...Where are you getting the $3.5 billion and $2 billion figures from? Unless you are citing the cost figures mistakenly I don't see those numbers in that data.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said previously.
The French will not own the oil. They get paid that cost figure to get it out of the ground.
<strong>It's kind of discouraging the way France sees the United States. After all, if it weren't for our fathers and grandfathers, everyone in France would be speaking German. .</strong><hr></blockquote>NO you're wrong. They would be speaking Russian. . .
. the Russians sacrificed more lives than anyone in WW2 and kicked more but than anyone . . in the Eurpean Theatre that is.
<strong>NO you're wrong. They would be speaking Russian. . .
. the Russians sacrificed more lives than anyone in WW2 and kicked more but than anyone . . in the Eurpean Theatre that is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I know the Russians sacrificed more than anyone. I just finished a class on European roles in WWII. I was not implying that the Russians didn't sacrifice, I was merely making a common point that the U.S. invaded Normandy, France and defeated the Germans on the western front. You're right though, the Russians kicked some SERIOUS ass on the eastern front. Without them, we might ALL be speaking German.
[quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:
<strong>syn, i'll be the first to agree that georgie jr's foreign policy approach seems akin to a bull in a china shop more often than not</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would rather say that Bush has an ounce of leadership to bring real issues to the table and is willing to address the issues. Bush and Blair are some of the few real world leaders at this point in time. It is not enough to ignore problems and talk "nicely" with killers. Would a police dept take a killer and try to ask the killer to comply with doing the right thing? uhhhhh I should think not.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
I would rather say that Bush has an ounce of leadership to bring real issues to the table and is willing to address the issues. Bush and Blair are some of the few real world leaders at this point in time. It is not enough to ignore problems and talk "nicely" with killers. Would a police dept take a killer and try to ask the killer to comply with doing the right thing? uhhhhh I should think not.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>No you're right they should cast the first stone . . . and really aim for the head too . . . make it hurt!!!
<strong>No you're right they should cast the first stone . . . and really aim for the head too . . . make it hurt!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
pfflam you are not serious. Some people can have a real discussion and some like to joke. Get serious for once. Mean what you say if you are going to say something.
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
pfflam you are not serious. Some people can have a real discussion and some like to joke. Get serious for once. Mean what you say if you are going to say something.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>perhaps there is more than madness to his method . .
but really merely trying on the old Christian morality in order to shed light on the Morality of 'Pre-emptive warfare'
Thought that you might see the wisdom in that famous saying about 'casting the first stone' and all . . .
Tell you what Bill, I'll trust Bobbitt over your poor math skills.
Those are not the only two oil fields France is hooked up with. You cannot tell me (1) that's all there is to it and (2) that doesn't play a part in France's current stance.
<strong>It's kind of discouraging the way France sees the United States. After all, if it weren't for our fathers and grandfathers, everyone in France would be speaking German..</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the US, will not be the only one superpower in that case. The reich empire will dominate all europe (or it will have collapsed by itself like the russian empire). Roosevelt knew in his great wisdom, that Hitler have to been stopped, for the sake of the world. The moral was for helping the french, but the supreme interest of the US nation too. The two reasons : moral and interest where for this war.
I am glad that US help us, but if some people here, repeat day after day that France has only the right to shut up, because US save his ass , sixty years ago, i would conclude that receiving the help of US is a sort of humiliation (you recieve help, you lost your honnor). Did we repeat time after time, that Lafayette help US some centuries ago. That's weird there is no debt for this, just a good period of our common history.
Oil is an important factor, but he canno't explain the french position.
If oil was the only issue, the french gov will have made a bargain with US : strong support of the US war, and respect of the french oil contract even with changes.
Every time I see "The French would be speaking German if it weren't for the US: where's their support?" I wince.
Is it America vs. Iraq here, or the UN vs. Iraq? Because the French are perfectly entitled to question United Nations action. All of a sudden, it seems, it's American action in the offing and France isn't allowed to say diddly without being 'ungrateful'.
What? Either this IS a UN thing, in which case viva global democracy, or it's a US thing, in which case if YOU'RE going to act unilaterally you CAN'T SAY A DAMN THING IF FRANCE OBJECTS.
<strong>Tell you what Bill, I'll trust Bobbitt over your poor math skills.
Those are not the only two oil fields France is hooked up with. You cannot tell me (1) that's all there is to it and (2) that doesn't play a part in France's current stance.
It's illogical.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Out of interest Grove, how much does oil play in the US position?
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
I would rather say that Bush has an ounce of leadership to bring real issues to the table and is willing to address the issues. Bush and Blair are some of the few real world leaders at this point in time. It is not enough to ignore problems and talk "nicely" with killers. Would a police dept take a killer and try to ask the killer to comply with doing the right thing? uhhhhh I should think not.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would the police kill the whole street where the killer lived in order to get him? uhhhhh I should think not.
[quote]<strong>If oil was the only issue, the french gov will have made a bargain with US : strong support of the US war, and respect of the french oil contract even with changes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course oil isn't the whole thing. It's part of it, though.
(I think it's funny now that the anti-war movement finds itself approached with the same question.)
Hassan:
[quote]<strong>What? Either this IS a UN thing, in which case viva global democracy, or it's a US thing, in which case if YOU'RE going to act unilaterally you CAN'T SAY A DAMN THING IF FRANCE OBJECTS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well unilateral action is no longer an option.
Harald:
[quote]<strong>Out of interest Grove, how much does oil play in the US position?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some.
[quote]<strong>Would the police kill the whole street where the killer lived in order to get him?</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>It is now known France is clear with their stand on Iraq. It is also clear to me France has taken a path to Iraqi compliance that was hard for me to understand at first. I thought France was unclear as to the level of support within the context of the UN. At this point I find the path France has chosen a very worthy one. France has given peace a chance in a very public way however in the event Saddam will continue to defy the world community France has made itself clear.
What do you imply that France will defense Iraq with his aircraft carrier to save 40 - 60 billions of oil contract ?
That 's freakin hilarious. I guess i probabily did not understand what you meant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought it implied that France will be there in the end to aid UN troops so they can have a piece of the pie if things to get to the point of WaR. I can't see France defending on the side of Iraq. If that happened they would lose all their western allies (except maybe for germany).
Comments
<strong>
I didn't read the article...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well duh, that's obvious.
<strong>
...Where are you getting the $3.5 billion and $2 billion figures from? Unless you are citing the cost figures mistakenly I don't see those numbers in that data.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said previously.
The French will not own the oil. They get paid that cost figure to get it out of the ground.
<strong>It's kind of discouraging the way France sees the United States. After all, if it weren't for our fathers and grandfathers, everyone in France would be speaking German. .</strong><hr></blockquote>NO you're wrong. They would be speaking Russian. . .
. the Russians sacrificed more lives than anyone in WW2 and kicked more but than anyone . . in the Eurpean Theatre that is.
<strong>NO you're wrong. They would be speaking Russian. . .
. the Russians sacrificed more lives than anyone in WW2 and kicked more but than anyone . . in the Eurpean Theatre that is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I know the Russians sacrificed more than anyone. I just finished a class on European roles in WWII. I was not implying that the Russians didn't sacrifice, I was merely making a common point that the U.S. invaded Normandy, France and defeated the Germans on the western front. You're right though, the Russians kicked some SERIOUS ass on the eastern front. Without them, we might ALL be speaking German.
<strong>syn, i'll be the first to agree that georgie jr's foreign policy approach seems akin to a bull in a china shop more often than not</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would rather say that Bush has an ounce of leadership to bring real issues to the table and is willing to address the issues. Bush and Blair are some of the few real world leaders at this point in time. It is not enough to ignore problems and talk "nicely" with killers. Would a police dept take a killer and try to ask the killer to comply with doing the right thing? uhhhhh I should think not.
Fellowship
<strong>
I would rather say that Bush has an ounce of leadership to bring real issues to the table and is willing to address the issues. Bush and Blair are some of the few real world leaders at this point in time. It is not enough to ignore problems and talk "nicely" with killers. Would a police dept take a killer and try to ask the killer to comply with doing the right thing? uhhhhh I should think not.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>No you're right they should cast the first stone . . . and really aim for the head too . . . make it hurt!!!
<strong>No you're right they should cast the first stone . . . and really aim for the head too . . . make it hurt!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
pfflam you are not serious. Some people can have a real discussion and some like to joke. Get serious for once. Mean what you say if you are going to say something.
Fellowship
<strong>
pfflam you are not serious. Some people can have a real discussion and some like to joke. Get serious for once. Mean what you say if you are going to say something.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>perhaps there is more than madness to his method . .
but really merely trying on the old Christian morality in order to shed light on the Morality of 'Pre-emptive warfare'
Thought that you might see the wisdom in that famous saying about 'casting the first stone' and all . . .
Those are not the only two oil fields France is hooked up with. You cannot tell me (1) that's all there is to it and (2) that doesn't play a part in France's current stance.
It's illogical.
<strong>It's kind of discouraging the way France sees the United States. After all, if it weren't for our fathers and grandfathers, everyone in France would be speaking German..</strong><hr></blockquote>
And the US, will not be the only one superpower in that case. The reich empire will dominate all europe (or it will have collapsed by itself like the russian empire). Roosevelt knew in his great wisdom, that Hitler have to been stopped, for the sake of the world. The moral was for helping the french, but the supreme interest of the US nation too. The two reasons : moral and interest where for this war.
I am glad that US help us, but if some people here, repeat day after day that France has only the right to shut up, because US save his ass , sixty years ago, i would conclude that receiving the help of US is a sort of humiliation (you recieve help, you lost your honnor). Did we repeat time after time, that Lafayette help US some centuries ago. That's weird there is no debt for this, just a good period of our common history.
If oil was the only issue, the french gov will have made a bargain with US : strong support of the US war, and respect of the french oil contract even with changes.
Is it America vs. Iraq here, or the UN vs. Iraq? Because the French are perfectly entitled to question United Nations action. All of a sudden, it seems, it's American action in the offing and France isn't allowed to say diddly without being 'ungrateful'.
What? Either this IS a UN thing, in which case viva global democracy, or it's a US thing, in which case if YOU'RE going to act unilaterally you CAN'T SAY A DAMN THING IF FRANCE OBJECTS.
<strong>Tell you what Bill, I'll trust Bobbitt over your poor math skills.
Those are not the only two oil fields France is hooked up with. You cannot tell me (1) that's all there is to it and (2) that doesn't play a part in France's current stance.
It's illogical.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Out of interest Grove, how much does oil play in the US position?
<strong>
I would rather say that Bush has an ounce of leadership to bring real issues to the table and is willing to address the issues. Bush and Blair are some of the few real world leaders at this point in time. It is not enough to ignore problems and talk "nicely" with killers. Would a police dept take a killer and try to ask the killer to comply with doing the right thing? uhhhhh I should think not.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would the police kill the whole street where the killer lived in order to get him? uhhhhh I should think not.
If this pans out to be true and all or some parts have been smuggled in (or through Canada) this would be scary.
[quote]<strong>If oil was the only issue, the french gov will have made a bargain with US : strong support of the US war, and respect of the french oil contract even with changes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course oil isn't the whole thing. It's part of it, though.
(I think it's funny now that the anti-war movement finds itself approached with the same question.)
Hassan:
[quote]<strong>What? Either this IS a UN thing, in which case viva global democracy, or it's a US thing, in which case if YOU'RE going to act unilaterally you CAN'T SAY A DAMN THING IF FRANCE OBJECTS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well unilateral action is no longer an option.
Harald:
[quote]<strong>Out of interest Grove, how much does oil play in the US position?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some.
[quote]<strong>Would the police kill the whole street where the killer lived in order to get him?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is that the plan?
Because I haven't seen that anywhere.
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>DESPITE the source, what do you all <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html"; target="_blank">think of this?</a>
If this pans out to be true and all or some parts have been smuggled in (or through Canada) this would be scary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I doubt that Saddam will be able to attack US with drones.
His El Hassoun missiles are lame, in one test the missile have miss the target and explode 10 km near the target (6 miles);
This is high tech i doubt that Saddam is able to make them.
<strong>It is now known France is clear with their stand on Iraq. It is also clear to me France has taken a path to Iraqi compliance that was hard for me to understand at first. I thought France was unclear as to the level of support within the context of the UN. At this point I find the path France has chosen a very worthy one. France has given peace a chance in a very public way however in the event Saddam will continue to defy the world community France has made itself clear.
</strong>
Your thoughts..
May the world comply to a goal of peace.
Fellowship
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Fellowship, I can't buy that for a second.
France stands to lose 40-60 billion in trade
if America rectifies the Iraqi sutuation.
That, and the fact that France has an
aircraft carrier steaming to the gulf.
<strong>
Fellowship, I can't buy that for a second.
France stands to lose 40-60 billion in trade
if America rectifies the Iraqi sutuation.
That, and the fact that France has an
aircraft carrier steaming to the gulf.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you imply that France will defense Iraq with his aircraft carrier to save 40 - 60 billions of oil contract ?
That 's freakin hilarious. I guess i probabily did not understand what you meant.
<strong>
What do you imply that France will defense Iraq with his aircraft carrier to save 40 - 60 billions of oil contract ?
That 's freakin hilarious. I guess i probabily did not understand what you meant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought it implied that France will be there in the end to aid UN troops so they can have a piece of the pie if things to get to the point of WaR. I can't see France defending on the side of Iraq. If that happened they would lose all their western allies (except maybe for germany).