# To all French citizens and appeasers...



## preemptingyou03 (Apr 5, 2004)

My father hit the beaches of Normandy, he was there to help liberate Paris, getting shot twice. French citizens hugged and kissed him that day. When he returned to France on vacation in 1994, for the 50th anniversary of D-Day, he was treated like a king, because he was wearing his VFW uniform. He was given free meals and French men and women would shake his hand in the street.

Now, my question is this: Why is it, that today, French citizens view the United States of America as the biggest threat to the world? My question is, why are French citizens vandalizing World War II grave yards? My question is, why are French citizens over looking the financial ties your leader and government had with a mass murdering dictator?

We fought two World Wars for you. We lost hundreds of thousands of lives. We gave you billions and billions of dollars in economic, reconstruction, and military aid. We risked nuclear war for you, for over 40 years, against the Soviet Union. We defeated imperialism, Nazism, and communism on your behalf. From 1914 until 1989, our entire mindset was to keep your nation as well as your continent free from tyranny.

We were attacked on 9/11 from a terrorist group. Nineteen men with box cutters hijacked four planes and flew them into our buildings. 

Why the passivity on your part? We wish to confront all forms of terror. Why is your government going to African nations ready to veto our resolution? Why are you opposing us, for financial and political, and cynical reasons? Saddam violated 17 war treaties. He funded terrorist groups. He slaughtered hundreds of thousands. And we believed, as did your country, (as did almost every nation in the UN) that he had WMD, and he still might have had them. If he didn't have them, he wished to and would have had them very soon. In fact, according to FRENCH and GERMAN intelligence, Saddam would have had THREE NUCLEAR WEAPONS by 2005.

So why aren't you supporting us in Iraq? Why are you supporting us so half-assed in Afghanistan? Why, after us devoting a century to your security, are you opposing us? Why did you inflame anti-Americanism on such a grand scale?

Could it be Bush's economic policies like not joining your socialist "save the whale" policies? Could it be your ties to Iraqi oil? Please defend your nation.


----------



## Jmarie (Apr 6, 2004)

I could not have said that any better..WAY TO GO!!!!!


----------



## Zhukov (Apr 6, 2004)

More likely it's because they are scared witless of their large and growing muslim population.


----------



## preemptingyou03 (Apr 6, 2004)

Yet they ban Muslim girls from wearing their religious symbols in school? 

When will the French get it? When will they do something whole-assed?


----------



## Zhukov (Apr 6, 2004)

Well, I guess we can say one thing for certain:

The French are absolutely, positively, without a doubt, NOT afraid of little girls.  I suppose that is a start.


----------



## preemptingyou03 (Apr 7, 2004)

Hahahaha. Classic.

Honestly... can a French citizen explain why they have been such assholes to us?


----------



## Zhukov (Apr 7, 2004)

Who cares?  I'm sure it's all our fault.


----------



## Jmarie (Apr 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by preemptingyou03 _
> *Hahahaha. Classic.
> 
> Honestly... can a French citizen explain why they have been such assholes to us? *



because they think we should stay out of everything like them and plus they think we owe them..As if we owe anyone anything..this is what I think of France  :finger:   :chains: :firing:


----------



## insein (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by preemptingyou03 _
> *Yet they ban Muslim girls from wearing their religious symbols in school?
> 
> When will the French get it? When will they do something whole-assed? *



That about sums up the french, lol.


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

There are so many inconsistencies in this post that I don't even know where to begin. For the record I am not French, I am Canadian, but I feel that I have to say something because some of these claims are outright ridiculous. First off, France like Canada have always been great allies of the U.S., make no mistake about that. But your best friends are the ones that tell you that you are making an ass out of yourself, and that is what the U.S. has been doing with this war. Iraq is on the verge of a civil war, which the U.S. can't control. The United States have lost many young men and women and killed many others and will continue to do so until they leave Iraq. And for what? WMD, that have not been found, and will NEVER be found because Iraq did NOT have WMD. They had them in the 1980s because the U.S. sold them WMDs NOT France. France has been acitve in the war against terrorism as has Canada but both countries know that this is an illegal war because it has no UN approval and that's why the U.S has not received the support that it expected, not because France and the rest of the world is anti-American. Although France is a ally of the U.S. as is Canada, it does not always have to agree with American polices because it might be hard to believe, but the U.S,. is NOT always right.
Consequently, these claims that France should help the U.S. because the U.S. helped France are ludicris because the truth of the matter is that France was in serious danger because of the Germans as was the rest of the world, including the U.S. And although I feel indebted to men and women like your father, because he truly is a hero, inspite of the desperate pleas from the Allies, the U.S. only joined the war after the Allies were seen as about to lose the war to the Germans, and the U.S. had invested so much money of them, and if the lost they knew they would never get the money back. Futhermore, Iraq did not pose any danger to the U.S. because it did not have weapons of mass destruction nor would it have had 3 by 2005 because they are very difficult to acquire. Only about 8 countries have them because they are seen as very destructive and are very difficult to build and even the richest countries in the world can't build them, let alone Iraq, and they are even difficult to acquire from other countries because countries are extremely careful with them. Although, the French have vandalized American properity, American's have done the same to French interests. Oh, and by the way, French fries are not from France but from Belguim!Huessin did NOT establish terrorist organizations that is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard in my life, who comes up with these things? Huessin's regime was secular in ever sense, and although he was an evil dictator that killed many people, there are worse dictators in the world. Ask Mr.Bush for their numbers, he is really good friends with them.


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

Hmmm, yeah, ok   

Imported Weapons to Iraq 1973-2002 (% share by country):

USSR: 57%
*France: 13%*
China: 12%
Czechoslovakia: 7%
Poland: 4%
Brazil: 2%
Egypt: 1%
Romania: 1%
Denmark: 1%
Libya: 1%
USA: 1%
UK: 0%


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

Maybe you should learn how to read. I was referring to weapons of mass destruction not simply "weapons" that can be anything. And if Iraq has so many weapons why did so few Iraqi soldiers have weapons to fight with when they were defending their country when the  U.S. illegally invaded their country? I have checked your sources, these are merely conventional weapons NOT WMDs. Do you even know what are classified as weapons of mass destruction? Duh!


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *Maybe you should learn how to read. I was referring to weapons of mass destruction not simply "weapons" that can be anything. And if Iraq has so many weapons why did so few Iraqi soldiers have weapons to fight with when they were defending their country when the  U.S. illegally invaded their country? *



Maybe YOU should learn how to read. I never stated anything either way. I simply pointed out that the french pussies were more interested in money than doing the right thing. 

I don't care what you believe and what you don't. The cowardly french were making 5.1 billion dollars in sales per year to Iraq as one of their biggest suppliers of arms. 

I guess it's best for them to sell their weaponry to those who aren't afraid to use it!

And if the invasion was illegal, where are the charges? C'mon, twit, show me what action has been taken thus far against these illegal activities. Surely the worlds other powers wouldn't just allow this to slide by if they had anything actionable.


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *I have checked your sources *



Oh really? And what exactly was my sources, stupid?


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

Read more about the french pussies and why they vowed to veto a resolution before even viewing it:

In 1945, British and U.S. troops paid a heavy price to liberate France from the yoke of Nazi oppression and domination.

Most Americans find it puzzling and extremely disappointing that France seems ungrateful for those sacrifices. Many of us will never forget those sacrifices because we have fathers and grandfathers and brothers and uncles who never came home from that mission. They are still there beneath French soil. We wonder how France could have forgotten  how it could have turned against us in favor of a tinpot Middle East dictator who was raised from the age of 10 by a leader of the Nazi cause in the region.

Why did France assume the leading role internationally as Saddam Hussein's protectorate?

It's business and it's personal  and the story begins a long time ago.

In 1975, when Jacques Chirac first served as prime minister of France, he visited Baghdad  even before Saddam Hussein had assumed his full dictatorial powers.

Chirac helped pave the way for a very lucrative deal for French oil companies in developing Iraq's No. 1 export  besides terrorism, that is. Those oil companies negotiated a 23 percent stake in Iraqi oil.

Shortly thereafter, Saddam Hussein visited Chirac in Paris  the first and last time he visited a Western nation.

Chirac approved the construction of Iraq's first nuclear reactor. Remember that one? In 1981, the Israeli air force had the good sense to destroy it before it ever went online. Where would we be today  23 years later  if Iraq had been able to reprocess the plutonium in that plant and turn it into a nuclear bomb factory? 
.....

These are not the short-range SCUDS or the Al Samoud 2 missiles we're hearing about in the news. These would be much bigger, much more powerful missiles that could easily carry weapons of mass destruction to distant countries. French businesses are involved in supplying materials to Iraq to develop these weapons despite the United Nations embargo against them.

Not only is the French government winking as French businesses help China and Syria smuggle these illicit materials to Iraq, but some are actually producing components of advanced missile systems under contract to Iraq.

Clearly France is protecting some very old, very deep relationships it has cultivated in Iraq. These are very lucrative relationships. And they are very dangerous and destructive relationships for the rest of the world. 

Ironically, it is these compromising business and personal relationships that are causing the French today to be the major international roadblock to the liberation by British and U.S. troops of the Iraqi people from a Nazi disciple named Saddam Hussein.

What does France hope to achieve? Chirac thinks he can persuade Saddam Hussein to step aside  not in a way that will free the Iraqi people from tyranny, but to transition to a new generation of tyranny, one that will maintain the free flow of oil revenues to France, one that will maintain and even increase France's influence in the region, one that will keep Iraqi markets open to French goods, especially arms. 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31552


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

No maybe you should learn how to read and in engage in a mature conversation without childish name calling. Those numbers are for conventional weapons NOT weapons of mass destruction. Do you even know the difference? And yes buddy the war Iraq is an illegal war because there are certain regulations that a country must take into consideration before engaging in a war. It needs a UN approval, which the U.S. did not get. And the reason why there are no charges is simply because there is no world government, only a world court and the U.S. continues to claim immunty, time will tell if they will be charged with anything. So what country cares more about money then doing the right thing? Although, the U.S. hasn't been Iraq's major trading partner in CONVENTIONAL weapons, it was the U.S. that armed Iraq with WMDs, which it did no longer have in 2003 when they invaded. So who cares more about money than doing the right thing.


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> No maybe you should learn how to read and in engage in a mature conversation without childish name calling. Those numbers are for conventional weapons NOT weapons of mass destruction. Do you even know the difference?



Are you really this dense? Where did I state those numbers had anything to do with WMD? The french are a bunch of pussies that were more interested in their billions of dollars in sales than in preventing terrorism.



> And yes buddy the war Iraq is an illegal war because there are certain regulations that a country must take into consideration before engaging in a war. It needs a UN approval, which the U.S. did not get. And the reason why there are no charges is simply because there is no world government, only a world court and the U.S. continues to claim immunty, time will tell if they will be charged with anything. So what country cares more about money then doing the right thing? Although, the U.S. hasn't been Iraq's major trading partner in CONVENTIONAL weapons, it was the U.S. that armed Iraq with WMDs, which it did no longer have in 2003 when they invaded. So who cares more about money than doing the right thing.



You are seriously delusional but I didn't expect much less. The war is quite legal and your theories amount to a big pile of shit. There are no charges because there is nothing actionable.


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

http://www.queensjournal.ca/article.php?point=vol131/issue1/features/lead2

This website has the number you presented and it takes note of conventional weapons, and that it says that Iraq acquired biological weapons. If they did, where are they now?


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *http://www.queensjournal.ca/article.php?point=vol131/issue1/features/lead2
> 
> This website has the number you presented and it takes note of conventional weapons, and that it says that Iraq acquired biological weapons. If they did, where are they now? *



Many have been destroyed by inspectors and some by Iraqi's themselves. Did you not read the inspection reports?


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

Dude, why would coventional weapons pose a threat to the U.S.? If that is the case, we should be really be watching out for the U.S. and not Iraq. You arguments lack convincing power because you insult people without really providing arguments, maybe you should brush up on your political science instead of calling people names, because if you did you would see that it is an illegal war and many of your presidents are war criminals.


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *http://www.queensjournal.ca/article.php?point=vol131/issue1/features/lead2
> 
> This website has the number you presented and it takes note of conventional weapons, and that it says that Iraq acquired biological weapons. If they did, where are they now? *



More importantly in the article you referenced:

_Where did Iraq get its major conventional weapons? Who really armed Iraq?

The answer may surprise you.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), between the years 1973 and 2002, only one per cent of Iraqs imported major conventional weapons came from the U.S. By contrast, 57 per cent of Iraqs imported weapons came from the USSR, 13 percent came from France, and 12 per cent came from China.

These countries were the three largest suppliers of weapons to Iraq during this time period. The U.S., commonly believed to be a key supplier of weapons to Iraq, was actually the 11th largest supplier._


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

Right, then way attack Iraq in 2003 if the weapons were destroyed as Hans Blix insisted?


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

Where in that does it say WMDs? Conventional weapons are NOT WMDs?


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *Right, then way attack Iraq in 2003 if the weapons were destroyed as Hans Blix insisted? *



How convenient of you to forget the part where Blix stated that Iraq still refused to fully cooperate. And how about the chemical weapons that were accounted for in 1998 that disappeared and to date still haven't been accounted for - even after repeated requests from UN inspectors. And the fact that both Blix and Kay have stated Iraq was in material breach of resolutions.

I see you like to pick out what supports your lame argument and ignore the rest. Figures.


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *Where in that does it say WMDs? Conventional weapons are NOT WMDs? *



I'll repeat myself - ARE YOU REALLY THIS DENSE????????

Where did I, or the article, make a reference to the french pussies selling WMD to Iraq? I didn't!!

Do you have comprehension issues?


----------



## Moi (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *No maybe you should learn how to read and in engage in a mature conversation without childish name calling. Those numbers are for conventional weapons NOT weapons of mass destruction. Do you even know the difference? And yes buddy the war Iraq is an illegal war because there are certain regulations that a country must take into consideration before engaging in a war. It needs a UN approval, which the U.S. did not get. And the reason why there are no charges is simply because there is no world government, only a world court and the U.S. continues to claim immunty, time will tell if they will be charged with anything. So what country cares more about money then doing the right thing? Although, the U.S. hasn't been Iraq's major trading partner in CONVENTIONAL weapons, it was the U.S. that armed Iraq with WMDs, which it did no longer have in 2003 when they invaded. So who cares more about money than doing the right thing. *


 Anyone who thinks that any action not approved by the UN is illegal needs serious help.  First things first, the laws of this country are voted on by OUR citizens and only those laws are ones to which we owe allegiance.  The UN is a voluntary organization- led by a man who has no idea how to lead his own nation, much less one as important as the US.  WE wrote the guidelines for them and we are intimately familiar with their tenets.  You can spout off about an illegal war all you want, but you have absolutly no facts to back up your statement.  

Furthermore, it's quite remarkable (and laughable) how so very often people claiming that the US violated UN policy are calling for punitive action about that but over a decade went by in which Iraq did not comply with UN orders and yet these same people think Iraq should have not suffered the consequences set forth by the UN.

You have no original thought, no credibility; only opinion.  You are certainly entitled to it but no one with a brain is swayed.


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *Dude, why would coventional weapons pose a threat to the U.S.? If that is the case, we should be really be watching out for the U.S. and not Iraq. You arguments lack convincing power because you insult people without really providing arguments, maybe you should brush up on your political science instead of calling people names, because if you did you would see that it is an illegal war and many of your presidents are war criminals. *



You truly are an idiot!

Where did I state that conventional weapons were a threat to the US? I simply (I guess not simple enough for a simpleton like you) stated that the french pussies were more interested in their billions of dollars in arms sales to Iraq than they were in preventing terrorism.

Sure, war criminals. Typical canadian idiot that makes ludicrous, baseless claims that cannot be backed up.


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

I wasn't saying that you said that France sold Iraq WMDs, I said that the U.S. sold Iraq WMDs? Read carefully please! Futhermore, Blix said in 2003, not in 1998 that there were no WMDs in Iraq,, he has even condemned the U.S. publicly in 2003 before the war started for not taking his report to heart. And the reason why some weapons are not accounted for is because we saw the very last ones destroyed on television with the supervision of UN weapons inspectors (remember that), before the war even started. To which Bush replied "They are just deceiving us." How convienant!


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

My apologies to those Canadians that are capable of comprehension and common sense.


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> I wasn't saying that you said that France sold Iraq WMDs, I said that the U.S. sold Iraq WMDs? Read carefully please!



Then why have you repeatedly ask me about something I never stated?



> Futhermore, Blix said in 2003, not in 1998 that there were no WMDs in Iraq,, he has even condemned the U.S. publicly in 2003 before the war started for not taking his report to heart. And the reason why some weapons are not accounted for is because we saw the very last ones destroyed on television with the supervision of UN weapons inspectors (remember that), before the war even started. To which Bush replied "They are just deceiving us." How convienant!



And again, for those that can't comprehend - BLIX STATED IN HIS REPORTS TO THE UN THAT IRAQ WAS IN MATERIAL BREACH OF RESOLUTIONS. THIS WAS IN 2003. HE FURTHER REPORTED THAT THERE WERE CHEMICALS THAT WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN 1998 THAT WERE UNACCOUNTED FOR TO DATE. HE REPORTED THAT THEY REFUSED TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR WHEREABOUTS DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS.

Can you comprehend now?


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

Yes, right. then what is the harm of selling Iraq convential weapons? Right? But selling WMDs which the U.S. did in the 1980s is immoral especially when they are claiming to be so self rightous now!!!!Yes, I know it's hard to believe but many of your "wonderful" presidents are war criminals. Read a book!Once again you have proven yourself as rather the classless American with your name calling.


----------



## Said1 (Apr 10, 2004)

url]www.ploughshares.ca/content/BRIEFINGS/brf952.html[/url]

Record Canadian arms sales to the Third World in 1994


Bucking a global downward trend, Canadian arms sales to the Third World jumped more than 40 per cent in 1994 to reach an all-time high, the latest government records show.

While other weapons suppliers experienced a drop in Third World shipments, during 1994 Canada was able to boost military sales to its largest Third World buyer, significantly increase sales to several Pacific Rim countries, and improve on 1993 sales to about three-quarters of its developing country customers. Beyond the official trade, Canada exported equipment for Third World military end-use that did not appear in the government report because the shipments did not require export permits.

 Meanwhile, the 1994 record of Canadian arms sales to human rights violators or countries in conflict did not improve, and Canadian weapons continued to reach repressive regimes and embattled governments in spite of government guidelines designed to restrict such shipments. In sum, during a period when Canada was also increasing resources and personnel for peacekeeping missions, the 1994 arms export figures paint a sorry picture of the first full year of the current government's export controls.

 In a survey published in the September edition of the Ploughshares Monitor, Project Ploughshares analysed the latest trade figures published by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in its report, "Export of Military Goods from Canada: Annual Report 1994." The major findings of the survey were:

Canadian arms sales to the Third World in 1994 reached a record high of $342.6 million. The 1994 total is a jump of $100 million, or more than 40 per cent, above the 1993 total. 
Since 1987 global arms sales to the Third World have dropped by three-quarters. During the same period Canadian military exports to developing countries almost tripled. (See Figure 1 and Figure 2.) 
        The US Congressional Research Service recently ranked Canada as the seventh largest arms supplier to the Third World for the four year period 1991 to 1994. 

If military end-use defined Canadian arms exports, the value of 1994 sales to the Third World may have been 15 to 30 per cent higher than the reported total. If deliveries of "dual-purpose" goods such as the Bell 212 helicopters shipped to the Thailand Army last year were included in official military export figures, Canadian arms shipments to the Third World may have approached half a billion dollars in 1994. 
Canadian arms sales to the Third World in 1994 were more than two and half times arms sales to Europe, traditionally the largest Canadian weapons market outside the US. 

 In 1994 more than half of all non-US Canadian military exports (and three-quarters of Third World exports) arose from one contract, the supply of light armoured vehicles (LAVs) by General Motors of Canada to the National Guard of Saudi Arabia. In 1994 LAV shipments to Saudi Arabia totalled $255.7 million, up $43.8 million from the 1993
delivery value. 

In 1994 eight Third World nations imported Canadian military goods worth at least $1 million more than their 1993 imports. A total of 25 developing countries received higher values of Canadian military goods in 1994 than in 1993. 

 Of the 34 Third World customers for Canadian arms in 1994, 18 were involved in significant human rights violations. Eight recipients were sites of major conflict in 1994 and three more were "flashpoints" where minor conflicts may escalate. According to Canadian export control guidelines, Canada "closely controls" arms exports to human rights
violators and to countries involved in, or threatened by, hostilities. 

 More than half of the 1994 Third World recipients of Canadian weapons did not report to the UN Register of Conventional Arms. The Canadian government meanwhile has stated it will press "UN member states to make use of [the Registry]." 

In the period 1993 to 1994, during which Canada's total non-US military exports increased 48 per cent, the number of Canadian peacekeepers posted abroad increased 52 per cent. 

 The recent growth in Canadian arms sales to Third World countries underlines the need for a review of Canadian export control
 policy. The changed geopolitical environment and broader security context that the Liberal government acknowledged in recent
 foreign policy statements have yet to be reflected in new export controls. As demonstrated by the number of Third World
 recipients of Canadian arms that are involved in human rights violations or conflicts, and the number of sales of "dual-purpose"
 materials to overseas military customers, the existing controls are not up to the realities of today's world.

 In the interim the government could regain lost credibility on its export control practices by taking immediate steps to reduce Canadian military industry dependency on Third World sales. It could begin by more rigorously applying existing export control guidelines, such as those concerned with human rights and hostilities, that are relevant to today's international security dynamics. It could introduce new guidelines, such as mandatory participation in the UN Arms Register, that would contribute to global arms trade restraint.


[


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

Here's some more from Blix's report that you conveniently left out.

*IRAQ COOPERATING WITH DISARMAMENT PROCEDURES, BUT MANY BANNED WEAPONS REMAIN UNACCOUNTED FOR, INSPECTORS TELL SECURITY COUNCIL*

The heads of the weapons inspections regime in Iraq reported to the Security Council today that procedural cooperation in the disarmament process in Iraq continued to improve in recent weeks, and to date they had found no weapons of mass destruction, *but many banned weapons remained unaccounted for and that could only be resolved through Iraqs immediate, unconditional and active cooperation.*

The outstanding questions remained, however  well known to Iraq -- concerning anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles.  Iraqi documents, for example, left some 1,000 tons of chemical agents unaccounted for and the issue must be resolved either by presenting such items for elimination, or by presenting convincing evidence that they had been eliminated.

Cooperation on substance required more than the opening of doors, he added.  In the words of resolution 1441, it required immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament.

In his earlier briefings, he had noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq, he said.  As examples, he had referred to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX, and long-range missiles.  The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December, despite its large volume, had missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions.  That was perhaps the most important problem.  Although he understood that it might not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it was not the task of the inspectors to find out.  Iraq itself must squarely tackle that task and avoid belittling the questions.


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

THERE ARE NO WMDs in IRAQ when the U.S invaded, that is all I am saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am not saying that there never were. Of course there was, the U.S. sold them WMDs.

I can't believe that in a country full of smart people, you can't seem to understand that you were fooled into a  war by your leader and you don't have to analytical skills to comprehend that! That is a very sad thing! No wonder many people including educated Americans, which you probably aren't, think American's are extremely ignorant!!!!!


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *Yes, right. then what is the harm of selling Iraq convential weapons? Right? But selling WMDs which the U.S. did in the 1980s is immoral especially when they are claiming to be so self rightous now!!!!Yes, I know it's hard to believe but many of your "wonderful" presidents are war criminals. Read a book!Once again you have proven yourself as rather the classless American with your name calling. *



Can you please take your time when responding, I can't stand reading posts by people that are illiterate.

Call them war criminals all you like. Rants from retards without facts really don't bother me.


----------



## maria5583 (Apr 10, 2004)

Blix's report that you provided only strenghts my views. The man wanted more time to investigate and the U.S. wouldn't give him it and just decided to attack.


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *THERE ARE NO WMDs in IRAQ when the U.S invaded, that is all I am saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am not saying that there never were. Of course there was, the U.S. sold them WMDs.
> 
> I can't believe that in a country full of smart people, you can't seem to understand that you were fooled into a  war by your leader and you don't have to analytical skills to comprehend that! That is a very sad thing! No wonder many people including educated Americans, which you probably aren't, think American's are extremely ignorant!!!!! *



Jesus, you're going to call me uneducated now - when you can't spell any better than a 3rd grader? LOL

The analytical skills of the inspectors and intel agencies around the world were enough for me. They all came to the same conclusions, idiot.


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *Blix's report that you provided only strenghts my views. The man wanted more time to investigate and the U.S. wouldn't give him it and just decided to attack. *



Sure, completely ignore what you said about Blix and weapons earlier. Next time read the resolutions and inspection reports before making a fool of yourself.


----------



## preemptingyou03 (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *There are so many inconsistencies in this post that I don't even know where to begin. For the record I am not French, I am Canadian, but I feel that I have to say something because some of these claims are outright ridiculous. First off, France like Canada have always been great allies of the U.S., make no mistake about that. But your best friends are the ones that tell you that you are making an ass out of yourself, and that is what the U.S. has been doing with this war. Iraq is on the verge of a civil war, which the U.S. can't control. The United States have lost many young men and women and killed many others and will continue to do so until they leave Iraq. And for what? WMD, that have not been found, and will NEVER be found because Iraq did NOT have WMD. They had them in the 1980s because the U.S. sold them WMDs NOT France. France has been acitve in the war against terrorism as has Canada but both countries know that this is an illegal war because it has no UN approval and that's why the U.S has not received the support that it expected, not because France and the rest of the world is anti-American. Although France is a ally of the U.S. as is Canada, it does not always have to agree with American polices because it might be hard to believe, but the U.S,. is NOT always right.
> Consequently, these claims that France should help the U.S. because the U.S. helped France are ludicris because the truth of the matter is that France was in serious danger because of the Germans as was the rest of the world, including the U.S. And although I feel indebted to men and women like your father, because he truly is a hero, inspite of the desperate pleas from the Allies, the U.S. only joined the war after the Allies were seen as about to lose the war to the Germans, and the U.S. had invested so much money of them, and if the lost they knew they would never get the money back. Futhermore, Iraq did not pose any danger to the U.S. because it did not have weapons of mass destruction nor would it have had 3 by 2005 because they are very difficult to acquire. Only about 8 countries have them because they are seen as very destructive and are very difficult to build and even the richest countries in the world can't build them, let alone Iraq, and they are even difficult to acquire from other countries because countries are extremely careful with them. Although, the French have vandalized American properity, American's have done the same to French interests. Oh, and by the way, French fries are not from France but from Belguim!Huessin did NOT establish terrorist organizations that is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard in my life, who comes up with these things? Huessin's regime was secular in ever sense, and although he was an evil dictator that killed many people, there are worse dictators in the world. Ask Mr.Bush for their numbers, he is really good friends with them. *



Maria, (nice name by the way) I must first say that I respect your stance on defending the French. I mean, we've been doing that for over 100 years.

Richard Perle points out in his book, "An End To Evil," (I know that word "evil" doesn't rest well with liberals when talking about terrorists) that your president, Jacques Chirac, often tells a story of how he came to the US to study at Harvard... and how he learned more from his weekend job serving sodas at a Howard Johnson's off campus. In 1953, it would be inconceiveable for a young Frenchman from a good family to take a job in France as a waiter... it was in America that good old Jacques got his first glimpse at equality. He was not the first, nor the last, European to be reinvigorated in his democratic ideals by the American example.

We have spent an entire century defending Frenchman and Europeans from imperialists, Nazis, and Soviets. Ironically enough, the first NATO member to be attacked, was us, on 9/11. We were attacked by al-Qaeda, a lone terrorist group, in a world with many terrorist groups. To think that the War on Terror starts and ends with al-Qaeda and bin Laden, that is a short, and wrong definition of terrorism. Saddam Hussein funded terrorist groups. He sponsored terrorist networks. And he sheltered terrorists.

Abu Abbas, the leader of the PLF, was given shelter in Iraq. Abu Nidal, the leader of the ANO, was given shelter in Iraq. Abdul Yassin, an al-Qaeda operative and plotter of the 1993 WTC bombing, was given shelter in Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative and Ansar al-Islam leader, as given shelter in Iraq. Groups with ties to al-Qaeda, such as the MEK, PKK, Abu-Sayyaf, and Ansar al-Islam, were given sponsorship from Iraq. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, were given funds from Iraq. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's #2, went to Baghdad in 1991. The secular Baathists had to work with radical elements for their very own survival.

Saddam was a terrorist. He slaughtered 750,000 of his own people. He was a threat as a state sponsor of terrorism. In regards to the WMD, well... Russia, the UK, China, France, as well as the other 10 nations in the Security Council, thought there were WMD in Iraq. Italy, Spain, Poland, etc etc.

Almost every Democrat thought there was WMD in Iraq. The reason for this is *SADDAM VIOLATED 17 RESOLUTIONS 333 TIMES REGARDING HIS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.* He lost billions, on purpose... he used them, he admitted to using and having them, he detained inspectors, he kicked them out.

And according to FRANCE and GERMANY, he would have had nukes by 2005. 

When the Soviet Union was sending nuclear missiles to Cuba in 1962, the US Sec. of State went to France to show them photos of this. The French leader threw the pictures aside and said, "If America says it is true, it is and America has the support of France." Today? Today French officials wouldn't comment if they wanted the US to win the war! They bribed African governments to veto our resolutions. French citizens vandalized American GI graves... the same Americans that died on French soil liberating you.

France's opposition to the war wasn't noble and peaceful. It was financial and cynical.


----------



## preemptingyou03 (Apr 10, 2004)

Oh, and of course the US supported the Baathists in the Cold War, as they were a staunch anti-communist and anti-Iranian force. Of course... we didn't support his gassing of the Kurds, but yes, we did in fact turn a blind eye.

We had to. It was during the Cold War. Had we not supported Afghan rebels (OBL) and dictators (such as Saddam) communism would have taken over the Middle East.

We're trying to right that wrong. Our enemy now is a different ideology than communism.


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

Maria, your 'reported post' has been received. Thank you for reporting me to myself, idiot!


----------



## jimnyc (Apr 10, 2004)

Your second 'reported post' has been received and noted, dipshit.


----------



## Said1 (Apr 10, 2004)




----------



## insein (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *Yes, right. then what is the harm of selling Iraq convential weapons? Right? But selling WMDs which the U.S. did in the 1980s is immoral especially when they are claiming to be so self rightous now!!!!Yes, I know it's hard to believe but many of your "wonderful" presidents are war criminals. Read a book!Once again you have proven yourself as rather the classless American with your name calling. *



Honey, jimmy offers eveidence of the French being pussies and Blix stating that Iraq had not complied with the UN's own resolutions.  More eveidence shows that Blix said there were materials unnaccounted for.   Yet you dwell on the fact that he has condemned the war.  Why? Because its the only thing in his report that supports your baseless claims.   

Now to your other opinions and fantasies.  The Americans supplied weapons to Iraq, but when did they supply WMD's as you say?  Whend did they supply even the materials to make WMDs?  

No fact, all opinion and fiction.  I feel like im watching CNN.


----------



## insein (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by maria5583 _
> *Blix's report that you provided only strenghts my views. The man wanted more time to investigate and the U.S. wouldn't give him it and just decided to attack. *



Is 10 years enough for ya honey?  I think the UN had plenty of time to prove they are incapable of handling any serious problem that occurs in the World.


----------



## insein (Apr 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by jimnyc _
> *Maria, your 'reported post' has been received. Thank you for reporting me to myself, idiot! *



LMAO :


----------



## Zhukov (Apr 10, 2004)

> The Israelis have bombed a *French-built* nuclear plant near Iraq's capital



http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm




> this is an illegal war because it has no UN approval



A war does not need UN approval for it to be legal, according to the UN itself.



> Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,



_Article 51 of the United Nations Charter_

Armed Attacks against allied interests, in violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire.



> Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites northeast of Mosul



http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-021117-eucom01.htm



> U.S. military officials said the attacks are initiated only in response to Iraqi fire.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57054-2003Jan14?language=printer



> But the zones have been breached by Iraq on several past occasions, with varying consequences.
> 
> 
> December 1992 - a combat aircraft shot down an Iraqi fighter which had entered one of the exclusion zones.
> ...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/forces_and_firepower/244364.stm

_et cetera_

http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html


----------



## supermarine (Apr 12, 2004)

YAAA, and now the zhukov battlton has rushed in to reinforce. WAY TA GO. keep up the good work, and same with u jimmy


----------



## misysvienna (May 23, 2004)

"My question is, why are French citizens over looking the financial ties your leader and government had with a mass murdering dictator?"

Aren't you overlooking ties the USA has had with several of these? such as bin laden being a paid member of the CIA? and come to think of it - 'mass murdering dictator' sounds like a certain mr bush to me...


----------



## misysvienna (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by jimnyc _
> *Can you please take your time when responding, I can't stand reading posts by people that are illiterate.
> 
> Call them war criminals all you like. Rants from retards without facts really don't bother me. *



Thankyou jimny c for completely assuring me of your stupidity..gave me a few minutes of laughter i assure you.

Was that reply a deflection from the fact you have no arguments for your leaders' crimes and deceptions? i think it might have been. for gods sake!! wake up, realise YOU'RE the one who is sounding stupid. illiterate? yes...do i decide that you don't know what that means? i dont think that was a rant, more in fact perfectly correect statements.

If you can't see this then you've just proved yourself dimmer than you'd care to think yourself. Get some good come-backs huh?


----------



## Zhukov (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by misysvienna _
> *"My question is, why are French citizens over looking the financial ties your leader and government had with a mass murdering dictator?"
> 
> Aren't you overlooking ties the USA has had with several of these? such as bin laden being a paid member of the CIA? and come to think of it - 'mass murdering dictator' sounds like a certain mr bush to me... *



Nice dodge.

First of all, our President was democratically elected, and is up for election again.  That doesn't quite mesh with the definition of dictator now does it? 

Second of all, French soldiers are with us in Afghanistan, and if one projects the trends of state-sponsored exterminations inside Iraq from the start of the war forward to the present, I'll bet our President has saved more Iraqi lives than the number of innocent Iraqis who have _unitentionally_ been killed by our actions liberating that country.

Third, by commiting illegal acts during their participation in the U.N. 'Oil-for-Palaces' program, one could argue that those French people involved are partly responsible for the starvation deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Fourth, Osama was paid by the CIA to help us in our efforts to destroy the Soviets.  You remember the Soviets don't you?

When asked about how proud he must feel that his soldiers had conquered Berlin, Stalin responded:

"Alexander made it to Paris."

You're welcome.


----------



## MtnBiker (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by misysvienna _
> *Thankyou jimny c for completely assuring me of your stupidity..gave me a few minutes of laughter i assure you.
> 
> Was that reply a deflection from the fact you have no arguments for your leaders' crimes and deceptions? i think it might have been. for gods sake!! wake up, realise YOU'RE the one who is sounding stupid. illiterate? yes...do i decide that you don't know what that means? i dont think that was a rant, more in fact perfectly correect statements.
> ...


If you are going to call someone stupid and illiterate you should at least make sure your spelling is *correct*, can you *realize* that?


----------



## misysvienna (May 23, 2004)

George bush cheated: Not only in Florida, but also across the country, African American votes were disproportionately thrown out. so now hes; racist, sexist, homophobic and a right wing facist. Got to tell you- great reasons to support this guy.
maybe not SO democratically elected? 

Shouldn't have used the word dictator there- i admit, just quoting a previous reply. But thats exactly how he's acting towards the middle east- wheres next for the US attack?

How can you say the war was justified when the US has committed human rights breaches there? That's no better than Saddam. And i don't think they can be called 'unintentional'. 

Have you seen the numbers of people murdered in the US- and the disproportional amount of these that are ethnic minorities? how can you support this guy?

If hes so democratic and intent on showing the rest of the world how to do so, and using it as an attempt of an excuse for war maybe he should put US troops in a democratic country- since when exactly has Kuwait been an example of a democratic country?

I agree with the fact that Saddam's regime was cruel and horrible, but similar things have happened under America's involvement there.

Yes, i do remember the Soviets. For starters Stalin was evil again, granted. But, the whole anti-communism cold war thing- wasn't that just about the fact that Russia posed a threat? 
Getting off the subject, The USA can't handle the fact that someone could threaten them with weapons. Russia wasn't even properly communist. And even if it was- not exactly like the communist idea was a cruel one is it? Capitalism is doing more harm than good in the third world, what do you think the awful (i admit) trade centre attcks were about? Then your perfect president defers from this idea by claiming the pentagon was attacked- where's the evidence/wreckage?!! Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and the US wasn't informed- he did nothing.

So i made a spelling mistake......not exactly the point- more that illiterate isn't spelling wrongly, it's not being able to read or write.


----------



## MtnBiker (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by misysvienna _
> *
> So i made a spelling mistake......not exactly the point- more that illiterate isn't spelling wrongly, it's not being able to read or write. *


My point is, if you are going to take the attitude you have and call someone stupid and illiterate for your own crediblities sake you should spell the words correctly in such a post.


----------



## Zhukov (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by misysvienna _
> George bush cheated: Not only in Florida, but also across the country,



Proof?



> racist, sexist, homophobic and a right wing facist.



Proof?



> wheres next for the US attack?



Iran or Syria



> How can you say the war was justified when the US has committed human rights breaches there?



Human rights violations were commited by allied soldiers in all theatres of WW2.  I guess by your logic WW2 wasn't justified.



> That's no better than Saddam. And i don't think they can be called 'unintentional'.



Are we exterminating innocent Iraqi by shooting them in the head, gassing them, or throwing them into industrial paper shredders by the tens of thousands?  You equate sexual humiliation and accidental deaths with the systematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.  You are a moral fool.



> Have you seen the numbers of people murdered in the US- and the disproportional amount of these that are ethnic minorities? how can you support this guy?



Yep, Pres. Bush is responsible for every single instance of racial tension and violence in this country.  It's all his fault...

Get a grip on reality.



> If hes so democratic and intent on showing the rest of the world how to do so, and using it as an attempt of an excuse for war maybe he should put US troops in a democratic country- since when exactly has Kuwait been an example of a democratic country?



You want us to attack Kuwait?  Incidentally, we *do* have troops in Kuwait.  We have since '91.



> I agree with the fact that Saddam's regime was cruel and horrible, but similar things have happened under America's involvement there.



Proof of systematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people?



> Yes, i do remember the Soviets. For starters Stalin was evil again, granted. But, the whole anti-communism cold war thing- wasn't that just about the fact that Russia posed a threat?



They posed a threat to humanity.  Since the 1920's communism has directly resulted in the erradication of well over 60 million people. 



> Capitalism is doing more harm than good in the third world



Proof?



> what do you think the awful (i admit) trade centre attcks were about?



Glad you admit it.  That must have been tough.

Because Osama is an idol worshiping pagan and he wanted to destroy the _symbol_ of U.S. economic power: The World Trade Centre.



> Then your perfect president defers from this idea by claiming the pentagon was attacked- where's the evidence/wreckage?!! Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and the US wasn't informed- he did nothing.



Well, you can dwell in your own silly conspiracy theories, but I won't humour them.  As if a President, 7 months into his term, would be complicit in the murder of over 3000 of his fellow citizens.


----------



## MtnBiker (May 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by misysvienna _
> *George bush cheated: Not only in Florida, but also across the country, African American votes were disproportionately thrown out.  *



The very thought that any national canidate would have the ability to cheat in an election is absurd. All of the voting districts are locally controlled by the state's counties.

Perhaps its your lack of experience in voting for a US President that is confusing you.


----------



## insein (May 23, 2004)

I was debating whether or not this deserved a response due to the illinformed fanatical nature of the poster.  But alas i'll give it a go.



> _Originally posted by misysvienna _
> *George bush cheated: Not only in Florida, but also across the country, African American votes were disproportionately thrown out. so now hes; racist, sexist, homophobic and a right wing facist. Got to tell you- great reasons to support this guy.
> maybe not SO democratically elected?
> *



Several hundred recounts later, Bush still won.  Not even the newspapers, left-wing groups or leading democrats could find a way to recount a Gore victory.  As for the African-American votes being thrown out, wheres your proof?  This statement alone has started you with zero credibility.  Lets see if you can work your way up to anything.



> *Shouldn't have used the word dictator there- i admit, just quoting a previous reply. But thats exactly how he's acting towards the middle east- wheres next for the US attack?*




How is he a dicatator for liberating millions and allowing them to run their own countries?



> *How can you say the war was justified when the US has committed human rights breaches there? That's no better than Saddam. And i don't think they can be called 'unintentional'.
> *



No human rights breaches have occurred en masse as people will have you believe.  Casualties of war have occurred, but as previously mentioned, more lives have been saved than have been killed by The Coalition.  



> *Have you seen the numbers of people murdered in the US- and the disproportional amount of these that are ethnic minorities? how can you support this guy?*




This just shows a complete ignorance to America for the past 200 years.  African Americans have had to struggle to earn their rights.  These last 25 years have been the best they've ever had it.  Ever since reagan came into office, Blacks have gained more of a foothold into the middle class.  However, those murders that you refer to are caused mostly by black on black violenece.  Go look at the numbers and you will see that white on black crime is a rarity these days.  And how can you blame someone who has had power for 3.5 years for something that has occurred even before his grandpop was born?  Ignorance is bliss i suppose.



> *If hes so democratic and intent on showing the rest of the world how to do so, and using it as an attempt of an excuse for war maybe he should put US troops in a democratic country- since when exactly has Kuwait been an example of a democratic country?*



The problem there is that democratic nations usually cooperate *diplomatically* where as dictators usually defy *diplomacy* as history has shown us.  Hitler defied France and England's appeasement treaties and attacked them anyway.  Stalin brutally murdered thousands of his own people despite diplomatic protests from civilized nations.  Saddam did the same.  He snubbed his nose for 12 years at the US and the UN.  All dictators know is power and force.  So to bring one down, you better be willing to carry a big stick.



> *I agree with the fact that Saddam's regime was cruel and horrible, but similar things have happened under America's involvement there.*



Nothing as atrocious as Saddam's gasing, raping and torturing of his own people.  Comparing the isolated incident of 12 people to systematic genocide of millions is another ignorant statement.  



> *Yes, i do remember the Soviets. For starters Stalin was evil again, granted. But, the whole anti-communism cold war thing- wasn't that just about the fact that Russia posed a threat?
> Getting off the subject, The USA can't handle the fact that someone could threaten them with weapons. Russia wasn't even properly communist. And even if it was- not exactly like the communist idea was a cruel one is it? Capitalism is doing more harm than good in the third world, what do you think the awful (i admit) trade centre attcks were about? Then your perfect president defers from this idea by claiming the pentagon was attacked- where's the evidence/wreckage?!! Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and the US wasn't informed- he did nothing.*




There in lies your problem.  Believing that communism works.  Communism and its bastard sister socialism do NOT work.  It assumes that ALL humans are created equal and that evil does not exist.  It assumes that all people will share with all people.  There in lies the flaw.  Humans are fallable.  Thats why we have murder and rape and genocide.  There are evil people in the world that wish to exploit the good ones.  When people are made to rely on each other, some will work hard and some will work less.  When people see that they can do less and still get the same as the guy who works more, there goes their incentive and thus they exploit the good people.  It weakens the will of the people to achieve and therefore crushes under its own weight.



> *So i made a spelling mistake......not exactly the point- more that illiterate isn't spelling wrongly, it's not being able to read or write. *



Yes at least you understood that much.  But at the end of reading your post, i conclude that you have less than zero credibility.  I give more credibility to conartists in prison then i would to you.  For they at least are already behind bars where as you spread lies and are still causing damage to the world.


----------



## JohnGalt (May 27, 2004)

> The USA can't handle the fact that someone could threaten them with weapons



You are god damn right we can't. Someone that threatens America with weapons these days get's a swift kick to the groin and a large freedom-sized combat boot up their ass.


----------



## insein (May 27, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JohnGalt _
> *You are god damn right we can't. Someone that threatens America with weapons these days get's a swift kick to the groin and a large freedom-sized combat boot up their ass. *



God Bless America!:usa: :usa: :usa: :usa:


----------



## robgmiles (Jun 1, 2004)

What is up with all this french bashing? All they did was present a different view? Im sure everyone in France would agree that Saddam was a nasty piece of work and that Iraq broke many UN resolutions, but then so has many other countries including America, France, Britain and Israel. They just didnt believe that Iraq had any WMD left over or that Saddam was in anyway involved with al-quida. These both look incresingly unlikely, maybe the french did have a point after all!
The French are only guilty of taking the time to think about this properly and not acting gung-ho and getting themselves stuck in this mess.
Dont forget the French supported and even sent troops to afghanistan to help us out when we actually had a legitimate reason for war.

The French are not anti-american by any stretch of the imagination, quite the opposite actually. but then i guess none of you have ever been there to see it for yourselves, you have only heard it through the media


----------



## Annie (Jun 1, 2004)

Welcome.

Perhaps you should read a bit more on the Oil for Food program and French conflict of interest.

Actually much of Europe is saying similar things about the French:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/31/1085855500038.html

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/17/neur17.xml


----------



## Adam's Apple (Jun 1, 2004)

Misvyvienna, all I can say is that you have been listening to and watching too much CNN (Communist News Network, as it is called in the USA).  I understand that the FOX News Channel is not available to you in Canada.  You should lobby to get it available so you can hear and watch "fair and balanced" news reporting.  People living in the Red States in the 2000 US election get their news from other sources than the East Coast liberal establishment.  The liberal "news" sources report ideology for news by finding people who agree with what they want to report and then reporting it as "news" and portraying it as the thinking of the people in the US.  Many people in the US are on to their MO and don't pay any attention to them.  They have been trying to hoodwink us for years.


----------



## MtnBiker (Jun 1, 2004)

Misvyvienna was not from Canada and I don't think she will be posting here again.


----------



## insein (Jun 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by robgmiles _
> *What is up with all this french bashing? All they did was present a different view? Im sure everyone in France would agree that Saddam was a nasty piece of work and that Iraq broke many UN resolutions, but then so has many other countries including America, France, Britain and Israel. They just didnt believe that Iraq had any WMD left over or that Saddam was in anyway involved with al-quida. These both look incresingly unlikely, maybe the french did have a point after all!
> The French are only guilty of taking the time to think about this properly and not acting gung-ho and getting themselves stuck in this mess.
> Dont forget the French supported and even sent troops to afghanistan to help us out when we actually had a legitimate reason for war.
> ...



Read these.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...17/141224.shtml
WMD's in Syria.  Terrorist Plot to kill 80,000 foiled.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482
Debka announces before the war began that weapons were being shipped to Syria.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109338,00.html
Al Queda training camps in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,779359,00.html
Liberal Newspaper concurs. 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast.../jordan.terror/
Terrorists from Syria received training in IRaq.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/27/100047.shtml
And some new information that has just recently come to light that shows a DIRECT LINK with Saddam and Al Queda on 9/11.

Digest them for a bit and get back to me.


----------

