boycott the french

[waize]

It has been mentioned in the news that the americans boycott everything that comes from France. Then I wonder: What shall you do with the Statue of Liberty that the french gave you as a proof of friendship between USA and France? :roll:
.
PS, this is my first post here.

[Bootneck]

Perhaps a bit simplistic but the sentiment is right.

-----------------------------

Who Stands Alone
by Michael Marks

Eleven thousand soldiers lay beneath the dirt and stone,
all buried on a distant land so far away from home.
For just a strip of dismal beach they paid a hero's price,
to save a foreign nation they all made the sacrifice.

And now the shores of Normandy are lined with blocks of white,
Americans who didn't turn from someone else's plight.
Eleven thousand reasons for the French to take our side,
but in the moment of our need, they chose to run and hide.

Chirac said every war means loss, perhaps for France that's true,
for they've lost every battle since the days of Waterloo.
Without a soldier worth a damn to be found in the region,
the French became the only land to need a Foreign Legion.

You French all say we're arrogant. Well hell, we've earned the right--
We saved your sorry nation when you lacked the guts to fight.
But now you've made a big mistake, and one that you'll regret;
you took sides with our enemies, and that we won't forget.

It wasn't just our citizens you spit on when you turned,
but every one of ours who fell the day the towers burned.
You spit upon our soldiers, on our pilots and Marines,
and now you'll get a little sense of just what payback means.

So keep your Paris fashions and your wine and your champagne,
and find some other market that will buy your aeroplanes.
And try to find somebody else to wear your French cologne,
for you're about to find out what it means to stand alone.

You see, you need us far more than we ever needed you.
America has better friends who know how to be true.
I'd rather stand with warriors who have the will and might,
than huddle in the dark with those whose only flag is white.

I'll take the Brits, the Aussies, the Israelis and the rest,
for when it comes to valor we have seen that they're the best.
We'll count on one another as we face a moment dire,
while you sit on the sideline with a sign "friendship for hire."

We'll win this war without you and we'll total up the cost,
and take it from your foreign aid, and then you'll feel the loss.
And when your nation starts to fall, well Frenchie, you can spare us,
just call the Germans for a hand, they know the way to Paris.

[waize]

that was a good one. I am totally for the war. When are you going for the rest of the evil axis?

[axl]

sorry, but i can't believe that there are still some ignorant idiots arount like you guys! yes, its personal attacks and go on and ban me. but my wife is french (even if i'm german) and now i take attacks against france as personal attacks too. france made the right decission, like germany and russia and china and 99% of the people of the world. but your great government just ignored that, flooded your brains with propaganda stuff and now you run around like a child with a drum, singing a stupid song without thinking about the words coming out of its mouth. did you guys ever think about that you was blinded by your own government, by guys that came on top by being choosen by a court and not by the people? did you ever thought about that this war was just a long planed operation? there were no chemical/biolocical/atomic weapons, nobody found something so far. but it was the american government giving "proove" after "proove" that they exist. but none of the proofs worked longer than a cigarette length, they were just lies.
why can't you accept, that other people have different oppinions? what is the difference between not accepting other opinions and dictatorship? just think about.

and maybe it would also time that you think about that stupid history statement. if you want one more of that kind take this: who supported the americans during the independence war and kicked the british ass?
but i have even a better one. why the americans actually made the invasion in 1944? was it to kick the german asses and to free france? probably not. if that would be the case would have done that mouch earlier. but no, the western world was just afraid that the red army could "free" all the rest of europe and the complete continent would become some kind of giant soviet union. the usa waited so long, and at germany was close to its final breath and the red danger from the east was close to win, they showed up.

terrorism was always sowed by war, but never stoped.

so please stop to talk bull**** and try to bring peace and tollerance in the world, not hate/war/ignorance.

regars
axl

ps: would you follow a self-cosntituded christian leader into a holy war if even the pope says "NO"?
ps2: for the once of you who are toooooo stupid to think about the words that i wrote and to understand what it means, here the short version: france did nothing wrong, nobody needs a war. and now be a good boy and take a lollipop.
ps3: for the who live in a country belonging to the axis of willing and don't run for a war, thanks for your support and understanding.

[psyche]

Respect for such world.... i'm just happy that in the world some people are still open and think about peace and freedom.... what is at the origin the idea of the USA....
I'm french. the french wife of the german guy who wrote this intelligent post. It's the first time that i write in a military forum and maybe some of u will think that it's not a place for a woman, but i don't care.
I don't think that i have so much thing to add. You are proud to be american, i'm proud to be french. I'm proud to be in the side of the light, proud that my country think about peace in the world, diplomatic solution. Proud that it respect just centuries of work. The work of thousand people, the work for one life for some of them.. just to make the world a unity.
I have nothing against USA for my part everybody can think what he wants but it will be maybe time to show your famous :TOLERANCE
Regards
Aurore

[Bootneck]

Touched a nerve there eh? A bit silly to take it as a personal attack on every French person rather than the government. I did say that it was a tad simplistic but the sentiment still holds true.

All this hot air about France and Germany taking a principled stand against the war is just that, hot air. France acted purely in what it felt was it's own financial and political self interest. The whole it's all about the oil peacenik argument is really more rightly applied to France than to the US. They're no pacifists either, that's for sure. They deploy troops when and where it suits them and never ask for permission first. Germany has at least a recent pacifist tradition. Given it's history, I can almost understand that. Were there other ulterior motives for the position France, Germany and Russia took? We'll see what turns up after we really get to digging.

As for your PSs:

#1 - Why would President Bush care what the pope has to say? He's a protestant, not a catholic.
#2 - Not worth a response.
#3 - More like axis of the whining.

As far as I'm concerned it's really time to move past this and let France, Germany and Russia try to patch up they damage they did, as they're already trying to do. One thing that the original post was right about is that they need the US more than the US needs them. Valuable trading partners sure, but when the sh*t hits the fan they've not much to offer. I guess even morale support was too much to ask.

PS - I hope the Mugabe's had a nice shopping trip in Paris.

[papabear]

You will get responses to different parts of your post. I focus only on a few:


did you guys ever think about that you was blinded by your own government, by guys that came on top by being choosen by a court and not by the people?

The Supreme Court did not decide who would be president--it merely made a decision on how election law was to be adhered to, an act within the province of that Court's powers. Big difference. Besides, this is irrelevant to your argument.


y can't you accept, that other people have different oppinions? what is the difference between not accepting other opinions and dictatorship? just think about.

[edited]

terrorism was always sowed by war, but never stoped.

so please stop to talk bull**** and try to bring peace and tollerance in the world, not hate/war/ignorance.

Please define what you mean by peace and tolerance, and explain how they are to be achieved. There may be some who agree with you that tolerance is an exalted end, but I do not believe that I am one of them. Nevertheless, it would be best that you explain this further.


ps: would you follow a self-cosntituded christian leader into a holy war if even the pope says "NO"?

First of all, President Bush is not self-constituted. See above. Secondly, the war was not a "holy war." Finally, the pope's judgment of the war should be discussed elsewhere.

[Recce-det]

Maybe you two are right, France is an independant nation and they should be able to make their owns decisions right? Well they did, if some of us don't like them, it's our prerogative. I respect other countries desire for peace and freedom, I'd lke that to, I just happen to think that sometimes you need to take action to achieve those results. But to blame all the conflicts of the world on America is what's truly ignorant. You speak of tolerating other peoples opinions, you have a point, but I find it ironic that you're condemning the coalition of the willing in your posts because of their views.

The U.S is the only superpower in the world, of course their going to take a lot of heat for their decisions, it comes with the territory. The difference is that they saw themselves as friends with France, and now they feel betrayed. They may be a little pissed now, I'm sure they'll get over it and move on. They don't need France, neither do I, and France probably doesn't need them. They went from being friends to simply tolerating each-other, it's a shame, but no big deal.

I live in Montreal, Quebec. I'm completely surrounded by french people, and although i sense a certain queer aura eminating from them, I've come to respect and even admire them a bit, regardless of their anti-american views. Perhaps that's why I don't like it when Americans insult the french, it hits a little close to home. It's also somewhat immature.

So I agree with you on one issue, we should stop the infantile name-calling. Everthing else in your posts was borderline retarded though.

Oh by the way, regardless of whatever selfish or sinister motives they may have had, it was America and Russia that won the second World War for the good guys. Despite the efforts of countries like Britain and Canada, Germany was winning WW2 until America came and turned the tide. If it wasn't for the cooperation of all the countries involved, with special credit to the states, all you guys would be speaking german right now.

ps: The popes a nice guy and all, but I don't see why he should have much of a say in whether or not we go into Iraq. Contrary to what SOME of you might want to believe, this was by no means a religious war.

ps2:"France did nothing wrong"...fine. "nobody needs a war"...that's not up to you to decide. The coalition felt they needed it, you didn't have to be a part of it and you weren't.

ps3: To all those who expressed their anti- war in Iraq sentiments through appropriate means such as non-violent forms of protest, thanks for your thoughts, we appreciate your contribution to this fine democracy. To all those who covered themselves in fake blood and delayed traffic for four hours, go to hell you granola-eating, weed-smoking ignorant hippies.

[axl]

As far as I'm concerned it's really time to move past this and let France, Germany and Russia try to patch up they damage they did, as they're already trying to do. One thing that the original post was right about is that they need the US more than the US needs them. Valuable trading partners sure, but when the sh*t hits the fan they've not much to offer. I guess even morale support was too much to ask.


what damages? pissed of american government? what da hell...
its better than collateral damages and as we have seen there were again too many of it. ever thought about the civil peopled died for the glorious american government? ever seen the pictures of the burned and butchered? didn't the usa made enough damage 10 years before? why support that? or think about the thousands of american soldiers suffering from the gulf war sickness. they are still not really accepted by the government, they are the lost generation that believed in something but got just kicked ass. and still the question: for what? there was no terror danger from the iraq, even the cia said that. there was no nbc danger from the iraq, everything was destroyed after the last war. so why? just oil? so you say the world can die as long as the usa gets cheap oil? you support that your own sons get killed saomewhere in the desert, just that you guys can drive big cars?
some words alos about the axis of willing. do you know what countries are in that list? just to help you out, here the list http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html
i could come now and ask you guys to show me all of them on a map without names. how many would you find? (i don't ask you to find france, there would be a 25% chance that you find it). but what is more important is the fact of who is on that list. lets see...colombia? isn't that the country in south america where so many people get killed every day, where the usa is supporting some groups and fighting a dirty war against drugs? what else do we have..ethiopia...eritrea? okay, you never heard about them. never heard about the bluddy war they fight with missions of dead civilians until now. but...wait a minute...what was this coalition of countries going to do? fight the bad terrists in the iraq? but...just a thought...if the coalition is ment to free the world from war a dictatorship, wouldn't that mean that it would have to fight itself? just a guess, son't care, i'm german. but don't accept the world to support you. and its not just germany and france.

regards
axl

[spier]

France acted purely in what it felt was it's own financial and political self interest.You mean as opposed to the US? rofl
Bootneck, great little rant of **** you have there, but you seem to forget that it was the Russians that took the beating during WW2. The US attacked when the war was won, in an attempt to get its share of the glory and keep the European market open for American merchandise..how brave and unselfish.

I support this war. But only because of how it will eventually benefit me here in the Western world. I care just about as much about the Iraqi people as the Bush administration does, they could all drop dead infront of me and I seriously would have better things to think about. Please, nobody even think about mentioning that you are doing it for the well being of the Iraqi people, your ignorance bore me.

As for speaking German right now, then I honestly do not see the problem. (apart from the completely outdated grammar) We wouldn't have the middle east conflict today, and millions of lives would have been saved. The Cold war and Vietnam wouldn't have happend either. Europe would have been united, just as it will be in 20-30 years time when the European Union kicks in for real.

[Duke]

Axl,
At this point in time, I believe humanity, as a whole, has evolved or matured to see that war has little use in our world. From the wars in French Indochina and German concentration camps we have felt the horrors of war and are repulsed. Some people, however, in this world do see a need for using war or violence as a means to procure and maintain power. It is these types of individuals and states that many pacifists, yes pacifists like myself and many other Americans, reluctantly arm themselves to deter.
Since you are German, do you remember what the German Col. Stauffenberg said about assasinating Hilter??? He said, "If your enemy has conscious follow Ghandi, and if he doesnt follow Stauffenberg." Sometimes Axl you have to make a fist and fight. That is why today America use its military strength to maintain peace. That's a tough tenet to understand-peace through strength. Its a contradiction of terms--an oxymoron. But its the world we live in today.
PS I believe in time, history will judge the policy in Iraq the correct one, particularly the historians at the Sorbonne.

[Recce-det]

"As for speaking German right now, then I honestly do not see tproblem. (apart from the completely outdated grammar) We wouldn't have the middle east conflict today, and millions of lives would have been saved."

Hmmm, sounds nice, except for the millions of jews, including my ancestors, that would have been executed by an unopposed nazi regime. I wouldn't be here today if that were the case, not that you should care, but lol I sure do. Also, I fail to understand your reasoning behind the prevention of today's conflicts. You mean to tell me if Germany conquered France, Belgium, Holland, and other peace-loving nations, and America was left without any European allies, that we would be living in peace today? Whatever.

[axl]

@duke
i have just two problems: was the iraq really an enemy? if yes, why and for who? not for me, not for france and not for the usa. so? when the iraq was in war with the iran or when they used the chemical weapons against the kurds the usa did not really tried to make a war, did they? but right now, after the iraq stoped all that stuff, got rid of its nbc programs and most of its army, they do. but why now? all this officual claims and proofs are not really that what i can expect.
the second one: history. yes, but like always history is written down by the winner and with the american influence in today's mass medias it will not be the truth.

some weeks before i have seen a report about american soldiers supported a massacre in afghanistan...i was more than shocked. so why should i supprt that?

i am staff sergeant and i support every war that a country fights if it is attacked by somebody and tries to get back its freedom. but i don't support a war that is just started to get oil, i'm too old for that.

regards
axl

[Trigger]

i support every war that a country fights if it is attacked by somebody and tries to get back its freedom.
The problem now is the attacks can come in the form of a nuclear weapon, or a biological or chemical agent. I for one don't want to wait to be hit with one of those. That is the baseline reason for the war. To prevent or try to prevent those kinds of weapons from reaching us. If you want to wait to be attacked, go ahead. I wont cry at your funeral.

[axl]

do you think the usa would attack a country that could use such weapons? so why they don't attack uk, france, russia, israel, india, pakistan, south afrika....
and why would somebody become a terrorist? he wakes up in the morning and say's: hmmm, ****ing day, let's become terrorist...
its more that he has a really big problem and no other way against a supperior enemy. and kicking the arabien world is the right wy to produce more and more terrorists.

regards
axl

[Duke]

Here's the pro-free Iraq perspective.
Historically, Iraq has sought and built WMD. That is irrefutable. Dr. Khadir Hamza, PhD, "Saddams Bombmaker" and many other nuclear and biochemical scientists who have defected since 1994 have stated that Saddam even after the Gulf War has had a secret program to build such weapons. Case in point Dr. Hamza said, "..under the nose of the International Atomic Energy Agency we built our nuclear program." Im not trying to bash the Germans or French here but many of the components used by the Iraqi were obtained from both countries, but we will find WMD.
Also, Iraq is a Napoleanic dictatorship. These two facts create an unstable situation where WMD can fall into the wrong hands. The US argues that we must account for WMD or face their effects (post 9/11)
Massacare is a word for an intended death of numerous and helpless people, if you think Americans willfully go and do that sort of thing then I cant reason with you, especially if you say your inthe military.
Your history statement is false. In our world today where we value and seek freedom of speech(where I might add that did not exist in Iraq weeks ago) the truth or the facts of the Iraqi conflict will not be threaten by the US or Germany. Historian/journalists are much smarter than that.

[Trigger]

OK axl, let get out the crayons and draw a picture...
UK, France (ha,ha) Russia, Israel, etc. have established and demonstrated sound doctrine on the use of WMDs....
So we wont attack them because they're less likely to use them for reasons other than defence...
Now, countries like Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, with established links to terrorists and the willingness to sell anything to said terrorists are the ones we attack. Is that nice and clear for you. Now go blow your nose sonny. Kindergarten is all done for today.

[spier]

i support every war that a country fights if it is attacked by somebody and tries to get back its freedom.
The problem now is the attacks can come in the form of a nuclear weapon, or a biological or chemical agent. I for one don't want to wait to be hit with one of those. That is the baseline reason for the war. To prevent or try to prevent those kinds of weapons from reaching us. If you want to wait to be attacked, go ahead. I wont cry at your funeral.So basically, you defend the war in Iraq with the argument that according to you then it is entirely legal to kill anyone that can kill you, but do not intend to do so? rofl Oh, and before you furthermore make an ass out of yourself, even Bush does not focus on the WMD, he keep saying he is doing it for the Iraqi people. The WMD allegations was only an attempt to get the resolution that would allow military action to be taken through the Security Council. When it became obvious that the "proof" against Saddam wasn't strong enough, then the Bush administration changed the entire thing into a propaganda war, with the people of America as its target audience. Maybe you just isn't up to date with the latest propaganda. You know, how those horrible Iraqis that stole those damn incubators from those poor babies, and how the US restored peace in the region by re-instating the Kuwaiti dictatorship.

Recce-det, you are alive today because at least 2 russians died for you on the east front. Are you really worth two people?

[Trigger]

So basically, you defend the war in Iraq with the argument that according to you then it is entirely legal to kill anyone that can kill you, but do not intend to do so?
No moron. You understand pre-emptive measures as well as I do.
I know all you Frenchies are just pissed because you had a chance to do the right thing, but now you look like fools because you didn't.
Life's a bitch.

[Bootneck]

Recce-det, you are alive today because at least 2 russians died for you on the east front. Are you really worth two people?

And out comes the "Peace at All Costs" argument. Even stopping the holocaust wasn't reason enough for war? I guess that explains why the Europeans were unwilling to really do anything about the Balkans...

[spier]

So basically, you defend the war in Iraq with the argument that according to you then it is entirely legal to kill anyone that can kill you, but do not intend to do so?
No moron. You understand pre-emptive measures as well as I do.
I know all you Frenchies are just pissed because you had a chance to do the right thing, but now you look like fools because you didn't.
Life's a bitch.Holy ****! Now you are seriously starting to talk bull. First, where did I say I was French? I am not. Not that it would matter since I really couldn't care much less what nationality any of you are, since most of you seem to be talking crap no matter what side you are on.

Second, why should anyone be pissed because you invaded a country to take away its non-existant arsenal of WMD? Sorry, your logic is failing.

[Recce-det]

i support every war that a country fights if it is attacked by somebody and tries to get back its freedom.
The problem now is the attacks can come in the form of a nuclear weapon, or a biological or chemical agent. I for one don't want to wait to be hit with one of those. That is the baseline reason for the war. To prevent or try to prevent those kinds of weapons from reaching us. If you want to wait to be attacked, go ahead. I wont cry at your funeral.So basically, you defend the war in Iraq with the argument that according to you then it is entirely legal to kill anyone that can kill you, but do not intend to do so? rofl Oh, and before you furthermore make an ass out of yourself, even Bush does not focus on the WMD, he keep saying he is doing it for the Iraqi people. The WMD allegations was only an attempt to get the resolution that would allow military action to be taken through the Security Council. When it became obvious that the "proof" against Saddam wasn't strong enough, then the Bush administration changed the entire thing into a propaganda war, with the people of America as its target audience. Maybe you just isn't up to date with the latest propaganda. You know, how those horrible Iraqis that stole those damn incubators from those poor babies, and how the US restored peace in the region by re-instating the Kuwaiti dictatorship.

Recce-det, you are alive today because at least 2 russians died for you on the east front. Are you really worth two people?

I think most of the people posting in this thread know how to identify and avoid falling for propaganda. Obviously, Bush is trying to rally people behind him by using facts that help his cause and discarding those that don't. Saddam Hussein did this to a much more extreme degree, but that's besides the point. I have the ability and the right to disseminate fact from fiction. I don't watch Fox news (right-wing, biased news network) or Iraqi TV, and I don't think Bush is a saint or a devil. Life is not black or white, but different shades of grey, you have to view the facts and make your own decisions. Like many of the people that post here, I believe that Iraq had WMD's after they kicked out the UN inspectors (in 1998 was it?). It's hard to know exactly where they are now, but that doesn't change the fact that they had them and now they can't use them because their not in power. Of course then one could argue that since they didn't use them, they weren't a threat. That would be a weak argument. Considering all the anti-american terrorist organizations in the middle-east, Iraq wouldn't have to look far to find one that would put the weapons to "good" use.

"Recce-det, you are alive today because at least 2 russians died for you on the east front. Are you really worth two people?"

Nope, but I'd like to thank them nevertheless, and I don't throw the gift they gave me to waste just because I don't deserve it. Americans, British, Australians, Canadian soldiers like I will soon be fully qualified as, and many others even including France fought Germany and it's couple of allies for a number of reasons, including their treatment of Jews...millions of jews as i recall. They thought all those reasons made it worth it, I think they were right.

"

[axl]

@trigger
there is no proof for a cooperation the iraq or north korea with terrorists and even with the iran it should hard for you to bring something else then "it is said that they support that and that organisation". why you believe anything you hear? why its a problem to simply understand that its wrong whats going on, that the country that is claiming to be the best democracy is doing an attack war to more resources? remember the amthrax letters sent around in the usa? did you know that the stuff came out of an american laboratory and was sent by american guys? is that also some kind of your so called doctrine? its not as simple as you think.

regards
axl

[Duke]

Why the hell was Abu Abbas in Iraq??? Are you saying hijacking a cruise ship threatening to kill all the people aboard and then KILLING an old man in a WHEELCHAIR not terrorism???

[Trigger]

there is no proof for a cooperation the iraq or north korea with terrorists
The proof you require is a pile of dead people in a major city or a mushroom cloud.
That logic apparently escapes you, so I'm all done here. :|

[spier]

The proof you require is a pile of dead people in a major city or a mushroom cloud.
That logic apparently escapes you, so I'm all done here. :|Let us try another piece of logic: Why haven't Iraq attacked earlier if they had these massive arsenals of WMD? Why didn't they defend themselves with WMD when their positions were being over run? Could it possibly be because of the fact that THEY DO NO HAVE LARGE ARSENALS OF WMD?! And even if they had, why should they give them to terrorists like bin Laden that has condemned the Iraqi regime several times because of its ungodly ways? And what would Iraq gain by destroying a US city? Iraq does not care about the US, it only cares about Israel. Although with the powerful pro-israel lobbies in Washington then it seems like Israel foreign policy = US foreign policy, so it might not be much of a difference..

[Duke]

"Could it possibly be because of the fact that THEY DO NO HAVE LARGE ARSENALS OF WMD?! "
Given an eighth of a tablespoon of anthracis and one could plate enough to kill tens of thousands or more

"why should they give them to terrorists like bin Laden that has condemned the Iraqi regime several times because of its ungodly ways"
Iraq gave numerous jet aircraft to their archrivals the Iranians during the first GW.

Why doesnt my quote button work??

[hood]

You forget that one of the missions of the US, is to promote democracies in other parts of the world. As Israel is one of the only democracies in the region, the US offers extraordinary support to it. The rest of the world hates Jews. The French do, the Germans do, the Arabs do... they do everything they can to rid the world of them. If a country has struck out at it's neighbors in the past, including Israel, and we feel that it might do it again, the US is going to take it out if the conditions are ripe. Iraq was ripe.

[Knave]

I suppose that those same peace-loving, good-natured, humanitarian nations of Russia, France and Germany are now saying they'll stonewall the lifting of sanctions on Iraq (a move which would allow an influx of trade, aid, investment and the ability for a new, free Iraqi government to get on its feet).... why? Out of the kindness of their hearts?

"It's about oil" -- you're right, it is now, particularily if you're a French, German or Russian oil company with interests there that you're sure to lose because you chose to deal with a tyrannical regime for your own profit.

Searching for WMD in Iraq is akin to looking for a needle in a haystack. They've already found clues and strong testimony from captured officials saying a program was in place. Will they find the actual weapons? Maybe not. The traces of mustard gas they found in the Euphrates a few weeks ago is only circumstantial.......

[Ratamacue]

Bootneck, great little rant of **** you have there, but you seem to forget that it was the Russians that took the beating during WW2. The US attacked when the war was won, in an attempt to get its share of the glory and keep the European market open for American merchandise..how brave and unselfish.

Whatever you say, buddy. I wasn't aware that the fact that Europe was almost entirely under German control and Russia was taking an amazing beating fell under the category of the war being victorious for Allied forces (not to mention the fact that Japan was completely taking over the Pacific Ocean and very well possibly China itself eventually).

I don't know how well you know history, but I'll try to educate you some. On 7 December 1941, the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii by the Japanese, killing over 4000 US servicemen/women. Subsequent invasions included the Japanese attack on Wake Island, completely destroying the US garrison there as well as in other places.

On December 8, war was officially declared on Japan. I *believe* it was the following day that Germany and Italy declared war on the United States in "defense" of Japan according to the Axis Alliance. Therefore, the US was basically forced to go to war not only in the Pacific, but also in Europe. In addition, I believe that any person with a half-decent education and grip on reality will admit that Europe would be entirely German today if the US had not intervened.

[hood]

The idea of French being for peace and the US for war is a giant load of steaming ****. How can you say that the French are for peace when they sold the Iraqi's the nuclear plant to develop nuclear weapons? The most destructive of all WMD. How can you say they're for peace, when it was their anti-tank rockets used in Gulf War 2 that were able to take out a couple of the US Abrams tanks? Why is it that all these countries are so much for peace, yet we keep finding weapons from 2000 and 2001 with Made in France and Made in Jordan on it? Please tell me.. you say you're for peace, and then sell them the weapons to fight us and the UN that France is supposedly part of.

[lambert]

well, okay guys...I'm french. I'm sering in the french army as 2ic of an armoured infabtry company.
from a political point of view I agreed with my government about war in irak.
now, what about the us gov saying: ok, guys, we want this ****ing oil and gonna get it...It would have been much more honest...Then, the westerners should ally and attack the whole region, saudi arabia first.yep, the us main ally in the area.Don't u know it's a despotic government? so let's get the oil cake together ans split it between us! :fork:
then, we'll have to soluce the palestinian problem by developing palestinian economy and forcing both parts to work together.
by the way, why western counrties do not develop hydrgenic energies.Thus, we'll leave the arabs with their polluting oil!

[FabeYond]

Bootneck, great little rant of **** you have there, but you seem to forget that it was the Russians that took the beating during WW2. The US attacked when the war was won, in an attempt to get its share of the glory and keep the European market open for American merchandise..how brave and unselfish.

Whatever you say, buddy. I wasn't aware that the fact that Europe was almost entirely under German control and Russia was taking an amazing beating fell under the category of the war being victorious for Allied forces (not to mention the fact that Japan was completely taking over the Pacific Ocean and very well possibly China itself eventually).

I don't know how well you know history, but I'll try to educate you some. On 7 December 1941, the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii by the Japanese, killing over 4000 US servicemen/women. Subsequent invasions included the Japanese attack on Wake Island, completely destroying the US garrison there as well as in other places.

On December 8, war was officially declared on Japan. I *believe* it was the following day that Germany and Italy declared war on the United States in "defense" of Japan according to the Axis Alliance. Therefore, the US was basically forced to go to war not only in the Pacific, but also in Europe. In addition, I believe that any person with a half-decent education and grip on reality will admit that Europe would be entirely German today if the US had not intervened.


The germans wanted to take over Russia with their Blitzkrieg-Tactics. It should have started on May 1941, because they didn't want to make the mistake Nepoleon did and get stucked due to bad weather conditions. But they had to delay the offensive because they had to deal with problems on the Balkan (designed by Churchill for this very reason). Otherwise the eastern front would have been cut off from oil.
So they were too late with the offensive and got stuck before Moscow. Blitzkrieg didn't work.
Another reason was that they lacked heavy bombers, which they needed to destroy the weapons industry of the russians in their backyard. They couldn't reach it. This industry pulled out 25.400 planes and 24.400 tanks in 1942 alone (germany 15.400 planes and 9.200 tanks).
The USA provided help to the russians (and other countries) without troops at first, especially communications equipment and techniques (which the russians lacked badly). So the russians were able to communicate in a way they never had before.
This were the main reasons germany lost the war.
Well, perhaps they had won if the usa hadn't attacked but that's not sure.
At least the russians took most of the beating (13.000.000 soldiers/7.000.000 civilians lost) compared to the usa (about 250.000 soldiers). The usa could have attacked earlier (and would have lost more soldiers) but they let the russians do most of the hard work.
That's okay in my mind. I wouldn't have done it different if i were the us government.
From my point of view I can say that without the usa i would now be russian or nazi. Well, i'm german so perhaps being nazi wouldn't be bad for me but i prefer to be what i am now and so I can say that the outcome is allright for me and I wouldn't criticize the behavior of the us in WWII as selfish (allthough it might have been).
I hope you understand my explanations, 'cause i'm not used to write english regularly.

FabeYond

[Vance]

The US attacked when the war was won, in an attempt to get its share of the glory and keep the European market open for American merchandise..how brave and unselfish.

Are you JOKING? Listen froggie, if you didnt notice America enetered the war in 1941, and was still selling weapons and ammunition to the British throughout the Battle of Britain. Truman was only trying to be a good president and listen to his people, because beileve it or not before Pearl Harbor the majority of Americans were opposed to entering the war. They wanted to go on peacfully, but I guess Yamamoto didnt want that. Pearl Harbor gave us every reason to enter the war, and it was only just more than 2 years after Germany invaded Poland. Now I dont know about you, but when a country enters a war in 1941 and it ends in 1945 when it started in 1939, I would call that being in the war almost from the beginning. Entering the war when it was already won would of been around late 1944.

And also, the US finished the war. After all the little European countries were celeberating the fall of the Reich, the Americans were still fighting hard against the Japanese. Germany started the war, America finished it.

BOOYAHKASHA!

[JTFazz]

This is out of context obviously, but I think this line from "A Few Good Men" kinda states my contribution to this flame war.


I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.

[hood]

lambert, by your reasoning, we would have taken the saudi's oil after the first gulf war. but we didn't. by your reasoning we would have taken the iraqi's oil after the first gulf war, but we didn't. by your reasoning we would have taken the kuwaiti's oil, but we didn't. there's no time when we have, so where are you getting it from? it's the FRENCH that made oil deals with Hussein where the money went to his personal bank accounts instead of benefitting the iraqi people. NOT THE US.

[axl]

wait a second, isn't most of the oil from the gulf going to the usa? but the usa has the problem that the arabien countries have more and more inner political problems and sooner or later they will not anymore accept the american dominance. the usa is not really welcome in saudi arabia. and about the iraqi oil after the second golf war (the first one was between iran and iraq) the usa decided not to take over the iraq for several reasons, may it be international pressure or may it be the impossible control over a country that consists of too many different people.
not only the french had contracts with the iraq, the usa had also. so don't start to argue like that.

regards
axl

[Kitsune]

@spier...can you explain why Recce-det is alive because of this two Russians? Are you really so deluded to think that the Germans tried to kill all inhabitants of all nations in Europe they conquered? Or that the Russians wanted to free France? Do you think the people of eastern Europe were happy to be "freed" by the Red Army? Do you know how many human beings were murdered under Stalins rule? (Well I don't, but it seems that the numbers were as high or even higher than those of the german holocaust).

[papabear]

Data for the year 2001--what was imported, how much, and from where.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_annual/psa_volume1/current/txt/table_21.txt

Info page
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/importexport.html

[papabear]

While the U.S., in the latter part of the 19th century and in the 20th, did engage in some direct colonialism (e.g. Philippines), one other practice of foreign policy was the establishment of "banana republics," primarily in the Western Hemisphere. Colonialism is "out," but some may question whether building banana republics is still a practice of the U.S. government, and point to the current situation in Iraq as an example. Does the U.S. need direct control over the oil wells in Iraq in order to protect its supply? No--all it needs is a friendly government that will not shut down production at the first sign of a crisis or disagreement, and shares some commitment to "free trade". In addition, in a region where it's national security is at stake because of its huge dependence on oil, it would be important for the U.S. to elminate any threats to the security of region and to the free flow of oil, such as Iraq. Even if we did not import any oil from Iraq, all other things being the same, if Iraq were really a threat to other nations and hence to the oil supply, one might argue that the U.S. has reason to change the government. [Here I use "oil" to refer not only to its crude form, but also to petroleum products.]

Now, that is one view of what is happening now. The second view is that while national interest is at stake, there are also "benevolent" motives for changing the government in Iraq. The third view would be that only benevolent motives are at play--I would think that any reasonable and worldly person would probably see that this is not tenable.

How serious is this disagreement between the U.S. and France + Germany? In the long run, it is probably not very important. But I think it would behoove us, wherever we are in what remains of Western civilization, to see that we share common problems which we need to address. Our governments may disagree on how to best proceed in formulating and implementing their foreign policy, but all of them will be concerned with the good of their respective countries first. While some may reduce the current disagreement to a squabble over limited resources, we can be somewhat open to the possibility that there are legitimate and sincere differences of judgment as to what is the best course of action to take with respect to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

I think we also can all admit that a government should be focused on the good of its own citizenry first, and not on the good of another country. However, a good government not only protects the good of its country, but it does so without harming the good of another. The U.S. and W. Europe are heavily dependant on oil, too dependant. Instead of focusing on what might be the ramifications or effects of that dependency on the foreign policy of our respective governments, we should instead be focusing on changing our lifestyles as much as we can, so as to reduce that dependency.

A book recommendation: What E. F. Schumacher writes in his book Small is Beautiful is relevant for people living in W. Europe and in the U.S.

[Seiyuuki]

france made the right decission, like germany and russia and china and 99% of the people of the world. but your great government just ignored that, flooded your brains with propaganda stuff and now you run around like a child with a drum, singing a stupid song without thinking about the words coming out of its mouth. did you guys ever think about that you was blinded by your own government, by guys that came on top by being choosen by a court and not by the people? did you ever thought about that this war was just a long planed operation? there were no chemical/biolocical/atomic weapons, nobody found something so far. but it was the american government giving "proove" after "proove" that they exist. but none of the proofs worked longer than a cigarette length, they were just lies.

Population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people, world population is approximately 6,288,058,783 (U.S. Census Bureau 1998, give or take, rounded off to 7 billion for 2003), account for a faction of the remaining world population that simply don't know, don't care, or neutral...the population of the unwilling/whining is not 99% of the world...tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk...can't even do simple math.

I was born in Vietnam, live there for ten years with the commies, attended school there and an additional two years of schooling in Japan, so when I move here and attended school...trust me when I say, I can recognize governmental propaganda or not. Contrary to some belief, most thing here are unbias, why? how? The difference between the media here and in most countries in Europe and elsewhere is that the media here are not state-own and almost completely independent, the newspaper here are almost entirely free from government regulation, while radio and television only have to consent to very few governmental guideline set out by the FCC. For every pro-war broadcasting, there's an anti-war broadcasting, the Democrat, an adamant voice for anti-war are freely allow to proceed ahead with their plan to set up a broad nationwide radio network...see both sides of the story are heard. Fox is seem as pro-war, CNN is seem as anti-war, Hannity & Colmes - Conservative and Liberal. With all this balancing act, it is hard to be completely bias and to say that we are all under the propaganda of the government is to say that all we see and hear on tv, radio, newspaper, and magazines is untrustworthy...so we shouldn't trust ABC, NBC, FOX, BBC, CNN, CBS, C-SPAN, CNBC, MSNBC, the Washington Post, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, TIME, NEWSWEEK...etc...Take the "Pentagon Paper" for example, the government try to smash its publication, but that didn't work because our law allow for that broad flexibility in news reporting.

Why do we need WMD as a reason? Is the world so cynical that we must appease a dictator and lets his people suffer, all your time arguing against the war, did you stop and realize that the Saddam has kill more Muslim than anybody else in the world? Did we need a WMD reason to go into Bosnia? did the UN need a WMD reason to intervene in every other situations in the world? N. Korea said it has nuclear weapon and will test it and may export...is the UN doing anything major to intervene...NO!!! in fact, on several occassion, it has insisted that the U.S. go at it alone, ironic ain't it.


why can't you accept, that other people have different oppinions? what is the difference between not accepting other opinions and dictatorship? just think about.

The difference is, we the U.S., accept other opinions...and Saddam is a dictator, just think about it. Boycotting is not an official U.S. policy, it is the wish and action of her citizens. If I decide to boycott the French, then it is my right, if I decide to spread the words and ask others to do so, it is my right, and it is up to them to decide, and apparently, a majority have decided to boycott. What are you complaining about, the French and German and whoever in the world want to have the right to their anti-American opinion, we don't like it, but hey...it's their opinion, so we have the right to be anti-French or German, etc. because that is our opinion...so stop complaining!!!...ah, you got to love irony.


and maybe it would also time that you think about that stupid history statement. if you want one more of that kind take this: who supported the americans during the independence war and kicked the british ass?
but i have even a better one. why the americans actually made the invasion in 1944? was it to kick the german asses and to free france? probably not. if that would be the case would have done that mouch earlier. but no, the western world was just afraid that the red army could "free" all the rest of europe and the complete continent would become some kind of giant soviet union. the usa waited so long, and at germany was close to its final breath and the red danger from the east was close to win, they showed up.

LOL!!! The French never committed any major ground troops in the Revolutionary War. They didn't even decided to participate until our victory at the Battle of Ticonderoga just like our late bloomer in World War 2, so I guess that cancel each other out. All our victories in the Revolutionary War were won by Americans leading and fighting, all we got from the French was the muskets and the use of their Navy to keep the British's Navy busy. The only other help that I admire the most about the French was Lafayette, and we love him so much we made him an honorary U.S. citizen to rescue him from his French origin. The first word that was utter from the mouth of the first American General in France in World War 1 was "Lafayette, we have come..." or something close to that wording. We have more than once repay that debt.

Let say we didn't intervene...the German doesn't have to worry about its western flank because Britain does not have the necessary manpower and resource to invade mainland Europe, Patton wouldn't be in Northern Africa and the Desert Fox would push the British back all the way to Egypt, Italy wouldn't be invaded from Africa and they wouldn't turn on the German, leaving the German with the resources to concentrate on only one front, Russia. With the Japanese working across Russia from the East and German from the West, not even the Russian's winter could keep Russia from falling for long. Our intervention ensure the Allies victory, we disruptive the alliance between Japan, Italy, and Germany, we open multiple fronts that the German must contend with, stretching their resoures to its limit. Europe was lucky we intervene when we did, Germany was far from its last breath and the Red Army was farther from victory.


so please stop to talk bull**** and try to bring peace and tollerance in the world, not hate/war/ignorance.

That's...one...two...oh, forget it...too many hypocrisy.


ps: would you follow a self-cosntituded christian leader into a holy war if even the pope says "NO"?

THIS "HOLY WAR" STUFF AGAIN!!! First of all, when the Holy War was wage, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DID NOT EVEN EXIST YET!!! and the war was wage on by who? MOST OF EUROPE UNDER THE ORDER OF THE POPE!!! I would hope the Pope says "NO," if he didn't, this would look exactly like a Holy War fought for the Church. And again, do you realize that ever since the last Holy War, Saddam has kill more Muslim than anyone else.


ps2: for the once of you who are toooooo stupid to think about the words that i wrote and to understand what it means, here the short version: france did nothing wrong, nobody needs a war. and now be a good boy and take a lollipop.

You might want to think about that now... :)

[Seiyuuki]

what damages? pissed of american government? what da hell...its better than collateral damages and as we have seen there were again too many of it. ever thought about the civil peopled died for the glorious american government? ever seen the pictures of the burned and butchered? didn't the usa made enough damage 10 years before? why support that?

Yes, I have seen pictures of the burned and butchered, the Kuwaiti and the thousands that suffer under Saddam. Don't even tell me you were against the Gulf War 10 years ago??? So you would be so anti-war that you would let Saddam invade Kuwait and torture its people, would you still be anti-war if he proceed to take over the entire Middle East, remember, the man did have the ambition of leading a new Pan-Arab states.


or think about the thousands of american soldiers suffering from the gulf war sickness. they are still not really accepted by the government, they are the lost generation that believed in something but got just kicked ass. and still the question: for what? there was no terror danger from the iraq, even the cia said that. there was no nbc danger from the iraq, everything was destroyed after the last war. so why? just oil? so you say the world can die as long as the usa gets cheap oil? you support that your own sons get killed saomewhere in the desert, just that you guys can drive big cars?

Uhh...this isn't the 60s and 70s and the Gulf War wasn't Vietnam, I didn't hear anything about them being boo or look down upon, wait...that's because I am not you and proud of our fighting men and women...yeah...so stop booing them...We didn't destroy everything in the last war, as I recall, wasn't Saddam the one that set off hundreds of oil wells on fire, harming the environment and eventually harming the lives of countless people living in the are who have to snuff in the burning fume. Mothers and fathers in the U.S. support their sons and *daughters* (don't forget, we are an almost equal *** opportunity military) because it is their job, their duty and the belief that what they are fighting for is right, have you even talk to any of these people? Again, you don't have to like the war, BUT YOU SUPPORT THE TROOPS NONETHELESS!!! because they are the one that are putting their life in danger, that is more than any of us could do.


some words alos about the axis of willing. do you know what countries are in that list? just to help you out, here the list http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html
i could come now and ask you guys to show me all of them on a map without names. how many would you find? (i don't ask you to find france, there would be a 25% chance that you find it).

Well, what do you know, I can find France and all those other countries too when looking at a map without names. And now the mocking of intelligent, typical ain't it? lots of insult but little in backing it.


but what is more important is the fact of who is on that list. lets see...colombia? isn't that the country in south america where so many people get killed every day, where the usa is supporting some groups and fighting a dirty war against drugs?

What do you propose the alternative be...let the corruption continue, "NO WAR!!!" again so that the drug trade could continue to proliferate. What groups would that be...oh, wait, it's the typical conspiracy theorist mumbo jumbo. Been to Colombia, my friend have, and as he told me, until you see the situation first hand, there is no way neither you or me can really comment on how to wage the drug war.


...what was this coalition of countries going to do? fight the bad terrists in the iraq?

What was the coalition of unwilling to do...WHINE!!! Being a friend and an ally does not always mean they have to commit troops or money or material support in every struggle, their words of support alone is valuable enough...more than I can say for our other so-called backstabbing "friends."

[papabear]

Information compiled by sftt on Gulf War Syndrome:

http://www.sftt.org/poisonedbattlefield.html

[Bing]

axl wrote:
"Let us try another piece of logic: Why haven't Iraq attacked earlier if they had these massive arsenals of WMD? Why didn't they defend themselves with WMD when their positions were being over run? Could it possibly be because of the fact that THEY DO NO HAVE LARGE ARSENALS OF WMD?!"

try this piece of logic. You are a failing regeime, you have a secret stockpile of WMD, but even if you were to use them you would then be PROVEN to have them. The world would turn against you, even the pacifist countries ie: France, Germany. You can't handle the US/British Coalition, let alone the World...what do you do? It's quite simple, and it's more of a political victory than a fighting one. You destroy the WMD, you erase ALL evidence if possible of ALL WMD so as to seem innocent and what does that do? That makes the US/UK war unjust.

You might say..."well there bing, u said it, they destroyed their stocks of WMD, thus the war is immoral"...it's a little too late for that, they've have enough time to destroy it (hell if they could do it within 27 days of fighting, they could do it within the months, even some may argue years of peacetime). It is all just a matter of time for either the forensic evidence of the existing samples, or if an undestroyed stockpile is found for this war to be justified.

plz note, this is only one possible scenario...and i'm not saying that this is what really happened...but it seems feasable enough to post...


Vance wrote:
"Truman was only trying to be a good president and listen to his people, because beileve it or not before Pearl Harbor the majority of Americans were opposed to entering the war. They wanted to go on peacfully, but I guess Yamamoto didnt want that. Pearl Harbor gave us every reason to enter the war, and it was only just more than 2 years after Germany invaded Poland."

ok...first of all, Truman wasn't the president at the start of the war...it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Truman is famous for the A Bomb which ended the war. And we weren't exactly being a peaceful nation. With the lend-lease program to both Russia and the UK, we gave them planes, trucks, boats, arms and munitions to fight the battle we couldn't help them in. As for Yamamoto wanting to attack pearl harbor, that statement is entirely false. It was infact yamamoto who recognized the American industrial power, having been to America, he had seen how capable the American industry was if it were to be converted to manufacturing wartime goods. He was infact opposed to attacking America. What he told his superiors (and this is just a vague paraphrase), he said that he was able to guarantee a victory (at pearl harbor) but it wasn't worth it or he didn't want American participation in the war. Something to that effect but it was clear that he was opposed to fighting America.

[seventy6er]

The rest of the world hates Jews. The French do, the Germans do, the Arabs do... they do everything they can to rid the world of them. .

HOOD, you as moderator and admin of this site shouldn't spread BS like that. how can you say sth like "the germans hate jews"? there are way few numbers of rascists or right-wing germans than americans, but rascism in germany has always been a big deal for the international media because of our past. i don't claim "americans hate indians" or "americans hate blacks", do i? so please cut the crap...

[He219]

Well said; Bootneck, Psyche and Papabear:

The right to criticize has been won by the defenders of democracy. The problem is that the Europeans and Others are seem to think that the American Psyche is about War and Dominance (or Oil, Levis and McDonalds). They have more than a hard time understanding the values and principles that make us American; the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -for all. Yes, that goes for everyone including the Arabs. We live in a world far from perfect. I am far from perfect.

Axl, you really think the war was about oil? History has and will show the purpose of our actions. Even today we read in the English papers (telgraph.co.uk) that evidence of WMD and an Al Quida link exists. If you choose not to belive then you have to wonder about what you read about Afghani 'massacres'. Hatred and anymosity of our way of life is so strong that it is even in your own words.

Spier: The rediculous notion that the US fights only opportunistic wars is mindboggling. Yes it was the breaking of neutrality in both WWI and WWII in our total support for our English brethren that Germany looked upon us as an Enemy combatant and declared war on us (WWII). We supported the Soviet Ally with Arms and Money to hold presure in the East. We sent volunteers to fight as far back as the Battle of Britain. The UK was doomed to fall to Socialists- like you - had we not supported them.
We went into Africa againt Vichy forces and finishedwinning back France for the French, Europe for the Europeans. We even made the mistake of continuing the French war in Indo China in firm belief to stop Communist Aggression.

My German relatives told me about the Firestorms in Hamburg and the carpetbombing in the Ruhr. Hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. War is to be avoided whenever possible. Just remember the flipside of Chaimberlain's approach through appeasement and the eventual failure of the League of Nations. Tyrranical regiemes must be dealt with. The Iraqis welcomed the downfall of Saddam Hussein. Now we read of direct Russian and French support of Saddam through the passing of intelligence on US intentions and the furnishing of weapons through Jordan and Syria such as the Kornet E, Roland 2? etc.. Seems to be you guys chose the wrong side (Schroeder too) and you will pay a price.

Post WWII Europe would have fallen to the Communists, heck they are part of the governments of Italy and Spain, probably France too to this day. The Martial Plan financed European rebuilding. Americans are good at Cleaning House and Rebuilding and refinancing. Socialist roots in Europe resents this. You speak so high and mighty about how smart you are and what nations you can identify on a map. What are you trying to proove? That you are not lame?

I'm Proud to be an American!

-He219 (one bas ass German plane)

[He219]

well said Bing and Seiyuuki.

-He219

[papabear]

The problem is that the Europeans and Others are seem to think that the American Psyche is about War and Dominance (or Oil, Levis and McDonalds). They have more than a hard time understanding the values and principles that make us American; the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -for all.

I leave it up to the Europeans to provide evidence that this is not true, that they do understand these "values and principles". I will say this: first of all, just because these values and principles are not written down in a constitution or official document of certain countries does not mean that these are not principles by which the people and their governments operate. Secondly, to put America in a special category by itself is to ignore the tradition of liberalism which underlies both American and European culture since the late 18th century. So I will have to disagree with you--Americans and Europeans are able to engage in all sorts of "rights talk" and will most likely have a substantial agreement as to what these rights are and from what they originate and their place in political life--they agree on these principles--but they differ, in the case of Iraq, as to how these principles are to be applied in concrete situations.

[TacoDelRio]

You all don't need to worry about anything. Everything on Earth is under control. And to those who say "Don't make fun of other countries!", why do YOU?

Either way, War is a constant, people die, **** happens. The USA is simply trying to slow or stop more **** from happening.

I apologize to the moderator for foul language.

Hooah! p-)

[Trigger]

Nice post Seiyuuki! woot

[axl]

@Seiyuuki
yes you are right, like most people i was not against the last golf war. i believed in the news that i got and the pictures i have seen on tv. i was young and believed that ****, like birds full of oil, were they found out later that the pictures came from canada. or the girl that was claiming to be a nurse and that she has seen the iuraqi soldiers killing the baby. and then they found out she was the doughter of an ambassador in new york. thats all **** and not the truth.
i believed also in the word of the last german minister of defence, as he was talking about the kosovo and massacres and all that. i don't say that everything was okay there, but the main event he claimed as a point where we should attack was a lie. it never happened but germany followed the others and went to war.

if you come now and tell me that the war against the iraq is because the people are tortured or whatever, then the simple question is why is the usa not attacking other countries? just check palestine or half of afrika?

i also don't say something about you or somebody else here is not proud of its army. i talk about your governement that is not supporting in a way that they should do. your people do and thats what i'm respecting, but your government doesn't. and the thousands of sick people will tell you that i'm right.
serving it's own country is something that you can see from two sides. in case of a national emergency, if your country is under attack or so, i'm with you. but is there any need? is the iraq going to attack the usa? there is no proof for wma or any connection to terrorists. if you come now with unconfirmed reports about discussions the iraq had years before, maybe, nobody knows, with somebody who could maybe be a terrorist today. so what? rumsfeld talked to sadam, the usa supported the iraq! thats history, not today. so from my point of view the usa was not in danger from the iraq. and in that case the soldiers so not serve the country, they serve the government. but honestly, i would never follow them.
about the troops themselfe, each of them should know for what they are risking their lifes and each of them will have his own reason. talking about me, as i was in the army i thought different than today, i wanted to go wherever my government would sent me. i did not really thought about the reasons, i was too young. and thats the same point with most of the soldiers, the yare too young. with 20 or 25 nobody is really thinking about his own life, nobody is asking for any reason. i was not different.

being a friend does not mean to send troops. but it also does not mean that you have to have the same opinion all the time. it means that you can talk about and if you don't come to one statement, so what? but it does not mean that you try to hurt the others for their opinion.

@he219
whats the connection between iraq and al quida? so whats your point? you could even find a connection between me and wmd, thjey are easy to make. so?

regards
axl

[Ratamacue]

Axl, documents were found in the Iraqi Intelligence Ministry's (I think that's what it's called anyway...it's their equivalent of the CIA) HQ linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden.

[axl]

possible documents talk about a contacts to al quaida, not bin laden. they don't say what communication or if there was a partnership. and those documents are not even confirmed by officials. even if that contacts would be true, what would it proof? as far as i know the contact was in the 1990s. and there is nothing about terroristic attacks in it, right? hey, the usa has al quaida guys in cuba, does that mean the usa is a terroristic state? yes, most of you guys will say no, but only with the fact that there could be a contact between iraq and al quaida is also not really a reason to assume that the iraq has something to do with terrorists. infact the iraq arrested islamic guys, they didn't like what they did and the iraq was too much afraid that islamic guys could attack the iraq itselfe.

regards
axl

[Seiyuuki]

LOL!!! Link to Al-Queda, but not bin Laden??? Last time I check, wasn't he the man in charge of Al-Queda??? LOL!!! U.S.A. has Al-Queda guys in Cuba, man...this just keep getting better. Sometimes I wonder if you're just another five year old behind a computer...man, this is just embarrassing.

[axl]

and? contact to an organisation does not mean that you know one of its bosses. politics is made on lower levels, the ones on top are most of the time only puppets.
and actually i'm 5 years and 2 months old. but you were pretty close.

regards
axl

[Ratamacue]

Yup, the US does have Al Qaida guys in Cuba. In the prison at Guantanamo Bay, that is. I don't see how that could possibly make the US terroristic if we have terrorist PRISONERS in a PRISON in US-OWNED territory in Cuba.

[Duke]

Axl you are ignorant. On one hand you condemn the US government and the other you denounce free press. Whats your point?? It was a Toronto news agency who found the link between Al qaeda and the Iraqi regime. They, the agency, were on their own going through a heap of papers trying to find a needle in a haystack and they did find a link between the two. Now you want a confirmation from a government you denounce?? Please. No mention of Bin Laden??? What the hell is Al Qaeda?? Its an organization headed by Bin Laden. How ignorant are you???? Then you go on and say the document maybe from the 90's...That would be WORSE for the Iraqis and Al Qaeda, which means they might have known and/or co-planned past American targetted terrorist plots.
LET ME RESTATE THIS AS IF YOU ARE A FIVE YEAR OLD. AL QAEDA IS A TERRORIST ORGANISATION, THEY USE VIOLENCE TO MAKE A POINT. NO, THEY ARE NOT LOBBYISTS OR FLORISTS, AL QAEDA MEETINGS ARE CENTERED ON VIOLENCE.
Then you dribble about how Iraq has nothing to do with terrorists. AGAIN ill ask why was Abu Abbas in Iraq.
Are you saying Bin Laden is a puppet??? Village idiot
My last point. At times you use "reductio ad absurdum" which is turning your opponents point into an illogical point. Stop using it, your comparsions are spurious and logic profane

[He219]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FYDZTMUYJ1AY1QFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$FRDH4LXSN0F43QFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq227.xml

Could the CIA have planted these documents with white-out over Bin Laden's name? Could it be some big conspiracy to have journalists find these files in the rubble? Maybe; BUT If you believe so, then you must take news stories about US massacres in Afghanistan with the same pinch of salt. Really, why would US forces machine-gun Taliban Prisoners when Dostum's men were doing so already? I think some of Dostum's henchmen Really Thought they were shooting 'air holes' in the containers -loaded with taliban prisoners. They just didn't care....

Axl, I didn't realize that the German Army had 5 year old Staff Seargents? p-)

-He219

[axl]

@duke
funny you. if you have one big media magnat who is controlling many big tv stations and newspapers and if this guy really supports the government. how neutral are the news that they all post?
next one. lets follow your point. if iraq had contacts with al qaida some years before (and nobody knows for what, how long or whatever). and as a small note, nobody said something against al qaida that days and the iraq could have contacts with who it wanted. but back to the original fact. following you, having a contact with somebody makes me responsible for the stuff this guy/state/organisation is doing in the future? looking back in time your statement is easy made, but at the moment i can't say if the guys i meat to smoke will become psychos one day and kill people. so your statement is senseless, as long as you don't know what the contacts were all about and what resulted out of them. rumsfeld met sadam, does that mean the usa is responsible for the gulf wars? or even better, rumsfeld met sadam and the iraq had years later maybe contacts to al qaida who are supposed to be responsible for the september 11th. is rumsfeld now because of his contacts to sadam also responsible? you can't say that, you don't know the facts. all you have is a headline. and yes, there are more countries with contacts to al qaida, just take saudi arabia. btw, it was a funny storry that a company owned by a relative of bin laden was responsible for security works in american bases in saudi arabia...
how could you know what al qaida meetings are all about, ever participated in one? yes, they are all small arabs, sitting together and talking about killing people. in the morning when they wake up, they piss on an american flag and make plans. something like that? i don't wanna say that they are normal flower-power kids, but i'm sure they have more to talk about that violence.
i did not say bin laden is a puppet, but who knows. do you have any deeper knowledge in the background of an organisation that nobody can find? none of us knows what those guys are all about. many people think that he is the evil, kill him and everything is okay. the american retreat from saudi arabia is a good point to fight terrorism, much better than the iraq invasion.
and you are wrong, i'm not ignorant. i'm just open minded and not blinded by the news.

@he219
hey, you know that we are different...

regards
axl

[He219]

Axl, I knew you were just anti-American! Just kidding. I'm not as different as you might think. Son of a HJ, Realschule with Aloisius; Soviet Panzer Hordes ready to attack, Maneuvers in the fall, Tornados blowing out our windows and Thanksgiving with the GI's. But I was born and am from the Golden State. I hear your point of view from all my Euro relatives. They just love Bill Clinton and are sorry to see him replaced by the Big Stick with G-Dub... hehe

We can't wait for the 767's to come crashing into our cities again. Some of my best friends were there, in there. Nothing Galvanizes Americans more than cheap sneak attacks. Remember the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, 9-11. We now bring the war into Their front yard. Now it's personal. Strength and Honor.

-He219

[Duke]

"rumsfeld met sadam, does that mean the usa is responsible for the gulf wars?" This is what im talking about stupid analogies they dont make sense.
"...nobody said something against al qaida that days..." America has always confronted Al Qaeda, always.
"next one. lets follow your point. if iraq had contacts with al qaida some years before..." Hey hans or henri that was your idea.
"so your statement is senseless, as long as you don't know what the contacts were all about and what resulted out of them"
This connection is called CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE...go look it up by the way...
ITS ****ING AL QAEDA WHAT THE HELL TO YOU THINK THEY'RE MEETING ABOUT. THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CAMEL BREEDING, THE PROS AND CONS OF ONLINE TRADING, OR WHICH TELETUBBY IS THE CUTEST. ITS ****ING AL QAEDA. THEIR MISSION IS BENT USING VIOLENCE TO ACHEIVE THEIR GOALS.
"i'm just open minded and not blinded by the news"
Ohh please save us from ignorance. Your arguments lack any intelligent cohesion, dont response because I cant read anymore dribble.

[a. enders]

" THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CAMEL BREEDING, THE PROS AND CONS OF ONLINE TRADING, OR WHICH TELETUBBY IS THE CUTEST.
rofl

[He219]

"how could you know what al qaida meetings are all about, ever participated in one? yes, they are all small arabs, sitting together and talking about killing people. in the morning when they wake up, they piss on an american flag and make plans. something like that? i don't wanna say that they are normal flower-power kids, but i'm sure they have more to talk about that violence.

:fork: :bash:

Yeah, like 'down with Israel, down with the U.S. - Say, do you have any of that Anthrax for our US sleeper cells?' :fork: :bash:

Nice one Duke!

-He219

[Bing]

they're talking about how they're going to raise money to buy saddam's gold ak :D oh wait there's another link :o no way!

[axl]

@he219
as you maybe know the anthrax stuff in the usa came from us labratories and was sent out by an american guy. and maybe you should try to get information about him, quite interresting career. so again, nothing with iraq.

and to the rest of you all knowing guys and interesting question. if somebody finds documents proofing a relevant relationship between iraq and al qaid, why is the us government not talking about? isn't that what they tried to proof since months without any success? so why they don't take this papers and present them to the public? maybe because they proof nothing?

regards
axl

[He219]

Axl:

"..if somebody finds documents proofing a relevant relationship between iraq and al qaid, why is the us government not talking about?"

Show me your Evidence that the Anthrax mailed to Capitol Hill was of US origin and Who is this mystery person you talk about? p-)

"...as you maybe know the anthrax stuff in the usa came from us labratories and was sent out by an american guy. and maybe you should try to get information about him, quite interresting career. so again, nothing with iraq."

I would say such Evidence is JUST as circumstancial as the files on the Iraq-Al Queda link found by the media. Yes, US labs sent base stock of bio-agents - used by Iraq to make WMD - back in the early 80's. The French recently furnished Roland 2 missile systems to Iraq through Jordan and the Russkies the Kornet-E through Syria. How would these systems each present a credible threat to the US? Saddam was a HOSTILE THREAT with the means, motives and capabilities to use them against us. After 9-11 the US isn't going to wait and find out.

Axl, you are attempting to make a point of circumstantial evidence used by the US as the cause for removing Saddam from Iraq. Right? Then you make a claim using circumstantial evidence that this Mystery American KOWINGLY furnished Saddam with the means to produce WMD to be used as a threat (as seen in the US after 9-11) against us! :cantbeli:

-He219

[budanski]

Wow. At least I don't need a permit (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_775325.html) to kill ants.

[Bootneck]

Interesting...

Original source: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html

http://www.theregimenthq.com/graphics/Iraqi_Weapons_Imports.JPG