debater10

Well, what can be said.

France opposes us for the exact reasons that you cite for Bush's initial involvement: money and oil. The French, I'm sorry to say, are not the saits you make them out to be.
France controls over 22.5% of Iraqs imports. Of course they oppose US involvement. Also, Iraq oves France about $8.8 billion in oil debts. With a new regime change, that figure may dissapear.

In reference to Ion' earleir comment, I just want to make sure I got things right. You are saying that becasue I may agree with a man that you cansider to be a liar, I must, thereofre, be a liar as well? Well, you really can't argue with logic as sound as that. (this is, of course, meant to be sarcastic)

To Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ, as soon as you decide to make an argument, I will be more than willing to answer it. Until then, you can spout all the liberal propaganda you want... I'll just be sitting back laughing. (By the way, Idid not initialy try to glorify Bush's actions. That is a flat-out lie. I have always been a firm supporter of the notion that countries act in their own interests.) Also, France is responsible for deaths in Iraq. Given the regime's long history of human rights abuses, action should have been taklen a lot sooner. Given its interest in Iraq's oil, France, instead, choses to lend a blind eye to what was going on. Yes, the UN should have acted on it, butit chose not to. France threatened veto. They were ready to stand idly by why the government-sanctioned murder of thousands of Iraqis continued.
But maybe you are right. Maybe we should have let Hitler continue with his extermination of the Jews until we could get Frances approval for dealing with him... oh, wait, I think France was a German-controlled territory at the time because they, as they are doing now, stalled when they knew they should have taken action.

As a side note: The two articles originally posted stated that we did, indeed, find evidence of a WMD production facility. I realize that most (if not all) of you are doubtfull as to the legitimacy of the evidence, but do you have any evidence contrary to the fact that those trucks are what they are said to be?

Back to the topic at hand, I again would like to point out that there is NO chance that Iraq would have used it WMD's even if the US was on Iraqi soil. The international stigma that would have arisen from their use would have turned even their own allies of France and Germany against them. So instead, you get rid of them. They didn't have many. No one is saying that they had a huge weapons stockpile. This appeases you rallies and embarases your attacker. Saddamm was cutting his losses.

The hypocracy of France: They choose to stay under the defensive agreement of NATO (80% of which is made up of US forces), but because of Gaulle, they don't have to pay anything at all, while they sit back and criticize the coutry that is providing them with their defense. Let alone the fact that they are the ONLY country of the 5 Nuclear Wepon States that still test their armaments. And you say Bush is war-mongering? All this while they oppose a US lead war claiming the moral highground, but when you get down to it, they oppose it for the exact reasons they arer criticizing the US for supporting it.

Was the ending of potentially countless innocent deaths and human rights abuses in Iraq worth the price we have paid? Yes. To say otherwise, to be complacent to the problems, is to sanction them.

The SwampThing

What�s with this France fixation??
As i remembered it, France was not the ony country to be against
Bush�s little adventure. Why don�t you guys badmouth Germany, or Russia too?
Or are you still hung up on the WW2 thing??!
:banghead: :banghead:

enfant terrible

I think his friends are liars and he is an idiot.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by warrenly
You don't get rid of 500,000 tons of chemical weapons and unknown quanitities of biological weapons (representing a supposed immediate threat to the US and it's allies because it supposedly can be used within 45 minutes and delivered by non-existent SCUD missiles) overnight. The US has been incinerating just such weapons for nearly 20 years now in a number of locations including Johnston Atoll and Dugway Utah, and the job isn't done yet, not by a long shot. Of course, the quantity of the US chemical weapons stockpile still probably exceeds that of any other nation on earth, maybe even all of them combined, but a half million tons is a lot of hazardous material, if it even existed... ever existed.

The problem is not the quantity but rather it keeps being tied up in court. The stuff wouldn't take all that long to get rid of if they actually started doing it.

Loren Pechtel

Debate the issue, not each other's merits!

debater10

I was using France as an example.
Russia and Germany were no different.

Russia's true motives: Again, oil. Just prior to the declaration of war, Russian officials got themselves into a fenzy staking out and purchasing Iraqi oilfields. That way, if the fields are damaged or destoryed during the attack, Russia can claim a violation of international law by the United States, therefore being entitled to compensation for the rebuilding of the fields. This way, they get the extra money from them being reebuilt, and they get the oil after the dust settles. The oilfields in southern Russia are becoming more and more scarce, and the country was becoming obsolete as an oil producer, once a significant source of income for them. So, they see an opportunity to capitalize on the situation. At the same time, Putin decides to blackmail Bush for the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions between the Russian Federation and the United States. In exchange for not veto'ing in the UN security council, Putin wanted Bush to sign the treaty that reduces the number of tactical nuclear warheads that each country is allowed to have. Russia cannot afford to have many warheads as it does, but it cannot get ridof them and allow the US to become the complete nuclear superpower. So, in the face of war, Russia manages to make a couple million dollars.

Germany is no different: Germany stands to lose a lot of money. If the regime had stayed the way it was, they were receiving billions of dollars by selling dual-use technologies (those technologies, such as nuclear power, that can be used in both the civilian and military sector... and we wonder how Iraq could have gotten WMDs...) to one of the country';s largest corporations. With a regime change, there are two things that may happen. First, they may be cut off from the technology sales, costing them an incredible amount of money. Or second that it may be discovered that the technology that Germany was supplying to Iraq may have been used in the development of the WMD program. Wouldn't that be embarasing. A former head of Saddam's nuclear weapon's program once called Germany "the Hub of Iraq's military purchases in the 1980's." I guess Germany figured that, if they were prohibited from building the weapons themselves, they could get Saddam to do it for them.

So, no, I was not making a point just to criticize France. I was using France as an example. Germany, France, Russia, and all who opposed the war did NOT have the peace-loving intentions that so much propaganda has convinced many people that they did. Rather, like the United States, they were acting in their own self-interest and must realize that such action may have impacted the events of the war. None is innocent. On either side.

debater10

Thank you.

Sue Sponte

Interesting analogy, but not accurate here. You forgot to add that THE BANK ROBBERY ITSELF WAS FABRICATED. None of the three people in your analogy actually existed. The three people, of course, representing: (1) an immediate threat from actually existing WMD's; (2) recent efforts to acquire nuclear weapons components from Niger; and (3) a connection with Al Qaeda.

Now, with this qualifier, resume your discussion of the merits.

debater10

I'm afraid you misinterpret. Rather, the three robbers are the coalition, Iraq, and the opposition to the coalition. Each were acting to maximize their own profit, but one of them had to get caught. The other two selected the coalition (the US, really) to take the fall. None is innocent, but one is declared guilty. It is not just, but fortunately for us, the US has the means and the will to stand up to its criticism.
It's kind of funny. In spite of all the criticism from third parties, including those critics in the US, the Iraqis who paraded in the streets when US forces entered the cities are all the support that I need to hear. I know that statement will be isinterpreted and twisted by one of you in here, but so be it.

Ion

From the big essay on France's multi-talents, I keep this:
in order to say:

when France fabricates a war the way Bush fabricated the war in Iraq, then criticize France.

Right now, Bush fabricated at 100% the war in Iraq, leading to the killing of thousands of Iraqis and leading to U.S. companies looting Iraq's oil.

Bush (not France in Iraq's case) is despicable and a criminal.