Opinions on the French

[yeat182]

What are your opinions on the french and their recent policies regarding the US and Iraq. (we all know how inept the frech army is so lets try and stay away from that)

just to get things started, Bill Oreilly is suggesting supporting a boycott of french products.

[zach]

I support their efforts to prevent a needless war.
Boycotting french products won't do anything.

[The Nephilm]

I would respect their opposition to the war if it were for worthy causes (i.e the inevitable death toll and terrorist reprocutions). However it is all too aparent that their motived are behind their own oil interests in Iraq...

then again they have a fair argument and reason to oppose US invasion. The US is going to steal their oil!

[yeat182]

yeah, i mean, if they had some good reasons and went about it in a more responsible manner, i wouldn't have a problem with the french, but that isn't how they opperate.

[yeat182]

take that, France! (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/index.html)

[your moms hot]

Originally posted by yeat182
take that, France! (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/index.html)
worst idea ever and heres why:
a) a boycott on french products isnt gonna get them to change their mind...theyre french..theyre stubborn..
b) i refuse to eat freedom fries if they support a war that has nothing to do with freedom
c) france is a lot cooler a place to live than the shithole im living in now


so my thoughts on the french??? listen to them. dont fucking go to war....
thats about it

[yeat182]

the iraqi citizens will be free....thats freedom.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by your moms hot
worst idea ever and heres why:
a) a boycott on french products isnt gonna get them to change their mind...theyre french..theyre stubborn..
b) i refuse to eat freedom fries if they support a war that has nothing to do with freedom
c) france is a lot cooler a place to live than the shithole im living in now


so my thoughts on the french??? listen to them. dont fucking go to war....
thats about it
Freedom Fries, gay idea. Boycott, not a bad idea. If you dont like the US then GET THE FUCK OUT. The only reason France doesnt want to go to war is because they have never really won a war. I hope if we never go to war that Saddam beats the shit out of France while no body is looking.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
the iraqi citizens will be free....thats freedom.

go pick up the latest rolling stone (with avril lavigne on the cover...gag) and read the articles written by the war reporters and photographers...and then tell me that's your definition of freedom

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Freedom Fries, gay idea. Boycott, not a bad idea. If you dont like the US then GET THE FUCK OUT. The only reason France doesnt want to go to war is because they have never really won a war. I hope if we never go to war that Saddam beats the shit out of France while no body is looking.

so should the colonists who resented taxation without representation left america for another country???

[yeat182]

why would anyone listen to the french? they've been back stabbing the US since the 60's when the pulled out of the NATO mutual protection pack, and then cost the lives of 2 US pilots when they refused to let the US use its airspace to attack Libya in the 80's. now they just want to act like a powerful country and stand up to the US, if they put some pressure on Iraq there would be no need for a war becasue no one would be enabling Saddam to continue his little hide and seek game, he'd have no one on his side and he'd be faced with either exile or a war against the world, but instead the french keep him in power by continually stalling in the UN calling for more time for inpectors how have already proven that Iraq is in material breach of resolution 1441.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
so should the colonists who resented taxation without representation left america for another country???
wasnt a country back then stupid doosh

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
go pick up the latest rolling stone (with avril lavigne on the cover...gag) and read the articles written by the war reporters and photographers...and then tell me that's your definition of freedom

not living in fear that saddam will have you killed for fun or because you said something you shouldn't have is freedom. kinda like how you can express your dissent for the war and not fear that you're gonna wake up dead tomorrow. the irai's can't.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
not living in fear that saddam will have you killed for fun or because you said something you shouldn't have is freedom. kinda like how you can express your dissent for the war and not fear that you're gonna wake up dead tomorrow. the irai's can't.
word to that

[your moms hot]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Freedom Fries, gay idea. Boycott, not a bad idea. If you dont like the US then GET THE FUCK OUT. The only reason France doesnt want to go to war is because they have never really won a war. I hope if we never go to war that Saddam beats the shit out of France while no body is looking.
tell me how i can get the fuck out of here...if i had my way..id be chillin out in paris right now..or at least a city..but unfortunately im 17, still in high school, and unable to live on my own, much less move to another country...so..im stuck in this shithole called connecticut.

and a general comment..have any of you actually met a french person??

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
why would anyone listen to the french? they've been back stabbing the US since the 60's when the pulled out of the NATO mutual protection pack, and then cost the lives of 2 US pilots when they refused to let the US use its airspace to attack Libya in the 80's. now they just want to act like a powerful country and stand up to the US, if they put some pressure on Iraq there would be no need for a war becasue no one would be enabling Saddam to continue his little hide and seek game, he'd have no one on his side and he'd be faced with either exile or a war against the world, but instead the french keep him in power by continually stalling in the UN calling for more time for inpectors how have already proven that Iraq is in material breach of resolution 1441.

france isnt on saddam's side idiot...and in case you're not aware, france isnt the only country opposed to war...and with the exception of governments of countries, no country supports this war (i am obviosuly referring to the people)

and just to let you know, it's blix that has been requesting more time to conduct his inspections...france isnt the sole country responsible for making the decisions of the un...get your head out of your ass

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
wasnt a country back then stupid doosh

yea, ever heard of great britain?

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
not living in fear that saddam will have you killed for fun or because you said something you shouldn't have is freedom. kinda like how you can express your dissent for the war and not fear that you're gonna wake up dead tomorrow. the irai's can't.

go read the articles and tell me that what's going to happen to the iraqi people is anything like that

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
france isnt on saddam's side idiot...and in case you're not aware, france isnt the only country opposed to war...and with the exception of governments of countries, no country supports this war (i am obviosuly referring to the people)

and just to let you know, it's blix that has been requesting more time to conduct his inspections...france isnt the sole country responsible for making the decisions of the un...get your head out of your ass

france, by not standing up to iraq, is enabling them to continue their game of hide and seek with the inspectors, rather than fully disclosing what weapons they have. frace constantly calls for more time for inspectors, rather than millitary action. they are supported by other countries yes, but they are leading the charge. the iraqi's haven't lived up to the resolution and should not constanly be given more time to meet those obligations.

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
france, by not standing up to iraq, is enabling them to continue their game of hide and seek with the inspectors, rather than fully disclosing what weapons they have. frace constantly calls for more time for inspectors, rather than millitary action. they are supported by other countries yes, but they are leading the charge. the iraqi's haven't lived up to the resolution and should not constanly be given more time to meet those obligations.

france doesn't govern the un..whether they call for more time or not doesnt mean the un will decide to give it

[your moms hot]

^^^^^
hes right..in fact..for most of the past decade..the un has been the bitch of none other than the us....but now that its actually being used for its original purpose (ie to avoid war)....the us cant handle it

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
france doesn't govern the un..whether they call for more time or not doesnt mean the un will decide to give it


i never said they did govern the UN, but if they supported the US and UK, saddam would have no one stalling for more time on his behalf. France, since it has veto power, is a powerful member of the UN and has influence over the other members of the secutiry council, so if they were to vote of a resolution of action, it wouldn't pass because either france would veto (which they are saying they will do now) or they would convince some of the other nations to vote against it. if you've watched any of the press conferences with the French ambassador and prime minister, they always claim that the inspectors need more time, this stalls things in the UN putting off any vote for action and saying that there should be no set deadline for Iraqi compliance, which only benifits Iraq because it gives them more time to shuffle around their hidden weapons.

[your moms hot]

Originally posted by yeat182
i never said they did govern the UN, but if they supported the US and UK, saddam would have no one stalling for more time on his behalf. France, since it has veto power, is a powerful member of the UN and has influence over the other members of the secutiry council
obviously your knowledge in international politics is lacking...let me help fill you in..
5 members of the security council have veto power:
the us
great britain
france
russia
china

of these five...only 2 support a war with iraq...that leaves 3 others with veto power...now supposing france DID support a war with iraq...russia and china still oppose one...
now..im having trouble with your assertion that "if france supported the us and uk saddam would have no one stalling for more time" care to elaborate??

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
i never said they did govern the UN, but if they supported the US and UK, saddam would have no one stalling for more time on his behalf. France, since it has veto power, is a powerful member of the UN and has influence over the other members of the secutiry council, so if they were to vote of a resolution of action, it wouldn't pass because either france would veto (which they are saying they will do now) or they would convince some of the other nations to vote against it. if you've watched any of the press conferences with the French ambassador and prime minister, they always claim that the inspectors need more time, this stalls things in the UN putting off any vote for action and saying that there should be no set deadline for Iraqi compliance, which only benifits Iraq because it gives them more time to shuffle around their hidden weapons. \


why aren't you bitching about russia? why aren't you bitching about germany? both have said they would use their veto power on any resolution authorizing the use of military force..why don't you bitch about them

you obviously don't comprehend the idea of the inspectors asking for more time...don't you find it more likely that the un listens to the people conducting the inspections than a single member nation...you're trying to place the blame all one country and thats uncalled for

and the france telling the council that inspectors need more time isnt stalling...one country's opinion doesnt reflect that of the entire council, its council of mulitple countries, therefore, mulitple countries are responsible for extending the time period...im not sure if you're aware of this but the united states is stalling right now because they know they don't have the votes...not france

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
\


why aren't you bitching about russia? why aren't you bitching about germany? both have said they would use their veto power on any resolution authorizing the use of military force..why don't you bitch about them

you obviously don't comprehend the idea of the inspectors asking for more time...don't you find it more likely that the un listens to the people conducting the inspections than a single member nation...you're trying to place the blame all one country and thats uncalled for

and the france telling the council that inspectors need more time isnt stalling...one country's opinion doesnt reflect that of the entire council, its council of mulitple countries, therefore, mulitple countries are responsible for extending the time period...im not sure if you're aware of this but the united states is stalling right now because they know they don't have the votes...not france

you're right, both france and russia have signed oil agreements with saddam, so they don't want him removed from power, and the germans have sold saddam a lot of weapons since the last gulf war and have become increasingly anti-american in the past year or so, their chancellor won his election on an anit american platform. and you obvioulsy don't get the fact that france is a memeber of the UN and therefor has a say in what it does and doesn't do. It is not the position of the inspectors to decide if time is up or not, it is the job of the security council, which france is a permanent member. as for the US stalling, they would not be waiting for the vote if the French would support resolution 1441 which they voted for. When it comes time to vote, the French will veto and that will contradict their stance on 1441, where it calls for "serious action" if Iraq does not comply. They will be admitting that saddam has not complied because they call for more time for the inspectors, and yet they do not want to uphold the language they agreed upon and support "serious action".

why does france constantly give Saddam the benifit of the doubt, what has he ever done to deserve that?

[yeat182]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80769,00.html

he makes some good points about the french..

[evil zach]

the iraqi citizens will be free....thats freedom.
If your definition of freedom involves a puppet government that submits to US will so their cash supply dosn't get cut off OR another dictatorship that pretends to be allies with the US to get their money and military technology and then use them against their own citizens, then yes, the iraqis will be free.
Freedom Fries, gay idea. Boycott, not a bad idea. If you dont like the US then GET THE FUCK OUT. The only reason France doesnt want to go to war is because they have never really won a war. I hope if we never go to war that Saddam beats the shit out of France while no body is looking.
1) Dose that mean you should leave if there are democrats in the white house
2)To say the french don't want to go to war because they have never won a war is rediculous. Do I really need to remind that france would not have been liberated in the second world owar if it wasn't for the french resistance.
3)Saddam dosn;t have the capicty to beat the shit out of anybody that isn't "in his neibourhood"
not living in fear that saddam will have you killed for fun or because you said something you shouldn't have is freedom. kinda like how you can express your dissent for the war and not fear that you're gonna wake up dead tomorrow. the irai's can't.
I guess living in fear that you will be arrested, not told why, denyed you right to a lawyer is better?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by evil zach
If your definition of freedom involves a puppet government that submits to US will so their cash supply dosn't get cut off OR another dictatorship that pretends to be allies with the US to get their money and military technology and then use them against their own citizens, then yes, the iraqis will be free.

1) Dose that mean you should leave if there are democrats in the white house
2)To say the french don't want to go to war because they have never won a war is rediculous. Do I really need to remind that france would not have been liberated in the second world owar if it wasn't for the french resistance.
3)Saddam dosn;t have the capicty to beat the shit out of anybody that isn't "in his neibourhood"

I guess living in fear that you will be arrested, not told why, denyed you right to a lawyer is better?


no my definition of freedom would not include living under a dictiorial regime that slaughters their own people with chemical weapons, or has them killed for fun or for dissenting opinions....what is your definition or does your sarcasm not permit one?

[evil zach]

mine dosn't either. but war won't stop that. More inocent Iraqis will be killed, by both US and Iraqi forces.
You didn't answere me about the puppet government

[yeat182]

less iraqis will be killed in this war than have been killed by saddam during his reign. why do you assume that any government will be a puppet government?

[xnotedgex]

Originally posted by yeat182
you're right, both france and russia have signed oil agreements with saddam, so they don't want him removed from power, and the germans have sold saddam a lot of weapons since the last gulf war and have become increasingly anti-american in the past year or so, their chancellor won his election on an anit american platform. and you obvioulsy don't get the fact that france is a memeber of the UN and therefor has a say in what it does and doesn't do. It is not the position of the inspectors to decide if time is up or not, it is the job of the security council, which france is a permanent member. as for the US stalling, they would not be waiting for the vote if the French would support resolution 1441 which they voted for. When it comes time to vote, the French will veto and that will contradict their stance on 1441, where it calls for "serious action" if Iraq does not comply. They will be admitting that saddam has not complied because they call for more time for the inspectors, and yet they do not want to uphold the language they agreed upon and support "serious action".

why does france constantly give Saddam the benifit of the doubt, what has he ever done to deserve that?

god, hello, idiot...france isnt the only country with veto power....france isnt the only country that has said they will use their veto power....france has influence but is not the sole country responsible for making decisions for the council...if france wanted more time but none of the other countries did...what would happen?? that's right jackass. stop placing the blame for the delay of the government's lame and foolish plan on one country

and there was no time limit placed on 1441, therefore they aren't contradiciting anything...just because they'd like valid reasons before they begin the slaughter of 10,000's of people doesn't make them allies of iraq...you seem to come up with an excuse for every country to be against this war, but how bout china?? why is china against this war? where's there contract with iraq??? you think it may be possible that you right wing shits are really the only one's who can support an unjustified war

[yeat182]

Originally posted by xnotedgex
god, hello, idiot...france isnt the only country with veto power....france isnt the only country that has said they will use their veto power....france has influence but is not the sole country responsible for making decisions for the council...if france wanted more time but none of the other countries did...what would happen?? that's right jackass. stop placing the blame for the delay of the government's lame and foolish plan on one country

and there was no time limit placed on 1441, therefore they aren't contradiciting anything...just because they'd like valid reasons before they begin the slaughter of 10,000's of people doesn't make them allies of iraq...you seem to come up with an excuse for every country to be against this war, but how bout china?? why is china against this war? where's there contract with iraq??? you think it may be possible that you right wing shits are really the only one's who can support an unjustified war

idoit, if france was the only country that wanted more time and none of the the others did, you know what would happen? they'd have a vote and France would veto and nothing would get done, and thus Iraq would again get more time.

as for 1441, there are valid reasons, such as Iraqi non-complicance. Iraq has had 12 years to comply and they haven't done it, all they've done is stall for more time. If you want to see what is supposed to happen when a country disarms, check out the Ukraine and South Africa. they declared their weapons, and the inspectors witnessed their destruction, they didn't spend 12 years looking under every rock trying to find the weapons. why don't you do a little bit of research before you fire off lame arguements.

[evil zach]

Originally posted by yeat182
less iraqis will be killed in this war than have been killed by saddam during his reign. why do you assume that any government will be a puppet government?
Saddam is preparing for urban warfare, That mean a grotesqe amount of civilian casualties.
Why do I assume that any government will be a puppet government? One word: Afghanistan.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by evil zach
Saddam is preparing for urban warfare, That mean a grotesqe amount of civilian casualties.
Why do I assume that any government will be a puppet government? One word: Afghanistan. It will probably be a puppet government for a few years, but once Iraq settles down and becomes stable, Iraq will be ready to choose their own leaders with no interfrerence.

[yeat182]

a "puppet" government is still better than saddam any day of the week.

[Alex Djaferis]

message from a european: Many of us here consider the French as arrogant, we think they are something like the USA is to the world, but France to Europe. No disrespect meant, thats just how many feel. I dont know what to feel personally, i think France opens there mouth a bit too much, Germany is alot more powerful then them, and they at least try to keep diplomatic issues under control and do not speak out in radical terms unless they feel the need that they have to. Frances days were long over, but they for some reason still love clinging on to a fake dream that they still are a massive power.

[yeat182]

exactly, and that is reinforced by the fact that if the stand up to the big bad US then they'll be considered a superpower again. the truth is, France is the one that needs the UN security council, without that veto power they are nothing, and they are doing the most render the council obsolete. the US, britain, russia and china could all remain powerful with out the UN, but all that france has as an equalizer to those nations is its veto, and if they don't start enforcing the very resolutions they've voted for, the whole council will become useless and france will have shot itself in the foot.

[Alex Djaferis]

Originally posted by yeat182
exactly, and that is reinforced by the fact that if the stand up to the big bad US then they'll be considered a superpower again. the truth is, France is the one that needs the UN security council, without that veto power they are nothing, and they are doing the most render the council obsolete. the US, britain, russia and china could all remain powerful with out the UN, but all that france has as an equalizer to those nations is its veto, and if they don't start enforcing the very resolutions they've voted for, the whole council will become useless and france will have shot itself in the foot.

Aye, and if the sec council was done by power, Germany would be there and not france.

[yeat182]

this will offer some insight into the relationship between france and iraq (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81079,00.html)

[DonnieDarko]

I didn't know there was a politics forum this is awesome...well i've replied to the one sided, pidgeon hole viewed idiot known as yeat 182 a few times in another subject. And right now i'm far too furious to even reply with facts, because i just want this fool to fucking go read some anti-war facts just so he can voice his opinion instead of passing on propaganda from right wing u.s controlled channels such as CNN, and FOXnews lol of course those sites will be supporting "you're thoughts" they are the most biased places of information you can find, well except for the whitehouse.org thing that you've already posted.

Please think about this rationally and think what gains and losses each country would recieve from this war

the u.s losses would be this. Soldiers deaths.

there gains would be. A lot of capital and a huge economic gain, a ton of oil, controll over a country, etc.

iraq will gain: ....

iraq will lose: well too many to list

thanks for your time yeat

oh and thank god for Evil Zach and xNoteEdgex for their great comments, or i would have gone insane trying to talk to this yeat character.

[evil zach]

Thank you for joing the ranks of the commie pussy pacifist, erm, I mean liberals.;)

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by DonnieDarko
I didn't know there was a politics forum this is awesome...well i've replied to the one sided, pidgeon hole viewed idiot known as yeat 182 a few times in another subject. And right now i'm far too furious to even reply with facts, because i just want this fool to fucking go read some anti-war facts just so he can voice his opinion instead of passing on propaganda from right wing u.s controlled channels such as CNN, and FOXnews lol of course those sites will be supporting "you're thoughts" they are the most biased places of information you can find, well except for the whitehouse.org thing that you've already posted.

Please think about this rationally and think what gains and losses each country would recieve from this war

the u.s losses would be this. Soldiers deaths.

there gains would be. A lot of capital and a huge economic gain, a ton of oil, controll over a country, etc.

iraq will gain: ....

iraq will lose: well too many to list

thanks for your time yeat

oh and thank god for Evil Zach and xNoteEdgex for their great comments, or i would have gone insane trying to talk to this yeat character. Wow, that must be the worst argument I have ever heard. Where can I start?
1. Right wing propoganda from CNN?? Are you crazy? CNN is the most left-wing "news" station there is out there.
2. American gains: Safety from a maniacal dictator, stability for the Middle East, lower oil prices (because there will be more competition). You said "controll over a country". That's not true. We will have it under control until things settle down, then we will set up a democratic government.
3. Iraqi gains: HUGE! Their people will have freedom from a ruthless, repressive dictator who kills his own people. They will be free to develop as a society and do as they wish without Saddam threatening to kill them.
4. Iraqi losses: A repressive dictator. Granted, some of their infastructure will be destroyed, but the US will rebuild it. This war would help everyone.

[your moms hot]

Originally posted by yeat182
exactly, and that is reinforced by the fact that if the stand up to the big bad US then they'll be considered a superpower again. the truth is, France is the one that needs the UN security council, without that veto power they are nothing, and they are doing the most render the council obsolete. the US, britain, russia and china could all remain powerful with out the UN, but all that france has as an equalizer to those nations is its veto, and if they don't start enforcing the very resolutions they've voted for, the whole council will become useless and france will have shot itself in the foot.
whats with all this talk about france wanting to be a superpower?? how do you know this?? by refusing to support a war that i believe is unjust does that make me want to be a superpower??

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by your moms hot
whats with all this talk about france wanting to be a superpower?? how do you know this?? by refusing to support a war that i believe is unjust does that make me want to be a superpower?? France wants to regain its power that it had pre-WWII. They want to do this by being the Anti-America. They figure that they can gain political influence by taking the exact opposite side of the US on every issue, and, because so many people hate us becuase of our power, they will gain power. Quite simply: they're jealous.

[your moms hot]

Originally posted by WithStamin
France wants to regain its power that it had pre-WWII. They want to do this by being the Anti-America. They figure that they can gain political influence by taking the exact opposite side of the US on every issue, and, because so many people hate us becuase of our power, they will gain power. Quite simply: they're jealous.
says the french ambassador to these message boards.....
oh wait. thats right..i forgot. you live entirely across the world from paris...in fucking oregon...you cant get any farther from france before you start going back...

point is...i dont think anyone here can truthfully say what the french's motives for opposing this war are...maybe some economic reasons..but then again..there are economic reasons to enter this war...
consider this:
the company that will be contracted to clean up any oil spills/disasters that saddam might cause was headed by none other than our very own DICK CHENEY!!

[WithStamin]

Yes, I am guessing. Here's why: there's no logical reason not to kick Saddam out of power. Yes, France has a good reason being their huge contracts. I think it's the combination of being power hungry, money, and stupidity that's making up France's position.

[your moms hot]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Yes, I am guessing. Here's why: there's no logical reason not to kick Saddam out of power. Yes, France has a good reason being their huge contracts. I think it's the combination of being power hungry, money, and stupidity that's making up France's position.
i think i already admitted to the economic benifits for the french's support of iraq...but you never proved to me that theyre wanting to be a superpower or theyre jealous of americans position in the world..

[DonnieDarko]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Wow, that must be the worst argument I have ever heard. Where can I start?
1. Right wing propoganda from CNN?? Are you crazy? CNN is the most left-wing "news" station there is out there.
2. American gains: Safety from a maniacal dictator, stability for the Middle East, lower oil prices (because there will be more competition). You said "controll over a country". That's not true. We will have it under control until things settle down, then we will set up a democratic government.
3. Iraqi gains: HUGE! Their people will have freedom from a ruthless, repressive dictator who kills his own people. They will be free to develop as a society and do as they wish without Saddam threatening to kill them.
4. Iraqi losses: A repressive dictator. Granted, some of their infastructure will be destroyed, but the US will rebuild it. This war would help everyone.

The worst argument? First of all i can't argue with you idiots because you only go by one side the u.s shit you've been fed see numbers 2 through 4.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by DonnieDarko
The worst argument? First of all i can't argue with you idiots because you only go by one side the u.s shit you've been fed see numbers 2 through 4. Huh? Can you re-state that, slowly?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by DonnieDarko
I didn't know there was a politics forum this is awesome...well i've replied to the one sided, pidgeon hole viewed idiot known as yeat 182 a few times in another subject. And right now i'm far too furious to even reply with facts, because i just want this fool to fucking go read some anti-war facts just so he can voice his opinion instead of passing on propaganda from right wing u.s controlled channels such as CNN, and FOXnews lol of course those sites will be supporting "you're thoughts" they are the most biased places of information you can find, well except for the whitehouse.org thing that you've already posted.

Please think about this rationally and think what gains and losses each country would recieve from this war

the u.s losses would be this. Soldiers deaths.

there gains would be. A lot of capital and a huge economic gain, a ton of oil, controll over a country, etc.

iraq will gain: ....

iraq will lose: well too many to list

thanks for your time yeat

oh and thank god for Evil Zach and xNoteEdgex for their great comments, or i would have gone insane trying to talk to this yeat character.

where are your "facts"?

the us will lose: some soldiers, however not only the US but the world has much more to lose if saddam ever used his WMD.

the us will gain: an ally in the middle east, and any economic benefit will be shared with all the countries that liberate Iraq.

iraq will gain: freedom from a repressive regime that kills its own citizens for no apparent reason. they will enjoy the same freedoms that we all take for granted now. they will finally have the sanctions against them lifted allowing the country to grow and proper through the legal sale of their oil.

the iraqis will lose: a psychotic dictator who wants to remain in power at all costs, including plunging the nation into a war it cannot possibly win and one that could easily be avoided if he would only meet the criteria of the UN resolutions. and yes, we all know that some Iraq citizens will probably die, but many more will live in the long run.

why is it that all the anti war people automatically assume that the worst case scenario will happen?

[DonnieDarko]

The reason i don't post many "facts" is because most of the time facts you are recieving have been changed or been put in sentences so it makes it seem bad, do have any idea how hard it is to find facts that are just facts and not some biased piece of info.

I read everything and take in all these "facts" then i form my own opinion. Facts arn't everything especially when they've been doctored.

Also i'd like to state the fact that i do state facts.

"America is in it's biggest economic decline since the stock market crash" and thats the truth, and since war generates such a big economic rise, in fact there is no better way to gain economy, and if you can't see that this war isn't about terrorism nor is it really about sadam, it's a war on money, capital, and oil.

[BrandNewRock05]

Whatever. This has gotten a little off subject. Which is the french are a bunch of pussies.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
Whatever. This has gotten a little off subject. Which is the french are a bunch of pussies.

Because they don't agree with your fascist president.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
Because they don't agree with your fascist president.
MY fascist president? OUR president is far from fascist. He is actually one of the most left republicans this country has had in awhile.

[The Nephilm]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
MY fascist president? OUR president is far from fascist. He is actually one of the most left republicans this country has had in awhile.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA

You owe me a new monitor. I just spit cofee all over it.

Holy fucking shit that was so wrong...

1) BUSH HAS DONE NOTHING BUT SUCK BIG BUSINESS' DICK SINCE HE'S BEEN IN OFFICE

2) HE HAS BEEN ON A RAMPAGE TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT

3) HE IS GOING ON A FUCKING CRUSADE INTO THE MIDDLE EAST WHICH WILL INNIVITABLY LEAD TO MORE WARS, MORE DEATHS, AND MORE RIGHT WINGED PRESIDENTS FOLLOWING HIM.

All of those are DISTINCTLY very RIGHT WINGED things to do. You've got to be fucking kidding me.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA

You owe me a new monitor. I just spit cofee all over it.

Holy fucking shit that was so wrong...

1) BUSH HAS DONE NOTHING BUT SUCK BIG BUSINESS' DICK SINCE HE'S BEEN IN OFFICE

2) HE HAS BEEN ON A RAMPAGE TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT

3) HE IS GOING ON A FUCKING CRUSADE INTO THE MIDDLE EAST WHICH WILL INNIVITABLY LEAD TO MORE WARS, MORE DEATHS, AND MORE RIGHT WINGED PRESIDENTS FOLLOWING HIM.

All of those are DISTINCTLY very RIGHT WINGED things to do. You've got to be fucking kidding me.
He gave $10 mil to Africa for AIDS. That's stupidly liberal.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA

You owe me a new monitor. I just spit cofee all over it.

Holy fucking shit that was so wrong...

1) BUSH HAS DONE NOTHING BUT SUCK BIG BUSINESS' DICK SINCE HE'S BEEN IN OFFICE

2) HE HAS BEEN ON A RAMPAGE TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT

3) HE IS GOING ON A FUCKING CRUSADE INTO THE MIDDLE EAST WHICH WILL INNIVITABLY LEAD TO MORE WARS, MORE DEATHS, AND MORE RIGHT WINGED PRESIDENTS FOLLOWING HIM.

All of those are DISTINCTLY very RIGHT WINGED things to do. You've got to be fucking kidding me.
1) Bush has been helping out big business. Thats because the economy is in the shitter. Trickle down. Instead of blowing money on programs that give slackers money, he gives it to businesses so they can employ.
2)His intent is not to destroy the enviroment. He has commited no malice towards the enviroment. And when it comes between human comfort and the enviroment, I'll choose human comfort any dy.
3)He is on a mission to remove evil, nothing else.

Yes he is conservative, I never said he wasnt. I said he is one of the most left republicans in a while. Name a president (republican) more left than he is.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by WithStamin
He gave $10 mil to Africa for AIDS. That's stupidly liberal.
I say you let Darwin take care of Africa

[yeat182]

Originally posted by The Nephilm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHA

You owe me a new monitor. I just spit cofee all over it.

Holy fucking shit that was so wrong...

1) BUSH HAS DONE NOTHING BUT SUCK BIG BUSINESS' DICK SINCE HE'S BEEN IN OFFICE

2) HE HAS BEEN ON A RAMPAGE TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT

3) HE IS GOING ON A FUCKING CRUSADE INTO THE MIDDLE EAST WHICH WILL INNIVITABLY LEAD TO MORE WARS, MORE DEATHS, AND MORE RIGHT WINGED PRESIDENTS FOLLOWING HIM.

All of those are DISTINCTLY very RIGHT WINGED things to do. You've got to be fucking kidding me.

yeah, i don't really see how he has been on a rampage to destroy the environment... he certainly isn't as concerned about it as say, Al Gore, but i think its a bit much to say he's on a rampage to destroy it.

[yeat182]

also, right wing doesn't equal fascist. republicans want less government and more freedom for individuals, fascists are totalitarian and want to run every aspect of peoples lives.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
also, right wing doesn't equal fascist. republicans want less government and more freedom for individuals, fascists are totalitarian and want to run every aspect of peoples lives.
yes. And wouldnt you agree that Bush Jr is one of the more left republican presidents we have had in a while?

[yeat182]

compared to John Ashcroft, then i would say yes...but i wouldn't say he is all that left, he's fairly moderate but no more so than most republicans.

[WithStamin]

I'd say he's a left-center republican. That $10 mil to Africa really pushed him to the left for me.

[yeat182]

yeah, thats true...