France -- Its Selfishness Knows No Bounds

JavaFox

Nevermind that France has been blocking American and British war efforts, and nevermind that the French thought it more important to send a message than to defend its friend and ally, Turkey. Nevermind that France has bullied Eastern European nations that support the US, basically stating that they should have kept quiet. And nevermind that the French, with its oil company (TotalFinaElf) poised to benefit intensely from extensive Iraqi oil contracts, have decided to put their economic interests at #1 on their list of priorities. Nevermind that -- that's not what this thread is about.

But France, in its infinite disregard for the peace and safety of the world, not only opposes war, but would have been perfectly content to do absolutely nothing about the Iraq situation. Consider this. France, Iraq's largest import partner, could have set the world's agenda. They could have told Iraq to disarm --pure and simple-- and banded with Austral0ia (Iraq's number two import partner) to threaten an economic embargo. Would Saddam not have to comply then, with 44% of their imports cut off? France could have done this. They could have been the ones leading this fight against the proliferation of WMD. Instead they chose to do nothing. Instead they chose to simply disagree with the US.

France could have been the hero here. Yet instead they did nothing.

CherryPopper

actually I'm glad to see France and other european countries standing up to Bush and his Administration..... here here i say....the world needs a balance of power, not one nation that thinks it can do whatever the hell they want to

bluelight

I still havent heard your opinion on that Usa let Saddam fight their war against Iran.Nothing about how they armed him.Nothing..about how they kept doing so after he killed 5000 kurds with nervegas using American helicopters...Nothing..about the massdestruction arms technology they made available to him and that he also used against Iran...Nothing..about that your current whiner and insult expert himself Donald Rumsfeld was one of the major persons administrating this......Nothing....

Not one single word....Instead the whining about Germany and France continues endlessly...endlessly...

Why?

I really have a problem understanding why?

Do you have more of a moral right to do these things than France?

Would you even have the nerve to claim that you are better than anyone else in these matters?


Finally...If the UN sets up a program with Iraq in order to supply the people with food medication etc etc...and they are allowed to sell oil for that ..and nothing else.....'

Is it then relevant to individually for each country to make a complete embargo?!


I figure the idea of getting rid of Saddam is and was NOT to starve his population to death was it??

So..if France and Australia did...buy oil..according to the "Oil for food program" they did exactly the right thing.

Or are you claiming they broke internatinal agreéments and gave him arms in place of money!!??


Before the "Food for oil" program was launched the mortality among children was skyhigh in Iraq.At first Saddam refused to go along with it...but..sheer reality forced him to do so....because people(especially children) were actually dying in hordes due to shortage of medication and food.

After the program was launched and had been on a while tjhese things changed for the better.

What you are saying is...That despite the decisaions in the UN everyone should refude byuing Irqì oil and thus let people die in great numbers.....

For the benefit of what??!!

You probably refused to buy oil according to the Oil for food program.....so much better then that others didnt.


BlueLight







Bluelight

raid517

Well what do you do about the French? At the end of the day though everyone is on very wobbly ground if they start shouting about occupying the moral high ground. The French can be a pain in the butt, the British have known this for the last 300 years or more. You just have to learn the knack of dealing with them. When you understand how to make the French feel they have won a significant concession (when usually they haven't) very often they will only be too happy to play ball. The French mind works in a very peculiar way, when you understand their various subtleties and motivations, doing business with them isn't so hard.

Q

JavaFox

CherryPopper, Bluelight, you're missing my point and going off on tangents. If you actually read my post, you'd see that it wasn't a condemnation of the French for being anti-Bush, anti-war, or anti-American. My point was this: WMD are dangerous. Saddam shouldn't have WMD. Nobody disagrees with this. What I was saying is merely that France had the political and economic clout to make disarmament happen in a peaceful manner, but chose not to. They decided that instead of being leaders, they would do nothing until the US took the initiative. Whether or not the US is right isn't the issue here, and it wasn't the point. The point was that the French were in a unique position to lead the disarmament campaign and didn't.

raid517

Mmm, that kind of depends if anyone but you JF has thought that way. Maybe if someone had explained this to the French, it would have given this whole thing the 'spin' it needed to bring them on board. The French acting as world leaders to free the world of a serious threat? I think a lot of French politicians might have liked that. Unfortunately they decided on another tactic to try to exert world influence, which was to take a stand against a world power that it perceived as acting against French interests. Since you say this isn't a moral issue (and if you want to start arguing from a moral standpoint, I can dig up some very stinky stuff that will make such arguments look empty) then its not much more than a toss up over which position is likely to gain the French the greatest advantage. And in that regard I can agree, that in this instance the French do appear to have played a loosing game.

Q

CherryPopper

Iraq is currently one of the Least armed nations of the middle east..., it is in reality pretty much a toothless dictatorship; Iran, North Korea and a slew of other nations posess far more menacing weapons and appear just as, or even more willing to use them as Iraq has done in the past. It is almost a joke to use the argument of ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction as a pretence for invading Iraq. The true motive of the bush administration is becoming increasingly clear; "Regime change". Bush believes he has the right to forcibly remove the leadership of another country and replace it with one better suited to his liking. He is clearly trying to settle an old score.

Bush is a small man with a small mind focused exclusively on finishing what he thinks his father did not, regardles of the consequences to the rest of the world.

bluelight

As opposed to Usa?.............................................. ....................................



BlueLight

bluelight

Is it a moral issue or not to see to it that civialins do not die from lack of ordinary medication water and food?

BlueLight

JavaFox

Obfuscations abound.

raid517

QYeah yeah, yada yada... Both the French and the Americans claim to be doing things from a moral standpoint. The truth is that I doubt either perspective is wholly accurate or wholly admirable. Remember Madelin Albright's 1996 interview with 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl (5/12/96)?

And this is supposed to be the soft fuzzy wuzzy weak livered liberals who were talking. If the hardball conservatives get in on the game, who knows what their motivations are or where they might take them?

The bottom line is that all politicians suck - and they treat the public like the poor ignorant saps that a lot of them seem to be.

I wouldn't trust the French govenment any more than I would consider sleeping with a viper a particularly 'safe' practice. When it comes to politicians and what they deem to be their 'national interests' (which too often are almost indistinguishable from their own interests) the French and the Americans are just as bad as each other (or most others for that matter).

Morality pah! People may be moral, poloticians are not.

CherryPopper

comon there Java... let's at least see an attempt at a responce to arguments you are unwilling (or unable) to address...

The_Neon_Cowboy

you guys ERRRR (flamewarzone) .... You guy go and load you mouths given by forengn websites etc... may that that states may times oh don't belive every thing I say couse I might be lieing ... try getting you iformation from credable sources! ex.... other than al-quada.com

The_Neon_Cowboy

They say were worried about our oil? they ( France and other european ) are worried about their oil thats all.

The_Neon_Cowboy

yea my experiance gota learn how to deal with selfish, vien, snobby, pricks (the french ...my opinon basted on contact with french that have moved here not attacking the genral french population). " You just have to learn the knack of dealing with them. When you understand how to make the French feel they have won a significant concession " - Like what leadership of the wourld? or at least a giant mirror so they can look at them selfs all day?

raid517

Lol... Well you know what they say, vanity is often in the eye of the beholder. The only question is, who's beholding to who right now? From what I can see its pretty damn hard to tell.

Q

bluelight

Well what i am saying is facts.That is why Java fox will not answer me.He knows that what im saying is true so he steps out.
You take a slightly differnt position by first explaining that you would like to adress me as you would in the flame zone (with insults) and then by denying any possibility of truth in what im saying.How very original.
You dont know shit about is since your media do NOT..report about...YOUR ...faults...But ..



So....i suggest you make a search.....try nervegas usa helicopters Rumsfeld Iraq weaponexport etc etc etc.....


What you will come up with is a large number of articles in both American and other press etc etc..







Usa supported Iraq with guns from the fall of the Shah of Iran up until the Kuwait war.

They supported Iraq with knowledge and possibly technology of chemical and biologocal arms.

They continued delivering even after Iraq had killed 5000 kurds with Nervegas and didnt stop until tbne outbreak of the Kuwait war.


Usa supported Bin Ladin in Afghnistan.They didnt do shit when the Talibans slaughter ther UN provisory government that was in place after the Russians were gone.




Now Neon Cowboy i suggest you go hide somewhere from the once you have read this again and also that you continue throwing sludge at other nations for crimes that you yourself have comitted to an even higher degree than any other nation.


Do so and confirm my belief that...some...Amnericans....as ususally...nmever acts other than in their own interests ..or.....that the Anmerican propaganda machime works so infernally good that some of you are...actually brainwashed.


BlueLight

bluelight

You know something....Your ignorance and ways much resembles something that is very similar to what normally is called racsism.

Very similar.

Can you also make a clear description as to what Americans are like?


Bluelight

bluelight

Here´s a couple og links with "lies" planted by terrorists to discredit you nation.




http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...15&ItemID=2177

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special...rns090502.html

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/l...rful/iraq2.php


BlueLight

FuNsTeR

so basically youy want the French to do as you want of them ... if they don't ... your gonna pack your toys away?? ... sounds very childish IMO ... the French can do as they please as it is [COLOR=red]THEIR CHOICE[/COLOR] to veto a new resolution ... [COLOR=red]NOT AMERICA'S[/COLOR] .... not every country has a spineless , gutless leader like Tory Blair in charge ... his time is fast running out ... no second resolution and he is out if he goes to war ... [COLOR=red]FACT[/COLOR]

JavaFox

Thanks for not reading the post, Funster. I said that the French missed an opprotunity to SET THE AGENDA. If they actually cared about disarmament, they could have said "Let's do this" and the USA would have to follow them! I didn't say "the French are being difficult, that's annoying" and you'd know that if you read my post. That's not what this thread is about. What I said was that the French were in a unique position to bring this conflict to a close WITHOUT WAR. But they didn't.

JavaFox

Bluelight, I'm mostly ignoring your claims because they are irrelevant in the context of this debate. If you are really curious --remember, it's not honest intellectually to ask a question when you don't want to hear the answer-- then start another thread, and I will respond in there.

The_Neon_Cowboy

ahh one agin websites posted with all listing /(focus on) all supossade bad things the US goverment has done ... and only that (like 95%).. that constitues an anti-american/anti-goverment website..... again you find the same info on say ...an al-quida wesite.....