolerate that the
> chineses/russians... interfere with your own internal politics ?
>
> > > They created Saddam Hussein as ruler
> > > of Iraq in the sixties, and massively provided him with guns and
> > > financial help up to the late eighties.
> > When the Baathists took over Saddam was a low level thug. Even if you
> > want to blame the US for putting the Baathists in power there is no
> > way the US is responsible for Saddam comming to power. He paved his
> > road own road to power with the blood and bones of his opponents.
>
> Who was ruling Iraq just before Saddam Hussein ? What was his last
> decision ? What happened then ?
>
> > > They're still in the best
> > > terms with Saudi Arabia, a land still quite tied to Al Quaeda.
> > You certainly show your ignorance when you think US/Saudi relations
> > are on the best terms.
> So what decisions were taken exactly against Saudi Arabia ? Did you
> stop buying their oil ? The Saudi/Al Quaeda links are obvious : are
> you bombing Ryad ?
US & Saudi diplomats have publicly bickered over a number of issues.
We have removed a number special exemptions permitted Saudis when they
wished to visit the US or attend classes here. Saudis refused
permission to the US to expand its command and control facilities in
Prince Sultan air base which forced the US to go to Qatar & Bahrain to
expand facilities there in support of operations against Iraq. You
remain both wrong AND an idiot when you say that the US and Saudi
Arabia are on the best of terms. The US WAS also purchasing Irraqi
oil, is that evidence that we were on the 'best of terms'?
>
> > > They
> > > supported Manuel Noriega in Panama during years, and had to send
> > > troops when they found out he was no "good guy".
> > "had to send troops" - are you again saying we have an obligation to
> > remove evil rulers? What does "support" mean? Do we "support" every
> > regime that we recognize diplomatically, are you going to argue that
> > we "support" North Korea?
>
> Are you pretending Noriega was no CIA creature ? In a land as
> strategic to you as Panama ? Everybody knows central America is a kind
> of private garden to the USA, with the exception of Cuba and Nicaragua
> (regimes you tried to remove, remember, with no success).
Did we have contact with him? Absolutely. Did he try to play both
ends against the middle? Absolutely. He tried cooperating enough with
the US to keep it happy and cooperate enough with the drug lords to
make himself a billionaire. That does not make him "our creature".
> > > It's really amazing how they took tremendous risks back in the
> > > eighties with Bin Laden, the Talibans, Saddam Hussein... and how we're
> > > all paying for that now because we all now have to face the
> > > consequences of their failures. So it's quite possible they really
> > > don't know...
> > The US? Did the French, Germans (East & West), Italians, British,
> > Spanish, Russians, Poles, Rumanians take tremendous risks too, is it
> > in any way their fault - or is all of this the somehow the fault of
> > the US? Whoever's fault it is, at least the US/UK have the guts to do
> > something about it. Not like the fucking French.
> Every major country has a responsibility in what is happening in Iraq
> right now.
We agree. I agree that the US along with a number of other nations,
has complicity with the development of the monsterous Saddam Hussein.
> Everybody knows Saddam should be removed. Everybody knows Iraq must be
> disarmed if Saddam is still there.
Not true. A.N.S.W.E.R. & Not in Our Name in the US and a number of
other organizations throughout Europe and the world argue that
sanctions should be lifted and that Saddam Hussein should be left in
power.
> But once again, your poker gamblers government is gambling the future
> of the world, with no clear idea, and maybe no interest, on the
> consequences.
They have a clear idea, it may be wrong, but they have a clear idea.
While essentially unstated IMO the idea is this. After the threat
that Saddam poses is removed the two primary supporters of terrorism
in the region are Syria and Iran. Iran will now faced with implied
threat of land invasion from two directions as well as sea-born
invasion along its extensive coast. Syria will have the threat of
invasion from two directions also. The US will have just demonstrated
the resolve and ability to overthrow terror supporting regimes it
believes to be a threat to itself. Disaffected elements from both
Syria & Iran will have a safe haven from which to operate to foster
non-violent regime change. Further, a successful democracy in Iraq -
created by US largess - can inspire the populations of other Arab
nations to replace their despotic leaderships. Their despotic
leaderships rely upon the cornerstones of anti-semitism and
anti-americanism to deflect attention and criticism from their
regimes. Once those regimes are replaced by democratic ones which are
dedicated to the welfare of the people rather than the power of the
elite, peace can come to the middle east.
You may think the plan is pie in the sky and unachievable, but you
really can not say there isnt a plan.
> A major war in Middle East is no game !
A major attack on the homeland of the US is not a game, with or
without WMD thousands upon thousands more may die. IF the US did
nothing, this risk would only grow.
Joel Chappel
> joel.c...@free.fr (Joel Chappel) wrote in message news:<58d6904f.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> > Erran...@yahoo.com (Errant_Eye) wrote in message news:<1e73867.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> > As usual, you start insulting people. You've just been ranked #1 in my
> > assholes list !
> Thank you, a greater compliment has rarely been paid. I don't usually
> start off with insults. Only when the poster has made an ass of
> himself by parroting anti-american lies.
So if I'm just parroting anti-american lies, you should be easily able
to prove the truth, shouldn't you ?
It's so easy to trash arguments that don't please you as anti-american
lies.
How can you deny US involvement in all conflicts I was referring to.
They played a dangerous game against USSR, and they won. Great ! But
the point is they supported dangerous groups with unpredictable
consequences, and they did never disarm them, never tried to control
them. Now, these groups are at war against USA.
So where's the point in insulting people ? Just to pretend you've guts
? How old are you ? If an adult, you should act the adult way.
> > Now, what does the term "friend" mean to you ? Looks like it means
> > "slave" of something like that, isn't it ?
> > To you, is a friend allowed to say : "No, sorry, you're wrong, let's
> > try something else !" ?
> > Answer me clearly please, I really want to read your opinion about
> > that.
> Yes, a friend is allowed to say "No, sorry, you're wrong, let's try
> something else !" But that is not even close to what happened. What
> the French did was say to the US "OK we agree that that Iraq poses a
> threat to international peace and security, we'll agree to this
> resolution that gives Iraq one last final chance to disarm and if it
> doesnt disarm there will be 'serious consequences'". Then when Iraq
> did not disarm France said "OK lets keep doing the same things we have
> been doing unsuccessfully for 12 years, lets keep on inspecting".
This is pure pro-war propaganda and you should rather rely on facts,
than on their interpretations by newspapers (not even talking about
TVs like FoxNews and Al Jazeera). Not easy, but necessary if you don't
want to be fooled.
Now, if you take a look at IAEA and UNSCOM websites, you will note
that the UN inspections between 1991 and 1997 were not that
unsuccessfull and most (if not nearly all) WMDs the Iraqis had before
1991 had been destroyed, with the notable exception of biologic
weapons.
IAEA : http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/timeline.shtml
UNSCOM : http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/
> Chief Inspector Hans Blix has himself said that in the absence of full
> cooperation by Iraq the Inspectors can NOT disarm Iraq, Iraq never
> fully cooperated and nothing Iraq had done suggested they would and
> the French made absolutely no offers or suggestions of 'something
> else' that had any chance of getting Iraq to cooperate.
Yes they did ! They proposed to go on with inspections, with a
reinforced inspection team. Looking at the results of previous UNSCOM
and IAEA inspections, it was clear something serious would be found
within weeks, if anything was really to be found. They knew what to
look for : biologic weapons evidences. They just needed time.
There was no need for UNSCOM (now UNMOVIC) to totally disarm Iraq
alone. Any serious evidence would have been enough for some of the
undecided countries to make their mind up.
But even the mere 3 weeks one of the undecided countries in the UNSC
was asking for were too much for your government !
War was decided a long time ago, and US war hawks were very happy to
declare it outside UNSC.
> 1) "Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council
> resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
> long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"...
> 2) "2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq,
> by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament
> obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly
> decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime "...
> 3) "3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament
> obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual
> declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the
> IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this
> resolution"...
> 4) "13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly
> warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its
> continued violations of its obligations;"
"serious consequences", what do these diplomatic terms mean ? You
obviously consider "serious consequences" mean "military invasion in
order to change Iraq's regime".
Well, I'm sorry but this is not even the US government opinion. If it
was, well they would not even have needed a second resolution.
"serious consequences" means "war" only for pro-war propaganda !
Sorry, the Afghan resistance was not totally fundamentalist in nature,
only the Taliban movement was. Big part but not the majority of the
Afghans. So there were solutions to prevent them from ruling the whole
country, and giving bases to Al Quaeda.
> > Now, you shouldn't interfere with foreign governments without the
> > backing of a UN decision. Or would you tolerate that the
> > chineses/russians... interfere with your own internal politics ?
No answer ! 1 point.
> >
> > > > They created Saddam Hussein as ruler
> > > > of Iraq in the sixties, and massively provided him with guns and
> > > > financial help up to the late eighties.
> > > When the Baathists took over Saddam was a low level thug. Even if you
> > > want to blame the US for putting the Baathists in power there is no
> > > way the US is responsible for Saddam comming to power. He paved his
> > > road own road to power with the blood and bones of his opponents.
> >
> > Who was ruling Iraq just before Saddam Hussein ? What was his last
> > decision ? What happened then ?
No answer again ! 2 points.
Not to keen on such details, aren't you ? So to sum it up quickly, you
will note that former Iraqi rulers were all overthrown just a few
months after they dared any move against the USA. Every time it
occured, the Baath party was more involved in the government, until
they were ruling alone from 1968 on.
Now, try to prove they weren't CIA puppets then.
> > > > They're still in the best
> > > > terms with Saudi Arabia, a land still quite tied to Al Quaeda.
> > > You certainly show your ignorance when you think US/Saudi relations
> > > are on the best terms.
> > So what decisions were taken exactly against Saudi Arabia ? Did you
> > stop buying their oil ? The Saudi/Al Quaeda links are obvious : are
> > you bombing Ryad ?
> US & Saudi diplomats have publicly bickered over a number of issues.
> We have removed a number special exemptions permitted Saudis when they
> wished to visit the US or attend classes here. Saudis refused
> permission to the US to expand its command and control facilities in
> Prince Sultan air base which forced the US to go to Qatar & Bahrain to
> expand facilities there in support of operations against Iraq. You
> remain both wrong AND an idiot when you say that the US and Saudi
> Arabia are on the best of terms. The US WAS also purchasing Irraqi
> oil, is that evidence that we were on the 'best of terms'?
OK, my mistake.
Sanctions should be left ASAP, for the sake of Iraq's population, but
this is impossible as long as Saddam rules Iraq.
Now, he was born in 1937 you know : he's already 66 years old and he
won't live forever, and since he's the keystone of his baathist
palace, there were probably solutions within UN means to organize a
peaceful post-Saddam era.
> > But once again, your poker gamblers government is gambling the future
> > of the world, with no clear idea, and maybe no interest, on the
> > consequences.
> They have a clear idea, it may be wrong, but they have a clear idea.
> While essentially unstated IMO the idea is this. After the threat
> that Saddam poses is removed the two primary supporters of terrorism
> in the region are Syria and Iran. Iran will now faced with implied
> threat of land invasion from two directions as well as sea-born
> invasion along its extensive coast. Syria will have the threat of
> invasion from two directions also. The US will have just demonstrated
> the resolve and ability to overthrow terror supporting regimes it
> believes to be a threat to itself. Disaffected elements from both
> Syria & Iran will have a safe haven from which to operate to foster
> non-violent regime change. Further, a successful democracy in Iraq -
> created by US largess - can inspire the populations of other Arab
> nations to replace their despotic leaderships. Their despotic
> leaderships rely upon the cornerstones of anti-semitism and
> anti-americanism to deflect attention and criticism from their
> regimes. Once those regimes are replaced by democratic ones which are
> dedicated to the welfare of the people rather than the power of the
> elite, peace can come to the middle east.
>
> You may think the plan is pie in the sky and unachievable, but you
> really can not say there isnt a plan.
I hope USA have a better plan for peace than their war plan.
Now, did you read yours in some fairytale book ?
Even your british allies plan to get out of Iraq as soon as possible
after the war is over, and to quickly go back to the UN to bring back
their "so nice" present : dealing with an anarchic Iraq. They know
what they're doing : they already fought wars against the Iraqis
during and after WW1. Since 1969, they have been learning in Northern
Ireland what a guerilla war looks like.
I stop argumenting here on that point. We will see the results.
And then we can see who is the idiot, and who was fucked in the end.
> > A major war in Middle East is no game !
> A major attack on the homeland of the US is not a game, with or
> without WMD thousands upon thousands more may die. IF the US did
> nothing, this risk would only grow.
I agree with you, but the means you chose are a dead end.
Do you know the word "guerilla" is spanish ? Why ? Because the Spanish
fought a seven centuries war against the Muslims that settled in South
Spain in the eighth century.
Modern armies never win against guerillas.
Errant_Eye
joel.c...@free.fr (Joel Chappel) wrote in message news:<58d6904f.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> How can you deny US involvement in all conflicts I was referring to.
> They played a dangerous game against USSR, and they won. Great ! But
> the point is they supported dangerous groups with unpredictable
> consequences, and they did never disarm them, never tried to control
> them. Now, these groups are at war against USA.
snip
> > > > > They
> > > > > helped the Talibans against the Russians if Afghanistan, and let them
> > > > > govern the whole land after that.
> > > > We 'let' them? Are you saying that we should not have 'let' them
> > > > rule? Are you saying the US is obligated to remove tyrannical
> > > > governments wherever they exist?
> > > Just saying you should get your tools back to the toolshed after use.
> > Meaning what? Either we should have helped the resistance - which was
> > fundamentalist in nature or we should not have helped. Once the
> > Soviets were tossed out just what we were to do get the 'tools' back
> > to the shed? We were to supress them somehow? Are you again
> > advocating that we should have agressively inserted ourselves into
> > their post-liberation developement?
>
> Sorry, the Afghan resistance was not totally fundamentalist in nature,
> only the Taliban movement was. Big part but not the majority of the
> Afghans. So there were solutions to prevent them from ruling the whole
> country, and giving bases to Al Quaeda.
I believe that your ignorance of Afghani politics is matched by your
ignorance of the status of US/Saudi relations. I would be happy to
learn from tho, should I be mistaken. Please feel free to cite for me
a source that lists those elements of the resistance that were not
fundamentalist in nature. My limited familiarity with Afghanistan
tells me that the Soviet Union was the premier state-to-state level
influence on Afghanistan since the 1930's. The primary progressive
element within the afghan political structure was essentially tied to
the pro-Soviet and 'socialist' PDPA and at the time of the Soviet
occupation the rest of the country came to see them as enemies. This
bifurcated the political elements in Afghanistan into a pro-soviet
socialist/communist/progressive element and the traditionalist tribal
groups. Most, but not all, tribal groups were religiously
fundamentalist. A few were more secular and based more on ethnicity
than religion but even these groups were based essential on what I
would call medieval style warlords operating from near feudal bases of
power. Here is a rather brief paper on afghanistan, I sure it will
virtually quadruple your knowledge of the subject.
http://law.upenn.edu/~ekohlman/afghanistan.pdf
Should the US have helped them even tho the only resistance were
religious fundamentalists? Having helped them, what was the US
obligation and responsibility after the Soviets left? Should we have
bullied our way into their internal affairs, picking and choosing who
would next lead the country or should we have withdrawn and allowed
the Afghans to sort out their own affairs?
> So there were solutions to prevent them [taliban] from ruling the
> whole country,
The Taliban did not rule Afghanistan until years after the Soviets
left. Initially there were a number of coalition govt's that tried to
incorporate a broad spectrum of ethnic groups and religious views.
Afghan society was breaking down into its component tribal roots -
should the US have inserted itself into afghanistan at this point?
Taken part in a civil war? Once the Taliban came to dominate
afghanistan the US tried to deal with it, applying what little
diplomatic and economic leverage we had to moderate the regime.
Should we have over thrown them because we disagreed with them
politically? I am interested to read of any alternate "solutions" you
might have proposed.
It is you who are ignorant of Afghanistan and inconsistent in your
application of responsibilities and you do not even bother to counter
my points. In the case of Afghanistan you say that since we helped
the resistance groups we had a responsibility, nay even an obligation,
to choose or otherwise influence their political structure - even tho
after the retreat of the Soviets the US had no vested national
interest in the country. Yet in the case of Iraq you will vilify the
US for having supported or propped up or even put in power Saddam
Hussein yet you say we can not insert ourselves even tho we have a
vested national interest in Iraq - be that vested interest oil or the
threat of WMD.
> So where's the point in insulting people ? Just to pretend you've guts
> ? How old are you ? If an adult, you should act the adult way.
The point of insulting you is to express my frustration at someone who
is too stupid too ignorant too committed to a world shaping ideology
or simply too naive to discuss these matters properly. To pretend I
have guts? That must be it. How old am I? Old enough to have been
in college (and oddly enough studying Soviet Foreign policy at the
time) when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Act in an adult way?
Then I really should just ignore someone who lacks the historical
knowledge to properly address the issues here.
> Now, if you take a look at IAEA and UNSCOM websites, you will note
> that the UN inspections between 1991 and 1997 were not that
> unsuccessfull and most (if not nearly all) WMDs the Iraqis had before
> 1991 had been destroyed, with the notable exception of biologic
> weapons.
The IAEA & UNSCOM websites - not all selfserving, are they? Under the
threat of terrorists armed with WMDs the US can not afford to accept
"not too unsuccessfull". You conveniently skip over the massive
nuclear bomb & biological programs which was only discovered in 1995
because of a familial dispute which led to the defection of Saddam
Hussein's son-in-law. Sanction's & UNSCOM did not discover the
programs, Hussein Kamel's fit of pique over a failure to be appointed
a leadership position in the reconstituted Republican Guard led to the
revelation of the programs. UNSCOM was about to declare that no such
programs existed at all. In the absence of full Iraqi cooperation the
inspectors were unable to discover these massive programs, how can we
trust them to find a much much smaller biological weapons program
after all that the IRaqis have learned about hiding such programs?
After the IRaqis having had years with no supervision to work on and
camoflauge such a program?
> > Chief Inspector Hans Blix has himself said that in the absence of full
> > cooperation by Iraq the Inspectors can NOT disarm Iraq, Iraq never
> > fully cooperated and nothing Iraq had done suggested they would and
> > the French made absolutely no offers or suggestions of 'something
> > else' that had any chance of getting Iraq to cooperate.
>
> Yes they did ! They proposed to go on with inspections, with a
> reinforced inspection team. Looking at the results of previous UNSCOM
> and IAEA inspections, it was clear something serious would be found
> within weeks, if anything was really to be found. They knew what to
> look for : biologic weapons evidences. They just needed time.
The inspectors are unlikely to be able to find such evidence in the
face of active Iraqi efforts to hide such a program. It was NOT clear
that such evidence would be found within a few weeks nor was it clear
that Iraq would accede to such increased inspections. It was the HOPE
of Hans Blix that continued pressure would result in an Iraqi decision
to cooperate and voluntarilly disarm. It was the HOPE of the French
to put off an attack until the summer would again delay the threat of
such an attack for months and that the US would lose resolve and
everything could go back to 'normal' so France, Germany and Russia
could continue their trade in a market from which the US was excluded.
> There was no need for UNSCOM (now UNMOVIC) to totally disarm Iraq
> alone. Any serious evidence would have been enough for some of the
> undecided countries to make their mind up.
If, as alleged, Saddam has rolling biological labs making biological
WMDs how were inspectors going to find them? If one is not too
concerned about public safety all one needs to maintain such weapons
once they are made is a dry refigerator.
If, as alleged, Saddam has the 3 tons of 'missing' VX nerve gas
sitting in chemical tanker trucks roaming Iraqi highways and hiding in
non-descript warehouses how were inspectors to find it?
Finally, what constitutes 'serious evidence'? We DID find serious
evidence. We found rocket/missile warheads whose sole purpose is the
disemination of chemicals, the world said that was inconclusive. We
found the Iraqi's were developing cluster munitions designed for the
most efficient disemination of chemcial/biological agents and the
world did not even yawn.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/10/1047144926179.html
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/11/wblix11.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/11/ixnew%20stop.html
IF Iraq has no biochem WMDs why do they refuse to cooperate? If
they have no biochem WMDs why were they designing cluster munitions
specifically designed to maximize their use?
> But even the mere 3 weeks one of the undecided countries in the UNSC
> was asking for were too much for your government !
The nations failed to back the US when the US asked. They hemmed and
they hawed. For 12 years the UN failed to hold Saddam Hussein
accountable. Waiting additional time would only have given him more
time to prepare to fight the US. It would have pushed back any
military action to a time that would put more american lives at risk.
If we attacked during the full heat of summer we could well have as
many casualties (including deaths) from heat prostration as from enemy
fire.
> War was decided a long time ago, and US war hawks were very happy to
> declare it outside UNSC.
A long time ago it was decided that Hussein had to go. Bush modified
this position during the bargaining stages last fall to say that
complete disarmament would be sufficient, that Hussein did not have to
go.
> "serious consequences", what do these diplomatic terms mean ? You
> obviously consider "serious consequences" mean "military invasion in
> order to change Iraq's regime".
> Well, I'm sorry but this is not even the US government opinion. If it
> was, well they would not even have needed a second resolution.
> "serious consequences" means "war" only for pro-war propaganda !
What was left other than military action? Removing Iraq from its
chairmanship of the UN disarmament committee? Excluding Iraq from the
Olympics?
Further note that after our dispute over whether or not constituted a
"threat" you have yet to even acknowledge that the UN considered Iraq
a threat.
> > > Now, you shouldn't interfere with foreign governments without the
> > > backing of a UN decision. Or would you tolerate that the
> > > chineses/russians... interfere with your own internal politics ?
> No answer ! 1 point.
I felt I didnt have time to deal with each of your points. How many
points do I get for your failure to respond to my questions regarding
afghanistan?Soverignity is not like pregnancy, states intrude on each
others' soverignity - or internal politics - all the time. It is all
a matter of degree.
> > > Who was ruling Iraq just before Saddam Hussein ? What was his last
> > > decision ? What happened then ?
> No answer again ! 2 points.
Having informed you on historical Afghani politics I lack the patience
to
educate you on Iraqi politics. In any event your attempted point is
moot. IF as you allege, the US was responsible for Saddam Hussein
then that makes us all the more morally responsible for removing. It
does not make your case in any way.
> Not to keen on such details, aren't you ? So to sum it up quickly, you
> will note that former Iraqi rulers were all overthrown just a few
> months after they dared any move against the USA. Every time it
> occured, the Baath party was more involved in the government, until
> they were ruling alone from 1968 on.
> Now, try to prove they weren't CIA puppets then.
I am familiar with the second Baathist coup. It occurred at a time
convenient to the Baathists. The Baathists took advantage of military
and popular disaffection with regime after the crushing defeat of Arab
armies (including Iraqi forces) by the Israelis.
> Sanctions should be left ASAP, for the sake of Iraq's population, but
> this is impossible as long as Saddam rules Iraq.
>
> Now, he was born in 1937 you know : he's already 66 years old and he
> won't live forever, and since he's the keystone of his baathist
> palace, there were probably solutions within UN means to organize a
> peaceful post-Saddam era.
Actually he was probably born in 1939. He changed his birthdate
becuase his first wife was born in 1937 and it was considered improper
for a man to marry a woman older than himself. Do you care to lecture
me some more on either Saddam's or Iraq's history? Saddam established
a system. Any hope that the system would crumble upon his death has
as much foundation in reality as the hope that Kim Il Sung's system
would crumble upon his death.
> I hope USA have a better plan for peace than their war plan.
So do I. I am disappointed in most of what I have read about the
post-war plans.
> Now, did you read yours in some fairytale book ?
I have inferred it from my understanding of policies advocated by
Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.
> And then we can see who is the idiot, and who was fucked in the end.
Post war plans and justification for war are two different issues. We
can disagree on one and agree on the other. In the end, no matter
what happens or happened - the Iraqi people were gonna get fucked.
The question is how badly fucked and how long the fucking would go on.
> Do you know the word "guerilla" is spanish ? Why ? Because the Spanish
> fought a seven centuries war against the Muslims that settled in South
> Spain in the eighth century.
Do you have a cite for this? I have seen a number of explanations for
the term
and the one most familiar to me is this one:
"guerrilla - 1809, from Sp. guerrilla "body of skirmishers,
skirmishing warfare," lit. "little war," dim. of guerra "war," from a
Gmc. source (cf. O.H.G. werra "strife, conflict, war"). Acquired by
Eng. during the Peninsular War (1808-1814), purists failed in their
attempt to keep this word from taking on the sense properly belonging
to guerrillero "guerrilla fighter."
http://www.etymonline.com/g4etym.htm I had always assumed the word
picked up on popularity becuase Spain and France share the word
'guerre' for war. But I could be wrong.
> Modern armies never win against guerillas.
How about we not bother to debate when a guerilla is a guerlilla and
when a guerilla is a terrorist. Just use my definition as you seem
to lack the knowledge base to come up with a working definition on
your own. A guerilla is guerilla when (s)he has a significant amount
of popular support, that same persom becomes a terrorist when popular
support is marginal or non-existant. Societies can defeat
terrorists/guerillas examples include Beider-Meinhoff in Germany, The
Red Army in Japan and the Simbionese Liberation Army in the United
States.
Guerillas can be defeated by 'modern' armies, or sufficiently
suppressed that their effects are negligible, examples include the
Boer War, the Mao-Mao uprising in Kenya, the communist insurgency in
Malaysia 1948-1960, various 'Banana Wars' fought by the US in Central
America, the Shining Path in Peru, Malayan communist insurgency
1963-1966.
The issue that will face the US in Iraq is not wether there will be
some disaffected elements that will seek to expel the US by force.
The issue is their number and level of popular support. As I
understand post-war plans as currently envisioned there will be rising
resentment and I fear that the administration is headed towards
botching it up already.
Errant_Eye
> Guerillas can be defeated by 'modern' armies, or sufficiently
> suppressed that their effects are negligible, examples include the
> Boer War, the Mao-Mao uprising in Kenya, the communist insurgency in
> Malaysia 1948-1960, various 'Banana Wars' fought by the US in Central
> America, the Shining Path in Peru, Malayan communist insurgency
> 1963-1966.
1963-1966", not "Malayan".
Joel Chappel
> Read and learn Joel.
STOP !
This is enough now !
With this simple "Read and learn" you imply I didn't read correctly
your posts and I'm extremely ignorant.
After your previous insults, this ends up our discution before it
turns into a real argue.
You're so stubbornly hooked to your "opinions" that you probably even
didn't read me, focusing only on terms that suited your biased
explanations.
I'm fed up now. Think what you want about the way I end up this
thread. You may even think you won this. Since I'm so utterly ignorant
that was easy, wasn't it ? So nothing to be proud of anyway.
I do not care ! You remind me so much of the Nazis and their
brain-washed robots that your opinion is worth nothing. You just make
me sick.
Go on preaching, there are lots of witches to burn.
Errant_Eye
> With this simple "Read and learn" you imply I didn't read correctly
> your posts and I'm extremely ignorant.
I acknowledge that I may be wrong, show me a cite.
You parrot common information about Saddam's birthdate, those who are
truly familiar with his history know this it is wrong and they know
why.
You parrot standard conspiracy oriented opinion (without any evidence
to support it) information regarding the Baathist coup and I provided
information on the timing of the coup that shows why the opportunity
was taken then.
You make a generic "modern armies can defeat guerillas" statement and
I show you where you are wrong there.
> You're so stubbornly hooked to your "opinions" that you probably even
> didn't read me, focusing only on terms that suited your biased
> explanations.
My opinions are grounded in demonstrated facts. Your opinions are
based on a demonstrable lack of knowledge. My conclusions/opinions
may still be wrong, but at least I have a relatively detailed base of
knowledge upon which they are grounded. You apparently have only your
opinions.
> I'm fed up now. Think what you want about the way I end up this
> thread. You may even think you won this. Since I'm so utterly ignorant
> that was easy, wasn't it ? So nothing to be proud of anyway.
> I do not care ! You remind me so much of the Nazis and their
> brain-washed robots that your opinion is worth nothing. You just make
> me sick.
Fed up because I keep showing you that you are wrong so you end the
debate and walk off with your opinions in tact. Who is really the
robot nazi thinker here?
Steve
battle so that if he was wounded, his blood would not show against his vest,
and his troops would not see it and lose spirit.
Modern French Army troops wear brown pants