Calling "french fries" "american fries" seems ironic to me!!!

Toltec - The missiles and the "chemical weapons drones"

Well, the missiles only go 150km with a warhead on them. The inspectors found test data (or did they carry out the test themselves? it escapes me right now) which showed that the missile could exceed that range without a warhead.

Read that again : without a warhead.

I'd have thought the Iraqi regime could easily have overlooked that. And once Blix requested that they were destroyed, destruction began. Sluggishly perhaps, but I was personally surprised to see any destroyed with the US threatening immediate attacks regardless of Iraqi actions.

As for the chemical weapons drone... it was a big model aircraft. Have you seen pictures of it? What a ridiculous piece of "evidence" to bring up. It was mentioned in Blix's report, but not mentioned in his presentation to the UN. With good reason! It simply was not the smoking gun, and Powell making an issue of it just made him look silly in my eyes. Although no doubt it went down well in the US media...

Yes...let's all support the "Nazi wannabes" because they don't have the weapons to do anything but kill their own minorities.

Can you say, "Foolish".

PS. I don't think brining up Vichy is below the belt, after all it was the French who decided, after being in the safety of Britain, to take all that equipment and munitions BACK to Nazi held territory.

The French must face up, and realize they "became" Nazis, and maybe then they'll realize that they are still acting like them.

Hell if it were up to the French, there'd be a French friendly Palestine where Israel is.

If it were up to the French we wouldn't have taken out milosovich.

Holding up teh world opinion? Bull#!!!

Originally posted by 5POF
ilovepizza.

While Parisians praised us for "liberating paris" the average French country folk spat on us.

Proof? (I don't mean one, I mean 'surveys', cause you were talking about 'the average French folk')

While they so easily and gladly bent over and took it in the Butt by the Nazis, we were beating off that "darkness".

Gladly? Maybe the Vichy region but it should be argued that region colabored only to survive. Do you have proof of what you are saying?

The French had no seeming problem with handing over their Jews, can't blame them, they hate the Jews to this day.

Proof?

My Avatar says it all.

Yeah? It means nothing to me. It's so blury.

The Fact that Germany and France are now close buddies, isn't because of some magical "European Union", it's because we seperated two lovers when we won.

Neither actual France nor actual Germany have nothing to do with 1945 France and Germany. Do you have proof of what you are saying?

Dom....

My impression is that exacting or strict, are much more appropriate terms, which relate to the US response in respect to deviation from the Iraqi report. Simply stated it was made apparent that the USA risked divulging inbeded sources in Iraq if more specific evidence was presented. The US was absolutely certain that Saddam Hussein had disallowed weaponry. As a reuslt the adherence to the letter of the law (so to speak) was the result of that certainty and the resolve to deal with the problem.

Hans Blix was obligated to report any deviation despite his personal opinion as to the value of that deviation. I have heard of the description you mentioned (in respect to the drone) but as it was not discussed by the UN in open forum. And the specifications presented as was appropriate I can
and do question the source of the image as credible.

To be certain what I do know is that the drone was designed to carry cluster bombs filled with chemical weapons. As a reuslt while as you say it was not pretty it seems the craft had the necessary capacity to do its job. Furthermore in respect to the missiles as I understand it Saddam Hussein was disallowed a guidance system in those weapons. This is what made the rocket go beyond the prescribed range.

Would be more than happy to exchange links at request as to the validity of any comments presented above, to be honest though these issues have been discussed at length within this forum.

5POF.....


I merely presented information in respect to potential responses as to why it would have been in the best interest of all concerned if France had stayed out of this war. Did you read the link?? It specifically stated that at about the same time France began to back off supporting the conflict with the Iraqi regime. Israel presented to the Arab World in a documentary that clearly and with very little doubt, presented evidence that the French government gave Israel the ability to make 100 Nuclear weapons!!

Now I admit that if a comprehensive review of my comments on this forum. With regard to the French were to be made I do more than just sound upset by their governments decision. Also do admit that in respect to the German government I have not been paying them a compliments either. I in all honesty an aspect of my purpose was to illicit a response from those who felt those countries had a point. and in that respect argues with them intelligently as to how they felt about the situation.

Something was up about this issue which went further than money or votes, it did not make sense to me that either country would do this. Someone came on to this Forum who reminded me that in Germany historians today. Do not deny the fact that Genocide was committed against the Jews (and other peoples).

I did some surfing and besides already knowing the extent of support Germany has given to Israel, I found the above site. Here is a potential response, if France or for that matter Germany had supported militarily the coalition forces in any way (prior to the present). The war with Iraq could have gone much worst. To be honest the argument is valid and despite your apparent inappropriate behavior/response very reasonable.

You have no idea what you are talking about and as far as Nazi wannabes you seem to fit that frame very well.

Mako.

First, I have the first hand accounts from the people I know who went in and Liberated France. The country folk were bitter, and angry that the Americans and Britts were coming in there and tearing up their fields and farms.

As for Vichy France.

No it has nothing to do with collaberation, it has to do with shared ideals.

First I'd like to say you are Spanish right?

When Napoleon invaded Spain did you just bend over and take it in the rear? No, you invented the term "guerrilla war" and pushed France out of your country.

What Vichy france did, is its leader basically said to the French people..."we are now allies with Germany, anyone who says otherwise is a traitor."

The support for this is the proof by the fact that many French troops and most of their Fleet, even though they were in the safety of England and her ports.

Decided one day to up and sail back to france, where they promptly joined the Nazi directed Vichy Government. And of course their equipment and material was promptly thrown back at england, but of course, not as politely as they when they had returned to France.

The sources for these are books Mako, sorry, you're just gonna have to find several items.

Any WW2 Atlas book, mines particularly good I think, by Harper Collins, "Atlas of the Second World War".

Other sources are random history books, there are plenty to read from. Or to choose from rather.

Heck I've not bothered to look at my encyclopedias but I'm sure they include information about Vichy france and their TRUE loyalties as well.

Then you will find Franco was loyal... to none. Spain was neutral during WW2 only to not make of it a battleplace again (Spanish Civil War 1936-1939). Franco oficially was sympathetic to Hitler's regime, and provided the Canary Islands as a safe base for the U-bootes to refuel. At the same time, Franco's regime supported the Allies.

For Vichy it was an easy decision: France loose to Germany, so better be in their side to not loose even more. The safer side was the Nazi side, as most of Europe was in their hands.

But that don't make them supporters of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was discovered *after* the war. Even most of the German population was unaware of the extermination campaign.

[Edited on 2003-4-8 by MakodFilu]

No, Vichy France partook in helping to ship jews off knowingly to Nazi Death Camps.

France actively fought against the Allies and supported the Axis during WW2.

Aside from a small Free French force led by DuGalle, and comprised of "Non-French" (You know how the French are, if you aren't born in France, AND raised there, you're not French). The bulk of France however actively fought for and supported the Axis powers.

Yeah...that's a sharp contrast to your small contribution of a refuling base, while still making money off the Allies.

Spain was just profitizing.

The French were in it all the way. They wanted to win, wouldn't surprise me if after a few more years they too would have become more hardened with Nazism.

Afterall it took Germany about 10 years.

I just find it disgusting how the French supported the Axis so valiantly.

Again: almost no one knew about the Holocaust.

*Almost*

Surely high political ranks knew. But most of the world didn't. Not even the Vermacht, nor the Luftwaffe, nor the U-boote sailors. Almost no one.

LoL, almost all of the Germans knew that they were there.

The fact you buy into the "We never knew" crap is laughable, and shows that you aren't really paying any attention.

The Higher french KNEW about the Death Camps, the French public KNEW that the Jews were being Deported.

The Germans KNEW about the Death Camps, they KNEW about Hitler's "Final Solution" for Hitler said more times than one.

"What the Jews don't know, is that they have caused this war to destroy us, but we will kill them all even if we still lose, it is the Aryan's job to rid the world of this race."

yeah...didn't know my @ss, even Germans will tell you they knew, like you know your wife is messing around, you don't see it in front of you, but it's there.

They all knew the Jews were being deported and/ or used in forced-work camps.

But *again* almost no one knew they were being executed. That is what I'm saying. It's funny you are doubting that. No civilian, being German, French, USA or whatever, would have know of Death Camps and allow that attrocity. After the war, most of the German civilians were confused. Almost no one could tell you why they supported Hitler into power. Brainwash propaganda is just that good. And surely, almost no one knew about the Jews being exterminated.

[Edited on 2003-4-8 by MakodFilu]

People follow the leaders of their country most of the time. That is what the french were doing during ww2. Since germany took over france, you either were on the side of the germans or killed.

If you were in the same situation do you think that you would say no to german soldiers and get killed a minute later.

Toltec - The Drone

www.news.com.au...

""There is no possibility that the design shown on 12 March has the capability to fly anywhere near 500 kilometres," drones expert Ken Munson said on Jane's website (jdw.janes.com...)."

ming.tv...

pictures + "It is essentially a large model airplane, which is controlled by somebody on the ground who has it within visual range. Meaning, it wouldn't be able to move more than a couple of kilometers away. "

www.boston.com...

"Perched on a sawhorse at a military research base 20 miles north of Baghdad, the drone looked more like a large school science project than a vehicle capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons. "

+ on missiles

same link

"workers in the base destroyed three more Al Samoud 2 missiles and their components, which are banned by the United Nations because they can fly farther than allowed. "

www.news.com.au...

"Negroponte said the experts found that the al-Samoud "definitely has a capacity that exceeds the range of 150 kilometres.""

So yes toltec, show me the links that back up what you stated...

"Hans Blix was obligated to report any deviation despite his personal opinion as to the value of that deviation. " implies Blix didn't put the drone in his report... he did. He just didn't mention it in his talk to the UN, because basically, he didn't have enough information to definitively say anything at the time.

"what I do know is that the drone was designed to carry cluster bombs filled with chemical weapons." LINK please

"Furthermore in respect to the missiles as I understand it Saddam Hussein was disallowed a guidance system in those weapons. This is what made the rocket go beyond the prescribed range. " LINK please. My knowledge of rockets says that the range is dependent on the amount/type of fuel, engine design and the weight of the rocket, not the guidance system.

[Edited on 8-4-2003 by dom]

I'm all for poking fun...but this has gone beyond tired...

I think renaming French Fries is going a bit far. France and the U.S. are two different countries with two different agendas on Iraq. I don't think Americans can be made by force to purchase French products. thats my way of showing my distain and as long as I'm on this side of the pond, by cracky its my decision to make. France's interests in keeping Saddam in there was a good one for the good of their country. they stood to gain a lot from it. The U.S. took action because we aren't used to being under the gun in our own land and frankly we don't like it. So, I say if the Frech want to boycott the U.S. for blowing their deals, more power to them. If Americans want to boycott for lack of support, its fine with me. But we have to understand that both sides had interests here, legitimate interests.

Do you really think France wants to keep Saddam in power? I simply can't believe that people believe this...

At worst this is a case of the French deliberately stopping these attacks to try and prevent a US hegemony over the entire world. There obviously is an element of that, but I think there's also a lack of WMD/terrorism links which means that the French weren't convinced that immediate military action was necessary.

That's a perfectly valid viewpoint to hold.

Why then, do we get fed the line that France is helping out Saddam? Simple. Small-minded media organisations helping the US/UK governments to use the French as the "failure of diplomacy" scapegoat...

Dom, they have a couple oil deals with him. They think that maybe now, the new government won't honor. But hereing what Bush had to say about France, I don't think they will be left out in the cold. Maybe a lot of Americans want France to suffer but he has a broader view and maybe I don't agree with him on it but he's not going to keep France from getting involved in the new Iraq. i think he knows its not his country to control and I think its more important to keep allies like France than to let a disagreement thats now irelevant hurt relations beyond this. I know a lot of the world hates the U.S. and I know that a lot of the U.S. hates a lot of the world but I think our leadership knows that we as the human race have to move above all this. What is being done, needed done and it was nasty and there will be problems from it. No one here thinks things are just going to be peachy over there. When a person like Hussein comes into power it costs us all much like Hitler did. The whole world paid dearly to stop him. In our next election, I feel Bush will be gone and we'll get back to trying to disarm our own citezens again to turn more over to government control. Our liberties may be envied but trust me, we are losing them all the time.

Yep, well I have to say that I think you're exactly right about how the world needs to move forwards. Cooperation and working as a whole. Indeed, we've got to get the UN involved with post-war Iraq if there's every going to be a hope of salvaging international laws.

I do think though, that the US went to war too early, and have been dishonest in their reasoning for war. It makes me sad that the US (and the UK) should be bastions of freedom and democracy, and instead we're acting like big bullies. There has to be an extremely good reason to declare war on a country (a clear and present threat etc.), and I don't think that the threat was clear here, or necessarily present. *sighs*

Dom, well while I agree that the UN needs to be involved to be relevant again, I don't think it was too soon. We've been dealing with this guy for 12 freaking years already and he's never shown anything other than distain and reluctance to adhere to over a dozen different resolutions. If you will give me that much in my argument, I can make the point that I think every avenue was exhaused. if you still intend to put forth the view that the whole thing has only lasted less than a year then I can't. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember it all or maybe you see these as different events but this guy has been a thorn in the side of the whole world, his people included for more than long enough. I actually disagreed with the amount of pandering that pres Bush did with the UN. I thought he gave too much control to them. i mean, you are trying to make a point of the need to remove an oppressive dictators to a room full of oppressive dictators for crying out load. Not all of them but a lot of them fear that if Iraqis have freedom, they're country will want it. Its human nature to desire freedom and it threatens 90 percent of the guys in the UN we were trying to convince! There should be either a true United Nations or we should just all go our separate ways.

This is a true United Nations. It contains all nations, regardless of government type, regardless of how evil the regime is. However, France and Russia are both democracies, and would both have vetoed a second UN resolution. So the power was being given to other democratic countries who have often worked with the US in the past, not some third world dictatorship.

Honestly, the 12 year thing... yes, Saddam did mess the inspectors around for years, but by the time they left they'd destroyed and verified the destruction of a very large proportion of Iraq's WMD's. And also destroyed all of their major infrastructure involved in nuclear/chem/bio development. They withdrew after they broke the gentlemens agreement over only sending 4 inspectors into sensitive targets (The Ba'ath party headquarters), and the Iraqi's only allowed 6 of them to enter. The inspectors went to create a crisis encouraged by the US, out of fear that the sanctions might have to be lifted soon. Read Scott Ritter's ideas on the matter for verification. (the head inspector)

The new inspection regime was started, fair enough, but it was not complete. After 12 years, would it really have hurt to have spent another 2 months allowing Blix to complete his mission? 2 months more after 144 months is too much to ask?

Honestly, if at that point Blix had said "yep, they're lying, they're hiding stuff", then I'd be fully behind the attack. But pre-empting Blix, and taking a route away from the UN was a poor decision. Particularly as it undermines international law.