Actually, we have. Started way back when France got all "protectionist" about the name Champaign.

Besides, Victor, don't be an idiot; everybody knows if you're washing down a quarter pounder, it's with a Chianti! :D

edit; thats Italian, for those needing to know wine origins.

I'm gonna chime in purely to say that I would just like to see this whole thing over asap. Right or wrong it has begun, and it would be nice to see as few casulties (ANY nationality, and yes, that includes Iraqis - civilians and soldiers) as possible.

And this BBS sure shows an interesting slice of humanity. From bomb the f****rs all the way to the other end.

"it would be nice to see as few casulties (ANY nationality, and yes, that includes Iraqis - civilians and soldiers) as possible."
What you don't get is; that *is* the goal. Saddams regime is a killing machine. . . .and he wants nukes so he can go global.

I know it is the goal. I can still hope.

I don't argue Saddam is a killing machine either. In fact, I'm glad I don't have the responsibility of trying to figure out how to deal with him - it is sort of a lose-lose situation from my perspective.

I can only continue to hold my view that war should have waited. I might be naive in this view, but no more naive than I would be if I assumed that now is the right time for war. I don't know, and neither does anyone else posting here.

Here are some facts to fuel the discussion:

1- Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfovitz and some others are the ones who have been pushing for this war way before 9/11. None of them has been in the military (except Powell, and he was the most moderate). Indeed, the real military guys have advised against the war. Ask Norman Schwarzkopff about it. If war would be, they also advised to send more troops, and Rumsfeld did not listen. Maybe now he will.

2. If you watch other news than CNN or Fox, you will see that american troops are not so welcome by the iraqui people. And the british intelligence had forecast that. Again, Rumsfeld did not listen...

3. Blair and Chirac just met. Blair is upset because no reconstruction contracts have been awarded to british companies. He feels he got screwed...

4. All the Bush buddies who are responsible for the current state of affairs have made their fortune in the oil business, and are now trying to mask this fact: Cheney got out of Halliburton, Condoleeza Rice had a supertanker in her name debaptized...Also, the bin Laden and Bush Families were investing in the same company, the Caryle Group. What does this tell you ?

5. Saying that France has financial interrests in oil with Iraq is true, but the truth also is that ELF-TotalFina has a lot of american pension funds invested in it. So, at the end, it is also american money.

6. We are still waiting to see those weapons of mass destruction.

To conclude, things are a little more complicated than they appear on CNN or Fox News. And I don`t have the whole true picture in the greatest scheme of things either.

Aurel

we fight for all of you to have the ability to agree or disagree! Remember that, cause in Iraq you would be killed if you did not agree!
The USMC now follows this: Be polite, be profesional, and be prepared to kill anyone! This is due to the terroristic like attacks...and I agree!

Your a French Stooge Aurel...or an Idiot.......David Yergen author of "The Prize" agrees with me.......when I state that the invasion of Ireck is about the political stabilization of the region and the ramifications of that instabilities efffect on the Global economy.....Get it....the broad picture people is the GLOBAL ECONOMY.....not whether the Bush family or administration has interests in the oil business or WMD......It's about keeping the engine of the GLOBAL ECONOMY going and the lubricant of that economy is oil...it's about maintaining the status quo..so that French, German, Japanese and American companies can stay in business......that the economies will grow and people will ultimately have the money to buy their groceries and consumer goods because they have JOBS..... No global economy, no companies, no jobs, no money for SUV's, electricity or groceries....... Get it thats what this is all about.......

The picture I get is that the Global economy is now run by a bully who has no other policy than go everywhere in the world impose its model. And the global economy model is:

1. Poor countries with cheap labor make the goods that rich countries can buy. Rich countries have R&D capabilities, and make money out of stocks, patents, etc...

2. At some point, poor countries become richer and want other poorer countries to do the job. Also, they start buying cars, and need more OIL.

3. There is not enough OIL for everybody, so the bully has to go grab what is left before everybody else.

So, the global economy model, based on oil and cheap labor, appears flawed in its very principle. If I am missing something, please let me know. I am just a french Stooge...

Aurel

Certainly the world benifits of this war are multifaceted. I also see the benifits of cheap energy. . .
However -- WMD in the hands of a tyranical element are MORE a threat to "the GLOBAL ECONOMY" than the amount of oil coming out of the region. No workers, or terrified consumers; No global economy, no companies, no jobs, no money for SUV's, electricity or groceries......

Get it thats what this is all about.......

I watched parts of CBC (Canadian news), and I was expecting to see anti-war propaganda, but instead I saw reports about a good reception by the Kurds. The Kurds appear to be very happy to see the US paratroopers. The war is not over, Aurel. You shouldn't be so quick to make broad statements until we have established some stability.

Regarding your other comments, I don't have a response either way.

Jurgen

I am not surprised that the kurds were happy to see US paratroopers. They were gased by Saddam. And cannot wait to make their own state. BTW, that is going to cause problems too, because the turkish do not want the kurds to become independant. Stability in the region is not for soon...

Aurel

Jurgen, Of course the Kurds are happy to see us, they are Sadam's enemy and would be rolling out the red carpet for Hitler if he showed up w/ a couple hundred thousand troops and some tanks! WTF does that prove??

As for the rest of the Iraqi people, they don't seem to be so thrilled to be "liberated" by cruise missiles and a bloody war that is leaving many dead or terrified, but not to worry, our information services will soon have a new rationaliztion for the war. So they will get their love for us back. :rolleyes:

I heard a good analogy, on this:

'the coalition forces are like cops busting a crack-house.

'all the neighborhood knows that, really nasty, bad things have been going on in and around that crack-house, but are PO'd that the cops are just finally showing up. . . and the neighbors are a bit skeptical anything will change after the cops leave.

Well at least we have the "no-force" people to say the cops should leave now. . and never go back.

The "Stay out, let them kill each other" thinking is so above it all.:rolleyes:
http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/angel.gif

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/vuur.gif

Island, Do you have any reliable evidence that people have been "killing each other" any time recently in Iraq? If so, I would love to see a link to it, even the Administration's own PR machine has not had any luck w/ that one. Or have the countless western reporters that have been inside of Iraq for a decade. I am sure that it will infuriate you to admit this, but the entire country was a pretty peaceful place one month ago.

It is well documented that S. Hussein is a brutal dictator that has crushed dissenters in the past, (sometimes w/ the help of Rumsfeld), so I am looking for evidence more recent than 10-15 years ago. Something to bolster the argument for invading them now while weapons inspectors were scouring the country and Hussein was bending over a log to avoid being attacked militarily. Also I am sure that you must have some harsh words for Reagan/Bush Sr./Oliver North and company who illegally supplied the Right Wing dictatorships in Latin America who slaughtered their own people w/ guns that we gave them and the help of the CIA? Just want to make sure that you are not one of those Republican hypocrites that makes it up as they go, that's all. Take care, :cool:

Denis:
 

Just yesterday (Saturday), Bush said in his radio address that an Iraqi woman was hanged for waving at coalition troops. He also stated that there have been other atrocities toward informers and the like such as torture and execution.

The press hasn't been able to substantiate that, but then even as they are "embedded" with the troups, they can't be everywhere the military is.

What's more disconcerting is the recent find of US military clothing in an Iraqi hospital. The US uniforms were blood stained, and the patches and other identifying features were ripped off the sleeves and lapels. Also found in that hospital was a steel rod connected to a car battery, said to be an obvious torture instrument.

So yes, violence still goes on there. The Iraqis are desperate. The "taxi" attack on the supply line is good enough proof to show this.

Come on man. They've now been invaded. Is it hard to understand they might fight like cornered rats?

(edit - and quickly)

I'm not condoning it. But you have to make a distinction between evidence of atrocities before being invaded and after being invaded.

David, Assuming that everything that you just posted is true, would any of it have occured if we had obeyed international law and not invaded this country w/o the approval of the U.N.?? Or would every one of our dead soldiers and their dead and maimed civilians be still alive and healthy as they were 10 days ago? Would there be any American POWs, (that possibly are being tortured as we type)??

You cannot initiate a war, (what is the precedent in that?), with extremely predictable resulting atrocities, then use those atrocities as the as the rationale for starting a war. Sorry, but 1st semester logic class would blow that one right out of the water. This is the reason for anti-war protests, not because every anti-war person believes that Hussein is really a nice guy that has been unfairly slandered, :rolleyes: , but because we do not believe that one dead child is "acceptable collateral damage" when other remedies HAVE NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED! If you were a poor bastard born in Hussein's Iraq, and it was your child, you would feel a little different towards this "liberation force".

The battery in the "hospital" and torn-up U.S. uniform make me sick, and further my stance against this unbelievably stupid and dishonest justification for invading Iraq at this moment in time.

Not to worry, speeder, I'm neither a Republican, nor am I a hypocrite . .. but thank you for your heartfelt concern.

I must say, I'm rather concerned about you though. Statements like;
"so I am looking for evidence more recent than 10-15 years ago."
Leave me believing you must have your head stuck . .. uhm. . in the sand.
Speeder, pull out! .. . .pull out!

Seriously, dude. . you are seriously freaking selective in your hearing / reading.

Pacifism with North Korea seems to be working, right?

I hear your point loud and clear, Speeder, and even agree with you to some extent about our leadership, but I think you live in an idealistic world that does not reflect the real world.

Do you think we should pack up and leave Afghanistan?

Jurgen