Announcement

**Ted Striker** · September 17, 2004, 01:26

JENNNYYYYYYY!!! WO BIST DU?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Attached Files

**chequita guevara** · September 17, 2004, 01:29

Re: Re: So, amcons, can you explain me what France and Germany's great crime was?

Originally posted by PLATO
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...3000-1796r.htm

Everyone point and laugh at PLATO for using a Moonie source!

**Ned** · September 17, 2004, 04:20

Originally posted by BeBro

Originally posted by Ned

Support was not the issue and you know it. France and Germany OPPOSED US policy in Iraq.

And?

Read the title to this thread. The crime was joining the enemy.

**Ned** · September 17, 2004, 04:21

Originally posted by BeBro
You mean we should debate whether countries which do not support a US position are a) allowed to say that openly and b) act according to what they think is a better solution (if it really is or not is another question)?

Better solution? -- or no solution?

**BeBMan** · September 17, 2004, 04:26

Poor Ned.

**Ned** · September 17, 2004, 04:33

Originally posted by Stefu

The issue, if you remember, was "Let's continue the inspections to be sure about the nukes" vs. "NO! WE KNOW THERE ARE NUKES! COLIN POWELL HAS SHODDY DOCUMENTS! INVASION NOW!"

Stefu, perhaps that was your view. Saddam was playing the inspections game once more to continue on his merry way, doing whatever he wanted to do. The problem was we had 1441 which gave him a deadline to file a report on WMD and the details on their destruction if he said he did not have them. His response said he did not have WMD; but he did not file any details on how he destroyed the one's the UN said he had in '98. His filing itself was a breach.

Then France and Germany wanted more time for the inspectors to verify that there were no WMD, even while no one associated with any alleged destruction ever came forth and verified any destruction. Given that Saddam could have hidden his WMD anywhere, the inspections to "verify" his claims would have extended for years.

We could not get France to tell us when they would be satisfied that the inspections were fruitless. The kept saying, that of course the inspections cannot go on forever, but would never commit to any date.

Our army in the meantime was assembled and waiting. Summer drew nye. We could no longer wait for France to stop dragging its feet. So we moved for a second final resolution.

This is when France began openly campaigning against us, and joined the dark side.

**Ned** · September 17, 2004, 04:51

Originally posted by BeBro
Poor Ned.

BeBro, why of course, Germany was right to oppose the US because in the end there were no WMD. That is your position -- now. But, we really know that there were no WMD because we took Saddam out and had free reign in the country. We would never have known this, and the inspections would have gone on forever, if there were no war.

Would you agree with the last statement at least?

And, oh btw, Germany would have soon called for an end to inspections and end to sanctions. Right?

**Harovan** · September 17, 2004, 05:13

You call yourself the light side?

On a sidenote, Kofi Annan called the Iraq war illegal in an interview yesterday. So much for those who hold 1441 as excuse for their conquest. Chances are, that the US will pull a stunt to get rid of him for his insolence. Been there, seen that.

**Kropotkin** · September 17, 2004, 05:15

Like the Bush administation takes anything that kofi Annan says seriously. He's just a fart in the wind.

**Ned** · September 17, 2004, 05:17

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
You call yourself the light side?

On a sidenote, Kofi Annan called the Iraq war illegal in an interview yesterday. So much for those who hold 1441 as excuse for their conquest. Chances are, that the US will pull a stunt to get rid of him for his insolence. Been there, seen that.

Yeah, Annan is already feeling the heat from the Iraq oil-for-food corruption scandal. He may be going a lot farther than out. He may be going down.

**Harovan** · September 17, 2004, 05:18

The Bush administration can either excuse their aggression with an UNSC resolution, or call the UN Secretary General a fart in the wind, but not both if being logically consistant. But putting "logic" and "Bush administration" in the same sentence...

**Heresson** · September 17, 2004, 06:24

Germans speak German.
French eat frogs and snails.
Isn't that enough?

**Heresson** · September 17, 2004, 06:26

That's terroristic, I'd even say

**Spiffor** · September 17, 2004, 07:57

Originally posted by Ned
BeBro, why of course, Germany was right to oppose the US because in the end there were no WMD. That is your position -- now. But, we really know that there were no WMD because we took Saddam out and had free reign in the country. We would never have known this, and the inspections would have gone on forever, if we hadn't killed thousands, maimed many more, and ruined a country

I don't know for BeBro, but I completely agree with that statement. To get secret info, it's easier just to wreck havoc in a country than to let diplomats do the job.

Now, don't you think the price is a bit high for such a result (knowing for sure what the inspections suggested but couldn't prove) ?

**Kuciwalker** · September 17, 2004, 08:21

Originally posted by Heresson
Germans speak German.
French eat frogs and snails.
Isn't that enough?

FROGS

Announcement

So, amcons, can you explain me what France and Germany's great crime was?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment