War on Iraq?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Philistine

...I don't think that is the primary argument against attacking Iraq. My main issue on Iraq is the sudden urgency to attack and the unilateral method that is being advocated.

Each of the bases you list has existed for at least four years--some for as many as twenty, but suddenly we need to attack? Also, the administration IMHO has badly handled the situation--essentially telling the world it is going to attack, and only when facing almost universal resistance deigning to attempt to make a case for it.

While the administration may have all the advantages you posit, so do other countries who do not seem convinced. In addition, a consistent explanation of why the attack is necessary, and why it is necessary NOW would go a long way to ameliorating resistance.

Personally, I think the way to go is to get a Security Council resolution requiring the unimpeded return of inspectors (along with compliance with the other conditions of the resolution ending the war) with a mandate to use force in the event of noncompliance. IMHO this would have been easily received if not for (what I perceive to be) the mishandling of the situation.

My $.02

--Philistine

Sudden urgency? I've been all for invading Iraq for as long as I've been aware of world events. Suddenly, though, more reasons - and better arguments for it - are popping up, so I'm pressing the attack again.

Security Council resolution, and multi-national UN action? Of COURSE that's the best way!! I would like nothing better than to get a resolution passed saying "Give the UN inspectors free reign, or get invaded by several countries." But the UN, unfortunately, is the biggest beauracracy on the face of the planet. They make the US government - a phenomenally sluggish organization - look decisive and quick. And when you figure countries such as France into the equation...well, don't get me started on the French. Suffice it to say that most of the Arab countries fly Rafales. So yes it would be nice, but we need to be prepared to move on our own if the UN is too slow - by which I mean a few months.

Gav: Do you think I really imagined that war and fencing were that much alike?? It's an ANALOGY, man!! One thing is compared to another IN ORDER TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT!! Of course fencing is much more civilized, much less lethal, etc. I was attempting to illustrate the idea of the usefulness of a pre-emptive strike.

As for the fist-fight - same deal about making a point. However, I get the idea that if somebody your size or bigger ever decided he wanted to duke it out with you, you'd get a good ***-kicking.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Philistine


Well some of these are pretty well tailored to ONLY apply to Iraq, so I'd think the deck is a bit stacked, but let's put in North Korea (as another "Axis of Evil" country, and add a few that may be specific to them, and see how that goes...

Which country has N Korea invaded and annexed, again?

I'm dubious of the evidence linking Iraq to such attempt.

On what grounds?

Attacks? Which? 1993 World Trade Center bombing I've heard suggested Iraq was involved (or at least someone in their intelligence organization) although I understand it has never been confirmed. I'm not aware of any other attacks they have been implicated in.

Yes, the first WTC bombing.

North Korea--not as such. But they have against U.S. allies (S. Korea).

And so N Korea fails to meet the criteria as well...

Oh yes. Although S. Korea instead of Israel.

Note "and", not "or". I would also argue that they have not called for the destruction of S Korea, they only believe that it should be reunited with the North ( under Northern rule, of course ). Unlike Iraq and a number of other Middle Eastern states, which want Israel and all of its citizens eradicated.

I think that North Korea has a number of other factors which Iraq does not share that make it more dangerous than Iraq. For instance:

--Already possesses fissionables which would allow the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

But is in such dire straits financially that it can't afford to "waste" them on weapons instead of power generation. Unlike Iraq, no bottomless well of oil revenues to finance WOMD for their own sake.

--Possesses missiles which can reach the continental United States.

Not sure of this one. Which missiles?

--Sells advanced technology, including ballistic missle technology to known terrorist states (e.g. Iran, Syria, Libya)

A serious infraction, I agree. But WOMD are not like recreational drugs, where possession with intent to sell is deemed "worse" than possession for personal use. Rather the other way around, I'd say...

Moreover, unlike Iraq N Korea's rhetoric and behaviour has been growing more conciliatory and less truculent in recent years. They are now negotiating to reconnect lines of communication and transportation between North and South; families have been allowed to restablish contact across the border; admissions of past wrongs ( the first step toward redress and change ) have been made. Like China, and even like Iran, the trend, however glacial its pace, has been toward more freedom for its people, and more positive actions socially and economically. Unlike China and Iran, the "point of no return" regarding reform has not yet been reached, perhaps. But early indications are hopeful. Saddam, however, has not budged one iota from his dreams of being "the new Saladin", from his obsession with WOMD, or from his his posture of holding his people's necks beneath his boot. He has shown not even a twinkling of a wish to enter the community of peaceful nations. He is unrepentant and unreformed. Not even N Korea's dictator is so unremittantly hostile and confrontational.

I don't think that is the primary argument against attacking Iraq. My main issue on Iraq is the sudden urgency to attack and the unilateral method that is being advocated.

I didn't mean you, specifically. I have no problems with those who argue the issue on logical grounds. Unfortunately, every time I find myself engaged in such a rational debate, along come a few agitators who can only dismiss all arguments and assert that "The TRUTH is that the vile, despicable Bushies just want a WAR!" or something equally demagoguic...

Each of the bases you list has existed for at least four years--some for as many as twenty, but suddenly we need to attack? Also, the administration IMHO has badly handled the situation--essentially telling the world it is going to attack, and only when facing almost universal resistance deigning to attempt to make a case for it.

Well, I scarcely think that botching the PR for it, if one accepts that it has been botched, vitiates the core argument for intervention...

As for the urgency, again, I think it's because the events of 9-11 woke us up. Before that we were accustomed to go along with the prevailing paradigm that every problem should be handled by endless dreary negotiation, that the worst tyrant and aberrant threat to peace could be safely bound if only you could sic the career diplomats on them, that nothing would ever happen if only we kept talking, and talking, and talking...

The elder Bush was a part of that world, and shared that weltanschaaung else he would not have allowed Saddam to retain power after the Gulf War. But the world has changed. The nature of threats have changed. We now have the choice of taking the old "measures"---waiting, doing nothing, talking soothingly---or of acting. And if we take the latter course, and Saddam turns out NOT to have been a threat, what have we lost? Some money. No doubt some soldiers, which in the greater scheme of things can be compared to the lives of Iraqi civilians which as a consequence of Saddam's ouster would be spared in the years and decades ahead. Our image in the Arab world as a "paper tiger" which could be pushed and attacked with impunity. And one brutal despot. Whereas if we take the FORMER course, and are wrong, the consequences might be millions of dead around the globe, world instability, and chaos in the region far worse than what is predicted by the worst of the pessimists if we invade now...

While the administration may have all the advantages you posit, so do other countries who do not seem convinced.

Funny, though, how their dubiety seems to vary as a direct function of how far down the list of potential targets of Saddam's ire and weapons they are, and/or how much they stand to gain from various business relationships with Iraq...

If every country had the same information, they would all draw the same conclusion: the threat is real, or it is not. But this has not happened. The evidence convinces some, but not others. So either they all do NOT have the same intelligence, or something else, such as national interest, has entered the picture.

Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with a country making a decision in the matter according to its national interests. However, having done so they ought not then attempt to hamper another nation's pursuit of ITS national interests. Otherwise it could well turn out like the fight in "Romeo and Juliet", with us in the role of Mercutio, saying "Why the devil came you between us? I was hurt under your arm"....

Personally, I think the way to go is to get a Security Council resolution requiring the unimpeded return of inspectors (along with compliance with the other conditions of the resolution ending the war) with a mandate to use force in the event of noncompliance. IMHO this would have been easily received if not for (what I perceive to be) the mishandling of the situation.

In all candor, I agree with you on the superiority of a viable inspection program to war. In fact, I believe that that will be the solution eventually adopted---assuming that the Russians and French can be persuaded not to indulge in obstructionism over a new, stronger Resolution---and I think that the cold shoulder the Bush Administration turned to Saddam's "offer" is actually just an attempt to bargain from a position of strength, lest Saddam think he can just go back to his old games again. Or if not, that Bush will eventually come around to that solution, as he has come around to so many others to which he was initially vehemently opposed.

But I rather suspect that the only sort of inspection program which will work is one in which the inspectors are accompanied to every destination by a Ranger battalion, a squadron of Apaches and a fighter wing on call, with a clear understanding that any of Saddam's officers or soldiers who so much as opens his mouth to form words denying entry will get a bullet through it and the site will be entered by force...

[Spanky]

This was allegedly posted very briefly on the McDonnell Douglas
Website by an employee there who obviously has a sense of humor. The
company,
of course, does not have a sense of humor and made the web department take
it down immediately. For once, the 'IMPORTANT' note at the end is worth a
read, too.
----------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for purchasing a McDonnell Douglas military aircraft. In order
to protect your new investment, please take a few moments to fill out the
warranty registration card below. Answering the survey questions is not
required, but the information will help us to develop new products that best
meet your needs and desires.
1. Title:

[_] Mr.
[_] Mrs.
[_] Ms.
[_] Miss
[_] Lt.
[_] Gen.
[_] Comrade
[_] Classified
[_] Other
First Name: ................................................
Initial: .........
Last Name ..........................................
Password: .......................... (max. 8 char)
Code Name: ......................................
Latitude-Longitude-Altitude: .......................
2. Which model aircraft did you purchase?
[_] F-14 Tomcat
[_] F-15 Eagle
[_] F-16 Falcon
[_] F-117A Stealth
[_] Classified
3. Date of purchase (Year/Month/Day): ......./....... /......
4. Serial Number: ...........................................
5. Please indicate where this product was purchased:
[_] Received as gift / aid package
[_] Catalogue / showroom
[_] Independent arms broker
[_] Mail order
[_] Discount store
[_] Government surplus
[_] Classified
6. Please indicate how you became aware of the McDonnell Douglas
product
you have just purchased:
[_] Heard loud noise, looked up
[_] Store display
[_] Espionage
[_] Recommended by friend / relative / ally
[_] Political lobbying by manufacturer
[_] Was attacked by one
7. Please indicate the three (3) factors that most influenced your
decision to purchase this McDonnell Douglas product:
[_] Style / appearance
[_] Speed / maneuverability
[_] Price / value
[_] Comfort / convenience
[_] Kickback / bribe
[_] Recommended by salesperson
[_] McDonnell Douglas reputation
[_] Advanced Weapons Systems
[_] Backroom politics
[_] Negative experience opposing one in combat
8. Please indicate the location(s) where this product will be used:
[_] North America
[_] Iraq
[_] Iraq
[_] Aircraft carrier
[_] Iraq
[_] Europe
[_] Iraq
[_] Middle East (not Iraq)
[_] Iraq
[_] Africa
[_] Iraq
[_] Asia / Far East
[_] Iraq
[_] Misc. Third World countries
[_] Iraq
[_] Classified
[_] Iraq
9. Please indicate the products that you currently own or intend to
purchase in the near future:
[_] Color TV
[_] VCR
[_] ICBM
[_] Killer Satellite
[_] CD Player
[_] Air-to-Air Missiles
[_] Space Shuttle
[_] Home Computer
[_] Nuclear Weapon
10. How would you describe yourself or your organization?
(Indicate all that apply):
[_] Communist / Socialist
[_] Terrorist
[_] Crazed
[_] Neutral
[_] Democratic
[_] Dictatorship
[_] Corrupt
[_] Primitive / Tribal
11. How did you pay for your McDonnell Douglas product?
[_] Deficit spending
[_] Cash
[_] Suitcases of cocaine
[_] Oil revenues
[_] Personal check
[_] Credit card
[_] Ransom money
[_] Traveler's check
12. Your occupation:
[_] Homemaker
[_] Sales / Marketing
[_] Revolutionary
[_] Clerical
[_] Mercenary
[_] Tyrant
[_] Middle Management
[_] Eccentric Billionaire
[_] Defense Minister / General
[_] Retired
[_] Student
13. To help us better understand our customers, please indicate the
interests and activities in which you and your spouse enjoy
participating on a regular basis:
[_] Golf
[_] Boating / Sailing
[_] Sabotage
[_] Running / Jogging
[_] Propaganda / Misinformation
[_] Destabilization / Overthrow
[_] Default on Loans
[_] Gardening
[_] Crafts
[_] Black Market / Smuggling
[_] Collectibles / Collections
[_] Watching Sports on TV
[_] Wines
[_] Interrogation / Torture
[_] Household Pets
[_] Crushing Rebellions
[_] Espionage / Reconnaissance
[_] Fashion Clothing
[_] Border disputes
[_] Mutually Assured Destruction
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your
answers will be used in market studies that will help McDonnell
Douglas serve you better in the future - as well as allowing you to receive
mailings and special offers from other companies, governments,
extremist groups, and mysterious consortia. As a bonus for responding to
this
survey, you will be registered to win a brand new F-117A in our Desert
Thunder Sweepstakes!? Comments or suggestions about our fighter
planes??
Please write to:
McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION
Marketing Department Military,
Aerospace Division
IMPORTANT NOTE:
This e-mail is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s)
named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or
unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense
of humor or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail
is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an
irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been
used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does
not have
any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored.
No animals were harmed in the transmission of this e-mail, although
the Kelpie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of
you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to
learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning
backwards, so just ignore that alert notice from Microsoft.

[veeco]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Security Council resolution, and multi-national UN action? Of COURSE that's the best way!! I would like nothing better than to get a resolution passed saying "Give the UN inspectors free reign, or get invaded by several countries." But the UN, unfortunately, is the biggest beauracracy on the face of the planet. They make the US government - a phenomenally sluggish organization - look decisive and quick. And when you figure countries such as France into the equation...well, don't get me started on the French.

Nice racist slur. You probably think that the US should invade France as well, based on the fact that France disagrees with the US on what action to take? The UN is the largest organization in the world and it tries to accomodate the interests of everyone and prevent conflicts to happen. So yes, it's slow, yes, it doesn't always go your way. But that's good, because otherwise, let me tell you, our world would be a mess!

Suffice it to say that most of the Arab countries fly Rafales.

The Rafale is pretty much brand new. I doubt that "most of the Arab countries" fly them. On the other hand I am pretty sure that Saudi Arabia flies F-16s, and they harbor terrorists. How good of an oxymoron is that?! Also, I though Iraq did not have an airforce of his own, so what does France and Rafales have to do with that?

So yes it would be nice, but we need to be prepared to move on our own if the UN is too slow - by which I mean a few months.

You need to understand that Bush is not the president of the world, young man. Kofi Anan is. And whatever Kofi Anan says, Bush should yield to that.

[sallearmourer]

Originally posted by veeco
Nice racist slur. You probably think that the US should invade France as well, based on the fact that France disagrees with the US on what action to take? The UN is the largest organization in the world and it tries to accomodate the interests of everyone and prevent conflicts to happen. So yes, it's slow, yes, it doesn't always go your way. But that's good, because otherwise, let me tell you, our world would be a mess!


The Rafale is pretty much brand new. I doubt that "most of the Arab countries" fly them. On the other hand I am pretty sure that Saudi Arabia flies F-16s, and they harbor terrorists. How good of an oxymoron is that?! Also, I though Iraq did not have an airforce of his own, so what does France and Rafales have to do with that?
They actcul flies F15c air to air fighters

You need to understand that Bush is not the president of the world, young man. Kofi Anan is. And whatever Kofi Anan says, Bush should yield to that.

[135711]

[quote]Originally posted by Spanky
[b]This was allegedly posted very briefly on the McDonnell Douglas
Website by an employee there who obviously has a sense of humor. The
company,
of course, does not have a sense of humor and made the web department take
it down immediately. For once, the 'IMPORTANT' note at the end is worth a
read, too.
----------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for purchasing a McDonnell Douglas military aircraft. In order
to protect your new investment, please take a few moments to fill out the
warranty registration card below. Answering the survey questions is not
required, but the information will help us to develop new products that best
meet your needs and desires.
1. Title:

[_] Mr.
[_] Mrs.
[_] Ms.
[_] Miss
[_] Lt.
[_] Gen.
[_] Comrade
[_] Classified
[X_] Other
First Name: ........Mango...................
Initial: ...M......
Last Name ........Pits..................
Password: .......Ihateiran........... (max. 8 char)
Code Name: ....The Preacher...........................
Latitude-Longitude-Altitude: ......11X11............
2. Which model aircraft did you purchase?
[_] F-14 Tomcat
[_] F-15 Eagle
[_] F-16 Falcon
[x_] F-117A Stealth
[_] Classified
3. Date of purchase (Year/Month/Day): ....9../..11..... /.01.....
4. Serial Number: ....A2ofks24.................................
5. Please indicate where this product was purchased:
[_] Received as gift / aid package
[_] Catalogue / showroom
[_] Independent arms broker
[_] Mail order
[x] Discount store
[_] Government surplus
[_] Classified
6. Please indicate how you became aware of the McDonnell Douglas product you have just purchased:
[_] Heard loud noise, looked up
[x] Store display
[_] Espionage
[_] Recommended by friend / relative / ally
[_] Political lobbying by manufacturer
[_] Was attacked by one
7. Please indicate the three (3) factors that most influenced your
decision to purchase this McDonnell Douglas product:
[_] Style / appearance
[_] Speed / maneuverability
[_] Price / value
[x] Comfort / convenience
[_] Kickback / bribe
[_] Recommended by salesperson
[_] McDonnell Douglas reputation
[_] Advanced Weapons Systems
[_] Backroom politics
[_] Negative experience opposing one in combat
8. Please indicate the location(s) where this product will be used:
[_] North America
[_] Iraq
[_] Aircraft carrier
[_] Europe
[_] Middle East (not Iraq)
[_] Africa
[X] Asia / Far East
[_] Misc. Third World countries
[X] Classified
[X] Iraq

9. Please indicate the products that you currently own or intend to
purchase in the near future:
[_] Color TV
[_] VCR
[_] ICBM
[_] Killer Satellite
[_] CD Player
[_] Air-to-Air Missiles
[_] Space Shuttle
[_] Home Computer
[_] Nuclear Weapon
[x ] none
10. How would you describe yourself or your organization?
(Indicate all that apply):
[_] Communist / Socialist
[_] Terrorist
[_] Crazed
[_] Neutral
[_] Democratic
[_] Dictatorship
[_] Corrupt
[_] Primitive / Tribal
[x ] opportunitst

11. How did you pay for your McDonnell Douglas product?
[_] Deficit spending
[_] Cash
[_] Suitcases of cocaine
[_] Oil revenues
[_] Personal check
[_] Credit card
[_] Ransom money
[_] Traveler's check
[ x] Trade 10 small red headed children

12. Your occupation:
[x] Homemaker
[_] Sales / Marketing
[_] Revolutionary
[_] Clerical
[_] Mercenary
[_] Tyrant
[_] Middle Management
[_] Eccentric Billionaire
[_] Defense Minister / General
[_] Retired
[_] Student

13. To help us better understand our customers, please indicate theinterests and activities in which you and your spouse enjoy
participating on a regular basis:
[_] Golf
[_] Boating / Sailing
[_] Sabotage
[x] Running / Jogging
[x] Propaganda / Misinformation
[x] Destabilization / Overthrow
[_] Default on Loans
[_] Gardening
[_] Crafts
[_] Black Market / Smuggling
[_] Collectibles / Collections
[_] Watching Sports on TV
[_] Wines
[_] Interrogation / Torture
[_] Household Pets
[_] Crushing Rebellions
[_] Espionage / Reconnaissance
[X] Fashion Clothing
[_] Border disputes
[_] Mutually Assured Destruction

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your
answers will be used in market studies that will help McDonnell
Douglas serve you better in the future - as well as allowing you to receive
mailings and special offers from other companies, governments,
extremist groups, and mysterious consortia. As a bonus for responding to thissurvey, you will be registered to win a brand new F-117A in our DesertThunder Sweepstakes!? Comments or suggestions about our fighter planes??
Please write to:
McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION
Marketing Department Military,
Aerospace Division
IMPORTANT NOTE:



THANK YOU FOR including me in your survey. I've been outback for awhile and thought you forgot me. I enjoyed the materials you sent me in 1980 and look forward to hearing from you again. I would like to request a little change in venue. The natives are becoming suspicious. My activities are being noted by our friends abroad and maybe a little vacation could be arranged. Thanks again. Oh, p.s. i need a few more clips for the thingamabobby i bought last week.

[135711]

I feel very badly actually. If I were younger, I'd join the airforce and help out our boys, I felt really badly when I saw a photo of some of our young boys sitting on the ground polishing off their guns. this is so terrible, even if we win, those boys will never be the same, they'll be mean for years and years, and it won't be their fault. all that muscle and brains all wasted, they should be with us, fencing.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by veeco

You need to understand that Bush is not the president of the world, young man. Kofi Anan is.

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks for that, veeco, we really needed a bit of levity on this thread!

Spanky---That questionnaire was hilarious, too!

[sallearmourer]

My Motto Kill them all and let GOD sorted them out

[latenight]

Alrighty then........

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
My Motto Kill them all and let GOD sorted them out

Sounds good to me, but good luck getting the rest of the country to agree - let alone the rest of this forum.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by veeco
Nice racist slur. You probably think that the US should invade France as well, based on the fact that France disagrees with the US on what action to take? The UN is the largest organization in the world and it tries to accomodate the interests of everyone and prevent conflicts to happen. So yes, it's slow, yes, it doesn't always go your way. But that's good, because otherwise, let me tell you, our world would be a mess!


The Rafale is pretty much brand new. I doubt that "most of the Arab countries" fly them. On the other hand I am pretty sure that Saudi Arabia flies F-16s, and they harbor terrorists. How good of an oxymoron is that?! Also, I though Iraq did not have an airforce of his own, so what does France and Rafales have to do with that?


You need to understand that Bush is not the president of the world, young man. Kofi Anan is. And whatever Kofi Anan says, Bush should yield to that.

Let me start off: Do not refer to me as "young man". My age is irrelevant, and I will not be judged based upon it. Don't ever patronize me.

Secondly: I'm not racist against the French, and that was not by any means a slur. My judgement is based on what I have heard of them from not just Americans in France, but Germans, Italians, Britains, Swiss, etc. In addition I have seen their policies throughout recent history, and the stances they take in world affairs. As they are a democracy, their government and its actions reflect upon its people. That is why I have little respect for the French, and their government especially, as a whole.

Third: The Rafale isn't by ANY means brand new. France has been selling them to anyone willing to buy the piece of junk for at least twenty years. And yes, I know what I'm talking about.

Fourth: No, Bush isn't president of the world. But he is president of the United States, and DOES need to act to protect our nation and its interests if the UN will not. The UN, let me remind you, was founded with the intention of protecting ALL member nations and their interests. We're allowed to act on our own, here. We're not ruled by the UN.

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
My Motto Kill them all and let GOD sorted them out

The following comment has nothing to do with the subject of this thread; I just wondered if you (and the large number of other Vets, from Vietnam on, who have 'adopted' this motto) know the origin of the phrase.

In thirteenth century France, there was a 'heresy'--as defined by the Roman church of that time--called Catharism. These people believed in a variant form of Christianity from the dominant Catholicism of the time, which was anathema to the ruling church hierarchy. Despite the fact that they were peaceble, law-abiding, and didn't meddle in their neighbors' business, Rome announced a 'crusade' against what was in fact the first 'Protestant' sect.

In 1209, Simon de Montfort led an army into southern France to lay seige to Beziers, the opening campaign in what became known to history as the Albigensian Crusade.

Between 1209 and 1255, it is estimated that over a million people were hanged, burned, dismembered, and otherwise executed by the 'crusaders'. The Holy Office of the Inquisition was founded as a direct response to the Cathars, and their extermination was pursued with great zeal.

At the seige of Beziers where it all started, Arnaud Amaury the Papal Legate--'spiritual' commander of the army--gave orders that all the heretics should be killed when the town was taken.

When asked how one could tell the difference between a Catholic and a heretic, he was brought up short; evidently, the question hadn't occurred to him. Finally he answered: "Kill them all; God will know His own!"

And so they did, when the town eventually surrendered. Every man, woman, and child was put to the sword, and that practice became Standard Operating Procedure throughout the remainder of the wars.

The moral of this story is that I wouldn't be so glib and off-handed about a slogan that was born through religious persecution and massacre.

The religious intolerance and willingness to shed the blood of innocents shown by Amaury and de Montfort bears a sad and eerie similarity to the al Queda and other Muslim extremists who are targeting the US today.

[veeco]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Let me start off: Do not refer to me as "young man". My age is irrelevant, and I will not be judged based upon it. Don't ever patronize me.

No judgment was made based on your age. If you don't like being referred to a "young man", then you shouldn't be so impetuous and bellicose. This is clearly the behavior of someone who is young. I am not judging you on your age, as I am probably not much older than you, and just as you do, I hate being judged upon my age.

Secondly: I'm not racist against the French, and that was not by any means a slur. My judgement is based on what I have heard of them from not just Americans in France, but Germans, Italians, Britains, Swiss, etc. In addition I have seen their policies throughout recent history, and the stances they take in world affairs. As they are a democracy, their government and its actions reflect upon its people. That is why I have little respect for the French, and their government especially, as a whole.

I am sorry, but this is a slur. You hinted that the French were such lowlife as to pollute each and every international matters that they could. But it seems like you based your opinion on the opinions of someone else. I have heard a lot of people complaining about Americans, saying they don't like them. Some of these people complaining gave me what seemed like valid reasons for disliking Americans.

That did not prevent me from moving to the US and making my own opinion of them. Saying that you have seen the recent policies throughout recent history of the French without having actually lived there is completely useless. Until you've lived in a country you should not be allowed to judge its policies. Your vision of French policies is completely skewed because what you see is the image that is given to you by the media here in the US. Just like my vision of US policies was completely skewed until I came here. I realized how different it was from what I thought it was.

So before making a judgment on a country I would appreciate you give them a chance at least and not dismiss them right away.

Third: The Rafale isn't by ANY means brand new. France has been selling them to anyone willing to buy the piece of junk for at least twenty years. And yes, I know what I'm talking about.

The Rafale is new. The Rafale has been in development for quite some time and has been making news for about the same amount of time. But it takes time to develop an aircraft. During that time, yes Dassault has been trying to sell their airplanes to other countries, just like Boeing, or McDonnell or Lockheed are trying to sell their F-22s, F-15s, F-16s. On the other hand, the Mirage which is the Rafale's predecessor is in wide use among the world. Just like the F-15, and the Mig, etc... You can't blame a country for trying to export its goods outside of the country, as long as it's legally acceptable under international laws.

Fourth: No, Bush isn't president of the world. But he is president of the United States, and DOES need to act to protect our nation and its interests if the UN will not. The UN, let me remind you, was founded with the intention of protecting ALL member nations and their interests. We're allowed to act on our own, here. We're not ruled by the UN.

No, the US is not ruled by the UN. No one is ruled by the UN. But it is usually a wise decision to listen to what they have to say, even if you take their decisions with a grain of salt. Noone said that the US couldn't go alone, just that it would be better if they were actually able to get some support.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Swordsman

{snip}
Third: The Rafale isn't by ANY means brand new. France has been selling them to anyone willing to buy the piece of junk for at least twenty years. And yes, I know what I'm talking about.
{snip}

Just a note, as this is an interst of mine. The Rafale IS brand new. I believe that no country other than France has them, although Dassault is marketing them to other countries. Even France has very few actually manufactured.

You are most likely thinking of the 20-year-old Mirage F1 which is in wide service in the Middle East.

Most "modern" fighters in the Middle East are either U.S. or Ex-Soviet in origin, depending on the country. (Qatar and the UAE do have a few Mirage 2000's, which are roughly F-16/Mig 29 equivalent).

Just being pendantic

On the "Kill them all and let God sort them out,"--Isn't this essentially the position that Al-Queda took?

--Philistine

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Philistine
Just a note, as this is an interst of mine. The Rafale IS brand new. I believe that no country other than France has them, although Dassault is marketing them to other countries. Even France has very few actually manufactured.

You are most likely thinking of the 20-year-old