Posted on 03/12/2003 8:30:47 PM PST by The_Expatriate
Edited on 03/12/2003 8:31:33 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Maybe, but you might have noticed that they're still going to do it. This is to be contrasted with your attitude that one should never do something (such as speak one's mind, which is what JasonC did) if it might Increase Some Abstract Threat From Third Parties. I was trying to discover whether the latter idea was what your comment was based on. I think I have my answer, thanks (namely, you weren't directly threatening JasonC, you were threatening him by hypothetical proxy, as I said).
Consequently, if someone is predisposed to worship altars to death and destruction, rather than revere a monument to liberty, they are likely to get the opportunity.
??? Can you bring this down to earth for me? You're off somewhere in metaphor-land.
If those foreign countries are our enemies, sure. Of course. They should be de facto "punished" by virtue of the fact that they unwisely invested in our enemy, and we should make that clear by defeating said enemy, and ignoring the complaints of France.
This behavior would have the additional virtue of discouraging future Frances from investing in our enemies in the first place.
Horsefeathers. If they had invaded first when Germany went into the Rhineland (thus violating all of its treaty agreements ending the previous war), our boys wouldn't be lying in those graves. And Saddam has invaded first enough times now that "first" is long since past. The ceasefire we unilaterally granted in 1991 had conditions attached, and they have fufilled none of them. They haven't ceased fire themselves. His armed forces have been shooting at us twice a week for more than a decade. We propose to get the shooting back over with, and it magically transforms into "invading first".
Their position is not based on any coherent principle, as any examination of the record of their positions and decisions from the first gulf war to today will easily show. Their present statements don't even agree with their public position last fall. A simple explanation of their evolving policy certainly exists, it just isn't a principled one. They are deliberately crossing us, that is all. They just watch what we want, and oppose that. Where they have to stand to do so, can and has bounced all over the map. The underlying issue to them is simply US power, which they consider excessive and would like to see reduced.
Only our allies are connected to bin Laden and al-Qaida. There is zero evidence linking the Ba'athist regime to the September 11th attacks. Anyone still pushing that line of propaganda is seriously dishonest.
You want links to al-Qaida? Look to Saudi Arabia. Look to Pakistan. Look to the independent zone in northern Iraq. Look to Kosovo and Bosnia. And if it's terrorist training camps you want to point at? You would do best to point at US flight schools.
No, you can't justify invading and occupying Iraq on the backs of the dead in New York. That just doesn't wash.
I guess you haven't been paying attention. Check any speech by our President of the last N months. What's that? You disagree with the President over whether Iraq is a threat to our self-defense? And France disagrees?
I don't give a crap. Who nominated France to make the ultimate evaluation of what does and doesn't pose a threat to the United States? In fact, that's the job of our Commander-in-Chief. Not of France. (And not even you.) Yes: when the choice is between "US President thinks X is a threat to the US" and "France doesn't think X is a threat to the US", guess which one I pay more attention to?
The closest thing we have to justifying an attack on Iraq is that it is in violation of Security Council resolutions. In other words, we wish to place ourselves in the position of acting under UN authority. France does not agree with that action.
Aha, listen to what you just said. Notice how you said "France does not agree with that action", instead of "France does not agree that Iraq is in violation of Security Council resolutions". France knows damn well that Iraq is in violation. (Actually, France is in violation.) Yet they cloak what they are doing in peace-loving pacifism and other noble virtues. Because they are trying to stop the action instead of casting a legitimate vote.
And that's why I'm mad at them. Understand now? Again: they have the right to their opinion and all. But the rank hypocrisy ticks me off. Shouldn't it?
In other words, we wish to place ourselves in the position of acting under UN authority.
I don't know about this "we" business. I don't personally care about UN authority. It's not even clear that Bush cares. Mostly, Tony Blair cares. Yes, it would be convenient to have it, but I won't shed a tear if they don't. But here's the 20,000 dollar question: when we don't get it, and we attack anyway, will France shut the f**k up?
If they do, I'll take everything back. If not.....
You act like you own France. You don't. It is a sovereign nation.
Read my lips: I AM NOT ASKING FRANCE TO DO A DAMN THING OTHER THAN TO SHUT THE F**K UP. It is none of their damn business whether one country on a different continent attacks another country on yet another different continent. How does this translate into me saying I "own" France? I just want them to mind their own damn business. You're really saying that's too much to ask?
So mad that you would alienate the entire world by throwing a tantrum until you get your way?
What is this "alienate the entire world" stuff? By "entire world" you mean France, Germany, Belgium, and Iraq's government, right? Or perhaps you mean Muslim extremists too. Uh, too late to "alienate" them, they already hate us. So I'm not gonna be losing any sleep over that.
What should happen to them as a result? We just should not buy stuff from them as long as they keep up such bad behavior. If when you walk into somebody's shop, he pisses on your leg and socks you in the nose, do you say "excuse me", and go on buying things from him? Or do you, at the very least, turn around and walk out?
Indeed.
Why is Iraq our enemy? Somebody ought to be able to give an honest answer to that one.
Oh, for crying out loud! The US is in violation of UN resolutions. Some of our staunchest allies are in violation of UN resolutions. All the President has offered is slogans and veiled ambiguous trial balloons that all deflated when exposed to the facts. It's no wonder that nobody here can come up with a valid reason for waging war on Iraq.
We fought a shooting war against Iraq. That made Iraq our "enemy" by the plain English definition of that term.
And that war didn't actually end per se. There was a "cease-fire" which ended the escalated shooting aspect of the war; the terms of this cease-fire have been continually violated. And in reality the "cease-fire" just meant that we put Iraq under a kind of leaky, half-assed, inept siege (the "sanctions" and "no-fly zones"). We've been periodically bombing them for 12 years. So it's more accurate to say that we've been at continuous low-level war with Iraq since 1991, than it is to say anything else.
And that's why they're our enemy. ("enemy 1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent")
I wonder. Do you know of any other countries that have armed Iraq? Or Iran? Or Pakistan? Or Saudi Arabia? Or India? Or any number of other countries? Does it not bother you that you are trying to cast moral condemnation on another nation for the very thing that your own nation is many times more guilty of?
And, here's what irks me the worst. The US is diverting its energy away from the war on terrorism in order to pursue a vendetta against a nation that's been neutered for over 10 years. For crying out loud, we're crying foul because they have one balsa wood and duct tape toy airplane with a five mile range! That's our lastest "smoking gun."
The inexplicable behavior of France is what this vote is about.
Oh, I see. Because somebody else fought WWII over half a century ago, you get to dictate to them today. Interesting perspective you've got there.
Desert Storm was fought under the authorization of the UN. The cease fire was negotiated under the auspices of the UN. If you want to cancel the cease fire and continue the war, then it must be done under the approval of the UN. Right now the UN says no. Three countries with veto power say they will veto. The US can stamp its feet and threaten retaliation all it likes, but it cannot conduct a just campaign against Iraq on those grounds without the blessing of the UN security council.
Now, if you've got some other justification you would like to put on the table, have at it.
Those planes they supposedly fire at, wouldn't happen to be flying over Iraq at the time, would they? And, when you say "fire," you really ought to mention that what they really have done is turn on their radar.
By the way, I wonder if you might explain how it is that we can justify bombing a ground-to-ground missile installation while conducting No-Fly-Zone missions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.