<strong>Do the BBC, yeah...</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to that link, for those too lazy to click through, the 'dramatic smoking gun' in the document is a plane with a wider wingspan than declared that might exceed the range limit.
[quote]
It revealed that that an unmanned drone aircraft has been found with a wingspan wider than Iraq had claimed, and that this might be capable of exceeding the 150-kilometre (93-mile) range for weapons delivery systems permitted by the UN.
Perhaps the drone was built by France. </strong><hr></blockquote>
What does a drone have to do with the US warning other countries about how they vote in the UN? Wasn't this thread supposed to be about chastising government officials for doing just that? Or are you just too dogmatic to be able to do it?
<strong>Might exceed is good enough to take an interest in it, as far as I'm converned. Sory if I don't trust Hussein to be a good little boy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's well known that the drones are for flying food from the Baby Milk Factory. Saddam told me and it fits with my anti-US bias so rather than evaluate it critically I will accept it as gospel.
What does a drone have to do with the US warning other countries about how they vote in the UN? Wasn't this thread supposed to be about chastising government officials for doing just that? Or are you just too dogmatic to be able to do it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The thread was about France threatening countries with regard to membership in the EU for their views on Iraq.
You posted a link that had Powell mentioning how France would be thwarting the will of the world by using their veto. Powell mentioned that they would still be our allies however there would be harm to our relationship. That doesn't really constitute a threat in my book.
Meanwhile as mentioned in other threads, french companies have been assisting the Iraqi air force both with planes and parts. Some people have pointed out that a company does not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the French government. However if the actions of the French just happen to coincide with that viewpoint, well countries will draw their own conclusions about that.
See, interestingly enough the U.S. does allow other countries to think for themselves. They may attempt a little financial coercion, but they certainly don't threaten them.
Lastly I was teasing, (though it could be true) that the drone was French built. Since the air force is supplied with French built planes, it certainly isn't a stretch. For the French to declare first that they need a smoking gun and when confronted with a smoking gun (An undeclared, illegal weapons program) to still threaten a veto is the type of action that could definately hurt them on the world stage for their actions seem inconsistant.
It would a cruel irony if of course if they demanded the smoking gun and inspections when they knew that the undeclared weapon was French built.
I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying they have made demand, upon demand. The demands have been met and instead of a softening of position and rhetoric, we have a hardening. That to me means something is foul in the kitchen. Threatening countries, making unattainable demands, and supplying parts and planes all add up to something that doesn't have a happy ending. Pointing this out does not constitute a threat.
But Powell is still an asshole for trying to coerce France, correct?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? I'm just saying they should really follow up, and not give an inch and assume that everything is peachy with these weapons. I think while the US can be said to be too agressive, France & Co. are too forgiving, too willing to look the other way and make assumptons that are merely spiteful towards the US, reactionary instead of intelligent. Niehter side has any supposed moral authority because they're both petty and wrong-minded.
If you want to know where I'm coming from in all this, I just think that deposing Saddam is the right thing to do, even if the Bush administration has a bad argument. It should be the UN's job to take care of his regime's atrocious human rights records but they refuse to step up. (Here comes the peanut galery that compares the US's human rights record to Iraq which are not remotely comparable, but never mind the facts. If the US has so much as given less than a full college education to an inmate, we get these arguments.) Maybe that makes me idyllic, or maybe I'm on my moral high ,but that's my perspective.
Then what would you call France when, assuming a majority vote, they use their veto to thwart the will of the world? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The will of the nine or ten you mean? I'm now reading that Russia & France are prepared to veto, so we'll see.
With my link I'm equating Powell's condemnation of a potential French veto with Chirac's condemnation of the Eastern European support for Bush. In reality, Powell's condemnation prior to a vote is worse, because it can easily be interpreted as a veiled threat attempting to coerce France to change their vote. Whereas Chirac's quote was in no way able to effect the support that was already given.
If what Chirac did was so bad, I expect you to condemn Powell for similar (but worse) actions.
The will of the nine or ten you mean? I'm now reading that Russia & France are prepared to veto, so we'll see.
With my link I'm equating Powell's condemnation of a potential French veto with Chirac's condemnation of the Eastern European support for Bush. In reality, Powell's condemnation prior to a vote is worse, because it can easily be interpreted as a veiled threat attempting to coerce France to change their vote. Whereas Chirac's quote was in no way able to effect the support that was already given.
If what Chirac did was so bad, I expect you to condemn Powell for similar (but worse) actions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't condemn Powell because there is no threat. Honestly someone of your intelligence shouldn't have to twist things so badly in an attempt to persuade on a point.
Powell made two points...
a) Our bilateral relitionship would likely be harmed by a disagreement this strong.
b) We would still be allies and treat France accordingly.
Unless I just happened to leave my glasses at home (and I don't wear glasses by the way) I didn't see any threats in Powell's comments nor any attempts to silence France. Those actions are what Chirac did to various countries in Europe. (mostly eastern) He told them to shut up and threatened to either toss out members who were conditionally in the EU or not even consider other countries still applying for EU membership.
I applaud him for saying this, even if it doesn't jive with point a.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I were your friend and you decided to sleep with my wife, sister or mom it would harm our friendship.
Does that mean I have threatened you?
Your definition of agreement must mean that you and I will get along just fine as long as I do everything you say and give you everything you want.
Saying the actions of one party could cause harm to a two party relationship isn't a threat. Just like my wife saying it would cause harm to our marriage if I slapped her isn't her threatening me.
It's well known that the drones are for flying food from the Baby Milk Factory. Saddam told me and it fits with my anti-US bias so rather than evaluate it critically I will accept it as gospel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha There is something to this Scott.
Of course we all trust Saddam and we must stop this crazy Bush admin.
It's not a perfect comparison. Sleeping with the wife of our friend is a betrayal (or you have special sexual habits ... ), and more it's illegal.
Now it's quite obvious that saying no to a friend, bring no happiness, and lead to a temporary crisis, sleeping with someone wife leads to an eternal crisis.
It's not a perfect comparison. Sleeping with the wife of our friend is a betrayal (or you have special sexual habits ... ), and more it's illegal.
Now it's quite obvious that saying no to a friend, bring no happiness, and lead to a temporary crisis, sleeping with someone wife leads to an eternal crisis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
Perhaps the drone was built by France. They seem to have moved into the realm on irrationality with their actions and demands of inaction.
Nick
Do the BBC, yeah...BBC one, BBC two, BBC three, BBC four...
<strong>Do the BBC, yeah...</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to that link, for those too lazy to click through, the 'dramatic smoking gun' in the document is a plane with a wider wingspan than declared that might exceed the range limit.
[quote]
It revealed that that an unmanned drone aircraft has been found with a wingspan wider than Iraq had claimed, and that this might be capable of exceeding the 150-kilometre (93-mile) range for weapons delivery systems permitted by the UN.
<hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Perhaps the drone was built by France. </strong><hr></blockquote>
What does a drone have to do with the US warning other countries about how they vote in the UN? Wasn't this thread supposed to be about chastising government officials for doing just that? Or are you just too dogmatic to be able to do it?
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>Might exceed is good enough to take an interest in it, as far as I'm converned. Sory if I don't trust Hussein to be a good little boy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But Powell is still an asshole for trying to coerce France, correct?
<strong>Might exceed is good enough to take an interest in it, as far as I'm converned. Sory if I don't trust Hussein to be a good little boy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's well known that the drones are for flying food from the Baby Milk Factory. Saddam told me and it fits with my anti-US bias so rather than evaluate it critically I will accept it as gospel.
<strong>
What does a drone have to do with the US warning other countries about how they vote in the UN? Wasn't this thread supposed to be about chastising government officials for doing just that? Or are you just too dogmatic to be able to do it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The thread was about France threatening countries with regard to membership in the EU for their views on Iraq.
You posted a link that had Powell mentioning how France would be thwarting the will of the world by using their veto. Powell mentioned that they would still be our allies however there would be harm to our relationship. That doesn't really constitute a threat in my book.
Meanwhile as mentioned in other threads, french companies have been assisting the Iraqi air force both with planes and parts. Some people have pointed out that a company does not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the French government. However if the actions of the French just happen to coincide with that viewpoint, well countries will draw their own conclusions about that.
See, interestingly enough the U.S. does allow other countries to think for themselves. They may attempt a little financial coercion, but they certainly don't threaten them.
Lastly I was teasing, (though it could be true) that the drone was French built. Since the air force is supplied with French built planes, it certainly isn't a stretch. For the French to declare first that they need a smoking gun and when confronted with a smoking gun (An undeclared, illegal weapons program) to still threaten a veto is the type of action that could definately hurt them on the world stage for their actions seem inconsistant.
It would a cruel irony if of course if they demanded the smoking gun and inspections when they knew that the undeclared weapon was French built.
I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying they have made demand, upon demand. The demands have been met and instead of a softening of position and rhetoric, we have a hardening. That to me means something is foul in the kitchen. Threatening countries, making unattainable demands, and supplying parts and planes all add up to something that doesn't have a happy ending. Pointing this out does not constitute a threat.
Nick
<strong>
But Powell is still an asshole for trying to coerce France, correct?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then what would you call France when, assuming a majority vote, they use their veto to thwart the will of the world?
Nick
<strong>
But Powell is still an asshole for trying to coerce France, correct?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? I'm just saying they should really follow up, and not give an inch and assume that everything is peachy with these weapons. I think while the US can be said to be too agressive, France & Co. are too forgiving, too willing to look the other way and make assumptons that are merely spiteful towards the US, reactionary instead of intelligent. Niehter side has any supposed moral authority because they're both petty and wrong-minded.
If you want to know where I'm coming from in all this, I just think that deposing Saddam is the right thing to do, even if the Bush administration has a bad argument. It should be the UN's job to take care of his regime's atrocious human rights records but they refuse to step up. (Here comes the peanut galery that compares the US's human rights record to Iraq which are not remotely comparable, but never mind the facts. If the US has so much as given less than a full college education to an inmate, we get these arguments.) Maybe that makes me idyllic, or maybe I'm on my moral high ,but that's my perspective.
<strong>
Then what would you call France when, assuming a majority vote, they use their veto to thwart the will of the world? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The will of the nine or ten you mean? I'm now reading that Russia & France are prepared to veto, so we'll see.
With my link I'm equating Powell's condemnation of a potential French veto with Chirac's condemnation of the Eastern European support for Bush. In reality, Powell's condemnation prior to a vote is worse, because it can easily be interpreted as a veiled threat attempting to coerce France to change their vote. Whereas Chirac's quote was in no way able to effect the support that was already given.
If what Chirac did was so bad, I expect you to condemn Powell for similar (but worse) actions.
<strong>
The will of the nine or ten you mean? I'm now reading that Russia & France are prepared to veto, so we'll see.
With my link I'm equating Powell's condemnation of a potential French veto with Chirac's condemnation of the Eastern European support for Bush. In reality, Powell's condemnation prior to a vote is worse, because it can easily be interpreted as a veiled threat attempting to coerce France to change their vote. Whereas Chirac's quote was in no way able to effect the support that was already given.
If what Chirac did was so bad, I expect you to condemn Powell for similar (but worse) actions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't condemn Powell because there is no threat. Honestly someone of your intelligence shouldn't have to twist things so badly in an attempt to persuade on a point.
Powell made two points...
a) Our bilateral relitionship would likely be harmed by a disagreement this strong.
b) We would still be allies and treat France accordingly.
Unless I just happened to leave my glasses at home (and I don't wear glasses by the way) I didn't see any threats in Powell's comments nor any attempts to silence France. Those actions are what Chirac did to various countries in Europe. (mostly eastern) He told them to shut up and threatened to either toss out members who were conditionally in the EU or not even consider other countries still applying for EU membership.
The two are not even remotely the same.
Nick
<strong>
a) Our bilateral relitionship would likely be harmed by a disagreement this strong. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I consider that a threat.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
b) We would still be allies and treat France accordingly. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I applaud him for saying this, even if it doesn't jive with point a.
<strong>
I consider that a threat.
I applaud him for saying this, even if it doesn't jive with point a.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I were your friend and you decided to sleep with my wife, sister or mom it would harm our friendship.
Does that mean I have threatened you?
Your definition of agreement must mean that you and I will get along just fine as long as I do everything you say and give you everything you want.
Saying the actions of one party could cause harm to a two party relationship isn't a threat. Just like my wife saying it would cause harm to our marriage if I slapped her isn't her threatening me.
Nick
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
<strong>
If Nick eats a baloney sandwich it will harm our friendship.
It doesn't quite flow like your example. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>
It's well known that the drones are for flying food from the Baby Milk Factory. Saddam told me and it fits with my anti-US bias so rather than evaluate it critically I will accept it as gospel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha There is something to this Scott.
Of course we all trust Saddam and we must stop this crazy Bush admin.
Saddam is a nice guy. *caugh*
Fellowship
<strong>
If I were your friend and you decided to sleep with my wife, sister or mom it would harm our friendship.
Does that mean I have threatened you?
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
It's not a perfect comparison. Sleeping with the wife of our friend is a betrayal (or you have special sexual habits ...
Now it's quite obvious that saying no to a friend, bring no happiness, and lead to a temporary crisis, sleeping with someone wife leads to an eternal crisis.
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
It's not a perfect comparison. Sleeping with the wife of our friend is a betrayal (or you have special sexual habits ...
Now it's quite obvious that saying no to a friend, bring no happiness, and lead to a temporary crisis, sleeping with someone wife leads to an eternal crisis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
powerdoc have you been drinking that french wine?
Fellows