Well. The worm HAS turned.

Here's a little excerpt (courtesy of Yahiko81) from the thread that no one will forget. That thread that was started on 9/11/01.

I've marked the interesting bits in bold.

I found this on cnn.

LONDON, England -- World leaders have reacted with revulsion to the aircraft attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon in Washington. A sombre and visibly shaken British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the world's democracies must "fight this evil" perpetrated by suspected terrorists in the U.S..

Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed deep sympathy to the people of the U.S. "in connection with this terrorist act, this terrible tragedy," the Kremlin quoted spokesman Alexei Gromov as saying.

Gromov said Putin had been informed immediately of the attacks, Reuters said.

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat condemned the attack, saying he "sent his condolences and those of the Palestinian people to Bush and the American people."

EU External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten told Reuters."This is an act of war by madmen."

He compared the attack with that deployed by the Japanese at the U.S. naval base Pearl Harbor in 1941.

"It is the worst attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor," he added.

"This is one of those few days in life that one can actually say will change everything."

NATO Secretary-General George Robertson called it an "intolerable aggression against democracy," Reuters reported.

French President Jacques Chirac, in a live televised address, condemned the attacks as "monstrous" and expressed his solidarity with the American people, The Associated Press reported.

"France has just learned of these monstrous attacks -- there is no other word for it -- that have hit America," Chirac said from Rennes, in the western region of Brittany.

Prime Minister Lionel Jospin talked of his "sadness and horror," before calling a security crisis meeting.

Israeli Defence Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told Israel's Army Radio it was "simply a tragedy," Reuters reported.

"All I can say is I sympathise with the American people. We don't have any more details than what has been reported on CNN. It's simply a terrible thing."

Guy Verhofstadt, the prime minister of Belgium, which currently holds the chair of the EU, expressed "deep shock and dismay" on hearing of the attacks.

"On behalf of the European Union, [Verhofstadt and foreign minister Louis Michel] condemn in the strongest possible terms this type of cowardly attack on innocent civilians."

A spokesman for the German foreign ministry said: "The foreign minister is dismayed and shocked by the reports from New York."

The interior ministry said it had set up a cross-ministerial crisis committee but it was not immediately clear what steps would be taken to boost internal security, Reuters said.

The British prime minister cancelled the speech he was due to give at a meeting of the Transport and General Workers' Union in Brighton, southern England.

Blair described the plane attacks as the "most terrible and shocking events taking place in the United States of America."

He added: "I am afraid we can only imagine the terror and the carnage. Many, many innocent people will have lost their lives.

"I know you will join with me in sending our deepest condolences to President Bush and the people of the U.S."

He went on to describe mass terrorism as "the new evil in our world today."

Blair said these sort of attacks were "perpetrated by fanatics, utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life."

He added that the world's democracies must come together to "fight this evil and eradicate it from the world."

Blair will chair a meeting of the Cabinet's emergency security "Cobra" committee in No 10 Downing Street.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Britain would provide "whatever help we can" to the United States to catch the perpetrators of a series of apparent terrorist attacks.

Queen Elizabeth II sent a message of condolence expressing her "disbelief and total shock."

---------------------

Not very nice to remember that. France has changed it's colours. What has happened to the solidarity now? It's nicely invested in Iraq's oil. Too many times the US and UK have been accused of this war for oil. I accuse France (and suggest they are not alone) of avoiding a war for oil.

See the second excerpt in bold?

Now obviously Tony Blair was referring to the people responsible for the 9/11 atrocities, but look at the words again. Is Saddam Hussein any different?

A recent poll suggests that 68% of Brits are convinced that a war in Iraq is justified. 22% are not, and the other 10% must have been sleeping. As usual this country starts off reluctant to risk, then slowly comes to terms with reality.

Glad to say I was in the 68% group since 1991. 12 years of dodging the U.N. and Saddam is now faced with a decision. Any reasonable, democratic leader would have resigned immediately. This is another sign of his iron grip on his country.

People ask why war?

The answer is simple.

War now will remove one more haven for those who attack without decleration or provocation. Whether you like it or not, the terrorists out there will not peacefully go away.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

You're right, the answer is simple. The "W" stands for WAR.

After 9/11 the USA had the entire world behind us. Bush squandered that support and now has turned the majority of the world's leaders and people against us.

Reply to bob_dn

The worm has turned and it's Bush.

Case in point how Bush lost world support. Another foreign policy fiasco. He alienates everyone. Even his staunchest allies, few that they are.

Bush Freezes Mideast Plan During Crisis in Iraq
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

In a sharp rebuff to European allies, Russia and the United Nations, the Bush administration has decided not to put forth a plan for a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians until after the crisis in Iraq is resolved, administration officials say.

Negotiations aimed at drafting a three-year-long, step by step "road map" leading to the creation of a Palestinian state have been under way between the United States and these partners for nearly a year, but the administration has come under increasing pressure of late to adopt and publish the plan formally as the likelihood of a war with Iraq has risen.

As recently as December, President Bush met with European leaders and the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, all of whom wanted the peace plan published immediately to ease the anger of Arabs in the Middle East who charge that the United States has been single-mindedly focused on Iraq.

Those who met with Mr. Bush said they had won assurances that the plan would be published as soon as the Israeli elections were completed in late January.

Now, officials say, Mr. Bush has changed his mind and regards the December pledge as unrealistic. The administration's decision not to proceed with publishing the plan ?Ea seven-page document that calls for reciprocal steps that would also include replacing Yasir Arafat as the Palestinian leader and an end to attacks on Israel ?Ehas infuriated the Europeans and poisoned the atmosphere even as the administration has struggled to secure the allies' support for its possible war against Iraq.

Among the angriest is Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, whose aides say has pleaded with Mr. Bush to become more involved in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

From today's NY Times. I can't post the full link. You have to be an online subscriber. So sign up, it's free.

Reply to bob_dn

French solidarity? When has there EVER been French solidarity?

People complain and complain about the USA, but it was the French who withdrew from Nato's defensive alliance. They have no interest in defending anybody besides themselves.

They have the largest oil interests in Iraq.

They have the largest (or one of the) weapons contract interest in Iraq.

Their people are anti-semites in every respect, thier only interest is money.

Interesting how people say the same about the US.

There have been 150 "wars" since the founding of the UN. Only two of those were authorized: The Korean War, The Gulf War. France, who has gone to battle untold times in Africa has never asked the UN for permission.

Here are some great quotes:

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." Jacques Chirac

"What do you expect from a culture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting against DisneyWorld and Big Macs than the Nazis?" Dennis Miller

"When I warned them (the French Government) that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, 'In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken.' Some chicken! Some neck! " - Sir Winston Churchill

"They shall not pass"
-- Said of the Germans by French Marechal Philippe Petain at Verdun in World War I. Later, however, he became chief collaborator with the Germans under Hitler. Petain was president of Vichy France.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

You say France took the side of terrorists?!? WTF?!?

I hope you're not otherwise you really seem dumb... the war against Iraq has nothing to do with terrorims and 9/11!

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

Svol, what are you talking about now?


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Wow. Svol must be from a country other than the USA.

I'm shocked. There are opinions outside our borders -
AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH US!

Thank God for freedom of thought. It is alive and well. Just not necessarily in the USA.

Bush as seen through the lens of world view isn't Bush as seen through the lens of Fox News.

And France isn't thought of as the ungrateful NATO partner.

Anyone here ever think maybe Bush is the problem?

Reply to bob_dn

Dumb Svol?

Nah! Just keeping tabs on the French oil interests. If this war happens, France stands to lose.

So in the name of money, they will use their veto. Peace has nothing to do with it. They're still blowing up nukes aren't they? Or were not too long ago.

Re-read the post I made. Think about it!!!

Bob: Dunno what country you think I'm from...you're crowing anti-Bush crap. He's not popular, but no US president would be in his situation.

Call me a war monger or whatever. I'm just sick of folk who think it's 'cool' to be anti-war. It's not cool. It's cowardly. My Grandmother's husband and three brothers went to war, not because they wanted to die, not because they wanted to kill. They went because a madman was in control and was killing and torturing people. His own among them.

The reference to France was the 'solidarity' proclaimed on 9/11, but is evenly withdrawn when their oil interests are threatened. France has been one of the west's least careful arms suppliers in the last 25 years. No wonder they don't want war most of the time. They're afraid that Frenchmen will be killed with French weapons.

Svol you called me dumb, or at least left in my court to prove otherwise. I was studying war 21 years ago when the Brits went to the Falkland Islands. Please keep you're insults to yourself and respond with well thought out reason.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Freedom of thought is wonderful Bob.

Use of thought is sadly lacking.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Camieabz;

How can you ask Svol to use well thought out reason when you resort to labeling ideas you don't agree with as
"crowing anti-bush crap"?

And then dismiss my anti-war stance as an attempt to "be cool." Do you support war to be cool? You are not using "well thought our reason." You are simply lashing out because I don't agree with you. Little wonder you support Bush.

Bush never had to learn how to get along with anyone (You know, the silver spoon thing. Witness his isolationist policies when he took office, "We wont be involved in nation building." ) And now he's nation building. And playing cowboy with foreign policy.

This isn't "High Noon." And Bush is no Gary Cooper. Hussein isn't the Miller boys either, or Hitler as Bush would like us to believe.

Hussein had the power to threaten Kuwait in 1991. Now he's not even a threat to Kuwait no less the USA or the international community. And he's not even close on any level to 1930's Germany. But Bush likes to demonize people, even people Reagan and his father helped put in power, in order to achieve his goals.

Bush is trying to make some connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. There were fifteen Saudis, one Yemeni and I believe three Egyptians on the commercial airliners that were used as missiles at The World Trade Center, The Pentagon and the aircraft that crashed in a field not far form my hometown in Pennsylvania. NO IRAQIS. Why isn't Bush attacking Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt?

Because Iraq is an easy target for Bush and his chickenhawks - Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, neither of whom ever picked up arms to defend their country but are always willing to let someone else's kid fight and die when they deem it necessary.

Bush is taking a nose dive in the polls (and don't believe that BS that Rove and his pals don't care about polls, they live and die by them) failing miserably on the economy, environment and foreign policy. Just like he was before 9/11. Short of another terror attack (Bush did make the "trifecta" comment after 9/11) he needs a "war bump" before the next election.

Meanwhile North Korea is thumbing their nose at the US, already has nukes and is in the process of joining the "nuke a month club" to add six or seven more to their arsenal. Bush's reaction? We'll use diplomacy in North Korea even though he refuses to negotiate with Kim Jung Il. How do you use diplomacy without talking? Why not use diplomacy in Iraq? See any hypocrisy here? Now Bush has threatened to use military means in North Korea. Can you imagine a nuclear confrontation on the Korean peninsula?

The UN inspectors haven't found any WMD in Iraq and Iraq is cooperating with the inspectors. Bush's reply? A catch 22 - If they are destroying weapons they lied, if they aren't destroying weapons they are lying. Just the kind of logic to expect from a corporate jughead like Bush.

Bottom line: Blix and El Baradei haven't found any WMD in Iraq. No smoking gun. And more UN inspectors will keep Hussein in check without war. But the cowboy has all his troops in place for war. What a tactical error there! Hard to back down now. (An editorial cartoon I saw expressed it well. Bush looking ridiculous dressed up like a little kid in a cowboy outfit, six guns, big hat, big boots and belt buckle saying, "I can't back down now. I'll look silly.)

Iraq isn't the problem. Iraq is a distraction.

Bush is the problem. You should be as skeptical about his motives as you are about Chirac's. You'd be much closer to the truth. Bush has far more to hide. And far more interest in Iraqi oil and control of the middle east.

I guess this is the continuation of his father's "New world order."

Reply to bob_dn

Quote :

And then dismiss my anti-war stance as an attempt to "be cool." Do you support war to be cool?

No I do not! Why are you admittedly anti-war?

I hear of anti-war demonstrations. There was one in my city yesterday. 1% of the population turned out. In Manchester 10,000 turned out. Again a small percentage. The fact is though, you don't see many pro-war demonstrations so you? It's not PC, cool or whatever. In fact if people did turn out to such a thing, there would be a huge outcry of "Warmongers!!!". Not so, but we're not going to sit and let some guy waste helpless civilians.

I do not support Bush. I think the guy couldn't blow his nose without rattling the pebble in his head. The fact remians, that he is President and he is responsible, and is fully prepared to deal with threats to the USA. Saddam Hussein is a threat. Not Iraq. Saddam Hussein. He's caused more strife than could have been imagined, in a time when the countries of the world need to band together to seek out the terrorists and render them harmless.

Has he disclosed all info?
Aren't we missing lots of chemicals?
Haven't we just found 100+ missiles which contravene UN resolutions?

I'll ask you two questions, and if your answer to either of them is no, then I'll know exactly where you stand.

Should resolution 1441 be honoured and enforced?
Is 12 years a reasonable time to deal with or at least make public the knowledge of WMDs?

You mention N.Korea and to be honest, I'm not even looking over there. Different theatre, different deal entirely. They're just flexing their muscles. I do believe that any country has the right to possess these missiles, but I also believe that if there's reasonable grounds to prevent a country possessing them for the safety of a nation, region or people, then they should not be allowed to have them.

Quote :

Bush is the problem

Nope. Democracy, liberty and freedom of speech happen to be the problem here. It is unfortunate that because we choose to live by these ideals, that we also allow those who constantly oppress them to survive by them. The UN saved the guy back in 1991.That's the fundamental difference here. We live by choice. They don't. It's one man's choice and he's choosing to sacrifice his entire nation to save his skin. That wouldn't and couldn't happen in these countries. The man is a gangster and a killer. He started his carrer as an assassin after all.

Remember post war Italy, Germany and Japan. Once the forces had surrendered and their governments been removed from power, the people were largely allowed to go about their business, assuming they weren't guilty of war crimes.

Of course we all want peace, but if your neighbour won't turn down the music, and laughs at you from his window, you get the police. If the police won't do anything, will you sit there and take it? For twelve years?

Bad analogy I know. :smile:

Let me put it anohter way. You're neighbour shoots another neighbour with a gun. He's put away for it for a while, and when he returns, you witness him carrying a gun into his house. Would you sit and do nothing?

Of course you would, cos as long as he doen't shoot you, everything's ok, right?

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Quote :

Now he's not even a threat to Kuwait no less the USA or the international community.

Get your head out of the sand.

Quote :

Bush is trying to make some connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

If Hussein gave even $1 to Al Qaeda or let one of them stay one night at the Baghdad Motel 6 then Hussein's got to go.

Quote :

Meanwhile North Korea is thumbing their nose at the US, already has nukes and is in the process of joining the "nuke a month club" to add six or seven more to their arsenal. Bush's reaction? We'll use diplomacy in North Korea even though he refuses to negotiate with Kim Jung Il.

Kim Jung Il is full of crap. He's trying to extort money and food from us like he did a few years ago. Bush is calling his bluff. His people are starving. Hungry people tend to overthrow their government. This is the last gasp of a Communist regime with no spine.

To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.

Reply to Black_Cat

Quote :

Should resolution 1441 be honoured and enforced?

Resolution 1441 is being honored and enforced.

Quote :

Is 12 years a reasonable time to deal with or at least make public the knowledge of WMDs?

Yes, 12 years is long enough. It's long enough to age a good single malt scotch and it's long enough to declare all WMD. So Blix and ElBaradei are inspecting Iraq for WMD. They haven't found any. They found some missiles that the US claims are over 150 kilometers and Iraq says are not over the limit. Iraq is destroying the missiles. They found an old war head with some unidentified fluid in it. Iraq is destroying it. They UN inspections are working why war, why now, why Iraq?

I don't know what you mean by freedom of speech etc. being the problem. I know Bush and Co. (especially Ashcroft) consider freedom to be a problem. That's why they're attacking freedom. Just read the USA Patriotic Act or the recently proposed ammendments from The Justice Dept.

The UN didn't save Hussein back in '91, Bush did. He did so because he feared de-stabilizing the entire region by creating a power vacuum in Iraq, a country much like Yugoslavia, cobbled together by uniting competing factions. You keep ignoring the fact that the US (Reagan/Bush) put Hussein in power. The US (Reagan/Bush) put the Taliban in power too. Sometimes you deal with the devil it becomes hard to tell the difference between you and the devil.

Your analogies don't work. If my neighbor was allowing his house to be inspected daily I wouldn't drop a bomb on him because someone else attacked me.

You can't equate Iraq with post WWII Europe.

Reply to bob_dn

Now I know where you stand.

No one will change your mind, no matter the evidence.

Luck!

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

My head isn't in the sand. Bush's head is in the sand. Or his head is filled with sand. Or a sand storm would have plenty of space in his head. You get the picture.

You can make statements about who gave Al Qaida a dollar but NO ONE HAS PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE THAT HUSSEIN HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH AL QAIDA. THE HIJACKERS ON 9/11 WERE SAUDIS, YEMENIS AND EGYPTIANS. For an entire year after 9/11 no one mentioned Hussein. Suddenly it's all about Hussein. ???????????????????????????????????????????Why????

Bush has been asked to produce evidence if he has it. He keeps sending Powell to the UN with pleas for cooperation based on NO evidence. He keeps trying to form the "best coalition money can buy," but even money isn't working this time.

Inspections are working acoording to Blix and ElBaradei but Bush is deciding to go it alone and look, to many, like the real problem. However, as stated in your $1 ultimatum the USA should commence attacking itself immediately based on the aid it gave the Taliban/Al Qaida during the Reagan/Bush administrations. You remember, back when Ronnie would do anything to combat communism. Even arm the people who would later turn those arms against us. Use factions in Afghanistan and then abandon the country allowing it to fall into chaos creating the conditions for the Taliban to take over. Wonder if Iraq will be our next Afghanistan. We don't have a very good track record in these countries as far as keeping our word. And with Bush's new budget deficits it doesn't look like we'll be financially able to build the new Iraq Bush is claiming he'll build even though he claims he's not into nation building (but you've already ignored that fact).

If you think Kim Jung Il is bluffing and there is no crisis on the Korean peninsula you have a unique opinion. And it is your head which is in the sand.

I have a great idea for Bush. Why not give North Korea $32 billion to join his coalition (like he's trying with Turkey)? Then North Korea can feed their starving people and help the US defeat Iraq with their nukes!

What a diplomatic coup! And it would be in character for Bush and Co. to pull a boneheaded stunt like that and call it foreign policy.

Can't anyone see what a plague Bush has been since he came to office? It's like a dark cloud descended on our nation. I can't wait until 2004 to see the Plague of Bush sent back to Crawford Tx. where he can do less harm. Maybe the UN can sponsor a resolution and inspect his ranch to make sure he doesn't have any Weapons of Political Destruction.

Reply to bob_dn

Evidence, what evidence? You have evidence? Why do you hide your evidence? Where is your evidence? Can't find your evidence? Show me your evidence.

Blix and ElBaradei are there in Iraq with inspectors and they can't find evidence but you have evidence. Or haven't you heard their latest report?

You should be working for the UN or at least the Bush administration. You're doing a better job than the UN inspectors and I'll bet you haven't even been to Iraq.

Reply to bob_dn

Your posts are so ridiculous that they're not even worth reading anymore. I started reading them and just had to stop. I have no idea where you get your information from. Nobody thinks that 1441 is being honored. Nobody. Everyone is hoping that given enough time Saddam will dismarm though.

<A HREF="http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm" target="_new">http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm</A>

He pretty much did nothing that he was supposed to. Just point 3, 4, and 5 is enough.

Furthermore, the evidence you want was gathered years prior. Saddam claims that he destroyed everything or never had it, even though there is documentation and the occasional weapon found that conflicts with Iraq's statements.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Quote :

Your posts are so ridiculous that they're not even worth reading anymore.

My head is spinning.

To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.

Reply to Black_Cat

Well now that you've officially deemed my posts too ridiculous to read I guess I might as well sell my computer and move to a desert island like Tom Hanks in that FedEx movie.

*tears rolling down my face at the thought of dhlucke not reading my posts anymore*

Reply to bob_dn

Read DH's link.

It's in black and white. Non-compliance. Plain and simple.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Sorry... but I'm not going to help you with the discussion in this thread. Even if you provide 1000 pieces of evidence they will be stubborn enough to ignore it... it is like talking to a wall. I'm not going to wate more time in another discussion... I keep it to the ones I already have.

Some might call being that stubborn... being ignorant, not that I do that.

Oh and yes (luckily IMO) I'm not from the USA... I'm from Europe, Holland to be pricezly.

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek: Edited by svol on 03/10/03 09:45 PM.

Reply to svol

I could better aks where Camie is talking about.

With 9/11 France (like almost every country) said that what happened was horrible... and now they're against a war and you see them as evil traitors? I'm wondering what is wrong with your guys... indoctrination by the governmen... I mean free media? :eek:

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

Not as evil traitors. As self-seeking bullshitters. France stands to lose a lot of investment cash in Iraq if this war goes ahead.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

France is not a true ally. They withdrew from Nato's military alliance 37 years ago. They aren't there for us.

Stick to the topic: War. Has Saddam disarmed and destroyed all of his weapons of mass destruction? Has he submitted a complete and full disclosure of his weapons of mass destruction?


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Quote :

The conflict came to a head in 1966 when French president Charles De Gaulle announced France would withdraw from the military structure in protest at dominance of US commanders. Nato forces were required to leave the country and headquarters were moved to Mons, Belgium.

Today, France remains only part the political structure of the alliance in case of "unprovoked aggression". It continues to emphasise the independence of its nuclear armoury and foreign policy.

<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/325388.stm" target="_new">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/325388.stm</A>


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

UN inspectors Blix and ElBaradei gave their reports at the UN recently. They are in Iraq overseeing inspections. They say Iraq is making progress disarming and the inspections should continue.

Bush says we need to start the first war in USA's history where we are the aggressor because he has amassed 250,000 troops and would look like a fool if he backed down now.

Bush should back down. He doesn't need to worry about looking like a fool, he is a fool.

Reply to bob_dn

Quote :

Bush says we need to start the first war in USA's history where we are the aggressor because he has amassed 250,000 troops and would look like a fool if he backed down now.

Bush said that? Link please. Or could someone else in the US please back up that statement?

Here's how childish it's getting.

I encourage my learned 'opponents' to re-read UN resolution 1441. To not honour it would be to ridicule the UN.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

LINK? I'll give you 250,000 links plus six air craft carriers with a naval armada. Not to mention the aircraft and support personnel throughout the middle east.

Don't be a ridiculous. Bush is hell bent on war. And I don't give a damn what you think about 1441. If Iraq destroyed every weapon in their country Bush would still claim they are in "material breech."

1441 is being honored. The UN inspectors are THERE, they know what is happening. The problem is warmongers like Bush don't want to hear any reports proving Iraqi compliance. Bush has stationed a quarter-million troops and he wants his war. This is precisely why the power to wage war was vested in the congress and not the executive branch. One person can't be trusted to make decisions as grave as declaring war. Bush is now in the untenable position of having deployed his troops before making his case for war. He has no fall back position.

When he was running for election the rap on him was he had no foreign policy experience. He couldn't even name the leaders of our major allies. Now his lack of experience has led him into a rookie error. He couldn't back down now if he wanted to. What kind of diplomacy is that? This is why I said he needn't worry about looking like a fool. It's quite apparent he is a fool.

Reply to bob_dn

No links though. No surprise. When you start backing your arguments with proof, or facts (DH posted UN resolution 1441) I'll start listening. Until then it's all dubious.

1441 states that Iraq MUST COMPLY FULLY. Black and white Sir. Argue that, but don't dare tell me that 1441 is being honoured. It's being enforced by threat a little at a time. Saddam is making this last as long as he can. Like Hitler tried in 1945, hoping for the allies to split and start disagreeing. Looks like Saddam is getting his way, and you guys are helping him.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Saddam is doomed. Bush decided long ago that he would be removed. Just a matter of how and when.

And the UN is in danger of looking completely feeble.
If bush attacks without UN backing the UN appears helpless.
If the UN does give backing it appears to be an american lapdog.

"If spam wasn't totally bogus, Hotmail users would be well-endowed, slim people with hair who make big money working at home and having great sex provoked by free porn and herbal Viagra.

Reply to lhgpoobaa

Quote :

And I don't give a damn what you think about 1441.

Ahhhh! At last, a decent admission. You don't do you. You don't care what that particular resolution invokes as long as war is avoided. At any cost?

Lets assume we leave Saddam alone for another 12 years. Assuming he's still alive and of health enough to be a threat as he was 12 years ago, he'll be building up his weapons, and helping the terrorists in any way he can, without drawing too much attention to himself.

Remember the human shields? That little boy paraded next to Saddam. Remember the UK and US pilots, beaten and tortured and made to say things on TV.

Remember the rapings of women in Kuwait?
Remember the oilfields of Kuwait burning?

This guy has no concept of humanity. He will behave to please an audience whenever he feels it is necessary. This guy will be in charge until he is removed, killed or dies naturally. Out leaders will be voted out. You see no difference?

Why do you argue for this guy? He's an animal, and whether there's troops on his border or they're 5000 miles away, he spends most waking moments thinking of how to undermine your government.

The more I think about this, the more I realise you folk will never change. First it was about Muslims. Then we reminded you all that we went into Bosnia and Afganistan to save or free Muslims.

Next it was about oil, and then when we say France and Russia have oil related reasons for blocking the 2nd resolution, you (people) change to another subject. Does Saddam have to exterminate more innocent people for you to smell the coffee? Will you then don the "Why didn't you act" argument?

I watched a program tonight, where Tony Blair (Bush's poodle? Nah, he's keeping Bush from jumping in feet first, so thank him.) was allowing a News anchorman and 18 women, who were dead against war to question him. He put himself in a no-win situation to try to convince some people that he's willing to go to any length to show how careful, sincere and sensitive he is to the situation.

Among the women was one who implored him to negotiate with terrorists. She tried to draw a parallel to Nothern Ireland. "Listen to them. Find a solution." She obviously forgot that terrorists attacked WTC and the Pentagon first. Then Afganistan was attacked.

Now Saddam has chemical weapons unnacounted for. Hans Blix has stated that "Iraq has not fully disclosed all information". Do you want a chemical agent to fall into the hands of a group of people who would use it against you if they has the means? They would if they could, and you can't see, or you refuse to believe that out governments are trying to protect themselves and us.

We've had numerous arrests over here. One Muslim cleric has just been imprisoned for 9 years for encouraging other Muslims to kill Jews and Americans. His supporters say that "It's racism!!!" Others have been arrested for possessing Ricin (spelling?), which is a dangerous substance.

Need more proof? I could (and probably will :lol: ) go on. I don't argue for war because I want war. I argue for war because a war now will accomplish many things for world peace if it's supported by the UN. Soundsweird to say it like that, but it's true.

It will give dictators a moment of pause.
It will show that the UN (1441 won't go away I'm afraid) must be taken seriously.
It may encourage certain countries not to support or aid terrorism.
It will remove a regime of terror from Iraq.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Rather look like a lapdog than be an ineffective, pointless place for dictators to gain some support.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

The UN made a huge mistake by passing a resolution unanimously that they didn't intend to honor. I've read the resolution several times and it's very clear what needs to be done. There are many test cases to base progress on as well and Iraq hasn't complied. South Africa and the former USSR republics disarmed and we know what to expect when a nation is giving a full disclosure and intends to fully disarm.

As far as Hans Blix saying that inspections are working, let me quote his March 7th speech:

Quote :

On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps, which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues.

Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalised, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you. As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament - indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s.

So basically, as of a week ago, Iraq has done nothing, but now he's destryed a few dozen missiles and that's good enough for the anti-war folk? That's really amazing. 12 years of non-compliance, 17 resolutions, and the continued manufacture of weapons during this time, and the destruction of a few missiles for a week convinces you that Iraq is going to fully disarm?

What about the chemical and biological agents? We know he has them.

Interesting CIA link. <A HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm" target="_new">http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm</A>


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

You are missing my point. Bush wont admit Iraq is complying with 1441 even though the UN inspectors report that they are. That's why I say I don't give a damn about 1441. It is made irrelevant not by the failure of Iraq to comply (which they now are) but by Bush. He wont admit they are complying because he is the opposite of what you accuse me of being. He will have his war no matter what. I want peace no matter what in this instance because war is not necessary.

Also if you want links <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq¬found=1&code=1" target="_new">here</A> are all the links you should need. I'd suggest you read mine. But you are of course free to read dh's links as well.

On this subject everyone is convinced they're right. But my feeling is, when you're considering as grave an action as war it's better to err on the side of caution. Especially when there is no immediate threat. We're not being attacked by Iraq, we're being threatened by Al Qaida. Read the links about the 500,000 Iraqi children who have died as a direct result of the 1991 Gulf war and the sanctions imposed after it ended. Or the 110,000 civilians killed during the war, 70,000 of whom were children under the age of 15.

Bush and his supporters like to compare Hussein to Hitler. Who looks more like Hitler after considering the outcome of the 1991 Gulf war in human terms?

Bush claims to be a Christian. Has he not read, "They do not know the ways of peace."

There's a line from the movie "Bedazzled" that I like. Elizabeth Hurley plays the devil (hell might not be so bad after all). While being quizzed by Brendan Fraser as to whether or not God is a man she admits he is and says,
"Most men think they're God, this one just happens to be right."
Could be applied to Bush, but this one happens to be wrong.

Reply to bob_dn

Here are a few excerpts I've 'strategically' chosen.

Feel free to choose your own. Needless to say, most of the countries who shout for peace are either Arab or Muslim nations, have economic issues with a was in that region, or fear terrorist repercussions. Now here's one for you. If the terrorists aren't connected in any way to Saddam Hussein, why is anyone worried about that one? :smile:

Quote :

Several speakers, however, including Australia, Peru, and Japan, urged quick action if the Council was to maintain credibility. The representative of Australia said it was patently clear that Iraq was in further material breach of its obligations. The Council should not wait forever to confront the issue and should move quickly to consider a further resolution that dealt decisively with Iraq’s failure to comply with resolution 1441. Delays and divisions in the Council would only play into Iraq’s hands.

Quote :

MANSOUR AYYAD SH. A. AL-OTAIBI (Kuwait) said that adoption of resolution 1441 (2002) had been a major achievement of the Council. Today’s meeting was convened under more difficult circumstances, posed by Iraq’s reluctance to fulfil its commitments under the relevant Council resolutions. Regrettably, it continued to challenge the will of the international community, without fully realizing the repercussions and the gravity of such policies on the stability of the entire Gulf region. That region had suffered for more than 20 years from the negative impact of practices by the Iraqi Government. Everyone was confident last November that the beating of the war drums would come to an end and the Iraqi Government would “come to its senses”, by cooperating fully with UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and giving up all of its proscribed weapons.

That optimism, he said, was soon replaced with concern following the submission of its declaration, which was deemed incomplete and lacking in any new information. Indeed, Iraq’s lack of full cooperation undermined peace and was leading to the possibility of war. Kuwait, because of its geography, might be more affected than others by such a war. Thus, it undertook some measures to preserve its peace and the security of its people. Iraq must fully commit to the accurate and faithful implementation of all Council resolutions. He supported all efforts made towards a peaceful solution, and urged the Iraqi Government to respond fully to those appeals and resolutions, in a way that would avoid war.

He said his country paid tribute to the inspectors, and hoped that military force would be the last resort. The Iraqi Government alone could spare the Iraqi people and those of the region the negative repercussions of military force by adjusting its position and substantially cooperating with inspectors, not only on procedure and process. The Council unity must be maintained as an important aspect of guaranteeing implementation of the resolutions it adopted. Iraq was similarly frustrating in addressing the situation of the Kuwaiti prisoners of war and missing persons. Those persons had been missing for more than 12 years, yet Iraq had refused to cooperate in remedying that humanitarian dimension.

----------------------------------------------------------

Quote :

Who looks more like Hitler after considering the outcome of the 1991 Gulf war in human terms?

Hang on. How long had these sanctions been going on before Bush was in power? How much of Saddam's troops are well fed, but yet his kids are starving? How much medicine gets in, but is stockpiled for his troops and loyal people?

Quote :

Bush claims to be a Christian. Has he not read, "They do not know the ways of peace."

Please keep religeon out of this. Muslims are Muslims. Christian are Christians. If you're going to start telling me that I'm an infidel, or that all the guys in WW2 (on any side) weren't religeous, then we can stop and let you take a sense pill. Religeon has nothing to do with it. Especially not from the west's side. You risk insulting millions of truly religeous people with comments like that.

Bush, Bush, Bush. You really hate the guy don't you? How about Tony Blair? Is he a heathen too? He happens to be very religeous. What next from you?

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

I see that France will use it's Veto regardless if the 2nd UN resolution will gain the 9 votes it need to be passed.

Huge surprise.

Note that, regardless of what happens, and before the votes have been taken, France will do what it can to put off a war there. Must mean they have a lot to lose there.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Quote :

If the terrorists aren't connected in any way to Saddam Hussein, why is anyone worried about that one?

The act of aggression against a "Muslim" state will inflame terrorists increasing the likelihood of terror and making it much easier to find new recruits. This from the CIA's report to Bush last summer. Also the CIA reported that IF Iraq has WMD the most likely way to get them to use WMD is to attack them. Read this <A HREF="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0819-01.htm" target="_new">link</A>.

Quote :

Hang on. How long had these sanctions been going on before Bush was in power? How much of Saddam's troops are well fed, but yet his kids are starving? How much medicine gets in, but is stockpiled for his troops and loyal people?

I was speaking of the elder Bush. I thought a bright person like you would have figured that out. Point is the results of this war will be much like the results of the 1991 Gulf war.
You obviously haven't read <A HREF="http://www.vicpeace.org/fact-sheets/FactSheet3vpn.pdf" target="_new">this link</A>. It will explain your questions about food and medicine and the relationship of the 1991 Gulf war and sanctions to the death of Iraqi children and civilians. Again the war which the current Bush is so intent on pursuing will likely have much the same result.

Quote :

Please keep religeon out of this. Muslims are Muslims. Christian are Christians. If you're going to start telling me that I'm an infidel, or that all the guys in WW2 (on any side) weren't religeous, then we can stop and let you take a sense pill. Religeon has nothing to do with it. Especially not from the west's side. You risk insulting millions of truly religeous people with comments like that.

I didn't bring religion into this. Bush did. When did I ever suggest you are an "infidel?" When did I ever say anything about the "guys in WWII" much less suggest they were or weren't religious?

I think perhaps it is you who needs a "sense pill."

Why do you insist on trying to equate this conflict to WWII? You cannot equate the current situation in Iraq with WWII.

Very simply I said that Bush claims to be a religious person yet he does not know the ways of peace. That is an anacronism.

Reply to bob_dn

I equate it with WW2 because there was a dictator who wasn't stopped in time. Many parallels.

You were the one who mentioned Bush being a Christian etc etc. YOU brought religeon into it!

You keep attacking Bush about Christianity vs peace. How many religeous people or peoples started war on religeous grounds. Even now we are attacked for not being Muslims, by those who claim to be Muslims.

I'll repeat it. Please keep religeon out of it.

Victorian Peace Network? Please! Are you a member of CND, Greenpeace, Animal rights and the anti-club too?

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

All the emotional arguments continue. I still don't see anyone claiming that resolution 1441 is being complied with so where are people getting that from?

I posted a direct quote that is only a few days old in which Hans Blix states:

Quote :

Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalised, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note.

So, what is it that has happened in the last week? A few dozen missiles have been destroyed. That's it. All these months and only a few missiles have been destroyed.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

There is no parallel between the current situation in Iraq and Germany pre-WWII. Iraq does not have the economic or military power to mount a threat of any consequence. Particularly not the threat mounted by Germany pre-WWII.

The idea that Iraq has to be stopped before it's too late surfaced, suspiciously, only after Bush needed a reason to start a war with them. Why didn't we hear about this threat until over a year after 9/11. <A HREF="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0819-01.htm" target="_new">READ THE LINK</A>.

Bush has framed his war in religious terms. I did not bring religion into it, Bush did.

What business is it of yours what my associations are. Are you another Joe McCarthy?

How typical of you. You request links and then critize the links when you can't offer any valid rebuttal. Well, I suppose if you can't attack the message you attack the messenger.

The links I provide are from sites which use information from recognized news sources. Do you have a problem with news sources other than those owned by the likes of Fox or Rupert Murdoch? (BTW, these are just two of the many news sources I happen to use. Diversity is important. News must come from many sources - even if some are repugnant).

I don't critize the links you use, (the very few you provide) I debate your views. You are obviously incapable of the same.

I'll be back tomorrow. Maybe you can find some valid support for your specious arguments by then.

Goodnight.

Peace.

Reply to bob_dn

Where as we post statistics, links to the United Nations, and the speaches by Hans Blix, you come forth with a "progressive" news source.

We are not here to post links by slanted sources. Stick to the facts.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Quote :

Where as we post statistics, links to the United Nations, and the speaches by Hans Blix, you come forth with a "progressive" news source.

We are not here to post links by slanted sources. Stick to the facts.

You are not the arbiter of what is or isn't a fact. Just because you don't agree with the facts doesn't lessen the fact that they are the facts.

And what is this "WE" BS? Forming a coalition? What comes next, attack and depose me? Regime change?

Little wonder you support Bush and his war. Great minds think alike in the gutters of the world.

Reply to bob_dn

And "progressive news source?" The Center for Public Integrity? The Washington Post? The Boston Globe?

Reply to bob_dn

Gotta' get some sleep now. It's 2AM here. Plenty of time to argue tomorrow.

Goodnight.
Peace.

Reply to bob_dn

Quote :

There is no parallel between the current situation in Iraq and Germany pre-WWII. Iraq does not have the economic or military power to mount a threat of any consequence. Particularly not the threat mounted by Germany pre-WWII.

The parallels are there. Read your history Bob.

To be honest, I'm thru talking with someone who says "I don't give a damn about 1441".

If you will support the UN only when they avoid war and not when they try to enforce peace by non-peaceful means, then good for you.

Saddam will never be a peace seeker, as long as he has the power to do otherwise. Personally, I'm all in favour of his own people taking him out, but they are unable to do so. Perhaps with time, you will come to realise the kind of man he is.

~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">Nice sig 81.</A> ~ :wink:

Reply to camieabz

Quote :

So, what is it that has happened in the last week? A few dozen missiles have been destroyed. That's it. All these months and only a few missiles have been destroyed.

And we only found out about those by mistake! A junior officer let it slip, and viola "Oh yes, Mr Blix, we...er.. yes, here are some missles. We were just about to show you these!". WTF? He's pulling Blix's chain. Everywhere the inspectors go, they get the royal treatment. Why? Because they know they are coming!

Saddam needs a Cruise missle up the ass and fast. If the Russians and the French veto, fine. Screw 'em. And the next time Vladimir Putin comes begging to Bush, cap in hand, for billions in relief dollars (again), I hope he tells him to sling his hook.

All I really hope is that when the balloon goes up, all the anti-war brigade stop the posturing and actually support the troops. Whatever anybodys feelings, these guys need our support.

Reply to RobD

Bob's argument revolves around the typical Israel sucks and Bush is a monkey argument.

Bob won't even recognize resolution 1441 (or the other 16 resolutions), which is the whole reason we're in this situation. He is unable to read the Blix reports (there are several) and make a judgement based on the information given.

He isn't worth wasting any time on.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A>

Reply to dhlucke

The only reason are even allowing in inspectors is because there are 300,000 troops over there right now. He would kick them out as soon as the troops left. Saddam has no intention of disarming. He just does a couple things so all the anti-war people have something to lean on.

I want to save the world for my children, but not my children's children, because children shouldn't be having sex. - Deep Thought

Reply to buddry

Self-seeking bullshitters? America has a lot of economic reasons to have war to... doesn't make that self-seeking.

Lets see: the weapon industry will have a positive boost, American oil companies can get the oil instead of France. A war might fix the American economy.

Pretty self-seeking don't you think?

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

I thought Camie started this thread because France where a worm that turned?

Did you sidetrack this thread? Bad DH!

My dual-PSU PC is so powerfull that the neighbourhood dims when I turn it on :eek:

Reply to svol

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other Well. The worm HAS turned.

Please mind