Should France Remain an Ally?

[UDawg]

NO!!! Considering every time we need or want help they always stand in the way. NO!!!

We America and Britian liberated them during WWII. We got no thanks. What a useless armpit that country is. It's too bad such a beautiful country is occupied by a pathetic bunch of corrupt appeasers.

Name the last time France won a war. Man! a hundred years ago?

I know this is total mindless flaming but I can't thinks straight on this. I do not know why we need a peoples approval who eat amphibians. AAAAAAAH!!!! FLAME FLAME FLAME!!! :rw: :rw: :rw: :rw: :rw:

Mark Twain said "If it ain't American and it ain't British, it's French!

[netviper13]

And we eat tortured baby cows, so we've both got our downsides. :beer:

I'm glad someone has the guts to stand up to the US. This whole business of defying the UN really has me miffed, as it eliminates the purpose of having the UN in the first place. It was created to prevent such things as what Dubya is now trying to do.

True, there is irrefutable evidence that Iraq lied, but there are still diplomatic solutions available. War is hell, and as such should be avoided at all costs. The great philosopher John Locke, who had a profound influence upon our government, would agree; his book "Two Treatises of Government" advocates removing from power any tyranical leaders (eg: dubya), and immediately removing (and possibly killing) those who knowingly kill civillians in war.

Diplomacy is key, only sadists and warhawks like war. All it produces is dead Americans, hate toward our country, and economic issues.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Well, the UN is quickly turning into the Leage of Nations. It is becoming very impotent, very quickly. I see the UN's power fading quick. If they don't support the US this time around, the US's role in the UN will change drastically. Bush already warned NATO of this, and the same to the UN. Who knows, maybe things will change. I wholeheartedly pray for a peaceful solution to this mess, but if push comes to shove, this nation's military, as well as the military of any other nation that fights alongside the United States will have my support ;)

[UDawg]

Come on netviper13 the state of an animals life before it is consumed is not as important as to the animal that is being eatin.

FROGS!!! FROGS!!! FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!!






FROGS!!! *croak*


:p

[Shadowx]

In the UN is the only place where the french have a say in because of there veto vote they have. At the end of the day they will figth with us you can count on that.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Or forfeit their right to have any say on the war or what happens with Iraq after if we have to go ahead without UN support ;)

[netviper13]

Heh, well call me gross, but in the days I still ate meat I really liked Frog Legs.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by netviper13
Heh, well call me gross, but in the days I still ate meat I really liked Frog Legs.

heh, too bad, if you would still eat meat you could go up to Canada and have lots and lots of frog legs, heh, I hear the frogs up there have many to spare:D :p

[Sazar]

Originally posted by [eNv]-LORD-eX-Bu
Well, the UN is quickly turning into the Leage of Nations. It is becoming very impotent, very quickly. I see the UN's power fading quick. If they don't support the US this time around, the US's role in the UN will change drastically. Bush already warned NATO of this, and the same to the UN. Who knows, maybe things will change. I wholeheartedly pray for a peaceful solution to this mess, but if push comes to shove, this nation's military, as well as the military of any other nation that fights alongside the United States will have my support ;)

the us itself is undermining the authority of the UN...

they have taken a far too aggresive role v/s iraq and are not exactly endearing themselves to many other countries by doing so...

IMO we should perhaps relax just a little bit and CONSIDER perhaps not continuing troop buildups and the like in order to bring a little more calm to the region...

and this is also a bad precedent... when one country unilateraly strikes another... I think it makes other countries a little more wary of their actions and more suspicious of the power that is the US... in a time where terrorism is the keyword in many a press conference... this may not be required...

sure its all well and good to attack... but the reasoning? iraq has done exactly WHAT in the past decade?

bush has enough troubles @ home to be considering going to war.. the economy has enough issues as it is to face another crunch with the uncertainty in the markets @ the mo...

[netviper13]

Originally posted by [eNv]-LORD-eX-Bu
heh, too bad, if you would still eat meat you could go up to Canada and have lots and lots of frog legs, heh, I hear the frogs up there have many to spare:D :p

We've got a creek that runs though this town that produces enough warped frogs and such, thanks though ;)

Plus I'm sure there's a great soy-based alternative, heh :D

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by Sazar
the us itself is undermining the authority of the UN...

No, we have been calling on the UN to enforce its sanctions, which they have been pretty lax in doing. The UN is undermining the US's authority by appointing Lybia to head the human rights council, and so forth. They have no problem in sending our men to die for their littlle adventures, the UN seems to have a double standard when it comes to the US. The UN has been stalling, and now it is crunch time. It is their fault that these things are happening right now, if they would have enforced their sanctions, we wouldn't be facing this war.

they have taken a far too aggresive role v/s iraq and are not exactly endearing themselves to many other countries by doing so...

The reason why we are being so aggresive now is because we have to catch up and cover alot of lost ground due to 8 years of inaction. We already have many enemies, we've always had enemies, just like all coutries.

IMO we should perhaps relax just a little bit and CONSIDER perhaps not continuing troop buildups and the like in order to bring a little more calm to the region...

Too late. Why wait till Iraq is ready to strike? By moving out of the region it will increase attacks against allies and it will send the message to these regimes that they can walk all over us and we will do nothing about it.

and this is also a bad precedent... when one country unilateraly strikes another...

There is no unilateral strike, we are still working with the UN. Even without the UN, Britain and many other allies will aide in the war.

I think it makes other countries a little more wary of their actions and more suspicious of the power that is the US... in a time where terrorism is the keyword in many a press conference... this may not be required...

We've given it 12 years, it hasnt' worked out. The enemy has adapted, why give them more time to dig in deeper and further upgrade their hardware? We don't want to wait any longer and have this turn into another North Korea.

sure its all well and good to attack... but the reasoning? iraq has done exactly WHAT in the past decade?

Almost daily Iraq violates the no fly zones and fires upon coalition aircraft. There is still the issue of a downed pilot that has not been accounted for. They have been violating the UN's sanctions and even admitted to violating the sanctions before the most recent.

bush has enough troubles @ home to be considering going to war.. the economy has enough issues as it is to face another crunch with the uncertainty in the markets @ the mo...

You have a point there, but then again, we can't afford to wait any longer. Who knows, maybe this war will have a positive effect on the economy unlike the first. This war should pay itself off anyways, since it will open up Iraqi oil :D

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by netviper13
We've got a creek that runs though this town that produces enough warped frogs and such, thanks though ;)

Plus I'm sure there's a great soy-based alternative, heh :D

ROFLMAO! Yeah, kinda like that tofurkey eh?:p

[Shinri Hikari]

As long as countries desire peace they must realise that the price for it is sometimes very high. When a country forgets that, it is already headed for its demise. Many countries have demonstrated that they are in their dying days, perhaps even the U.N. And though the U.S. is likely also crumbling it at least has shown that it has seen the clear and impending danger that Iraq symbolizes, if not now with Iraq then when and who will be the last incident we, the world, will tolerate.:argue: :matrix: :rw: :kill:

[Sazar]

matters of opinion more than anything else I would say.. in your posts and mine m8 :)

IMO the UN is doing what it needs to do... no more/no less... they contend that iraq has not been actively pursuing a program to develop WMD... their inspectors had unfettered access to many strategic sites in Iraq and yielded nothing of great importance...

I know the US and britain KNOW that iraq has unaccounted for warheads and what not... because THEY provided it to the country.... (would the sales of anthrax to iraq NOT have violated SOME un treaties? if so why is the US exempt from sanctions?)

the US did not believe Iraq to pose a threat to the world till the events in 2001... and then boom... iraq is enemy no.1 ?

north korea has an ACTIVE nuclear program... is in possession of nuclear weapons... has removed surveilance materials... has no tradeable commodities like the oil of iraq and hence has nothing to lose... has millions of its citizens working in slave camps... has far worse human rights violations than Iraq and frankly over the past several years has been more aggresive than iraq... and yet what is the stance taken v/s one of the original members of the bush described AXIS OF TERROR? where are the rumblings there? we have said that north korea is considered less dangerous than iraq ? the logic being ?

I did not say anything about removing us presence in the mid east... I Think it is KEY to learning more about the cultures/peoples and removing many stereotypes and prejudices... to educate... but troop buildups will not sway public opinion in the favor of the US...

the coalition that will strike iraq consists of ? basically world leaders more than willing to kiss arse because they believe they wll be on the winning side... blair is NOT going by widespread public opinion NOT to go to war unilateraly (ok... us and britain)... austrlia's premier had a vote of no confidence against him and FAILED... the vote arising from his decision to send aussie troops into iraq... hence the whole coalition thinger sort of seems a bit more shaky than bush will care to admit...

I will reiterate that iraq has done nothing threatening v/s the international community... iraq claims to shoot down planes for violating its soverign air space... and the allied forces bomb SAM sites to protect their troops/weaponry... tit for tat basically...

the sanctions were ridiculous to start with... as are the sanctions v/s some other countries... saddam is NOT suffering by way of sanctions but the iraqi civilians are... regardless of who the finger should be pointed @... it is convenient enough to say that the sanctions do not help :)

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Shinri Hikari
As long as countries desire peace they must realise that the price for it is sometimes very high. When a country forgets that, it is already headed for its demise. Many countries have demonstrated that they are in their dying days, perhaps even the U.N. And though the U.S. is likely also crumbling it at least has shown that it has seen the clear and impending danger that Iraq symbolizes, if not now with Iraq then when and who will be the last incident we, the world, will tolerate.:argue: :matrix: :rw: :kill:

the world will tolerate ? :)

no one person can speak for the opinions of over 6 billion people...

[Shinri Hikari]

Then how long would you plan for inaction? When Iraq has one nuke, or maybe two? Or perhaps when he uses one, or posibly two. How about when he can shoot at lybia, or the U.K. Is that all right to you, or will it take more. The point being that the time is NOW! We have already waited too long and the price is all too high as it is. Or would you like 1,000,000,000 to DIE before we do something about this? Think on that...:eek:

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by Sazar
matters of opinion more than anything else I would say.. in your posts and mine m8 :)

Sure alot of it is opinion, but alot of it is also common sense ;)

IMO the UN is doing what it needs to do... no more/no less...

What the UN is doing is further complicating the issue and stalling in hopes that the coming of summer and unbearable heat will deter our forces from launching their offensive. It wont' work.

they contend that iraq has not been actively pursuing a program to develop WMD...

Huh? The UN has never said anything of the sort. Why are the inspectors there? their job is not to disarm Iraq, it is to ensure compliance to their sanctions(finally :rolleyes: ). The UN wouldn't bother to send inspectors and get involved if they knew that Iraq was not persuing weapons of mass destruction.

their inspectors had unfettered access to many strategic sites in Iraq and yielded nothing of great importance...

LOL, sure ;) The inspectors are always followed around by Iraqi troops and a large number of people in order to intimidate them. They are not allowed into places immediately like they are supposed to be and they keep getting the runaround by Iraq. In the resolution they also get unfettered access to Iraqi scientists, that has not materialized, the inspectors have not declared that a violation however since many of them are seeking to drag this out as well.

I know the US and britain KNOW that iraq has unaccounted for warheads and what not... because THEY provided it to the country.... (would the sales of anthrax to iraq NOT have violated SOME un treaties? if so why is the US exempt from sanctions?)

LOL, sure we provided weapons to Hussein, we were fighting Iran, it was in our best interest at the time. Alliances change, situations change.

the US did not believe Iraq to pose a threat to the world till the events in 2001... and then boom... iraq is enemy no.1 ?

Haha, where did you get that information? We fought a war with them back in the early 90's remember? we have been patrolling their skies and reducing their potency. We have been pushing for inspectors and for inspectors to do their job for 12 years. We have been pushing for complinace for 12 years. Even Clinton bombed Iraq, he almost launched a second Gulf War back in 98', but then weapons inspectors went back in, were immediately kicked out again, but Clinton's administration didn't do anything about it. Iraq didn't just become a threat or a concern, they have been, for a long long time. Don't try and twist things around.

north korea has an ACTIVE nuclear program... is in possession of nuclear weapons... has removed surveilance materials... has no tradeable commodities like the oil of iraq and hence has nothing to lose... has millions of its citizens working in slave camps... has far worse human rights violations than Iraq and frankly over the past several years has been more aggresive than iraq... and yet what is the stance taken v/s one of the original members of the bush described AXIS OF TERROR? where are the rumblings there? we have said that north korea is considered less dangerous than iraq ? the logic being ?

Guess what? We have a carrier heading to the peninsula RIGHT NOW, we are also bringing more firepower into that region. Sure, we aren't doing anything :rolleyes:

I did not say anything about removing us presence in the mid east... I Think it is KEY to learning more about the cultures/peoples and removing many stereotypes and prejudices... to educate... but troop buildups will not sway public opinion in the favor of the US...

It takes time to move that many troops, think whatever you want of it, you can't just move that many troops and that much equiptment all at once. If we are so prejudiced against those cultures we would be attacking anyone with brown skin and a beard walking around here. The fact that we are cooperating with many countries in the region and even including them in the dialogue should be enough proof that we are not sterotyping anyone.

the coalition that will strike iraq consists of ? basically world leaders more than willing to kiss arse because they believe they wll be on the winning side... blair is NOT going by widespread public opinion NOT to go to war unilateraly (ok... us and britain)... austrlia's premier had a vote of no confidence against him and FAILED... the vote arising from his decision to send aussie troops into iraq... hence the whole coalition thinger sort of seems a bit more shaky than bush will care to admit...

War is never popular. It shouldn't be, if it is, there is a serious problem. Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Georgia and others are also involved in the ongoing situation. It is not unilateral.

I will reiterate that iraq has done nothing threatening v/s the international community... iraq claims to shoot down planes for violating its soverign air space... and the allied forces bomb SAM sites to protect their troops/weaponry... tit for tat basically...

Well, that is your opinion. Today Powell informed the UN and hopefully it will be enough to sway these fence sitters onto our side.

the sanctions were ridiculous to start with... as are the sanctions v/s some other countries... saddam is NOT suffering by way of sanctions but the iraqi civilians are... regardless of who the finger should be pointed @... it is convenient enough to say that the sanctions do not help :)

The sanctions would help if they were properly enforced. The civilian population in Iraq suffers due to Hussein and his regime. All the aid sent into Iraq never reaches the people, only when the cameras are rolling. Hussein could easily feed his people and improve their living conditions, but instead he decides to hand out machineguns, assault rifles, handguns and all sorts of weapons to the civilian population in hopes that they will stick around long enough to slow the oncoming coalition forces. He uses them as human shields. It simply won't work ;)

[pastor]

http://www.come-shopping.co.uk/directory_photos/food_and_drink_fine_wine2.jpg

http://www.mallorcarestaurant.com/graphics/french.gif

http://www.radkosales.com/images/French-Baguette-Jr.jpg


Hey Udawng : Froggies own u !!! :D (War is hell :p )

[Sazar]

well reading your posts... you seem to think I don't understand any of the issues @ hand and regardless of what I post you will surely disagree... hence to avoid an unpleasant situation... I will just say that I disagree with some of your points and contend that others are innacurate...

I will contend that I do not advocate war... nor that the actions george bush is taking are prudent in light of various other factors...

I am not of the opinion that war will solve anything other than cause more uncertainty... and am in favor of exile/deposition of saddam by some way OTHER than assasination and turning him into a martyr :)

[LORD-eX-Bu]

I have nothing against people having different views as I do man. Thats what this thread is for, to have a discussion. Maybe I came off a little hostile, if so, I apologize. I read your posts, I took yours and everyone elses views into consideration. I don't disregard them just because they are different from my own. What type of person would I be if I did that? Either way, its up to you, nice talkin' to ya ;)

[UDawg]

Originally posted by pastor
http://www.come-shopping.co.uk/directory_photos/food_and_drink_fine_wine2.jpg

http://www.mallorcarestaurant.com/graphics/french.gif

http://www.radkosales.com/images/French-Baguette-Jr.jpg


Hey Udawng : Froggies own u !!! :D (War is hell :p )


LMAO!! OK ok that one was funny. I'll give you that. Score one for the Frogs.


:argh: ....but lets not get off topic here. This is not a policy thread or a Iraq thread. This is a French flaming thread.

I am really sick and tired of this corrupt country have any kind of (croak) voice in the UN. Allowing the French to have a vote is proof enough that the UN is irrelevant. Any country that would fix a skating event should not be trusted with the keys to a bathroom let alone a veto vote. :confused: Who invited them any way? Who asked them of thier opinion? Before we asked them to back us they said no.

Gee I wonder if the fact that they sell weapons to Iraq and buy oil from Iraq has anything to do with thier decision.

why don't they just finish the eastern wall extend it all the way around the country but point the guns and canons inward so they don't leave and foul up the air with thier presents. Talk about America's guilty past, man! lets look at what the French did in Africa.

I get so out of my goard when I go off on the French. worthless I tell ya worthless.

the only good thing they ever did was help us during the War for Independence and some good wine but that's it. Oh and there was Michel Platini even though he was great he still was french.

[Jovi]

Originally posted by Sazar
sure its all well and good to attack... but the reasoning? iraq has done exactly WHAT in the past decade?


Does 15 years still count? (http://www.barzan.com/halabja.html).
We all know terrorists are actively pursuing these WMD. I would hate to see images of American children. Be warned. These pictures are graphic. Time to get off our butts and do something. The United States was accused of sitting on it's hands during WW1 and WW2. Now we ask the world not to sit on theirs. The proof is there, the violations are more than evident, and the resloutions have been signed several times by many countries that there will be consquences. If the Security Councel cannot do as they plegded, I fear the UN is irrelevent.

[netviper13]

If you think terror will stop from an Iraqi regime change, that's nothing but a utopian fantasy. The defense department already damn near guarantees another 9/11 if we attack Iraq.

There is no evidence they are planning to use weapons offensively, so why risk having 2,000+ innocent Americans involved in a political war again?

Yes Saddam isn't the nicest guy, and yes he did gas his own people; but how much genocide do the American people write off every day? The American Indian genocide is referred to as a "natural depopulation due to disease" in our textbooks. Americans, it seems, are very good at covering their committed genocide and trumpeting others'. What we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is no better than what Saddam did, yet our president didn't get forcibly removed from power for those atrocities.

Perhaps if America stops being a land of hypocrisy, a regime change can be legitimated. In the meantime, we've got skeletons in our own closet that need to be cleared before Saddam's closet is looked at.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

The department of defense also gaurantees another 9/11 even if we don't attack Iraq.

We had a choice in Japan, either drop the bomb, or risk 1,000,000 casualties. Now, I don't know about you, but I put more worth on my own men. They were the enemy back then, everyone was trained to fight, and you know they would have. Who knows how much more blood would have been shed if we had taken the Japanese mainland without dropping the bomb.

Every country has its problems and not so great moments in its history. Sure this is horrible, I don't excuse it, but it happened. There is no way to change it.

[netviper13]

And that's exactly how Saddam probably rationalized the killing of the Kurds. In the same way the Japanese were a threat to our sovreignty and way of life, the Kurds were a threat to Saddam and his people's. Not that I'm justifying the slaughter, of course, but I'm just saying it's just like our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (btw, Japan had already offered a surrender, but it had one condition and we wanted an unconditional surrender, so we bombed them)