french/german slamming

[SpeedRacer 1]

Look, we're gonna have our differences. But I am shamed by all this nationalistic slamming. I don't mind if it's all just in good fun, but some of this shit is really mean-spirited.

We have our differences now, and we shall have them in the future. But let us not give up on the idea that our fellow democracies are our friends, ultimately. And let us not characterize the Europeans as wimps...they have endured terrorism and outright war more often & more recently than we have. Perhaps they know quite well what we should be trying harder to avoid.

OK...putting on flame-proof underwear right now.... I'm not asking everyone to agree with me....lets just have some perspective about what kind of world we want to live in. I'm not smart enough to know what we should do about Saddam or what would come afterwards....but I ask that people have some perspective & not say that we can easily predict the outcime re. terrorism if we invade Iraq without the UN behind us. The Bush administration focuses on solely the technological advances that Saddam could provide terrorists...if it were inclined to do so, which the Bush administration has not established.

But the Bush administration seems more focused on the technology, and ignores the ideology, behind terrorism. Brute force has limited power against terrorism. Civilised cooperation against terrorism is more powerful, and we cannot get that by pissing everyone off. If you think that's a bunch of la-de-da bullshit, look what just happened with the most powerful Al Quaeda terrorist....he was captured with Pakistani cooperation, despite widespread dissatisfaction vs. the USA within Pakistan. We cannot win the war vs. terrorism without the cooperation of other countries.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[sunman 0]

Well said, speedracer. I don't claim to know it all either, and I have very mixed feelings and ever-changing opinions about the whole matter. The only way to know if it's right to go to war with Iraq is to look into the future and see the outcome. I lost my future-vision goggles, so I can't really say what should be done. But I respect those whose opinion on the matter is different than mine (whatever it happens to be at the time).

[blewaway5 0]

Just because a voice of reason is a voice that deserves to be heard....*bump*....back to the top for this one.

-edited for spelling

Truman Sparks for President

[lazerq3 0]

. I don't claim to know it all either***

Hey I know it all...but damded if I just dont have the time now to explain it all

jason

Freedom of speech includes volume

[bluskidave 0]

Hey SpeedRacer, just for your info the first American paratrooper to be killed in a combat-jump operation was a Lt. Dave Kunkle from New York City. He was cut down by a FRENCH Dewoitine fighter after Marshal Henri Petain issued orders for his forces in northwest Africa to "resist the invaders with every means at your disposal." November 8, 1942. If I had my preference of someone in a fox hole next to me I sure as hell would not want a Frenchman.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"But I am shamed by all this nationalistic slamming."

Me too, I also resent the references to the French people's lack of courage and conviction during the Second World War. Isolated ancedotes do not justify slandering an entire nation.

I would suggest that the efforts of the US people would be better aimed at trying to convince the dissenting countries that this cause is right and just. Alienating and insulting those whose ‘approval’ you seek is not, in my mind, a very tactful way of going about business. By the way, both the Spanish and British people are overwhelmingly against the war without UN sanction, so support even from these allies may falter.

A resolution requires nine of the 15 Council members’ votes in favour and no vetoes to be passed. The US, UK, France, Russia and China have the power of veto. We have also yet to convince a majority to accept the ‘legality’ of a UN sanctioned conflict. Of the current non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, Spain and Bulgaria back the US and UK position on Iraq, while Germany and Syria are both strongly opposed to military action.
It is not yet absolutely clear how the other non-permanent members - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan – might vote, but they are reported to be in favour of continued inspections. This opinion may be swayed by the promise of aid to certain countries; this aid may come in the form of economic, political, technical, or military support. This support (hell call it a bribe) may come back and bite us at some stage in the future, after all, isn’t this how we got into this mess in the first place?

Action without the support of the UN will not be taken very well here in Europe. We have already seen cracks appearing in traditionally robust organisations such as NATO. I hate to think what a fragmented NATO, EEC, or even the UN would look like. The other downside to such an ‘illegal’ action would be to fuel every tinpot organisation with a seemingly justified hatred for ‘Western Capitalist Imperialism’. I fear this would start a global terror campaign such as we have yet to witness. A sectarian conflict, or ‘Holy War’, would almost certainly tear apart Europe, where we have a significantly higher proportion of Muslims than I suspect the US realises.

In my mind the only way to achieve a lasting solution to this issue is to act with support of the UN security council.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[wmw999 2,590]

Good post. Pointing out the lack of perfection in others simply highlights its lack in yourself.

And before we complain about friendly fire incidents, let's remember the Canadians from just a few months ago. Maybe circumstances were different, but they're always different.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[miked10270 0]

Hey Guys, don't worry... This just in...

In a stunning development, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein today offered to attack himself in exchange for $30 billion from the U.S. government.

The surprising offer came in a day when President George W. Bush exhorted America’s allies to join what he called “a coalition of the willing to be bought.”

Speaking to a group called the Veterans of Foreign Investments, the President said, “It is time for each of our allies to look deep within and ask this question: Who wants to be a billionaire?”

The President reminded the allies that since the Turkish legislature had turned down the U.S.’s request to base troops there for an Iraq attack, “Turkey’s $30 billion in prize money remains unclaimed.”

Moments after the President’s speech, French President Jacques Chirac made a surprise announcement of his own, saying that France would be willing to attack Turkey for $30 billion.

“France has no argument with the people of Turkey,” Mr. Chirac said. “But $30 billion is a lot of cake.”

But Mr. Chirac was soon upstaged by Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, appearing on Iraqi national television to say, “For $30 billion, I will attack myself, and I will prevail.”

While some in NATO expressed optimism that Saddam’s proposal could avert a war with Iraq, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was openly dismissive of Saddam’s offer to attack himself, calling it “a charade.”

“He’s telling the world that he’ll attack himself and he’ll prevail, but once he gets our money, he’ll attack himself and lose,” Mr. Fleischer said. “It’s just more of his double-talk.”

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[cgross 1]

Undr normal circumstances I would have agreed with the fist half of what you said, but then I read the second half and realized... This is just another Bush hating thread. So, I see your politics, and I disagree with them.

You can't try to be fair to everyone all the time... It just isn't possible. And don't forget, nice guys finish last!
Chris

[wmw999 2,590]

Quote

This is just another Bush hating thread

I didn't see it at all as Bush-hating. Saying the government isn't perfect (or even far from perfect) is nowhere close to the same thing. Really.

Quote

And don't forget, nice guys finish last

I call bullshit on this one, unless your definition of first requires stepping on other people to climb on top of them. Nice guys look for win-win situations IF POSSIBLE. Nice guys might decide that ruthless competition just doesn't satisfy them.

And why does disagreeing with part of something invalidate the act or value of agreeing with part of it.

Wendy W.
(who thinks she's nice, not last, and not a guy )

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)