President Bush - about bush

dickbill · 2003-02-26 12:03:57

Did you know that france is in line to receive 25% of all future oil contracts in Iraq? Did you know that this agreement is with the current regime. We talk of US interest of oil, then perhaps we need to look under the finger-nails of all paticipants in this charade. You might also take a look at French arm sales to Iraq, what do you think will happen to future french sales of arms in a US occupied Iraq?
We inherited this world, so we must make it work the best we can. Allowing a tyrant to rule is wrong, just as exploiting this situation for politcal gain is wrong. But still, this thing must be done, the world will not be safe until it is.

Well, it's not a mystery for french people that France sales weapons to different countries, Iraq included. France also build a nuclear reactor for Iraq, it's not a mystery, the Israeli blowed it anyway. France also provided the early Mirage III for Israel, which I think were greatly appreciated by the Israeli pilots.
It's just dirty bussiness guys ! It's just because when a country cannot afford hight US military technology or doesn't want for political reasons, to make bussiness with the US, then they have the choice for a couple of other countries.

By the way, talking about dirty bussiness, are you sure, the US never supported a so-called Bin laden before sept 11 ? are you sure the US never sold antipersonnal mines, which ussulaly kill more children than military ? and what is the position of the US towards the antipersonnal mines sale ? The US never sold weapons to tyrans either, yeah sure...

Dirty bussiness makes the money stinks. I agree. I wish that France would get rid off of this weapons market. I wish the US would do the same.

clark · 2003-02-26 12:17:08

Well, it's not a mystery for french people that France sales weapons to different countries, Iraq included.

And the reason I point out the reality is to provide a different perspective on French politcal manuevering. The international community has no love for Saddam. They have a great deal of concern about the oil, and who controls it. To paint the picture as some pacifict movement bent on maitnaining the peace at all costs is a conveniant illusion to peddle to the pacificts to place pressure on the US.

This action will happen, indeed, it's time has been long in the coming. Those who oppose it do so only to extract the maxium amount of economic and political gain they can prior to commencement of the war. No one cares about Saddam. No one cares that the US is going to invade Iraq- more than likely, the western world is breathing a sigh of relief becuase it is us, and not them, that will do the heavy lifting. They however are positioning themselves for the day after.

Why would France be so vocal in its opposition? Threatening a veto? Learn from the actions of Turkey to understand what is going on.

It's a shakedown. All parties are guilty. yet some good may come of this. How can we oppose that?

dickbill · 2003-02-26 13:36:53

Why would France be so vocal in its opposition? Threatening a veto? Learn from the actions of Turkey to understand what is going on.

Clark, make no mistake, the french position has nothing to do with the fact that they have sold weapons to Irak. The french support to Irak date form the time of the Iran/Irak war, maybe before. I ignore the reasons why the french government made agreement with Irak, maybe at that time Iran was a more frightening country than Irak.

Now, it's more like a general political, I would even say phylosophical, position, not particular to Irak, that France takes today to say that war is not the best way to resolve problems, in any cases. Maybe France, Germany and Russia had enough shit with wars that could explain their position.

Some people and some US media want to make you believe that the french position is a support to saddam Hussein. Mistake, it's not a support to this dictator, it's a position against war. To understand the french position you also need to undestand that in a french mind, money is not a "fin en soi". So for french minds, making money in weapon sales is not enough to justify today's France position. I don't know if an anglo saxon mind can understand this exotic and strange concept that money is not the ultimate goal of life.

So yes, France sold weapons to Irak but no, it's not for that reason that France is against war today.

...Unless France has something very bad to hide in Irak, like french made chemical weapons, neurotoxic or nuclear. This is also possible but I doubt. If this was the case, then I would consider that like a real support from the french government to Saddam Hussein and I would be very disapointed.

But to be more precise, in addition to the nuclear power plant now destroyed, I remember that France sold many Mirages F1 (now obsolete) with their armament to Irak. Now I think most of the Iraki's armament is russian made.

Palomar · 2003-02-26 13:58:08

*Where's Karellen when you need him?

"Karellen...calling Karellen...COME IN, Karellen..."

--Cindy :laugh:

Palomar · 2003-02-26 15:22:54

*If anyone would like a copy of "To Kill an American," written in defense of the U.S. by an Australian dentist, write me privately (messenger) and I'll forward it to you.

--Cindy

soph · 2003-02-26 15:29:39

I have a proposition: why not to ask Saddam to set up a democratic election, with the Iraki's opposants as candidates, in exchange of a redrawal of the US military forces ?

Dickbill, the last election was between Saddam and himself, and apparently, he got 99.9% of the vote. So he'll claim he did hold a democratic election :angry:

Shaun: if we don't go to war now, we aren't going to war in December. To do so would truly destroy our economy. It does not make sense to deploy, withdraw, and then redeploy our troops.

It's easy for France, Germany, and Belgium to say "no war," they were never the primary terrorist target, and haven't experienced a 9/11 level attack for decades.

dickbill · 2003-02-26 15:34:05

*Where's Karellen when you need him?
"Karellen...calling Karellen...COME IN, Karellen..."

I don't know, I havn't seen him...

PS: come on guy, you are not gonna make a big story for a small nuclear reactor, 2 or 3 jet fighters and maybe some obsolete AMX30 tanks ?
I can assure you that France sales no wine to Irak !

Palomar · 2003-02-26 15:56:19

Dickbill, the last election was between Saddam and himself, and apparently, he got 99.9% of the vote. So he'll claim he did hold a democratic election :angry:

*Now, now Soph...we wouldn't want to be "cultural imperialists!!" and insist that Saddam have "democratic elections" like the West has them, i.e. at least ::2 different:: candidates on the ballot, with the loser recognizing the other as the winner and stepping aside...we wouldn't want to push that standard on anybody else, now would we? I mean, we Westerners are such big, bad meanies 24/7/365; we can't possibly be wonderful and enlightened and saintly like the rest of the world! Therefore, we shouldn't criticize them!

Yep...sarcasm.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-02-26 17:32:52

I have a proposition: why not to ask Saddam to set up a democratic election, with the Iraki's opposants as candidates, in exchange of a redrawal of the US military forces ?
Dickbill, the last election was between Saddam and himself, and apparently, he got 99.9% of the vote. So he'll claim he did hold a democratic election :angry:

It's out of question to have a normal presidential election. Say the US troops stay OUTSIDE Irak to survey the operations, like in Koweit or Turkey, during and after the elections.
The presidential elections would be under control of the UN to insure no interference from Irakis soldiers.

The Irakis would have to choose between different Saddam Hussein opposants and why not Saddam Hussein himself. Then the elected president could form a new government.

Because, don't you have the feeling that we hear a lot about Saddam the "villain", the arrogants Robinhood like french, the imperial US and their obedient "vassaux", and nothing about the Irakis people themself, poweless to change their own destiny ?

Give them some responsability, they are also responsible for this mess. So here we could tell the Irakis " come on guys, here you have the opportunity to vote freely, even for saddam if this is really what you want"
At least one UN soldier would be present in each voting office and would report.
I would take the guess to include Saddam in the list of applicants by the way, because he deserves to be defeated by his own people.
after the election and the governement is formed, part of the US troops contingent stay to survey the region stability for a couple of months.

This is the way to deal with problems in the 21st century, this way, I can believe we have a chance to settle on Mars one day.

soph · 2003-02-26 17:47:09

How do you convince a people who know nothing but Saddam and his propoganda that they are being oppressed?

dickbill · 2003-02-26 18:11:04

How do you convince a people who know nothing but Saddam and his propoganda that they are being oppressed?

It's simple, they are human beings, supposedly not completely dumb. If YOU know they have been oppressed, then I assume they know themself they are oppressed.
There were many opponants to Saddam in Irak, most of them abroad I guess. Some of them met recently in Paris. By the way, the opposants choosed by the US to succed to Saddam are not the most popular among the Irakis opposant, from what I've read.

So, the Irakis know at least some of these opponants and could choose the best for themself, after a short campain.

I am sure the US could easily set ut a radio broadcasting the opponant's electoral programs from Koweit and Turkey.
The good think about the UN, and not the US, to survey inside the voting offices, is that it's also time for the UN to regain their credibility.

I think you should trust more the Irakis people. Sure they have been kept in ignorance, but they could quickly recover their mind and see the opportunity.

That's a dream, most likely saddam will not accept these elections, but who knows, at this point, he doesn't have much to loose.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-26 18:52:51

clark, sure, I was totally aware of that. But France, and indeed, anyone who does some US back patting, has a lot to gain from the US taking over Iraq and lifting the sanctions, building a much larger oil production capacity. This is why I find France in a more honest position, in fact, because they could stand to gain more than anyone. No doubt a non-sanctioned country produces more, and has a better economic stance.

I quite like my idea better, though. The idea that Iraq will allow hundreds of UN troops all over the place, and lots of inspectors. With troops in the area it's a lot easier to pressure Saddam to step down. I don't care what those here say about his ego (the true test will come March 1st- and even though the news is reporting that he's not going to destroy his weapons, I still have some confidence that he still might- and again, I reiterate, if he doesn't, then I'm all for a war here- of course, I expect, if he doesn't, there will be quite a lot of posts here ridiculing my rather neutral position).

soph · 2003-02-26 19:01:49

Wait, the US does something that they stand to gain from, and we're wrong.

Yet, France does something, or chooses not to, for their own gain, and yet they are honest?

Josh-I wouldn't call your position "neutral" and I don't see France allowing any deployment of troops, it would be too much of a moral victory for the US.

But I would say that your position isn't the most anti-war I've seen either.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-26 20:28:42

First, no one said the US is ?wrong? for doing something they stood to gain from. Everyone stands to gain from lifted sanctions on Iraq (even though the inital costs are in the trillions). Everyone stands to gain from democracy in the region (except for of course the potential terrorist that result- and those who would die from the war). The point I made was that between the two of them, Frances position is more honest- even though people would like to think otherwise.

It's indisputable that Iraq's oil production would be much greater with lifted sanctions, and since the primary producer for the US is Saudi Arabia, furthered Iraqi oil production would go to the EU (it doesn't matter who controls it- prices would still fall, and they would benefit the EU greatly). So when France says no to war, they're sacrificing that potential gain! And lengthing the time period in which sanctions could be lifted.

Obviously one could argue that France gaining more power in EU for taking their position is ?dishonest? (which is what soph is saying here), but that's silly. That'd be like saying heros who run into burning buildings and get medals afterwards are dishonest because they got a reward for doing so,as if the medal was their motivation. I doubt very seriously becoming a world power is France's primary motivation; their history ,withvery few exceptions, shows a desire for peace. And look at the facts here, France's line is not very far from the USs! France is sincere.

And soph, France would happily deploy troops, that's what their latest resolution with Germany and Russia entails!

soph · 2003-02-26 20:39:24

Obviously one could argue that France gaining more power in EU for taking their position is ?dishonest? (which is what soph is saying here), but that's silly. That'd be like saying heros who run into burning buildings and get medals afterwards are dishonest because they got a reward for doing so,as if the medal was their motivation. I doubt very seriously becoming a world power is France's primary motivation; their history ,withvery few exceptions, shows a desire for peace. And look at the facts here, France's line is not very far from the USs! France is sincere.

Better go look up Napoleon, and the Habsburg-Valois Wars, and the French Revolution, and the 100 years War, and the French-England War, and Vietnam, and World War I&II...

No, France is not doing a hero's duty. As I have said, France is just doing whatever it can to stand up the US.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-26 20:47:13

Anyone for peace is heroic in my mind.

soph · 2003-02-26 21:08:46

Weren't you the one who said the means dont justify the ends?

And if peace means allowing a brutal dictator to continue brutalizing his people?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-26 21:15:37

I said the means don't always justify the ends...

Like I said, war would be justified if diplomatic ends were exhausted, they certainly have not. Not yet. If Saddam comes out tomorrow and destroys his arsenal of weapons (wepons Iraq could use to protect itself), wouldn't you then say that the diplomatic process was working? Or would you take the propagandist path and say that it's meaningless and that war must commence anyway?

soph · 2003-02-26 21:22:34

If he destroyed what we can find, and our inspections couldn't turn up anything else in the next 6 weeks, yes.

Could use to defend himself? Now that's a circular argument. If he destroys them, he won't have to, unless he has something more sinister.

And the diplomatic alternatives, barring the above scenario, are gone. He isn't leaving, isn't being deposed without military intervention, and isn't about to allow truly democratic elections.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-26 21:36:14

If he destroyed what we can find, and our inspections couldn't turn up anything else in the next 6 weeks, yes.

Oh, but wait, the whole war is based at this momment, on our inablity to find real data. ?He used to have X ammount of Y. He said he destroyed it, but we can't find it or records of it, so he is clearly lying.?

I would first like to see direct evidence that he does actually have X ammount of Y, before going to war on the possiblity that he has X ammount of Y. However, the Bush admin thinks otherwise.

Could use to defend himself? Now that's a circular argument. If he destroys them, he won't have to, unless he has something more sinister.

Um, well, that's certainly wrong. The US said that even if he destroys his known weapons (ie, not the magical ones we think he has but we're going to war with him anyway over), we are going to go to war anyway. It's actually quite the no win situation. If he destroys the weapons (the missiles that go a little over the limit), he won't be able to use them when the US attacks. If he doesn't destroy them, the US is going to attack anyway, and he might last a day longer than he would otherwise.

Of course, you tack on that predictable, ?unless he has something more senisiter? comment, but you fail to show, directly, that he does. The US can't show it, all they can do is make a weak argument and everyone listens as if it's in stone.

But at least it's clear in everyones arguments here, that this is about Saddam directly, and has nothing to do with the nations UN violations. We're going to war over one man. Nice.

soph · 2003-02-26 21:39:49

The one man who has violated not only the UN regulations and human rights laws, but good job of trying to twist what I say!

Cover up your own arguments holes by trying to twist mine.

Why, a few days ago, we found drone planes and a GPS system of major US cities. No, no, he has nothing else. Of course, Josh.

He's just a poor, misunderstood dictator. Much like Richard Dreyfuss in Moon Over Parador. Ah yes, he was portraying Saddam! The loving dictator, unloved and innocent.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-02-26 21:51:36

Soph, did you say 6 weeks?!
I'm beginning to think the war will start in the next 2 weeks, despite the lack of UN endorsement. Or am I misreading the situation?
How long would it take to get the inspectors out of Iraq?
Is there any danger that some of them could be 'detained' and ultimately used as hostages or human shields?
???

soph · 2003-02-26 21:56:11

I meant if he destroyed his weapons, 6 weeks of inspection, a very, very high estimate, that came up dry would lead to reconsidering war.

And he's not going to destroy his munitions. It's obvious by now.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-26 22:22:01

Where did I once twist what you were trying to say? You're the ony twisting what I say by making it seem like I support Saddam! Indeed, you claim I said that he has ?nothing else,? when I never said such a thing! A complete lie, right there.

There are no holes in my argument. The point of inspections is to find things and make sure that what you have isn't in violation. If those things are in violation, then you destroy those things. It's a damn no brainer.

I'm not saying that Saddam doesn't have more things (which you suggest in your very twisting of my own position). I'm saying the things which he purportedly has which we are going to war over are not shown to exist in any physical form. I accpet that it's possible (perhaps even probable) that he does have them (WMDs), however, as long as we don't know where they are or even if they really do exist, such speculation is pointless!

Oh, and before you reply, trying to pick at the intent of what I was saying, you know well and good I was talking about WMDs. The whole justification for the war. Sure, GPS systems and so on and so forth are well and good, just like rusted shells and weapons that go over the limit. If it's a violation, get rid of it. But don't sit here in this self delusional state saying that someone has something when you fail to show that they do.

I spoke to my brother yesterday. He says they're going in the 28th. Sounds about right. Iraq better get its act together if its going to destroy their weapons, if only to show that they're working with the UN. Might not happen before then, though, then it would be too late.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-02-27 00:09:22

Josh writes:-

The point of inspections is to find things and make sure that what you have isn't in violation. If those things are in violation, then you destroy those things. It's a damn no brainer.

I haven't read Resolution 1441, so I'm not sure if I've got the wrong end of the stick (or whether even a 'no brainer' is beyond me ... which is quite possible! ).
But, as I understand it, Hans Blix and company are not actually supposed to 'find things'. Saddam is required to present the inspectors with illicit weapons or show that they have been disposed of. The UN Resolution apparently places the burden on his shoulders, which seems to be the only conceivable way of doing it because of the sheer size of Iraq. Obviously, even a thousand inspectors could scour the place for years with no realistic hope of finding deliberately concealed weapons. Full and candid Iraqi cooperation therefore had to be the chief criterion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not incontrovertible documentary evidence that many tons of chemical and biological agents, or their precursors, are unaccounted for?
Isn't it also true that Saddam has failed to cooperate, for months now, in revealing details of those weapons?
Isn't this a continuation of the same game of evasion Saddam has played with the UN for the past 12 years? And doesn't that mean he's in breach of his obligations under Resolution 1441?
If so, is there any reason to assume that further inspections and cat-and-mouse games will achieve anything?
Is it possible that we're dealing with someone without scruples of any kind, for whom human life is of no consequence? Could we be up against a consummate liar who hasn't the slightest intention of cooperating with any inspectors, any time, under any circumstances?

However well-intentioned France, Germany, Russia, and China may be (and I have no reason to trust their motives any more than anyone else's in this ), is it not then quite obvious that further inspections are a total waste of time?
???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#676 2003-02-26 12:03:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

#677 2003-02-26 12:17:08

Re: President Bush - about bush

#678 2003-02-26 13:36:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#679 2003-02-26 13:58:08

Re: President Bush - about bush

#680 2003-02-26 15:22:54

Re: President Bush - about bush

#681 2003-02-26 15:29:39

Re: President Bush - about bush

#682 2003-02-26 15:34:05

Re: President Bush - about bush

#683 2003-02-26 15:56:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#684 2003-02-26 17:32:52

Re: President Bush - about bush

#685 2003-02-26 17:47:09

Re: President Bush - about bush

#686 2003-02-26 18:11:04

Re: President Bush - about bush

#687 2003-02-26 18:52:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#688 2003-02-26 19:01:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#689 2003-02-26 20:28:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#690 2003-02-26 20:39:24

Re: President Bush - about bush

#691 2003-02-26 20:47:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#692 2003-02-26 21:08:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#693 2003-02-26 21:15:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#694 2003-02-26 21:22:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#695 2003-02-26 21:36:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#696 2003-02-26 21:39:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#697 2003-02-26 21:51:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#698 2003-02-26 21:56:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#699 2003-02-26 22:22:01

Re: President Bush - about bush

#700 2003-02-27 00:09:22

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer