About war on Irak...
Arwen
I hope you''ll excuse me to post this here, but I am french and I'd like to
explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in a war on Irak.
A war against Hussein : Okay.
A war against Irak : No way! Thousands of innocent people are going to die!
That's why we don't agree with Bush. We are NOT with Hussein! The newspapers
who say that have not understood!
Please, don't believe those who say that we are stupid.
We care about life of those who will probably die, Irak residents and
American who'll fight in Irak.
stark
Couple of Points:
1) Its spelled "Iraq" in most English countries. I'm not trying to jump on
you for spelling, since you aren't a native English speaker, just trying to
make sure future posts have the correct spelling. I have my newsreader
ignoring all posts with the text [Ii]raq in them. (Note: This means if you
change the subject, I wont see it anymore. In case you were hoping for a
reply)
2) Innocent people die in wars. Thats why wars suck. But you can't use
that as a reason to never go to war. How many people will if no one
attacks? Maybe very few. Maybe quite a number. Not even the wise can see
all ends. (Translation, with a twist: No one knows whether what they are
doing is the best solution when they are doing it).
3) I doubt that Chirac and the French government's main reason for not
supporting any attack on Iraq is the welfare of innocent children. Much
more likely they are worried about their petroleum imports which, last I
heard, had a rather large chunk coming from Iraq. I doubt that the US is
the only country who cares about Middle East oil.
There. After 6 months, someone tricked me into posting on an idiotic
political thread.
--
011100110111010001100001011100100110101100111010001000000101010001101000
011101010010000001000110011001010110001000100000001100010011001100100000
001100010011010100111010001100100011000100111010001100000011000000100000
010001010101001101010100001000000011001000110000001100000011001100001010
Elaine McDermid
mind...there are real people in this group and the present ' situation ' is
on alot of people's mind :-]
"Arwen" <mousse-...@caramail.com> wrote in message
news:3e4bcad6$0$14751$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
Skyrider
<elainem...@lineone.net> wrote:
>"Arwen" <mousse-...@caramail.com> wrote in message
>news:3e4bcad6$0$14751$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
>> I hope you''ll excuse me to post this here, but I am french and I'd like
>> to explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in a war on Irak.
>> A war against Hussein : Okay.
>> A war against Irak : No way! Thousands of innocent people are going to
>>die!
And you think they'll be *less* innocent if Iraq supplied smallpox,
anthrax etc to terrorist groups to kill them?? Sadly this is the real
world and shit happens.
>> That's why we don't agree with Bush. We are NOT with Hussein! The
>> newspapers who say that have not understood!
>> Please, don't believe those who say that we are stupid.
Nope.. just French.
>> We care about life of those who will probably die, Irak residents and
>> American who'll fight in Irak.
Indeed.... and no doubt Chirac is right... it is far better to let
Hussein develop and supply terrorist organizations with nuclear and
biological weapons or maybe to use himself, against the rest of the
world.
Those of us who remember the way the French caved in to Hitler in WW2
will recognize Chirac and his actions for what they are. Hence
reinforcing the reason why people believe the French flag consists of
three white stripes.
deGaulle come back. your country needs you!!
The way to deal with a warmongering dictator isn't to whimper
appeasement in a corner and hope he'll leave you alone, the answer is
to meet him head on!
Yes if he refuses to back down then people might get hurt and/or die
but the alternative is far, far worse.
>I quite agree with you...........I know this is cross posting ...but I don't
>mind...there are real people in this group and the present ' situation ' is
>on alot of people's mind :-]
Crossposting?? Hardly. Top posting just to annoy..... yes.
Skyrider
--
Visit the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang,
and leave *your* favourites!
http://www.odps.org
Darmok
Most likely, the only civilians who will die in Iraq are those who are
used as "human shields" ... either voluntarily, or by force.
"Those who forget history are bound to repeat it."
Let's go back to the early 1930's. If "the world" had stopped Hitler
BEFORE he built up his military forces and weapons, millions of lives
could have been saved (the same goes for stopping Japan's Emperor from
doing the same thing).
Frankly, I wish that this thing (and the Korean situation) could be
resolved peacefully. However, this is a "pay me now, or pay me later"
kind of situation. The 'future payment' is likely to be MUCH higher
in the cost of human life than is a 'near term payment'.
BTW, someone told me that the 1st thing you are taught how to do in
the French Armed Services, is to "walk in a single file line with your
hands over your head". Is this true?
"Mirab, with sails unfurled ..."
pluther
> explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in a war on Irak.
> A war against Hussein : Okay.
> A war against Irak : No way! Thousands of innocent people are going to die!
On both sides. If Hussein *does* have chemical and bio weapons,
which I don't see as unlikely, about the only thing that would push
him into using them is a war of aggression against him. He hasn't used
them despite frequent (about twice a month) bombing by the US for the
last ten years.
> That's why we don't agree with Bush. We are NOT with Hussein! The newspapers
> who say that have not understood!
Despite what CNN may claim, I think most Americans realize that not
being in favor of a senseless war is not the same thing as being
a supporter of Saddam Hussein. Sure, some people think that way, but
don't believe the stereotype of the ignorant American applies to all
(or even most) of us.
> Please, don't believe those who say that we are stupid.
> We care about life of those who will probably die, Irak residents and
> American who'll fight in Irak.
But our president knows that without a war, people will start questioning
all the other things that're going on, like our suddenly missing civil
rights, the parts of the constitution he's suspended, his corporate
corruption, the Republican Party's actions in the Florida elections,
his new Afghanistan oil pipeline, etc. etc. That's why he's pressing on
with the war, and has hired, so far, three different PR firms in addition
to the standard White House press corps, to sell it.
-Pat
Kal Alexander
(SNIP)
>
> BTW, someone told me that the 1st thing you are taught how to
do in
> the French Armed Services, is to "walk in a single file line
with your
> hands over your head". Is this true?
>
> "Mirab, with sails unfurled ..."
Similar to the training the Iraqi Royal Guard received. They
were taught to keep white rags clean by keeping them in baggies
under their shirts. They were taught 'In case of war, remove
from protective covering and wave wildly above your head.' Good
training, too. It worked well against our coalition forces. :-)
--
Later
Kal
----------
Do not anger the Cat, for they are a
subtle creature, and will pee on your
computer while you are gone.
R. Tursi
> > who say that have not understood!
>
> Despite what CNN may claim, I think most Americans realize that not
> being in favor of a senseless war is not the same thing as being
> a supporter of Saddam Hussein.
In fact, a large portion of us Americans are very against the
possibility of war ourselves. And hell, a good chunk of us think Bush
is an idiot. Still, that doesn't mean that we actually support Hussein
in any way, shape or form.
-Roe (Who incidentially, just officially switched over from the
Republican party to the Libitarian party. Woo!)
Skyrider
wrote:
>Darmok wrote:
>(SNIP)
>> BTW, someone told me that the 1st thing you are taught how to
>> do in the French Armed Services, is to "walk in a single file line
>> with your hands over your head". Is this true?
>Similar to the training the Iraqi Royal Guard received. They
>were taught to keep white rags clean by keeping them in baggies
>under their shirts. They were taught 'In case of war, remove
>from protective covering and wave wildly above your head.' Good
>training, too. It worked well against our coalition forces. :-)
you don't get much chance to surrender to cruise missiles and jet
fighters.....
Skyrider
>"Arwen" <mousse-...@caramail.com> wrote in message news:<3e4bcad6$0$14751$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr>...
>> I hope you''ll excuse me to post this here, but I am french and I'd like to
>> explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in a war on Irak.
>> A war against Hussein : Okay.
>> A war against Irak : No way! Thousands of innocent people are going to die!
>On both sides. If Hussein *does* have chemical and bio weapons,
>which I don't see as unlikely, about the only thing that would push
>him into using them is a war of aggression against him. He hasn't used
>them despite frequent (about twice a month) bombing by the US for the
>last ten years.
the missiles aren't really the problem. It's the likelihood of him
spreading death and destruction by selling/giving biological weapons
to terrorist groups....
.... look what happened all over Europe when Libya funded all those
terror groups??
Once Ronnie Raygun bombed Tripoli and killed his daughter, Colonel
Flakey realised the next move would be to finish him off... and the
funding to the terrorists dried up...
... now the IRA suddenly find it's 'time' to make peace..... yeah
right!
Maybe this time Saddam will get the message!!
Alessandro
> explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in a war on Irak.
The France is against any war because France love the regime of Saddam
because Mr Ussein sell oil to France at low price in change of arm and
guns and gas etc.
Germany instead is against the War because in Germany there are 4
millions of Turks and Germany hopes that Saddam kills other millions
of Kurds and Turks so they stop going to Germany.
Arwen
"OrionCA" <ori...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
2jio4vs8abf3sovlv...@4ax.com...
>
> we agree on that. However here in the United States we believe that
> the most fundamental reason is that Iraq is a French client with many
> military and commercial contracts outstanding. It is not in your
> national interest to see the regime changed in Iraq.
>
> Coupled with this your media has a natural socialist bent that
> encourages actions contrary to the interests of the United States.
> You are seeing a very distorted and unfair view of American sentiment
> about this war.
You're seeing a distorted view of France too...
We don't want war but we don't want Hussein in power
> anymore - he's far too dangerous to world peace. There is no choice
> but to remove him and the B'aath Party from control of Iraq. We hope
> to restore freedom to the Iraqi people in the process. Yes, Iraqi
> civilians will die if we go to war. But the risk of further
> destabilization to the region is too great to continue the status quo.
> --
> A mime is a terrible thing to baste.
Anyway, I know I can't connect your president's and newspapers' words with
your own mind. USA and France have a bad opinion of each other. I really
hope this war won't be, and that Hussein will fall.
Arwen
"R. Tursi" <roet...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
56b5a8b6.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > > That's why we don't agree with Bush. We are NOT with Hussein! The
newspapers
> > > who say that have not understood!
> >
> > Despite what CNN may claim, I think most Americans realize that not
> > being in favor of a senseless war is not the same thing as being
> > a supporter of Saddam Hussein.
>
> In fact, a large portion of us Americans are very against the
> possibility of war ourselves. And hell, a good chunk of us think Bush
> is an idiot. Still, that doesn't mean that we actually support Hussein
> in any way, shape or form.
I totally agree with you.
Arwen
"Skyrider" <od...@cyberscriber.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
2r5o4vk7pptp7c81v...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:52:00 -0000, "Elaine McDermid"
> <elainem...@lineone.net> wrote:
> >"Arwen" <mousse-...@caramail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3e4bcad6$0$14751$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
>
> >> I hope you''ll excuse me to post this here, but I am french and I'd
like
> >> to explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in a war on
Irak.
> >> A war against Hussein : Okay.
>
> >> A war against Irak : No way! Thousands of innocent people are going to
> >>die!
>
> And you think they'll be *less* innocent if Iraq supplied smallpox,
> anthrax etc to terrorist groups to kill them?? Sadly this is the real
> world and shit happens.
I spoke of the citizens who'll be killed.
>
> >> That's why we don't agree with Bush. We are NOT with Hussein! The
> >> newspapers who say that have not understood!
>
> >> Please, don't believe those who say that we are stupid.
>
> Nope.. just French.
That is racism.
>
> >> We care about life of those who will probably die, Irak residents and
> >> American who'll fight in Irak.
>
> Indeed.... and no doubt Chirac is right... it is far better to let
> Hussein develop and supply terrorist organizations with nuclear and
> biological weapons or maybe to use himself, against the rest of the
> world.
>
> Those of us who remember the way the French caved in to Hitler in WW2
> will recognize Chirac and his actions for what they are. Hence
> reinforcing the reason why people believe the French flag consists of
> three white stripes.
>
> deGaulle come back. your country needs you!!
>
Clinton come back! Bush is too stupid!
Arwen
"Alessandro" <ale...@vizzavi.it> a écrit dans le message de news:
622290b0.03021...@posting.google.com...
> "Arwen" <mousse-...@caramail.com> wrote in message
news:<3e4bcad6$0$14751$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr>...
> > I hope you''ll excuse me to post this here, but I am french and I'd like
to
> > explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in a war on
Irak.
>
> The France is against any war because France love the regime of Saddam
> because Mr Ussein sell oil to France at low price in change of arm and
> guns and gas etc.
I could reply that Italy wants to kill Mr Saddam in order to get all the oil
easyier, and but I prefer shutting up and not entering in a useless
conversation.
Moreover, do you know that your president is a stupid guy? But that is a
detail.
>
> Germany instead is against the War because in Germany there are 4
> millions of Turks and Germany hopes that Saddam kills other millions
> of Kurds and Turks so they stop going to Germany.
I am a student, and I'll go to Italy very soon. I hope I wont meet mens like
you.
Darmok
<mousse-...@caramail.com> wrote:
>Clinton come back! Bush is too stupid!
Compared to you, Arwen, he's a bloody genius!
Jaximili
Arwen <mousse-...@caramail.com> inputted:
> "Alessandro" <ale...@vizzavi.it> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 622290b0.03021...@posting.google.com...
>> "Arwen" <mousse-...@caramail.com> wrote in message
> news:<3e4bcad6$0$14751$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr>...
>>> I hope you''ll excuse me to post this here, but I am french and I'd
>>> like to explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in
>>> a war on Irak.
>>
>> The France is against any war because France love the regime of
>> Saddam because Mr Ussein sell oil to France at low price in change
>> of arm and guns and gas etc.
Use grammar and spelling often in pre-school?
> I could reply that Italy wants to kill Mr Saddam in order to get all
> the oil easyier, and but I prefer shutting up and not entering in a
> useless conversation.
Good idea. Just because everyone else is expressing nationalist ("France"
really isn't a "race", exactly...) doesn't mean they should.
> Moreover, do you know that your president is a stupid guy? But that
> is a detail.
Honestly, how could people live in a country with him and NOT know it? But
yet, plenty do just that.
"Where have all... the freedoms... gone... whiiiile tiiiime passssesss..."
--
-----------
Jaximili
-----------
Erase all history
to e-mail me.
Kal Alexander
(SNIP)
>
> Clinton come back! Bush is too stupid!
>
>
see.....
Bombed an asprin factory..
Bombed an empty terrorist camp..
Bombed Milosavic out of office because he was killing his own
people, yet our bombs killed more than he did..
Etc....
Yeah, Clinton is a great choice.
Arwen
"Darmok" <coonc...@alltel.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
plbq4vsk007vdpa5s...@4ax.com...
Bush, a genius! Let me laugh.
Ashez2ashes
> Moreover, do you know that your president is a stupid guy? But that is a
> detail.
And yours is smart? Come on, all politicians are just a image for the
media. The real work and decisions are made by people behind the
scenes most of us don't even know.
SteveD3
> <mousse-...@caramail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I hope you''ll excuse me to post this here, but I am french and I'd
>>like to explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in a
>>war on Irak. A war against Hussein : Okay.
>>A war against Irak : No way! Thousands of innocent people are going to
>>die! That's why we don't agree with Bush. We are NOT with Hussein! The
>>newspapers who say that have not understood!
>>Please, don't believe those who say that we are stupid.
>>We care about life of those who will probably die, Irak residents and
>>American who'll fight in Irak.
>>
>>
>
I have mixed feelings on this upcomming conflict. I have friends who have
been called up already. That makes it a personal loss because if they goto
war, there is a chance they may never come home. I to am listed as
inactive, but I can be recalled at a moments notice, whis is worse for me,
I did my time with the army, now I just want to live in peace with my
family. This is a bad loss for them because if I get called up, I would
leave and face the chance of never returning.
I dont want to see a war, but I dont want to see saddam in power either. I
feel no matter what we do he will do what he wants, no matter what
sanctions are placed on him. Unless he is removed from power, he will
continue to make weapons and threaten to use them. I could go on and on
about saddam, and what he has done in the past, what what he des to his
people, to say that a war is justified, but I won't. I dont want to see a
war. I want the future people talk about, one where we all get along. I
know Im a sick man to want that, because it will never happen in my life
time, but I can dream.
When I watch CNN all I see are people whose lifes stopped, and changed
suddenly. Family members who might have to explain to a child why mommy or
daddy is never comming home. It makes me sad. While the topic is "off
subject " for a HP group. I think its a topic that can not be avoided,
after all in one way or another every one of us will be effected if it
comes to war. Think about it......
-Steve
CPT.(O-3) US Army (inactive)
MOS 97B-4
Samuel
Here in Canada we worry about terrorism....Iraq is a country that has proven
in the past that is has a propensity for using Chemical weapons against (1)
Other Countries (Iran) (2) It's own Prisoners, and its own...the Kurds
(amount 10 0000)...I say we have no choice but to invade and protect our
selves...
It is not our job to find the weapons of mast destruction, but Iraq's
responsibility to prove they either destroyed them or dish them up to be
destroyed...it is that simple...
You almost should like a French cowards, remember WW2, the French send many
off the gas chambers and back stabbed the Allies...
BaronjosefR
> >explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in a war on
Irak.
> >A war against Hussein : Okay.
> >A war against Irak : No way! Thousands of innocent people are going to
die!<<<<<<<<<<
If French people don't want to see anyone die in "useless wars", why is France
currently in military hotspots throughout the African continent protecting the
diamond and gold trade that fuel bitter and deadly civil wars? To have an
honest and fair view against war is one thing, but to be so blind as to ignore
the hypocrisy in your own governments position is just stupidity.
Ashen-shugar
"Samuel" <nospam@nospam. ca> wrote:
You raise a few good points there. As a U.S. citizen, I wonder about
why there was a big hurry to go after Saddam when it appears to me at
least that al-Quaida and North Korea are the bigger, more immanent
threats to our national security. But I'm willing to give Mr. Bush the
benefit of the doubt since he has performed so admirably since 9/11.
(He's an infinitly better president than Clinton ever was - but that's
beside the point.)
Anyway, the U.S. has never pretended that its actions with regard to the
Iraqi situation was motivated by anything other than our national
interests. By the same token, I can accept Russia's and China's
opposition to what we're doing - they haven't pretended otherwise,
either. But France and Germany have lost all credibility in my opinion.
France, after all, was the nation that drafted U.N. resolution 1441
which promised "serious consequences" if Iraq was found in material
breach of its obligations to disarm, or show proof of such disarmament.
All nations on the security council believe Iraq to be in material
breach. Therefore, the security council is obligated, by 1441, to
impose those serious consequences. The United States and the United
Kingdom have suggested military force as those consequences. France and
Germany are simply playing obstructionist. If they had something
besides force in mind for those serious consequences, why haven't we
heard about it???? All we've heard are calls for delays and an increase
in the number of inspectors. That's simply laughable. Come on, Chirac!
Be creative! Come up with *something* that meets the definition of
consequences!
Next point. Germany, France, and Belgium are acting in a morally
reprehensible way with regard to Turkey. This nation is a member of the
NATO alliance and has asked NATO for aid in protecting itself against a
potential attack. 16 member nations agreed to help, but the measure was
blocked by these three countries. At this point, I can only conclude
that the governments of those countries are racist and predjudiced
against Muslims. They previously blocked Turkey from entering the EU,
and are now willing to let it be invaded.
Third point. France and Germany have several billion dollars worth of
illegal oil deals with Saddam Hussein. (So does the U.S.
vice-president, but yet we're acting contrary to that interest. Make of
that what you will.) I'm betting that they're afraid they'll lose money
if Sadam Hussein is forcibly removed.
Fourth. Would somebody please shut German Foreign Minister Joska
Fischer up?!?! I can't believe he had the temerity to scold Donald
Rumsfeld, saying that after an invasion of Iraq, the U.S. would have to
keep troops there for a several years and questioning whether the U.S.
has the staying power. Someone should remind Mr. Fischer that we've had
troops in *his* country for 58 years. Not quite as long as the Roman
legions, but long enough to show staying power. Additionally, we've had
troops in Korea for 50 years. Not bad for a country that is only two
and a quarter centuries old.
Since the Germans don't really like us any more, I suggest that we take
the 70,000 U.S. troops that are currently stationed in Germany, with
their 70,000 dependants - and leave. I wonder if the Turks would like
to have them spend their money in the Turkish economy. Or better yet,
the U.S. economy could use a boost. I'm sure I could find a few
congressmen who'd love to have a new military base open up in their
district. Besides, being in Germany served a purpose when we were
worried about the Soviets. In the post-Cold war era, they'd be better
utilized elsewhere.
If France and Germany were against war because they actually care about
civilians, I would respect that. But I honestly cannot believe that
their governments do.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Kevin
--
Germs attack people where they are weakest.
This explains the number of head colds.
Ashen-shugar
plut...@my-deja.com (pluther) wrote:
> like our suddenly missing civil
> rights, the parts of the constitution he's suspended
And is the sky green in your world too?
Pluto (M)
"Arwen" <mousse-...@caramail.com> wrote in message
news:3e4bcad6$0$14751$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
First off, it's Iraq.
Secondly, this is so unbelievably off topic it's not even funny.
Thirdly, why would anyone care, regardless?
Alessandro
> "Alessandro" <ale...@vizzavi.it> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 622290b0.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Arwen" <mousse-...@caramail.com> wrote in message
> news:<3e4bcad6$0$14751$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr>...
> > > I hope you''ll excuse me to post this here, but I am french and I'd like
> to
> > > explain why J. Chirac doesn't want France to play a role in a war on
> Irak.
> >
> > The France is against any war because France love the regime of Saddam
> > guns and gas etc.
>
> you.
I also prefer do not meet nazist people. I'd like to see iraqi people
free, you prefer that Saddam kill all people and kurds. (500.000 man
women and children have killed by letal gas and bombs on villags and
children die also because with the billions dollars that saddam has
had from "food for oil" He and his staff has used the money to buy
weapons and yacth and so on)
Sorry for my bad english
(p.s. pacifist Love Hitler regime , Stalin regime , Milosevich regime,
Castro regime NorthKorean Regime and all dictators that kill millions
people, why?)
Skyrider
I agree with *most* of what you say... but what's wrong with Castro??
BaronjosefR
Skyrider<<<<
You mean besides the thousands of political prisoners he has executed? Nothing
much, actually.
Skyrider
>I agree with *most* of what you say... but what's wrong with Castro??
>You mean besides the thousands of political prisoners he has executed? Nothing
>much, actually.
who says that...... don't tell me.... the yanks and the 'economic
exiles' they sponsor..... ??
and of course the yanks never execute anyone... unless they're black
or mentally subnormal......
Ksnidget
<od...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
>On 17 Feb 2003 21:51:52 GMT, baron...@aol.com (BaronjosefR) wrote:
>
>>I agree with *most* of what you say... but what's wrong with Castro??
>
>>You mean besides the thousands of political prisoners he has executed?
>Nothing
>>much, actually.
>
>who says that...... don't tell me.... the yanks and the 'economic
>exiles' they sponsor..... ??
Um....
The guy that came to my Spanish class who was a political
prisoner, but just kept long enough to be tortured and released.
Wasn't bad enough to be executed. But knew of people who
were. Some of the stories were pretty horrifying, but seemed
quite genuine.
Wasn't a doctor or lawyer that got sponsered to be in
the US. Most of them don't have to escape hidden in
some random plane part.
He seemed very real and truthful, to me.
Not like the Soviet (yes I am dating myself....GACK) teacher
who was a member of the Communist Party who came to my
school. She practically had a blinking "I am trying to brain
wash you" sign over her head. Kinda funny, sort of.
>and of course the yanks never execute anyone... unless they're black
>or mentally subnormal......
But not for opposing the government.
Mostly because they are poor more than anything, which
does include many who have the sorts of descriptors you
used.
K.
S Herendeen
Ashen-shugar
Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com> wrote:
> and of course the yanks never execute anyone...
Depends on the state. Some states have the death penalty, some don't.
I am one American who is all for abolishing it in America.
> unless they're black
> or mentally subnormal......
Not at all. The state is just as eager to kill white murderers as black
ones. Timothy McVeigh being done in with lethal injection, for example.
Dave Pouliot
mention that it is refreshing to see someone post something along these
lines in the midst of what has rapidly become a flame war.
Secondly, I would like to voice my thoughts on this subject. I personally
feel that George Bush (W) is in the wrong in this situation. Some of his
intentions are just, however, we should all (being a literary group) know
where the road leads which is paved with good intentions. From my point of
view, President Bush seems to have been trying desperately to safe our
faltering economy from day one. Every major move he has made has been,
according to history books, a move which "boosts the economy tremendously."
The problem, however, is that he is doing it franticly and all of them at
once. Tax breaks stir the economy, war stirs the economy. But problems
arise when one considers the fact that taxes pay for war. Suddenly our
"genius" president is trying to catapult us into a war we are no longer
financially ready for. The economy remains low, so no he and his cabinet
are pushing to get this show on the road, and may go down in history as the
president who turned the world against us.
I thank anyone who took the time to read this, and apologize if I wandered
from topic.
Dave
"SteveD3" <ste...@mp3q.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93225E0B...@65.24.2.12...
Skyrider
<res1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Firstly, I would like to thank you for posting an intelligent response, and
>mention that it is refreshing to see someone post something along these
>lines in the midst of what has rapidly become a flame war.
Remember Agincourt!!
Kal Alexander
One point that seems to be lost is the purpose of the inspectors.
Most people who oppose military action feel the inspectors should
be allowed to finish their job of disarming Iraq before any other
action is taken. There is a problem with that. The inspectors
are not supposed to disarm Iraq. Iraq was supposed to disarm
itself, and the inspector's job was to verify that action. What
the inspectors have found, and in some cases, haven't found,
clearly shows Iraq has not done what it was obligated to do.
Now, Bush could decide to sit back and wait until there are a lot
of deaths. Unrestrained, there certainly will be. Saddam has a
long history of this, and if the world backs off at this time, he
will see that as a green light. Saddam poses a clear threat to
our economy, and it is Bush's obligation to his oath of office to
act. It would be immoral for him to wait until a lot of people
die to prove his point. It is also immoral to wait until a lot
of people die to act.
--
Later
Kal
---
Homeland Security will be monitoring our
internet. Don't worry, you won't notice a
thing. For more info:
http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/
Steven Tursi
> -Roe (Who incidentially, just officially switched over from the
> Republican party to the Libitarian party. Woo!)
Roe,
Welcome to the libertarian party. Do yourself a favor and read "The
Law" by Frederick Bastiat. Required reading for any libertarian. Being
150 years old, it's not copyrighted, so do a search and you can read
the entire text online without paying for the book.
Your brother in NY
Froggy83
"Pluto (M)" <plu...@nospam.flash.net> schreef in bericht
news:12T3a.1254$194.16...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
well, I'm proud to support the "french cowards"and "german weazels".... i
think it is really pathetic to claim support of european countries for this
stupid so-called war on terrorism because we were "saved" by
america/canada/great britain....
england was indeed one of the first to fight..but hey, they were under
attack themselves. france was half collaborating/half under siege, and the
vichy republic is nothing to be proud of. But the americans weren't so eager
to help out! it took a pearl harbor remember, to start them helping out.
Isolationalism was big in those days!! And at least the "ancient european
countries"aren't propagating isolationalism, we would just like to avoid a
war which is sooo unnecessary and will not fix things...the next saddam will
stand up in no time.
oh and canada people: you're quite a bit further away from iraq than iran
is.... i wouldn't worry to much...i wonder if saddam hussein even knows
canada exists.....
bush and companions are just trying to make people affraid and afterwards
comfort them with war...it's disgusting.
saddam's a shit-head and he doesn't deserve to be a ruler, but there are
some issues in countries in the middle east that you just can't fix...
totally offtopic so how bout this:
could harry knock saddam off his throne? a nice clean solution perhaps?