Do you think this war is like David versus Goliath ?

Personnally, I say YES. I'd never believe GW-Bush when he pretend that IRAQ isa great threat for the USA.
Please, argulent your answer...

No,for 3 reasons. Fisrt of all David was the good guy and Goliath the bad guy. In this case GWB is the good guy and Saddam is the bad one, so, my answer is NO, it's different from David VS Goliath.

The sec reason, David won and Goliath losted. And if you think that your so-called David ( Saddam ) will win, you're dreaming.

Third reason David was jew and Saddam is NOT jew !

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
GWB is the good guy : Are you naif or hypocrit ?!

Goliath represented the brute force and David the intelligence,
America is a colossus, like goliath, the difference is that instead of usinh their fist and their muscles, America use his weapons and his money...
I dont complain about saddam, but it's really the impression that I got, watching this war starting, And I dont think that it will be WW3...
Everybody, International diplomacy, UN, EEC, RUSSIA, CHINA asked to rge USA and the president GW-BUSH to wait, That war was not necessary in IRAQ...
If president Bush wasn't a fool, he'd better attacked North Korea.
GBW is a looser, He has no succes while his mandatory, he even wasn't really elected !
He need to go with at least 1 success, And attacking IRAQ, a little country , a minuscule country compared with the USA is the only thing that he is able !
Et encore, he is able to loose it again...

David wins...

regarding Nans' last post....we fought him 12 years ago and he agreed to stop building WMD.. he didn't.. he slaughters his people, by way of dipping people into acid-filled vats, throwing people into machines made to shred plastic, and testing nerve gases on them.. if you honestly think he should remain in power, then i guess you're entitled to your opinion, but to me you'd also be highly immoral.. personally i want every human to have the same basic rights that i am privileged enough to enjoy.. you say war isn't necessary, however i would like to point out that not only did economic sanctions against Iraq not work, everyone claimed that America was evil for imposing them.. actually folks, Saddam is evil for not giving any of the oil money to his people.. it all goes into his pockets.. that's in addition to what i have stated above.. so we said ok then, he is not cooperating.. everyone agrees.. we introduce and get passed a UN reolution stating Saddam must disarm.. he appears to shrug it off.. we say, ok if you don't cooperate, we will attack you.. he slowly begins to cooperate.. when it becomes obvious that things aren't progressing as quickly as they could be, and intelligence states that Saddam is close to having the ability to launch an attack on America or Israel, we say alright let's give him a date that he has to fully disarm by.. France says no that is ridiculous, let him have as long as he deems fit to lead us about in these silly games.. so we set our own date.. he defies our insistence on him disarming, and we take the appropriate action.. how is this evil?? also, actually if my memory serves me correctly, GWB did in fact win our presidential election.. i think this was decided over 2 years ago.. if you don't like the electoral college system we have then more power to ya, but we use that system, and the result was GWB won

[Edited on 3-20-2003 by illguy]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
Personnally, I say YES. I'd never believe GW-Bush when he pretend that IRAQ isa great threat for the USA.

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



I respect your feelings and you have all the right to feel anyway you want BUT

He is a threat to the WORLD ! That is why we all have allies, would you let your best friend or family get screwed over when you could have prevented it? Would you want a friend or family member of yours to look out for you in times of need? War is War. It has been here since time began and when time ends. It is part of life and will never go away. How do you think nations have become nations? America is not the only superpower. England, China, and so on..........we look out for monsters like Saddam because of what Hitler did. Saddam kills his own people. Does Blair do tha? Does Bush do that?......Get real.

JOAN OF ARC had to engage all the time under a King.
She was given command of an army.........

Think about it......it's a big world, but it beocmes smaller when you feel alone..................

...But i think not and stand on my position. Of course USA will "win" this war : There are at least 300.000 Well-Trained soldier and It will cost you over 100 Milions $ !
Even for oil, I dont know if it's a well investement OR
Usa want to have a base in middle orient, to make some pressions on the other countries their UAE, Yemen, Kuwait and 2 real threat for USA : IRAN and JORDANIA...

USA should let the FORPRONU do whar they must do.

But, with the luck that president DOOBIE-BUSH have since he sleep (The only think he is able to do!) in the white House... ...This war is NOT win !

I'm not against war, but war is an extrem means that should be used only in extrems cases.

North Korea have ICBM, It represent a THREAT for USA.
But North-Korea has no oil and is not in strategic area. USA still have base in South-Korea...

Joan Of Arc didn't engage under a King :
The France has no king when Joan of Arc free REIMS from Britains Occupants and so the King CHARLES X could be couronned by the pope...

When Bush say that he want to free IRAQIS from a Tyran, He say that as a pretext. I wont defend saddam but every analyst politic know that in the non-industrialized countries, their must have a strong power. Political freedom and press comes after : First thing important actually for a country like IRAQ is devellopement. If IRAQIS had a multiple party system, with communists, Islamists, Liberals etc... The country will quickly turn into a civil war like in afganistan after USSR troops gone away.

[Edited on 20-3-2003 by Nans DESMICHELS]

Just remember what the USA and the British did for France on D-DAY.........gave France another chance to survive. You probably would not be there posting to this board if our Americans did not shed blood for your country..........

I'm not naive, but sometimes I'm a little bit hypocrit.BUT NOT TOO MUCH !!!

Anyway, don't shout against Bush ! When I see how ChIRAK is acting in Yvory Coast, and what do the french army there ( supporting the muslims rebellion against a democraticly elected President and a democraticly elected government), if I was you, I wouldnt' do my " little smart boy who knows everyhting on everything " !

Have a nice day !

Originally posted by U.S. Patriot
Just remember what the USA and the British did for France on D-DAY.........gave France another chance to survive.

They can't do that ( remembering ). That's too much embarrassing for them !

What a bunch of traitors & hypocrits !

Your story is so weak. All I hear is bigotry and racism. This isn't the Soviet Union buddy.

Originally posted by Abraham Virtue
Your story is so weak. All I hear is bigotry and racism. This isn't the Soviet Union buddy.

No S**T Sherlock......I did not in anyway say anything duragatory.......you hear what you want to hear.
Just saying US sacrificed at that moment.

Soviet Union?..........dude your post is weaker.

If I was I would have said leave Nans alone. You can't possibly be a person she would want waste her time with, nor would I so pardon me but..........

sorry.........

Nans, once again you are tryingtosay that America is the bad guy, while trying to paint a dispicable despot as the hapless little guy with God on his side.

You still seem to ignore the fact that the reason for this assault against this despot is because he and his chemical/biological weaponry, the weapons that can be handed off toterrorists, is what is being targeted. Money or oil is not what the aim is.

Removing this maniac, his weaponry and his financial and logistical suipport is the objective. The fact that the snubbing by Saddam of the U.N. is evidence that the U.N. is impotent is quite obvious, and a main reason that this operation had to occur is that your government, as well as a few other key other members of the U.N., showed spineless weakness and gave Saddam reason to believe this operation would not occur.

Your analogy of this operation with David and Goliath is appropriate. If you are looking for an analogy, compare your government's actions with that of Chamberlain's in the onset of WWII.

Originally posted by Abraham Virtue
Was I even talking to you???? No.

So, was you talking to me A.V ? Still in love, isn't it ?

Nans did a touch.

You see nans what you will never understand is that Sadam does pose a threat because of the terrorists groups that he is funding/aiding/abetting. And if you do not believe that then you are truly ignorant. And what the USA is doing is not being done to create GW a legacy or bully around a small country but to free a supressed people. Much the smae way that we saved France's ASS in WWII Sure they cant even hope that their military can do anything to ours, but their womd could if delievered correctly. Iraq is not the threat, Sadam is.

[Edited on 20-3-2003 by NinjaoftheNight]

You guys are insisting that Nans is taking the side of Saddam and that she is being critical of the US again, this is not true. Please take the time to read what she said again. If one reads slow enough they will see that all she said about America that is even remotely anti was the fact that Bush is lazy. She then went on to say that war isn't neccasary unless under extreme scenarios.

She thinks that North Korea is more of a threat and that Iraq, while being a threat as well, but not to the extent of North Korea. She then said that the reason we chose one threat over another is for the strategic resources, not for liberation of oppressed peoples.

Then she shows how the United States uses a policy to give the power back to the struggling nation without rebuilding it first. She thinks that our plan for Iraq won't work because we don't plan to occupy the country in order to stablilize it and bring it back on it's feet. Not doing so leaves that responsibility to the current governments. She says those governments wont work because the country will still be struggling and the civil warfare we saw in Afghanistan in the 90's could be the same in Iraq as a result of that. She never said that she disagreed with anything other than that simple policy, which even then wasn't that objectionable on her part. I personally think she was quite passive on this issue and could have went much further with the issue. She didn't because she isn't a crusading Anti-American bigot. She is just Anti-Bush. Who isn't???

Please stop the Crusades. We can live tohether in peace right??? I can, can you???

Yes, I'd say so

Third reason David was jew and Saddam is NOT jew !

King David wasn't a Jew, he was a Hebrew Israelite, there's a difference, learn it.

America= Goliath
Iraq= David

David wins...

What are you, her husband?

She came out swinging against the U.S. so its only natural that whenever she creates anything to this nature, people are going to assume she is attempting to drive a knife into the gut.

Our policy is to leave a nation without rebuilding? Wow, she (and you, apparently) slept for the last few decades.