Topic awaiting preservation: 12 warheads found (Page 1 of 1)

UN inspectors just found 12 chemical warheads in Iraq.

Ready?

Discuss!

Suddam is a lying bastard. I hope they nail him to the wall. What also strikes me amusing is the fact that several residents of Iraq said quote "I do not think our leader is hiding anything, the americans are just judging our country as terrorists" and "What would he have to hide? I know our leader does not have anything to hide."

Wew, wonder how those tools feel.

Everyone who was against taking military action against Iraq will initially be very dissappointed of this discovery. Immediately following that a search for explanations as to why this is far from a "material breach" of the latest UN resolutions will ensue.

Quote to support that: "It was not immediately clear if discovery of the warheads constituted a 'material breach' of the U.N. resolution requiring Iraq to itemize all of its weapons of mass destruction."

Let's be honest with one another, Iraq had the weapons in 1998 even Ritter said that. Now they claim they never existed. People who don't know they are there are simply living in denial but probably more to the root is the fact that they are philosophically opposed to military action being taken under *any* circumstances short of Iraq invading the continental US.

The UN inspections were specifically designed to delay any military action because two of the Security Council permanent members know that would jeapordize their monetary interests in that country. Blix is a nice guy, of that I am quite certain but he is also the last person you would pick to lead a team if you wanted that team to actually find the weapons that we know are there.

an update, the shells were all empty and inactive, one has been taken away for further analysis

FoxNews Story on Warheads

Apparently they have also taken a physicist into custody, story here.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

[EDIT] I really love this part:

quote:

---

"These rockets are expired.... They were in closed wooden boxes ... that we had forgotten about," he said

---

That's why we found them you numbnut, because you fogot to hide them![/edit]

[EDIT AGAIN]

quote:

---

On Dec. 7, weapons inspectors secured a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas that had first been inventoried by their predecessors in the 1990s. Thursday's find was the first batch of weapons discovered in the new round of inspections in Iraq, which began last November under a new Security Council resolution.

---

The liberal media in America astounds me. This is the first that I've seen or heard of this. I think I'm going to be watching Fox for news from now on. This means we've already found chemical agents in Iraq AND recovered them this time around. They haven't cleaned anything up, just buried it deeper. They still have everything that was found back in the 80's. Sounds like a material breech to me.[/edit again]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 01-16-2003).]

"Everyone who was against taking military action against Iraq will initially be very dissappointed of this discovery."

I'd say, first they'll claim that it's all a conspiracy, and the bombs were planted to find. Then, they'll try to justify it, saying that if America can have bombs, why not Iraq, a very quick turn around from when they were saying that Bush has no evidene, and just wants a war.

Hmmm...unless they can prove, that the warheads were recently emptied, I don't see this as a 'smoking gun' incident.

*shrugs*

So they found some empty warheads...big deal.

Find some that are not empty...and then they'll have something one could call a 'smoking gun'.

Of course, that begs the question, where is the material that was inside the empty warheads? Unless Iraq can account for that, it could be that which the inspecters are looking for...the first real clue...

And there is a significant difference between disempowering a ruthless dictator using international law and legalized force in accordance with the UN Charter, and unilaterally bombing an already virtually destroyed people into the stone age, and then charging them (in their money, labor and resources) for the priveledge of being slaves to West.

Call me cynical, but my guess is, no matter what happens, the general population of Iraq will not be any better off in 10 years. They will still be under a non-democratic government, they will still recieve virtually zero money from the oil under their feet, their waters and soil will still (probably moreso) be polluted by petroleum and other industrial waste.

And of course the people are standing up for their nation. You do to!
Even when confronted with horrible things that American soldiers, government, business, etc has done, most people make up some excuse.

"We were directly responsible for the torture, kidnapping, 'dissapearance', and death of hundreds of thousands of peasants, farmers, teachers and priests in Central America."
"No we weren't."
"Yes we were. Here's the proof."
"Uh...well...we had to do that...uh...because of...uh...the Russians were going to invade us! Yeah, we had to!"

mobrul you and Jestah should get together for tea and scrumpets sometime...

I'm not entirely sure what that means.
Explain please.

http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000652.html

mobrul puts a great deal of thought, research and facts into his posts, as well as a kind heart. So how's that like Jestah in that thread (nothing personal Jestah)?

Jason

While Jestah might me a fine person with which to have tea, I still don't see what you are getting at.

Jestah, in that thread, said a lot of things that were true...he also, unfortunately, dismissed some other parts of truth, didn't present his argument well, and didn't know how to take it to the next level upon further discussion.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm only responding to two posts earlier by Bugs and Dan. I don't disagree with them, or Bush, in the principle -- Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, a ruthless thug, a bully, a lier, a cheat, and should absolutely not be allowed to hold power over his own bowel movements, much less an entire country.

There are international laws set up (that the US wrote, almost single-handedly) to handle this sort of thing and it is hypocritical to say "Saddam's not following the rules, so we won't either."

If we're going to say "we'll free the people of Iraq", that's a wonderful and admirable goal. But, looking at the way we've handled this sort of thing before, I doubt that will really happen. Maybe I'm wrong. Let's hope so.

I've said it before -- the only justifiable reasons to go to war are
a) we follow UN rules,
and
b) we actually really do promote a secular democracy when it is all over.

If someone can guarantee those conditions are met, I say let's go in NOW, WoMD or not. If we are going to turn over a new leaf in Middle Eastern foreign policy, let's do it.
While we're at it, let's work on Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Turkey, Iran, Israel, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia...
From past performance, though, I'm doubting we'll actually agree to installing, even in 10 years, a real, true democracy that will liberate the people of Iraq.

What in there is the trouble?
Is it your view that the people of Iraq deserve to be under a dictator?

In my second statement, I'm trying to point out that the people of Iraq, the average Muhammads and Farrahs, aren't much different from the average Joes and Janes here.
Most will defend their nation, their religion, their homes and their kids.
Most are blind to their country's downfalls (or, at least, most don't want to air their dirty laundry to the world).
Most just want a little control of their own lives, a decent job, and for their kids to have better lives than they did.
Most don't want to be bombed cuz their leader is a jackass.

If we do bomb them (even by accident) becuase their leader is a jackass, they won't think, "Well, our leader is a jackass, and it WAS an accident. OK. Too bad our brother is dead, but, oh well."
They'll be pissed. So would you. So would I.
Worse, if we do take out Saddam, but then enslave them under some other dictator, just as brutal, they'll still be pissed, they'll be doubly pissed, at us for killing their brother and then not really helping them. So would you. So would I.
If we act unilaterally then we are telling the rest of the world, "International law really doesn't matter." I don't want to spread that thought. You?

If we are going to do this, let's do 'the right thing.' Bugs, in that other thread, talked about 'doing the right thing', regardless of what other people think.
I would absolutely agree with that.
In my mind though, acting unilaterally to replace a thug with another (puppet) thug is not 'the right thing.'
My guess is that Bugs, GD, you and most everybody else agree with me on that point, yes?

So the only disagreement between us is our estimation of the chances of us (the US) doing 'the right thing.'
The way I see it, the US won't do 'the right thing', if there is a war. More often than not, especially in this region, we have not done 'the right thing.'

I hope I'm wrong. I suppose there is no way to know until it happens.

What I meant was that you could show him how to be displeased with the US gov't without being a rambling nitwit.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Jestah, care for tea sometime?
I don't have a bloody clue what a 'scrumpet' is, but feel free to bring some if that's your thing.

Tea and scrumpets.

Guess you've never seen Dumb and Dumber.

It's a little difficult to put any sort of government in place if the people aren't willing to work towards making it work. I don't think we could put any sort of government in place that they would accept. Whether it was of their people or not. I agree, the Dictatorship needs to be replaced with something better, not something similar. I just don't see the people trying to make it work. I also don't think that we would be supported in promoting a Secular Democracy in Iraq. There is already a big issue with people believing that we're trying to confrom the world to our standard. If you want us to follow UN strictures then we'd have to follow it in that respect as well. it basically comes down to the fact that it will be nearly impossible to find someone to head a new government that doesn't already hate America. While that isn't a requirement for an Iraqi leader(that he like America) it would certainly be nice to see. It might give us some faith in the ability to make the region more stable, prosperous, and get them to the level of the rest of the world. As it is... We won't help our enemies. Not until we can believe that they can be our friends. There have een NO gestures of good faith from Iraq as yet. We can't trust them and they won't try to prove they can be trusted.

As I mentioned above, we've already found chemical weapons in Iraq. They were tagged from the last inspection, but they were still there. If Iraq is as clean as it says it is wouldn't those weapons have been destroyed or shouldn't we have found them immediately? I think it's obvious that things are being hidden in Iraq. The possibility of getting the government replaced with something better isn't our(The US') responsiblity anyway. Just because we happen to be the strong arm of the UN doesn't mean we have to fix everybody. if we do this on our own... then I can see an argument for that. Otherwise the UN should stick its own neck out and do something for a change rather then slowing everything down. As far as I can tell, the United States hasn't done anything yet. We're ready to, we're applying pressure on Iraq, and we will attack if we have to, but so far we haven't done anything yet. We're following what the UN has told us to do so far. Until UN statements directly conflict with our national security interests I think we will continue to do so.

[Sidenote]Dumb, Dumber, & Dumberer is coming out sometime this year. I don't know when for sure.[/Sidenote]

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

GD, I hear what you're saying. Believe me, I do.
I'm not naive enough to think that democracy 'just works' right out of the box.
Democracy takes a certain mindset on the part of the people and that mindset often takes much time to 'get'.

The facts are, though, that there is a fair amount of support 'in theory' for democracy in Iraq. Whether or not they actually 'know' what they are trying to do, I'm not sure. I'm not sure anybody could, but there are lots of people in Iraq who have said for a long time 'we want democracy'.
Iraq is already pretty much a secular state. One could argue quite successfully that the state itself, the institutions of government, the popular thoughts about government, are more secular than, say, Israel, maybe even Turkey...two close US allies and Turkey is a NATO member.
There is little chance of it, under all but the most extreme circumstances, falling into the control of religious zealots.

At the end of the the last Gulf War, there were a few pro-democracy groups in Iraq who banded together and saw this as a prime opportunity to overthrow Saddam Hussien and try to start a democracy. The Iraqi army was defeated already. This opposition collected weapons left by Iraqi forces. They were reasonably well armed and organized (for a guerrila force, that is) and, by most accounts, they would have performed the coup successfully.

The US, could have done a few things.

A) We could have seen this as a positive move toward democracy, provided air support, maybe intellegence. When the coup was over we could have used this as a massive business opportunity to bring both economies back in line, contribute to the economy of the Middle East, and shown the world that democracy works and is good for the people. (think Kissinger's "domino theory", in reverse)

B) We could have said, "Good idea, but we're not willing to risk anything. You're on your own. Give us a call in 10 years and let's see how you're doing. Maybe we'll talk."
Basically let the 'freedom fighters' do their thing, see how successfully they could pull off this democracy thing. Maybe keep an eye out in case things got too hairy.

What we did instead was take their weapons away and insist that Hussein stay in power. The region would not be 'stable' without the 'iron-fist' of Hussein.

That's the straight up truth.
If you remember your history, you will see that Hussein was always, from way back, a brutal dictator of his people. Always.
He got into power by having members of his family assassinated. He's always been a thug.
For most of that time he was a US ally and nobody (in the US) talked about his murderous ways.
Ask yourself why?

My theory is, he was our friend because he advanced the causes of the western oil industry and western business in general. He could get rich, perhaps share with some of his buddies. In return he would let the oil companies come in and pollute Iraqi water and land, and he wouldn't insist that the Iraqi people get their share of the riches from the resources. He'd keep a tight grip on any 'dissidents' who wanted their share of the spoils. Besides that, he'd keep the Kurds down. Turkey (our ally) likes that idea a lot.

One could argue that there was something to the fact that Hussein, in his secular ways, was a pressure against the religious silliness going on in his backyard. I'll buy that, maybe.
Still, he was, and still is, oppressive of 'his people'.

At some point he started getting greedy. It wasn't that he started being a bully. He was just bullying the wrong people. We fought a war. We won.

We had an opportunity to help (or at least, not discourage) democracy. We did not. We foolishly thought Hussein had learned his lesson and would start being our bully again. We were wrong.

Today we are on the verge of being able to make that decision again. In my view, there has been zero change in circumstances. It would still further our foreign and economic policy to have a brutal dictator in power, not a democracy.

As far as I can tell, the people who get to make the decision (Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, etc) will make the same decision their predecesors made before them. Make sure Iraq is ruled by a brutal dictator.

Like I said earlier, I might be wrong. I've been wrong many times before. I hope I am wrong again this time.
Not trying to be arrogant here, but this time I just don't see it happening.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, there actually IS plenty of support for a democracy in Iraq. That support, though, is not being echoed from the US or the UK.

Iraq Institute For Democracy
Report on path to Iraqi Democracy, by the Iraqi National Congress

Some of that report is a bit optimistic, but their thoughts are in the right direction. Most importantly, there are people who are thinking about it, who want it.
They're not perfect (were our founding fathers?) but they're trying, they want it, they have a good start.
We can support them, offer them alternatives where they struggle, help, advise...or we can push them aside again and install a military general into another dictatorship.

My guess is it will be the later and we will choose a general who has a checkered past already. Then, if he ever gets greedy we can point at something he did 20 years ago and say, 'see, he's a brutal dictator. Look at this list of atrocities. He must be overthrown...' and the cycle will continue.

Of course, anybody who raises the objection that we actually supported him DURING and AFTER said atrocities will be labeled as hopelessly liberal, supporting terrorists, communists, naive, or some other such terms. Then we'll have this same conversation all over again.

[Holy long post, Batman! uh...sorry.]

No apologies necessary. Very nice post.

I agree with most of that. I guess what I was getting at is that this shouldn't be a US effort toward Democracy, whther we want it there or not. And I don't think the people of Iraq will accept our help in that direction anyway even though its what they want. What they MIGHT do is accept that help from the UN(maybe) f the UN would get its ass off its hands and step up to the plate, make an offer to the people of Iraq and say, "We'll help you achieve what you want but you have to show us you really want it. We will free you from your dictator(probably our job) and help you rebuild yourselves into a better richer nation full of opportunities."

If they would do that, things would proabably be much easier for everyone across the table. As it is they aren't willing to take any chances to remove Saddam from power and try to make things better. They are going to wait for us to make a move, chastise us for making that move, but really do nothing about it because we've taken the pressure off their backs and they don't have to make that decision anymore. Beyond that they'll refuse to aid/hinder us in our efforts to fix/wreck Iraq further. It's infuriating to me to know that this could all be fixed if they'd DO something instead of watch and comment from the sidelines. I fit wasn't the US pulling this action and it was unequivocally the UN it'd be far easier to deal with all of this. unfortunetly the UN isn't making choices, or isn't making them fast enough, so we have to do our own thing until they wake up and smell the napalm.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

So,
when are we going to kill this bastard?

Cell 816~ teamEarth ~Asylum Quotes

For the record, Jestah happens to be a Political Science major, and a Liberal, coincidence? I find that ironic.

Although personally GD, I don't think we'll be killing him. Actually I think that Dan had everything right along the lines when he mentioned the conspiricy theory. As a matter of fact, this is liable to end in nothing but bliss. Suddam has already claimed that they were empty, thats excuse 1. Lets count how many he makes before this is all settled.

Why can't they just send in a crack team to Baghdad and kill Saddam? It would be a lot better than blowing up the place.

Which one would you kill? And assuming you knocked off the right one, what happens to the void? With umpteen different factions ready to swoop in, I think you would need some sort of transitionary period to say the very least. We can't just go in and take him out unless we are willing to help rebuild. While I disagree with mobrul's opposition to the war, I totally agree with his desire to see a better situation for the Iraqi people.

There are ways of helping them to stabilize their country but they don't happen overnight. Have we forgotten Afghanistan so quickly? We are still there and helping to keep it from falling apart.

As comfortable as kibitzing is, there is no middle ground here. It's bombs or burkas. Make a move.

. . : slicePuzzle

I think Hussein is smarter than what our (US) govt. gives him credit for. I think he's been several steps ahead of us and the UN inspectors doing the "dangling of the carrot before the horse" routine. He's probably got a much larger agenda than we give him credit for.

The conspiracy theorist in me says that hussein is in cahoots with North Korea.



[This message has been edited by Boudga (edited 01-20-2003).]

A few quotes that might change your mind (please excuse if the translation is not exact, I am french ;-) ) :

"Mankind must stop wars unless wars will end mankind"
JFK

"Wars never hurted anyone, unless those who died"
Salvador Dali

"The war do not allow determining who is right but who survivre"
Bertrand Russel

"We can not more win a war than a earthquake"
Jeannette Rankin

Ultimately all things are known because you want to believe you know.
-Zensunni koan

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 01-20-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 01-20-2003).]

The translations are a bit rough, but we get the idea.

What I'm confused about is - how are these quotes supposed to chnage anyone's mind??

If you're convictions were so weak that a handful of silly quotes could alter them, they weren't really convictions in the first place.

Welcome, Moon Shadow. Perhaps you could tell us a little more about your position in this matter? Are you against *all* war? If you are, then I guess there isn't much to talk about unless you can make a compelling case for it. If you're not against all of it then I would *really* be interested in your opinion. Especially because you're from France.

. . : slicePuzzle

The US and France have always had an interesting love-hate relationship.

We cuss each other's views daily, but it always seems that in the end they are like our liberal little sister.

We're both stubborn and argumentative, but when it comes down to it, we'd liberate them from any oppression or occupation no matter the consequences.

I wish I could believe they would do the same for us.

Hummm... Nice I love arguing (though it is really hard in another language)

Well, I put here those quotes here in order to "alter" the ideas I think are wrong, almost chocking. I mean, on this thread there are people that clearly call to war. Maybe too much TV programs or misinformation lead to such ideas. There is some sort of..."trivialization" of the war, as if the war was nowadays just a matter of days, "we come and drop our bombs and that's all". I intended to change this dreadful point of view by posting a few quotes that sum up what is really war. To answer Bugimus, I am not against all wars. I am against useless and unjustified wars. This posible war in Irack is a good example. Nowadays, USA tends to be the "world's policeman". That's natural : they assume their role of leader. BUT this is NOT natural that with this pretext they prepare a war because they found 12 roquets or think another country own massive destruction weapons... Would you like to have your cities bombed because the world leader thought you might have weapons that could eventually be used against him? No. It would be unjust. So, I am against this war. But I am not against all wars. For example, we (the french) were really happy when the USA came to save us from nazism... It was a war that was justified. But it was still horrible. Every war carry its own horror. I would like to avoid it once more for the world.

I will be happy to argue about this topic with you guys :-)

Ultimately all things are known because you want to believe you know.
-Zensunni koan

Thanks for the reply Moon Shadow and I really appreciate you willing to debate in other than your native tongue.

That being said, what exactly do you think the Iraqi people are suffering under Saddam Hussein? Is it anything like what you, the French, suffered under Hitler?

Also, are you willing to wait for Iraq to get nuclear weapons before getting worried? Is that a risk you are willing to take? If he had nuclear weapons right now, it would be a *very* different situation and far more dangerous to the region.

So I want you to tell me what you think the world should do about Iraq. Do you want to drop all sanctions and forget all of this and then buy your oil and live happily ever after? Do you really think it will be that easy to just ignore the problems that we, the world, face because of Saddam Hussein? Please explain to me a better way and I will listen and consider your plan. Thanks.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-20-2003).]

I think the wrong view taken by most of the world is that we are going into a country where we have no right to go.

That we are only going in because he has "weapons of mass destruction".

This is also the reason they put North Korea on the same playing field as Iraq, asking "why not go into North Korea then? It is because you are afraid and they have no oil."

No.
Iraq lost a war to us.
We stalemated in Korea, we could demand only so much from them.
Part of the ceasefire agreement in Iraq, and the reason we didn't go in and kick his ass out the first time, stated that Iraq stop all weapons of mass destruction production programs, and hand over what remained to the UN inspectors.

He did not do this then, and still has not done it with the new inspectors.
He keeps hiding his weapons, and hiding them, not telling us where they are.
He is supposed to turn them over without us having to search.

Yet we continue to find them.
When will it end?
What more will you allow Saddam to do before war is necessary?

If the world had forced Germany to abide by the harsh terms of their surrender during WWI, instead of turning a blind eye to their proliferation of paramilitary organizations like the Nazi party, or when their DEMOCRACY was turned over to a DICTATOR, or when they continued on to a massive military buildup..
or gee... maybe when they took over fucking Poland.

But no...
The world said... that's enough, I'm sure they'll stop there.
No need for war.
No need for war.
BOOOM!! WORLD WAR II

And even the US stayed neutral from the actual fighting until the Japanese stupidly attacked us.

And perhaps if we had been in it far before Pearl Harbor we could've stopped them at the Maginot Line together with our Allies the FRENCH.

Well we learned our lesson, buddy, and we weren't going to let that happen ever again.
The world's property lines were drawn once and for all, and anyone that breached them would answer to us and those in the NATO.

That's why we took on the USSR and Communist China's imperialistic aggression.
That's the reason for our proxy wars fighting their proxy wars.
That's the reason for the Korean War.
That's the reason for Vietnam.
That's the reason for the Afghani proxy war, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Ronald Reagan!

The wars of the 20th Century continue to define us, and still WE FORGET!

Well the US hasn't forgotten, friend, and we do whatever it takes. As always.

You could say that WWII was a statement that good always triumphs over evil...

but I say it is the lost war against Germany that should've taken place before WWII ever happened that defines the mindset of America.

But the international community is once again too caught up in their own to fight for what's right, so leave it to US.

We're not the world's police... we're the fucking janitors.

So...it sounds to me, moon shadow, that you were happy when it was your country that benefited directly from our intervention, but when it effects you less, you'd rather we stayed out of it?

I also need to reiterate that Iraq is not simply some random country that may have some dangerous weapons...it is a nation lead by a barbaric sadist who is determined to impact the global scene in any way possible, most notably through acts of tyranny and war.

Kind of like...that guy...oh, what's his name....oh yeah: Hitler.


Of course, it is obvious we're talking apples/oranges in many ways by such a comparison...but the parallels are close enough for me.

Does that mean I want to ruch right in and start bombing?

No. But I get extremely tired of other nations (especially nations who have proven themselves throughout history to be far more apt to invade, conquer, and subjugate other nations...as most european nations have) criticizing the US for taking action in cases such as these. If France was a more powerful nation, as they once were, Iraq would be a threat to them instead of us.

What would you say then?

First, welcome to the Asylum, Moon Shadow...enjoy your stay.

With that in mind, on to the topic...

Though I tend to share the belief of being against war (especially since I was in one), I do believe that sometimes, war is necessary. I wish that it wasn't, but sometimes it is. Knowing when it is necessary is the key here, I think. I am for removing Saddam, but against Mr. Bush...I just don't trust his intent. If he was to make the case that the Iraqi people would be put in a much better position after removing Saddam, and that we would support and help them to rebuild their country, then I would be more inclined to support Mr. Bush...but so far, this has not been the case.

As for France...well, I don't think we need to drag France's history into this...nor even mention Napolean...but how about what France is doing in the Ivory Coast? How do you feel about that? How is it possible, for you to say that the US is wrong to pressure Iraq (there is not currently a war there...) when France is doing the same in the Ivory Coast?

Also, consider the fact that Saddam is a US problem...after all, we put him there...and even supported him in the war against Iran...a nasty war, that one...so shouldn't we try to correct the mistake, by removing him? I think, after all the terrible things we have done to the Iraqi people, that we owe them at least that...

I am really happy to see you are active men (or women, I don't know ;-) ) and are proud to express your ideas, and not "basic" ideas. I will try to answer you.

It is true that the governement in Irack can't be looked at like a democraty... Indeed the population in Irak is probably not really free. But the fact is that Saddam is still liked by his people. I mean, he would not be so popular if he did extortions on his people. Oh this just a supposition, there is no facts that can prove what I say. I think under Hitler it was different. But the fact is I only know it by viewing history reports or reading books, as I am only 17 ;-). I can only say what I read or viewed : it was a time where you could be sent to concentration camps for almost nothing, killed, forced to buy in Germany for an year... As far as we know, there are no such things in Irack (but there could have been in the past, I don't know). So, the situation in Irack and in France is not really similar from my point of view.

I am worried about nuclear dangers. This is something that can lead to a nuclear war... I mean, a well placed nuclear roquet, for example in India or Pakistan, and the world would be sent into the WWIII... So there are two different possibilities :
- The countrys owning nuclear devices should be controled or "advised" on the military plan by the ONU for example.
- Every countrys should agree with a mondial treaty and do the best they can to erase every nuclear weapons or research even in the countrys that disagrees with the treaty (it supposes the use of secret services)
One major flaw of this reasoning is that there absolutely no zero danger. As far as I thought about it, I didn't find any answer to this problem. If you have one, please let me know, I will be really interested.

Humm Genis you said many things that reported to history.
"And perhaps if we had been in it far before Pearl Harbor we could've stopped them at the Maginot Line together with our Allies the FRENCH."
Another great subject for any french : we were invaded because the germans attacked by Belgium and the "Ardennes", a moutain chain. They do not attacked the Maginot Line. But our generals thought it would be enough to fortify only the frontier with Germany, because the Ardennes were supposed to be insurmountable. Fools ;-)
"Well we learned our lesson, buddy, and we weren't going to let that happen ever again."
In fact, european nations should have learned from the WWI but they didn't. And when it was almost too late, they were afraid of doing what had to be done, and whe know the result. Now they learned. You are not in question, it was entirely our fault ;-)
Otherwise, I agree with your reasoning.

DL-44: AS I said, I was not happy because it affected France, but because it was a justified and necessary war.

know that Saddam is not the perfect "president". For sure, something need to be done. But there is something I don't understand... For example, why USA do not say anything about China that does not respect the Human Rights and make atrocities everyday ? Why they do not say anything about this ? Mayve because they have interests in China. Maybe. Oh I understood. They maybe do not appear on the "Axis Of Evil List (tm)" ;-). Joke. I really wanted to say that : if the USA are so angry with Irack (their motives are understandable), why aren't they angree with all the others countrys spreading anti-occidental thoughts or owning massive destruction weapons ? The thing you said about France is true. But there is something similar : anyone comitted sins, so why shouldn't we commit sins ? I mean, even if there were errors in the past, this is not an excuse to justify actual errors. Excuse me but it is hard to express what I think in english, I'm sorry.

I agree with you webshaman. And for the Ivory Coast... This is not exactly the same, but this is as bad. France and Ivory Coast have a long past due to colonization and so they always had good and important relationships. So it appears to me a bit more natural that french soldiers are send in Ivory Coast, but I also disagree with it : this is an internal "war", and France do not have to be such implicated in it.

I enjoyed it... I will see you more on this forum when I will have a bit more free time, because as a student I am really occupated...



Ultimately all things are known because you want to believe you know.
-Zensunni koan

well...

his english is at least better than my french anyway.

and I was born Cajun.

MS, I didn't read your entire post, I couldn't get through the first paragraph without laughing at the ignorance.

First of all, the Germans absolutely LOVED Hitler. They loved the fact that he was taking over the world for the fatherland and they loved the fact that he was cleaning the Earth of non-Aryian races. The French didn't love him but that was because he was attacking them. (and kicked your asses by the way) ; )

Secondly, how can you put any faith into Saddam's approval raiting? I would profess my love to George Bush as well if there was a gun pointed at my head. As it is I'm actually free and don't have to lie like that.

So, MS, the comparrison is apt.

Well St. Seneca, that's not exactly true...not all the Germans loved Hitler...the Germans are a curious Folk...they tend to blindly follow...it's not in their nature, apparently, to protest loudly. This comes from living here in Germany for 10 years...

That said, yes, Moon Shadow, you are very wrong to make such assumptions of Saddam, and the Iraqi people, without first researching the issue. I personally do not think that the Iraqi people love Saddam. I think that they live under the very real fear of being punished for any negative actions against Mr. Saddam. Which is also something that the Germans experienced under Hitler. In fact, it is a tactic that has been used since time immorial by just about all Dictators.

DOn't have time for a real reply as I'm at work, but, MS - don't worry about your english - it's better than some of the americans/brits here

Secondly, most of my thoughts are summed up by St Seneca's and WebShaman's posts. I'll be back to add to that though =)