wood burning stoves 2.0*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Yes,can we now ask, where are the WMD? Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Android Security Essentials Live Lessons this week in the Android forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Yes,can we now ask, where are the WMD?" Watch "Yes,can we now ask, where are the WMD?" New topic
Author

Yes,can we now ask, where are the WMD?

shay Aluko
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 01, 2002
Posts: 167
To all the apologists for the war, i want to dare to ask, where are the WMD? oops i forgot it was already destroyed before the "coalition of the willing came in". It is a shame, a real shame. (By the way I expect the editors on this forum to show some backbone and allow other people to comment on the post).
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
not again ... :roll:

Why dont we break our heads in Blue Harvest
[ May 31, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
[sigh]
If we are "appologists for war" does that make some "Hussein sympathizers" and/or "supporters of murderous Iraqi oppression"?
Anyway... I hate quoting myself almost as much as I hate being redundant. But since you must not have read this thread, here goes...
------------------
The last straw the detractors have to grasp at is the WMD issue. You mean after seven whole weeks we haven't found anything yet? How unbelievable!
If you want to pretend there were not WMDs in Iraq, there are a few things you have to believe first. When the UN Inspectors left in 1998 and when they came back in 2002, there were weapons unaccounted for. They could not find them but they knew they had existed. So where'd they go? The Iraqis knew that any weapons they destroyed had to be done according to certain procedures which would guarantee the veracity of their claims and proof of the destruction. The Iraqi regime, as has been the case in most of the worl's worst dictatorships, were meticulous record keepers. This was further evidenced by the warehouse full of bodies that was found and the detailed record that were kept therein. In the case of the "missing" WMDs though, the Iraqis claim they destroyed them but cannot provide the necessary evidence. So to believe that there are no WMDs (or were not, if they've transferred them outide the country) in Iraq we must believe that the Iraqis on their own destroyed these weapons, and that these meticulous record keepers just "forgot" to obtain the necessary proof for all of these weapons that they "destroyed". Further we would have to ignore all the other annoying little things that pop-up like the active WMD defense equipment that we have found, or the recent find of the trailers used for making biological weapons. So if you cannot force yourself to believe that those unlikely events took place, then you must believe that somewhere those weapons exist. But since many of these things are very small and can be hidden literally anywhere in a country the size of California, expecting results after seven weeks is laughable to say the least.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
There were no massive casualties or the urban warfare some predicted. Can we ask why nobody is ecstatic about that?
Brian Joseph
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 16, 2003
Posts: 160
They will find something, eventually. First, the UN KNEW there were chemicals leftover which had not yet been destroyed by the UN when it got kicked out of Iraq the first time. This is unaccounted for material, not necessarily new stuff, but old stuff before the first war. So that stuff is still around somewhere; Do you really think Iraq destroyed all of that stuff and then forgot to say anything or document it? So there's something there, it's just a matter of time before they find something. Even take the worst case scenerio, the odds indicate they'll find some kind of leftover material.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Who kicked out the UN of Iraq the first time?


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Iraq. I believe in 1998.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Any proofs?
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Any proofs?

Is a UN Resolution good enough?
Another one.
Just for reference, more UNSCOM resolutions.
[ June 02, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
What "to remain actively seized of the matter" means?
Anyway, here is an alternative POV
ACTION ALERT: Common Myths in Iraq Coverage
"Here are a few examples of commonly repeated errors:
1. "But as U.N. weapons inspectors prepare to return to Iraq for the first time since Saddam kicked them out in 1998, the U.S. faces a delicate balancing act: transforming the international consensus for disarmament into a consensus for war." --Randall Pinkston, CBS Evening News (11/9/02).
One of the most common media errors on Iraq is the claim that the U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because they were "kicked out" or "expelled" (Extra! Update, 10/02). The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" (Washington Post, 12/18/98).
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Anyway, here is an alternative POV

Alternate view? No, just games with semantics.
http://www.salon.com/politics/letters/2002/11/15/inspectors/
There is an element of technical accuracy to the objection to the use of "kicked out." But it's a semantic argument only, relying on a meaningless distinction.
UNSCOM and Iraqi authorities reached a point of confrontation in August 1998, when Iraqi authorities decided to cease all cooperation with UNSCOM, thus preventing its members from doing the inspections work they were in the country to do. In response to this noncompliance the United States and Great Britain threatened to -- and eventually did -- carry out a punishing series of airstrikes to compel Iraqi cooperation. UNSCOM head Richard Butler evacuated the inspectors from the country to get them out of harm's way.
After the bombing stopped, Iraq announced that the inspectors would never be able to return, a policy that seemed to stand until two months ago.
When Iraq stiffed the weapons inspectors and ended their work in the country, it was violating U.N. resolutions. It was, effectively, not allowing them to do their job; Saddam gave them no alternative but to leave. The particulars of who ordered them to get on a plane is a side detail that Saddam -- and, frankly, some of those who make this argument -- are using to obscure the reality of what happened.

Emphasis is mine.
John Dunn
slicker
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 1108
This book Iraq, Into the Eye of the Storm goes over how we spied on the Iraqis with the UN Inspectors and how we knew they had weapons. They kept moving them before we got them. That is why Clinton bombed Sadaam. The White House knows he has had these weapons, they know in time so proof will come out.
--------------
Why was France and Germany so hell-bent on keeping Sadaam in power, when even his own armies didn't want him there??


"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
But it's a semantic argument only
"The American Heritage Dictionary: Semantic - Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language."
In other words, it's "only" about meaning.
There is an element of technical accuracy
-- agree. It would be more accurate to say "UN inspectors left Iraq because of Iraq's refusal to cooperate" (there can be probably even more accurate expression of reasons to leave).
To say "Saddam kicked UN inspectors out" is one tone worse than what actually happened. When I hear "Saddam kicked UN inspectors out" all I can think about is that UN inspectors were arrested, brought to the airport and put on the plane that brought them back to UN headquarters.
Now let's ask, what are the reasons to prefer less accurate expression? My answer: because it's more emotional. And here is the danger: our emotions are what makes us susceptible to propaganda.
"to obscure the reality of what happened" -- how can " technically" more accurate expression obscure the reality? Because it is deprived of "appropriate" emotional ingredient, so it fails to evoke "needful" reaction from the recipient? I would say that these "emotionally loaded" expressions obscure the reality, rather than factually correct.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
In other words, it's "only" about meaning.
What does "Iraq announced that the inspectors would never be able to return" mean to you if not that they are kicked out from the country? If you leave a nightclub and you are told never to return, you have been kicked out, so I don't understand what you are trying to prove.
To say "Saddam kicked UN inspectors out" is one tone worse than what actually happened. When I hear "Saddam kicked UN inspectors out" all I can think about is that UN inspectors were arrested, brought to the airport and put on the plane that brought them back to UN headquarters.
These are your interpretations and reactions to the phrase.
Now let's ask, what are the reasons to prefer less accurate expression? My answer: because it's more emotional.
My answer: less accurate than what? Less accurate than "Saddam played a constant game with the UN inspectors regarding cooperation and non-cooperation depending on the level of threat pointed at him until eventually he flat out refused to let the inspectors work leaving them no choice but to have leave the country"? Maybe, but far less long-winded.
And here is the danger: our emotions are what makes us susceptible to propaganda.
Sorry this isn't the Soviet Union and not everything is propaganda. The media is not state-run and we are not all fed our daily rations of Pravda and Tass. Most of us are smart enough to sort out the truth for ourself in this age of access to a variety of information.
how can " technically" more accurate expression obscure the reality?
Nobody said one statement was "technically more accurate". All that was said was that a statement had "an element of technical accuracy". The comparitive "more" was added by you.
And I ask again, what does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to assert that the Iraqis did not force out the UN Inspectors in 1998? It would seem reality and a couple of UN Resolutions are at odds with this. If this is not your assertion, then what was your point in asking for proof that Iraq forced the inspectors out of Iraq?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
If you leave a nightclub and you are told never to return, you have been kicked out, so I don't understand what you are trying to prove.
To start with, it wasn't quite like this. You leave a nightclub, then bomb it, and *then* you are told never to return. I am not trying to prove anything, I just prefer as precise wording as possible.
How about "Saddam kicked out UN inspectors, who were spying in Iraq"?
These are your interpretations and reactions to the phrase.
Yes. "Kick out" sounds as a fighting word to me, but maybe it's only me...
My answer: less accurate than what? Less accurate than "Saddam played a constant game with the UN inspectors regarding cooperation and non-cooperation depending on the level of threat pointed at him until eventually he flat out refused to let the inspectors work leaving them no choice but to have leave the country"? Maybe, but far less long-winded.
Depends on what genre you are writing in. I actually prefer your paragraph to "kicked out", to tell more, I do not read texts that employ "kicked out" lexicon.
Sorry this isn't the Soviet Union and not everything is propaganda. The media is not state-run and we are not all fed our daily rations of Pravda and Tass. Most of us are smart enough to sort out the truth for ourself in this age of access to a variety of information.
It's not that easy. Perhaps I use "propaganda" in less negative sense than you. It's more like atmosphere around, that you cannot get rid of. Do you really believe your thinking is free? It seems to me that most of us have a set of filters, and we chose information that we want to believe, rather than critically examine it. There is a good book about it, "Propaganda" by Jacques Ellul. I cannot say that I totally agree with what it said, but I would recommend it to anybody who believes there aren't victims of propaganda - just to check.
And I ask again, what does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to assert that the Iraqis did not force out the UN Inspectors in 1998? It would seem reality and a couple of UN Resolutions are at odds with this. If this is not your assertion, then what was your point in asking for proof that Iraq forced the inspectors out of Iraq?
Technically it did not.
"Not only did Saddam Hussein not order the inspectors' retreat, but Butler's decision to withdraw them was--to say the least--highly controversial. The Washington Post (12/17/98) reported that as Butler was drafting his report on Iraqi cooperation, U.S. officials were secretly consulting with him about how to frame his conclusions.
According to the Post, a New York diplomat "generally sympathetic to Washington" argued--along with French, Russian, Chinese, and U.N. officials--that Butler, working in collusion with the U.S., "deliberately wrote a justification for war." "Based on the same facts," the diplomat said, "he [Butler] could have just said, 'There were something like 300 inspections and we encountered difficulties in five.'"
http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.html
I experienced this effect for the first time in high school, when I became interested in certain period of Russian history and read a lot more than what textbook said. Then I realized that after certain amount of simplification, all you can say will be false -- wrong level of granularity, statements are too coarse.
-----------------------
"You have strong opinions only if you haven’t studied anything thoroughly"
Emil Cioran
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
IMO spy is an propganda term for an inspector used by the Iraqii regime to emotionalize the issue.
When looking for WMD, 295 of 300 or 98% of the sites being available for inspection is inadequate. Putting conditions on an unconditional surrender is not an unconditional surrender.
Starting to look like beating a dead horse Map, or more properly, proof by persistence.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I am not starting these threads.
IMO spy is an propganda term for an inspector used by the Iraqii regime to emotionalize the issue.
Thank you for supporting my point.
"proof by persistence"? You think, to proof anything I have to change my opinion?
[ June 03, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I guess, I spent too much time musing over "language" issues, and now what I am saying doesn't make sense for other.
Here is a good article: Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf
"Metaphors can kill. The discourse over whether to go to war in the gulf was a panorama of metaphor. Secretary of State Baker saw Saddam Hussein as "sitting on our economic lifeline." President Bush portrayed him as having a "stranglehold" on our economy. General Schwarzkopf characterized the occupation of Kuwait as a "rape" that was ongoing. The President said that the US was in the gulf to "protect freedom, protect our future, and protect the innocent", and that we had to "push Saddam Hussein back." Saddam Hussein was painted as a Hitler. It is vital, literally vital, to understand just what role metaphorical thought played in bringing us in this war."
Here is another article:
No, Chirac didn't really say 'shut up'
"Did President Jacques Chirac of France actually tell half of Europe to shut up last week? Was he scolding a bunch of unruly children?
Not exactly. Translating the nuances of the "language of diplomacy," as French was once known, can be tr�s difficile.
Chirac said that these countries "ont manqu� une bonne occasion de se taire," rendered in part of the American and British press as "missed a good opportunity to shut up."
But Chirac's words were a significant notch above that level of discourse. To be sure, he could have been quite formal and said "ont manqu� une bonne occasion de s'absentir de tout commentaire" ("refrain from making any comment"), or "garder le silence" or "se garder de s'exprimer" ("keep silent" or "say nothing"). And of course, he also could have taken a much lower road and said "ont manqu� une bonne occasion de fermer leur gueule" or "de la fermer", which would indeed mean "to shut up." The verb Chirac chose, "se taire," ("to remain silent") was neither elegant nor rude, simply neutral."
[ June 03, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Thank you for supporting my point.
Many of your positions have merit. I am fascinated to witness your and Jason's discussion. In a multi-cultural multi-ethnicity board like this the nuances of languages are always going to be a problem. Even in a discusion of native speakers they are a problem.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I have seen it translated as they "missed a good opportunity to be quiet" as well. I don't think it is any less rude if translated as "be quiet" or "remain silent", but that's just me. In any case, it was presumptuous and bullying, particularly given the full context of the remark.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I agree that it was bullying. But I remember some US officials threatened countries that will oppose their (US) postion on Iraq with economic sanctions. If I am not mistaken, you found it natural (sorry if my memory doesn't serve me right. I could try to find your quote but if it exists, it is burried somewhere among thousand of our old "to Iraq or not to Iraq" threads). In any case, what do you think?
----------------
"I am detail oriented-that is to say that I only get the important things wrong; I tend to get the details right."
Muta Ceva
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I agree that it was bullying. But I remember some US officials threatened countries that will oppose their (US) postion on Iraq with economic sanctions.

Not economic sanctions, merely repercussions. In other words, we would let people know that we would find it hard to do give economic aid to them if they would oppose us in certan forums. There is quite a difference between that and sanctions, which I haven't seen anybody suggest. There is also some difference imho between that and suggesting that one would do their best to see that their entry into the EU didn't go as planned.
If I am not mistaken, you found it natural (sorry if my memory doesn't serve me right. I could try to find your quote but if it exists, it is burried somewhere among thousand of our old "to Iraq or not to Iraq" threads). In any case, what do you think?
Yes, I do not think we should be spending our tax dollars pumping aid into countries that stand in opposition to our policies. But I still find Chirac's statement and the fallout from it incredibly amusing.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Some time ago I tried to find a forum on the Internet for Russian translators, to lurk, and finally found a good place. One of the forums is moderated by Pavel Palazchenko, who worked with Gorbachev as his interpreter. (BTW, both links above were found in his forum, "Metaphor and War" link was posted by him personally). Once some of his friends remembered that he had difficulties with finding a precise equivalent for some emotionally-loaded word during UN session (it was simultaneous translation, so there wasn't too much time to think). Palazchenko said that in this case it's always safer to choose a neutral variant.
MI: Perhaps I use "propaganda" in less negative sense than you. It's more like atmosphere around, that you cannot get rid of.
I found a quote today, probably not the best one, but should be Ok as a first approximation.
"For in the US, a belief in the universal applicability of democratic institutions, and America’s right and duty to promote or even impose them, is so widely and unquestioningly held that it is part of what Richard Hofstader and others have called the American Creed, the core beliefs which define the American nation. So deep and universal is this creed that it is extremely difficult for liberal Americans to stand up against an argument presented in these terms – even when the argument is intended to justify a war of aggression and the flagrant violation of international law. The propaganda of democratisation therefore is a way of enlisting the sickly pieties of the Clinton era in the service of the ruthless geopolitical ambitions of Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle, and of allying genuine sentiments of liberal universalism with vicious ethno-religious hatreds. "
Missionaries and marines: Bush, Blair and democratization
Is this correct, that most of American people believe "in the universal applicability of democratic institutions, and America’s right and duty to promote or even impose them"? Maybe it's like with math, you have to have some axioms to start with, before you can build a theory, and you have to take these axiom for granted. Americans believe in this, non-Americans not so much, and this is nor something that can be "proved", because from both premises a consistent theory can be built...
------------------
"I am sure you understand that the best way to change the world is by changing the languages it uses."
Muta Ceva
[ June 04, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Is this correct, that most of American people believe "in the universal applicability of democratic institutions, and America’s right and duty to promote or even impose them"?

I would not agree with the totality of that statement. What you posted was one guy's partisan rant. Aside from the site it came from, you can tell by phrases such as "war of aggression" and such. But anyway, no, I would not be able to agree 100% with that statement.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
What you posted was one guy's partisan rant.
Well, I said it's only first approximation, to start somewhere.
Aside from the site it came from
What's wrong with the site it came from? This was published on the same site (sorry for long quote, but it's good)
was written by a guy who was put in prison in Sierra Leone:
"I am a Sierra Leonean, not an American. In fact, there were no Americans amongst us. But suddenly there they were. In no time at all this whole show was taken over by the Americans. I still do not quite understand what prompted the Americans to get involved. Perhaps it is simply because they cared, because we shared their values or maybe because this Charles Taylor had fled an American prison to gain ascendancy over his people by the blatant use of force.
A wonderful woman working in the public affairs department made the release of all four of us her personal mission. Like the rest of us, when Insight’s editor, Ron McCullagh, arrived in Monrovia, he was shaken and distressed to hear in the courtroom that we were now to face capital charges. She took his arm and told him not to worry because "...we are with you."
The Reverend Jesse Jackson insisted on talking to me personally – just to make sure we were okay. He asked me all sorts of questions. What he did not realise was that if my answers were brief and misleading, it was because I was in this room, surrounded by the chief justice, the head of police and five gunmen. He prayed for me over the phone and assured me of our release.
Apart from their military, which by strange coincidence had a heavy presence off the coast at the time, they used every available means to get us out of Charles Taylor’s clutches.
Within a week, bullyboy Charles Taylor succumbed to almighty American pressure. And this is why I love the Americans. They probably saved us a lot of suffering; maybe even saved our lives.
I was frankly impressed with this nation, these people, who not only represent our values but also respect our freedom and human rights.
They clearly showed me: they are the good guys who care about our world.
My American dream
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
What's wrong with the site it came from? This was published on the same site (sorry for long quote, but it's good)

While I don't by any means think it is as radically left wing as many, an often fairly accurate way of judging the political bent of such a site is by who links to it. Now to be fair a site's political leaning doesn't automatically invalidate its content, but I am always more leary when a site does have an overt political agenda.
I would always prefer to see information presented in a neutral manner, but that seems to be extremely rare these days. It seems just about every information provider has some agenda.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
I would always prefer to see information presented in a neutral manner, but that seems to be extremely rare these days. It seems just about every information provider has some agenda.
I couldn't agree more. Personally, I found that academic sources are most neutral and they use accurate, non-inflamatory vocabulary.
Speaking about "bullying", here is Washington Post's entry:
"Oddest of all, though, he'll be promoting a post-Iraq policy that doesn't seem to have much logic: "Punish France, isolate Germany, forgive Russia" is how National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is alleged to have described it - and this does, more or less, seem to be the plan.
On the face of it, "punish France" makes the most sense. If the Pentagon doesn't want to conduct military exercises with France, that seems fair enough: The French don't want to cooperate with us militarily so we won't cooperate with them either. And yet - "punish"? It's an awfully harsh word, and it has come into widespread use. Even Colin Powell has talked publicly about punishing France, as if France were not a longtime political ally that has become temporarily hostile but a recalcitrant teenager.
But then it's also pretty condescending to forgive the Russians because they are unserious, or to refuse to speak to the German chancellor because he's odious. And it's a strange way to go about winning support in countries that are run by democratically elected leaders. What seems to be missing, in both the Bush administration's prewar and postwar European diplomacy, is any sense that we are speaking not to a handful of unpleasant individuals but to entire countries. There is a carelessness about the language being tossed around Washington, as if no one cares anymore about who might be listening."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46754-2003May27.html?nav=hptoc_eo
I fiound this kind of talking arrogant and patronizing no less than what Chirac said.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I fiound this kind of talking arrogant and patronizing no less than what Chirac said.

Except that nobody, nevermind the President, has said that we will "punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia". But despite the fact that no one has said this, is there anything wrong with the policy? Chirac and France put forth a lot of effort and staked an awful lot of political capital on mustering forces to oppose us, so now it's time to pay the piper. Gerhardt Schroeder campaigned on an anti-American platform and aligned themselves vocally with France, so they too made their choice knowing full well there was the real possibility of fallout. Russia can be more useful than the other two, and like the other two, have been making strides at reproachment. Additionally Putin was not as vocal as the others, nor did Russia have the ability to muck up NATO.
Why is it "bullying" to make national policy based on dealing more favorably with countries who act friendly towards us and less favorably towards countries that act unfriendly towards us?
Poland was a staunch ally, I wouldn't be surprised to see our European forces shift to there if Poland is agreeable to the situation(and it seems they do). France has already been disinvited from major military excercises in the US (Red Flag and Cope Thunder). Do you think these facts have anything to do with how their governments have chosen to deal with our government?
Btw, why do you think we de-valued the dollar against the Euro?
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Jason: Except that nobody, nevermind the President, has said that we will "punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia". But despite the fact that no one has said this,
Then what the whole article is about? I thought you trust "Washington Post"?
"And yet - "punish"? It's an awfully harsh word, and it has come into widespread use. Even Colin Powell has talked publicly about
punishing France

I wonder what you would say if some French politician said "we will punish Poland"...
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I wonder what you would say if some French politician said "we will punish Poland"...

I'd probably have the same reaction I had when I heard that France weren't going to commit their military to the Gulf.
 
permaculture playing cards
 
subject: Yes,can we now ask, where are the WMD?
 
Similar Threads
Where is the WMD?
More on WMD.
[political] Clear me on WMD arithmetics