We can learn from the French.

crossfire:

So it's clear then

France wanted to sell things to Saddam

Yes.

The report of the weapons survey group spoke of widespread UN sanctions busting by France

Link?

In order to pursue its financial interests it opposed the removal of Saddam.

Incorrect. It opposed the removal of Saddam WITHOUT UN APPROVAL.... It was willing to join if the inspectors were given more time.

These are clear truths. You interpret them as a sign that France had a moral opposition to the war.

No, I interpret them as France had VARIOUS different oppositions to the war. One was moral, one was financial, and one was probably because France realized what a total complete mess it would be without more support.

I interpret it that France had a financial reason for doing what it did.

And I fail to see any "morality" in defending Saddam. You claim that the USA was hysterical about Saddam. I think the Kurds he gassed were more hysterical.

Okay, this happened 20+ years ago, and the USA never brought it up before until it needed a reason to invade. So let's drop the whole gassing incident. Too little too late.

Your'e morality is entirely dubious - sick in fact. The USA and its true allies have more morality in their dandruff than France has in its body politic.

Blabbity-blah. You have no idea about my morality, so save your insults. And as for your claim to US superior MORALITY, you might get agreement to that if you only ask Americans, but ask the rest of the world and they'll double over with laughter.


My "morality" comes from outrage that a country can be invaded under false pretenses, its' citizens killed in bombings, its' people imprisoned without charge, and its' oil resources raped.

My "morality" comes from knowing that so much more could have been done before the decision to invade was made, but in fact the decision to invade was the PREFERRED way that the US wanted to deal with this. By killing. Not just Saddam, but 14,000 other collateral humans...

But if you're okay with it, I guess that means we just have different moral compasses. I think that human life is sacred and should be protected and that War should always be the total LAST resort. And I'll tell you, there are 130,000 troops in iraq who I am sure agree with me. Most soldiers DON'T want to kill, and most soldiers are severely affected by wartime.





[edit on 8-10-2004 by Jakomo]

crossfire, the gist of it is, you've taken one event - the decision of France not to go to war with Iraq in 2003, and the underlying allegations of bribes and commercial contracts between Iraq and France, which I don't deny - and used it to put an entire nation on trial.

But things aren't that simple - a nation is a complex intermix of people who share a language, a culture and ideals, while being different from one another, having disagreements on ideas and politics (as in the United States and other countries) and sometimes - or oftentimes - believing their government to be corrupt (as in the United States and other countries).

Even inside a government, things are never that clear-cut. You have some corrupt politicians, you have some good politicians. You have a lot of factors involved in every big decision.

We can't paint a whole people ("the French") with the same, wide brush. Unfortunately, the oversimplification used by President Bush has affected how some people view issues - nuance is now seen as a bad thing, and that's a very sorry turn of events. Reality isn't simple. It's complex.

Originally posted by Jakomo
My "morality" comes from knowing that so much more could have been done before the decision to invade was made, but in fact the decision to invade was the PREFERRED way that the US wanted to deal with this. By killing. Not just Saddam, but 14,000 other collateral humans...

[edit on 8-10-2004 by Jakomo]

I find this statement offensive. You again ASSUME that war was the "preferred" way that the US wanted to deal with Saddam. That the USA relishes war. You couldn't be further from the truth, and I personally find it disgusting that you would make this assumption. Crystal ball out again? Reading people's minds? You don't have a clue...

But if you're okay with it, I guess that means we just have different moral compasses. I think that human life is sacred and should be protected and that War should always be the total LAST resort. And I'll tell you, there are 130,000 troops in Iraq who I am sure agree with me. Most soldiers DON'T want to kill, and most soldiers are severely affected by wartime.

The only part of this quote I will agree with is the "soldiers DON'T want to kill" portion. But you are wrong in the "most" portion of it. NO soldier I know WANTS to kill. It is, unfortunately, a hazard of the job...it's kill or BE killed. I prefer the latter. And let me tell you from experience, from two 120 day tours in the AOR, something you do NOT speak from, the 130,000 troops you claim agree with you? Wrongo, bucko. The vast majority believe whole heartedly in what we are doing in Iraq, mainly because we see the good that has been done. We aren't blinded by the dr3ead and propaganda on the news. We see what is REALLY going on, not just the bad things that sell on the news. We see the smiles on the faces of the children, we receive the thanks of the people who no longer live in fear of Saddam and his sons, and we see the children going back to school. You don't see that, and you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about in this case, as you sit behind your keyboard and pontificate about that which you will never know. Get off your butt and go see for yourself what is really going on. Then perhaps you'll pull your ears until you hear a pop....

Weakness in fighting then ultimately collaboration with the Nazis

Well documented dealings with Saddam and sanctions breaking.

Successive Presidents who have, like African despots, avoided prosecution for corruption simply becuase they are Presidents.

A weak, unquestioning media

And a lot more besides

These are not one off unplesantries in an otherwise wonderful country.

This is a nation riddled with corruption, moral and physical cowardice over many many generations.

Affirmative Reaction:

I find this statement offensive. You again ASSUME that war was the "preferred" way that the US wanted to deal with Saddam. That the USA relishes war. You couldn't be further from the truth, and I personally find it disgusting that you would make this assumption. Crystal ball out again? Reading people's minds? You don't have a clue...

Well, you shouldn't take these things personally. When I say "the USA" I usually mean the Bush Adminstration. Bear this in mind next time you launch a personal attack on someone you don't know (me).

And sorry to say, but the Bush Adminstration RELISHED war. They did NOT exhaust all diplomatic channels.

I would expect you to know all this since you seem so rabid about all of it, but whatever. Read it and learn.

www.cnn.com...

By Michael Elliott and James Carney
Monday, March 24, 2003 Posted: 5:49 PM EST (2249 GMT)

How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room. A year later, Bush's outburst has been translated into action, as cruise missiles and smart bombs slam into Baghdad.

But the apparent simplicity of his message belies the gravity at hand. Sure, the outcome is certain: America will win the war, and Saddam will be taken out. But what is unfolding in Iraq is far bigger than regime change or even the elimination of dangerous weapons....

Cheney and others, says the official, would say things like, "Tell me about Iraq, tell me about Iraq, tell me about Iraq. What's the status of their WMDs? What's their support of terrorism?" When senior members of the intelligence community answered that they had little new information on Iraq--no smoking guns on WMDs or terrorism--the message would come back: "Try harder. Need to know more." In an interview with the New Yorker in May 2001, Cheney in two sentences linked North Korea, Iran and Iraq--the three countries that were later immortalized as the "axis of evil"--as threats to American security. Cheney still didn't buy into the whole neoconservative analysis...

The extraordinary power of the American armed forces would see to that. Historians will long debate whether the road to war in Iraq could have been handled a different way--and ask if the U.N. could have formed a united front against Saddam, as it did in Gulf War I, and avoided the bitter breaches between old friends that have characterized the past few months.

To be sure, mistakes--as politicians say--were made; American diplomacy was curiously lacking in the weeks after adoption of Resolution 1441, when it might have been possible to maintain the unity that was demonstrated when the resolution passed the Security Council. But perhaps unity was an impossible dream.

So, you see, this was all planned far before even Afghanistan was invaded.

Are you new here?

You said:

The vast majority believe whole heartedly in what we are doing in Iraq, mainly because we see the good that has been done. We aren't blinded by the dr3ead and propaganda on the news. We see what is REALLY going on, not just the bad things that sell on the news. We see the smiles on the faces of the children, we receive the thanks of the people who no longer live in fear of Saddam and his sons, and we see the children going back to school.

Yeah, every soldier who I've talked is ecstatic about how things are going in Iraq, sure. 900 attacks a day, over a thousand dead soldiers, carbombings, suicide attacks, prison scandals, it's a big party. The reason why things LOOK bad in Iraq is because they ARE bad, but keep your head in the sand if it comforts you.


jako

I've studied French history since I was 15 years old. I know that France has had its bad times, and it's had its good times. Everytime I've discussed French history on this board I've posted links. I've tried to show not a rosy view, but a balanced one. Of course France is not a perfect nation. But it's also not the nation of cowards and surrender monkeys some people make it out to be. If those people won't do research, will just accuse without posting any links, and will put their hands over their ears and sing "I can't hear you!" when other people challenge their views with credible research, then there's nothing I can do.

I'm done posting on this. To the people who are just interested in a good old-fashioned public lynching, all I have to say is lynch away. And let ignorance reign.

Edited to take away quote, in order to show this post is not a personal attack

[edit on 8-10-2004 by Otts]

Originally posted by Jakomo

Well, you shouldn't take these things personally. When I say "the USA" I usually mean the Bush Adminstration. Bear this in mind next time you launch a personal attack on someone you don't know (me).

And sorry to say, but the Bush Adminstration RELISHED war. They did NOT exhaust all diplomatic channels.

I don't give a flying flip how you claim you "meant" it, and if you think that was a personal attack, you haven't seen anything. You post was a personal attack on me as a US serviceman, and all my comrades in arms, period. You haven't a CLUE what you are talking about, and my discussion with you is ended here and now. It's revisionists like you sitting on your duff playing armchair quarterback with half truths and outright lies that make me sick to my stomach. You haven't got one 1000th the courage of ANY US serviceman, and saying anything in their name, making a preposterous comment that they all agree with YOU is perhaps the MOST asinine thing you have posted here. Get a clue...

Grab your ears and pull till you hear the �POP��.

I believe it�s the ignore box for you�disgusting�.

Ok guys please again lets keep ALL personal insults out of this thread,

Im sure you can all make your points with out resorting to insults of any kind

Thank you

Affirmative Reaction:

I don't give a flying flip how you claim you "meant" it, and if you think that was a personal attack, you haven't seen anything. You post was a personal attack on me as a US serviceman, and all my comrades in arms, period. You haven't a CLUE what you are talking about, and my discussion with you is ended here and now. It's revisionists like you sitting on your duff playing armchair quarterback with half truths and outright lies that make me sick to my stomach. You haven't got one 1000th the courage of ANY US serviceman, and saying anything in their name, making a preposterous comment that they all agree with YOU is perhaps the MOST asinine thing you have posted here. Get a clue...

Grab your ears and pull till you hear the �POP��.

I believe it�s the ignore box for you�disgusting�.

You continue to slander me in personal attacks (though you don't know me at all, contrary to what you seem to believe) and you skirt the actual issue which we were arguing. So, um, I guess I win. Cool.

Feel free to pick out my "half-truths and outright lies" from the facts I have posted all over this thread.

And hey, get some help with that rage problem.

Thanks!

jakomo

if you think that was a personal attack, you haven't seen anything.

Is that an actual threat? How do ATS handle threats of violence anyway?


Asala: Hey, I'm tryin'.




[edit on 8-10-2004 by Jakomo]

I was reading the back posts.


Everything to these nationalist/hard-capitalist revolves around paper currency. Shun your family, shun other people, kill off others in foreign nations... all for that paper currency.

Of course I like to make paper currency, so does everyone else. But I pertain to advanced thinking. Europe indeed is promoting those ideas, of course they have high unemployment.. but that is a side-effect of the changes which will eventually improve the situation.

I believe Europeans place more importance on understanding the world, understanding people, ensuring quality lives for all people regardless of race or how much paper currency they have.

Yeha I am an American, more and more Americans are pertaining to social ideas.. especially the working class (blue) workers who have been exploited by the rich. It is the worker who is the main structure of society, there has always been a struggle between the elite class and the lower classes.

And no, I do not promote equal wealth distribution or creating one equal class.. I just call for the end of corporate ownership of government and promoting a good standard of living for all people.

I've sucked in my gut, my false sense of this "nationalistic pride" which exists only in our heads, to bring you this.

Unite the world.

[edit on 8-10-2004 by RedOctober90]