I bet, OBL did not bomb the Eiffel Tower. [MP] Not as far as I'm aware. What has that got to do with Iraq?
BTW, what about France's occupation of the Ivory Coast? Why aren't the French demonstrate against their own Government's occupation of an African country? [MP] I don't know, perhaps the French people don't know much, or mind about, that situation.
I think, when it comes to Francophonie and ex-colonies what Chirac wants to forbid US to do, perfectly permissible to France... [MP] So what's your point? That if one nation can do something that's not agreeable to you, the US and UK can do what they like? If you have a problem with France's foreign policy in the Ivory Coast, I suggest you take it to the UN - that's what it's for.
re: The Effect of War on Telecom2. When it comes to the equivalent political term to a woman of disrepute, France comes immediately into my mind. __________________________________________________ Analogies between the political profession and the oldest profession in the world are valid for politicians of EVERY nationality.
Qui, Mon Cher, mais Je pence que la France est la plus grand putaine de toutes les putaines du Monde
This opinion, of France being the grandest whore of them all does not come from what you consider to be a typical arrogant American. I was not born in this country, but came here as a refugee. I do know about France and actually lived and worked there for more than 18 months. I do speak French among other 4 European languages, albeit not fluently enough for a purist. I do admire the "Joie de vivre" and "La cuisine Francaise" and I have read quite a few French authors. And yet....the most pleasant and cultured and educated salon courtesan is still a whore, who will sell you out in a moment to the highest bidder or to the thuggish pimp, with no moral qualms whatsoever. Yes, I know there are plenty of vice everywhere, but the French have unique ability to be soooo damn proud of their lack of morals. The concepts of duty and honor and gratitude are entirely alien to their politicians. This is, after all, a country, which had invented the term "raison d'Etat" in 17th Century when France had first dumped their Allies in the 30-year war. And it went on and on and on. The only reason France excersizes any influence (other than selling weapons to every two-bit anti-american dictator), being a permannet member of the Security Council, is due to outright naivette of US and Brits who had put them there as "one of the four victorious allies" after WWII. Victorious my a*s! Probably Poland had better credentials to be placed in the Security council - at least they resisted Germans (and Russians from the East) in 1939 6 weeks - twice as long as the French in 1940!And they had real Resistance. And sure the French had payed back with gratitude. First thing tehy did is they withdrew from military structure of NATO which was very convenient given 300,000 GI's in Germany between the France and Warsaw Pact.
Anyway, having lived "behind the iron curtain" for the first half of my life I do have one regret. I just wish that before the collapse of Soviet Union, the Russian tanks had actually rolled in into Paris and taught the arrogant SOB's a good lesson in peace loving in human rights.
re: The Effect of War on Telecom Okay Ibeenframed, three things.
1. The reasons being given for war without UN approval are based on "America's right to defend itself" not "doing Iraqi's a favour". I don't see Iraq as a threat to anyone other than it's own citizens, certainly not the US.
2. There's a lot of unpleasant people running contries around the world, is it just a coincidence that the one we're proposing to attack is sitting on the world's 2nd largest oil reserves? I don't think so.
3. I and lots of other people (not just in europe either) see war as the last option after all political attempts at making Iraq a better place have failed. I don't believe that has happened yet, and don't remember the Iraqi's asking for our help either (although I'm not suggesting they definately wouldn't want it.)
re: The Effect of War on TelecomI have been fascinated by the various threads on this article. There is obviously tremendous passion for all sides of every argument.
Some posts have delved in America's "arrogance" in purporting itself to be the world's policeman. My question is who will be the world's policeman if NOT the U.S.??? Russia? France? Someone needs to keep the crazies (like Saddam) in line and, for better or worse, the U.S. is the world's lone superpower at this moment in history.
If the U.S. decided to take a more passive stance on the world stage, would things be better or worse? It would seem that things would be a lot easier (and cheaper) if U.S. policy were to not interfere in anyone's business but its own. The end result would be a significant increase in chaos; don't think for a moment that the very notion that America MIGHT get involved hasn't detered madness.
There are many different opinions as to how to deal with Saddam. He has had 12 years to prove to the world that he has disarmed. I am of the opinion that the his time has run out. It would be nice to have a U.N. concensus of agreement, but GWB is correct in stating that he doesn't need one.
I have seen only limited articles on the subject of the Iraqi people's feelings on an impending war. One (CNN.com or MSN.com?) dealt with Kurdish shephers in Northern Iraq. The town in focus has a ratio of 8 women for every man due to years of plunder under Saddam. The old men of the town (there are almost no young men left) pray daily for the U.S. bombing to start.
re: The Effect of War on Telecom1. I agree to the fist statement, but I feel that the real reason is that war will provide short term economic benefit to the US, but that the reconstruction will provide long term benefits. Here is where it gets good, I am sure that the US will award most of the contract to US companies, the US economy is weak and in reality there is no relief in sight.
2. Maybe there is one person that needs to be added to that list, US owns, hell he does not care about the number of innocent victims, it is no skin off his back the issue is 7000 miles away. Just another point on that reserve is that it sure will bring back oil barrel prices in check to about $20/barrel, and good old american muscle cars will rule the day again, with a reflected $1.00/gallon price
3. Like you said war should be the last resort. Period. However politics and greed will determine what the outcome is, France sure has a lot to lose, they have two pending oil/gas contracts to develop in Iraq, and on a much more political issue, there are over 6 Million French citizens of Arabic descent, and about another 3M illigals of Arabic descent living in France. That represents over 30% of the vote. Germany is in a similar situation on a smaller magnitude. The point I am getting at is that people will do what is best for themselves to remain in power.
4. A very sad fact is that Americans are still in support of going to war. Was 9-11 not enough of an awakening. America felt the pain, put yourself in the shoes of the general population of Iraq, it will be a tragety. Do you really want to become targets when travelling abroad, the amount of anti-american
re: The Effect of War on Telecombigot noun [C] DISAPPROVING a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong. -------------- The message I wrote was in response to an "funny" americans-are-evil-and-stupid message that was later removed from lightreading for copyright infringement.
The purpose was to throw mud back at people who were throwing mud. And to show that for every single silly and unfair thing that can be said about americans, american politics and american culture, similar things could be found in europe.
The comments I made were not meant to be nice or fair. But neither was that piece that was removed.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomActually, as much as I do not like Sadam Hussein, changing the regime would be a major political issue (That Oil reserve is way to important for all countries, China, Europe, US, and would probably cause more harm to Iraq then benefit. Must I remind you of Shah in Iran (He was a US puppet, and he was put in power thanks to the US, and good did he do some major damage, look at Latin America, Vietnam, etc...
The only way to control his is with Military and Economic sanctions, and assuring that the international banking community rejects all his hidden accounts. The sad part is that it take time to institute change, for a country to become politically stable you need two generations of peace.
Bush, mediocre as he is, has surronded himself with some very astutue people, thanks to his father, and these people are playing the numbers daily. With regards to the war bill, hell that will come out of Iraq's Oil. The US and the country it deams as allies, would enjoy articfically stabalized prices to stimulate the economy.
re: The Effect of War on Telecomskeptic: The message I wrote was in response to an "funny" americans-are-evil-and-stupid message that was later removed from lightreading for copyright infringement.
-------------------------
Didn't see that post, sorry to have taken your comments out of context.
re: The Effect of War on TelecomThe reasons being given for war without UN approval are based on "America's right to defend itself" not "doing Iraqi's a favour". I don't see Iraq as a threat to anyone other than it's own citizens, certainly not the US.
This reply in two parts: (1) Sadam is a match in a powder magazine. He has demonstrated the willingness to use what ever means he has to forward his megalomanical ambitions. If supplying terrorist with anthrax or plutonium for dirty bombs would achieve that - he will. That is America's self interest. (2) You don't dispute Sadam's sadistic past. Are you proposing to keep him in power to continue torturing, killing and maiming his own people? What do you propose to prevent the systematic torture that every Iraqi interviewed has spoken of?
There's a lot of unpleasant people running countries around the world, is it just a coincidence that the one we're proposing to attack is sitting on the world's 2nd largest oil reserves? I don't think so. You have this argument backward - it's the second largest oil reserves that make Sadam what he is. Without the revenue stream from that oil he couldn't afford a 1 million man army (in a region where nobody has an army even 1/10 that size) and more tanks then any country other than the US, Russia, and the UK. He couldn't afford the programs to develop WMDs. Without all that oil he would have to do his mass murder the old fashioned way -with macheteGÇÖs and automatic weapons - you know - like Rwanda.
I and lots of other people (not just in europe either) see war as the last option after all political attempts at making Iraq a better place have failed. I don't believe that has happened yet, and don't remember the Iraqi's asking for our help either (although I'm not suggesting they definately wouldn't want it.)
What diplomatic efforts have been left out of the previous 16 UN resolutions? What has not been tried in the previous 11 years? What measures or diplomatic efforts have created in Sadam a willingness to now actually co-operate?
Diplomacy assumes both parties are reasonable, and willing to come to a common agreement. The WORLD has demanded Sadam to surrender his weapons GÇô Sadam refuses. What do you propose that has not been proposed? What has not been tried other than war? More talk? More time? If the US doesnGÇÖt act the UN will become irrelevant.
By the way GÇô your posting about worrying about traveling abroad because of terrorists is vile. This is truly a statement of cowardice. You permit terrorism to succeed, encourage further terrorism by hiding, ignoring the evil they do GÇô as long as its not to you. A women is raped in the street in front of your house GÇô are you the kind who closes the shades and turns the tele up so you donGÇÖt have to listen to her scream because your afraid he will come after you?
GÇ£The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.GÇ¥ Edmund Burke
I bet, OBL did not bomb the Eiffel Tower.
[MP] Not as far as I'm aware. What has that got to do with Iraq?
BTW, what about France's occupation of the Ivory Coast? Why aren't the French demonstrate against their own Government's occupation of an African country?
[MP] I don't know, perhaps the French people don't know much, or mind about, that situation.
I think, when it comes to Francophonie and ex-colonies what Chirac wants to forbid US to do, perfectly permissible to France...
[MP] So what's your point? That if one nation can do something that's not agreeable to you, the US and UK can do what they like? If you have a problem with France's foreign policy in the Ivory Coast, I suggest you take it to the UN - that's what it's for.