Political Thread [4] - CLOSED

Message boards : Politics : Political Thread [4] - CLOSED
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 18 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 43821 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 7:00:17 UTC - in response to Message 43788.  
Last modified: 7 Nov 2004, 7:01:12 UTC

> "France hit back, destroying what it said was the entire Ivory Coast air force
> — two Russian-made Sukhoi jets used in the bombing and five helicopter
> gunships"
>
> Poor Laurent Gbagbo, he won't be using his two jets and five chopers anymore.
>
>
How dare those French attack the Ivory Coast air force! They're only fighting in their own country! Isn't that what you have said about Americans in Iraq?
ID: 43821 · Report as offensive
ChinookFoehn

Send message
Joined: 18 Apr 02
Posts: 462
Credit: 24,039
RAC: 0
Message 43822 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 7:08:36 UTC - in response to Message 43821.  
Last modified: 17 Dec 2004, 5:12:17 UTC

ID: 43822 · Report as offensive
Petit Soleil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 70,934
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 43825 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 7:24:20 UTC - in response to Message 43821.  
Last modified: 7 Nov 2004, 7:39:05 UTC

> How dare those French attack the Ivory Coast air force! They're only fighting
> in their own country! Isn't that what you have said about Americans in Iraq?

It is TOTALLY different Tom. The french are there to back UN peacekeepers, they
are there with a UN mandate, they did not invade Ivory coast. They are in the midle
of a government - rebel kind of conflict to protect a now war zone. The Ivory coast
government have attacked the rebel and french peace keeping force, not an occupying
force. Can't you see the difference.

Now the French have been back by the security council today to use all forces necessary
to keep the peace plan going. It means that all country at the council table said yes,
US included. That was not the case for the Irak invasion as far as I can remember.

"The Security Council authorized U.N. and French troops patrolling a zone dividing the
north from the south "to prevent any hostile action" and condemned any attempt to send
forces through the zone."
ID: 43825 · Report as offensive
Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 43827 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 7:30:07 UTC
Last modified: 7 Nov 2004, 7:53:50 UTC

Back to the oil topic. Keep in mind that oil prices are linked to the US$. In case anyone hasn't noticed, the US$ has been steadly declining over the last 3+ years due to the massive amount of debt the US Government has accured. The rise in oil prices has basically reflected the decline in the value of the American Dollar to the tune of -30%. Of coarse, there is alot of market manipulation, but that's another topic.

Tweaky? ;-P

I have to agree with Petit Soleil about what is going on in the Ivory Coast. The French have an international mandate, with the acquiescence of the UN Security Council and the US Government, to keep the two blood thirsty sides from murdering themselves and innocent civilians. There is no comparison between the civil war in the Ivory Coast and the situation in Iraq, nor the reasons for it. In different times the United States would probably have sent Marines over there to help out, but they're currently otherwise engaged.
Account frozen...
ID: 43827 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 43830 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 7:55:27 UTC - in response to Message 43822.  
Last modified: 7 Nov 2004, 8:11:27 UTC

> Yes, but doesn't self-defence count? The Côte d'Ivoire Air Force attacked,
> without provocation, the French garrison.
[Before flaming please note that I am pro-attack on this issue.]
If the Ivory Coast "air force" was destroyed during the attack then that is self-defense. If it was destroyed much later after-the-fact then that is a counter-attack. Anti-war protesters could say the French should've asked the UN for permission to attack or asked for sanctions first. Did the French pass Kerry's "Global Test" before they attacked?
ID: 43830 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 43833 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 8:03:30 UTC - in response to Message 43825.  

> Can't you see the difference.
>
>

Yes, I see the difference: the Security Counsel (the US included) backed the use of force in the Ivory Coast, but it did not back the use of force in Iraq, where the Oil for Food program had been lining the pockets of UN officials for years. Well, under those circumstances, the US does not need to wait for UN approval to sanction the violations by Saddam of the cease fire agreement reached in 1991, and unanimously affirmed by the security counsel.
ID: 43833 · Report as offensive
ChinookFoehn

Send message
Joined: 18 Apr 02
Posts: 462
Credit: 24,039
RAC: 0
Message 43834 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 8:06:14 UTC - in response to Message 43830.  
Last modified: 17 Dec 2004, 5:13:15 UTC

ID: 43834 · Report as offensive
Petit Soleil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 70,934
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 43836 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 8:09:36 UTC - in response to Message 43830.  

> [Before flaming please note that I am pro-attack on this issue.]
> If the Ivory Coast "air force" was destroyed during the attack then that is
> self-defense. If its destroyed much later after-the-fact then that is a
> counter-attack. Anti-war protesters could say the French should've asked the
> UN for permission to attack or asked for sanctions first. Did the French pass
> Kerry's "Global Test" before they attacked?

Hahaha. Yes it was a counter attack and they asked permission afterwards.
No seriously to be fully precise on this subject the French troops are not
"officialy" part of the UN peacekeepers. They are there on there own and
there presence as been approuved by the security council to reinforce
and protect the now war zone. The troops are under direct command of
Chirac, not the UN.
ID: 43836 · Report as offensive
Petit Soleil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 70,934
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 43846 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 8:31:44 UTC - in response to Message 43834.  

> Marc, if you are still up; perhaps you could quickly check with France1
> (or equivalent).

From what I have seen from the french news it was a counter attack. They have sent
sent a Tiger attack helicopter and some ground troops to destroy the air capabilities
of Ivory coast government.

It will turn really bad according to last news. The French better to be prepared to
rapatriate French and foreign citizens soon. Reports said that there are more and more
clash in Abidjan. Both sides are pissed against the french as they both think the French
are on the oder side. What a mess.
ID: 43846 · Report as offensive
ChinookFoehn

Send message
Joined: 18 Apr 02
Posts: 462
Credit: 24,039
RAC: 0
Message 43848 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 8:42:25 UTC - in response to Message 43846.  
Last modified: 17 Dec 2004, 5:13:38 UTC

ID: 43848 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2940
Credit: 19,199,902
RAC: 11
United States
Message 43851 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 8:47:21 UTC
Last modified: 7 Nov 2004, 8:49:13 UTC

Back on September 17th I posted this argument regarding the War in Iraq, but no one picked up on it:

(With some editing for readability)

While I agree that Korea is and has been more dangerous than Iraq, there was a huge legal difference between the two situations (this also relates to Iran). After the first Gulf War, the one to liberate Kuwait, the coalition forces halted their advance on Baghdad in part because of pressure from the Saudis, but only after an agreement had been signed that said Baghdad would rid the country of Weapons of Mass Distraction (WMD), and allow international inspections conducted by the United Nations to enforce the agreement. There were other agreements, including being prohibited from firing upon or taking any aggressive action (like fire control radar locks) towards coalition troops who remained in the area.

Saddam’s military repeatedly violated these agreements, and ultimately (during the Clinton administration) kicked the UN inspectors out of the country. These violations of the agreement, which had been struck after the Gulf War, became unbearable to the US after the 9/11 attacks. Given that Saddam had a history of stockpiling and using WMD – and his was refusal to allow confirmation of their distruction – that alone should have been sufficient to take action, but the UN (in a stunning act of international cowardice) refused. [Edit: Now we hear that there may have been corrupt practices by the UN behind their refusal to allow military action.]

Neither Korea nor Iran are under any obligation stemming from a cease-fire agreement that ended an armed conflict (even though they are nominally signatories to the largely worthless Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty). George Bush’s greatest mistake was relying so heavily on faulty intelligence (also generally believed by every world power) that WMD were still in Iraq. Though he also mentioned humanitarian concerns to justify the war, he would’ve been on much more solid ground had he explained the violation of the first Gulf War's cease-fire agreement that, after 9/11, we could no longer live with.

When it comes to support from most other European nations and NATO, at least in the case of the Germans and the French, it appears that they had economic interests that were certainly harmed by the war. Whether that worked into their decision not to support the United States, or just their abiding hatred for our president (a hatred shared by many in this country, but that’s another issue), I do not know. It has been argued that the war was based on American lust for oil (that was neither true during the Kuwait war nor this one); or because George W. Bush had a personal dislike for Saddam (while this may be true, it is insulting and disingenuous to believe that Bush and the vast majority of the United States Congress would choose to go to war based on a personal feud).

As for the 9/11 commission report, which has been widely reported as denying a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, I have not been able to find such a statement in the report. It does say that there was no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, but that is a much narrower statement than what is being claimed in the news media.

[New]: If the war is legally justified, then it is justified.

Good night, I'll read with interest what you have to say in the morning.

ID: 43851 · Report as offensive
Petit Soleil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 70,934
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 43853 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 8:52:00 UTC - in response to Message 43848.  
Last modified: 7 Nov 2004, 12:09:55 UTC

> > From what I have seen from the french news it was a counter attack. They
> have
> > sent a Tiger attack helicopter and some ground troops to destroy the air
> > capabilities of Ivory coast government.
>
> ***I read also 3 fighters (Mirages?)***

The helicopter was already there, the 3 fighter jets are new on the scene.

> ***I also read that gangs are trying to hunt down French citizens to kill. If
> it doesn't calm down fast, France is going to have to send more than the extra
> 300 soldiers and combat aircraft to help evacuate citizens.***

I agree but they have big experience in that country. I guess they are now trying
not to escalate things further. But yes if they decide to expatriate citizens they
better be preparing soon and sending stronger supports. Anyway I guess the
military commands know what they're doing, well I hope.
ID: 43853 · Report as offensive
Guido Alexander Waldenmeier
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 587
Credit: 18,397
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 43856 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 9:13:34 UTC

17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists...by Michael Moore

Dear Friends,

Ok, it sucks. Really sucks. But before you go and cash it all in, let's, in the words of Monty Python, “always look on the bright side of life!” There IS some good news from Tuesday's election.

Here are 17 reasons not to slit your wrists:

1. It is against the law for George W. Bush to run for president again.

2. Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

3. The only age group in which the majority voted for Kerry was young adults (Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%), proving once again that your parents are always wrong and you should never listen to them.

4. In spite of Bush's win, the majority of Americans still think the country is headed in the wrong direction (56%), think the war wasn't worth fighting (51%), and don’t approve of the job George W. Bush is doing (52%). (Note to foreigners: Don't try to figure this one out. It's an American thing, like Pop Tarts.)

5. The Republicans will not have a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. If the Democrats do their job, Bush won't be able to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues. Did I say "if the Democrats do their job?" Um, maybe better to scratch this one.

6. Michigan voted for Kerry! So did the entire Northeast, the birthplace of our democracy. So did 6 of the 8 Great Lakes States. And the whole West Coast! Plus Hawaii. Ok, that's a start. We've got most of the fresh water, all of Broadway, and Mt. St. Helens. We can dehydrate them or bury them in lava. And no more show tunes!

7. Once again we are reminded that the buckeye is a nut, and not just any old nut -- a poisonous nut. A great nation was felled by a poisonous nut. May Ohio State pay dearly this Saturday when it faces Michigan State.

8. 88% of Bush's support came from white voters. In 50 years, America will no longer have a white majority. Hey, 50 years isn't such a long time! If you're ten years old and reading this, your golden years will be truly golden and you will be well cared for in your old age.

9. Gays, thanks to the ballot measures passed on Tuesday, cannot get married in 11 new states. Thank God. Just think of all those wedding gifts we won't have to buy now.

10. Five more African Americans were elected as members of Congress, including the return of Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. It's always good to have more blacks in there fighting for us and doing the job our candidates can't.

11. The CEO of Coors was defeated for Senate in Colorado. Drink up!

12. Admit it: We like the Bush twins and we don't want them to go away.

13. At the state legislative level, Democrats picked up a net of at least 3 chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the 2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53 chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47 chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber (Montana House) is still undecided.

14. Bush is now a lame duck president. He will have no greater moment than the one he's having this week. It's all downhill for him from here on out -- and, more significantly, he's just not going to want to do all the hard work that will be expected of him. It'll be like everyone's last month in 12th grade -- you've already made it, so it's party time! Perhaps he'll treat the next four years like a permanent Friday, spending even more time at the ranch or in Kennebunkport. And why shouldn't he? He's already proved his point, avenged his father and kicked our ass.

15. Should Bush decide to show up to work and take this country down a very dark road, it is also just as likely that either of the following two scenarios will happen: a) Now that he doesn't ever need to pander to the Christian conservatives again to get elected, someone may whisper in his ear that he should spend these last four years building "a legacy" so that history will render a kinder verdict on him and thus he will not push for too aggressive a right-wing agenda; or b) He will become so cocky and arrogant -- and thus, reckless -- that he will commit a blunder of such major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from office.

16. There are nearly 300 million Americans -- 200 million of them of voting age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide -- it means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million. If you had 58 yards to go before you reached the goal line and then you barreled down 55 of those yards, would you stop on the three yard line, pick up the ball and go home crying -- especially when you get to start the next down on the three yard line? Of course not! Buck up! Have hope! More sports analogies are coming!!!

17. Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for a trend it should be this -- that so many Americans were, for the first time since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has always been filled with evangelicals -- that is not news. What IS news is that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact, that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about November 2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of surprise in 2008.

Feeling better? I hope so. As my friend Mort wrote me yesterday, "My Romanian grandfather used to say to me, 'Remember, Morton, this is such a wonderful country -- it doesn't even need a president!'"

But it needs us. Rest up, I'll write you again tomorrow.

Yours,

Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com
ID: 43856 · Report as offensive
Petit Soleil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 70,934
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 43877 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 12:11:01 UTC
Last modified: 7 Nov 2004, 12:23:20 UTC

ID: 43877 · Report as offensive
Profile Carl Christensen
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 99
Posts: 143
Credit: 4,106
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 43882 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 12:58:39 UTC

It's true what Europeans say: Americans are religious nuts who got kicked out of Europe for being so superstitious.

Here some really amazing facts. (Hilarious, but dangerous, such a dumb nation still has nukes, making it an incredibly dangerous nation.):

-84% of evangelical Americans expressed the opinion that Satan was leading the fight against more religion in the public square, a telephone survey done by the Public Agenda found.

-80% of Americans who graduated from high school believe in Angels, according to a joint study conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio State University. (AA, 1.6.02)

-79% of Americans believe that the miracles described in the Bible actually took place.

-77% of adults in the poll answered "yes" to the question: "Do you believe angels, that is, some kind of heavenly beings who visit Earth, in fact exist?" From a survey of 1,127 adult residents of the United States conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University. (MSN, 12.20.01)

-73% of adults in a poll believe angels still "come into the world even in these modern days." From a survey of 1,127 adult residents of the United States conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University. (MSN, 12.20.01)

-69% of the public believe in hell. (PRN, 2.26.03)

-68% of the public believe in the devil. (PRN, 2.26.03)

-67% of Americans believe that the Antichrist is now on earth.

-64% of the public say they have actually met the devil at least once, in person. (PRN,2.26.03)

-63% of Americans say they know someone who has experienced a miracle.

-59 percent said they fully believe the end-times described in the Book of Revelation will come true. (NYT, 7.4.02)

-57% of Americans believe that people will be divided into respective groups sent to heaven or hell as part of the final judgment.

-51% of the public believe in ghosts. (PRN, 2.26.03)

-48% of Americans believe they have experienced or witnessed a miracle.

-48% of Americans expressed the opinion that America has "special protection from God for most of its history." (AA, 3.24.02)

-45% of Americans say that Jesus will return in their lifetime and speak to them personally.


IN SHORT, America is completely nuts. We were all shocked and awed to read these numbers. America is full of superstitious people.

Ref: http://www.quinnell.us/society/annoyances/stupid.html


ID: 43882 · Report as offensive
Profile Darth Dogbytes™
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 03
Posts: 7512
Credit: 2,021,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 43888 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 13:27:56 UTC - in response to Message 43833.  

> > Can't you see the difference.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I see the difference: the Security Counsel (the US included) backed the
> use of force in the Ivory Coast, but it did not back the use of force in Iraq,
> where the Oil for Food program had been lining the pockets of UN officials for
> years. Well, under those circumstances, the US does not need to wait for UN
> approval to sanction the violations by Saddam of the cease fire agreement
> reached in 1991, and unanimously affirmed by the security counsel.
>
Good point. Touchez...
Account frozen...
ID: 43888 · Report as offensive
Petit Soleil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 70,934
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 43891 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 13:45:02 UTC - in response to Message 43882.  

> IN SHORT, America is completely nuts. We were all shocked and awed to read
> these numbers. America is full of superstitious people.
>
> Ref: http://www.quinnell.us/society/annoyances/stupid.html

I realy had good laugh on that one. They don't say anything about
those who believe they've been abducted by aliens at least once
in their life ?
ID: 43891 · Report as offensive
Profile Carl Christensen
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 99
Posts: 143
Credit: 4,106
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 43893 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 13:53:46 UTC - in response to Message 43888.  

> use of force in the Ivory Coast, but it did not back the use of force in Iraq,
> where the Oil for Food program had been lining the pockets of UN officials for
> years. Well, under those circumstances, the US does not need to wait for UN

That's actually total crap straight from right-wing talk radio, this myth of the "UN lining it's pockets from the Iraq/Oil for Food." If you dig into the facts & details a little more, you'll see that US companies were profiting as well, including Halliburton who got around rules even outside "Oil for Food" by having a non-US-registered subsidiary deal with Saddam.
ID: 43893 · Report as offensive
Profile Carl Cuseo
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 02
Posts: 652
Credit: 34,312
RAC: 0
Puerto Rico
Message 43905 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 14:28:34 UTC - in response to Message 43893.  


The 'stupid' site is, if you think about it, just as scary as it is stupid.
I think it's the damn television set in the corner there
It's the Great Stupifier
The giant blind eye in all those millions of homes...

Zappa saw it:

I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little had changed
I am the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I am the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I am the slime oozin' out
From your TV set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't got for help...no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

That's right, folks..
Don't touch that dial

Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin'room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It's like the most evident common denominator.
They're everywhere and they make people so damn stupid they'll believe anything...cc
ID: 43905 · Report as offensive
Petit Soleil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 03
Posts: 1497
Credit: 70,934
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 43906 - Posted: 7 Nov 2004, 14:33:35 UTC - in response to Message 43833.  
Last modified: 7 Nov 2004, 14:34:43 UTC

> Yes, I see the difference: the Security Counsel (the US included) backed the
> use of force in the Ivory Coast, but it did not back the use of force in Iraq,
> where the Oil for Food program had been lining the pockets of UN officials for
> years. Well, under those circumstances, the US does not need to wait for UN
> approval to sanction the violations by Saddam of the cease fire agreement
> reached in 1991, and unanimously affirmed by the security counsel.

If a new resolution for military action against Irak was not needed
then why Bush was so desperately seeking for a UN approval ? Why powel
went to the security councel with false documents and satellite pictures
to accuse Irak of having WMD ? I really don't know just asking.
As for members of UN who took some advantages of the oil for food
I don't know either. I honestly never heard of these alegations.
I will do my homework today and get the facts about it. Who proposed
that oil for food program, what it really was, etc.

Anyway I still see a difference here Tom. The use of force authorisation
that France got from the security councel in Ivory coast is not for taking
control of the country, removing the president, and impose a new democracy
kind of thing. It is just to prevent each side of not getting in the no
war zone and preventing each side to clash. The Ivory Coast president
do not have the right to use is military forces to cross the "line"
The US led coalition in Irak had the same kind of mandate. An example
is the no fly zone. Sadam often broke that rules and his fighter jets
were shut down by US air forces. Nobody ever complained about that.

I will also check on that later today but I think Sadam was complying
relativaly well to the last resolution in wich he had to allow UN
inspector to search for WMD. The search made by Blix team was doing
a very good job despite what the bush administration said.

The UN is certainly not perfect, it's already difficult to govern a
country, imagine the world. If there is a security councel it's not
for nothing, It's not to say no to America just for the fun of it.
I am deeply sure that if the US did not get approval at that table
it was because there was no immidiate need or threat to invade Irak,
remove Sadam, kill his familly and 100000 innocent civilians. I guess
the members of the council were concern about the repercutions it would
have worldwide. To make it short, they did not want what is happening
now to happen. And once again I would like to remind that only 4
countries out of 15 would have approuved a new resolution to invade Irak.
9 was needed, plus no opposition from the 5 permanent members
(USA, UK, FRANCE, CHINA, RUSSIA) France was amoung those who would
have said NO. But since there was not 9 countries approving it, It's
not France fault if it didn't pass the security councel. France has never
veto it. I often insist on that because it doesn't seem to be understood
correctly in the states.

Don't you think that if Sadam would have had nuclear war head pointed
at the US and Israel and threatning to lauch an attack France and
Germany would have been on your side ? Was the French in operation
desert storm ? Did Bush father had a full UN council back up ?
The answer to all these question is YES. The GWB Irak war did not gets
any backup because it was based on lies, it was unnecessary and dangerous
for the world security. PERIOD.

Sorry again for long post...As english is not my language I need more
words to say what I want to say.

Now I am going to have some rest before doing my homework.


<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=2384&amp;trans=off"><img src="http://img98.exs.cx/img98/1999/hamradio.gif"><img src="http://img54.exs.cx/img54/3872/cqkey.gif">
ID: 43906 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 18 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Political Thread [4] - CLOSED


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.