But was that the right decision? ~;)Quote:
Unless we AGAIN decide it's in our best interest to fight Germany, you're absolutely right. Because make no mistake about it, that's why we did it both times we chose to.
Printable View
But was that the right decision? ~;)Quote:
Unless we AGAIN decide it's in our best interest to fight Germany, you're absolutely right. Because make no mistake about it, that's why we did it both times we chose to.
You just said much of what I said about the matter, yet you disagree? :dizzy2: It's not whining to point it out. I don't see discussing it as whining. France screwed us royally. They screwed the Iraqi's too. I'll call it for what it is, rather than keep silent when the matter comes up. Nothing wrong with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I snipped out your portion about national self interest. That is an area where we definitely depart. I do not believe civilized/developed/democratic nations should do only what they perceive as being in their own self interest. The sort of view you suggest is a rather ruthless one that only leads to bigger problems down the road. I almost hear Gordon Gecko's voice, "Greed is good" emanating from that...
Well, chief, I hate to break it to you, GREED IS GOOD! Where do you think capitalism comes from? Oliver Stone can make as much Socialist propaganda as he wants to: ambition is always good, corruption never is. We all must draw a line.
I don't want you to think I have a cash register for a heart or something like that, because I do not view cash flow exclusively as a metric of success. But let's take a pet cause. Let's take Africa, that's very popular right now, no?
Africa is dominated by socialist governments across it's political sphere. Looks good to the Left, just pump more cash in, and the problems will be solved. Well, watch how Africa, treated as a nation, watched it's foreign aid as a percentage of GDP grow from 0.02% to 15% from 1985 to 2005, yet, they're in worse shape then ever. Sir Bob Geldof is telling us, we need to send 1% (or at the very least 0.1%) of our GDP off to the UN, no questions asked, and yet, most African economists are begging us to stop doing that.
Feel good measures do not work. Results oriented targeted programming works. In other words, America watches where it's dollar goes and puts them where it thinks they ought to be, not where Kofi Annan & Bob Geldof and Jacques Chirac tell us to put them. Reasonable?
Well, Don, the greedy ones I've been around were also corrupt. So no, greed is not good. A sense of fair play and ambition to earn a buck fairly is good. But greed is not good. A simple example from recent discussions...slavery was driven by greed.
That is where we depart. The purely self centered approach (speaking of nations here) provides short term gain, and long term pain.
Okay, you're going to take the noble position that money & affluence hold no value to you. Fair enough. Explain to me why you're wasting money on a computer and a connection to debate my vile desire for affluence with me instead of selling it and spreading the money gained from the sale to the needy? Because deep down inside, you agree with me.
Instead of demonizing me, how about you listen to what I'm saying. Maybe instead of running AID agencies as charities, we start running them as not-for-profit corporations? We put together a marketing plan, we point out the benefits to be recognized by the contributors, we go with a results oriented approach, and we quit throwing our cash at Kofi and the boys and hope they do the right thing? I think you'd be amazed by the results.
But oh yeah, because I want the farmer to do better, and not the international government community, I'm the bad guy. Sorry, forgot that.
I'm not demonizing you. You are going off on a tangent about something else. I'm not talking about international aid or any of that, you are.
I disagree with the idea of purely self centered (self = nation, not you personally) approach to all policies. I don't think we need to get in the middle of everything, but there are times we can and should help or at least cooperate.
Unfortunately, I've seen quite too much of greed and corruption in the business world in the past several years--some at a personal level. I confronted some of it in my own job and that didn't go well...but I wasn't naive about where it was headed when I dug in my heels and refused to go along. I think we ought to run some of the greedy bastards up on pikes for the harm they are causing to companies, shareholders, and their employees for their own self interest.
I'd just like to clarify my earlier statement, though Red Harvest has already done a brilliant job.
I have no problem with france, and no problem with france no going to iraq, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Who brought up Iraq anyway????? Wtf has it got to do with anything???
Anyway...
My problem is with Chiraq and his constant verbal attacks on Britain and America. I don't believe he has ever said a nice thing about the war on terror apart of from the occasional post terrorist attack lip service.
However he has attacked the war on terror on multiple occasion, hence he is more of a collaborater than a help. I can't see how you could argue that he is a help and his constant attacks push him in the direction of collaborator. He isn't a collaberater, just closer to that than being a help.
It is the job of governments to look after their citizens best interests, how is it frances best interests for the western civilisation to fall and be replaced by muslim extremism???????
Looking at most popularity polls it would seem most french people agree with me. (bloody frogs the lot of them ~;) )
Que!Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I understand this. I am not trying to deny France's right to do right by France.
It is the same as when you're angry at the Israeli's for their dealings with China. I'm not living in a naive reality of alliances from ages ago, I'm calling a spade a spade.
Their duplicitous dealings with the Iraqi people are despicable, especially when it's being used as some sort moral high ground.
I made my point earlier.Quote:
What has you, Proletariat, Panzer, and other Americans upset is you don't realize the equation has changed.
If Germany and France payed any attention to their own history, they should have jumped at the chance to aid - or at least not oppose - removing a brutal dictatorship.
“Fine, we're not allies anymore, so next time Germany invades you're on your own”: Hitler declared war against US. You (or your ancestors) hadn’t any choice in it… ~:)
“Even if they didn’t like President Bush, they should have thought in terms of their own history and recognized that the Iraq war was a good opportunity to remove the same kind of dictator that they lived under.” I don’t know why we should go through our history, but I agree with that. I had a friend killed by Saddam. ~:cheers:
But again, if you ask me money to pay the school for your kids and in fact want to go to Las Vegas and gamble, that is a lie…
To ask people to go to war for an immediate fear of WMD and terrorist links was a lie. ~D
“It was their anti-US fight”: Which one? Is you call a Anti-US fight when somebody (not only the French) wanted better proof than a pill of (alleged) anthrax, a picture of a lorry and vague satellite pictures of houses allegedly a chemical complex a anti-US fight, there you are… :dizzy2:
Now, I wasn’t in France the last 10 years, but it wasn’t in France that a hysterical campaign against one country took place… ~D
“France was never really a part of it to begin with”: France, as you state, isn’t part of NATO. France is part of an integrated Command. De Gaulle did it to have an independent Nuclear Force. ~:)
“Kofi Annan & Bob Geldof and Jacques Chirac tell us to put them”: Actually Tony Blair (UK) and Gordon Brown (UK) asked for it. Do you read the same newspapers than me? Do I receive a different CNN and Fox? ~:)
I joined the French Army during five years and I was ready to fight for, like it is said nowadays, “the supreme interests of my country”. If it should have been a real fight against terrorism, I should have been ready (too old now, it is metaphoric) for it. But the lies were too obvious.
But, not only this war did nothing against terrorism, it increases terrorism.
After the Army, I went for humanitarian help. Guess where? Iraq, Kurdish zone…
That was the model to implement, to forced Saddam to democracy, and like in the Eastern Country, he would have fallen and finish in front of the International War Crime Tribunal in the Hague, institution not recognised by the US.
I have no idea if Chirac was or not friend of Saddam, but according the vast majority of democratic countries, the US’ case smelt fish.
Your problem is Germany, France, Belgium, the English, Spanish and Italian populations and a lot of others didn’t buy it. The leaders or these countries, smelling the profit and avoiding to sent troops (except the UK, I recognised that for Blair) went for the plunder.
If you want to call that a liberation, be free. ~:cheers:
When the Allies liberated France, some French Vichiists were still fighting on French soil. They didn’t hold two months, because the French population was really convinced and supported their liberators (which a quiet large part was made by Free French). Where were the Free Iraqis? ~D
And if YOU think I will forget “France will be punished”, you are totally wrong. :furious3:
I hope I wasn’t anti-US because I disagree with what you said. ~D
I've not forgotten it either, but I happen to agree with the sentiment. It is likely that France will eventually reap what it has sown with its betrayal. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Disagreeing is fine and healthy.Quote:
I hope I wasn’t anti-US because I disagree with what you said. ~D
”I've not forgotten it either, but I happen to agree with the sentiment. It is likely that France will eventually reap what it has sown with its betrayal”: Did France promised to go to war for the US or with the US and failed to deliver? So, what you feel as a betrayal is France should have blindly committed her own soldiers for what happened to be lies and disinformation pure Soviet style? So, you don’t want allies but sycophants and laps dogs… ~:)
So, my US friend, we agree to disagree. Like the G8 ~:cheers:
What betrayal would that be? They, along with the population of the entire planet did not want to invade Iraq on fabricated evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Some governments went against the wishes of there own people in supporting that invasion, but I fail to see how it is a betrayal of the alliance, that France did not choose to ignore the will of their own people. They wanted hard evidence in regards to what your government was claiming and voted against a rush to war. Your government had no hard evidence for what it was claiming, only supposition, faulty intelligence, and fabricated evidence. Your government couldn't wait for the hard evidence, because given time, the falseness of what they were claiming would become self evident.
The French were not alone in any of this. They were just the most effective, and I suspect this is the real crux of the so-called betrayal. The fact that the French are doing there part in the war on terror is meaningless, because this has nothing to do with that. The fact that they fought alongside the Americans in the First Gulf War is also meaningless, because this has nothing to do with their contribution in that regard either. Their crime, the unforgivable sin, is that they weren't gullible enough, to be taken in by the so-called evidence regarding Iraq.
The United States is the one who is reaping what they have sown. They put forward the "Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors" or the Pentagon officials claiming that satellite images showed up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening Saudi Arabia. The St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert. Much of the same sort of thing went on during the Kosovo crisis.
I supported, and still support the First Gulf War, but using lies and slanted half truth's to drum up support for war has long term consequences. Your government has lied so often in cases like this, that even your friends are unsure of what to believe. When you ask them to send their young to die in a war, on your word alone, they balk at doing so.
My suggestion; Start telling the truth!
NZ also didn't support the starting of the Iraq war. However, our compassion for the people of Iraq prompted our country to send engineers to help with the re-construction efforts. Also our SAS have recently been called to action in Afghanistan on a special mission. So while we do not support the starting of the war against Iraq, we do support the war on Terror and I am sure France and other opponents of the "Iraq War" feel the same.
There is no nice way to disagree with your above statement, because in light of my others posts you should know that what you just wrote is an intentional misrepresentation, equivalent to a lie. It is not what I have said and I've pointed this out. I've made it quite clear that for me this has little to do with France committing her own soldiers, it has to do with French diplomatic attacks on the US and what it has produced. What you claimed isn't the issue for me and most others who have the same view of France now. As former defense deputy undersecretary Jed Babbin said in 2003, "you know frankly, going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind."Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The WMD stuff was quite wrong, it wasn't obvious from the outside that there was a problem until the paucity of evidence was submitted. (And Saddam had done is best to keep up appearances, his neighbors thought he still had the weapons.) Let's not forget that Saddam had already used chemical weapons both in war and against his own people. Let's also not forget that France was agitating in favor of Saddam to end the sanctions BEFORE an invasion was proposed. This was one reason we had to act eventually. You can thank both Saddam and France for forcing us to act.
I don't think the WMD pretense was needed anyway, I've always thought that was a mistake, even when there was reason to believe Saddam was hiding them. The fact that the US was stuck enforcing compliance, was having its forces shot at regulalry, and Iraq was not fully complying was more than reason enough to respond militarily to remove Saddam. UN and France be damned, if someone is unrepentantly shooting at our military in such a circumstance, we can and should kick the crap out of them. That is not your decision to make, nor is it the UN's. It is not illegal either. Like it or not, we had sufficient justification to topple Saddam, with or without the WMD threat.
Funny thread overall....Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
The initial betrayal was Suez 1956. From then on, there were no expectation that the US would help the French in any way, and so we parted. It's quite sad to see how underestimated this event is in modern history. Note that France went out of NATO and start research on atomic bomb at a fast pace AFTER Suez. It's also interesting to see UK attitude after Suez.
Who betrayed who?
Knowing that the US is not a reliable partner for France and vice versa now is not a reason not to have friendly relation and cooperation in areas where... we can expect each other to be reliable.
And as far as war on terror goes... What does that have to do with Iraq? As far as terrorist are concerned, we got our share and our tragic experience, thank you, and even if you shall not expect any French soldier in Iraq (given i has no relation whatsover with terror...), you can expect French help where we really fight terrorism, in Afghanistan, spec ops and police cooperation. Not only can you expect us to help... But we're already there...
Louis,
You should take your own advice. Your intentional misrepresentation has been used by others. It is a lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Louis has a very good point here. French opposition to the war in Iraq is not opposition to the war on terror, which is what this thread is about. It is opposition to a war that has nothing to do with terror, and France is perfectly justified to oppose it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
You will have to be more specific than that. What "intentional misrepresentation"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Yet again I ask, why are we talking about iraq??
"When the Allies liberated France, some French Vichiists were still fighting on French soil. They didn’t hold two months, because the French population was really convinced and supported their liberators (which a quiet large part was made by Free French). Where were the Free Iraqis? "
1) France was under a foreign rule, iraq was not, so it isn't a valid comparision.
2)I did a report on it once, Free France DID ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. The french resistance itself is a degaullian myth designed to give the french back thier dignity and wipe away the past of nazi collusion. (I may be confused and your not talking about the resistance forces, if so my bad)
3)In 1991 most of souther Iraq went into rebellion hoping for the Americans to follow through, Americans didn't they got massarcred. Not only proves there was a "free iraq" but that they were more real than "free french" and explains why there was no great uprising this time round.
4)The kurds basically owned thier own autonomous state.
Perhaps it is reading comprehension. I quoted the relevant parts and I've discussed them more than I care already. If you don't see it, then let's just drop it, because I don't think there is anyway for us to have a discussion if you can't see the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
I'll add one final kicker, more for thought than discussion as I'm through with this thread. Had there been WMD *STILL* in Saddam's possession, would France's vehement opposition have been acceptable? Clearly not. While Saddam was not part of religious terrorism, he did use terror tactics against Iran, Kuwait, his own people and Israel among others (those Scuds fired into Israel during the first war.)
France had no way to be certain one way or the other either...many of Saddam's own people thought he still had stuff hidden away as did his neighbors. He had used chemical weapons on several occasions. Saddam was still unreformed as far as amibition and tactics, he just lacked some of the weapons. Ironically, his own sloppy record keeping and efforts at deception, duplicity, and cat and mouse with the inspectors backfired, making proof of destruction impossible.
Dubya's justification was wrong and willfully so in ways, and I believe he should be impeached for the way he directed the various services to trump up what he had, but only if he can be connected to some sort of damning paper trail/evidence that will demonstrate what many of us believe was willful intent to deceive--otherwise the excercise is doomed to failure and serves no purpose.
Regardless of WMD, the invasion of Iraq was inevitable unless Saddam changed his ultra-aggressive ways. Perhaps this is the point, as quite a few folks in Europe didn't understand that the U.S. was not going to just cut and run without attempting to resolve the matter. Turning your back on a wounded dangerous beast is not a good idea. There was quite a bit of noise in Europe/Russia about ending the sanctions and pulling out.
This is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
You see the world very much in black and white, don't you...
Hope you enjoyed your holidays. ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
I did not want to argue about the Iraq war anymore. But after your friendly and diplomatic post I have to. ~:)
Fighting Saddam was not a bad idea. But Bush did it the wrong way and - what is more important - at the wrong time. First getting Bin Ladn and destrying AQ, then dealing with Saddam, that is what I mean.
Germany has very bad experience fighting two-front war.
Thats just my opinion though ~:cheers:
This discussion is rediculous! Can the US really turn a friend down. I thought they were fighting terrorism.
France forced you to invade Iraq? Oh, please!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Well, perhaps it is reading comprehension! Let me see if I understand this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
This is not about the lies from the First Gulf War.
This is not about the lies from the Kosovo crisis.
So this is not about the false claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa for its nuclear weapons program.
This is not about the forgeries involved in the so-called Niger connection in Africa, which Condoleezza Rice stated were forgeries.
This is not about the false claims about mobile labs capable of producing biological weapons.
This is not about the administration claiming to have actually found these same mobile labs when they knew perfectly well that was a fabrication.
This is not about the fact that German intelligence told the Americans that the source for the mobile labs was not to be trusted, which the administration ignored.
This is not about the false claims about Iraq running an active chemical weapons program.
This is not about the false claims that Iraq possessed unmanned aircraft that could deliver biological and chemical weapons.
This is not about the administration ignoring DIA, CIA, FBI, and european intelligence sources, and cherry-picking evidence as it suited their purpose.
This is not about the present administrations brazen disregard for the truth.
This is not about the WMD, and terror connection which the adminstration tried to sell the UN as a "Casus belli".
This is not about Donald Rumsfeld running off at the mouth about "old Europe" and other derisive comments.
This is not about Rumsfeld comparing Germany to Cuba, and Libya.
This is not about the American adminstration dissolving the links that bind the US with its closest allies.
This is not about the President clever little comments like, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
This is not about the Bush administration which has shown a breathtaking ignorance of the real world, and it's stance that disagreement is betrayal, and dissent is treason.
No, this about France, and how they betrayed America (perhaps by making you invade Iraq) for reasons that remain obscure, but must have been terrible indeed if you cannot bring yourself to talk about them.
Well if you want to believe that Uganda, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Macedonia, Rwanda, Slovakia, and Vanuata are going to replace "old europe" you might consider the contribution that "old europe" has made to the fight on terror. While you are doing that count the combined effort that the above mentioned countries have made before you come to any hasty decisions about who is and who is not an ally.
Why is America so hurt by France's "betrayal" or unwillingness to tow the line? For what reason does France owe the US its alliegance?
Also, would it be reasonable statement that of the 5 major world powers, France is the weakest? Yet I do not believe that of US relationships with these nations, theirs is not the weakest.
Why do the American administration not look towards improving the very shaky relations they have with China, who represent a far more significant threat to American national security? China did not support the war in Iraq either. Neither did Russia.
Supported War In Iraq: USA, UK
Did not support war in Iraq: China, Russia, France
Oh, now France is looking for Muslim extremists to take over the western world ? Another funny new idea :dizzy2:Quote:
It is the job of governments to look after their citizens best interests, how is it frances best interests for the western civilisation to fall and be replaced by muslim extremism???????
Just as people saying that France was freed thanks to the Resistance are somewhat stupid, people saying that Resistance did not play a major role in the Liberation are equally stupid. The Allies (Americans, Brits, Canadians, French and Poles) wouldn't have conquered France so easily without the partisans' help (who basically blown up all railroad, bridge and all things that could have helped the germans). They also liberated many cities, Paris included (though they received the help of allies soldiers).Quote:
2)I did a report on it once, Free France DID ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. The french resistance itself is a degaullian myth designed to give the french back thier dignity and wipe away the past of nazi collusion. (I may be confused and your not talking about the resistance forces, if so my bad)
This is the main problem with the war in Irak, and I think, one of the reason europeans did not want to follow the US : the war in Irak was not a top priority. There are about 100 rulers who are worst than Saddam (many of them are allied of the western world) and who are much more agressive than him (North Korea or Iran anyone ?). There was still troubles in Afghanistan, yet Bush invaded another country, by using false reasons (WMD - Terrorism - I don't like him), and caused a real disaster. Why didn't he invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia ? Or even better, why didn't he help the creation of a Palestinian state ? That would have helped solving the terrorism problem, unlike invading Irak, and Europeans would have more or less agreed with that.Quote:
Regardless of WMD, the invasion of Iraq was inevitable unless Saddam changed his ultra-aggressive ways.
This whole thread started out of frustration over the accusation after last week's attack on London that France is a collaborator in the war on terror. Which is all the more painful since the images from London bore a spooky resemblance to the ones from the terrorist attack on the Paris metro ten years ago.
The point is that the international jihad against the west didn't start last week in London, nor in Madrid, nor on 9-11, but in several waves of terrorist attacks on France in the eighties and nineties. France has had to deal with more islamic terrorism, for a longer period of time, than any other western country. We are neither neutral nor collaborators. We are in the frontline, at a great cost of human lives and resources.
And in this war between the free world and the forces of evil, France wasn't defeated yet when the Americans decided to finally join the fight. ~;)
Yes, there have been some quarrels between France and the 'Anglo-Americans' in recent years. France is always assertive about her interests, and thinks some multi-polarity in Western Civilisation might be in order. Deal with it. Frankly, those who think less in a lapdog-enemy dichotomy might see that plurality between befriended nations, just like plurality within nations, is a source of strenght. To disagree is not the same as to be unreliable.
This is the crucial part: think of France what you must though- and to be perfectly honest, I can see where a lot of resentment is coming from - but the last thing you can call us is an untrustworthy partner in the war on terror. Hence the French frustration in this thread.
France does consider the US and the UK as befriended nations to her core. We have, we are, and we will go out of our way to protect the lives of their citizens and to avenge those who were killed. Get some less news from Fox, and more from the quality press and you know this to be true.
Again, Chirac may be an arse, but he still represents the French Republic. His standing right behind Blair last week was more than an empty gesture. Forget about the Olympics, the British rebate and what not. If Britain needs anything from France right now, they only need to ask. We granted every request by the Americans in their struggle too and got the facts to prove it.
Allthough, what we will not grant is a silly request like 'bring democracy to Cuba to stop Castro's threat' or the like.
Then we will, er, 'betray' Britain, yes.
A few points:
Hey Meneldil, your English improves when you are not nervous... ~;)Quote:
There are about 100 rulers who are worse than Saddam (many of them are allied to the western world) and who are much more agressive than him (North Korea or Iran anyone ?). There were still troubles in Afghanistan, yet Bush invaded another country, by using false reasons (WMD - Terrorism - I don't like him), and caused a real disaster. Why didn't he invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia ? Or even better, why didn't he help the creation of a Palestinian state ? That would have helped solving the terrorism problem, unlike invading Irak, and Europeans would have more or less agreed with that.
Anyway, thanks for your passionate replies!
~:cheers:
:smitten:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharrukin
No, Proletariat, that was not what I was implying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
I meant French forces storming the plane as opposed to France being soft on terror, even collaborating with jihadists. Not French forces storming the plane that was meant to be crashed on Paris in 1994 as opposed to the US not acting on 9-11 or whatever.
You can thank the Soviets for that one. They had just invaded Hungary and declared martial law. They threatened to overrun Germany and march on into France if you guys didn't quit screwing around over there. We knew we didn't have the resources in place to stop them. Go read about it on Wikipedia. And God knows, you had all the dead Americans you wanted over in Dien Bien Phu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe