<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So the fact that massive sections of the French and German people oppose the war has nothing to do with France's policy on Iraq?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would the French government let German public opinion drive their policies?
Also, there's a significant section of the <i>United States</i> public that is against the war, but that doesn't seem to be swaying Bush. Oh, right-- the US is the only nation with a self serving government that's ultimately driven by the bottom line. Everyone else is motivated strictly by nobility.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->neither do I think that's purely the reason<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nor do I . . hence, I said 'primarily'-- meaning that there could be secondary factors coming into play. But I think it's safe to say that France might have a slightly different opinion of this war if they stood to <i>gain</i> billions of dollars.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Next time you equal the European population with Chirac, a conservative French president who only got re-elected because the alternative was a neofascist, I'm going to beat you with a blunt polygon <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyway, yes, there are very strong anti-war sentiments in both countries (more than 75% in both cases, I think), and as the French are rather 'let's take democracy in our hands'-minded, Chirac would better not ignore that, unless he wants to see his highways blocked and workers striking yet again. I'd say this gives a nice bonus to the oil-issue.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Feb 19 2003, 10:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 19 2003, 10:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know the whole UN Inspector thing pisses me off. They drive around in big white Land Rovers with "UN" on every fender in huge blue letters, you could see them clearly with a satellite photo if the weather is decent. There really are no "surprise" inspections of any facilities, when there should be. If the Iraqi's intend to hide something, they have more than sufficient time to do so before the Inspectors arrive at their destination. On the other hand, we can't just have random inspectors driving around in a 1980 Datsun saying "Hello Mr. Security Guard of the Baghdad Weapons Factory, I am from the United Nations Weapon Inspection Commission, and I would like entry to this facility to inspect it for illegal weapons of mass destruction". Tell me that guy wouldn't laugh in his face. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*sigh* Ok, let's start going through this. Iraq doesn't HAVE any sattilites, the only warning they have is when the inspectors show up. There are suprise inspections, because the inspectors arn't telling the Iraqis where they're going to go. They just rock up and ask to be let in. And what do you know the Iraqis let them in every time. The inspectors have gone to all the places they originally couldn't go to last time and have found nothing. Oh, but according to you that's "proof" the Iraqis moved stuff. Need we remind you that all of Iraq is under constant US military surveilance. And yet they've seen no stuff being moved (Bring up the "evidence" Powell submitted to the UN and I'll just ignore you. Those photos were a joke and the world knows it). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The CIA has regular conversations with Hussein's top generals about the biological and chemical weapons that Iraq has. I thought the same way you do until I heard <a href='http://www.john-loftus.com/' target='_blank'>this guy</a> talk about the information he has received from intelligence agents. There is no question that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Now back to your regularly scheduled topic. (this seems to creep in everywhere doesn't it)
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 20 2003, 10:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 20 2003, 10:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->^^
Anyway, yes, there are very strong anti-war sentiments in both countries (more than 75% in both cases, I think), and as the French are rather 'let's take democracy in our hands'-minded, Chirac would better not ignore that, unless he wants to see his highways blocked and workers striking yet again. I'd say this gives a nice bonus to the oil-issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Where do you get your stats, some poll perhaps?
Oh well, the folks the citizens of those countries clearly elected officials and those elected officials oppose a war in Iraq, and so I'll accept what they say in media as being internationally representative of their position. 'Nuff said, right?
Anyways, supporting arguments for another countries position in international politics aside, I just wanted to throw something out there. Personally, I can't stand federal politics (which govern our international political position) in Canada. I live in British Columbia, and I feel that western Canada gets the bum rush from the more "traditional" eastern provinces when it comes to elections. I have very few prime ministers I've read about in history books that I feel any sort of pride in recalling and a good number I loathe. The current leader of my country is no better. He constantly bungles speaches, politically assasinates his opponents in his party and others, makes us look like a bunch of french speaking imbeciles internationally, tries to ride the fence for as long as possible before making policy regarding positions our largest defence/trade ally take, has openly disrespected that people in western Canada have valid view points in a federal election, has had more political scandals (read: breaches of trust) in his government/caucus/personal affairs than even Bill Clinton, has continued to allow the Canadian military to be under-funded into obscurity (thus forcing us to rely on US military defence treaties even more to secure our borders), and that's just to name a few of the general things about the unfortunately venerable Jean Chretien that irk me to no end. And this guy has the gaul to use his final days as PM (as decreed to him by his Liberal party, not voters) by rubbing his hands together over what kind of legacy he will leave (and the governments coffers that much more deeper in debt). Here, let me tell you a well known fact about a federal election in Canada; if your party only has representatives elected from ridings in the province of Ontario, you are instantly assured at least a minority government, which is where you govern Canada with a small margin of seats in Parlaiment more than your opposing political parties. This means that the Liberals can continue to give western Canada the finger since the days of Pierre Trudeau, and call political movements that originate there "wild" and ineffectual, because they can continue to form government as long as they only campaign and pander to the needs and wants of Ontario, effectively not representing the rest of Canada. Then tack on to this we don't elect our Senate, but it has its ranks picked by the governing party, and effectively Canadian federal politics is almost exclusively run by the Liberal party elite. That is why Canada sucks when compared to USA (getting back to the "US of A rules, dude/man!" topic of this thread), we don't have true leaders. Even if you guys get mocked for not voting when you can, at least you have enough checks and balances that you know you are getting something close to democracy even though you are Republic, that why your provinces are called states. Last I checked Canada is a Dominion, that is why our states are called provinces.
But I still love Canada, especially my province of British Columbia. And this is why, not because we have kick **** bombs, or some such nonsense, but rather that, well how can I put this, we are so incredibly made up of so many minorities that we are almost racially blind, that we are the closest thing to a land of the free when it comes to race.
I've seen the same thing in the USA, like when just after 09/11/2001, the majority of guys cried on each others shoulders and didn't whole sale burn mosques and lynch ethnically visable muslims. I think that says alot about the true reason why our countries rock, because when the **** hits the fan, we are greater than the sum of our parts. Its just too bad that it doesn't seem like it was all too long before it seemed like media from south of my border was showing images of white vs black vs hispanic vs asian vs jew vs arab vs east indian vs etc etc etc.
Anyways, another notable thing I love about my country is its incredible fighting spirit. Despite still using equipment from WWII at times, Canadian forces routinely go above and beyond the call of duty in performing their duties, almost uncannily being able to pull off mission objectives with below par equipment and minimal casualties and almost no support from its citizenry when it gets back to Canadian soil. Just imagine how soldiers were treated by the USA public for their sacrafice after the Vietnam War, that's how our armed forces get treated all the time. Even when the USA bombed our troops in Afghanistan, it caused barely a ripple in public opinion. And the Canadian forces are entirely voluntary and mostly made up of reservists. When I look at all that, how they keep fighting for Canada despite the horrific beating they take from their own country's politicians and general public, and from other countries' militaries, I just have to say to myself that they must be fighting for something incredibly worthy. Then I saw a report on the late late news one night regarding a military action years ago and the Canadian troops involved and how they were affected by our lack of compasion for our own troops. This really foul mouthed gruff SoB of a soldier was being interviewed and a tear came to his eye, which he promptly wiped away with a curse, when he was recounting why he was fighting. He seemed to choke out, "I was just so worried my buddy would die, I couldn't let it happen..." I've was profoundly proud and saddened to be a Canadian, feeling both great respect for our armed forces and a deep guilt that the Canadian public or government did not have compasion on them when they returned to Canada and that it was somehow my fault, that maybe I could've done more. But I was a kid when he had returned from his UN peace keeping tour and had only just learned that Canadian troops had even been in Yugoslavia when the ethnic cleansing was happening.
On a side note, even though Sirus does bring up some points about native north american tribes that have a ring of truth to them regarding the USA past with them as a whole, I think you prematurely and cruelly judged his statements as inhumane. I have a girlfriend who is a north american native from the Ucluelet band on the west coast of Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada, so I hope I can shed some light on what I think he was trying to say, which seems to have gotten lost in bad gramar. I think he is saying that north american natives were not slaughtered completely and that north american natives consisted of many bands with opposing views and political positions. The first written documents about aboriginals attempting to join together as one nation as opposed to waring or at least opposing individual bands was the The Iroquois Confederacy in the Upper New York state region, right by the Great Lakes. Another legendary figure was Tecumseh, who opposed the expansion of the USA territory and fought against the USA in the war of 1812 (which was when USA invaded Canada and with the help of native militia and the disagreeable winter, we kicked your ****), and to do that they tried to form a broad alliance of Native American tribes with help from the British in Canada. Mind Canada was a small **** place at the time, consisting only of much smaller versions of what is now the Canadian east coast, Quebec, and Ontario, and the USA was also alot smaller, having expanded its territory as far west as the tributary waters of the Missisippi would allow, putting it about where what is now considered the mid-west. Where his comments show ignorance is in that North American natives were rarely considered equals, as the world view at the time seemed to be that "uncivilized" peoples were either viewed as benevolent communers with mother nature and lived a life of bliss OR were viewed as cruel pagan savages, who would just as soon curse the almighty God as steal your baby and eat it raw. In hind sight, both view points were polarized and couldn't be farther from the truth. That native warriors used tactics based on terrain and would carry slaughter settlers that came onto their lands was really no big surprise, as that is what the Huron and Iroquios had done to each other for a good amount of time before our european fore bearers showed up. That the Americans learned these tactics when fighting north american natives and turned around used them on the traditional British soldier in their bid for independence is no big surprise either. A famous piece of American Military history came out of this, check out Roger's Rangers some time if you have the chance. But the end result was that any north american native band that opposed American expansion west and refused to move onto poverty stricken American government regulated "reserves" was slaughtered by the US military. The USA was not above using bio warfare at various times either with regards to the north american native bands, selling hospital blankets and booze to them in return for various precious materials and rights, which resulted in large scale sickness, disease, and addiction amongst the bands that recieved the blankets and booze. Usually that was when aggressive settlers would move in and mop up the remaining weakened band members. A popular saying seems to have found it way into various culture from the time: "The only good indian is a dead indian." Its amazing that in their ethnic cleansing of north american natives, the majority of undereducated americans didn't even realize that north american natives didn't understand the word indian, but rather such words as Anishinabe, Chipewwa/Ojibwe, Cree, Dakota/Sioux, Huron, Iroquois, Menominee, Mesquakie/Fox, Miami, Missouri, Mohican/Mahican, Oneida, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Sauk/Saques/Sac, and Winnebago, just to name a few. Many of these groups had completely different customs, cultures, languages, and world views. Yet it was only after the United States of America, the Dominion of Canada, and Mexico expanded their territory beyond what had been originally aquired and claimed as colonies, that melding of the many cultures seemed to occur and north american natives have since adopted (for lack of a better word) each others customs and culture as their own. The dream catcher was not originally on the west coast, but rather other local talismans such as specially ordained cedar bark was supposed to ward off evil spirits as you slept, but today the dreamcatcher is very prevailant on the west coast and continued to be promoted as "indian" culture in popular media. Totem poles seem to have originated on the west coast with the Haida, who were a very aggresive north american native band, but somehow it got into popular culture that all "indians" had totem poles. My point of all this being, what we think of today as USA, Canada and Mexico, was nothing like what it was in the past, so even our countries are not free of the blood and grime of crimes against humanity. The list that was perpetrated in this forum that seemed to lead to this subject being highlighted was misconstrued, as I was attempting to compare and contrast the Hitler gverned era of Germany with the Husien governed era of Iraq, so the proper next column should've been something like the [Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush] governed era of USA, not just USA. I hope this sheds some light on the whole thing, as the assumption made by an opponent to my view point has since really messed a good number of posts since they were based on a wrongly made compare and contrast assumption at a fundamental level.
Crap, I hate it when I write short novels. I doubt only but the most interested will even read this whole thing, so if you make it this far, thanks and congratulations.
Anyway, yes, there are very strong anti-war sentiments in both countries (more than 75% in both cases, I think), and as the French are rather 'let's take democracy in our hands'-minded, Chirac would better not ignore that, unless he wants to see his highways blocked and workers striking yet again. I'd say this gives a nice bonus to the oil-issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Where do you get your stats, some poll perhaps? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yup. I'm a little hard pressed in finding French polls at the moment (my French is horrible, and I can't seem to find an English site with statistic material), but here's a <a href='http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/0,1872,2034910,00.html' target='_blank'>summary</a> by the Forsa institute for the ZDF, one of the biggest German newsstations.
There was no exact 'Pro - / Anti - War' poll conducted, but to sum up: 61% believes that Schröders soon and categoric 'no' in the UN, which is heavily disputed even amongst enemies of the war, was right. <img src='http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/img/0,1886,2120880,00.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> 50% is against <i>any</i> kind of participation by German troops (as it was requested), 39% are against actual fighting missions, but would support humanitarian missions, making that 89% against the help the US requested from Germany.
Well i'm and america.(not trying to brag or anythink just for information) what i was thinking on al this war stuff is that i dissagree with even going to war i dont think taht the war is nessary. but thats not my biggest reason for not likeing the war. my biggest problem is the pricetag. war is expensive and lives and money. personaly i think there many other more important things taht the money can and should be spent on. i also believe that the realy reason behind this is the oil. but yeah i dont have a lot of time so i ahev to be going.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Feb 19 2003, 09:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Feb 19 2003, 09:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Admitted, Indians were mistreated. But, how does that make them subhuman or treated subhuman.
Indians are a conquered people, but America still gave them a place to go then assimilate the bunch and so on. IMO, Colonial America and pre-1900 never HAD to do anything for the Indians. Some Indians liked the Colonists/Americans, Some Colonists/Americans liked the Indians, Some Indians hated the colonists/americans, some colonists/americans hated indians. Plus Indians were on no basis a complete race if you want to argue that some were isolated by tribes and had no contanct with other indians. By traits, yes dark skin, dark hair but not necessarily all the same bloodline. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow. I mean, wow. Okay. Let's start at the top and work our way down.
Treated as subhumans? That's easy. The doctrine of "manifest destiny", which was a guiding principle in government actions from the colonial days up till, oh, the mid twentieth century. It might have ceased at some point to be known by that name, but the idea persisted. The idea was this: white men are God's chosen people, the supreme race. It is the white man's duty to go forth into the world and rule it. If lesser people are found there, they should be either assimilated (which is doing them a big favor because white men are so superior, and it's an honor to be absorbed into their society, even as servants), or killed. This principle is a large part of what drove colonization of the Americas by the Europeans, and you can see its influence up to very recent times, such as the US's heavy-handed management of the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War - I believe one politician at that time said it was our duty to uplift our "little brown brothers". (Even if it meant shooting the ones who tried to get the occupying forces out so they could try to rebuild their country on their own.)
Okay, that's one point out of the way. "Conquered people?" America "gave them a place to go"? Are you in any way aware of the numerous treaties that got signed with the Indian tribes? And then summarily broken? There were actually points in history where the Indians might have been able to drive back the invading Europeans, but they were turned aside by treaties and promises of peace. Naturally, said promises of peace went by the wayside once the invading Europeans got reinforcements and were in a position to dominate again.
If those treaties had been honored, almost the entire western half of the US would be its own sovereign nation governed by tribes that are now exinct. Amazing how it ultimately got whittled down to a few piddling reservations, eh?
I don't even know what kind of point you're trying to make with that "not a complete race" thing, so I'm going to shake my head and ignore it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Asterisk+Feb 27 2003, 07:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Asterisk @ Feb 27 2003, 07:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well i'm and america.(not trying to brag or anythink just for information) what i was thinking on al this war stuff is that i dissagree with even going to war i dont think taht the war is nessary. but thats not my biggest reason for not likeing the war. my biggest problem is the pricetag. war is expensive and lives and money. personaly i think there many other more important things taht the money can and should be spent on. i also believe that the realy reason behind this is the oil. but yeah i dont have a lot of time so i ahev to be going. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You just took the cause you are trying to champion down a notch by not taking the time to use semi-proper gramar and proper punctuation so that your statements are legible and clear enough to warrant discussion. Please take the time to edit your post, using the edit button feature, it worked wonders for me. Just letting you know that the lack of legibility of your post appears as sloppy and unintelligent, and that reflects on the " for peace" position you are taking in this argument. I hope you are not offended by my comments, just calling it how I see it.
It's funny the way every thread eventually gets hijacked by the Iraq war debate <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Feb 28 2003, 05:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Feb 28 2003, 05:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I WNAT TEH WAR AND GROGE BUSH SI TEH MAN!!!!!11111 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hehe... WAR = PWNED! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Feb 28 2003, 06:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 28 2003, 06:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's funny the way every thread eventually gets hijacked by the Iraq war debate <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Damn, you noticed that too? I don't suppose alot of people are thinking about it these days, do you? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Then again, its not like this thread started off on the best foot with "America + bombs = We Rule and Ownz U!" <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Hehe, I'm just speculating here that the original poster had played Counter Strike before...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hehe, I'm just speculating here that the original poster had played Counter Strike before... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
heh, go to any online forum anywhere in the world. It's a fair bet someone there will have played CS <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> It's the infection that has corrupted the mod community! RUN!!!!
Peacekeepers? You think Saddam would just let a bunch of peacekeepers occupy his country? Ooh, or maybe we could indict Saddam in the hague, and hope he's polite enough to leave Iraq and show up for trial. Better yet, we could keep inspecting Iraq like we have done for 8 years.
I recently found a great website where a guy writes a bunch of editorials about stuff, including this. He's a libertarian, and not afraid to admit it because it makes him sound biased. He also made this really funny video where he interviews a bunch of protesters.
Comments
Why would the French government let German public opinion drive their policies?
Also, there's a significant section of the <i>United States</i> public that is against the war, but that doesn't seem to be swaying Bush. Oh, right-- the US is the only nation with a self serving government that's ultimately driven by the bottom line. Everyone else is motivated strictly by nobility.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->neither do I think that's purely the reason<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nor do I . . hence, I said 'primarily'-- meaning that there could be secondary factors coming into play. But I think it's safe to say that France might have a slightly different opinion of this war if they stood to <i>gain</i> billions of dollars.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Next time you equal the European population with Chirac, a conservative French president who only got re-elected because the alternative was a neofascist, I'm going to beat you with a blunt polygon <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I meant the French! Just the French!
Damn touchy Germans <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyway, yes, there are very strong anti-war sentiments in both countries (more than 75% in both cases, I think), and as the French are rather 'let's take democracy in our hands'-minded, Chirac would better not ignore that, unless he wants to see his highways blocked and workers striking yet again. I'd say this gives a nice bonus to the oil-issue.
There really are no "surprise" inspections of any facilities, when there should be. If the Iraqi's intend to hide something, they have more than sufficient time to do so before the Inspectors arrive at their destination.
On the other hand, we can't just have random inspectors driving around in a 1980 Datsun saying "Hello Mr. Security Guard of the Baghdad Weapons Factory, I am from the United Nations Weapon Inspection Commission, and I would like entry to this facility to inspect it for illegal weapons of mass destruction". Tell me that guy wouldn't laugh in his face.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*sigh*
Ok, let's start going through this. Iraq doesn't HAVE any sattilites, the only warning they have is when the inspectors show up. There are suprise inspections, because the inspectors arn't telling the Iraqis where they're going to go. They just rock up and ask to be let in. And what do you know the Iraqis let them in every time. The inspectors have gone to all the places they originally couldn't go to last time and have found nothing. Oh, but according to you that's "proof" the Iraqis moved stuff. Need we remind you that all of Iraq is under constant US military surveilance. And yet they've seen no stuff being moved (Bring up the "evidence" Powell submitted to the UN and I'll just ignore you. Those photos were a joke and the world knows it). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The CIA has regular conversations with Hussein's top generals about the biological and chemical weapons that Iraq has. I thought the same way you do until I heard <a href='http://www.john-loftus.com/' target='_blank'>this guy</a> talk about the information he has received from intelligence agents. There is no question that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Now back to your regularly scheduled topic. (this seems to creep in everywhere doesn't it)
Anyway, yes, there are very strong anti-war sentiments in both countries (more than 75% in both cases, I think), and as the French are rather 'let's take democracy in our hands'-minded, Chirac would better not ignore that, unless he wants to see his highways blocked and workers striking yet again. I'd say this gives a nice bonus to the oil-issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where do you get your stats, some poll perhaps?
Oh well, the folks the citizens of those countries clearly elected officials and those elected officials oppose a war in Iraq, and so I'll accept what they say in media as being internationally representative of their position. 'Nuff said, right?
Anyways, supporting arguments for another countries position in international politics aside, I just wanted to throw something out there. Personally, I can't stand federal politics (which govern our international political position) in Canada. I live in British Columbia, and I feel that western Canada gets the bum rush from the more "traditional" eastern provinces when it comes to elections. I have very few prime ministers I've read about in history books that I feel any sort of pride in recalling and a good number I loathe. The current leader of my country is no better. He constantly bungles speaches, politically assasinates his opponents in his party and others, makes us look like a bunch of french speaking imbeciles internationally, tries to ride the fence for as long as possible before making policy regarding positions our largest defence/trade ally take, has openly disrespected that people in western Canada have valid view points in a federal election, has had more political scandals (read: breaches of trust) in his government/caucus/personal affairs than even Bill Clinton, has continued to allow the Canadian military to be under-funded into obscurity (thus forcing us to rely on US military defence treaties even more to secure our borders), and that's just to name a few of the general things about the unfortunately venerable Jean Chretien that irk me to no end. And this guy has the gaul to use his final days as PM (as decreed to him by his Liberal party, not voters) by rubbing his hands together over what kind of legacy he will leave (and the governments coffers that much more deeper in debt). Here, let me tell you a well known fact about a federal election in Canada; if your party only has representatives elected from ridings in the province of Ontario, you are instantly assured at least a minority government, which is where you govern Canada with a small margin of seats in Parlaiment more than your opposing political parties. This means that the Liberals can continue to give western Canada the finger since the days of Pierre Trudeau, and call political movements that originate there "wild" and ineffectual, because they can continue to form government as long as they only campaign and pander to the needs and wants of Ontario, effectively not representing the rest of Canada. Then tack on to this we don't elect our Senate, but it has its ranks picked by the governing party, and effectively Canadian federal politics is almost exclusively run by the Liberal party elite. That is why Canada sucks when compared to USA (getting back to the "US of A rules, dude/man!" topic of this thread), we don't have true leaders. Even if you guys get mocked for not voting when you can, at least you have enough checks and balances that you know you are getting something close to democracy even though you are Republic, that why your provinces are called states. Last I checked Canada is a Dominion, that is why our states are called provinces.
But I still love Canada, especially my province of British Columbia. And this is why, not because we have kick **** bombs, or some such nonsense, but rather that, well how can I put this, we are so incredibly made up of so many minorities that we are almost racially blind, that we are the closest thing to a land of the free when it comes to race.
I've seen the same thing in the USA, like when just after 09/11/2001, the majority of guys cried on each others shoulders and didn't whole sale burn mosques and lynch ethnically visable muslims. I think that says alot about the true reason why our countries rock, because when the **** hits the fan, we are greater than the sum of our parts. Its just too bad that it doesn't seem like it was all too long before it seemed like media from south of my border was showing images of white vs black vs hispanic vs asian vs jew vs arab vs east indian vs etc etc etc.
Anyways, another notable thing I love about my country is its incredible fighting spirit. Despite still using equipment from WWII at times, Canadian forces routinely go above and beyond the call of duty in performing their duties, almost uncannily being able to pull off mission objectives with below par equipment and minimal casualties and almost no support from its citizenry when it gets back to Canadian soil. Just imagine how soldiers were treated by the USA public for their sacrafice after the Vietnam War, that's how our armed forces get treated all the time. Even when the USA bombed our troops in Afghanistan, it caused barely a ripple in public opinion. And the Canadian forces are entirely voluntary and mostly made up of reservists. When I look at all that, how they keep fighting for Canada despite the horrific beating they take from their own country's politicians and general public, and from other countries' militaries, I just have to say to myself that they must be fighting for something incredibly worthy. Then I saw a report on the late late news one night regarding a military action years ago and the Canadian troops involved and how they were affected by our lack of compasion for our own troops. This really foul mouthed gruff SoB of a soldier was being interviewed and a tear came to his eye, which he promptly wiped away with a curse, when he was recounting why he was fighting. He seemed to choke out, "I was just so worried my buddy would die, I couldn't let it happen..." I've was profoundly proud and saddened to be a Canadian, feeling both great respect for our armed forces and a deep guilt that the Canadian public or government did not have compasion on them when they returned to Canada and that it was somehow my fault, that maybe I could've done more. But I was a kid when he had returned from his UN peace keeping tour and had only just learned that Canadian troops had even been in Yugoslavia when the ethnic cleansing was happening.
On a side note, even though Sirus does bring up some points about native north american tribes that have a ring of truth to them regarding the USA past with them as a whole, I think you prematurely and cruelly judged his statements as inhumane. I have a girlfriend who is a north american native from the Ucluelet band on the west coast of Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada, so I hope I can shed some light on what I think he was trying to say, which seems to have gotten lost in bad gramar. I think he is saying that north american natives were not slaughtered completely and that north american natives consisted of many bands with opposing views and political positions. The first written documents about aboriginals attempting to join together as one nation as opposed to waring or at least opposing individual bands was the The Iroquois Confederacy in the Upper New York state region, right by the Great Lakes. Another legendary figure was Tecumseh, who opposed the expansion of the USA territory and fought against the USA in the war of 1812 (which was when USA invaded Canada and with the help of native militia and the disagreeable winter, we kicked your ****), and to do that they tried to form a broad alliance of Native American tribes with help from the British in Canada. Mind Canada was a small **** place at the time, consisting only of much smaller versions of what is now the Canadian east coast, Quebec, and Ontario, and the USA was also alot smaller, having expanded its territory as far west as the tributary waters of the Missisippi would allow, putting it about where what is now considered the mid-west. Where his comments show ignorance is in that North American natives were rarely considered equals, as the world view at the time seemed to be that "uncivilized" peoples were either viewed as benevolent communers with mother nature and lived a life of bliss OR were viewed as cruel pagan savages, who would just as soon curse the almighty God as steal your baby and eat it raw. In hind sight, both view points were polarized and couldn't be farther from the truth. That native warriors used tactics based on terrain and would carry slaughter settlers that came onto their lands was really no big surprise, as that is what the Huron and Iroquios had done to each other for a good amount of time before our european fore bearers showed up. That the Americans learned these tactics when fighting north american natives and turned around used them on the traditional British soldier in their bid for independence is no big surprise either. A famous piece of American Military history came out of this, check out Roger's Rangers some time if you have the chance. But the end result was that any north american native band that opposed American expansion west and refused to move onto poverty stricken American government regulated "reserves" was slaughtered by the US military. The USA was not above using bio warfare at various times either with regards to the north american native bands, selling hospital blankets and booze to them in return for various precious materials and rights, which resulted in large scale sickness, disease, and addiction amongst the bands that recieved the blankets and booze. Usually that was when aggressive settlers would move in and mop up the remaining weakened band members. A popular saying seems to have found it way into various culture from the time: "The only good indian is a dead indian." Its amazing that in their ethnic cleansing of north american natives, the majority of undereducated americans didn't even realize that north american natives didn't understand the word indian, but rather such words as Anishinabe, Chipewwa/Ojibwe, Cree, Dakota/Sioux, Huron, Iroquois, Menominee, Mesquakie/Fox, Miami, Missouri, Mohican/Mahican, Oneida, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Sauk/Saques/Sac, and Winnebago, just to name a few. Many of these groups had completely different customs, cultures, languages, and world views. Yet it was only after the United States of America, the Dominion of Canada, and Mexico expanded their territory beyond what had been originally aquired and claimed as colonies, that melding of the many cultures seemed to occur and north american natives have since adopted (for lack of a better word) each others customs and culture as their own. The dream catcher was not originally on the west coast, but rather other local talismans such as specially ordained cedar bark was supposed to ward off evil spirits as you slept, but today the dreamcatcher is very prevailant on the west coast and continued to be promoted as "indian" culture in popular media. Totem poles seem to have originated on the west coast with the Haida, who were a very aggresive north american native band, but somehow it got into popular culture that all "indians" had totem poles. My point of all this being, what we think of today as USA, Canada and Mexico, was nothing like what it was in the past, so even our countries are not free of the blood and grime of crimes against humanity. The list that was perpetrated in this forum that seemed to lead to this subject being highlighted was misconstrued, as I was attempting to compare and contrast the Hitler gverned era of Germany with the Husien governed era of Iraq, so the proper next column should've been something like the [Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush] governed era of USA, not just USA. I hope this sheds some light on the whole thing, as the assumption made by an opponent to my view point has since really messed a good number of posts since they were based on a wrongly made compare and contrast assumption at a fundamental level.
Crap, I hate it when I write short novels. I doubt only but the most interested will even read this whole thing, so if you make it this far, thanks and congratulations.
Anyway, yes, there are very strong anti-war sentiments in both countries (more than 75% in both cases, I think), and as the French are rather 'let's take democracy in our hands'-minded, Chirac would better not ignore that, unless he wants to see his highways blocked and workers striking yet again. I'd say this gives a nice bonus to the oil-issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where do you get your stats, some poll perhaps? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. I'm a little hard pressed in finding French polls at the moment (my French is horrible, and I can't seem to find an English site with statistic material), but here's a <a href='http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/0,1872,2034910,00.html' target='_blank'>summary</a> by the Forsa institute for the ZDF, one of the biggest German newsstations.
There was no exact 'Pro - / Anti - War' poll conducted, but to sum up:
61% believes that Schröders soon and categoric 'no' in the UN, which is heavily disputed even amongst enemies of the war, was right.
<img src='http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/img/0,1886,2120880,00.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
50% is against <i>any</i> kind of participation by German troops (as it was requested), 39% are against actual fighting missions, but would support humanitarian missions, making that 89% against the help the US requested from Germany.
Indians are a conquered people, but America still gave them a place to go then assimilate the bunch and so on. IMO, Colonial America and pre-1900 never HAD to do anything for the Indians. Some Indians liked the Colonists/Americans, Some Colonists/Americans liked the Indians, Some Indians hated the colonists/americans, some colonists/americans hated indians. Plus Indians were on no basis a complete race if you want to argue that some were isolated by tribes and had no contanct with other indians. By traits, yes dark skin, dark hair but not necessarily all the same bloodline. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. I mean, wow. Okay. Let's start at the top and work our way down.
Treated as subhumans? That's easy. The doctrine of "manifest destiny", which was a guiding principle in government actions from the colonial days up till, oh, the mid twentieth century. It might have ceased at some point to be known by that name, but the idea persisted. The idea was this: white men are God's chosen people, the supreme race. It is the white man's duty to go forth into the world and rule it. If lesser people are found there, they should be either assimilated (which is doing them a big favor because white men are so superior, and it's an honor to be absorbed into their society, even as servants), or killed. This principle is a large part of what drove colonization of the Americas by the Europeans, and you can see its influence up to very recent times, such as the US's heavy-handed management of the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War - I believe one politician at that time said it was our duty to uplift our "little brown brothers". (Even if it meant shooting the ones who tried to get the occupying forces out so they could try to rebuild their country on their own.)
Okay, that's one point out of the way. "Conquered people?" America "gave them a place to go"? Are you in any way aware of the numerous treaties that got signed with the Indian tribes? And then summarily broken? There were actually points in history where the Indians might have been able to drive back the invading Europeans, but they were turned aside by treaties and promises of peace. Naturally, said promises of peace went by the wayside once the invading Europeans got reinforcements and were in a position to dominate again.
If those treaties had been honored, almost the entire western half of the US would be its own sovereign nation governed by tribes that are now exinct. Amazing how it ultimately got whittled down to a few piddling reservations, eh?
I don't even know what kind of point you're trying to make with that "not a complete race" thing, so I'm going to shake my head and ignore it.
You just took the cause you are trying to champion down a notch by not taking the time to use semi-proper gramar and proper punctuation so that your statements are legible and clear enough to warrant discussion. Please take the time to edit your post, using the edit button feature, it worked wonders for me. Just letting you know that the lack of legibility of your post appears as sloppy and unintelligent, and that reflects on the " for peace" position you are taking in this argument. I hope you are not offended by my comments, just calling it how I see it.
I WNAT TEH WAR AND GROGE BUSH SI TEH MAN!!!!!11111
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe... WAR = PWNED! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Feb 28 2003, 06:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 28 2003, 06:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's funny the way every thread eventually gets hijacked by the Iraq war debate <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn, you noticed that too? I don't suppose alot of people are thinking about it these days, do you? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Then again, its not like this thread started off on the best foot with "America + bombs = We Rule and Ownz U!" <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Hehe, I'm just speculating here that the original poster had played Counter Strike before...
heh, go to any online forum anywhere in the world. It's a fair bet someone there will have played CS <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> It's the infection that has corrupted the mod community! RUN!!!!
I recently found a great website where a guy writes a bunch of editorials about stuff, including this. He's a libertarian, and not afraid to admit it because it makes him sound biased. He also made this really funny video where he interviews a bunch of protesters.
<a href='http://www.brain-terminal.com' target='_blank'>Brain Terminal</a>