French/British Relations
Mar 11th, 2003, 12:27 PM
#41
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maccy<BR><BR>What Percentage of the population does that represent? I don't know but probably not that big. Most people don't go to these things. Just my opinion.<BR><BR>But soldiers die for your right to do it.
Mar 11th, 2003, 12:40 PM
#42
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eric502. Thanks for the pointer to the article by the Honorable MP.<BR><BR>I found it very thoughtful but he did stop short of declaring if the current situation justifies the use of preemptive force against Iraq.<BR><BR>I'm not a big fan of internationalzation but it was well thought out and a 'good read'.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>MM
Mar 11th, 2003, 12:41 PM
#43
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Eric<BR><BR>Well, I mentioned the opinion polls above which gives you a breakdown of feeling at the moment. <BR><BR>And, for every person who felt strongly enough/was able to go on the march, there were a lot of other people in general sympathy with them. It was a pretty unprecedented occurence, in the UK at least.<BR><BR>Yes, soldiers have died for my right to march, and to speak my mind in forums like this (all the more reason why I should do it!). <BR><BR>I happen to want to live in a democracy, not an elective dictatorship where whoever is in power for this term gets carte blanche to do what they please for the duration, without reference to the people who elected them.<BR><BR>
Mar 11th, 2003, 12:45 PM
#44
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Buzzy,<BR>I really hope that you are able to lose yourself in the wonderland that is France, if you get a frosty reception I am sure it won't be in a small French village. Whenever we have stayed in this type of village we only ever come across 3 or 4 people all week and 2 of them work in the boulangerie. But they are always so friendly.<BR>So I wouldn't be worried about it.<BR>Whilst the figures quoted by Maccy are pretty accurate as I understand it, there is little doubt that people believe that Saddam needs to be dealt with in some way. The problem is at what cost?<BR>We British also believe (and I hope I am right in saying this) that Bush wants to have a war whatever, it just happens that Saddam is there now and don't forget his father has unfinished business there.<BR>Now whether that is right or not it is certainly what people here feel.<BR>Blair on the other hand is stuck in the middle, he has USA as a really strong allie and he doesn't want to lose that.<BR>And he has the UN on thre other side. Really its a political situation he is in; admittedly through his convictions but he really must wise up to the needs of the UN and the British People.<BR>Look at what Bush is now doing..threatening France with banning and Taxing French imports, the man is really crazy.<BR>The sooner Bush goes the better, he is the number one danger to peace in this world and Saddam is not even number 2.<BR><BR>Muck
Mar 11th, 2003, 12:56 PM
#45
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack: Even though I disagree with you, you present a good argument, with no stereotyping and without engaging in any slurring generalities re Europeans. Good post. I guess I'm unable to justify that Iraq poses enough of a threat to see hundreds(or thousands) of young Americans in their 20's losing their lives. The disagreement is not whether Saddam is a ruthless tyrant, it's what course of action should be taken. Yes he's ignored the post Gulf war UN resolutions, but the question still remains, how much of a "threat" is he? Comparisons have been made to Hitler- heck, the Salvation Army could have overtaken Kuwait, and today his army has half the strength. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Iraq's rival ethnic groups make Afghanistan look like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood(bless you Fred), and signs of instability are increasing there daily. Post war Iraq remains a hotly contested item even within the Bush admin.
Mar 11th, 2003, 01:22 PM
#46
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maccy,<BR><BR>No that's what is called standing by what you believe in regardless of the consequences!<BR><BR>Its called having core beliefs. Thatcher, Reagan, Blair and Bush have them...Clinton did not!<BR><BR>US
Mar 11th, 2003, 01:40 PM
#47
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beatle:<BR><BR>I'm not Jack, but I would like to take a stab at responding to you. <BR><BR>Despite reading some of the posts on Fodors in the past few days, its seems to me that every sentient human being on the planet believes and understands that Saddam Hussein is a truly evil, murderous dictator, who is quite willing to start wars. He has also demonstrated his unrestrained willingness to use Iraq's chemical and biological weapons on others. He has and continues to develop and hide his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program from the UN inspectors despite multiple UN resolutions. <BR><BR>Given his abysmal record, why would anyone want Saddam to continue in power? I keep trying to find the answer to that question. Obviously, some folks are simply against any war, no matter what the reason for it. Although I don't agree with that point of view, I can respect it. <BR><BR>As far as I am concerned, as long as Saddam remains in power, he is at least a constant threat to peace and stability in the middle east, which should be a concern to the entire world community. He is not disarmed by any means. He still retains one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Left to his own devices, he will only get stronger and pose an even greater threat. Today, only the US, along with Britain, are capable of stopping him. If the US and British were to pull their troops, do you think Saddam wouldn't be a threat? Do you think the French or Germans are going to put their troops on the line to protect us if the US and Britain pull out? From everything I have seen and read, I wouldn't want to rely on them. <BR><BR>So isn't the real question whether Saddam should be taken out now, when it can be done with fewer casualties, or later, after he has finished rebuilding his armed forces and developed additional chemical, biological, and most likely, nuclear weapons thereby becoming an even bigger threat? I know which choice I hope the US and most other nations make. Moreover, I hope they do so without further delay. <BR><BR>If you know of a better alternative, I would love to hear it. I do think the anti-war folks would make a better case for people like me if they could at least respond to the simple question of what can be done about Saddam. The problem is I don't think they have any real answers.
Mar 11th, 2003, 02:03 PM
#48
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gree with most of the last post. Can I try to work out where I losse the plot here:- I can't find any evidence published that "He has and continues to develop and hide his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program from the UN inspectors" That's not what the weapons inspectors say. <BR><BR>"Given his abysmal record, why would anyone want Saddam to continue in power?" I don't. But I can think of at least half a dozen as bad. Why are we picking on him?<BR><BR>"he is at least a constant threat to peace and stability in the middle east," Sure. And so are the Israeli, the Yemenis, the Palestinians, on a bd day the Turks.... <BR><BR>"do you think Saddam wouldn't be a threat?" To whom? His own people-sure. No change there then. To us? No way, Jose.<BR><BR>"Do you think the French or Germans are going to put their troops on the line to protect us if the US and Britain pull out?" I don't see whay not. They have before.<BR><BR>"So isn't the real question"<BR><BR>No. Surely the real question is..how do we get Saddam Hussein to compy with UN resolutiuons without killing tens of thousands of his people? And, if we can't, is it worth the lives of tens of thousands of his people to get rid of him? What will we get in his place? A regime that hates the west even worse, because of our actions. <BR><BR>"what can be done about Saddam." or Mugabe; or he bloke in N. Korea otr the Chinese or.....Why him. He's no worse than any ofthese other monsters. <BR><BR>But at least you don't argue September 11th. If our respective leaders had the guts to say-"this is an evil man who has killed hundreds of thousands of his citizens, and we want him taken ouT" It would be a lot easier to support than all this nonsense about Al Quaida, the half truths and distortions both governments are treating us too.<BR><BR>If the governments trusted the people the people would tusttheir governments.
Mar 11th, 2003, 02:10 PM
#49
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buzzy,<BR>Based on our phone calls to family living in France, you should not have a problem.<BR><BR>My SIL (expat American) runs an Inn/Restaurant, with her French husband, in the Haute Savoie. They have not suffered a bit of backlash from any of the town folks, guests or diners. The debates around the bar area have heated up a few times, but everyone agrees to disagree and so it goes.<BR><BR>IMHO, people are people and while some might stereotype, the vast majority won't.<BR>hth,<BR>
Mar 11th, 2003, 02:14 PM
#50
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheila Ritchie, at least Betty never had to stand up to do her job. She could swing that gavel three sheets to the wind. (Yes, sometimes her powdered wig was askew, but it gave her character.)<BR><BR>I am gla' you bough' a coozy hoos in France.
Mar 11th, 2003, 02:35 PM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who is ever "pro war" except evil people. I am not pro war, but pro America. I suspect that many folks that say they they are anti war are really anti GWB and would like to try to embarrass him and bring down our government and our capitalistic system. Some people like to have the government own and control everything.
Mar 11th, 2003, 02:46 PM
#56
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See , what did I tell you..Lynlor is Uncle sam!<BR><BR>Not often would I think to quote from a true Republican but this is very relevant<BR><BR>"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children....This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953 <BR><BR>
Mar 11th, 2003, 03:03 PM
#58
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So he may be ..But just remember that GWB family , specifically his grandfather Prescott, was doing business with Hitler up until 1942, long after the war started.. The government froze the Bush family assets. And one of GWB Texas oil companies was heavily funded by the bin Laden family. So if you think they don't look out for their wallets first and other interests second your head is in the sand.<BR><BR>And yes that is a direct quote from DDE and yes the facts about the Bush family are a matter of record.
Mar 11th, 2003, 03:08 PM
#59
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lynlor: It's your pal Beatle. Most curious post!! "Not Pro War, pro America". "Anti war equals Anti-Bush equals Anti gov't" - huh??!? Avalon may have a point! And yes, Avalon, it appears Tony may now be questioning this "deadline". And looks like Rumsfeld has once again contracted foot in mouth disease. Not a good day for the admin. Bush might begin by dumping Rumsfeld and "begging" James Baker to return.
