Chirac : Bush made the world more dangerous

OOOOHHHHH and by the way MR CHIRAC what about this French contribution to the war effort

Dude, get a grip. There are British, french, American, Australian, you name it, all fighting for Islamic Terorists. You can't honestly blame a country just because a few chaps go and fight "Jihad".



[edit on 18/11/04 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason

OOOOHHHHH and by the way MR CHIRAC what about this French contribution to the war effort

Dude, get a grip. There are British, french, American, Australian, you name it, all fighting for Islamic Terorists. You can't honestly blame a country just because a few chaps go and fight "Jihad".



[edit on 18/11/04 by stumason]

I have a grip and before he criticises us he should criticise those of his own nation who are simpathizers, even the US will say that an American is involved, my point is this man is wrong to do what he is doing and the avoidance of the facts when they look adversly to your position he needs to look from within first, and admit and condemn those of French nationality commiting war crimes in this war. Its does not matter if you are the good guy or bad guy a crime is a crime.

Originally posted by Jakomo
rrobert:

It's just when false accusations and grand lies are being spewn because someone doesn't like what's happening, that's when I get a little deaf.

What false accusations? Do you feel the world is safer?

Yes, I feel the world is safer. Terrorists have been arrested or killed. Since 9/11, terrorists do not have a free reign to commit atrocities. Will it still happen? Of course it will. Try finding a needle in a haystack. But, in the same instance, we are constantly gaining ground. The World, for the most part, has said that they will not tolerate terrorism on any level.
But, back to Chirac. I will say that, as head a a nation, I respect him. He has made some very tough decisions in the recent past, including not allowing religious symbols in public schools. He feels the world is not safer. That is his perogative, but to say that it is because of Bush's policies is very far-stretched indeed. Why did Bush go into Iraq? Conspiracy theories could range from oil, to finishing what his father started, etc. I think it had to do with fighting terrorism. Plain and simple. Saddam harbored terrorists. He was himself a terrorist. This threat is slowly, yet steadily being eradicated, one insurgent at a time. I think that helps to make the world a safer place. And a huge thank you to all the world's governments who have supported, either financially or militarily, the abolishment of this threat to our lives.

Yea more dangerous for terrrorists. HAHAA.

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
I think Bush owes a lot to Jacques Chirac. Chirac could just openly characterize Bush as an infantile and incompetent leader or worse, and 90% of the world's opinion would cheeringly support him for openly standing up against Bush's idiotic and incompetent policies.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]

Every French person owes their life in large part to the US. Chirac wouldn't have a country to run if it weren''t for the US. Same with most of the world.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Every French person owes their life in large part to the US. Chirac wouldn't have a country to run if it weren''t for the US. Same with most of the world.

While I agree with the fact our help has kept countries from falling I think this is a little harsh noone should us for doing our duty as human beings, to save lives and property of our fello human beings.

Originally posted by rrobert5425
Yes, I feel the world is safer. Terrorists have been arrested or killed.

- I'm sorry to break it to you matey but the vast majority of those 'terrorists' you think you have killed were just ordinary Afghanis or Iraqis; usually either ex-soldiers from the previous destroyed military/regime or ordinary armed citizens.

(some, in fact who originally welcomed the toppling if Saddam's regime but see the US, in particular, now as there purely to exploit Iraq and destroy it. It is a fact that coalition trained - and armed - Police and malitia have been going over to the 'insurgents' ....

....that must have taken some doing to turn those sentiments around. The US leadership really blew it there.)

www.freerepublic.com...

In other words they are (or were) not 'terrorists' they are people who would never have picked up a weapon against Americans or gone anywhere near America or the 'west' .....except for the American invasion of their country.

Since 9/11, terrorists do not have a free reign to commit atrocities.

- Do you actually hear yourself saying this crap?
They never did have a 'free reign'.
But there are still (like before) a handful of places where they can plan and be in relative safety.....but we're friends with Suadi Arabia and Pakistan....so all eyes look away from there and keep focused on Syria or Iran, eh?
Wise up.

Will it still happen? Of course it will. Try finding a needle in a haystack. But, in the same instance, we are constantly gaining ground. The World, for the most part, has said that they will not tolerate terrorism on any level.

- The developed world never did tolerate terorism.....except for the times when people in the US gov were happy to train fund and arm 'terrorists when it suited them.
Israel helped start Hamas the same way; they were meant to be so extreme they would undermine the PLO.....and look what it got them.
'Our' terrorists are no problem, they're very useful and we have no worries about their use of 'terror', in fact the greater the better.
Fear - especially if it can become self-generating and completely irrational - is a very useful tool.
Open your eyes matey.

But, back to Chirac. I will say that, as head a a nation, I respect him. He has made some very tough decisions in the recent past, including not allowing religious symbols in public schools.

- It is pretty sad (not to say very telling) that the only thing you cite about Chirac's long time as French leader is the recent arguement over the headscarf (something introduced by the French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, actually).

You might note that not all French Muslims were against the idea (as well as outraged by protests against the ban).....

Not all French Muslims are opposed to the government's line on identity cards and headscarves.

A moderate French Muslim group, the Muslim Co-ordinating Committee, defended Mr Sarkozy saying it was "shocked by the disgraceful behaviour of those who dared to defy the republic".

The rector of the Paris mosque, Dalil Boubakeur, for his part, urged French Muslims to "live with the times" in an interview with France Inter radio.

Hanifa Cherifi, who mediates between schools and families in headscarf disputes, said most Muslim women - whether in France or elsewhere - did not wear the headscarf.

news.bbc.co.uk...

He feels the world is not safer. That is his perogative, but to say that it is because of Bush's policies is very far-stretched indeed.

- No it isn't.
It is as obvious and plain as day.
Our people are being maimed and killed, his people are being maimed and killed and your people are being maimed and killed.
How is that not less safe?
There is more actual terrorist fighting in the world thanks to the Iraqi invasion.

Why did Bush go into Iraq? Conspiracy theories could range from oil, to finishing what his father started, etc. I think it had to do with fighting terrorism. Plain and simple.

- Why? Go read the neocon's own PNAC documents. The neocon crowd were itching to start this long before they used the excuse of 9/11.

Saddam harbored terrorists.

- Well by that risible reckoning the USA would have invaded Saudi Arabia first as most of the actual 9/11 terrorists came from there.

He was himself a terrorist.

- But some members of this current US administration were more than happy to deal with and shake hands with when he was a useful 'terrorist', right?
But you believe we don't ever deal with terrorists, huh? Sure

This threat is slowly, yet steadily being eradicated, one insurgent at a time. I think that helps to make the world a safer place.

- I suggest you need to think long and hard about how killing Iraqi's - one at a time - who are merely trying (from their point of view) to defend their country from an exploititive invader intent of stealing their resources, installing a puppet regime and establishing several (20+) huge permanent military bases in his country, is making anything safer for anybody.

You are simply breeding more trouble over time.

And a huge thank you to all the world's governments who have supported, either financially or militarily, the abolishment of this threat to our lives.

- The ordinary Iraqis resisting this invasion never were any kind of 'threat' to anybody here.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I'm sorry to break it to you matey but the vast majority of those 'terrorists' you think you have killed were just ordinary Afghanis or Iraqis; usually either ex-soldiers from the previous destroyed military/regime or ordinary armed citizens.

(some, in fact who originally welcomed the toppling if Saddam's regime but see the US, in particular, now as there purely to exploit Iraq and destroy it. It is a fact that coalition trained - and armed - Police and malitia have been going over to the 'insurgents' ....

....that must have taken some doing to turn those sentiments around. The US leadership really blew it there.)

www.freerepublic.com...

In other words they are (or were) not 'terrorists' they are people who would never have picked up a weapon against Americans or gone anywhere near America or the 'west' .....except for the American invasion of their country.

While some have gone to the insurgent side and retreat from battles I cant
say as I agree with your assesments there are insurgents terrorists, the whole meaning of insurgency is to make people believe just this way. I a demoralization tactic as old as the first war ever faught. Confuse, mislead, and degrade tactics have been useful to them when people believe this is the way the world is really playing out.

Since 9/11, terrorists do not have a free reign to commit atrocities.

- Do you actually hear yourself saying this crap?
They never did have a 'free reign'.
But there are still (like before) a handful of places where they can plan and be in relative safety.....but we're friends with Suadi Arabia and Pakistan....so all eyes look away from there and keep focused on Syria or Iran, eh?
Wise up.

Very true I can name six pllaces in Iraq alone, they are not being hendered in any way by their temporary dislocation from their HQ they just simply fall back to alternative positions and go about buisness as usual. Fallujah didnt stop anything and for that fact since 9/11 none of this has changed anything they are used to being nomadic and thats why they have soemone in just about every area of the world they can call on for logistical support , as evidence by the varying nationalities of insurgents killed in combat in Iraq, they have Eqyptians, French, Americans, Saudis, Palestinian, and so on and so on I can go thru the whole map and find supporters/members of the insurgents who have died.

- The developed world never did tolerate terorism.....except for the times when people in the US gov were happy to train fund and arm 'terrorists when it suited them.
Israel helped start Hamas the same way; they were meant to be so extreme they would undermine the PLO.....and look what it got them.
'Our' terrorists are no problem, they're very useful and we have no worries about their use of 'terror', in fact the greater the better.
Fear - especially if it can become self-generating and completely irrational - is a very useful tool.
Open your eyes matey.

All the funded terrorists are is a convience when needed like mercinaries are. When they are not needed they are dispised no wonder why people are so upset when we turn on them, they think how hypocritical it is to use their services and pay them when you need them, however I dont necessarily think this is the case in this war, these people are a breed of true terrorists with their own views, The funded terrorists we turned on where the now defunk and captured/kill Iraq goverment, Who have been supported all the way up thru today even the UN corruption investigation shows that the oil for food program was twisted into a payment system of support.

But, back to Chirac. I will say that, as head a a nation, I respect him. He has made some very tough decisions in the recent past, including not allowing religious symbols in public schools.

- It is pretty sad (not to say very telling) that the only thing you cite about Chirac's long time as French leader is the recent arguement over the headscarf (something introduced by the French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, actually).

Amen there into the abyss go I, seems to come to mind, an aimless wondering where the only things you fight are the things you dont understand, or like. Chirac was out of line for interfearing in the religous beliefs of others. I mean after that is one of the reasons sited by the terrorists that they have been religiously offended, although not their highest or chief complaint against the coalition of countries a part of their reasons for attacking like in 9/11 all the same.







[edit on 19/11/2004 by drbryankkruta]

Sorry if I misused the quote button...I'm new to the site.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by rrobert5425
Yes, I feel the world is safer. Terrorists have been arrested or killed.

- I'm sorry to break it to you matey but the vast majority of those 'terrorists' you think you have killed were just ordinary Afghanis or Iraqis; usually either ex-soldiers from the previous destroyed military/regime or ordinary armed citizens.

(some, in fact who originally welcomed the toppling if Saddam's regime but see the US, in particular, now as there purely to exploit Iraq and destroy it. It is a fact that coalition trained - and armed - Police and malitia have been going over to the 'insurgents' ....

....that must have taken some doing to turn those sentiments around. The US leadership really blew it there.)

These people have been going over to the other side because the terrorists are succeeding in their job of striking fear in the minds of those people. If these terrorists are killed, then the fear will not be there anymore. If you were a policeman in Iraq, and your life was in constant danger from insurgents, wouldn't you change your tune and jump ship to the other side?

Since 9/11, terrorists do not have a free reign to commit atrocities.

- Do you actually hear yourself saying this crap?
They never did have a 'free reign'.
But there are still (like before) a handful of places where they can plan and be in relative safety.....but we're friends with Suadi Arabia and Pakistan....so all eyes look away from there and keep focused on Syria or Iran, eh?
Wise up.

-The USA is not all-powerful, and so instead of really spreading thin, we have fcoused on one piece of the pie. Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Iran, and the other countries are not being overlooked.

Will it still happen? Of course it will. Try finding a needle in a haystack. But, in the same instance, we are constantly gaining ground. The World, for the most part, has said that they will not tolerate terrorism on any level.

- The developed world never did tolerate terorism.....except for the times when people in the US gov were happy to train fund and arm 'terrorists when it suited them.
Israel helped start Hamas the same way; they were meant to be so extreme they would undermine the PLO.....and look what it got them.
'Our' terrorists are no problem, they're very useful and we have no worries about their use of 'terror', in fact the greater the better.
Fear - especially if it can become self-generating and completely irrational - is a very useful tool.
Open your eyes matey.

The USA has tried to help some nations overthrow dictators. So, are you saying the USA shouldn't have meddled in WWII b/c we helped train and destroy Nazi Germany? I believe Monty and the other Brits would have had a heck of a time trying to overthrow that army without help. The media sits from their throne and tells the world that Iraq is not happy with the coallition occupation. So, we believe Al-Jazeera now? Why don't we break out the old copies of Mein Kampf to check on how well that works.

But, back to Chirac. I will say that, as head a a nation, I respect him. He has made some very tough decisions in the recent past, including not allowing religious symbols in public schools.

- It is pretty sad (not to say very telling) that the only thing you cite about Chirac's long time as French leader is the recent arguement over the headscarf (something introduced by the French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, actually).

Never did I say that was the only thing that Chirac has, or has had to deal with in the past. It was only one of the many things that he has dealt with, and coincidentally, fell under a similar heading. (No pun intended.) But, for you to say that it is very telling about me or my thoughts is definitely naive indeed. I was merely saying that I don't think that I could be head of a government because you always have to make decisions that will not please everyone. But, I do appreciate your reading between the lines Matey.

He feels the world is not safer. That is his perogative, but to say that it is because of Bush's policies is very far-stretched indeed.

- No it isn't.
It is as obvious and plain as day.
Our people are being maimed and killed, his people are being maimed and killed and your people are being maimed and killed.
How is that not less safe?
There is more actual terrorist fighting in the world thanks to the Iraqi invasion.

So, referring back to, well, any war situation, that is how things go. I know that I can sleep better at night knowing that our boys are over there risking their lives so that I can live in a safer world. And, when I say our boys, I'm talking about the entire force (American, British, Iraqi, etc.,) fighting against tyrrany. So, to say that it is not safer because people are dying, well, that is just plain dumb. That one terrorist who is arrested or killed cannot plant a bomb and kill or maim anyone else. He/she can't drive a car ladened with explosives into a restaurant or cafe and kill 20 innocent people. And, as you stated earlier, if these "citizens" are going to the other side, perhaps we can look at terrorist bombings as preemptive strikes. Though, I feel you are definitlely misguided in the view.

- The ordinary Iraqis resisting this invasion never were any kind of 'threat' to anybody here.

If the ordinary Iraqis who were blowing themselves up in Jihad fashion were not a threat, then there shouldn't be any problems. And by here, do you mean England, Iraq, Middle East?

Originally posted by rrobert5425
So, are you saying the USA shouldn't have meddled in WWII b/c we helped train and destroy Nazi Germany?

- No, of course not. Nazi Germany was a clear threat to the interests of not only the USA but most of the rest of the developed world.....but it took America long enough to get into it. :

But, I do appreciate your reading between the lines Matey.

- I knew you would.

I'm talking about the entire force (American, British, Iraqi, etc.,) fighting against tyrrany.

- Why don't you ever acknowledge the French and Germans who have been assisting the USA in this 'war on terrorism'?
Chirac might not have agreed with or involved the French in the Iraqi part of it but French forces are there in Afghanistan.

That one terrorist who is arrested or killed cannot plant a bomb and kill or maim anyone else. He/she can't drive a car ladened with explosives into a restaurant or cafe and kill 20 innocent people. And, as you stated earlier, if these "citizens" are going to the other side, perhaps we can look at terrorist bombings as preemptive strikes. Though, I feel you are definitlely misguided in the view.

- Has the idea of the foreign repression, the war and the gross violence causing recruitment to their side not occurred to you?

If the ordinary Iraqis who were blowing themselves up in Jihad fashion were not a threat, then there shouldn't be any problems.

- I think you have this about-face.
The foreign invasion (unsurprisingly) took little time in causing a flood of Iraqi volunteers to to come forward to fight it; it is their country afterall.

The planning for the war was obviously good enough, the planning for the 'peace' was woefull.

And by here, do you mean England, Iraq, Middle East?

- UK.

Amazing read! 3 whole pages.

1. The war was arranged, by obvious manipulation of public emotion...front 1, WMD, Front 2 Terrorism....both laughable, and if view dispassionately....plain evil

2. 9/11 didnt help, or maybe did....

3. Many, many more Iraqis died/will die...without once even leaving their country, or seeing Diacovery Channel in technicolour...

4. Americans, like all peoples, feel for their kids at war...and will go into an orgy of flag waving, and support the unsupportable.....

5. Death, piled on death infects all involved...the only sustainable terrorism is european, where ancient fights have split blood in London for decade.....people dont like the kin abliterated, and take it personally...for centuries sometime

6. The world will never be safer, when a country looks like beirut, afganistan, iraq, flint michigan.......

sigh......does that nail it.

PS im an australian, and my leaders are there....the country, by and large, lost faith in political process a while ago. cant fight the power of the media...simple really.

Originally posted by infinite8
Bush owes Chirac, are you kidding me?? Chirac owes Bush for not exposing every bit of behind the back actions he has been taking with Iraq when there were sanctions against that country.

Second of all the US owes France nothing as far as I see it. If it weren't for the USA that whole country would be speaking German.

Hey German is a lovely language better then english.....

Chirac is a moonbat. He lives in a fantasy that somehow
his opinions matter and that France is somehow relevant
on the world stage. He's a frigg'n joke that can't ever be
taken seriously by anyone ... anywhere ... at anytime.

Want some cheese to go with that WHINE Chirac??

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Chirac is a moonbat. He lives in a fantasy that somehow
his opinions matter and that France is somehow relevant
on the world stage. He's a frigg'n joke that can't ever be
taken seriously by anyone ... anywhere ... at anytime.

Want some cheese to go with that WHINE Chirac??

Do you have a pre-typed response that you cut and paste into various France related threads or something? I think you get the Way Above Cliche award for the 21st century.