what do you think about the french attitude toward US foreigner policies?

lili

and especially in iraq?
do you think UN should go in iraq with the new resolution suggered by bush administration?

The Beer Baron

I think it was basically all blown out of proportion and deliberatly so by the US media. I can't remember which one but wasn't it a US paper originally printed a "why do they hate us?" article that started the whole thing off- it became a story, which became the story of the week which became Freedom Fries and **** France bumper stickers overnight.

All the while the dumbed-down masses were prepared to send troops into France- and had Bush wanted to I'm sure he would have support for it.

I can just picture them sitting around a table- we need a country that is against our war (lot to choose from) that we can shove around and make little of in front of the whole world. "The Russians?" "Ehh no bad idea Mr President."
"What about France?"

in the blink of an eye the entire nation suddenly realised they HATE THE FRENCH.

As for the French themselves?
Well it's very easy to hate the US.
But following the schoolyard-mentality and, let's face it, one of the wost diplomactic blunders that was the WE HATE THE FRENCH movement of course they hate you.

This silly tit-for-tat crap has come to typify what I see as an administration playing toy soldiers for profit.

Jesse Ventura proved that a WWF wrestler can get into politics.
US foreign policy of late has proved that you can quite easily turn politics into wrestling.

lili

hmm...
you must be right, cause USA didn't have the same attitude toward the germans.
us, the french, were really asthoned by such hate. i think ruppert murdock has conducted a really dirty campaign against us.
it's really amazing to see that the inhabitants of the country who got the most newspapers, are that manipulated by corrupt medias.

Biffa Bacon

US anger towards France was due to the fact that the French despicably did everything they could to protect the interests of a vile genocidal dictatorship rather than aid a liberal democratic ally in a project vital to their national security.

In the light of all the money, sweat and blood spent by Americans over half a century to save Europe from the threat of fascism and communism this came across as being somewhat ungrateful.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
US anger towards France was due to the fact that the French despicably did everything they could to protect the interests of a vile genocidal dictatorship rather than aid a liberal democratic ally in a project vital to their national security.

Not vital, Iraq could barely defend itself, never mind attack the USA.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
In the light of all the money, sweat and blood spent by Americans over half a century to save Europe from the threat of fascism and communism this came across as being somewhat ungrateful.

After screwing the British for every last penny and only getting involved when it threatened their own interests (thier empire in the Pacific).

mike65

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
US anger towards France was due to the fact that the French despicably did everything they could to protect the interests of a vile genocidal dictatorship rather than aid a liberal democratic ally in a project vital to their national security

In the light of all the money, sweat and blood spent by Americans over half a century to save Europe from the threat of fascism and communism this came across as being somewhat ungrateful.

I think this is the nub of the anger, the Frenchies were out to protect thier own interests while pretending they had principles.

The French establishment proberly still resents the fact it needed the Yanks/Brits to save thier bacon in WW2.

Whats that joke?
"For Sale. French Army Rifle Never Fired Dropped Once" Okay its a cheap shot but the fact its funny means its resonates which means ppl feels there's an essential truth in it...

Mike.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
I think this is the nub of the anger, the Frenchies were out to protect thier own interests while pretending they had principles.

And the whole matter of international law and the double standards used by the USA.

French dead in WWI 2,000,000

American dead in WWI and WWII 1,000,000

So who gave the greater sacrafice?

Oh yes, wasn't it nice that the Americans got to play away both times and didn't have to suffer their cities beign turned into ruins?

mike65

Originally posted by Victor
And the whole matter of international law and the double standards used by the USA.

French dead in WWI 2,000,000

American dead in WWI and WWII 1,000,000

So who gave the greater sacrafice?

Oh yes, wasn't it nice that the Americans got to play away both times and didn't have to suffer their cities beign turned into ruins?

The latter matter is just geographic luck...maybe if the Nazis had been allowed to thrive long enough they'd have found a way of blitzing the US with missiles.

On the first point, the French painted themselves as upstanding defenders of the UN when it just happend to suit thier needs to do so. Nothing more. As for numbers of dead in two world wars, I don't think a pissing contest is appropriate...

Mike.

swiss

France may have had it's own (less than altrusitic) reasons for not supporting the Iraq war effort, but regardless of motive, I applaud their efforts. Iraq was no more a threat to US mainland security than Saudi Arabia or North Korea to mention but two examples, and the US have not decided to bomb the crap... er I mean liberate these countries. The old axiom that in war, the first casualty is truth was proved yet again with Iraq. It is unsurprising that diplomatic relations between the US and France would cool given Frances "despicable" crime of not agreeing to go to war with a country when the reasons cited for doing so were at best dubious.

What was surprising however, was the sheer vitriol displayed by the American people towards France after this disagreement. It reflects exceptionally badly on a society when respected statesmen and media resort to flinging insults and abuse at a historically close ally.

Zombrex

The French reject the US plan to invade Iraq because it was a stupid plan

The French aren't idiots, they were not going to stand back and let the US f**k up the Middle East even more than it already was. You could see the long term problems of a US lead invasion coming a mile off (unless you are named Blair or Bush)

I think the French have been very good about not saying "we bloody told you so" to the Americans and the English, and have been quite good natured about still willing to work with the coalition to help sort out the mess the US and UK have made in Iraq

They want it done under the UN because they know that is the only way that it can possible work and make the Iraqi people happy (which was supposed to be the whole point in the first place)

It is about time the UK and US stood back from Iraq and admitted they really don't have a clue what they are doing.

mr_angry

I think it was all perfectly fine. The French government did what the French people wanted them to do, according to French public opinion.

Smells of democracy to me. How ironic...

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I think it was all perfectly fine. The French government did what the French people wanted them to do, according to French public opinion.

Smells of democracy to me. How ironic...

And because most of the French populace support the death penalty I suppose the government should oblige them?

Or how about lynching Arabs + asylum seekers? That'd get the Front National votes AND be popular with a majority of the populace- 2 birds with one stone, how about that.

Not to mention a French occupation of Algeria would get at least 50+% of the vote in a poll, most of the older generation don't feel they should ever have left.

Anyone with a grain of sense knows that running a government by opinion poll is counterproductive. Opinion polls are a useful indicator sometimes, often they are just unhelpful and not predictive in any sense. The number of times political parties, presidents and others have been far ahead in the polls yet trounced in an election is impossible to count.

The French aren't idiots, they were not going to stand back and let the US f**k up the Middle East even more than it already was.

Really Wicknight? Then you might explain to me why the French sold Iraq BOTH of their Osirak nuclear breeder reactors, and about 40 modern gas centrifuges in the 70s and 80s. Furthermore, why were the French supplying a murderous dictator with hard cash for oil right up until the *day* before their own troops were committed in 1991.

Oh they don't need the US to f**k up the Middle East as you put it- they've been doing it themselves for decades. Algeria springs to mind, as do Lebanon, Palestine, Morocco and Yemen. Not forgetting selling 2 full fighter squadrons of Mirages to Iran whilst supplying Iraq with air defence missiles.

Don't mistake me, I am by no means saying that two wrongs make a right- just pointing out that anyone who thinks that *any* of the Permanent 5 members dipping their fingers into Iraq are doing so out of compassion for Iraqis is deluding themself. French interests lay with the lifting of sanctions and the restoration of open trade with Saddam's regime. Campaigning for it under the pretence of humanitarian benefit was both ruthless and derisory- their record in Iraq with respect to arms trade is worse than any country. Sarin precursors, numerous biological weapon contracts, the nuclear reactors I mentioned earlier, gas centrifuges, heavy water plants, the list is almost endless.

The resumption of such lucrative trade for the almost failing French defence industry is such a large carrot that it doesn't take a genius to work out how Jacques Chirac found it so easy to renege on his government's promise to back UNSCR #1441 and follow-up resolutions given non-compliance.

As for the question posed by the thread- well, it's difficult to see how a war the UN found illegitimate could receive UN backing even at this stage. I opposed the war vehemently, still think it was a bad idea- yet I don't think the UN can simply rubberstamp the current occupation. If more troops are to be brought in under UN auspices, the commanders on the ground, whether American or not, shared command or not, MUST report to the UNSC, and NOT the Pentagon.

This is the sore sticking point currently, and it's difficult to see it being resolved. The last thing that Rumsfeld wants are his generals having to explain themselves to a body he deemed irrelevant as far back as 9/14 of 2001. The problem is not unity of command on the ground- plenty of UN peacekeeping operations are under US command. BUT, they report to the UN via NATO or directly, and that is not something the PNAC hawks would like to see happen.

Their public reason is that nations such as Syria, Libya etc would hamper or restrict operations via the security council. In reality the fear is more likely to be that political pressure from the 3 Perm 5 that opposed 1442 + Germany would lead to a collapse of UN authority. It would be a power play gambit not seen since the Cuban missile crisis, is entirely plausible and near impossible to avoid once the Rubicon has been crossed.

This is why the war should not have gone ahead- the rifts and divisions over Iraq's future are more damaging than any 10 UN HQ bombs, than any 10 suicide car-bombers shattering the Jordanian embassy. Trade has suffered across the Atlantic (contracting 9% just this quarter), jobs are being lost in shipping, basic commodities are being traded as inelastic goods.

The only way out of it is a bridge across the diplomatic chasm I've outlined- it'll take some tough talking, a lot more than the bare 1 and half hours the perm 5 foreign ministers spent in Geneva with Kofi Anan. More to the point, it'll take a radical U-turn in the Bush administration's attitude to the UN. Here's hoping we won't have that to worry about come 2004- new man in the job, new ideas. It's about time we got a regime change ourselves, at the ballot-box :P

Geromino

Originally posted by swiss
What was surprising however, was the sheer vitriol displayed by the American people towards France after this disagreement. It reflects exceptionally badly on a society when respected statesmen and media resort to flinging insults and abuse at a historically close ally.

Politically, France was never a historically a close ally of the US. For example, both countries opposed the Soviet Union in cold war confrontations but went through another crisis in 1956 when French, British, and Israeli forces attacked Egypt and Eisenhower forced them to withdraw. After Charles de Gaulle became president he clashed with Americans over France's building of her own nuclear weapons, Britain's admission to the European Economic Community, and France's role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (nato). There are other examples which portray the on again off again relationship of France.

France may have had it's own (less than altrusitic) reasons for not supporting the Iraq war effort, but regardless of motive, I applaud their efforts. Iraq was no more a threat to US mainland security than Saudi Arabia or North Korea to mention but two examples, and the US have not decided to bomb the crap... er I mean liberate these countries. The old axiom that in war, the first casualty is truth was proved yet again with Iraq. It is unsurprising that diplomatic relations between the US and France would cool given Frances "despicable" crime of not agreeing to go to war with a country when the reasons cited for doing so were at best dubious.

If you assume traditional methods of attacking, then yes. However, the nonconventional methods, Iraq was as deadly as Hamas and OBL. The foreign efforts it used to disrupt the inspection process, the wealth accumulated and payments shipped to suicide bombers families as well as some. However, the main reason for the war is not its threat, but Iraq's failure of UN resolution 686 and subsequent resolutions. It is ironic that Iraq will only cooperate when either threat of force was going to be used or force was actually used.

Geromino

Originally posted by Victor
Not vital, Iraq could barely defend itself, never mind attack the USA.

Given the fact that Iraq could still send massive amounts of money to do its bidding, I would not make such a conclusion.

After screwing the British for every last penny and only getting involved when it threatened their own interests (thier empire in the Pacific).

Totally inaccurate. America was primarily isolationists in first part of the 20th century. In your temrs, this means we had our own problems; we do not need yours. Other common attitudes include the Germany could not attack the US because of the Atlantic Ocean (ever heard of the U-boat), or even that It is Europes problem and not ours.

However, you also fail to mention the infamous Eagle Squadron of the RAF. It flew with great distinction. You can also add the AFG, or more commonly known as the "Flying Tigers." These were unofficial attachments to those conflicts without the full acknowledgement of the American Government.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Furthermore, why were the French supplying a murderous dictator with hard cash for oil right up until the *day* before their own troops were committed in 1991.

And what and you think the US and UK didn't? Saddam was an American puppet put in place to serve Western interests in the Middle East up until the day he disobayed US orders and invaded Kuwiat. All the US are doing now is trying to bring that corner of the Middle East back under US control.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Oh they don't need the US to f**k up the Middle East as you put it- they've been doing it themselves for decades. Algeria springs to mind, as do Lebanon, Palestine, Morocco and Yemen. Not forgetting selling 2 full fighter squadrons of Mirages to Iran whilst supplying Iraq with air defence missiles.

I never said the French were saints, I said they weren't stupid. The French have a long history of f**king up countries, just like the US and the UK (Vietnam anyone) ... but at least they seem to have learnt something in the last 100 years about not rushing into a war with no clear plan for the aftermath or clean up. What ever their motives the French knew that Bushes war was going to be a long term disaster.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Just pointing out that anyone who thinks that *any* of the Permanent 5 members dipping their fingers into Iraq are doing so out of compassion for Iraqis is deluding themself.

Oh believe me I am under no illusion that any of this is being done for the benifit of the Iraqi people. Iraq, as it has been for years, is still a puppet country being fought over by out side interests.

The sooner the UN get in and the US gets out the sooner Iraq can be returned to the Iraqis. But I don't see the US giving up control of their new prize anytime soon.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
I think this is the nub of the anger, the Frenchies were out to protect thier own interests while pretending they had principles.

And the US were outraged that someone as well as themselves was taking such a stance???

jc

mr_angry

Or how about lynching Arabs + asylum seekers? That'd get the Front National votes AND be popular with a majority of the populace- 2 birds with one stone, how about that.

I don't think you can compare a pacifist stance agaianst war with this kind of behaviour. I seriously doubt the French population feel this way. I'm know the French people are unhappy with immigrants, and would like to see their entry to France controlled, but I think the term "lynching" is exaggeration on your part. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree.

Politically, France was never a historically a close ally of the US.

You are taking the p*ss, right? History didn't begin in 1900, although I appreciate that what went before has much less relevance.

Given the fact that Iraq could still send massive amounts of money to do its bidding, I would not make such a conclusion.

I don't know about you Geronimo, but I have yet to see ANY evidence of that being the case. We're told again and again that it is, but I'd prefer to see some proof, before obliterating a country. Yes, they had money, but when did they attack the US? Only after being invaded...

And the US were outraged that someone as well as themselves was taking such a stance???

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE! Thank you for pointing that out Bonkey. Of course France had their own agenda, but who in this conflict didn't?

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Other common attitudes include the Germany could not attack the US because of the Atlantic Ocean (ever heard of the U-boat)

Oh thats priceless.

Thats like saying the US doesn't need international bases to project its force around the globe because it has subs, planes, and carrier groups.

Do you even know what the capabilities of a U-boat were? Its range? Its armanent?

The absolute most that could have been done was sink some boats that were on their way to Europe...which is exactly what was done.

Anything else was too far to be in range of the "force projection" capability of the German Navy.

Germany in WW2 attacking the US...what a priceless notion.

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by Wicknight
And what and you think the US and UK didn't? Saddam was an American puppet put in place to serve Western interests in the Middle East up until the day he disobayed US orders and invaded Kuwiat. All the US are doing now is trying to bring that corner of the Middle East back under US control.

Incorrect! US did not get involved with Saddem until 1984, and reluctently I might add. The principle reason being that Iraq would be the counterweight of Islamic extremists of Iran. The official policy was neutrality; however unofficially the US was providing intelligence to Iraq with its war. There are confirmed reports that US intelligence agencies helping the Ba'ath party in the 60's, but not Saddem directly. Declassified KGB reports indicate that the Soviets were also trying to install a regime friendly to the USSR, hence US involvement at that time. Further, Saddem was a little more than a blip on the radar screen in the 60's and not very popular of the moderates of the Ba'ath party. The US intelligence agencies were trying to hedge their bets with all known cards (major players of the Ba'ath), but would only be involved in limited capacity. In 1978, Saddem went to Moscow to receive the blessings from them in order to take control in 1979. Why do you think USSR let Saddem buy the Soviet tanks and other military equipment in the 1970's and 80's? They did not do it for humanitarian reasons, that I can assure you. When Saddem came to power in 1979, he executed every Ba'ath party member that could be a threat to his taking power, put them on public display in the street and took away the little freedoms the Iraqi poeple had at that time. He outlawed Shiite religious ceremonies. And the rest is history.

I never said the French were saints, I said they weren't stupid. The French have a long history of f**king up countries, just like the US and the UK (Vietnam anyone) ... but at least they seem to have learnt something in the last 100 years about not rushing into a war with no clear plan for the aftermath or clean up. What ever their motives the French knew that Bushes war was going to be a long term disaster.

No, the French thought that their lucrative contracts would be in jeapordy if Saddem was removed at this time. France has occassionally wanted a regime change, but only on its terms. Sound familiar. But going back to the origianal reason, the UN resolutions became a joke because the UN inspectors were equal to the Iraqis. Further, the inconsistent and hesitant use of force to get the Iraqis to comply made the inspections further useless. Even with UN res 1441, the Iraqis were never fully compliant nor did they give compete unfettered access, especially to the scientists the inspectors need to interview.

Oh believe me I am under no illusion that any of this is being done for the benifit of the Iraqi people. Iraq, as it has been for years, is still a puppet country being fought over by out side interests.

The sooner the UN get in and the US gets out the sooner Iraq can be returned to the Iraqis. But I don't see the US giving up control of their new prize anytime soon.

And why do you think the US is helping to build Iraq. If you thnkk it is because of oil, you are wrong! If you think it is for American businesses, then you are wrong! If you think it is for some blood thirsty quest, then you are wrong! In case you have not noticed, who is the most significant player in the UN, in terms of money, food aid programs, and such? It is the US. You may disagree with the reasons why my country went in. That is fine. But to make a statement that the UN is to help other counties is about as ludicrous as this statement was. The UN has more self interests than the US independently.

lili

so geronimo, in your opinion, why USA went in iraq?

mr_angry

You know, I'm actually glad someone is taking up the American's side in all of this, and promoting balanced argument, instead of just America-bashing. Now if only it made sense, and there was some sort of clear logic...

Geromino

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I You are taking the p*ss, right? History didn't begin in 1900, although I appreciate that what went before has much less relevance.

No history did not start before 1900; howver, those clashes became even more apparent after WWII. But for your enjoyment, six years later the revolution that toppled the Bourbon monarchy dissipated some of the American warmth for France. In February 1793, at war again with Britain, France viewed George Washington's policy as partial to the enemy. It also regarded as hostile Jay's Treaty of November 1794 between Britain and America. To overcome this resentment John Adams in 1797 sent a special mission to Paris. When Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, the French foreign minister, demanded a bribe, Adams exposed the episode, known as the xyz Affair, and two years of hostilities at sea, or the Quasi-War, followed. It ended in September 1800 with the Treaty of Morfontaine which rid the United States of the "entangling" French alliance. We also had Adrew Jackson demanding payment and France severing all diplomatic ties. You had Napoleon III siding with the Confederacy and intervening in Mexico. President Lincoln objected and through judicious threats pressured them to leave in 1867. It has been an on again, off again relationship for nearly two hundred years. Depending on the mood and the circumstances, the US could be a close ally of France or it could be an agitator of France.

I don't know about you Geronimo, but I have yet to see ANY evidence of that being the case. We're told again and again that it is, but I'd prefer to see some proof, before obliterating a country. Yes, they had money, but when did they attack the US? Only after being invaded...

The question is not about attacking the US, the question is not complying with the UN resolutions. That is the evidence I am talking about.

lili

Originally posted by mr_angry4
You know, I'm actually glad someone is taking up the American's side in all of this, and promoting balanced argument, instead of just America-bashing. Now if only it made sense, and there was some sort of clear logic...

me, i would like to know, what was the logic of this war.
WDMs?
we know now that it was a fake reason. and the intelligencies of every countries knew that before the war.

democracy?
explain to me how a democracy could be instored in a country with a majority of muslims who accept only islamic laws.

put down a tyran?
that's the only point acceptable to my eyes, but under which rights a country can invade another?

finally iraq is free, so? do you think that a country in a complet chao and not far to a civilian war might be reconizing to their liberators?

and now, the must of the must, after have pissed on UN, USA call to an help with their conditions?
my word! but they mocke us!!!

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Oh thats priceless.

Thats like saying the US doesn't need international bases to project its force around the globe because it has subs, planes, and carrier groups.

Do you even know what the capabilities of a U-boat were? Its range? Its armanent?

The absolute most that could have been done was sink some boats that were on their way to Europe...which is exactly what was done.

Anything else was too far to be in range of the "force projection" capability of the German Navy.

Germany in WW2 attacking the US...what a priceless notion.

jc

I know you misunderstood my post. The common belief was that Germany could not attack the US because of the Atlantic Ociean (this was in 1939, not 2003). This was one of the reasons Americans had not to get involved at that time (it was one of the reasons for isolationism). Yes I know the capabilities of the German U-Boat, but judging from you post, I guess you don't, but that is besides the point!

Geromino

Originally posted by lili
me, i would like to know, what was the logic of this war.
WDMs?
we know now that it was a fake reason. and the intelligencies of every countries knew that before the war.

democracy?
explain to me how a democracy could be instored in a country with a majority of muslims who accept only islamic laws.

put down a tyran?
that's the only point acceptable to my eyes, but under which rights a country can invade another?

finally iraq is free, so? do you think that a country in a complet chao and not far to a civilian war might be reconizing to their liberators?

and now, the must of the must, after have pissed on UN, USA call to an help with their conditions?
my word! but they mocke us!!!

For me, it was in violation of UN resolution 686 and others and thus, a violation of the cease fire accord in 1991.

lili

Originally posted by Geromino
For me, it was in violation of UN resolution 686 and others and thus, a violation of the cease fire accord in 1991.

so, why don't USA applie the same traitment to israel?

mr_angry

As far as I'm aware, Resolution 1441 super-seeded Resolution 686 as a means to better enforce weapons inspections.

Resolution 1441 stated that the Iraqis must fully comply with weapons inspectors, and destroy any weapons of mass destruction (or face "serious consequences"). The Iraqi government said that they were complying fully, and possessed no weapons of mass destruction other than those already seen and deemed decomissioned by UN weapons inspectors.

To this day, no such weapons have been found, and it has not been proved that the Iraqis lied in any way. I fail to see how this was a justification of the invasion.

No history did not start before 1900

I'm presuming this is a mis-print, or a Charlie's Angels 2-style attempt at humour. I apologise for even bringing it up, but I think you should edit that one.

Germany could not attack the US because of the Atlantic Ociean (this was in 1939, not 2003).

The Germans were operating a war on 3 fronts (East, West, and in North Africa, having already taken Denmark and Norway) at this stage. Hitler, mad as he was, wouldn't have opened a war on another front whether the Atlantic ocean was there or not. I assume he'd have at least finished off Europe before moving onto America, if he even would have got around to it at all. The Atlantic ocean is pretty much irrelevant.

Why are we talking about this anyway, that's besides the point.

democracy?
explain to me how a democracy could be instored in a country with a majority of muslims who accept only islamic laws.

put down a tyran?
that's the only point acceptable to my eyes, but under which rights a country can invade another?

Lilli, your spelling and capitalisation are incredibly bad! In any case, I feel democracy is possible in Muslim countries - I think its a bit of an insult to suggest otherwise. People have an image of Islam as projected by fundamentalists. Most ordinary muslims are well able to govern themselves without any problems.

If the Americans and British had gone in in order to free the Iraqi people, whom I believe had been asking for their help for years, I would have been perfectly behind the war. However, the hidden agendas, the lies, the sheer disregard for human life - I mean they blew up entire streets just to try to kill Saddam in a restaurant for God's sake - it just totally put me off.

But what does this have to do with the French? Lets face it, the whole "Freedom Fries" malarchy just showed what kind of society America has become under George Bush. I suggest everybody should see Neil Young's "Greendale" film - its a great example of the way things have gone in America. I feel kind of sorry for them.

lili

yes, i know, my english is really bad, but i keep the hope to speak it without grammar mistakes one day:D

well, do you know a democratic muslim country where the people are free to go in the streets for a manifestation?

mr_angry

Indonesia - the largest Muslim country in the world. Pure democracy. Of course, they do have the odd fundamentalist terrorist trying to kill foreigners, but we have the IRA and the UDA trying to kill themselves and each other on various occasions.

Geromino

Originally posted by lili
so, why don't USA applie the same traitment to israel?

Do not confuse the situation with Israel with that of Iraq or NK or Lybia, or East Timor.

mr_angry

Why not? Israel frequently use armaments against their own citizens, the odd foreign aid worker, and they've broken plenty of UN resolutions.

Are they "better" than Iraq?