axel

IRAK & WEAPONS

Now

We all know

Blair & Bush told lies

Chirac had the truth

Shame

seretogis

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

The_Dude

that's it?? no facts? no articles?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Fallon

As much as I didn't agree to the War in Iraq, you're wording leaves a lot to be desired. We can't make baseless claims. Point to an article, point to a news cast, point to something other then just claiming that their wrong and such. Don't assume we all know what you're talking about.

Schwan

Isn't this some kind of poetry

Kabsnow

you forgot the man behind the scenes...
CHENEY!

the real war hawk..

The_Dude

wolfowitz is more evil

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

seretogis

When did we invade Irak? I've been living in a cave.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Phaenx

I think he's refering to the discredited statement Bush made, the one the CIA cleared for him to make.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

debaser

Wake up call, mate. Bush and Blair acted in the interests of the US and Britain. Chirac acted in the interests of France. None of them had the "truth". Thats how the world works.

__________________

rogue49

Bingo

seretogis

Best short summary of this "issue" that I've seen. Nicely done.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Lebell

I would have to agree.

Well said, debaser.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

james t kirk

Well, not that i don't understand what you are saying, but please explain to me how Chirac acted in the interests of France?????

France trades far more heavily with the USA than they ever did with Iraq, so please don't say that they had all these big contracts in Iraq.

inkriminator

I disagree that Bush started the war for only American good. The cost of the war is escalating rapidly (currently about $4 Billion a month) we angered much of the world, further enraged Islamic Extremists, delegitimized a supra-national organization we had immense influence in (The UN) and, most importantly, lost many of our young service men and woman in the process. The war was for America? We get oil contracts, defense spending and a stable ally in the future.

This is only looking at benifits to America. I think most people would agree that just looking at these factors, the con side heavily outweighs. This is why it is clear that Bush's personal ideologies have nearly as strong an influence on his decision making as does his concern for the welfare of America. This is what scares me about Bush.

inkriminator

Well first off, they did have, if I remember correctly, the largest contracts in Iraq. Second I think they understood that America would be willingly to place embargoes on France simply b/c they opposed the war. Chirac was trying to get as much as people, or if you supported the anti-war movement, Chirac was simply listening to his conscious

oldman2003

IRAK & WEAPONS

Now - the real winners

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4090.htm

We all know - Right from the source...the White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateofthe...ion/index.html


Blair & Bush told lies - 20 lies about the war

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=424008


Chirac had the truth - Still looking

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2959602.stm

Shame - blame
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/fea...e_1335540.html

debaser

Ok, allow me to explain the concept of self interest in the geo-political world.

The US is, hands down, the most powerful nation in the world right now. We will fight tooth and nail to keep ourselves in that position. We would be foolish not to. Iraq was not about oil, or WMD, or freedom, or any other such bollocks. It was about us flexing our muscle and reminding the rest of the world of it's place.

The British realized after WW2 that they would never regain the empire they once had, and that it would be in their interest to hitch to the same post as the US.

The French, Russians, and Chinese all have a shared goal: Replaceing the US in the top spot on the globe. To do that they need to weaken US influence. They attempted to use the UN security council to do that, and it backfired, rendering the SC (one of the main tools in this struggle) pretty much irrelevant.

Someone mentioned Chiracs conscience above. Well, leaders of countries don't make descisions based on conscience. This war, and the diplomatic struggle leading up to it is a glimpse into the self interest that drives the policy of the modern state.

__________________

Nyenrodian

The USA invaded Iraq because it needed a stable base in that region. So as they can have *some* control over the region (and thus its oil). This because, the successor to the Saudi throne is Anti-American and wants to discontinue help to the USA once in power.

There aren't other countries (except Israël) in that region that are pro American. So what else to do to invade Iraq and make it an American home base.

samcat

Of course, there is also the possibility that it was just plain stupid thing to get into ( cf. Barbara Tuchman's book - The March to Folly). Given that countries sometimes do real dumbass things that are against their best interests, especially when the leader is somewhat intellectually challenged, it should be no great surprise that the US went after Iraq.

The real reason probably has more to do with the mid term elections, held with the economy going into the sewer than any other logical plan. Short term gain, long term pain.

saru

Anyone who's observed the career of Jacques Chirac would know that the man certainly did not take an anti-war stand for altruistic reasons. It was all pure cynical calculation.

Above all, he pandered to deep-rooted anti-Americanism in the French elites (right, left and center, I would add). Giving the diplomatic middle-figure to the Anglos has won him the hearts and minds of the French people...nothing else can explain the fact that he is suddenly the most popular French president in a generation.

Beyond the popularity play, Chirac probably actually hoped to save Saddam's ass. Ever heard of Elf, Exocets, and Mirages? These are the words that made the whole gamble worthwhile. Stick it to the Americans and France would have a chance to save its hard-earned business and military contracts.

Now those contracts are up in the air, but one could say Chirac pulled a little international coup of his own. Chirac -- the great champion of multilaterism and peace? Anyone remember what he did to Tahiti, New Caledonia, Ivory Coast? Anyone?



to the Anglo-saxon hegemony, he won