The boycott is on!!

[Ed30]

I disagree with all that you say Beatz.

You say "War is not the answer." What is then, in your opinion?

 

[atlach]

I wasn t planning to participate to war lover thread but this is getting too far when "lamers" talk about boycott and freaks quote the history that please them:
So as it piss me off to no extend,

And people that claim we should follow/agree whatever US decide to do since they helped/saved europe during world war II should open their history book and check who came to save their ass during their independence war. Do the french claim since we saved your ass you should obey/agree to whatever we say? DO WE?

So once for all :
IF WE DONT AGREE WITH YOU IT DOESNT MEAN WE ARE WRONG

damn it

So #~#' the lamer and the clueless people and to those warlover how about getting down someone that really should be taken down(north korea crazy mather ****er with nukes) oh yeah i forgot no petrol and he can defend himself.

PEACE!!!!

 

[beatz]

Originally posted by Ed30
What is then, in your opinion?

Diplomacy.
Wait...more important is even the US to give up their plans to conquer the world or to give up the idea of being "No1" in the world is the most important thing - the whole world exept the US has realized that nowadays it's not about being no1 anymore but getting along with each other...

 

[Larry]

no prob

thanks for the edit

 

[atlach]

i edited it not fast enough sorry larry

 

[beatz]

Thanks atlach - agree 100% with you.

Btw - the thing that pisses *me* off most is the arrogance with which Bush and alikes don't even make an attempt to hide their true motives but rather say "We don't care what the rest of the world wants or what is law - we do it anyway".No matter if they violate international law or not.
Reminds me a lot of Hitler.

 

[Ciqala]

this whole boycott is laughable. the us is condeming france for not wanting to take part in a war when around 70 years ago they were a nation ravaged by nazi occupation. I have a good french friend who's grandparents died at the hands of the germans during the war. who can blame them for not wanting to go through the rigours of war again.

I think the US had gotten complacent before 9-11 as you are a large mass of land and far from any of your enemies. when the tragedy at the twin towers occured it was a wake up call because as a nation you turned out to be much more vulnerable than you thought you were.

Of course for europe this feeling of safety has never been an option. the world wars have been fought on our doorsteps with the effects very much felt throughout. and where do you think iraq will choose to attack if war were to break out. odds-on england would feel a large brunt of the force as we are a much smaller country and much more accessible. tony blair is playing lap dog to george bush despite the plea's from his own countrymen and I fear that he will endanger us all with his actions. the US were gripped with fear over the anthrax letters but i can tell you that is not as worrying as living in a country which is many times smaller in size than california and also a true island and could easily be devastated by a small pox/ chemical attack. The penalty for us could be huge for supporting this war and I for one would prefer to not be a part of it. but what about saddam? well he may be a threat but no more so than 3 or 4 years ago but why werent we fighting to go to war then? there are many agendas behind this war and the majority of which are not with world peace or putting an end to terrorism.

I say let the U.S. fight their war on the oil fields if they must follow a leader intent on war but don't risk a third world war by trying to drag everyone else in with them.

 

[beatz]

I agree.

Btw - about 30.000 members have left Blair's party already because of his US support..that should tell something.

Well it tells that it's not good to ignore the people that voted for you or to ignore the people in general.

40 000 people protested in front of the white house.
150 000 protested in LA and San Francisco.

Bush should not ignore them either...

 

[Ed30]

Where do you think terrorists would be getting these chemicals to attack us with in the future? Answer - Iraq.
There will be terrorist attacks in the future, but they'll have to make do with what they have now to attack us with, which isn't much.

Unfortunately diplomacy in this instance has failed as have weapons inspections.

 

[beatz]

Uh who is to decide that the inspections have failed?

In fact, they haven't but Bush nevertheless prefers to ignore that.

As for where terrorists get the chemicals from - open up a history book and see who the main chemical supplier for Saddam and Bin Laden and so on has been, surprise,surprise - the US (government).

Anthrax to Saddam, money to Bin Laden...the list is endless.

Go figure.

 

[Ed30]

I don't think the US has been shipping anthrax to Iraq.

I know that France sold Iraq a nuclear reactor in exchange for oil contracts.

Go figure.

 

[TopNames.com]

Originally posted by nameslave
How many people actually understand what HISTORY means?

When the British celebrated the victory of the Second World War, many of them DIDN'T know that the sun finally set on their empire.

Similarly, SOME Americans DON'T realize that they are quickly LOSING it. What a pity!

Nameslave...do you have any idea of how much aid the US hands out every year? BILLIONS.

I'm not saying that America is perfect, but without the USA, France would be speaking German and Kuwait would be controled by Iraq.

I am so ****ing sick and tired of the US bashing...

 

[octobus]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1213-02.htm

http://www.dawn.com/2002/text/int11.htm

1. Iraq was the Ally of US before the Gulf War
2. The knowledge and material behind Iraq Chemical & Biological Warfare originates from US

"... we have to beware countries that supply terrorists with Weapons of Mass Destruction"

so true

 

[think]

Never overlook the aspect of money as a motivating factor in political decisions. Let's take just one example. Dick Cheney, (he's still the vice president even if you don't see much of him) was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000.

Halliburton, through it's French subsidiaries, did $73 million dollars in business with Iraq in the late 1990's. Chainey publicly denied any sales by his company or subsideraries to Iraq on ABC. Although completley legal the public denial by Cheney and the undermining of the spirit of the Iraq embargo are quite ironic:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

Hallerburton already has contracts to clean up the oil fields after the Iraqi war and is lined up to recieve an even bigger slice of the post war Iraq pie:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030310/pl_nm/iraq_construction_dc_2

This is a Reuters article (July 22 2002) on Halliburton's recent government contract award to build more prison cells at our Cuban military base in Guantanamo Bay:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0727-02.htm

Side commentary:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the basic human rights afforded to US Citizens should be afforded to any we deam terrorists. How can we go about declaring human rights abuse in other nations when we detain world citizens at OUR MILITARY BASE IN COMMUNIST CUBA?:

Although we should pursue alQaeda with aggression, I believe America has been known as a country high moral integrity with laws protecting the rights of individuals. By denying rights to some we set a dangerous precident to the world. This precident states, "Human and Civil rights are for United States citizens only.". This is a double standard that should not be allowed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dick Cheney and Halliburton represent only one example of how the military-industrial complex works.

People of money and power wrap themselves in the flag so as to let emotion overshadow the obvious. The obvious being that money is their motivation and patriotism is their shield.

 

[TopNames.com]

Originally posted by beatz
I agree.

Btw - about 30.000 members have left Blair's party already because of his US support..that should tell something.

Well it tells that it's not good to ignore the people that voted for you or to ignore the people in general.

40 000 people protested in front of the white house.
150 000 protested in LA and San Francisco.

Bush should not ignore them either...

Get real...more people support Bush than oppose him.

No one said being President was easy. Hard choices need to be made and I would not want a President who was spineless. The fact is that you and I do not have the ability to know all the facts...only a select few do and I trust them to make the right choices with the information that have...that's why I vote.

 

[TopNames.com]

Originally posted by octobus
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1213-02.htm

http://www.dawn.com/2002/text/int11.htm

1. Iraq was the Ally of US before the Gulf War
2. The knowledge and material behind Iraq Chemical & Biological Warfare originates from US

"... we have to beware countries that supply terrorists with Weapons of Mass Destruction"

so true

Iraq invaded a weaker country...was the US just supposed to allow an Ally to rape and pillage? Are you saying the US should not have helped Kuwait?

 

[Ed30]

Originally posted by TopNames.com



I am so .. sick and tired of the US bashing...

At last! - someone who agrees with me.

 

[ctn]

Originally posted by beatz


Yeah.

Just that it's pretty easy for Americans to expect it as your country is far away in geographical terms.

Much more likely this time the attacks gonna happen here in Europe - but hey, that's nothing the US has to worry about, right?

We just don't wanna be your supporter in this dirty game as a dirty game it is.

As it's only about US interests, not about the world's interest; to be exactly it's against *everyone's* interest but the US.

You see.

Yes and 9/11 just goes to show you it doesn't matter how far away we are.We still can be attacked.As far as france and russia goes,the only reason they don't want war is because iraq owes them billions and billions of dollars and the only way they can get it back is through there oil.
France is the #1 tourist place in the world because of the usa.So they have some major choices to make ,but either way there not going to benefit from it.So no they don't want war.But if they were going to benefit from it they would be backing us from the start.
One thing about the usa is we are the #1 superpower and it is kinda like the pop star with the #1 album you can remain #1 but have to keep making #1 albums and everyone is against you and will try and bring you down.So the usa has remained #1 for along time and if we start getting attacks like 9/11 we can be brought down easy.And that is what we are trying to keep from happening
Jus my 2 cents worth

 

[tino]

Je regrette, je ne parle pas Français très bon. Je suis de la Hollande. Mais je suis contre la guerre aussi.

Tino

 

[TopNames.com]

Originally posted by atlach
I wasn t planning to participate to war lover thread but this is getting too far when "lamers" talk about boycott and freaks quote the history that please them:
So as it piss me off to no extend,

And people that claim we should follow/agree whatever US decide to do since they helped/saved europe during world war II should open their history book and check who came to save their ass during their independence war. Do the french claim since we saved your ass you should obey/agree to whatever we say? DO WE?

So once for all :
IF WE DONT AGREE WITH YOU IT DOESNT MEAN WE ARE WRONG

damn it

So #~#' the lamer and the clueless people and to those warlover how about getting down someone that really should be taken down(north korea crazy mather ****er with nukes) oh yeah i forgot no petrol and he can defend himself.

PEACE!!!!

I didn't say you were wrong so **** you.

Why doesn't your country go handle the North Korea issue...we'll sit this one out.