France is a "Pain in the Ass"

by JH 131 Replies latest jw friends

Xander

Using the military to hand out deliberately smallpox infected blankets to American Indians = biological warfare.
you let your engine explode before you change the oil
How can you even compare the two things? Does the US own the planet? Is every human being US property, and thus, the US's responsibility to look out for their future well being?
How would your neighbors like it if they came home, and you were inside their house, uninvited, changing things on their computer because you thought your settings were better? Or if you felt you needed to walk up and down the street in a neighborhood that has told you repeatedly you are NOT welcome, tinkering with everyone's car engines?
you want someone to attack us before we do anything about them
In what world do you live where you think you have the right to act against anyone you feel just because they MIGHT be a threat to you someday?
Do you load up your pistol and walk down the street shooting people in the face so you don't have to worry about them robbing your house while you're away?
Are we really no better than 'hit them back first'?!?!
What are we, barbarians?!?!?
Edited by - Xander on 23 January 2003 17:34:18
Yizuman

The Iraqi people who are under the control of Saddam have been killing thousands of people who opposed him, much like what the Taliban has been doing to the villagers and people living in cities. They will kill anyone that laughs at Saddam or his goons.
These people who want nothing to do with Saddam are living in constant fear for their lives. So you say not to go to war with Saddam and leave him and the people alone? Would you much rather leave it to the hands of Saddam and his soliders to keep on killing the people living in Iraq?
No, these people deserves freedom from Saddam and his goons.
Take a look at this thread and see the stories of what the Taliban has been doing to people and tell me that Saddam can not be any different to what he has done to his people since he took rulership of the country.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=45212&site=3
Take a look at the second post, what they have done is horrible.
The muslems aren't the only kind of people committing crimes against humanity, there's all sorts of people committing all sorts of atrocity regardless of what their background is. These people needs to be stopped at all cost.
You worry about what we the arms forces can do to civilians when we bomb them? Go visit the mass graves of Jews of WWII, go visit the graves of Afagn where thousands of people have been gathered and shot dead and buried by the Taliban. They have done far worse to the innocent than we could ever do while bombing them. Innocent people have been killed in many wars of course, that's the risk we have to take, in wars there's always risks of killing an innocent person. We try to avoid it the best we can, but if it happens, it happens. We won't stop for the sake of the few when thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered under their regime.
But for you bleeding heart hippie liberals to tell us to butt out and mind our own business and leave them alone while you ignore a solider under Saddam who pulls out a pistol and shoots an innocent person just because he/she opposed Saddam regardless of their age. That reasoning is what makes me sick.
The good of the people will always oppose evil and we will not stand by and watch them being murdered each and every day. We should not ignore it.
Yizuman
JH

Chirac of France said on TV that war never solves anything. That's why France doesn't want to get involved.
But I think that there are other reasons why France doesn't want to get involved, and they are not saying it.
If indeed Saddam has WMD, and if he is hiding it under hospitals or schools in cities, then that proves that he doesn't give a damn about his people. Saddam doesn't mind if a school or a hospital blows up, that's why he might be puting them there.
Too bad that a whole population will have to see the horror of war, just because of their stupid leader.
That's why he is equal to Hitler, and must be taken out.
Edited by - jh on 23 January 2003 18:33:4
Yerusalyim

yeru,

i never said the anti war side doesn't produce propaganda. nevertheless tons of unsubstantiated claims and horror stories and interviews with a defected iraqi soldiers is hardly enough to declar war on a country... especially if these claims could be easily verified but are not for miraculous reasons (i guess these secret weapon depots etc. are so secret that not even the UN inspectors can be informed by the US about where they are!?... very logical indeed).

OK, lets see. The last time the US gave the UN weapons inspectors info on where to find stuff, someone on their team warned the Iraqis and the UN Inspectors were barred from the site for several days while the items were moved. Richard Butler, who used to head the inspection team (pre 98) verifies this. Butler was on MSNBC yesterday showing commercial sattelite photos of the construction of some of Saddam's 45 palaces built since the Gulf War, almost all of them show evidence of underground bunkers and underwater bunkers. Several recent defectors have verified this and testify to being involved in the construction of "clean rooms" for chem labs in these same palaces. Indeed this IS quite logical. Aslo, revelation of intellegence also means revelation of sources which dry up and/or die when disclosed.

i didn't even know the US has a communist party ...how many members do they have? 10, 20? besides to compare communists with racists is not quite valid in my opinion. communism is an idealistic and unfortunately unrealistic dream while racism is projecting hate on people who are different from you.

Um, No there are several thousand members to the Communist Party in the US. You avoided the point made completely. The organizers of the "peace rallies" had an agenda. It DOES matter.

And with the Anti semetic attitude of the UN ...

totally unsubstaniciated claim. i am sorry where exactly is the UN antisemitic?...if the UN were indeed antisemitic then israel would not exist or would at least be put under a boycott for occupying foreign territories.

The claim is substantiated by the fact that the UN has issued over 200 Resolutions condemning Israel, but not a single resolution against any Arab country that attacked Israel. Nor have they issued any resolutions condemning acts of terror by the Palestinians. That is a problem.

also which european countries show an antisemitic attitude? germany? britain? france? total nonsense. not siding with israel on every issue is NOT equivalent to antisemitism. if they would be antisemitic then they would not support israel all the time.

Germany, YES. Attacks on Jews and synagogues are on the increase there, I've seen it. It's been reported in the news. Same in France, Only worse. In Switzerland there are laws on the books that forbid Kosher slaughter of animals. But no, there's no antisemetism in Europe, how silly of me to confuse facts with silly sentiments.

did he destroy a single US tank or airplane? did they kill any allied soldiers? the few us troops that died did so because of friendly fire.

As a matter of fact, yes. A very few tanks were destroyed, like wise, several aircraft were shot down. We lost about 200 American soldiers to enemy fire.

high tech weapons are weapons that can compete with new weapon technology. could his weapons compete? obviously not. the iraqi tanks were destroyed before they even new the US tanks were approaching. you as military guy should know that it is pointless to use equipment from the 60ties and 70ties against modern (high tech tanks, helicopters and aircraft) machinery. and please don't tell me you consider scuds as high tech weapons. then the VII was high tech too i suppose. his gigantic army was a pile of bullshit.

Hi tech weapons are weapons that use technology. The Migs he had were state of the Art, but not as good as US aircraft. His Gigantic army could have caused a lot more damage had they stood and fought. His Army just before the Gulf war was the fifth largest army in the world. That fact isn't disputed. All these guys had weapons. Had they stood and fought, it would have been ugly, we still would have won, hands down, but, it would have been UGLY. for both sides. A lot more of HIS guys would have died too. Hawk missles, by the way, were very high tech at the time, as are his Surface to Air Missles. We just have ways to outsmart them.

about the babies....there was exactly ONE eyewitness of the slautering of the babies...the daugther of the swiss embassador. and as EVERYBODY knows she withdrew her testimony after the war!!!

OK, lets go ask the Kuwaiti people.

does that make the later occupation rightful? if so how?

Ummm, what occupation? You mean the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights? Seems to me these "terretories" were "occupied" only AFTER they were used for 20 years by the Arabs to attack Israel. Why weren't these areas called "occuppied territory" when Jordan, Egypt, and Syria controled them?

also i find it very understandable that arabs opposed the creatioon of israel...would it be ok for instance if the japanese would annex hawaii now just because they own most of the land there? can you name a single country that would allow something like this to happen on their territory?

Big difference, "palestine" has NEVER been it's own nation. There was no COUNTRY there. Seems no one much objected to the formation of Jordan, Iraq, Lebenon, or Syria, so why should the formation of Israel along with those have been a problem?

US, british and french oil companies exploited the only valuable thing that the arabs have...which is oil. how much of the profit did they give to iraq before hussein took over the oil production? ahh thats right...exactly 5% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how much did they give the iranis before mussadig took over and after he was overthrown by the US? ohh thats right exactly 10% !!!!!!! how very generous!!!!!!!! does the US give a flying shit about how criminal the dictators are that rule the countries which obey to US control? obviously not because otherwise they would have to eliminate the kuwaiti and the saudi regime.

Um, no one forced the Arab rulers to accept these deals. No one used force of Arms in Saudi, Iraq, or Iran to get the Oil concessions, did they?

did the US support the region to become developed? LAUGHABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! every ruler who tried to do something for his country was overthrown. as little money as pssible was given to the contries and what they recieved was given to criminal rulers.

Really? Give me examples.

interesting...bush said however that it is not clear yet if deals signed by hussein will be valid after the war. are you telling me the US and british oil companies won't get a higher profit after the war??? we will see who gets the rights to produce the oil after the war is over! the french, the russians as it is now? LOL ... i bet my favorite lollipop that the US and BP will take over!

Currently the US plan is to use Oil Revenues to fund the rebuilding of a DEMOCRATIC Iraqi government. But that's a bad idea, right, democracies always suck.

wasn't enough for what? to conquer the entire globe??? can you tell me what you need 3000 new stealth fighters for? to fight against saddams old migs? against whom are you palnning to fight? there is no country that poses the slightest threat to the US...especially not these stone age arabs. this military spending has nothing to do with self defense but with argressive foreign politics.

Um, lets see, aside from Soldiers being GROSSLY underpaid, there's the problem of the maintenance of our high tech weapons. Five years ago, the HMMWV's in our motor pool in Germany couldn't be driven for more than an hour because of poor maintenance and lack of spare parts. We DO need the high tech weapons being produced. The reason US casualties are so low in recent conflicts is because our weapons give us Stand Off capabilities.

well if you like it or not doesn't matter. the war will understandably increase anti american sentiments in the arab population...just like the 911 attack did increase sentiments in the US.

I still love this agruement. Lets not fight against the drug dealers in the neighborhood because they'll become even more violent, and the ones we send to jail will just be replaced by others.

i am sick and tired of having to explain that i am not anti american. i like all americans am not obligated to love this unscrupulous US government and US foreign politics just because you believe in their propaganda.

No, you are anti-american. You've not once found anything good to say or offer about the US. You question US motives at every turn but accept the leftist propoganda without criticism.

i will continue the relationship with my american friends...i will continue to come to the US and i will continue to like your country. because your country has the same percentage of lovely, nice, generous, rational people as any other civilized nation.

You're welcome here anytime. I'm one of those nice lovely generous rational people.
dubla

xander-
My point, that you obviously don't want to address, is that the US has supported just as much terrorism as Iraq has, and neither nation had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.
So, if your justification for war is "They need to have had something to do with 9/11", well, sorry, that's not Iraq. If, on the other hand, your justification for war is "They support terrorism"....oops, your own government is just as guilty.
whether you like it or not, the u.s. will pursue terrorism everywhere. i agree with it, you obviously do not. for me personally, the argument of "the u.s. is just as guilty" makes no sense whatsoever. so, since weve been guilty of supporting terrorism in the past, we should just sit back and let terrorists bomb our nation? yeah, i guess weve got it coming to us, so why protect ourselves at this point? good argument......maybe you should go to the press with it and see what kind of support you can drum up.
aa
Edited by - dubla on 24 January 2003 10:15:10
Realist

Yeru,
No, you are anti-american. You've not once found anything good to say or offer about the US. You question US motives at every turn but accept the leftist propoganda without criticism.
first of all ...how do you define american? is your point of view what constitues 'american'? if i am not completely mistaken there are quite a number of americans who agree with me on many of the issues.
i think the US has quite a number of problems (each country has its problems by the way. i don'T consider my homeland as an exception to that!).
in my opinion the main problem (almost alll others are caused by it) with the US is that you do not have a social party that would fight primarily for the rights of the working class. you have more or less unopposed capitalism...which is good for the upper class and great for a handfull of people who make the REALLY big money...but it is bad for the lower class and the really poor ones.
because of this system you have millions of people living in poverty. because of this system you have a high crime rate, not so great school system and poor social laws with lacking support for the poor.
part of the problem is also the strong influence of the industry on US politics. there is no other country where you have such dependece of the political parties on money from the industry. the influence of the industry on US governments is largly responsible for the very questionale US interference in foreign countries (which of course brings back a lot of money to the US) as well as many of the domestic problems.
lastly the law system is pretty bad. lower class people definitifely don't have the same chance to go free as rich people have. you absolutely need a good (expensive) lawyer...and that sucks. and the penalties are disproportional in many cases (i juast say Mc Donalds!).
nevertheless i enyoed my time in the states and i would not mind to live there again.
You're welcome here anytime. I'm one of those nice lovely generous rational people.
thank you! i am glad to hear that!
by the way...if you ever come to austria let me know!
about the communist party...i can't imagine they love 'kim yung whatever'...but i don't know anything about their agenda...so i can't comment on it.
about the secret facts not being given to the UN inspectors...with other word we have to completely trust bush on this one. he says he has facts but can't release them to the public or even give them to the only 'neutral' institution (the weapons inspectors in this case).
the problem is ...for some reason i don't trust bush. as long as this is not verified i believe this stuff is made up to convince you that hussein is a threat to the world.
about antisemitism in europe: yes of course there is a bit of antisemitism in the population here like there is in the US. but i was talking about european politics...and there is really NO sing of antisemitism there.

Hi tech weapons are weapons that use technology.
wouldn't these be tech weapons?
in my opportunity high tech refers to 'the latest' in technology. hence the US weapons are high tech...the iraqi weapons are at best 'tech' .
ok ok ... if you just count the number of soldiers he might have had the 5th "most numurous" army (which i still doubt...US, russia, china, india, pakistan, north korea etc. and iraq having only 25 million people ...but ok maybe) but certainly not the 5th strongest. hussein couldn't even win against iran!!! and hell even the italiens would have won the gulf war.
Ummm, what occupation? You mean the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights? Seems to me these "terretories" were "occupied" only AFTER they were used for 20 years by the Arabs to attack Israel. Why weren't these areas called "occuppied territory" when Jordan, Egypt, and Syria controled them?
well and the attacks of the arabs were retaliations for israeli attacks which were retaliations for arab attacks and so on and so forth.
this damn state should never have been founded there in the first place...the jews should have been given kansas or ohio...then the whole damn problem would not exist.
i still think it is understandable of the arabs to fight for there land...no matter if it was originally occupied by the turks, or if they had a declared state etc. the whole middle east was arabic. and it was an idiotic idea to put isreal there. at least the way it was done was terrible.
Um, no one forced the Arab rulers to accept these deals. No one used force of Arms in Saudi, Iraq, or Iran to get the Oil concessions, did they?
Really? Give me examples.
this is a list of foreign politicians that the US government killed or tried to kill. of these i want to point out the leader of Iran, Egypt and the attempt to kill Gaddafi as well as Hussein.
U.S. GOVERNMENT ASSASSINATION PLOTS
The U.S. bombing of Iraq, June 26, 1993, in retaliation for an alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate former president George Bush, "was essential," said President Clinton, "to send a message to those who engage in state-sponsored terrorism ... and to affirm the expectation of civilized behavior among nations." *
Following is a list of prominent foreign individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of the Second World War. The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by the CIA and headquartered in the United States.
1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany
1950s - Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s, 1962 - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1953 - Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister of Iran
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959, 1963, 1969 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s - Jos Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s - Ral Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamao, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt)
1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq
1998, 2001-2 - Osama bin Laden, leading Islamic militant
Currently the US plan is to use Oil Revenues to fund the rebuilding of a DEMOCRATIC Iraqi government. But that's a bad idea, right, democracies always suck.
we will see what the US does after the war is over. i highly doubt they will put a goverment into place that will do anything for the people...but we will see.
yes democracies suck in many ways... unfortunately there is nothing better to replace them with. (well maybe jehovah takes over! )
about the military spendings...why does the US need so many planes, tanks, aircraft carriers, submarines, rockets, helicopters and soldiers? get rid of half the stuff and you have plenty of money to give the soldiers a decent income and to keep the equipment running.
Edited by - realist on 24 January 2003 11:49:49
Xander

Look, obviously you must have read my post, since you quoted it. How you then failed to comprehend it is confusing me, though.
so, since weve been guilty of supporting terrorism in the past, we should just sit back and let terrorists bomb our nation?
Where THE HELL do you get this idea? I never said this, I never implied this.
YOU are assuming if we don't attack Iraq "NOW, NOW, NOW" then tomorrow he's going to be blowing up US cities. Do you understand how stupid this is? He has NEVER ATTACKED THE US. NO information spies have gotten out of Iraq EVEN IMPLIES he PLANS to at ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE.
If you want to retaliate against terrorists who attack the US - FINE, that's OKAY, they started it, WE CAN FINISH IT.
Iraq has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THAT GROUP AT ALL.
SAUDI ARABIA DOES.
Why is this so hard for you to get through your head?
dubla

xander-
Where THE HELL do you get this idea? I never said this, I never implied this.
what you implied, is that state-sponsored terrorism is not a legitimate reason to go after any other country, because the u.s. is guilty of it too. i believe the u.s. will go after the countries that support terrorism, all of them, and i agree with it....you do not. thats all i was saying.
YOU are assuming if we don't attack Iraq "NOW, NOW, NOW" then tomorrow he's going to be blowing up US cities.
actually i dont assume that at all, and if you re-read my posts on the subject, youll see that i have never even implied such a thing. do i think its of utmost importance to start a war with iraq this month, or next? no i dont.
Why is this so hard for you to get through your head?
its not, its quite simple, and all youve been doing is regurgitating your same screaming rants over and over. i get your side of it....just because i dont agree with everything you say doesnt mean youre not entitled to your opinion, as i am entitled to mine, and i respect that.
aa
Xander

youll see that i have never even implied such a thing
I'm sorry, but you most definately do imply this:
whether you like it or not, the u.s. will pursue terrorism everywhere.....we should just sit back and let terrorists bomb our nation?
You used this in defense of a war on Iraq. If attacking Iraq is necessary, otherwise we will be letting 'terrorists bomb our nation', then obviously you must think Iraq plans to attack the US at some point?
Unless by attacking Iraq, you are confident that we will terrify terrorists everywhere into not 'bombing our nation' anymore? The only other meaning that can be implied is that YOU feel Iraq is a DIRECT THREAT to the US, which it is demonstrably NOT.
dubla

xander-
I'm sorry
you should be for continually implying something that isnt even there.
You used this in defense of a war on Iraq.
not solely, no i didnt. i used it as a defense of action agains state-sponsored terrorism, EVERYWHERE, not just iraq. here, ill re-post my quote, in its entirety, so that you can see this.
whether you like it or not, the u.s. will pursue terrorism everywhere. i agree with it, you obviously do not. for me personally, the argument of "the u.s. is just as guilty" makes no sense whatsoever. so, since weve been guilty of supporting terrorism in the past, we should just sit back and let terrorists bomb our nation?
hopefully you see the difference this time, as i didnt even specify iraq in that quote as you seem to think i did.
If attacking Iraq is necessary, otherwise we will be letting 'terrorists bomb our nation'
i think going after terrorism is necessary, otherwise we will be sitting back and waiting for them to "bomb our nation", yes. do i think attacking iraq immediately is necessary to prevent them from bombing us? no i dont (once again).
then obviously you must think Iraq plans to attack the US at some point?
i think its quite possible that saddam will at some point aid an attack against the u.s.....perhaps on our soil, perhaps not....perhaps directly, perhaps indirectly. do i think he is a threat? of course i do....and i think im probably not the only one that believes that.
Unless by attacking Iraq, you are confident that we will terrify terrorists everywhere into not 'bombing our nation' anymore?
no, its not all about deterrence. i do think the more we go after terrorists everywhere, the harder it will be for them to attack us though, which is what i was intending to imply all along.
The only other meaning that can be implied is that YOU feel Iraq is a DIRECT THREAT to the US
i think iraq is a threat to alot of countries, including the u.s.....simply because they are lead by a genocidal madman. if by "direct threat" you mean immediate, as in we need to take care of this by spring or else, no i dont believe that.
aa

France is a "Pain in the Ass"

Share this