US retaliation against France etc.
-
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.
Tim Craig wrote: 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. That makes a lot more sense. Figures. They are cute in a sad sort of a way.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: How have the WMD claims been proven bigus? "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have " George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002 "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002 "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it" Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary, Response to Question From Press 12/4/2002 "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary, Response to Question From Press 1/9/2003 "I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that’s been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq." Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader, NewsHour Interview 1/22/2003 "U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. " GWB, SOTU 1/19/03 "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. " GWB, SOTU 1/19/03 "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing, 3/21/2003 "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. " Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, 3/30/2003 "But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. " Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary, Press Briefing, 4/10/2003
Yeah, yeah. I never denied that one of the reasons for liberating the Iraqi people and removing Saddam Hussein was WMD. What I said was that by using the logic of "since we haven't found them yet - they never existed" you are also saying that Saddam Hussein never existed. Any moron can google for WMD quotes and by posting them here you have ignored the point I was making. But all that means is that you will have idiots lined up around the block to vote your stunning repartee 5. Why idiots? Because I said "You can't prove the WMD aren't there just because they have yet to be found". All you did was cite quotations where the administration mentioned WMD. SO WHAT?!?!?!? If not an idiot - what sort of person could see your reply 5-worthy? I am seriously asking. Maybe not an idiot. Maybe just a fat phucker too lazy to read my point. Maybe a knee-jerk spastic who automatically thinks your mundane quotery clever. Me: Lack of proof of X is not proof of lack of X You: Quote someone who says X exists Idiots: VOTE 5!!!!!
-
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
Christian Graus wrote: But not TOO loudly, It is up to the networks how often they run sound-bites.
-
Who provided the chemicals used to make the gas that killed tens of thousands of Iranians and marsh Arabs ? The tigress is here :-D
I think the USA provided a lot of it. Oh!!! I get it! Since we sold it to him, that means we can never punish him if he invades a neighbor. Got it. So in a state where the government controls liquor sales a guy can get drunk and drive into a schoolbus and kill 20 children and not be prosecuted since the government sold him the liquor. If this isn't your point - how is this relevant? It is so repetitive that it is almost soothing - like a heartbeat. Right on cue someone chimes in with a shrill "Didn't the US sell the chemical weapons?" Now hear this: Any nation that has ever recieved any military assistance, weapons, etc. from the USA is free to rape and pillage whatever nations they want because the USA is forbidden from ever going after them because brainiacs will say "DUH GEE!!!! DIDN'T THE US SELL THEM WEAPONS??? DUHH!!!!!!!!!!".
-
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
Christian Graus wrote: and if I was put under pressure to reduce or eliminate my stockpile of Coke, it's possible I would have done that, too. Not quite. Iraq wasn't just "under pressure" to eliminate it. They were mandated by the terms that ended the first gulf war. They were accompanied by UN inspectors who, working off the list of WMD provided by Iraq at the end of the war, went down the list, item by item, and asked them where the weapons were so they could be destroyed. Iraq played a shell game for 6 years before kicking out the inspectors when they got too close to discovering the weapons. So, in your example, there would be a police officer in your house watching you dump the cola down the drain and signing off on it after each bottle was emptied.
-
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
If it makes me a sick puppy to not buy the ever changing bogus objectives about this war, and for questioning the means to achieve the goal, then I'm happy to be a sick puppy. Just don't say the main objective was to liberate Iraqis, because that's a damn lie and you know it. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
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. Why does this remind me of bank robbers? :rolleyes: -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
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
Richard Stringer wrote: Besides we know how effective the French Army is, don't we Perhaps they don't need to have such an effective army since they don't piss other states off all the time. ;P -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
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: How have the WMD claims been proven bogus? According to this "logic", Saddam Hussein didn't exist either. Saddam and his doubles have actually been seen prior the war, during the war and after the war by, perhaps unreliable, sources. I'm really beginning to wonder. Do you even know what logic means? -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
Yeah, yeah. I never denied that one of the reasons for liberating the Iraqi people and removing Saddam Hussein was WMD. What I said was that by using the logic of "since we haven't found them yet - they never existed" you are also saying that Saddam Hussein never existed. Any moron can google for WMD quotes and by posting them here you have ignored the point I was making. But all that means is that you will have idiots lined up around the block to vote your stunning repartee 5. Why idiots? Because I said "You can't prove the WMD aren't there just because they have yet to be found". All you did was cite quotations where the administration mentioned WMD. SO WHAT?!?!?!? If not an idiot - what sort of person could see your reply 5-worthy? I am seriously asking. Maybe not an idiot. Maybe just a fat phucker too lazy to read my point. Maybe a knee-jerk spastic who automatically thinks your mundane quotery clever. Me: Lack of proof of X is not proof of lack of X You: Quote someone who says X exists Idiots: VOTE 5!!!!!
i am not saying that. i'm saying we haven't found them yet because they didn't exist. you keep trying to change it so that i'm saying the converse. you can't do that. there is plenty of intel and defector testimony that supports my conclusion. and, the fact that BushCo has continually retreated from WMD "stockpiles" to WMD "capability" to "desire" to regain WMD capability to whatever it is we're at today (all the way to "Freedom" and "Hope", i guess) tells me that they don't believe there are any WMDs out there either. and, there is plenty of evidence that many of the people who currently make up BushCo cherry-picked individual pieces of intel and drew unsupportable connections between those pieces to justify a war they've wanted for nearly a decade. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Because I said "You can't prove the WMD aren't there just because they have yet to be found". that's not what you said (so you shouldn't put it in quotes). you said "How have the WMD claims been proven bogus? " my handful of WMD quotes from BushCo shows that they were clearly making claims that have turned out to be bogus. and i believe many people near the top knew these claims were bogus, but sold them as justification anyway. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
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 »
One of the courses taught at my brainwashing school was guerilla sentence structure :)
-
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
Chris Losinger wrote: why aren't you invading Manitoba at this very moment Man, I thought I was a hawk.........
-
Christian Graus wrote: and if I was put under pressure to reduce or eliminate my stockpile of Coke, it's possible I would have done that, too. Not quite. Iraq wasn't just "under pressure" to eliminate it. They were mandated by the terms that ended the first gulf war. They were accompanied by UN inspectors who, working off the list of WMD provided by Iraq at the end of the war, went down the list, item by item, and asked them where the weapons were so they could be destroyed. Iraq played a shell game for 6 years before kicking out the inspectors when they got too close to discovering the weapons. So, in your example, there would be a police officer in your house watching you dump the cola down the drain and signing off on it after each bottle was emptied.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: So, in your example, there would be a police officer in your house watching you dump the cola down the drain and signing off on it after each bottle was emptied. Which really doesn't change anything. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Besides we know how effective the French Army is, don't we Perhaps they don't need to have such an effective army since they don't piss other states off all the time. ;P -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Perhaps they don't need to have such an effective army since they don't piss other states off all the time. Thats not why - they have learned that if they get invaded the USA will come and save them so why waste money on a capable military.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Perhaps they don't need to have such an effective army since they don't piss other states off all the time. Thats not why - they have learned that if they get invaded the USA will come and save them so why waste money on a capable military.
My memory is a bit foggy. I was wondering if you could help me remember who helped you kick out the brits? -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
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 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. I don't buy it either. Since when did the US start invading countries to save them from dictators for purely humanitarian reasons?
« eikonoklastes »
-
i am not saying that. i'm saying we haven't found them yet because they didn't exist. you keep trying to change it so that i'm saying the converse. you can't do that. there is plenty of intel and defector testimony that supports my conclusion. and, the fact that BushCo has continually retreated from WMD "stockpiles" to WMD "capability" to "desire" to regain WMD capability to whatever it is we're at today (all the way to "Freedom" and "Hope", i guess) tells me that they don't believe there are any WMDs out there either. and, there is plenty of evidence that many of the people who currently make up BushCo cherry-picked individual pieces of intel and drew unsupportable connections between those pieces to justify a war they've wanted for nearly a decade. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Because I said "You can't prove the WMD aren't there just because they have yet to be found". that's not what you said (so you shouldn't put it in quotes). you said "How have the WMD claims been proven bogus? " my handful of WMD quotes from BushCo shows that they were clearly making claims that have turned out to be bogus. and i believe many people near the top knew these claims were bogus, but sold them as justification anyway. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: that's not what you said (so you shouldn't put it in quotes). you said "How have the WMD claims been proven bogus? " You are correct - I should have indicated I was paraphrasing. My question is supported by the fact that you don't prove a negative by citing it's current lack of proof. I think the WMD were buried in the desert and the people that did the burying were killed. Their entire WMD program would have fit in the back of a large semi-trailer. Hell - the entire US chemical and bio stockpile would have fit in the back of a couple of trucks. The government of the USA is toning down the WMD claims because they know how easy it is to hide and eradicate proof of their existence. They know that there are still a lot of logically challenged people in the world who will mix up lack of proof with proof of lack. What we know is that: 1) Iraq had WMD as recent as the gulf war - they gave us the list themselves. 2) UN inspectors were in Iraq to oversee those weapons' destruction. 3) They were kicked out of Iraq before they could witness said destruction. 4) Sactions would have been lifted if Saddam would have given us proof of their destruction. Now - you counter this with intel and defector testimony. The same intel and defector testimony that you discount as BS cherry-picking. If you want to balance this equation then let's do it. Let's agree that intel and defector testimony is all bogus. Cross it out on the left, cross it out on the right - they are cancelled out. What is left are the 4 points I listed above. So you can either believe: 1) The weapons never existed 2) They existed but were destroyed before the war and Saddam just liked living under sanctions 3) They existed right up until the war - at which point they were buried or exported I believe that number 3 is what happened.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: So, in your example, there would be a police officer in your house watching you dump the cola down the drain and signing off on it after each bottle was emptied. Which really doesn't change anything. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Which really doesn't change anything. Okay. Let's add this important variable to the example. During the time which you owned the cola your paycheck was being withheld and you were only being given enough money to feed yourself. You were told that after you showed the police your cola you would be given all of your money back. You would have to be some species other than homo sapiens to hide the cola in the basement and keep telling the police officer that the cola had magically disappeared.
-
Christian Graus wrote: Which really doesn't change anything. Okay. Let's add this important variable to the example. During the time which you owned the cola your paycheck was being withheld and you were only being given enough money to feed yourself. You were told that after you showed the police your cola you would be given all of your money back. You would have to be some species other than homo sapiens to hide the cola in the basement and keep telling the police officer that the cola had magically disappeared.
But if I did that, and was then subjected to a police raid, would they find Cola in the basement ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson 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. I don't buy it either. Since when did the US start invading countries to save them from dictators for purely humanitarian reasons?
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: I don't buy it either. Since when did the US start invading countries to save them from dictators for purely humanitarian reasons? I guess one could argue that the Korea and Vietnam wars were humanitarian. But on the other hand, it can be argued it was a war to save their own country from communism - not others from communism. WW2 on the European front was perhaps humanitarian of sorts. After some begging on knees, they finally came and helped slapping down the nazis. Which of course entitles cynic people to ridicule those who were overtaken by the nazis. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]