• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

France and Germany reject US Iraq plans

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
now we are "democratic members of the free world" and 6 months ago we were "stinking cheese eating surrender monkeys"

actually the french are both. being democratic members of the free world doesn't exempt one from being a cheese eating surrender monkey. the french did business with criminal regiems like iraq, they did nothing when genocide occured in bosnia kosovo which is relatively close by, they have no moral high ground to be demanding power for humanitarian assistance. they'd rather be complicit in supporting a criminal regiems mass killing and oppression then do anything about it.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
now we are "democratic members of the free world" and 6 months ago we were "stinking cheese eating surrender monkeys"

actually the french are both. being democratic members of the free world doesn't exempt one from being a cheese eating surrender monkey. the french did business with criminal regiems like iraq, they did nothing when genocide occured in bosnia kosovo which is relatively close by, they have no moral high ground to be demanding power for humanitarian assistance. they'd rather be complicit in supporting a criminal regiems mass killing and oppression then do anything about it.
thx for showing your true coulours -- the mighty USA doesn't need cheese eating surrendering monkeys in Iraq -- LOL

Don't get me started on the american involvement with criminal regimes in the last 60 years (including Saddam).


Bush diplomacy ---> BRING EM ON BITCH ------------ -- YEEHAAAAA
Result ---> the daily bodybags coming to the USA
Result 2---> whining Bush needing the UN and the French / Germans all of the sudden

keep them coming - I need a good laugh

goodbye


 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
past involvement with criminal regiems in a cold war climate does not excuse future involvement with such regiems. nice try. lets dumb it down, situation was different before. previous wrongs do not make current wrongs right:p

your focusing on bad diplomacy. the fact that the US didn't roll over to frances horrible diplomacy and lack of scrupples when the fact is nothing was being done in the face of oppression, mass killing and blatant defiance of the UN by iraq.

your basically supporting the arguement that one shouldn't do the right thing because one wasn't asked nicely. even if one acted like a jackass themselves.

wonderful.


 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
past involvement with criminal regiems in a cold war climate does not excuse future involvement with such regiems. nice try. lets dumb it down, situation was different before. previous wrongs do not make current wrongs right:p

your focusing on bad diplomacy. the fact that the US didn't roll over to frances horrible diplomacy and lack of scrupples when the fact is nothing was being done in the face of oppression, mass killing and blatant defiance of the UN by iraq.

your basically supporting the arguement that one shouldn't do the right thing because one wasn't asked nicely. even if one acted like a jackass themselves.

wonderful.
nice try

the fact is that the Bush administration is in BIG SH$T and is getting deeper in that same SH$T by the day

I love it --



 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
past involvement with criminal regiems in a cold war climate does not excuse future involvement with such regiems. nice try. lets dumb it down, situation was different before. previous wrongs do not make current wrongs right:p

your focusing on bad diplomacy. the fact that the US didn't roll over to frances horrible diplomacy and lack of scrupples when the fact is nothing was being done in the face of oppression, mass killing and blatant defiance of the UN by iraq.

your basically supporting the arguement that one shouldn't do the right thing because one wasn't asked nicely. even if one acted like a jackass themselves.

wonderful.
nice try

the fact is that the Bush administration is in BIG SH$T and is getting deeper in that same SH$T by the day

I love it --


maybe you should bend over a little more and let saddam in a little deeper, he probably likes it that way.

i love your moral arguement that liberating people is bad because you don't like bush.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
now we are "democratic members of the free world" and 6 months ago we were "stinking cheese eating surrender monkeys"

actually the french are both. being democratic members of the free world doesn't exempt one from being a cheese eating surrender monkey. the french did business with criminal regiems like iraq, they did nothing when genocide occured in bosnia kosovo which is relatively close by, they have no moral high ground to be demanding power for humanitarian assistance. they'd rather be complicit in supporting a criminal regiems mass killing and oppression then do anything about it.
French companies along with US companies did business with Iraq.
The US did nothing when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran and Kurds, the US did nothing after the last uprising.

sooo the US has no moral high ground to be demanding power for humanitarian assistance? and the US would rather support a criminal regime mass killing and oppresion then do anything about it?
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
that was bush 1. he had no UN support for going all the way, let alone french support. he did nothing because he bowed down to the UN like you wanted. so so much for that high ground. he did what was allowed by the UN and no more. which goes to show you what good that UN coalition was.

here in the US we change governments every few years if you didn't know already. how long has chiraq head of france bending over for iraq? :)
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
that was bush 1. he had no UN support for going all the way, let alone french support. he did nothing because he bowed down to the UN like you wanted. so so much for that high ground. he did what was allowed by the UN and no more. which goes to show you what good that UN coalition was.

here in the US we change governments every few years if you didn't know already. how long has chiraq head of france bending over for iraq? :)
you do know what France along with all democratic countries have a system just like that
and you do know that the UN works on a set of rules and laws that all, well most members abide by
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
that was bush 1. he had no UN support for going all the way, let alone french support. he did nothing because he bowed down to the UN like you wanted. so so much for that high ground. he did what was allowed by the UN and no more. which goes to show you what good that UN coalition was.

here in the US we change governments every few years if you didn't know already. how long has chiraq head of france bending over for iraq? :)
you do know what France along with all democratic countries have a system just like that
and you do know that the UN works on a set of rules and laws that all, well most members abide by
so whats your point. if bush 1 had gone into iraq and taken bagdad using his old mostly less then precise weapons and prevented mass murders.. he woulda been lambasted by people like you for having no un mandate in an illegal war etc etc etc. thats how much the UN cares. the whining never ends.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
past involvement with criminal regiems in a cold war climate does not excuse future involvement with such regiems. nice try. lets dumb it down, situation was different before. previous wrongs do not make current wrongs right:p

your focusing on bad diplomacy. the fact that the US didn't roll over to frances horrible diplomacy and lack of scrupples when the fact is nothing was being done in the face of oppression, mass killing and blatant defiance of the UN by iraq.

your basically supporting the arguement that one shouldn't do the right thing because one wasn't asked nicely. even if one acted like a jackass themselves.

wonderful.
nice try

the fact is that the Bush administration is in BIG SH$T and is getting deeper in that same SH$T by the day

I love it --


maybe you should bend over a little more and let saddam in a little deeper, he probably likes it that way.

i love your moral arguement that liberating people is bad because you don't like bush.
dude, you didn't follow the story

it wasn't about liberating people - it was about WMD

the Bush lovers are inventing a new Iraq story every week to justify their holy crusade

1)WMD
---> we don't find them
2)it's about democracy, it's about liberating
--> they like us some much that they are bombing and killing us every freaking day
3)we need help but the cheesy French block everything because we insulted them in the last year
-->blame the French and the Germans for the disaster in Iraq and also blame France for destroying the cedibility of the UN (of cousrse the US never gave a sh*t about the UN in the last year)


what's the story next week 0roo0roo -- can you give us a sneak preview??? LOL

Bush is going down and you are going down with him

YYYEEHAAA - BRING IT ON ----





 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
it doesn't matter what bungled sales tactic the admin tried to sell the war with. the fact is saddam is a war criminal, flaunts the UN mandates, oppresses his people, defies the west encouraging extremists etc etc. it had to be done. you really think the UN or france would have gone for it if we had just said we're going in to liberate iraq and finish the job? of course not. besides, the liberation of the people was implied in any case...otherwise you'd just bomb the sh*t out of em and leave.

it doesn't matter if no wmd are ever found, it was the right thing to do. you'd be mad to think he had absolutely none. he would have not obstructed weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide.

quibbling over the unimportant things is missing the point entirely and places you on the side protecting war criminals and all that is inhumane and evil because of your political pettiness. its beyond silly.

btw i didn't vote for bush. if you don't understand my sig quotes as clue to that, well your sadly misinformed or simply ignorant.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
3
81
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it doesn't matter what bungled sales tactic the admin tried to sell the war with. the fact is saddam is a war criminal, flaunts the UN mandates, oppresses his people, defies the west encouraging extremists etc etc. it had to be done. you really think the UN or france would have gone for it if we had just said we're going in to liberate iraq and finish the job? of course not.

it doesn't matter if no wmd are ever found, it was the right thing to do. you'd be mad to think he had absolutely none. he would have not obstructed weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide.

quibbling over the unimportant things is missing the point entirely and places you on the side protecting war criminals and all that is inhumane and evil because of your political pettiness. its beyond silly.

btw i didn't vote for bush. if you don't understand my sig quotes as clue to that, well your sadly misinformed or simply ignorant.

I think John Quincy Adams would disagree with your whole Idea of Policeman: The older I get the more I starting to as well.

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it doesn't matter what bungled sales tactic the admin tried to sell the war with. the fact is saddam is a war criminal, flaunts the UN mandates, oppresses his people, defies the west encouraging extremists etc etc. it had to be done. you really think the UN or france would have gone for it if we had just said we're going in to liberate iraq and finish the job? of course not. besides, the liberation of the people was implied in any case...otherwise you'd just bomb the sh*t out of em and leave.

it doesn't matter if no wmd are ever found, it was the right thing to do. you'd be mad to think he had absolutely none. he would have not obstructed weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide.

quibbling over the unimportant things is missing the point entirely and places you on the side protecting war criminals and all that is inhumane and evil because of your political pettiness. its beyond silly.

btw i didn't vote for bush. if you don't understand my sig quotes as clue to that, well yur sadly misinformed or simply ignorant.

lying to the world and starting a war with thousands of deaths on both sides is a minor detail


btw don't try the "if you agree with the French you are a Saddam supporter" logic on me. I'm smarter then that

Bush lovers logic
1)disagree with Bush
--> you are not a patriot - please leave the country
2)agree with the French position
--> you are a Saddam supporter


can I have some of the stuff you are smoking ???
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
3
81
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it doesn't matter what bungled sales tactic the admin tried to sell the war with. the fact is saddam is a war criminal, flaunts the UN mandates, oppresses his people, defies the west encouraging extremists etc etc. it had to be done. you really think the UN or france would have gone for it if we had just said we're going in to liberate iraq and finish the job? of course not. besides, the liberation of the people was implied in any case...otherwise you'd just bomb the sh*t out of em and leave.

it doesn't matter if no wmd are ever found, it was the right thing to do. you'd be mad to think he had absolutely none. he would have not obstructed weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide.

quibbling over the unimportant things is missing the point entirely and places you on the side protecting war criminals and all that is inhumane and evil because of your political pettiness. its beyond silly.

btw i didn't vote for bush. if you don't understand my sig quotes as clue to that, well yur sadly misinformed or simply ignorant.

lying to the world and starting a war with thousands of deaths on both sides is a minor detail


can I have some of the stuff you are smoking ???

And lets not forget Bush Administration is not for freedom. This is another total LIE. This year alone the Bush Administration is sending five hundred million dollars to the government of Islam Karimov, "president" of Uzbekistan.

Mr. Karimov is famous for boiling political opponents alive. He is famous for his advanced torture techniques. He is famous for his hated secret police. Yet American personnel are in Uzbekistan training Karimov's secret police. American dollars are sitting in Karimov's coffers, and continue pouring in, to fund the oppression of the Uzbek people.

And I won't get into his hatred of the consitution of this very land, or his unwillingness to accept debate or citisism.




 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
lying? thats an unsubstantiated claim and you know it. just because we haven't found them yet doesn't mean they don't exist. this should be obvious to you.


and thats right, nothings worth fighting for people like you. which is why france was silent when genocide occured in europe. the status quo of doing nothing but whining is the way to go. intervention might cause civilian casualties you know! doing nothing my hands are clean! yea thats the ticket!


when you get offended when not asked nicely, nothing else matters, everything be damned. time to throw a hissy fit and ignore the real issue. its called a tactic of distraction, protect criminals by quibbling over inconsequential things.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
3
81
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo



and thats right, nothings worth fighting for people like you. which is why france was silent when genocide occured in europe. the status quo of doing nothing but whining is the way to go. intervention might cause civilian casualties you know! doing nothing my hands are clean! yea thats the ticket!

.
And thats why later in history we signed up to the UN, who did'nt anthorize war, instead Bush choose to go it alone which now looks like it was for Big Business carpetbaggers which violated both the United Nations Charter and the Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
and if the un had given the mandate to finish off saddam in the first place during gulf 1, this would never have happened. if france hadn't spent its time undermining weapons inspections from the start, this would probably have never happened.

if france and germany had gone along with the war instead of undermining us at every chance, perhaps it would be far better for iraqi's right now.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
lying? thats an unsubstantiated claim and you know it. just because we haven't found them yet doesn't mean they don't exist. this should be obvious to you.


and thats right, nothings worth fighting for people like you. which is why france was silent when genocide occured in europe. the status quo of doing nothing but whining is the way to go. intervention might cause civilian casualties you know! doing nothing my hands are clean! yea thats the ticket!


when you get offended when not asked nicely, nothing else matters, everything be damned. time to throw a hissy fit and ignore the real issue. its called a tactic of distraction, protect criminals by quibbling over inconsequential things.
keep spinning a new story every week
the "old europe" has a good laugh every week while the Bush administration is getting in deeper sh*t every day
the "new europe" is on its way out
-> Blair is in the biggest sh*t ever
->look at the public opinion in the European countries that openly supported Bush ---> they ALL distrust their own govt. now and will probably be voted away in the next elections
->all Europeans are on the French-German side even in the "new europe" countries (with the exception of Poland)

It's been very funny to watch what is happening in Great-Britain these last weeks - the Brits are very critical about what had happened and the majority now things that they've been lied to. Even the Bush lapdogs are making a 180° turn
:D

keep on insulting please, keep it coming
the more Bush laughs with us, the more Europeans are going to give the Bush admin. the big old middle finger
Bush doesn't seem to realize that this strategy has a contra-productive effect -> I like it :D
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
all which have nothing to do with liberating iraq is bad.


you and your inane quibbles. oppression and support of war criminals is good as it doesn't upset the public. good justification!
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
all which have nothing to do with liberating iraq is bad.


you and your inane quibbles. oppression and support of war criminals is good as it doesn't upset the public. good justification!

you are using the "you support war criminals" logic again. I already made it clear that this logic is pure bs

give it another try
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
3
81
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and if the un had given the mandate to finish off saddam in the first place during gulf 1, this would never have happened. if france hadn't spent its time undermining weapons inspections from the start, this would probably have never happened.

if france and germany had gone along with the war instead of undermining us at every chance, perhaps it would be far better for iraqi's right now.
I don't disagree back then. But todays inspections were working according to the UN and Hans. It was only our presidents insistance on the contrary without presenting any proof, rather his "I believe" speeches which now have totally jeapodized his credibility and honesty.
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and if the un had given the mandate to finish off saddam in the first place during gulf 1, this would never have happened. if france hadn't spent its time undermining weapons inspections from the start, this would probably have never happened.
There was NO right to go after Saddam in GW1. Saddam was pushed back behind his borders, and that's all that was necessary. Just because a country tries to take over another country doesn't necessitate leadership change. The GW1 objective was clearly defined and completed. I can't fathom why alot of you out there think foiling a takeover necessitates leadership change.

Frankly I believe that there was no right to stop Iraq from annexxing Kuwait in the first place. It's all part of the food chain - the weak get taken over - it happens everywhere all the time and it happens to countries since the beginning of history.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
In watching Colin Polyp's speech to the UN he was esentially saying that it was up to the UN to show leadership by
"Getting behind the US's lead and doing what they are told to do by US command" - Bush's people want lackeys.
This would not be UN Leadership at all, nothing more than a way for the Bush people to shirk their responsibility
and bail out of the mess that their policy has brought to Iraq.

It's a form of political extortion in which those who started the conflict by over-ruling world opinion now want the
world to drop in behind them in lock step and do as they are told by the same people who didn't listen to begin with.
Why should they go along with the Bush Agenda ? There is no true incentive, just more threats of if yiou don't
play by our rules and do as we are telling you to do, we'll keep bullying you until we get our way.

Let's just keep on with the 'Old Eurpoe' and 'Chocolate Maker' mentality when we deal with them, it's more
honest to keep insulting them - than to try to force them to be the lackeys that the Bushies want them to be.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
In watching Colin Polyp's speech to the UN he was esentially saying that it was up to the UN to show leadership by
"Getting behind the US's lead and doing what they are told to do by US command" - Bush's people want lackeys.
This would not be UN Leadership at all, nothing more than a way for the Bush people to shirk their responsibility
and bail out of the mess that their policy has brought to Iraq.

It's a form of political extortion in which those who started the conflict by over-ruling world opinion now want the
world to drop in behind them in lock step and do as they are told by the same people who didn't listen to begin with.
Why should they go along with the Bush Agenda ? There is no true incentive, just more threats of if yiou don't
play by our rules and do as we are telling you to do, we'll keep bullying you until we get our way.

Let's just keep on with the 'Old Eurpoe' and 'Chocolate Maker' mentality when we deal with them, it's more
honest to keep insulting them - than to try to force them to be the lackeys that the Bushies want them to be.

yip, that what I'm saying

keep on insulting us and even the biggest pro-Bush europeans will turn sides. They are switching sides at an astounding rate already because of his cowboy diplomacy
just look at the public opinion polls!!!!

Bush is doing a great job in helping the Chiraq-Schroeder camp --

keep the insults coming Bushy Boy !!!!!!!
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
that was bush 1. he had no UN support for going all the way, let alone french support. he did nothing because he bowed down to the UN like you wanted. so so much for that high ground. he did what was allowed by the UN and no more. which goes to show you what good that UN coalition was.

here in the US we change governments every few years if you didn't know already. how long has chiraq head of france bending over for iraq? :)
you do know what France along with all democratic countries have a system just like that
and you do know that the UN works on a set of rules and laws that all, well most members abide by
so whats your point. if bush 1 had gone into iraq and taken bagdad using his old mostly less then precise weapons and prevented mass murders.. he woulda been lambasted by people like you for having no un mandate in an illegal war etc etc etc. thats how much the UN cares. the whining never ends.
that is the point, world politics are based on laws and rules, those who brake those laws are usualy branded rouge nations and that is exactly what the US is becoming
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS