New topic
Printabledivo02 said: I don't think the world is telling us to back off privately...maybe publicly. As I addressed earlier, there are a variety of reasons (politically and economically) why countries won't support us. Please see some of my threads above for more explanations. I guess I can't prove anything...but don't u think Kuwait and other Muslim countries want Saddam out?
Saddam is part of a terrorist network that wants to harm us. What more do u want Iraq to do? Do you want to wait around to see if Saddam can pull something off before we act. The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was just a country that harbored Bin Laden and Al Quada. These same terrorits exist in many other countries. Saddam gives reward money to Palestinian suicide bombers and has gassed his own people. I'm sure Saddam indirectly supports/finances terrorist groups. theC Just as they say yasser arafat(sp) did??Why didn't we do something with him,or IRAN.I just feel this is personal and like you i have no proof which means between us there is no right or wrong on this.Just a difference of opinion 
Thanks for not taking my views harshly and turning this into a flame war.Shows political differences can be discussed and not fought. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
-But this war with Iraq is between Bush and Saddam.
--- Well, wars engaged by the US have more than once been only a way to distract people's attention from what is truly going on...What is truly going on is that the US is going thru a MAJOR crisis...Enron,Worldcom,etc...It's still the richer country on the planet , but it's clearly losing power and authority...A little war is always good for business...some analysts tho, say that this time,this well known kind of tactic would probably not be enough to get the US back on track,things have changed...Europe has too much to loose and nothing to win with this war..Europe don't want to be a part of it because the islamic community in their countries is big ! And with xenophobia rising in a scary way,a war against Iraq could lead to unpredictable consequences for European countries like France for example... I know this sounds paranoid, but just a thought: Wouldn't it be possible that the US is also looking for a way to bring chaos to Europe ? The new european currency is maybe a little more threatening to the US than Saddam ...what do yall think? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jnoel said: MightBQueen said: jnoel said: BattierBeMyDaddy said: We're all a victim of propaganda, no matter what you believe. It's unavoidable. Idon't agree with you, it's not question to fall into paranoia , but we can diversify our "source d'information" & use our critic sensehate to say it... but young french people like yourself pretty much believe anything and everything they hear in the press... you are no exception, jnoel. you talk exactly like all the kids i met at the fac de lettres here in montpellier. it's like you're an army of liberal robots. regardless of the administration, the french press has a strong socialist/liberal agenda. a common example: every time someone in the US gets executed, french TV only shows the anti-death penalty protesters. whereas on american TV, the camera will also pan over to the large crowd of people holding up signs that say "let him fry!" or whatever. it's a total denial of the support the death penalty still has in the US... MightBQueen , you don't know me so I will just tell you that I can't stand those pompous ("liberals / de gauche) kind of students who give lessons for free to the rest of the world, & I don't have any complex of superiority, I wouldn't wasting my time on line "criticizing" people/ a country that I don't like. I can not translate it properly in english: "de la discussion jaillit la lumière"
"socialist/liberal agenda" here those 2 words have a different meaning that in your country (& I'm not socialist, communist either) france IS my country. i've lived here for almost 7 years and have french nationality (double, actually). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
chimonk said: -But this war with Iraq is between Bush and Saddam.
--- Well, wars engaged by the US have more than once been only a way to distract people's attention from what is truly going on...What is truly going on is that the US is going thru a MAJOR crisis...Enron,Worldcom,etc...It's still the richer country on the planet , but it's clearly losing power and authority...A little war is always good for business...some analysts tho, say that this time,this well known kind of tactic would probably not be enough to get the US back on track,things have changed...Europe has too much to loose and nothing to win with this war..Europe don't want to be a part of it because the islamic community in their countries is big ! And with xenophobia rising in a scary way,a war against Iraq could lead to unpredictable consequences for European countries like France for example... I know this sounds paranoid, but just a thought: Wouldn't it be possible that the US is also looking for a way to bring chaos to Europe ? The new european currency is maybe a little more threatening to the US than Saddam ...what do yall think? I think European stability benefits the US more than chaos. The Europeans are just too scared to support us publicly. The politicians there don't want to alienate the Islamic voters by supporting the US but they don't want Saddam in power controlling the oil either. The best case scenario for them would be to NOT support the US and have the US take out Saddam. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
divo02 said: I think European stability benefits the US more than chaos.
The Europeans are just too scared to support us publicly. The politicians there don't want to alienate the Islamic voters by supporting the US but they don't want Saddam in power controlling the oil either. The best case scenario for them would be to NOT support the US and have the US take out Saddam. Wrong. The US needs at least one European partner in this. It will go against UN resolutions and NATO anyway as the US will be applying a first strike policy which would be illigal. If they had a European friend to help them then it would be tougher for Europe to make noise about this without dividing itself in the process. As things stand, Blair seems to be supporting a US strike, but the cabinet are divided and there are mutterings of discontent amongst the population too. I dont think Blair can afford to offer support if it becomes any more unpopular. This brings Russia into play. A lone strike by the US will most certainly not please Russia who will make a lot of noise knowing they will have the support of a unified Europe. The UK's support divides everyone and thus, helps the case of the US. I think the trend is shifting and that a military strike will NOT go ahead. Instead I can see a more covert 'it wasnt us' policy taking place. Hence Bushes recent comments about being a 'very patient man'. I think most countries agree Saddam must go. But at the same time they also know how unstable the whole damn region is at the moment and may not be able to soak up any more crap without exploding. I think all involved would prefer the covert option. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |