Chirac Unfazed by Nuclear Iran, Then Backtracks

[Maximus Zeebra]

The Americans here offer political opinions that run the gamut of political thought from a to z.

Funny, how it is the lockstep European contingent whose views run the political spectrum all the way from x to z who think it is the Americans who can't see things.

Take a look at what the US is doing and realize the failures, realize what the US is doing is a complete disaster.
Nothing has happen in fighting poverty and diseases under the US watch of the world the last 50 years, its about damn time Europe takes over so we can get these issues solved.

 

[Hatuey]

Take a look at what the US is doing and realize the failures, realize what the US is doing is a complete disaster.
Nothing has happen in fighting poverty and diseases under the US watch of the world the last 50 years, its about damn time Europe takes over so we can get these issues solved.

Right. We're talking about a continent where 10 muslims have more power then 300 politicians from the EU. Europe has done 0 to combat terrorism on it's soil or abroad. Even now europeans stand by as their countries are turned into Sharia havens. The UK is a perfect example of this. You've allowed muslim extremists to overrule every decision that doesn't come their way. Then you have the audacity to complain about the U.S. when it tries to defend itself against these types.

While 1000s of cars are burned by muslim youth, you cry peace and democracy. While your cities are run by Sharia law loving extremists you still cry for peace and democracy. While muslim extremists who weren't even born in your country cry for the heads of Tony Blair and Chirac to roll you cry peace and democracy. While your people are blown up in double decker buses and trains you cry peace and democracy. Sure you say the people responsible for those acts will be aprehended but by who? Your strong and powerful militaries? Bullshit. You rely on us to do the job for you because all of your goverments are too chicken **** to even say the words extremist and muslims in the same sentence.

You call the U.S. racist for defending itself against people who have declared war not only to the U.S. but to your goverments as well. You bitch about us not doing anything while you just stand by and let any other extremist tell you how to run your countries. You believe that if you're nice enough maybe they'll change their minds about western culture. Please wake the **** up and smell the charred corpses of the people who were murdered in Madrid and London.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Right. We're talking about a continent where 10 muslims have more power then 300 politicians from the EU. Europe has done 0 to combat terrorism on it's soil or abroad. Even now europeans stand by as their countries are turned into Sharia havens. The UK is a perfect example of this. You've allowed muslim extremists to overrule every decision that doesn't come their way. Then you have the audacity to complain about the U.S. when it tries to defend itself against these types.

What are you talking about? No muslims decide anything here or even remotely so. Did you hear about bans of "headscarfs" in most of Europe for example? France, Holland and several other countries already made such a law. Many are following. There is no sharia heaven, this must be a US misconseption. We welcome muslims and try to make peaceful progress with muslim nations instead of going to war with them immidiately, does that make Europe dominated by muslims or European a sharia haven? Lol, completly lack of knowledge about Europe you are demonstrating.

While 1000s of cars are burned by muslim youth, you cry peace and democracy. While your cities are run by Sharia law loving extremists you still cry for peace and democracy. While muslim extremists who weren't even born in your country cry for the heads of Tony Blair and Chirac to roll you cry peace and democracy.

Again, you appearantly know nothing about Europe, the protests in France was not by muslims, it wes by all kind of young people, most of them without jobs. So how can unemployed young people be translated to "muslims"?

While your people are blown up in double decker buses and trains you cry peace and democracy. Sure you say the people responsible for those acts will be aprehended but by who? Your strong and powerful militaries? Bullshit. You rely on us to do the job for you because all of your goverments are too chicken **** to even say the words extremist and muslims in the same sentence.

Again, you know nothing about Europe appearantly, we realize extreme muslims are a problem, we just have a completely different approach.

You call the U.S. racist for defending itself against people who have declared war not only to the U.S. but to your goverments as well.

I didnt say the US was racist, I said their foreign policy is a complete disaster and will only lead to the US getting attacked much more in the future, possibly with nuclear weapons when terrorists are so pissed of with your country that they will do anything. This cannot be stopped, you cannot fight an ideology unless you start a nuclear holocaust.

You bitch about us not doing anything while you just stand by and let any other extremist tell you how to run your countries. You believe that if you're nice enough maybe they'll change their minds about western culture. Please wake the **** up and smell the charred corpses of the people who were murdered in Madrid and London.

I dont care about ****ing extremists, I care about the root of the problem, and that is lack of education, poverty and religious propaganda.

The world has bigger problems than 911 you know. Millions of people die of hunger around the world every year, and even more people die of dangerous diseases of which many are possible to treat. So dont talk to me about your derailed world policy of ignoring the real problems of the world while spending your money on something that is completely useless and will make things worse.

 

[Volker]

:lamo instead of looking or predicting future behavior then, how many Nukes has the US sold to Iran? China? Japan? name any country other than the UK.

They didn't tell me. Maybe they offered it an no one was interested.

Iran wouldn't stand a chance against Israel in a war. It fought a war with Iraq for 8 years and it was a stalemate. In 6 days Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan got completely obliterated by Israelis forces and forced to give up all geographical advantages - Golan heights. Iran wouldn't stand a chance.

Nice try, but none of them has been obliterated in the 6 days war, Iraq was not even involved.

 

[Volker]

And which one of those countries has threatened to wipe their neighbors off the map about 10 times in the last two years?

The US and the Uk did not only threaten another country, they attacked it.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The US and the Uk did not only threaten another country, they attacked it.

...and they wiped more of the civilians of that country of the face of the earth than the so called enemy of them, low oil price(and declining resources), erhm, mr Saddam Hussein I mean.

 

[Volker]

...and they wiped more of the civilians of that country of the face of the earth than the so called enemy of them, low oil price(and declining resources), erhm, mr Saddam Hussein I mean.

The strange thing is, that they still see themselves in a position to point at others and are like "they are the danger, come join us for the greater good" :roll:

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The strange thing is, that they still see themselves in a position to point at others and are like "they are the danger, come join us for the greater good" :roll:

Hypocracy isnt it?
That money they spent in Iraq could have been used to save 500+ billion people from low nutricion and hunger for decades, YET they choose to use that money to kill people.

It could also have sent 500 billion flyers over muslim countries with western "propaganda" that would discourage terrorism, something that certainly would have been more effective than ******* off the whole muslim population.

 

[Volker]

Hypocracy isnt it?
That money they spent in Iraq could have been used to save 500+ billion people from low nutricion and hunger for decades, YET they choose to use that money to kill people.

Yes, this is hypocracy.

It could also have sent 500 billion flyers over muslim countries with western "propaganda" that would discourage terrorism, something that certainly would have been more effective than ******* off the whole muslim population.

They could think about finding things, which actually discourage terrorism. I mean, to secure airports or guard bridges surely does, but maybe there is more.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Yes, this is hypocracy.

They could think about finding things, which actually discourage terrorism. I mean, to secure airports or guard bridges surely does, but maybe there is more.

Thats of course 500 million + people. Typo.. :doh

 

[Volker]

Thats of course 500 million + people. Typo.. :doh

Yes, 500 million+, this would be a lot of people with a better life, too.

Unfortunately, at the moment it seems to be more probable that they cut help for homeless people than stopping a war they probably can not win anymore (pick Afghanistan or Iraq).

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Yes, 500 million+, this would be a lot of people with a better life, too.

Unfortunately, at the moment it seems to be more probable that they cut help for homeless people than stopping a war they probably can not win anymore (pick Afghanistan or Iraq).

I completely agree.. In the US alone there are 1-3 million permanently homeless people(those with the shopping cart type).

I am sure a 400 billion investment could have helped them shape up and get off the streets mostly.. And it could have done miracles for US propaganda department.

 

[Moot]

Bahhhhhhhh, my mistake, I was referring to Maximus Zebra's post. My apologies.:doh

No problem.

Do most nations make it a stated policy that the killing of civilians is to be countenanced?

I don't know if its policy but there doesn't seem too many nations interested in stopping genocide from occuring in Africa and the Middle East.

I'm not sure what this is meant to refute. I'm talking about after WWI.

My bad, I thought you said WW2. Let me try again...

After WWI, the US helped rebuild Europe. We then found ourselves back there 25 years later fighting a war.

My new and improved response is: I'm not so sure that the US helped rebuild Europe after WW1 because of 1) Britain and the US were at odds over trade issues and whether or not to base their currency on the gold standard and 2) the lack of agreement between the US and Britain may have been a direct cause of the Great Depression. Because of the GD, I don't think the US could afford to give too much aide to European reconstruction when inflation was soaring off the charts in the US.

Just like working with Saddam in the past was an uneasy alliance.

So true.

If they had renounced their terror attacks, then it would be a different scenario. But they didn't.

Obviously, from their perspective they don't see fighting an occupation as a terrorist act like we do.

To clarify - you don't think that it should be the goal of every nation to combat groups that commit terror attacks on civilians?

Of course I think it should be the goal of every nation to fight terrorism. Absolutely. But I also think that some countrys approach to fighting terrorism is highly questionable and worthy of debate. Pakistan comes to mind. But then so does the US, Israel, Russia and Britain.


Regarding Neville Chamberlain...

I pointed out that a terrorist movement was gaining power and proceeding to attack its neighbor, one of our allies.

You said "Then let them handle it."

That is the quintessential "Well, I don't want to get involved, so lets just stay out of this one for the sake of a 'greater peace'" attitude that defines Chamberlain's foreign policy. If you can't see the parallels there....well, it actually wouldn't surprise me.

LOL I see parallels too and it won't surprise me if you don't see them either.

I see Chamberlain as someone who appeased Czekoslovakia to the Hitler if he promised to leave the rest of Europe alone. The parallel is GWBush appeasing control of southern Iraq to Iran's proxy politicians, if they promise to leave the rest of Iraq and Israel alone and like Hitler, Iran fails to keep its end of the bargain.

While it is still speculation, the result, should Iraq end up getting divided into three provinces, could either significantly reduce the sect violence into small controlable squirmishes as they work out border disputes and Bush could claim some success and save face. Or...a divided Iraq could escalate the violence into a full blown genocidal civil war that destabilizes the entire ME, in which case Bush will go down in history as just another Neville Chamberlain for trying to appease Iran.

 

[Moot]

Umm their leader has stated on numerous occassions that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Umm, you said that already. So after repeating it for the umpteenth time, have you gotten many replys actually denying that Iran's president has made that and other statements like it?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The US and the Uk did not only threaten another country, they attacked it.

Did we threaten that country with total annihalation? Did we use nuclear weapons against Iraq?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Umm, you said that already. So after repeating it for the umpteenth time, have you gotten many replys actually denying that Iran's president has made that and other statements like it?

So you admit that the assertion that Iran would attack first is not baseless then?

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't know if its policy but there doesn't seem too many nations interested in stopping genocide from occuring in Africa and the Middle East.

Not interfering with genocide in a country where there is no legitimate government to prop us, as despicable as it is, is not the same as making it a policy that your own military should kill civilians without regard to the cost. The two are incomparable.

My bad, I thought you said WW2. Let me try again...
My new and improved response is: I'm not so sure that the US helped rebuild Europe after WW1 because of 1) Britain and the US were at odds over trade issues and whether or not to base their currency on the gold standard and 2) the lack of agreement between the US and Britain may have been a direct cause of the Great Depression. Because of the GD, I don't think the US could afford to give too much aide to European reconstruction when inflation was soaring off the charts in the US.

This is not true. During the decade after WWI, the US economy was incredibly prosperous. As a result of our refusal to go along with the Franco-Euro plan to absolutely destroy the German people under sanctions that could never have been paid back, thus plunging the nation into abject poverty, we were one of the only nations that gave aid to all of the countries of Europe in order to spur economic development everywhere. To this day, many of the nations of Europe still owe us repayment for their loans. The UK, to its credit, just recently finished paying off all of its debt.

Obviously, from their perspective they don't see fighting an occupation as a terrorist act like we do.

I really don't care how they or you try to justify it to yourselves. Firing rockets across a border into civilian areas is NOT a legitimate war tactic and never will be.

Of course I think it should be the goal of every nation to fight terrorism. Absolutely. But I also think that some countrys approach to fighting terrorism is highly questionable and worthy of debate. Pakistan comes to mind. But then so does the US, Israel, Russia and Britain.

You've completely avoided the topic. So you say you think that the ways that these countries fight terror is questionable - what's a good way? You've stated over and over again that you don't think we're doing it right, so what's better? Allow Hezbollah to kill Israeli civilians while blaming the israelis? Allow Al-Qaida to blow up trains in Spain unfettered? Please, do tell.

Regarding Neville Chamberlain...


LOL I see parallels too and it won't surprise me if you don't see them either.

I see Chamberlain as someone who appeased Czekoslovakia to the Hitler if he promised to leave the rest of Europe alone. The parallel is GWBush appeasing control of southern Iraq to Iran's proxy politicians, if they promise to leave the rest of Iraq and Israel alone and like Hitler, Iran fails to keep its end of the bargain.

Oh really? Please tell me where Bush has stated that he's ceding southern Iraq to Iran, or where this agreement between us and Iran was finalized. Your fantasies don't outweigh the fact that your proclivity to stick your head in the sand is reminiscent of a PM of days not-so-long past.

While it is still speculation, the result, should Iraq end up getting divided into three provinces, could either significantly reduce the sect violence into small controlable squirmishes as they work out border disputes and Bush could claim some success and save face. Or...a divided Iraq could escalate the violence into a full blown genocidal civil war that destabilizes the entire ME, in which case Bush will go down in history as just another Neville Chamberlain for trying to appease Iran.

If Iraq does end up getting divided, it will at least be an end to the ridiculously illogical colonial borders that Europeans are wholly responsible for creating which are the main driving forces between 95% of the problems in the Middle East today.

The US, cleaning up your messes, once again...

 

[jfuh]

They didn't tell me. Maybe they offered it an no one was interested.

You have something serious to add?

Nice try, but none of them has been obliterated in the 6 days war, Iraq was not even involved.

If not, why did they stop the war? Iran and Iraq went at it for how man years?
As for Iraq's involvement
Next?

 

[Moot]

So you admit that the assertion that Iran would attack first is not baseless then?

No, its not totally baseless considering Irans president continues to make brinkmanship like statements that he knows the US and Israel are twisting into an act of war. But then, he isn't the one who the US or Condi Rice would negotiate or have dialogue with on Irans nuclear program. The clerics and their appointed ministers are. So in reality it doesn't really matter what the nutball Iranian president says if the clerics and ministers won't let him back up his big mouth up with enriched uranium. The impression I get is the clerics wish he would stop the theatrics and brinkmanship and just do his job, which was to help build Irans economy.

 

[Mr_DBater]

Iran suffered for decades under the Shah and his gestapo style secret police installed by the CIA. To my knowledge Iraq invaded them. Iran hasn't invaded anyone since heaven knows when. Whilst we see and hear carefully stage managed anti west rabble rousing rhetoric from their priminister on the news, is it really likely they would commit suicide by attacking the west with nuclear weapons ?
If not, then what right does anyone have to attack them ?

 

[Moot]

Yep they are...The fact You love your terrorist buddies......:2wave:

No more than I love you, little buddy. :roll:

 

[cherokee]

No more than I love you, little buddy.

Sorry sweetie but I'm happily married.
Its ok maybe you'll find someone like billo to love.
One can only hope. :roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Iran suffered for decades under the Shah and his gestapo style secret police installed by the CIA.

The revolutionary guard is far far worse than the Savak ever was. Not only that but the Shah modernized Iranian industry and agriculture, granted women equal suffrage, and was a staunch ally of the U.S. and Israel, under the current radicals the Iranian economy has been thrown back 100 years, women are stoned to death for sex outside of marriage, their leaders threaten to wipe Israel off the map and their national passtime is burning the American flag while simultaneously chanting "death to America." The Shah starting to look a little better there buddy?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No, its not totally baseless considering Irans president continues to make brinkmanship like statements that he knows the US and Israel are twisting into an act of war. But then, he isn't the one who the US or Condi Rice would negotiate or have dialogue with on Irans nuclear program. The clerics and their appointed ministers are. So in reality it doesn't really matter what the nutball Iranian president says if the clerics and ministers won't let him back up his big mouth up with enriched uranium. The impression I get is the clerics wish he would stop the theatrics and brinkmanship and just do his job, which was to help build Irans economy.

lmfao do you honestly think the Mullahs are better than Ahmadinejad? Newsflash buddy they're worse, sh!t Ahmadinejad's there boy seeing as no one can run for President without there expressed permission.

 

[Moot]

lmfao do you honestly think the Mullahs are better than Ahmadinejad? Newsflash buddy they're worse, sh!t Ahmadinejad's there boy seeing as no one can run for President without there expressed permission.

You sound like you know the Mullahs intimately. So did they tell you that just because they approve the president elect, doesn't neccessarily give them control over his mouth?

From what I have read, the Mullahs and Ayotallahs in Tehran seem much more sane and level headed than Ahmaddinejad.

...What may be of surprise to many readers is that not only is Ahmadinejad’s view a distraction, but the real leadership of Iran actually offered peace talks with Israel back in 2003. Furthermore, the US refused it.

The Foreign Policy organization, Just Foreign Policy details this further:

""In 2003, in a secret memo to the U.S. government, Iran offered to make peace with Israel, oppose attacks by Palestinian groups on Israel within its 1967 borders, and pressure Hizbollah to become a peaceful political party. The Bush Administration refused to respond and continues to assert publicly that Iran wants to destroy Israel and sponsor terrorist groups. The offer, which likely still stands, directly contradicts those statements. Below is some press with more details. The episode calls into question the Administration’s truthfulness and motives with regard to Iran…

— Iran, Just Foreign Policy, Accessed October 1, 2006 ""

Iran - Global Issues