The ultimate sacrifice????

  • Thread starter s0nny80y
  • 120 comments
  • 2,788 views
Tacet_Blue
The Boycott France thing is a little unfair. All Champagne comes from France :)

You can't really blame the French people for the actions of a corrupt government. Jaques Chirac didn't want to do anything about the situation in Iraq as mentioned above he was quite happy abusing the Oil for Aid programme (along with Russia) Chirac is no stranger to taking backhand deals, he narrowly escaped imprisonment over £500,000 bribe allegations by changing the law!

Chirac Implicated
Click to expand...
Oh, no. No one is blaming the French people, this solely goes after the French government for the things you listed above. This is why that French woman couldn't understand the meaning, she had no idea what her own government was doing.
 
Viper Zero
Oh, no. No one is blaming the French people, this solely goes after the French government for the things you listed above. This is why that French woman couldn't understand the meaning, she had no idea what her own government was doing.
Click to expand...


You still don't see the hypocricy?

When I chastice the US government, far more clearly directed to the government than you comments and banner about France, you accuse me of being "anti-american"... maybe you think I am, maybe it is because you couldn't argue your case. Either way it is hypocricy.

You sir, have no idea what the US is doing. The crimes are also far more numerous than the French (who indeed have committed many crimes).
 
Pistachio
You still don't see the hypocricy?

When I chastice the US government, far more clearly directed to the government than you comments and banner about France, you accuse me of being "anti-american"... maybe you think I am, maybe it is because you couldn't argue your case. Either way it is hypocricy.

You sir, have no idea what the US is doing. The crimes are also far more numerous than the French (who indeed have committed many crimes).
Click to expand...
When you start attacking Americans for just being Americans, that's when you get called Anti-American.

I know far more about my government than that woman did about any of ours.
 
Viper Zero
When you start attacking Americans for just being Americans, that's when you get called Anti-American.

I know far more about my government than that woman did about any of ours.
Click to expand...

No, you show me any time i attacked "Americans for just being Americans". Now how many times have you went around slinging the words "anti-american" at anyone (me included) who said that the US may have and may be commiting grevious acts around the world?

How much some woman knows is irrelevant. If i had a banner with a cross through the American flag i think YOU would go nuts over it. I can't believe the amount of flak the French are copping ever since the single vetoe. Did i mention how many times the US has vetoed? Even on a resolutions calling on all nations to "observe international law" TWICE among many others.
 
Pistachio
No, you show me any time i attacked "Americans for just being Americans". Now how many times have you went around slinging the words "anti-american" at anyone (me included) who said that the US may have and may be commiting grevious acts around the world?
Click to expand...
I never said you attacked anyone. When you do, I'll make sure you know.

If i had a banner with a cross through the American flag i think YOU would go nuts over it.
Click to expand...
Nope, I would not. You would need a reason to justify it.
 
Viper Zero
I never said you attacked anyone. When you do, I'll make sure you know.
Click to expand...

I meant verbaly. Indeed i haven't attacked anyone except for criminals like Bush, Clinton etc


Nope, I would not. You would need a reason to justify it.
Click to expand...

You have called people (including myself) "anti-american" for much much less.
 
Newsflash: Bickering doesn't solve anything. Back on topic, please? Thanks.
 
Pistachio
To attack Iran would be an act of agression. Illegal.


-EDIT: Agression is considered more grevious than terrorism under international law.
Click to expand...
Says who? And why are you assuming an attack would be necessary, anyway?
 
milefile
Says who? And why are you assuming an attack would be necessary, anyway?
Click to expand...

Says the UN charter among other legal documents. You can't attack countries, thats the law, everyone should know that.


An attack would be the last thing that would be done. It isn't necessary at all, it would be an act of lunacy.
 
milefile
The UN charter, eh? Okay. That's working really well in, say, Darfur, for instance, or Kasmir, or how about Nepal.
Click to expand...

I never said anyone follows it, in fact i always say the opposite.

But an attack would still be against international law. There is no legal or moral basis for an attack.
 
Iran postures itself as an enemy of the US . Therefore to destroy any weapons of mass destruction iran owns is prudent . If the government of Iran supports terrorism against the US than the destruction of the government of Iran is also prudent. International law only protects you from someone willing to follow it.
 
But an attack would still be against international law. There is no legal or moral basis for an attack.
Click to expand...

The first statement does not imply the second.

And I believe we're following international law as the UN resolved to use force to get Saddam to disarm if he did not. It's just that when push came to shove they didn't want to pony up. We pony'd up.
 
Anderton
Listen pal. The US tried to invade Canada in the war of 1812. Didn't work. Got your white house burned down in the process. Booyah!



If this is what you call "stiff-arming" then what is it called when a country approaches the UN asking to go to war, and when they are not supported they go ahead and wage war anyway?
Click to expand...



This pissed me the hell off and was completely uncalled for. Anderton, your lack of history Knowledge disgusts me. Canada wasn't yet independent in 1812. As you might know, canada was taken over by the british in a war with the french, and at one time both Canada and the thirteen colonies belonged to The United Kingdom. England was trying to take America Back. They failed. BOOYAH!! (The english are very kind people, and I have absolutely nothing against them)

What happens when a Country Defies the UN numerous times, Hides chemical weapons from UN inspectors, Gasses thousands of Kurds, tortures thousands of its own people, the leader uses oil for food to build palaces and several members of the UN know but don't care, And then defies the UN on its last warning? the leader is found in a ****hole.
There anderton. I answered your question.

and if you think france is the "perfect little child", then here's a bit of info : France was building a Nuclear Reactor for saddam hussein in the early 80's. With scud missiles that could reach Israel, The israelis weren't pleased with what was being built in Iraq. They sent a squadron of F-15s in before the reactor was finished and blew it to bits. While I realize America Isn't exactly Perfect, neither is france, Or for that matter, The rest of the world.


And, the white house itself didn't burn down, the walls were still intact after the blaze was out. That failed too.
 
International law is only as good as the country WILLING to enforce it . I'll put that on there also. along with the little picture of Saddam in his hidy hole.
 
danoff
The first statement does not imply the second.

And I believe we're following international law as the UN resolved to use force to get Saddam to disarm if he did not. It's just that when push came to shove they didn't want to pony up. We pony'd up.
Click to expand...

I've said it before. Even in the event of a breech of a UN resoltion the UN Security Council must still mandate the use of force... unless the breech poses the same kind of threat stipulated in Article 51 of the Charter.

There is no legal basis for the attack, thats why the US administration has been trying to justify the attack on moral grounds. Just to not, the law isn't always correct, but it is ludicrous to say there is any legal grounds for the action.

As for Iran, the US has no right in any way to attack. It is definitely has no right to uni-lateraly disarm them. Disarmament (if it should even be enacted) is a matter for the international community. Then it again begs to ask, why should Israel (who is obviously considered a far greater threat in the Middle-East by Middle-Eastern countries and has breeched over 75 resolutions) have over 200 nuclear weapons while Iran isn't afforded the same benefit?
 
Menglan, take it easy okay? I was pretty mad when I wrote that post, mainly because an American had just told me Canada would be nowhere without America, and that we in fact probably wouldn't even exist without you. Which pissed me the hell off.

Canada still has extremely strong ties to Britain, hell the Queen is still on most of our money! We may not be as rich and powerful as America, but we did the "independence" thing a lot more peacefully and with way less lives lost. So to point out that it wasn't Canada but England that stopped America cold is moot. The point I was trying to make was in order to counter the above comment made about Canada, that we are basically helpless children who need America. We most definitely are not helpless. This attitude of your country, that the world needs you or it would cave in on itself, is truly ignorant, obnoxious, and rude.

Canada has never had a Civil War and we have never had bloody border disputes. We only ever use nuclear technology for energy. We have a very small army, but who cares because we don't have a single enemy who is threatening to harm or invade us. The only real problem in our country has been the French-speaking population of Canada fighting for their cultural preservation, and once again changes have come about more or less without much violence (FLQ was an extremist group and I have never assumed that they represented either the values or the beliefs of the rest of Francophone Canada). Canadian Pride is far more appealing to me, since it is basically the "unheard little guy" telling everyone else he's not American.

Better beer, nicer people, less guns. Canada did it right, America did not. That's my OPINION, and you can have yours.

BOO - YAH.
 
Anderton
Better beer, nicer people, less guns. Canada did it right, America did not. That's my OPINION, and you can have yours.

BOO - YAH.
Click to expand...


Doesn't Canada have much more guns per capita than the US and like zero gun violence? Either way point made i suppose.
 
Pistachio
Doesn't Canada have much more guns per capita than the US and like zero gun violence? Either way point made i suppose.
Click to expand...
Well I don't think there are nearly as many handguns. A lot of Canadians own rifles and shotguns for hunting, but we only have around 30,000,000 people.
 
I read somewhere that canadians own200 million firearms or something like that, but yes, most of them are Hunting rifles.

Anderton - I am 97.34587 chilled out. :)
 
Jay's minus two rifles, 3 shotguns, one semi-auto 22 magnun handgun....sold them after I realized I would rather shoot animals with a camera than a gun....it took awhile due to upbringing.
 
Viper Zero
Wrong.

WMD was only one of the many reasons why the US and the Coalition went into Iraq and liberate it. The (liberal) media blew the WMD out of proportion.

No WMD? Go ask the 300,000 dead Kurdish, that were gassed to death, if there were any Weapons of Mass Destruction.

*done*
Click to expand...


That doesn't contradict anything. Fact is, Bush said we'd go into Iraq because he had credible evidence that Iraq possesed WMD's, which WE WOULD FIND.

I'd rather die from crack then a cause that never existed in the first place.
 
Viper Zero
Woohoo! 300,000 dead Americans so that we can liberate that butt wipe country called Germany. I'm not impressed. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


In addition to what RacyBacy said, the cause was there, to "liberate the Jews".

BUT

In Bush's case, the cause was "to find WMD's". But we never found them.
 
s0nny80y
That doesn't contradict anything. Fact is, Bush said we'd go into Iraq because he had credible evidence that Iraq possesed WMD's, which WE WOULD FIND.

I'd rather die from crack then a cause that never existed in the first place.
Click to expand...
WMD was only one of the reasons to liberate Iraq. The UN gave the US the power to use force against Iraq. Saddam had obtained, had the will to use, and have used WMD on his neighbors and his own people. The UK had intelligence that Saddam had WMD, the Germans, the Russians, the UN, and even John Kerry said Saddam had them.

I rather die for my country than from being a crackhead.
 

Similar threads

Strittan
  • Locked
Where’s the love for motorcycles?
Replies
2
Views
156
Strittan
Strittan
JMoney
Just War Theory
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
6K
JMoney
JMoney
GranTurNismo
Create Your Dream Presidency
Replies
13
Views
1K
GranTurNismo
GranTurNismo
Famine
The Umbrella Academy (Netflix)
Replies
0
Views
954
Famine
Famine
GranTurNismo
  • Poll
Defund the Police?
5 6 7
Replies
182
Views
10K
DK
DK

Latest Posts

Back