PDA

View Full Version : In case you forgot the French are scumbags



PhinPhan1227
06-19-2003, 12:19 PM
The Gaul! French hug for Hamas



By MAHMOUD HABBOUSH in Gaza City
and CORKY SIEMASZKO in New York
DAILY NEWS WRITERS

They've been labeled terrorists by the U.S. and targeted for destruction by the Israelis, but Hamas still has a friend in France.
A day after President Bush accused the Palestinian militants of sabotaging the Middle East peace process and urged world leaders to take a hard line against them, the French stymied yesterday an attempt by the European Union to blacklist the group's leadership.

"It is in our interest to have Palestinian interlocutors," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said. "I distrust a strategy based on cutting off dialogue."

The move by de Villepin, whose government also has opposed American demands to shun Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, infuriated British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"Hamas has rejected the road map and is literally trying to blow it up," said Straw, who proposed outlawing the group.

Hamas' military wing has been behind a spate of suicide bomb attacks - including one last week that killed 17 on a Jerusalem bus - and is on the EU's list of banned terrorist groups whose assets could be seized.

Straw urged the EU to outlaw the political wing as well because "Hamas' political and military wings are very extensively intertwined."

Hamas has rejected Bush's road map to peace, which calls for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza but requires that the terrorists disband and recognize Israel.

Last night, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas failed to persuade Hamas and other militant groups to put down their arms. An earlier attempt by Egyptian negotiators to get Hamas to agree to a truce also ended in failure.

The Palestinian Authority "cannot subdue us with force," said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a top Hamas leader. "We are popular, they are weak, and if they hurt us, they will be seen as Zionist agents."

Ziyad Abu Amer, a Palestinian Authority negotiator, said they will try again today.

Ignoring calls for restraint from Israeli legislators who want to give the Palestinian Authority time to bargain with the militants, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon vowed once more to crush Hamas.

"As long as there is nobody on the Palestinian side who wants or is able to fight terrorism, Israel will continue to strike at the terrorists," he said.

Bush has called for a global cutoff of funds to Hamas and vowed to "deal harshly" with them.

"Bush's threat doesn't frighten us," senior Hamas leader Ismael Abu Shanab said. "This gives the Israelis the green light to kill more Palestinians."

Since the day after Bush got Abbas and Sharon to sign on to his peace plan at a summit in Jordan, Israeli air strikes have killed a half-dozen Hamas leaders.

Originally published on June 17, 2003

baccarat
06-19-2003, 01:30 PM
Hamas' goal is to destroy Israel. They do not want peace between the Palestine and Israel. France's support for Hamas is disgusting.

XoPhinsoX
06-20-2003, 06:33 PM
Just bomb France.

They're worthless.

They can take and take and take, but never give.

iceblizzard69
06-20-2003, 07:19 PM
As some of you may know I don't like Israel too much but I can't stand terrorism, which means I can't stand Hamas. I didn't read the article but it baffles me how a modern nation like France couldn't be against Hamas, because I am assuming that the article is about that.

Miamian
06-24-2003, 01:21 PM
What's interesting is that the Palestinian Authority has said repeatedly that they accept the Roadmap without resevation. Israel has said that it accepts the Roadmap, but with reservations. Abbas has also said that he will not use force to crack down on the militants.

However, if you read the Roadmap it states quite clearly:

Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.

Which one is it? It makes one wonder if Abbas had actually read the roadmap. Of course he did and was lying. He just wants to appear more conciliatory to the US than he is actually willing to be. The Israelis were honest about their reservations and were more concerned with implementing the Roadmap than trying to play the helpless victim.

Here's a link to the page from the State Department:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm

MaxPower
07-01-2003, 02:07 PM
**cough**

Actually, Israelis are also "terrorists". Sure Hamas is bad (awful, really), but Israel invaded another country, moved settlers in, bulldozes houses, has a martial law-style military occupation, and generally kills/tortures/jails whomever they want whenever they want. All made possible by our tax dollars.

The article says that France is NOT against removing Hamas' voice from the peace discussions, which the U.S. & U.K. want to do. Insuring that Hamas has no say in the resolution is a surefire way of guaranteeing that they remain pissed, defiant, & violent toward the peace process.

They might be less dangerous if they are included.

PhinPhan1227
07-01-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by MaxPower
**cough**

Actually, Israelis are also "terrorists". Sure Hamas is bad (awful, really), but Israel invaded another country, moved settlers in, bulldozes houses, has a martial law-style military occupation, and generally kills/tortures/jails whomever they want whenever they want. All made possible by our tax dollars.

The article says that France is NOT against removing Hamas' voice from the peace discussions, which the U.S. & U.K. want to do. Insuring that Hamas has no say in the resolution is a surefire way of guaranteeing that they remain pissed, defiant, & violent toward the peace process.

They might be less dangerous if they are included.

Last time I checked, Israel moved in to those territories because it was being shelled. Now, I don't agree with many of the actions they've taken, but there's a world of difference between targeting gunmen and bombers and targeting busloads of women and children. Yes, the Israelis have killed innocent people, but at least they didn't TARGET innocent people. Hamas however is a collection of murderers who should be rounded up and skinned alive. And anyone who supports them could happily share that same fate as far as I'm concerned.

Quite honestly, Israel has done nothing worse than many of the things the US did in WWII. We also killed innocent people as part of acceptable "collateral damage". It was horrible, it was tragic, but it was also the result of being forced to defend yourself.

The situation TODAY is that Israel has done EVERYTHING that the Palestinians have asked. The ONLY thing they've refused to do is give up their holy city which has been theirs for thousands of years before Islam even existed. And for THAT reason Hamas has up to this point threatened to continue their targeting of civilians. I hope and pray that this cease fire holds, but if it doesn't I've about reached the point where I would have little moral outrage left if Israel decided to turn the West Bank into a glass parking lot.

Miamian
07-02-2003, 09:41 PM
Well said PhinPhan. It so easy to sit back and say that "YOU should do this and YOU should do that and that YOU should do such and such this way or that way." Also "be brave to take seeing your loved ones killed in brutal fashion."

All this is said so long as we don't have to deal with any reprecussions. Hopefully the the cease-fire will evolve into a lasting peace, but if it does fail critics should try taking their families to live in Israel for a year or so and live with the constant fear that they or someone they love may be die any second from bombing or shooting attack. Then they'll have more right to pass judgement.

t2thejz
07-02-2003, 09:57 PM
I never forgot

Miamian
07-02-2003, 10:43 PM
You never forgot...what?

t2thejz
07-03-2003, 10:03 AM
That the french are scumbags

Miamian
07-03-2003, 05:31 PM
Duh, it's only in the title of the thread.

Penthos
07-11-2003, 01:02 PM
"The French are scumbags" I can only you assume you are referring too their politics/politicians... I would hate to think that you would pass such harsh judgement on the people of a Nation because of their Prime Ministers politics...

If you eliminate the Hams Political Wing from dialog then you have no access... Didn't you see the Godfather, friends close enemies closer....

Jesus Christ has the whole country turned into Texas? Where if you aren't a NRA registered shoot First American then you'r a Godless Pinko Commy?

You know, this isn't the F#&cking old west and we are not ALL John Wayne... The world is not BLACK and WHITE... Countries are not inhernetly "GOOD" or "EVIL"... their governments and rulers may do evil things...

Meanwhile because of George Bush and his global "politics" (if thats what you'd call it) most of the rest of the world thinks that WE are the scumbags... We are quickly becomming the most HATED and DISTRUSTED nation in the world... Bill Clinton gets impeached for lying about having sex in the white house... Did anyone die? Were there any victims? NO!

But George Bush misrepresents the truth as evidence for war, and then wraps himself in the Flag and the interest of National defense to jusify it and what do you think will happen to him? NOTHING.

So lying about sex is wrong, but lying about evidence to go to kill is Ok? Do you know, or care how ridiculous this make us look politically from a global perspective?

Who are the real scumbags here?

IMPEACH BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

t2thejz
07-11-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
"The French are scumbags" I can only you assume you are referring too their politics/politicians... I would hate to think that you would pass such harsh judgement on the people of a Nation because of their Prime Ministers politics...

If you eliminate the Hams Political Wing from dialog then you have no access... Didn't you see the Godfather, friends close enemies closer....

Jesus Christ has the whole country turned into Texas? Where if you aren't a NRA registered shoot First American then you'r a Godless Pinko Commy?

You know, this isn't the F#&cking old west and we are not ALL John Wayne... The world is not BLACK and WHITE... Countries are not inhernetly "GOOD" or "EVIL"... their governments and rulers may do evil things...

Meanwhile because of George Bush and his global "politics" (if thats what you'd call it) most of the rest of the world thinks that WE are the scumbags... We are quickly becomming the most HATED and DISTRUSTED nation in the world... Bill Clinton gets impeached for lying about having sex in the white house... Did anyone die? Were there any victims? NO!

But George Bush misrepresents the truth as evidence for war, and then wraps himself in the Flag and the interest of National defense to jusify it and what do you think will happen to him? NOTHING.

So lying about sex is wrong, but lying about evidence to go to kill is Ok? Do you know, or care how ridiculous this make us look politically from a global perspective?

Who are the real scumbags here?

IMPEACH BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: Cry Me A River

Penthos
07-11-2003, 01:13 PM
PhinPhan:

Although I was born in America, my entire family is French, which makes me French...

So go F#%CK yourself you myopic gun toting a$$hole!

Penthos
07-11-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by t2thejz
:lol: Cry Me A River

Typical Red Neck, shallow, war mongering response.

Why try to use your brain to respond when you can rely on 5 sysllable schoolyard retorts...

t2thejz
07-11-2003, 01:28 PM
Well it was just a joke, no need to cry about it....Well first of all Clinton almost got impeached because he lied to america, any president who lies to his country should be impeached, Bush didnt misrepresent the truth. You say Bush is lying but what the hell do you know, do you work for the cia and know all the fact, so you claim bush is lying. You are just using that because you didnt want us to go to war and now that the war has been so succesful you claim bush has lied.
Originally posted by 13isgr81
"
Who are the real scumbags here?

People like you who are ignorent enough to type that bullcrap

PhinPhan1227
07-11-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
PhinPhan:

Although I was born in America, my entire family is French, which makes me French...

So go F#%CK yourself you myopic gun toting a$$hole!


While I do wear contacts, I don't own a gun, so you're only 50% correct. As for the rest, I make special dispensation for French Canadians, and Cajuns, but I must say that the fact that the French have elected the current administration, as well as the last few administrations, leads me to the belief that the majority of the people of the nation of France are pretty much scumbags(at least among those who vote). They are world famous for selling arms to whomever would buy them, they're Socialists, and they even sank the flagship of GreenPeace for Gods sake!!!! As for Bush vs Clinton, before you go shoving your foot in your mouth, perhaps you could wait until all the facts are out? Here's what we DO know...

1) Information which was relayed to the American people during a State of the Union address was incorrect. It was NOT a statement under oath which is the defining legal difference between Clinto and Bush.

2) That information was a small PART of the overall justification for war with Iraq

3) The CIA signed off on the info, so it's quite likely that Pres Bush thought the info was correct

4)...there is no #4 because we don't know anything further.

I'd include silly little facts like the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's who died at Saddams hands, and the fact that we now have the most hopeful cease-fire in Palestine we've ever had, as further justification of the war. But...since individuals who are set on hating Bush are rarely concerned with facts, I won't bother.

Penthos
07-11-2003, 03:44 PM
OK dude... I'm not some free loving peacenick who wants hug trees all day pal...

I fully supported the war and the troops once the decision was made to go... I was happy for the people of Iraq knowing they would soon become free...

But a real man has the intellectual integrity to call a spade a spade even if his ego begs him not too. But some people refuse to see the truth even when its right in front of their face...

Yea, sure, OK,... the Bush white house didn't massage the truth to support the call to war...
...You go ahead and believe that pal...

...But then I guess you also believe that OJ is innocent, Reagan couldn't really couldn't recall Iran Contra, Bush Sr. didn't raise taxes, Clinton didn't bang Lewinsky, and Professional Wrestling isn't fake...

PhinPhan1227
07-11-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
OK dude... I'm not some free loving peacenick who wants hug trees all day pal...

I fully supported the war and the troops once the decision was made to go... I was happy for the people of Iraq knowing they would soon become free...

But a real man has the intellectual integrity to call a spade a spade even if his ego begs him not too. But some people refuse to see the truth even when its right in front of their face...

Yea, sure, OK,... the Bush white house didn't massage the truth to support the call to war...
...You go ahead and believe that pal...

...But then I guess you also believe that OJ is innocent, Reagan couldn't really couldn't recall Iran Contra, Bush Sr. didn't raise taxes, Clinton didn't bang Lewinsky, and Professional Wrestling isn't fake...

I'm reasonably sure that they were happy to take any evidence at face value in order to get their point across...but I think that's well balanced by the fact that they were dealing with the American publics tendency to view anything which isn't an immediate threat as no threat at all. That being said, if you're expecting pure unadulterated truth from your politicians, exactly which of us is naive? Name me a President after Washington and I'll give you an example of him either exagerating the truth to push an agenda or outright lying to do so. Go ahead, give me a name.

Penthos
07-11-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



While I do wear contacts, I don't own a gun, so you're only 50% correct. As for the rest, I make special dispensation for French Canadians, and Cajuns, but I must say that the fact that the French have elected the current administration, as well as the last few administrations, leads me to the belief that the majority of the people of the nation of France are pretty much scumbags(at least among those who vote). They are world famous for selling arms to whomever would buy them, they're Socialists, and they even sank the flagship of GreenPeace for Gods sake!!!! As for Bush vs Clinton, before you go shoving your foot in your mouth, perhaps you could wait until all the facts are out? Here's what we DO know...

1) Information which was relayed to the American people during a State of the Union address was incorrect. It was NOT a statement under oath which is the defining legal difference between Clinto and Bush.

2) That information was a small PART of the overall justification for war with Iraq

3) The CIA signed off on the info, so it's quite likely that Pres Bush thought the info was correct

4)...there is no #4 because we don't know anything further.

I'd include silly little facts like the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's who died at Saddams hands, and the fact that we now have the most hopeful cease-fire in Palestine we've ever had, as further justification of the war. But...since individuals who are set on hating Bush are rarely concerned with facts, I won't bother.

Ok Phin look, I apologize for my remarks, I'm sure you didn't mean them personally.... but the French bashing is getting old... IMO Chirac is an asshole, his motives for NOT going to war were as suspect as our motives FOR going to war... That doesn't mean the people their are all scumbags...

Hypothetically speaking... IF, just IF, it is PROVED that the Bush administration DID misrepresent the facts to support war... Then it would be fair for other countries to assume that Americans are liars or decievers? By your own reasoning then since Bush was elected by the people, the people MUST support him, therefore the people support lying and deception.

The majority of people support their Presidents when it comes to mattters of National interest, they might not agreebut usually support... If Chirac had supported the war, so would most have French people because in a time of war you support your president thereby supporting the war...

The french people are, at worst, guilty of doing what the American people did in a time of possible war, support their President. Does that still make them scumbags? Do you see the double standard you have created?

PhinPhan1227
07-11-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81


Ok Phin look, I apologize for my remarks, I'm sure you didn't mean them personally.... but the French bashing is getting old... IMO Chirac is an asshole, his motives for NOT going to war were as suspect as our motives FOR going to war... That doesn't mean the people their are all scumbags...

Hypothetically speaking... IF, just IF, it is PROVED that the Bush administration DID misrepresent the facts to support war... Then it would be fair for other countries to assume that Americans are liars or decievers? By your own reasoning then since Bush was elected by the people, the people MUST support him, therefore the people support lying and deception.

The majority of people support their Presidents when it comes to mattters of National interest, they might not agreebut usually support... If Chirac had supported the war, so would most have French people because in a time of war you support your president thereby supporting the war...

The french people are, at worst, guilty of doing what the American people did in a time of possible war, support their President. Does that still make them scumbags? Do you see the double standard you have created?


Actually, I'd say that there have been periods of time in American history when we very much deserved the title of "scumbag". I don't think that title applies right now when we as a people do so much to support the rest of the world, and minimize violence and tyranny. But right NOW, the French people turn a blind eye to French corporations which sell arms to countries like Iraq and N Korea. They support a President like Chirac who puts French economic interests above the ethics of supporting a better world...and THEN they have the gall(or Gaul...;) ) to call US war-mongers. As for showing that the Bush administration did or did not lie to us and the rest of the world...I just find it hard to worry about what the rest of the world finds "trustworthy", when the rest of the world finds it appropriate to put Liby and Cuba on the UN Human Rights Commission, and take us off it. At this point in time I do feel rather elitist and superior to much of the rest of the world because so much of the rest of the world has demonstrated such INCREDIBLE stupidity. Oh, and on a last note concerning the French. I had a great friend who happened to be French, and I posed the question to him concerning why the French are rude and combative. His answer was "well...we don't like each other, so why should we treat you any differently?". Sad thing was, he wasn't kidding. Parisians hate Marseiliese, who hate Normandians. And if you want ABSOLUTE proof that the French are unversaly disliked, I'll refer you to Billy Crystals "Live from Red Square" stand up routine. There he was during the Cold War, in Moscow when the Soviet Union was still in full swing, and he made this joke...

"You know, all of our lives we were told that you were the enemy...and all of your lives you were told that WE were the enemy. Well, we were both wrong...it's the French!!"

...the crowd gave him a standing ovation. Now, bear in mind that during this time, there wasn't exactly a ton of tourism going in and out of Moscow. It's not like there was a flood of French tourists in Moscow or Muscovites in Paris. What that means is that the few French tourists who DID make it there made such an impression that the 100% Soviet audience gave Billy a standing ovation for that joke. I rest my case....:cool:

MOULDSROCKS
07-11-2003, 05:25 PM
Weren't the French a HUGE part of our country even being created.... and I don't just mean the french philisophes who gave us the idrea's whih our gov't is based on.

t2thejz
07-11-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by MOULDSROCKS
Weren't the French a HUGE part of our country even being created.... and I don't just mean the french philisophes who gave us the idrea's whih our gov't is based on. Yea they helped us out 250 years ago but they wernt helping us out 3 months ago, We were a big part in rebuilding and helping their country out in the world wars.

Miamian
07-11-2003, 08:59 PM
There's a couple of things here I'd like to say. First, I don't hate the French. In fact, I speak French pretty well and visited France a few years back on vacation. I got "attitude" from about four or five people the whole time I was there for 2+ weeks. The rest of the time, everyone was just like anyone else. Not overtly friendly (in my experience, that only happens in Brazil), but not hostile either.

That being said, yes it's the government, but nevertheless, the people did elect him, so they deserve at least partial blame. Just as we are partly to blame for Bush's misdeeds (I voted for Gore).

Part of this controversy is also due to a common double standard against Israel. I don't think there's a country which is held to a higher standard by other countries. Just a few examples:

People decry Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza. This reminds me of a paper that I had read called "What Occupation?" (I forgot the author so I hope he forgives my not citing him). They fail to realize that Jews have been living there continously for thousands of years. Why should they not have a claim as well? Second, If the combined Arab armies had been successful in destroying Israel in 1948, would they have created a Palestinian state? Of course not, they would have divided it amongst themselves. Just to underscore the point, Gaza was "administered" by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan until Israel captured the territories in '67. It's also important to note that the Jordanians desecrated and destroyed many Jewish holy sites. If the Israelis had done anything reciprocal, imagine the worlwide outcry.

One of the reasons that the West Bank is so important to Israel is that the distance from the Green Line (the border between the West Bank and Israel proper) is something like 20 miles. The Arabs' strategy has been to drive to the sea and cut the country in half and thereby disrupt a coordinated defense. Therefore, the West Bank is strategically vital to Israel's defense.

On the other hand, the double standard is really obvious when you consider other countries' histories including our own. In the early 1840's we lusted after much of what was then Mexico, especially California. Mexico wouldn't sell it to us, so we provoked a war, beat the hell out of them like a schoolyard bully taking change from someone half his size, and then seized half their country. More examples: historically look how Russia, Germany, and Hungary ganged repeatedly up on Poland, dividing it amongst themselves. China seizes Tibet and then hypocritically criticizes Israel. How is Tibet of strategic importance to China other than a stepping stone to conquering India? And let's not forget the haughty pride that the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese showed in assembling their mercantilistic empires built on the backs of native Amercians, Africans, and southern Asians.

Then there's also the controversy of Israel's tactics against Hamas and other terrorists. One of the big critics is Russia. But of course, when Chechen terrorists blow themselves and others up in Moscow, then that's supposed to be a different story. Please. 911 would be our example. There were plenty of Afghan innocents killed in bombing raids during our war there.

13isgr81, I did notice that you smacked PhinPhan early without any provocation. The only replies he had made contained comments that were more sympathetic to Israel than to Hamas. I hope that wasn't the reason that you smacked him.

Miamian
07-12-2003, 12:12 AM
Excuse me 12isgr81, I saw after posting my last reply that were refering to the title of the thread.

inFINSible
07-12-2003, 12:19 AM
:clap:

I lost a post that I had written earlier and didn't feel like typing it again....but I was congratulating you, michea....er miamian, on a great post, and was asking you to give 13isgr81 the benefit of the doubt since he is out 'til Monday....glad to see you caught that.

Miamian
07-12-2003, 07:38 AM
Not a problem Dar, er.. inFINsible :cool: I'm not afraid to admit that I'm wrong.

baccarat
07-12-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
"The French are scumbags" I can only you assume you are referring too their politics/politicians... I would hate to think that you would pass such harsh judgement on the people of a Nation because of their Prime Ministers politics...

If you eliminate the Hams Political Wing from dialog then you have no access... Didn't you see the Godfather, friends close enemies closer....
Who are the real scumbags here?


I can't speak for others, but I was referring to the radical socialistic govt currently leading France. I do not hate anyone based on ethnic or racial background. I also don't hate the entire country of France but I won't buy their products until Chriac is out. Chirac and his administration is the group who I have "beef" with.


Meanwhile because of George Bush and his global "politics" (if thats what you'd call it) most of the rest of the world thinks that WE are the scumbags... We are quickly becomming the most HATED and DISTRUSTED nation in the world... But George Bush misrepresents the truth as evidence for war, and then wraps himself in the Flag and the interest of National defense to jusify it and what do you think will happen to him? NOTHING.

So easy we forget the nuclear testing Chirac performed despite strong international disapproval. Chirac's refusal to end the nuclear-weapons tests at Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia angered environmental groups worldwide and elicited scorn in countries like New Zealand and Australia. Australian PM Kim Beazley said Chirac’s defiance demonstrated “an arrogant disregard” for a U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for a halt to the tests. I sense a bit of hypocrisy from a guy who implies I as a scumbag.


Again I don't hate the people of France, but their voting results reveal that the general public of France may be a bit radical. Chirac recieved 82.21% of the votes. Jean-Marie Le PEN a man who believes the Holocaust is a mere detail of history and leader of the National Front, a neo-fascist party in France, recieved second place with 17.79%. Just a bit of trivia but what really gets me is that Chirac is considered conservative in France(maybe, compared to Stalin.)

Last but not least, if Chriac said my country's going to be neutral on this one then I wouldn't have any problem with that but he's gone out of his way to support Saddam, harm us and prevent liberation. He lied to Powell saying he'd enforce 1441 and support a resolution enforcing 1441, he also went to African countries offering money and aide if they would vote against the U.S.

In conclusion, I still have conflicts with Chirac but not with the French people.(After all, they gave us claudine auger.)


http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901020610-257071,00.html

PhinPhan1227
07-14-2003, 10:03 AM
Look folks, of course I have no problem with ALL the French. Heck, there's so much difference between Parisians, and those from other regions of the country that it's not even really accurate to lump them all together. That being said, they elected Chirac, and they elected the schmucks that preceded him. As such they bear the onus for his actions. And since he's a scumbag......

M-REAL
07-16-2003, 02:17 PM
Even most of the people in other countries don't blame Bush's arrogant statements on the American citizens of the U.S. They blame him and his administration, except for Powell who tries to work with everyone. I do agree with what someone else said in an earlier post, that I didn't want to go to war, but when it was going to happen regardless, I supported OUR TROOPS and prayed for a swift victory for them. BTW, every single time Bush makes a statement, quote<"Bring em' on," or something like that more of our troops get killed in attacks in Iraq. Before the war started, a news military expert said it best when he predicted it would be like another Vietnam conflict-meaning guerilla warfare.

PhinPhan1227
07-17-2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by marcusreal
Even most of the people in other countries don't blame Bush's arrogant statements on the American citizens of the U.S. They blame him and his administration, except for Powell who tries to work with everyone. I do agree with what someone else said in an earlier post, that I didn't want to go to war, but when it was going to happen regardless, I supported OUR TROOPS and prayed for a swift victory for them. BTW, every single time Bush makes a statement, quote&lt;&quot;Bring em' on,&quot; or something like that more of our troops get killed in attacks in Iraq. Before the war started, a news military expert said it best when he predicted it would be like another Vietnam conflict-meaning guerilla warfare.


The difference being that in Vietnam we were trying to support a leader who was a decent clone of Saddam. In Iraq we're trying to bring Democracy and a popular government. We'll have the guerilla attacks, but only for as long as it takes to build up a legit government.

MaxPower
07-17-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
[B]
...But right NOW, the French people turn a blind eye to French corporations which sell arms to countries like Iraq and N Korea. They support a President like Chirac who puts French economic interests above the ethics of supporting a better world...

An apt description of America, as well. (We might still have the receipts from whatever Iraq WMD program is left...) Our government has gutted/pulled out of most environmental & non-nuclear-proliferation treaties that still exist. We still don't support the Declaration of Human Rights. We refuse to take part in the World Court for fear Americans might actually be tried (& if you go be the strict definition, every President since Truman could be convicted of "war crimes", a la Nurenburg...Of course that applies to every other nation's president as well)....and as for naivete, well...to think that the U.S. puts its own peoples' human interests over the economic interests of our leader/elites is foolish...



and THEN they have the gall(or Gaul...;) ) to call US war-mongers. As for showing that the Bush administration did or did not lie to us and the rest of the world...I just find it hard to worry about what the rest of the world finds &quot;trustworthy&quot;, when the rest of the world finds it appropriate to put Libya and Cuba on the UN Human Rights Commission, and take us off it.

Based on on the record, we don't belong on a human rights commission. Neither do Libya or Cuba. So I'll agree with ya on that one...



At this point in time I do feel rather elitist and superior to much of the rest of the world because so much of the rest of the world has demonstrated such INCREDIBLE stupidity.

I think the rest of the world feels the same about us. Not that we're stupid, though, but un-informed. Our major network news coverage - which we use as basis for convesations like this one - is more "homeristic" than any sports team's. We are constantly only given part of the story (& launch the bombs), while other people get the other end (& receive the bombs)....none of us would just lap everything WannSpiel says as the gospel - we filter....yet we as a country we seem to have totally just bought the case for war unobjectively. The rest of the world thinks we're suckers.....

...it would be nice if we applied the standards which we hold France, Germany, and every other country to our own government. That is the basis for objectivity. We should hold ourselves to a high standard, THEN apply it to other countries.

"First fix the plank in thine own eye, before attending to the splinter in thine neighbors." - to paraphrase JC....

MaxPower
07-17-2003, 12:27 PM
I hate to paraphrase, so here you go:

Matthew 7...



"1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. "

PhinPhan1227
07-17-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by MaxPower


An apt description of America, as well. (We might still have the receipts from whatever Iraq WMD program is left...) Our government has gutted/pulled out of most environmental &amp; non-nuclear-proliferation treaties that still exist. We still don't support the Declaration of Human Rights. We refuse to take part in the World Court for fear Americans might actually be tried (&amp; if you go be the strict definition, every President since Truman could be convicted of &quot;war crimes&quot;, a la Nurenburg...Of course that applies to every other nation's president as well)....and as for naivete, well...to think that the U.S. puts its own peoples' human interests over the economic interests of our leader/elites is foolish...



Based on on the record, we don't belong on a human rights commission. Neither do Libya or Cuba. So I'll agree with ya on that one...



I think the rest of the world feels the same about us. Not that we're stupid, though, but un-informed. Our major network news coverage - which we use as basis for convesations like this one - is more &quot;homeristic&quot; than any sports team's. We are constantly only given part of the story (&amp; launch the bombs), while other people get the other end (&amp; receive the bombs)....none of us would just lap everything WannSpiel says as the gospel - we filter....yet we as a country we seem to have totally just bought the case for war unobjectively. The rest of the world thinks we're suckers.....

...it would be nice if we applied the standards which we hold France, Germany, and every other country to our own government. That is the basis for objectivity. We should hold ourselves to a high standard, THEN apply it to other countries.

&quot;First fix the plank in thine own eye, before attending to the splinter in thine neighbors.&quot; - to paraphrase JC....


Yeah, we're in the same boat as France. Let me just look back at the last time we set off an above ground nuke. Or perhaps you could pinpoint the arms shipments which we're sending to China, N. Korea, or Libya? I'm excluding nuclear secrets sold by Bill Clinton of course. As for the World Court, we already allow our troops to be put on trial for legitimate crimes(see Japan). What we're disputing is the right of a country to ask us to participate in peacekeeping activites, only to have the next government in line bring charges of war crimes against those troops. The requested changes have nothing to do with world leaders. As for naivete, I don't think CNN invented thos corpses in those mass graves. The case for the war against Saddam comes down to his war of aggression against Kuwait. He lost, and he got to stay in power in return for certain concessions. He failed to make those concessions, and he was removed. That's the bottom line. As for America casting aspersions on other nations, it again comes down to this...we're the oldest, wealthiest, and most powerful democracy in the world. For a nation of our size, we have the highest standard of living in the world. Our culture is the single most influential culture in the world. These aren't opinions, these are facts. Yes, there's plenty that's wrong with the US. But so long as the rest of the world keeps DEMANDING that we intervene in their affairs, we'll have the right to render our opinion on those affairs as well.

baccarat
07-17-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by MaxPower


Based on on the record, we don't belong on a human rights commission. Neither do Libya or Cuba. So I'll agree with ya on that one...

..

Then who would you put on there?

MaxPower
07-18-2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by booyeah_


Then who would you put on there?

maybe some dinky Scandanavian countries...:tongue:

That's about it. Jamaica, maybe. They could at least relax & see the big picture.

Get Noam Chomsky in there to prosecute.......

MaxPower
07-18-2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

Yeah, we're in the same boat as France. Let me just look back at the last time we set off an above ground nuke. Or perhaps you could pinpoint the arms shipments which we're sending to China, N. Korea, or Libya?

So we test our nukes underground? Not much difference in my book. We're still actively pushing a nuclear program as if it might actually be a viable form of warfare. Insanity, and it reflects a selfish disregard for humanity & future generations. Ok, so it works as a deterrent, but only with treaties in place (which were there...ooops not anymore!) & when all countries work to disarm & disable their nukes. We were headed that way before Bush got in office. And if your bitching about Chirac is based on what environmental groups think of his policies, turn that lens around & read what they think of our current administration...our policies are far more harmful than those adopted by Europe. From car-emissions right on down to genetically modified foods...

And American companies (just as well as French, German, etc) have been doing business with ALL of the middle-eastern countries - including Iraq - regardless of sanctions. Some of the companies that got contracts to rebuild Iraq (after we destroyed it) were in there not to long ago, & their interest is money, not democracy or humanitarianism. Hell, Rumsfeld himself was over there shaking Saddam's hand not 15 years ago.



I'm excluding nuclear secrets sold by Bill Clinton of course.

Yea he worked a 4-way deal with Bush Sr & Oliver North involving cash, contras, Iran, & plenty of coke for George, Jr. :tongue: These guys are all creeps. There's no use pointing fingers at just one of them. Clinton bombing Bosnia was just as wrong as what's going on now.



As for the World Court, we already allow our troops to be put on trial for legitimate crimes(see Japan). What we're disputing is the right of a country to ask us to participate in peacekeeping activites, only to have the next government in line bring charges of war crimes against those troops. The requested changes have nothing to do with world leaders.

Beg to differ. The changes are ALL about leaders. There's that naivete I'm talking about. If we send troops anywhere it's because we want to - not because somebody begged us. And there are agreed upon rules of conflict that must be followed. If one of our guys breaks the rules I've got no problem with him doing time. But you know we don't follow the rules anyway (see the "non-enemy combatents" doing time in Cuba right now).



As for naivete, I don't think CNN invented thos corpses in those mass graves. The case for the war against Saddam comes down to his war of aggression against Kuwait. He lost, and he got to stay in power in return for certain concessions. He failed to make those concessions, and he was removed. That's the bottom line.


That's way too simplistic. Yea Saddam was bad. No dispute here. Everyone wants him gone. We're indirectly resposible for those graves, though, you realize? We asked the people to rise up in Gulf War I & when they did we pulled out left them hanging. Saddam even requested from our military if he could use his helicopters to put down his revolution after our part of the "conflict" was over. He slaughtered, he buried. And now we're pointing to that as evidence he was a bad guy. Yea well duh, we all knew that anyway. It's not the first time we stood around while thousands were killed & it won't be the last.

The bottom line in this war was timing. There were inspectors there already. They had a long slow job to do & were taking a long time. Bush set up a bunch of arbitrary deadlines and started scaring everyone with (apparently) lies about nukes, nerve gas, & WMDs - as if a pissant country like Iraq with a 3rd rate dictator was a threat to the USA. Then he got his war on & invaded. We killed thousands of innocent people like were playing QUAKE or something, & now we own their country. We've set up a newspaper & TV that they can't run freely; elections where they can't pick their own candidates; and we're paying millions to american countries to operate & control their oil industry. Hallelujah, democracy & liberation has arrived.



As for America casting aspersions on other nations, it again comes down to this...we're the oldest, wealthiest, and most powerful democracy in the world. For a nation of our size, we have the highest standard of living in the world. Our culture is the single most influential culture in the world. These aren't opinions, these are facts. Yes, there's plenty that's wrong with the US. But so long as the rest of the world keeps DEMANDING that we intervene in their affairs, we'll have the right to render our opinion on those affairs as well.

Yea, America is great. It sure we be greater if we'd stop spending $4 billion a month on Iraq & maybe spend it on Americans. We spend about $6 billion a year on the Head Start program, & that actually works, unlike the "missile defense sheild" we've budgeted $10 billion for this year.

America is a concept - ideals - not a governement or an administration. Supporting the president doesn't make you patriotic - and blindly supporting it without a greater understanding of the bigger picture just makes you a sheep, rebleating back what you here on the news. There are sheep on the other side as well, but down the middle there's a nice path that doesn't involve needlessly killing people & does involve getting our own house in order & taking care of our kids and our own people. If we spent half as much on people here as we do "liberating" other people & their oil then we'd all be better off.

And BTW, the rest of the world "demands" our help for a lot of things, but no one asked us to invade Iraq. I'm fine with us rendering opinions all we want, but not every solution is a military one (a belief the current adminsitration does not share), and the truth is we don't get involved when the cause is strictly humanitarian - only when there is some monetary or strategic gain for us. I don't have a problem with that, that's how all governments operate - but let's not pretend we're the global A-Team rescuing everyone out of altruism and to spread "democracy".

I pity the fool that doesn't embrace the free market system:goof:

PhinPhan1227
07-18-2003, 11:33 AM
First of all, we don't test nukes underground either. We've supported the ban on nuke testing. Secondly, the only thing worse than thinking that war will solve all the worlds problems is thinking that it won't solve any of them. GW may be a bit over the top in his rhetoric, but in the realm of "walk softly and carry a big stick", it's pretty darned important that you don't forget to CARRY the stick. The last 8 years we've had a President who left the stick in the top drawer when he went out. There ARE times when force is needed, and that time is now. And your comment that "as if a pissant country like Iraq with a 3rd rate dictator was a threat to the USA", is pretty nifty. Afghanistan ASPIRES to pissant status, and the Taliban didn't even qualify as 4th rate...but their support of Al-Qaida resulted in 3000 American deaths. Not a threat? The nuke threat may or may not have been present in Iraq, but we DO know that enough nerve and bio stores were created in Iraq to cause at least another 3k deaths if they were delivered here as well. That information isn't in dispute. And a large part of the reason that we have been unable to find those stores which everyone agrees existed, is in large part because of the extra months of foot dragging that were given to Saddam. And as for the World Court issue, you ignored the glaring fact that we ALREADY allow our troops to be brought up on LEGITIMATE charges. There are US servicemen in jail in foreign countries as we speak. But the Wolrd Court treaty as it exists now would allow a government to hold us hostage. We go in to Liberia to support peacekeeping efforts. The new revolutionary government decides that the need extra funds. They bring charges against US troops, and demand funding in order to drop those charges. Considering that we already allow our troops to be prosecuted for wrongdoing, which of those two scenarios seems more likely to you?

MaxPower
07-18-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
First of all, we don't test nukes underground either. We've supported the ban on nuke testing.

Used too. We are currently "reconstituting" our tactical nuclear program & have advised other countries we will test. Not to say we will, but it's out there.


Secondly, the only thing worse than thinking that war will solve all the worlds problems is thinking that it won't solve any of them. GW may be a bit over the top in his rhetoric, but in the realm of &quot;walk softly and carry a big stick&quot;, it's pretty darned important that you don't forget to CARRY the stick.

No argument here.


The last 8 years we've had a President who left the stick in the top drawer when he went out.

Not entirely true, and poor justification. He tossed the military around pretty good. Sometimes honey works better than vinegar, though. He was smooth enough to get most problems (economic ones, at least) solved with diplomacy. Africa & Eastern Europe, mainly...but we should be glad he didn't need to risk American lives to insure the peace & promote economic prosperity.



There ARE times when force is needed, and that time is now. And your comment that &quot;as if a pissant country like Iraq with a 3rd rate dictator was a threat to the USA&quot;, is pretty nifty. Afghanistan ASPIRES to pissant status, and the Taliban didn't even qualify as 4th rate...but their support of Al-Qaida resulted in 3000 American deaths.

Actually Saudi Arabia is most supportive. And 90% of the terrorists were Saudis. But we bombed those Afghanistan pesants good, didn't we? (warning: sarcasm alert)
And we supported the Taliban, despite their beliefs and crimes against their own citizens until we needed a target for revenge. Holding the people of Afghanistan responsible is like bombing the Midwest 'cause Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building. They supported him, didn't they? They allowed him to move about in peace, despite his anti-government leanings....If only Afghanistan had our democracy they could have stopped Al-Qaeda...not a perfect analogy, I know....


Not a threat? The nuke threat may or may not have been present in Iraq, but we DO know that enough nerve and bio stores were created in Iraq to cause at least another 3k deaths if they were delivered here as well. That information isn't in dispute.

Actually it is. There is no proof there were any nerve agents. And weapons inspectors who were already in Iraq and had been monitoring for years stated that the "unaccounted for" stores were a: something Iraq could not prove they destroyed - which is not the same as proof that they didn't destroy them...and b: they were chemically inert after a period of several years - meaning they were likely harmless after say...1998. The Administration's flimsy argument was that Iraq was working to try to maybe start building such a program again & was in posession of the necessary equipment...well, the high school chem lab down the street from me has the necessary equipment (which BTW, hasn't been found in Iraq yet). What's lacking is the intent, which is totally unprovable & in the minds of fear-mongering officials who wanted a war...



And as for the World Court issue, you ignored the glaring fact that we ALREADY allow our troops to be brought up on LEGITIMATE charges. There are US servicemen in jail in foreign countries as we speak.

I'm not ignoring that. I realize there are already service men in international jails that likely belong there.


But the Wolrd Court treaty as it exists now would allow a government to hold us hostage. We go in to Liberia to support peacekeeping efforts. The new revolutionary government decides that the need extra funds. They bring charges against US troops, and demand funding in order to drop those charges. Considering that we already allow our troops to be prosecuted for wrongdoing, which of those two scenarios seems more likely to you?

Again, this is a simplistic interpretation. We will not be beholden to a World Court any more than we are to the United Nations, which we already ignore, refuse to pay dues, etc etc. We're the bully on the block & if we want to remove troops we will. I think the point you are still missing is that it is a "Court", where charges can be filed, argued, and dismissed/upheld based on the evidence. Sure we might be charged with something - but that doesn't mean anything. We still have to be convicted. And I believe there is a rotating set of judges from many countries (including ours) that confer and prevent the (extremely unlikely, if you still want my opinion) "blackmail" case you presented.

It's like saying you don't want a federal court here because you might be charged with a crime. Well, if you don't commit a crime or there's a lack of evidence then there's nothing to sweat.

We don't want the World Court because acts of agression and violations of international law would subject our leaders to penalties, fines, maybe maybe maybe jail time. And it's hard to maraud around the world invading whatever country we please if there might be consequences to say, Richard Perle...

PhinPhan1227
07-18-2003, 01:14 PM
Ok, so we don't have to worry about a world court because we can pull our troops out whenever we want, but we DO worry about it because they might put our leaders on trial? You don't see an inconsistancy there?

M-REAL
07-18-2003, 01:34 PM
Phin you got your facts mixed up over the Vietnam War. Why do you think we lost? We should have never been there in the first place. Bring Democracy? We went there to get rid of Communism, period. Just like now when we say we're fighting terrorism, we are still fighting Communism- just the name has changed. Back to Vietnam, we said we were helping the South Vietnamese, bull-crap. We were there for a different reason. My uncle died there, my dad fought there and my wife suffers the aftermath of all the sh** we sprayed there. (Agent Orange) IMO, democracy never mattered to them and still doesn't. Why do you think it isn't working in Iraq now?

PhinPhan1227
07-18-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by marcusreal
Phin you got your facts mixed up over the Vietnam War. Why do you think we lost? We should have never been there in the first place. Bring Democracy? We went there to get rid of Communism, period. Just like now when we say we're fighting terrorism, we are still fighting Communism- just the name has changed. Back to Vietnam, we said we were helping the South Vietnamese, bull-crap. We were there for a different reason. My uncle died there, my dad fought there and my wife suffers the aftermath of all the sh** we sprayed there. (Agent Orange) IMO, democracy never mattered to them and still doesn't. Why do you think it isn't working in Iraq now?

What in the world gave you the impression that I supported our motives in the Vietnam war? What part of "The difference being that in Vietnam we were trying to support a leader who was a decent clone of Saddam." threw you off? In Vietnam we weren't trying to instill Democracy, and we certainly weren't trying to help the Vietnamese. We were trying to stop Communism, regardless of the fact that the person we were supporting was even worse than the Communists. In Iraq however, you've got almost universal support for Saddam being out of power, you've got a majority of the country that was being repressed, and you've got the first steps towards a truly representative government. Heck, you've got a better situation for nation building in Iraq than we faced in Japan and Germany after WWII. Perhaps you should read the posts before you jump in on them? That's the reason it WILL work in Iraq. We're doing the exact OPPOSITE of what we did in Vietnam. We're still rooting out those who supported the old regime, but you don't have the broad support of the populace for those holdouts that you had in Vietnam.

MaxPower
07-18-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Ok, so we don't have to worry about a world court because we can pull our troops out whenever we want, but we DO worry about it because they might put our leaders on trial? You don't see an inconsistancy there?

I think we're talking about different things, or I'm just unlcear...

No worries about troops, as they can defend legitimate actions in the eyes of the court and their responsibilities are limited...

"We" shouldn't worry about our leaders being charged, but our leaders should. If they lead us toward internationally illegal actions and break laws, then they should be charged.

That is why the Administration opposes the Court without some "American" immunity clause. Our Presidents break international laws & conventions all the time.

There is no inconsistancy about the relevance of the court, but I can see why guilty people wouldn't want to add the chance of prosecution to their lives....

baccarat
07-18-2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by MaxPower


Actually it is. There is no proof there were any nerve agents. And weapons inspectors who were already in Iraq and had been monitoring for years stated that the &quot;unaccounted for&quot; stores were a: something Iraq could not prove they destroyed - which is not the same as proof that they didn't destroy them...and b: they were chemically inert after a period of several years - meaning they were likely harmless after say...1998. The Administration's flimsy argument was that Iraq was working to try to maybe start building such a program again &amp; was in posession of the necessary equipment...well, the high school chem lab down the street from me has the necessary equipment (which BTW, hasn't been found in Iraq yet). What's lacking is the intent, which is totally unprovable &amp; in the minds of fear-mongering officials who wanted a war...

...


Well, Jaffar Dhia Jaffar, I guess it's easy to conviently ignoring many issues like Oskira, Project 182, Farzad Bazoft and Al Atheer, Akashat, the Shiites and Kurds and others just so you can hear yourself type.

PhinPhan1227
07-18-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by MaxPower


I think we're talking about different things, or I'm just unlcear...

No worries about troops, as they can defend legitimate actions in the eyes of the court and their responsibilities are limited...

&quot;We&quot; shouldn't worry about our leaders being charged, but our leaders should. If they lead us toward internationally illegal actions and break laws, then they should be charged.

That is why the Administration opposes the Court without some &quot;American&quot; immunity clause. Our Presidents break international laws &amp; conventions all the time.

There is no inconsistancy about the relevance of the court, but I can see why guilty people wouldn't want to add the chance of prosecution to their lives....

Inorrect!! In fact, the EXPRESS agreements which Bush has signed say nothing about our leaders, and speak specifically about our troops. In fact, we've already said that we would sign the treaty, we just wouldn't send any troops into those countries which had also signed the agreement. That sort of agreement hardly applies to concern over your President being hauled up on charges for invading a foreign country. If the concern was for our leaders, there would be no consideration for signing the agreement at all.

MaxPower
07-18-2003, 02:45 PM
Project 182...that was like 1988. Around the time we were paying for Saddam's mid-afternoon massages, eh? Maybe Rumsfeld held his towel?

Wanting to build a nuclear program is different from having one, which is far from using one for "evildoing" and farther still from pointing it at us.

And as for "ignoring issues" like the death of Farzad Bazoft, Kurds, etc - I didn't say Saddam was a groovy guy that should stay...just that we shouldn't break our arms patting our own backs for getting rid of him. I thought I was doing the opposite by pointing out that we allowed those Kurds to get massacred...

We could have been rid of him DECADES before if we'd wanted, & didn't need to kill thousands of innocent people to do it.

Hey I'm just as glad he's gone as anyone else.


...just so you can hear yourself type

nice rebuttal, btw.

PhinPhan1227
07-18-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by MaxPower
Project 182...that was like 1988. Around the time we were paying for Saddam's mid-afternoon massages, eh? Maybe Rumsfeld held his towel?

Wanting to build a nuclear program is different from having one, which is far from using one for &quot;evildoing&quot; and farther still from pointing it at us.

And as for &quot;ignoring issues&quot; like the death of Farzad Bazoft, Kurds, etc - I didn't say Saddam was a groovy guy that should stay...just that we shouldn't break our arms patting our own backs for getting rid of him. I thought I was doing the opposite by pointing out that we allowed those Kurds to get massacred...

We could have been rid of him DECADES before if we'd wanted, &amp; didn't need to kill thousands of innocent people to do it.

Hey I'm just as glad he's gone as anyone else.



nice rebuttal, btw.

Lol...yeah, plenty of countries who are sitting on and producing massive quantities of oil need to build nuclear reactors to provide their people with power. That makes PERFECT sense to me. Kind of like Alaskans working to develop an alternate source of snow...:lol:

MaxPower
07-18-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

Inorrect!! In fact, the EXPRESS agreements which Bush has signed say nothing about our leaders, and speak specifically about our troops. In fact, we've already said that we would sign the treaty, we just wouldn't send any troops into those countries which had also signed the agreement.

Aaagghh. You sank my battleship!


That sort of agreement hardly applies to concern over your President being hauled up on charges for invading a foreign country. If the concern was for our leaders, there would be no consideration for signing the agreement at all.

I don't understand what you're getting at. It's not that I think the President can't or shouldn't be charged...he should! I'm all for it. That's why we're weasling out of this thing.

We pulled our signature because they fear prosecution...


From REUTERS
"Our concern goes beyond the possibility that the prosecutor will target for indictment the isolated U.S. soldier. . . . Our principal concern is for our country's top civilian and military leaders, those responsible for our defense and foreign policy," Under Secretary of State John Bolton said in a speech released on Friday...No U.S. presidents or their advisors could be assured that they would be unequivocally safe from politicized charges of criminal liability," he added.

and from journalist Benjamin Ferencz:


"The main argument made by the US is that American peacekeepers might be subjected to politically motivated prosecutions by the new tribunal. The facts have been egregiously misstated. There is no such danger.

"Only crimes committed after July 1, 2002, can be considered by the ICC. Jurisdiction of the court is limited to genocide, crimes against humanity and major war crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Surely, American soldiers do not intend to commit such crimes. 18 highly qualified judges, male and female, sworn to uphold the law and justice, will be elected from those many nations that have ratified the treaty creating the court.

"No investigation can be started by the prosecutor without prior authorization by a three-judge panel. Appeals can be filed with a five-judge panel. The accused's country must be informed and the case transferred to them if they wish to try the suspect. Only leaders responsible for planning or perpetrating the major crimes are the intended targets and only if their own state is unable or unwilling to give them a fair trial. The US is not in that category."


and international law professor Francis Boyle opined:


"The White House lawyers are well aware that they are engaging in `an on-going criminal conspiracy to conduct a war of aggression,' Boyle said, adding, `The New York Times finally conceded that the reason the United States sabotaged the International Criminal Court (ICC) is because senior members of the Bush administration are afraid that they risk criminal prosecution.' The notion that the U.S. government rejects the ICC because it places military personnel at risk of prosecution is `nonsense,' Boyle said. It is the highly paid civilian planners at the Pentagon and the White House who have most to fear from the ICC because of their involvement in planning war crimes, according to Boyle."

Excuse me guys, the loud clacking of my keyboard is making me weary...& I'll get fired if I don't do some work today...

catch y'all later.

baccarat
07-18-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by MaxPower

Hey I'm just as glad he's gone as anyone else.


That's a good thing to know. At least you're reasonable enough to be glad Saddam is getting his due.

The purpose of my whole post was that Saddam did gas the Kurds("There is no proof there were any nerve agents."-Maxpower) and that scientists who escaped Iraq and lived to tell the tale have told us that Saddam was obsessed with getting a nuclear bomb and other WMD.

baccarat
07-21-2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by MaxPower

And as for &quot;ignoring issues&quot; like the death of Farzad Bazoft,

I mentioned Bazoft not because Saddam killed him but because why Saddam killed him. Bazoft discovered traces of uranium and polonium in the sand near Al-Atheer. That could have one purpose, which Bazoft knew what it was, a nuclear bomb. He was executed and took the secret to his grave.