Get others to help out in Iraq

[fred_smith]

Surging? No one except yourself and Bush want to send extra troops to Iraq.

And of course the Iraqi government but I don’t suppose that counts?

But the point is, the UK has given proportionately the same amount of troops to the conflict as the US has with regards to the size of its army. Now are you going to keep debating this or just keep your damn mouth shut?

Oh you pathetic little soul. I suppose the fact that Estonia or Latvia have given even more as a per capita number is equally relevant? No. The US is the only show in that theater that counts for anything and the addition or subtraction of British forces from the equation is marginal to the success or failure. Why are you so incensed by this fact? No one has said that your efforts are not appreciated but please…

If I was Prime Minister,

“were” prime minister. It’s hypothetical…

I would cut off any support for the US altogether.

Why?

The more I read into the history of Anglo-US relations regarding both conflicts and economy, the more I see that our “special relationship” has been rather one sided.

Yes, you are one of those tiresome nationalists who believes that your nation’s greatness was somehow “stolen” by the US and its evil crafty clever ways. Funny that when the Germans used to say that between the wars, they were just viewed as pathetic. Actually, it is not so much German that you sound but French. You could be one of those French that runs around bewailing the fact that their generals were too civilized to fight the British properly and thus lost out in India, North America and Europe. Right… Anyway, whatever it takes to accommodate your insecurities on the subject. Don’t let the facts get in the way!

You can stuff your damn war up your own arse as far as I’m concerned, you arrogant fool.

Oh, it is definitely “OUR” war. Now, when and if your government votes itself out of the action, then it becomes ours to deal with but make no mistake, Tony Blair and the British were instrumental in the planning and promotion of this conflict and nothing you say changes that. You can “wise” up and leave if you like but it does not absolve you of the actions taken in the first four plus years. Alternatively, others may choose to blame you for cutting and running and destroying British “honor.” Up to you. Anyway, my fight is not with the British in any way, shape or form. I am having a fight with you personally about something that you has caused you to become highly emotionally charged. Get over it.

Great. Then you won’t mind if we pull out, kick your troops out of the UK and have our airbases back, and also stop all the logistical support that your troops and aircraft need. We might actually be able to save a bit of cash and cut some taxes.

You can vent all you want about this but your opinion is nothing but barstool hot air. Your nation hosts US troops because you need them and want them and they save you a lot of money that you would have to spend on defense yourself. Everyone knows this and I don’t care who is in office, this policy is not going to change, not from your end. It would take an American decision to remove them. Maybe we will elect another Carter?

Lack of respect for any assistance the UK gives you, anywhere.

The assistance the UK provides to the US is predicated first and foremost on the national interests of the UK. Second, the support given to the US while appreciated is marginal to the overall success or failure of any such efforts. Third, I respect the assistance that the UK has given. Fourth, I do not subscribe to your views that somehow the UK is playing a crucial effort and has sacrificed far more than the US and because of this, the UK has been weakened or taken advantage of by the US. Fifth, I think you are one of those sad would-be nationalists who cannot accommodate themselves to the reality of the 21st century and the role that the UK will play in that world. What is the difference between you and some yob that goes out and beats up immigrants of various ethnicities at footie matches or while returning home from the pub on Friday or Saturday night?

I can’t remember saying or insinuating that the UK was core to any effort Fred.

Great. Then we finally agree. Case closed.

You seem to be getting yourself all mixed up. But you obviously don’t appreciate anything at all. I can tell by the tone of your bitter posts.

Bitter? Me? After this screed that you have written? hahaha

Great. Then we’ll merely withdraw. I’d like to see my tax pounds spent elsewhere.

That will be a decision for your government and one that it will make when and if it is good and ready to do so, but I still do not have a word from you about why Afghanistan is “wise” but Iraq is not? What’s the difference?

If you read the news, Fred, even your nation isn’t willing to make the effort anymore.

The majority of those polled are no longer willing to do so. Don’t confuse that with the nation or our government. Again, I have always been fully cognizant of the weakness of the American public when it comes to long, drawn-out, confusing campaigns. This one, like Vietnam,will ultimately be won or lost in the living rooms of America. Rumsfeld, in my view, was a genius. Had he sent 500,000 troops, they would all be home now. They would not have been able to stop an insurgency and the calls to end the effort would have been unstoppable. There are no massive protests in the US because we don’t have a draft and we can deploy forces without public pressure becoming unbearable.

Final word. You are way too sensitive to perceived slights that have never been made. I fully respect the British nation and efforts. But I am serious when I tell you that you have become prickly to the point of being French. If I closed my eyes and read this post (haha) I would have assumed that you were French. Seriously. Think about that and reform and repent before it is too late.

Love Fred

[GUEST2]

[quote]

Yes, only you have the sophistication to understand the “nuances” of the Middle East. No, it was not a question of only awaiting bad consequences. I think that there were other factors at work as well. [/quote]

Really what theories do you have ? I m sure you have a lot of immagination. As much as to get your fellow citizen accept with prooves Saddam had WMD.

The fact that we did not want a clash of civilization because we will suffer much more than you.
The fact that we knew it would be a pandora’s box open to all dangers, for Al qaeda to recruit more, for Al qaeda to use this country as a training camp, for the Iranian to destabilize even more the area .

Yeah right you repeated you were going to stay for 60 years. Good luck with that. I really wish you success.

Maybe now that Bush realizes he won t have access that easily to Iraqi oil , he is turning to greener energy source .

[fred_smith]

Really what theories do you have ?

It is my firm belief that France wanted to use the opportunity to form a multipolar world by getting an axis of Paris, Berlin and Moscow together. What do you think of that idea?

I m sure you have a lot of immagination. As much as to get your fellow citizen accept with prooves Saddam had WMD.

I will repeat this again and again and again and again and again and again. France believed Saddam had wmds. Germany believed that Saddam had wmds. They merely did not want to ACT on it. See point No. 1 as made above for the reason why.

The fact that we did not want a clash of civilization because we will suffer much more than you.

Yes, that was one factor but in my view it was not the main one. See point one again.

The fact that we knew it would be a pandora’s box open to all dangers, for Al qaeda to recruit more, for Al qaeda to use this country as a training camp, for the Iranian to destabilize even more the area .

Strange that the official French statements of the time said nothing of the sort.

Yeah right you repeated you were going to stay for 60 years. Good luck with that. I really wish you success.

Thank you.

Maybe now that Bush realizes he won t have access that easily to Iraqi oil , he is turning to greener energy source .

Cynicism is no longer sophisticated. It is so passe as to have become tiresomely retro. IF it were all about oil, we would not have left Kuwait. IF it were all about oil, we could be actively working to overthrow whichever prince is in charge this week in Saudi Arabia to install one of our own. IF it were all about oil, why don’t we control any of it in Iraq right now? Cynicism is lazy. It is trite. It is boring. It is so French… haha

[Truant]

60 years has got more to do with control of the oil than law and order. Also, not many people debating this today will even be around in 60 years.

[GUEST2]

[quote] It is my firm belief that France wanted to use the opportunity to form a multipolar world by getting an axis of Paris, Berlin and Moscow together. What do you think of that idea?
[/quote]

If it was the case, ask yourself, why, after we were right about this war in Iraq, did we not use it to still form this Paris Berlin and Moscow axis and to use it even more against you ?

And I see nothing wrong in a multipolar world.

Yes, that was one factor but in my view it was not the main one. See point one again.

Glad you begin to understand this.

[quote]
Strange that the official French statements of the time said nothing of the sort.[/quote]

Because everything must be officially said ?

[quote]
Cynicism is no longer sophisticated. It is so passe as to have become tiresomely retro. IF it were all about oil, we would not have left Kuwait. IF it were all about oil, we could be actively working to overthrow whichever prince is in charge this week in Saudi Arabia to install one of our own. IF it were all about oil, why don’t we control any of it in Iraq right now? Cynicism is lazy. It is trite. It is boring. It is so French… haha[/quote]

Yes we were cynic before the war.
But you are a master in this too. Something you beat us again.

[fred_smith]

If it was the case, ask yourself, why, after we were right about this war in Iraq,

What were you right about? The French believed that Saddam had wmds.

did we not use it to still form this Paris Berlin and Moscow axis and to use it even more against you ?

An election occurred in Germany. Perhaps, you may have heard of it. A certain Angela Merkel was elected and she wanted nothing to do with Chirac’s “multipolar” world.

And I see nothing wrong in a multipolar world.

Why is one needed? Either we are democracies who respect human rights or we are back in the 19th century engaging in power politics. Which do you want?

Because everything must be officially said ?

That is how it is usually done. I understand that there are behind-the-scene activities, but… these were not the major reasons being given by the French administration. In addition, French political analysts were pointing only partially to the Muslim vote in France. The main reason most attributed the opposition to was Chirac’s desire to raise France’s profile by creating a multipolar world with France in the center of one of those poles. Naturally, this did not go over well with most of Europe but I imagine that this irony is lost on you and many other French.

[quote]
Yes we were cynic before the war. [/quote]

Yes. You were.

But you are a master in this too. Something you beat us again.

I disagree. Explain how so. What does the word mean to you?

[GUEST2]

[quote]
What were you right about? The French believed that Saddam had wmds.[/quote]
They probably have doubts whether he had or not. But we did ask for more time for the inspectors whereas you were in a rush

Ah well what s the point to discuss all this again. It is not going to make it any better now. Too late.

Why is one needed? Either we are democracies who respect human rights or we are back in the 19th century engaging in power politics. Which do you want?

OK in that case, plenty more countries really waiting to be freed from their dictators.

[quote]
That is how it is usually done. I understand that there are behind-the-scene activities, but… these were not the major reasons being given by the French administration. In addition, French political analysts were pointing only partially to the Muslim vote in France. The main reason most attributed the opposition to was Chirac’s desire to raise France’s profile by creating a multipolar world with France in the center of one of those poles. Naturally, this did not go over well with most of Europe but I imagine that this irony is lost on you and many other French. [/quote]

It was probably not about votes. Only a minority of the french muslims borned inFrance can vote. The rest do not vote. It was more a matter of living in peace.
I know Chirac s ego, but in that case why has france not backed Putin when he lashed out at US foreign policy a few weeks ago ? Maybe you missed his statement. Here it is.

[quote]
Putin criticises US foreign policy
Saturday, 10 February 2007 19:20
Russian President Vladimir Putin has criticised the US for what he said was an attempt to force its will on the world.

Speaking at an annual gathering of top security and defence officials in Germany, he said and said US actions abroad had made conflicts worse.

Mr Putin attacked the concept of a ‘uni-polar world’, implying the US is the sole superpower, saying it has nothing in common with democracy.

AdvertisementThe Russian President accused the US of repeatedly overstepping its national borders in questions of international security, a policy that he said had made the world less, not more, safe.

The new US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who was the top US official at the conference, said Mr Putin’s comments were ‘interesting and very forthright’.

However a Russian spokesperson said Mr Putin was not trying to provoke Washington.[/quote]

rte.ie/news/2007/0210/putinv.html

Yes. You were.

Yes and proud of having been cynic for you before the war.

I disagree. Explain how so. What does the word mean to you?

You re right. You are sarcastic.

[fred_smith]

Germany and other nations in Europe made no bones about their distrust of Russia’s Putin. Now, that Putin is using Russian energy to pressure Europe, well, that little Axis disappeared even from French radars, non?

Finally, one good thing about France… IMMEDIATELY after the US chose to invade, the French were back to supplying us with all manner of intelligence. To my way of thinking, the French have proved to be the best allies since the UN vote debacle not only in Afghanistan and in combatting terrorism worldwide but also in Lebanon and in dealing with Iran.

My question to you, Sharlee, is this: If we were so wrong to view Saddam as a threat, why is France so involved in stopping the Iranian uranium enrichment program? Do you believe that the mullahs are trying to enrich uranium? Is it a threat to France? How is that different from the assessment of Saddam and his capabilities and why would it be different in this case? Not complaining in the least about French policy now mind you, just curious as to how YOU see this.

[GUEST2]

Chirac said on an interview here that he repeated many times to Bush he was going to make a big mistake. What was the point to argue after you invaded. Hence the support (even before Merkel was elected…)

I don t know what to believe about Iran. I know there is a guy who said he wanted to erase Israel. His comment is enough to take him seriously.He is a threat to global peace.

I just hope that the iranians themselves will not follow that guy and vote him out as per their last elections started to show.

Quote
The final results of last week’s city council elections in Iran exhibited a serious backlash against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and cast a shadow over his popularity. His closest allies conceded defeat to the competition, namely the moderate conservatives and reformists in Tehran, as well as most major cities in Iran. This election, the first since Ahmadinejad came to power and the hardliners gained control of monitoring ballots, was riddled with ambiguity and suspicion
Unquote
worldpress.org/Mideast/2614.cfm

I m only voicing my views here.
Sarkozy, probably the next president, said it is a tough question but he will always prefer talks and sanctions than war.

[Dangermouse]

@Fred Smith

Oh you pathetic little soul.

Coming from you?

@Fred Smith

suppose the fact that Estonia or Latvia have given even more as a per capita number is equally relevant?[/quote]

They don’t have heavy commitments elsewhere, though.

@Fred Smith

]No. The US is the only show in that theater that counts for anything and the addition or subtraction of British forces from the equation is marginal to the success or failure.

Then do it yourself then - which is what I’ve told you before. Why are you complaining? Why should British forces and the British government adhere to policies that mostly benefit the US and it’s rather warped agenda in the Middle East?
You’re crying out for all the help from other countries that you can get on other threads, but in this thread, you belittle any help you have got. You’re an arrogant hypocrite.
Are you saying that 25% extra free stubbed on to your forces should be snubbed at?

You seem to be forgetting that the UK has a military which is still disproportionate to the country’s land area and population, even after cutbacks. You’re lucky we have 7000 troops to send.
I’d like to see further investment in the military rather than cutbacks, but with the current spineless government, I seriously doubt that this will ever happen.

What you also fail to consider is that it is a show of support which in some respects counts for more than the number of troops on the ground.
Logistical and support staff which are given to the US military is also of pretty vital important to your strategic operations, like troop movements and air to air re-fueling.

@Fred Smith

Why are you so incensed by this fact? No one has said that your efforts are not appreciated but please…

I’m not incensed. It’s just your imagination.

[quote]Quote:
If I was Prime Minister,

“were” prime minister. It’s hypothetical…

Yeah, whatever

[quote]Quote:
I would cut off any support for the US altogether.

Why?[/quote]

Well, your government and that of the EU generally uses Britain to it’s own ends when it suits. It’s about time the government of the UK stood up for itself instead of being a general dog’s body.
I assume you’ve been aware of the recent friendly fire tribunal and the amount of evidence that was hidden from the UK government by the US recently. So much for mutual co-operation. Your government is an arse.
It’s ironic that during the end of the Cold War, the US was calling and actively supporting more dis-armament in Europe, but now it has it’s own agenda it suddenly wants European countries to start re-arming. Which is it to be? I’m confused.

[quote]Quote:
The more I read into the history of Anglo-US relations regarding both conflicts and economy, the more I see that our “special relationship” has been rather one sided.

Yes, you are one of those tiresome nationalists who believes that your nation’s greatness was somehow “stolen” by the US and its evil crafty clever ways.[/quote]

Not at all, but certainly a lot of military technology was. My beef is not that it happened, but the constant lack of acknowledgment, appreciation and credit that is given to other countries (not just the UK) for technologies and skills passed to the US. Have you considered that the US space programme would be non existant without Dr. Wernher Von Braun as would your nuclear weapons? The US would not be the super power it now is… You want to go on and debate this with me, because the Anglo/US defence industry is one of my preferred fields of interest and I have a lot of un-biased material in a fairly large personal library at my fingertips, some of which outlines many dodgy dealings between the US, Europe, the UK and Israel.
And FYI, I’m about as much as a nationalist to the UK as i am to the US. I’ve dis-owned both of them and funnily enough, I belong to both of them. Something you’d do well to remember before you consider me to be an outsider who snipes at the your country that “can do no wrong.”

Funny that when the Germans used to say that between the wars, they were just viewed as pathetic. Actually, it is not so much German that you sound but French. You could be one of those French that runs around bewailing the fact that their generals were too civilized to fight the British properly and thus lost out in India, North America and Europe. Right… Anyway, whatever it takes to accommodate your insecurities on the subject. Don’t let the facts get in the way!

Blah blah blah…totally irrelevant to the topic.

Oh, it is definitely “OUR” war. Now, when and if your government votes itself out of the action, then it becomes ours to deal with but make no mistake, Tony Blair and the British were instrumental in the planning and promotion of this conflict and nothing you say changes that.

Embarassing, isn’t it?

You can “wise” up and leave if you like but it does not absolve you of the actions taken in the first four plus years. Alternatively, others may choose to blame you for cutting and running and destroying British “honor.”

There is more honour in admitting you are wrong and walking away, surely?

Up to you.

What is?

Anyway, my fight is not with the British in any way, shape or form. I am having a fight with you personally about something that you has caused you to become highly emotionally charged.

Typos and syntax are a fucking arse, right Fred. Especially when you try to correct other peoples’ to try and score points.

I’m not emotionally charged, Fred.

Get over it.

Over what?

You can vent all you want about this but your opinion is nothing but barstool hot air. Your nation hosts US troops because you need them and want them and they save you a lot of money that you would have to spend on defense yourself.

We don’t really need US troops in our country. Even 5 years ago, there were documents circulating which proposed a drastic cut in the number of US troops in Britain. It is also a great fact that you get far, far more out of the hosting than the UK does. Far more.
Do some research.

As for your last sentence,

“the British Armed Forces constitutes one of the largest militaries in Europe, though only the 28th largest in the World.[2][3] The British Armed Forces however have the second highest expenditure of any military in the World and this high spending on (relatively) small numbers of personnel and on research, design and procurement of defence equipment means that they are one of the most advanced forces.”

Fourth, I do not subscribe to your views that somehow the UK is playing a crucial effort and has sacrificed far more than the US and because of this,

My views? Did I actually say this or are you pulling things out of mid air again Fred?

…the UK has been weakened or taken advantage of by the US.

Or this?

Fifth, I think you are one of those sad would-be nationalists who cannot accommodate themselves to the reality of the 21st century and the role that the UK will play in that world.

You’re so wrong.

What is the difference between you and some yob that goes out and beats up immigrants of various ethnicities at footie matches or while returning home from the pub on Friday or Saturday night?

Seriously, Fred - and I mean this in all sincerity - I’m pretty disgusted at this comment and it is really uncalled for. You can call me anything you like in a bullshit argument, but comparing me to scum to try and win points in an argument is totally below the belt. You really should be ashamed and knowing you personally, I am quite disappointed in you and I have lost a lot of respect that I had for you up until now.
I’m not going to read any further or entertain the rest of your post. I’m going to leave it at that.

[games]

@Dangermouse

You’re crying out for all the help from other countries that you can get on other threads, but in this thread, you belittle any help you have got. You’re an arrogant hypocrite.

Sorry to correct you there but Fred personally assured me in this thread that he is completely aware of the PR dimension of this war.

Yep … you read this right. What he posts on forumosa is the best he is able to come up with in that regard.

Go figure.

[politbureau]

[MikeN]

You liberals, always looking on the dark side. Why, John McCain is in Iraq assuring us that things are getting better, and that there are places where an American can stroll around perfectly safely.

To prove his point, he himself took a walk through a market.

Three minutes from the Green Zone (where, BTW, all personnel have just been ordered to wear body armor while going from one building to another)

Wearing body armor.

Accompanied by a hundred fully-armed troops.

Covered by three BlackHawk and two Apache helicopters.

[Jaboney]

Give him–and his family–credit for having the courage of their convictions: his son’s about to be deployed.

[fred_smith]

Several points in regard to the various comments so far.

1. France and Chirac were not telling the US not to invade Iraq because they were afraid that we would run into an insurgency, and hence had our best interests in mind as Sharlee is suggesting. France under Chirac was more worried about losing valuable oil contracts, but even more important, viewed it as an opportunity to set up a multipolar world with itself as another axis of economic and political influence. Sarkoszy sees this and that is where he too had problems with Chirac and Villepin’s approach.

2. Iraq was broken and has been for 30 years. The US did not “break” Iraq.

3. Britain’s effort to the war is appreciated but marginal. No matter that it spends more per capita than this, that or the other nation. The fact remains that it is not central or crucial to either the efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq. Its other commitments are irrelevant to that core fact.

4. Britain hosts US troops because it is in the interests of Britain to do so. When it is not, the US will be out. Britain is nobody’s dog’s body.

5. The US has never told Europe to disarm. It has told Europe to spend a lot more on arms and militaries but to do so through the existing NATO defense alliance rather than setting up an independent European reaction force which would largely mirror existing NATO strategies and programs and all while Europe is already seriously underfunding its armies.

6. The US did not “steal” European technology to gain our military strength. If these wider parameters are to be applied to the US, then likewise anything similar that was transferred back to Europe would qualify. In terms of weapons development, the Europeans have far more been the beneficiaries of US technology than vice versa.

7. The US has suffered a great PR black eye from the inability to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is unfortunate that this is clouding what should be a noble effort to remove one of the world’s worst dictators and bring something new and better to Iraq.

8. The US is not out to steal Iraq’s oil. Why not keep Kuwait’s? Why not take it from Saudi Arabia which would be even easier?

9. The idea that all of these problems are being caused by Bush and his foolish decision to invade Iraq against the opinion of the “wise” forgets conveniently that Saddam had been a problem for a long time. Not invading Iraq does not mean that Iraq would not have been a problem but just in a different way. This was an attempt to resolve the matter once and for all. With regard to Saddam, it did. We merely have not been able to add the “better” to “new” yet.

10. Al Qaeda and Islamofascists would be active elsewhere. If not in Iraq and Afghanistan then somewhere else. I question that this has increased their support or number of martyrs willing to die for the cause. The levels of violence that have now been unleashed in the Middle East, including Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are making the citizens of these nations understand very well that support for terrorism and violence against civilians can also affect them. It is not merely the infidel who is being blown up. This battle for modernity will and must be fought and it will and must be fought where it will make the difference and that is in the Middle East, itself. There can be no proxy wars abroad to deflect the Middle East and its governments and societies and peoples from moving ahead or falling behind. Lest anyone think that I am suggesting that the Arabs are uniquely barbaric, I would point to the many bloody uncivilized wars that occurred while civilizing Europe. The Germans in World War II, the Russians (still not civilized) under Stalin are major cases in point. This is why I tend to like the French and Italians better.

But in a sop to my sensitive friend who is sulking and has stalked off, I have to say that I still believe that the British were the greatest force that the world has ever seen, not only in terms of civilizing the world, but also in terms of bringing the concepts of fairness, justice and self-sacrifice not based on ethnicity or religion but to humankind in general to so much of the world and with such positive and very appreciable results. It disappoints me greatly therefore to see this generation not rising to the challenge but rather to point fingers at who and what took that greatness away from them. The answer is no one. The British people have to a large extent lost confidence and the belief in their abilities and duty to make the world a better place. That is a true pity and one of the worst consequences of Hitler. Smashing the British empire before its time, before it could bring the levels of political and economic development to a higher level is one of the greatest tragedies of World War II. Our desperate and clumsy efforts at nation building since then merely underline that sad fact. The Americans simply cannot do what the British did before us.

Now, if you want to bitch about the Americans, bitch about the stab in the back at Suez (even though your precious Eden neglected to give us any advance warning). This was the true betrayal of Britain not any desperate scraping around for excuses like “waiting to enter the war to bleed us dry” or “to steal our empire and its resources” or to become great by “stealing our technology” or even more pathetically “to take advantage of us to fight wars that benefit only the Americans.”

[Jaboney]

@fred smith

7. The US has suffered a great PR black eye from the inability to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is unfortunate that this is clouding what should be a noble effort to remove one of the world’s worst dictators and bring something new and better to Iraq.*

*For more of the same, you can catch fred smith playing at the comedy club, every news cycle, till hell freezes over.

Come out and show your support. Help ‘fred friendly’ climb the infotainment comedy ladder, to become sidekick to Bill ‘Culture Warrior’ O’Reilly or Stephen ‘Screamin’ Eagle’ Colbert.

[GUEST2]

[quote=“fred smith”]Several points in regard to the various comments so far.

1. France and Chirac were not telling the US not to invade Iraq because they were afraid that we would run into an insurgency, and hence had our best interests in mind as Sharlee is suggesting. France under Chirac was more worried about losing valuable oil contracts, but even more important, viewed it as an opportunity to set up a multipolar world with itself as another axis of economic and political influence. Sarkoszy sees this and that is where he too had problems with Chirac and Villepin’s approach.

[/quote]

Now I will use one of your argument. Proove it that Chirac only wanted to protect its oil contracts.

If it was true, don t you think he would have gone along with the US hoping France would have a bigger piece of the cake… see

Second, see earlier answer about the multipolar world. If multipolar means not to always agree with you, then yes, I m for a multipolar world.

Third, how you misinform people here. Sarkozy might have had “problems” with Chirac and Villepin on other subject, I really have to correct you here.
He repeatdly said that he highly respected Chirac for his foreign policy and for not having gone to war. it was the right decision.

[fred_smith]

Now I will use one of your argument. Proove it that Chirac only wanted to protect its oil contracts.

Let me see what I can find. That would not be the MAIN reason however. Setting up a multipolar world but in deliberate opposition to the US was. This it was believed would give France greater clout on the world stage.

If it was true, don t you think he would have gone along with the US hoping France would have a bigger piece of the cake… see

Nope. That was not the main reason. It was a factor.

Second, see earlier answer about the multipolar world. If multipolar means not to always agree with you, then yes, I m for a multipolar world.

That is not what it meant and that is why Sarkozy opposed it equally.

[quote]Third, how you misinform people here. Sarkozy might have had “problems” with Chirac and Villepin on other subject, I really have to correct you here.
He repeatdly said that he highly respected Chirac for his foreign policy and for not having gone to war. it was the right decision.[/quote]

Never said that France had to go to war there. The opposition however and how it was handled was deliberately conducted in such a way as to raise France’s influence at American expense. It was not the action of an ally and Sarkozy completely understands that. IF this multipolar world were such a laudable goal, why were the Eastern and Central European members of NATO so much against it? Why did the Germans reverse course immediately upon seeing Fischer and Schroeder out of office? Why also did France immediately reverse course (ironically it was the first one) within three weeks of the invasion’s beginning?

We all understand what France did. Ditto for Germany. Ditto for Belgium. And none of us will ever forget it. I am perfectly willing to work with France and am very highly appreciative of all the efforts and cooperation that have been made over the past four years. I suppose this is just retribution for our nasty stab in the back during Suez. What goes around comes around. IF this is the final retribution for that effort, then I guess we got what we deserved. If not, then I would say that some day France and Germany will have what is coming to them.

[Truant]

Interesting how post 9/11 the upcoming invasion was touted as “the war of terror” oops, my bad, “the war against terror”, yet now terrorism reaches a lowly Fred point #10 while the real reason is apparently to remove the evil dictator.

I’d suggest that this now is being spun as the major reason to invade Iraq, not the war against terror, because the removal of Saddam is about the only good thing that actually came out of the mess so far. Fred himself indicates that the general middle east situation is getting worse, and there is now the implication that the US invasion of Iraq has had little impact on terrorism, if any.

If removing dictators is the MO, is the US going to save other countries, and ‘the world’ from their dictators also? Who’s next?

[fred_smith]

Interesting how post 9/11 the upcoming invasion was touted as “the war of terror” oops, my bad, “the war against terror”, yet now terrorism reaches a lowly Fred point #10 while the real reason is apparently to remove the evil dictator.

That is an interesting theory but wrong. I responded with my points in chronological order to the posters preceding me NOT in order of importance of the reasoning for the action.

I’d suggest that this now is being spun as the major reason to invade Iraq, not the war against terror, because the removal of Saddam is about the only good thing that actually came out of the mess so far.

Glad that you agree that removing Saddam was a good thing.

Fred himself indicates that the general middle east situation is getting worse, and there is now the implication that the US invasion of Iraq has had little impact on terrorism, if any.

Did I say that? No. I think that we have a long way to go, but I see the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as also helping with the problems in Libya and Algeria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Kashmir.

If removing dictators is the MO, is the US going to save other countries, and ‘the world’ from their dictators also? Who’s next?

We are not going to remove every dictator. Saddam was removed because of his country’s geostrategic significance. I have stated this all along. Funny that the left seems to be against removing Saddam precisely because there were valid reasons other than those that were strictly humanitarian. Just because there were geostrategic issues that make economic and military sense, does that mean the effort must automatically be condemned?