"The point of my post was that the French government has knowingly allowed the export of controlled materials to Iraq in violation of the UN sanctions. This is information that was made available in some of the evidence the Bush administration gave to the UN" "They yell at us for being warmongers but yet contribute to the problem so they can make a buck." Way off there Blaise. Yes they do dealings with Iraq, and yes they have done stuff like this before, but nothing they were dealing with was against protocol, ie. weapons which are banned in that protocol. Did you know food is alright to transport, even if the United States does not want them to? Prove to me that the information you got that from was valid, ie. Not American media with Government tax breaks, and maybe I wont rant on about the US' and its system. Now if you want me to rant on about the world and how the US gave weapons to terrorist groups for years before they turned against them, I can crank out a massive list of junk including quotes, news articles, yada yada yada. Mentioning evidence that the US government gave the UN that was complete trash, that even local police officers made fun if this stuff (way too basic, and basically no real proof). Luckly, Im not French so I won't hunt you down as of yet. But the comment is referring to unproven critism, and that is why my reply stands how it is. Believe it our not Blaise, the United States is a warmongers, you can not disprove that. It is now a days that I have fully realised how the US has changed, and how I don't want to be a part of something that is turning into old communist Russia. Oh how the founding fathers of this nation would have sighed at this mess. The world is seeing it, the UN is seeing it, the US's closest allies are seeing it, and now many American's are starting to see it. Actually, lets see if you have a non-biased newspaper clipping to argue against that statement.
 
-----------------------
TRP/LC Kjerri/2SQD/1PLT/1COM/1BAT/1RGT/VEA/VE [LoR]
"I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day...tomorrow isn't looking good either."

France was not selling them food, they were selling equipment that could be used for the creation of chemical and biological weapons. The problem is that the same equipment can also be used for agriculture (ie fertilizers and such). France was NOT supposed to sell it, but they did knowing what it can be used for. And I agree with the statements that the US is warmongering... I have never denied we are doing it. The problem is that a long time ago... oh around 1914... we hid out here on our little land mass and ignored the rest of the world while they tore each other apart. Finally we stepped in and helped out... two years later the war was over and the world was ok again for a while. We once more hid out on our little land mass ignoring the world. Then along comes good ol Hitler, friend to everyone as he pulled Germany out of their slump and rebuilt the country. They he goes all psycho and starts another war. Again, we decided to hang back and take it easy. We sent food and supplies to help out the few friends we had but generally stayed out. Then we get reemed by the Japanese in a preemptive strike and pretty much forced into the war. So what did the US learn from all this... sitting back and letting the a$$holes of the world make decisions that effect us is not the way to go. We will end up getting drug into it and sometimes very painfully. I hate the fact that America has to be the watchdog for the world... but you know what? I'm glad we are because otherwise the world would tear itself apart over petty matters instead of trying to work things out. Look at Somalia for example... why were we there? Oil? nope... Terrorists? nope... We were there because some sick SOB waste of skin was taking food from children to run his little war because he thought he deserved to be the boss and had the guns to back it up. So if you like the idea of children starving or shooting each other, then feel free to let America return to isolationist ways. I will post no more on this topic as what I say will not change anyones mind anymore than they can change mine. But I am willing to listen.
 
-----------------------

FM/CRW Blaise Fuego/Polaris 1-2/Phoenix Wing/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE

OK whoa there. I did not call anyone an a$$hole. I was referring to the dictators and warlords of the world as the a$$holes that cause the problems. As for the children... yes they fight... they fight because their parents or other adults tell them to. They dont fight for honor or freedom. They dont even fight for food. You can't tell me that a 10 year old Palestinian or Isreali with a gun knows why he has to shoot people. He does it bacause that is what someone he trusts told him to do. In Afganistan and Somalia children pick up guns and fight because that was how they got fed. They are told to go and kill and then they will get a bowl of rice. The whole point of America going into these places is to stop the fighting and get food and medical supplies to the people who need them. To stop the children from killing each other by removing the power hungry warlords who only care about their position. I am not attacking anyone, I am simply stating that whether or not you like the fact the the US likes to put it nose into things, it has become a neccessary evil because no one else is stepping up to the plate. I know I said I wouldn't post again on this topic but I needed to make sure that Bear understands I am not attacking him... or anyone else on this list for that matter. All comments made by me towards France or the French were directed at the nebulous entity, of which I have personal experiences that taint my viewpoint.
 
-----------------------

FM/CRW Blaise Fuego/Polaris 1-2/Phoenix Wing/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE

Nope, you got my response right Fury, perfectly on the mark. Basically, if I see any good evidence that Saddam has these weapons (not "Bush said so" or "The CIA said so" or some such), I will still not support war on Iraq, being  pacifist, but I will stop arguing against it. Unfortunately, people are too busy denouncing the parties that are giving the evidence that they forget to deal with the evidence itself, so I remain unconvinced. Anyways, that's my $0.02, enjoy 
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung
"The only thing that will never change is that everything will change" - Argon Viper

Warmaker, I seem to keep egging you on, and I'm not meaning to. My comments are not directly aimed at you, anyway. I'm sorry for any bad blood going on there, or if my words are continually striking the wrong chord. If anyone hasn't gone to look at the link Fury post back on Page Two, I suggest doing. A lot of funny stuff floating around there. Of course, some scary things, too. Hopefully if it does come to war, the events don't somehow trigger an India-Pakistan, North Korea-South Korea, Arab League-USA, whatever conflict. And to go back to something Argon said, I think any educated American knows that we never pay what we promise. We still owe France money for helping us fight the Revolutionary War, for crying out loud. If Turkey doesn't want US troops in it, then that is their decision. If I were the Turks, I wouldn't want us there either, after what happened in the Gulf Conflict. However, that wasn't my point. My point was that most of NATO had agreed to place troops in Turkey, yet three nations had held back; I was simply wondering why exactly they had done so. But that's in the past now. One more thing, related to Bear's last post. We all know that there are terrible things going on in the world all of the time. You could go on and add Colombia, the Phillipines, the southern provinces of China, Kashmir, and any other number of places to your list. But do you really expect anyone to be able to solve all of those problems? Who? The United Nations? I don't think so. We have to face it that there are going to be dictators, there are going to be suicide bombers, and there are going to be civil wars in the world. It is not the job of any country to step in and police those affairs. Yet at the same time, doesn't it make you feel somewhat guilty if you just sit back at home and play some Jedi Outcast while children are starving and dying? Therein lies the struggle for not only the United States, but for all nations who have the power to do something. When is it right to intervene and when is it right to sit back and let events play out for themselves? I think if things continue to go their way, most of the world will have its wish and the US of A is going to revert to isolationism again within the next twenty years. When that happens, I believe a much-stronger European Union will step in to take its place, or perhaps a new superpower like China (although you can't really see them doing too much to help).Only time will tell us what happens next. Hopefully, all of us here will live to see the next twenty years come and go. Hopefully, we can do that in peace.   ----------------------- ADJ:NTO/FM/COM Darkhawk/Kaph 3-4/Phoenix Wing/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)(=SA=)(=JCPA=)(=SCPA=)(=FCO=)[LoC][LSM][BRC][MC:1st][CBV*][VC:Ebony][KC:oc] DLS/CL/SG Darkhawk/Eagle 1-4/mSSD Atrus/VEDJ/VE/[CR]

DH, the main reason why Germany, Belgium, and France objected to NATO defense was because it would make it seem that war was inevitable.  They didn't object at all to defending Turkey, in fact, they're all three already sending troops and equipment.  They want to defend Turkey, they just don't want to do it through NATO. BTW, Fury said what I was going to 
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

  I just want to list 2 quotes from the great scientist, Albert Einstien. The first is right infront of me, so I know I'm typing it right. The second is from memory, and I apologize if I word it wrong.   "If all the young people in America were to act as you intend to act, the country would be defenseless and easily delivered into slavery."                       -1941 letter to a pacifist.   "I know not with what weapons WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."   Just thought those might interest everybody.   Blaise, I happen to personally know 2 Frenchmen, one from Normandy and one from Paris. Both are friendly, nice people.
 
-----------------------

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other &*@#$% die for his!"
                                                 -General Patton

FM/LCRW Chipmunk Man/Viper 1-4/Phoenix/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)

Thought I'd add on some more quotes while we're at it. "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." -General George S. Patton "This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." -Elmer Davis "A man cannot be too careful in his choice of enemies." -Oscar Wilde "In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these." -Paul Harvey "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee." -John Donne "We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it is forever." -Carl Sagan "First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." -Reverend Martin Niemoller "War is at best barbarism...Its glory is moonshine...War is hell." -General William Tecumseh Sherman "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it." -General Robert E. Lee "Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die." -Salvador Dali

You constantly claim that Saddam Hussein is the problem here; how many bullets does one man ened? Two bullets took down Kennedy - the most powerful man in the world. A dozen men with knives took down Caesar - the most powerful man in the world. The French, Germans, Russians and all those Africans all support disarmament. But not a single one, and rightly so, should support full war. Saddam Hussein will come down with a bullet. Possibly two. Three at the most. This will require a single assassin (interesting, an Al-Quada trained one could do a far better job than any of ours). It could be done within days. Bam, no more problem. Or, we could simply go the totally legitimate route and send in tens of thousands of blue-helmeted peace keepers. Hell, why stop there? 500,000 peacekeepers; a million or more even. 100 weapons inspectors? What a joke. Multiply that by 25, at least. 2,500 inspectors. Perhaps the Americans could invite their new buddies the East Europeans? I'm sure the Albanian Army would appreciate the experience. Saddam is unlikely to hang around with his country practically in the hands of the UN - he'll run to Kazahstan or some other hellhole, where he'll do interviews for Time magazine. If that won't make you think, I'll go for your wallet: It will cost the United States up to $27billion to simply get the Turks to allow them to use the country. Add on money paid to the Saudies, Kuwaiti's, Syrians, etc. Add the "danger pay" to US troops. Add the financial cost of practically bribing the African Security Council members to vote for the new resolution. Add the cost of replacing destroyed aircraft, tanks, etc. Add the cost of setting up an authority to keep Iraqi oil in Iraqi hands. I could keep talking for hours.. but what are we at by now? I'd say every single person in the United States will end up paying about $250 EACH for this war. A war which could be done with an assassin, costing $1million max. Or a war which could be done with the UN going in and seizing everything, costing the US a grand total of: nothing.
 
-----------------------
           Captain Aaron "Bear" Le'pue, NCC Adjutant & VE Today Chief Editor
                                                        ~~~
       NCC:A/CAP Aaron "Bear" Le'pue/Raptor/Offensive Fleet/mSSD Atrus/VEN/VE
(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [LSM] [LoC] [NDM]
                                                        ~~~
                                      Bear : [email protected]
                             Vast Empire Today : [email protected]

Good points. 1. Congress would condemn the action. Why? 2. The American people would. by a large majority  I'd think, condemn the action; this would not get Georgie re-elected. Thats also a confusing one. Maybe I'm missing something - are the American people buying the stuff that Iraq must be disarmed, or are they going with the idea that Saddam must be taken out of power (as the British seem to be, and is also a far more credible reason). If they're buying the former, then fair enough, although the vast majority of Iraqi's care about America as much as America cared about them 5 years ago. If they're buying the latter, then assassination would be a good way to get rid of him. I will be old enough to vote in the next General Election - I won't be voting for one of the two major parties, as they both support war (although calling the Conservatives a major party right now is a bit of a joke), even though my only other good option is a left-wing band of loonies who would give rapists stress compensation and other ridiculous policies. If the British Government (or the Americans) put a bullet through Saddams head, they'd have my vote, as long as nobody else dies. Easily. Anyway, Georgie didn't get elected in the first place, eh? 3. In principle everyone would agree to it, but no one country would ever support it out loud/ They would, in all truth, be standing in line to condemn it as loudly as they possibly could. They're all standing in line to condemn a war already. Furthermore, it probably wouldn't be the first American assassination attempt, and theres no way to prove it. A new resolution calling for Saddam Hussein to be removed by "any means possible" (quote), if passed, would obviously include assassination. 4. Bush would likely be shot within the same month; another thing he wouldn't look forward to. He's likely to be shot within a month of invading Iraq anyway. Besides, there are ways of getting around this - make sure the assassin isn't American, or even Western. I'm sure a Kurd would try it; an Iranian possibly; hell, if we offered Bin Laden political asylum in Kazahstan in return for knocking off Saddam, I'm pretty sure he'd do it. Then, because we know where he is, we can knock him off a week later, and set it up to look as if Saddam Hussein did it (leave a big fake moustache at the scene or something). 5. You couldn't keep a head of state in Israel or Palestine long enough to swear them in for the next century. With the current situation right now, true. However, the Iraq Crisis has pulled us away from looking at that situation in depth for quite some time. If the Iraq problem was to end just like that, some pretty substantial breakthroughs could be made in Palestine/Israel, ESPECIALLY with todays news - Arafat nominating a Premier (which is likely to make Palestine a constitutional republic (or democratic republic.. I confuse them), with Arafat as a glorified Head of State with no real power), and the killing of the Hamas leader (which is the first good thing Israel has done since.. well, ever). 6. The assassin himself would like to live, which would likely involve some US or UK spec ops folks picking them up from a rooftop in downtown Baghdad, then bringing their sorry butt to southern California and introducing him to Kirsten Dunst or someone of the same description to hang on his arm.  Then we'd have to guard them and pay them WAY more than a million bucks. Very good point, but.. The assassin doesn't need to use a bullet. A bomb would do just as well - consider this, for example. The Iranians, Kurds and even Al Quada detest Saddam Hussein. The only Islamic terrorist groups to give support to him are Islamic Jihad and Hamas (as well as a couple of the minor Palestinian ones), both Palestinian. Think about how they assassinate people.. ok, so its totally immoral, but far better than dropping thousands of bombs on civilians. 7. A whole lot of other things I haven't considered or bothered to mention. Then please keep going
 
-----------------------
           Captain Aaron "Bear" Le'pue, NCC Adjutant & VE Today Chief Editor
                                                        ~~~
       NCC:A/CAP Aaron "Bear" Le'pue/Raptor/Offensive Fleet/mSSD Atrus/VEN/VE
(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [LSM] [LoC] [NDM]
                                                        ~~~
                                      Bear : [email protected]
                             Vast Empire Today : [email protected]

You're certainly right saying terrorists are going to get pissed, not pacified. If we attack Iraq, we definetly won't have to worry about weapons of mass destruction hitting us - something which there is only a small chance of happening anyway. But we can be almost certain (if a bookmakers will let me put money on it, I would) that the US will see a terrorist attack on a par with 9/11 within a year. Allowing your own people to die just to eliminate the miniscule chance that many more will die in the future is something you (Americans) should be very worried about. Think about it: How many people did that Washington Sniper kill? 12? 13? Al Quada could put a thousand of them in a thousand American cities. They don't need a nuclear warhead to do that - just a thousand people and $25,000 to buy a few over the counter sniper rifles.
 
-----------------------
           Captain Aaron "Bear" Le'pue, NCC Adjutant & VE Today Chief Editor
                                                        ~~~
       NCC:A/CAP Aaron "Bear" Le'pue/Raptor/Offensive Fleet/mSSD Atrus/VEN/VE
(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [LSM] [LoC] [NDM]
                                                        ~~~
                                      Bear : [email protected]
                             Vast Empire Today : [email protected]

Actually, chipmunk said a lot of the things I personally have been thinking about. I have buddies in the military; hell, my brother is in the National Guard.  That does not mean that any of them think this is about oil, or some guy's fixation on a guy his daddy didn't kill. Far from it.  Then again, I don't get their briefing material. To them, this is about - as one of my buddies put it - patrolling the skies over Iraq instead of doing combat air patrols over the rubble of Denver. Basically, it goes back to who do you trust with a nuclear weapon.  Pakistan is about the riskiest nation packing a pile of nukes, and no this isn't anti-Muslim propoganda, I just spend four hours hanging out with the local Pakistani student community.  Even they are concerned that some pack of rogue fundamentalists is gonna run off with one of their nukes and make a bad name for a country that is just trying to get a step ahead in the world.  At the expense of India, of course, but life is like that sometimes. Point is, we know Saddam has had biological and chemical weapons and the willingness to use them.  We also know he was working on a nuclear program - you may have heard that the Israeli astronaut who died awhile back was part of the '82 raid on the reactor our then good buddy Saddam had raring to go. To think he just changed his mind a few years ago is about the silliest damn idea I've ever heard.  If you take a step back and realize that this is not the last nation George Bush or likely any president the US has for the next 20 years is gonna try to pressure to conform to our national security plan, this starts to make sense. If we do end up going to war with Iraq, it will very likely cause many supposed moderates to sign up at the local al-Queda recruitment center.  It will also result in endless images of burning US flags and random rock-throwing and pot shots. However, it will also be incredibly easy for the US to go to the Egyptian, Saudi, and whatever government and ask them if they like our free money enough to start cracking down on people who not only threaten us, but also their own regimes? I don't endorse the way this came to pass and I think it could have been done a lot better and in a more timely fashion to be honest.  However, I can see that a war in the next week could forestall another war next year or further down the road.  And will it cause "more" terrorist incidents?  Probably not any more than what would happen if the US was "talked down" from starting a war.  If Saddam has some fun 11th hour tricks up his sleeve we can hope for a peaceful solution.  Otherwise I can bet that this is about to get pretty ugly for everyone involved.

"Do you seriously believe that war can cause peace? " Absolutely not.  But it does make it easier to hunt down terrorist cells if the governments ruling the countries they are hiding in aren't trying to hamstring any operation. The point is, this has nothing to do with whether or not people will come to the US and try to attack us.  It has already succeeded once so it is just a given that others will plan to follow.  So, there is no way to prevent it from happening other than to go find the punks.  To use your neighborhood example: If my next door neighbor refuses to throw away trash and leaves dangerous objects in his yard that may harm the neighborhood children, I don't pooh pooh it away and hope no one ever gets hurt and also learn to deal with the stench by overdeodorizing my own home.  I can ask him to clean up his mess for the common good of the community (I mean, he IS affecting my property value).  Should that fail, I call in the cops or civic authorities to convince him to clean things up.  Barring that, I can either move or go over there in the middle of the night and clean up the fool's mess without his permission. Last I checked, the US isn't moving anywhere. 
 
-----------------------
PRF/MG Fury/VEA/TADATH/VE [SCP][PoC][SotE:HC][SotE:VEA][IOC]
Stormtrooper Corps Prefect
Shopkeeper - Imperial Center

Anyways, as for the bad neighbor analogy, I agree that you're not going to move away or anything, but you're much more likely to call the police than you are to take a gun and murder him yourself    Heck, even if he is a gun nut, you don't take the law into your own hands, that gets you burned even in a lawless community (revenge strikes and all that...).
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

Yeah, more like the neighborhood viglante stuff we were compaining about having go on in Afghanistan... 
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung