Nissan is 40%+ owned by the French!
03-19-2003, 08:36 AM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pluto
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure there are alot of things that are manufactured in countries we do not like for their views or otherwise, however lets be greedy here. Bottom line, I would rather do the bombing than be bombed. There are lots of other countries, folks and groups who are not too happy with the U.S. and would not shed a tear if the entire North American continent disappeared into liquid hot magma. However, I would rather see this image in Iraq, Iran or North Korea rather than in NY or D.C.
03-19-2003, 09:01 AM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by msZ
Good point. Has the U.S. vetoed anything though? The fact that there is 5 permanent members is probably helping it too.
We should move this debate to a different forum or to a pm.
Good point. Has the U.S. vetoed anything though? The fact that there is 5 permanent members is probably helping it too.
We should move this debate to a different forum or to a pm.
There have been somewhere in the vicinity of 250 vetoes cast of which the USA has cast around 75 and Russia has cast roughly 120. Although I follow them, I do not really follow the actual numbers and thus my count is based on internet sources that vary in age
Pretty much leaving what 60 or so for the other 3 countries in the security council?
Since 1990 the USA has cast the most vetoes in the UN.
The last time the USA cast a veto was 3 months ago to defend Israel against a rebuke for a war crime ... the killing of a UN peacekeeper and the destruction of a UN warehouse containing food for the Palestine people.
Over 1/3 of the vetoes the USA has cast in the UN were to defend Israel against UN resolutions denouncing Israel for war crimes.
The last time France cast a veto was in 1976 to protect a colony that was asking for independance.
Regards,
Kevin
03-19-2003, 09:03 AM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget that Saddam was given 45 days to disarm....in 1991!!!....He has ridiculed and deceived the UN for over a decade....He went into Kuwait and took it over (a peaceful nation) just because HE FELT LIKE IT....this is no altar boy.....this is not a nice guy minding his own business somewhere......do you hear the muslim community standing up against this action?....no...why is that?......because he has slaughtered more muslims than anyone.....and if the french are so anti-war, why are they selling him helicopter parts and other war related items?
03-19-2003, 09:04 AM
#24
Re: oh boy! A political debate!!!
Originally posted by mcduck
First off, I am not picking on Ares... his was just the easiest quote to lift, but I want to address some of the more common themes running in this thread.
My preference would be that war would not be a necessity in any circumstance. That said, I agree with what some others have pointed out... we've tried for months... nay... years to work through the UN. Here lately, France has given the "we'll veto any resolution" stance to this situation.
If you and a group of friends (save one) agreed to drive to the beach and there was a big debate on how best to get there, would you not go because one person said "I don't care which way is decided upon, I'll vote to cancel trip no matter what!" Okay.. stupid analogy, but the point is... at some point, you have to take matters into your own hands and hope you have considered all consequences and that your are doing what's best.
I feel those in power are doing just that... they are, in my opinion, doing it poorly. They could have handled many diplomatic roadblocks better, but they are taking the course they feel is necessary. (for one, I think there should have been clearer disclosure of evidence indicating the necessity for an invasion)
If Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction or if weapons of mass destruction are found after a conflict, then I feel everyone will breathe a collective sigh of relief and say, "it was best that something was done". If nothing is found, the administration in power now will have lots of questions to answer.
Regardless, I will support and pray for our troops no matter what and will support our governments decisions if there is proper justification. May not like the decisions, but I will support them.
As for the French and Germans... they are being very self-centered about this. A lot of protestors claim the US is doing this because of oil. Those that are should check and see where the US gets most of its oil and where most of the Iraqi oil actually goes.
You can probably guess where I'm going with this... yep, the US gets very little of its oil from Iraq. On the other hand, France and Germany get a GREAT deal of their oil from Iraq. In particular, France gets something like 40% of their oil from there through exclusive contracts with several Iraqi oil companies. Guess what... these contracts are null and void if there is a change of regimes. That's the real reason the French are on their veto high horse.
Seems they don't have very good memories. If they did, they'd recall the reason they are even able to need gas these days is thanks, in large part, to the US. Below are the 10,943 reasons France should be supporting us...
(for those not familiar... the picture is the Normandy cementary where US soldiers who died during D-Day are buried...)
First off, I am not picking on Ares... his was just the easiest quote to lift, but I want to address some of the more common themes running in this thread.
My preference would be that war would not be a necessity in any circumstance. That said, I agree with what some others have pointed out... we've tried for months... nay... years to work through the UN. Here lately, France has given the "we'll veto any resolution" stance to this situation.
If you and a group of friends (save one) agreed to drive to the beach and there was a big debate on how best to get there, would you not go because one person said "I don't care which way is decided upon, I'll vote to cancel trip no matter what!" Okay.. stupid analogy, but the point is... at some point, you have to take matters into your own hands and hope you have considered all consequences and that your are doing what's best.
I feel those in power are doing just that... they are, in my opinion, doing it poorly. They could have handled many diplomatic roadblocks better, but they are taking the course they feel is necessary. (for one, I think there should have been clearer disclosure of evidence indicating the necessity for an invasion)
If Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction or if weapons of mass destruction are found after a conflict, then I feel everyone will breathe a collective sigh of relief and say, "it was best that something was done". If nothing is found, the administration in power now will have lots of questions to answer.
Regardless, I will support and pray for our troops no matter what and will support our governments decisions if there is proper justification. May not like the decisions, but I will support them.
As for the French and Germans... they are being very self-centered about this. A lot of protestors claim the US is doing this because of oil. Those that are should check and see where the US gets most of its oil and where most of the Iraqi oil actually goes.
You can probably guess where I'm going with this... yep, the US gets very little of its oil from Iraq. On the other hand, France and Germany get a GREAT deal of their oil from Iraq. In particular, France gets something like 40% of their oil from there through exclusive contracts with several Iraqi oil companies. Guess what... these contracts are null and void if there is a change of regimes. That's the real reason the French are on their veto high horse.
Seems they don't have very good memories. If they did, they'd recall the reason they are even able to need gas these days is thanks, in large part, to the US. Below are the 10,943 reasons France should be supporting us...
(for those not familiar... the picture is the Normandy cementary where US soldiers who died during D-Day are buried...)
as for your analogy, it does change a bit when your going on the trip, except your taking a bus, with 50 people, on says hell no, we wont go, and 46 say, no we dont really want to go, but we'll atleast get on the bus as long as it doesnt go anywhere. then the last 3, one of which is the bus driver, and another of which has no arms or legs to even enjoy the trip(thatd be england, from what Ive read, the public wants no part in it) but the last 3 say, well we're going anyway, lets go.
if it was just france sitting there with their thumb up their ***, crying like a little baby, while EVERYONE else, or aleast a majority was for the war, well, then things need to be inpected, but no, its just the 3 countries. against the majority, and just because one of those 3 countries is america, we be going to war. what if we were against the war, and 3 little nothing countries started at it? we'd impose the biggest sanctions youve ever seen, cuba would look like free trade compared to what we'd impose.
just some things to consider. sadly 90% of the population doesnt realize this, doesnt care, they see big bad sadaam on tv and agree with whatever they tell em.
edit:not implying any one here is of this 90%, but you all know that they do exist, blissfully uninformed.
Last edited by ares; 03-19-2003 at 09:14 AM.
03-19-2003, 09:04 AM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DBZ
I'm sure there are alot of things that are manufactured in countries we do not like for their views or otherwise, however lets be greedy here. Bottom line, I would rather do the bombing than be bombed. There are lots of other countries, folks and groups who are not too happy with the U.S. and would not shed a tear if the entire North American continent disappeared into liquid hot magma. However, I would rather see this image in Iraq, Iran or North Korea rather than in NY or D.C.
I'm sure there are alot of things that are manufactured in countries we do not like for their views or otherwise, however lets be greedy here. Bottom line, I would rather do the bombing than be bombed. There are lots of other countries, folks and groups who are not too happy with the U.S. and would not shed a tear if the entire North American continent disappeared into liquid hot magma. However, I would rather see this image in Iraq, Iran or North Korea rather than in NY or D.C.
I imagine we would get some tears ... of course we could not cry for you since we would be in liquid hot magma
Regards,
Kevin
03-19-2003, 09:30 AM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pluto
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kakey
Hey, Canada still has one of the best reps in world politics thank you very much ... please keep in mind you are not the only folks on this continent
I imagine we would get some tears ... of course we could not cry for you since we would be in liquid hot magma
Regards,
Kevin
Hey, Canada still has one of the best reps in world politics thank you very much ... please keep in mind you are not the only folks on this continent
I imagine we would get some tears ... of course we could not cry for you since we would be in liquid hot magma
Regards,
Kevin
Canada and Mexico would be the hapless victims if the U.S. did turn into liquid hot magma. It's like you guys were standing too close to the bus when the bomb went off and ended up dead as well. More reason to Bomb first.
03-19-2003, 11:31 AM
#27
Registered User
Ares... I am glad you are on the 350Z forum... you seem are one that makes discussions here worthwhile, always offering thoughtful counterpoints and not just talking out your southbound end when facing north.
I am going to touch on a few of your points now... sorry, can't PM from work... the firewall prohibits...
I've wondered about this, too... but the only thing obvious is the "he tried to kill my daddy" theory which seems absurd. I'm sure there is something more to it than that. 
Yeah... I've also found this to be odd. Only logic I can see here is not wanting to open two can of worms at one time. Still, of the two, NK seems to be the bigger problem so why not deal with them first (hopefully by negotiation).
Hey... I did say it was a poor analogy... Was trying to come up with something quick...
I think in 90% of the cases, your reverse argument about 3 "little countries" starting this instead of the US is correct. I haven't read all the details today, but the news is touting a "30 country" coalition. I've only heard strong commitments of 5 (US, UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia). Not saying your wrong, but how does your statement of 3 compare to the 30? Or are you just referring to Security Council nations?
Last point for me then back to work. I've thought about this often over the years. I don't think Saddam is a boyscout by any means (I mean, he invaded Kuwait because he could, right?)... but I also realize all I really know about his rule and regime is what the press has spouted over the past many years. No doubt, the press gets most... not all, but most... of its information based on government position toward Iraq. I've wondered if our image of his rule is distorted (and to what degree) because that's the way the government wants us to perceive him. For example, instead of seeing him a bad leader, we see him a tyrranical oppressor. Building this impression over time certainly would go a long way to garnishing support for action against such a person/regime.
I am going to touch on a few of your points now... sorry, can't PM from work... the firewall prohibits...
but I also think america has some sort of stick up their *** about iraq as well
theres some reason the government is tripping overthemselves to attack iraq while NK is pissing in our face
as for your analogy,
Was trying to come up with something quick...
but no, its just the 3 countries
just some things to consider. sadly 90% of the population doesnt realize this, doesnt care, they see big bad sadaam on tv and agree with whatever they tell em.
03-19-2003, 03:53 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ares
I believe he was more reffering to the car having ties to france who is not backing america in the war.
this would pose a problem for me perhaps if I myself was not particularly keen on war. I dont feel it has been properly justified.
none the less, I live here, and I will support my country in whatever way nescessary. for those reasons I find myself right in the middle neither happy nor troubled by french ties to my beloved Z.
we ourselves are a democracy, I find it hipocritical to resent france for voicing their own opinion, however selfish their reasons may be. they have more of a right to be against us in the UN then we do completely ignoring them and 90% of the UN to attack on our own.
I believe he was more reffering to the car having ties to france who is not backing america in the war.
this would pose a problem for me perhaps if I myself was not particularly keen on war. I dont feel it has been properly justified.
none the less, I live here, and I will support my country in whatever way nescessary. for those reasons I find myself right in the middle neither happy nor troubled by french ties to my beloved Z.
we ourselves are a democracy, I find it hipocritical to resent france for voicing their own opinion, however selfish their reasons may be. they have more of a right to be against us in the UN then we do completely ignoring them and 90% of the UN to attack on our own.
03-19-2003, 04:35 PM
#31
well I will admit to listening to the news on the 3 country bit. I kept hearing about spain, britain, and US in the islands with there little meeting, you dont hear much about the other countries, but I kinda figured there were others, just dont hear them talked about much. didnt realize others were as large as they are, but Im not sure how militarily armed they are, cant say Ive heard about any army down under. but support is support even if it isnt in the form of soldiers and planes.
even so, I wonder how many are being bribed to our side... I mean turkeys getting like 15billion to let us use their airspace right? their not even sure yet if we can have ground use too.
I wonder if after this is said and done, america is in a war time economy, things may perk up with big government spending, just roll over the good times into korea. then my concern is china... puts them in a mighty big pickle. who do they stay loyal to? they have an interest in both sides of that fight...
even so, I wonder how many are being bribed to our side... I mean turkeys getting like 15billion to let us use their airspace right? their not even sure yet if we can have ground use too.
I wonder if after this is said and done, america is in a war time economy, things may perk up with big government spending, just roll over the good times into korea. then my concern is china... puts them in a mighty big pickle. who do they stay loyal to? they have an interest in both sides of that fight...
03-19-2003, 05:24 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: ATL
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are already authorized by the UN to use force. We were at war with Iraq in 1991. We did not sign a treaty to end the war. We signed a cease fire with the stipulation that Iraq would disarm. 12 years later they have not disarmed. This is a continuation of an already existing war. We are well within our rights to protect our people and finish what we started. This is not a war about OIL....OPEC controls oil prices, and we are not a member of OPEC. We will actually be adversely affected...look at the current gas prices.
Most countries in the UN have their own agenda, including the US. We are looking out for the US, but it happens to be what is best for peace as well. Sadam would just as soon keep attacking other countries, if no one would have stopped him. France has their financial agenda to look out for. They better watch out because making an enemy of the American people could have financial repercussions as well. And where does Germany get a large amount of its oil....You guessed it.
Iraq is a threat. They have THOUSANDS of pounds of Anthrax that is suddenly unaccounted for. They have not followed the rules the UN set forth....and so we are within our rights to remove Sadam's regimen from power and finish what we started 12 years Ago. Go USA
Most countries in the UN have their own agenda, including the US. We are looking out for the US, but it happens to be what is best for peace as well. Sadam would just as soon keep attacking other countries, if no one would have stopped him. France has their financial agenda to look out for. They better watch out because making an enemy of the American people could have financial repercussions as well. And where does Germany get a large amount of its oil....You guessed it.
Iraq is a threat. They have THOUSANDS of pounds of Anthrax that is suddenly unaccounted for. They have not followed the rules the UN set forth....and so we are within our rights to remove Sadam's regimen from power and finish what we started 12 years Ago. Go USA
03-19-2003, 05:26 PM
#33
Registered User
I mean turkeys getting like 15billion to let us use their airspace right?
They decline saying its not enough money. What?!?! Now we're paying $15 billion just to do fly overs?
I know there is a certain amount of tact to negotiating these things, but if a country is going to bribe us just to let us use their airspace, I say screw 'em. It's not like they can stop us from flying over. When they turned down the $10B, I would said, "hey, that's fine... we'll fly over and not give you a cent... how about that!" Guess that's why I'm not president. hehehe
03-19-2003, 07:17 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turkey is a member of NATO. Several weeks ago NATO refused to authorize the support which Turkey had asked in order to defend itself in the event of war.
Turkey is a very poor country, and their economy has been depressed for a long period of time. They have no ability to handle the influx of large numbers of refugees which will flood their border in the event of war. There also are long standing ethnic tensions. After Saddam is gone the Kurds in northern Iraq are expected to want to establish an independent country. Turkey has a large Kurdish population, and it’s not clear what effect an independent Kurdish state may have.
Turkey undoubtedly sees that it is in their best interest to have assurances of money to help rebuild the region and stabilize their government. This is diplomacy in action. Also a stable Turkey will be invaluable to us when we set about to rebuild the region.
Turkey is a very poor country, and their economy has been depressed for a long period of time. They have no ability to handle the influx of large numbers of refugees which will flood their border in the event of war. There also are long standing ethnic tensions. After Saddam is gone the Kurds in northern Iraq are expected to want to establish an independent country. Turkey has a large Kurdish population, and it’s not clear what effect an independent Kurdish state may have.
Turkey undoubtedly sees that it is in their best interest to have assurances of money to help rebuild the region and stabilize their government. This is diplomacy in action. Also a stable Turkey will be invaluable to us when we set about to rebuild the region.
03-19-2003, 08:20 PM
#35
unjustified, personal opinion ahead.
I believe a time of imperialism should be enacted once again. when we defeat a regimine, we should not set up a new one, most likely a puppet regime. but instead make it a territory. create our own council, set up laws, MAKE IT a free country. model it after the united states.
such a plan might not work, but atleast we're gaurenteed that the country wont turn on us again.
Im just tired of fighting wars and not actually accomplishing anything, solving one problem and creating another.
maybe the government of america wont work for them, but we are possibly the most stable country in the world, and if we cant stabilize a government and country, no one could. and of course, for our war time troubles, we could gain some strategic oil reserves...
I believe a time of imperialism should be enacted once again. when we defeat a regimine, we should not set up a new one, most likely a puppet regime. but instead make it a territory. create our own council, set up laws, MAKE IT a free country. model it after the united states.
such a plan might not work, but atleast we're gaurenteed that the country wont turn on us again.
Im just tired of fighting wars and not actually accomplishing anything, solving one problem and creating another.
maybe the government of america wont work for them, but we are possibly the most stable country in the world, and if we cant stabilize a government and country, no one could. and of course, for our war time troubles, we could gain some strategic oil reserves...
03-19-2003, 09:03 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are more than just a couple of countries more stable than the USA in the world ... you want to see a good example check out Switzerland.
The USA has set up several puppet governments in central america, not to mention to some degree Israel ... sadly they did poorly ... that and it had to be done in secrecy since you stand for freedom and all
Tried to set up a puppet government in Canada a long time back and we got the honor of being the only country to successfully invade the USA and burn down your whitehouse ... it was not as grandeous as it is now mind you
Imperialism does not work ... Britain, France and to some degree the USA have all proven that within the last 100 years ... it costs more money to enforce than is worth it.
Guerilla warefare is brutal stuff, just ask the British how well they are doing in Ireland.
Regards,
Kevin
The USA has set up several puppet governments in central america, not to mention to some degree Israel ... sadly they did poorly ... that and it had to be done in secrecy since you stand for freedom and all
Tried to set up a puppet government in Canada a long time back and we got the honor of being the only country to successfully invade the USA and burn down your whitehouse ... it was not as grandeous as it is now mind you
Imperialism does not work ... Britain, France and to some degree the USA have all proven that within the last 100 years ... it costs more money to enforce than is worth it.
Guerilla warefare is brutal stuff, just ask the British how well they are doing in Ireland.
Regards,
Kevin
Last edited by kakey; 03-19-2003 at 09:09 PM.
03-19-2003, 09:29 PM
#37
yes I know the imperial era is over, and it did not work, difficlult to control a area so far away. but we have succesfully maintained control of guam I believe it is, and another country that I cant remember now... why cant the same be done for iraq? not sure if those countries qualify as imperialism, but thats what Im talkin about...
03-20-2003, 04:50 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ares
yes I know the imperial era is over, and it did not work, difficlult to control a area so far away. but we have succesfully maintained control of guam I believe it is, and another country that I cant remember now... why cant the same be done for iraq? not sure if those countries qualify as imperialism, but thats what Im talkin about...
yes I know the imperial era is over, and it did not work, difficlult to control a area so far away. but we have succesfully maintained control of guam I believe it is, and another country that I cant remember now... why cant the same be done for iraq? not sure if those countries qualify as imperialism, but thats what Im talkin about...
They are an unincorporated American Territory. They have a limited self-government. We don't really "control" it. We have a big military base there. It is a staging area for many Pacific operations.
Guam is small. Their best natural resource is the atmosphere and beaches. Iraq is the size of California with a very precious resource.
We lost Guam in WW2. The Japanese took took it over. We kicked them out.
03-20-2003, 07:11 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AndyB
The US has used it's veto power more than any other nation.
The US has used it's veto power more than any other nation.
Regards,
Kevin