US retaliation against France etc.
-
I started by listing the way France directly opposed us, the way they were servicing Iraqi fighter jets, the way they had advisors in Iraq, the way they stated publicly they would veto anything related to toppling Saddam Hussein. You replied by saying "Well what about these countries - they didn't do all fo those things!". I agree - those other countries simply did nothing. And they will get nothing. I pointed out that you had sided with me in singling out France as a particularly heinous supporter of the Baathist murderers.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I pointed out that you had sided with me in singling out France as a particularly heinous supporter of the Baathist murderers. actually, once again, as usual, (can you do anything else??) you're putting words in my mouth. and it's still motherfucking tiresome. i certainly didn't distinguish between France and any other country. my point throughout this thread has been that Wolfowitz's document does not mention France or any other non-coalition country specifically. it treats Canada exactly as it treats France. so, your position that this document is somehow punishment for France, Russia and Germany's opposition to W's war is clearly false. the document is clearly a reward for countries that did participate, and a slap in the face to every country which didn't. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Chris Losinger wrote: apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. With allies like them, who needs enemies? They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Russian and French military advisors were scurrying out of Baghdad like a bunch of cockroaches just prior to the invasion. I wish we didn't give them the back-channel heads up. Sure, France and Germany are NATO members. I guess that makes them our military allies by definition. But I don't believe for a second France would honor it's NATO commitments. They would be too busy trying to sell their crappy Mirage fighters to whoever NATO was fighting and then complaining about the fact that they didn't get rebuilding contracts after NATO won the war.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: France and Germany are NATO members I was under the impression that France is NOT a member of NATO. They join in the games, etc, but joining a US led coalition was beyond them even then. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does anyone still wonder why people are critical of US foreign policy? Of course not - there are several million people like you all too willing to twist the meanings of the actions of the USA and spread it like an oil slick over the consciousness of stupid people who are all to ready to accept your tawdry explanations. Look - There is a homicidal maniac holed up in his house. You, as a good neighbor, decide to drag him out and beat him to death. Across the street from you is another neighbor. This one is a snivelling little fuck who keeps telling you to leave his firend - the maniac - alone. He keeps whining and wiping his runny nose and crying to everyone who will listen "Oooh that bully isn't so bad. Just leave him alone. Eventually he'll go away if you just ignore him". Since you have common sense, you ignore the snivelling little fuck and knock on the maniacs door and tell him to come out now - he is under arrest. In response, you hear the maniac barricading himself in and you hear weapons being loaded. So you kick in his door and drag him out. Now you have a house with a broken door and the snivelling neighbor from earlier wants you to pay him money to fix the door?!?!??! Yeah right. If people are so stupid that they think the US is acting childish by not awarding contracts to the nations that supported our enemy during the war then fine. They are too fucking stupid for me to care about. Sure - it is hip to insult the USA. It is cool to be the rebel, etc. But by calling our policy of trying to reward the countries that actually *HELPED* childish, you aren't coming off as the smartest person.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Of course not - there are several million people like you all too willing to twist the meanings of the actions of the USA and spread it like an oil slick over the consciousness of stupid people who are all to ready to accept your tawdry explanations. I think you're totally wrong, and completely brainwashed, but I can't help but comment that this is an excellently put together sentence. Terry O`Nolley wrote: It is cool to be the rebel, etc. Yeah, coz now that the USA runs the world, anyone who does not cowtow is obviously a 'rebel'. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies Which allies are you referring to? France, against evrything American. Germany, sell us out for an election. Russia, bankrupt financially morally / and a 50 year+ enemy. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy **"could a country (USA) letting one sixth of its population under the level of powerty be considered as civilized?"**KaЯl (France let 15,000 elderly die from summer heat)
Mike Gaskey wrote: France, against evrything American. You're an idiot. Surely the cold war taught someone over in the US SOMETHING about this sort of stereotyping ? Mike Gaskey wrote: Russia, bankrupt financially morally / and a 50 year+ enemy. LOL - for an American to point at any other country as 'morally bankrupt' is an utter joke. I'm glad the cold war is still happening in your little world. It would be so immature for you to move past the mistakes of the past and think of building a better future. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
John Carson wrote: The original reasons for the Iraq war having proven bogus (i.e., weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi links to anti-US terrorism, and support for the resolutions of the UN), How have the WMD claims been proven bogus? According to this "logic", Saddam Hussein didn't exist either. And one of the original reasons listed for the war was Saddam's human rights abuses.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: And one of the original reasons listed for the war was Saddam's human rights abuses. But not TOO loudly, lest anyone remind the USA that it supported him while he was committing the same abuses, or that he'd been committing them for so long that to suddenly claim that enough is enough makes no sense at all. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Chris Losinger wrote: apparently it's crucial to the security of the US that we make every effort to publicly snub our allies. With allies like them, who needs enemies? They did everything short of attacking us in an attempt to make us lose the war. Russian and French military advisors were scurrying out of Baghdad like a bunch of cockroaches just prior to the invasion. I wish we didn't give them the back-channel heads up. Sure, France and Germany are NATO members. I guess that makes them our military allies by definition. But I don't believe for a second France would honor it's NATO commitments. They would be too busy trying to sell their crappy Mirage fighters to whoever NATO was fighting and then complaining about the fact that they didn't get rebuilding contracts after NATO won the war.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Sure, France and Germany are NATO members. I guess that makes them our military allies by definition. But I don't believe for a second France would honor it's NATO commitments. I don't think they COULD honor any NATO commitments. They spend such a small percentage of their GDP on defense that they have, for all practical purposes , no defense other than NATO. Besides we know how effective the French Army is, don't we :) Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10DIPL.html?hp[^] I seem to recall one of the reliable defenders of US foreign policy in this forum ridiculing the idea that Colin Powell had threatened retaliation against France. Soapbox Link[^] John Carson
I see Canada is being excluded because their troops haven't died in Iraq, only in Afghanistan. "the essential security interests of the United States." Yeah, security X| The tigress is here :-D
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: And one of the original reasons listed for the war was Saddam's human rights abuses. But not TOO loudly, lest anyone remind the USA that it supported him while he was committing the same abuses, or that he'd been committing them for so long that to suddenly claim that enough is enough makes no sense at all. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Who provided the chemicals used to make the gas that killed tens of thousands of Iranians and marsh Arabs ? The tigress is here :-D
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I pointed out that you had sided with me in singling out France as a particularly heinous supporter of the Baathist murderers. actually, once again, as usual, (can you do anything else??) you're putting words in my mouth. and it's still motherfucking tiresome. i certainly didn't distinguish between France and any other country. my point throughout this thread has been that Wolfowitz's document does not mention France or any other non-coalition country specifically. it treats Canada exactly as it treats France. so, your position that this document is somehow punishment for France, Russia and Germany's opposition to W's war is clearly false. the document is clearly a reward for countries that did participate, and a slap in the face to every country which didn't. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: the document is clearly a reward for countries that did participate, and a slap in the face to every country which didn't. And what, exactly, is the problem with that. You reward behavior that you approve of - not the other way around. DUH !!! Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
Who provided the chemicals used to make the gas that killed tens of thousands of Iranians and marsh Arabs ? The tigress is here :-D
Exactly - the main reason the US had to think that Iraq had WMD's is because they sold them to him. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Objective: Remove Saddam, liberate the Iraqi people Cut the crap. Liberation my ass! Then why haven't anything been done in african rogue states? And why did the US line up with known rogue countries such as Uzbekistan (or was it Turkmenistan?), where citizens are terrorized by the government just like the Iraqis were? This was no god damn liberation and you know it. There are many billion reasons to take out Saddam. Only one of them is a humanitarian reason. This war was all about controlling the middle east. I never bought the liberation crap and I never will. It's fucking despicable to use the word "liberate" and "iraqis" in the same sentence. :mad: Terry O`Nolley wrote: Military - it worked in a matter of weeks. Oh really? 450+ US soldiers have died + tens of thousands Iraqis have died, and more will die I'm sure. It hasn't worked.. yet. How can you say it worked in a matter of weeks?! Right now, more people have died than Saddam himself would have killed. And what is it that has been accomplished so far? Anarchy. Many people saw this coming before the war, and that's why they were opposing the war. Germans and frenchies were some of them. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
You are one sick puppy Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Does anyone still wonder why people are critical of US foreign policy? Of course not - there are several million people like you all too willing to twist the meanings of the actions of the USA and spread it like an oil slick over the consciousness of stupid people who are all to ready to accept your tawdry explanations. Look - There is a homicidal maniac holed up in his house. You, as a good neighbor, decide to drag him out and beat him to death. Across the street from you is another neighbor. This one is a snivelling little fuck who keeps telling you to leave his firend - the maniac - alone. He keeps whining and wiping his runny nose and crying to everyone who will listen "Oooh that bully isn't so bad. Just leave him alone. Eventually he'll go away if you just ignore him". Since you have common sense, you ignore the snivelling little fuck and knock on the maniacs door and tell him to come out now - he is under arrest. In response, you hear the maniac barricading himself in and you hear weapons being loaded. So you kick in his door and drag him out. Now you have a house with a broken door and the snivelling neighbor from earlier wants you to pay him money to fix the door?!?!??! Yeah right. If people are so stupid that they think the US is acting childish by not awarding contracts to the nations that supported our enemy during the war then fine. They are too fucking stupid for me to care about. Sure - it is hip to insult the USA. It is cool to be the rebel, etc. But by calling our policy of trying to reward the countries that actually *HELPED* childish, you aren't coming off as the smartest person.
Terry O'Nolley wrote: there are several million people like you all too willing to twist the meanings of the actions of the USA Twist the meaning?! This action requires no 'twisting' to be seen as a gratuitous act of hostility against France and Germany. Gratuitous because France and Germany were not asking for contracts. Hostile because it punishes France and Germany by going against the normal system of trade and commerce. I'm not going to respond to your contrived example because it's so black and white and not representative of the real situation at all. Terry O'Nolley wrote: nations that supported our enemy during the war Being critical of the US invasion is supporting the enemy? Oh, right, I forgot about the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' thing. Again, the world simply is not black and white like this. Terry O'Nolley wrote: But by calling our policy of trying to reward the countries that actually *HELPED* childish, you aren't coming off as the smartest person. If the statement had been "our allies in the invasion of Iraq will have preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts", then I would agree that there was a "policy of trying to reward the countries that actually *HELPED*", but since the policy is only a punitive one directed at certain countries who spoke out against the way the US handled the Iraq situation, I can't agree. The distinction may escape you, so I'll spell it out: the intent is to punish certian people, helping another group is not the intention, it's just a side-effect. What it ultimately comes down to is this: if the US is the bastion of democracy and freedom that it claims to be, then it should start demonstrating some of these attributes. Make some decisions based on a mature, fair and free policy, rather than the greedy, self-serving, inconsistent agenda that currently guides the government.
« eikonoklastes »
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Of course not - there are several million people like you all too willing to twist the meanings of the actions of the USA and spread it like an oil slick over the consciousness of stupid people who are all to ready to accept your tawdry explanations. I think you're totally wrong, and completely brainwashed, but I can't help but comment that this is an excellently put together sentence. Terry O`Nolley wrote: It is cool to be the rebel, etc. Yeah, coz now that the USA runs the world, anyone who does not cowtow is obviously a 'rebel'. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: I think you're totally wrong, and completely brainwashed, but I can't help but comment that this is an excellently put together sentence. My train of thought had no brakes :)
-
Terry O'Nolley wrote: there are several million people like you all too willing to twist the meanings of the actions of the USA Twist the meaning?! This action requires no 'twisting' to be seen as a gratuitous act of hostility against France and Germany. Gratuitous because France and Germany were not asking for contracts. Hostile because it punishes France and Germany by going against the normal system of trade and commerce. I'm not going to respond to your contrived example because it's so black and white and not representative of the real situation at all. Terry O'Nolley wrote: nations that supported our enemy during the war Being critical of the US invasion is supporting the enemy? Oh, right, I forgot about the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' thing. Again, the world simply is not black and white like this. Terry O'Nolley wrote: But by calling our policy of trying to reward the countries that actually *HELPED* childish, you aren't coming off as the smartest person. If the statement had been "our allies in the invasion of Iraq will have preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts", then I would agree that there was a "policy of trying to reward the countries that actually *HELPED*", but since the policy is only a punitive one directed at certain countries who spoke out against the way the US handled the Iraq situation, I can't agree. The distinction may escape you, so I'll spell it out: the intent is to punish certian people, helping another group is not the intention, it's just a side-effect. What it ultimately comes down to is this: if the US is the bastion of democracy and freedom that it claims to be, then it should start demonstrating some of these attributes. Make some decisions based on a mature, fair and free policy, rather than the greedy, self-serving, inconsistent agenda that currently guides the government.
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: I'm not going to respond to your contrived example because it's so black and white and not representative of the real situation at all. I disagree. When you see the situation boiled down to its essence you realize you are wrong so you disparage it.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I pointed out that you had sided with me in singling out France as a particularly heinous supporter of the Baathist murderers. actually, once again, as usual, (can you do anything else??) you're putting words in my mouth. and it's still motherfucking tiresome. i certainly didn't distinguish between France and any other country. my point throughout this thread has been that Wolfowitz's document does not mention France or any other non-coalition country specifically. it treats Canada exactly as it treats France. so, your position that this document is somehow punishment for France, Russia and Germany's opposition to W's war is clearly false. the document is clearly a reward for countries that did participate, and a slap in the face to every country which didn't. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: the document is clearly a reward for countries that did participate, and a slap in the face to every country which didn't. True. And? Do you think Saddam's supporters should also be rewarded?
-
Exactly - the main reason the US had to think that Iraq had WMD's is because they sold them to him. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Exactly - the main reason the US had to think that Iraq had WMD's is because they sold them to him. I don't understand how people can say: 1. The US sold the WMDs to Iraq. 2. There are no WMDs in Iraq. at the same time. Surely the US sold far more WMDs to Saddam than he used up? Now, I'm not sure whether you personally said the 2nd thing, and I'm not saying you did, but doesn't the "US Bashers Anonymous" keep bringing these up from time to time? :~ Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
Christian Graus wrote: I think you're totally wrong, and completely brainwashed, but I can't help but comment that this is an excellently put together sentence. My train of thought had no brakes :)
I have to admit that I thought that sentece was well written too. :) I don't agree of course :rolleyes:, but it is well written. :-D
« eikonoklastes »
-
Christian Graus wrote: Exactly - the main reason the US had to think that Iraq had WMD's is because they sold them to him. I don't understand how people can say: 1. The US sold the WMDs to Iraq. 2. There are no WMDs in Iraq. at the same time. Surely the US sold far more WMDs to Saddam than he used up? Now, I'm not sure whether you personally said the 2nd thing, and I'm not saying you did, but doesn't the "US Bashers Anonymous" keep bringing these up from time to time? :~ Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: I don't understand how people can say: 1. The US sold the WMDs to Iraq. 2. There are no WMDs in Iraq. Well, the local store sold me about 40 bottles of Coke when they were cheap. There is no Coke in my house. Why ? I used some of it, and I gave some of it away, and if I was put under pressure to reduce or eliminate my stockpile of Coke, it's possible I would have done that, too. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Objective: Remove Saddam, liberate the Iraqi people Cut the crap. Liberation my ass! Then why haven't anything been done in african rogue states? And why did the US line up with known rogue countries such as Uzbekistan (or was it Turkmenistan?), where citizens are terrorized by the government just like the Iraqis were? This was no god damn liberation and you know it. There are many billion reasons to take out Saddam. Only one of them is a humanitarian reason. This war was all about controlling the middle east. I never bought the liberation crap and I never will. It's fucking despicable to use the word "liberate" and "iraqis" in the same sentence. :mad: Terry O`Nolley wrote: Military - it worked in a matter of weeks. Oh really? 450+ US soldiers have died + tens of thousands Iraqis have died, and more will die I'm sure. It hasn't worked.. yet. How can you say it worked in a matter of weeks?! Right now, more people have died than Saddam himself would have killed. And what is it that has been accomplished so far? Anarchy. Many people saw this coming before the war, and that's why they were opposing the war. Germans and frenchies were some of them. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Cut the crap. Liberation my ass! So you believe Saddam is still oppressing the Iraqis? Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Then why haven't anything been done in african rogue states? All in good time my agitated lutefisk, all in good time. There are priorities. Besides those obvious facts, you make a grievous logical error in your ranting. Your statement implies that unless the USA takes simultaneous action across the entire face of the earth then it couldn't have been about liberation. You argument is so logically bankrupt that it can be used to argue my point: Gee - our war couldn't have been about oil because Venezuala has oil and we didn't invade Venezuela!!! Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: This was no god damn liberation and you know it. So you do think Saddam is still in power....... Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: This war was all about controlling the middle east. Controlling in the short term - in order to end global terrorism and sow the seeds of democracy. A noble adventure and a worthy cause if ever there was one. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Oh really? 450+ US soldiers have died + tens of thousands Iraqis have died, and more will die I'm sure. It hasn't worked.. yet. How can you say it worked in a matter of weeks?! Is Saddam still in charge over there? Since our goal was his removal and he has been removed.......
-
Chris Losinger wrote: the document is clearly a reward for countries that did participate, and a slap in the face to every country which didn't. True. And? Do you think Saddam's supporters should also be rewarded?
are you saying Canada supported Saddam? if so, why aren't you invading Manitoba at this very moment? surely those bastards deserve to die. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle