Germany, Belgium, France -- Selfish Beyond Words

JAV

Well said SmoothDrive & I'm pleased to hear that that Holland is supporting its allies.


Bl,

You said a mouthful there & prolly don't even realize it! I'll agree with you on that one & add that most of the diplomates are in the same boat w/ya > ain't got a clue & misinterpret w/their subjective viewpoints.

There ya go misinterpreting! The USA didn't turn to the UN for acceptance > we did it to formally annouce our intentions & see who stands with us. It's called 'taking names & making a list'. We're gonna do what needs to be done w/Aus, NZ, Canada & the UK aiding us. The UN 'games' gave the opportunity for other countries to stand with us ... or not. That is all, we don't need "acceptance" or "permission" & we sure aren't asking for it either.

The French were occupied in WWII by the Germans & surrendered ... they didn't want their precious Parii burned to the ground. >>> Forget the rest of the world & ally with the devil. Deja Vu all over again.

The Danish were occupied but NEVER surrendered & destroyed their own ships, harbors & factories so the Germans couldn't use them against others. >>>> That is true sacrifice for the betterment of others & I still applaude them for their unselfishness in the face of War.

Having Germany & France agree with the USA would mean something is wrong, IMO. We don't need 'em & we don't want 'em either ... does anyone? Maybe a couple more blown up French oil tankers will open some of the French ppl's eyes.

bluelight

Reply to Javafox.





No i clearly stated that both Usa and France has its history when it comes to Iraq.

That makes the accusations from Usa against France even more ridiculous.
BlueLight

raid517

Lol try this: http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/o...preformat.html Let's play a game of 'spot the dictatorships'.

Q

ByteMe

Does anyone besides me consider Iraq's attempts to shot down the USA planes in the no-fly zones an act of war?

raid517

Well I guess that all kind of depends who shot first. The US and UK do have a habit of bombing them when they see things they don't like. The Iraqis say the allies don't have a right to fly over their air space too. It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it, but it seems to depend on who takes it as a justification for war. In the long run it doesn't matter anyway, Saddam is toast whatever way you look at it. He was told by Paul Wolfowitz deputy US secetary of defense that even if he did destroy his Al-Samoud 2 missiles, he would still be invaded. I believe the justifcation was that even if you dealt with one bullet in the chamber, you still had to deal with all the others. Well whatever, but that's certainly no encouragement for him to give anything up. I expect as a result any war might be a lot more messy than we think though.

Q

bluelight

No i dont since there is no such thing as a paper that allows Britain and Usa to withold the nofly zone or to bomb any targets whatsoever in Iraq.


BlueLight

JavaFox

Bluelight, the No-Fly Zones are part of the Iraqi peace treaty.

bluelight

No they are not they were implied by Usa and Great britain after the the treatie with UN.The targeting of Iraq`i targets are not part of the deal.They are not sanctioned by the UN.

BlueLight

Smoothdrive

Well a lot of the Gulf-war veterans felt guilty when fighting Iraq because the iraqi's only had old and light weapons to fight with..it never was a fight even. Only real threat was then and sytill are those chemical weapons the Bastards are using.

So i doubt if the Iraqi's can really threaten the airplanes in the no-fly zones.

In general i feel Iraq has lost it's right to anything so they should not even throw rocks at those planes.

I fear Iraq wants to stall till it is too hot again in Iraq to fight..and thanks to france, germany and belgium they just might succeed. Maybe a seal team should just go in and put Saddam to rest, an all out attack imideately after that will do the trick (lot's of troops will surrender when Saddam is gone + the struglle for power to replace Saddam will disorganise the Iraqi's). That would be the most acceptable, clean and fastest solution.

bluelight

Well some of the nerve gas an biological agents they possesed were sold by Donald Rumsfeod in the eighties to them.

Maybe you should have a word with him...W#hy not charge him for crimes against humanity?...


No there will be a war unless something extraordinary happens.

There are 200 000 men sent already and brother George cant send them home can he....?
No he cant.If he did...he would be dead politically.

France China..Russia...none of them will veto a resolution when push comes to shove..

There will be a war...If we are lucky we wwill se less dead Iraqìs than last time when 30 000 were killed milirtary and civilians.

Out of the civialians 50 percent are under 15 years.


If...and according even to American military (Ramsey Clarke and also other high military) this is a risk business and...is likely to take more time then Bush estimates.

Bluelight


Blu

Smoothdrive

Who sold the stuff is not relevant..if you buy a gun and kill someone with it we're not gonna blame the guy who sold you the gun now are we ? Iraq is responsible for the use of the weapons and no one else.

IF and i do say IF your perception is true than Saddam will get rid of his weapons instantly..thus no war..thus Bush gone and Saddam wins.

Amerika and Bush do not want war..they want Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions..and they want to punish him in accordance with the resolution if he doesn't. It's getting old but how many interpretations can you give to "final change" and "severe consequences" that are stated in the resolution ?? All consequences except military force have been laid upon Iraq already..

The UN should be thankful for the pressure the US is putting on Iraq..we all know that without that pressure Iraq would not lift a finger to even pretend to comply with the resolutions. and without the US there would be no pressure at all as is painfully clear at the moment with the position some European leaders choose to uphold.

bluelight

I blame the whoi sellds a gun to a man he knows is a maniac.Anyone who does so is just as responsible as the maniac for killing.

Usa`s government is in my eyes rqually responsible for the killings og 5000 kurds with nervegas perfeormed with American helicopters an possibly also with knowledge.and technology of how to produce nergas gioven to them by Usa to fight Iran



The UN has no reason whatsoever to be....Thankful....for anything special at all coming fron the Usa.

Usa should be thankful for being a paret of a collective security systembut they are not.

The normally spit at it.


BlueLight

Smoothdrive

Well i don't like it but the US hardly needs anything from the UN when it comes to safety..Common European policy to cut-down the military fundings did not help the situation..like it or not the US is the single strongest military force on earth..worst nightmare is the Americans choose a madman President (and Americans are not known for choosing there presidents wisely in general) who wants world domination..they could just make it you know.

May not like it but at the end of the day the right of the strongest always counts..and America is the only country big enough to protect itself and to maintain a stable economy by itself these days. Not being allied to the US will weaken Europe while it will have relative little effect on the US.

I'm in favour of a United Countries of Europe with central governement and one combined military force..problem is those arrogant French, Germans and Brits will never accept that..as if any of them can be counted as a world power on it's own..yeah right.

The days of sailing ships and even Holland was a world-power is far behind us..we accept that..so should France, Germany and England. There is no shame in that..one single American state is not a world power..and that is what European countries should compare themselves to ..to one state...not the combined states of America.

BWX

I realize you have a hard time with the English language, but I think I got your point. All that I can say is that you really don't have a clue about the US government or our policies. If you think we are responsible for Iraq killing it's own people then you need a reality check. That is totally absurd!

If it weren't for the US there would be no UN anyway.-- Collective security system? What security? Writing 18 resolutions in 12 years? Yeah, those resolutions really make the world a safer place..... Without the US those resolutions wouldn't exist either, and they sure as hell would never be enforced.......


"The UN has no reason whatsoever to be....Thankful....for anything special at all coming fron the Usa----->???? huh???? Give me a break.

bluelight

My knowledge in english is ok but my spelling is not always to good when im in a hurry.Sorry.


Question1

Did Usa sell or give some of the helicopters that Saddam used when attacking a Kurdish village with nerve gas or not?

Yes they did.


Question 2

Did Usa provide Saddam with knowledge and technology to produce mass destruction arms( read chemical and biological) to use in the war against Iran or not?

Yes they did.


Question 2

Was Donald Rumsfeld at the time an important figure in dealing with this and with supplying Saddam with other weapons to fight Usa`s war with Iran?

Yes he was.


Question 3

Did Usa continue to deliver arms to Saddam after the nervegas attack in 88?!!


Yes they did.They continued dealin with him all the way up until the invasion of Kuwait.



Im not gonna give you any links for this but all of it is relevant and...facts.I have seen them verified in both rightwing and left wing press and media both here in Sweden and...on the internet in American media.


I an also old enough to remeber these times in the eighties.I remeber clearly when the nervegas attack was reported and that the helicopters were American and also that Usa claimed they had to continue delivering to him.

BlueLight


BlueLight

BWX

Oh, so that's just the same as us doing it ourselves? Because he used our helicopters?

So if I run you over with my chevy, then chevy motor company is at just as much fault? Again, ridiculous.

Smoothdrive

Yeah, Sorry Blue but i also still fail to see the relevance in US selling Arms to Iraq in the past..(it's not ok, but it is not relevant in this topic)

France has been ignoring the UN resolutions and selling Arms to Iraq over the last 12 years..

Answer to that sounds a bit like "But they did it first"...not very mature, not very relevant, no excuse..

bluelight

Can you please show me something that shows what you are just saying.You claim France has been selling weapons tyhat were forbidden by the UN during the last 12 years....

I haedly think that is even possible given the extreme control wehich is held bvy both UN and USA.


If they had done so everybody would have known it...and.....during the mess between USA France and Germany i am pretty sure that...has they done so...USA would have used it against them in a very very loud way....

So i figure you have seen something written aboutr this that is a lie.


France has sold weapons to Iraq.At the same time as USA did.That is correct.Loads of them.Just as USA did.

After the sanctions.....hardly.


BlueLight

bluelight

To make it very simple...Yes you have part of the guilt.


if i sell a gun to a known lunatic and the lunatic kills someone with the gun i will be charged as partly responsable for the murder.

Why....because knowing you deal with a crazy person you do not give him a gun.


Usa knew when they sold arms to Saddam that he was a slaughter.It was known everywhere.Thatr is how he came to power.By slaughtering people.


You gave him guns during more than ten yearsd because he fought a war against Iran and that suited you.


So..yes you are partly responsable.


BlueLight

Smoothdrive

We are going round in circles here..Bluelight if you wish to defend a country that protects a butcher i wish you loads of luck..hopefully we will never see the consequences of what may happen thanks to countries like France..

bluelight

No please tell me about the weapons France has sold despite the rules laid out by the UN after the Kuwait war.

It is really important.If you dont i will see what you say as a lie posted on purpose to discredit France unrighteously.

Ontop of your post before you...........although you have no backing for your statement about them selling arms since 92 accuse them once again....of being the reason that Saddam i where he is today.


For which weird reason..is hard to understand......


Bluelight

Reuter

First of all as this is my first post I want to say hello to everybody.

I think the US is in no position to tell others how to behave because they are the one and only nation who did use mass destruction weapons in history.
Even Hitler was not foolish enough to use his nerve gas and biological weapons.

I too, and about 85 percent of my fellow countrymen, fully support the position of my(Belgian) gouvernment.
As NATO is a defensive organisation the US want to use to start a war, my country together with France and Germany, opposed to this.

Maybe we are "selfish" when we believe that war never did solve anything.
Every time a conflict ends, a new one appears on the horizon:WW I,WW II,Korea,Vietnam..........

Maybe we are "selfish" not to remember what the US did for us in WW II.
Well we remember but does the US remember what France did for them during their independance war.
Without France the US would not have existed at all....

I think Europe and the US are growing a part very fast and there is no power in the world to prevent this.
Old enemies are the best of friends now while old allies are going their own way

raid517

Maybe it wouldn't be, if the US didn't continue to sell arms and other militarily important materials to some 120 odd other notoriously repressive dictatorships around the world. What we are talking about is double standards - and that very much is relevant. (no matter if you feel it convenient to dismiss it or not).

At this current point in time, the U.S. sells weapons to over 150 countries worldwide.

Eighty percent of current recipients of U.S. weapons are unelected governments, and about 2/3 of them are in the State Department's public record of human rights abusers. http://www.cdi.org/adm/Transcripts/1209/index.htm and http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/ArmsTrade.html

So if you want to start arguing about who is the good guy and who is the bad guy here, your on very wobbly ground. My advice is, don't go there. It is simply not a sustainable position.

Having said that, no one is untainted in this respect, as most Western govenments are guilty of selling arms to repressive govenments - the only difference being that America is the single largest of all. Claiming moral superiority by anyone in this regard, is certainly not the way to go.

Q

HsuGotaQ