CSM
Senior Member
padisha emperor said:posted by me :
I hope this would make you see, that I agree about the problem of trade of weapons...
And that I'm not I'm not hypocrite.
But in this subject - Iraqisation... - I don't speak of France, except if there is question about. I speak of USA. there is alredy lots of threads about french connection.
I was only speaking of USA.
Don't take me as a french, take me as a human beeing. I say that USA should repect the rules. I 've not said that France respected it. But both have to.
And if you say to me : "France doesn't repect, why will USA repect ,", it will be quite stupid : It is not because somebody did a mistake that you can follow to do the same mistake....a clever attitude would be that USA would repect the UN, so they'll show to Europe and France that they - USA - are fair.
My question then becomes where is the UN resolution that the US could not use force in making Iraq comply with the 14 UN resolutions passed prior to our invasion of Iraq? The fact is, the resolutions that were in place at the time allowed for the use of force. Your statement also denies the reality and displays that arrogance we mention so often. The US should be the more "moral" country and abide by the UN, while Europe and especially France, do what the hell they want. Some of the things France and Europe want to do while ignoring the UN are in direct opposition to US interests. You advocate that we allow that to happen to achieve the moral high ground. I say that the moral high ground is not enough reason to compromise our security. You would portray my view as being arrogant; I call it pragmatic.