Topic: Boycott French Wines (Read 21314 times)

Anonymous · « **Reply #25 on:** March 19, 2003, 07:30:54 AM »

Quote from: Chris

As President Bush stated when this whole "War on Terrorism" started back in October of 2001, as nations, they are either against the United States, or for the United States. When the true war starts with Iraq, we will quickly know who is with the United States, and who is against the United States.

Do you realise what you say

Do you think there is a choice between Iraq and U.S.

?? It's a right to be against this war and there is many good reasons for that but we hope all will be right for U.S. and British army...... We only say it's an agression war for economic reasons. Most difficult will be to maintain the peace with Kurdes and Turkey, Sunnites, Chiites and Catholics! Iran is very happy because they are chiites and the futur government of Iraq will be chiite.
Most dangerous is the reaction of moderates muslims who can change and become terrorist, in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt,...

a frenchie.

Lynx · « **Reply #26 on:** March 19, 2003, 08:01:40 AM »

Have you ever questioned yourselves about the real definition of war? About the meaning of war?

Just take 2 minutes and ask yourself what does the word war mean?

Any answer?

What about having a difference of opinions with one of your best friend?

What does mean the word friendship for you? Think about your best friend, how does that make you feeling?
Lets say one day you disagree with one of your bestfriend on a specific topic, does that mean that all the years of best friendship you had in the past is broken for ever? Is is that the meaning you give to friendship?

Well, guys I think your level of friendship is quite low and very poor actually ...

I have some real friends all over the world, and some are French, yes and I don't feel shame at all, and we'll still keep orfriendship eventhough we not always agree on the Iraq case.

So please, behave a second, and start to think twice before to promote boycott of one of or best ally country, and think about a real culture where people know how to give sense to the word "peace", "happiness",
and "LIFE"!!!

Lynx

Anonymous · « **Reply #27 on:** March 19, 2003, 08:40:39 AM »

First of all, everyone's protests are usless. I wouldn't be suprised to see some action starting during the night today. It's a little late to argue about the war at this point so save yourselves the trouble.

Second of all, boycot of french wine is a silly idea. Sending pretzels to bush is even dumber. As I have stated before, both the Bush and the Chirak governments have been acting like children in the past months. From what I'm reading in this thread, it seems that some of you want to encourage all the civilians of these two countries to act like children as well. Well I'm not interested. Thanks, but no thanks. My time is to precious to waist on these activities.

What would a boycot of french wine or sending pretzels to Bush accomplish? Nothing, except making a statement that you are an idiot. There should be no rivalry between the French people and the american people. They still have many common objectives and share common views. Those should be reinforced in time like these to ensure that either the French population or the US population don't start a racisim campaign. This whole thing is stupid. Grow up.

To anwser what is war, here's my true opinion on war AND peace:

Thoughts on War & peace:

Peace leads to healthy coexistence and cooperation and it can only be acheived through mutual understanding. Because understanding cannot be reached by the usage of force, war becomes a short term solution to behavior management. The original conflict will eventually resurface with more severity while involving more parties. This new severity/complexity level will make understanding even more difficult to reach, thus will make the probability of war even greater. By this logic, it becomes unavoidable that humankind will eventually destroy itself as long as the act of war remains in this equation.

So what I'm saying is that by having this war, it will benefit everyone in the short term. However, it will also divide up people even more and the hate versus Americans will grow stronger. Some innocent civilians will die in this war. Some people will loose all of their possesions because of this war. Those people will be pissed and will want revenge. Some of them may act on their feelings in the future. New political agendas and new joinings of forces will see the day because of this war. People will get organised and plot together and more agressive actions will be seen at some time after the war. If this war never took place, these new factions would never exist. They will eventually lead to new wars, and the process will repeat itself over and over until someone finaly decides to blow up the planet and bring the world down with him as he goes down. War is never a long term solution in my mind, and it has the potential of making things worst.

Having said that, I also realize that I'm not being realistic. War will always be part of the equation because agression is human nature. I doubt everyone on this planet will eventually have the dicipline to control their natural instincts. So real peaceful coexistent will never see the day. The best we can do is to seperate those who want peace and have the discipline to conrtol their aggresive insctinct from those who don't. This requires containment and isolation. And thise can only be acheived by force.

So it would seem as though war is appropriate the solution afterall, unless you want to live in a fantasy world and ignore or refuse to acknowledge reality. And that is exactly what the French and their allies have done because they want to promote this image of what the wolrd could become. They want to make fantasy realiy. Good effort, but it's never going to happen. Is this justification to hate them or be angry with them? I don't think it is. They are entitled to their own opinion as we are to ours. And they are also entitled to having us respect their opinion and not making a fuss about a disagreement. Not everyone has to agree on everything. It's not how the world works. And to reassure the french that I understand and respect their position, I'm going to drink a nice bottle of George DuBoeuf Merolt as I watch the Americans drop their bombs tonight.

Anonymous · « **Reply #28 on:** March 20, 2003, 08:03:29 PM »

Quote from: Froggies

nous on boycott votre bouffe de merde et on encule (fuck) toute l'amérique et tous les américains. and the wine we will drink it with plaisure..

Well, drink up, croissant lover. Are the feelings you presented those of the entire French nation? You see, there's this impression that a certain contingent of folk who habitate in a once dominant, now second (or perhaps even third-) rate country are an inebriated, accordian playing bunch of quasi-literate loafers. So, my sincere thanks for adding credence to said hypothesis.

And incidentally, please be a little more cosmopolitan in your use of language when you respond to comments made on web sites. Of course, of you can't express yourself fluently in the international language of the entire world, feel welcome to come back here where you can do what the French do best. as witnessed by the leader of France itself...talk, and talk, and talk, and...

Anonymous · « **Reply #29 on:** March 21, 2003, 04:54:46 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous

Quote from: Froggies
nous on boycott votre bouffe de merde et on encule (fuck) toute l'amérique et tous les américains. and the wine we will drink it with plaisure..

Well, drink up, croissant lover. Are the feelings you presented those of the entire French nation? You see, there's this impression that a certain contingent of folk who habitate in a once dominant, now second (or perhaps even third-) rate country are an inebriated, accordian playing bunch of quasi-literate loafers. So, my sincere thanks for adding credence to said hypothesis.

And incidentally, please be a little more cosmopolitan in your use of language when you respond to comments made on web sites. Of course, of you can't express yourself fluently in the international language of the entire world, feel welcome to come back here where you can do what the French do best. as witnessed by the leader of France itself...talk, and talk, and talk, and...

When you read froggies, you can imagine that you don't have the monopole of idiots...... we have many of them in France too!
I support your boys (they only make their job) but i can't support Bush/Blair... their decision is terrific and i can't believe you think you go in Iraq to stop terrorism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just take a look on Saoudia !!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's only an economic war and an agression war!
You can do what the americans do best, as witnessed by the leader of USA itself...war, and war, and war, and...

Froggies (an other one).

Fred London · « **Reply #30 on:** March 21, 2003, 05:06:57 AM »

Ohhhhhhhh international World Language ! Darling the day you will be able to speak French or German or even Chinese let me know. This is so easy for you in America cause you don t do the effort of talking another language, actually 60 % of your country don t understand the world. Europe is the first economic and democracy in the World but we are too stupid to split our point of view because of Mr Bush ! his administration has succeded to damage the United Nation, The European Union. We ( in Europe) are too coward; actually you are talking about boycotting French Wine, well i should ask now everybody to boycot American Product cause your President didn t want to sign the Kyoto Treaty and this is going to put all our planet in danger in the near Future. Your President didn t want to sign as well the set up of the International War Crime Tribunal ( what a surprise for a democratic country such as yours). Luckily your senate has refused him the right to drill in Alaska...or by the way just read that the American forces have just get into the Iraki Port of ..( can t remember the name) and they have put the American Flag...that s something again very clever...What do you think all those Arab countries will think of that ?! at least a United Nation flag or a White Flag...I love America, I love NYC , I love my American Friend but please get ride of your President and grow up a little bit. Oh by the way why you are not boycotting Russia, Germany and by the same time what about North Korea, Pakistan who is going to take the first occasion to send a missile to India and than will say: oups sorreyyy but what about America who did not respect the UN decision...let us do our business...

Anonymous · « **Reply #31 on:** March 21, 2003, 08:46:35 AM »

Didn't I make the point that the whole boycott thing was silly? Perhaps we can move on without flaming each other? And you guys should really sign up and create an account if you plan on participating on these boards. But we really don't like flamers, so keep it clean.

the following comments are not directed at one specific individual, but all of you

This whole war is a sensitive topic and it affects many people. There are mixed feelings about the whole thing. But if you want to discuss it, as we all should, I encourage all of you to keep it civilized. Stay on topic. Who cares how many languages a person speaks? I speak a few myself. So what? It doesn't make me a better person. And comments of a nature similar to "allez vous faire fouttre, allez vous faire enculer, ect" is simply not acceptable on these boards. If you can't respect others, then go somewhere else. Making generalisations about people, cultures, religions, etc is counter productive as well. Finally, please research your stats before you post.

Jerome from paris · « **Reply #32 on:** March 21, 2003, 10:47:09 AM »

let's rename the "french kiss" to "patriot kiss" !!
your president, W Bush, will like it !! But what about
your sweet-heart ?

Jerome (From Paris, in France...yes! I'm French)

snyperx · « **Reply #33 on:** March 21, 2003, 11:07:11 AM »

I think that everyone has to remember: The US Citizens aren't at fault, and neither are the French Citizens. We can't control our governments, so sitting here and saying to rename everything french to something liberty won't get us anywhere, saying that the French people suck won't get us anywhere.

I'm not fond of this war, I think it's more revenge for Bush then for the Iraqi people, but you know something? I can't do anything about it, you can't do anything about it, none of us can do anything about it.

Do I think that France should back the US? Nah, let them take their own role. Should the US bitch at France for that? No. Do Victory Fries or Liberty Fries taste just as good as French Friest, yup. Does that make sense? Highly unlikely.

G. W. B. · « **Reply #34 on:** March 25, 2003, 12:45:48 PM »

1917: The USA participate in the liberation of Europe which is in war for already 3 years
1944: The USA participate in the liberation of Europe (and not only of France!). They arrive almost 5 years after the beginning of the war. Without the Russian battlefront the landing of June 6, 1944 would never have been possible! The Russians had 20 million persons killed.

Since 1945 and until today it is the United States which start the wars to be on not to arrive late.

In God I trust to eradicate the terrorist W.

snyperx · « **Reply #35 on:** March 25, 2003, 12:58:09 PM »

Uh, who is Terrorist W?

Karl · « **Reply #36 on:** March 25, 2003, 01:03:42 PM »

The terorist W. is Georges W. Bush

Anonymous · « **Reply #37 on:** March 25, 2003, 02:58:40 PM »

LOL! Yeah! Sure! I'm really scared of that terrorist! I couldn't possibly go in front of his house, bend over and moon him without being killed.

Oh... wait... That's Sadam.

I'm not here to agree or disagree with anyone, but just yesterday the allies have found a bunch of irakee soldiers with gas masks. Isn't that proof that they are aware that sadam has and intends to use chemical weapons?

And his army that hides among the civilians, that want to fight there because they know the allies won't go in for the interest of the general population. Who's the terrorsit? The guy who uses his population as a sheild, or the one who refuses to put them in unessecary danger?

You know, this whole thing may be oil related. And it may be genuine concren for national security. Or a bit of both. But in the end, if the result is positive, then isn't it worth it? If they irakee people can one day opertae their own business or go to school and travel around the world freely, watch MTV, own a decent home, then isn't it worth the effort?

Those who say it's all about the oil, please explain. do you think the americans are simply gonna go over with a bunch of barrels and steal oil the oil from the ground to bring it home?? lol! This whole "it's about the oil" thing doesn't even make any sense.

What may happen, and what I hope happens, is that oil will be managed by the Irakee people, and they will be able to provide that ressource to the world and have some good transactions going for them. I expect to see a serious reduction in oil price in the long run, once this is all over. America as well as many other countries will benefit greatly from these trade agreements and lower price, but so will the Irakee people. It's a win win situation for everyone.

I don't care who you are, or what religion your beleive, or what color your skin is, but killing people, contorlling people, preventing people from acheiving their full potential, threathning people and their famillies, preventing them from expression, thinking that males are dominant and that a women is there to serve him, and all other types of behaviors and beleifs of that nature is unacceptable. The ice age is long gone. And as the world evolves, you have no choice but to eveolve with it because you are part of it. You can initiate change, or you can react to change, but you can't prevent it from happening.

So if you are out on the street protesting against war, I'll say two words to you: Up yours.

You obviously don't realise that you are hampering a good thing. You make it dificult for a great cause to be accomplished. And why?

1. You are to cheap to be responsible for the bill at the end. Let the rich help out the poor I say.
2. You don't want to sacrifice the lives of your loved ones. If the death of your son or daughter, wife, uncle, cousin, friend makes the difference between freedom for Irak, then it was worthwhile. Quit being selfish. Look at the bigger picture. Do the honorable thing.
3. You don't think Sadam is a threat to you. First of all, get real. Second of all, let's assume he was not a threat to you, he is still a treath to others. You have the means to protect them. Do the honorable thing. The strong must protect the weak.
4. You weren't convinced that Bush and his administration had a strong case at the UN. You are right, they didn't. If they would have done a good job, you wouldn't be protesting. But it's not because they did a crapppy job at illustrating th eproblem that it means the problem does not exist.
5. You think more inspections would have solved the problem. Again, get real. Sadam is a master of deception. He did a little show with less than 50 missle. "We are disarming". Come on! in 91, he had the 4th most powerfull army in the World. That's all they have left now? I don't think so.

I hate war. But when it becomes necessary, you have to recognise that. This is one of these times. So my position is clear. It is based on an intensive personal research, and not listening to all the media crap that is out there. I invite you to change my mind, but have some damn convincing arguments.

snyperx · « **Reply #38 on:** March 25, 2003, 03:57:01 PM »

On a lighter note: I think Terrorist W. is really Terrorist Wookie.

"I broke my wookie." - Ralph from the Simpsons.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #39 on:** March 26, 2003, 12:04:53 PM »

Judge, go read this thread and pay attention to the rather large posts by Nex.

Then come back here and say all that again.

Anonymous · « **Reply #40 on:** March 26, 2003, 12:39:49 PM »

Quote from: Lacerda

Judge, go read this thread and pay attention to the rather large posts by Nex.

Then come back here and say all that again.

LOL! Yeah! Sure! I'm really scared of that terrorist! I couldn't possibly go in front of his house, bend over and moon him without being killed.

Oh... wait... That's Sadam.

I'm not here to agree or disagree with anyone, but just yesterday the allies have found a bunch of irakee soldiers with gas masks. Isn't that proof that they are aware that sadam has and intends to use chemical weapons?

And his army that hides among the civilians, that want to fight there because they know the allies won't go in for the interest of the general population. Who's the terrorsit? The guy who uses his population as a sheild, or the one who refuses to put them in unessecary danger?

You know, this whole thing may be oil related. And it may be genuine concren for national security. Or a bit of both. But in the end, if the result is positive, then isn't it worth it? If they irakee people can one day opertae their own business or go to school and travel around the world freely, watch MTV, own a decent home, then isn't it worth the effort?

Those who say it's all about the oil, please explain. do you think the americans are simply gonna go over with a bunch of barrels and steal oil the oil from the ground to bring it home?? lol! This whole "it's about the oil" thing doesn't even make any sense.

What may happen, and what I hope happens, is that oil will be managed by the Irakee people, and they will be able to provide that ressource to the world and have some good transactions going for them. I expect to see a serious reduction in oil price in the long run, once this is all over. America as well as many other countries will benefit greatly from these trade agreements and lower price, but so will the Irakee people. It's a win win situation for everyone.

I don't care who you are, or what religion your beleive, or what color your skin is, but killing people, contorlling people, preventing people from acheiving their full potential, threathning people and their famillies, preventing them from expression, thinking that males are dominant and that a women is there to serve him, and all other types of behaviors and beleifs of that nature is unacceptable. The ice age is long gone. And as the world evolves, you have no choice but to eveolve with it because you are part of it. You can initiate change, or you can react to change, but you can't prevent it from happening.

So if you are out on the street protesting against war, I'll say two words to you: Up yours.

You obviously don't realise that you are hampering a good thing. You make it dificult for a great cause to be accomplished. And why?

1. You are to cheap to be responsible for the bill at the end. Let the rich help out the poor I say.
2. You don't want to sacrifice the lives of your loved ones. If the death of your son or daughter, wife, uncle, cousin, friend makes the difference between freedom for Irak, then it was worthwhile. Quit being selfish. Look at the bigger picture. Do the honorable thing.
3. You don't think Sadam is a threat to you. First of all, get real. Second of all, let's assume he was not a threat to you, he is still a treath to others. You have the means to protect them. Do the honorable thing. The strong must protect the weak.
4. You weren't convinced that Bush and his administration had a strong case at the UN. You are right, they didn't. If they would have done a good job, you wouldn't be protesting. But it's not because they did a crapppy job at illustrating th eproblem that it means the problem does not exist.
5. You think more inspections would have solved the problem. Again, get real. Sadam is a master of deception. He did a little show with less than 50 missle. "We are disarming". Come on! in 91, he had the 4th most powerfull army in the World. That's all they have left now? I don't think so.

I hate war. But when it becomes necessary, you have to recognise that. This is one of these times. So my position is clear. It is based on an intensive personal research, and not listening to all the media crap that is out there. I invite you to change my mind, but have some damn convincing arguments.
_________________

lol!!!

OK, i agree with a lot of things from that thread. However, I think you missed my point as well. I'm convinced that freeing Irak is not the ultimate motive for this war, nor is prevention of terrorism. Those factors are being used as pretext to justify the war. I'll give you that.

What I am saying is that no matter what the true motive is for the war, it's irrelevent. I'm looking at the outcome of this war. And I think it will be positive on many fronts for many people.

Sadam's arsenal will be found.
Terrorsit organisations currently operating in Irak will take a HUGE blow. Their facilities and equipement will be destroyed.
Irak will be free. People will have the option to speak their mind.
Oil prices will drop. Everyone will benefit from that. I know I will.
Mass murder, tortured and other activities of that nature will end in Irak.
Deals between Sadam and terrorist will no longer be possible, meaning it will become more difficult for them to acquire equipement to attack us.

I mean, there's a lot of positive changes that can come out of this. Some negative outcomes too. But I think the positive outweighs the negative. Some people often ask "Why Irak? Why now?" Well, now because 9-11 pissed off the US a lot. They decided to react. Now because it took a while to restructure the security setup, establish new policies and new government branches, and it took time to accumulate intelligence and identify various links within the info gathered. Why Sadam? HE wasn't the firs gyu they went after.Are people forgetting about afghanistan? Sadam is currently on the top of the list. He has been identified as the most capable and most likely to support terrorism against the US. But he's just the tip of the iceberg in my mind. If it were up to me, we should all go on and remove those like Sadam from power. Anyone who does crimes against humanity should be wipped. That's my philosophy. I mean, this is 2003 for God sakes! Why are we still having people walking around with clubs and dragging their women by the hair? I strongly feel that all nations who have the mean and ressources to participate in the removal of all these criminals should do so and protect those who are to week to stand up on their own.

I don't care what the real motive is. I care about people and their well being. And I think sharing our wealth with rest of the world is the decent thing to do. War is costly and someone will have to pay for it. I don't mind doing my part if it helps underpriviledge people and makes the world a better place.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #41 on:** March 26, 2003, 02:41:30 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

OK, i agree with a lot of things from that thread. However, I think you missed my point as well. I'm convinced that freeing Irak is not the ultimate motive for this war, nor is prevention of terrorism. Those factors are being used as pretext to justify the war. I'll give you that.

Well, as long as we both agree on THAT...

Quote

What I am saying is that no matter what the true motive is for the war, it's irrelevent. I'm looking at the outcome of this war. And I think it will be positive on many fronts for many people.

Motive is hardly irrelevant. If I go around shooting people from a clocktower, and HAPPEN to hit a serial killer in the process, I've only done any kind of 'justice' by chance. This is what we like to call "morally indefensible".

Quote

Sadam's arsenal will be found.

Of course it will. The U.S. will put it there if it's not there. Think that's unlikely? Think again.

Quote

Terrorsit organisations currently operating in Irak will take a HUGE blow. Their facilities and equipement will be destroyed.

HA! What terrorist organization? Where? What information do you have that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ELSE HAS that proves terrorist links to Iraq?

Quote

Irak will be free. People will have the option to speak their mind.

Assuming their minds are still inside their heads and not blown all over the sidewalk, sure they will. Oh, and as long as "speaking their mind" doesn't include any dissent regarding American interference in their country's future.

Quote

Oil prices will drop. Everyone will benefit from that. I know I will.

Tell that to all the dead people. YAY! OIL IS CHEAPER NOW! SQUANDER SQUANDER!

Quote

Mass murder, tortured and other activities of that nature will end in Irak.

Suure they will. It's not like whatever 'democratic' regime set up by the U.S. would ever become corrupt. It's not like there's historical precident for the American government supporting leaders that kill their own people on a regular basis or anything...

Quote

Deals between Sadam and terrorist will no longer be possible, meaning it will become more difficult for them to acquire equipement to attack us.

Show me where evidence of these deals exist. If you can show me one VALID source, I'll be very impressed, because as far as I'm concerned, it's all conjecture. STILL.

Quote

I mean, there's a lot of positive changes that can come out of this. Some negative outcomes too. But I think the positive outweighs the negative.

I guess that all depends on which side of the MOABs you're sitting, doesn't it?

Quote

Some people often ask "Why Irak? Why now?"

Yeah, me for one. No one's been able to give me a decent answer yet.

Quote

Well, now because 9-11 pissed off the US a lot. They decided to react.

A bunch of your citizens were killed because of foreign power's dislike of your government? Welcome to the rest of the world, North America. React? React to what? What happened to the searching for terrorist networks in Afghanistan?

Quote

Now because it took a while to restructure the security setup, establish new policies and new government branches, and it took time to accumulate intelligence and identify various links within the info gathered.

Either that, or it took time to convince the public that there was some connection between the two, and this is all happening for pragmatic/sympathetic reasons. "Operation: Iraqi Freedom"? Don't make me laugh.

Quote

Why Sadam? HE wasn't the firs gyu they went after.Are people forgetting about afghanistan? Sadam is currently on the top of the list. He has been identified as the most capable and most likely to support terrorism against the US. But he's just the tip of the iceberg in my mind. If it were up to me, we should all go on and remove those like Sadam from power.

I'll never say that Saddam shouldn't be toasted. He's a utter bastard. I just don't want to see him go down at the expense of his already miserable people. As far as terrorist links go, NO. NO NO NO. None.

Quote

Anyone who does crimes against humanity should be wipped. That's my philosophy.

Welcome to the whipping post then, U.S.

Quote

I mean, this is 2003 for God sakes! Why are we still having people walking around with clubs and dragging their women by the hair?

Agreed. Likewise, why do we still have people vitriolically spewing about bombing 'ragheads'?

Quote

I strongly feel that all nations who have the mean and ressources to participate in the removal of all these criminals should do so and protect those who are to week to stand up on their own.

By killing them? That sounds kind of counter-productive to me. Also, since when did the wealthy (read: resources) become judge, jury and executioner? And if that is their role, why would you start with Iraq of all countries? Because it can't fight back?

Quote

I don't care what the real motive is. I care about people and their well being. And I think sharing our wealth with rest of the world is the decent thing to do. War is costly and someone will have to pay for it. I don't mind doing my part if it helps underpriviledge people and makes the world a better place.

Nice idealism, but it pales pretty quickly in the face of war and motive.

Anonymous · « **Reply #42 on:** March 26, 2003, 04:02:30 PM »

Oh now your getting me pissed off!! lol!

First, you do realise I'm canadian right? You seem to be thinking I'm a US citizen for some reason.

But, reading your replies, we do agree on some issues. That's good!

About Motive: We all know and agree that Sadam and his regime is bad news and we all think it woul dbe a good thing to get rid of them right? At least we know who we are shooting at. It's not exactlly the same thing as killing random people with a sniper riffle from a clock tower. I'm not saying motive is irellevant all the time. In this case, I don't really care about the true motive.

The arsenal: I think it would be very unlikely that they do that and get away with it. There are many soldiers, potential from more than one country, who would need to be involved in such a scam. A lot of people from the inside would know about it and it would leak out eventually. I don't seriously think that is likely to happen. Like I stated earlier, Sadam had the 4th largest army in the world at one time. And he had 12 years to research more weapons since the last encounter. Do you honstly think he's got nothing? Come on!

Terrorist Organisation: Actually, some terrorist facilities have already been destroyed since this war began. At least, that's what the US claims. What kind of proof do you need exactly? If they show you a video, your gonna say it's fake. f they tell you they have interviewed people, your gonna say they made the whole thing up. What is it exactly that people want to see?
Don't forget a bunch of Al Queda members, including senior members, have been arrested and interogated. I'm sure the US officials know more than you and I do. Why are they not providing this evidence? I think it would be unwise to make your intel available to the public. It would undermind your efforts to strike hard. And maybe there are no ties. Who knows? I have no evidence to give you. But looking at patterns and probability, I deduct that it is more likely that there are ties to terrorist organisation in Irak. Not necessarly Al Queda, but other organisations. The Sadma regim itself is a terrorist organisation. They control people. Force them to do things they don't want to do. They terrorize them, kill them, etc. By definition, doesn't that constitute terrorism? Even though it is not directed at you?

Free Irak: You are correct. I agree. People will die. People will be injured. People will suffer severe psychological effects. However, doing nothing would also ahve the same result on a much bigger scale. Because Sadam would be the one doing it to his own people. War is a nasty business. People die. But don't let the numbers displayed by the media affect you. Look at history and past wars. Look at death ratios for soldier's for example.
US Casualtity ratio during major wars:
WWI -- 1:15
WWII -- 1:15
Korean War -- 1:13
Vietnam War -- 1:15
Gulf War -- 1:1500
The current ratio in Irak is about 1:10000 so it's damn good results. Don't let the media fool you.

Oil prices: I won't be able to teal it to the dead people. They will be dead. Unless I cast a "speak with dead" spell. (I know you'd get that refference

) Seriously, I'm not saying kill people for lower gas prices. Read above for comments on casualties.

Torutre ending and corrupted governments: The liberal party in canada is pretty corrupted. Are you getting tortured? Every government is corrupted to some levels. That's the greedy human nature. Democracy means you get a chance to pick the less greedy ones! lol! But you get to make a choice. That is key.

Deals with terrorism: Read section above. I don't know what you are looking for.

Positive changes: It doesn't mater which side of the MOAB you stand. Think long term. Not short term. This whole thing will take time.

Why Irak now? describe "decent" awnser please.

9-11: Don't say welcome to the rest of the world. Where are you in Montreal? Or Hull? Did anyone kill 3000 people for no good reason other than to make a statement that you are seriously mentally ill?

Time frames: I'll give you that one. This is pure marketing. Again, what I said isn't untrue, but they used that information to market the idea of an attack. Again, thie comes down to motive and since I don't really care, I'll leave it at that.

Wipping post: lol, I think that was mispelled. I meant whiping, destroying.

This is 203: Good question. I ask myself that same thing every time it happens.

Removal of criminals: Yes by killing them! Those assholes are not human. Put them out of their misery I say!

I have to go, I'll reply to the rest tomorow.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #43 on:** March 26, 2003, 06:57:59 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Oh now your getting me pissed off!! lol!

Yeah, I'm good at that.

Quote

First, you do realise I'm canadian right? You seem to be thinking I'm a US citizen for some reason.

Uh...oops. Yeah, I did. When someone spends this much time defending the U.S. actions, I just sort of assumed they were American themselves. That's me being dumb. Sorry.

Quote

But, reading your replies, we do agree on some issues. That's good!

Indeed!

Quote

About Motive: We all know and agree that Sadam and his regime is bad news and we all think it woul dbe a good thing to get rid of them right? At least we know who we are shooting at. It's not exactlly the same thing as killing random people with a sniper riffle from a clock tower. I'm not saying motive is irellevant all the time. In this case, I don't really care about the true motive.

I care about the motive because I think the reason for doing something is almost as important as the resultant effect. That's just gonna be us not seeing eye to eye on personal morality, and that's no big deal.

Quote

The arsenal: I think it would be very unlikely that they do that and get away with it. There are many soldiers, potential from more than one country, who would need to be involved in such a scam. A lot of people from the inside would know about it and it would leak out eventually. I don't seriously think that is likely to happen. Like I stated earlier, Sadam had the 4th largest army in the world at one time. And he had 12 years to research more weapons since the last encounter. Do you honstly think he's got nothing? Come on!

Why do you think it would be so hard for the government to get away with it? They control the release of information, and plausible deniability goes a long way. As far as Saddam's huge army and mass amounts of time go, let's not forget his shit was all blowed up pretty recently (in terms of rebuilding at least) and various sanctions and embargoes have limited his buying power. (Uh, at least theoretically)

Quote

Terrorist Organisation: Actually, some terrorist facilities have already been destroyed since this war began. At least, that's what the US claims.

Could you maybe link me something about this? I've yet to hear/see it.

Quote

What kind of proof do you need exactly? If they show you a video, your gonna say it's fake. f they tell you they have interviewed people, your gonna say they made the whole thing up. What is it exactly that people want to see?

Yeah, I'm a hardcore skeptic, I'll admit. It would take a lot to convince me, but that's the result of finding out how often various goverments and corporations have lied to their citizens/employees. It's sad when people are so incredulous of everything, but I'd still rather ask too many questions than accept the first answer.

Quote

Don't forget a bunch of Al Queda members, including senior members, have been arrested and interogated. I'm sure the US officials know more than you and I do.

Well, I'd darn well hope so.

Quote

Why are they not providing this evidence? I think it would be unwise to make your intel available to the public. It would undermind your efforts to strike hard. And maybe there are no ties. Who knows? I have no evidence to give you. But looking at patterns and probability, I deduct that it is more likely that there are ties to terrorist organisation in Irak.

That's true, and that's one of the reasons I'm willing to keep an open mind about the whole thing. What patterns and probability are you talking about though? It seems to me that Saddam would be unwilling to harbour any other sort of power structure that's not under his control.

Quote

Not necessarly Al Queda, but other organisations. The Sadma regim itself is a terrorist organisation. They control people. Force them to do things they don't want to do. They terrorize them, kill them, etc. By definition, doesn't that constitute terrorism? Even though it is not directed at you?

While a regime can reign with terror, their being in power denies them the status of terrorist. Generally speaking, a terrorist is a small set of ideological fanatics who use any means possible to convince people of their argument. While Saddam is a despot, he's not a terrorist. If you use your looser definition, then most governments in the world are terrorist organizations at some point or another.

Quote

Free Irak: You are correct. I agree. People will die. People will be injured. People will suffer severe psychological effects. However, doing nothing would also ahve the same result on a much bigger scale. Because Sadam would be the one doing it to his own people.

Unless you can predict the future, you have no way of knowing that for certain. Yes, more people might die. Maybe, maybe. But at least that way their deaths wouldn't be directly on us (NA). I still have giant problems with the "to save the village we had to burn the village" mentality.

Quote

War is a nasty business. People die. But don't let the numbers displayed by the media affect you. Look at history and past wars. Look at death ratios for soldier's for example.
US Casualtity ratio during major wars:
WWI -- 1:15
WWII -- 1:15
Korean War -- 1:13
Vietnam War -- 1:15
Gulf War -- 1:1500
The current ratio in Irak is about 1:10000 so it's damn good results. Don't let the media fool you.

If those figures are accurate, then those are damn good results for our side militarily, I'll agree. Still, fact is that a lot of people are getting blown up, having their homes destroyed, etc, etc.

Quote

Oil prices: I won't be able to teal it to the dead people. They will be dead. Unless I cast a "speak with dead" spell. (I know you'd get that refference ) Seriously, I'm not saying kill people for lower gas prices. Read above for comments on casualties.

Man, if D&D spells were available, these kind of things wouldn't even be an issue. Scying finds Saddam, then one death spell and his entire entourage is gone. Any accidental casualties? Raise dead.

Quote

Torutre ending and corrupted governments: The liberal party in canada is pretty corrupted. Are you getting tortured?

No, thankfully, we have a much higher standard of living. Here, torturing civilians would be a detriment, not an advantage, for which I am eternally grateful.

Quote

Every government is corrupted to some levels. That's the greedy human nature. Democracy means you get a chance to pick the less greedy ones! lol! But you get to make a choice. That is key.

Sometimes it seems like the choice is somewhat a lack thereof, but otherwise I concur.

*snip*

Quote

Positive changes: It doesn't mater which side of the MOAB you stand. Think long term. Not short term. This whole thing will take time.

It does if it's blowing up in your face. If I came to you and said "Life would be better for everyone else if you killed yourself," I'm fairly certain you wouldn't carry through.

Quote

Why Irak now? describe "decent" awnser please.

I just want someone to show me why it's now and not any time in the past 12 years. Or why it can't wait until the UN resolutions have been cleared.

Quote

9-11: Don't say welcome to the rest of the world. Where are you in Montreal? Or Hull? Did anyone kill 3000 people for no good reason other than to make a statement that you are seriously mentally ill?

No, I'm in good old governmental Ottawa; I said that because people are dying all the time in the rest of the world at insane whims, and this is the first time it's hit close to home. In no way am I suggesting 9/11 was a good thing, but at the very least it opened some people's eyes to the instability of the global environment.

Quote

Time frames: I'll give you that one. This is pure marketing. Again, what I said isn't untrue, but they used that information to market the idea of an attack. Again, thie comes down to motive and since I don't really care, I'll leave it at that.

Okey dokey.

Quote

Wipping post: lol, I think that was mispelled. I meant whiping, destroying.

Ahh...

Quote

This is 203: Good question. I ask myself that same thing every time it happens.

I wish I had to ask myself somewhat less.

Quote

Removal of criminals: Yes by killing them! Those assholes are not human. Put them out of their misery I say!

I'm a big wussy pacifist, myself, and I usually don't consider death penalties for anything. Besides, killing someone ends their suffering. If I wanted revenge, keeping them in misery as long as possible sounds like a much more appealing idea. Hmm...maybe I should rethink my pacifism...

Anywho, I was actually talking about the counter-productivity of killing the weak to help them, not the criminals...although I can see wherein the confusion stems.

Quote

I have to go, I'll reply to the rest tomorow.

Sounds like a plan!

Marcocotier · « **Reply #44 on:** March 26, 2003, 07:41:17 PM »

et qui c'est qui a permis à Saddam Hussein et aux talibans d'accéder au pouvoir ? .... oui ... les USA !! ...

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #45 on:** March 26, 2003, 07:44:18 PM »

Quote from: Marcocotier

et qui c'est qui a permis à Saddam Hussein et aux talibans d'accéder au pouvoir ? .... oui ... les USA !! ...

Le moment pour déterminer la causalité et le responsiblity a passé; maintenant tout que nous pouvons faire doit traiter le présent.

Dark Shade · « **Reply #46 on:** March 26, 2003, 10:21:15 PM »

S'all Greek to me...

Anonymous · « **Reply #47 on:** March 26, 2003, 11:37:18 PM »

Quote from: Marcocotier

et qui c'est qui a permis à Saddam Hussein et aux talibans d'accéder au pouvoir ? .... oui ... les USA !! ...

translation: Who allowed Sadam and the Taliban to gain power in the 1st place? That's right! US

I don't really know what the story behind the taliban is, but what you said about sadam is true. And what Lacerda said "we can't really change the pas" is also true. I guess the US now have a chance to partially redeem themselves. I hope they take it.

Dark Shade · « **Reply #48 on:** March 27, 2003, 01:06:18 AM »

I would tend to agree. The above comment in French (?), was ind33d correct. Who first helped Saddam into power? The US. In all honesty, they have no one to blame but themselves for this problem. I'm not exactly taking sides, I'm just stating a point. I basically have no say in this conversation, I hold no side to this arguement. I'd hate to say that this war hasn't affected me and will never do so, however, it's probably true. Unless Canada gets involved in this, it isn't affecting me as a person.

Others may feel differently, however, and I'm open to discussion.

Anonymous · « **Reply #49 on:** March 27, 2003, 08:10:34 AM »

Canada is in hot water at the moment for their lack of participation. The opposition leader is constantly bitchin at Chretien, the US sent a representative who also very directly pointed out that they were very dissapointed and frustrated. Bush is thinking about cancelleing his planned bisit to Canada. He's got bigger fish to fry. The Amercians are pissed at us and a lotr of them will try to find substitutes for canadian products un the US. Unless Jean moves his ass, there are going to be severe economical impacts on our export business with the US i.e. 80% of all our exports... This can't be good for us.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Boycott French Wines (Read 21314 times)

Anonymous

Lynx

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Fred London

Anonymous

Jerome from paris

G. W. B.

Karl

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Marcocotier

Anonymous

Anonymous