Why Are The French So Anti????

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wasted_Daytrade, Feb 5, 2003.

  1. Minime


    That's funny.:)
    #51     Feb 5, 2003
  2. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    And so are the facts presented by Powell (on ignore i mean). :) The french wanting proof of WMD in Iraq is hillarious. They sold them the weapons in the first place.
    #52     Feb 5, 2003
  3. Good lord Skeptic, with a nick like that you should be a little more skeptical of all this stuff.
    1) Show proof of French/EU equipment in Iraqi arsenal (more than US equipment that is...)
    2) They are not ignoring the facts! They just GOT the facts today. (Facts that were in actuality withheld from the world until today BTW)
    #53     Feb 5, 2003
  4. ) Show proof of French/EU equipment in Iraqi arsenal (more than US equipment that is...)

    the fact that the French built the Iraqi nuclear reactor that thankfully israel blew up is not proof?
    #54     Feb 5, 2003
  5. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    Actually I am skeptical. I am skeptical that Saddam disarmed. I am also extremely skeptical that France is motivated by their desire to save lives as opposed to their milti billion dollar oil and military interests in Iraq and potentionally attempts to hide some illegal dealings from the rest of the world.

    As far as the proof is concerned more than enough was presented by Powell today. Unfortunately the french prefer to believe Saddam claims rather then Powell's facts.
    #55     Feb 5, 2003
  6. Took long enough, but this finally arrived in Chit Chat.

    WWII was 60 years ago. France and Germany have lived through that, and their societies have absorbed the pain, the hardships, and the guilt associated with what happend there 2 or 3 generations ago. Most French and Germans do not want to see such things repeated.

    The question is, who's worse, the Germans for having committed atrocities 60 years ago, or the Americans for failing to learn from the example of their bitter experience and rushing headlong to repeat the same xenophobic racist religious aggressions.
    #56     Feb 5, 2003
  7. Well said.
    #57     Feb 5, 2003
  8. Bush is a very determined man on things he believes in...like becoming president no matter what, with or without genuine votes.

    The republicans wanted Clinton so bad they never gave up on anything they might find or concoct to use against him. They would have tried to impeach him for not tying his shoe or not dotting an i if they couldn't come up with anything else. Clinton couldn't get support from congress or senate for loads of things he was trying to accomplish. Making attacks on Iraq was one of the worst things Clinton ever did.

    Weapons of mass destruction are bad. We should get rid of them all. But starting a war on others who (like ourselves, but on a much smaller scale) may have such weapons is the most knuckleheaded thing imaginable. If Hussein has such weapons and is such a "madman" that he is a threat to use them, then provoking him by starting a war is precisely the way to get him to use them in retaliation. Retaliation, Escalation. Duh.
    #58     Feb 5, 2003
  9. jem


    excise the cancer before it spreads throughout your whole body, duh

    xenophobic, racist religious aggressions--- comparing what we are doing to what the nazis did. This is the worst reasoning by analogy possible.

    The U.S. has gone into battle to protect Muslims. They emigrate to the US because they have a better life here. Relatively speaking (we are not a perfect nation) how can you call the U.S. racist and anti religious. Again intellect is blinded. Perhaps we have become a little xenophobic, and perhaps it is with good cause. Nevertheless we have a long way to go before people would want to stop coming here from there own little pieces of paradise.
    #59     Feb 5, 2003
  10. Interesting when people talk about how much they are opposed to cancer, but refuse to give up chainsmoking cigarettes.
    #60     Feb 5, 2003