If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Axis of Weasel...Continental Cowards.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Headlines about Germany and France from the NY Post. They blasted the heck out of these two countries in a great article and editorial. It's online.
They mentioned how much money France has made off of the oil for medicines program in Iraq. They could have gone into all of the equpment they sold them they knew could be used for making nuclear weapons.
They also brought up how Germany was the birthplace of Nazism and France its willing lacky.
The editorial ended in saying France shouldn't even be on the security council because it's not big enough...it's a faded, nasty, former world power.
And it also talked about nailing these two economically.
Screw these deadbeat cowards.
When you look at the globe, you can see the UK stands apart from Europe. When you look closer, you can see why.
They mentioned how much money France has made off of the oil for medicines program in Iraq. They could have gone into all of the equpment they sold them they knew could be used for making nuclear weapons.
They also brought up how Germany was the birthplace of Nazism and France its willing lacky.
The editorial ended in saying France shouldn't even be on the security council because it's not big enough...it's a faded, nasty, former world power.
And it also talked about nailing these two economically.
Screw these deadbeat cowards.
When you look at the globe, you can see the UK stands apart from Europe. When you look closer, you can see why.
0
Comments
I can understand France's reluctance to fight, having not won a war for about 600 years, Germany I'm not sure about.
Even still, it's good that France and Germany don't want interventionist foreign policies.
Historically, most wars in Europe have been fought involving those two countries. There is more of a collective political will to negotiate, particularly via the EU, which was a French/German brainchild in infancy. There is also less of a tendency to commit forces, both in support of NATO or UN policies.
To say they are cowards is childish and naive.
The UK stands apart from Europe as a misfortune of global tectonics. I daresay that were we to be territorially integrated, we would play more of a role within EU politics. As it is, we don't, and the EU is dominated by French and German decision makers.
To blindly follow the US line without question is foolish, but on this issue, I think we must act. I would not be happy to see us do so without UN support, but that is not for me to decide, is it?
Weasels = yes
i CAN believe your fucking arrogance and cheek pissinthepot becuase you are a brainwashed american kid.
you realy believe that when america and it's god shout jump, we should all fucking jump. even if we do not believe in what your asking us to jump for. i am decided. when america topples, which it is on the road to, the world WILL be a better place. do americans realy believe that god is on thier side? that america own the world?
But what the people in my government and business people are saying is we do expect our "friends" to stand with us because we especially and the West are being attacked.
I burst out laughing at the NY Post online today. It was great and love that somebody said it.
I think you need to change your source of news pnj. Judging by the articles and editorials you regularly post here from the NY Post you've got yourself a pretty lousy rag.
A comment as moronic, pointless and insulting as they come.
Funny they mention it. I believe the right of veto should be scrapped altogether, and those 5 countries that have permanent membership to the Security Council have it removed. But the 5 permanent places were allocated on the basis of nuclear capability, and like it or no France is nuclear. Former world power? Who isn't apart from the US? Nasty? Not nearly as much as the USA (that's international behaviour and government's policy, not the people or country itself). The words pot, kettle and black do indeed spring to mind.
What a fucking racist load of bollocks!
They don't go nearly as far as they should, but if anything they are showing more balls than the rest of the international community, who despite being against a war keep quiet in fear of upsetting the Oh So Great and Mighty USA.
Because Tony Blair, and most PMs before him are a bunch of spineless puppets only to happy do exactly as told by the USA because they believe we have some sort of "special relationship" (of the dominatrix-slave type)? Whereas the rest of Europe actually manages to disagree with America from time to time. Is that the difference you see?
No I see in the UK an country the US can trust and stand for something especially when radical Muslims are out to destroy us. But then, leftist Europe gets off on that.
The UN is irrelevant and often just screws things up.
Saw Spain picked up more Al Qaeda garbage today. Liked that. Wonder why leftish Europe thinks it can get over on Al Qaeda by sucking them off?
No matter how many times you do it, you're not going to convince anyone that Iraq is somehow linked to Al Qeida unless somebody actually comes with proof.
And like you just said, WE in EUROPE are doing something about the Al Qeida threat... as opposed to Mr Bush who is playing war games elsewhere.
The only one who has been sucking off Al Qeida (and paying them millions of dollars for the privilage) is the CIA. Did you get your money back by the way?
Also, he's paying for suicide bombers against Isreal which is making Isreal turn totally to the right, Sharon, which is getting in the way of a peaceful Palestinian state which the lack of Al Qaeda uses to recruit.
In other words: it's good for Al Qaeda when there's war in Palestine.
Do we want to take the chance that he's not passing on chemicals and bioterrorism weapons to Al Qaeda...no.
Also, the guy picked up in London as part of that group was in Bagdad. Is that a hot vacation spot?
You seem to like accusing people of racism. Mind explaining how discussions of Germans and French are racist?
Funny. I haven't seen any Europeans in Indonesia or the Phillipines.
Could be racism, perhaps could be called xenophobia instead... The mention in the article that Germany, a country that happens to be opposing US foreign policy, was the birthplace of Nazism shows disgusting contempt, deep ignorance and hatred. France, another country opposed to US policy, was in the meantime Nazi Germany's "willing lacky" and we're told today they're a bunch of have-been nasties.
Well the above qualifies as at last deep ignorant bigotry, and in my opinion racism (although perhaps it should be xenophobia).
As for me "seeming to like" accusing people of racism, I presume you refer to my recent comments about Dinky calling the entire Palestinian people "an evil bunch of shits". Well, I would have thought such statement qualified as racism but I really don't want to get into that again.
So, what "race" are the French? The Germans? The Palestinians? How about the Israelis?
Racism is based on race. When you support a group of a race and are against another group of the same race, that doesn't fit as racism.
Quite why a country is a coward for not supporting something it doesnt feel is in its national interest is beyond me. Is it because America said so? If they feel it is within their interest to do business with Iraq, then why should they not? (Even if I am very dubious as to whether or not France and Russia have actually done much.)
If France was so willing to be Nazi, why it did declare war on Hitler? Why was there a huge resistance movement which did a lot to enable the Allies to win the war.
Essentially all this boils down to the fact that some rather influential countries have dared to go against what the Almighty God Bush has decreed from on high. They see it as it is, that a war against Iraq is untenable and without a mandate, its a shame that the NYP is not looking at the news without bias but, instead, from a sizeable distance inside Bushs anus. Theyre nearly as far up his arse as Tony B.Liar, who is currently cleaning Bushs tonsils from a southerly direction.
Its the mentality of the Kosacks, the Tartars, the Monguls, or your own particular favorite historic marauders that rules the day, and the attitude as clearly displayed by some here (and the right wing nutcases they so vehemently support) that "if you arent prepared to support our raping, plundering, and pillaging of the world for control of everything, then your a coward!".
Wonder how such people can ever hope for a better world for their children.
How dare you say that. You know we are only allowed to discuss US duplicity over Iraq.
Certainly we aren't allowed to mention that Iraqi tanks are Russian made, nor that the [remaining] planes in their airfarce (not a typo) are MiGs and we all know where they are manufactured and we certainly shouldn't mention that a certain ex-communist state had military advisors based in Iraq during the First Gulf War.
Whilst not mentioning any of this, we also shouldn't mention France's good relations with Iraq which have also included arms sales. That the sales directly led to the tactics in the First Gulf War being changed is naturally a myth. That the French Govt refused to allow their troops to attacks Iraqis, in case they themselves were killed by arms sold in France is purely a side issue. And of course Gen. H. Norman didn't then put the French troops onto the left flank allowing them to march into Iraq (thus allowing France to claim a stake as "allies") but meant that they would only be involved in combat if first fired upon by Iraqis.
So having not mentioned any of this, I wouldn't then ask if this historical friendship with Iraq may be a driver for the resistance of these two permanent members of the Security Council to vote for war.
Remember, PNJ if you support war you must a deluded fool who believes everything you are told. Certainly you couldn't have come to a conclusion yourself based on all information available.
Whereas if you believe every conspiracy story out there you can reach an anti-war stance of your own free will and you couldn't have been subject to an equally selective propaganda campaign.
as for everyone mentioning the Iran situation, that was 22 fucking years ago. Political situations change, and at the time Saddam wasn't going round threatening to kill us off with nukes and germs.
In 1942 we were best buddies with Russia and hated Germany. By 1946 it was the other way round, I bet if we were to declare war on russia now, I have no doubt that some pedantic shit would bring that point up.
The world changes, and I don't see any valid reason for bringing up our policies in the 80's. THINGS HAVE CHANGED, live with it and deal with the fact that Saddam Hussein is a threat instead of concentrating on how we sold him very few weapons 22 years ago.
Instead try and remember that it is Russian scientists who and personnel who have provided him with tanks, jets and nuclear materials while we supplied rifles and bullets.
Yes, you have made it clear that war isn't the answer, will you be saying the same thing in 2 years time when you are dying of some sort of plague that Saddam unleashes?
yes, foreign policy needs to be changed, until then we have to try and clear up some of the mess, if we don't we'll be on the recieving end very shortly. Better to try and stop it from happening before it does, rather than trying to pick up our civilisations after.
The ones who are being duplicitous is the US Gov, not the Russians, not the French. Neither of the latter have been the ones truncating history to eliminate any contextual associations with the crimes they are using to demand invasion for regime change. That is what being duplicitous refers to my friend.
Nowhere in international law is there provision for foreign nations to take it upon themselves to invade other states (an issue of "sovereignty" which you have made plenty of ones about over the EU and the UK, if you recall) and decide for them who their government will be. The US with Tony at the tail are doing just that, despite the duplicitous fact that both the US and UK armed him and encouraged, dare I say even mandated him to use the weapons provided to bash Iran as best he was able.
No condemnation of any atrocities committed under the aegis of those oh so legitimate military ties at the time, but 20 odd years later all these archived atrocities are broadcast into the minds of the public (who would be hard pressed to even tell you where Iraq is let alone be threatened by it until little over a year ago) as if they happened only months ago, and that suddenly after more than a decade of virtual isolation, he is portrayed as more dangerous and less containable than Stalinist or more so Kruschev's USSR. Im surprised you cant see the hypocrisy and irony inherent in such blatant war propaganda. Especially since the media has not equally condemned let alone even raise the issue of our own nations' complicity in said crimes (which could considerably impact public perception of what the real issues at work here are).
No my friend, France and Russia might be worthy of criticism for bad business decisions and poor investment risk assessment in the current global environment, but they have not been "duplicitous" over Iraq or the WoT in their rhetoric or actions.
If you truly sanction this type of unilateral invasion policy without concrete proof of a viable imminent threat being shown then reason dictates that henceforth any nation may, if it wishes, invade and overthrow another country to suit its vested economic interests if it can cook up enough dirt on its target to fill the papers with. That my friend is the slippery slope that leads to the utter end to all the efforts of the post war era to establish multilateral frameworks for peace conflict resolution. In effect, the rebirth of the Age of Imperialism.
Whowhere> times may have changed but times also repeat themselves and what we are seeing is a resurgence of right wing big business lead rogue militarism which my country has allowed numerous governnments to conduct under the delusion that it was to protect our way of life or more insultingly, our freedom and democracy - only to find out that the war protestors were right all along (certainly the case with the Vietnam War).
Its not enough to say, sure we supported Stalin and then turned on the Soviet Union, etc. The duplicity is that we are demanding war on the basis of crimes which we ourselves facilitated and encouraged against a nation which cannot even remotely be compared to the threat previously posed by the once great super power you referred to. Facts our leaders and our media conveniently leave out.
Saddam is no threat to the West (nor as you claimed above has he made any threats to attack Western nations with WMD's (that's our leaders who have made that claim)), certainly not a threat portrayed as more frightening and uncontrollable than that which we faced for over 40 years in the Cold War era (and which we effectively contained).
Heck, its gotten to the point where Bush and Blair are getting so itchy to start the fireworks that I am calculating some major incident or incidents will be staged (and this time blamed on Saddam or the fictional Saddam/Al Qaeda connection) to traumatise our Western societies once again if the UN does not agree to justification for invasion. It worked once for the pre-planned war against Afghanistan and itll be just as convincing a second time from the looks of how readily people have come to believe in the awesome danger posed by a tin pot despot of an already utterly demolished nation.
I believe that the reason neither France or Russia will accept the need for war on Iraq is their previous - unmentioned - relationships with Iraq. I don't recall either country delcaring their personal interests with Iraq before voiviung their opposition to war.
I have never heard either country say "Actually we are friends, so we won't support war". No, infact both countries will claim that they don't support it based on a lack of reason for war.
Whereas the US are willing to turn their back on a former ally in light of WMD etc, both of these countries still wish to remain friends with him.
I believe that you vitriol is actually aimed in the wrong direction. Whilst you rightly condemn the US for once propping up this corrupt regime, you are quiet when it comes to the countries which still support him. Alebit quietly supporting him.
Fact is that both of these countries are unlikely to support war against a country with whom they are allies. Regrdless of the evidence against him, just as they we loathed to act against him in 1991 when the evidence of his wrongdoing was more than obvious. Hell even they couln't claim that he hadn't actually invaded Q8.
Just like Russia refused to support action against Serbia and the French provide intelligence information to Serbian war criminals allowing them to avoid justice.
Stil, like I said, we can only discuss US wrong doing. Can't we? Just like you did in response to my earlier point.
I feel very passionate about the rebirth of political abuses in my country which my compatriots should be recalling with alarming clarity but which they are apparently willing to allow to gather momentum once again and for which their will undoubtedly be severe shame to accept when the dust settles and the scope of ruined lives both domestic and foreign in the name of corrupt private interests and political manipulation are tallied once again.
And breathe...
You know, punctuation might not go amiss there, ol'buddy
Nah, no worries, I'm just pulling your leg. It does make sense really....
No comment on the duplicity I point out, and more comments about the US. Not that you show any bias or anything...
Yes, I accept that the US has show duplicity, thing is there is a lrage number of countries at whom that accusation can be levelled. You just chose one.
I still maintain that regardless of evidence presented, I will be shocked if you hear French of Russians publically backing war. So you cannot take their words anymore than the US.
Perhaps, in the sense of impartiallity and truth seeking that you claim, you could look at those who would present evidence objecting to the war as much as you do on those arguing for. Either side can be dangerous. The agressors for acting without reason, the pacifists for not acting when we should...