WN: Attack on Iran Said To Be Imminent - NY Sun

[JustinM]

Well, I am so glad France didn't vote in another socialist. I can't even remember his name, that's how influential he was. His legacy will always be the Paris riots. Didn't that go on for more than a month?

All democratic countries must vote in more moderates, it's the only way we can stop the spread of fanatical islam and encourage the spread Freedom. The number 1 obligation of a free nation, is to free nations.

The socialists in the U.S. need to learn that and accept it. If they can't appreciate our responsibilities to the world, perhaps they should move to a nation that doesn't have that obligation.

His name is Chirac and he comes from the same party as his successor, so another Conservative. As to his legacy the riots were a fairly mibnotr affair in isolated suburbs, so had little affect on the majority.

The more tangible legacy, well keeping France out of the quagmire of Iraq, standing up to an overbearing superpower, from a positive perspective and trouncin the fascist, Le Pen in the 2002 presidential runn off. On the negative side, staying for too long, and all the corruption up comming charges dating back to his profligate time as mayor of Paris, before he was elected president.

Yah, cause that's really what happened, he stood against the U.S. on principle, not because he was bribed by Saddam Hussein to remain on the sidelines.

Another revisionist I see.

[JustinM]

Well, now I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. You are French aren't you? That would explain your anti-american bias.

I'm sure jacque chirac was a dream come true for you. Too bad the rest of your countrymen don't share your sentiment.

I am glad the French decided to elect someone that was not on Saddam Hussein's payroll.

[amor]

Well, I am so glad France didn't vote in another socialist. I can't even remember his name, that's how influential he was. His legacy will always be the Paris riots. Didn't that go on for more than a month?

All democratic countries must vote in more moderates, it's the only way we can stop the spread of fanatical islam and encourage the spread Freedom. The number 1 obligation of a free nation, is to free nations.

The socialists in the U.S. need to learn that and accept it. If they can't appreciate our responsibilities to the world, perhaps they should move to a nation that doesn't have that obligation.

His name is Chirac and he comes from the same party as his successor, so another Conservative. As to his legacy the riots were a fairly mibnotr affair in isolated suburbs, so had little affect on the majority.

The more tangible legacy, well keeping France out of the quagmire of Iraq, standing up to an overbearing superpower, from a positive perspective and trouncin the fascist, Le Pen in the 2002 presidential runn off. On the negative side, staying for too long, and all the corruption up comming charges dating back to his profligate time as mayor of Paris, before he was elected president.

Yah, cause that's really what happened, he stood against the U.S. on principle, not because he was bribed by Saddam Hussein to remain on the sidelines.

Another revisionist I see.

He stood up to the Americans because the idea of joining the invasion was extremly unpopular with the French electorate. That is politics. Blair didn't take the same line, which is why he fell from favour with the great British public and has had to pack his bags and become an unspecial envoy.

[JustinM]

So, what's Jaque Chirac's excuse? He was voted out of office too, right? If he was a national hero, for standing up to the "bully" U.S., why is he now working for a living?

You completely ignored the Saddam Hussein bribe scandal.

You didn't answer my question, so I am going to assume you are French.

Tony Blair, is now in one of the most powerful positions in the world. He has the ability to influence the entire Middle East. Hardly an "unspecial appointment."

[amor]

So, what's Jaque Chirac's excuse? He was voted out of office too, right? If he was a national hero, for standing up to the "bully" U.S., why is he now working for a living?

You completely ignored the Saddam Hussein bribe scandal.

You didn't answer my question, so I am going to assume you are French.

Tony Blair, is now in one of the most powerful positions in the world. He has the ability to influence the entire Middle East. Hardly an "unspecial appointment."

Like many of your assumptions, an incorrect one. As to not being re-elected -he didn't stand at the last election, which made voting for him difficult. You might find the same difficulty next October if youtrot of to the polling booth in the hope of re-electing Bush.

As to the bribery allegation you allude well, as I pointed out whilst Chirac might well face prosecution over his behaviour as mayor of Paris, evidence that he took bribes from Iraq/Saddam there doesn't seem to be much credible evidence of this, rather silly to libel a dodgy politician for something he didn't do. Don't forget either that it was always clear that Chirac could never in a position to stop Bush going to war and the Saddam regime from falling, so in reality even if he was on the take he would have had everything to gain from changing sides and nothing to win from sticking to his old friends (remember whilst there is a well kinown picture of Chirac shaking hands with Saddam, there is an equally well publicised one of Rumsfeldt -another old mate of the Baathist regime doing the same), if his motives were as material as you believe he would have had everything to gain from changing horses and nothing to lose.

If we are on the subject of contracts in Iraq going to organisations linked to prominent Western Politicians it would be remiss of me not to bring up the old Cheney Haliburton thing, more recent stuff here. A desert warrior Chirac would have been extremely well placed to make sure that any of all those wonderful reconstruction contracts that came France's way, could have helped line the pockets of those close to him.

I think, then it is reasonable to assume that Chirac's main reason for not joining the USA and Britain in this bloody venture was much the same as plenty of other Western countries such as Germany and Canada. That it was an unwinable war that would destroy Iraq and be very unpopular at home. The man is after all a very savvy and experienced politician, whatever else you, or indeed I might think of him.

[Fraught]

What a change for France, huh?

I will be very surprised if it lasts.

Maybe France finally realized (after all the trouble they had with the Muslims trying to burn Paris down) that mentally unstable people with nuclear weapons (i.e. Iran) is a really bad idea.

I too, will be surprised if it lasts, though.

It's countries with nuclear bombs, and a track record of using them, that insist on their right to go round invading other countries and leaving them in a chaotic and violent state that concern most people in the world. As to burning Paris down, go their you'll find it's all still standing and not suffering from fire damage, which is more than can be said of much of Baghdad. Or indeed New Orleans, perhaps if the US govenment invested a little more on the maintenance of flood defences, and a little less on blowing foreigners to bits, the whole world would be a happier place

Perhaps, you need to dust of your passport and find out what the real world is like

thanks amor for the great insight. i greatly appreciate input from residents of other nations. we all say we aren't influenced by propaganda but really, how can we not be? your viewpoint is invaluable.

btw - i'm sure glad i can eat french fries again without censure

[Guest]

It's countries with nuclear bombs, and a track record of using them, that insist on their right to go round invading other countries and leaving them in a chaotic and violent state that concern most people in the world. As to burning Paris down, go their you'll find it's all still standing and not suffering from fire damage, which is more than can be said of much of Baghdad. Or indeed New Orleans, perhaps if the US govenment invested a little more on the maintenance of flood defences, and a little less on blowing foreigners to bits, the whole world would be a happier place

Perhaps, you need to dust of your passport and find out what the real world is like

My passport is current, amor. I've had to get a new one recently since the old one was quite well used and about to expire. I've done a lot of traveling, both military and as a civilian. I know what the world is like. It can be a darned ugly place if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've done my time on the battlefield. Have you?

[kari21]

It's countries with nuclear bombs, and a track record of using them, that insist on their right to go round invading other countries and leaving them in a chaotic and violent state that concern most people in the world. As to burning Paris down, go their you'll find it's all still standing and not suffering from fire damage, which is more than can be said of much of Baghdad. Or indeed New Orleans, perhaps if the US govenment invested a little more on the maintenance of flood defences, and a little less on blowing foreigners to bits, the whole world would be a happier place.

I often wonder what your attitude would have been like had you lived during the World War 2 years...

Perhaps you would have been another Father Charles E. Coughlin...or Charles Lindbergh...

[Eliyahuw]

Not that it would be wrong to attack their nuke facilities, abosulutely lets blow them away right now. But the problem is the U.S. and Europes liberal morons keep giving billions and trillions of dollars to these people after the war every time.

We have never gone in and destroyed a country without helping to rebuild it afterwards. This country has never been about that. We restored Germany and japan after our wars with them, and helped build them up. While war is Amoral, leaving these people in devestation after a war is IMMORAL! We have always been blessed by God, for not leaving them to suffer once we have broken them down.

Its not a liberal concept. When he sent Israel in to take countries in war, either they were commanded to kill everyone or they took captives and brought them back and took care of them. They were never to be left to die in hunger and suffering.

[Eliyahuw]

What a change for France, huh?

I will be very surprised if it lasts.

Maybe France finally realized (after all the trouble they had with the Muslims trying to burn Paris down) that mentally unstable people with nuclear weapons (i.e. Iran) is a really bad idea.

I too, will be surprised if it lasts, though.

Perhaps, you need to dust of your passport and find out what the real world is like

Been to france and spain and other countries. France was the most obnoxious country i have ever been to in this world. The real world? I have been there, wouldn't trade the United States for anything out there! Even with the patriot act, and homeland security, its still has the most freedom of any country in the world. We're also the safest country in the world because we have that freedom