Poll: Why do France and Germany oppose War in Iraq? [Archive]

Der Angst

11-02-2003, 14:14

Both: Think the US shouldn`t outlaw international law.

France: Try`s to "legalise" the actions while using the UN, it also want`s to restrict the US- dominance in international politics, nevertheless, if ABC- Weapens will be found, they will stand aside with the US

Germany: Has some kind of populistic asshole as Bundeskanzler (= President with more limited power), who uses the stupid pacifists (not every pacifist is stupid, i mean the ones who say "Never war against anyone, no matter what he did/does", i mean, if this ones where in power in the 1939 England... you know what i mean...) and the fear of the people about a possible war for his own purposes (e.g. he wanted to be voted), by ignoring ANY Logic in international politics... (as well as in the economy...). His "War? Not with us, no matter what happens!" implies that he wouldn`t do anything, even if germany would become a testing territorry for iraq`s Biological weapons (if they have some, of course)

But, even if i disagree with the actual politics of my country, that doesn`t change the fact that Rumsfeld is a stupid asshole :roll:

11-02-2003, 15:09

11-02-2003, 15:36

What about having UE (with the clasicall engine, ie France and Germany) making a bid for the second pole. Allways the world politics went around two poles. After the changes in the Russian policy, maybe a Greater Europe from Dublin to Vladivostock it is not such a strange concept. If this accepted then the move of France can be seen as a test. However, an uni-pole world is by far more dangerous.

Jabbe

11-02-2003, 15:47

Can I remind everybody that my own little country, known as Belgium, also takes part in the alliance with France and Germany? In fact, France and Belgium are the only two countries who wrote down their protest, while Germany supports us with spoken words.
At last, some European country who aren't cowardly doing everything what the US wants them to do

12-02-2003, 03:51

a bit of info, i think its reaching the point over here that we dont want you to do what our government wants you to do. when the us screws up, it never makes it to our papers, yet all the propaganda does, the c span speech he made has screwed them over. we will likely have a new president at the end of the next election. he may be worse than this one but we wont know until its too late. i preferred clinton, at least we knew what he was doing :roll: the government is beating up this terrorism issue trying to get their agendsa reached. that is another thing other countries need to understand about us. you say the us is doing something and impy its people know. we are country of people who take pride in disagreeing with everything. if we as a whole ever decide to do something everyone will know it. and that is part of the reason for the US' large military. the government is scared to death of the people. uninformed we are easy to lead, but one we are riled up they admit they will not stand a snowballs chance in hell of surviving, much less winning. Due to our second amendment, which they are trying to do away with, we are armed to the teeth.

12-02-2003, 04:42

France is trying to be a world power while lacking the economy and military to do so. It's big claim is a veto on the Security Council. France is concerned about "unilateral action" because they don't have any influence over it and there's a good chance they'll get screwed out of some big oil deals.

The French government, for all it's blustering, isn't willing to do anything beyond talk. They want to put more U.N. inspectors in Iraq as a shield to protect their investments. You won't see them trying to impose sanctions against the U.S. or placing their own military between Saddam and the 3rd Infantry Division.

In the scope of world politics and conflict, France has been pretty insignificant for a century.

12-02-2003, 12:33

because they are sensible and not warmongering idiots like Bush.

red
blue
yellow
and all the other pretty colours
Sponsored by the insanityandpufferfish State Mental Hospital

12-02-2003, 15:00

the U.S. wouldn't be considering this action if it weren't for Baby Bush, Cheney, Rumswilled, and their stranglehold on 'our' pathetically tiny senses of international justice. France - and ESPECIALLY Germany - have every right and reason to oppose a bully using a half-baked, decade-old pretext to start a war. :tantrum:

12-02-2003, 15:09

:?: Germany and France? What about little Belgium? That's the only country that isn't trying to find a way to retreat its veto...

12-02-2003, 15:20

The people do not vote for the president but the congress or parlement, whatever they call that crap, votes for the president. France is not a republican democracy.
But may I remind you of one thing. Supposingly you are American (or at least your attitude is) and your president wasn't voted by the people.

More people voted for Gore than Bush :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

12-02-2003, 15:30

Damn the French. They lost their spine ever since the first World War. France is a dictatorship that is it. The people do not vote for the president but the congress or parlement, whatever they call that crap, votes for the president. France is not a republican democracy.

Just a reminder, we French do vote directly for our president - or why did I go to the voting booth, in May? :roll: Not that I always agree with our Chirac, but well...

I did live two years in the USA - and love them :wink: and now I'm living in Belgium - and love them too :wink:

12-02-2003, 15:56

And we don't here in the States. The Eelectoral College is an outdate system that could(even if not easily or cheaply) be replaced by new methods and technologies. Since we claim to be the voice of worldwide democracy we should at least be making an effort to perfect it.
I also don't think that we have any business invading Iraq at this time. Regardless of international politics, Iraq has (no solid proof so far) done nothing to the United States. We should stick to the higher moral ground a stick with methods other than war.

12-02-2003, 16:22

Dune wrote:
The people do not vote for the president but the congress or parlement, whatever they call that crap, votes for the president. France is not a republican democracy.

Firstly, the President is supposed to be voted by the people (universal suffrage).

When the French can be bothered to vote (remember around 30% abstentions in 1st round of 2002 Presidential elections) the voting system tends to provide lots of 'protest votes' in the first round (big candidates get poor scores but still go through).

The problem is when people don't vote, and National Front voters DO, then their man goes to the next round. You can guarantee that most people who support the National Front go out and cast their votes.

If the French didn't want Chirac before the election, and were happy to have Jospin as President (remember him?), they should have VOTED FOR HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Fine, you vote communist/green/independent as a protest against the socialists, but if you prefer a socialist President to a conservative, vote for him all the way.

Or someone else will decide the 2nd round candidates for you.

Please excuse the self-flaming. :oops:

12-02-2003, 16:40

Sorry. That last post was decidedly off topic.

Nothing is very clear in this situation.

1) The US govt. (i.e. Bush, Rumsfeld etc) are pursuing their own agenda. I don't think US public opinion is 100% for war on Iraq at all.

2) Linking Iraq to the WTC attacks and Bin Laden is just a poor attempt to have 'legal grounds' to start a war

3) All sides here, USA, France, Germany and others, have interests in Iraq, either over oil, arms deals etc.

4) If the US govt. wants a war, it can have one, and no other country can stop it. It would probably take a coalition of strong nations including UK, France, Germany, Russia (?), China, and others to attempt it, and any war between these countries would devastate the world economy.

5) The UN is really a forum for hot air. Apart from some peacekeeping missions where soldiers died, I don't remember lots of conflicts stopped by UN forces. The ideals are great, but in practice if one country (USA springs to mind) is stronger MILITARILY, it can do what it wants. Nobody will be able to physically stop it.

6) France is probably sad that the last three major wars they've participated in have been disasters: WWI - victors with US/UK help, devastating the countryside in NE France. WWII - not France's shining hour...Vichy anyone? Civil war in Algeria - bloody mess which has still left some Algerians hostile to France. :(

and Germany is just sorry that they're not the ones starting wars any more :lol:.

Just some thoughts.

12-02-2003, 16:52

:?: Germany and France? What about little Belgium? That's the only country that isn't trying to find a way to retreat its veto...

Nice
Since when the heroic postures had any kind of meaning in history ? 100 shells (our national currency) to the one who gives me an example. I mean a successfully one, not the kind of "die as a hero". We are talking nations' interests. As Lord Balfour said once, one can't afford to nice when national interest re at stake. This is a reality even if we like it or not. The problem is not if the war is just or not (there is no "just" war whatsoever; all wars are unjust and dirty for the ones who die and their families), the problem is if the result justify it for the ones who started and indirectly brings something good to the history of humanity. We have to face the fact that we have at least 15,000 years of wars behind and it is unlikely we’ll change soon. All the attempts to put the war under control failed. Maybe you remember PM Chamberlain waiving the treaty while announcing he got a long lasting peace. This was August 1939 if I am not wrong.

In my view the bottom line is that the US think this war is to their advantage while France and Germany not. For Belgium I can’t really understand while why they got into it. If EU will be dragged into a war then they are not able to refuse to join. On the other hand their position now puts them clearly into a second position near their stronger and bigger neighbors. For the last 170 years of their history (modern) it is the first time when they do this. I do not think it is a good mark for the Government. If I’ll be a Belgian I’ll ask my government what national interest are they protecting if by this decision they risk to broke the NATO consensus and to find themselves alone pretty soon. This if they consider to go 100% on the Germany and France hand. Which I doubt.

12-02-2003, 17:17

1) The US govt. (i.e. Bush, Rumsfeld etc) are pursuing their own agenda. I don't think US public opinion is 100% for war on Iraq at all.

I'm not sure on the current stats, but I think it was about 70% against the upcoming war in the US, in polls, but that was 2 weeks ago...

2) Linking Iraq to the WTC attacks and Bin Laden is just a poor attempt to have 'legal grounds' to start a war

Agreed. And not just the WTC attacks, but also the whole anthrax situation...

4) If the US govt. wants a war, it can have one, and no other country can stop it. It would probably take a coalition of strong nations including UK, France, Germany, Russia (?), China, and others to attempt it, and any war between these countries would devastate the world economy.

The only way to possibly stop it would be to get those UN troops germany/france are suggesting "to accompany the weapons inspectors" in iraq fast. Then again, I doubt even that would stop the US/UK alliance...

5) The UN is really a forum for hot air. Apart from some peacekeeping missions where soldiers died, I don't remember lots of conflicts stopped by UN forces. The ideals are great, but in practice if one country (USA springs to mind) is stronger MILITARILY, it can do what it wants. Nobody will be able to physically stop it.

Agreed again. The only way to do something against this is either support Iraq as an UN country in danger of being attacked - and I doubt anyone would dare suggest that - or threaten the US/UK with economic sanctions if they do go ahead with this. But then again, by going to war, Bush has already made it clear he doesn't care that much about his country's economy...

and Germany is just sorry that they're not the ones starting wars any more :lol:.

*L* Maybe they'll surprise us all and use the diversion to take over the netherlands. Oh dear... :o

12-02-2003, 17:32

12-02-2003, 17:34

What was that you say about Holland? I am from the Kingdom of United Netherlands and - sort to say - I'm proud of it. Not the star-spangled-banner thumping way the Americans are, though.

From what I'd say, this topic was posted by someone from America - no hard feelings, though. I am just noting that there is a HUGE difference in the image of the world the Europeans and the Americans have.

Americans - indoctrinated by years of mandatory flag-hoisting at school - are filled with irrational proud for their land. America sees itself as the most morally perfect country in the world and all other countries should follow their example. Even Iraq.

I don't think it's about the oil - that just Saddam's propaganda. It all about America acting as the 'policeman of the world' - the current 'War on Terror' is not unlike the '50s '60s 'War on Communism' - and of them thinking that they can submit every nation to their will.

That's not the case, and George W. seems a little dissapointed. But I think that stopping large nation's Will to Power is the most important task of the UN - and it is all for the better that France wants to use its veto.

12-02-2003, 17:50

Frankly this whole stupid thing is really getting me down, I don't know anyone in the UK who actually supports our idiot President (yes I know Tony "I have my tounge stuck so far up Bush's behind that it can see light" Blair is Prime Minister, but he seems to want to be a President) and his case for going it alone with the US.

I know how you feel. I'm dutch, and quite frankly I'm quite disappointed in politicians for being so eager to side with America in this matter and even promising military support. Especially when viewing back on their political agenda on the elections just one month ago...
I'm glad to see some of them - including the peep i voted for - have the guts to speak up now for our prime minister's deciding stuff for us, but I don't think it'll be enough.

What was that you say about Holland? I am from the Kingdom of United Netherlands and - sort to say - I'm proud of it. Not the star-spangled-banner thumping way the Americans are, though.

*L* So am I. But like mentioned above, i'm not too impressed with our politicians atm though... ;)

I don't think it's about the oil - that just Saddam's propaganda. It all about America acting as the 'policeman of the world' - the current 'War on Terror' is not unlike the '50s '60s 'War on Communism' - and of them thinking that they can submit every nation to their will.

It isnt about oil. The oil will be a nice spoils of war (assuming saddam doesnt light the oil wells first) but the real reason - or at least one of them - is to cover up for their inability to track down mr. bin laden, and taking saddam as a nice substitute...

Jabbe

12-02-2003, 18:04

Someone here asked himself what Belgium had in mind when they joined all this rumour of 'blocking' the Usa.
As the Leader of the Kingdom of Jabbe, but born as a Belgian (sorry for the mistakes in my english, maar in het nederlands zou niemand me verstaan), I'd like to reply.
We Belgians are maybe one of the most international European people. I mean: -France is big, but they have many of these farmers in the South happy when there tomatoes grow nice and red.
-Germany has more problems to recover from the capitalistic shock after the Wall fell (in the east) than most people would think
-The UK just doesn't want to think European: it has it's so called respectful traditions, but has more readers of stupidity-magazines than real newspapers
-The North sides of Europe are very neutral and calm to, but don't have to get into most world problems anyway (scandinavia...)
-South Europe likes sun and tourists, and you never here there opinion clearly...

Belgium and the Nederlands are in the middle of this, and because of the Dutch are much more patriottic as we are (believe me) we care quiet a lot about international affairs.
At last we have a government who dares to say what is on the lips of the majority of the civilians. A year ago, our Minister of 'Foreign Businesses (?)' gave Mr Berlusconi a 0/10 in a televion program. Silvio Berlusconi is a corrupt, media-overpowering, way too mighty man, someone who should never have got the chance to lead a country. Every man of sense thinks that way. Our minister says what he has to say. But two days later, he personnally apologisies under pressure... well, you know the whole bullshit.. international relationships... european 'friends'...
Right now, the same minister is doing what every Belgian,without any political power, thinks, but again he's being attacked by lots of sides. Just because he doesn' want war and, like about 85% of the Europeans, doesn't like Bush

Please, this is real politic. Leading your country and the world with sense.

12-02-2003, 21:19

For France, it's about their oil contracts and about trying to be a global power and influence. If France really minded unilateral action and thought it was bad, they wouldn't be in the Ivory Coast getting shot at. It's also about the fact that a lot of the remaining Iraqi weapons are of French make, and possibly goes back to the fact that it was the French who helped start the Iraqi nuclear program.

For Germany, it's about trying to show relevance, about keeping an otherwise unpopular chancellor (or whatever he is) :) in power, about cementing their position as big man in the EU, and a little about embarassment... it was a German who sold the Iraqis their first centrifuge (confiscated by the UN some years back, but doubtlessly copied) capable of refining uranium to weapons grade.

For Belgium, it's agreeing with their larger neighbors. Like a guy who posts "me too." And a way not to be made fun of for once.

For Russia, it's lucrative oil contracts, and showing that they still have some muscle. And not wanting to see the US tear holes in the equipment that the USSR sold the Iraqis, for fear that no one will buy from them anymore.

And there's some speculation over here (so far, only by the fringe) that the REAL power behind these events is Saudi Arabia, which, some suspect, is promisinig fat contracts to the opposing nations if they block a war in Iraq, because the Saudis are scared SPITLESS of a non-OPEC power, ANY non-OPEC power, controlling that much oil, because then the Saudis won't have an economic stranglehold over the oil anymore, which means that nobody will have to play nice to them while they shelter the radical mullas who support terrorism anymore. They're afraid that they're next. They probably should be.

12-02-2003, 21:26

Who can dispute the French?
The French partially inspire the great country of La Patisserie. Please come visit and enjoy a slice of pie- or perhaps a croissant?

12-02-2003, 21:39

12-02-2003, 21:58

The people do not vote for the president but the congress or parlement, whatever they call that crap, votes for the president

ROFL!!! what are your sources of information??? The people does elect directly the president - check your informations next time you want to spit on other countries.

12-02-2003, 22:02

Actually, the US has been invaded. 1812, the Brits invaded and burned Washington.

Of course, all those countries in Eastern Europe know what it is to be attacked and invaded and held for decades by a brutal regime too... yet they're WITH the US, so that pretty much blows a hole the size of a Mack truck in THAT theory.

12-02-2003, 22:41

My two cents: Not every country manged to get itself exempt form the International Court for one year in order to make "pre-emptive defence measures". Some people actually have to follow internation convention. besides, does anyone else recall the last time the US decided to arma foreign nation in order to help them fight another one?
*cough* Afghanistan and Iraq *cough*

- An Angry Canuck

12-02-2003, 23:02

Belgium and the Nederlands are in the middle of this, and because of the Dutch are much more patriottic as we are (believe me) we care quiet a lot about international affairs.

*L* Yes, we are. Luckily, we're nowhere near the patriotism in america though... thats just getting drilled in from the start... :D

Some people actually have to follow internation convention. besides, does anyone else recall the last time the US decided to arma foreign nation in order to help them fight another one? *cough* Afghanistan and Iraq *cough*

Ah, you mean when they funded Osama and his band, and when they provided Iraq/Iran with weapons of mass destruction? Yup, does ring a bell.

ah well, i'll just go amaze myself at how the US/UK go after iraq because it may pose a threat in the future while everybody's ignoring little ol' North Korea.

With someone as eager to go to war as mr. bush, I know where to look for the real 'axis of evil'...

12-02-2003, 23:11

For France, it's about their oil contracts
but of course! 80 percent of french population is sooo attached to oil contracts, weapons sales and nuclear technology!
France and US both have oil interests, and they both sold weapons to Iraq, but I really don't think they are the most important points in both states policies.
I would say that the main stake in this is that "preventive" wars would be an open door to a law of jungle which would allow any country to attack another another one under the pretext it is a potential danger (which means any pretext).
If France really minded unilateral action and thought it was bad, they wouldn't be in the Ivory Coast getting shot at
I don't approve frech presence in Ivory Coast, but France is there within international laws which makes a darn difference. It is not a unilateral action.

12-02-2003, 23:31

I would say that the main stake in this is that "preventive" wars would be an open door to a law of jungle which would allow any country to attack another another one under the pretext it is a potential danger (which means any pretext).

I agree on this. And to me, this makes far more sense than going after the oil or protecting the oil or whatever...

As for any pretext - did you know the US Senate approved a law that would allow the US to use military force to invade the netherlands, should an american soldier ever be put on trial there for the International War Court.
The truth is, I dismissed this whole thing as yet another laughable addition to the bush administration, but looking at Iraq now, I'm getting a wee bit frightened...

We don't have oil, but we do have some wee gas bubbles that could probably fuel new york for a few days. *worried*

13-02-2003, 01:38

13-02-2003, 01:39

because they are sensible and not warmongering idiots like Bush.

red
blue
yellow
and all the other pretty colours
Sponsored by the insanityandpufferfish State Mental Hospital

*sighs* That's liberals for you... :roll:

13-02-2003, 07:22

Nosnibor Wrote:
It must be nice to live in a country where you can get all the benefits of a strong military along with none of the costs..

Benefits? What do you call being TOLD by another country, one that claims to be a bastion of free speech and democrasy, how to make your laws? You think we get ANY assistance from the US? The fact the we have an undefended border with the USA does not mean we are benfiting from the US military. What it means is that two countries are attempting to be civilized about things for once. Canada just recently rewrote it's marijuana laws. We then received a notice from the US state department that they'd take action if we continued to change them.

Take action? Like what? Invade us, a country whom they've been at total peace with for over a hundred and fifty years? Close off the border like after sept. 11th and lose billions of dollars in trade A DAY? Canada does not benefit from the USA's military any more than FRANCE does, other than we are allies and have promised not to shoot each other. That's diplomacy and civility, not some sort of favour.[/b]

13-02-2003, 09:00

So it's about marijuana and the loss of trade?

The U.S. has good reason to increase scrutiny on its northern border.

First, I'll admit, it is mostly to make Americans feel safer. Now before you jump on me, we don't feel threatened by Canada. What we do feel threatened by is the refugee policy of Canada, which allows people from countries known to sponsor terrorism to enter and remain in Canada without any papers or identification. Once in Canada, they can easily get into the United States any number of ways, whether it be by motor vehicle, waterways, or simply walking across the border. Terrorists are aware of this, and it doesn't make much sense to be watching our airports, seaports, and other traditional entry points into the U.S. and ignoring the easiest way for people to enter our country in secret.

Unless I'm mistaken, the United States is Canada's biggest trading partner. While this position is mutually beneficial, U.S. businesses are sometimes hurt by this as well. I know that the American logging industry is getting killed by Canadian imports and that the pharmaceutical companies are s***ing a brick about the price caps on prescription drugs up there(By the way I like this idea. Screw the drug companies.).
I sympathize on some level with your position about losing money in trade after September 11, but it's not like we arbitrarily decided to screw Canada.

As far as the marijuana thing goes, I'd have to agree that the U.S. should not be dictating other countries' drug policies unless those policies directly affect the U.S. (Say, let's legalize weed, cultivate it, and ship it to the U.S.)

If you have information on the issue you're referring to, I'd appreciate some sort of reference, so I can do some research on it. We don't hear much about Canada down here.

13-02-2003, 09:01

because they are sensible and not warmongering idiots like Bush.

What is so very sensible about denying an alliance country requested defensive equipment, when you signed up to give them it?

One rule for French and German politics and another for the rest of the world...

13-02-2003, 09:06

The only way to possibly stop it would be to get those UN troops germany/france are suggesting "to accompany the weapons inspectors" in iraq fast. Then again, I doubt even that would stop the US/UK alliance...

So the ultimate grand plan to prevent an invasion of a country with troops to remove a dictator is to be...

Invading the country with troops!!!

"A fascinating look into the mind of a military genius Optimus Prime!"

:D

imported_Ierocis

13-02-2003, 09:13

They can stay out of any action for two years. Since that was how long the United States left Britain and allies to hang in World War 2. Difference...they knew Hitter had weapons.

And linking of Saddam and Bin Ladin is baseless historicly. Since the recent recording has Bin Ladin calling Saddam an infidel...hardly what I'd call an ally since they also call Americans infidels.

13-02-2003, 09:56

:!: It isn't a coincidence that those 3 countries are against war (in Iraq)...
They have experienced what it is to be attacked in their own country, their own gardens in World War I and World War II...

The US has never been invaded...
So don't say France is a dictatorship and so on...

So the United Kingdom hasn't been then? How about all the other countries like Spain and such? Is France the only one that matters properly?

13-02-2003, 09:56

We Belgians are maybe one of the most international European people.

Perhaps because of the huge amount of EU funds it receives on a regular basis.

-The UK just doesn't want to think European: it has it's so called respectful traditions, but has more readers of stupidity-magazines than real newspapers

Why should it do?

Ever heard of the 'paparazzi' term in the continent. European magazines can be some of the most invasive (and trivial as well) kinds there are.

At last we have a government who dares to say what is on the lips of the majority of the civilians.

"Well I don't know about you Jacques, but Turkey's going down!"
"Huh?"
"Let's deny it stuff just because we can."
"Seems fair enough!"

13-02-2003, 09:56

Could not agree more - but the point of Germany having supplied a large amount of chamical weapon facilities I think helps illustrate the point even further.

:)

13-02-2003, 10:01

I'm simply using these two as the most prominent examples

Rather likely France wants the known sanctions lifted in Iraq in order to get the eight billion dollars back from weapon contracts of which four billion is just from interest.

imported_Ierocis

13-02-2003, 10:18

I'd like to point out that Blair and some of his labour party are onboard with this invasion stuff. Most british are not. And it will be a close shave if he somehow manages to remain in parliment after going against the majority.

13-02-2003, 11:08

13-02-2003, 14:32

non of the above I voted, could be that they do it for the Iraqi people, but I wonder if they are better of with sadam then with war ? war could be done in a few months where sadam wil dictate for decades, those decades wont improve the life situation of the iraqi's and will give sadam an option to build up more weaponry giving him the option to become a bigger power in the world...

13-02-2003, 17:06

war could be done in a few months where sadam wil dictate for decades, those decades wont improve the life situation of the iraqi's [quote]
It may be true (though not sure, look at Afghanistan) but if you decide to eliminate all regimes that don't please you, I wish you good luck. And who will decide whether a regime must be changed or not? Just imagine the mess that will follow at a wordly scale...

13-02-2003, 17:16

13-02-2003, 17:54

Fascinating how many americans are so completely indoctrinated by the propoganda of their own government... And before you say anything, I happen to be an american myself. For the first time in my life, I am actually ashamed to say I happen to be american. I was and am and always will be a patriot (a REAL american patriot, me, not someone who thinks you have to swallow everything the president hands you and say thank you sir may i have another) ... this is the greatest country on earth, I truily believe that... But just now we are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. I am ASHAMED of my fellow countrymen.

As for this poll, well, anybody who can actually see clearly what is going on would OF COURSE be against it. And most of the world IS against it. In most countries of the world, the majority of the population thinks this is a STUPID IDEA, and rightly so. Luckily, France and Germany and Belgium (lots of veto power there) are standing firm against it, allowing the rest of the world to say 'We'd be for it if there was a security council resolution' in the secure knowledge there NEVER WILL BE such a resolution. There are a veryvery few nations who say they'd be for it even without a resolution... But most of the rest of the world is against it. And even in the US and Britain and (I think) Australia, the three Big Allies, there is a GREAT DEAL of public opinion against the war. The only country completely 100% behind this is Israel, and of COURSE they'd be behind it, they are the ONE AND ONLY country that is actually in any way THREATENED by Saddam.

So, the point being... This issue has united most of the world like no other issue in history ... the majority of the population of the world thinks war with Iraq is a really STUPID and BAD idea ... and my fellow countrymen think it's just cause they're 'jealous' or some inane thing. ASHAMED.

-me

13-02-2003, 19:25

So the ultimate grand plan to prevent an invasion of a country with troops to remove a dictator is to be...

Invading the country with troops!!!

That's the most impressive way of totally changing what I said I've seen all day. Nice.

Unless you don't see the difference between 'blue helmets' who simply assist the inspectors without the use of violence and an overkill army of us/uk forces scorching the earth?

Could not agree more - but the point of Germany having supplied a large amount of chamical weapon facilities I think helps illustrate the point even further.

I guess they figured "if america can do it and get away with it, then so can we..."
;)

Any military decisions are not and should never be depending on a majority of public opinion.

Isn't that what king louis said just before the french revolution.
ok, silly comparison of course, but politicians are supposed to be representatives of the people. Only makes sense they actually listen to the people, right?

The french are stupid. the only reason that they do not want to pledge a war against a destructive nation that is a blatant threat to the world, is because everytime the French enter a war, they lose.

Heh, cute. An interesting interpretation, based on hot air. And with "destructive nation that is a blatant threat to the world", which nation do you mean? the us? ;)

oh, and optionality: thanks for helping me keep faith in you americans. ;)
*L* I can only hope the world wises up in time and will go after real threats to peace. Like Israel.

13-02-2003, 20:10

Jabbe

13-02-2003, 20:12

The french are stupid. the only reason that they do not want to pledge a war against a destructive nation that is a blatant threat to the world, is because everytime the French enter a war, they lose. Haha, stupid french. they need to grow up and smell the coffee. it is only a matter of time before the french and germans are alienated because of their not backing the rest of Europe who is pretty much on the side of the United States.

Everytime they lose... The United States won World War II, indeed.
I believe that is their only victory they can be proud of.
Please don't forget that they have saved the Western half of Europe... the USSR (Russia) did the Eastern part... it's a shared victory.

Crimsonia thinks Belgium is maybe international because it would recieve lots of funds from the UN.
1) In the European Union, lots of money is reshared in many weak economical places. If I'm not mistaken, belgium pays as well
2) If Belgium would only be interested in international cash, why would we be teasing the US now? Hoping for sanctions?

13-02-2003, 20:17

Why were all you people not screaming your heads off in November when the UN passed 1441? It states that the UN will by force make Iraq comply with previous UN resolutions to disarm its weapons and programs to make WMDs. The resolution gives the Iraq 60 days to prove to inspection teams they have disarmed. Notice it was Iraq who was supposed to prove they disarmed, not the inspection teams to find the WMD. The US wants to hold Iraq to its own agreement. When time passes and they don't hold true use force.

*L* Actually, I was screaming my head off, but since I wasnt here, no one knew..here at least. ;)
As for governments... I assume they just went along with yet another silly proposal by the US, one of many, thinking it'd either never get this far, or hoping somebody out there would start wisening up...
...Or maybe it's to stall the US from attacking outright. I'm sure if there hadn't been a resolution 1441, the US/UK wouldn't have waited for this long, built up their troops quickly and iraq would've been smoke by now.

edit:
Oh, and for those thinking the US won the war alone: Let's not forget the uk, france, russia, the resistance as well as several other allied forces. Just to keep people from going "we saved you in '45" again...

13-02-2003, 20:18

I can only hope the world wises up in time and will go after real threats to peace. Like Israel.

Right the country that on the day it is recognized as a nation is attack by its neighbors is the threat to peace. Sure it is, and all those nations around it just love Israel so much they would never do anything to harm it. Israel might have UN sanctions on them, but none are chapter VII like Iraq, and only Chapter VII gives the right to use force, so no one for the time should attack tem in the name of peace.

Jabbe

13-02-2003, 20:21

Let us all once use Bush his way of simple thinking, and set up some rules..

If a country is building an army force, which is in our eyes dangerous for the world population, whether they're already attacking with this army or not, the UN has the right to unite and use violence against that country

Conclusion: The UN should be fighting America

If a country is trying to oblige his way of thinking in other countries, ideas which are in our eyes dangerous intellectual invasions of bad-minded people, the UN has the right to unite and use violence against that country

Conclusion: The UN should be fighting America

If a country make any serious mistakes against the basical rights of democraty, this might be a good reason for the UN to unite and use violence against that country

Conclusion: The UN should be fighting every nation, including their own members.

13-02-2003, 20:50

LOL. There are some really misinformed people posting in this thread.
America bashing is a trend. It's pitiful to watch people falling upon the US with so many uneducated statements. I suspect that many of the people here who are anti American hold their views simply because they are jealous of what happens to be the only superpower in the modern world.

The fact is that (like it or not) Europeans would be speaking German if it wasn't for America's involvement in WW2. If the US hadn't kept the Soviet Bloc in check, later generations would be speaking in Russian. Sure other countries took part on the Allied side (mine included) but the fact is that US firepower and presence was the overwhelming factor in the defeat of Germany and in bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Bloc.

Yes the US makes mistakes politically. But then doesn't every country? The fact that the US is the major player on the world stage means that it's failiures are criticized much more harshly than any other countries' blunders.

But the fact remains. The US has safeguarded the Westernj way of life for the past 50 years. To say otherwise is a misinformed jug of bullshit.

To the ignoramuses who defend the Iraqis: why don't you wake up to the real world? The fact is that Saddam possesses an illegal arsenal (balls to the inspections, take a look at reality and this statement cannot be denied). This violates the UN code. Now, the fact that he is in flagrant breach of a UN code demands that he be removed from power and the only country strong enough to deal with him is the US.

All these jerkoffs who claim that the war is all about oil should take a good long look in the mirror. They claim that the US is playing double sided politics. But then take a look at Chirac and Schroeder. They govern 2 countries with major problems and are basically in the shit. Schroeder couldn't even keep his home seat in the last German elections. Why don't you take a look at the other side of the coin? By playing the peace trumpets at full volume these 2 guys are distracting their people away from the problems that they face at home. Now correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm not), but this makes them worse than the US. They are blocking the removal of a vicious dictator just to gain a few votes at home. Nothing more than a cheap form of political prostitution.

So to summarise in a language that all of you anti-Americans can understand:

US is kewl.
France + Germany = whores.

Jabbe

13-02-2003, 21:02

Post for BabyGravy:

I'll use your words, and I will change one little world, causing your statement, the climax of your ridiculous opinion, to be still correct.

"They are supporting the removal of a vicious dictator just to gain a few votes at home. Nothing more than a cheap form of political prostitution. "

Only, we are talking about the US right now...

Remember how succesful Bush's leadership was before 9/11?
Remember how succesful his track'n kill-Bin Laden was?
Remember all the economical problems in the US?

It's of course nice to see you're country take winning places in the entire world. Then you forget your own problems. Something like we do when we're happy when are national football team would be winning the World Cup.
Only, that's just sport

13-02-2003, 21:11

Jabbe, dear chap. I would say that Bush was pretty successful in Afghanistan. So Osama wasn't run to ground but is that really so suprising?
Was Bush a succesful politician before 9/11? Take a look at the figures. Their economy urinates over anything that the Europeans can achieve.

I guess you're the sort of guy who sees anything that the US does as being a major insult to you personally. Well dude, I have this great idea to help back up your claims. You can join the human shield, peace protestors and go stand on a bridge in Baghdad. Then, when a nice big Cruise comes and blows your lefty, fag, liberal, uneducated, American hating ass to shit, you really will have justification for your shitpot, paper thin argument.

Jabbe

13-02-2003, 21:31

Well, at least i will be able to say I haven't lived hiding my agressive self behind the american interpretation of the word 'Freedom'

Jabbe

13-02-2003, 21:44

Jabbe, dear chap. I would say that Bush was pretty successful in Afghanistan. So Osama wasn't run to ground but is that really so suprising?
Was Bush a succesful politician before 9/11? Take a look at the figures. Their economy urinates over anything that the Europeans can achieve.

I don't think Aghanian people have good memories to superpowers.. been in war with America and Russia doesn't leave happy minds. Seeing America invade your country again, because they need a few terrorists, and being unable to open your own mouth when this happens, must be quiet irritating.
Public opinion didn't really liked Bush that much I think - well I'm not shure, i didn't speak with every american civil. Can you imagine Enron closing businnes without a-man-who-did-it-all?
There economy turns well, indeed. Unfortunately, because they are one of the last countries allowing their military to take care of the economy. Every other country doing that, would be attacked by your US.

But hey, that's democracy. Or Whatever they call it

13-02-2003, 22:22

The fact is that (like it or not) Europeans would be speaking German if it wasn't for America's involvement in WW2.

So would the Americans if they hadn't intervened. Hypothetical and wild speculation.

If the US hadn't kept the Soviet Bloc in check, later generations would be speaking in Russian.

Even more wild speculation than the first. With a touch of arrogance.

But the fact remains. The US has safeguarded the Westernj way of life for the past 50 years

Apparantly the "western way of life" is the one and only perfect way of life I take? Like it or not, the US has also aided in undermining that same so-called western way of life. By funding terrorists and supplying "evil states" with chemical weapons for instance.

To the ignoramuses who defend the Iraqis: why don't you wake up to the real world? The fact is that Saddam possesses an illegal arsenal (balls to the inspections, take a look at reality and this statement cannot be denied). This violates the UN code. Now, the fact that he is in flagrant breach of a UN code demands that he be removed from power and the only country strong enough to deal with him is the US.

Talk about misinformed. Do you honestly believe the only country that can match iraq's army is the US? Do your homework, kiddo, and come up with solid proof of this amazing illegal arsenal along the way...or are you the type to go with blazing guns, nuke 'em all, then make up some 'evidence' later?

All these jerkoffs who claim that the war is all about oil should take a good long look in the mirror.

I agree, it isnt about oil. It's about finding a scapegoat to cover up for the amazing us army's inability to find bin laden, as well as bush's mediocre home policy.

So to summarise in a language that all of you anti-Americans can understand:

US is kewl.
France + Germany = whores.

With an end like that, you show just how mature and intelligent you are. Makes me wonder why I took your post seriously...

Jabbe, dear chap. I would say that Bush was pretty successful in Afghanistan.

Indeed. Perhaps that's why the Taliban is still able to launch (vicious) counterattacks on troops stationed there. Good job, mr. bush. Next time, finish what you start.

Was Bush a succesful politician before 9/11? Take a look at the figures. Their economy urinates over anything that the Europeans can achieve.

Politics is more than just economics. Besides, Bush still performed crap on that area, worsened relationships with many foreign countries, worsened relationships between the two koreas, ignores the threat of Sharon/Arafat, doesnt care much for environment, and breaks international missile treaties... all before 9/11 mind you.
That didnt make him too succesful, and even 9/11 wont save him with the elections if he keeps it up now...

You can join the human shield, peace protestors and go stand on a bridge in Baghdad. Then, when a nice big Cruise comes and blows your lefty, fag, liberal, uneducated, American hating ass to shit, you really will have justification for your shitpot, paper thin argument.

Namecalling is the resource of a weak mind. Or was that sarcasm?
At any rate, you complain all about paper thin arguements, yet you provide them just as much.

Incidentally, what do you think a war would do the us/world economy? ;)

Oh, and for the record: I only dislike the bush administration, not america nor its inhabitants. I know bi-assed people live everywhere, so I wont blame a country for that... And yes, it may be cliche but: some of my best friends are american. ;)

13-02-2003, 22:38

The only way the French can trade from their international weakness is by a blocking action. If the Germans want to help them, tell them to increase the ridiculous subsidies they're paying to French farmers. Where were the French & the Germans when the Serbs were killing & raping their way through the Balkans? Even worse than their stance on Iraq is their invitation to Mugabe of Zimbabwe to come to Europe.
l was totally against Bushes actions on Iraq till the French started their standard huffing & puffing. When that happens you've got to reconsider.

13-02-2003, 23:59

oh, and optionality: thanks for helping me keep faith in you Americans

Agreed.

13-02-2003, 23:59

oh, and optionality: thanks for helping me keep faith in you Americans

Agreed.

14-02-2003, 00:00

Stupid double posting.

14-02-2003, 03:35

Why Germany is doing it is a bit of a mystery to me.

But the reason behind the French doing it is rather simple.

They are pissed off that a century ago France WAS one of the most powerful nations on earth.
Now it's not.
They have acted like this ever sonce the second world war, when they were slowly kicked out of all of their overseas possessions, and made pretty much impotent.

It's not the first time France has diddled NATO around either.
France was a founding member, and then resigned, because they didn't get their own way.
Eventually they rejoined when they realised during the cold war that if the Soviet Union was going to invade Wetern Europe, they probably wouldn't stop at the borders of the French Republic.

So that's my theory.

14-02-2003, 06:11

France and Germany like Iraq because they are commies.

Restoration

14-02-2003, 08:39

Even so, the strong will fall one day.

14-02-2003, 09:52

Incredible paranoia. France and Germany refuse to build up the military on the Turkey-Iraqi border which indeed is a military provocation on any souvereign nation and for that they "like" Iraq and are "commies"??

Very intelligent reasoning. :roll:

14-02-2003, 11:25

France and Germany are not Communists, and they don't necessarily like Iraq, but they hate the U.S. and refuse to honor NATO's agreement with Turkey to help increase defensive military operations in that country because they feel such an action is a good way to put a speed bump in the way of the U.S.'s war plans. After all, Turkey is a moderate Muslim nation, something the French are not used to dealing with at all. Perhaps if Instanbul were a little more insane and attacked its neighbors every so often, France and Germany would be more interested in giving Turkey weapons.

14-02-2003, 11:57

Irony is fun. Couldnt disagree more however. Its USA that usually arm insane dictators, not France. USA and Britain armed Saddam in the first place. The point here is that Germany and France DONT want to arm a nation that openly support one side in a coming conflict. NATO is supposed to be a defensive organisation. It says so in every document I have read. Arming Turkey BEFORE the inspectors find any evidences IS a provocation against Iraq. Clearly so. Hasnt anything to do with Saddam personally. If Turkey hadnt agreed to letting USA bomb Iraq from their territory they wouldnt be in conflict with Iraq, would they? Turkey could have stayed out of this pathetic crusade as others have.
Turkey should concentrate a bit more on its internal problems and maybe they can be accepted as an EU member. Getting involved in a war they apparently cant fight without help is not exactly the smartest thing to do.

What Turkey wants is getting rid of the kurdish problem. They can do it in this conflict. They cut of the routes between the countries that the guerilla use by letting the americans go that way. USA also gets support from the Iraqi kurds since they must cooperate with USA in the fight against Saddam. At the same time I GUARANTEE that the Turkey army will move in hard against their kurdish population. No one will even see it cause all eyes will be on the war. Turkey plays high and can gain alot. There are even discussions wether they will get parts of northern Iraq after the war.
They can also lose alot in terms of retaliation. It looks bad when you aim for alot and still whine about the consequenses and the risks.

14-02-2003, 12:20

Let me introduce myself:
I'm French.
My point of view is that war is bad, childrens and innocent people always died for what? Oil, Money$$$, Power ...
In fact that's ridiculous.
It's not only my point of view but a lot of people all around the world are against Wars.
The solution to peace is 'Peace' no' War' and currently ONU always failed in its mission. So even if ONU reject the idea of a conflict, I think this conflict will occur (stupid humans :evil: ).

If USA/GBritain force to the war, a lot of innocent people (Iraqi or not) will die and perhaps some new terrorist attack will occur.

So never forget this.

8) m007fox 8)

In France --> Food is very good :wink:

14-02-2003, 13:10

First of all, why should there be a motive behind the veto from France and Belgium (supported by Germany). OK, you can call me naive, but for our minister of foreign affairs - I'm a Belgian - I'm convinced that he does this because he really is against war. Remember the extreme right government of Austria and his reaction... (For those who doesn't remember it, he tried to ban them from the EU).
Otherwise, if there is a motive behind this, what side reacts the best, the US and all those butt-licking nations that follow them blindly, who want a war for oil (o, and also because he is a possible tread for world peace). Or some nations who are against war, what reasons they may have.
Maybe you Americans can ask your granfather what a war for the common people really means. We know it, we've been there. And to all those nations that want a war, with Israel on top (don't they remember their own holocaust), can't they remember their own history.

There shouldn't be a war if there is any chance to solve the problem peacefully

14-02-2003, 13:12

Oh excuse me, france and Germany don't arm dictators etc, only the US and UK do??

Where on earth did yo get that ridiculous idea from??

I can agree that for the most part Germany doesn't, although that' only that they don't sell 'big ticket items' (nuclear reactors, aircraft etc).

But if France doesn't arm dictators (or in this case Saddam Hussein), why is it that his Air Force has Dassault Mirage F1 Strike Figher aircraft, manufactured and designed in ummmm wait for it, FRANCE!
Why is it, that those same aircraft are armed routinely with Exocet Air to surface missiles, once again manufacured and designed in FANCE?
The first Nuclear reactor in Iraq (supposedly for research purposes, which is why it was a 'breeder reactor' capable of producing weapons grade nuclear materials ... destroyed by an Israeli air strike in the early 80's) was designed in France, and its construction was overseen by senior experienced French engineers.
Oh yeah did I mention that the Iraqi Army is equipped with Gazelle Helicoters designed and constructed in France.
Roland Surface to Air missiles ... French made.

The list of French weapons in the Iraqi order of battle goes on and on and on.

Sure the US and UK did give military funding and training support to the Iraqi government in the 80's when they were fighting the Iran-Iraq war.
No one has EVER denied that.
But look around you won't find any weapons of US of British manufacture in the Iraqi forces.
You will however find and abundance of French, Russian and Chinese weapons.

For your information, France is one of the LARGEST arms exporting nations on the planet, far outstripping the foreign weapons sales of both the US and the UK.
In fact the last time I checked France was number 3 in that list following Russia, and China.

So if you think that the United States and the United Kingdom are the only nations in the world to have supplied funding, training or equipment to nations that perhaps they should not have, in retrospect, then you are an ill informed, stupid idiot, every major and many minor nations engage in these types of activities, it's called foreign policy.
Even New Zealand (where I come from, an essentially unarmed nation {our army is 5,000 strong}) has engaged in training foreign armies that have turned around and bitten us on the ass, in the form of Fiji (a nation that has had 3 military coups in less than 20 years), amongst others.

Please don't make fool hardy claims about France's innocence, or any other nation's for that matter.

14-02-2003, 14:17

14-02-2003, 14:28

The Government of Plebia is concerned that France,Germany and Belgium have seen fit to cause a breach in the NATO alliance.Now,we could say that France was never much good at fighting,preferring to let others (the USA and Great Britain) bail them out of the "merde".

Germany was ever a warlike nation,but as someone else has stated,the Vaterland prefers to be the one instigating the war.The Fuhrer sought to rule Europe by force.Germany today seeks the same but by more indirect methods.

As for Belgium......delicious chocolate!

To quote.."how sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have an ungrateful child."

Jabbe

14-02-2003, 19:10

In answer to The Diplomat of Angche

You're wondering why American people follow there agressive nation so blindly.

Geographically, the US are huge. What Europe is for a Belgian like me, must be America for... an American.
They must be so different under eachother, that they're having enough with their own 'regional' information... there states, there specifical laws.. like countries in the European Union.
For historical facts, they're not really well informed. While Europe learns history of the last 3000 years quiet intensive, American english books begin at the start of founding the US. That's their culture... about 500 years...

So if then a mighty president gives that people that he has a very decant reason to use this massive army they have, where they put tons of money in, and they can almost only believe this reasons, cause since the Vietnam-war, al media information is wel censured, they do will believe their president is a second god who has to be supported...

:arrow: This explanation needs lots of nuances and is a very easy-made statement, but fundamentally it's quiet correct. Don't all start reminding me of this and reminding me of that... :wink: [/quote]

14-02-2003, 20:37

There's just one thing I wonder:
I know Bush is an idiot who can see only black and white, not gray, but I thought the American people would be wise enough to see that there are other possibilities than beign on your side or the opposing side

Well this sounds like a two sided argument either you want to use force, have what could be a very, and I mean very ugly war, and get rid of the biggest madman in the world right now, or you can not use force and let the UN inspections go on while the Iraqis move WMD from place to place in hopes that they never use them (keep in mind the UN only found part of what Iraq admitted of having in nerve agents and misssles, and Iraq has yet to bring any proof they got rid of it). Now both ways I presented the ideas are worst case, but the ideas behind it are force or no force. The US wants force the UN looks like no force right now. If there a third way I would love to hear it.

14-02-2003, 23:04

American's don't blindly follow an aggressive nation. Americans are the aggressive nation. We historically like things bigger, faster and better. If they aren't big, fast or good enough, we tend to make them that way.

The United States of America is indeed a large country. The U.S. is 9,158,918 sq. km. Europe is 9,938,000 sq. km. Iraq is about the size of the state of California. Maine, the state I'm from, is almost three times the size of Belgium. However, that doesn't mean that Americans see themselves as members of their state first. Quite the opposite really. The vast majority of U.S. citizens see themselves as Americans first and members of their state second. Where you probably see yourself as a Belgian first and a European second, I see myself as an American first and a Mainer second. Saying states are to America as countries are to the EU isn't an accurate analogy. Federal law supercedes state law, where, to my knowledge, nations in the EU don't relinquish their sovreignty.

Also, your idea that Americans don't study the history of the rest of the world is wrong. While the first European settlements occured 500 years ago, and America has only been a country for 227 years, we do learn about the rest of the world. From the first civilizations in Egypt and the fertile crescent to the industrial revolution. America may be young, but that doesn't blind us to the fact that the world isn't. We do focus also on the role of the U.S. from the first European settlement to the Revolutionary War. To the adoption of the Constitution (America was a Confederacy from October 19, 1781 to September 17, 1787) and the War of 1812. Economic reform and industrialization. The Civil War. "Manifest Destiny" and the expansion west. World War I. The great depression. World War II. The Cold War. Space Flight. Vietnam. Right up to today.

We don't think that our president is a "second god." He's an elected official who serves for 4 years. He can be elected to office again, but two terms is the limit. The two term limit is a Constitutional law, which supercedes Federal law. Specifically, the 22nd amendment. If Americans don't like his performance, he won't get elected again in 2004. Also, I don't believe there's been a whole lot of censorship in the press. If there was, there'd be an uproar from the media about their freedom of the press. That's the 1st amendment.

Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Constitutional Amendments (http://www.constitutionfacts.com/)

Your post may have been an "easy-made statement", but I disagree with you that it's correct. However, it is always interesting to see how people from other countries view Americans.

14-02-2003, 23:44

They are pissed off that a century ago France WAS one of the most powerful nations on earth.
Now it's not.

Then why arent England, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain acting the same way? They too were great powerful nations once... *L*

Seriously, do you really think that that'd be the sole reason for this all? Not too credible if you ask me...

Oh excuse me, france and Germany don't arm dictators etc, only the US and UK do??

Where on earth did yo get that ridiculous idea from??

Agreed, France and Germany played their part as well, along with several other countries at least.

The Fuhrer sought to rule Europe by force.Germany today seeks the same but by more indirect methods.

*just rolls eyes*

15-02-2003, 14:23

Yes indeed France and Germany played their part as well.

I really think it's interesting that you took that little quote out of my post but neglected the rest.

A little bit of taking quotes out of context aye?

Nice, or does that mean that the rest of what I said in that post was a little too real for you Ryozanpaku?

I see afterall that you neglected the crux of what I said .. very interesting indeed, not surprising of course, but interesting.

yep, you roll your eyes, well done, you've made yourself look not quite smart enough to read an entire post, and give some kind of answer to all of the information contained therein. Oh and you've also proved that you can convieniently ignore reality when it doesn't fit into your world view.
Well done, I'm sure your parents are very proud of you.

Jabbe

15-02-2003, 18:12

Dear Aucklandis,

If there's anyone who's playing this discussion easily it's you, making a general discussion a personal affair with insulting Ryozanpaku.

Take a look at Slacrates, who's correcting my opinion about americans, without gettin extremely mad at me because I stated some things wrong about his country. That deserves respect.

16-02-2003, 05:25

Because they are cowards and bastards. Germany and France are hypocrites who still side with terrorist. I hope that they get nuked by some arab terrorist

16-02-2003, 05:30

The Rep. of Fairfax Station is boycotting all products from France, Germany and other counties that dont back the USA.

16-02-2003, 05:43

Because they are cowards and bastards. Germany and France are hypocrites who still side with terrorist. I hope that they get nuked by some arab terrorist

I hope you don't mean that. They are European countries. They think differently than the US does. Does that mean nuke them till they glow green. It's the US of A, a country that is better than that. Show some respect, if you don't agree with the way they think calmly put your thoughts down, and show them why you think differently. The US prides itself on letting people disagree and talk things out, if they are wrong then prove them wrong, but don't make a stupid comment like that.

16-02-2003, 08:45

I think that Americans don't know geography as well as they should. I am an American myself, although I live abroad at the moment. Looking back on my days in the US, I realize how ignorant people were about the rest of the world. While from a historical perspective, Americans learn their fair share, they do not seem to know much about recent events.

Now I'm generalizing here. There are Americans who are well-informed on current events, but most of them seem to think that they know everything about the world by turning on the local news channel once in a while. The NGS has released studies showing that more than 10% of Americans can't find the US on a world map, compared to 3% of Mexicans and 1% of Swedes! I think that American education is fine in terms of Math, History, English, and most of the "core" subjects, but it still needs to emphasize geography and current events.

16-02-2003, 09:27

The NGS has released studies showing that more than 10% of Americans can't find the US on a world map, compared to 3% of Mexicans and 1% of Swedes! I think that American education is fine in terms of Math, History, English, and most of the "core" subjects, but it still needs to emphasize geography and current events.

In the case of the Mexicans, it's because they need to know which way to go in order to cross the border.

16-02-2003, 11:15

The only country completely 100% behind this is Israel, and of COURSE they'd be behind it, they are the ONE AND ONLY country that is actually in any way THREATENED by Saddam.

If you can admit this how can you be against pre-emptive action? Oh I get it, it's only the Jews! Everybody knows they deserve whatever death and mayhem comes to them!

16-02-2003, 11:57

Honestly I have never heard any Israeli debate issues like this without pointing out the fact they are Jews. FYI its possible to be against the war without being anti-semite or pro-saddam. Starting a war in the region is dangerous for Israel as well. Alot of my concerns are indeed with the Israeli people. I dont support Israeli politics at all when it comes to the palestinians but the least thing the people of Israel needs is more terror.

Do not put to much hope in the superior Israeli army. In war anything can happen and the risks of disasters are great. A war will create total rage in the arab world and also in other parts, as in europe. Israel does not need that.

Besides I cant see why Kuweit and Iran and Syria shouldnt also be threatend by Iraq. Its not ONLY Israel.

16-02-2003, 12:33

Jabbe.

I'm not trying to correct anyone's opinions about America.
I'm not an American, so how can I do so?
I live in New Zealand on the other side of the world from America.

So the obvious answer the question I just posed is, that I cannot do anything about changing people's opinions about America.

Also, I should point out, that I really don't care about other people's opinions about most things.
Why?
Because 80-90% of people are idiots, and that's an opinion I've formed by listening to the ridiculous, stupid and moronic things that most people say, when talking about issues they have no real idea about.

Such as the stupe, who said that France doesn't supply weapons to all sorts of tin pot dictatorships, but other countries (namely the US and the UK) do. If you bothered to read that post (assuming you have an attention span long enough to read it), you'd have seen that, yes I stated that the US and UK have taken part in such activities, but so have most other developed nations, and that France, far from being innocent of such charges is more guilty than both the US and UK.

I insulted Ryozanpaku, because they tried to use one quote from a post that contained alot of information (facts as it happens) that run contrary to popular belief, to forward his or her own little aims, which annoyed me, as they were trying to make me look stupid, when I was posting on a topic which I happen to know a great deal about (since I study Defence at University, so I am up to date on such issues, whereas Ryozanpaku obviously is not, but was trying to act like an authority on matters which he or she in fact has little or no information about).

So if you don't like the way I retorted Ryozanpaku, I really don't give a fat rat's a*s.
Instead of bleeting on at me, how mean I was to poor little Ryozanpaku, and others, maybe you should instead be posting responses to them, telling them to get their facts straight before writing their opinions, or that they should maybe keep their mouths shut, if the first part is too difficult for them.

As for referring to others who maybe argue their point more eloquently, I have to concede, that at times I do make my point forcefully.
Why?
Because most people really are to stupid to understand a point put across eloquently, unfortunately.

As for you, I note that you made no point except to admonish me, for they way I made my point.
Am I to take it that you have no opinion?
Or that you at least realised that you didn't have enough information at hand to say somethng sensible?
Or that you are a friend of Ryozanpaku's and got all kinds of pi***d off, seeing your poor little ill informed buddy put in his of her place by someone for a change?

I think I've made my point?
If not, sit back and think on it for a while, see what yo come up with.

16-02-2003, 12:54

Besides I cant see why Kuweit and Iran and Syria shouldnt also be threatend by Iraq. Its not ONLY Israel.

They don't feel threatened by Iraq, because Saddam isn't a threat to them, or anyone else apart from his own subjects. Saddam is horrible to his own people, but he lacks the power to threaten neighbouring countries.

Here's a question: If it's true (as Dubya & Co claim) that we need to take out Saddam in order to ensure world peace, why is it that his closest neighbours, who have reason to fear him if anyone does, don't particularly fear him at all? (They probably are worried about what he might do when he gets invaded.)

SFWD

16-02-2003, 13:27

The issue is not Iraq anymore. Belgium, Germany, and France are playing with 64 million lives for their power game!

War or not, Turkey needs protection from a nut like Saddam.

France, Germany, Belgium are approaching war as if it is a game.

16-02-2003, 18:41

War or not, Turkey needs protection from a nut like Saddam.
TUrkey doesn't need protaction, it's Bush who wants more troops in a neighboring country of Iraq

16-02-2003, 18:49

Here's a question: If it's true (as Dubya & Co claim) that we need to take out Saddam in order to ensure world peace, why is it that his closest neighbours, who have reason to fear him if anyone does, don't particularly fear him at all? (They probably are worried about what he might do when he gets invaded.)

They are not worried because Iraq won't do anything to them. The only neighbor Iraq hates is Israel. However Iraq also hates the UK, the US, and if given the chance he would attack those and probably other countries in Europe. He might not be able to reach these places with missiles now, but he is working on it. He has always wanted a way to launch a missile long distances, and probably will always try. Containment will not work.

17-02-2003, 12:15

They are not worried because Iraq won't do anything to them. The only neighbor Iraq hates is Israel.

Really?

Is that why Saddam invaded Kuwait? Is that why he promised to go on to conquer the rest of the Arab world, uniting it under his flag? Going back a few years, is that why he waged a horrifically bloody war against Iran in the years 1980-88, with an estimated death toll of 1 million?

Israel's the only one in the neighbourhood that Saddam would like to take out? Right.

17-02-2003, 14:57

Is that why Saddam invaded Kuwait? Is that why he promised to go on to conquer the rest of the Arab world, uniting it under his flag? Going back a few years, is that why he waged a horrifically bloody war against Iran in the years 1980-88, with an estimated death toll of 1 million?

Israel's the only one in the neighbourhood that Saddam would like to take out? Right.

Point taken about Iran, but Saddam invaded Kuwait because he saw land and more oil he thought he could take without anyone caring about it. Also does promising to unite all countries under one flag mean you hate a country. I take that to mean that Saddam thinks that he is the best man to run a country. Imperialism does not mean you hate someone. However those countries know if Saddam invades them the UN will act. They trust in containment, I don't. I guess that is the point I was trying to make.

21-02-2003, 03:12

Crimsonia thinks Belgium is maybe international because it would recieve lots of funds from the UN.
1) In the European Union, lots of money is reshared in many weak economical places. If I'm not mistaken, belgium pays as well
2) If Belgium would only be interested in international cash, why would we be teasing the US now? Hoping for sanctions?

To certain knowledge:
1: Belgium gets money from the EU and the UN gives no funds to it.
2: Belgium is a net receiver of EU finance, where some other member states, such as the UK, give out far more than they ever receive in turn.
3: Belgium has an interest in not generally pissing Chriac off and having him voice veiled threats at them as he did recently with certain European nations... ;)

21-02-2003, 03:12

Unless you don't see the difference between 'blue helmets' who simply assist the inspectors without the use of violence and an overkill army of us/uk forces scorching the earth?

How do you make sure resolutions are enforced in such a situation without force shown as potentially applied in future?

Isn't that what king louis said just before the french revolution.
ok, silly comparison of course, but politicians are supposed to be representatives of the people. Only makes sense they actually listen to the people, right?

It does not matter. The general public know very little about military issues and are not qualified. National leaders are voted to lead and the demonstrators certainly are not a majority of the voting electorate at all...

21-02-2003, 09:35

France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan currently all have exclusive oil-contracts with Iraq. I could be wrong on it being like this at present, but 4 years ago (when my brother-in-law wrote an article for 'The European' magazine) those were the ONLY non-Middle Eastern countries that Iraq would deal with. As part of their support for buying Iraqi oil, they get major concessions on price, payment times and many other deals. Although I do not believe this to be the only (nor major) reason for their abstention from suport for war on Iraq, you have to admit that they wouldn't enjoy losing such a large portion of their oil from such a willing supplier.

Regards, Chuz

21-02-2003, 09:53

France and Germany?

How about adding Russia,China,Austria,Belgium etc...

Do you really think the United States can act as judge and jury when the above mentioned countries are unconvinced that total war is the answer?

Screw the French you say? Does the Revolutionary War in the United States ring a bell. Who fought on our side for Independence?

The Statue of Liberty?

The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783?

I suggest turning off the TV set and reading some real history before making emotional comments based on a "FOX" news report.

21-02-2003, 12:00

I don't really care why Chirac — that i mostly find ridicule and only trying to do what will make him popular — opposes to the war, i'm just happy he does, because i think this war is a stupid thing. Children of Iraq are dying everyday 'cause of the embargo, and the only thing they don't need is another war. Just remember there was the same — or more — killed in collateral camages in Afghanistan than in the horrific tragedy of the WTC. That means, whatever they speak of intelligent or chirurgical weapons, there will be so many death again.
i find funny the insults France get for being coward and for having forgotten the WWII. Is there any relation? Is America ruled by iraq? Even if America was only threatened — and that's not the case — has it any relation with the fact of being defeated and ruled by another nation? Youreally think France will only speak of peacve if it was the case?
And only one other thing : the iraq, and all that crappish dictatorship that are called evil by the US are not so dangerous. Yes, we have to check for weapons, and being careful about powers like North Corea or Pakistan with nuclear bomb. But hey, if they did anything dangerous, the almighty US would immediatly anihilate them, their power is fucking ridiculous compared to america, and even to the loosy France…

21-02-2003, 12:31

I'd say a combination of all except
They are concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people
6% [ 8 ]

Plus the fact that public opinion accross Europe is most overwhelmingly against the war that these governments are afraid of being booted out.

Garrison II

01-03-2003, 03:51

You know why the French Fought for us???? Its cause they wanted to piss off Britain cause they where getting their asses kicked. How come you never get pissed when Clinton Invades Serbia and Bombs Civilians, how come you don't get pissed when Clinton invaded Iraq, how come we didn't see any protests?

01-03-2003, 16:04

Look, this case is quite simple here. I hope all of us are democrats (in the sense of: pro a democratic system of government.) Well, fact is, more than 70% of the population of Europe is against a war in Iraq. In France and Germany, the percentages are even higher. Thus, there actions are not those of weasals, but those that are supported by majority. Since we don't live in a world of absolute truth, that is a very good argument.
One more comment on some Americans who analyse the policy of Belgium with the greatest know-how: the vast majority of Americans I've encountered, didn't know where Belgium was situated on the map, and thought it was some part of Brussels or something. All this jabbing about us supporting because we have to follow our neighbours for economical interest is nonsence: a) Uk is a neighbour as well b)so is the netherlands, with which we have a much greater bond.

Garrison II

01-03-2003, 16:44

Why do we have to have the support of the rest of the world? Post-Soviet Union Europe won't take a risk. I wish the Soviets would come back to power and enslave all of Europe. I hope the Spetz Naz destroy the Effiel Tower and I hope UCE destroys Germany kills the Chancellor. I want to see T-80's storming into nations capital and then Millions of Americans would laugh. I wish we'd withdraw out of the dmz and a let North Koreans invade, and lets see how the SK react.

01-03-2003, 17:21

As a Brit, and an anti-war Brit at that, I musty point out how ignorant the Americans are about the current conflict. I do not mean to offend you but the levels of propaganda you receive are absurd. yes, so does everyone else but we don't buy it. The 'evidence' Colin Powell showed of bases containing 'weapons of mass distruction' were so fuzzy and distorted a 'dangerous missile' could have been a truck, a bush or even a heard of cows.

In fact, all the pictures shown were of sites already visited and cleared by the UN. Of course, the Americans on this forum will deny the above and the following which is why I won't argue my case.

83% of Europeans in a Time poll said Bush is the biggest threat to world peace, followed by Saddam at 8% and Sharon at 7%.

Most of Europe is against war. Aznal, leader of Spaina and pro-war is now second place in the ratings polls behind the Socialists. 1.5 - 2 million marched in London against war and 3 million in Rome. The biggest rebellion of MPs in the House of Commons (to those who don't know much about foreign politics - without meaning to sound racist, most Americans - that is where British affairs and acts are talked and voted on,) took place when 122 Labour (that's Blair's party) MPs voted against the war and 199 MPs in total. The whole of Europe is against the war- not the politicians but the people (or close enough- in the UK it is 90% against).

Sorry to be appearing anti-American but the following statitsics sum up why Bush is going relatively unquestioned by his people- 50% of Americans believe Iraqis were on the planes that crashed into the twin towers= FALSE. 25% believe Saddam has been proven to be behind the attacks.

There is no link between Saddam and fundamental Islamic terrorists. he is secular and not much of a muslim at all. Bin Laden launched an initifada aginst him and his regime some time ago.

Do you not feel that attacking Iraq could only make people in the middle east angrier and more likely to try to kill Americans and attack the west. It is said the abused becomes the abuser. This will surely happen.

If Iraq was growing crrots instead of oil, would Bush attack? No, of course not. There are dozens of cruel dictators but nothing is being done about them. The USA even supports a number of them.

Why are we punishing the people of Iraq for Saddam's crimes? That is what the sanctions and the bombs do. They don't discriminate between a tyrant and his starving people. I don't think Saddam is a good man but I don't believe killing his people will help. This will unite extremist Muslims against the west when we should be iradicating poverty, stopping AIDS, solving the Israel-Palestine dispute, etc. not killing those suffering thanks to an America-installed dictator. One last thought- the USA has never successfully installed a democarcy that has lasted this century.

So I raise my glass to France, Germany, Russia and everyone who is trying to stop this murderous war.

01-03-2003, 18:07

There are several dots that could be connected here, but have been left in isolation. FIrst: what used to be the far right in the US,but is now the Republican party, has long wanted to destroy the UN. Iraq poses an opportunity. If the UN can be bullied by Bush and co. it will be seen as irrelevant by many countries. If the UN is not bullied, Bush simply attacks on his own, rendering the UN irrelevant. Either way, the right wins.

Second, the Derek Bond case - the Brit held for 3 weeks in a South African jail at the request of the FBI, who monitor terrorism in the US. Never mentioned in the US news media, which has largely become a propaganda machine for Bush. But they arrest and imprison, without cause, without due process, and without letting anyone know based on their suspicion. Mr. Bond was held 3 weeks, with international outcry. How many innocent people are being held and perhaps tortured by the FBI with impunity? We'll never know. The FBI took 10 days before even bothering to check Mr. Bond's name, and apparently never bothered to send an agent to check him out.

Third, the issue of petrol dollars. Iraq changed its oil pricing to euros rather than dollars, which effectively removed a lot of income from the US and increased Iraq's freedom. Bush and his oil cartel need to keep international oil pricing in dollars to keep increasing their billions and their power.

Fourth, Bush's religious zealotry. I believe he truly does feel this to be a holy crusade.

Fifth, the religico-politico ideals of the right. Several US Supreme court justices - who installed Bush - have publicly let it be known that they believe (a) in natural law - that there is a God who instills morality in people which they will naturally follow (and guess who's definition of God and morality they use?), and (b) the US was established to be a Chrisitan mission to the new world, not as a place where the religious fanatics of Europe could go, and not as a tolerance country where your religious beliefs are your own.

Sixth, the support for terrorism throughout the world, in which the US has engaged mightily. See the contras of Reagan, the overthrow of Salvador Allende, and many many others. There is a rogue terrorist state in the world - the US.

Seventh, the US has always considered itself immune to any international law. Some of you may recall Lt. William Calley of Vietnam - he and his squad murdered over 400 unarmed women and children. Calls for his punishment essentially resulted in a short-term house arrest.

Finally, consider that a large number of people in the current administration were criminals in the Nixon regime, who had to be granted immunity to get their information to remove Nixon and, therefore, had their criminal status removed. Now they are back in power. :( :evil:

02-03-2003, 00:42

Can you put: "Because France has a population of rifle-droppers," as an answer choice, please?

02-03-2003, 12:45

Ummm...

Specific examples and proof?

02-03-2003, 12:50

Can you put: "Because France has a population of rifle-droppers," as an answer choice, please?

Sorry, but I'm trying to keep this poll relatively unbiased. If you don't like the other choices, I'd go with none of the above.

02-03-2003, 13:42

The Peace Loving US as professed after Sept 11 is a load of crap.

I doubt "peace loving" equates with war, look how aggressive and starved for war the US is appearing? That's not peace loving at all.

Over Iraq, the US should learn that bombs won't bring peace. Peace brings peace and peaceful methods bring peace, give a reason for the world to trust you and stop being so God damned arrogant. It's an incredible disregard for international law and the unilateralism will in fact render international law. There should not be a law for one country, and a law for another. This will breed only the feeling of oppression as the US flexes it's might. The US detains many people without any regard for human or legal rights. What about Guantanamo Bay, what's going on there? Any lawyers? Any representation? If the US can detain people from other countries on charges, for unspecified amounts of time - who knows what other powers it may eventually coerce or bully out of the world.

Im sick and tired of the goddamn media. Giant propaganda engine, just analyse the langauge used on the next war broadcast. Study it carefully, here in my area of the world (Australia) the news is incredibly and utterly bias. And our government supports this manic, childlike war to get 'brownie points' - or is it to get the spoils. So much for democracy, when we don't get a public vote on war. The Govt has pre-deployed troops a while ago, so much for believing in peace and being peace loving.

As for terrorism. I'm sure a giant army amassing outside your country does not create terror. I'm sure the repeated cries of 'were coming to get you' doesn't either. The US is preaching terrorism, an anti-thesis to it's strongest case since Sept11, but cannot be labelled such because it has a uniform, a code and hardware.

02-03-2003, 14:03

Well, I think its clear that everyone outside America is against war (with the exception of poodle politicans and the biased rightwing journalists) as this poll shows. "Old Europe" doesn't want a war because it remembers how it was in WWII and WWI. America hasn't had that sort of thing- Spetember 11th, terrible as it was, was nothing compared to the Blitzkrieg, Hitler's devastation of the USSR or the holocaust. And by the way, Saddam is no Hitler- he doesn't have the weapons capable of the sort of genocide the US is about to unleash on Iraq.

“Only peacable acts bring peace, only just acts bring justice. War and death bring only hatred, war, and death.” -- Ursula K. Leguin

"There never was a good war or bad peace." -- Benjamin Franklin

War won't stop terrorism- it will pour oil on the flames of hatred and sooner or later, America will suffer. Will attacking Iraq, stealing their oil, murdering their people and using weapons of mass distruction really convince already enraged extremists that America isn't anti-Islam, supports people's right to independence and really, wants to make the world an equal place.

No.

Jabbe

03-03-2003, 12:41

Well, there has been a lot of discussion about taking part of defending Turkey, which France, Germany and Belgium wouldn't participate in, and guess what... Turkey doesn't even want American soldiers in their land... a miscalculation, Mr Bush?

Garrison II

03-03-2003, 14:27

France didn't want war in the first Gulf War.

Garrison II

03-03-2003, 14:30

The Soviet Politburo hoped that some day the Franco-German axis, initiated by French President Charles de Gaulle some 40 years ago, would break up NATO and deliver Western Europe into Soviet hands.

In the 1960s, the West did not disintegrate. Gaullist France itself became isolated -- neither Germany nor anyone else in Western Europe was ready to seriously undermine solidarity with the United States in the face of tens of thousands of Soviet tanks in Central Europe.

Today, with the old Soviet Union in ruins, France and Germany (supported by Belgium) are ready to undermine Western military cohesion to save the totalitarian dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and his Baath party from being overthrown.

Of course, today Russia is too weak to seriously exploit the new rift in the West. But many in Moscow are happy to see it happen: The dream of a "multipolar" world seems to be materializing. France, Germany, China, Russia, the Vatican -- i.e. all, or almost all, world centers of power with the exception of Washington are joining forces to prevent the U.S. war machine from rolling Hussein out of office.

It would seem strange that so diverse a collection of forces would unite to defend a bloody Nazi-style dictatorship in Iraq. But actually this de facto alliance has existed for decades.

In the 1930s, West European pacifists were the prime political force that supported appeasement of Adolf Hitler. In the 1940s, the Vatican wholeheartedly cooperated with the Nazis and after the demise of Hitler helped war criminals to escape justice. In turn, the Nazis used environmentalist and antiglobalist slogans to fight what they believed was the Jewish-dominated "world plutocracy."

I lived for almost 40 years under a totalitarian regime, and I know from first-hand experience what life without freedom means. Anti-war protesters in Western Europe and America do not know and could not care less.

Only by military means can millions of Iraqis be released from total servitude, and Hussein destroyed along with his Baath party that has ruled Iraq since 1958. If there ever existed such a thing as a "just war" then the coming U.S.-led invasion of Iraq could be the most righteous of them all.

In 1991, after a military victory and the liberation of Kuwait, allied forces stopped short of Baghdad. A ceasefire was signed that left Hussein in power.

It's easy to envisage a similar scenario in 1944: After the liberation of France and Belgium, the war could have stopped at the borders of Hitler's Reich. A ceasefire could have been signed (the Germans were at the time actively trying to start negotiations to organize such a ceasefire). A UN inspection team could have been deployed to destroy Hitler's ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. Hitler and his party would have continued to rule in Berlin and would surely have played games with UN arms inspectors, using underground factories and so on.

Western pacifists, the Vatican and all those that today adamantly oppose the liberation of Iraq by force would surely have liked an outcome that would have left Hitler in power and saved many German lives and German cities. The Germans were in fact liberated against their own will -- the majority continued to support Hitler to the bloody end.

In April 1975, Hussein visited Moscow to ask for Soviet help to build a full reactor to make nuclear weapons. Although Russia agreed to supply Iraq with staggering amounts of conventional weapons, it balked at helping Baghdad go nuclear. In September 1975, Hussein went to Paris to meet politicians with far fewer scruples than Soviet Communists. The French prime minister at the time, Jacques Chirac, signed an agreement to sell Hussein a reactor and arms-grade uranium.

Garrison II

03-03-2003, 14:32

My source is #4
Moscow Times
February 13, 2003
Most Righteous War of All
By Pavel Felgenhauer

03-03-2003, 14:42

Damn the French. They lost their spine ever since the first World War. France is a dictatorship that is it. The people do not vote for the president but the congress or parlement, whatever they call that crap, votes for the president. France is not a republican democracy.

You are totally wrong, stupid. Like in the USA, we voted for our Parliament, and for our corrupted President (and also city councils...).

What's more, there is not only one model of democracy. You may have a presidential republic (US), a parliamentary one (Italy), a mixed model (France), a democratic monarchy (UK)... :P

04-03-2003, 11:12

In 1991, after a military victory and the liberation of Kuwait, allied forces stopped short of Baghdad. A ceasefire was signed that left Hussein in power.

It's easy to envisage a similar scenario in 1944: After the liberation of France and Belgium, the war could have stopped at the borders of Hitler's Reich. A ceasefire could have been signed (the Germans were at the time actively trying to start negotiations to organize such a ceasefire). A UN inspection team could have been deployed to destroy Hitler's ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. Hitler and his party would have continued to rule in Berlin and would surely have played games with UN arms inspectors, using underground factories and so on.

Western pacifists, the Vatican and all those that today adamantly oppose the liberation of Iraq by force would surely have liked an outcome that would have left Hitler in power and saved many German lives and German cities. The Germans were in fact liberated against their own will -- the majority continued to support Hitler to the bloody end.

In April 1975, Hussein visited Moscow to ask for Soviet help to build a full reactor to make nuclear weapons. Although Russia agreed to supply Iraq with staggering amounts of conventional weapons, it balked at helping Baghdad go nuclear. In September 1975, Hussein went to Paris to meet politicians with far fewer scruples than Soviet Communists. The French prime minister at the time, Jacques Chirac, signed an agreement to sell Hussein a reactor and arms-grade uranium.
Only 2 points :
— There's no relation between Iraq now and Germany in the III reich. The Nazi regime was beginning to exterminate people when America took part, Jews, gays… Hitler had an enormous army, and the country was one of the mightiest power of the world. What relation, apart dictatorship, that is shared by many leaders around the world, not speaking about north Korea or Iran but good friends of the american government. Of course the pacifists were fucking wrong in 33-39, but it's not exactly the same situation.
— Yes, that damn Chirac maybe meet Hussein, like Dick Cheney in that time, when America like all the west countries supported Iraq against Iran. Well, and America sold a gas, which has been used for killing Kurds as i know. Not more glorious. All the western countries were involved into that, not france specifically.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Poll: Why do France and Germany oppose War in Iraq?