I just want to jump in and say the say the us is standing up for Freedom and Justice. Anyone who doesn't like what is going in america now can leave. Go to Iraq, if you are a women have your genitals sliced up so you have no pleasure from intercourse, starve to death at the hands of Sadam Huesein, or be put to death for having your own beliefs. Have you forgotten what America Stands for??? This is a wonderfull nation and I am American I don't cheat, steal, or lie. I beleve in an all knowing and just god. I have a choice to be what I want to be with my life, because I am American. I won't give up on democracy, because it never gave up on me. As America grows people always say what's wrong with it. Well screw anyone against America, if you don't like it you can kiss Uncle Sam's butt. and if you try to mess with us you will find Uncle sam's foot in your ass... This nation was founded on the basis of freedom, and grew by fixing what was a good idea, but wasn't perfect. America, may still not be perfect, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. So if you don't like me bite me... it's too bad those who say these things about america weren't in New York on September 11th 2001... the men, and women that died are in heaven watching wondering why you would let them die in vein... George Bush sure didn't

understand being up set and all, but a bit over the edge or right next to it don't you think?

Objectivity is difficult in times like this. With Bushes last speech i do not think Saddam will last 20 hours. His military remembers the Gulf war. They are being bombarded with US propaganda. And I doubt the hopeful in the higharky in Iraq want to deal with an exiled marter. Either way he is done.

Make love, Not war

isn't that what started this? Love?

frogboy,
"France is currently in the Ivory Coast and had gone down there without UN Approval." For your information, you should go there : http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7657.doc.htm

Yes, France granted the authorization from UN to go to Ivory Coast.

"And France is the only reason why there wasn't a second resolution explicitly authorizing force" Oh, really ? Then why didn't Bush put his second resolution to vote in order to get a "moral victory" by winning the 9 necessary votes ?
That's quite weird because France is seen as the only culprit of the war issue. What about all others countries (like Russia and China with also veto powers) ?

I'm not anti-american at all (I went there several times to visit some friends) but I really don't understand all those reactions. What's all that, only because we're not on the same track than the US government (and some american ppl) means that we're wrong ? Come on, as some of you say, everyone has the right to express his own view.

Veto threat has nothing to do with trying to increase France place over the world. It's just a matter of "is war the only issue to disarm saddam".
I agree that saddam is evil and must be removed but until now, I'm still waiting the evidence that he has something to deal with al-qaida or he owns WMD. Well, if it's clear that he owns those kind of weapons, then why didn't Bush admistration told us how they're sure about that ? It has been said that one of the UK/US report presented at a UN security council was a plagia of an american student. Do you think that we should go to war only because a report made 10 years ago is arguing that saddam owns those kind of weapons ? If saddam owns WMD, then of course, all must be done to destroy them, but until now, anything proved that. If you can, then please give me a link, I would be more than interested by reading that evidence.

I'm reading a lot of news websites, not only french ones (like cnn, abcnews, foxnews, bbcnews, nypost and some spanish ones) in order to get as many informations as I can, and to avoid falling only in the french point of view.
Besides the fact that some american ppl are acting strangely against france (like pooring wine and Evian water - which is btw owned by 51% by Coca-Cola), there is a huge feeling that inspections are getting results and should continue. Of course, they can't continue forever, that's why inspectors should say if they can achieve their work in a resonable delay or not. That's the goal of UN inspectors. If they say that they can't work efficiently, then sure another solution should have to be found but until now, they didn't say that.

As for France's interests in Irak, France is importing about 7% of Irak oil -which is almost nothing -. Main oil importations are coming from Norway, Saoudian Arabia, UK. Deals with Irak represents about 3% (while they were about 15% in 1996)
Are there some other hidden interests between Irak and France ? I honestly don't know.

I'm not specially pro-Chirac, but for once, I must admit that I agree with his position. War has nothing to deal with being a coward or not as you seem to insinuate "France, btw, didn't think Hitler was evil enough to even fight for their own capital".
Did you ever live in an occupied city ? You can't tell that. It's an offense to ppl who resisted and lost their lives. Sure, in any war and any place, you'll always find some unscrupulous ppl making profit of it, but don't say that the majority did.

You can agree with the war issue, but don't blam France or french because they don't. At the very beginning of that crisis, Bush always said that he didnd't need UN agreement to
go to war. That's a fact, he said it. So what's the real pb with that veto ? After all, he doesn't need any vote, no ? I think that he was looking for UN agreements only to share the war costs. That's my personal opinion (not necessary france's one)

I'm not for war, I'm not anti-american nor pro-saddam. Too bad to see that UN has collapsed just because some thinks that war is the only issue to resolve a crisis.
I respect all point of views, so I hope others will respect the ones from countries which are thinking in a different way without falling into the so easy "blam him because he doesn't agree" !

I wish i could remember the name of it, but I watched a documentary the other day. It was about how France was occupied by Germany, and how the process worked. After about 15 minutes i was scratching my head.

It was a long series of interviews with teary-eyed French men and women, but they were teary-eyed because of the memories of their German friends. 'So-and-So was a perfect gentleman, and paid us well for the time he stayed with us'. It recounted how many french landowners actually rented their property to the Germans, and how they employed the widows and orphans in the community, and were just polite and nice folks. One lady sat and cried about the wonderful dinners she had had in her home hosting a Nazi officer, saying they were the best times of her life.

I was, as you may imagine, disgusted. The people interviewed seemed to have no regard for the criminal nature of the occupation and the evils done during it. I came into the show a bit late, but during the time i watched there was only haphazard reference to 'resistance', and even then the people involved seemed confused as to what the big deal was. There was no mention of the holocaust while i was watching.

Did anyone else see this? I'd like to go back and watch it again now, in light of recent events. At the time i remember thinking, "This is one ugly piece of revisionist history." But in the last few weeks I am inclined to believe that france would just overlook most of WW2. I wonder if it is insight into the most modern historical theory in europe.

Thibald, this nation feels insulted and stabbed in the back...

Dunno why, everyone wants to make claims that our involvment with Saddam is old history and we made a mistake, etc...

Yet history is then used as a tool to prove Frances ignorance and back stabbing, etc...

double standards...

shocked?

I'm not, and it is not an American phenom either, this is something that all people make use of on this planet and it does not matter if you live in the most modern or worst 3rd world nation either.

by the way HDesk rocks

here here...Thibaud.. you have made some points that I agree with. yet I am still bothered by anti-war people (like me) not having a answer to disarming Iraq exept that "we don't want war" cry.

A few points; I don't quite understand the "don't eat French food or call them freedom fries instead of french fries" I think that is childish.

When it comes to Frances veto, it was a major block for the vote. Other members did not want to vote on a resolution that France said it would veto. Others backed away from saying they would vote specifically for that reason.

I do not think France has any sustantial profit in Iraq and I am not sure why people are hinting that since France disagrees then it means they have money interests in the country


It still comes back to the same points that I just don't have an aswer for:

Is Saddam someone who you would trust to disarm? As against the war that I am no one on my side has yet to say Saddam has no weapons and prove it, that Saddam has a stable country, that Saddam treats his people fairly, thats Saddam's military wouldn't just sell or give weapons on the open black market.

Can someone give me something that clearly states that peace has a chance against Saddam?

*sigh*
I think I need to repeat myself, or at least try to clarify my position a bit more.
I am not pro EU. I dislike one country rules the planet. Whoever that country is. Now, no, I don't miss the USSR, but I must admit that, back then, chances of the US and the USSR getting involved directly (they indirectly sold arms, though, I admit) in a war were next to nul. Ironically, we lived better times of peace during the cold war. But I admit, the situation was tense, mainly because there was so much hate between the USSR and the USA. But that would not be the case with EU. Are you comparing Europe with the USSR? Really, why do you ask if I miss the USSR? That is a strange comparison, I must say. If EU developped strong, even only half as strong as the US, they would not be the vilains, like the USSR were. They would just be Europe, good guys. Like the US is the good guys too. Not two ennemy countries, just two selarate military powers. Both of them being good. With the exception that if the EU were to say invade Guatemala, the US could asy "Wait a minute", and the same for the other way.

About "brain washing". Listen... I strongly believe that "patriotic" rimes with "fanatic". Again, whoever the patriot is. We have some of those guys here too. The kind of people who's heart accelerates as soon as they hear the word Quebec. The problem is that those people, because they have such a strong passion, can so easily be channeled into a given direction when another country is being vilified. The stronger the passion, the easier it is. It's not something I meant to say concerns only Americans, it doesn't. Patriotism tends to blind people. But I must say that I find that, although good people in general, the Americans do tend to be some of the most patriotic people I know. To me, that's one of their flaws. But I'm sure most people would see it as a quality. I don't.
Now, I'm not saying that EVERYONE who is in favor of that war is a blind fanatic. Absolutely not. There are a few who maybe have their opinion seperatly. Some are not even patriot no American and are still in favor of that war. What I said about manipulating patriotism is for the masses in general.

And BTW, I just realised that what you said about Cameroon and Rwanda is rather insulting for non-Western countries. So you think that the US is not enought West-centered as it is? The fact that the West (or maybe I should say the North instead) has 5 permanent members of the security counsil out of 15, with veto power, is not good enough? Other countries on the planet should have no saying?

And once more, as Thibaud pointed it, it DOES make a difference 3 vote or 9. 3 votes is complete defeat, while 9 votes, even with a French veto is a moral victory. And your governement knows it, that's why there were no vote. A defeat without a French veto would have looked very bad. It was much preferable to go at war with the previous resolutions in the pocket.

well, what i'm saying is that I agree saddam should leave. He's a dictator, and nobody can say the opposite.
I just have a pb with the war issue since inspections were getting results (and of course mostly due to the US pressure over there, that's right).
I'm pretty sure that without war fear, UN inspectors wouldn't be able to work in an efficient way.
Does peace have a chance against saddam ? I dunno, but if saddam can be removed, like destroying his weapons with the UN inspections, he wouldn't represent a threat anymore, and maybe his own population would rebel. I'm not sure about that, but it would be interesting to see the final results without war since irak is not representing -at least for now- an immediate threat for the world.

backerstreet : i agree with you, that's weird. Is that some kind of Stockholm syndrom ? I don't know. For ex, some iraki ppl are thinking that saddam is a great man though he's a dictator. Same happened in Spain with Franco. Fortunately, the majority of the oppressed population does not think like that. As I said, there will always be some unscrupulous ppl to make profit of war/occupation. That's the obscure part of the human nature

oh hell, I wonder just how many of the others were hiding smiles and swallowing sighs?

"we don't have to vote!" I wonder how many actually, honestly *fear* the US and or the current leaders of the US?

I wonder how many have sat back and watched things unfold and remember... and end up sitting for hours questioning and then re-questioning, their own thoughts, what they feel they are seeing and what they remember....

anway...

Bakerstreet: At the time i remember thinking, "This is one ugly piece of revisionist history." But in the last few weeks I am inclined to believe that france would just overlook most of WW2.
And what made you change your mind? I hope not the recent events because that would be a bit absurd.

BTW: if your documentary was even hinting that those were the majority of the French, then it was way wrong. Most French were against occupation (how can you be for it?), while the majority was just too scared (understandable) to do much about it. But the French interior resistance made a big difference.

OK, I understand how hard it is to see the danger of one single ruling contry when you live in that country. So lets play a pretend game.
Imagine that the US just has an average military power, but that France has 50 times the military power of all the other countries together. Would that not scare you? Although you know that France is good, and probably won't start invading other countries just for the hell of it, I'm sure it would still make you worried.
Well, if that's how you would feel about France, then imagine that it's how most other contries feel about the US.

without a doubt, and frankly the CIA where the best choice to send out around the globe to win the hearts and minds of new friends and people

I think it's time to accept that everyone has his opinion. Apart from one person that states things in a pompous way, it's a good debate with factfinding and links. However, everyone can make up their own mind and choose sides, or choose not to choose side and stay neutral. I agree with Paxx and Thibault, but also accept Frogboys point of view. However, with polls saying so many people support this or that may vary from hour to hour, and isn't really a motive to choose a certain path. Like Paxx said, the path is chosen first, then you try to find support. Whether you buy it with money or in another way. Yes, maybe the US may choose his president, but the party decides who runs for president...

It doesn't matter anymore now. Alea iacta est. Let's see what happens. And especially afterwards.

Tont Blair is now on BBC FIVE LIVE from the UK parliament debating the Iraq issue and will vote later, perhaps the most important for the UK for some time.

Adam,

France never said it would use its veto no matter what the evidence, but only if the second resolution was including an ultimatum, which would automatically be interpreted as a "let's go for war" without giving inspectors enough time to see if there is some WMD. That's rather different. I don't think that France gvt with the veto threat is threading the existence of the UN. A majority of the UN members asked that more time should be given to the inspections.

You're surely right, Blair has everything to loose so he must have good reasons to support a war action. Too bad we've not been told what are those evidence, I'm pretty sure that it would have changed some UN permanent members mind (maybe including france).

I wouldn't call war a *Test* like you. War has nothing to do with a test or a game. Russia just "decided to indefinitely put off a vote on ratification of a U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty because of the U.S. threat of war against Iraq" (Abcnews source).
Is that the *Test* result you were expecting ?

I just want to tell Thiubud he has some good points, that I can understand well...and I appreciate that he didn't do any america bashing

If my posts were perceived as America bashing, then apologize. It certainly isn't meant that way.
To understand where I stand please do the exercice I proposed in post #164. It's not specifically about America, it's about ANY country who would stand in a unique power position in the World.

I guess, you could make the parallel with having one unique party governing a country, or having multiple parties. Even if the unique party is a very good one, I will always prefer to have more than one.

na paxx, people no bette rthan you doing something like that. just an emotional topic is all. hell, I take more offence at another american telling other americans to pack up and leave just because they do not fall into line as to exactly how they think they sould be to be a good american...

and even then I know the person is a good person and just tired of ti all, saturation point gets that way sometimes...

it's all good

Thibaud, you are incorrect regarding Ivory coast. While France did eventually get UN support, it was only AFTER they had already sent troops there.

And incidentally, the double standard is quite breathtaking. Why was it okay for France to invade a sovereign country but there is aproblem with the US?

The US doesn't need an additional UN resolution for lots of reasons. For one thing, resolution 678, which was the cease fire for the first gulf war, stipulated that Iraq had to disarm. Since Iraq hasn't the cease fire becomes null and void.

But even if they didn't have that, resolution 1441 said the same thing.

Paxx: Like it or not, it's the anti-war people who have failed to come up with a reasonable alternative. If you want to talk about brain washed, perhaps you should look at those who support your position. You have on the one hand people who can lay out a lengthy set of reasons for military action and on the other hand people who spew out one line nonsense "It's about oil, give peace a chance, let the inspectors work, won't someone think of the children? Yadayadayda".

Americans have had a long time now to consider the issues with Iraq and they have concluded that Iraq needs to be dealt with. You don't agree. Fine. But that doesn't make most Americans blindly patriotic. You have never once been able to come up with any reasoning that invalidates any of the multitudes of reasons I've used for military action.

And yes Paxx, not all countries are equal. Cameroon and Guinea are tiny countries. That their vote counts as much as say China is absurd.

There are a lot of Americans, myself included, who feel the US should leave the United Nations and kick the UN out of New York. It is a useless, corrupt organization. What good it does do could be picked up by more efficient NGOs. The US pays a quarter of the UN dues which i think is similarly absurd. The UN security council should be USA, UK, Russia, China, Japan, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and 1 country from the EU and 1 country from Africa. It should represent the powers capapble of providing security in the world at least theoretically.

BTW Paxx, I strongly urge you to look closely at the EU proposed constitution. It is quite socialist in design -- closer to the soviet model than the US model. You know the USSR had elections too right? They just didn't matter. In the EU, the people running it would also not have to answer to the people.

Paxx may get his wish. I think the EU will have one uniform in about 10 years. All EU members will provide men, equipment and money for an EU armed services.That will be a power to be watched.