Jump to content

10 French Troops Die in Afghanistan


womfalcs3
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm

France has helped and sacrificed lives in the war in Afghanistan, but when they rejected to comply with the war in Iraq, those on the right called for boycotts against their products. The French were being called weak and submissive because of their disapproval of the Iraqi war.

Of course we now know that the Iraqi war was a front for neo-imperialism to control the oil resources, and to instate military bases.

Don't let this continue. Vote for a change in foreign policy. Vote to re-establish the great times lived under Bill Clinton.

The war of focus should be the one being fought in Afghanistan. Let's eradicate the opium production that generates funding for the Taliban and the affiliated terrorists. Let's eradicate Al-Qaeda. No more illegal war in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm

France has helped and sacrificed lives in the war in Afghanistan, but when they rejected to comply with the war in Iraq, those on the right called for boycotts against their products. The French were being called weak and submissive because of their disapproval of the Iraqi war.

Of course we now know that the Iraqi war was a front for neo-imperialism to control the oil resources, and to instate military bases.

Don't let this continue. Vote for a change in foreign policy. Vote to re-establish the great times lived under Bill Clinton.

The war of focus should be the one being fought in Afghanistan. Let's eradicate the opium production that generates funding for the Taliban and the affiliated terrorists. Let's eradicate Al-Qaeda. No more illegal war in Iraq.

You need to be a little more honest with yourself. The reason the French disapproved of moving on Iraq was because they were neck deep in the "Oil for Food" scandal, sending billions to Saddam for oil under the table.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm

France has helped and sacrificed lives in the war in Afghanistan, but when they rejected to comply with the war in Iraq, those on the right called for boycotts against their products. The French were being called weak and submissive because of their disapproval of the Iraqi war.

Of course we now know that the Iraqi war was a front for neo-imperialism to control the oil resources, and to instate military bases.

Don't let this continue. Vote for a change in foreign policy. Vote to re-establish the great times lived under Bill Clinton.

The war of focus should be the one being fought in Afghanistan. Let's eradicate the opium production that generates funding for the Taliban and the affiliated terrorists. Let's eradicate Al-Qaeda. No more illegal war in Iraq.

Talk about distorting facts, France was given **** under Jacques Chirac, because as he was fighting the U.S. in the U.N. he was also taking, for all intents and purposes payoffs from Iraq and Saddam to do so. They were involved in shady and enemy like behavior for years. They deserved and earned every bit of scorn that they received. This behavior and our relationship under Sarkozy has improved immeasurably, and attitudes and opinions here have reflected that change....nice spin though <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to be a little more honest with yourself. The reason the French disapproved of moving on Iraq was because they were neck deep in the "Oil for Food" scandal, sending billions to Saddam for oil under the table.

Of course somebody would bring that up. Sure they were involved in the UN scandal, but they didn't disapprove of the war because of it. Sure they made money from it, but if they believed the accusations against Saddam were true, they would have complied. It's not like the scandal wouldn't go public anyway.

There was international intelligence at the time that contradicted the claims by Bush, and apparently now we know that Bush himself ordered the fabrication/falsification of documents to make his case for the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please. the "boycott france" thing was embarassingly stupid. so what if they were giving $ to saddam for oil? we're giving money to worse people RIGHT NOW for oil. and as the past 5 years have shown, saddam was no where near the threat we were told (even with all the chemical weapons and arms WE sold him in the 80s).

the US and france have both traded with Iraq when it suited their interests. we gave Iraq bombs and guns and chemical weapons to slaughter Iran, and france gave them money so saddam could build another couple palaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course somebody would bring that up. Sure they were involved in the UN scandal, but they didn't disapprove of the war because of it. Sure they made money from it, but if they believed the accusations against Saddam were true, they would have complied. It's not like the scandal wouldn't go public anyway.

There was international intelligence at the time that contradicted the claims by Bush, and apparently now we know that Bush himself ordered the fabrication/falsification of documents to make his case for the war.

You seem to get your history books from Nancy Pelosi's personal library. Please post the evidence you have that Bush himself fabricated the info on Iraq.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm

France has helped and sacrificed lives in the war in Afghanistan, but when they rejected to comply with the war in Iraq, those on the right called for boycotts against their products. The French were being called weak and submissive because of their disapproval of the Iraqi war.

Of course we now know that the Iraqi war was a front for neo-imperialism to control the oil resources, and to instate military bases.

Don't let this continue. Vote for a change in foreign policy. Vote to re-establish the great times lived under Bill Clinton.

The war of focus should be the one being fought in Afghanistan. Let's eradicate the opium production that generates funding for the Taliban and the affiliated terrorists. Let's eradicate Al-Qaeda. No more illegal war in Iraq.

I would like to see proof of Limbaugh ever calling for a boycott on French products. I think that balloon-head O'Reilly might have, but Limbaugh does not waste his air time with such foolishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was international intelligence at the time that contradicted the claims by Bush, and apparently now we know that Bush himself ordered the fabrication/falsification of documents to make his case for the war.

Are you talking about the same intelligence that the entire US Congress had, before voting TWICE on Iraq? Is THAT the intelligence you say Bush "ordered the fabrication" of? You don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Again..... Show us the evidence behind that ridiculous statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see proof of Limbaugh ever calling for a boycott on French products. I think that balloon-head O'Reilly might have, but Limbaugh does not waste his air time with such foolishness.

its not foolishness to boycott america hating countries!!! that's why i'm eating freedom fries right now!! rush also gives great tips about the best cuban cigars!!! he's great!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to get your history books from Nancy Pelosi's personal library. Please post the evidence you have that Bush himself fabricated the info on Iraq.

I always find it funny how people can call the man "stupid" and then give him credit for supposed fabrications towards making war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolmfalcs3, you can't reason with the right. Bush could order for nuclear bombs to be dropped on London and Paris tomorrow and as surely as the sun will rise, jjooee, usa51and other rightwingers on the board would defend it.

Or....

He could post the evidence that links Bush to fabrication of evidence on weapons in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolmfalcs3, you can't reason with the right. Bush could order for nuclear bombs to be dropped on London and Paris tomorrow and as surely as the sun will rise, jjooee, usa51and other rightwingers on the board would defend it.

Of Course. That's totally the case. No doubt. Bush is just like Hitler, too, right?

:rolleyes: Kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolmfalcs3, you can't reason with the right. Bush could order for nuclear bombs to be dropped on London and Paris tomorrow and as surely as the sun will rise, jjooee, usa51and other rightwingers on the board would defend it.

Nah, I'd say He shoulda dropped bigger bombs.......lol :P :P :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to be a little more honest with yourself. The reason the French disapproved of moving on Iraq was because they were neck deep in the "Oil for Food" scandal, sending billions to Saddam for oil under the table.
That may be relevant for some members of their leadership, but it doens't explain why their populace would overwhelmingly disapprove of the Iraq invasion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or....

He could post the evidence that links Bush to fabrication of evidence on weapons in Iraq.

There are numerous accounts of the Administration sifting through evidence, discarding evidence and pressuring individuals to intepret evidence in a manner slanted to the invasion.

Really, how are we still even arguing that point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about the same intelligence that the entire US Congress had, before voting TWICE on Iraq? Is THAT the intelligence you say Bush "ordered the fabrication" of? You don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Again..... Show us the evidence behind that ridiculous statement.

no, i think he's talking about the unredacted and unedited version of the NIE that included intelligence stating Iraq was basically powerless, had given up on WMDs, and was in no way a direct threat to the US (you know, the one the US congress NEVER saw).

agree though, there is nothing at this point in time to suggest Bush himself had the contrary intel removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war of focus should be the one being fought in Afghanistan.

Especially since we have no idea what will happen in Pakistan. This so called war on terror is won and lost in Afganistan and whoever will be voted next president has to do everything to a.) destroy the Taliban and b.) catch Osama Bin Laden

Isn´t it sad that these are the same goals as in 2001?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a former Bush administration member who claimed he was told to spin the case for the Iraq war so that the US goes in. Bush was dead set on invading Iraq before 2003. It's all about neo-imperialism.

Also, read this interview.

Overlook the "Did you ever talk to Tenet?" comments because why would Tenet, Bush, or any of those involved admit to committing a criminal/unethical act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are numerous accounts of the Administration sifting through evidence, discarding evidence and pressuring individuals to intepret evidence in a manner slanted to the invasion.

Really, how are we still even arguing that point?

Unfortunately, almost all of it is hearsay. Not all of Congress read the 2002 NIE, but the Intelligence Committee did read it, along with other select Senate and House leaders.

I don't doubt that this war was for protection of our oil assets in the middle east, but to say the Bush Administration was a mastermind in duping Congress is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a former Bush administration member who claimed he was told to spin the case for the Iraq war so that the US goes in. Bush was dead set on invading Iraq before 2003. It's all about neo-imperialism.

Also, read this interview.

Overlook the "Did you ever talk to Tenet?" comments because why would Tenet, Bush, or any of those involved admit to committing a criminal/unethical act?

Spinning the war has been a policy in this country for decades. Spinning, and fabricating information are TOTALLY different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spinning the war has been a policy in this country for decades. Spinning, and fabricating information are TOTALLY different.

Spinning may involve leaving some information out. So spinning can take the form of falsification. As to the fabrication comment, that relates to the book allegations, that have seen to be credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, almost all of it is hearsay. Not all of Congress read the 2002 NIE, but the Intelligence Committee did read it, along with other select Senate and House leaders.

I don't doubt that this war was for protection of our oil assets in the middle east, but to say the Bush Administration was a mastermind in duping Congress is a joke.

It's hardly a joke.

I think that denying it when countless credible people have stated that it happened is willful ignorance. Believe what you want, but know that the evidence is against your belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...