Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#26 2003-03-14 9:03 am
- Farmerkev
- Official Dementor
- Moderator
- Registered: 2003-01-03
- Posts: 16835
Re: Dead GIs to snub France from beyond the grave
SS, if it had only been say the French opposing and all the rest of the countries supporting, do you think the anti-war movement would be what it is now or a fraction of what we've seen?
Just my opinion but I doubt seriously that what we see now would have happened. It would have probably been overwith by now and we'd be arguing about which faction leader we thought would come out on top.
Never argue with an idiot.
They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Online
#27 2003-03-14 9:52 am
- Onthebeach
- Member
- Registered: 2001-05-27
- Posts: 2030
Re: Dead GIs to snub France from beyond the grave
SS, if it had only been say the French opposing and all the rest of the countries supporting, do you think the anti-war movement would be what it is now or a fraction of what we've seen?
Just my opinion but I doubt seriously that what we see now would have happened. It would have probably been overwith by now and we'd be arguing about which faction leader we thought would come out on top.
I don't think France would have acted the way it has if it was alone. It has only been able to be so strongly against the US/UK position because it had Germany, Russia and China right beside it. If alone in its opposition to the war France's objections would have been much quieter and those differences would have been settled behind closed doors.
If any ask us why we died,
Tell them 'Because our fathers lied'.
Kipling
Offline
#28 2003-03-14 10:24 am
- ShnickyShnack
- Commander of Insurgent Cell "Dreamboat"
- From: Amidst a superiority complex
- Registered: 2001-05-25
- Posts: 40862
Re: Dead GIs to snub France from beyond the grave
SS, if it had only been say the French opposing and all the rest of the countries supporting, do you think the anti-war movement would be what it is now or a fraction of what we've seen?
Just my opinion but I doubt seriously that what we see now would have happened. It would have probably been overwith by now and we'd be arguing about which faction leader we thought would come out on top.
If ifs and ands ...
World opinion is heavily opposed to the war. In many countries it's well over 90% opposed. There's no getting around that.
I think what's happening in the Security Council is what would have happened in the US if there had been a serious debate about the issue. The Bush camp has tripped and bungled their way through it, so that while once there might have been grudging support, there's now practically zero support.
He should never have said Iraq had run out of time, as that basically turned the Security Council into a rubber stamp for something Bush had already decided to do. Most of all, at no time should anyone in washington have let the words regime change escape their lips, because that's not covered by any UN resolution, and in fact stands in opposition to everything the UN is supposed to stand for.
Finally, I think the French threat of a veto was a bluff. But by saying it, they let opponents to the war within the security council tell the Americans, "well, it's gonna be vetoed anyway, so we might as well vote the way our people want us to."
Lemme tell ya, the French have very little standing in the world. Everyone knows they're totally self-serving. That just makes it all the more disgraceful that they were able to outfox the US.
"If you would like a serious response, please ask serious, non loaded/leading questions" -- Steyr
Offline
