No way! France speaks out against US war plan

[shiner]

It's nice to see the Euros on here trashing us for doing what is right. Unlike them we will stand up to a threat instead of rolling over and cooperating. Sorry you don't understand the implications of an Iraq with nuclear weapons or a full stockpile of chemical weapons. Now just go on about your business and leave making the world safe to us.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
It's nice to see the Euros on here trashing us for doing what is right. Unlike them we will stand up to a threat instead of rolling over and cooperating. Sorry you don't understand the implications of an Iraq with nuclear weapons or a full stockpile of chemical weapons. Now just go on about your business and leave making the world safe to us.

Nah, you got it wrong, the europeans here are trashing you because you want to do it though no other country in the world wants you to (except for israel)....

Go ahead, win this war, is ill maybe say heh... americans going to war, like it is something that rarely happens...

This is based upon the US need for OIL, NOTHING ELSE, that is why nobody supports it, get your head out, you might realize that too...

 

[UltraQuiet]

You are a patriotic jingoistic imperialist fucktard.
Americans are not too popular - it's about time you stopped eating the hot dogs and hamburgers and absorbed the message.

Wow that was really intelligent. Thanks for sharing. BTW being called a patriot is not an insult to me, having to read something posted by someone of your low intelligence is.

1. the rest of the world is stronger
2. i didn't say anything was stopping you, it's just a matter of time, as i see it, i would have thought you would understand that by now...
3. yup, the "Americans are superior" that i expected...
4. no, the rest of the world only blames the US when they interfere when the rest of the world think they should not... why don't you get it, UN should make the decisions, the US cannot allow that, they want to be seperated from the world, more powerful than the world (IE a world power, just like Nazi-Germany)... I have NEVER blamed america for anything, pleeeease tell me when someone has? in a desicion that wasn't americas own?

You try, you try so hard to justify, yet you fail so miserably... time and time and time again...

1. Are you? I have no evidence of that.
2. You have no evidence of us wanting to take over the world. It is just an irrational rant based on ignorance.
3. Like I said, we are blamed for everyting. We get blamed for interfering, not interfering, it's no win for us. We always get asked one of two questions- "Why are you here?" or "What took you so long?" You comparing us to Nazi Germany just proves your outright stupidity.
4. I never said we were superior. I just think we are right. Just like you think you are right.

This is based upon the US need for OIL, NOTHING ELSE, that is why nobody supports it, get your head out, you might realize that too...

So what? Shall we examine all the illegal trade deals that the countries who are screaming the loudest have with Iraq? Would you like to go there? That conversation ought to send all the indignant euros running for cover.

 

[ElFenix]

if we're jingoist (and realist) its because we learned from the best... england, france, germany, japan...

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: MadRat
The American Revolution was an inevitable outcome. The logistics were too incredible for the British to overcome. We honor the French for what they did, not that it was necessary. Kind of like how the wife honors you for putting the seat down on the toilet when in reality she could do it herself if you were not around.

Are you sure about that? I thought the British had most of their troops tied up against France at the time? Afterall, it was in France's interest that the British colonies broke away. Without France's interference surely the Brits would have been too strong? They were by far the premier power at the time by memory, and only gained in power throughout most of the 19th century, which may have made it even harder for the colonies to break away.

So I think it's quite possible that without France the revolution would have failed and they would have lost their only chance to break away for quite some time, as the British only gained in power from the 1770's. They didn't reach their peak until the mid-1800's or so. By then they controlled 25% of the worlds land and population.

I could be way off base....but I think dismissing France's role as insignificant isn't very fair.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: MadRat
The American Revolution was an inevitable outcome. The logistics were too incredible for the British to overcome. We honor the French for what they did, not that it was necessary. Kind of like how the wife honors you for putting the seat down on the toilet when in reality she could do it herself if you were not around.

Are you sure about that? I thought the British had most of their troops tied up against France at the time? Afterall, it was in France's interest that the British colonies broke away. Without France's interference surely the Brits would have been too strong? They were by far the premier power at the time by memory, and only gained in power throughout most of the 19th century, which may have made it even harder for the colonies to break away.

So I think it's quite possible that without France the revolution would have failed and they would have lost their only chance to break away for quite some time, as the British only gained in power from the 1770's. They didn't reach their peak until the mid-1800's or so. By then they controlled 25% of the worlds land and population.

I could be way off base....but I think dismissing France's role as insignificant isn't very fair.

there were lots of higher up brits speaking out for letting the colonies go... but it was france's navy in the carribbean tying up the british navy that really killed the british supply lines.

 

[Moonbeam]

The International Herald Tribune?Pew Research Center poll An eye opening read for insular Americans of important decision makers and opinion leaders in two dozen countries reveals that just 29 percent would support a U.S. strike against Iraq. (Western Europe and Muslim countries both responded with a meager 32 percent.)

Failure to gain support for smart sanctions could push the United States one step closer to unilateral military action. Indeed, those countries that had hoped the war on terrorism would produce a kinder, gentler, more multilateral George W. Bush may be in for a rude awakening. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, a vast perceptual divide has emerged between the United States and its allies. The rest of the world still sees the United States as an overwhelmingly dominant military power, but Americans now see themselves as victims.


Mark Strauss is senior editor at Foreign Policy magazine.
------------




Britain: "Doing nothing about Iraq's breach of these U.N. resolutions is not an option. ... What we do about that is an open question." ? Prime Minister Tony Blair

Canada: "We need a clear connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. ... If there are other reasons, we are always listening. But for me, I think there are a lot of consequences for everybody on a decision like that." ? Prime Minister Jean Chretien

China: "The Iraq question should be resolved within the framework of the UN by diplomatic and political means. Resorting to force or threatening to resort to force will not solve the problem; on the contrary, it leads to more tensions and troubles." ? Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan

Egypt: "Striking Iraq is something that could have repercussions and post-strike developments. We fear chaos happening in the region." ? President Hosni Mubarak

France: "I don't want to imagine an attack against Iraq, an attack that could not be justified unless it is decided by the Security Council." ? President Jacques Chirac

Germany: "To talk about an attack against Iraq now is wrong. ... Under my leadership, Germany will not take part in that." ? Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder

Iran: "The Iraqi people, not a world power, should determine Iraq's destiny. At the same time, Iran will not stand idle before such instability because, if a country decides to overthrow another country's government, this will create a norm." ? Hamid Reza Asefi, Foreign Ministry spokesman

Israel: "What I told the Americans, and I repeat it: 'Don't expect us to continue to live with the process of restraint. If they (Iraq) hit us, we reserve the right of response." ? Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer

Mexico: "We cannot get involved in any war in any way." ? President Vicente Fox

Pakistan: "It is not a question of removing Saddam Hussein. It's the question of attacking a country, attacking another Muslim country." ? President Gen. Pervez Musharraf

Russia: "Any decision to use force against Iraq would not only complicate an Iraqi settlement but also undermine the situation in the Gulf and the Middle East." ? Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov

Saudi Arabia: "There is no country I know of supporting the use of force in Iraq at this time. ... The rhetoric about using force is way ahead of the policy." ? Adel al-Jubeir, spokesman for Saudi Arabian ruling family

South Africa: "We are really appalled by any country, whether it is a superpower or a poor country, that goes outside the United Nations and attacks independent countries." ? Nelson Mandela, former president.

Turkey: "We have used every opportunity to tell our friends in the US administration we are opposed to military action against Iraq." ? Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit

United Nations: "It would be unwise to attack Iraq, given the current circumstances of what's happening in the Middle East." ? Secretary-General Kofi Annan
------------------------

I like the words 'there is a vast divide' between the way Americans see themselves and the rest of the world sees us. Since the rest of the world's viewpoints are not comming from a single media congolmerate, one is tempted to conclude that the way Americans see themselves is a result of indoctrination by a self-descriptive self-talk. We have brainwashed ourselves into believing we are what we want to believe we are. When the patient tells all his doctors that they are crazy, naturally it starts that line of suspicion that leads to diagnosis lock up. The question is, just how do you get the patient to see? It was particularly telling that so many in the world were glad that the US had finally been hit at home on 9/11 even though it was considered to be a horrible act. Do you suppose they were hoping it would open our eyes to something?

 

[damiano]

Originally posted by: HOWITIS
lets forget about iraq, lets go after the frogs, i'm willing to enter the draft for that.

Some countries like france try to avoid war...anything wrong with that?
We all know that saddam is a dangerous/ crazy bastard...
but is it a reason to blow up the whole country?

note: do you guys actually know that france has enough nuclear power to blow up the entire planet ?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: damiano

Originally posted by: HOWITIS
lets forget about iraq, lets go after the frogs, i'm willing to enter the draft for that.

Some countries like france try to avoid war...anything wrong with that?
We all know that saddam is a dangerous/ crazy bastard...
but is it a reason to blow up the whole country?

note: do you guys actually know that france has enough nuclear power to blow up the entire planet ?

yes, and they'd probably sell it to people if they needed the money, given that they will sell conventional arms to anyone.

and no one has said anything about blowing up the whole of the country.

 

[VFAA]

Bombarding Iraq is wrong at the moment.

US is simply going after oil (I don't care if you guys don't believe me, but the whole world sees it that way). You guys have any idea how much oil is in Afghanistan (and who's doing all the fighting there)?

 

[MadRat]

Oil in Afghanistan... LMAO! You think? LMAO! You don't really believe its worth fighting this much for do you? LMAO! Damn, you're a real paranoid trooper.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the issue in Afghanistan is a gas pipeline, but it is true that I don't know hiw much oil it has.

 

[yllus]

holy crap, exactly how many Europeans are quite this stupid? World War III against America? Do you realize that commencing a war like that would go against EVERY principle that nation was built and still exists upon?

 

[Bollocks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The International Herald Tribune?Pew Research Center poll An eye opening read for insular Americans of important decision makers and opinion leaders in two dozen countries reveals that just 29 percent would support a U.S. strike against Iraq. (Western Europe and Muslim countries both responded with a meager 32 percent.)

Failure to gain support for smart sanctions could push the United States one step closer to unilateral military action. Indeed, those countries that had hoped the war on terrorism would produce a kinder, gentler, more multilateral George W. Bush may be in for a rude awakening. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, a vast perceptual divide has emerged between the United States and its allies. The rest of the world still sees the United States as an overwhelmingly dominant military power, but Americans now see themselves as victims.


Mark Strauss is senior editor at Foreign Policy magazine.
------------




Britain: "Doing nothing about Iraq's breach of these U.N. resolutions is not an option. ... What we do about that is an open question." ? Prime Minister Tony Blair

Canada: "We need a clear connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. ... If there are other reasons, we are always listening. But for me, I think there are a lot of consequences for everybody on a decision like that." ? Prime Minister Jean Chretien

China: "The Iraq question should be resolved within the framework of the UN by diplomatic and political means. Resorting to force or threatening to resort to force will not solve the problem; on the contrary, it leads to more tensions and troubles." ? Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan

Egypt: "Striking Iraq is something that could have repercussions and post-strike developments. We fear chaos happening in the region." ? President Hosni Mubarak

France: "I don't want to imagine an attack against Iraq, an attack that could not be justified unless it is decided by the Security Council." ? President Jacques Chirac

Germany: "To talk about an attack against Iraq now is wrong. ... Under my leadership, Germany will not take part in that." ? Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder

Iran: "The Iraqi people, not a world power, should determine Iraq's destiny. At the same time, Iran will not stand idle before such instability because, if a country decides to overthrow another country's government, this will create a norm." ? Hamid Reza Asefi, Foreign Ministry spokesman

Israel: "What I told the Americans, and I repeat it: 'Don't expect us to continue to live with the process of restraint. If they (Iraq) hit us, we reserve the right of response." ? Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer

Mexico: "We cannot get involved in any war in any way." ? President Vicente Fox

Pakistan: "It is not a question of removing Saddam Hussein. It's the question of attacking a country, attacking another Muslim country." ? President Gen. Pervez Musharraf

Russia: "Any decision to use force against Iraq would not only complicate an Iraqi settlement but also undermine the situation in the Gulf and the Middle East." ? Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov

Saudi Arabia: "There is no country I know of supporting the use of force in Iraq at this time. ... The rhetoric about using force is way ahead of the policy." ? Adel al-Jubeir, spokesman for Saudi Arabian ruling family

South Africa: "We are really appalled by any country, whether it is a superpower or a poor country, that goes outside the United Nations and attacks independent countries." ? Nelson Mandela, former president.

Turkey: "We have used every opportunity to tell our friends in the US administration we are opposed to military action against Iraq." ? Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit

United Nations: "It would be unwise to attack Iraq, given the current circumstances of what's happening in the Middle East." ? Secretary-General Kofi Annan
------------------------

I like the words 'there is a vast divide' between the way Americans see themselves and the rest of the world sees us. Since the rest of the world's viewpoints are not comming from a single media congolmerate, one is tempted to conclude that the way Americans see themselves is a result of indoctrination by a self-descriptive self-talk. We have brainwashed ourselves into believing we are what we want to believe we are. When the patient tells all his doctors that they are crazy, naturally it starts that line of suspicion that leads to diagnosis lock up. The question is, just how do you get the patient to see? It was particularly telling that so many in the world were glad that the US had finally been hit at home on 9/11 even though it was considered to be a horrible act. Do you suppose they were hoping it would open our eyes to something?

by jove he has got it.

apart from the bit about being glad.

We care A LOT about 9/11.....

we wish you hadn't been hit..

we just wish you didn't talk the way you do throughout this thread.

 

[Bollocks]

a war between Europe and USA is unlikely but not impossible.. huge changes can occur over a century...

..they say this century that China could become the 2nd largest economy in the world... and that India could become one of the largest..

We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think the issue in Afghanistan is a gas pipeline, but it is true that I don't know hiw much oil it has.

The same pipeline that has been discussed and proposed by many over the past 20 years.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bollocks

We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bollocks We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

Technically correct, but scientifically impractical. From a thermodynamics perspective it makes no sense. We will still have oil interests, because you are sitting on an oil chair, dress in oil clothes, and sleep in an oil bed.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bollocks We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

Technically correct, but scientifically impractical. From a thermodynamics perspective it makes no sense. We will still have oil interests, because you are sitting on an oil chair, dress in oil clothes, and sleep in an oil bed.

Well hydrogen extraction from gasoline/natural gas is possible today and resonably practical.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Karzai, the leader we're backing in Afghanistan, is an old Bush friend, he used to consult for Unocal. Just a coincidence that he works a deal with Pakistan for a trans-Afghanistan pipeline?

How about the Carlyle Group, that daddy Bush advises for? They scored some nice Saudi investments immediatly after the Gulf War.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bollocks We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

Technically correct, but scientifically impractical. From a thermodynamics perspective it makes no sense. We will still have oil interests, because you are sitting on an oil chair, dress in oil clothes, and sleep in an oil bed.

Well hydrogen extraction from gasoline/natural gas is possible today and resonably practical.

Yes it can be done. The problem is that if you take oil and extract the hydrogen from it, you consume energy. No process is 100% efficient, so conversion would be less efficient than straight combustion. There is the possibility that there is a catalyst that is more efficient for doing this than straight combustion, but I havent kept up with petroleum science as much as perhaps I ought.

 

[kgraeme]

Given the lack of actual evidence of any threat, I do not support the U.S. going to war against Iraq. I have written my Congressmen to express that opinion.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bollocks We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

Technically correct, but scientifically impractical. From a thermodynamics perspective it makes no sense. We will still have oil interests, because you are sitting on an oil chair, dress in oil clothes, and sleep in an oil bed.

Well hydrogen extraction from gasoline/natural gas is possible today and resonably practical.

Yes it can be done. The problem is that if you take oil and extract the hydrogen from it, you consume energy. No process is 100% efficient, so conversion would be less efficient than straight combustion. There is the possibility that there is a catalyst that is more efficient for doing this than straight combustion, but I havent kept up with petroleum science as much as perhaps I ought.

Pay more attention. Combustion is terribly inneffecient because it produces more heat than usuable power. It does not take much to be more efficent than combustion.
And you do not get hydrogen for free anywhere.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: kgraeme
Given the lack of actual evidence of any threat, I do not support the U.S. going to war against Iraq. I have written my Congressmen to express that opinion.

More will be known within the next 2 weeks, so you might want to hold off on that letter.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bollocks We now fight for oil regions... but if hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future (as many predict it will) - will we fight over the locations that are favourable to photovoltaic hydrogen producing farms?

And we will still have oil and gas as interests in a hydrogen economy because they are both hydrogen rich....

Technically correct, but scientifically impractical. From a thermodynamics perspective it makes no sense. We will still have oil interests, because you are sitting on an oil chair, dress in oil clothes, and sleep in an oil bed.

Well hydrogen extraction from gasoline/natural gas is possible today and resonably practical.

Yes it can be done. The problem is that if you take oil and extract the hydrogen from it, you consume energy. No process is 100% efficient, so conversion would be less efficient than straight combustion. There is the possibility that there is a catalyst that is more efficient for doing this than straight combustion, but I havent kept up with petroleum science as much as perhaps I ought.

Pay more attention. Combustion is terribly inneffecient because it produces more heat than usuable power. It does not take much to be more efficent than combustion. And you do not get hydrogen for free anywhere.

Interesting. Cant seem to find specifics though. Some vague references about oil to hydrogen conversion, but nothing about the relative efficencies. What kind of process are they using? Perhaps you can provide technical links with specifics, taking into account the power costs of conversion added to the inefficencies of producing energy from fuel cells. I know you can do this because you pay attention.