RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Safety of US Postal (Lance)(25 posts)

Safety of US Postal (Lance)Asphalt Addict
Mar 8, 2003 7:21 AM
Since war appears to be an absolute certainty, how safe is Lance and the rest of US Postal riding in Europe? A friend of mine in Germany says that, in general, everybody is hating Americans right now. Since Lance is a friend of President Bush won't that put a gigantic target on his back? Riding with US Postal is just like wearing an American flag. Can you imagine what it will be like riding in France? Geez!
re: Safety of US Postal (Lance)Live Steam
Mar 8, 2003 7:41 AM
We all should be hating Germany and France for doing business on a regular basis with Iraq. They are the reason for the war. Not the US, but the mainstream media doesn't let everyone in on these dirty little secrets. If this war is about oil, it is that because of France and Germany. They are getting cheap oil from Iraq and don't want us to spoil it for them. Germany has been selling Iraq sophisticated equipment needed to produce WMD. Where else can they possibly get it? And France has been selling them everything from arms to nuke technology.

Too bad for France and Germany. Maybe if those terrorists flew 757s into the Eiffel Tower, Versailles and the Beer Gardens in Germany, they would feel differently about things. I say we should boycott their products and see if they would rather trade with Iraq or the US. Sorry for the rant, but I can't stand these damn European countries stabbing us in the back after we have given them so much in the way of protection, freedom, money and pretty much everything else they hold dear. That's just the way I see it. I am sure others feel differently. JMO of course.
misinformationBergMann
Mar 8, 2003 8:19 AM
Stop, rewind!
This is such a typical Bush-era oversimplification of a much more complex issue.
For starters, most Europeans do not _hate_ America or Americans. Just because many Europeans find our current foreign policy crass, boorish, and hypocritical and think our president behaves like a bull in a porcelean shop does _not_ mean that they're going to be taking pot shots at Lance.

As for LiveSteam's opinion that France and Germany are to blame for Iraq's armaments, he seems to have forgotten that under Reagan and Bush I the good ol' US of A supplied Saddam with the "seed" stock, technology and materials he needed to get his biological weapon program up and running. Europe certainly doesn't have a monopoly on hypocrisy!

What is more, the accusation of a lack of empathy on the September 11th issue is not only absurd, it is short circuiting two completely different issues. First of all, Iraq has _nothing_ to do with Al Queda. Saddam is secular and just as "infidel" as we are. As for the sympathy issue iteself, after September 11th there was a huge outpouring of empathy from around the globe, _particularly_ from citizens of first-world nations like France and Germany, who realized that they were next on the list of potential "infidel" targets (let's not forget, there was a sizeable foreign contingent in the twin towers that day).

This sympathy was squandered by our gun-slingin' cowboy of a president whose pronouncements of an "axis of evil" and the like may have played wonderfully to Texas barrooms, but were generally seen as a cartoonish farce of a foreign policy abroad.

Before anyone hauls off to slam me as some sort of knee-jerk peacenik, I'd like to go on record and say that yes Saddam is a stinker, and yes the foreign community should do something about him, but before we go off repeating the threadbare clichees CNN keeps spouting about the rest of the world hatin' on our "Showdown with Iraq", maybe we should read up a bit on the issues from another angle -- the world might not look so one-dimensional that way.

PS - I seriously doubt that Lance is in any more danger now than at any other point post-911.
misinformationAsphalt Addict
Mar 8, 2003 8:47 AM
I would think that my friend, who lives in Europe, should have a pretty good idea of what is taking place. I balance this with my experience of having lived in Germany for three and a half years. I know firsthand how serious this is to Americans living there. While I was in Frankfurt your's truly came within 100 meters of being blown up by a carbomb planted by middle eastern terrorists! As for your comment about Texas barrooms, you can kiss my LONE STAR ass.
misinformationLive Steam
Mar 8, 2003 11:31 AM
"First of all, Iraq has _nothing_ to do with Al Queda"

I guess you have this on good word from speaking with Saddam personally. He confirmed this with you or was that Dan Rather the Communist?

The US may have supplied Saddam with arms, but that was to ballance the scales, as the Soviet Union was supplying Iran with weapons. If you remember Iran took American hostages> Iran was a much more powerful and dangerous threat then.

It seems, my friend that you are avoiding the issues here, and your hypocracy is showing. No one, not even the press, nor the French, Russians, Germans, no one had anything to say when good ol' Clinton was hauling off Tomahawk missles in every direction or when the US invaded Sumalia and Haiti. No one said that this was an attempt at nation building or an act of war. The Dumocrats are in a desperate state and see this as possibly their only opportunity to attack GW before the next election cycle.

The is no sympathy for 9/11. Most people outside of NY have nearly forgotten it. To them it was like watching the latest Bruce Willis movie. I saw it first hand. You don't even see anything about 9/11 on the tube now. They don't want to remind everyone what this is really about. That would undermine their true adgenda.

As for reading up on the issues from another angle, as you put it, I was expressing them from one. You do not read or hear about how France, Germany, Russia and China are involved in ongoing business with Iraq and how this is in violation of the UN sanctions placed against Iraq more than a decade ago. This is not on the main stream medias talking points from the DNC because it would hurt their plans of winning the next election.

"Saddam is a stinker".

Hmm? I guess that is a very Presidential way of putting it. Saddam tried to assasinate GB Sr. He is an agressor. He has proven that more than once. We kicked his ass the last time and he has been looking for payback. You can be naive or just plain stupid if you dont think that Saddam is helping terrorist groups with information and WMD, just to see them use it against us.

I have no problem getting rid of Saddam. I have a problem why so many are so willing to come to his defence! JMO as usual.
Do you write for FOX News? nminallston
Mar 8, 2003 1:31 PM
Do you write for FOX News? nmLive Steam
Mar 8, 2003 1:49 PM
No though I would take that as a complement but I knew this months before they started reporting it. So they are a little slow with their reporting. The truth may come out once we are inside Iraq. That is unless the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese make some kind of deal with Washington to keep it quiet. However I would suspect that some news agency would try to expose all they could, considering all of the controversy surrounding the stance of these countries vs the US stance. I believe we should all know the truth and not just what Hollywood and the mainstream media wants us to know. I guess you get your information from the Communist News Network (CNN) :O)
Reagan-Bush legacy in IraqUncle Tim
Mar 10, 2003 11:22 AM
I suppose you haven't seen the famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with a smiling Saddam Hussein in 1983. You see, Rummy was a special emissary sent by Ronald Reagan to help arm Iraq against Iranians.

To that end, our friend Rumsfeld helped Saddam to procure chemical and biological weapons, some of which were used to quell uprisings against his regime.

Still none that severely stressed US-Iraq relations. In fact, Saddam got along quite well with the administrations of both Reagan and Bush I. In 1990, Bush's ambassador to Iraq, while still on good terms, told Saddam to his face that the US would take no position whatsoever with respect to Iraq's conflict with Kuwait. A few month's later, Saddam conquered Kuwait.

This is one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of our time (diplomatic blunders seem come naturally to the Bush family) and the US, feeling betrayed by its previously dependable ally, named Saddam as Enemy Number One.

The US history with Iraq is quite ugly. The American government showed little concern for the innocent Iraqi people until Saddam threatened to take control of the world's oil supply.
misinformational0
Mar 8, 2003 1:55 PM
1. I amn't American and I am living at the moment in Germany and I don;t see any threat for US Postal team in RdF or any European race. Many peoples here don't like current US foreign policy ( but they don't hate Americans.

2. Iraq isn;t damn US business at all. I hate Saddam but I have to admit that Iraq has the exactly same right to own weapons, including WMD, as US. And US definitly has WMD, at least nuclear. So if Bush will to destry WMD he have to start with its own.

3. Concerning 9/11. The US isn't the only country that suffer from terrorism, so don;t think that people in other countries like terrorist much more than you,
Dick Cheney was doing business with Saddam in 1999PdxMark
Mar 8, 2003 2:02 PM
French, German and Russian opposition to GWB's war has nothing to do with business. Dick Cheney' Halliburton did $30 million worth of business helping Iraq rebuild its oil facilities, increasing output from $4 billion a year to $18 billion. Do a google search, you can see for yourself. Way to go Dick! I wonder what Saddam's doing with that extra $14 billion EACH YEAR!? I think we should impeach the traitorous bast*rd.

French and German opposition relates to our inability to provide any evidence that war is necessary now.

Somalia and Haiti. Hmmm... Somalia was a UN humanitarian mission. What's your point there? I don't recall the details of the Haiti invasion, but if you oppose that, why should we invade Iraq? Bombing Iraqi military facilities in 1998, plus all the bombing there in the no-fly zones, are a bit different from sending 250,000 ground troops into the Iraqi desert and cities.

Which Al Qaeda-Iraq connection are you talking about? Other than GWB desparately needing an Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection, no-one has shown any evidence of one. Saddam did not say they are connected. You are the only person to have interpreted anything he said to mean that.

Iraq has attacked two immediate neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and civilian minorities (Kurdish and Shi'ite). What evidence is there that he has attacked, or planned an attack, against the US? None. Everything you say was as true 10 years ago as it is today - Saddam is a murdering menace. But why attack today?

There's nothing NOW that warrants this war. If you say his menacing is the reason, then explain why we shouldn't also send armies to Ivory Coast, North Korea, Zimbabwe, to name a few. Are you saying this was was about the attempt on GB Sr.? No? Then how does that fact support war today? Your certainty about Saddam's collaboration with terrorists is illuminating. You should pass that on to GWB because he has no evidence of that.

And, if you can't tell, trying to hold our country up to the principles it stands for is not supporting Iraq. It's a vain attempt to keep the US from stooping to the level of Iraq.

The fact that we can wage war doesn't mean we should. And some of us think this discussion should be based on facts that are ascertainable, rather than "certainties" that are nothing more than imagined fears and possibilities. So, if you want to discuss this, please tell us the facts that show that Iraq is currently threatening an attack against the US. Finally, if you can, spare us your Rush Limbaugh hate-dripping diatribes against liberals. There's no need to be so hateful if you have actual facts to support your position and logical connection between those facts.
Dick Cheney was doing business with Saddam in 1999Live Steam
Mar 8, 2003 2:39 PM
Where is my "hate dripping diatribe against liberals"?

As for the link between Al Queda and Saddam, I did not say that he said he was linked to them. He would be a fool to do so. However, I do not think that there is going to be any incontrovertible proof. No smoking gun. I doubt very much that they put "Made in Iraq" on their WMD. And I doubt very much that any of the lower level terrorist thugs know where their information on American targets originate from, so I doubt that any link can be ascertained from interrogating those that are captured.

"Everything you say was as true 10 years ago as it is today - Saddam is a murdering menace. But why attack today?"
Because we had a president that was more interested in getting his willy wet than he was in carrying out his presidential responsibilities. Clinton's irresponsible ways in handling Iraq, Usama Bin Laden and N. Korea, have left this country vulnerable. We should have finished off Saddam during the Gulf war, but stood down because of UN pressures. 9/11 probably was only a dream in some radical Islamists mind. 9/11 is an unfortunate reality and so is the threat that faces all of us.

The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese are the last countries we should listen to based on their past and present histories. Their protests are nothing more than veiled attempts at hiding their true interests in Iraq. MONEY.

I'll give you another reason "WHY NOW" - this is a shot across the bow of every other nation including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, N. Korea and other nations that support terrorists, that this too can happen to you. Iraq is a justifiable target. The others must see that we the people of the US will not allow anyone to threaten us with terrorist acts. The Saudis may be the true devil in disguise. Their ruling family keeps the terrorists groups supplied with money and intelligence. The terrorist groups in turn spew all of their hateful extreme Islamic views to the masses - they tell the poor and uneducated majority that they are in this predicament because the US keeps them there. This protects the Royal families status. They have tons of oil, but the ruling class and the Royal family are the only benefactors. If the underclass really knew the truth, there would be a revolution there.

Your uncertainties and fears, were reality two years ago. We don't need to have it happen again to take action now.

As for Halliburton's involvement in rebuilding Iraqi oil production facilities, this was sanctioned by the UN. This was part of the UN directive to help Iraq and the Iraqi people become self sufficient economically. The US helped rebuild Japan too. The dealings the four countries I mentioned have with Iraq are clandestine and against UN resolutions.

I said my peace. You have your view and I have mine. The only common ground here is bikes , so I think we should keep it to that. No offence to you and none taken here.
Dick Cheney was doing business with Saddam in 1999al0
Mar 8, 2003 2:57 PM
Why you think that treatening Iraq with war is any better that treatinig US with terrorism? By the way number of war victims (civilian!) would be many times more than terrorist victims. Do you really believe that war victims are happier than terrorst victims? The war is that wirst kind of terrorism!
George Bush Sr. comments in Iraq during Clinton yearsSpoiler
Mar 8, 2003 3:10 PM
"We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
-"A World Transformed," a 1998 book by the first President Bush.
Great Post, Spoiler.Lazywriter
Mar 8, 2003 3:31 PM
I wonder why the sudden change of heart in this administration. Face it, GWB has a hard-on for Iraq and not matter what Iraq were to do (even full compliance), they are getting bombed. I can support a war if they present evidence of a 9/11 connnection, but it isn't that easy. For all the morons yapping about our need to fight, enlist in the armed forces and go and fight.
I get a kick out of staunch rebulicans that point out how "evil" Sadaam is to his own people and this would be a humanitarian effort of sorts when these people could give a sh$% about the needy and poor in our country. You are laughable. We are a part of the world order, not the world order and with so many humans on this planet against this one administration, we are setting ourselves up for a lot of problems.
I am not a liberal or conservative, democrat or republican. I am a free thinker that can see validity in both sides, but I happen to agree with daddy Bush's comment.
Bush can't face Saddam disarming now.Spoiler
Mar 9, 2003 8:59 AM
Holy crap, we agree on something?
Considering the tone and theme of Bush's talk, he has painted himself into a corner. There's no way Saddam could do enough or go far enough, short of fleeing the country, to persuade Bush to say, "OK, Iraq is now doing a good job of disarming."
Bush has said over and over, "Saddam will NEVER disarm. Saddam will always be a HUGE threat." So if Saddam disarms, Bush looks like a liar, or at the least, having poor judgment.
If Saddam legitimately disarms, Germany and evil, filthy France will look like they were right all along. No way Bush will let that happen. He's in a position where he loses more power and credibility if he allows anything other than war to happen.
He needs to get reelected, and he threw all his eggs into the "I'm the man who finished the job" basket.
WMD='Made in America' in 99% the case, IMO. nmSpunout
Mar 8, 2003 4:30 PM
re: Safety of US Postal (Lance)cycleaddict
Mar 8, 2003 3:16 PM
Live steam--I always figured there were a few idiots in the peleton and you have proved it!! If you are so for this war, go fight it yourself and don't cowardly sit at your computer counting on other folks kids to go off and die for you.
Three interesting facts:
1) France buys 8% of Saddam's oil while the U.S. buys 56% of Saddam's oil.
2) 60% of Iraq's population is UNDER 15 years old.
3) J. Chirac of France was the FIRST head of stae to visit your buddy Bush in the Whitehouse after 9/11. In fact he almost beat that scared little rich man to the Whitehouse.

Grow up and keep your hate filled crap off this website!!
Just Curious, where did you get teh stats ? nmPhatMatt
Mar 8, 2003 3:31 PM
re: Safety of US Postal (Lance)Live Steam
Mar 8, 2003 3:32 PM
It sounds to me like you are the one full of hate. I have been civil in what I have responded to others. You posted three points, but I don't see their relevance. The US dealings on all counts have been above board. I do not think the same can be said for our "allies"?.

As for sitting at my computer cowardly, well I would enlist tomorrow if they would take someone who is 43. By the way I did register for the draft when it was required of me, so go spew you crap somewhere else.

As for GW being a "scared little rich man', those sound like words of envy. At least he isn't getting rich off of the backs of the American people and on our dime like good 'ol Clinton did. I guess you have no problem with Gore being a rich little man or of any of the Kennedy's either?

Don't read the thread and don't respond if you feel that this is wasting good cycling discussion space. No one forced your hand. I should have responded to the original post as it has merit on both a geopolitical front and a cycling front. Lance has expressed concerns for his and his teams safety. They hate him there as it is. This geopolitical climate doesn't help. He should question whether the French government can adequately protect the peleton in these times.
I Christen you the....divve
Mar 8, 2003 3:55 PM
..."two wrongs make one good guy"
re: Safety of US Postal (Lance)kg1
Mar 8, 2003 10:37 AM
Your point is an excellent one. I've got one of the TdF tapes and it's amazing to me to see the sea of people part as the riders climb the hills. All it takes is one nut (and don't about 3.5 million watch the tour in person? There's got to be few nuts in there somewhere) to push a rider like Lance off his bike, hit him with a bat, etc. Can the Posties protect him for the entire ride? Won't he have to be out front on his own a time or two to win?

Thanks
yawnctisevn
Mar 8, 2003 11:26 AM
whatever. turn off the fox news channel and go for a ride. lance will be fine.
yawn^2: the R. Limbaugh paranoia act is a powerful soporific. nmBergMann
Mar 8, 2003 2:28 PM
Now, I know why I am a veteran.... to listen to you idiots!mdewitt71
Mar 8, 2003 2:39 PM
Now I know why I have spent 1/2 of my adult life in forign lands fighting for so called "Freedom". It is "Freedom" alright.... the Freedom for you all to think, write, and express your views here on this page.
And I thank you as I read it sitting in my hole here in Europe as we "Americans" are getting "Gaulked At" while we prep to go elsewhere to fight a war more that more need to be involved in.
Take it outside folks !!!!!!!!!MR_GRUMPY
Mar 8, 2003 3:22 PM
You guys have it all wrong.... The secret plan is that the day after we invade Iraq, Germany has the green light to invade France again..............................