France -- Its Selfishness Knows No Bounds

raid517

Lol I doubt your seriously saying that a few well armed special forces troops would be afraid of a few lightly armed Arabs.!?!? Anyhoo, like I pointed out the facts just don't add up. Even your own security servises are unable to make sense of them.

Take your pick, either you believe what you read in some comic book, or you learn to look beyon the smoke at the reality.

The choice is yours.

Q

The_Neon_Cowboy

who said there afraid? its just stupid to throw away troops lives to try to make arrests or armed combatants. who would most likey blow thems self to try to kill more people....

"Take your pick, either you believe what you read in some comic book, or you learn to look beyon the smoke at the reality."-raid517 LOL That very funny considering the anti american/anti american goverment websites you people base you belives on is like baseing them on a comic book!!!

JavaFox

Yes, but perhaps when you are looking through your lists, Raid, you will notice some Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas members?

Remember that Saddam Hussein's regime supports these groups.

bluelight

I did not expect that nor you ar Neon Cowboy would answer since im telling the truth and you dont like it.

This was not out of the context until i gave you an example or more right ...several that Usa has acted as assholes in the same manner as France has and worse.


Then......it fell out of context for you.Simply because i showed you were wrong about you accusations.

What you say about Europe in this case isnt relevant due to your own actions and ...as i said...i knew you would not reply since it would have meant admitting tat leasst to some extent that you were wrong.

America is never wrong and always acts with reason.



Bluelight

merry

I believe Iran is more openly supportive of these organizations. They're in the Gulf anyway, so it will be an easy to repair mistake... just bomb Iran instead of Iraq. And blame it on a typo.

Smoothdrive

What's your problem Bluelight ? every thread you appear you start twisting and turning the subject onto something completely different and than you start accusing people of telling lies..no one here on the forum has acces to classified info (i assume) therefore none of us (and this includes you) really knows anything more than the propoganda that's being fed through the press on both sides.. We can discuss our opinions here based on what we've heard or read..as soon as you don't like what someone says you start accusing people of lies and start to dare them to answer when they simply ignore you. If you wish to talk about subjects not mentioned in the threads yet start your own thread about what it is that's bothering you.
If you feel people lie and don't answer you anymore start a thread in the flamezone to call them out..but please stop this "turning every topic into the same one" and mixing up quotes from one thread to another thread..different topic = different discussion simple as that.

If i may suggest a thread ...Here is a nice one for you.

CherryPopper

We'll it appears that Turkey has also deemed it more important, for now anyway, to send a message to the US that they are also unwilling to jump on their bandwagon, however extravagant the US bribes may be. Maybe the French and the Turkish parliment see a bigger issue here than money or oil; maybe they disagree with the entire fundamental principle behind the Bush Admisistration's so-called "Regime change" in Iraq.

I certainly do not deny that money is an onging issue for any government, and France is certainly no exception. However it is entirely hypocritical to accuse France of being motivated purely by monetary motives when the United States itself is probably the single biggest offener in that arena. Countless US policies, particulary those related to middle-eastern countries, have been and still are desgined with the single purpose of maintaing their hold on an economical & a continual supply of OIL. "If" France is guilty of allowing monetary motives to influence their judgement with respest to Iraq, then they are no different than the United States itself.

bluelight

Ooooppsss ...here we go another one that refuses to reply to posts when they are refering to truths they dont want to know about...

Well heres some propaganda.I figure the Al quaida has infiltrated the veteran organisations of the last gulf war too.





Propaganda

Now put you head back into the sand.


BlueLight

bluelight

Yeah if i see as blatant lie or an accusation against anyone that isnt morally relevant because the accusing parts nation is made from the same stuff as the accused...then i will say it.


The things i was talking about here has not been replied to nor by you or by anyone else.

Because you are wrong.

And you cant admit it.

It takes guts to admit when you are wrong.

Enough said.

BlueLight

bluelight

Further more....im not...out of topic.The name of this thread is....France..it selfishness has no limits or similar....

THAT ...is what i am adressing.....i am replying and pointing out that the morals shown by Usa is NOT on a higher level then the one shown by France.

Im backing it up with facts.


Thats where you turn silent.

Not following the thread.....riciculous....


BlueLight

raid517

Lol. No Sorry that doesn't quite work for me. I think in this case this is a case where the inclusions are more important than the omissions for me. If you do look at the inclusions on that list you will see that some of the nationalities included represent some of America's most important trading partners. Further the terrorist groups you mentioned are active only inside Israel, so unless you also have become utterly unable to tell the difference between what's happening in Israel and what's happening elsewhere in the world then I fear that everything I have said about the motivations of the current administration has probably come true. I'm afraid I'm finding it increasingly hard to tell the difference between the motivations of the government in Washington and the government in Tel-Aviv too. (And don't bang on about this being racist, I have some Jewish workmates who have said exactly the same thing).

The bottom line is still the fact of who's on the lists rather that who isn't, if there was any real links with international terror that list should be full of Iraqi's. If you still want to go on believing in International terror links in Iraq even despite knowing this, then fair enough. Hey I might even respect this administration a lot more than I do at the moment, since obviously their propaganda skills are a lot more advanced and effective than I could ever have dreamed possible.

What more evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda do we need, when average members of the population can be persuaded to dismiss official state department, defence department, foreign affairs department, CIA and FBI web sites (links to all of which I have provided in recent weeks) as anti-American pro Al quaida publicity? (Actually given America's past associations, this might not be so far from the truth). Sooo.. propaganda is being used to define the terms of what is and what isn't to be defined as propaganda....??? M'kay... Fair enough... Well what the hey - if it works for you why not?

Well anyway, maybe you want to get back 'on topic'. Lol well seeing the topic heading has a particularly erogenous message, I don't think it’s very constructive. I mean what's is its message? "We're better than the French, we're morally superior, the French are selfish SOB's!" Yeah, yeah, like I said, a lot of the same accusations could be levelled against you. There is no difference here and no validity to the premise of the argument. You might be able to sell it to a few less well informed/bigoted passers by on these threads, but for anyone who cares to look at these matters in any depth, they will quickly see them for the void ethically devoid arguments that they are. Wave your flag if you will, but threads like this shouldn't make you feel any more proud of either yourselves, or your country.

Q

JavaFox

There is no evidence that France is acting through anything but its own economic interests. This is why France didn't use its economic clout to disarm Iraq. TotalFinaElf stands to benefit greatly from a status quo in Iraq.

JavaFox

Is it your contention, then, my honorable friend, that the well-being of Israel, one of the US' staunchest allies, is irrelevant in the context of fighting against terrorism? When we say we want to fight against terrorism, is it only justified when we levy war against ONLY the groups that threaten us? Does a "war on terror" become illegitimate when we move to protect our friends?


Not really. Did you read what I originally posted? I didn't criticize France for many of the things that it is typically criticized for. I never said that it has a history or blocking US action in the Middle East. I didn't mention TotalFinaElf, who stands to bring the French people billions if Saddam stays in power. What I did say was this: France was in a good position to fix this situation using its economic muscle and leverage. THEY could have brought about a peaceful resolution, but they did not.

My question is: "why?"

The_Neon_Cowboy

this just in .... france, germany, other eruopean countires sold iraq bomb makeing materials and technoliges in the 1980s and continuted to secretly see them supplys and banned materials after ther start of inspections!!!

That suddom has stated that he wan't a bomb if he get the bomb (nuke) he will use it. sources interviews with Iraq defecor prevous head of nucler program...

also before the gulf war they were 6 mo. from haveing a bomb!!!!... but those faclitys were desrtroyed at set them back .... Also about chemical wepons in inderground bunkers rigged to expode/set off if disturbed.

What the means if youd have another hitler on your hands!!! if we hadn't attacked them in the gulf war.

raid517

Well you may be happy with the inability to tell the difference between the foreign policies of the Isreali govenment and the American govenment, but there are many who are not. It still doesn't establish any viable direct, or even indirect links between international terror and Saddam Husein (regardless of whether you think he should go or not - and I feel he probably should, it still points to such links as being erronerous). In any case the argument gets weaker by the second. Now if even you have a link with a terror organistation, who threatens a friend of America (only so long as its not the IRA, or other 'low intensity' combatants/terror groups that the US has supported over the years) then even the friends of these friends of terror groups could become a target too. Mmm... Well forgive me and most of the rest of the world for scratching their heads when you say things like this. I don't thgink its just me who finds chains of reasoning like this to be fairly bizzar? In any case it still doesn't explain all those Iraq's who are most certainly not on the US' list of those most wanted in connection with terrorism.

Ahh but you just did. I'm sure you feel better for it too. I Belive you did originally as well:

In denying you were referring to them you still managed to refer to them. Some less observant readers might miss this, though I doubt it. I'm not going to go back over the same old ground again, but remember who the biggest recipient of Iraq's oil for the last 12 years has been, America could equally have imposed an oil embargo, the US could have ended this any time in the last 30 years by refusing to support Iraq, yada, yada, etc, etc... And on and on it goes. The moral argument in this case is particularly void. So what if the French stand to gain whatever? Are you saying that no American oil company will benefit from Iraq's oil after the war is over? That's just (excuse my French) frikin silly. If there is no financial benefit in any of this for the US, then why was the President of OPEC on BBC TV last night complaining bitterly that he had been told by the Americans that they would increase oil production in Iraq massively after the war was over and that this might cause oil prices to drop as far as 6 dollars a barrel? At that rate this could fuel (literally) an economic revival in the US and help to more or less sink a few of the smaller Mid East economies in the process. So in a years time when your filling your gas tank and the price of oil is only a few Cs a gallon, don't be scratching your head wondering how it all happened. War for profit it seems is not such an unacceptable proposition to some in this US administration - but it is also what most other civilised nations find to be quite so disturbing. This may not be ALL about oil (even though the president of OPEC says he thinks it is) but I would be willing to place a bet with ANYONE right here right now, that in a year's time the price of oil in the US will have dropped through the floor. Just remember when your filling your gas tanks that that cheap oil will be mixed with a fair percentage of blood. I hope you enjoy it. But if anyone does want to take me up on my bet, do let me know. I'm sure we can work something out.

I wonder if I opened a thread called "America, her Selfishness Knows no Bounds!" how well that would go down? Not much better than this one I think.

Q

eurolu

Man, I'm tired of seeing all this politics bullshit.. I mean I have nothing against it I think it's very important.. but not at this forum guys. We dont need that bs drama here.. so all I'm asking is that we stop talking so much about it. I'm not trying to offend anyone.

Thank you.

raid517

Lol, well if your tierd of reading political debate, I suggest you stop reading the DH political debate threads. You might think I'm crazy. But its just a suggestion...

Q

bluelight

Continued secretly until when my man...when??? Until the Gulf war????? Or??? They stopped at the same time as Usa stopped supplying him or???

How was it??



BlueLight

JavaFox

I pose the question again, Raid, because you seem so content to ignore it.

Is it your contention, then, my honorable friend, that the well-being of Israel, one of the US' staunchest allies, is irrelevant in the context of fighting against terrorism? When we say we want to fight against terrorism, is it only justified when we levy war against ONLY the groups that threaten us? Does a "war on terror" become illegitimate when we move to protect our friends?

raid517

Yes I contend that it is irrelevant in the context of the 'fight against international terror', as this appears to take it to a new place, somewhere I'm not sure it rightly belongs, which is simply a war against Israel’s enemies. Isreal does a pretty decent job at killing these people herself. Its no longer even considered news any more when a member of Hamas gets killed on Israeli soil. If you want to explain the link to me on how this is connected to what happened on September the 11th and in what sense it relates to dealing with America's enemies, which after all is why this war is supposedly being fought, maybe then we will have made a good start.

If though all your saying is that this is about fighting Israel’s enemies, well (in addition to blowing the fist argument away) no I do not see this as a particularly good reason to enlist the support of a huge part of the American and UK military and spill the blood of our fighting men and women. (Especially since none of these fighting forces believe this is why they are fighting the war). All I am suggesting is if this is why you are now saying this war is being fought (and I assume you do want to stick with your new position) then this represents a huge shift in many of the fundamental premises that this war (at least the propaganda side of it ) was supposedly being fought. It is certainly not a premise that I or the majority of other interested parties would be very comfortable with. I don't like the idea of my country, or the whole of the Western world being dragged into Israel’s petty local squabbles with its Arab neighbours, or the cycle of terrorism, war, terrorism and more war that this entails. Sure give them every help you can to let them sort out their differences and come to a resolution with the Palestinians, but don't drag the whole of rest of the world into the fight too. I support resolution, not turning the world into a huge stage where Israel and the Arabs fight out their differences without any hope of an end in sight. You might like that idea, but don't expect anyone else to like it. Curious though is it not, that in your own way the explanation you have managed to cook up might under the pen of another author be described as a Jewish/American conspiracy to use the war on terror in order to destroy Israel’s enemies? But when you say it, it is somehow supposed to be acceptable?

Thankfully I don't fully believe this is the only reason this war is being fought (although it may well be a significant part of it). There are other issues at play here, most of which I think you will recall I have mentioned before. If I were to rate this in an order, I would say its about the economy first, America's strategic and economic interests in the Mid East (in an attempt to wrest control of oil and suppress the potential for terrorism among a large group of unstable regimes in the area) would come a close second, third would be America new found desire to help to suppress Israel’s enemies (your suggestion not mine), fourth would be a need for America to be seen at home as visibly acting against terrorism on the world stage (the distinction in 'being seen' to be acting' and actually doing anything useful in this regard, is I think particularly relevant), the fith would be G. W. Bush's need for revenge because his Dad is pissed off at not having been able to finish the job himself, the sixth would be a need to massage America's ego back to health due to it taking a serious dent after the September 11th attacks, by attacking a relatively weak third world country and last but almost certainly least will be giving the Iraqis an easier time of things without Saddam always trying to spoil their fun.

But what the hey, even if the last of these is the least motivating factor of all, if that is what happens as a side effect of all of this, then maybe it could be worthwhile. I just think the risks are potentially extremely high and the consequences of not doing it right (which doesn't mean just not dropping enough bombs) could be potentially disastrous.

You clearly want to make all of these other motivations appear as though they are misconceptions, but even if they were misconceptions (which they almost certainly are not) isn't the fact that I have them, or that a great many other people in the world have them too, not already a disaster? You might think not, but you see things in too narrow a focus. By not handling this right, you will simply breed more terrorists and this war that we appear to be engaged in now, may last for a thousand years or more. Peacenik or not, if you find that idea pleasant, then I fear that people who think this way may very possibly be insane.

I trust though that more sensible, more moderate forces will eventually prevail.

Q

JavaFox

Raid, you seem determined to stick to your opinions despite massive evidence to the contrary. And while your position is certainly verbose, it flies in the face of fact. If you honestly believe that among the reasons the US is going to war are "Bush's need for revenge" and "America's need for an ego massge" then you are not only disconnected from reality, you are anti-American to an extreme. There are four reasons we are going to war: enforcement, pre-emption, liberation, and to promote peace. To those ends, we will fight against a supporter of terrorism. We never said this was going to be a war strictly against al Qaeda, we said "war on terrorism." Only a supreme partisan could dare refrain from calling Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists.

raid517