France no longer our ally, Germany trying to "incite pacifism"

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Stark
I don't understand why we care what either France or Germany thinks.

sadly it is called diplomacy

We already know what they think. We disagree. They dont have to join us and we have not asked them.

They do have to join us. There is no middle ground. There is no neutral. There is no fence sitting. You are either for us or against us!

Oh wait, wrong war. Or is it? 😉

Well we never asked france/germany for help. They are showing they would rather be allied to protect Saddam Hussein than be allies with the US. I am not sure that is such a smart long term move.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Czar

ok since no one gets this

What does "serious consequences" mean, according to shinerburke it means the US can invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power, but it could mean just about anything, it could mean that the "serious consequences" will be decided in another resolution as well it could mean that everyone in Iraq will be killed.

The interpretation of "serious consequences" differs from person to person so it is impossible to state it as a fact that UN resolution 1441 allows the US to go to war with Iraq.

edt. for the record, because of this gigantic loop hole in the resolution I have always though it was flawed

For being such an expert on international law, you sure do make it a point to disregard the fact that Iraq never really lived up to the original terms of its' 1991 surrender, which really supercedes any of these new UN resolutions.

I'm hardly a war monger, you can do a search on me. But you really need to stop being such an obvious US hating bitch.


sources:

"Under the surrender, Clinton said, Saddam Hussein agreed to "make a total declaration" of his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as the missiles that would carry these weapons."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/president021898.htm


"On April 11, 1991, Iraq gave its assent to U.N. Resolution 687, which had been passed on April 3. Under its terms, Iraq agreed to destroy or remove all long-range ballistic missiles and all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons."

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war.htm#ceasefire

hey bitch, nice to see your crap in here:disgust:

isnt it still up to the UN to decide if war should be waged or not?

 

[Zebo]

Two questions gaard I asked you before but you never answered.

1. What lies between embargos/sactions/no-fly-zones which the UN has on Irak and the US enforces and war ? aka. "serious consquenses"
2. How many iraki people have we aided in killing with the sactions over 12 years?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison
These same countries will just more than likely write the 18th resolution condemning Iraq for not following the 17th resolution.

Sorry, the US is no longer going to wait on the UN to do the right thing. They have proven themselves incapable.

maybe, who knows

 

[Gaard]

Not giving ones blessing for war does not equal supporting Iraq.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: isekii
French isn't our ally ?

big whoop~

It seems English isn't your ally either.😉

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Czar

ok since no one gets this

What does "serious consequences" mean, according to shinerburke it means the US can invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power, but it could mean just about anything, it could mean that the "serious consequences" will be decided in another resolution as well it could mean that everyone in Iraq will be killed.

The interpretation of "serious consequences" differs from person to person so it is impossible to state it as a fact that UN resolution 1441 allows the US to go to war with Iraq.

edt. for the record, because of this gigantic loop hole in the resolution I have always though it was flawed

For being such an expert on international law, you sure do make it a point to disregard the fact that Iraq never really lived up to the original terms of its' 1991 surrender, which really supercedes any of these new UN resolutions.

I'm hardly a war monger, you can do a search on me. But you really need to stop being such an obvious US hating bitch.


sources:

"Under the surrender, Clinton said, Saddam Hussein agreed to "make a total declaration" of his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as the missiles that would carry these weapons."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/president021898.htm


"On April 11, 1991, Iraq gave its assent to U.N. Resolution 687, which had been passed on April 3. Under its terms, Iraq agreed to destroy or remove all long-range ballistic missiles and all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons."

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war.htm#ceasefire

hey bitch, nice to see your crap in here:disgust:

isnt it still up to the UN to decide if war should be waged or not?

Not the last time I checked. And considering the UN is incapable of doing anything, how can you possibly think the UN has this power.

 

[kt]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Czar

ok since no one gets this

What does "serious consequences" mean, according to shinerburke it means the US can invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power, but it could mean just about anything, it could mean that the "serious consequences" will be decided in another resolution as well it could mean that everyone in Iraq will be killed.

The interpretation of "serious consequences" differs from person to person so it is impossible to state it as a fact that UN resolution 1441 allows the US to go to war with Iraq.

edt. for the record, because of this gigantic loop hole in the resolution I have always though it was flawed

For being such an expert on international law, you sure do make it a point to disregard the fact that Iraq never really lived up to the original terms of its' 1991 surrender, which really supercedes any of these new UN resolutions.

I'm hardly a war monger, you can do a search on me. But you really need to stop being such an obvious US hating bitch.


sources:

"Under the surrender, Clinton said, Saddam Hussein agreed to "make a total declaration" of his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as the missiles that would carry these weapons."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/president021898.htm


"On April 11, 1991, Iraq gave its assent to U.N. Resolution 687, which had been passed on April 3. Under its terms, Iraq agreed to destroy or remove all long-range ballistic missiles and all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons."

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war.htm#ceasefire

Someone really should invade Iceland.. maybe the Penguin army could do us the ohonor and invade Iceland from Greenland. That will teach them a lesson.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison
These same countries will just more than likely write the 18th resolution condemning Iraq for not following the 17th resolution.

Sorry, the US is no longer going to wait on the UN to do the right thing. They have proven themselves incapable.

maybe, who knows

I know the UN will not do the right thing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

F it. Lets do the Roman thing.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: kt

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Czar

ok since no one gets this

What does "serious consequences" mean, according to shinerburke it means the US can invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power, but it could mean just about anything, it could mean that the "serious consequences" will be decided in another resolution as well it could mean that everyone in Iraq will be killed.

The interpretation of "serious consequences" differs from person to person so it is impossible to state it as a fact that UN resolution 1441 allows the US to go to war with Iraq.

edt. for the record, because of this gigantic loop hole in the resolution I have always though it was flawed

For being such an expert on international law, you sure do make it a point to disregard the fact that Iraq never really lived up to the original terms of its' 1991 surrender, which really supercedes any of these new UN resolutions.

I'm hardly a war monger, you can do a search on me. But you really need to stop being such an obvious US hating bitch.


sources:

"Under the surrender, Clinton said, Saddam Hussein agreed to "make a total declaration" of his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as the missiles that would carry these weapons."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/president021898.htm


"On April 11, 1991, Iraq gave its assent to U.N. Resolution 687, which had been passed on April 3. Under its terms, Iraq agreed to destroy or remove all long-range ballistic missiles and all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons."

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war.htm#ceasefire

Someone really should invade Iceland.. maybe the Penguin army could do us the ohonor and invade Iceland from Greenland. That will teach them a lesson.

someone should teach you a lesson about penguins and where they live 😛

 

[MinorityReport]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
link.
yeah, germany is bad because pacifism kills so many people

france is evil because they want a second resolution - something they had stated from the get go.

Looking at this other thread, I worry if all the ignorants are going to reply with the same flames here 🙁

I think beyond any resonable doubt that it is France who is at loss not being an ally of US ..US stands same. If you cannot beat 'em, join 'em. French think otherwise.

It is sad that a power like US has to wait and literally beg to others for attack on Iraq .. imagine this 100 years ago

They should care less ... just go, attack and finish off the job if Iraq is so much a national security issue. The rest of the world can watch and after we win, they will all come with garlands congratulating on our success.

However if Iraq is a personal war from Bush and his corrput thieves, for the profit of a few rich, then the US public will punish them with equal zeal as they support him now. Bush will be hiding in a bush if this war backfires or if proven he did it for personal reasons. He knows this and sleeps in this fear every day, we can be sure.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
F it. Lets do the Roman thing.

Orgys and fine wine? Whats the roman thing?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider F it. Lets do the Roman thing.

Orgys and fine wine? Whats the roman thing?

Why take over the world of course. Lots of blood to be spilt. Fun Fun Fun

 

[hagbard]

Okay, here we go again. It appears that while France is talking against taking action, they're sending ships towards the Gulf:

]France talks peace but sends warships east

I notice a lot of activity down around our naval base at Esquimalt, BC...so we're likely next go cave in.


This story out of the UK makes claim that Powell will try to prove an Iraqi/al-Qaida connection by using a part of Iraq that Saddam has no control over:


Intelligence agencies doubt al-Qa'ida links

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Two questions gaard I asked you before but you never answered.

1. What lies between embargos/sactions/no-fly-zones which the UN has on Irak and the US enforces and war ? aka. "serious consquenses"
2. How many iraki people have we aided in killing with the sactions over 12 years?

1. I dunno. Does a war with a nod of approval from the UN lie between those things?
2. No idea.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: hagbard
Okay, here we go again. It appears that while France is talking against taking action, they're sending ships towards the Gulf:

]France talks peace but sends warships east

I notice a lot of activity down around our naval base at Esquimalt, BC...so we're likely next go cave in.


This story out of the UK makes claim that Powell will try to prove an Iraqi/al-Qaida connection by using a part of Iraq that Saddam has no control over:


Intelligence agencies doubt al-Qa'ida links

Yes france is sending their carrier over to the middle east on training exercises. My guess is, they will join the US when the realize there is nothing they can say to change our mind. If that is the case, it will be better to not let them not be involved.


And just today, Hussein said he had not tied with Al Queda, but would be proud to have them. This guy just does not know when to shut up.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard
Okay, here we go again. It appears that while France is talking against taking action, they're sending ships towards the Gulf:

]France talks peace but sends warships east

I notice a lot of activity down around our naval base at Esquimalt, BC...so we're likely next go cave in.


This story out of the UK makes claim that Powell will try to prove an Iraqi/al-Qaida connection by using a part of Iraq that Saddam has no control over:


Intelligence agencies doubt al-Qa'ida links

Yes france is sending their carrier over to the middle east on training exercises. My guess is, they will join the US when the realize there is nothing they can say to change our mind. If that is the case, it will be better to not let them not be involved.


And just today, Hussein said he had not tied with Al Queda, but would be proud to have them. This guy just does not know when to shut up.

Do you have a link?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard
Okay, here we go again. It appears that while France is talking against taking action, they're sending ships towards the Gulf:

]France talks peace but sends warships east

I notice a lot of activity down around our naval base at Esquimalt, BC...so we're likely next go cave in.


This story out of the UK makes claim that Powell will try to prove an Iraqi/al-Qaida connection by using a part of Iraq that Saddam has no control over:


Intelligence agencies doubt al-Qa'ida links

Yes france is sending their carrier over to the middle east on training exercises. My guess is, they will join the US when the realize there is nothing they can say to change our mind. If that is the case, it will be better to not let them not be involved.


And just today, Hussein said he had not tied with Al Queda, but would be proud to have them. This guy just does not know when to shut up.

Do you have a link?

Just watched it on TV.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard
Okay, here we go again. It appears that while France is talking against taking action, they're sending ships towards the Gulf:

]France talks peace but sends warships east

I notice a lot of activity down around our naval base at Esquimalt, BC...so we're likely next go cave in.


This story out of the UK makes claim that Powell will try to prove an Iraqi/al-Qaida connection by using a part of Iraq that Saddam has no control over:


Intelligence agencies doubt al-Qa'ida links

Yes france is sending their carrier over to the middle east on training exercises. My guess is, they will join the US when the realize there is nothing they can say to change our mind. If that is the case, it will be better to not let them not be involved.


And just today, Hussein said he had not tied with Al Queda, but would be proud to have them. This guy just does not know when to shut up.

Do you have a link?

Just watched it on TV.

okay, I just found at on the BBC, here is what he said:

"If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda, and we believed in that relationship, we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it," the Iraqi leader said.

That is not the same as his saying he'd be "proud to have them", although I suppose you could read it that way.

 

[EndGame]

Sounds like Blix also believes Saddam has the goods by what he said today:

"The essential point," he said, is for Iraq to assure inspectors and the Security Council "that it will actively seek and present any items or programs which are proscribed or else, if they are not there, to seek and present credible evidence for their absence."

Blix warns Iraq that it's "five minutes to midnight" and pleads for Iraq to produce evidence of weapons programs

 

[Gaard]

White House press briefing

Q Ari, last week the President said, on Iraq, you are either with us or you are with the enemy. France and Germany are clearly not with us. Why aren't they with the enemy?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's not true. France and Germany are with us. They just, in the case of Germany, made a decision not to use military force; and in the case of France, I think France is still exploring what their ultimate position will be. But clearly, they're both with us. The question is the use of military force. So I don't think that's quite doing justice to what the President said.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Czar

hey bitch, nice to see your crap in here:disgust:

isnt it still up to the UN to decide if war should be waged or not?

no, because the UN has largely shown itself as being ineffective at taking a stand against anything. Since you're a well educated european, surely you've heard of the league of nations, the predecessor to the UN? What exactly did it do against the aggression of Hitler?

Nothing, most of europe fell under hitler's control under the watch of the League. It's more or less the same story here, the UN has no real power or initiative and saddam is basically a little league hitler.

Saddam has given the finger to the UN for over a decade, and the UN didn't do sh*t to stop it. Now people like you want more 'resolutions' and hearings to make it official that Saddam really is a dirty bitch. Without US intervention, the fingering would go on indefinitely. :Q

Besides, the principle behind waiting for a UN ok is ass backwards. US led forces liberated Kuwait, the UN only piggybacked the surrender agreement. The UN name may be on surrender agreement, but it was really a US effort.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: EndGame
Sounds like Blix also believes Saddam has the goods by what he said today:

"The essential point," he said, is for Iraq to assure inspectors and the Security Council "that it will actively seek and present any items or programs which are proscribed or else, if they are not there, to seek and present credible evidence for their absence."

Blix warns Iraq that it's "five minutes to midnight" and pleads for Iraq to produce evidence of weapons programs

Saddam better get busy and build something then.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Gaard
White House press briefing

Q Ari, last week the President said, on Iraq, you are either with us or you are with the enemy. France and Germany are clearly not with us. Why aren't they with the enemy?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's not true. France and Germany are with us. They just, in the case of Germany, made a decision not to use military force; and in the case of France, I think France is still exploring what their ultimate position will be. But clearly, they're both with us. The question is the use of military force. So I don't think that's quite doing justice to what the President said.

Sounds like a gang. Has nothing to do whether or not what they're doing is right, but if they want to maintain their membership.