I'd say the British / french relations are very low given the french attitude!<BR><BR>The French are leaving no choice but war!<BR><BR>However they are buying terrorist insurance for themselves!<BR><BR>UNITED NATIONS — The fissure in the U.N. Security Council deepened Thursday when France rejected a British compromise on Iraq, infuriating London and prompting the United States to consider postponing a vote on an ultimatum against Baghdad until next week.<BR><BR>Iraq, reveling in the turmoil at the council, dismissed Britain's plan, which lists six disarmament requirements Baghdad would have to meet or else face &quot;serious consequences.&quot; <BR><BR>Britain proposed the list in a bid to win votes on the council for a U.S.-backed resolution authorizing war unless Baghdad meets a deadline. To sweeten the offer, British officials also suggested pushing back the deadline from Monday, as originally proposed by the United States.<BR><BR>France's flat rejection of the proposals clearly angered British leaders. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called the French attitude &quot;extraordinary.&quot;<BR><BR>Prime Minister Tony Blair feels the French &quot;have become completely intransigent and have literally threatened to veto almost anything that is put forward to the U.N. Security Council,&quot; Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith said after meeting with Blair in London.<BR><BR>Blair's spokesman said talks at the United Nations would continue though the weekend as Britain works &quot;flat out&quot; to win a U.N. resolution authorizing war. Germany also rejected the British proposals, and Russia and China were skeptical.<BR><BR><BR><BR>

While I have what I think are valid reasons to oppose going to war right now, I am also convinced that Chirac and Foreign Minister Le Pew, and through them, France, are truly having their 15 minutes as we speak. The book of &quot;irrelevant French ex-leaders&quot; is a tome of many pages.

Sheila Ritchie, you really know how to insult a person, don't you? That was my BEST Dundee accent.

Blair had to pick a side. Let's be honest, Germany doesn't think much of England, and Germany will be calling the shots in Europe. England still hasn't accepted that it ceased being a super-power 100 years ago, so they're siding with the last one left. As for France, do they like anyone?<BR>Even if Britain sided with Germany on this issue they'd be cast aside. Germany and the US didn't get to where they are by being nice guys. Our stupsd statements over the last few days have shown tremendous disrespect for Tony Blair. I'm ashamed.

Since Fodors deleted the other Board, I'm going to answer Unc here: Unc, in your post you said &quot;they're going to hate us anyway&quot;, and of me- you said that I &quot;just don't get it&quot;. Well, you're right. I don't get it. I'm confused. I just don't understand how so many people in the world can hate us when Donald Rumsfeld, the Crown Prince of Eloquence, is out front doing the cheerleading.

While Bush's reasons for wanting war are questionable, I don't think Chirac really and truly cares a rat's patootie about the issue of war - he's more focused on France becoming the powerhouse of the EU. It's simply an issue of France wanting to be the leading nation in Europe, and like Hussein, Chirac sees the successful snubbing of American policy as the path to power and influence (for France, it's with the EU, for Iraq, it's with the Arab world). It made me cringe when he told the EU applicants from &quot;New Europe&quot; to essentially shut up and listen to their elders on the issue of war. The only problem lies with the fact that in his opportunistic grab for power, Chirac has left the world open to Sadaam and his WMD. I don't think any world leader would deny that he has them, or that he's a bit touched in the head, so what do we do? The French don't seem to have any answers other than that they like the status quo. And the status quo would be even worse if not for the fact that SH has only cooperated because of US and British troops sitting on his doorstep. Otherwise, we would get nothing. I'd like to see Chirac do something constructive rather than destructive. If he doesn't like Tony Blair's proposal today outlining the 6 tests for compliance, then I wish he'd give an alternative rather than just saying no. But i'm pretty convinced think Chirac's focus is not on world safety but French power so nothing will be forthcoming except a kneejerk &quot;no&quot; reaction to whatever the US/Britain contingent proposes.

The French government is clearly posturing here and making a statement for the world. Not only do I think they are making a move to head Europe,but by playing the veto card so early, they are basically staring down the US. New world order for the 21st century perhaps. Germany will always trump france though. The french lack the killer instinct of Germany and America.<BR>

&quot;Donald Rumsfeld, the Crown Prince of Eloquence, is out front doing the cheerleading. &quot;<BR><BR>Now that's a meaningful post!<BR><BR>US

France, China and Syria all may have a common reason for keeping American and British troops out of Iraq, they do not want the world to discover that they have been illicitly supplying Saddam Hussein with materials used in building long-range surface-to-surface missiles.<BR><BR>There is an interesting article in the New York Times from 3/13 called The French Connection by William Safire.

I'm back!<BR>Here is a little test for everyone:<BR>Quick Political Scholastic Aptitude Test:<BR><BR>This test consists of one (1) multiple-choice question (so you better get it right)! based on the following list of countries that the US has bombed since the end of World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:<BR><BR>China 1945-46<BR>Korea 1950-53<BR>China 1950-53<BR>Guatemala 1954<BR>Indonesia 1958<BR>Cuba 1959-60<BR>Guatemala 1960<BR>Congo 1964<BR>Peru 1965<BR>Laos 1964-73<BR>Vietnam 1961-73<BR>Cambodia 1969-70<BR>Guatemala 1967-69<BR>Grenada 1983<BR>Libya 1986<BR>El Salvador 1980s<BR>Nicaragua 1980s<BR>Panama 1989<BR>Iraq 1991-99<BR>Sudan 1998<BR>Afghanistan 1998, 2001-2002<BR>Yugoslavia 1999<BR><BR>----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful<BR>of human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose one of the following:<BR><BR>(a) 0<BR>(b) zero<BR>(c) none<BR>(d) not a one<BR>(e) a whole number between -1 and +1<BR><BR>This quiz compliments of Vietnam Veterans Against the War,<BR>Ben Chitty USN 65-9 VN 66-7 68 NY/VVAW<BR>

I have an admission to make...this Iraq thing is about oil and trade and military equipment sales!<BR><BR>Total Elf Fina, the French giant oil company has over $60 billion of exclusive oil contracts with Saddam Hussein to develop the Southern oil fields! <BR><BR>Pugeot, Alcatel and other French companies are standing in line for sales.<BR><BR>And France has sold Saddam over $25 billion in military equipment including all their fighter jets... the French Mirage!<BR><BR>In addition, France is currently Saddam's 2nd biggest trading partner and they are violating UN embargoes.<BR><BR>So those of you that claim this is all about oil...you're right!<BR><BR>But its the French that have the oil interests!<BR><BR>US

Uncle Sam,<BR><BR>Not to issue a challenge, as I don't think anyone here on this board has a remote chance in h*ll of having an actual meeting of minds but...<BR><BR>I saw this from you earlier and was curious as to what it meant.<BR><BR>&quot;Traitor may be too strong, but not by much...and you do it in the name of criticism and free speech!&quot;<BR><BR>Question is: what exactly do you allow to be acceptable free speech? And once you (or anyone) set acceptance levels, hasn't it stopped being free (free=unencumbered)? But isn't that you say our military is fighting for? Our freedoms? What would be the point, if those same freedoms aren't to be used?<BR><BR>Also, since I was thinking about it, didn't I see you post on another board that you always respect and stand behind your president, no matter WHO that president may be? (I GOT IT) And isn't that what you have been hopefully encouraging of others here? If the answer to those two questions is &quot;yes&quot;, then I'd be curious as to how &quot;Man the US bought that crap once and look what it got us...Bubba!&quot; fit into that equation. Is it ok if I show that same level of respect to President Bush? Was that what you were asking of us? <BR><BR>Ok, so it kind of is a challenge, but it's not to negate your points. I think the points do that on their own. Some of this just seemed ...ummm... 'inconsistant', and I know you don't want to come off that way. Right?<BR><BR>Then again, I did post somewhere that I hoped I wouldn't post on a political thread again, so... I guess it strikes us all.<BR>

Clifton,<BR><BR>&quot;Question is: what exactly do you allow to be acceptable free speech? And once you (or anyone) set acceptance levels, hasn't it stopped being free (free=unencumbered)? &quot;<BR><BR>Anything you want to say as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Traitorous behaviour would be dissing your country on foreign soil like Jessica Lang or Congressman Bonior and Mcdermott. Aiding and abetting the enemy might be a better term.<BR><BR>&quot;Also, since I was thinking about it, didn't I see you post on another board that you always respect and stand behind your president, no matter WHO that president may be? &quot;<BR><BR>Do not believe that I have ever said said &quot;respect&quot; regarding Bubba but stand behind him yes!<BR><BR>Hope that helps!<BR><BR>US

Sammy, Sammy:<BR><BR>US and UK companies have been very concerned that their rivals might gain a major long-term advantage in the global oil business. “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas – reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to,” enthused Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a 1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, in which he pronounced his strong support for sanctions.(10) Sanctions have kept the rivals at bay, a clear advantage. US-UK companies hope that the regime will eventually collapse, giving them a strong edge over their competitors with a post-Saddam government. As the embargo weakened and Saddam held onto power, however, stakes in the rivalry rose, for US-UK companies worried that they might eventually be shouldered aside. Direct military intervention by the US-UK, then, offers a tempting but dangerous gamble that might put Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron in immediate control of the Iraqi oil boom, but at the risk of backlash from a regional political explosion. <BR><BR>In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C.Zinni, commander in chief of the US Central Command, testified that the Gulf Region, with its huge oil reserves, is a “vital interest” of “long standing” for the United States and that the US “must have free access to the region’s resources.”(11) “Free access,” it seems, means both military and economic control of these resources. This has been a major goal of US strategic doctrine ever since the end of World War II. Prior to 1971, Britain (the former colonial power) policed the region and its oil riches. Since then, the United States has deployed ever-larger military forces to assure “free access” through overwhelming armed might.<BR><BR>I'll give you the site for the full text, even though you'll call it &quot;left wing slant BS&quot; But maybe someone more thoughtful will see some real truth in it.<BR> http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm<BR><BR>

Once again ROFLMAO!<BR><BR>I guess you just have to consider your &quot;unbiased&quot; source!<BR><BR><BR><BR>Global Policy Forum monitors policy making at the United Nations. At a time of rapid globalization, GPF promotes a more open, accountable and democratic policy to address peoples' needs worldwide. We work on peace and human security (with special emphasis on the UN Security Council), global social and economic policy, and financing for global priorities and accountable global institutions. We seek a more just, equitable and sustainable world. <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Man now that's special!<BR><BR>US

Clifton; Your reply to Sammy:<BR>&quot;Also, since I was thinking about it, didn't I see you post on another board that you always respect and stand behind your president, no matter WHO that president may be? (I GOT IT) And isn't that what you have been hopefully encouraging of others here? If the answer to those two questions is &quot;yes&quot;, then I'd be curious as to how &quot;Man the US bought that crap once and look what it got us...Bubba!&quot; fit into that equation. Is it ok if I show that same level of respect to President Bush? Was that what you were asking of us&quot;<BR><BR>That is exactly what he has said in other posts. But it is no surprise to me that he is being a hypocrite.

Operaman,<BR><BR>Here is the deal.<BR><BR>I'm going to review my posts on this thread and if I said that I will apologize!<BR><BR>If I didn't then you have to stop using these ridiculous soiurces!<BR><BR>US

Sammy;<BR>Thanks for posting this:<BR><BR>&quot;Global Policy Forum monitors policy making at the United Nations. At a time of rapid globalization, GPF promotes a more open, accountable and democratic policy to address peoples' needs worldwide. We work on peace and human security (with special emphasis on the UN Security Council), global social and economic policy, and financing for global priorities and accountable global institutions. We seek a more just, equitable and sustainable world.&quot;<BR><BR>That's a great mission statement, I'm glad you posted it for me.<BR>As far as ROTFLMAO, as I've told you before you don't have anything to laugh off, you are too busy talking nonsense with it. <BR>

Oh yeah, you said it. To me.

Sorry ...you lose...didn't do it!<BR><BR>And that touchy feely mission statement just made me want to sing kumbaya!<BR><BR>In the future if your going to quote that crap...at least get a reasonable source.<BR><BR>Right arm, farm out and solid!<BR><BR>US