The true meaning of democracy :rolleyes:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...294949,00.html
"France will suffer".
Printable View
The true meaning of democracy :rolleyes:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...294949,00.html
"France will suffer".
There is an ongoing trade war of sorts between the US and EU and since it is targetted at the "luxury goods" items it pretty much only affects France.
Democracy works both ways.
Jamie, you are turning as good a liar as the US government. :DQuote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Nice to see the US respects other peoples' opinions
Statements like "France will suffer" or the opposition to the return of UN inspectors to Iraq all go to show exactly what lies underneath the mask of democracy and the upholder-of-justice attitude taken by the US government. They are nothing but a narrow-minded bunch of modern day ******.
[Edit] I have chosen to delete a specific word from the above post on a feedback from a member, and although my opinion of the actions of the US government in Iraq won't change unless there is some concrete action on the ground, I have decided to respect the sentiments of that particular member and others and shall not be participating in such debates. [/Edit]
.
Considering what France has done I think they should suffer.
Skimming money off the top of the Oil for Food program of the UN while Iraqi people starved.
Selling weapons to Iraq against UN resolutions and sanctions.
Selling out world security and the Iraqi people for the sake of cheap oil and drilling rights.
Support of a dictator and a regime responsible for the killing of over 1 million people.
And the list keeps going on....
It just surprises me how everyone is quick to criticize the US for their policies but conveniently over look such things done by the French and Russians. To me both of those countries should be ashamed of themselves.
X
you are high on anti-american rhetoric, and low on any valid points. Go back to school and learn how to debate first. And I mean it. SCRAM!Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Jamie, you are turning as good a liar as the US government. :D
Statements like "France will suffer" or the opposition to the return of UN inspectors to Iraq all go to show exactly what lies underneath the mask of democracy and the upholder-of-justice attitude taken by the US government. They are nothing but a narrow-minded bunch of modern day looters.
.
:rolleyes:
Dont the French eat babies ?
They should suffer for allowing an automobile like "Le Car" to ever be released to the public.
Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Jamie, you are turning as good a liar as the US government. :D
Statements like "France will suffer" or the opposition to the return of UN inspectors to Iraq all go to show exactly what lies underneath the mask of democracy and the upholder-of-justice attitude taken by the US government. They are nothing but a narrow-minded bunch of modern day looters.
.
Man you are the last person who should be calling any one narrow minded.:rolleyes:
I think the US has every democratic right to exclude France from any future trade agreements. This is the way international business and politics works.
The French made a bold move in stating their anti-war sentiments, especially when some of their statements are as ludicrously hippocritical as some other aspects of the war.
However, I am glad there were objections from these countries against the war - it shows that the true meaning of democracy is still demonstrable.
Whether the US should punish countries for having an opposing point of view is something I have a little difficulty getting my head around though...
The French were not anti-war. They were pro-Saddam and all that brings such as cheap oil and defense contracts. They were pro-Saddam not for the sake of peace but because of economic reasons.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I think the US has every democratic right to exclude France from any future trade agreements. This is the way international business and politics works.
The French made a bold move in stating their anti-war sentiments, especially when some of their statements are as ludicrously hippocritical as some other aspects of the war.
However, I am glad there were objections from these countries against the war - it shows that the true meaning of democracy is still demonstrable.
Whether the US should punish countries for having an opposing point of view is something I have a little difficulty getting my head around though...
Allowing a mass-murdering dictator to stay in power is hardly a "bold" move. I would classify it as I do most of the French.....as cowardly.
X
Good man - nothing like a bit of xenophobia to strengthen an already weighty argument :rolleyes:Quote:
I would classify it as I do most of the French.....as cowardly.
I would be wary of falling into the same trap you fell into in the 50's, with scaremongering regarding communism and the Russians. Your media is less flexible with their opinions than other countries and has a more powerful influence than in other countries. This particular brand of xenophobia is not very bright.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
The French were not anti-war. They were pro-Saddam and all that brings such as cheap oil and defense contracts. They were pro-Saddam not for the sake of peace but because of economic reasons.
Allowing a mass-murdering dictator to stay in power is hardly a "bold" move. I would classify it as I do most of the French.....as cowardly.
X
A particularly nasty anti-french media frenzy does nobody any good, and is too general a coment for public consumption, and the idea that the french government were anti-war is for economic reasons is grossly hippocritical as some of the French actions and statements during the war.
He who casts the first stone...
If you look at what the French have done and all of the information now being uncovered such as officials in the French govenment skimming money off the oil for food program while Iraqi children were starving to death I think the blitz of anti-French feelings in the media is well deserved. I would think you would feel the same and be strongly against the French and the things they have done to keep a mass mudering dictator responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people in power.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I would be wary of falling into the same trap you fell into in the 50's, with scaremongering regarding communism and the Russians. Your media is less flexible with their opinions than other countries and has a more powerful influence than in other countries. This particular brand of xenophobia is not very bright.
A particularly nasty anti-french media frenzy does nobody any good, and is too general a coment for public consumption, and the idea that the french government were anti-war is for economic reasons is grossly hippocritical as some of the French actions and statements during the war.
He who casts the first stone...
X
Well, when France so strongly opposes what we wanted to do and did everything it could to prevent us from doing it, then the result is pretty much expected. This is a result of France and the US opposing each other so strongly. I'm not talking about who is wrong or right here. Saying that only the US media is not flexible and biased is unfair. If Britain developed strong enemity with France on some issue, then even British media and public life would react in the same wayQuote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I would be wary of falling into the same trap you fell into in the 50's, with scaremongering regarding communism and the Russians. Your media is less flexible with their opinions than other countries and has a more powerful influence than in other countries. This particular brand of xenophobia is not very bright.
A particularly nasty anti-french media frenzy does nobody any good, and is too general a coment for public consumption, and the idea that the french government were anti-war is for economic reasons is grossly hippocritical as some of the French actions and statements during the war.
He who casts the first stone...
As I said, He who casts the first stone. You object to any criticism of your country and their previous, numerous foreign policy cock-ups, yet are very happy to point out the past evils of another country with the schlock-horror style of outrage as seen in the middle-class press. You trained Osama bin Laden for example.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
If you look at what the French have done and all of the information now being uncovered such as officials in the French govenment skimming money off the oil for food program while Iraqi children were starving to death I think the blitz of anti-French feelings in the media is well deserved. I would think you would feel the same and be strongly against the French and the things they have done to keep a mass mudering dictator responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people in power.
X
It seems that a few of you, and some of my American collegues - and I have to say, only one or two of them - need to take of the rose coloured spec, examine your own back yard and learn to accept your inadequacies. I certainly have no problem chastising the UKs historical inadequacies.
That's why I said the US has every right to impose trade sanctions on France.Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
Well, when France so strongly opposes what we wanted to do and did everything it could to prevent us from doing it, then the result is pretty much expected. This is a result of France and the US opposing each other so strongly. I'm not talking about who is wrong or right here.
It's pretty well documented, and back up with stats. I'm not going to argue this one, because it is universally acknowledged in the media industry that the quality and diversity of national press in the UK is amongst the best in the world. We have many papers that follow the US line on admonishing the French (Broadsheets: www.telegraph.co.uk Tabloids: www.dailymail.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk ) but, and this is the KEY difference, there are as many papers that hold a case for the French. (Broadsheets: www.guardian.co.uk tabloids: www.mirror.co.uk)Quote:
Saying that only the US media is not flexible and biased is unfair. If Britain developed strong enemity with France on some issue, then even British media and public life would react in the same way
This is how I like to see democracy working - true freedom of speech.
Every story has 2 sides to it. Unfortunately none of us know both sides to it. Things like America supplying weapons to Iraq, if true, is regretted by every american. But that time, the world was a different place. We now live in a different world where we must actively tackle terrorism. Since the French opposed getting rid of one of the most ruthless dictators in human history, they are paying the price.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
As I said, He who casts the first stone. You object to any criticism of your country and their previous, numerous foreign policy cock-ups, yet are very happy to point out the past evils of another country with the schlock-horror style of outrage as seen in the middle-class press. You trained Osama bin Laden for example.
It seems that a few of you, and some of my American collegues - and I have to say, only one or two of them - need to take of the rose coloured spec, examine your own back yard and learn to accept your inadequacies. I certainly have no problem chastising the UKs historical inadequacies.
Will that price be quoted in dollars, Euro or barrels of oil?Quote:
Since the French opposed getting rid of one of the most ruthless dictators in human history, they are paying the price.
True, I wouldn't debate that. Im taking a general situation. If a country broke into a bitter dispute with another country, news reporting would obviously be biased. Since many brits don't view this was as their war, and britain has no enemity with France, reporting on this issue would obviously report both sides of the story. But that would definately change if Britain did enter into a serious and strong dispute with another countryQuote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
It's pretty well documented, and back up with stats. I'm not going to argue this one, because it is universally acknowledged in the media industry that the quality and diversity of national press in the UK is amongst the best in the world. We have many papers that follow the US line on admonishing the French (Broadsheets: www.telegraph.co.uk Tabloids: www.dailymail.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk ) but, and this is the KEY difference, there are as many papers that hold a case for the French. (Broadsheets: www.guardian.co.uk tabloids: www.mirror.co.uk)
This is how I like to see democracy working - true freedom of speech.
So the french are paying the price for not being anti-terrorism, or for not being anti-evil-dictator ?Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
We now live in a different world where we must actively tackle terrorism. Since the French opposed getting rid of one of the most ruthless dictators in human history, they are paying the price.
in terms of relations with the US.Quote:
Originally posted by Merrion
Will that price be quoted in dollars, Euro or barrels of oil?
I completely agree with you. No-one truly know both sides of the story, which is why anyone with definitive biaism on the situation cannot be sure.Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
Every story has 2 sides to it. Unfortunately none of us know both sides to it. Things like America supplying weapons to Iraq, if true, is regretted by every american. But that time, the world was a different place. We now live in a different world where we must actively tackle terrorism. Since the French opposed getting rid of one of the most ruthless dictators in human history, they are paying the price.
So, 2 sides to every story? - You: the French opposed the disposal of a dictator. Me: The French were against the illegality of the war. 2 sides, as you say...
BothQuote:
Originally posted by plenderj
So the french are paying the price for not being anti-terrorism, or for not being anti-evil-dictator ?
Agreed, but the war only became illegal because the french opposed the disposal of a dictator :)Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I
So, 2 sides to every story? - You: the French opposed the disposal of a dictator. Me: The French were against the illegality of the war. 2 sides, as you say...
I don't agree. I very much doubt a paper such as the Guardian would print copy that contradicted it's true beliefs. What you have is a differenc in cultures between the UK and the US - we are simply a nation that see the daily newspaper as an integral part of the day, adn the freedom of choice of ideas is an integral part of this. Don't forget, we still had 52% of the nation supporting the war, all with strong opinions...Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
True, I wouldn't debate that. Im taking a general situation. If a country broke into a bitter dispute with another country, news reporting would obviously be biased. Since many brits don't view this was as their war, and britain has no enemity with France, reporting on this issue would obviously report both sides of the story. But that would definately change if Britain did enter into a serious and strong dispute with another country
I’m well aware of past US failures in foreign policy and never deny them. Although I do argue with some attempts to exaggerate or inflate such incidents. It is you who should equally direct their ire towards countries like France, Russia, and Germany instead of just focusing on the supposed "evils" committed by the US.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
As I said, He who casts the first stone. You object to any criticism of your country and their previous, numerous foreign policy cock-ups, yet are very happy to point out the past evils of another country with the schlock-horror style of outrage as seen in the middle-class press. You trained Osama bin Laden for example.
It seems that a few of you, and some of my American collegues - and I have to say, only one or two of them - need to take of the rose coloured spec, examine your own back yard and learn to accept your inadequacies. I certainly have no problem chastising the UKs historical inadequacies.
I think you should examine your own back yard as well and learn to accept your irrelevance on the world stage. I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the US. But I still think most people are happy the US came out on top in the Cold War and that this country as the UK always try to do the right thing. I doubt I would trust such power to France, Russia, or China.
X
The war was legal as per UN resolutions.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I completely agree with you. No-one truly know both sides of the story, which is why anyone with definitive biaism on the situation cannot be sure.
So, 2 sides to every story? - You: the French opposed the disposal of a dictator. Me: The French were against the illegality of the war. 2 sides, as you say...
X
I had heard at the end of the war support was at around 70% in the UK and close to 80% here in the US.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I don't agree. I very much doubt a paper such as the Guardian would print copy that contradicted it's true beliefs. What you have is a differenc in cultures between the UK and the US - we are simply a nation that see the daily newspaper as an integral part of the day, adn the freedom of choice of ideas is an integral part of this. Don't forget, we still had 52% of the nation supporting the war, all with strong opinions...
X
Just wanted to point out that the quote "France will suffer" was the name of the story and not a quote attributed to Colin Powel or anyone within the US government.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
The true meaning of democracy :rolleyes:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...294949,00.html
"France will suffer".
A little misleading....but hey that’s to be expected :)
X
Well, any newspaper's true belief would be with the country and not against it if a bitter spat like the french one did erupt. What do u reckon? I'm not talking about Britain. I'm talking about any country in general.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I don't agree. I very much doubt a paper such as the Guardian would print copy that contradicted it's true beliefs. What you have is a differenc in cultures between the UK and the US - we are simply a nation that see the daily newspaper as an integral part of the day, adn the freedom of choice of ideas is an integral part of this. Don't forget, we still had 52% of the nation supporting the war, all with strong opinions...
What a lovely thing to say.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
I think you should examine your own back yard as well and learn to accept your irrelevance on the world stage.
Truth sometimes hurts.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
What a lovely thing to say.
There will always be some countries on the top and some on the bottom. Whether it's the US, China, France, or the UK at the top the people at the bottom will always look up with resentment and contempt at those dwelling on the top layers as they feel their voices and options are not being heard.
This has been going on throughout history and will continue to do so long after the United States of America has passed from dominance on the world stage.
Maybe some day we can work together as a planet for what is best for all of us, but somehow I feel this will never be possible. It’s a shame because as a planet working together we could do so much.
X
Northern Ireland is in the UK you know...
What I find amusing is how so many of you preach on and on about how France had the right to use their veto power. Of course they did.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
So the french are paying the price for not being anti-terrorism, or for not being anti-evil-dictator ?
But if France has the right to do what they feel is right, why should the US be deprived of being able to practice the same?
GREAT point.Quote:
Originally posted by Shawn N
What I find amusing is how so many of you preach on and on about how France had the right to use their veto power. Of course they did.
But if France has the right to do what they feel is right, why should the US be deprived of being able to practice the same?
Another good point I have heard lately is that all those people that wanted to give the weapons inspectors more time are now wondering why the US is taking time to find chem/bio weapons. If it was going to take trained inspectors time, why would they assume it would take less time for the US? They think because we have a lot of troops over there, that they are all looking for chem/bio weapons or something.
You do realise that this is a Catch 22 situation don't you?
Either British, or US troops, will no doubt find "weapons of mass destruction", but as soon as they go public with the information the worlds political underground will accuse them of planting these said weapons...:(
Also, what is a weapon of mass destruction?! A nuke? Yea, I'd go with that, but CX gas or Ricin is hardly a mass destructive weapon! It's all hyped up far too much by the media controlled world we live in...2 days ago I had a discussion/argument with one of my friends about a didgy subject. Her MAIN argument was the fact a newspaper had printed something. She then followed it up with "Well the paper wouldn't print it if it wasn't true!"...Well, I burst out laughing, which made her angry :D
Hahahahahaha
Woka
Those people will never be convinced anyway so who really cares? Ignorance is bliss for them and if people want to continue to close their eyes and not believe then who cares? The Anti-American crowd will never side with the US/UK/Israel. Even when the campaign to free Iraq has been most successful and very positive. There are people out there just nitpicking every minor thing when things are not 100% perfect (which they never are). I'm proud of the coalition forces and their liberation of Iraq and nothing the nay-sayers say will change that :)Quote:
Originally posted by Wokawidget
You do realise that this is a Catch 22 situation don't you?
Either British, or US troops, will no doubt find "weapons of mass destruction", but as soon as they go public with the information the worlds political underground will accuse them of planting these said weapons...:(
Weapons of Mass Destruction is just a term. If you are stuck on the meaning of that then just call them "Weapons Saddam is not supposed to have". These included nukes, chemical and biological weapons, and long-range missiles. If you are still confused just read the UN resolutions for more clarification. Its funny how you laughed at your friend when you yourself relied on the media (print, TV) for the definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction instead of just going to the UN resolutions that defined what Saddam could and couldn't have. I guess its time we all burst out laughing at you.Quote:
Originally posted by Wokawidget
Also, what is a weapon of mass destruction?! A nuke? Yea, I'd go with that, but CX gas or Ricin is hardly a mass destructive weapon! It's all hyped up far too much by the media controlled world we live in...2 days ago I had a discussion/argument with one of my friends about a didgy subject. Her MAIN argument was the fact a newspaper had printed something. She then followed it up with "Well the paper wouldn't print it if it wasn't true!"...Well, I burst out laughing, which made her angry :D
Hahahahahaha
Woka
hahahaha
X
Is it just a term? Well **** me, I didn't know that...jesus ****ing christ! Stop reading between the lines. ou are just about as bad as the media!!! I know what "Weapons Of mass Destructions" are, and what weapons are refered to by this terminology...
Yes thats right, I get all my info from the newspapers...I am media brainwashed. For ****s sake :(
Woka
Ohhh really remember when you wrote this just a few minutes ago?Quote:
Originally posted by Wokawidget
I know what "Weapons Of mass Destructions" are, and what weapons are refered to by this terminology...
You seem to be a bit confused. Take some time to get that foot out of your mouth before posting again :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Wokawidget
Also, what is a weapon of mass destruction?! A nuke? Yea, I'd go with that, but CX gas or Ricin is hardly a mass destructive weapon!
X
Because that's what the general media portray it as...*SIGH*
Just because I type somethign doesn't mean it's my personal opinion :D
Woka
As A. Y. Mous once said, "get your dictionary right!".
What is "right"? "good"? "safe"? "nice"? "bad"? "anti"? "pro"? "WMD"? "evil"? "wrong"? Who defines it? More importantly, do all the parties accept that definition?
A point of order for to all my friends here; let not a tacit assumption be made that, while trying to convince one another, the other person holds the same a priori values. We should start a thread to get our dictionaries right, where every one puts his/her own definitions of basic/core values and/or terms. I tried, but failed miserably! Hope others have a better luck. Only then will everyone of us would either walk away in disgust or be convinced by the argument(s). Well, almost all of us, there are always exceptions
Regards
KayJay