Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

dcolton · Mar 19, 2004, 02:22 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114649,00.html

PARIS � The world is a more dangerous place because of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which may have toppled Saddam Hussein but also unleashed postwar violence and an upswing in terrorism, the French foreign minister said.

villalobos · Mar 19, 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114649,00.html

You should be happy about that, no?

villa

nm misunderstood the article... Silly me...

dcolton · Mar 19, 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by villalobos:
You should be happy about that, no?

villa

villalobos · Mar 19, 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:

see edit in my previous post. I misunderstood the article (read it too fast.)

villa

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 19, 2004, 02:36 PM

The French. Experts in World Safety since... since...

...since when?

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

The French. Experts in World Safety since... since...

...since when?

Heh..

Did anyone ever expect them to say it's now safer, and they was wrong?

Pshaaaaaaaaaaw.

This isn't news.

Logic · 03:44 PM

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

The French. Experts in World Safety since... since...

...since when?

Do you think the US would have been able to stop the german military if the US were neighbors with Germany at that time?

kvm_mkdb · Mar 19, 2004, 03:28 PM

Do you think the World is safer now?

dcolton · Mar 19, 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Do you think the US would have been able to stop the Nazis if the US were neighbors with Germany at that time?

We wouldn't have allowed a neighboring country to have such a huge military build up to begin with.

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
We wouldn't have allowed a neighboring country to have such a huge military build up to begin with.

Does that apply to other countries as well? Is the world allowed to attack the US because you have built up this huge military? How much do you know about the history of pre-war Europe.

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Do you think the World is safer now?

I would like to know how the Bushies answer this, and even better if they could show some facts to back up their answers.

Developer · Mar 19, 2004, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Do you think the US would have been able to stop the Nazis if the US were neighbors with Germany at that time?

Do we need to distinguish between Nazis and Wehrmacht here? Just asking, so I know how to categorize me grandfather.

Also, if you'd like to know how the French were able to defend against the Germans, read about Verdun.

Y3a · Mar 19, 2004, 03:39 PM

Aren't the French the same "Ass Canyons" that are doing war game as allies of the Chinese this weekend?? Both countries have antiquated weapons systems....and clowns for leaders.

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
Do we need to distinguish between Nazis and Wehrmacht here? Just asking, so I know how to categorize me grandfather.

I apologize and will edit my post above.

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Do you think the World is safer now?

While I am not positive if the world is safer, it sure isn't MORE DANGEROUS.

fizzlemynizzle · Mar 19, 2004, 03:51 PM

Yeah, more dangerous because of this kind of behavior.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 19, 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Do you think the US would have been able to stop the german military if the US were neighbors with Germany at that time?

I didn't see the UK whining about proximity. They weren't busy seeking to 'understand' why their enemies wanted to bomb the crap out of their cities and toss half their populace into concentration camps. They were too busy fighting back FOR REAL. And yes, with the US right next door, both nations would have shut 'noisy neighbor' Hitler the hell up all that much sooner.

One thing is for certain; the French would have disapproved of our lack of 'understanding' and ability to fathom what the Germans wanted that was 'reasonable'.

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
While I am not positive if the world is safer, it sure isn't MORE DANGEROUS.

So two wars, a active hunt for terrorists, and torn alliances have not made the world safer?

How long will it take before you decide it is time to change the current policy?

And do you have anything to back that claim that it isn't more dangerous?

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I didn't see the UK whining about proximity. They weren't busy seeking to 'understand' why their enemies wanted to bomb the crap out of their cities and toss half their populace into concentration camps. They were too busy fighting back FOR REAL. And yes, the US right next door, both nations would have shut 'noisy neighbor' Hitler the hell up all that much sooner.

One thing is for certain; the French would have disapproved of our lack of 'understanding' and ability to fathom what the Germans wanted that was 'reasonable'.

So you basically know nothing about the history of pre-war Europe?

The close proximity you call wasn't so close. The only reason the UK didn't get occupied was because of the sea between mainland Europe and the UK. What was the US's military capability at the time? Before Pearl Harbour that is. It must be nice being able to sit on the other side of the world not helping at all until you are attacked. Yeah, real nice friends who will never wait to come and help nations that are in an full scale war........

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Yeah, more dangerous because of this kind of behavior.

And in my opinion this:

Developer · Mar 19, 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
I apologize and will edit my post above.

No need to apologize. It's just that it makes different sense sometimes. In this case "Stop the Nazis" is more political and "Stop the Wehrmacht" is more military.

Mentioning my grandfather was probably inappropriate, as he was in Russia in fact (I don't know whether he ever had been in France before, he never told about that). I thought the personal note would illustrate better that there's a difference in meaning sometimes.

fizzlemynizzle · Mar 19, 2004, 04:00 PM

The close proximity you call wasn't so close. The only reason the UK didn't get occupied was because of the sea between mainland Europe and the UK. What was the US's military capability at the time? Before Pearl Harbour that is. It must be nice being able to sit on the other side of the world not helping at all until you are attacked. Yeah, real nice friends who will never wait to come and help nations that are in an full scale war........

Oh so now it's BAD for the US to not get involved? Make up your mind already. At first we're nosey interventionist assholes that have no right to interfere and now we're guilty of being isolationists that drag our feet? your agenda's showing.

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
So two wars, a active hunt for terrorists, and torn alliances have not made the world safer?

Do you expect it to happen JUST LIKE THAT?

Funny, you guys harp and harp that if we just took more time Iraq would have fixed itself or they would have come to an agreement. It had been over 12 years.

This war has just been going on for one year, and already you are WERE ARE THE RESULT!!111oneone11!1

I just wish once you'd be a bit even on your criticism.

This will take time.

And do you have anything to back that claim that it isn't more dangerous?

Well the US hasn't been attacked since. Funny the countries that are, are the ones giving in to the terrorists.

See how that works.

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Oh so now it's BAD for the US to not get involved? Make up your mind already. At first we're nosey interventionist assholes that have no right to interfere and now we're guilty of being isolationists that drag our feet?

Hey as long as it says something bad about America, they don't care if it makes sense.

your agenda's showing.

Indeed.

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Oh so now it's BAD for the US to not get involved? Make up your mind already. At first we're nosey interventionist assholes that have no right to interfere and now we're guilty of being isolationists that drag our feet? your agenda's showing.

No, the difference is acting when the people in the critical areas want you(you are not required to do it but if you are going to be the good guy you should), and not to intervene where people don't want you.

Just take a quick look at what nations "like" the US and what nations don't "like" the US. I bet you'll be surprised at the results.

fizzlemynizzle · Mar 19, 2004, 04:08 PM

Just take a quick look at what nations "like" the US and what nations don't "like" the US. I bet you'll be surprised at the results.

I think what won't surprise you but you can't comprehend due to a cultural divide is that we don't care what other people think about us. We exist to do what we believe is the right thing to do, and don't exist to run and around and try and please other people, be everybody's pal and never have any conflicts for the sake of a meaningless popularity contest at the sake of our own self esteem and best interests. That's how you end up being used, manipulated, and stepped on.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 19, 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Logic:

The only reason the UK didn't get occupied was because of the sea between mainland Europe and the UK.

Obviously you know even less history- being an island nation was just as much and more a hindrance to the UK as a help. In the modern age -even as existed in the 1940's- of long range aircraft, battleships, subs, the beginnings of ballistic missiles etc, the 'distance' provided by oceans isn't that much of an overwhelming strategic plus. In the UK's case, it was a major negative in terms of re-supply, IE: getting food, weapons, oil and countless other vital resources that fed the engine of resistance and survival itself, into the nation. England was wide open to being starved by blockade, and clearly saved itself by fighting back- mainly crippling Germany�s navy, and even scuttling many battleships of the occupied French navy that were poised to be used against the UK. A nation unprepared for war would NEVER have been able to pull any that off, in no way shape, matter, or form.

What was the US's military capability at the time? Before Pearl Harbour that is. It must be nice being able to sit on the other side of the world not helping at all until you are attacked. Yeah, real nice friends who will never wait to come and help nations that are in an full scale war........

What, so now your tact is that nations should built up armies and *gasp* perhaps actually *PRE-EMPTIVELY* take out a madman and his regime BEFORE he becomes a big enough threat to conquer his entire continent and then attack the US directly?

What novel ideas will you come up with next? Next we'll be hearing from you that some goofy pretense at 'understanding' doesn't do a thing to stop tyrants, and that military force does!

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

This will take time.

How long?

Well the US hasn't been attacked since. Funny the countries that are, are the ones giving in to the terrorists.

How often had you been attacked before? And are you talking about Spain? Because they were on your side in this war.

Germany and France haven't been attacked (yet).

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
I think what won't surprise you but you can't comprehend due to a cultural divide is that we don't care what other people think about us. We exist to do what we believe is the right thing to do, and don't exist to run and around and try and please other people, be everybody's pal and never have any conflicts for the sake of a meaningless popularity contest at the sake of our own self esteem and best interests. That's how you end up being used, manipulated, and stepped on.

We'll see how that works out for you in the long run shall we.

Developer · Mar 19, 2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well the US hasn't been attacked since. Funny the countries that are, are the ones giving in to the terrorists.

See how that works.

Hm. I seem to remember that Spain was with the USA with regard to the Iraq war. So tell us how it worked. (hint)

fizzlemynizzle · Mar 19, 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
We'll see how that works out for you in the long run shall we.

It's worked pretty damn well for the past 228 years.

From 13 renegade colonies to the eminent global power. How long is "the long run", then? As long as the Romans?

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Obviously you know even less history- being an island nation was just as much and more a hindrance to the UK as a help. In the modern age -even as existed in the 1940's- of long range aircraft, battleships, subs, the beginnings of ballistic missiles etc, the 'distance' provided by oceans isn't that much of an overwhelming strategic plus. In the UK's case, it was a major negative in terms of re-supply, IE: getting food, weapons, oil and countless other vital resources that fed the engine of resistance and survival itself, into the nation. England was wide open to being starved by blockade, and clearly saved itself by fighting back- mainly crippling Germany�s navy, and even scuttling many battleships of the occupied French navy that were poised to be used against the UK. A nation unprepared for war would NEVER have been able to pull any that off, in no way shape, matter, or form.

Actually what saved them was that they occupied Iceland and thereby secured the route to England. But you wouldn't know that.

What, so now your tact is that nations should built up armies and *gasp* perhaps actually *PRE-EMPTIVELY* take out a madman and his regime BEFORE he becomes a big enough threat to conquer his entire continent and then attack the US directly?

What novel ideas will you come up with next? Next we'll be hearing from you that some goofy pretense at 'understanding' doesn't do a thing to stop tyrants, and that military force does!

I've always believed military force is vital to nations. And I never said anything about pre-emptively attack nations. If you call the US' involvement in WWII pre-emtive you need to see you history teacher again. The US waited 3 years until it started actively helping Europe. Those three years were devastating for Europe. You didn't get involved until you got attacked.

angaq0k · Mar 19, 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
It's worked pretty damn well for the past 228 years. From 13 renegade colonies to the eminent global power. How long is "the long run", then? As long as the Romans?

The Romans ended in decadence...

It's very interesting that a lot of the American political press uses language related to the Roman Empire...

I am not certain it is a good idea to use that...

After all, there were the Dark Ages afterward...

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
It's worked pretty damn well for the past 228 years. From 13 renegade colonies to the eminent global power. How long is "the long run", then? As long as the Romans?

Wow, is your history that long???

You only become a world power after WWII because Europe was basically destroyed in the possibly worst war ever. So I wouldn't get too arrogant on that point.

angaq0k · Mar 19, 2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Wow, is your history that long???

You only become a world power after WWII because Europe was basically destroyed in the possibly worst war ever. So I wouldn't get too arrogant on that point.

And America certainly cashed in big time for the reconstruction...

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by angaq0k:
And America certainly cashed in big time for the reconstruction...

Ssshhh! Don't tell 'em that

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
No, the difference is acting when the people in the critical areas want you(you are not required to do it but if you are going to be the good guy you should), and not to intervene where people don't want you.

Good thing Israel wants us.

Just take a quick look at what nations "like" the US and what nations don't "like" the US. I bet you'll be surprised at the results.

Not surprising really. The same ones that haven't ever liked us.

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Good thing Israel wants us.[/b]

Yup, but the question is where and how.

Not surprising really. The same ones that haven't ever liked us.

Kuwait wasn't a big friend of yours before the Iraqi invasion. It wasn't until after that they liked you. What does that teach you?

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
How long?

How many more years were you willing to let Iraq go without any action taken?

If you say 12 years wasn't long enough. I say the same.

How often had you been attacked before?

Not much at all. Funny how that worked.

And are you talking about Spain? Because they were on your side in this war.

I surely hope you aren't implying Spain pulled out because it no longer sides with the US, and not because of the terrorist scumbags.

Germany and France haven't been attacked (yet).

France hasn't?

fizzlemynizzle · Mar 19, 2004, 04:39 PM

And America certainly cashed in big time for the reconstruction...

I seem to remember reading American taxpayers fronted 12 billion 1945 dollars for the Marshall Plan alone, not mentioning the cost of the war effort itself.

If my inflation calculator is correct, $12billion US in 1945 is about $120billion in today's dollar.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm..

theolein · Mar 19, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Y3a:
Aren't the French the same "Ass Canyons" that are doing war game as allies of the Chinese this weekend?? Both countries have antiquated weapons systems....and clowns for leaders.

I love this, it makes me realise why GW is so popular amongst 13 year old 1337 gamer dud3z.

Come to think of it, why doesn't the US just attack France? And perhaps China at the same time? Come one, I know you want to do it, so what are standing around for? I thought you were the ones who did the walk while others did the talk. Come one, already. What's a few French or Chinese nukes to big strong dud3z like you? You can handle it, I'm sure.

Bring 'em on!

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by angaq0k:
And America certainly cashed in big time for the reconstruction...

And why shouldn't we?

We were the only ones with enough guts to do anything about it.

Talk is cheap.

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Kuwait wasn't a big friend of yours before the Iraqi invasion. It wasn't until after that they liked you. What does that teach you?

01
That tells me that Kuwait was originally wrong about us. We showed them indeed we are helpful.

fizzlemynizzle · Mar 19, 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
I
Come to think of it, why doesn't the US just attack France? And perhaps China at the same time?

China's certainly given it plenty of thought

http://members.tripod.com/~Ken_Davie...hitepaper.html

Zimphire · Mar 19, 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
I love this, it makes me realise why GW is so popular amongst 13 year old 1337 gamer dud3z.

Actually most young kids are of the liberal idealistic mindset.

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How many more years were you willing to let Iraq go without any action taken?

If you say 12 years wasn't long enough. I say the same.

I would have wanted the western powers not to support SH from the beginning. Since they didn't do that I wanted them to finish the job they started in GWI. Since they didn't do that I would have wanted the coalition to allow Dr. Blix to finish his job and then decide. He asked for two more months. If you would have given him that I would probably be on your side when arguing about the war.

Not much at all. Funny how that worked.

So, why say that you haven't been attacked since the "war" started? If you weren't attacked before it doesn't say much that you haven't been attacked since.

I surely hope you aren't implying Spain pulled out because it no longer sides with the US, and not because of the terrorist scumbags.

You were talking about that nations have been attacked that were "weak" or more precise , this is what you said:
Well the US hasn't been attacked since. Funny the countries that are, are the ones giving in to the terrorists.

France hasn't?

Not that I recall, but if I'm incorrect it would be great if you could give me a link to something about it.

fizzlemynizzle · Mar 19, 2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Wow, is your history that long???

You only become a world power after WWII because Europe was basically destroyed in the possibly worst war ever. So I wouldn't get too arrogant on that point.

Right, we rose up the ladder because Europe was rebuilding from World War II. Not because of a string of world-changing inventions beginning in the mid 19th century and the ushering in of that whole industrial revolution thing. That was just frilly pretty stuff.

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
I seem to remember reading American taxpayers fronted 12 billion 1945 dollars for the Marshall Plan alone, not mentioning the cost of the war effort itself.

If my inflation calculator is correct, $12billion US in 1945 is about $120billion in today's dollar.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm..

So you think the US hasn't gotten 120billion in business since then?

fizzlemynizzle · Mar 19, 2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
So you think the US hasn't gotten 120billion in business since then?

You think we wouldn't have gotten it anyway?

Logic · Mar 19, 2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And why shouldn't we?

We were the only ones with enough guts to do anything about it.

Talk is cheap.

Incorrect.

Russia, Britain, the french population and most all nations and people in Europe did something about it. And long before you came. Actually it made it possible for you to attack.