- #1
FZ+
- 1,604
- 3
What are you opinions on this? Post to elaborate, if you wish...
I must say I am surprised and impressed to hear that. But it doesn't seem to fit with your other statements indicating you think conditions will get worse and worse in Iraq.Originally posted by Zero
The only thing worse than the invasion and occupation of Iraq would be to abandon them now.
Well, I think they will without a serious commitment from teh entire world...and that means Bush will have to stop divvying up Iraq amongst his campaign contributors, and allow the UN to participate fully in the rebuilding process.Originally posted by russ_watters
I must say I am surprised and impressed to hear that. But it doesn't seem to fit with your other statements indicating you think conditions will get worse and worse in Iraq.
Yep, France. They even built Saddam his own nuclear reactor,Originally posted by FZ+
And we all know who was responsible for the "let's give Saddam WMDs so he can declare war on Iran" situation. Or the Let's repeated lie to everyone situation.
Ha ! Ha! Ha! I would be ashamed to hold my ignoranceOriginally posted by kyleb
best i can recall, France never gave Saddam any WMDs; nore did they give him any support for his war on Iran at all. i think drag got himself so drunk that he is hallusnating.
You don't mind that the US provided Iraq with the chemical weapons they used against Iran and the Kurds?Originally posted by drag
Ha ! Ha! Ha! I would be ashamed to hold my ignorance
up to the people like that ! Who do you think built
their nuclear reactor, sipplied them with medium range
missiles also easily midfied for carrying anything
including chemical weapons. Do you have any idea whatsoever
on what you're talking about and the amount of money
and support the French invested in Iraq ?
Apparently not.
Live long and prosper.
Originally posted by drag
Ha ! Ha! Ha! I would be ashamed to hold my ignorance
up to the people like that ! Who do you think built
their nuclear reactor, sipplied them with medium range
missiles also easily midfied for carrying anything
including chemical weapons. Do you have any idea whatsoever
on what you're talking about and the amount of money
and support the French invested in Iraq ?
Apparently not.
Live long and prosper.
The first vote for "other" because I would have liked to see them follow the pathway that was sought, by some, from the "beginning of the end" of the War, which is to replace the troops with police, and police training forces.
A nuclear reactor is a manufacturing plant for nuclear weapons. Back in the early 80's when the Iraqi program was doing better, their French reactor was at the center of their effors. Which is why of course, the Israelis decided Iraq shouldn't have a French reactor...Originally posted by kyleb
a nuclear reactor is not a wmd, and neither are medium range missies.
The Exocet is a French cruise missile. You know, the one the Iraqis used to punch a couple of holes in the USS Stark.Oh yeah... which French missiles?
A nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor, russ. I thought you knew better than that. It CAN be used to make nuclears weapons, and the Israelis only acted when they became aware it was being used for such a purpose. For that suggestion to make any sense, there needs to be evidence that the French intended the Iraqis develop nukes. Which is woefully lacking.A nuclear reactor is a manufacturing plant for nuclear weapons.
Not intended, just looked the other way when they did it and sold them the tools when they should have known how they would be used. So you can either argue they were too stupid to know or they just didn't care what the Iraqis did with their reactor. The French were willfully ignorant of Iraq's intent. They sold/are trying to sell reactors to North Korea as well. They just don't care.Originally posted by FZ+
A nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor, russ... For that suggestion to make any sense, there needs to be evidence that the French intended the Iraqis develop nukes. Which is woefully lacking.
Humm, Canada, through the Office of Canadian Prime Minster, offered to send over some of the very well trained Candians, who do exactly that, assist in training THEIR police forces, and assist in POLICING till their police can run things.Originally posted by Jeebus
I can only say one thing to this and Jon Stewart put it the best when he was arbitrary saying, "Does everything Bush touch turn to crap?" And indirectly stating, "I'd like to see troops being replaced by police" in itself is rather ambiguous because the only police that would come would be American police, even though you say own police; it likely wouldn't happen because the population of (Moral / Unjust) = is a rather large percentage. Even though many don't follow Saddam's radical Machiavellian methods -- doesn't mean that their police would take over the rebellious Saddam followers.
Nope it ain't, but it can be used to deliver a very dirty little Bomb!Originally posted by russ_watters
An F-14 is not a nuclear weapon.
As can any other plane including the French Mirage F-1 that they used to fly. There is only one delivery system that is at all "special" and that's the ballistic missile. Besides that, the weapon itself is the key - and the factory that makes the fuel is pretty important there.Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Nope it ain't, but it can be used to deliver a very dirty little Bomb!
Agreed, but then again, so can a remote control model airplane, fly in something, lightweight, that is damaging. That and, apparently, (I've no experiance, or real knowledge) spent nuclear fuel(s) is/are available on the black market, for a price. It's a global responcibility, on the parts of, basically all of, the developed nations.Originally posted by russ_watters
As can any other plane including the French Mirage F-1 that they used to fly. There is only one delivery system that is at all "special" and that's the ballistic missile. Besides that, the weapon itself is the key - and the factory that makes the fuel is pretty important there.
You are completely right, but this is completely irrelevant to the WMD implications of selling an F-14 vs a nuclear reactor, which was what we were discussing.Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Agreed, but then again, so can a remote control model airplane, fly in something, lightweight, that is damaging. That and, apparently, (I've no experiance, or real knowledge) spent nuclear fuel(s) is/are available on the black market, for a price. It's a global responcibility, on the parts of, basically all of, the developed nations.
True, but as you would be aware, it can travel well, this discourse, as in the sale of precursors to Iraq, as WMD's, and then the, well, whatever, parts of this are not, to me, a good "Net Discussion", the "how's to" parts.Originally posted by russ_watters
You are completely right, but this is completely irrelevant to the WMD implications of selling an F-14 vs a nuclear reactor, which was what we were discussing.
O.K. so what is the best, or preffered, or fastest way.manner of getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, while still ensuring peace, and eventual civil order?Originally posted by Zero
Let's get this back on track...
Gerald Bull, he was a Canadian. (not really a proud moment for Canadians...? Might I suggest??)Originally posted by FZ+
(SNIP) UK scientists were being commissioned by Saddam for work on the "Iraqi Supergun". Co-incidentally, the man in charge of the project was later assassinated by Mossad. (SNoP)
By they, do you mean Canadians?? cause No, not all Canadians can speak French.Originally posted by FZ+
I guess they speak French, so it's close enough, eh?
The topic has been rambling, its just that you were arguing against something that wasn't my point. There was no disagreement on that point - nothing to argue.Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And here I was thinking it was a discussion on getting the American troops, back home, silly moi, as I had been trying to get back to that track...
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty went into force in 1970 and non-proliferation has been a big issue ever since. The reactor the French built was PART of the weapons research program - I think it was even still under construction when it was bombed. There was no precognition needed - just blinders and an open wallet.France built the nuclear reactor in Iraq in the late 1970s. That was BEFORE the Iran-Iraq war...The France unfortunately did not have precognition.
Marshall Plan style, heavy-handed, iron fist rule during the transition and a clear, controlled transfer of power when they are ready.Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
O.K. so what is the best, or preffered, or fastest way.manner of getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, while still ensuring peace, and eventual civil order?
Could it be that this is exactly why Saddam Hussien ran the place with an iron fist?!? Maybe he wasn't so crazy after all!(No one with any sense ever thought he was mad, really)Originally posted by russ_watters
Anyway... Marshall Plan style, heavy-handed, iron fist rule during the transition and a clear, controlled transfer of power when they are ready.
The problem right now is people are afraid of applying the necessary force because Americans have become queasy about such things since WWII as a result (largely) of the debacle in Vietnam.