[Damn True]

It seems that France has announced that if the chemical weapons containing Anthrax and/or Serin that Hussein has authorized the use of, and distributed to troops surrounding Baghdad, (Wait! I thought he didn't have them?) are used against our troops that they will join the fight.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

Figures

 

[BostonBullit]

I read an article from one of those think tankers a few weeks back that basically said that that's what was going to happen. the POV was thus: France will "stand up" to the worlds only current super power to show that they are keeping check on the US. if however the US goes to war without their cooperation then they will then flip sides because if they didn't then they would be completely and utterly de-balled in front of the world, thereby proving that they are truely powerless..the exact opposite of what they wanted to show in the first place.

BostonBullit

 

[BigHitWannabe]

Unless France wants to send in the 1st wave of ground troops, I'd rather they just stay the phuque out of the way! Who asked for their help anyways.......we won't be needing any flag wavers in this war!

 

[Evilmunch]

At least they're showing some form of support.

 

[kghoscht]

Originally posted by Evilmunch
At least they're showing some form of support.

Exactly...

I'm kinda confused here...is it good or bad that they're showing support?

Please, everyone decide now: good or bad.

And make sure that you don't change your mind later, or DT will jump all over you!

Oh wait...they're FRENCH and therefore anything they do is bad

Oh damn, I forgot...I'm from CANADA I mean, I'm practically a US citizen, duh hyuk hyuk

Seriously, I think we can all agree that the use of chemical weapons elevates this war to something far beyond what happened in Desert Storm I, and such would definately cause the policy makers to rethink a few things.

 

[SwisSlesS]

The more people we have on our side, the better. If any country ends up using biological weapons, the others *need* to get involved.

 

[LordOpie]

there are many variables/reprecussions to France's new stance:

1. They're still against the war, but basically have told Iraq, "Make this a fair fight, no hitting below the belt or you're disqualified."

2. It's nothing but the continued war on diplomacy and France's desire to appear to be the world's power.

3. Now that they know we're going to war, they want to make sure we don't screw 'em on oil rights afterwards. (unlikely)

1a. They know that if Iraq drops chemical/bio-weapons on Israel, that Israel won't sit by like Bush Sr. requested them to do back in 1991...
-- This means Israel retaliates.
-- A Jihad is called and the middle-east goes nuclear (literally, possibly; metaphorically, definitely)
-- War escalates to the point where if US allies don't help out that it'll get dragged out long enough to turn into WWIII... period

 

[kghoscht]

Originally posted by LordOpie
1a. They know that if Iraq drops chemical/bio-weapons on Israel, that Israel won't sit by like Bush Sr. requested them to do back in 1991...
-- This means Israel retaliates.
-- A Jihad is called and the middle-east goes nuclear (literally, possibly; metaphorically, definitely)
-- War escalates to the point where if US allies don't help out that it'll get dragged out long enough to turn into WWIII... period [/B]

YES.

I'm glad you mentioned this.

NOBODY wants Israel involved on this, and EVERYONE knows what Israel's retaliation will be.

I still don't understand why it's so terrible that France has basically said that they're officially against any escalation.

Personally i'm not in favour of this war, but I accept that it will happen and I just hope that it ends as quickly as possible and with as little collateral damage as possible.

I can't for the life of me see how thinking like this can be so Wrong.

 

[jhusktrials]

The thing that most people seem to overlook is the pre-empt of strike tactic. Clinton had the chance to go after Osama before 9/11 but he was too concerned with getting re-elected. Bush on the other hand knows that Saddam kills his own people and has connections with Al Qaeda. Saddam is not afraid of attacking America. If we do not take him out it will not be a question of if but when will he attack America?

War will always be neccessary. At the very least, with todays technology less innocent citizens will be killed. The US is not attacking Irag, they truly are attacking Saddam and his regime.

This war must happen. Before Manhatten becomes a cloud of VX gas. We do not need another 9/11.

 

[brock]

Weird

For second there I thoght I was in the Mountain Bikers Lounge. I must have somehow managed to accidentally scroll all the way down to the Politcal Debate one.

 

[Damn True]

chill

There is nothing to "debate". It's just news.

Like a baseball score, but meaningful.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Damn True
chill


Like a baseball score, but meaningful.

I don't know, check out www.msn.com... Seems the Oscars are up there on the meaningful list as well.

"Oscars still a go, with eye on Iraq."

Not expecting anything different though, it's just funny.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by jhusktrials
The thing that most people seem to overlook is the pre-empt of strike tactic. Clinton had the chance to go after Osama before 9/11 but he was too concerned with getting re-elected. Bush on the other hand knows that Saddam kills his own people and has connections with Al Qaeda. Saddam is not afraid of attacking America. If we do not take him out it will not be a question of if but when will he attack America?

Okay we have been over this before about Clinton and Osama. You are stating something that is simply not true. So for the record starting at the top:

1993 Trade Tower bombing. 4 suspects were captured in March of 1994. A fifth (the supposed mastermind) was captured in 1995. Each of these have been convicted and are currently serving time in US prisions.

1995 Saudi Arabian bombing. 4 Saudi nationals were captured by the Saudis (after being indicted by US courts) each was beheaded in 1996

1996 Khobar Towers. 14 indicted by US courts. Each is being held in Saudi custody. No one is exactly sure of the current disposition. It is thought they have probably been "dealt" with.

1998 Embassy bombings. 4 captured and sentenced in US courts to life in prision. 3 that have been indicted are in London fighting extradition. 14 more are indicted but still at large. Also Clinton authorized an attack on Afganistan attempting to kill Osama in 1998 as a result of these bombings. All he got for his troubles was blame that he was deflecting attention away from Monica.

2000 Cole bombing. Clinton only had two months left so.....

Also the the spending for anti-terror activities nearly tripled to 6.7 billion during his administration. Of course he didn't catch Osama. That would have been nice but the fact of the matter is that he has proven to not be easy to catch.

Now unless you are just repeating something you heard or read in an email, you must have some fact on which you are basing your statement.

 

[Damn True]

Why did this thread get moved?

It didn't contain anything contentious, there was not heated debate. Simply sharing a positive development in on a subject that has been largely negative.

 

[jhusktrials]

Originally posted by DRB
Okay we have been over this before about Clinton and Osama. You are stating something that is simply not true. So for the record starting at the top:

1993 Trade Tower bombing. 4 suspects were captured in March of 1994. A fifth (the supposed mastermind) was captured in 1995. Each of these have been convicted and are currently serving time in US prisions.

1995 Saudi Arabian bombing. 4 Saudi nationals were captured by the Saudis (after being indicted by US courts) each was beheaded in 1996

1996 Khobar Towers. 14 indicted by US courts. Each is being held in Saudi custody. No one is exactly sure of the current disposition. It is thought they have probably been "dealt" with.

1998 Embassy bombings. 4 captured and sentenced in US courts to life in prision. 3 that have been indicted are in London fighting extradition. 14 more are indicted but still at large. Also Clinton authorized an attack on Afganistan attempting to kill Osama in 1998 as a result of these bombings. All he got for his troubles was blame that he was deflecting attention away from Monica.

2000 Cole bombing. Clinton only had two months left so.....

Also the the spending for anti-terror activities nearly tripled to 6.7 billion during his administration. Of course he didn't catch Osama. That would have been nice but the fact of the matter is that he has proven to not be easy to catch.

Now unless you are just repeating something you heard or read in an email, you must have some fact on which you are basing your statement.

Just because Clinton gave the go ahead on a small attack on Afghanistan does not mean he tried to go after Osama. And who gives a rats ass if the people involved in the bombings were sentenced. They were just worker bees for the higher ups such as Osama. Having them sentenced just takes up space in ours (or other countries) prisons.

Clinton did not do all that he could to fight Osama and Al Qaeda. If he would have tried harder he may not have been re-elected. And for him and most politicians that is the most important thing. Bush on the other hand knows what needs to be done. He could care less whether or not his approval rating is plumetting or if people are protestimg him.

This war must happen or 9/11 will happen again.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by jhusktrials
Just because Clinton gave the go ahead on a small attack on Afghanistan does not mean he tried to go after Osama. And who gives a rats ass if the people involved in the bombings were sentenced. They were just worker bees for the higher ups such as Osama. Having them sentenced just takes up space in ours (or other countries) prisons.

Clinton did not do all that he could to fight Osama and Al Qaeda. If he would have tried harder he may not have been re-elected. And for him and most politicians that is the most important thing. Bush on the other hand knows what needs to be done. He could care less whether or not his approval rating is plumetting or if people are protestimg him.

This war must happen or 9/11 will happen again.

don't be so partisan.

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by Damn True
Why did this thread get moved?

It didn't contain anything contentious, there was not heated debate. Simply sharing a positive development in on a subject that has been largely negative.

It is STILL political... why not put it in the other forum. who is it gonna hurt?

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by jhusktrials
Just because Clinton gave the go ahead on a small attack on Afghanistan does not mean he tried to go after Osama. And who gives a rats ass if the people involved in the bombings were sentenced. They were just worker bees for the higher ups such as Osama. Having them sentenced just takes up space in ours (or other countries) prisons.

Clinton did not do all that he could to fight Osama and Al Qaeda. If he would have tried harder he may not have been re-elected. And for him and most politicians that is the most important thing. Bush on the other hand knows what needs to be done. He could care less whether or not his approval rating is plumetting or if people are protestimg him.

This war must happen or 9/11 will happen again.

U.S. Cruise missiles were lobbed at Bin Laden during the Clinton Administration, and he left the target area an hour before it was destroyed. This was the same time that the Lewinski thing blew up (good pun). Of course Clinton was accused of trying to deflect attention to some no name crack pots in the middle east. 20-20 hindsight is great.

Meanwhile while we try to paint Saddam as an immediate threat, North Korea moves forward with thier nukes, kicks out inspectors and intercepts our planes in international airspace.....

So, is George II doing all he can to protect us from North Korea?

 

[jhusktrials]

Originally posted by Spud
U.S. Cruise missiles were lobbed at Bin Laden during the Clinton Administration, and he left the target area an hour before it was destroyed. This was the same time that the Lewinski thing blew up (good pun). Of course Clinton was accused of trying to deflect attention to some no name crack pots in the middle east. 20-20 hindsight is great.

Yeah, so as soon as Clinton looks bad they stop the attacks. What a great president he was.

I do agree that more should be done with North Korea. The Bush people just want to make a strong enough presence in Iraq so it will end quickly. Then they can focus on North Korea.

Why drag out two wars with the army split, when you can finish each quickly with full force?

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by jhusktrials


Why drag out two wars with the army split, when you can finish each quickly with full force?

Yeah, maybe there's a coupon we can use-- 2 wars for the price of 3? Let's shoot for 3!

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by jhusktrials
I do agree that more should be done with North Korea. The Bush people just want to make a strong enough presence in Iraq so it will end quickly. Then they can focus on North Korea.

Why drag out two wars with the army split, when you can finish each quickly with full force?

You think a war with N.Korea would be quick?

hmm, now that I think about it, you're right. They nuke Japan, NK gets nuked. Yup, that's pretty fast.

 

[Serial Midget]

War has begun.

 

[hardtail_schmuk]

Originally posted by jhusktrials
Why drag out two wars with the army split, when you can finish each quickly with full force?

Yeah, look what happened to Hitler.





This war is going to seriously f*ck the world over.

 

[ghettorigged]

just be happy we can all go to bed tonight and think about it again tomorrow. There are some in the world right now too afraid to sleep for the noise of gunfire and bombs keeps them awake. It's not just in the middle east... people are scared all over the planet but here we are on RM talking about it. Here we are watching the war on prime time... and how perfectly timed it was to start around 8 pm EST.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by jhusktrials
Just because Clinton gave the go ahead on a small attack on Afghanistan does not mean he tried to go after Osama. And who gives a rats ass if the people involved in the bombings were sentenced. They were just worker bees for the higher ups such as Osama. Having them sentenced just takes up space in ours (or other countries) prisons.

Clinton did not do all that he could to fight Osama and Al Qaeda. If he would have tried harder he may not have been re-elected. And for him and most politicians that is the most important thing. Bush on the other hand knows what needs to be done. He could care less whether or not his approval rating is plumetting or if people are protestimg him.

This is the biggest problem with America today. Not terrorism but partisanship. The blind loyality to that which "our" party tells us. Regardless of the facts.

As for Bush knowing what to do and damn the consequences. Name the last president who bombed someone and his approval rating went down. There isn't one because it doesn't happen. Clinton's approval rating went up when he launched the cruise missile attack against Afghanistan in 1998, even when the vast majority of Americans had NO idea who he was or why were trying to blow him up. That was even in the face of the waste of time impeachment crap.

And while I know its impossible for you to see beyond your own partisanship, if you are spreading blame, start heaping it on the Republicans that did not support Clinton's actions in catching Osama.

 

[jhusktrials]

Originally posted by LordOpie
You think a war with N.Korea would be quick?

It would be quicker than if we went after them right now. And anyway why do we have to do all of this relatively alone?

Everyone is so damn anti-war on Iraq, but their all for war on NK. How can the US fund a war on NK when they are still buying the majoriy of their oil from Saddam? So yes this war is for oil, oh my goodness I am a Republican and I admit that.