Printable View
Jetje,Quote:
Originally posted by jetje@28 March 2003 - 06:41
there are some governements "giving political support" whatever that means. Our stupid prime minister does do that. However the majority from my country is always against this war. But we live in a democracy... we have freedom of speech...
btw the sub topic title is wrong... we all.... already lost, no one wins wars.
Well said.
The real question then is, how much are we willing to lose.
Iraq has NO chance of 'winning' the war. They sent 1000 troops south to try to cut off our 70,000 troops. (not counting brittish troops) Bush is sending in another 100,000 very soon, and believe me, he could send a hell of a lot more. We are trying to be cival and do as little damage as possible while still completing our goals. So things will be tougher for us in the sense that we still want to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, if we didn't care what damage we did, we could win the war by monday, (It's friday right now).
I wish this war had never happened, but now that it has, we must continue. Iraqi civilians have died, american soldiers have died, british soldiers have died, if we don't take this to the end, it would have all been for nothing.
as many of you already know I was absolutely opposed to this war...
but now it's on, some people in Irak (I'm not talking about crowd but minorities opposed to saddam with a kind of organisation) are now fighting with coalition troups like in kurdistan or other south cities... these people deserve not being abandonned one time more by US.. cause wether you wanted this war or not you can't ignore saddam is a dictator going to slay his own population if he escapes again...
By the way concerning big contracts passed with US firm to rebuild the country... as the conflict wasn't approved by the UN, many reconstruction costs will be sent to US, so I can't see why they won't pay their own firms as to try to relaunch an agonising economy...
PS: excuse me for my poor grammar as you may know I'm french...
edit: @ dwightfry: don't forget that iraqi soldiers died too.... many are just patriots defending their land (your ancestors may did the same far ago...)
Well saidQuote:
Originally posted by jetje@28 March 2003 - 12:41
there are some governements "giving political support" whatever that means. Our stupid prime minister does do that. However the majority from my country is always against this war. But we live in a democracy... we have freedom of speech...
btw the sub topic title is wrong... we all.... already lost, no one wins wars.
i dunno ppl...saddam is gonna be tough ta kill. hes got like 10 imposters at every press conference and such. like i said before, they need ta get sum1 in there and just snuff em all. done deal. or they could just march into baghdad with tanks and take a bunch of casualties. its not gonna be easy. bush was so ignorant bout all this. and yes the iraqis hate saddam but they cant speak out against him and they are being invaded so they want to defend their land. (possibly).
I don't know for Russia, but as for France, we definitely want our traditional Ally (i;e; the USA) win this stupid war as soon as possible, now that it's started. You're just saying bulls**t.Quote:
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@28 March 2003 - 03:48
Thats really what France and Russia are saying.
They want Saddam to win this.
We're not happy with this war being more difficult than Bush, Rumsfeld & Co thought it would be. But if they'd listened to us, they might not be in such a bad situation now.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jonne@28 March 2003 - 13:53
you don't work for halliburton or one of it's daughters, do you? The company that is in charge for the logistics of the US army, and got the contract for putting out the oil wells two weeks ago? The Company that used to have Dick Cheney as CEO? The company that pays still Dick Cheney 1 million dollars a year?
No. I work for a small minority company. I assume that jobs contracts would be open for bids to any company, qualified to place a bid.
I was and am opposed to this war...mainly due to hypocracy surrounding its reason for being.
However, now that it is a 'done deal' it HAS to be seen through to its conclusion.
To have all these people die for nothing would be the greatest mistake.
Every opposing argument I had will happen now whether the Coalition withdraw or carry on...in which case at least take one of the worlds bastards out.
I can only hope now that the USA give control of rebuilding to the UN......notice i say CONTROL, not 'participation'.........that may at least take away the argument that the USA will control the country, and hence it is imperialistic (and no, i dont believe this is so....but the argument WILL be used against them)
Is that the sentiment of most French people or are you a lone wolf?Quote:
Originally posted by ketoprak@29 March 2003 - 06:06
I don't know for Russia, but as for France, we definitely want our traditional Ally (i;e; the USA) win this stupid war as soon as possible, now that it's started. You're just saying bulls**t.
We're not happy with this war being more difficult than Bush, Rumsfeld & Co thought it would be. But if they'd listened to us, they might not be in such a bad situation now.
What we are seeing is Chirac Fighting every single move we make.
I agree that there must have been a better way before this war started, to solve the problem in Iraq. At least there were a few things left that could have been tried.
But maybe Bush was right, here. I don't know what Iraq was doing on one side of the country while the inspectors were on the other.
I do, however, know that our inteligence department is usually right...no matter how much we laugh about CIA being a contradiction in terms.
I also have great confidence in Interpol.
And although Bush has no understanding of the international community, he's not an idiot.
He's just a very poor speaker.
Blaire, on the other hand, is an excelent speaker.
I advise that the rest of the world ignore Bush's fumbling around for the right facial expressions, and focus on Tony Blaire.
Overlook the fact that Bush doesn't understand the conventions of Deplomacy.
Pay close attention to the fact that Blaire DOES understand deplomacy and still believes this is necessary based on info he recieves from Interpol.
Ignore the fact that the U. S. was recently attacked on its on soil for the first time in 60 years and may hold a grudge.
Focus on the fact that England did NOT experience anything like that, and has no grudge.
Then check to see if the U. S. has anything to gain from this war...really.
Its costing us billions of dollars to fight this war.
Chirac has already pointed out that he has every intention to block any resolutions we put on the table.
Do you believe we are sending hundreds of thousands of men and women and billions of dollars worth of equiptment to meet their potential doom, for oil trade?
There was oil trade before the war, and there will be oil trade after the war.
A dollar per barrel change, maybe, is not worth this.
Economic stability?
Well, wars do sometimes improve the economy but only at the expense of the government deficit.
Our deficit is back where it was before we fixed it.
To give us an edge in the Middle East?
Middle Eastern Terrorists flew planes into our buildings.
We are going to war with a Middle Eastern regime.
What 'edge' is that suppose to give us with the people, if we're wrong?
And if we're right, why is Chirac not with us on this?
Peace to you
Is that the sentiment of most French people or are you a lone wolf?Quote:
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+29 March 2003 - 14:47--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 29 March 2003 - 14:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--ketoprak@29 March 2003 - 06:06
I don't know for Russia, but as for France, we definitely want our traditional Ally (i;e; the USA) win this stupid war as soon as possible, now that it's started. You're just saying bulls**t.
We're not happy with this war being more difficult than Bush, Rumsfeld & Co thought it would be. But if they'd listened to us, they might not be in such a bad situation now.
[/b][/quote]
The polls here in France give:
80% against the war
40% want the US to win the war as soon as possible
40% want the war to stop NOW
8% want Saddam Hussein to win
2% don't know.
That's because he's a bad diplomat, even if Bush is worse!Quote:
What we are seeing is Chirac Fighting every single move we make.
That's true, but Blair has his hands tied-up by the UK traditional deep links with Washington.Quote:
Pay close attention to the fact that Blaire DOES understand deplomacy and still believes this is necessary based on info he recieves from Interpol.
As for Interpol, I don't know. Just know about MI-6 considering faked documents as authentic and re-writing a PhD about the 1st Gulf War, saying it's about the present situation, etc...
Once again, Saddam has nothing to with it. The US'd better fight the Saudians or Pakistan.Quote:
Middle Eastern Terrorists flew planes into our buildings.
We are going to war with a Middle Eastern regime.
You're wrong, but I think Chirac should have been with you anyway, just to control you and prevent you from entering a new Vietnam (exactly what's currently happening) and possibly a new Thirld World War (read it Thirld World / War or Thirld / World War). He could have helped reduce the growing anti-americanism wave....Quote:
And if we're right, why is Chirac not with us on this?