France and the Iraqi conflict

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

I am starting this thread for the SOLE purpose of discussing French resistance to our war on Iraq. Please note: I am very French, and can be very arrogant (as one would expect) so I would appreciate it if there were NO FRENCH BASHING on this thread. Light humor is fun, yes we are a tad arrogant, and value good wine and cheese but we DO NOT SMELL BAD AND OUR WOMEN DO SHAVE (for the most part:rolleyes: ) But seriously, those jokes I really cannot stand! :mad:

So... that being said... please give your opinions on why France should help us, or why they shouldn't, or why they aren't, and anything the French have done in the UN recently or NATO that warrants attention. And anything else you would like to say...

My opinions are as follows:

The French would help us, not for the sake of our alliance, but war usually helps an economy. However, this PARTICULAR war would devestate them. France acquires over half of its oil supply from Iraq, and as we all know, Iraq plans to blow these as soon as war hits their country. If that happened, French economy, freshly started with the Euro, would assuredly plummet into a hole as deep as the Great Depression, possibly bigger. Given France's past, French citizens do not like rocky governments, and would riot and cause chaos, poorer French people would undoubtedly suffer.

On the other hand, I do think that the French SHOULD help us in this war, for the sake of United States saving their butts in WWI, WWII, and even Vietnam (although we lost in the end). Unfortunately, the world of politics is not so happy and full of cheer, and each country needs to survive however they can. However, I do not see anything that could warrant France's actions in not aiding Turkey in case war comes to their borders.

Perhaps someone could give some insight?

[Arvedui]

Bonjour, monsieur Dwarf.
Very Good topic indeed!
The French attitude in this matter is somewhat frightening to me. First of all, let me state that I acknowledge their right to have their own opinion, and it is ok with me that they are opposing the war against Iraq, and try to find a different solution to the problem, other than ending it with armed conflict. It is all in their right as a sovereign nation.
BUT! When it comes to their recent actions in NATO, they have done great damage to the Alliance. NATO is founded on the principle of a lot of countries being ready to come to the aid of other member-nations that ask for help. That France (and Germany/Belgium) now refuse to do so when Turkey ask for help, is unprecedented, and nothing less than a crisis.
Now, of course, France has a history of being the reluctant member of the military part of NATO, since the days of De Gaulle, but I thought that had stopped many years ago.
I can only hope that the member countries come to their senses, and react to the plea from Turkey. Otherwise, NATO is no longer an Alliance to be taken seriously, which could have all sorts of nasty consequenses.
There is one superpower in NATO, and no matter how much we like that or not, it is a fact that we all have to take into consideration. I beleive that France now is about to run the risk of being shown the cold shoulder by other member states, and at least USA, UK, and a few others.
In the back of my head there is a little voice that hopes that France will soon need to ask other NATO countries for help...

And one more detail worth noticing: Greece agree to come to the aid of Turkey. Think about that for a while....

[Gloer]

Very nice topic indeed. first of all I must stres that I am finnish.
My country is not a member of NATO and 70 % of the population thinks we hae no really good grounds to join. Nevertheless USA has stated that "the door is open" for us for we are perfectly compatible compared to for example Poland, Hungary and Estonia that recently joined the organisation.

I wonder if this is really a true US position.

The finnish prime minister Paavo Lipponen has visited Paris and stated there that he supports the view that any war needs UN Security Council approval to be legitimate. So I doubt wheather USA would like to have another Belgium in NATO. USa is more content with "satellites" like Poland and Hungary who dare not say "nay".

To be exact also the position of Spain, Poland, Norway and UK is that UN Security Council resolution is required.

That is the bottom line: If there is no UN Security Council resolution legitimation for a war on Iraq NATO can not aid any participant countries.

Before that UN resolution there is no threat of war on Turkey. Iraq is not planing on attacking. Preparing a NATO operation would be irrational. France follows the politics that war is the last resort and it needs a UN SC legitimation and is acting accordingly. war and preparing it are merely means for the politics as Clausewitz stated.

World war I was essentially started because of unconditional bilateral defense pacts between european countries. I am glad to see that NATO is truly not such a mindless machinery.

[Hadhafang]

Too many of my fellow Americans have become irrational over France not lending support to the war. The governments of the two nations are equally bad. Bush wants at that oil in the worst way…so does France. However, France is willing to negotiate with Saddam for the oil. Let’s face it Saddam has to go. But, Bush is willing to kill thousands of Iraqis to get him out of there. That is disgusting and makes me ashamed that he is the leader of our America. On the other hand, I think the French government has purely economic, not moral, objections to the war in Iraq. Overall oil and money is at the root of this whole thing. It is a shame that Saddam doesn’t do the right thing and just surrender and save tens of thousands of human lives in the process.
All of the French bashing by Americans is a product of our philistine barbarian culture which seems to be growing evryday. I have heard too many of my countrymen saying that they are looking forward to the war…regardless of it killing massive amounts of otherwise innocent people. Disturbing and disgusting.

[Bombadillo]

i read in the newspapers today that the strong republicans are using the arguments caused by france and other countries to state that the US should no longer have to listen to the UN and act on his own.... sorry, but i think this seems pretty scary to me..

a lot of people are against the war, i'm one of them, but countries as Germany do have moral reasons why not to support war on Iraq. mostly it isnt even against the war, but the idea that america can make war at their own will, America is the one and only supernation in the world, and that idea terrifies people.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

You all have very valid points, and I would like to say another thing. Bush is attacking the French by going on national television and press and criticizing us for not aiding America in their war on Iraq. He is extrememly faulty in doing so. France needs to survive, and if the oil fields go, it will not. The economy will fall, depression, etc. as I have already stated. I love how the United States chooses not to show this.

And what makes it worse is that US has supported the 'enemy' or 'terrorist' nations in the past. Remember the Iran conflict? Thei Idullah (I think that was his title) was oppresive and terrorized his own people. Yet when war came to that nation, US supported this horrible person and his regiment! And to criticize France for 'supporting' Iraq by not going to war against Suddam is the same thing as what US was criticized for in the past.

I mean really, can you actually BLAME the French for their adamancy in retaining peace? We may be arrogant at times, this is true, but we are a proud people, and are proud of our culture, and dislike help even if it were to come to us in the best of intentions. The French are just trying to stay alive, and if Iraq is attacked, we are in effect attacking France's economy, which can and will trigger an economic disaster. France is the second economic leader in the EU, behind German economy, and if they are gone, a rift will be opened that will be VERY HARD to repair.

I think the only way France will come into the war is if there is some guarantee that the oil fields are safe, which is next to impossible. I feel like I was born during the XYZ affair, in which the French were attacked all across America due to the press' interpretation of their actions. I know this really is a petty argument between two powerful nations (one MUCH more powerful than the other), but I cant help but feel a little belittled in this entire thing. Even as we speak, I hear my name accentuated EXTRA careful, and I hear nasal French laughs in the hallways, even from my teachers. It sounds silly, but it is a little humiliating and I dont understand all the anomosity that these die hard Americans can have as soon as their leaders tell them the country is EVIL or UNCOOPERATE.

Bah! But Id really like to hear the other side to this argument!

[Gloer]

Oil is not that important. The oil is in Iraq and it is not going to run disappear. Oil can be bought with money more economically than with occupation.

The question is about USA trying to usurp a right to pass by international law.

Fighting to save the international legal frame work is imperative for any civilised nation. It is more important than avoiding the World Trade Center terrorist attack.

World Trade Organisation after all is subserviant to the international legal framework USA is now ignoring.

Will history tell:
Osama destroyed the mere building of WTO - Bush destroyed the basis for WTO?

I hope not.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

You have a good point, but I think that oil is much more important than you think... it controls everyday lives, and allows people to get to their desired locations. If oil is expensive, people freak. If its cheap, people rejoice. Oil has a large effect on every country.

Now there is a recent thread with an article displaying the 'French-weenies' and such. What is so wrong with a country wanting to remain free and independent these days? America was a neutral country without alliances for well over a century (From the Revolutionary War until WWI). France has a goal: to rid itself of American influence on their politics and homeland. NEWSFLASH! French dont like outsiders, it is EXTREMEMLY hard to gain citizenship in that country, unless you have plenty of money. People die every year trying to hook a ride through the Chunnel, as Englands immigration laws are horrible. What is to blame that France does not want what happened to America on 9/11?

But, they owe America. Unfortunately, money is bigger than morals, and if Iraq is attacked, they lose out.

But dont forget that they caught many terrorists within their borders to help America in their war on terror... They have not completely forsaken US, but I think they are a little disappointed in that America changes to hit Iraq all of a sudden. Imagine how that looks to the international community! Their press doesnt tell them that Saddam has all these dirty weapons and stuff, instead they see a bully America, picking on weaker countries to get money out of it. That is why France will not lend us support, along with the fact that their economy will be at a loss as a result.

[Eliot]

Ok, I can't figure out why you people won't look at the obvious. If we (the US) don't take out Hussein, then:

#1 Saddam Hussein gains even more power and takes over the Middle-east, as well as almost all of the oil in the world.

#2 With all that oil in the hands of a tyrant, he's going to use it to fuel his military (he obviously won't keep giving it to the US or the world, he hates the western world).

#3 Without oil, the American economy falls into ruin.

#4 With the American economy in the pits, the rest of the world ALSO falls into ruin.

No offense to Europeans (or the French :D), but without us, you guys would be the poorest people in the world, living in a ghetto, having a communist dictator for a ruler.

Originally posted by Hadhafang
I have heard too many of my countrymen saying that they are looking forward to the war…regardless of it killing massive amounts of otherwise innocent people. Disturbing and disgusting.

Well, I can't remember the last war where innocent people DIDN'T die. Without the deaths of innocent people, this country wouldn't even EXIST!! I've got a solution. How about you catch up on your history, and then let's see what you think!!

Originally posted by Bombadillo
i read in the newspapers today that the strong republicans are using the arguments caused by france and other countries to state that the US should no longer have to listen to the UN and act on his own.... sorry, but i think this seems pretty scary to me..

Well, why should the US listen to the UN? The United Nations has failed completely!! If they were really doing their job, their wouldn't be any dictators to fight!!

[Hadhafang]

Well, I can't remember the last war where innocent people DIDN'T die. Without the deaths of innocent people, this country wouldn't even EXIST!! I've got a solution. How about you catch up on your history, and then let's see what you think!!

With that mindset I suppose you think that the 9/11 tragedy was alright. Afterall it was an act of war. Why should you care that innocent people died? Or, Eliot do you think that the lives of Americans are worth more than other people? Why does it constitute a tragedy that innocent people died on 9/11 and not when our American bombs are dropping on innocent Iraqi people going about their daily routines. Do you think they deserve death because their leader is a maniac? Why not just get Saddam and spare the innocence?
Also, just because evil has occurred in the past does not mean we have to ensure that it happens again. I personally don't want the murder of 100,000 human lives on my concious (the amount we killed in the last Gulf War) to save myself $0.45 on a gallon of gas.

Oh, and thanks for the tip....I caught up on my history and realized that I still think killing innocent people is terrible.

[Arvedui]

Amen!

[Dengen-Goroth]

I must pose a question to you Eliot. Could you provide proof for point 1 in your arguement. I don't see how Saddam will take over the middle-east. Also, I don't see how, with an abismal deficit predicted for 2003-4 (I believe, either 2003, 2004, or both), some 60 billion spent on war will bolster the American economy. The number may be more, something around 67 billion I believe.

And as a bit of a side note, some lawmakers in Washington have proposed an Embargo on France because of their position with Iraq. Commendable tolerance of other nation's views:rolleyes:

[Bombadillo]

eliot... without the europeans there wouldnt be any americans, because whe conquered the country and killed its inhabitants...

why dont't people realise this...
Bush is saying that saddam is a very bad person and woeld do ANYTHING to keep in power...
so if he has AB or C weapons, he is sure to use them if an attack is taken place, and the remaining weapons will get lost and go into hands of groups of terrorist and are unreachable....
and the only proper after care after a us or any war, is after WO2.. mostly another dictator takes over wich does the same amount of damage to politics, but just smiles at us a little bit friendlier...

[Gloer]

Is tougher than the one france proposed. we should have 2000 Un monitors send to Iraq with powers to take the country under UN mandate as a protectorate. The US military presence in Turkey is enough to deter any resistance. resistance would be a "go" sing for Bush and Saddam knows that.

So Saddam will reluctantly comply and slowly the country is peacefully transferred from his grip.
Dissatisfies people will realise that their rule has very much less possibliety to force his will. What happened in the kudish area of northern no-fly zone will happen in Baghdad: Saddam will lose his real influence.

[Hadhafang]

we should have 2000 Un monitors send to Iraq with powers to take the country under UN mandate as a protectorate. The US military presence in Turkey is enough

That sounds like an excellent idea. Saddam has to go. I hope that we can preclude violence. However, Saddam is a violent individual and we may have to use violence when dealing with him. If the U.S. and allies are in the region ready to support UN forces, I don't think Saddam has much of choice.

That way France is happy. Germany is happy. NATO is happy.

Good call.

[Eliot]

I never justified the killing of innocent people. I can't believe you think I am! And I'm not saying that American citizens are more superior then any others of any other nation.

The death of an innocent person is sometimes a need, and I mean this in no offense. When we dropped 2 atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we DID kill innocent people, a LOT! But, we won the war faster, and saved a LOT more Japanese and American lives.

"Innocent person" does NOT mean civilian. It means- Well, you'd have to be pretty dumb to not know. :D

Yes, war is wrong. But, it's a part of life, sort of like having to go to sleep every night. Whatever we do to try and stop it is folly. It won't work. War will always be part of the human race.

I can't respond to everybody's posts right now. I'll try to get back to Dengen-Goroth, and whoever else posted.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

WHAT! Saved more Japanese lives?!?!?!

What could you possibly be thinking: that the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese was saving more lives? How can you tell this? We could have simply fought a war of attrition, and that would have saved more lives on both parts.

But I cant believe you think the atom bombs saved more lives, besides American soldiers.

[Hadhafang]

I never justified the killing of innocent people.
Sorry that I got a bit defensive in my post. I didn't mean to imply that you (Eliot) did. ;)
Also, know that I am not dead set against using force to get rid of Saddam. I just wish that we could do it in a more unified way.
I have heard too many of my countrymen saying that they are looking forward to the war…regardless of it killing massive amounts of otherwise innocent people. Disturbing and disgusting.
What I was criticizing in my original post was the "excitement" that I have detected among some of our fellow citizens over the war. They seem to think this is a game of football... something they can watch for entertainment value. I have actually heard one person say "I can't wait (for the war to start)." I can't help but feel disgusted at the attitde of getting pleasure from the deaths of ten of thousands of people. Every time we drop a bomb on a bridge, factory, or bunker, someone's son, father, or friend gets killed. We didn't like it when it happened to us. We shouldn't "like" it when it happens to people oppressed by a rotten dictator.

[Eliot]

Hadhafang: Well I don't look at it as a form of entertainment. But, I do (you might not, I respect that) think getting rid of Hussein IS a need.

I don't feel good about all the death that goes on in a war either. I've got a cousin who's a very good friend of mine who's stationed in Kuwait. He could die anyday. I would miss him very much.

Dain II: We don't exactly know how many people would've died if we didn't drop the atom bombs. But to win without those weapons would've required massive bombing raids, another deadly landing on beachs covered with machine-gun nests, etc. I don't think there would be much difference in the stats if we didn't do what we did. There would be the same number of deaths, or even more. All we did was end the war faster.

I don't understand why you're so bitter about it. A lot of Japanese people understand that it saved more lives, and time, even though they lost loved ones.

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Dengen-Goroth
I must pose a question to you Eliot. Could you provide proof for point 1 in your arguement. I don't see how Saddam will take over the middle-east.

I said this will happen if we DON'T interfere, and stop him.

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Bombadillo
eliot... without the europeans there wouldnt be any americans, because whe conquered the country and killed its inhabitants...

Please explain.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

Ack! Don't triple post!

And... even you have to admit that the nukings were a terrible and regrettable time in history for US. But even I cannot say how much lives would have been saved so I guess that matter should be avoided...

But Hadhafang is right, every war US goes to kills THOUSANDS of innocent civilians. And the international press gobbles this up and its what the other countries see. But since I am American citizen now, I will refer to US as 'we' but I tend to take the French side a lot.:p
I know we dont mean to kill so many innocents but WE DO, and dont go through all that defication on how every war kills innocents, because thats true. But you have to realize that a lot of these deaths are caused by careless mistakes and the fast and 'effective' strikes the military tries to execute.

And no Saddam would NEVER conquer the Middle East. Israel could quite easily DESTROY the Middle East if they wanted to. Also, not even the UN would let that go past... including the French: as that is what this thread is about!

SO did anyone hear what they did today? I didnt catch it on the TV...

[Bombadillo]

Originally posted by Eliot
Please explain.
thats just a lazy non existing remark, the europeans settled in the us, making it the USA...

but, teh war propaganda is continuing... in iraq videos are shown which literally compares saddams regime with rats... and show movies of rats being killed and poisened...
(the main thing said in holland about this is that it is almost the same kind of propaganda as he nazi's used...)
I understand very good the importance of letting teh iraqi public now about the uncoming war etc, but in this way is just wrong...

today are the global protests against a war in iraq...
yesterday was the blix-day, and he criticised the US for overacting too quickly..

[Eliot]

Originally posted by Dáin Ironfoot I
And no Saddam would NEVER conquer the Middle East. Israel could quite easily DESTROY the Middle East if they wanted to. Also, not even the UN would let that go past... including the French: as that is what this thread is about!

Of course the UN wouldn't let Hussein take over the Middle-east. Sorta like they didn't let him get banned weapons and break pacts and agreements. The UN would do a great job stopping him, they'd actually be doing their job! :eek: :eek: :eek: It would make the front page of the papers!!:eek: :eek:


Oh yes, even I admit that the atomic bombs did very horrible things, and a lot of people died.

[Gloer]

UN did do quite a good job in 1991 against Iraq.
If I remember correctly Hussein didn't get a chance.

[Eliot]

Yeah, the UN gave us the permission, as well as a few other nations to free Kuwait from Iraqi rule. Now, the UN is too scared to let us actually take out Hussein. The stupid UN didn't let us go all the way to Baghdad when we had one of the best chances we would ever have.

[Gloer]

didn't let you do that.

[faila]

France have every right to not go o war, but they have no right to try to stop us from going towar.

[Gloer]

And I would like very much to know when did USA get the right to attack a country?

Did this right come as inheritance from the remains of Stalin and Soviet Union?

[Eliot]

Faila said France didn't have the right to stop us going to war. Sort of like we don't have the right to stop the French from going to war. He/She (?) didn't say we had the right to go and attack anybody we want. Read the posts slowly, Gloer.

[Gloer]

I don't have anything against USA going to war as long as it doesn't involve other nations.

[Bombadillo]

a war is mostly fought with other nations... so you will allow a civilian war in the USA, but not a war with other countries? :)

(I like that idea... lets just destroy eachother (ie the human race) and let nature decide what to do with the world...)

[Arvedui]

Are we not letting this get a little out of hand? PLease calm down everyone. Dain II started a very good thread. Please, don't let it deteriorate.

[Bombadillo]

well, i'm sorry if I scared you... but that is the way I think about it... (I know i'm an extreme pessimist...)
but do continue...
france, they have agreed to lend some support, the nato has formed a statement... (another set of inspections, and war as last possibility) what do you guys think of this?

[faila]

Originally posted by Gloer
And I would like very much to know when did USA get the right to attack a country?

Did this right come as inheritance from the remains of Stalin and Soviet Union?
WE Have this right as long as we are the stronger, and best nation on this planet, as long as we feel threatened we have this right. If we believe that we can set up a government with economic and personal freedoms than we have this right. We have this right because we are a sovereign nation, and dont forget, No one except God all mighty can stop us.

[Lantalasse]

please avoid using words like "best nation". it just makes you sound a bit..."silly". you have no right to judge any other country if you haven't been there and stayed for a certain amount of time. and you don't have the right to attack anyone you wish there are rules and regulations applied to EVERYONE by the UN.

[faila]

Originally posted by Lantalasse
please avoid using words like "best nation". it just makes you sound a bit..."silly". you have no right to judge any other country if you haven't been there and stayed for a certain amount of time. and you don't have the right to attack anyone you wish there are rules and regulations applied to EVERYONE by the UN. Whose the one that sounds silly? Your the one that seems to actually think something of the UN. HAHAHA. Am I supposed to avoid the truth? and not say it? If a nation is obviously the best nation (and by this I must clarify that I am refering to military might and system of government) Am I supposed to not say that when it is this obvious? People need to learn that in the present day their is one super power way above the rest, It is caled the US. Mr. Lantalasse no disrespect, but we dont have to have the UN tel us we can go to war, we are a sovereign nation, that meens we can do whatever we want unless we can be stopped by military force, which we can not.
Oh by the way I may sound like im a imperalist, but im not, I feel that iraq is a threat, and that we should not have to go through the UN to fight our wars. My opinion is this Iraq next week North Korea the week after and THe cheese eating surrender monkeys the week after(france).

[Lantalasse]

hmmm....so the UN is good only when it suits your needs? how sincere and altruistic of you.
so you think that your system of government is the best? please explain why.
and also you believe america is the best nation in the world because of military strength? even though 1/3 of the population is under poverty? you only value countries according to their military power then. how nice. it is actually a fact that the two best countries to live in are Norway and Australia. just thought you'd like to know.


"THe cheese eating surrender monkeys the week after(france)."
you seem to know so much about france.
you seem to acknowledge how the French Revolution made it easier for your revolution and declaration of indipendence. you see it's this kind of arrogance, bravado and capitalist imperialistic notions that resulted in the 11th of September monstrous crime. too bad you can't see it.

one question: how old are you?

[faila]

Originally posted by Lantalasse
hmmm....so the UN is good only when it suits your needs? how sincere and altruistic of you.
so you think that your system of government is the best? please explain why.
and also you believe america is the best nation in the world because of military strength? even though 1/3 of the population is under poverty? you only value countries according to their military power then. how nice. it is actually a fact that the two best countries to live in are Norway and Australia. just thought you'd like to know.


"THe cheese eating surrender monkeys the week after(france)."
you seem to know so much about france.
you seem to acknowledge how the French Revolution made it easier for your revolution and declaration of indipendence. you see it's this kind of arrogance, bravado and capitalist imperialistic notions that resulted in the 11th of September monstrous crime. too bad you can't see it.

one question: how old are you? The UN suits me never, its a pointless organization and always has been. The US system of government is the best on earth, because it gives (almost) the perfect amount of power without too much power. How can that be a fact, decisions to live in a country are based upon personally opinion, Military definitly isnt and Government definitly isnt. I just explain that I wasnt an imperialistic, but its not arrogance if its back up. Notice which rebellion worked and which didnt? You throw capitalist around as if its a bad word, when one of the greatest things ever to happen on this earth is capitalism, look it up, you might learn something if you did some reasearch on it.
Old enough, sir.

[Lantalasse]

actually the un suited the us the last time they went to war with iraq because it had violated one of the un's resolutions of NOT ATTACKING ANOTHER SOVEREIGN NATION UNLESS PROVOKED.
now they are actually doing the same.

both revolutions worked. i think you should catch up with the history of the influence of the French Revolution

best countries to live in according to the income, social care etc.

the best form of government doesn't and unfortunately can't exist anymore. it was the ACTUAL democracy of ancient Athens.

i don't believe that capitalism is a bad thing, but neither do i think it is flawless. my belief is that when a system's main aim is profit then something is wrong. and also this system polarises the privileged and the under-privileged more than i would like.

in any case this is not the purpose of this thread. i found it arrogant of you to say that about france. where is the back up to the "attack france" thing? or was it just an exaggerated statement?

[faila]

Originally posted by Lantalasse
actually the un suited the us the last time they went to war with iraq because it had violated one of the un's resolutions of NOT ATTACKING ANOTHER SOVEREIGN NATION UNLESS PROVOKED.
now they are actually doing the same.

both revolutions worked. i think you should catch up with the history of the influence of the French Revolution

best countries to live in according to the income, social care etc.

the best form of government doesn't and unfortunately can't exist anymore. it was the ACTUAL democracy of ancient Athens.

i don't believe that capitalism is a bad thing, but neither do i think it is flawless. my belief is that when a system's main aim is profit then something is wrong. and also this system polarises the privileged and the under-privileged more than i would like.

in any case this is not the purpose of this thread. i found it arrogant of you to say that about france. where is the back up to the "attack france" thing? or was it just an exaggerated statement? I was refering to me personally, I never though the UN was worth something. I beleive we have reason to go into iraq if their wasnt weapons of mass destruction, to let a people be ruled by a mad man is wrong.

Its all biast , social care is pointless.

Democracy almost always leeds to monarchy


The attacking france was an attempt at humor, I do not like the france, but we truly have no reason to attack them, yet we obviously could and destroy them if we so choose.

[Eliot]

Faila, as much as I love my country ( I live in the US), I don't think we're the best one. Sure, we have (actually, had :D) a good economy, and a very good military. I don't think that makes us (Americans) more superior then any other nationality.

Patriotism is a great thing. But when people started thinking their country was better then others, a horrible war started (Patriotism was one of the many important reasons World War I actually existed, everybody thought of themselves as more important. Oh, and no, not just the Germans.).

I don't believe we have the right to just attack any nation whenever we want. We need good reason. I do believe we have good enough reason to attack Iraq. If somebody else has a different opinion about this, you don't need to mention it RIGHT now. :p

Oh, you'll be 17 in 12 days.

Also, because many Americans think we are the "best country", we were attacked on September 11th, 2001.

[Galdor]

Ok, first of all just because we are the greatest nation(This is a simple fact, we have the highest standard of living, the most powerful military, and the strongest economy in all the world. If this does not make the USA the greatest nation in the world, than I don't know what does. As to if it's the best...well, that's just your opinion.) it doesn't give us the right to attack anyone who we wish to. If we just wanted to over take Iraq and get oil for free, well, we could do it, but it would not be right.

But we do have a very good reason to attack Iraq. Here's just a few. We have evidence to support that they are building chemical and biological weapons, which clearly violates the U.N. resolutions. We also know for a undisputed fact that they had many many many weapons of this kind in the Gulf war that they were ordered to destroy, but for some strange reason Iraq can't seem to tell anyone what happened to all of these weapons. Did they just vanish in a puff of smoke? Just these things here are enough to justify the USA going to war with Iraq, but others like France don't seem to think so. Weapon inspectors aren't going to do a single thing, all they will do is delay war until summer when our troops can just sit in Iraq and slow cook. You don't want to know how hot it gets there, and to fight in such heat would be torture.

Some say that we shouldn't go to war now because Iraq is starting to cooperate. Ya, they're starting to cooperate on a few things, but if they are so eager to cooperate then why won't they tell us what happened to the weapons that we know they had? All Iraq is doing is buying time so when we attack it will be summer.

As for what I think of France right now.........for Dain's sake I'm not going to go there right now......
(Or maybe just because I don't remember exactly what France has been doing...and don't feel like writing anymore........:p )

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

faila, I specifically stated no French bashing. What do you do? You call me and my people, my history, my family, my LIFE "cheese eating surrender monkeys?" What the hell is wrong with you? Do you not stop to look and see that this thread was started for a purpose, to discuss French reluctance to help the US with Iraq. It was not created as a place for insulting them with duragatory statements. I dont think you realize that the terms "surrender monkeys" and "cheese eaters" or "frogs" offends my people SIGNIFICANTLY. Much like a certain n- word used for African Americans.

Thank you Lantalasse for pointing out that without French military, money, ammo, etc., America would still be under British rule! America broke the alliance between us, wishing to remain neutral.

You also seem to forget the thousands of men and women involved in the French resistance, the people who gave the Americans vital information to destroy German outposts, and the sabotage of hundreds of Panzer tanks and other military supplies. True the French are generally stubborn and abrasive to Americans, but you know what, we are allies, and France just MAY be smarter to try and avoid this pointless and costly war.

If you EVER post such insults again, I dont care how old you are, this Frenchman will be on you like a Dwarf on gold. Have some respect, and dont look and act like an ignorant bigot on TTF.

[Anamatar IV]

Wow this thread turned a lot more discussion than I expected...so I'll say my bit.

I see no reason as to why France is reluctant....but then again I see no reason as to why a rebellion hasn't started amongst the Iraqis yet. But maybe the French just don't believe in world wars. France was right smack dab in the middle of World War II on the front lines between the Nazis and the Italians (after they switched over). Maybe they've had enough of world wars. Americans don't feel this way as we never had battle on our grounds during a world war.



faila, you don't joke about something like bombing a country.

[Mablung]

First off it is definatly not fair to call France inferior to the US. If they were inferior they would not be a veto power in the UN security council or have nuclear weapons. In my opinion the French are being smart in this matter. The Iraqis do have some friends though its not always realized. The biggest of these friends is OPEC which all western nations depend greatly upon. The middle east is and always has been the "Powder Keg of the World" Iraq has many weapons and they have troops accustomed to the terrain. It would not be a quick fight and would quickly escalate to dangerous levels which could spark agression in the region possibly giving Palestine a chance to move on Israel. Some people say the war will be over quick and easy since we busted Iraq so easy during the Kuwait incident a few years back. Unfortunatly that is not true we never moved on Baghdad or got that far behind their lines that is when it gets nasty someone will fight to protect their home harder than they will fight to protect a country their home has conquered. Also the Iraqis will not play nice if they capture anyone for an example of this read Brave Two Zero which is the story of some SAS commandos who were captured by Iraq (true story as well). Yes our powers would eventually win and France's consent is non vital, but they do have the right idea in staying out of Iraq because no good is going to come out of it. As for the question of why hasn't a rebellion started in Iraq the answer is simple Hussein controls the media and has a majority of the population under his thumb.

[Eriol]

Many posters on this and in related threads talk as if the matter was decided and there was no room for argument by intelligent, logical human beings. This is a very dangerous stance. Once you admit that you are forced to reduce the other party to a sub-human level. This is what is behind Mrs. Albright's appalling admission that the death of 500.000 to a million Iraqi children as a result of the last decade embargo "was worth the price". A human being can only state this if he thinks that the people involved are sub-human, and that their lives are not valuable at all. You can see the slippery slope. So I urge all of you to cultivate doubts. If you are convinced of something, try your hardest to assail that conviction. It also stimulates the mind ;) .


Ok, first of all just because we are the greatest nation(This is a simple fact, we have the highest standard of living, the most powerful military, and the strongest economy in all the world. If this does not make the USA the greatest nation in the world, than I don't know what does. As to if it's the best...well, that's just your opinion.)

(I'm not picking on you Galdor, this just seemed to be an interesting quote to comment on, completely unrelated to what I said above)

I have a profound dislike for the nation-state, and I think that saying this or that nation is "the greatest" is like a "transfer of vanity" that amuses me a lot. What good is it to the ordinary American to be in (or part of, or the backbone of -- you choose the expression) "the greatest nation on earth"? Why is it good to be a great nation? A great guy, a great father/mother, a great pal, even a great human being is a great compliment, but a great nation's vicarious compliment should be really disregarded. It as if I said "oh, you are from New York, you must be a great guy, it is a great city!". Or even "oh, you root for the Boston Celtics, you must be a great guy, they are a great team!".

Having said that I think that which one is the "greatest nation" is completely irrelevant, I must remember several greater nations than the US:

Territory: Russia, Canada, China
Population: China, India
Standard of living: (Someone on this thread offered this info) Norway, Australia
Number of lakes :D (a very important issue for me...): Canada, and I think Finland, probably Russia too.
Amount of freshwater (also very important for me personally): Brazil, Canada.

Perhaps you think some of the above should not be considered as criteria for deciding which is the "greatest nation". Well, with all due respect, I don't think that "having the greatest military" should be a criteria either... I rather tend to be ashamed of that. If I would list the reasons why I think the US is a great place/culture (not nation), I would say:

It is where a certain girl whom I love lives (ok, subjective, but all such lists are subjective...)
It is (was?) the cradle of freedom in our planet, and exported great ideals to many other places;
It has a great economy;
It has a good-hearted, free people.

I could think of more... and coming back to the subject of the thread, though I've never been to France :(, I am positive other reasons of the same weight (except the first reason ;) ) can be found to consider it a great place/culture. I like French music, for instance, French wines too...

[Galdor]

When I say "greatest" nation, I mean the all around most powerful and influential. And just because America is the "greatest" or most "powerful" doesn't mean that other nations are not great or a wonderful place to live. I'm not saying that all other countries but America suck or anything. And depending on what way you want to define "greatest" America may or may not be the greatest. As Eriol said if you look at population to say how great a county is America wouldn't be the greatest. But it cannot be denied that America holds that most power in this world.

[Eriol]

When I say "greatest" nation, I mean the all around most powerful and influential.

Exactly! America is the most powerful nation in the world. Militarily, economically, politically she has no equal. But my point really is: should this be considered a good? Don't get me wrong, I think that America is better than most other countries as regard the use of power. In other words: if we must have such a powerful nation, I am thankful it is America instead of, for instance, Iraq (sorry if there are any iraqis around here). As much as I love Brazil, I'm not sure we would do as good a job as America in her position. But is it good for Americans? Though I don't really like to think in collectives, is it good for America herself? You doubtlessly heard about Lord Acton's sentence, Power corrupts, and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely. I fear for America. I fear that this huge amount of Power will destroy the ideals that made her one of the best experiments in the history of mankind. This is not a reflection on the American people, remember, but mainly on the American government -- and the results of its actions on the American people, of course.

I probably have a very idiosyncratic view of Power, especially power over other people's lives. To use other persons as objects to achieve your goals... It strikes me as one of the examples of applicability (not allegory :D) in LotR, the theme of how the use of this kind of Power corrupts. Refer especially to Galadriel's discourse on the difference between elvish "magic" and the arts and deceits of the Enemy.

I hope and pray that the governments throughout the world, and this is not thinking only of America, really attempt to destroy the Ring. It will not turn out to be so, though :( . I guess movie-Elrond was right, men are weak.

[faila]

I must apologize for my hurtfull coments, Im kinda of stressed out right now.

It is a good thing to be the most greatest nation (as described galdor) if this power is used in a good way.

What bothers me is that france, germany, and hatever other nation doesnt want to inforce the mandate. whats the point of a mandate if its not enforced? They are the ones causing the UN to mean nothing, just like the League of Nations.

I have no problem with the french people just a problem with the quasi-pacifistic and socialistic government of the french people. (was quasi the right word to use their? I dontthink they are completely pacifistic.)

[Beorn]

Faila - The UN is a peacekeeping organization. They try to avoid figihting as much as possible. Much of the world is doing their part, the US, which isn't nearly as glorious as you'd like to think, is trying to be the aggressor...

If the US is so great, tell me why most of Europe has a better education than the US? A smart person invests in his future, not in the present. The US government doesn't care as much about its future as it does the present.

[Eliot]

You have a point Beorn, the American schools aren't very good. It's very (this might sound kinda stupid) "communist". Every child is forced to learn what the government wants a child to learn.

That's why I think home-schooling is one of the best methods of education. Your parents pick what they want you to learn, and what not to learn (I'm home-schooled).

But, Faila also has a point. The UN is an "irrelevant debating society". Sometimes, you have to get down and dirty to have some good in this world. I haven't seen much good come out of the organization. Some, but not much.

[Galdor]

If the US is so great, tell me why most of Europe has a better education than the US? A smart person invests in his future, not in the present. The US government doesn't care as much about its future as it does the present.

This really depends how you define "better education," Europeans are better educated on some things like language, most Europeans will know multiple languages, where as people in America will know only one other than English, and even most can't speak it very well. It really depends on where you place your priorities. In America language isn't a big deal, I mean the way we view it is most people know English anyway, so why should we work hard to learn as new language? It's just not important to us. Where as in Europe 5 miles one way they speak one language, and five miles the other they speak another language, etc. If you only know one language in Europe you're not going to get anywhere in life. Where in America you can be very successful without knowing three other languages. And there are plenty of things that Americans are much better educated in then Europeans, it is foolish to say that a much more successful country than your own is uneducated. For if you say that Americans are uneducated, and yet we are more successful then you, than what does that make you? In some things we can call Europeans stupid, and in some thing you can call Americans stupid, it is all just where your country places it's priorities.

And what the heck do you mean by "The US government doesn't care as much about its future as it does the present." In case you haven't noticed we are the ones that are pushing to take out Iraq so that in the future they don't start bombing people with bio and chemical weapons. It's countries like France Germany and China who are only looking at the present, and since Iraq can't really do anything right now, they don't really give a fling what they'll be able to do in a few years(if that) if we don't deal with them right now.

[Grond]

First off... to one and all!! Do not call any nation names on this forum. If you choose to express an intelligent opinion about shortcomings of a country or government, fell free to do so... but do it in a civilized and non-adversarial way. I will not tolerate blatant attacks on any nationality or groups of people. We have people from nearly every country and every religious group here on the Tolkien Forum.. so keep it civil.

As for this topic, I would advise anyone who is interested as to why France is so reluctant to condone American intervention to simply look directly at the French President. Some of the many reasons for Chirac's hestitance may be found here (http://www.usainreview.com/2_11_Chirac_Connection.htm).

[faila]

First of all to the person who state the education thing, I do not feel it the job of the government to educate, that is something I disagree with my government on.

And to grond that article makes my dislike for shirac even more so than before.

I repeat its pointless to have resolutions if the resolutions are not followed through on.

[Grond]

Originally posted by faila
...I repeat its pointless to have resolutions if the resolutions are not followed through on. I agree.... but let us remember that the actions of the political leaders of a nation do not dictate the actions or the history of a people.

No more bashing of whole groups of people. If you disagree with Chirac and the policy's of France, confine your comments to them. Do not attack the people.

[faila]

Originally posted by Grond
No more bashing of whole groups of people. If you disagree with Chirac and the policy's of France, confine your comments to them. Do not attack the people. I understand this, I was mad at the time, something off mesage boardIll just make sure I dont post when im angry. ANd I also would like to apologize one more time, my comments were unnecesary and wrong, I apologize.

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

Ahh... the french said theyd join the war.... good ole French!