StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Kamakazie Sith wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Didn't you come from ASVS?

Yes, and I would take the same veiw there as here.

Don't overquote~CO

Damn your seriousness....

I know, I know, my family all say the same damn thing....except when I am being humourous, can you see the smile? its there, only its hidden.

Very well, if you would like proof, gimmie a day, and ill get it.

http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Arch ... hasWMD.htm




{an even better one}

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030310/w031052.html

"Our position is no matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no.' Because we think tonight there is no cause for war to achieve the objective that we fixed: the disarmament of Iraq," Chirac said in a televised interview.

"The latest (UN weapons) inspectors' report confirms that there is no need to change" the inspection program currently underway in Iraq, Chirac said.

{as for this quote, i already explained why the inspectors are being so blind to the fact that Iraq is destroying its arsenal piecemeal to stall.}

Russia doesn't truely support a conflict, but they would rather abstain than screw the rest of the members that DO support it. A major reason why France and Germany oppose the war anyway is NOT because of a love for Iraq....its because they would lose bussiness. Both nations were found to be trading partners in spite of the sanctions. France has something at stake.




"France could not support military action until the inspectors explicitly tell the UN Security Council that they cannot fulfil their objective of certifying that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction."


{I guess they don't count chemi or bio.}

{which they will never do because they are being led around by the nose by Saddam. They are given a cookie each passing day to stalll, whilst other "materiel" is moved somewhere else. There has been proof that materiel shifting has occured. Other nations support that evidence. Again, the ones that DON'T have business to maintain. Would you rob Peter to pay Paul???}

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/17 ... france.htm

{Speaks about bomb raids.}
"French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin says the status quo in Iraq is "unsustainable." But he insists that the use of force is not the only means of changing it."

{Apparently, their own government doesn't know what the other member official is doing.} {this article aslo clarifies that it is the goal of the French to stall any action till the new American election, in hopes of saving their Iraqi investments by not having a war at all.}

"Chirac is convinced that he can persuade Saddam to talk the right talk and walk the right walk." {OHHHH so now he thinks he is a guidence counselor.}

"Saddam showed his appreciation by approving a deal under which Iraq committed to granting French oil companies a number of privileges plus a 23 percent share of Iraqi oil." {Go figure?} {This one also explains the long intimate history between Chirac and Saddam.}

{I have several other sites that clearly explain Frances earlier attempts to get SANCTIONS completely LIFTED from Iraq, even before this new issue. In short, France is a pain in the ass}

Strate_Egg, your post is quite confusing. Edit the post and try using the actual quote fuction this time.

It might be a bit confusing. I didnt want to past everything, too long.

http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Arch ... hasWMD.htm

I. "Our position is no matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no.' Because we think tonight there is no cause for war to achieve the objective that we fixed: the disarmament of Iraq," Chirac said in a televised interview. "

II. "The latest (UN weapons) inspectors' report confirms that there is no need to change" the inspection program currently underway in Iraq, Chirac said.

III. "France could not support military action until the inspectors explicitly tell the UN Security Council that they cannot fulfil their objective of certifying that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030310/w031052.html

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/17 ... france.htm

I. "Chirac is convinced that he can persuade Saddam to talk the right talk and walk the right walk."

II. "Saddam showed his appreciation by approving a deal under which Iraq committed to granting French oil companies a number of privileges plus a 23 percent share of Iraqi oil."

There is a lot more stupid shit France does, but it would take too many posts.

Strate_Egg is there an actual arqument hidden among that France bashing?

Strate_Egg wrote:http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Arch ... hasWMD.htm

I. "Our position is no matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no.' Because we think tonight there is no cause for war to achieve the objective that we fixed: the disarmament of Iraq," Chirac said in a televised interview. "

II. "The latest (UN weapons) inspectors' report confirms that there is no need to change" the inspection program currently underway in Iraq, Chirac said.

III. "France could not support military action until the inspectors explicitly tell the UN Security Council that they cannot fulfil their objective of certifying that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030310/w031052.html

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/17 ... france.htm

I. "Chirac is convinced that he can persuade Saddam to talk the right talk and walk the right walk."

II. "Saddam showed his appreciation by approving a deal under which Iraq committed to granting French oil companies a number of privileges plus a 23 percent share of Iraqi oil."

There is a lot more stupid shit France does, but it would take too many posts.

The first three quotes concerning the french position on the matter disprove your view that they wouldn't attack, even if Iraq had nukes.

They keep on saying that, according to the current informations, there's no need for a war or for a new resolution. You can disagree with that, but their position is not unreasonable like you suggested before

The last two quotes are opinions of others concerning Chirac and France. Worthless if you want to make a point.

Concerning the iraqi oil deals, put yourself in Saddam's place. At this moment would you rather prefer selling to American companies or French and Russian?