News Will France Successfully Rescue Their Hostages?

[GENIERE]

How will the French handle their hostage situation?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Dunno, but I have heard that it is wise to never bet against anyone fighting the French.

 

[Adam]

Or you could read some history...

 

[Kalimaa23]

Dunno, but I have heard that it is wise to never bet against anyone fighting the French.

Fortunately for you, this is not true.
Otherwise, you'd still be enjoying the privilege of being a over-taxed British colonial.

 

[Adam]

Remember the episode of The Simpsons when they visited Australia? :D

 

[Gza]

Dunno, but I have heard that it is wise to never bet against anyone fighting the French.

Freedom fries never really caught on, did they?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Look up the term "Vichy France" in the dictionary.

 

[Kalimaa23]

Look up the term "Vichy France" in the dictionary.

I've had it with your childish country-bashing. This was supposed to be a thread about two HUMAN BEINGS trying to do their job being kidnapped.
Yet for some reason you insist on picking on an instance 60 years ago, that you had nothing to do with.
Ever been to France? Spent some time with French people?
What have they done to you that you hold such a grudge?

 

[JohnDubYa]

And I hope the French captives are released.

 

[GENIERE]

Apparenly the French still sport gonads as part of their anatomy. Hopefully the reporters will be returned unharned.

John McCain: "And, as we've been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle."

The US is at war! Can you understand this? We are at war! You are a friend, an enemy, or not worth consideration. Are you friend, a foe, or a pesty gnat?

 

[Gza]

The US is at war! Can you understand this? We are at war! You are a friend, an enemy, or not worth consideration. Are you friend, a foe, or a pesty gnat?

Now I'm just appalled. Are you still bitter over the French having enough sense to not want to be involved in something as blatantly wrong as the invasion of Iraq? If a friend tries to stop you from driving drunk, do you verbally abuse them, and hate them for their sober perspective? I was shocked by the hatred people in the American media, as well as in people such as yourself at the French during the beginning of the war. Don't be angry at people with common sense, it just makes you look devoid of it.

 

[GENIERE]

Bitter? No! Simply not worth considering, small change, irrelevant…

 

[Gokul43201]

The difference between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom was partly due to the lack of small change...

Perhaps Bush should fire the State Dept. and hire you instead ?

 

[humanino]

Now I'm just appalled. Are you still bitter over the French having enough sense to not want to be involved in something as blatantly wrong as the invasion of Iraq? If a friend tries to stop you from driving drunk, do you verbally abuse them, and hate them for their sober perspective? I was shocked by the hatred people in the American media, as well as in people such as yourself at the French during the beginning of the war. Don't be angry at people with common sense, it just makes you look devoid of it.

I am french. Thank you Gza. I would like to add that it is not easy for us either to keep in this attitude. We do feel guilty for not helping a friend at war. Usually, once the decision has been taken, everybody goes to war, even the ones that were against war before the begining. In the present case, not only did we think there were alternative solutions, we also think the situation has/will become impossible to handle. But today, I feel like Switzerland people : we are on the side of the field. We are not part of the "game" (sorry, just don't know a better word for this thought) ... feel useless.

 

[Adam]

I'd rather be completely out of this game, than in a country which supports Bush's war for profit. And yes, I am about to get moving.

 

[GENIERE]

I am french. Thank you Gza. I would like to add that it is not easy for us either to keep in this attitude. We do feel guilty for not helping a friend at war. Usually, once the decision has been taken, everybody goes to war, even the ones that were against war before the begining. In the present case, not only did we think there were alternative solutions, we also think the situation has/will become impossible to handle. But today, I feel like Switzerland people : we are on the side of the field. We are not part of the "game" (sorry, just don't know a better word for this thought) ... feel useless.

Well-stated Humanino. You, as an individual, have earned my respect but I believe your government's policies are an obstacle to peace. Had the French joined the coalition I believe the war in Iraq would not have been necessary.

 

[Gokul43201]

Bitter [over the French]? No! Simply not worth considering, small change, irrelevant…

Had the French joined the coalition I believe the war in Iraq would not have been necessary.

A flip-flop ?

<all in jest ! >

 

[GENIERE]

A flip-flop ?

<all in jest ! >

Please don't count my flip-flops; I have no defense.

 

[Adam]

Had the French joined the coalition I believe the war in Iraq would not have been necessary.

Wasn't the whole point of the "coalition of the willing" to get people on-side for the US invasion?

 

[Matter]

Now I'm just appalled. Are you still bitter over the French having enough sense to not want to be involved in something as blatantly wrong as the invasion of Iraq? If a friend tries to stop you from driving drunk, do you verbally abuse them, and hate them for their sober perspective? I was shocked by the hatred people in the American media, as well as in people such as yourself at the French during the beginning of the war. Don't be angry at people with common sense, it just makes you look devoid of it.

Nice to see some truth! wish my country had, had the b! to say no!

 

[Mercator]

I cannot understand that anyone still supports the disaster in Iraq and blames the French for doing the right thing. Iraq was contained and the US invasion has done exactly what we in Europe expected: make a bigger mess. It has de facto helped the fundamentalist cause in a country that before the invasion was rather a buffer against muslim radicalism. If US voters feel they have to support this, they have to bear the consequences and not start whining about the lack of support of wiser countries. If you want a hint on how to deal with growing fundamentalism, consider the "religious symbols ban" in France, the supposed reason for the hostage taking mentioned here. I guess not many rightwingers here will even try to understand, but France including the muslim population is united more than ever,despite the discussion about the religious symbols. I guess Geniere is right. If France would have joined the coalition, the invasion would not have been necessary, on condition of course that they would have followed the French line of steadfastness of principles without resorting to blind violence (on the wrong target in case of Iraq). But that would not have been so macho, would it? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/international/europe/06SPIEGEL.html

 

[Smurf]

Now I'm just appalled. Are you still bitter over the French having enough sense to not want to be involved in something as blatantly wrong as the invasion of Iraq? If a friend tries to stop you from driving drunk, do you verbally abuse them, and hate them for their sober perspective? I was shocked by the hatred people in the American media, as well as in people such as yourself at the French during the beginning of the war. Don't be angry at people with common sense, it just makes you look devoid of it.

Im half french, thank you Gza.
My grandfather was a commando for the free french.

 

[studentx]

I cannot understand that anyone still supports the disaster in Iraq and blames the French for doing the right thing. Iraq was contained and the US invasion has done exactly what we in Europe expected: make a bigger mess. It has de facto helped the fundamentalist cause in a country that before the invasion was rather a buffer against muslim radicalism.

Leaving Iraq will make the mess even bigger. Not supporting the "disaster" in Iraq now equals supporting a disaster on a biblical scale. Get over your hatred and be constructive.

 

[Mercator]

I, and the French for that matter HAVE been constructive from the beginning. Somebody just did not listen. Which hatred are you talking about? No false accusations please. As for Iraq, you make me think about a kid who just wrecked his car during a trip which his friend did not want to join, and now he wants his friend to get him out of the mess. Of course we will pick you up at the police station, but the explanation to your father YOU will have to do. But we were discussing the French hostage situation here. Interesting is that the initial demand to abolish the " religiuos symbol act" has been dropped and now the thugs demand a ransom. Islam clerics regard France as a country they can discuss with. This should ring a bell if you are looking for solutions for the Iraq disaster.

 

[studentx]

Islam clerics regard France as a country they can discuss with. This should ring a bell if you are looking for solutions for the Iraq disaster.

So you think France can talk the hostages free? Or are you saying that paying millions of ransom is a succesfull strategy to end violence from radical muslims?
Have you ever wondered why radical clerics might discuss with France and not the US? Perhaps its the fact that the US started this war.
So tell me, how would this fact be undone? How are we going to solve Iraqs problems by talking, when one party is unwilling to talk with the other party? And the Americans are NOT the ones unwilling to talk.

 

[Mercator]

Correction: "how are we going to solve the US problems in Iraq." Pardon me for saying, but I would also not start a friendly discussion with somebody invading my home (because a neighbour did something wrong). First get out, then perhaps talk, or what would you do? That "getting out" of Iraq is now very difficult is something of your own making. We may want to help you, but don't make it sound as if your not responsible. There IS a way out, I just doubt that Americans would go so far as to accept that countries like France and many other UN nations are much better placed to clean up the mess you made. In fact I predict that eventually the UN WILL be involved and countries like France WILL do your dirty laundry, and the US will still despise them for it. The reaction of the Americans to the French wise decison not to join the coalition (of willing to make a buck) was one of the most degrading episodes of the last decades. It will not be until Americans see this that they will stop making always bigger mess. By the way, I am not French. I hate the self indulgent pseudo intellectual posers ;-)

 

[JohnDubYa]

I, and the French for that matter HAVE been constructive from the beginning.

Okay, so the sanctions designed to force Saddam Hussein into obeying UN resolutions were killing tens of thousands every year, what was your country's STATED solution to ending the sanctions?

Somebody just did not listen. Which hatred are you talking about? No false accusations please. As for Iraq, you make me think about a kid who just wrecked his car during a trip which his friend did not want to join, and now he wants his friend to get him out of the mess.

Except the kid was driving over to fix another mess that the friend was involved in creating. The UN resolutions and ensuing sanctions were imposed by France just as much as the US. The US and its true allies were willing to enforce the resolutions, which ultimately led to the end of the sanctions.

Islam clerics regard France as a country they can discuss with.

Translation: They think your country can be rolled.

 

[Mercator]

Okay, so the sanctions designed to force Saddam Hussein into obeying UN resolutions were killing tens of thousands every year, what was your country's STATED solution to ending the sanctions?



Except the kid was driving over to fix another mess that the friend was involved in creating. The UN resolutions and ensuing sanctions were imposed by France just as much as the US. The US and its true allies were willing to enforce the resolutions, which ultimately led to the end of the sanctions.



Translation: They think your country can be rolled.

So Islam clerics are automatically thugs for you? Nice departure point to start a discussion.

Tell me, what was the invasion in Iraq for, humanitarian purposes or the perceived threat? Because all Americans I discussed with switch between these options whenever convenient to save them in the discussion. It cannot be both, so take your pick before we discuss further.

 

[kat]

So Islam clerics are automatically thugs for you? Nice departure point to start a discussion.

Tell me, what was the invasion in Iraq for, humanitarian purposes or the perceived threat? Because all Americans I discussed with switch between these options whenever convenient to save them in the discussion. It cannot be both, so take your pick before we discuss further.

Erm, exactly why can't it be both?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Because it just CAN'T, THAT'S WHY!

 

[JohnDubYa]

Okay, so the sanctions designed to force Saddam Hussein into obeying UN resolutions were killing tens of thousands every year, what was your country's STATED solution to ending the sanctions?

Care to answer the question?

 

[Mercator]

OK, I'll answer the question, I was born in Belgium ,I am living abroad for many many years now and I have no clue what the position of "my country" is. It is totally irrelevant, not only because of the size of Belgium, but also in this discussion. Now it's my turn, answer my question. I would like to see what twisted logic you will use to state that the Iraqi invasion was a move against terrorism AND a humanitarian action. Of course this is a fallacy of limited choices, because in reality it was neither of both, so you are free to coem up with as many reasons as you like, just like your president.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Irrelevant? Hardly.

I, and the French for that matter HAVE been constructive from the beginning.

So I should ask, what was France's STATED solution to ending the sanctions? And "I dunno" is not really a viable answer to the question.

I would like to see what twisted logic you will use to state that the Iraqi invasion was a move against terrorism AND a humanitarian action.

Terrorism: Saddam an admitted supporter of terrorism. Existence of WMDs unknown, but Saddam refused to cooperate in establishing their destruction. Saddam in violation of numerous UN resolutions. Invasion settles the question.

Humanitarian. Saddam vicious killer. Sanctions kill children. Saddam now in jail. Sanctions over.

There is nothing mutually exclusive in the two responses.

 

[Mercator]

I dunno. YOU have attacked Iraq, not me, and not the French either, so YOU are liable for an explanation. After all, the situation was contained. If you want to know the details, read Blix's book. There were no WMD in Iraq (the last US supply offered with compliments of Mr. Rumsfeld were used up), Saddam's reign was on it's knees and despite his defiant rethoric he was complying with the UN resolutions. Everybody in Europe with open eyes and mind knew this. We told you but you did not listen. With a good reason. Personaly I have supervised tons of weapons, steel, chemicals and other toys being shipped into Iraq. I talked to Tarek Aziz, not an Islamic radical, but a Christian who believed, like most of the governments in the West that Iraq was the answer to the radicalisation of Islam in the middle east and particularly in Iran. A lot of the toys came from the US (yes, we also shipped German tanks and French planes) It stopped after the first gulf war. By 2003 it was all outdated. The US waited until they knew for sure that Saddam, whom they installed in the first place, was powerless and then they attacked. All you had to do was wait for the right occasion to remove your puppet from power. Clinton knew this, but Mr. W rong chose to act before the spoils of the sanctions were distributed and take the biggest part of the cake for himself. Problem is that the American taxpayer has to pay for most of his adventures, because the Iraqi people (surpirse, surprise) are not so co-operative as to hand over their black gold without a fight. Don't use the humanitarian argument because when Saddam used chemical weapons against his people, they were SUPPLIED BY THE US. The chemical attacks and most of the brutalities you cite date from the time that YOU supplied Saddam. That may be a triviality to you, but most of the world knows this and wonders how you can be so cynical.
So let me recapitulate: you want me to believe that the same guy (Rumsfeld) who supplied the terrible chemical weapons to Saddam in order to wipe out the "Islamic danger" coming from Iran and watched the horrible results of it without a word of dissaproval, later wanted to attack his old friend for humanitarian reasons? On top of this you only want me to believe this when your first argument, that Iraq was a terrorist threat (which it obviously WAS not, but may now become one THANKS to your invasion) has not really the desired effect? What else? Elton John does not like men?

 

[studentx]

I dunno. YOU have attacked Iraq, not me, and not the French either, so YOU are liable for an explanation. After all, the situation was contained. If you want to know the details, read Blix's book. There were no WMD in Iraq (the last US supply offered with compliments of Mr. Rumsfeld were used up), Saddam's reign was on it's knees and despite his defiant rethoric he was complying with the UN resolutions. Everybody in Europe with open eyes and mind knew this. We told you but you did not listen. With a good reason. Personaly I have supervised tons of weapons, steel, chemicals and other toys being shipped into Iraq. I talked to Tarek Aziz, not an Islamic radical, but a Christian who believed, like most of the governments in the West that Iraq was the answer to the radicalisation of Islam in the middle east and particularly in Iran. A lot of the toys came from the US (yes, we also shipped German tanks and French planes) It stopped after the first gulf war. By 2003 it was all outdated. The US waited until they knew for sure that Saddam, whom they installed in the first place, was powerless and then they attacked. All you had to do was wait for the right occasion to remove your puppet from power. Clinton knew this, but Mr. W rong chose to act before the spoils of the sanctions were distributed and take the biggest part of the cake for himself. Problem is that the American taxpayer has to pay for most of his adventures, because the Iraqi people (surpirse, surprise) are not so co-operative as to hand over their black gold without a fight. Don't use the humanitarian argument because when Saddam used chemical weapons against his people, they were SUPPLIED BY THE US. The chemical attacks and most of the brutalities you cite date from the time that YOU supplied Saddam. That may be a triviality to you, but most of the world knows this and wonders how you can be so cynical.
So let me recapitulate: you want me to believe that the same guy (Rumsfeld) who supplied the terrible chemical weapons to Saddam in order to wipe out the "Islamic danger" coming from Iran and watched the horrible results of it without a word of dissaproval, later wanted to attack his old friend for humanitarian reasons? On top of this you only want me to believe this when your first argument, that Iraq was a terrorist threat (which it obviously WAS not, but may now become one THANKS to your invasion) has not really the desired effect? What else? Elton John does not like men?

This is why i said, get over your hatred and be constructive.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I dunno. YOU have attacked Iraq, not me, and not the French either, so YOU are liable for an explanation. After all, the situation was contained.

First of all, I have already explained our attack on Iraq. Now for those that criticize our actions, I want to know what their plan was to end the sanctions.

And I hardly consider a situation where UN resolutions are being broken and sanctions are killing tens of thousands "contained."

And yes, Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions.

And do you have a credible source showing that Rumsfeld supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. This article from The Guardian makes no mention of such an exchange, and The Guardian is no friend of Rumsfeld.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

So let's see the evidence.

You trump up France's and Bill Clinton's means of handling Iraq. Given the incredible loss of life that occurred because of Saddam's pogrom against the Kurds and Shi'ias and the sanctions, what did they do in the eight years prior to Bush' presidency to put an end to it?

 

[Adam]

Plan to end sanctions:
1) The USA ceases it's persecution of the Iraqi people through its influence in the UN.
...

 

[Adam]

Some information about the sanctions:
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/lift/2003/0519sanctiongame.htm

 

[JohnDubYa]

Regarding Resolution 661:

"The sanctions committee was chaired at the beginning of 2004 by the Ambassador of Romania, with the delegations of the Philippines and Pakistan providing vice chairmen."

Your first resource is useless. Not only is it highly biased, but it provides no references and the author does not appear to have worthy credentials.

My understanding of the sanctions is that they were largely imposed by the UN as a means of stopping the US from continuing its attack on Iraq during the first Persian Gulf War. (Maybe I'm wrongm, however.) I do know that Bush wanted to end the sanctions as quickly as possible after the invasion, but the European nations wanted to keep them until they had settled the WMD question. That hardly sounds like the sanctions were instigated solely by the US.

But let's suppose that the sanctions were all due to the US. Did France call for an ending of the sanctions? What about Germany? Why didn't Clinton do something to end the sanctions in the eight years he was president?

 

[JohnDubYa]

I meant your second reference, that is, the YellowTimes piece.

 

[Adam]

Now that is an ad hominem. Rather than discuss the material he wrote, you focus on his credentials, as though that matters.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I focused on his credentials because he provided no references and he writes for a biased news source! When an author provides no references and appears to have a political bent, his credentials are all he has. (I'm not saying that credentials alone are worth much, but at least a credible source is better than no source at all.)

 

[Mercator]

Student, in stead of AGAIN accusing me of hatred, try some argumentation. You read something you don't like and then it's hatred?