When it came down to the 2nd UN resolution it was clear that the US would attack anyway. France, Germany still had a chance to say "yeah, ok then, we'll help" but decided not to, and blocked the 2nd resolution very effectively (taking the swing votes with them).

If this was about Iraqi oil contracts this makes no sense.

Interesting thought that it might be about getting Iraq back onto the dollar with their oil... that certainly would be a lose,lose situation for Europe, I guess we'll have to see what happens to the currencies.

But I don't think that issue would be a problem for Russia, Syria, the whole of the Middle East, China, or any of the other countries that opposed this war... i.e. it's still perfectly plausible that Chirac was just against this war because he doesn't want to see a rampant American state taking the fight to any country it doesn't like all over the world. This preventative war doctrine is a very dangerous principle...

Don in grade school I learned about the Politcal Elite. to be specific, it was a catholic grade school whom because of its special status (affilaitated with a cathedral). Had access (in the 70s) to a fax machine connected to the Vatican (this I swear in all I believe in).

I find it hard to believe you still think that oil is an issue when the US actually exports only 10 to 25% of its oil.

The real problem with the US in respect to oil is in regards to its ties with Europe and Japan. Lets get something strait Dom, if tomorrow the United Sates of America were to completely cut off Europe (with exception of England AND COALITION FORCES) would you get the message

I assure you that can be worked out

Keep this in mind Dom Bush does not have to answer for Regan and neither does a Colon (accent on the last
O).

[Edited on 12-4-2003 by Toltec]

I think Chirac's reasn were simply that he didn't want ware. However my take is that while everyone wants piece, some aren't willing to pay the price for it or aknowledge that hands must get dirty to get it.

I think the US gov stance was simply that Saddam does need to go if for no other reason than his peoples sake, he won't go without force, and France, Germany, Russia will never approve of force. Thus nothing would get done through the UN.

Only people who are mind controlled would even argue over this subject. France isn't the only one, it's THE WHOLE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by kegs
Thomas, the thing about Kyoto that pissed off the world was that it was a treaty designed to help the planet as a whole, not national interests. It took a long time to get something as substantial as that on the table, and without the U.S involved it was worthless as it would have little or no effect on the worldwide CO2 emissions without all the major emitters on board. The U.S was seen, as you said, to be protecting it's own national interests over the interests of the future of the planet. Which is one of the things that led to growing annoyance at the perceived arrogance of the U.S, not least in Europe.

Kegs, sorry I haven't responded sooner and haven't read all this thread; my work schedule has gone topsy-turvy and I have less computer time.

The idea that Kyoto puts the future of the planet first is a questionable idea, and it is one I do not subscribe to. Between junk science and international politics, I am convinced that it is bad for my country and not nearly as good for the rest of the world as you might assume. One point or another by itself I might be able to tolerate, but together they make a non-negotiable barrier.

At the end of the day at work, Isweep up around my work area. Whatever I sweep up off the floor must go into the Haz-Mat compactor, even if it is just string tie or a rivet stem because it might have residue of Alodine, MEK or some other chemical. The storm water from our plant drains into a beaver pond down the road, and that water is tested to be some of the cleanest water around. I dare say we are doing a great job as a country and I have no desire of other countries that don't necessarily match our environment-friendly to production ratio telling us what we have to do.

I'm more concerned with the chlorine and flouride levels in my water than anything else and I doubt Kyoto was concerned about that.

[Edited on 12-4-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

It seems that Russia is willing to forgive Iraq of it's debts, but France is reluctant (not saying no, but saying they are unsure if they are willing to do that).

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I'm more concerned with the chlorine and flouride levels in my water than anything else and I doubt Kyoto was concerned about that.

What about your concerns of how much waste expels your SUVs?

I wouldn't worry about SUV's. This global warming thing is bogus.

Originally posted by astrocreep
I wouldn't worry about SUV's. This global warming thing is bogus.

Outrageously false. Year after year, it's raining less here. And before you start to rant, we are on an Island, almost no industry here. Guess from what country we receive the winds? You can bet on it, it's USA. We receive the remains of your tempests.

Well, as this is off topic, I don't want to get started on the global warming scam. I'm sure its been hot there, wherever that is and if global warming is the answer then fine. All I'm saying is that there was a time in the past when the earth's temp was globally 10 degrees warmer than it is now and there were no SUVs then. Its called Deglaciation and thank God we are in it rather than the opposite huh? It just takes a larger view of what is going on globally. Glaciers do melt in locals but grow in other locals. Not so long ago there were no glaciers on earth and no so far in the future there may not ba any left either. We are but tiny parts of what goes on both above and below the earth's surface. Reguardless of what we do or whom we blame these things on, they will happen. Always have and always will. As for CO2 levels, they fluctuate but only make up about 4% of the atmosphere but they aren't evil as you may think. Actually, they are used by plankton and plant life on earth to sustain life.

The truth is that while france was saaying no to iraq the muslims ran there and france kicked the crap out of more al quaeda than anyone. that is if there really is a al quaeda.

Can you name,among the numerous nations equipped with the nuclear weapons, the only one nation that has been using the nuclear weapon against civilian targets (twice)?dulcebase

Originally posted by 5POF

3) Last time my Grandma was there, they still were using 3sided toilets on the side walks which consisted of 3 curtains facing the road and two other ways, the way facing the side walk was open and you would crap or piss in a hole in the ground.

Your grandma? Seriously? This was the nail in the coffin for your argument IMHO. It is one one the stupidest thing I have read in a very very long time. In fact I can say that it is my belief that we are all now LESS intelligent for having been exposed to this drivel.

I have been in France in the last few years and I saw nothing of the sort. I did see men on scooters with large vacuums attached to them driving around and vacuuming up dog poo off the side walks, but no curtained toilets.

On a more serious note I think that the main reason for French - American tensions is cultural misunderstanding. The French are very direct and feel that sugar coating anything is offensive and disrespectful. whereas in the U/SA there is a tendency towards being overly polite and sensitive. At least this is my opinion after years married to a French woman.