NationStates Jolt Archive

They still rioting ? I thought France surrendered to the rioters already .

They're rioting over France's surrender to the rioters :D

Honestly, why is it taking them so long to crack down? Hell the LA riots lasted four days, and that's because the Nat'l Guard were delayed for 24 hours.

Gone to Irak recently? Or to Tadjikistan? Can you explain to me how does the world economy work? Where are the stuff produced and where are they consumed?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
You are pretty smart actually.

who the hell cares about the french. what have they ever done for us except give us somewhere to send our soldiers? france has no allies, only interests. let them take care of themselves for a while.
You care, or you wouldn't post here.

You are pretty smart actually.
Why?
I must admit I haven't been to either country, but I think doing an Econ (or even Business) Degree should equip you with plenty enough info to answer the other two questions.

==================================================

On the topic, see here what the Middle East thinks of the riots...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4418256.stm

Commentary by Abdul Bari Atwan in London-based Quds al-Arabi

The growing violence in France should be a warning to all European governments. It is an expected outcome of policies that look down on foreigners and deal with them as if they were a terrorist time bomb.

Why?
I must admit I haven't been to either country, but I think doing an Econ (or even Business) Degree should equip you with plenty enough info to answer the other two questions.

==================================================

On the topic, see here what the Middle East thinks of the riots...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4418256.stm

Commentary by Abdul Bari Atwan in London-based Quds al-Arabi

The growing violence in France should be a warning to all European governments. It is an expected outcome of policies that look down on foreigners and deal with them as if they were a terrorist time bomb.
And just what about the Riots (and that position) would disuade me from believing just that... that they ARE a time bomb?

Why?
I must admit I haven't been to either country, but I think doing an Econ (or even Business) Degree should equip you with plenty enough info to answer the other two questions.

==================================================

On the topic, see here what the Middle East thinks of the riots...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4418256.stm
Those are not the answers I was waiting for but whatever this is off topic and I have enough of this discussion about the USA already. This thread is about the riots in France but it seems to turn into talks about the percieved enemies of the USA (the muslims, the socialists and even France).

And just what about the Riots (and that position) would disuade me from believing just that... that they ARE a time bomb?
Well, you left out the word "terrorist", which is pretty vital.

But other than that...it's a matter of interpretation: If you interpret the riots as "those Arabs and Africans want to destroy stuff" then that's different to "those underprivileged classes have been forced to use violence to make themselves heard".

At any rate, more racism and racial profiling is probably not going to help.

Those are not the answers I was waiting for but whatever this is off topic and I have enough of this discussion about the USA. This thread is about the riots in France but it seems to turn into talks about the percieved enemies of the USA (the muslims, the socialists and even France).

Read the article. It has everything to do with the topic at hand.

Read the article. It has everything to do with the topic at hand.
Yes indeed. Sorry about that. I was replying to the first part but I quoted the whole post.

This thread is about the riots in France but it seems to turn into talks about the percieved enemies of the USA (the muslims, the socialists and even France).
Welcome to NS...most kiddies here are from the US, and they have a tendency to direct political and social threads that way.

But to be honest, I think everything that needs to be said has been said...just pure disbelief that the French Government would fail to affirm the supremacy of the constitutional state, of the Republic, in a situation like this.
I sympathise with the situation faced by the people in these poor suburbs, but rioting is not an answer - and the Government has the responsibility to make that clear from day one (and protect people's jobs, property and health in the process)

This is all because Chirac hates black people:D

Welcome to NS...most kiddies here are from the US, and they have a tendency to direct political and social threads that way.

A vile and odious lie if I ever saw one. The great majority of people here are from Europe, Australia, or Canada and you know it.

the riots in France merged? oh god, they're done for

A vile and odious lie if I ever saw one. The great majority of people here are from Europe, Australia, or Canada and you know it.
http://www.frappr.com/nsgeneral

Let's call it even, shall we? Do you have access to that poll they did once about NS2, in which locations featured as well?

http://www.frappr.com/nsgeneral

Let's call it even, shall we? Do you have access to that poll they did once about NS2, in which locations featured as well?

I think its in a sticky somewhere. I'm going to look for it. But the frappr thing can hardly count, only 199 people did it compared to the hundreds of thousands of people in nationstates.

I have my views on this, but I better keep quiet. I wouldn't want to start another shitstorm.

I notice a lot of people compare the French riots to the race riots in America in the sixties and seventies. There are a few similarities. Both are groups rioting against what they see as systematic discrimination and lack of economic oppritunity. Both were nationwide. But I find one interesting difference. They weren't Southern blacks. They were all Northern blacks with great political freedom, whereas the Southern blacks preffered civil disobedience. This being France, the government is involved in everything in some way, shape or form. Yet I wonder if this intervention helps or hinders the situation, and it needs to be looked iinto. Either way, I see the rioters lashing out at society in general, both the mainstream and moderates in their own ethnic groups.
I think the best American parallel would be the Draft Riots of the Civil War, but a few others seem to fit the bill. This is a bit more like a low-level version of England's Luddite insurgency, where again, they lash out at society because they no not what else to hate.+

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I laugh at France! In my opinion they deserve this beyond reasoning. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I hate France with a passion. Good thing my state is bigger than the whole country!

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I laugh at France! In my opinion they deserve this beyond reasoning. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I hate France with a passion. Good thing my state is bigger than the whole country!

Finally a Bushevik is not afraid to say what's on his mind and cheer the woes of France.

Finally a Bushevik is not afraid to say what's on his mind and cheer the woes of France.

WTF is a Bushevik ? Anyone who doesnt follow your train of thought ?

WTF is a Bushevik ? Anyone who doesnt follow your train of thought ?
You heard of Bolcheviks, right? Violent, irrational and offensive thugs bound to an ideology to the very last?

Well, a Bushevik is kinda similar....

Point is that gloating about the misfortunes of another nations is hardly the thing to do, regardless which side it comes from.
And gloating about the geographical size of a nation is just beyond ... well, beyond stupidity.

You heard of Bolcheviks, right? Violent, irrational and offensive thugs bound to an ideology to the very last?

Well, a Bushevik is kinda similar....

Point is that gloating about the misfortunes of another nations is hardly the thing to do, regardless which side it comes from.
And gloating about the geographical size of a nation is just beyond ... well, beyond stupidity.

Let's see here...

Sure they helped us out in the American Revolution, but mind you they only did that after we had to proove to them that we could win.

In world war won, we had to go over to Europe and everyones asses.

Gee, we had to do it again in World War two.

So don't they owe us?

We ask them and the rest of Europe to help us with the Iraq war and we get a no.

Texas>France

...and save the world from the Nazis (AGAIN).
ROFLMAO²!!!

All kidding aside from my absolutly retarted and offensive summary of why I hate France (in my own words). I know that if we ever got screwed over, they WOULD NOT help us at all.
And how do you know that, I dare ask.

Let's see...US gets attacked by Terrorists in 2001. Who's in New York at the time? Oooh, it's Jacques Chirac! And he's the very first leader to express his condolences to the American people.

Then the US decides to take out the Taliban. France says: "Okay, we're friends and allies, your enemies are our enemies."
France proceeds to send troops, 1800 of which are still stationed there - and an air craft carrier. It's special forces are deployed there, and French air space as well as satellites were used.
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/defense.asp
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2002/afghan061102.asp
fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6207.pdf (Careful, it's a PDF File by the congress, so it's a little long - don't download if you don't think you need it)

Then the US decides to attack Iraq, for no apparent reason that has anything to do with the attacks of 2001. France is suspicious and wants to establish through the UN whether an attack is justified.
The US gets indignant about it, so does France, the two fall out.

France today says "we're still friends, and friends have disagreements sometimes...nonetheless we pledged troops to help train Iraqi Forces, and help rebuild Iraq".
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/21/MNGPFCSOKC1.DTL&feed=rss.news
US (or at least you...I guess there is a difference) says "French people are all frogs! They'd never help us! Haha, look at the riots!!! They really deserve that! LOL!"

In world war won, we had to go over to Europe and (save) everyones asses.
Hardly.

Now place those numbers from the past into the dollars of today.

Also, under EVERY Administration, government expanded.

Now! Lets get back to the French riots shall we?

It's debt as a percentage of GDP, which means that, even if you multiplied both the debt and the GDP by any rate of inflation, it's going to come out to the same ratio. In other words, adjusting for infation does not make a whit of difference in the calculation.

The question is not whether government expanded. It's whether it was expanding more or less than the economy was expanding.

Our spending actually shrank dramatically '46-'48 under Truman. That was obviously the post-WWII ramp-down. We also had dips in '54-'55 (Korean War ramp-down). We had no 'peace dividends' following any of our other wars.

Back to the topic...

You can clearly see my related positions earlier in the thread.

Which the eye-doinking jingoistic rah-rahs have ignored in favor of introducing their own tangents. I'm just shooting down such non-sequiturs when they are utterly beyond the realm of truth.

My belief is that the kind of small-mindedness shown in threads like these is only proof of the sort of blind "send in the troops" mentality is a way to shut one's minds to the true long-lasting solutions needed. Many people who are supposedly managing nations in the billions of souls have no clue how they would personally successfully respond given this sort of crisis in real life.

They can say "send in the troops," and that could be their own Boston Massacre, making them all mad King George III's.

I always wonder what might have happened had Britain simply allowed the Colonies to have MPs and a vote in how they were taxed.

Could you imagine how the world might be different?

Also, how does US debt affect this whole conversation?

Look at how our own nation was born (http://www.tax.org/Museum/1756-1776.htm).

It was our own frustration at the British government's heavy borrowing for unprofitable wars -- and then levying taxes to pay for it -- that caused the Colonists to rebel. The Parliament never offered the US representation in government, and was taking their money and losing it in all sorts of wild military schemes that did not benefit the Colonists much one way or the other.

They at least wanted the right to appoint their own military leaders if they were going to be funding the Seven Years War and French and Indian War.

Britain didn't see it that way. Taxation without representation.

There are about 5 million persons of Algerian descent in France, which has a population of 62 million. About 8% of the population.

Now, how many Algerian members of French government are there?

By the way, we could also say "Islamic faith," since the majority of people of Islamic faith in France are of Algerian descent, but in fact there are Muslims from other nations in France too. Let's not confuse the two, but realize they are tightly coupled.

So. Let's look at the French legislature.

National Assembly: 577
Senate: 318

How many represent the Muslim minority?

According to the only Internet article (http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/citizen/2003/0606french.htm)I could find on the subject -- there are none.

So there's your taxation without representation.

"As of July 2004, 50% of imprisoned criminals in France are Muslims while Muslims make up approximately 10% of the population." -- Islam in France (Wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France)

So, no government representation, and a tremendous criminal incarceration rate. Surprising?

France faces a significant security risk much the same as the US did with the war on terror.

In 1994 the Algerian GIA tried to blow up the Eiffel Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Islamic_Group#GIA_in_France) on Christmas Eve with a hijacked aircraft, Air France Flight 8969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969), in a plot eerily similar to the Trade Center attacks. It was thwarted by the French GIGN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIGN).

So no one should mock the French as inept in comparison to the US' own intelligence failure on the same account. You also have to give credit to the Algerian army for not letting the plane take off immediately. It gave the French a chance to try a practice run-through of the boarding on a similar aircraft first. A few of the hostages were killed and many were wounded, but the aircraft was retaken and most of the hostages were freed unharmed.

Also, here's an article on the French policy of Laïcité (http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=5&debateId=57&articleId=1811), or what is driving their historical desire to separate church and state. It led to the anti-hijab laws in recent years.

And for those who think that France has the refugee floodgates open, since 1991, only between 1% to 4% of those who applied for asylum from Algeria were granted it (see source (http://www.fmreview.org/text/FMR/01/09.htm).

Again, I suggest people actually engage their brains and do some research.

For the Muslim/Algerian population of France, this is an issue that goes far beyond 2 hooligans that got electrocuted fleeing from police.

It has to do with the fact that for the French government, it wishes for these people to be "French Muslims" -- with an emphasis on the secular state of Franch first, and Muslim second.

As many Muslims will tell you, Allah will always come first to them.

Hence the inherent conflict.

You'd also think that, of the hundreds of seats in the French legislature, at least one person of Muslim faith would be speaking out for peace, for justice, or even being asked questions by the foreign press.

However, that elected French Muslim official does not yet exist.

Taxation without representation.

We fought a war over such when it was about tea taxes.

We also fought a war, the Whisky Rebellion of 1794 (http://www.happymountain.net/disgraceful%20history.html), a domestic uprising against our own US government when it passed the Whisky Tax.

So learn your US history, learn your French history, and understand that this is officially a big problem with no immediate solutions.

Sending in tanks and troops might quell it a la Tienanmen Square if they were all in one place, but I don't think that can be done in 300 cities around the nation without it leading to a general outbreak of even more civil insurrection.

If you don't have a civil war now, you sure as heck might have one then.

Unemployment rate:
America 5.5% (2004 est.)

France 10.10% (2004 est)

You wonder why they are rioting?

2)The French riots have a clearly ethnic and religious character. To a limit, the same could have been said about the LA "race" riots- but the problem is that in France, the rioters come from the ethnic and religious community that at the moment makes up as much as 30% of the total population. A world of difference.
Your percentage of the French population that is Islamic/Algerian in background is far too high.

If you use a statistic, quote the right one.

We had 2 in our history. 1775-1783 when we tossed out the Brits and then again in 1861-1865 that the South didn't win.

You're leaving out:

Shay's Rebellion (http://www.shaysnet.com/dshays.html) (1786-1787) - tax revolt

Indian Wars (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/iwcmp.htm) (1790 - 1891) - minority uprisings

The Whiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion) (1794) - tax revolt

Fries's Rebellion "The Hot Water War" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fries%27s_Rebellion) (1799) - tax revolt

U.S. Slave Rebellions (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/DIASPORA/REBEL.HTM) (1800-1865) - antislave revolts

"Bleeding Kansas" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2952.html) (1853-1861) - antislave civil war

Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2940.html) (1859) - antislave revolt

Johnson County War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_County_War) (1885-1902, peaked in 1892) - range war

You might also wish to look at the US's own first supression of an Islamic uprising, to which we changed national policy and gave in to their demands:

The Moro Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Rebellion) (1901-1913) - Islamic-Nationalist rebellion led by Moros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_%28Philippines%29), the Islamic Malayans living in south Philippines (Mindanao). Only ended when the US promised independence to the Philippines.

This is why the Philippines never became a "state." Curiously enough, there is a minority movement still occurring today amongst Filipinos to apply for US statehood (http://members.aol.com/xpus/Phil/Manifesto.html). They have had this hope ever since the corrupt Marcos regime, and still believe (http://philippinegovantigraft.homestead.com/Statehood.html) it would help change a graft-filled government.

In the meanwhile, the Islamic separatist Moro revolution continues today against the Philippine government.

It should also be noted the American Revolution we are familiar with was only the first successful rebellion against British rule. There were a series of earlier tax revolts and individual revolutions which failed and were put down, most notably such as Leisler's Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leisler%27s_Rebellion) which took control of lower New York (1689-1691).

He tried to share wealth with the poor, and he was popular with the repressed Dutch settlers who had suffered under 25 years of British rule. The rich Anglicans aristocrats loathed him. Eventually an expeditionary force was sent and New York was retaken. For his crimes, Leisler was hung, drawn and quartered.

The people of America (including the pre-US era, black slaves and inclusive of the Native American Indians), have had well over a dozen wars and revolts.

Yes, send in the troops. That will solve everything.

It allows you to watch the television without pesky interruptions of the complaints of poor and angry people who are not your personal friends.

PBS NewsHour (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/july-dec05/france_11-07.html)

Observations:

1. This problem did not just "start." Over the year there have been 28,000 burned cars, but the problem escalated in the past weeks.

7,000 cars were destroyed since the larger outbreak of violence. That's a signigicant escalation. There has been not just a sudden "Wow, where did that come from?" but this an escalation of frustration over time.

2. The inference made in the PBS disussion is that a lot of this rioting is for "your benefit," in terms of calling attention to and informing the world about the problems they face. Note how, for instance, we are all quite aware of the situation, whereas before no one really knew or cared about the situation?

3. Minister Azouz Begag is the first-ever government minister of North African descent. He is responsible for equal opportunities. I think we've found our necessary "John Adams." He'll be a key figure in creating a solution.

He is a popular novelist and sociologist (http://clicnet.swarthmore.edu/litterature/moderne/begag/presentation.html). His new position is as the ministre délégué à la Promotion de l’Egalité des chances (http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/acteurs/biographie_5/azouz_begag_ministre_delegue_53159.html) -- Minister Delegated to the Promotion of the Equal Opportunity.

He's been verbally critical of Sarkozy.

Ironically when he came to the US to speak in Atlanta about racial discrimination, even with his A1 diplomatic passport, he was detained for 15 minutes by US customs officials. Eventually he was released and allowed to proceed to the university to speak. He himself noted the pictures of Martin Luther King on the walls as he passed through the airport.

(See original French version (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-702696,0.html); automatically translated English version (http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0%402-3224,36-702696,0.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dazouz%2Bbegag%26hl%3Den%26hs%3Dvrj%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official) -- not sure if this link will work for all viewers.)

All you people going "lolol France deserves it" suck. I don't like France's politics on an international level, but they don't deserve a civil war, especially since the people getting their property destroyed arn't part of the ruling clique, but mostly ordinary people like you and me. :rolleyes:

France needs to break out their army, declare martial law, and start busting heads. This has gone on long enough and obviously current measures arn't working.

Unemployment rate:
America 5.5% (2004 est.)

France 10.10% (2004 est)

You wonder why they are rioting?
Poland- whopping 19.5% (2004 est.) Why don't the Poles riot?

Poland- whopping 19.5% (2004 est.) Why don't the Poles riot?

A lot of them are subsistence level farmers :)

Let's see here...

Sure they helped us out in the American Revolution, but mind you they only did that after we had to proove to them that we could win.Aha. So the French waiting until the last moment is bad because America has never done anything of the sort.
In world war won, we had to go over to Europe and everyones asses.Let me get this straight, the French were wrong to wait until the Americans proved they could beat the British but Americans "saved" everyone after waiting until the Germans were nearly bled dry by Britain's naval blockade, making a pretty penny selling weapons, and then finally joining in 1917 (the War started in 1914) to pick up a bit of the glory?
And let me remind you that the Americans didn't save the Germans. If you really want to put it that way, America betrayed the Germans that rebelled against Kaiser Wilhelm II believing that Wilson's 14 points would be the grounds of the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson failed to get them through.
Gee, we had to do it again in World War two.Lesse, America didn't join until 1942. The war started in 1939. America certainly has a lot more right to claim it was a major part of bringing down Germany in WWII (not WWI), but then again, so do the Russians, who were in for a year longer and actually had to suffer German troops on their territory.
So don't they owe us?The French participated in an event that decided on whether the US existed or not, the US came late in WWI and WWII, the first of which deciding mainly territorial issues and in no way threatening the very existence of France.

Let me also ask you, if you owed someone, what would you think of them when they rub it under your nose every chance they get?
We ask them and the rest of Europe to help us with the Iraq war and we get a no. Well, Europe isn't there for fighting America's wars. The War on Terror is everyone's business, which is why all those countries you complain about not helping are involved in it. The War on Iraq is not seen as part of the War on Terror, especially since the US and Britain provided bogus evidence in favor of it. And there is (Old) European help for Iraq, just not in Iraq. Germany sent people to train Iraqi personnel. They're in the other Gulf countries, doing that right now. There's a lot of debt relief for Iraq.
But America most certainly can't demand that (Old) Europe send its people to bleed for an American mistake.
Texas>FranceIn size maybe, but I have yet to see a Frenchman run around in a t-shirt proclaiming that there's only people that are French and people that want to be French in the world.

Poland- whopping 19.5% (2004 est.) Why don't the Poles riot?
That is a pretty good question actually...wouldn't have thought it would he that high.

And to think that Germans are complaining about Polish people stealing their jobs...:rolleyes:

I always wonder what might have happened had Britain simply allowed the Colonies to have MPs and a vote in how they were taxed.

-snip-

It was our own frustration at the British government's heavy borrowing for unprofitable wars -- and then levying taxes to pay for it -- that caused the Colonists to rebel. The Parliament never offered the US representation in government, and was taking their money and losing it in all sorts of wild military schemes that did not benefit the Colonists much one way or the other.

Yah; they suggested the MP thing, the colonists were never interested in it.

Actually the colonists were taxed at a far lower rate than England/Scotland, and the unprofitable war expenses that the colonists were expected to chip in for were the Royal Navy, which protected their trade, and the seven years (French and Indian) war, that stopped the colonies from becoming french only a few years earlier.

England just thought the colonies should pay for part of their own defense.

Some people are just never satisfied I suppose.

Still, taxes went up a lot after the revolution.

Poland- whopping 19.5% (2004 est.) Why don't the Poles riot?

Two reasons:

Communism trained them to put up with poverty.

They express their dissatidfaction through other means; like binge drinking.

and the seven years (French and Indian) war, that stopped the colonies from becoming french only a few years earlier.


I don't know much about the seven years war, but here, in France, it's always seen as the english invading our colonies, not protecting themself from us.

I don't know who's right, and in fact, I don't care much, but the differences in the way history is seen/taught explain pretty much the animosity between the USA and France.

Maykoy

I don't know much about the seven years war, but here, in France, it's always seen as the english invading our colonies, not protecting themself from us.

I don't know who's right, and in fact, I don't care much, but the differences in the way history is seen/taught explain pretty much the animosity between the USA and France.

Maykoy

Americans call it the french and indian war, they have no idea what it was about, or that it was actually the first "world" war.

In any case, the march on quebec etc. is covered. My main point however, was not who started it, or who invaded who, but rather that the colonies didn't really contribute. And when asked to pay a portion of the costs in respect of their theater balked. Which is really very hypocritical when you consider the loss of New France and Quebec had imporved thier security immensely.

They were never asked to pay for the expeditions to India or the rest. (In fact most americans are unaware that France was alos fighting Prussia at the same time, if they are aware of the seven years war at all).

Saying that, they probably did a great deal to start it.

xenophobic hatred in France?? discrimination against minorities?

say it isn't so...

xenophobic hatred in France?? discrimination against minorities?

say it isn't so...
You people seem to believe that France is somehow utopian? Or that French even claim their country to be utopian?

Not so...fact of the matter is that both countries are situated in the real world for the time being, and xenophobia and discrimination have not yet been eliminated (if that can ever be achieved).

By the way: It seems like the curfew idea is starting to work. Most cities now have the authority to declare curfews and enforce them, and the damage done has decreased significantly already this night.
So Sarkozy's career is over, and Villepin will become the next president.

You people seem to believe that France is somehow utopian? Or that French even claim their country to be utopian?

"Katrina's devastation points the finger at Bush's system . . . Issues forgotten for years are back to the fore: poverty, the state's absence, latent racism."

-- Le Monde, Sept. 8, 2005


The quotation above appeared in a front-page article in France's newspaper of record. Just below was a cartoon showing the American president watching TV footage of black corpses floating in the water. "But, what country is this?" the caption had him saying to his generals: "Is it far away? We absolutely have to do something!"

Unfortunately, I can't draw well enough to post a cartoon of my own, so I'm forced to describe the one I think Le Monde should print this week: A drawing of the French president, Jacques Chirac, watching black neighborhoods go up in smoke. The president is asking his generals, "But, what country is this? Is it far away? We absolutely have to do something!"

"Katrina's devastation points the finger at Bush's system . . . Issues forgotten for years are back to the fore: poverty, the state's absence, latent racism."

-- Le Monde, Sept. 8, 2005


The quotation above appeared in a front-page article in France's newspaper of record. Just below was a cartoon showing the American president watching TV footage of black corpses floating in the water. "But, what country is this?" the caption had him saying to his generals: "Is it far away? We absolutely have to do something!"

Unfortunately, I can't draw well enough to post a cartoon of my own, so I'm forced to describe the one I think Le Monde should print this week: A drawing of the French president, Jacques Chirac, watching black neighborhoods go up in smoke. The president is asking his generals, "But, what country is this? Is it far away? We absolutely have to do something!"Hehe, I completely agree. This has blown up in the faces of the French government. I personally think Sarkozy would fit better than Chirac though, since he's the one who's been busy on this ever since it started.

"Katrina's devastation points the finger at Bush's system . . . Issues forgotten for years are back to the fore: poverty, the state's absence, latent racism."

-- Le Monde, Sept. 8, 2005


Was it wrong ? No, it was news in a newspaper.


The quotation above appeared in a front-page article in France's newspaper of record. Just below was a cartoon showing the American president watching TV footage of black corpses floating in the water. "But, what country is this?" the caption had him saying to his generals: "Is it far away? We absolutely have to do something!"

Unfortunately, I can't draw well enough to post a cartoon of my own, so I'm forced to describe the one I think Le Monde should print this week: A drawing of the French president, Jacques Chirac, watching black neighborhoods go up in smoke. The president is asking his generals, "But, what country is this? Is it far away? We absolutely have to do something!"

I read Le Monde on the internet so I don't see the cartoons. But I do read the Canard Enchainé. Le Monde is the biggest daily national newspaper (behind l'Equipe, but l'Equipe is only for sport). Le Canard Enchainé is printed every wednesday but is read by twice as much people. And in today's canard enchainé, there is a cartoon of Chirac facing a map of France with all the suburbs burning and he says "Wow, I didn't know there were so many suburbs". Rather close from your drawing no?

You see, we do sometimes criticize the americans, and laugh at them, the same goes for germans, english and italians, but most of the time attacks are directed at our own government and so are the laughs. There is no american peculiar treatement there.

Maykoy

Le Canard Enchainé is printed every wednesday but is read by twice as much people. And in today's canard enchainé, there is a cartoon of Chirac facing a map of France with all the suburbs burning and he says "Wow, I didn't know there were so many suburbs". Rather close from your drawing no?


Yes, and if we keep this up, we'll be making Jerry Lewis jokes...

Yes, and if we keep this up, we'll be making Jerry Lewis jokes...
WIDESPREAD PANIC AS JERRY LEWIS RAMPAGES IN PARISIAN STREETS

The riots engulfing France took a dangerous new turn today, as diners and shoppers along the Champs Elysees were accosted by enraged madcap American comedian Jerry Lewis.

In a daring daylight annoyance spree, the 75-year old film veteran was seen clumsily victimizing fruit pyramids, mimes, and bourgeois doyennes along the fabled Parisian boulevard. In one shocking encounter caught on security cameras, Lewis stumbled and spilled a large bag of white substance -- later identified as flour -- on a startled matron and her poodle. Compounding the damage, Lewis attempted to brush the flour from the shocked woman’s hair with a shopkeeper’s broom, while loudly declaring “woy goyvin, with the flour in the doggie, HEYYY LAAADY!”

http://static.flickr.com/30/61170846_7fe6b365c1_m.jpg

Unidentified woman, Jerry Lewis argue during flour incident

It is unclear what broader geopolitical aims he was trying to achieve with the action, but many analysts hinted Lewis – longtime darling of French cineastes and recipient of the French Legion of Honor – may be setting the stage for a messy, floury coup of the Chirac government.

Lewis later added fuel to the rampant speculation by neither confirming or denying the rumors, saying only that “GLAAAVIN!”

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/11/french_shower_o.html

WIDESPREAD PANIC AS JERRY LEWIS RAMPAGES IN PARISIAN STREETS

The riots engulfing France took a dangerous new turn today, as diners and shoppers along the Champs Elysees were accosted by enraged madcap American comedian Jerry Lewis.

In a daring daylight annoyance spree, the 75-year old film veteran was seen clumsily victimizing fruit pyramids, mimes, and bourgeois doyennes along the fabled Parisian boulevard. In one shocking encounter caught on security cameras, Lewis stumbled and spilled a large bag of white substance -- later identified as flour -- on a startled matron and her poodle. Compounding the damage, Lewis attempted to brush the flour from the shocked woman’s hair with a shopkeeper’s broom, while loudly declaring “woy goyvin, with the flour in the doggie, HEYYY LAAADY!”

http://static.flickr.com/30/61170846_7fe6b365c1_m.jpg

Unidentified woman, Jerry Lewis argue during flour incident

It is unclear what broader geopolitical aims he was trying to achieve with the action, but many analysts hinted Lewis – longtime darling of French cineastes and recipient of the French Legion of Honor – may be setting the stage for a messy, floury coup of the Chirac government.

Lewis later added fuel to the rampant speculation by neither confirming or denying the rumors, saying only that “GLAAAVIN!”

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/11/french_shower_o.htmlROFLMAO
That was good.

ROFLMAO²!!!


And how do you know that, I dare ask.

Let's see...US gets attacked by Terrorists in 2001. Who's in New York at the time? Oooh, it's Jacques Chirac! And he's the very first leader to express his condolences to the American people.

Then the US decides to take out the Taliban. France says: "Okay, we're friends and allies, your enemies are our enemies."
France proceeds to send troops, 1800 of which are still stationed there - and an air craft carrier. It's special forces are deployed there, and French air space as well as satellites were used.
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/defense.asp
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2002/afghan061102.asp
fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6207.pdf (Careful, it's a PDF File by the congress, so it's a little long - don't download if you don't think you need it)

Then the US decides to attack Iraq, for no apparent reason that has anything to do with the attacks of 2001. France is suspicious and wants to establish through the UN whether an attack is justified.
The US gets indignant about it, so does France, the two fall out.

France today says "we're still friends, and friends have disagreements sometimes...nonetheless we pledged troops to help train Iraqi Forces, and help rebuild Iraq".
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/21/MNGPFCSOKC1.DTL&feed=rss.news
US (or at least you...I guess there is a difference) says "French people are all frogs! They'd never help us! Haha, look at the riots!!! They really deserve that! LOL!"

Are you joking? IN WORLD WAR TWO THEIR WHOLE COUNTRY HAD BEEN TAKEN OVER!!! THE WHOLY FRICKEN COUNTRY! We sent in almost our WHOLE ARMY/AIRFORCE AND NAVY!! And you think that repayment is an aircraft carrier and 1800 troops? That's like saying that five pounds equals 5 tons.

Oh, and about, "France is suspicious and wants to establish through the UN whether an attack is justified."

Establish through the UN? The UN is less than useless and you know it.

Are you joking? IN WORLD WAR TWO THEIR WHOLE COUNTRY HAD BEEN TAKEN OVER!!! THE WHOLY FRICKEN COUNTRY! We sent in almost our WHOLE ARMY/AIRFORCE AND NAVY!! And you think that repayment is an aircraft carrier and 1800 troops? That's like saying that five pounds equals 5 tons.

Oh, and about, "France is suspicious and wants to establish through the UN whether an attack is justified."

Establish through the UN? The UN is less than useless and you know it.

No, I believe the repayment was the fastest economic growth ever seen in human history making your nation the super power it is today.

I also believe that it was the many years of financial reinstalments which the US government has been receiving since the end of world war two from many European nations. I believe the UK makes our last one this or next year.

So, do not confuse things. The United States did not enter world war two in order to liberate the world. No the United States of America entered world war two for two reasons. First of all, it was attacked by Japan, and secondly your crafty president decided that he would capitalise on the economic boom witnessed during world war one, however he would rather escalate the conflict and the profit.

All in all, the USA entered World War Two for it’s own reasons. Self defence, and internal betterment in lowering unemployment and raising incomes across the nation.

Now, American civilians were living fancy free, while those in France, were being starved, raped, beaten, bombed, executed, gassed, humiliated, by a rampaging Germany army. (This is a slight exaggeration in some parts) However the fact remains, that France has more than paid its debt.

Keep in mind American, that we too the British helped liberate France during World War Two, in which, we sacrificed the largest Empire the world has ever known upon principle and sheer iron will, and yet, we do not complain that the French are not in Iraq. We recognise that nations differ in opinion, and yes we would not enter the Iraq war if it was the other way around. For example, lets say France invaded Azerbaijan since they rigged their elections, now, that would endanger British oil interests. So, If the Uk didn’t help would we also become an ungrateful nation? A place full of snobby Imperialists who all drink tea and wear top hats? I suggest you think more carefully on subjects before you post rather insulting and over simplified comments on a subject you obviously have little understanding upon.

Now as for the United Nations, the organisation is far from useless. It serves its primary role, which is to get nations talking and together, which it does rather effectively. The only problem is, the USA, which can effectively ignore the UN, undermining the organisations authority, by blatantly bullying and or ignoring the legislative will of the security council, or blatantly breaking it.

That’s my little rant over ^_^

-snip-
Great post.

Great post.

:eek: really...... thanks :D

:eek: really...... thanks :D
It was a perfect summary.

Great post.
Seconded.

Now as for the United Nations, the organisation is far from useless.
BS. It has presided over more massacres than Stalin and Hitler combined.
It serves its primary role, which is to get nations talking and together, which it does rather effectively.
BS. A lot of hot air in a useless building.
The only problem is, the USA, which can effectively ignore the UN, undermining the organisations authority, by blatantly bullying and or ignoring the legislative will of the security council, or blatantly breaking it.
Oh, I suppose NO OTHER NATION has ever vetoed anything - and no other nation ever violates anything. No other nation ever bullied anyone. What a load of malarkey.

BS. It has presided over more massacres than Stalin and Hitler combined.

BS. A lot of hot air in a useless building.

Oh, I suppose NO OTHER NATION has ever vetoed anything - and no other nation ever violates anything. No other nation ever bullied anyone. What a load of malarkey.

Ohh, Sierra.. I mean.. Whispering Legs... I mean.. Deep Kimchi, we all know you dislike the UN. ;)

But his points about the fact that British people don't constantly rub 'Europes' nose in it every time WWII is brought up are valid.

It gets a little tiresome don't you agree? Bring up the Second World War and how the US saved France and you're asking for France saved the US in its War of Indep. It's boring on both sides. *yawn... falls off chair*

Ohh, Sierra.. I mean.. Whispering Legs... I mean.. Deep Kimchi
Pretty good call, if right.

Ivory Coast residents...meet French Muslims...
You have something in common.



I belive the "rapper" 50 Cent put it best,
If the roofs on fire...let the mother burn!

It seems as if the government just wants to wait for these people to get bored of rioting. I mean wtf is going on here? A curfew? Are you serious? They could bring in the military, hire more police, call in the Guard but a curfew? This just enforces my belief that this is the most pathetic country on the face of the earth.

Punch of punks, lighting cars and business' on fire won't get you respect, it 'ell get you shit. I hope they all get their asses arrested and this will finally be over.

Violence drops by half, 280 arrested, 120 foreigners to be deported. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4422422.stm)

Sounds like they are getting on top of the problem now.

"Pretty fucking original" comes up 260 times, just so you know. And if your criteria for originality walls out any french surrender jokes, then using "fucking" as an adjective/adverb when there is no fucking going on is obscenely unoriginal.
Fuck is one of the most overused words in the English language, and people need to stop abusing the fuck (<--Purposeful irony) out of Fuck.
fuck that

Are you joking?
I thought you were...you spelled the word "AGAIN" in big letters - it could only have been a joke.

IN WORLD WAR TWO THEIR WHOLE COUNTRY HAD BEEN TAKEN OVER!!! THE WHOLY FRICKEN COUNTRY! We sent in almost our WHOLE ARMY/AIRFORCE AND NAVY!!
Do you want me to get out a map of Vichy France?
Or maybe a few stats on the deployment of US Forces in the Pacific in WWII?

And you think that repayment is an aircraft carrier and 1800 troops? That's like saying that five pounds equals 5 tons.
I wouldn't know what a "pound" is...speak in a civilised way, maybe I'll understand you then...:p

Oh, and about, "France is suspicious and wants to establish through the UN whether an attack is justified."
Establish through the UN? The UN is less than useless and you know it.
Well, what I obviously meant was the weapons inspectors - and they weren't useless, regardless of the politics.

And the rest has already been said by Unified Sith.
You need to reassess your priorities my friend - you cannot treat your Allies with an "you owe us"-attitude (and even then, face it: you didn't save France in WWI, you did liberate France alongside your Allies in WWII - but hardly for that reason while France has always been a close and trustworthy Ally, perhaps the best the US had in its history). France is not your puppet state, and it has no obligation to be. When France wants to criticise US foreign policy, then that is just as justified as it is vice versa.

BS. It has presided over more massacres than Stalin and Hitler combined.Now if preventing massacres was the only reason we have the UN, you'd have a point.
BS. A lot of hot air in a useless building.The hot air prevented quite a number of conflicts that no one remembers about, since prevented conflicts usually don't make the headlines or history books.

BS. It has presided over more massacres than Stalin and Hitler combined.

I honestly think that you have no idea on what basis the United Nations was created and/or what the United Nations can do.

First of all, I need to make this point. The United Nations has no powers or resources independent of that which is assigned to it by member Nation-States.

Now please keep the above in mind while I plod on in your education. In regards to post world war two massacres/holocausts I think you will find that throughout any of them the United Nations has in fact demanded that the international community do something about it. However, the organisation, being no more than a forum to help organise member Nation-states into an effective and organised force, had done its job. It is then, the responsibility of Nations throughout the world to follow the UN’s calls, and then, it is our nations responsibility to cut out and prevent genocide.

Now, I pointed out above that the United Nations has no military assets apart from that given to it by member nations, and that, even when they are loaned, the said assets are still under direct control of the Nation State. Now, the United Nations, even if it wanted to perform such military actions to stop genocide and crimes against humanity is unable to, due to the differing political and economic interests of the many member nations.

Let us take the Rwanda Genocide. The United Nations did place peace keepers. The United Nations did attempt to do something about it, however member states such as our own refused to allow soldiers to open fire, and/or defend civilians. On top of that, the Peace Keeping forces were recalled, because of the degrading situation. This was in direct contrast to the secretary generals wishes, however, a liberal front in Belgium (Anti Imperialism movements. And a return of troops to Rwanda could give the opposition political clought. Not to mention a large burden on the treasury.) at the time, and a reluctance by the European powers to commit ground forces into what could become a full blown civil war, saw the greatest and most horrific massacre of the Nineties.

So, to sum all of that up, I would say that the United Nations, has in most cases done it’s duty to its full extent. And that it is not the United Nations fault for lack of action. It is in fact the individual member states and governments fear of political reprisals that leads to failure of action. So, can you really say that the United Nations has presided over Genocides when it has done all it can to stop them? I wouldn’t. In fact, I would say it is every member of the UN’s fault for such a disastrous track record, where money, not human life takes priority in foreign policy.

So all in all, I disagree utterly with your assumption which is quoted above.

BS. A lot of hot air in a useless building.

Exactly the point. Though I wouldn’t exactly call it useless as it does the one thing that the world needs most. International cooperation, even if it is just talking, at least they aren’t shooting each other.

But you seem to fail to grasp my previous point. The United Nations was not formed to make International Foreign Policy. That, is a public misconception which is consistently clouded by home propaganda services who blame the U.N for their governmental failures, and lack of resolve to take action.

The United Nations was formed after world war two on the foundation that the USA, and the USSR would continue to agree sufficiently to take global decisions, therefore rendering the organisation extremely effective. However that failed, almost immediately, and therefore the UN, became a polarised body of pro and anti communist alliances, because of this the support for military aid in the UN had to be taken from a much wider range of Nationstates than a mere two and as a result, the two superpowers fought wars by proxy and through politics will millions died, blocking and playing upon the UN’s call for military assistance repeatedly.

So perhaps….. we can say that it was in fact the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the USSR who presided over all of these Genocides. And, I think it also more than proves that it’s more than a talking shop. But if you wish me to continue form here I will.

Oh, I suppose NO OTHER NATION has ever vetoed anything - and no other nation ever violates anything. No other nation ever bullied anyone. What a load of malarkey.

Oh yes, nations do veto on the security council. But the problem is that the United States constantly ignores it.

Are you joking? IN WORLD WAR TWO THEIR WHOLE COUNTRY HAD BEEN TAKEN OVER!!! THE WHOLY FRICKEN COUNTRY! We sent in almost our WHOLE ARMY/AIRFORCE AND NAVY!! And you think that repayment is an aircraft carrier and 1800 troops? That's like saying that five pounds equals 5 tons.

Oh, and about, "France is suspicious and wants to establish through the UN whether an attack is justified."

Establish through the UN? The UN is less than useless and you know it.If the only time France helped out the US was during the Afghanistan crisis, your ALL CAPS blather might have some merit.

However, France has participated in many incidents where it was working with, or for, US interests internationally.

France has the distinction of having the first UN Peacekeeper (http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/pk506dhm.htm) killed in the line of duty. That peace treaty was maintained -- uneasily. Otherwise, there would be no state of Israel today. The nation of Israel and its Arab neighbors owes much to those of UN Peacekeepers like René de Labarrière, who lived and, at times, died to keep the civilian populations from suffering extermination.

That nation was born in the post-Holocaust era. At the time, we all worked together because we understood how close the world had come to succumbing to madness and mass-extermination. Apparently people have forgotten the lessons of WWII, the Arab-Israeli Wars, and the Cold War.

They were also there in Korea War (http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/koreawar.asp), and were there in 2002 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the war (http://korea50.army.mil/media/newsrelease/newsrelease_02-22.html) in Washington, DC.

During that war, France committed 3,400 troops, of which 287 were killed, 1,350 were wounded, and 21 were taken as prisoners of war. The fighting for them was desparate. Hand-to-hand combat and bayonets. They'd be forced to sacrifice portions of their forces simply to blunt an assault or stave off destruction.

They were a single battalion often holding off vastly superior forces. Even up to four divisions of Chinese infantry.

Do you have any idea what that would be like? Any idea at all?

Something tells me some of you yahoos would have bolted like jackrabbits if it came to it. If any one has actually served in the military, I can truly appreciate those odds -- one batallion vs. 4 divisions? -- you have my respect.

They won citation after citation of American Presidential awards. It was the most highly decorated unit of any that fought.

They were also there in Haiti, in Bosnia-Herzogovina, Kosovo and Yugoslavia -- where they were the largest member of UNPROFOR.

Where did the US and French division of alliance come?

Probably over the Suez Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis). This was the first time that the US forced France (and the UK) to back down from military intervention.

After Nasser militarily siezed and nationalized the Suez Canal, and then fought a war against Israel, France, and Britain who wished to take it back.

But since the crisis occurred at the same time the US was chastizing the USSR for cracking down on Hungary, it became an embarrassment for the "free world" to be lecturing the Communists while we were allowing the French and British to be seen subjugating an Arab nation.

The US threats to sell off its reserves of the British pound and destablize their currenccy forced their leader Eden, a staunch anti-appeasement leader, to back down. Even then he was ousted from his office. He and his political allies were "friendly (political) casualties" of the Cold War.

The French were not happy to be cut off at the knees like that either. It was the touchstone that allowed Nasser to rise in the Arab world, and set the pan-Arab movement to its nationalistic fervor which led to the other wars of independence.

While anticolonial withdrawls were already underway since World War II, this shoved all such movements into overdrive and hastened the collapse of the UK and French overseas empires.

It also led to such uprisings to be increasingly hostile and militaristic, since the United States would at times block or threaten to block France and the UK from trying to maintain stability.

Thus, Nasser was able to sieze the possessions of tens of thousands of Jews in Egypt and deport them (sans belongings) to Israel.

The US needs to own up to its own history. We helped kick the legs out from under our allies in the post World War II era. We helped foster pan-Arab nationalism.

Then we wonder why it might be biting us in the ass fifty years later.

US-French relations got so bad that France withdrew from NATO for a while just to be free of the consistent US demands that were obviously against French and European self-interest.

"Here, you do all this. Don't worry. Trust us."

"Pardonnez-moi? Non, s'il vous plait."

I'm not saying that everything France did was good or just. Nor am I saying that everything that the US did or asked for was wrong-headed. But it showed how weak our alliance was.

Meanwhile, France and the US did a great deal to patch up bad blood. We've been working together closely on many UN Peacekeeping missions.

It is in the mutual best interests of both nations to not doink each other in the eye like two of the three stooges while there are people who would gladly run a plane load of Jet-A fuel into the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty and laugh triumphantly as our civilian populations watched in horror.

The real enemy, even of the devout Muslim people, is not each other.

It is death and chaos.

If you believe in evil, Satan would be cackling his ass off as we argued.

If you are secular, use that simply as a poetic trope. Understand that it simply erodes all lawful and civil discourse to continue to mock each other, or make outlandish asinine comments based in ignorance of foreign policy and civil administration, and doesn't do a thing to diffuse a situation while there are people out there who would gladly slit your throat or burn your car while you argue over theoreticals and brag at your neighbor.

All people should stand united to stop the underlying causes of the chaos -- poverty and social injustice. The anger would go away if the people were given hope and a reason to feel calm and self-confident. That is the nature of true security.

Not "sending in the tanks."

That's a cop-out and a fascist lunacy which we all collectively fought to stop during World War II. I'm simply appalled American citizens would sound quite so much like Nazis circa 1937. May your grandparents be ashamed of you!

Yes, send in the Red Coats! Break up those rabble revolutionaries!

If the French dream of writers such as Camus can be realized -- of Algerians being a secular modern-minded cosmopolitan people, like the French -- then it does not behoove you to drive fanaticism by resorting to fanatical techniques.

If the French North African/Muslim population is to be given due respect to their culture, such as a repeal to the laws banning hijab, it is best not to fuel and fan the flames of anger making such compromise impossible or resented even if the right is granted.

But please, let's see more opinions from our Ugly Americans. Ironically, that novel -- The Ugly American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_American) -- was written about US characters in Vietnam utterly not understanding the situation that was occurring in former French Indochina. Except for one engineer, who did his best to make small economical and ecologically-sound projects for the common people of the nation.

We mocked the French for losing at Dien Bien Phu. Then we promptly put our own foot in the feces-smeared trap. Written years before the Vietnam War, the novel was prophetic. Though it became a best-seller, it is bitterly ironic that as a nation the US remained blinded to the realities of the politics of the region.

Right now, we need to be thinking about small, localized projects to help foster community and economy among various impoverished communities. Whether rebuilding the hurricane-wracked southern US, or the long-term depressions in rustbelt US or minority French communities.

I am really disgusted by the level of civil discourse on a game that is supposedly about the United Nations, nation-building, and national leadership.

Some of you might be crackerjacks at FPS or RTS strategy games, but you're not impressing me in the least with your skills at politics, social sciences, statecraft or diplomacy.

Grow up. The world is otherwise only going to get more ugly for us Americans.

I am really disgusted by the level of civil discourse on a game that is supposedly about the United Nations, nation-building, and national leadership.
I really like you! :D

<SNIP, post #550>

*applauds*

Very well said. It won't make any difference on minds filled with prejudice, used to ignoring facts and unable to think for themselves, but very well said nonetheless.

*snip*
:eek: Goddamn thats a good post!!:D :D

I'm not against people roleplaying psychotic dictators. I'm just concerned people are making that their personal real-life political mindset.

For those interested in the actual effectiveness of the oft-maligned UN Peacekeeping missions, read a dose of real life:

UN Peacekeeping Operations (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp)

France has lost 96 UN Peacekeepers, the majority of them (49) in UNPROFOR.

The US has lost 57, with 30 of them lost during UNOSOM II.

France has paid their dues, literally in financial contribution to the UN, and metaphorically in blood. The US has too, but we have been known to skirt away from situations when it gets messy and costly.

Back to the game...

If any progressively-minded nations are interested in roleplaying UN Peacekeeping in NationStates, there are opportunities for further roleplaying as UN Peacekeepers in International Incidents, with new guidelines.

NSUN Peacekeepers FAQ (http://s14.invisionfree.com/NSUN_Peacekeeping/index.php?showtopic=11)

There are peacekeeping missions underway presently (such as in Kilani (http://s14.invisionfree.com/NSUN_Peacekeeping/index.php?showtopic=14)), and you are invited to initiate and conduct your own by submitting a Request for Action (http://s14.invisionfree.com/NSUN_Peacekeeping/index.php?showforum=4).

p.s. Thank you, and you're welcome.

it's been a pleasure reading your posts. Informative and well written

Ohh, Sierra.. I mean.. Whispering Legs... I mean.. Deep Kimchi, we all know you dislike the UN. ;)

But his points about the fact that British people don't constantly rub 'Europes' nose in it every time WWII is brought up are valid.

It gets a little tiresome don't you agree? Bring up the Second World War and how the US saved France and you're asking for France saved the US in its War of Indep. It's boring on both sides. *yawn... falls off chair*

Did I bring up the US saving France? No...

Kind of off topic, wouldn't you say?

Ohh, Sierra.. I mean.. Whispering Legs... I mean.. Deep Kimchi, we all know you ... :confused: What? Sierra was deated?

Oh noes!!!

...life is so cruel.

Do you want me to get out a map of Vichy France?
Or maybe a few stats on the deployment of US Forces in the Pacific in WWII?



Vichy was occupied by the Germans after the invasion of North Africa ..operation "Torch " ..all of France was under German occupation at the time of the D day invasions. In the Pacific French lost its colonys to the Japanese .

I too am sick of the we saved Frances ass in WW I and WW II etc. .....it has nothing to do with this situation and you cant expect a country to just follow you around like a love sick puppy . Now if you want to bring up the fact that the US didnt get support from France because they were Saddams best trading partner and in bed with him with the oil for food programm ...then you have a point .:D Bunch a friggin hippocrits...but whats the point ? The French people didnt support taking action in Iraq and France is technically a republic...its supposed to represent the " people "..dont tell the rioters that there are still more cars unscorched .:D

Too bad for your father. Nice for Whitier.
I'm not anti american. I just think this american dream is driving some people out of their mind and the kind of nationalism from the flag waving mob is making me sick.
You are mistaken in your view of what the american dream is. The American dream is not about being filthy rich. Its about the right to pursue your dreams whatever they may be. The Constitution and the Declaration both state "right to pursue happiness" not "right to be filthy rich by stealing from others" which is what you get under communist governments.

You are mistaken in your view of what the american dream is. The American dream is not about being filthy rich. Its about the right to pursue your dreams whatever they may be. The Constitution and the Declaration both state "right to pursue happiness" not "right to be filthy rich by stealing from others" which is what you get under communist governments.

Most people also miss the difference between the right to "pursue" happiness, and the right to be happy.

The "pursuit" is what we are granted - no one is guaranteeing that we will actually BE happy.

One of the problems I have with communism and socialism in general is the implied promise of a "worker's paradise". An implication that there is a guarantee that on some future date, everyone will be "happy".

That's not possible in a functioning universe.

I think its in a sticky somewhere. I'm going to look for it. But the frappr thing can hardly count, only 199 people did it compared to the hundreds of thousands of people in nationstates.
The last poll they did showed that most NSers were in the US.

http://www.nationstates.net/survey.html

shows that 58% of NSers are Americans.

No, I believe the repayment was the fastest economic growth ever seen in human history making your nation the super power it is today.

I also believe that it was the many years of financial reinstalments which the US government has been receiving since the end of world war two from many European nations. I believe the UK makes our last one this or next year.

So, do not confuse things. The United States did not enter world war two in order to liberate the world. No the United States of America entered world war two for two reasons. First of all, it was attacked by Japan, and secondly your crafty president decided that he would capitalise on the economic boom witnessed during world war one, however he would rather escalate the conflict and the profit.

All in all, the USA entered World War Two for it’s own reasons. Self defence, and internal betterment in lowering unemployment and raising incomes across the nation.

Now, American civilians were living fancy free, while those in France, were being starved, raped, beaten, bombed, executed, gassed, humiliated, by a rampaging Germany army. (This is a slight exaggeration in some parts) However the fact remains, that France has more than paid its debt.

Keep in mind American, that we too the British helped liberate France during World War Two, in which, we sacrificed the largest Empire the world has ever known upon principle and sheer iron will, and yet, we do not complain that the French are not in Iraq. We recognise that nations differ in opinion, and yes we would not enter the Iraq war if it was the other way around. For example, lets say France invaded Azerbaijan since they rigged their elections, now, that would endanger British oil interests. So, If the Uk didn’t help would we also become an ungrateful nation? A place full of snobby Imperialists who all drink tea and wear top hats? I suggest you think more carefully on subjects before you post rather insulting and over simplified comments on a subject you obviously have little understanding upon.

Now as for the United Nations, the organisation is far from useless. It serves its primary role, which is to get nations talking and together, which it does rather effectively. The only problem is, the USA, which can effectively ignore the UN, undermining the organisations authority, by blatantly bullying and or ignoring the legislative will of the security council, or blatantly breaking it.

That’s my little rant over ^_^

I think you should keep in mind the fact that Britain would have fallen to Germany if not for the fact that it was recieving American raw materials that were going into building your nations warplanes and whatnot.
No American assistance during WWII=Nazi owned Britain.

Did I bring up the US saving France? No...

Kind of off topic, wouldn't you say?

Nah, never said you in particular. But in general when its brought up it gets tired REALLY quickly.

Criticise them on something more modern. :p

I think you should keep in mind the fact that Britain would have fallen to Germany if not for the fact that it was recieving American raw materials that were going into building your nations warplanes and whatnot.
No American assistance during WWII=Nazi owned Britain.

Zzzzzzzzzz.........

It wasn't the planes that kept Britain going. She had plenty of them. It was the lack of pilots mate.

Most people also miss the difference between the right to "pursue" happiness, and the right to be happy.

The "pursuit" is what we are granted - no one is guaranteeing that we will actually BE happy.

...

The problem I have with the declaration of independence is this "creator" bit which is used to grant the rights. I think it would have been better to simply say that those rights existed and that state does merely recognize that those rights exist. I guess that's what they call natural rights.

Zzzzzzzzzz.........

It wasn't the planes that kept Britain going. She had plenty of them. It was the lack of pilots mate.

Radar (brit invented), and the fact that Goering switched away from destroying radar towers and airfields and aircraft and bombed cities instead, are what saved Britain.

Also, the types of aircraft Germany used had something to do with it. Good fighters with 5 minutes of useful fuel over the target, and bombers too small to do the job isn't going to cut it.

And the British Navy was still in control of the sea. An invasion by sea from Germany would have been a debacle.

Radar (brit invented), and the fact that Goering switched away from destroying radar towers and airfields and aircraft and bombed cities instead, are what saved Britain.

Also, the types of aircraft Germany used had something to do with it. Good fighters with 5 minutes of useful fuel over the target, and bombers too small to do the job isn't going to cut it.

And the British Navy was still in control of the sea. An invasion by sea from Germany would have been a debacle.

Yeah, I know. There's a litany of stuff that kept the island going... waaaayyyy to many to mention. I merely picked up on the airplane point. But, you're absolutely correct on the above.

Actually, seeing the above in bold is the real key. Apparently the air force was days away from collapse... there's a good film about it.. can't think of the name right now though dammit...

Most people also miss the difference between the right to "pursue" happiness, and the right to be happy.

The "pursuit" is what we are granted - no one is guaranteeing that we will actually BE happy.

One of the problems I have with communism and socialism in general is the implied promise of a "worker's paradise". An implication that there is a guarantee that on some future date, everyone will be "happy".

That's not possible in a functioning universe.
I've been pursuing happiness for about 20 years and I'm still haven't found it. But at least I'm free to say what ever the heck I think and want to say.
Unlike most nations on earth where you get burned at the stake for saying what's on your mind. Let us remember that in Iraq, before the invasion, people were tortured and murdered for speaking their opinion. And in many European states you can be jailed for saying something that just one other person finds offensive.
Nothing against the Europeans mind you, its just that they have everything all backward. They remind of those people in Hollywood and Beverly Hills who think you can't be happy unless you have material possessions.
If you look at recent studies and surveys on the subject of happiness, they all show that the least happy people are in Europe and America. And the happiest people are in the nations that are the poorest on earth in terms of material wealth and resources.
Now think for a moment why that might be. When according to many experts its should be the opposite. America and Europe and even Japan should have the most and the happiest people on earth because of their immense wealths. But its not, its the poorest nations on earth who have the happiest people.
So, any takers? Any Americans or Europeans want to address that contradiction?

The problem I have with the declaration of independence is this "creator" bit which is used to grant the rights. I think it would have been better to simply say that those rights existed and that state does merely recognize that those rights exist. I guess that's what they call natural rights.
The reason is that if they were merely from the state, the state could take them away. But Americans hold that if a right, such as free speech, is from the creator it is unalienable and the state cannot revoke it.
Now if I'm correct, in the European constitutions, the rights granted the people are not inalienable and the government can revoke them at any time for the smallest of reasons.

And in many European states you can be jailed for saying something that just one other person finds offensive.
I'm sorry, huh??
May I ask where and where did you pull this from?

Nothing against the Europeans mind you, its just that they have everything all backward.
If you look at recent studies and surveys on the subject of happiness, they all show that the least happy people are in Europe and America. And the happiest people are in the nations that are the poorest on earth in terms of material wealth and resources.

Really? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lif_hap_net&int=-1


Definition: This statistic is compiled from responses to the survey question: "Taking all things together, would you say you are: very happy, quite happy, not very happy, or not at all happy?". The "Happiness (net)" statistic was obtained via the following formula: the percentage of people who rated themselves as either "quite happy" or "very happy" minus the percentage of people who rated themselves as either "not very happy" or "not at all happy".

Amount
1. Iceland 94%
2. Denmark 91%
3. Sweden 91%
4. Netherlands 91%
5. Australia 90%
6. Ireland 89%
7. Switzerland 89%
8. Norway 88%
9. United Kingdom 87%
10. Venezuela 87%

Kinda beats your point to a bloody stump don't you think?

Any Americans or Europeans want to address that contradiction?

The secret of happiness is simple:

Don't adjust you circumstances to meet your expectations; adjust your expectations to meet your circumstances. I imagine that people in poorer countries have been forced to learn that trick.

It makes for lazy people however, so it is frowned upon.

That said, I can see lots of places where it wouldn't work. Like north korea. People have to have a certain standard of living, and a certian amount of freedom before they can do it.

I'm sorry, huh??
May I ask where and where did you pull this from?



Really? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lif_hap_net&int=-1


Kinda beats your point to a bloody stump don't you think?

He's talking about the New Scientist study done a few years ago. Nigerians and Mexicans are dead happy apparently.

Look, the French had it coming. They can't even care for their own people, yet they think that they can order us around! I say WE put down these riots and then seize control of their incompetent nation! Or we could give it all to the Catholic Church...
:mp5: :mp5:

He's talking about the New Scientist study done a few years ago. Nigerians and Mexicans are dead happy apparently.

Ah.. you mean this...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lif_hap_lev_ver_hap&int=-1

this just being happy, while the previous one was deducting the overall unhappy rating thereby giving a more accurate representation. But if you want to use that then fine...

Definition: Proportion of people who answered the survey question: "Taking all things together, would you say you are: very happy, quite happy, not very happy, or not at all happy?" by stating that they were "Very happy".

Amount
1. Venezuela 55%
2. Nigeria 45%
3. Iceland 42%
4. Ireland 42%
5. Philippines 40%
6. Netherlands 40%
7. Turkey 39%
8. United States 39%
9. Australia 39%
10. United Kingdom 38%


Still, I fail what this has to do with anything.

The reason is that if they were merely from the state, the state could take them away. But Americans hold that if a right, such as free speech, is from the creator it is unalienable and the state cannot revoke it.
Now if I'm correct, in the European constitutions, the rights granted the people are not inalienable and the government can revoke them at any time for the smallest of reasons.

You misunderstand me. What I meant, is that the state does not grant the rights - it just recognises that those rights exists. Since the state does not grant them, it cannot take them away. I hope this is a bit more clear.

If you use a creator to grant the rights on the other hand, you can take them away, simply if people come to the conclusion, that there is no creator.

I don't know much about the constitiution of other European states, but in Germany, the state cannot take away your basic rights. You can read about the German GrundGesetz here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundgesetz).

You misunderstand me. What I meant, is that the state does not grant the rights - it just recognises that those rights exists. Since the state does not grant them, it cannot take them away. I hope this is a bit more clear.

If you use a creator to grant the rights on the other hand, you can take them away, simply if people come to the conclusion, that there is no creator.

I don't know much about the constitiution of other European states, but in Germany, the state cannot take away your basic rights. You can read about the German GrundGesetz here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundgesetz).
1. It is. And I agree. We do not derive our rights from government nor do we derive them from any of our fellow persons. We are born with them. Much as we are born with the right to expect to live in a democratic society (I'm big on ancient history and archeology shows that almost all ancient societies started off as democracies before some guy came along and ousted their version our Parliaments and Congresses and seized all the power for himself whereby setting a dangerous precedent for later generations as we can tell from history itself, also one should note tribal governments even in today's world are governed by democratic principles which adds to the proof that democracy must be a universal right and something that all people everywhere strive for.)

2. The funny thing there is, that some people in both the US and in Europe are actually arguing for the repeal of rights on just that basis.

3. I'll have to look at that when I get back. Got to go eat now.

Now if you want to bring up the fact that the US didnt get support from France because they were Saddams best trading partner and in bed with him with the oil for food programm ...then you have a point .:D
Yes. They chose one Middle East regime to get their oil from, and we chose another.

They had contracts as early as 1997 to set up oil rigs in Iraq (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0524masteroil.htm) -- which was barred by the UN Oil embargo laid on Iraq, making France seek elsewhere for up to 65% of its oil needs.

Yes, the US screwed France out of the contract and marginalized Saddam Hussein. It was 'evil oil.'

What that meant was that if the US did not get the contract, no one could.

Bunch a friggin hippocrits...
Are you referring to the US government who invaded to sieze that oil by force rather than use engagement and trade, like the French?

So now, all the contracts had to be rebid. China lost out. Russia lost out. France lost out. Japan lost out. Turkey lost out. For the better part of a decade they have been unable to make good their contracts because we demanded no oil trades.

And then, after the war to liberate the nation, lo and behold, the contracts were voided and the US and the UK were cut back in at the bargaining table.

Salute the almighty American lawyers and military! We've screwed over not just one, but three allies. And we got to kick the Russians and the Chinese in the teeth too.

There's tons of articles (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm) to read about how Iraq's oil production is being bid over, and how they are actually calculated to be sitting on more oil than Saudi Arabia.

but whats the point ? The French people didnt support taking action in Iraq and France is technically a republic...its supposed to represent the " people "..dont tell the rioters that there are still more cars unscorched .:D

They did not take action about invading Iraq? No, they did not.

They certainly are trying to ensure that contracts negociated before the war be upheld.

Yes, we truly do know how to make friends and influence people.

Let no one wonder why the Chinese have plans to build up their navy for deep water protection of sea lanes of communication. They need to protect tankers laden with oil.

What's the point? The point is that trillions of dollars of trade are sitting right under your nose.

In the 1990s, with the fall of the Soviet Union, all the action was in the world bonanza of arms sales.

In the 2000s, with the fall of Iraq, it became a world bonanza in grabbing up oil contracts.

This goes back to 1972, when Iraq nationalized its oil companies (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm) and kicked the US and UK out. Note how the very next year, 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_energy_crisis) we were plunged into our oil crisis?

It goes back to the US and other western nations supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War, but also to the general support of the Israeli state and also our badly managed policies of oil companies who were used to treating the Arabs like dirt to be pushed around. (See the post above about the 1956 Suez Crisis).

OPEC got their revenge by raising prices, driving up inflation in the US and around the world. Though Iraq was not one of the nations who invaded Israel (that was Egypt and Syria), they were certainly not happy with the US. OPEC forced a quadrupling of US oil prices.

In France, it ended the period known as Trente Glorieuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses), and began the whole problem with their high unemployment. You think that just came out of nowhere?

The response to this was also why we even have daylight savings time. It was to save on the use of energy by shifting to be more in accord with when daylight hours might minimize energy use. CAFE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE) standards and fuel economy vehicles altered irrevocably the Detroit automakers and introduced such words as "Toyota" and "Honda" to the vocabulary of Americans.

The crisis was averted as other oil was found -- at least enough to satisfy US needs -- Japan and Europe still suffered. But we were -- gasp! -- surprised again in 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis) when the Shah of Iran fell.

Suddenly things needed to be patched up between Saudi Arabia and the US. They, and a few other Arab states, were the only oil supplies in the region we had access to.

In seven short years, between 1972 and 1979, we had lost access to both Iraqi and Iranian oil. We couldn't afford to lose more. (Not until access to other sources came online at least.)

It took us three decades to get back in Iraq, but look! We did it! All the oil we can bathe in.

What is the point? The point is that we lambasted France and Britain for their fighting to retake the Suez Canal in 1956. But come 2002 the rules are changed.

Because of the 9/11 tragedy, an entire Red Herring was thrown at the American and world public to sieze 112.5 billion barrels of oil -- or perhaps 250 billion bbls of oil if the larger reserve projections hold up.

At $55 per bbl, you're talking $6.187 Trillion dollars of oil.

Or $13.75 Trillion if the full reserves are tapped.

What's the point?

The point is that this had nothing to do with 9/11, but it certainly opened the United States up to further attacks by tons of now highly-motivated warriors of Allah.

If that oil was left to the 26 million people of Iraq, that would equate to about $528,000 per every man, woman and child of Iraq. Of course, that's gross income; net profit would be significantly lower, and I do not believe in the altruism of any player in the world oil market at that sort of scale. Plus, it would not be gotten all in one year.

But naturally Iraq could be one of the wealthiest nations in the world. They would be able to rebuild their own nation. They would be able to fund their own irrigation projects.

While Saddam Hussein was in power, he was purposefully repressing the majority Shi'ites and the Kurds. Yes, that was wretched and he was corrupt.

But what's the point? The point is that the US is coming off like manipulative, greedy, and self-serving cronies of the oil industry, who are screwing over our own allies, and the people of Iraq, to perform one of the greatest acts of armed robbery in history. Taking revenge after 30 years after being ousted from the country where we were doing a tidy business.

What else is the point?

George Herbert Walker Bush was the UN Ambassador during the 1972 ouster of US oil companies from Iraq, but he was already resigned from the position in January of 1973 (to take over the RNC), thus was not on hand in the UN for the 1973 oil crisis.

It was not a good time for George H.W. In 1972 his son had trouble showing up for his National Guard physical exams (http://mysite.verizon.net/resox2t6/thelakeeriereporter/id2.html). Some believed he'd fail the drug tests.

The whole Nixon White House was far too embroiled in Watergate to properly respond to the oil crisis.

I'll leave it to a curious Google searcher to find out what happened during those lost years of George HW and George W. Look up companies such as Dresser Industries, Zapata Oil, Harken Energy, the Carlyle Group and Halliburton. Just be warned that you will soon be in the realm of Trilateral Commission conspiracy theories. Somewhere in all of that, you'll eventually come up with the friendship struck between the al Saud family of Saudi Arabia and the Bush family.

Finally the al Saud-Bush family alliance made things much happier for both families. The Sauds found a way to keep their regime propped up so they did not go the way of the Shah. And the US found a way to prop up a government to rule over a vast supply of oil so we would not be deprived of yet another major supply source. It was a classic win-win!

Curiously enough, George HW's old 1950's company, Dresser Industries was later swallowed up a few decades later by, of all folks, Dick Cheney's Halliburton. Not long before the invasion of Iraq. Apparently Dresser had been doing business on the side with Iraq even during the oil embargo. Not that it was strictly illegal. It just screwed Turkey out of some oil shipments by opening up other ways for the oil to be shipped out of the country through the Gulf. Not that this was technically a violation of the oil-for-food programme. It was good business! Dick was all in favor of it. And for dealing with Libya and Iran too. I mean, let's put the past aside. Let bygones be bygones. Right?

You are accusing France of being hypocritical?

Let let's give some credit. Dresser Industry deals (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm) truly helped increase Iraqi oil production from $4 Billion to $16 Billion a year through the years of the oil-for-food program. Alright. So it technically violated where Iraq was supposed to be able to sell their oil out of. So it technically also allowed Saddam Hussein to siphon off money for his regime up until the last days of the invasion.

No. It wasn't truly illegal. Was it?

Dick Cheney's business profited. Isn't that a good thing?

Of course!

But now all the oil is happily in the hands of the democratically elected people of Iraq.

Our allies are all pleased with how stable the region is. And they are convinced that it was in their own best interest that we negated their years of peaceful engagements and contracts.

It was simply time for Saddam Hussein to fall. He was a danger to us all!

I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was not a madman and a thug and a killer. I'm not saying that Iraq might not be better off in the long run.

But we brought about massive economic turmoil which will take years to resolve, and we continue to do so at the expense of our allies. And we do it while lying with a straight face.

There were no WMDs. The causus belli makes "Remember the Maine!" seem angelically pure in comparison.

Turkey is still out billions because we forced them to cut back on pumping oil through their pipeline to Iraq to conform with our demands for sanctions against Iraq. And now we want to do everything we can to ensure that we hijack the oil and gas trade so that their pipelines are "not necessary" even though they would be a far closer (and more secure) source of oil for European nations, since they would bypass the Straits of Hormuz, the Red Sea, and the Suez.

No, it needs to come through the gulf! That's so much better. Let Halliburton simply -- *gack!* get off my neck!

You wonder why Americans might be allowed to sit at a table and why no one really wants to deal with them?

What's the point?

I expect the US to be better than that.

That's the point.

*snip*

Marry me.....

France lost out.

I rather expected France to be better as well. Considering that France sold billions of dollars worth of Thompson anti-aircraft networking and radar equipment to Iraq while sanctions were in place - on credit - in exchange for the promise of lucrative oil contracts when the sanctions were lifted, I'm not sure they have much more room than the US to talk.

Same same the Russians.

Not to mention that the majority of companies caught up in Oil for Food trouble were French and Russian.

But we'll overlook that, won't we?

It looks more to me like at least three dirty players contesting in the sandbox for contracts - the US, France, and Russia.

In the old days, there would have been wars over this sort of thing. Now, we just trash the contested place over and over again.

Marry me.....

Hands off! He's mine!

He's talking about the New Scientist study done a few years ago. Nigerians and Mexicans are dead happy apparently.
Aha. They are so terribly happy that they migrate en masse to spread their happiness to other parts of the world. And here I was thinking it was all because of economics.

But we'll overlook that, won't we?

It looks more to me like at least three dirty players contesting in the sandbox for contracts - the US, France, and Russia.


No, I think thats its very important to look at all three. Hell, so far Russia has slinked away without people raising an eyebrow at it.

What annoys a lot of people in Europe is the blatent one sidedness of some Americans accusations. It was not the French people, nor their govt, nor the American people or govt, or the Russian people or govt that did this. It was not merely 'the French'.

They were business men. Regardless of their nationality, is anyone really THAT surprised at businessmen doing this sort of stuff? I mean... really?

They were business men. Regardless of their nationality, is anyone really THAT surprised at businessmen doing this sort of stuff? I mean... really?
Only if the businessmen arent American. If they are they are probably supporting freedom and democracy. Otherwise they are villains.

I rather expected France to be better as well. Considering that France sold billions of dollars worth of Thompson anti-aircraft networking and radar equipment to Iraq while sanctions were in place - on credit - in exchange for the promise of lucrative oil contracts when the sanctions were lifted, I'm not sure they have much more room than the US to talk.

They don't have 30000 deaths on their hands.


Same same the Russians.

Not to mention that the majority of companies caught up in Oil for Food trouble were French and Russian.


Actually, the majority of companies are either Saudi or Russian.



It looks more to me like at least three dirty players contesting in the sandbox for contracts - the US, France, and Russia.

In the old days, there would have been wars over this sort of thing. Now, we just trash the contested place over and over again.

Actually, there were even more! :D

No, I think thats its very important to look at all three. Hell, so far Russia has slinked away without people raising an eyebrow at it.

What annoys a lot of people in Europe is the blatent one sidedness of some Americans accusations. It was not the French people, nor their govt, nor the American people or govt, or the Russian people or govt that did this. It was not merely 'the French'.

They were business men. Regardless of their nationality, is anyone really THAT surprised at businessmen doing this sort of stuff? I mean... really?

If you will notice, it was multinational corporations that were more involved in the under the table weapons deals. Involved in the Oil for Food. Involved in profiting from the war. Involved in everything...

One can hardly blame the governments involved - if you consider the influence that such corporations have in politics in all countries.

Do the big corporations in Russia sleep with Putin at night?

Does Thompson have large media control in France as well as weapons factories?

Halliburton aside, who runs the US bureaucracy? The government employees and officials, or several large consulting firms such as Lockheed-Martin - who also makes weapons?

See a trend?

Even in Italy - did Berlusconi come from a populist background, or was he a fat cat?

If you will notice, it was multinational corporations that were more involved in the under the table weapons deals. Involved in the Oil for Food. Involved in profiting from the war. Involved in everything...

One can hardly blame the governments involved - if you consider the influence that such corporations have in politics in all countries.

Do the big corporations in Russia sleep with Putin at night?

Does Thompson have large media control in France as well as weapons factories?

Halliburton aside, who runs the US bureaucracy? The government employees and officials, or several large consulting firms such as Lockheed-Martin - who also makes weapons?

See a trend?

Even in Italy - did Berlusconi come from a populist background, or was he a fat cat?

Well to a certain extent yeah i'd agree with you that multinational corp. have a definite influence on state policy... how much is always going to be up for debate. I'd still like to believe that they don't RUN everything!

But again, I don't blame countries govts (US/France/whoever) or blanketly state like others do that it was 'the French' or 'the Americans'.

Well to a certain extent yeah i'd agree with you that multinational corp. have a definite influence on state policy... how much is always going to be up for debate. I'd still like to believe that they don't RUN everything!

You're deceiving yourself.

Short of holding nuclear weapons, the money and power in the holdings of the major multinationals is far greater than the assets and budgets of the major nations of the world.

No, they don't RUN everything - because if they did, they could be held responsible for it. But they do INFLUENCE everything.

Time was, when we worried about companies like United Fruit running little South American countries. We worry today about drug money running the government of Colombia.

How much money do the major multinationals have?

Most of the US government is, in reality, run by the bureaucracy. Which itself is mostly staffed (at least the competent staff) by government consulting firms. Lockheed-Martin. General Dynamics. Boeing. SAIC. Booz-Allen-Hamilton. By comparison, Halliburton is small potatoes. And if the first three sound like weapons contractors, they are far, far more than that.

Most people outside the US, and indeed, outside Washington, are completely unaware of the massive control and influence that these companies exert - on budget policy, on foreign policy, on domestic policy.

In a place like modern Russia, this influence is even easier to bring to bear.

And it's no accident that Thompson in France owns both weapons factories and media outlets.

*snip*
*grabs contents of wallet and shoves under mattress*

And in many European states you can be jailed for saying something that just one other person finds offensive.
Yeah, but I hear many people get out of situations like these through an intervention from their Fairy Godmother. And then, we all go skip over the rainbow.

And in many European states you can be jailed for saying something that just one other person finds offensive.
Like that never happens in the US. Pffrt.

*grabs contents of wallet and shoves under mattress*

And you thought Bush was scary!

Yeah, but I hear many people get out of situations like these through an intervention from their Fairy Godmother. And then, we all go skip over the rainbow.

Didn't I see a show from the UK called "Most Haunted" where people get out of political trouble by conducting a seance and screaming a lot?

Didn't I see a show from the UK called "Most Haunted" where people get out of political trouble by conducting a seance and screaming a lot?

No, thats the House of Commons. :D

No, thats the House of Commons. :D Bah, the Lower House is cooler. We get borderline fist-fights and people ejected from the room all the time! :D

If it was a clean business deal, call me a capitalist, but a deal's a deal.

What's not so clean a deal is when you start threatening or ensuring that people die to close the deal.

We commonly arrest domestic organized criminals who extort or murder to force negociations for garbage collection and trucking contracts.

It reminds me of the Godfather.

Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.

Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.

Michael: Oh. Who's being naive, Kay? -- IMDB.com (http://imdb.com/title/tt0068646/quotes)

In this case, yes, I do think it's reprehensible on all counts.

Let's not make the Islamicists out to be pure-hearted either. I believe that there are a great many radical Islamicists that are so pathologically conditioned to hate the United States, the West in general, and anything not purely Islamic so deeply that we truly should be wary of them. And someone is feeding that hatred.

The question is: When will the US be able to truly make itself the exemplar of its own ideals such that other nations can trust us again? When will we stop shafting allies and neutral powers and enemies alike simply to get our own way?

That is the only way to make the vengeful muttering sound hollow. That's the only way to get the typical Muslim to say, "No, they are not the Great Satan! You are! Whispering words of death in my ear!"

That's the only way to get this to end. In France. In Palestine and Israel. In Iraq. In the Philippines. In Sudan. In every country where the jihad mentality is being whipped into a frenzy.

If we can be a "gentle giant," we could enjoy decades if not centuries of dominance of the world scene.

Furthermore, if we savage not just our external neighbors, but each other within our own nation -- fractionalizing conservatives from liberals, bashing Democrats and Republicans and gays and Christians -- then we'll eat each other alive, and the world's problems will descend on us when we are least able to deal with them. Just as we were utterly unprepared for the 1973 oil crisis because we were drowning in a self-absorbed Watergate debacle.

That foolishness was birthed in the paranoia of a bicameral democracy.

Or how we were worrying whether Bill Clinton was screwing an intern while patently ignoring when other Presidents were screwing over the American people by ballooning the budget and the federal debt.

Yes. Let's savage ourselves! Perfect plan!

Just as once the Roman Empire achieved dominance over its neighbors it turned on itself and began years of fractious infighting and civil war, running up enormous debts and devaluing their own currency in a cycle of apocalyptic self-destruction and religious hatred that only ended when external forces swallowed the Empire chuck by nation-sized chunk and the Empire lost thoroughly to the religion it had tried to repress through any means necessary.

We can either have international allies that would like to see us survive and succeed in the long run, and we, through enlightened policies can also help them maintain stable, sustainable economies and populations, or we can drive the chaos into a frenetic pace and insanely race with the rest of the world to enter into a new Dark Ages.

I'd think that any true conservative would not be so eager to lose all their hard-won capital. And any true patriot would seek to work for the preservation of the state, and not risk its threat and destruction.

You only need a few cocky, misleading, paranoid-aggressive types in charge of massive military forces to utterly lead a people to ruin. You only need to swallow a bit of the poison of self-delusion to live your life in a half-dreaming state.

We claim to have just gotten rid of one thug in Baghdad named Saddam Hussein. Actually, we made a deck of cards of a bunch of thugs, and bagged most of them.

The US needs to be very careful how it acts and behaves. Or it would be fair to accuse the US of being no better. And then you might see the Iraqis and others passing around their own deck of cards with our own national leaders on it. And they might try to eliminate them one by one.

When we flush the Koran down the toilet. When we hold people without charges or trial. When we humiliate them and mistreat them in our prisons. When we also kill families and women and children. -- We become Saddam Hussein. We replace him.

The French cannot be accused of that in Iraq.

While they have their own troubles to answer to in their own country, they at least have to live with the results of that in the streets of their cities. They are getting first-hand the wrath and anger of their Muslim youth.

We, on the other hand, in the United States, can pretend that it does not affect us. It is still a television war. It's "over there." Our streets are safe. Our lives go on without torched cars or bombs exploding. Unless you were in New York City that day, or Washington, D.C. Or had a relative or friend who was there, or on those flights.

It's not over. But it can either get better, or it can get far worse. We can either make peace in our own nation, and with our international neighbors, or we can continue to face the world with asinine half-baked, ill-informed one-dimensional answers.

How is your thinking going to make it better? That's your own question to answer.

Any American who dares try to act as if we are morally superior for what we have collectively done -- or have allowed to have occurred -- needs to go right to their bathroom mirror and look in their own eyes and question deeply what they think democracy means.

So, no... not all business deals are business deals. Some are fair handshakes. And others are shakedowns.

Kay Adams: Michael, you never told me your family knew Johnny Fontane!

Michael: Oh sure, you want to meet him?

Kay Adams: Yeah!

Michael: You know, my father helped Johnny in his career.

Kay Adams: Really? How?

Michael: ...Let's listen to this song.

Kay Adams: [after listening to Johnny for a while] Please, Michael. Tell me.

Michael: ...Well when Johnny was first starting out, he was signed to this contract with a big-band leader. And as his career got better and better he wanted to get out of it. Now, Johnny is my father's godson. My father went to see the bandleader, with a contract for $10,000 to let Johnny go, but the bandleader said no. So the next day, my father went to see the bandleader again, only this time with Luca Brasi. Within an hour, the bandleader signed the release, with a certified check of $1000.

Kay Adams: How did he do that?

Michael: My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Kay Adams: What was it?

Michael: Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured the bandleader, that either his signiture or his brains would be on the contract.

Kay Adams: ...

Michael: ...That's a true story.

[cut to Johnny singing again for about 10 more seconds before going back to Michael]

Michael: That's my family Kay, it's not me.

Sure. It's just the US government. It was just big business. It's not me.

When will the US be able to truly make itself the exemplar of its own ideals such that other nations can trust us again?

Let's see. France's motto is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

I tell you what. When the blacks and Arabs in France truly have the equality that France espouses as an ideal, and they are welcomed as true French by the native white French (fraternity), we'll get right on it.

Yes. They chose one Middle East regime to get their oil from, and we chose another.

They had contracts as early as 1997 to set up oil rigs in Iraq (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/0524masteroil.htm) -- which was barred by the UN Oil embargo laid on Iraq, making France seek elsewhere for up to 65% of its oil needs.

Yes, the US screwed France out of the contract and marginalized Saddam Hussein. It was 'evil oil.'

What that meant was that if the US did not get the contract, no one could.


Are you referring to the US government who invaded to sieze that oil by force rather than use engagement and trade, like the French?

So now, all the contracts had to be rebid. China lost out. Russia lost out. France lost out. Japan lost out. Turkey lost out. For the better part of a decade they have been unable to make good their contracts because we demanded no oil trades.

And then, after the war to liberate the nation, lo and behold, the contracts were voided and the US and the UK were cut back in at the bargaining table.

Salute the almighty American lawyers and military! We've screwed over not just one, but three allies. And we got to kick the Russians and the Chinese in the teeth too.

There's tons of articles (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm) to read about how Iraq's oil production is being bid over, and how they are actually calculated to be sitting on more oil than Saudi Arabia.



They did not take action about invading Iraq? No, they did not.

They certainly are trying to ensure that contracts negociated before the war be upheld.

Yes, we truly do know how to make friends and influence people.

Let no one wonder why the Chinese have plans to build up their navy for deep water protection of sea lanes of communication. They need to protect tankers laden with oil.

What's the point? The point is that trillions of dollars of trade are sitting right under your nose.

In the 1990s, with the fall of the Soviet Union, all the action was in the world bonanza of arms sales.

In the 2000s, with the fall of Iraq, it became a world bonanza in grabbing up oil contracts.

This goes back to 1972, when Iraq nationalized its oil companies (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm) and kicked the US and UK out. Note how the very next year, 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_energy_crisis) we were plunged into our oil crisis?

It goes back to the US and other western nations supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War, but also to the general support of the Israeli state and also our badly managed policies of oil companies who were used to treating the Arabs like dirt to be pushed around. (See the post above about the 1956 Suez Crisis).

OPEC got their revenge by raising prices, driving up inflation in the US and around the world. Though Iraq was not one of the nations who invaded Israel (that was Egypt and Syria), they were certainly not happy with the US. OPEC forced a quadrupling of US oil prices.

In France, it ended the period known as Trente Glorieuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses), and began the whole problem with their high unemployment. You think that just came out of nowhere?

The response to this was also why we even have daylight savings time. It was to save on the use of energy by shifting to be more in accord with when daylight hours might minimize energy use. CAFE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE) standards and fuel economy vehicles altered irrevocably the Detroit automakers and introduced such words as "Toyota" and "Honda" to the vocabulary of Americans.

The crisis was averted as other oil was found -- at least enough to satisfy US needs -- Japan and Europe still suffered. But we were -- gasp! -- surprised again in 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis) when the Shah of Iran fell.

Suddenly things needed to be patched up between Saudi Arabia and the US. They, and a few other Arab states, were the only oil supplies in the region we had access to.

In seven short years, between 1972 and 1979, we had lost access to both Iraqi and Iranian oil. We couldn't afford to lose more. (Not until access to other sources came online at least.)

It took us three decades to get back in Iraq, but look! We did it! All the oil we can bathe in.

What is the point? The point is that we lambasted France and Britain for their fighting to retake the Suez Canal in 1956. But come 2002 the rules are changed.

Because of the 9/11 tragedy, an entire Red Herring was thrown at the American and world public to sieze 112.5 billion barrels of oil -- or perhaps 250 billion bbls of oil if the larger reserve projections hold up.

At $55 per bbl, you're talking $6.187 Trillion dollars of oil.

Or $13.75 Trillion if the full reserves are tapped.

What's the point?

The point is that this had nothing to do with 9/11, but it certainly opened the United States up to further attacks by tons of now highly-motivated warriors of Allah.

If that oil was left to the 26 million people of Iraq, that would equate to about $528,000 per every man, woman and child of Iraq. Of course, that's gross income; net profit would be significantly lower, and I do not believe in the altruism of any player in the world oil market at that sort of scale. Plus, it would not be gotten all in one year.

But naturally Iraq could be one of the wealthiest nations in the world. They would be able to rebuild their own nation. They would be able to fund their own irrigation projects.

While Saddam Hussein was in power, he was purposefully repressing the majority Shi'ites and the Kurds. Yes, that was wretched and he was corrupt.

But what's the point? The point is that the US is coming off like manipulative, greedy, and self-serving cronies of the oil industry, who are screwing over our own allies, and the people of Iraq, to perform one of the greatest acts of armed robbery in history. Taking revenge after 30 years after being ousted from the country where we were doing a tidy business.

What else is the point?

George Herbert Walker Bush was the UN Ambassador during the 1972 ouster of US oil companies from Iraq, but he was already resigned from the position in January of 1973 (to take over the RNC), thus was not on hand in the UN for the 1973 oil crisis.

It was not a good time for George H.W. In 1972 his son had trouble showing up for his National Guard physical exams (http://mysite.verizon.net/resox2t6/thelakeeriereporter/id2.html). Some believed he'd fail the drug tests.

The whole Nixon White House was far too embroiled in Watergate to properly respond to the oil crisis.

I'll leave it to a curious Google searcher to find out what happened during those lost years of George HW and George W. Look up companies such as Dresser Industries, Zapata Oil, Harken Energy, the Carlyle Group and Halliburton. Just be warned that you will soon be in the realm of Trilateral Commission conspiracy theories. Somewhere in all of that, you'll eventually come up with the friendship struck between the al Saud family of Saudi Arabia and the Bush family.

Finally the al Saud-Bush family alliance made things much happier for both families. The Sauds found a way to keep their regime propped up so they did not go the way of the Shah. And the US found a way to prop up a government to rule over a vast supply of oil so we would not be deprived of yet another major supply source. It was a classic win-win!

Curiously enough, George HW's old 1950's company, Dresser Industries was later swallowed up a few decades later by, of all folks, Dick Cheney's Halliburton. Not long before the invasion of Iraq. Apparently Dresser had been doing business on the side with Iraq even during the oil embargo. Not that it was strictly illegal. It just screwed Turkey out of some oil shipments by opening up other ways for the oil to be shipped out of the country through the Gulf. Not that this was technically a violation of the oil-for-food programme. It was good business! Dick was all in favor of it. And for dealing with Libya and Iran too. I mean, let's put the past aside. Let bygones be bygones. Right?

You are accusing France of being hypocritical?

Let let's give some credit. Dresser Industry deals (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm) truly helped increase Iraqi oil production from $4 Billion to $16 Billion a year through the years of the oil-for-food program. Alright. So it technically violated where Iraq was supposed to be able to sell their oil out of. So it technically also allowed Saddam Hussein to siphon off money for his regime up until the last days of the invasion.

No. It wasn't truly illegal. Was it?

Dick Cheney's business profited. Isn't that a good thing?

Of course!

But now all the oil is happily in the hands of the democratically elected people of Iraq.

Our allies are all pleased with how stable the region is. And they are convinced that it was in their own best interest that we negated their years of peaceful engagements and contracts.

It was simply time for Saddam Hussein to fall. He was a danger to us all!

I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was not a madman and a thug and a killer. I'm not saying that Iraq might not be better off in the long run.

But we brought about massive economic turmoil which will take years to resolve, and we continue to do so at the expense of our allies. And we do it while lying with a straight face.

There were no WMDs. The causus belli makes "Remember the Maine!" seem angelically pure in comparison.

Turkey is still out billions because we forced them to cut back on pumping oil through their pipeline to Iraq to conform with our demands for sanctions against Iraq. And now we want to do everything we can to ensure that we hijack the oil and gas trade so that their pipelines are "not necessary" even though they would be a far closer (and more secure) source of oil for European nations, since they would bypass the Straits of Hormuz, the Red Sea, and the Suez.

No, it needs to come through the gulf! That's so much better. Let Halliburton simply -- *gack!* get off my neck!

You wonder why Americans might be allowed to sit at a table and why no one really wants to deal with them?

What's the point?

I expect the US to be better than that.

That's the point.
I'm sorry but you talk like you don't what you are talking about.
We are not in Iraq for the oil. If we were, then why are we still so short of oil when we, as you put it, went into Iraq just take all of Iraq's oil. The reality contradicts your accusation.
Further, as most in government are aware, there are estimated to be at least 300 billion barrels worth of oil in Alaska. Oil that crazy liberals wackos have banned us from using.
We are in Iraq, to restore democracy to region.
What the hell. Why am I trying to convince some guy, who is motivated by hatred for Bush, who hasn't even been in Iraq. Who hasn't seen how the Iraqi people really feel. Who hasn't even spoken to them.

As for oil being evil, I would point out that if Iraqi oil is evil because Bush liberated their nation, it was equally evil because the French were willing to support the evil atrocities of Saddam's regime just so they could have the oil.
The difference between us and the French is, that we are giving back to the Iraqi people.
The fact is that terrorists that the liberals have been supporting have been blowing up the pipelines whereby keeping the Iraqi people in poverty. Of course, that means that we Americans have to keep pouring in hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq, to support the Iraqi people, to make up for the lost money from the oil pipelines and refineries and wells being destroyed by the terrorists who the liberals and anti bushies consider international heroes.

Iraqi oil is evil oil because Bush is helping their people attain democracy? Tell that to an Iraqi.

I'm sorry but you talk like you don't what you are talking about.
We are not in Iraq for the oil. If we were, then why are we still so short of oil when we, as you put it, went into Iraq just take all of Iraq's oil. The reality contradicts your accusation.
Further, as most in government are aware, there are estimated to be at least 300 billion barrels worth of oil in Alaska. Oil that crazy liberals wackos have banned us from using. (Hahahaha! Golden...)

We are in Iraq, to restore democracy to region.
What the hell. Why am I trying to convince some guy, who is motivated by hatred for Bush, who hasn't even been in Iraq. Who hasn't seen how the Iraqi people really feel. Who hasn't even spoken to them. (I thought you were in Iraq to find WMD's? No? Or did you just move the goal posts again?)

As for oil being evil, I would point out that if Iraqi oil is evil because Bush liberated their nation, it was equally evil because the French were willing to support the evil atrocities of Saddam's regime (Ahem, check your history buddy. Saddams biggest supporter was the US) just so they could have the oil.
The difference between us and the French is, that we are giving back to the Iraqi people.
The fact is that terrorists that the liberals have been supporting have been blowing up the pipelines whereby keeping the Iraqi people in poverty. Of course, that means that we Americans have to keep pouring in hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq, to support the Iraqi people, to make up for the lost money from the oil pipelines and refineries and wells being destroyed by the terrorists who the liberals and anti bushies consider international heroes.

Iraqi oil is evil oil because Bush is helping their people attain democracy? Tell that to an Iraqi.

^

Forget comparing us to the French.

How many Iraqis did we accuse Saddam Hussein of murdering, as the ostensible reason we were deposing him -- for his crimes against his people?

And what's been the current body count of the nation, now that it's been "liberated" from such tyranny?

Don't even dare bring up France in that equation.

That's an argument that ignores the question.

Yes, France needs to deal with its own issues.

Face squarely the question.

Have we been responsible for killing more, or less, or about the same number of Iraqis as the "brutal repressive dictator" that we accused Saddam Hussein of being?

I will grant this: that not all the deaths in Iraq are the responsibility of the US. Many of them are tragically caused by the "freedom fighters" who are actually nothing more than mass-murderers with AK-47s, RPG-7s, and tons of explosives.

However, the US has been responsible for terrible loss of civilian life.

There were many other choices we had before we began this course of action.

Don't blame France for the invasion of Baghdad. And don't blame Saddam Hussein for 9/11.

My own opinion is that we would have been better off closing up business in Afghanistan -- and making sure that mission was accomplished -- before going into Iraq. And Iraq should only have been invaded if there were WMDs, and with the true support of the world. We went in too soon, with the wrong causus belli, and before other avenues of possibility were reached under faulty intelligence and patent lies.

That is so far beyond what France has done with its domestic problems it's morbid. While you can try to compare massive poverty to massive bombing, I bet you most people would prefer to be living poor near Paris than burying their blown apart and burned-to-death relatives in Baghdad.

The US motto is, "In God we trust."

If we are to have a separation of church and state, we need new motto.

If it remains our national motto, I'm shocked at the patently ignorant, closed-minded, uncharitable, ungodly, and therefore un-American attitudes of the posters on this Forum.

If you trust in God -- if that truly is the US motto, and you truly call yourself an American -- then you would believe that love and brotherhood with all mankind is the proper solution. To share with them the lessons of the heart, with peace, not at the point of a gun.

If you were following in the American tradition, you would believe in the Just War, as St. Augustine would have espoused, which was defensive in nature and only so far as to preserve the greater peace and allow freedom from oppression.

St. Augustine was writing in a world being consumed by barbarian invasions. His own city was sacked not long after his death.

He also wrote a book called the "City of God," speaking about a perfect brotherhood dedicated to faith. A form of Utopia long before that word was coined.

It was referred to in the concept of Manifest Destiny of the United States, and can be heard thematically in "America the Beautiful (http://www.fuzzylu.com/falmouth/bates/america.html)," where it was asked to "Crown thy good with brotherhood / from sea to shining sea."

In the second and third verse, which hardly anyone ever gets to, Katharine Lee Bates implores:

"America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self the country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!"

Yes, France has a motto. The United States of America has a motto. I'd say both nations should live up to them, or at least strive to -- we are all mortal and imperfect.

But to point at another and say, "But look what he's doing!" does not excuse your own failed actions and flawed beliefs.

It comes off sounding churlish and pusilanimous.

Grow up.

Forget comparing us to the French.

As I recall, this thread is about the riots in France - not about what the US does in Iraq. Nice hijack. Makes you look churlish indeed.

As I recall, this thread is about the riots in France - not about what the US does in Iraq. Nice hijack. Makes you look churlish indeed.

Was about. The opening post is only a starting point. By the eight post somone had said that the Us would have put down the riot better. Which led to retort followed by counter retort. Which led to this.

Was about. The opening post is only a starting point.
Well, if you're going to compare France and the US in this thread, it pays to stick to the topic - riots, rioters, etc. Treatment of blacks. Affirmative action, even (which I hear is extremely rare in France, as they don't even acknowledge the problem).

We're not talking about Iraq.

Well, if you're going to compare France and the US in this thread, it pays to stick to the topic - riots, rioters, etc. Treatment of blacks. Affirmative action, even (which I hear is extremely rare in France, as they don't even acknowledge the problem).

We're not talking about Iraq.

When comparing the French and the US you're always talking about Iraq. Why else would they even be compared? Because France vocally opposed the US over the war.

I had a response, but the system logged me out and I lost it all. :mad:

When comparing the French and the US you're always talking about Iraq. Why else would they even be compared?

I do that in threads where it's more appropriate. Like threads about the Iraq War.

Are you saying that the French riots are part of the Iraq War, a result of the Iraq War, or the fault of the US?

Or could the French riots be, as I have previously posted, the misguided policy of the French government ever since Algerian independence, combined with placing the immigrants in massive ghettos, and practicing a completely undocumented form of racism on them (since it's illegal in France to collect racial employment statistics, and affirmative action essentially does not exist)?

Eh? Maybe you can't stand a thread where the world gets to see the dirty laundry and blatant hypocrisy of a nation other than the United States.

When comparing the French and the US you're always talking about Iraq. Why else would they even be compared? Because France vocally opposed the US over the war.
Both the French and American governments have a lot of room for improvement but, due to its own previous experience and cultural diversity, the US does handle riots better than France does.
France, unlike America, has not always been multicultural and it is only recently they opened their nation to immigrants from other nations.

I had a qoute, which I lost due to the system logging me out, where Sarcosty or however you spell, was qouted and issuing explicit orders that all "nonFrench" who involved in the riots were to be deported. The word a lot of people would have for that is racism.
Ooh. I just remembered what I was typing in my post before it got lost.

Americans who bash immigrants and seek to deprive immigrants of things like medical care or education and the like have no room to criticize French immigration policy. Like wise, the French have no room to criticize American policy on race.
It is like two friends living glass houses and throwing rocks at each other's house.

I do that in threads where it's more appropriate. Like threads about the Iraq War.

Are you saying that the French riots are part of the Iraq War, a result of the Iraq War, or the fault of the US?

Or could the French riots be, as I have previously posted, the misguided policy of the French government ever since Algerian independence, combined with placing the immigrants in massive ghettos, and practicing a completely undocumented form of racism on them (since it's illegal in France to collect racial employment statistics, and affirmative action essentially does not exist)?

Eh? Maybe you can't stand a thread where the world gets to see the dirty laundry and blatant hypocrisy of a nation other than the United States.

The thread has moved on. People are now talking about the Iraq war. They have been for several pages. If you don't like it, stop posting.

Of course I don't think the war in Iraq or America started these riots. But the anti-French sentiment in this threads wouldn't as intense if they didn't oppose the war.
That's the reason the Iraq war came up. Some pro-war people are gloating over the unrest in France. Or are you saying that there would be such dislike of the French if they supported the war?

Also, relax. No one refuted your earlier position. You won that round. Be happy.

Thirdly, don't assume anything about me. I happen to be pro-war and quiet like America.

Did I mention the fact that both the American and French response to severe natural disasters equally leave much to be desired?

And since some mentioned Iraq. It is a proven and historical fact that both France and America are equally guilty of turning their backs on the suffering of Saddam's victims. It is a fact that both nations gave Saddam his weapons.

It is a fact that a lot of people in both America and France are suspicious of their nation's respective political leadership. The only difference is that one government is republican and the other is socialist. But basically the suspicioun against the pols is the same.

Facts are facts and lies are lies
Partisans will try to make up alabies.

Just as there is a law of gravity that says what goes up must come down.
This is the ultimate reality:
The France and America have more in common than they have dividing them.
That is why we are still allies.

<snip>

Indeed. I agree with practically everything you say. Both times.

The thread has moved on. People are now talking about the Iraq war. They have been for several pages. If you don't like it, stop posting.

Of course I don't think the war in Iraq or America started these riots. But the anti-French sentiment in them would as intense if they didn't oppose the war.
That's the reason the Iraq war came up. Some pro-war people are gloating over the unrest in France. Or are you saying that there would be such dislike of the French if they supported the war?

Also, relax. No one refuted your earlier position. You won that round. Be happy.

Thirdly, don't assume anything about me. I happen to be pro-war and quiet like America.
Which country are you in?

Which country are you in?

Ireland. Why?

I had a qoute, which I lost due to the system logging me out, where Sarcosty or however you spell, was qouted and issuing explicit orders that all "nonFrench" who involved in the riots were to be deported. The word a lot of people would have for that is racism.
No, because the order actually says that those who are not French citizens will be deported. I have absolutelly no problem with this.

Ireland. Why?
My unit stopped in Ireland on the way to Kuwait. It was a mandated rest stop. Everyone had to get off the plane. A place called Shannon.
I like your country's women. They're hot.
And your countryside is pretty.

We also stopped in the Slovak republic. Theirs was nice too. But we weren't used to not seeing cities rights next to each other. The slovaks have almost only all countryside. But the one in Ireland looked more attractive.

Then again my mother was half Irish.
As was this one sergeant in our unit, who went up to several women in the airport trying to get their numbers. Not that cellphones work in Iraq.

My unit stopped in Ireland on the way to Kuwait. It was a mandated rest stop. Everyone had to get off the plane. A place called Shannon.

Indeed. Shannon enrages the anti-war people and makes the goverment nervous.


I like your country's women. They're hot.

So do I. So do I.


And your countryside is pretty.


Well, Shannon is located in the burren, one of the most spectactular countrysides in Ireland.

I used to like about fourty miles south of Shannon.


As was this one sergeant in our unit, who went up to several women in the airport trying to get their numbers. Not that cellphones work in Iraq.

Heh, he'll probably have got then too, with his damn American accent. It's a big turn on for the ladies around here.

Indeed. Shannon enrages the anti-war people and makes the goverment nervous.



So do I. So do I.



Well, Shannon is located in the burren, one of the most spectactular countrysides in Ireland.

I used to like about fourty miles south of Shannon.



Heh, he'll probably have got then too, with his damn American accent. It's a big turn on for the ladies around here.
Really?
I was thinking about taking my leave in Europe.
But that was before I was told I being required to take two weeks from now. So I'll have to spend it in the states instead. Didn't give me time to plan really.
There's always a year from now, when I redeploy back to the states and have more flexibility.
Then again, there's a lot of places I'd like to go. Believe it or not, but Antarctica's in the top of my list. So is Iraq but since I'm already here...

So how do you hook up with Irish women?

There are usually about twenty or so comatosed outside every nightclub. Just pick up the one you fancy the most.
Antartica eh? Well, it'd be different anyway.

I do that in threads where it's more appropriate. Like threads about the Iraq War.

Are you saying that the French riots are part of the Iraq War, a result of the Iraq War, or the fault of the US?

Or could the French riots be, as I have previously posted, the misguided policy of the French government ever since Algerian independence, combined with placing the immigrants in massive ghettos, and practicing a completely undocumented form of racism on them (since it's illegal in France to collect racial employment statistics, and affirmative action essentially does not exist)?

Eh? Maybe you can't stand a thread where the world gets to see the dirty laundry and blatant hypocrisy of a nation other than the United States.

Very good. You hit the nail right in the head. Well said.

Forget comparing us to the French.

How many Iraqis did we accuse Saddam Hussein of murdering, as the ostensible reason we were deposing him -- for his crimes against his people?



And what's been the current body count of the nation, now that it's been "liberated" from such tyranny?

<Chopped to spare the rest of us>

Grow up.

Here is something I came across yesterday when some jackass thought it would be chic to compare deaths since the US overthrow of a particularly cruel and wholly insane dictator:

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

If nothing else is accomplished, at least this will never be commonplace again. At the very least. Now we have huge #s of Iraqis come out to vote even though they were still under threat by insurgents. Voting, working on their own constitution. I hear even females are going to school. All steps towards the "liberation" you want to mock. Maybe you though true liberty would come over night? No-it will continue to take the full effort of thise that want it so badly, along with our assistance.

"How many did we sadaam hussein of murdering?" You say it as if its a frivolous accusation. Iraq is chock full of eye witnesses-will their first hand testimony be good enough for you? Will the thousands of men that had ears removed and were otherwise mutilated for maybe looking crosseyed be enough?
Spare me with your sanctimonious diatribe. sadaam and his sons and the entire regime were murderous,cowardly scum bags-making sport of the sytematic rape torture and murder of their own people. A lot is documented in their personal video collections already.
Our big mistake was not going in sooner, without warning.

I'm sorry but you talk like you don't what you are talking about.
This may be all news to you. But... the reason we were given was that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. But... there weren't.

Sounds like you don't know what in the world you're talking about.

We are not in Iraq for the oil. If we were, then why are we still so short of oil when we, as you put it, went into Iraq just take all of Iraq's oil. The reality contradicts your accusation.

Right. We were there first to get the WMDs. Only there weren't any.

Then we were there to liberate the Iraqi people.

But now, mission accomplished, we still won't get the hell out.

So why are we still there?

No. It can't be the oil. Forget it. It's not about the oil.

No?

You need to wake up my friend.

In 2002 (http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/11/7/worldupdates/2005-11-07T020121Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-222380-1&sec=Worldupdates) we used a captured Al Qaeda operative who patently lied about Iraq training Al Qaeda as one of the main reasons we invaded. Only, we knew he was lying.

We knew he was lying six months before we even started using his statements to justify the war.

We knew he was lying.

Do you realize what the falsification of intelligence information led to?

What if someone lied to the police and said you were a terrorist because you played one in a fictional NationStates game? And they came and shot you dead when you tried to run away?

Now multiply that by a good few orders of magnitude.

We invaded a country based on a lie.

And we knew it was a lie.

And we let the lie stand.

Further, as most in government are aware, there are estimated to be at least 300 billion barrels worth of oil in Alaska. Oil that crazy liberals wackos have banned us from using.

Actually it was cut by Republicans (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051110/pl_nm/energy_congress_anwr_dc_2) because it was trying to be slipped into a bill that was aimed to reduce spending. It was shoaling an overall plan to reduce porkbarrel projects.

It was approved in the Senate, but lost in the House.

It may still get through, and likely will if it comes to a full House vote under a reproposal. Since it's estimated to raise $2.4 Billion in fees, and the government wants to narrow the debt, I'd bet on it passing, regardless of ecological concerns.

Meanwhile, can you cite your sources on 300 billion bbls?

I am getting numbers of:

Somewhere up to 80 billion barrels (http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/npra.cfm) - American Association of Petroleum Geologists; estimates without proven reserves.
5.7 - 16 billion (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/execsummary.html) - USGS survey. There is a 95% chance that it is (at least) the lower figure. There is a 5% chance that it is the higher figure.
An estimate of 10.4 billion barrels in ANWR -- which is the cited mean figure from the USGS Survey -- what is 50% likely (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051110/pl_nm/energy_congress_anwr_dc_2)
Alaska currently only has 4.39 billion barrels of proved oil reserves (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html#oil) - EIA (Department of Energy) official figures

So there is wild speculation that the figure can be as high as 80 billion, and a far more likely chance that there is a great deal less, up to an order of magnitude less.

Where in the world are you getting 300 billion barrels? Cite your source, please. Do you know more than the Federal government?

We are in Iraq, to restore democracy to region.

Then we did that and we need to get out. Now. Otherwise we are a consistent thorn in their side.

What the hell. Why am I trying to convince some guy, who is motivated by hatred for Bush, who hasn't even been in Iraq. Who hasn't seen how the Iraqi people really feel. Who hasn't even spoken to them.

I'm not motivated by a hatred for Bush. And in fact, I'm not trying to convince you per se. Your mind already seemed to be trapped in an "off" position.

I'm actually using your words as a sounding board, to show how they are somewhat hollow and ill-informed, to appeal to the others reading this whose minds might actually be opened to the proof of truth and reason.

As for George Bush, HW or W, I really do not care one way or them as people. They might make great dinner conversationalists, and I'm sure they can be sociable company. What I am appalled by is their waste of the US taxpayer's hard-won dollars and their frittering away of world goodwill and trust in the wake of 9/11. Everyone was shocked by what happened to us. Now the world is shocked at the pathological cruelty and dismissal of concerns in holding to our course of action.

As for oil being evil, I would point out that if Iraqi oil is evil because Bush liberated their nation, it was equally evil because the French were willing to support the evil atrocities of Saddam's regime just so they could have the oil.
I have a clue for you: oil is not evil. It's just dead dinosaurs and plants.

What is evil is what people do to obtain it by any means necessary.

What is it the gun lobby says? Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

As a corrolary, people use guns to kill people for their oil. QED.

The difference between us and the French is, that we are giving back to the Iraqi people.

You have to be joking. Oil profits (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0128oilprofit.htm) are going to go to Exxon, BP, Chevron, and Shell.

Can you describe for me the profit sharing plan that somehow includes the Iraqi citizen?

Article 109 (http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-iraqwarafter/oil_2924.jsp) of the new Iraqi Constitution proposes that the petroleum is indeed the property of the people of Iraq. There are calls for it to be a managed corporation (http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/paradigmpapers/iraqioiltothepeople.htm) rather than a state-run department.

But the US, who's still running the show, signed an executive order (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-03.htm) protecting the oil companies extracting that oil. They're keeping it 'safe' from litigation, even if that litigation was to show that they might be bribing officials, operating unsafely, or otherwise working against the best interests of the Iraqi people.

UN Resolution 1483 formed the Development Fund for Iraq (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/budget/DFI_intro1.html). But is not going to pay the people directly, as a dividend. Instead, it's only going to allow the money to pay for "the wheat purchase program, the currency exchange program, the electricity and oil infrastructure programs, equipment for Iraqis security forces, and for Iraqi civil service salaries and ministry budget operations."

In other words, the government can buy dollars with it, but the people don't get a dime's dividend.

Which would make those utopian plans for revenue sharing with the Iraqi people impossible.

Now, the wheat purchase and electricity and oil program would be a direct benefit for the people.

So how is the money being dealt with? In Jan-Jun 2004, the fund paid $5 Billion to Iraq (sent over in US dollars).

$1.4 Billion of that was given to the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). They refused to even open their books to the auditors.

I'm not saying that the KRG did not deserve to have $1.4 Billion transferred to them, but it was highly irregular to stiff the auditors. They held meetings far away from the books, and told them that all the money was still safe in a bank account.

What was strange was that the money had been doubled -- they were paid for both June and July that month -- because they had told the fund managers that they needed it quickly to account for year-end expenses.

So if they needed the money urgently, but then did not spend it even up to the time of the audit (prepared in September) -- what did they do with the money?

This is just one of dozens of irregularities in the operations of the fund -- from being off between manual and computing accounting by hundreds of millions of dollars, to money simply being disbursed to parties and never been tracked, or bids being awarded based on citations of contracts that were "burned up during the war," and never re-written.

In one case for the Ministry of Education, a $399 million contract was awarded, but there was no proof how many different bids were made, and the contractor who was awarded was given the contract after a mere two days of review. It was said that the bidder who simply offered the shortest performance period was selected. Nice to know that's the way to get $399 million.

Of $1 billion disbursed to the provincial treasuries for government workers, accounting was so bad that some workers were clearly paid twice while others never paid at all. The Ramadi Treasury never even reported what they did with their funds because of the violence.

The pay rate was based on an artificial pre-set value for the Iraqi dinar (1500 / $1), not the actual market rate. (The dinar had gone up in value about +25% since the advent of the new dinar (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/currency-reform.htm).) You'd think this meant they got a 25% bonus to their salaries they hadn't been expecting. But no, it was the opposite.

If the dinar was worth 1500 = $1, but then it went up in value 25%, that meant that 1500 dinar = $1.25, or 1200 dinar = $1.

Say your pay was supposed to be 3 million dinar. According to the 1500 = $1 calculation, the government released $2,000 to be turned into Iraqi currency. However, each of those $2,000 now only got 1,200 dinars. And so, you might only get paid 2.4 million dinars ($2,000 x 1,200).

Needless to say, some would not like getting an unplanned 20% reduction in pay.

Now, many were paid properly. But just imagine the chaos this has caused.

Of course, as you can imagine in a nation with erratic damage to its infrastructure, each different place where pay was distributed had different manual and computing entries, and many did not match.

By the way, before the trade sanctions hit in 1990, the dinar was worth, officially, $3.20 (probably about half that on the street). Even so, it was far from the imploded value of today.

So sure. We're doing this for the wealth of the people.

Meanwhile, Halliburton gets a $7 Billion contract. Just one of its subsidiaries, Kellogg, Brown & Root (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501151.html) overcharged the Iraqis $208 million on a $1.4 billion no-bid contract awarded on somewhat shady grounds. You can read the report itself here (http://www.iamb.info/pr/pr110405.htm).

So what's $1.4 Billion here or there?

The fact is that terrorists that the liberals have been supporting have been blowing up the pipelines whereby keeping the Iraqi people in poverty.
You are out of line. Liberals have not been supporting terrorists. That is just utterly reprehensible to say.

Liberals generally support peaceful means to achieving a society that tolerates a wide range of opinion. It would be antithetical for one to be a liberal while actually supporting radical xenophobic zealots.

In other words, you are postulating an oxymoron.

If anything, these people are supported by ultra-conservative Islamicists. They have nothing to do with your typical voter for Dennis Kucinich (http://www.sumeria.net/kucinichprayer.html).

Of course, that means that we Americans have to keep pouring in hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq, to support the Iraqi people, to make up for the lost money from the oil pipelines and refineries and wells being destroyed by the terrorists who the liberals and anti bushies consider international heroes.
That's just insipid. A patently false postulation. But by the way, I'm not anti-Bush. I'm anti-stupidity.

We're pouring tens of billions of dollars into Iraq -- not hundreds of billions quite yet...

Edit: I must congratulate you and correct myself. We have outspent outselves! The price tag is now over $200 Billion, and is moving towards $250 Billion. An incredible sum, now estimated to be over $218 Billion. Source: National Priorities Project (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182).

But where's the money going? The entire budget of the Iraqi government was only $6.1 Billion in 2003, $13.4 billion in 2004 (and they were only in deficit by $590 million), and $28 billion in 2005 (when they were at least projected to break even).

The vast majority of the money being spent on Iraq is not going to rebuild Iraq -- it's simply going into the US military and the major defense contracting and procurement system.

Remember the vast majority of the Iraqi government budget is coming from their own oil sales. We operate the fund and deposit the money in a UN-managed fund, and give them money out of it.

So where's the money the US itself is spending going to?

Uh... Paying for our own troops to be over there, and paying for picking up the mess we made. And a lot of defense contractors!

Meanwhile, I do not consider madmen blowing up civilians as heroes. That includes theirs. That includes ours.

I sympathize greatly with the troops over there. I sympathize greatly with the Iraqi police who are trying to establish a stable nation once again. I sympathize mostly with the Iraqi people who are being victimized.

Iraqi oil is evil oil because Bush is helping their people attain democracy? Tell that to an Iraqi.
In fact, I used that as the ludicrous claim that was made, demonizing the Iraqi regime. You're apparently not getting that the original expression was put forth as a hyperbolic example of the extremes to which the US administration was going to in order to shut down the entire Iraqi oil export economy.

Please pay attention.

The oil is not evil. It is just oil.

Yes, Saddam did evil things.

But he did not have anything to do with 9/11 or WMDs, even after years of investigation.

And the entire oil-for-food program imposed on Iraq was a way to force the Iraqi oil to be sold "on the open market" as opposed to the countries that had legally contracted for it. Now, Exxon, BP and others could try to bid for it through the UN oil-for-food programme, and Iraq had no choice but to sell it to them. It was also used to minimize oil sales that could have gone to other countries that had pre-existing agreements with Iraq, but had those agreements nullified by the US.

Furthermore, there were illegal means of accumulating those vouchers used by various US businessmen which resulted in criminal trials, if you do not recall. It was a program designed to drive the Iraqi oil system into the dirt, and yet still siphon off oil profits to US companies.

Even so, Saddam's son apparently was still able to sell billions of dollars of oil on the black market. How? After it was all over, it became apparent that Halliburton subsidiaries had sold equipment to repair facilities to allow the regime to sell more oil than was controlled through the oil-for-food program.

Yes, Saddam Hussein and his Baathists did terrible things. And now the world is watching and learning as we apparently were involved in ways that weren't made readily apparent before the war. We are repeating many of those same terrible things -- torture of prisoners, deprivation of human rights.

We need to be better, or we will be judged not just by the Iraqi people of today, but by the world and the legacy of history.

I put forth that there are great and terrible crimes being perpetrated to get a hand in that oil business. In that multi-trillion dollar business -- on all sides -- there is blood and death being rained down.

To suggest that this is somehow a liberal conspiracy to fund the terrorists is the worst sort of intellectual ineptitude of the highest degree.

This may be all news to you. But... the reason we were given was that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. But... there weren't.

Sounds like you don't know what in the world you're talking about.



"The length of this document defends it well
against the risk of being read"

Especially when we see "The mess we made" and "Madmen blowing up civilians"
Its ok to be against our action there, without culling up all the crazy reasons and conspiracies. Consider for a moment people have convictions other than yours that you wont believe either.

"The length of this document defends it well
against the risk of being read"

Especially when we see "The mess we made" and "Madmen blowing up civilians"
Its ok to be against our action there, without culling up all the crazy reasons and conspiracies. Consider for a moment people have convictions other than yours that you wont believe either.

Perhaps his post was to lengthy, but indeed, is arguments are also logical. Is calling it a "conspiracy theory" your only response?

Well we are now in Day 15 of the French Riots.

Now the French Government has ordered Deportations.

Well we are now in Day 15 of the French Riots.

Now the French Government has ordered Deportations.
And various French Rap Stars have called for the riots to stop. A good idea I think, because I would say that about 100% of the rioters are fans of one rapper or another.

Now the French Government has ordered Deportations.

Of course they did. They have no choice. :rolleyes:

Perhaps his post was to lengthy, but indeed, is arguments are also logical. Is calling it a "conspiracy theory" your only response?
I may be off on the Alaska figures but his whole post on Iraq is one big, fabricated conspiracy theory.
The guy obviously has never stepped foot in Iraq and is diatribing against Bush and against America.
If he'd ever been to Iraq, he would know that most of his entire post was blatantly false.
And no, the process of democratizing Iraq is not over. Because Iraqi democracy is not secure. It is not secure because Mr. Zarqawi wants to overthrow it and set up a dictatorship that is equal to Saddam's in the depths of evil that it would committ.
We cannot let Zarqawi have Iraq. And if we abandon Iraq, as he is proposing, that is exactly what we will be doing. Letting Zarqawi establish another evil regime.

He pulls up a lot of figures to prove his theory. But it ought to be noted that people like the John Birch Society, People for the Release of UFO Data, among others, also pull up figures to support their wacko and unrealistic theories too.

You try visiting the country before trying to push off a conspiracy theory on someone whose actually there.

You try visiting the country before trying to push off a conspiracy theory on someone whose actually there.
Ahem...what does you being there have to do with the politics of US support for Saddam, or even the existence, or non-existence of said weapons?

Yes indeed. Let's look at those mass graves (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm).

We have 290,000 - 400,000 casualties for the reign of Saddam Hussein over 27 years, 1976 - 2003. A death rate of approximately 10,000 - 15,000 per year.

And we have 27,000 - 30,000 Iraqi deaths during the reign of the US and Coalition in 2 years, 2003-2005 -- source: Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). A death rate of 13,000 - 15,000 per year.

We're giving him a run for his money.

In fact, the death toll rate has doubled in the two years since the war's formal conclusion.

It is true that US forces are only responsible for 37% of the 24,865 deaths reported in the first two years -- about 9,700.

9% was due to insurgents. 36% are due to criminal violence due to post-invasion conditions. The rest are unaccounted for.

Now, in a few short years, we are maintaining the same level of carnage, using conventional ordnance and so-called smart bombs that are still landing on civilian homes.

There were an additional 42,500 wounded.

A Bit of a History Lesson

Iraq's use of chemical weapons was well known (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm). They had used Tabun, mustard gas, and VX during the 1983-1986 war with Iran. They continued that program against the Shi'ites and Kurds, who had tried to gain independence, but we left hang out to dry after the 1991 war.

They tried to rise up against Saddam Hussein after Gulf War I. We refused to support them. Saddam gassed them into extinction.

So now, properly organized to topple him after a successful invasion during GWI, we pulled out. It destablized the region, fomented civil war, but then we abandoned the minorities to their fate. We can surely wag our finger. Or we can admit that we gave Saddam Hussein the opportunity to retaliate against his political enemies when we did not remain in-nation and disarm his forces back then.

After 1991, it was all over. He stopped using gas attacks because in the main his enemies were dead or utterly defeated, or mostly off-limits in the north and south. Some were slaughtered before then going back to the 1970s using more conventional means.

You will not find me defending the man any time soon.

However, the US did. He was "our friend" during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War). Here's another take (http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html).

It was in 1984 while Abu Nidal was still based out of Iraq that the Reagan administration opened up relations with Iraq again, after they had been severed in 1967.

Yes, Saddam Hussein, while gassing his own people to death, was our ally and hope in the region. He was there as the stablizing force against the spread of radical Shi'ite extremism.

In the so-called "Tanker War" phase, our fleet protected ships from Iranian missile attacks, but let the Iraqi attacks of Iranian shipping proceed unabated. It was only when we actually reflagged tankers as US that the Iranians really stepped up attacks. They hated us and what we were letting Saddam Hussein get away with.

He had invaded their nation to begin with. They had fought him off. And just when they were winning he began with gas attacks on their army. And now, the US fleet was letting him attack Iranian vessels with impunity?

Yes. This was why a certain Iraqi Mirage sent two Exocet missiles at the USS Stark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet). An unfortunate mistake. The pilot thought it was a tanker he was attacking. Saddam Hussein apologized for his pilot to have fired, and was even said to have had the pilot responsible beheaded.

So yes, let's now shake our finger at what he did.

In 1984, the UN Security Council sanctioned Iran for its part in the tanker war, but failed to rebuke Iraq.

We failed to support any action that would mention Iraq's chemical weapons usage. It was known then, but he was our friend at the time. Can't go about punishing friends, now can we?

In fact, both sides had use chemical weapons, but Iraq to a far greater degree. But it never went anywhere. Iran was simply loathed by most of the Security Council, and thus had no redress.

Not that we weren't above slitting his throat and selling arms to the Iranians, as we did in Iran-Contra.

It was after that Saddam Hussein realized that we weren't his real friend. That got him rather angry. Up until then he was "our dictator" in the region. After that, he perhaps wasn't so sorry that his pilot had hit the USS Stark.

The Reagan government also blocked US Congressional action (http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm) against Saddam Hussein, citing it would be against US interests in the region.

The Reagan White House declared victory and went home. The problem was handed off like a hot potato to the Bush administration.

Suddenly, with the Iran-Iraq War concluded, supporting a madman like Saddam Hussein didn't seem like such a politically astute idea.

But James Baker loved it! Argued to get more financial credit for them. Another $1 billion in agricultural subsidies and credits.

Even the BNL loan scandal did not stop the administration. While our own FBI was raiding the Italian bank for making wrongful money transfers to Iraq, the President was palling up to Saddam even closer.

"Any concerns George Bush may have had abut this affair did not deter him from signing National Security Directive (NSD) 26 October 1989, committing his administration to a policy of improving U.S.-Iraq relations. The Directive called for "economic and political incentives" to achieve the objectives of "moderating" Iraqi behavior and increasing U.S. influence. (again, here (http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm))"

So what if the money from BNL was being diverted away from "agricultural subsidies" to bribes, weapons purchases and graft through price inflations?

He was our pal. Our dear buddy.

Even over the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve's objections, the money continued to flow to Iraq. It was to make him our friend.

It presumed he could be bought off.

It worked with the Shah, didn't it? He had brutally repressed his own people, and that wasn't a problem until that dratted Ayatollah came along.

So sure, let's try it with Saddam Hussein.

Even as Saddam began launching long-range and orbitial missiles and the Congress put a halt on trade with Iraq in 1990, President Bush signed a waiver to allow even more loans to go through. The only reason that money was halted temporarily was because he began to default on his existing loans.

That did not stop the Eximbank long! No no! The money started flowing regardless of Iraq's ability to repay. James Baker assured the Iraqis that money would still be coming.

However, we could not feed the beast enough.

It was only then that Saddam Hussein tried to bully Kuwait into forgiving its debt (built up over the Iran-Iraq War) and to claim Kuwaiti oil rights, and a bunch of other demands.

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait under the impression that the US would sit back, as it had done a decade-to-two-years before, against Iran.

And that's how we got Gulf War I, my friends.

By a policy of not just appeasement, but of encouragement of and complicity in his brutal regime.

You can thank conservative politicians for pissing away billions of dollars in flawed fiscal aid to a madman, ignoring the crimes he was committing during the years of their commission, then letting him off the hook when the war was won the first time.

You can certainly bring up the past. It's a horrendous travesty.

And after Gulf War I, we condemned even more people to die by abandoning them to their fate.

Meanwhile, in the present day, this is the reason why we need to work very carefully to avoid the perception of self-serving opportunism, and we need to admit our complicity in the past. Because there are others I assure you who remember it well. For you, this might be news. For others, it is their life story.

We tried to keep a mad mass-murderer on our payroll. We ignored the crimes he was committing, until it was impossible to do so. Then we buried our evidence, just as Saddam buried the bodies.

Thank you for bringing that up. I hope it clarifies some things for people unaware of the situation.

Indeed. Shannon enrages the anti-war people and makes the goverment nervous.

With good reason. Shannon does not only enrage anti-war people. It angers the most of people I know. The country is supposed to be neutral yet by giving a fueling stop/stop over to the Americans in Shannon, we are violating our own Constitution. Something that angers me
:mad:

You know why the govt is nervous? Because we declare we will not help either one side nor the other, yet they lie and cover up the fact that our sovereignty is being pissed on. We might be implict in CIA planes transporting suspected terrorists across the globe- innocents too.

Not in my name, not in my country. :mad:

A clarification:

1. Sadddam did us WMDs c. 1980 - 1991. Attacks stopped after this time for the most part (unless you can find references to continued WMD attacks).

2. Up through 1992 - 2000 he was suspected to have them still; arms inspectors were crawling all over his country looking for them. However, there is significant evidence that sanctions and inspections had significantly reduced Iraqi policy towards use of them. Killing still occurred, but through conventional means.

3. By 2001 - 2003, Iraqi WMD stockpiles were still searched for by arms inspectors, but none were found. Fabrications began to replace facts.

There may indeed be WMDs buried somewhere secretively in the nation.

But that's not why we went to war.

And if we were going to war to stop a brutal dictator, we were a decade and a few hundred thousands people late.

Let's keep the comparison going.

Here you all are lambasting France for not being able to contain riots that have lasted weeks and have mercifully cost only a few lives -- a civil disobedience mostly in the form of property destruction -- but yet the US military has not been able to contain the violence over now two whole years in Iraq.

And there it is not just the terrorists and insurgents causing the damage, but our own forces are adding to it.

Yes, let's mock the French and their burning cars, while more RPG-7's decimate our troops. We've suffered over 2,000 dead and 15,000 wounded.

Let's continue to brag at how successful we are, and of course, order in the tanks! That certainly worked so far in Iraq.

I have no qualms with those who are serving in Iraq. Again, they are in my prayers and thoughts. I do hope the fighting settles down, and that rapproachment and civil law and rule take hold.

This should not be a contest to see who is ruling over the worst barbarities. My point in these postings is to give context and to frame the debate in full detail.

It's far better than going, "USA #1 rules!" and then striding off as if that solved or enlightened anything.

"Anyone that's been over here at least once," Walton says, "realizes that the way out is not by shooting a rifle. You have to build your way out. We have to help build institutions. We have to help build communities. It's the only way." -- Capt. Scott Walton, USMC, In the Hot Zone (http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs1444)

Amen.

"Anyone that's been over here at least once," Walton says, "realizes that the way out is not by shooting a rifle. You have to build your way out. We have to help build institutions. We have to help build communities. It's the only way." -- Capt. Scott Walton, USMC, In the Hot Zone (http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs1444)

Amen.

Who would be stupid enough to compare an insurgency after a war in the middle east to the riots by immigrants in France ?


When the troops are not hunting insurgents and terrorist or dodging RPGs and avoiding IEDs... WTF do you think they are doing ? What the flying fuck do you call elections , rebuilding the power grid , building schools the constitution ..etc. etc. .. along with training the Army and police force .

That post is the biggest " NO SHIT SHERLOCK " post I have seen here in a while .

Ooops I thought I was in a thread about riots in France...They just became the new energizer bunny commercial .

We are not in Iraq for the oil. If we were, then why are we still so short of oil when we, as you put it, went into Iraq just take all of Iraq's oil. The reality contradicts your accusation.

This question almost escaped an answer:

1. The US stopped building new refining capacity years ago (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html). Instead, we consolidated sites and shut down old sites. While we continue to incrementally add a bit of refining capacity, we have not invested in major new refineries in the US for decades -- the last new one was built in 1976. And while US petroleum product consumption has increased, our processing capacity dropped from 1981 of 18.6 million bbls/day, to 16.8 million bbls. Which means that even if we have supplies of crude, we cannot process it into useable product quickly enough to meet demand. The US is required to rely on foreign suppliers to meet our demands. During times of disaster, such as the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes, we lost capacity, and that led to price shocks.

2. Furthermore, the US reduced storage for oil reserves. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.html), which was put into place to help cushion shocks after prior oil shortages, is down from a peak of 118 days' reserve in 1985, to only 59 days reserve today. It also takes 13 days from a presidential decision to get ramped up to a 'draw down' of 4.4 million bbl/day. So if our refining capacity is impacted for greater than 4.4 million bbl/day, even committing strategic reserves will not be able to make up for the shortfall. Even then, it still needs to be processed. If we are short on refining capacity, this will not help us. It only helps if oil supplies are knocked out (which they were, see next).

3. We were hit by hurricanes that stopped upwards of 1 million bbl/day (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/special/eia1_katrina.html) of oil extraction, but the nation did not tap into strategic reserves. Last year, we did so for Hurricane Ivan. This year, the government sat on the oil, even though Katrina, Rita, and Wilma all hit. Furthermore, refining was off 1.9 million bbls/day (http://www.ihsenergy.com/news/katrina/enod_articles/1013_eia.jsp), meaning that we had lost upwards of 11% of refining capacity. Even if we had the raw products, we couldn't turn it into gasoline, kerosene, diesel, jet fuel, etc., fast enough.

4. The government did not act to import from overseas to make up for the shortfall.

Basically, the reason why the US price was affected was only mildly due to events going on in the Middle East. Just as the Iran-Iraq war only impacted us mildly. Only about 7% of our oil was coming from there. It was far more crippling to Japan particularly, and badly affected Europe, but we really didn't "need" it like they did.

Conversely, our oil shock due to hurricanes only mildly affected Europe. It massively affected domestic oil prices.

The petroleum industry reaped record profits. They simply priced gas at a high markup. Even if they were producing less of it, they'd make the same money. And then when production began to come back online? Uh... they kept the price about the same! We got used to it. No reason to lower it now.

5. Iraq's oil refineries and pipelines were run down by years of disrepair, devastated in the two wars, and continue to be attacked regularly (http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm).

6. Iraq's Oil isn't sold to the US for the most part. It's sold in the majority to Japan and Europe. But the big fat profits come back to the US companies holding the rights to sell the oil. Only part of the money really is theirs. The rest has to be placed in escrow for Iraq itself. But they get their fair share for carrying costs plus profit.

Who would be stupid enough to compare an insurgency after a war in the middle east to the riots by immigrants in France ?

Who would be patently foolish enough to ignore the comparison?

Both are due to a western government's repression of an Islamic people who have both suffered from their own native brutal killing regimes. The genocide in Algeria certainly compares to the genocide in Iraq.

And in both cases, one of the UN Security Council members is involved in offering some semblance of "liberty" to these people.

In both cases, a small but violent percentage of them are unhappy with how they've been treated.

There are, of course, significant differences.

1. France accepted refugees from Algeria. The US invaded Iraq.

2. France's problem stems from a century of friction with a minority. The US is the minority in Iraq and has only been there twice, in 1991 and in 2003-2005. Edit: We were also there during 1942-1945, to keep Hitler from getting access to the oil (http://harpers.org/BluebirdsOverBaghdad.html).

3. France's problem is domestic. The US's problem is distant, as part of a purposeful strategy to keep such violence from reaching the homeland.

4. France's problem is far milder. The US's problem is based in a war and ongoing insurrection.

There are comparisons to be drawn, and contrasts as well. QED.

When the troops are not hunting insurgents and terrorist or dodging RPGs and avoiding IEDs... WTF do you think they are doing ? What the flying fuck do you call elections , rebuilding the power grid , building schools the constitution ..etc. etc. .. along with training the Army and police force.
You seem to be upset. Why is that? Because you cannot otherwise attack the issues of merit that were raised in the other posts?

That post is the biggest " NO SHIT SHERLOCK " post I have seen here in a while .
Your attack seems to be ad hominem. Dismissing its citation not because you disagree with what is being said, but because you feel uncomfortable someone with a different political viewpoint happened to point it out.

If I had been more of your political persuasion, you might have just given me a 'Damn straight' or a 'ditto.'

Ahem...what does you being there have to do with the politics of US support for Saddam, or even the existence, or non-existence of said weapons?
Elementary.

Being here, means I have a better perspective on which to judge things, unlike a partisan hack such as yourself.


Note: I didn't say Democratic hack, because people like you jave infiltrated the Republican party too. You guys are in both parties. Which unfortunate, given the facts that is partisans such as you who have hijacked the system from people.
Don't be giving me that "I'm not a Democrat" crap. Cause it don't matter. What matters is that you are a bitter partisan.

Yes indeed. Let's look at those mass graves (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm).

We have 290,000 - 400,000 casualties for the reign of Saddam Hussein over 27 years, 1976 - 2003. A death rate of approximately 10,000 - 15,000 per year.

And we have 27,000 - 30,000 Iraqi deaths during the reign of the US and Coalition in 2 years, 2003-2005 -- source: Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). A death rate of 13,000 - 15,000 per year.

We're giving him a run for his money.

In fact, the death toll rate has doubled in the two years since the war's formal conclusion.

It is true that US forces are only responsible for 37% of the 24,865 deaths reported in the first two years -- about 9,700.

9% was due to insurgents. 36% are due to criminal violence due to post-invasion conditions. The rest are unaccounted for.

Now, in a few short years, we are maintaining the same level of carnage, using conventional ordnance and so-called smart bombs that are still landing on civilian homes.

There were an additional 42,500 wounded.

A Bit of a History Lesson

Iraq's use of chemical weapons was well known (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm). They had used Tabun, mustard gas, and VX during the 1983-1986 war with Iran. They continued that program against the Shi'ites and Kurds, who had tried to gain independence, but we left hang out to dry after the 1991 war.

They tried to rise up against Saddam Hussein after Gulf War I. We refused to support them. Saddam gassed them into extinction.

So now, properly organized to topple him after a successful invasion during GWI, we pulled out. It destablized the region, fomented civil war, but then we abandoned the minorities to their fate. We can surely wag our finger. Or we can admit that we gave Saddam Hussein the opportunity to retaliate against his political enemies when we did not remain in-nation and disarm his forces back then.

After 1991, it was all over. He stopped using gas attacks because in the main his enemies were dead or utterly defeated, or mostly off-limits in the north and south. Some were slaughtered before then going back to the 1970s using more conventional means.

You will not find me defending the man any time soon.

However, the US did. He was "our friend" during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War). Here's another take (http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html).

It was in 1984 while Abu Nidal was still based out of Iraq that the Reagan administration opened up relations with Iraq again, after they had been severed in 1967.

Yes, Saddam Hussein, while gassing his own people to death, was our ally and hope in the region. He was there as the stablizing force against the spread of radical Shi'ite extremism.

In the so-called "Tanker War" phase, our fleet protected ships from Iranian missile attacks, but let the Iraqi attacks of Iranian shipping proceed unabated. It was only when we actually reflagged tankers as US that the Iranians really stepped up attacks. They hated us and what we were letting Saddam Hussein get away with.

He had invaded their nation to begin with. They had fought him off. And just when they were winning he began with gas attacks on their army. And now, the US fleet was letting him attack Iranian vessels with impunity?

Yes. This was why a certain Iraqi Mirage sent two Exocet missiles at the USS Stark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet). An unfortunate mistake. The pilot thought it was a tanker he was attacking. Saddam Hussein apologized for his pilot to have fired, and was even said to have had the pilot responsible beheaded.

So yes, let's now shake our finger at what he did.

In 1984, the UN Security Council sanctioned Iran for its part in the tanker war, but failed to rebuke Iraq.

We failed to support any action that would mention Iraq's chemical weapons usage. It was known then, but he was our friend at the time. Can't go about punishing friends, now can we?

In fact, both sides had use chemical weapons, but Iraq to a far greater degree. But it never went anywhere. Iran was simply loathed by most of the Security Council, and thus had no redress.

Not that we weren't above slitting his throat and selling arms to the Iranians, as we did in Iran-Contra.

It was after that Saddam Hussein realized that we weren't his real friend. That got him rather angry. Up until then he was "our dictator" in the region. After that, he perhaps wasn't so sorry that his pilot had hit the USS Stark.

The Reagan government also blocked US Congressional action (http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm) against Saddam Hussein, citing it would be against US interests in the region.

The Reagan White House declared victory and went home. The problem was handed off like a hot potato to the Bush administration.

Suddenly, with the Iran-Iraq War concluded, supporting a madman like Saddam Hussein didn't seem like such a politically astute idea.

But James Baker loved it! Argued to get more financial credit for them. Another $1 billion in agricultural subsidies and credits.

Even the BNL loan scandal did not stop the administration. While our own FBI was raiding the Italian bank for making wrongful money transfers to Iraq, the President was palling up to Saddam even closer.

"Any concerns George Bush may have had abut this affair did not deter him from signing National Security Directive (NSD) 26 October 1989, committing his administration to a policy of improving U.S.-Iraq relations. The Directive called for "economic and political incentives" to achieve the objectives of "moderating" Iraqi behavior and increasing U.S. influence. (again, here (http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm))"

So what if the money from BNL was being diverted away from "agricultural subsidies" to bribes, weapons purchases and graft through price inflations?

He was our pal. Our dear buddy.

Even over the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve's objections, the money continued to flow to Iraq. It was to make him our friend.

It presumed he could be bought off.

It worked with the Shah, didn't it? He had brutally repressed his own people, and that wasn't a problem until that dratted Ayatollah came along.

So sure, let's try it with Saddam Hussein.

Even as Saddam began launching long-range and orbitial missiles and the Congress put a halt on trade with Iraq in 1990, President Bush signed a waiver to allow even more loans to go through. The only reason that money was halted temporarily was because he began to default on his existing loans.

That did not stop the Eximbank long! No no! The money started flowing regardless of Iraq's ability to repay. James Baker assured the Iraqis that money would still be coming.

However, we could not feed the beast enough.

It was only then that Saddam Hussein tried to bully Kuwait into forgiving its debt (built up over the Iran-Iraq War) and to claim Kuwaiti oil rights, and a bunch of other demands.

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait under the impression that the US would sit back, as it had done a decade-to-two-years before, against Iran.

And that's how we got Gulf War I, my friends.

By a policy of not just appeasement, but of encouragement of and complicity in his brutal regime.

You can thank conservative politicians for pissing away billions of dollars in flawed fiscal aid to a madman, ignoring the crimes he was committing during the years of their commission, then letting him off the hook when the war was won the first time.

You can certainly bring up the past. It's a horrendous travesty.

And after Gulf War I, we condemned even more people to die by abandoning them to their fate.

Meanwhile, in the present day, this is the reason why we need to work very carefully to avoid the perception of self-serving opportunism, and we need to admit our complicity in the past. Because there are others I assure you who remember it well. For you, this might be news. For others, it is their life story.

We tried to keep a mad mass-murderer on our payroll. We ignored the crimes he was committing, until it was impossible to do so. Then we buried our evidence, just as Saddam buried the bodies.

Thank you for bringing that up. I hope it clarifies some things for people unaware of the situation.

1. As I've posted elsewhere, I'm in Iraq and I don't see any of that crap you claiming. Therefore, I have to say, since I don't see it, that you are making it up or pulling it off BS websites. Have you been pulling stuff off the moveon.org website?
As for your numbers, if anything, you have them backwards.


2. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. He didn't use them against the Shiites. Futhermore, VX gas hasn't been used since WWII. Not even Saddam used it. What he gassed the Kurds with was mustard gas.
He did not use chemical weapons on any one in the aftermath of the Gulf War 1. Reason: If he did, he would have been overthrown by US forces and the world community a hell of a lot sooner than he was. He would have been out in 93 instead of in 03.


3. The charge that Gulf War 1 caused civil wars in the region, let alone in Iraq is totally baseless. If you're going to throw accusations at the US about destablizing the middle east by going after Iraq in 91, then you'll have accuse every nation that was involved in the coalition and not just the US.
Even, recently, with US forces in Iraq, the region has become much more stable than it was.


4. Again, Saddam never used chemical weapons against Iran. You are pulling crap out of your rear end. Read up on the history from a real source and stop listening to moveon.

5. As for the US supporting Iraq during the Iran Iraq war, it should be noted that the French and several other nations also supported Saddam at the time. Furthermore, you have to judge in light of the cold war. The soviets were a much more serious threat to the world and to the US than Saddam was.

6. Classic. Now you attack the UN with baseless accusations. Iran was engaged in torture and murder just as much as Iraq.

7. Iran is a nation that has never, in its history, used any type of WMD. Your accusation against them is false and slanderous against their nation.

8. Again, you have to look at US policy from the perspective of the Cold War.

9. Every NSD has a number. I note that you qouted one that doesn't have a number. If it doesn't it doesn't exist.

10. Saddam launched orbital missiles? Holy cow. I must be pretty dumb. All the facts I had said he didn't have the tech or the resources for such things.

11. Having read stuff like Saddam having weapons in orbit, Iran using WMD's, the UN supporting atrocities, I don't think I need to go any further in dismantling your partisan drivel.

And a little know fact you won't find on Moveon.org: The only nation to use WMDs in the late 20th century was Iraq. Furthermore, the UN called both nations to exercise restraint. US policy was dictated by the Cold War. But I guess you were on of those protestors who were screaming how much better Stalinist Russia was than the US.

With good reason. Shannon does not only enrage anti-war people. It angers the most of people I know. The country is supposed to be neutral yet by giving a fueling stop/stop over to the Americans in Shannon, we are violating our own Constitution. Something that angers me
:mad:

You know why the govt is nervous? Because we declare we will not help either one side nor the other, yet they lie and cover up the fact that our sovereignty is being pissed on. We might be implict in CIA planes transporting suspected terrorists across the globe- innocents too.

Not in my name, not in my country. :mad:

Ireland is neutral? I did not know that.

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that we required to get off the plane and spend money there.

Who would be patently foolish enough to ignore the comparison?

Both are due to a western government's repression of an Islamic people who have both suffered from their own native brutal killing regimes. The genocide in Algeria certainly compares to the genocide in Iraq.

And in both cases, one of the UN Security Council members is involved in offering some semblance of "liberty" to these people.

In both cases, a small but violent percentage of them are unhappy with how they've been treated.

There are, of course, significant differences.

1. France accepted refugees from Algeria. The US invaded Iraq.

2. France's problem stems from a century of friction with a minority. The US is the minority in Iraq and has only been there twice, in 1991 and in 2003-2005. Edit: We were also there during 1942-1945, to keep Hitler from getting access to the oil (http://harpers.org/BluebirdsOverBaghdad.html).

3. France's problem is domestic. The US's problem is distant, as part of a purposeful strategy to keep such violence from reaching the homeland.

4. France's problem is far milder. The US's problem is based in a war and ongoing insurrection.

There are comparisons to be drawn, and contrasts as well. QED.


You seem to be upset. Why is that? Because you cannot otherwise attack the issues of merit that were raised in the other posts?


Your attack seems to be ad hominem. Dismissing its citation not because you disagree with what is being said, but because you feel uncomfortable someone with a different political viewpoint happened to point it out.

If I had been more of your political persuasion, you might have just given me a 'Damn straight' or a 'ditto.'


Of your entire baseless diatribe this one cuts the cake. Not only have asserted that Saddam had space missiles and Iran used WMD's, but now you've gone from attacking the evil American empire to attacking the evil west. And the best part: you've just made the claim that the riots in France are equal to the insurgency in Iraq.
News for you buddy, the vast majority of insurgents are terrorists of foreign origin.
The rest of your posts are too pathetic to respond to any further.
And for your education, I think you should know, France opposed the Iraq war.

Being here, means I have a better perspective on which to judge things, unlike a partisan hack such as yourself.
And I ask again: What does you being in Iraq have to do with the political dealings prior to the war. You do not have access to any better information than we do!
If I however had questions about how the Iraqis feel about things now, I would acknowledge that you're in a better position to judge it. But that's not the question, so your claim to fame remains meaningless.

Don't be giving me that "I'm not a Democrat" crap. Cause it don't matter. What matters is that you are a bitter partisan.
Of which party is that then? :D

Send in the FFL oh wait these clowns make up most of their ranks anyways.....

Well, what do you know. From what I'm hearing, the curfews are doing the trick and the riots are dying down a bit more every night. I guess it doesn't take the lethal force some people suggested to get things under control.

Send in the FFL oh wait these clowns make up most of their ranks anyways.....:rolleyes:
If you'd read my posts a bit further back, you'd know that the FFL can't serve in France.

1. As I've posted elsewhere, I'm in Iraq and I don't see any of that crap you claiming.

Let's look at things from your perspective. So long as you are not engangering yourself or your mission, are you at liberty to discuss where in the nation you are at present, and your unit and current assignment?

Different groups are obviously getting very different reactions depending on their deployment. I am given to understand that those in Kurdistani territory are getting quite good treatment, seeing how we are guaranteeing them semi-autonomy after years of repressive rule.

So please, tell us more of your assignment, so that we can hear your story -- as the truth through your own eyes.

At the same time it would also help for you to acknowledge that many other men and women in Iraq have indeed come under attack and have taken significant casualties.

Therefore, I have to say, since I don't see it, that you are making it up or pulling it off BS websites. Have you been pulling stuff off the moveon.org website?

No, I never even looked at Moveon.org, and if you look, you can see precisely where the cited statistics came from.

It would be better to look at iCasualties.org OIF page (http://icasualties.org/oif/) or OEF (http://www.icasualties.org/oef).

I believe in the mission of OEF. I simply believe we bobbled the ball by also going in to Iraq when we did. Then we forced the Iraqi Army to be dismantled. Then we needed to pay to put it back together again when we belatedly realized that the resistence was picking up strength, not losing steam.

As for your numbers, if anything, you have them backwards.

2. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. He didn't use them against the Shiites.

According to eyewitnesses and UN inspectors he most likely did:

On September 26, 1993, Shiite rebels living in the southern Iraqi marshlands reported an early morning shelling attack by Iraqi forces. The eyewitnesses, who spoke with a New York Times reporter, mentioned that the shells landed with a thud "and not the usual explosion" sending up white clouds. The artillery attack was followed by a ground assault by Iraqi troops who were equipped with gas masks.

A Shiite rebel claimed that upon entering one of the Iraqi armored personnel carriers they found battle orders calling for a chemical attack. Rebel leaders provided a copy of the captured orders. Written in Arabic on the twenty-sixth of September, the orders, numbered 1-15, instructed the Iraqi soldiers to use chemical weapons to "retake the village" and that "each soldier must be instructed on how to respond during the chemical attack."

After the attack, some villagers returned for their belongings, but there was nothing left. They discovered that trees and plants had withered and yellowed. Furthermore, "the cats, the dogs, the birds and even the water snakes had died. But for some reason the victims had been removed by the troops. We saw no bodies."

In November 1993, a nine member U.N. inspection team arrived to take samples from the area of the alleged chemical attack. The results of the inspection were inconclusive. -- Gulfweb.org (http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_3.html#experience)

Futhermore, VX gas hasn't been used since WWII. Not even Saddam used it. What he gassed the Kurds with was mustard gas. He did not use chemical weapons on any one in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

FAS.org (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm), not known for its liberal leanings, claims otherwise. In this claim, they say that VX, Tabun, Sarin, and Mustard Gas were all used against the Kurds in Halabja in March 1988. It was reported by Christine Gosden in The Washington Post, Wednesday, March 11, 1998. Copies of her article can be found online (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//www.kdp.pp.se/hal2.html&ei=n3B0Q_ayE62YYKuXwGA&sig2=REIzpyc-UxbFwQwUGQwHaw) at the KDP site. The US State Department (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm) confirmed findings, and cites neurological disorders, convulsions and coma which are not symptomic of mustard gas, but nerve agents.

1. Reason: If he did, he would have been overthrown by US forces and the world community a hell of a lot sooner than he was. He would have been out in 93 instead of in 03.

Unfortunately, he was not ousted. We let him keep the country.

Halabja was unfortunately just the most widely-known atrocity. The State Department states that over 40 such towns were attacked. This was in 1987-1998 -- years before the Gulf War.

3. The charge that Gulf War 1 caused civil wars in the region, let alone in Iraq is totally baseless. If you're going to throw accusations at the US about destablizing the middle east by going after Iraq in 91, then you'll have accuse every nation that was involved in the coalition and not just the US.

I'm not sure that a smaller coalition partner, such as, say Poland, would have been able to force the US to change strategy.

It was the US that was calling the shots. The UK could have lobbied for it too.

You're right. But we needed him, apparently, for "stability in the region."

That was the plan then, and it was what our official stance was.

The truth is, we had no plans to stay on after the war. We believed back then that Iraq would have fallen apart.

In the Frontline interview with Saïd K. Aburish (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish2.html), you see a citation of this policy. That the Bush administration simply had no plans for what to do in a post-Saddam world.

During the Reagan and Bush administration we were so sure of him being the lynchpin of a secular Islamic state that we had no contingencies and no plans of foreign policy to contemplate what to do.

We decided to leave him there in power rather than allowing the region to fall into chaos. That was the official view of the government.

The CIA had in fact supported the Ba'ath revolution ever since the 1963 coup, which is also pointed out earlier in the interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html).

But the relationship with Saddam was always back-and-forth. The Iraqis were never politically reliable. Considering that they were extortionists and exterminators, there's little wonder why.

The US was instrumental in helping Saddam rise to power. Old CIA ties lingered through the Bush administration. Also remember that Bush ran the CIA for a time (30 January 1976 to 20 January 1977).

While the CIA had prepared reports in 1988 that warned that Saddam Hussein was going to turn his attentions to his border with Kuwait next, they underestimated his plans. They thought he would simply sieze a few gulf islands and extend his military bases. They thought that he would settle for at least long-term leases on the islands. So it came as quite a surprise when he took over the whole country.

That wasn't in the CIA's plans.

So we were left without a response. We made decisions during the Gulf War based on what we felt was best economically. We knew then that an Iraqi occupation would take years and would be costly.

The Bush administration was simply not willing to deal with that, and so pulled out. Knowing everything we know now. Understanding that we would be cutting off the Kurds and Shi'ites at the knees.

Even, recently, with US forces in Iraq, the region has become much more stable than it was.

It will likely improve in the coming years. I am not doubting the long-term prospects of Iraq, and I hope they find peace quickly. I know that many if not most are also sick of being used as a convenient site to hold a war between international terrorists and the US.

4. Again, Saddam never used chemical weapons against Iran. You are pulling crap out of your rear end. Read up on the history from a real source and stop listening to moveon.

Eh. No. I am citing the US's own CIA (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/72566_01.htm) and State Department reports.

Stop citing a source I'm not even using. Also stop pathologically denying actually credible sources as if this is some sort of fiction. If your commanding officer shoved a report of chemical weapons capabilities from the CIA under your nose, you'd listen. Why are you giving all this flak and acting like an ostrich with your head in the sand? Where did this attitude of purposeful ignorance come from?

5. As for the US supporting Iraq during the Iran Iraq war, it should be noted that the French and several other nations also supported Saddam at the time.

Oh, far be it from me to absolve the French for their own complicity in affairs. A lot of this was due to the French wanting to secure their own oil rights, and of course to move Iraq away from the British sphere of influence (where it had been between WWI and the post-WWII cold war) towards Paris. Yes, the French did a great deal to ensure that there were Mirages and Exocets there in the nation.

Furthermore, you have to judge in light of the cold war. The soviets were a much more serious threat to the world and to the US than Saddam was.

Yes, true, and we used Saddam's Ba'athists to get our hands on a good few MiGs. That was the CIA's price for supporting their 1963 coup. Friendly relations with Washington.

However, that policy was stopped by the Ba'athists in 1968 when we supported Israel, and the relationship officially hid the skids in 1972 when our oil companies were tossed out.

It was then the US worried most about the Iraqi acceptance of Soviet assistance to build up their military power. I recall well the 1970s military simulation called Oil War (SPI, 1975) (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/5382), in which the US was pitted in a confrontation against the Arab nations over control of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and other gulf states. There was also a scenario depicting a war of all nations combined against the Iranians.

Strategic thinking at the time was wavering -- would Iraq be our ally or enemy? The simulation, though simplistic by today's standards for design, postulated both situations.

6. Classic. Now you attack the UN with baseless accusations. Iran was engaged in torture and murder just as much as Iraq.

Eh, again, no. The UN tried to pass resolutions sanctioning both parties, but laid blame on Iran as heavily as Iraq. What came out later was that some of the attacks laid on Iran were actually Iraqi actions. Iran was frustrated with the UN because the US and France consistently ruled against them and in favor of their ally in Iraq.

Iran was not blameless in any way either. For many hawks, this was a perfect situation. Muslims killing muslims. No need to really get involved. Just stir up the pot and let them go at each other. It was one of the reasons why the war went on without real international intervention for years.

The US did actually intervene when suddenly the war went against Saddam. Suddenly the US wished for there to be a truce and we brought the UN to bear against Iran. The Iranians considered halting for a time, but pressed on for some time before halting their offensives.

If you cannot trust my word, do your own research. Read the history. Speak to some of the Shi'ites.

All of this happened long before "moveon.org" or even the World Wide Web.

7. Iran is a nation that has never, in its history, used any type of WMD. Your accusation against them is false and slanderous against their nation.

SIPRI (http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html) report.

IranWatch.org (http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-cwmilestones.htm) states Iran's CW program got started late, in 1983. By 1987 they were ready to deploy cyanide and mustard gas. According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_warfare_in_the_Iran-Iraq_War), it was alleged Iran also used chemical weapons by Iraq and the US government. In many cases, Iran pled it was a wrongful accusation on the part of Baghdad.

This timeline (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php) shows how the US actually took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations and actually released for export various weapon systems, including biological and chemical weapons agents.

You might want to read this assessment of Iranian use of CW (http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/dc/briefs/030701.htm), March 7, 2001, Jean Pascal Zanders, SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Project.

In it he notes the allegations by Baghdad to blame Tehran for CW use in Halabja. At the time, we supported the Iraqi claim. In retrospect we are rather sure it was Iraq who used CW there.

Claims that Iran used CW are murky; most of the Iraqi accusations point towards the Halabja attack, which were likely Iraqi "friendly fire" casualties. Many reports do not rule out Iranian retaliatiatory attacks, and cite mustard gas was used by Iran against Iraq using captured weapons. If they used their own produced systems, it would have been only as early as 1985 and more likely in the 1987-1988 timeframe, long after the much cited 1984 SIRPI report. It is unprovable. CNS (http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iran.htm). The Ayatollah did not approve of their use, and wished all requests for their deployment to obtain his approval. The Iranians, it must be stated, abhored the practice, and were shocked that the rest of the world did little to stop the Iraqis.

8. Again, you have to look at US policy from the perspective of the Cold War.

Lived it. And what's your point?

9. Every NSD has a number. I note that you qouted one that doesn't have a number. If it doesn't it doesn't exist.
I might have been unclear. It was NSD 26 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd26.pdf), signed 02 Oct 1999. You can read it yourself. It acknowledged that we needed to get Iraq to stop "meddling in external affairs, such as in Lebanon." It proposed a carrot-and-stick approach -- sanctions in case of humans rights abuses, and economic incentives to play ball.

It didn't work.

Less than a year later, on 20 Aug 1990, NSD 45 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd_45.htm) was issued, being the plan on how to deal with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

It came 18 days after the invasion of 2 August 1990.

In the NSD, it said that the attack came without provocation or warning, when clearly, in the CIA report of 1998, "Iraq's National Security Goals," the CIA had warned that Iraq was planning on intervening against Kuwait.

It took the administration by complete surprise to be caught with their pants around their ankles. But they had been warned.

10. Saddam launched orbital missiles? Holy cow. I must be pretty dumb. All the facts I had said he didn't have the tech or the resources for such things.

Are you actually reading any of the sources I am citing? Yes, it was possible for the Iraqi missiles to attain exoatmospheric launch.

It was called al-Abid (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/al-abid.htm) and it wasn't quite the same worry of Sputnik, but it was definitely alarming to the west. It was launched 5 Dec 1989, and it caused the US to want to stop the normalization of relations proposed in NSD 26 signed just a few months before.

The White House downplayed the incident. In fact, it turned out that initial reports were incorrect. However, at the time people believed that they had a system capable of orbiting the earth a few times. Hence Congress' action.

11. Having read stuff like Saddam having weapons in orbit, Iran using WMD's, the UN supporting atrocities, I don't think I need to go any further in dismantling your partisan drivel.

Are you always this patently obtuse? You can call it drivel if you want. This is your military history. Do you talk this way to your commanding officer? If this was an intelligence briefing, would you be anywhere this obstinant in actually paying attention to the direction of the conversation?

And a little know fact you won't find on Moveon.org: The only nation to use WMDs in the late 20th century was Iraq.

It depends on what you call "late."

In the post WWII era, these are the commonly-cited uses:

1962-1970 - US uses treat gas and four types of defoliant, including Agent Orange, in Vietnam.

1963-1967 - Egypt uses chemical weapons (phosgene, mustard) against Yemen.

1975-1983 - Alleged use of Yellow Rain (trichothecene mycotoxins) by Soviet-backed forces in Laos and Kampuchea. There is evidence to suggest use of T-2 toxin, but an alternative hypothesis suggests that the yellow spots labelled Yellow Rain were caused by swarms of defecating bees.

1979 - The US government alleges Soviets use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan, including Yellow Rain.

August, 1983 - Iraq begins using chemical weapons (mustard gas), Iran-Iraq War.

1984 - First ever use of nerve agent tabun on the battlefield, by Iraq during Iran-Iraq War.

1987-1988 - Iraq uses chemical weapons (hydrogen cyanide, mustard gas) in its Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, most notably in the Halabja Massacre of 1988.

-- Source (http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/cw/cwindex.html#when)

I am sure this list is coming from another location, as I've seen it on a few sites (no, not Moveon.org; stop with the pathological paranoia). I'll leave out the Sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway as a non-state terrorist act.

Unless you believe the US government and also consider that Iran may have used them. If they did, it was opportunistically and retaliatorily, and not by policy, as Iraq did. As I have shown above, the case with Iran is difficult to prove, and may have been mostly falsely promulgated by Iraq (with US assistance).

Furthermore, the UN called both nations to exercise restraint. US policy was dictated by the Cold War. But I guess you were on of those protestors who were screaming how much better Stalinist Russia was than the US.

No, I was actually a military simulation designer.

Grow up.

1. As I've posted elsewhere, I'm in Iraq and I don't see any of that crap you claiming. Therefore, I have to say, since I don't see it, that you are making it up or pulling it off BS websites. Have you been pulling stuff off the moveon.org website?
As for your numbers, if anything, you have them backwards.


2. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. He didn't use them against the Shiites. Futhermore, VX gas hasn't been used since WWII. Not even Saddam used it. What he gassed the Kurds with was mustard gas.
He did not use chemical weapons on any one in the aftermath of the Gulf War 1. Reason: If he did, he would have been overthrown by US forces and the world community a hell of a lot sooner than he was. He would have been out in 93 instead of in 03.


3. The charge that Gulf War 1 caused civil wars in the region, let alone in Iraq is totally baseless. If you're going to throw accusations at the US about destablizing the middle east by going after Iraq in 91, then you'll have accuse every nation that was involved in the coalition and not just the US.
Even, recently, with US forces in Iraq, the region has become much more stable than it was.


4. Again, Saddam never used chemical weapons against Iran. You are pulling crap out of your rear end. Read up on the history from a real source and stop listening to moveon.

5. As for the US supporting Iraq during the Iran Iraq war, it should be noted that the French and several other nations also supported Saddam at the time. Furthermore, you have to judge in light of the cold war. The soviets were a much more serious threat to the world and to the US than Saddam was.

6. Classic. Now you attack the UN with baseless accusations. Iran was engaged in torture and murder just as much as Iraq.

7. Iran is a nation that has never, in its history, used any type of WMD. Your accusation against them is false and slanderous against their nation.

8. Again, you have to look at US policy from the perspective of the Cold War.

9. Every NSD has a number. I note that you qouted one that doesn't have a number. If it doesn't it doesn't exist.

10. Saddam launched orbital missiles? Holy cow. I must be pretty dumb. All the facts I had said he didn't have the tech or the resources for such things.

11. Having read stuff like Saddam having weapons in orbit, Iran using WMD's, the UN supporting atrocities, I don't think I need to go any further in dismantling your partisan drivel.

And a little know fact you won't find on Moveon.org: The only nation to use WMDs in the late 20th century was Iraq. Furthermore, the UN called both nations to exercise restraint. US policy was dictated by the Cold War. But I guess you were on of those protestors who were screaming how much better Stalinist Russia was than the US.


Just so you know..

Allegations of the use of chemical weapons have been frequent during the Iraq-Iran War. One of the instances reported by Iran has been conclusively verified by an international team dispatched to Iran by the UN Secretary-General.

Both Iran (1929) and Iraq (1931) are parties to the Geneva ProtocoI, which prohibits the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, as well as the use of bacteriological methods of warfare.

The UN Security Council has issued a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf War. It remains uncertain whether the sources of supply were indigenous or external. Export controls have been placed on certain chemicals that could be used in the production of mustard and nerve gases.

In this Fact Sheet, SIPRI provides background information on the international law which has been violated, the two poison gases which the UN team identified in its samples, and the possible origins of the chemical weapons used in the Iraq-Iran War.


INTRODUCTION

Allegations

There have been reports of chemical warfare from the Gulf War since the early months of Iraq s invasion of Iran. In November 1980, Tehran Radio was broadcasting allegations of Iraqi chemical bombing at Susangerd. Three and a quarter years later, by which time the outside world was listening more seriously to such charges, the Iranian Foreign Minister told the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that there had been at least 49 instances of Iraqi chemical-warfare attack in 40 border regions, and that the documented dead totalled 109 people, with hundreds more wounded. He made this statement on 16 February 1984, the day on which Iran launched a major offensive on the central front, and one week before the start of offensives and counter-offensives further south, in the border marshlands to the immediate north of Basra where, at Majnoon Islands, Iraq has vast untapped oil reserves. According to official Iranian statements during the 31 days following the Foreign Minister's allegation, Iraq used chemical weapons on at least 14 further occasions, adding more than 2200 to the total number of people wounded by poison gas.

Verification

One of the chemical-warfare instances reported by Iran, at Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh on 13 March 1984, has since been conclusively verified by an international team of specialists dispatched to Iran by the United Nations Secretary General. The evidence adduced in the report by the UN team lends substantial credence to Iranian allegations of Iraqi chemical warfare on at least six other occasions during the period from 26 February to 17 March.

The efficiency and dispatch with which this UN verification operation was mounted stand greatly to the credit of the Secretary General. His hand had presumably been strengthened by the announcement on 7 March by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that 160 cases of wounded combatants visited in Tehran hospitals by an ICRC team "presented a clinical picture whose nature leads to the presumption of the recent use of substances prohibited by international law". The casualties visited were reportedly all victims of an incident on 27 February. The ICRC statement came two days after the US State Department had announced that "the US Government has concluded that the available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons". Iraq had denounced the Washington statement as "political hypocrisy", "full of lies", a fabrication by the CIA, and had suggested that the hospital patients examined by the ICRC had "sustained the effects of these substances in places other than the war front". On 17 March, at almost the same moment as the UN team was acquiring its most damning evidence, the general commanding the Iraqi Third Corps, then counter-attacking in the battle for the Majnoon Islands, spoke as follows to foreign reporters: "We have not used chemical weapons so far and I swear by God's Word I have not seen any such weapons. But if I had to finish off the enemy, and if I am allowed to use them, I will not hesitate to do so".



Saddam likes his WMD 's .

Hey..Listeneisse ..you start making some actual sense at times ..then you go into outer space with the aliens with your genocide in Iraq crap...I'm confused , when you are writing this crap does your tin foil helmet fall off and cause you to come up with some of these conclusions ?

So at any rate are the riots over yet ?

Yes, he did. Sadly, the US even shipped some to him.

French Finance Minister offers to fund more jobs for minority youth. (http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6229138&cKey=1131647729000) Also, violence was down again in latest reports.

French Finance Minister offers to fund more jobs for minority youth. (http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6229138&cKey=1131647729000) Also, violence was down again in latest reports.

Question:

What about everyother unemployed person in France?

Question:

What about everyother unemployed person in France?

Every other unemployed person in France isnt descriminated for being African :)

Every other unemployed person in France isnt descriminated for being African :)

Yea true.... but with high unemployment rate, how does he propose to do what he is planning on doing?

Yea true.... but with high unemployment rate, how does he propose to do what he is planning on doing?

Beats me, as far I know, apart from promises of greater investment in infrastructures in poverty stricken areas, nothing concrete as been put forward. Lets see after car-burning gets within normal parameters :P

Beats me, as far I know, apart from promises of greater investment in infrastructures in poverty stricken areas, nothing concrete as been put forward. Lets see after car-burning gets within normal parameters :P

The root causes aren't something that can be changed without long term effort.

Racism isn't something that can be legislated away - you can pass all the laws you like, and try educating the youth, but it's not 100% and it takes decades.

Promising more investment in infrastructure in poverty areas is a first aid measure, not a long term solution.

Beats me, as far I know, apart from promises of greater investment in infrastructures in poverty stricken areas, nothing concrete as been put forward. Lets see after car-burning gets within normal parameters :P

I see a tax hike in France's future :p

For better or for worse, we've seen that the kinds of restrictions French and German governments impose on businesses in those countries seem to make hiring new workers unattractive to employers. Perhaps those countries need to rethink their approach to government regulation of employment - every worker has certain rights, but it can be taken too far.

Also, those governments should try to avoid letting companies make the same mistakes American companies have made with respect to pensions and retiree benefits - i.e., don't make promises you can't uphold and then rely on the government to bail you out. Instead, much better to make sustainable promises and fulfil them.

It has been suggested that one of the problems with the French social model is that unemployment is too cushy, but somehow I doubt that's as big an influence as everyone says - people love to take pride in their work, and will actively seek work unless they're repeatedly shot down.

So it comes down, I think, to bad government policy combined with racism. It's not actually racism, though, so much as general xenophobia. The French culture doesn't like Jews, for example; they're not white Catholics, so they can't be good, even though most of them are fairly pale. The French don't like black Catholics either, because even though they believe the same things they look different. Black people who aren't Catholics? Forget it!

For better or for worse, we've seen that the kinds of restrictions French and German governments impose on businesses in those countries seem to make hiring new workers unattractive to employers. Perhaps those countries need to rethink their approach to government regulation of employment - every worker has certain rights, but it can be taken too far.Restrictions like?

Well, France has a maximum 35-hour work-week, strong government-mandated benefits plans that companies must adhere to, legal protection of overcapacity in both the private and public sectors, subsidies of inefficient industries, rigid anti-competition laws, difficulty in firing poorly performing workers without a consensus from their coworkers or union, and (some say) the high minimum wage. Among other things.

While other European countries have anti-firing laws in place, they aren't as strong as in France, Germany and Belgium, and unions in those countries (like Finland) tend to go along with the employers in that respect because their members have access to quality retraining and education services. And those countries, predictably, have a higher employment rate.

Well, France has a maximum 35-hour work-week, strong government-mandated benefits plans that companies must adhere to, legal protection of overcapacity in both the private and public sectors, subsidies of inefficient industries, rigid anti-competition laws, difficulty in firing poorly performing workers without a consensus from their coworkers or union, and (some say) the high minimum wage. Among other things.

While other European countries have anti-firing laws in place, they aren't as strong as in France, Germany and Belgium, and unions in those countries (like Finland) tend to go along with the employers in that respect because their members have access to quality retraining and education services. And those countries, predictably, have a higher employment rate.Germany doesn't have any 35 hour work week and the firing restrictions are pretty useless for the workers.

Germany doesn't have any 35 hour work week and the firing restrictions are pretty useless for the workers.

I remember that they had "job sharing" in Germany in the late 1980s. It sounded ridiculous to me.

Meanwhile, German companies seem to be moving their production overseas, just like we're doing in the US (except that some German companies move to the US).

I remember that they had "job sharing" in Germany in the late 1980s. It sounded ridiculous to me.

Meanwhile, German companies seem to be moving their production overseas, just like we're doing in the US (except that some German companies move to the US).You mean the outsourcing? No that's going to Poland mainly (Hotel Adlon in Berlin puts all its dirty laundry in trucks and sends it across the border to get cleaned).

I remember that they had "job sharing" in Germany in the late 1980s. It sounded ridiculous to me.

Meanwhile, German companies seem to be moving their production overseas, just like we're doing in the US (except that some German companies move to the US).

What german companies have moved to america?

What german companies have moved to america?

BMW opened an enormous factory and training center campus in South Carolina in the early 1990s.

That factory (and its design center) are the birthplace of the BMW Z-3 and Z-4.

Not Germany.

BMW Manufacturing Corp. is the company’s first full U.S. manufacturing facility. The Greenville-based factory is the birthplace of BMW’s Z-3 and Z-4 roadsters as well as the X5 Sports Activity Vehicle. The X5 and the Z4 are the only American made BMW’s available for export throughout the world. BMW Manufacturing Corp. is recognized as the industry leader in the production of environmentally sustainable vehicles.

BMW opened an enormous factory and training center campus in South Carolina in the early 1990s.

That factory (and its design center) are the birthplace of the BMW Z-3 and Z-4.

Not Germany.

BMW Manufacturing Corp. is the company’s first full U.S. manufacturing facility. The Greenville-based factory is the birthplace of BMW’s Z-3 and Z-4 roadsters as well as the X5 Sports Activity Vehicle. The X5 and the Z4 are the only American made BMW’s available for export throughout the world. BMW Manufacturing Corp. is recognized as the industry leader in the production of environmentally sustainable vehicles.

And ford factories opened in Europe in the 90's. Your point?

And ford factories opened in Europe in the 90's. Your point?

Maybe you're not up on the local news, but the Ford plants in Europe are built to produce Ford models that are only sold in Europe. There are three or four designs that are never sold in the US (in fact, going all the way back to the 1970s, Ford had this division of models and factories).

BMW, while making a model that is only sold in the US, is also making all the other models of BMW. It closed factories in Germany after opening this plant in the US.

The German government is apparently very concerned about German companies leaving - very concerned.

Must be because of that it is constantly losing market share.

And your country isnt concerned about job outsourcing? Neet leaders you have.

edit: I am not sure, but the ford fiesta isnt made in the US, is it?
edit2: how about the Mondeo?

Must be because of that it is constantly losing market share.

And your country isnt concerned about job outsourcing? Neet leaders you have.

edit: I am not sure, but the ford fiesta isnt made in the US, is it?
edit2: how about the Mondeo?

We don't make the Mondeo here in the US, nor do we sell it here.

One of the first cars the US did that was was the Capri - sold for a long time in Europe, and only sold it here in the US for a single year.

Yes, we're concerned about outsourcing. But we're not being as hard hit as Germany.

Part of the problem is that most European countries have zero population growth (excepting immigration), or negative population growth for the past decade. This ages the workforce, and reduces the number of young workers.

This alone is reason enough for factories to close and go elsewhere to find workers - let alone workers who will work for less.

The US still has a slight population growth. And a lot of immigrants.

The German government is apparently very concerned about German companies leaving - very concerned.
Pissed is more like it.

Let's look at things from your perspective. So long as you are not engangering yourself or your mission, are you at liberty to discuss where in the nation you are at present, and your unit and current assignment?

Different groups are obviously getting very different reactions depending on their deployment. I am given to understand that those in Kurdistani territory are getting quite good treatment, seeing how we are guaranteeing them semi-autonomy after years of repressive rule.

So please, tell us more of your assignment, so that we can hear your story -- as the truth through your own eyes.

At the same time it would also help for you to acknowledge that many other men and women in Iraq have indeed come under attack and have taken significant casualties.



No, I never even looked at Moveon.org, and if you look, you can see precisely where the cited statistics came from.

It would be better to look at iCasualties.org OIF page (http://icasualties.org/oif/) or OEF (http://www.icasualties.org/oef).

I believe in the mission of OEF. I simply believe we bobbled the ball by also going in to Iraq when we did. Then we forced the Iraqi Army to be dismantled. Then we needed to pay to put it back together again when we belatedly realized that the resistence was picking up strength, not losing steam.



According to eyewitnesses and UN inspectors he most likely did:





FAS.org (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm), not known for its liberal leanings, claims otherwise. In this claim, they say that VX, Tabun, Sarin, and Mustard Gas were all used against the Kurds in Halabja in March 1988. It was reported by Christine Gosden in The Washington Post, Wednesday, March 11, 1998. Copies of her article can be found online (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//www.kdp.pp.se/hal2.html&ei=n3B0Q_ayE62YYKuXwGA&sig2=REIzpyc-UxbFwQwUGQwHaw) at the KDP site. The US State Department (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm) confirmed findings, and cites neurological disorders, convulsions and coma which are not symptomic of mustard gas, but nerve agents.



Unfortunately, he was not ousted. We let him keep the country.

Halabja was unfortunately just the most widely-known atrocity. The State Department states that over 40 such towns were attacked. This was in 1987-1998 -- years before the Gulf War.



I'm not sure that a smaller coalition partner, such as, say Poland, would have been able to force the US to change strategy.

It was the US that was calling the shots. The UK could have lobbied for it too.

You're right. But we needed him, apparently, for "stability in the region."

That was the plan then, and it was what our official stance was.

The truth is, we had no plans to stay on after the war. We believed back then that Iraq would have fallen apart.

In the Frontline interview with Saïd K. Aburish (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish2.html), you see a citation of this policy. That the Bush administration simply had no plans for what to do in a post-Saddam world.

During the Reagan and Bush administration we were so sure of him being the lynchpin of a secular Islamic state that we had no contingencies and no plans of foreign policy to contemplate what to do.

We decided to leave him there in power rather than allowing the region to fall into chaos. That was the official view of the government.

The CIA had in fact supported the Ba'ath revolution ever since the 1963 coup, which is also pointed out earlier in the interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html).

But the relationship with Saddam was always back-and-forth. The Iraqis were never politically reliable. Considering that they were extortionists and exterminators, there's little wonder why.

The US was instrumental in helping Saddam rise to power. Old CIA ties lingered through the Bush administration. Also remember that Bush ran the CIA for a time (30 January 1976 to 20 January 1977).

While the CIA had prepared reports in 1988 that warned that Saddam Hussein was going to turn his attentions to his border with Kuwait next, they underestimated his plans. They thought he would simply sieze a few gulf islands and extend his military bases. They thought that he would settle for at least long-term leases on the islands. So it came as quite a surprise when he took over the whole country.

That wasn't in the CIA's plans.

So we were left without a response. We made decisions during the Gulf War based on what we felt was best economically. We knew then that an Iraqi occupation would take years and would be costly.

The Bush administration was simply not willing to deal with that, and so pulled out. Knowing everything we know now. Understanding that we would be cutting off the Kurds and Shi'ites at the knees.



It will likely improve in the coming years. I am not doubting the long-term prospects of Iraq, and I hope they find peace quickly. I know that many if not most are also sick of being used as a convenient site to hold a war between international terrorists and the US.



Eh. No. I am citing the US's own CIA (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/72566_01.htm) and State Department reports.

Stop citing a source I'm not even using. Also stop pathologically denying actually credible sources as if this is some sort of fiction. If your commanding officer shoved a report of chemical weapons capabilities from the CIA under your nose, you'd listen. Why are you giving all this flak and acting like an ostrich with your head in the sand? Where did this attitude of purposeful ignorance come from?



Oh, far be it from me to absolve the French for their own complicity in affairs. A lot of this was due to the French wanting to secure their own oil rights, and of course to move Iraq away from the British sphere of influence (where it had been between WWI and the post-WWII cold war) towards Paris. Yes, the French did a great deal to ensure that there were Mirages and Exocets there in the nation.



Yes, true, and we used Saddam's Ba'athists to get our hands on a good few MiGs. That was the CIA's price for supporting their 1963 coup. Friendly relations with Washington.

However, that policy was stopped by the Ba'athists in 1968 when we supported Israel, and the relationship officially hid the skids in 1972 when our oil companies were tossed out.

It was then the US worried most about the Iraqi acceptance of Soviet assistance to build up their military power. I recall well the 1970s military simulation called Oil War (SPI, 1975) (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/5382), in which the US was pitted in a confrontation against the Arab nations over control of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and other gulf states. There was also a scenario depicting a war of all nations combined against the Iranians.

Strategic thinking at the time was wavering -- would Iraq be our ally or enemy? The simulation, though simplistic by today's standards for design, postulated both situations.



Eh, again, no. The UN tried to pass resolutions sanctioning both parties, but laid blame on Iran as heavily as Iraq. What came out later was that some of the attacks laid on Iran were actually Iraqi actions. Iran was frustrated with the UN because the US and France consistently ruled against them and in favor of their ally in Iraq.

Iran was not blameless in any way either. For many hawks, this was a perfect situation. Muslims killing muslims. No need to really get involved. Just stir up the pot and let them go at each other. It was one of the reasons why the war went on without real international intervention for years.

The US did actually intervene when suddenly the war went against Saddam. Suddenly the US wished for there to be a truce and we brought the UN to bear against Iran. The Iranians considered halting for a time, but pressed on for some time before halting their offensives.

If you cannot trust my word, do your own research. Read the history. Speak to some of the Shi'ites.

All of this happened long before "moveon.org" or even the World Wide Web.



SIPRI (http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html) report.

IranWatch.org (http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-cwmilestones.htm) states Iran's CW program got started late, in 1983. By 1987 they were ready to deploy cyanide and mustard gas. According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_warfare_in_the_Iran-Iraq_War), it was alleged Iran also used chemical weapons by Iraq and the US government. In many cases, Iran pled it was a wrongful accusation on the part of Baghdad.

This timeline (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php) shows how the US actually took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations and actually released for export various weapon systems, including biological and chemical weapons agents.

You might want to read this assessment of Iranian use of CW (http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/dc/briefs/030701.htm), March 7, 2001, Jean Pascal Zanders, SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Project.

In it he notes the allegations by Baghdad to blame Tehran for CW use in Halabja. At the time, we supported the Iraqi claim. In retrospect we are rather sure it was Iraq who used CW there.

Claims that Iran used CW are murky; most of the Iraqi accusations point towards the Halabja attack, which were likely Iraqi "friendly fire" casualties. Many reports do not rule out Iranian retaliatiatory attacks, and cite mustard gas was used by Iran against Iraq using captured weapons. If they used their own produced systems, it would have been only as early as 1985 and more likely in the 1987-1988 timeframe, long after the much cited 1984 SIRPI report. It is unprovable. CNS (http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iran.htm). The Ayatollah did not approve of their use, and wished all requests for their deployment to obtain his approval. The Iranians, it must be stated, abhored the practice, and were shocked that the rest of the world did little to stop the Iraqis.



Lived it. And what's your point?


I might have been unclear. It was NSD 26 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd26.pdf), signed 02 Oct 1999. You can read it yourself. It acknowledged that we needed to get Iraq to stop "meddling in external affairs, such as in Lebanon." It proposed a carrot-and-stick approach -- sanctions in case of humans rights abuses, and economic incentives to play ball.

It didn't work.

Less than a year later, on 20 Aug 1990, NSD 45 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd_45.htm) was issued, being the plan on how to deal with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

It came 18 days after the invasion of 2 August 1990.

In the NSD, it said that the attack came without provocation or warning, when clearly, in the CIA report of 1998, "Iraq's National Security Goals," the CIA had warned that Iraq was planning on intervening against Kuwait.

It took the administration by complete surprise to be caught with their pants around their ankles. But they had been warned.



Are you actually reading any of the sources I am citing? Yes, it was possible for the Iraqi missiles to attain exoatmospheric launch.

It was called al-Abid (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/al-abid.htm) and it wasn't quite the same worry of Sputnik, but it was definitely alarming to the west. It was launched 5 Dec 1989, and it caused the US to want to stop the normalization of relations proposed in NSD 26 signed just a few months before.

The White House downplayed the incident. In fact, it turned out that initial reports were incorrect. However, at the time people believed that they had a system capable of orbiting the earth a few times. Hence Congress' action.



Are you always this patently obtuse? You can call it drivel if you want. This is your military history. Do you talk this way to your commanding officer? If this was an intelligence briefing, would you be anywhere this obstinant in actually paying attention to the direction of the conversation?



It depends on what you call "late."

In the post WWII era, these are the commonly-cited uses:



I am sure this list is coming from another location, as I've seen it on a few sites (no, not Moveon.org; stop with the pathological paranoia). I'll leave out the Sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway as a non-state terrorist act.

Unless you believe the US government and also consider that Iran may have used them. If they did, it was opportunistically and retaliatorily, and not by policy, as Iraq did. As I have shown above, the case with Iran is difficult to prove, and may have been mostly falsely promulgated by Iraq (with US assistance).



No, I was actually a military simulation designer.

Grow up.

You don't have a clearance. Your not my commander. Nor is this an intell breifing.

And I am amused by the fact that you think being a game designer gives any credence to your drivel.

I'm not amused that you are pathologically ignoring the truth.

If you are a representative of our government, patently ignoring evidence of what got you put over there, you're in trouble.

Good luck.

You don't have a clearance. Your not my commander. Nor is this an intell breifing.

And I am amused by the fact that you think being a game designer gives any credence to your drivel.

Snip, for the love of god! there's a limit to the amount of times I want to read something.

Violence only begats more violence.

I'm not amused that you are pathologically ignoring the truth.

If you are a representative of our government, patently ignoring evidence of what got you put over there, you're in trouble.

Good luck.

He's in the REGION Listeneisse. He knows far more about what is going on than you or I will ever know. Well... maybe I know a tad more because my father was also in the region.

He's in the REGION Listeneisse. He knows far more about what is going on than you or I will ever know. Well... maybe I know a tad more because my father was also in the region.

So (to give an example), all New Orleans citizens now have a major in Hurricane science because they were in a place that was hit by one?

So (to give an example), all New Orleans citizens now have a major in Hurricane science because they were in a place that was hit by one?

There is a difference Portu. Everyone knows the dangers of a Hurricane. Even I know the dangers of a hurricane and I don't even live in the region. I know to obey the warnings when they are issued.

If the people didn't know about the devestating power of the Hurricane, they do now. So I'll give you the statement :D

There is a difference Portu. Everyone knows the dangers of a Hurricane. Even I know the dangers of a hurricane and I don't even live in the region. I know to obey the warnings when they are issued.

If the people didn't know about the devestating power of the Hurricane, they do now. So I'll give you the statement :D

Exactly. Whitier may know the dangers of war better than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean he knows better why the war is being fought.

Exactly. Whitier may know the dangers of war better than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean he knows better why the war is being fought.

Wrong yet again. :D

Most soldiers do know why they are fighting.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Surrender" and "Collaborate". The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's principal white flag manufacturing facility, effectively paralyzing their military.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Surrender" and "Collaborate". The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's principal white flag manufacturing facility, effectively paralyzing their military.

:rolleyes:

It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert. The Italians have increased their alert level from "Shouting Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing". Two more levels remain, "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".

The Germans also increased their alert state, from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs". They have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Kick Ass and Lose at the Same Time".

Seeing this reaction in continental Europe, the Americans have gone from "Isolationist" to "Find Somewhere Else in the Middle East Ripe for Regime Change". Their remaining, higher alert states are "Take on the World" and "Masturbate".

Finally, in the UK they've gone from "Pretend Nothing's Happening" to "Make Another Cup of Tea". Their higher levels are "Drink More Tea" and "Play Rugby". In parliament today, the British attitude level was raised from "Miffed" to "Peeved". Soon though, it may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross". Londoners have not been at "A Bit Cross" since the Blitz in 1940, when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance". The last time the "A Bloody Nuisance" warning level was issued was during the Great Fire, in 1666.

Wow, you're pretty hardcore even for a Bushevik :rolleyes:

Wow. Someone apparently doesn't like jokes! Not surprising really.

Most soldiers do know why they are fighting.
Career soldiers, officers, I could believe it. What does the kid who wanted to pay for college know about lies, damned lies, statistics, and other ways of manipulating the truth that our government used to launch us into an ill-advised, poorly-run invasion whose aftermath has been characterized (to the residents) as notable for the invaders' use of torture and support for death squads?

Wow. Someone apparently doesn't like jokes! Not surprising really.

Actually it takes a great sense of humor to read your posts.

Career soldiers, officers, I could believe it. What does the kid who wanted to pay for college know about lies, damned lies, statistics, and other ways of manipulating the truth that our government used to launch us into an ill-advised, poorly-run invasion whose aftermath has been characterized (to the residents) as notable for the invaders' use of torture and support for death squads?

mmm... death squads?

I wasn't career, but I knew why I was in combat.

Some of the Iraqi government's less friendly units are renowned for their brutality, using power tools to torture people. Corpses recovered have punctures made by awls and drills, by one account the eyeballs of some of the bodies had been removed, and most or all of the dead were killed by a coup-de-grace pistol round to the back of the head.

Iraq's government works with the coalition forces' intelligence agencies on counterinsurgency projects, up to and including kidnapping people, torturing them and then murdering them when they finish or fail to give up useful information.

Some of the Iraqi government's less friendly units are renowned for their brutality, using power tools to torture people. Corpses recovered have punctures made by awls and drills, by one account the eyeballs of some of the bodies had been removed, and most or all of the dead were killed by a coup-de-grace pistol round to the back of the head.

Iraq's government works with the coalition forces' intelligence agencies on counterinsurgency projects, up to and including kidnapping people, torturing them and then murdering them when they finish or fail to give up useful information.

Links?

It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert. The Italians have increased their alert level from "Shouting Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing". Two more levels remain, "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".

The Germans also increased their alert state, from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs". They have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Kick Ass and Lose at the Same Time".

Seeing this reaction in continental Europe, the Americans have gone from "Isolationist" to "Find Somewhere Else in the Middle East Ripe for Regime Change". Their remaining, higher alert states are "Take on the World" and "Masturbate".

Finally, in the UK they've gone from "Pretend Nothing's Happening" to "Make Another Cup of Tea". Their higher levels are "Drink More Tea" and "Play Rugby". In parliament today, the British attitude level was raised from "Miffed" to "Peeved". Soon though, it may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross". Londoners have not been at "A Bit Cross" since the Blitz in 1940, when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance". The last time the "A Bloody Nuisance" warning level was issued was during the Great Fire, in 1666.



Hahahahahahahahaaaahahaha.

I've saved that. That is very good indeed, well done sir.


mmm... death squads?


I think the key phrase was "to the residents" I doubt coalition forces are using death squads, but if people truly believe they are then it wont exactly be helping the popularity of the forces there.

The Italians have increased their alert level from "Shouting Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing". Two more levels remain, "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides".

Another mid-level alert status for the Italians is "Change Government At Random Every Two Weeks Until Further Notice"

Links?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC350469.htm - Death squads.
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3200174 - some more info on one in particular.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4083326.stm - What the Wolf Brigade is.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m17684&date=11-nov-2005_02:52_ECT - US intelligence agencies support Iraqi security operations.

And still working on sourcing.

Thank you for the information, Amoebistan.

Operation Steel Curtain (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4423246.stm)

3,500 troops are sealing off borders with Syria. Highly important move given the recent UN vote to demand Syria's cooperation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4421050.stm) in the investigation into the assassination of of the Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.

The bombing of the Jordanian hotels (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4428204.stm) has backfired and greatly damaged al Qaeda's public image in that nation.

The violence is still causing dozens of deaths a day.

Speaking of death squads, Turkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4430022.stm) is having its own Kurdish problem: "...the press here full of speculation that Turkey's security forces may have reverted to using summary executions...."

The recent situation has been building since the calling off of the cease-fire since February (see Turkish Rights Watchdog To File Complaint Over Summary Execution of Kurd (http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan5/3-2-05-tky-summary-execution-of%20kurds.htm)). Summary executions (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/turkey0305/4.htm#_Toc97005228) continue up to the present day. The Kurds tried to have a one-month cease fire (http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/turkey_kurdish_question.html), from 20 Aug - 20 Sep 2005, which was largely ignored by the Turkish government. There have also been demonstrations and riots, but usually far from the western media's attention.

"Paris is Burning" makes far more sensational headlines.

This is an example of one man's terrorist group being another man's freedom fighter. The issue has been going on for the better part of two decades. (http://www.kurd.org/Zagros/statedp.html#turkey) The State Department's 2002 (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18396.htm) summary also noted reported abuses.

Abdullah Ocalan (http://www.freedom-for-ocalan.com/english/aktuell/briefing/br_130605.htm), leader in the PKK captured in 1999, with the complicity of the CIA, and hastily sentenced to death by Turkey, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2296679.stm) in 2002 as Ankara tried to reform to meet human rights requirements to join the EU. But the fairness of his trial was called into question by the international court system. He is imprisoned, like many in Turkey under rather harsh conditions (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/27/china10549.htm#TURKEY). Just because he was kept alive does not mean that Turkey has lived up to EU standards. The Turks changed laws in the wake of 9/11 and the global threat of terror to limit the rights of lawyers and arrested persons. Kurds are now allowed to speak their language privately and even publically, but can be arrested if they use it to speak about politics.

The military has also requested for the rights to bury guerillas where they are killed, to prevent informing their families so that no large funeral services (which are often accompanied by outraged protests) can be held. They have also been summarily executing persons after getting confessions. They've also tried to broaden what they define as "terrorism."

This week, Turkey tried to shut down a Danish Kurd television station (http://kurdistanobserver.servehttp.com/nov/6-11-05-tky-slams-denmark-roj-tv.htm), saying that it is a tool of the PKK, which they brand as a terrorist organization.

The Turkish government has also been lacksidaisical at allowing hundreds of thousands of displaced Kurds to return to villages forcibly evacuated because of "terrorism threats."

In Iraq, the Kurds continue to hold firm to a policy that the constitution must work, or they reserve the right to declare an independent state, as their informal referenda overwhelmingly supported. They are also asking for the rights to return to Kirkuk, which was historically Kurdish, but suffered under Ba'athist pogroms. It is an area rich in oil, but the Kurds are willing to negociate on the oil issue to be allowed to return to the villages. Arab Iraqis, of course, oppose the idea of a return of the Kurds. For now, the Kurds are willing to be pragmatists. But it will be a game where century's long prejudice and violence have led to brutal attacks and defenses of position.

Fortunately, Kurdistan (as a region of Iraq) is relatively free of the chaos that occurs in the Arab iraqi areas. From reports I've read, if you are one of the rare (200) coalition troops stationed in the area, you'd hardly know there was any problem occurring in Iraq.

So the situation remains delicate, on a tipping point towards either better or worse future situations. In comparison to France's Muslim community, it is a far larger and potentially more severe issue, since it can draw both Turkey, our ally, and Iraq, a nascent democracy -- and even Iran and Syria -- into a broader regional threat to peace.

The rioters are getting on TV now..they claim the riot has nothing to do with religion . Whatever...its what 16 days now ? No end in sight .

The rioters are getting on TV now..they claim the riot has nothing to do with religion . Whatever...its what 16 days now ? No end in sight .

There's always an end in sight. The question is, when will we get to it.

There's always an end in sight. The question is, when will we get to it.
Oh come on - it's fizzling out already. You can hardly call it a proper riot now...it's just isolated arson.

But the Government has to ask a few serious questions of itself and its view of the world. And if Sarkozy stays in office, I'll go berserk.

Oh come on - it's fizzling out already. You can hardly call it a proper riot now...it's just isolated arson.

But the Government has to ask a few serious questions of itself and its view of the world. And if Sarkozy stays in office, I'll go berserk.

I agree 100% neu Leonstein.

I agree 100% neu Leonstein.
I'm scared.....

I'm scared.....

Aww no need to be scared Leon :) I do agree with my opponets from time to time.

Oh come on - it's fizzling out already. You can hardly call it a proper riot now...it's just isolated arson.

If this account below is correct then 'fizzling out' is not the phrase I would use. ^_^;

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005777.php#trackbacks

It's true that you may not hear as much now but there seems to be a reason for that as well since some journalists are apparently taking a "If we don't bother to report it then it didn't happen" attitude for political reasons.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005779.php

If this account below is correct then 'fizzling out' is not the phrase I would use. ^_^;
From the BBC Report that the blog refers to (and to which you should have too...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4430540.stm
In Paris, thousands of police are enforcing a ban on public meetings and the situation has remained calm.

The ban will remain in force until Sunday morning.

Police overnight said the situation across France was "much calmer" than on previous nights.

However, cars were set alight in the southern city of Toulouse and near St Etienne in the south-east.

A nursery school was torched in the southern town of Carpentras...
...Mr Sarkozy has been inspecting police units in the capital, which have been beefed up by at least 2,000 extra officers from outside Paris.

The BBC's Nick Thorpe in Paris says there has been no sign of trouble there.

Either the messages were sheer bravado or the publicity given to them by police has scared potential participants away, our correspondent says.

Several hundred people rallied close to police headquarters in central Paris on Saturday to protest against alleged discrimination against youths of immigrant origin...
It's not over (and I didn't say it was just yet). But it's hardly anything like it was a week ago.

Sorry, I was replying to something on the first page which would just be beating a dead horse.

-snip-
You really need to start thinking before you post...

Anyways, I suggest you start reading with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Gelb

From the BBC Report that the blog refers to (and to which you should have too...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4430540.stm


It's not over (and I didn't say it was just yet). But it's hardly anything like it was a week ago.

From that same report, "A nursery school was torched in the southern town of Carpentras." makes me suspect the riot is merely changing its nature and its locale rather than dying. That said, I will hope it is you who are right on this one. Time alone will tell.

"Things could calm down very, very quickly," national police service chief Michel Gaudin told reporters in Paris on Sunday.

He said the number of cars set ablaze during the night had fallen to 374 from 502 the previous night, and the number burned in the greater Paris area was "almost normal." Some 212 people were detained in the latest unrest.

French Riots (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051113/wl_nm/france_riots_dc)

Attacks on nursery schools occurred earlier in the riots. As did arson of shops and various locations.

To say that arson is a "new phase" of the unrest is first, speculative, and second, factually wrong. Overall cases of arson, both of automobiles and building structures, is down.

Yes, there continues to be crimes and arrests.

The trend can swing different ways. It could balloon again. But for now, the trend is downwards towards calm.
_____________

The Man Who Could Be Leading: Azouz Begeg

"MEET AZOUZ BEGAG. Equal Opportunity Offender" (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=w051107&s=mcdonell110905) - The New Republic

TNR takes a strong stance to call for leadership by the nation's only Algerian-descended member of government.

He was critical of comments on the 6th night of the riots (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/july-dec05/france_11-07.html&ei=sER3Q6-bOI-kYKGx-XI&sig2=XaMbmeRhZK906aJLPifxdg), but has remained quiet ever since.

The greatest political drama he has personally faced was his delay and questioning on 13 Oct 2005 (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/France_protests_treatment_of_government_minister_by_US_authorities%3B_US_government_admits_mistake) trying to enter the city of Atlanta for a speech.

I looked up his office's meeting agenda (http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/ministere_delegue_promotion_egalite_m582/) and found that he mostly has been having private events and a commemoration of Armistice Day.

His last released publications came in September, which was a call for university opportunities.

At the time, there was a conference:

L’avenir des jeunes en débat
Mercredi 28 septembre 2005, le Sénat organise le Forum des jeunes pour la Citoyenneté, sur le thème "Quel avenir pour les jeunes en France ?".

"Which future for the young people in France?"

I can only wonder at those debates if the year-long car burning problem was postulated to grow into the violence of October and November.

If anyone has insight into Minister Begag's doings, understand that I am not fluent in French, but avail myself of Internet translators (such as babelfish.altavista.com).

I'd appreciate to know what else the French media has reported about him. In my mind, he could be a key figure to the solution, but only if he uses the opportunity history presents him to stand out and put forth an agenda that's acceptable to the French majority as well as the North African/Muslim minority.

Wrong yet again. :D

Most soldiers do know why they are fighting.


In my experience with the people who have been here before me, and the ones who were here when I arrived, your statement rings true.


Note that most soldiers in the American army are college graduates in various majors.
That's because when you join the army, you get your college totally free. Even the books are free.
The only thing they ask in return is that you put your life on the line in a war that you may or may not agree with. But some people mistakenly think the agreement says only wars they agree with. But the actual contract says all wars that America gets into.
The other thing is that being in the military tends to automatically get you a high paying job when your tour of duty is over. (barring that you get court martials, dishonorably discharged or in any other way get in trouble)
Further, the goverment gives you a no interest loan when you go to purchase your first home. Most nonvets are not eligible for that and are at the mercy of the market. Not to mention, vets tend to get free healthcare unlike those who are not willing to place their lives on the line.
And that car that you like, being in the army entitles to get it at a greater discount than someone who is not in the army. (note that this applies to all branches of the military, I am using army cause that is the branch I am in)
For example, John Swift, who is not in the military and has never been in the military, can get a reduced price of $25,000 for a car. Now Jake Benson, an active duty soldier, can get the same car for a low price of $15,000. Do you see the difference. That's because you have agencies working for the military that go out to out these businesses to get discounts for troops and their families. Hell, being active duty even gets me a 10% discount at Carl's Junior and other restaurants not to mention bookstores, and music and video stores to. The only other people who get those kinds of discounts are senior citizens over 70.

Edit: Emm. Somehow my post got turned into some kind of promote the military post. And I got sidetracked. But yeah, we in the armed forces get all those. Plus the fact that women tend to date GI's before they date anyone else. (wonders why that is).

But overall, in the beginning of this whole Iraq venture, soldiers had no interest in politics. They didn't care why they were in Iraq.
But the attitude is much different now. Most soldiers are fully aware of and supportive of the reasons we are here. And, they are more political minded than their predecessors. There are a lot of people in Iraq right now, who want to run for political office as soon as they get back because, the fact is, that neither party gives a damn about the military. This is the posse I was speaking of an thread a few months back, when I said I was working to put a possse together to take over Washington and boost the Reps and Dems out of the places of power in our nation.
In fact, I've been encouraging many a active duty to run for office when they got. And at 25 have done so so far. I don't know how they did, but at the least, they tried which is more than what most Americans do.

We in Iraq have a better perspective things on things than many on the left give us credit for. We also know that the right thinks of us as its stooges.
There's going to be a massive earthquake when those serving in Iraq right now, return home and oust the partisan and power hungry politicians who are ruining the US of A.
I for one, have pledged to support them since I will be doing the same thing myself. We have candidates for statehouses and for Congress. But we are still looking for one to take over the white house in 2008 or 2012. A sort of dark horse candidate if you will.

The Reps and the Dems have just screwed up too much and now its too late for them. They both had their chance and they both squandered the time the American people gave them. They're time is coming to an end.

Good for you guys , we need new blood in Washington and at the local level . Nothing like a combat vet to put things in perspective.

Career soldiers, officers, I could believe it. What does the kid who wanted to pay for college know about lies, damned lies, statistics, and other ways of manipulating the truth that our government used to launch us into an ill-advised, poorly-run invasion whose aftermath has been characterized (to the residents) as notable for the invaders' use of torture and support for death squads?

Excuse me, the kid who joined up to pay for college knows more about the reasons for this war than you would.

And from your post right after this one, your remarks make you out to be an America hater.
America is not, and does not support death squads. We are not engaged in torture or in abducting innocent civilians.
Then again, from that same post, you make it sound like you consider known terrorists to be innocent civilians.

Oh come on - it's fizzling out already. You can hardly call it a proper riot now...it's just isolated arson.

But the Government has to ask a few serious questions of itself and its view of the world. And if Sarkozy stays in office, I'll go berserk.
I agree.

So did the French actually fix their problem or did the riotors just get tired?

I want to give my own reply to the incessant hubris that has to be expressed in meaningless statements such as "we Americans saved France's ass in two WWs".
Let us pursue this from a logical perspective. Americans, you have to ask yourselves: did we enter the wars because of France being taken down or overwhelmed?
I think it is clear that the answer is "no". A definite no.
If you did enter the war for your very own reasons (and they are OBVIOUS), then you either saved your own ass or nobody's.

Before you jump on my statement, make sure you're aware that I'm neither French nor American, and that my country managed to fight on both sides in the 2nd war (in the Axis 1940-44; Allied nation 44-45) and on your side in the 1st (1916-18; the Central Powers defeated us in late 1918, and we signed a separate peace).

In my experience with the people who have been here before me, and the ones who were here when I arrived, your statement rings true.


Note that most soldiers in the American army are college graduates in various majors.
That's because when you join the army, you get your college totally free. Even the books are free.
The only thing they ask in return is that you put your life on the line in a war that you may or may not agree with. But some people mistakenly think the agreement says only wars they agree with. But the actual contract says all wars that America gets into.
The other thing is that being in the military tends to automatically get you a high paying job when your tour of duty is over. (barring that you get court martials, dishonorably discharged or in any other way get in trouble)
Further, the goverment gives you a no interest loan when you go to purchase your first home. Most nonvets are not eligible for that and are at the mercy of the market. Not to mention, vets tend to get free healthcare unlike those who are not willing to place their lives on the line.
And that car that you like, being in the army entitles to get it at a greater discount than someone who is not in the army. (note that this applies to all branches of the military, I am using army cause that is the branch I am in)
For example, John Swift, who is not in the military and has never been in the military, can get a reduced price of $25,000 for a car. Now Jake Benson, an active duty soldier, can get the same car for a low price of $15,000. Do you see the difference. That's because you have agencies working for the military that go out to out these businesses to get discounts for troops and their families. Hell, being active duty even gets me a 10% discount at Carl's Junior and other restaurants not to mention bookstores, and music and video stores to. The only other people who get those kinds of discounts are senior citizens over 70.

Edit: Emm. Somehow my post got turned into some kind of promote the military post. And I got sidetracked. But yeah, we in the armed forces get all those. Plus the fact that women tend to date GI's before they date anyone else. (wonders why that is).

But overall, in the beginning of this whole Iraq venture, soldiers had no interest in politics. They didn't care why they were in Iraq.
But the attitude is much different now. Most soldiers are fully aware of and supportive of the reasons we are here. And, they are more political minded than their predecessors. There are a lot of people in Iraq right now, who want to run for political office as soon as they get back because, the fact is, that neither party gives a damn about the military. This is the posse I was speaking of an thread a few months back, when I said I was working to put a possse together to take over Washington and boost the Reps and Dems out of the places of power in our nation.
In fact, I've been encouraging many a active duty to run for office when they got. And at 25 have done so so far. I don't know how they did, but at the least, they tried which is more than what most Americans do.

We in Iraq have a better perspective things on things than many on the left give us credit for. We also know that the right thinks of us as its stooges.
There's going to be a massive earthquake when those serving in Iraq right now, return home and oust the partisan and power hungry politicians who are ruining the US of A.
I for one, have pledged to support them since I will be doing the same thing myself. We have candidates for statehouses and for Congress. But we are still looking for one to take over the white house in 2008 or 2012. A sort of dark horse candidate if you will.

The Reps and the Dems have just screwed up too much and now its too late for them. They both had their chance and they both squandered the time the American people gave them. They're time is coming to an end.

I'll quote the whole thing!

I wish you luck. We need to turn the political system upside down. You'll have my support!

Things are calm in Paris but the rioters are attacking Police in Lyons:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051113/ap_on_re_eu/france_rioting_fr1

Edit: looks like the majority of French are supporting Sarkozy. That's does not bode well.

I want to give my own reply to the incessant hubris that has to be expressed in meaningless statements such as "we Americans saved France's ass in two WWs".
Let us pursue this from a logical perspective. Americans, you have to ask yourselves: did we enter the wars because of France being taken down or overwhelmed?
I think it is clear that the answer is "no". A definite no.
If you did enter the war for your very own reasons (and they are OBVIOUS), then you either saved your own ass or nobody's.

Before you jump on my statement, make sure you're aware that I'm neither French nor American, and that my country managed to fight on both sides in the 2nd war (in the Axis 1940-44; Allied nation 44-45) and on your side in the 1st (1916-18; the Central Powers defeated us in late 1918, and we signed a separate peace).

Italian eh? I thought you guys were pretty much forced to support Germany at the beginning. That's the impression I have, with Mussolini being a (can't think of the word but it has something to do with naivity, big ego, incompetence).
As far as WW I, I think that was the reason you got stuck supporting Germany in WW II cause in the first war, while every one else got something, the Italians got nothing.

I was not aware however, that they beat you in 1918.

I want to give my own reply to the incessant hubris that has to be expressed in meaningless statements such as "we Americans saved France's ass in two WWs".
Let us pursue this from a logical perspective. Americans, you have to ask yourselves: did we enter the wars because of France being taken down or overwhelmed?
I think it is clear that the answer is "no". A definite no.
If you did enter the war for your very own reasons (and they are OBVIOUS), then you either saved your own ass or nobody's.

Before you jump on my statement, make sure you're aware that I'm neither French nor American, and that my country managed to fight on both sides in the 2nd war (in the Axis 1940-44; Allied nation 44-45) and on your side in the 1st (1916-18; the Central Powers defeated us in late 1918, and we signed a separate peace).


That may be true. But the point is we could have kept france after the war was over. Instead, we put them on the UN security council. So it does redound to our credit.

In any case, people like to make fun of the french.

"We must make France a country of diversity and one in which different people are accepted," Azouz Begag, junior minister for parity and professional equality, told Le Parisien newspaper. (Source) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051113/wl_nm/france_riots_dc)

I did a bit more research into him. Oumma.com (which motto proclaims "L'Islam en toute liberté" -- "Islam with complete freedom") calls him, "Azouz BEGAG, a politician in search of legitimacy". (http://www.oumma.com/article.php3?id_article=1691) The article is very critical of his first 100 days in office. (Written 22 Sep 2005).

Others are offended at the stance he took against his fellow cabinet member:

Many French people who have not been directly affected by the violence in the urban areas simply look the other way.

And those people who grew up with [it] are being ignored.

Minister for Equal Opportunity Azouz Begag, 48, who grew up on the outskirts of Lyon and later made a name for himself as a sociologist and writer, is one of these.

Begag, who is of Algerian origin, was brought into the government a few months ago by President Jacques Chirac.

But now he is in trouble for his comments critical of the statements of Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.

He stands accused of sympathising with the banlieu rioters and his resignation is being demanded. -- French Intellectuals Slowly Start to Speak Up (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/article_1061334.php/French_intellectuals_slowly_start_to_speak_up_at_last?page=2) (Nov 10)

So here is the one man of North African origin in the government being excoriated as a sell-out by the Islamic community, and a supporter of criminals by the opposite end.

I'm still quite curious to see how he manages in the days ahead. The test will be whether the extremists of both ends of the secular and conservative French and the radical Islamic spectrums will yield to more moderate progressive approaches.