Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nice crossposting

    Comment


    • Kind of killed your troll, eh?
      I believe Saddam because his position is backed up by logic and reason...David Floyd
      i'm an ignorant greek...MarkG

      Comment


      • Food for thought.

        "And if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated..."

        President Thomas Jefferson 1807

        Comment


        • we shot eachother off more likely

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Frogger
            Remember that in Germany Schroeder was forced into his position by the upcoming election. Prior to firming up his position as being against war, he would have lost...
            So, "It's the economy, stupid!" doesn't really apply to German politics?
            I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
            For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tripledoc
              Food for thought.

              "And if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated..."

              President Thomas Jefferson 1807
              What about Vietnam ?
              What?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by paiktis22
                we shot eachother off more likely
                It matters not, they will soon again have page long posts back and forth on whether it's correct or not, which has nothing to do with the topic of course.
                I believe Saddam because his position is backed up by logic and reason...David Floyd
                i'm an ignorant greek...MarkG

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DinoDoc

                  So, "It's the economy, stupid!" doesn't really apply to German politics?
                  I don't know; all I know is that his comments boosted his approval ratings ~5% in the last week before elections. And that, IMO is all the justification he felt he needed. Call him a ruthless politician if you want (same with Chirac) but the suggestion that this is somhow due to French oil companies is a lot less credible than the suggestion GW's attitude is due to American oil companies is...
                  12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                  Stadtluft Macht Frei
                  Killing it is the new killing it
                  Ultima Ratio Regum

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Azazel

                    remember what happened to the last thread where you've said this?
                    Hell, it got there, didn't it?


                    why so?


                    The NPT came about in 1969: I have read various books, including one completely concerned with Israel's nuclear program, that state that the US was not very interested in Israel gettin nukes, and by 1969 Israel's nuclear arsenal was minimal at best. At that point Israel could get rid of its nukes, and its not like the Nixon whitehouse at that point would have told Israel not to.

                    well, these systems you're talking about harldy can be called international law. "status quo" would be much more appropriate.


                    It can be called international law: After all, a status quo can only last with the support of agreed rules of conduct. Since the international community is chaotic, "law" within it can not have the strict nature of intrastate laws, until some suprastate entity comes into being.


                    As I've stated before, my support of this war doesn't come from the fear that Saddam has WMD, but the betterment of the Iraqi people.

                    I think we're having a sircular argument here....
                    How generous of you, to care so much for so many Arabs. Care to foot the bill?
                    If you don't like reality, change it! me
                    "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                    "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                    "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                    Comment


                    • I find it fascinating that the same pundits who tell us Bush's war is not about oil, also tell us that opposition to the war is all about oil. Even more fascinating that they find people who believe them.
                      ermm, are you talking about me? I know that oil plays an interest in Bush's decisions. I am supporting the war nontheless, due to other reasons, of course.

                      "their level of opposition preceded the level of opposition from the european street."

                      Not for France, Chirac's initial position was ambiguous. In Germany, both major parties reacted to existing voter sentiment - I can't see how they should have manipulated public sentiment.
                      are you denying that governments have the ability to do this?
                      urgh.NSFW

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SpencerH
                        Maroule,

                        So whats your opinion about why the French are so opposed to ousting Hussein?
                        NOt Maroule, but I will give it a shot:

                        The French are not opposed to the aims of the admin., but it's method. They don't see an immidiate threat from Iraq, they might not have as much faith as many of you have that the US wil be so adept at putting Humpty Dumpty back together, and they probably fear the consequences of the US screwing up somehow. They want to play for more time, to lay a better foundation of opinion to got to war, and of course, they want assurances that French interests will prosper.

                        IN short, right now they see Bush's actions as a greater threat than anything Saddam may do, cuase Saddam is in a tight little box in the back of the China Shop, while Bush & Co. is the charging Elephant out to smash that little box at the back: but what happens to all the China in between?
                        If you don't like reality, change it! me
                        "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                        "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                        "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                        Comment


                        • Hell, it got there, didn't it?
                          I'd rather it wouldn't get there.


                          The NPT came about in 1969: I have read various books, including one completely concerned with Israel's nuclear program, that state that the US was not very interested in Israel gettin nukes, and by 1969 Israel's nuclear arsenal was minimal at best. At that point Israel could get rid of its nukes, and its not like the Nixon whitehouse at that point would have told Israel not to.
                          funny, I've always thought we had them in the mid-60s. If someday, Israel will FINALLY announce it has them, then we will surely know. must inquire a bit more into this.

                          It can be called international law: After all, a status quo can only last with the support of agreed rules of conduct. Since the international community is chaotic, "law" within it can not have the strict nature of intrastate laws, until some suprastate entity comes into being.
                          well, If you want to play by the rules of superpowers, sure.

                          How generous of you, to care so much for so many Arabs. Care to foot the bill?
                          Why should I? I have a volounteer that will do it for free. The good ol' US of A.
                          urgh.NSFW

                          Comment


                          • but what happens to all the China in between?
                            Their embassy gets bombed?

                            -Arrian
                            grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                            The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE] Originally posted by Azazel

                              I'd rather it wouldn't get there. [/quote}

                              Fine, on to 499.5!

                              well, If you want to play by the rules of superpowers, sure.


                              But those are the only rules in the international community there are. Do you support a supranational world government with the ability to enforce laws on the international scale as the state can on the internal scale?

                              Why should I? I have a volounteer that will do it for free. The good ol' US of A.
                              Bahh!

                              If all goes well, then perhaps things are for the best, if all goes badly, then Bush is gone in 2004 (a huge personal consolation prize). If things get muddled, worst possible outcome: the Chimp in Chief stays four more, and the consequences of whats about to happen get drawn out for decades.


                              Their embassy gets bombed?

                              -Arrian


                              Lets hope the CIA mproved its maps.
                              If you don't like reality, change it! me
                              "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                              "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                              "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GePap


                                The US was not very interested in Israel gettin nukes, and by 1969 Israel's nuclear arsenal was minimal at best. At that point Israel could get rid of its nukes, and its not like the Nixon whitehouse at that point would have told Israel not to.
                                The only reason for Israel to acquire nuclear weapons in the '60s is that had no confidence that United States would protect it if the Arabs were successful in a war against them. I'm not so sure about the Kennedy administration, but I believe that both the Eisenhower and Johnson administration's were no true friends of Israel.

                                The question today is whether Israel has a sufficiently high degree of confidence in the United States that it could destroy its nuclear weapons. I would say yes if we only elected presidents like Reagan or Bush. But we have in the past elected leaders like Johnson and Carter.

                                Also, today's Democratic presidential hopefuls seem to be taking turns on waving the white flag of appeasement. If I were an Israeli, I would keep the nukes.
                                Last edited by Ned; January 23, 2003, 16:17.
                                http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X