Godbert

I see, now you just have to explain the other 150 or so countries who were against the war despite threats and bribery by the US.

And by the way, in contrast to for instance Germany (which also spoke out against the war before France and has basically no oil industry), the French were not categorically against the war - they just wanted proof of WMDs.

And evidently it's just as good a reason why the US started the war

Ion

The mobile labs are out of question now:

they are discarded by C.I.A..

As of now:

Bush -who knew of WMDs in Iraq-, has:

nil.
It's a number that is growing in numbers and in discipline.

The 2004 U.S. President, will have work to do in order to reverse this anti-U.S. growing trend generated by Bush' stupidity.
That's what Cheney did in 2002, with oil maps of Iraq.
You don't know this.

I lived in France for 11 years, went to school there, speak the language without foreign accent, and was immersed in their culture.

They, and me too, are different than the average Americans.

Other values.

For example, they despise wronging someone because of interest in money gain.

Unlike in U.S., Enron, WorldCom, the U.S. airline company that laid off workers while securing pensions for the executives, Bush and his lifelong energy scams, working overtime for a boss, working instead of taking vacations, etc.

debater10

This is a flat out lie, and I hope you are intelligent enough to recognize it.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...d=ajN.4f0LBBo8

France stood to lose $1.8 billion if they waive the oil debt that Iraq owes them. Now, if they truely wanted to see peace, they would allow the debt to be waived so that the country could be rebuit. This is independent of any feelings that tghey may have toward US action.

France also has its fair share off of those willing to profit, either politically or financially, from lying. Chirac is only the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.conscience-politique.org/...tradiction.htm

You said you speak French, so I should not have to translate it for you.

Also, I would like to remind you who got the Germans out of Paris during WW2. Was it the French? Nope. They have the United States to thank for the independence and, therefore, the freedom to exercise their current criticism over US policy in Iraq.

Ion

Like Godbert points out:

what about 150 other countries?

Despite threats and bribery by Bush.

Let's see...

I remember Bush's threats against Mexico's ambassador to U.N..

I remember U.S. listening devices in U.N..

Canada?

Sweden?

Turkey, that said no, said yes, then under public protest said no again.

That's 150 countries.

debater10

First of all, you will have to forgive me if I do not believe you right off the bat about the opposition of 150 to US action in Iraq. I really would like to see the numbers on that because here is the way I think it breaks down:

There are five categories that countries will fall into dealing with the war on Iraq.

1. They fully support US action because they think the US is doing the right thing by ending the human rights abuses going on in Iraq.

2. They support the US because they have a political or economic interest in supporting the US.

3. It does not affect them, and they are currently dealing with the problems in their own countries.

4. They oppose US action because they think it is unfounded and immoral.

5. They oppose US action because they have economic or political considerations guiding their foreign policy actions.

Now, you are trying to break all 192 countries of the world into two categories: either they think the war is right or they think it is wrong. You cannot over-simplify the situation. You are slaying a straw man.

And I notice you chose to leave out what you were speaking of above about how the French can take a moral highground on the Iraq issue... getting nervous?

Ion

I posted this in another thread, 'International Law, Iraq, Israel, the US', March 25.

debater10, read and learn from it:

it's better material than what you get over there in Lynchburg, and -unlike Bush- it has no oil in it.

.................................................. .......................
This was posted in this forum, thread 'Canadian government won't back US intervention: what about yours?':

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bloop

.......
This is what our prime minister G�ran Persson had to say on the issue this morning:
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The US is in violation of international humanitarian law. A disarmament of Saddam must take place within the boundaries of international law. "

Persson expressed deep regrets about the US using the might makes right approach which stands in violation of the established international order of justice.

"Saddam Hussein is an abominable dictator. But he should be disarmed with the help of international institutions"

"Not by the might makes right approach. Other countries have a right to take part in making this decision and we believe that what the US is now doing violates international humanitarian law"

Persson envisioned a scenario of the UN inspectors disarming Iraq after a couple of months of work.

"That would have been a great success for the UN. When you breach this it is very serious".

Persson fears that this will diminish the powers of the UN

"It will take time until the UN has regained it's strength. To a small country like Sweden this is important. We are dependent on an international order of justice. A small country has the same rights as a large one."

"After this we will rebuild the status of the UN"

Persson said that most UN member countries wants this sort of conflict to be solved within the UN. Persson believes that the war is coming. The demand that Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq within 48 hours will not succeed.

"I'm pessmistic. I doubt that Hussein and his sons will leave the country. Of course it cannot be ruled out completely"

/.../

Persson would not like to see a US run Iraq after the war. He believes that the UN should take care of the rebuilding of the country.

"It would be very, very destructive to see Iraq as a US protectorate. However I assume that the US and it's coalition partners will shoulder the larger economic burden since they have taken the decision to use military force"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


In it, I also emphasize:
"To a small country...this is important. We are dependent on an international order of justice. A small country has the same rights as a large one."

Similarly, newspaper The San Diego Union Tribune, Thursday March 20, 2003, under 'Bush leads U.S. into unchrtered territory', states:

""There is no question about this being unprecedented" since World War II, said Joseph Cirincione, a former congressional staffer now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
President Truman had U.N. backing for the Korean War, President Kennedy had the approval of the Organization of American States during the Cuban missile crisis, Clinton acted under NATO in Kosovo.
"We don't even have Canada with us this time, and Canada has been with us for every major war for the last 100 years," Cirincione said. "It's just amazing how isolated the United States is.""
and
"On the U.S. Senate floor, the oldest voice in Congress rose with warnings that the president is misguided.
"No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper," said 84-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va."

.................................................. .......................

debater10

Also, I think you need to tone down the hyperbole, buckaroo.

This extensive bribery and threatening so many countries just didn't exist. From the get-go, Bush realized that he was prepared to take action in Iraq, even absent the support of the UN. So yes, he did what he could to get their support, but given that, even if he had their support the US would still be supplying over 80% of the resources for fighting (the US's investment in NATO, to which France had resigned from membership but still enjoys full protection) so the involvement of other nations would only have been complimentary.

Here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1120/p01s01-usmi.html
We only went after the support that we needed. It was the opposition that took to finagling other countries into support for opposing the US. Once again, your precious France is spinning both ways.


and

http://www.theaxcess.net/money_02_112002.html
I would like to point out that the UN resolution passed. Neither France nor Germany, in spite of their vehement moral objections to the war, found it convenient enough to forgo their moral scruples just long enough to keep from vetoing the resolution. How convenient for them...

debater10

I have one thing to say about Canada being angry that we "violated international law"... we got UN approval and we were up against Sadda, a TRUE violater of international law AND human rights.

If Canada wants to continue being angry at us and insist that we are violating international law, then there are two options:

1. They can feel free to send in the mounties and see what they can do against the US , or

2. They can come to the realization that international law should not be regarded as perfect and needs to be forgone if the situation demands.

Ion

You mean they call you buckaroo, over there in Lynchburg?

Ion

buckaroo,

I pointed before that:

Hussein

and

Bush

violated the international law and human rights, by being non cooperative with UN.

When you speak of Hussein, add Bush in the same breath.

Promise, buckaroo?