US retaliation against France etc.
-
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![^]
-
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![^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Just don't say the main objective was to liberate Iraqis, because that's a damn lie and you know it. Nope we went in after the OIL baby - just the oil. And to piss France off. And to make GWB a household name. So what if the primary objective was to find WMD - the secondary effect was to get rid of Saddam - which you apparently find objectionable. Oh well - what was that old saying about fools and money ? 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
-
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![^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Saddam and his doubles have actually been seen prior the war, during the war and after the war by, perhaps unreliable, sources. That same type of "source" has told us that his WMD existed. In addition, Iraq provided a list of WMD as part of the cease-fire terms after the first gulf war. UN inspectors worked off of that list to oversee the WMD's destruction. Saddam played shell games with them for 6 years then kicked them out of the country - BEFORE the weapons were destroyed. Why would he live under those sanctions for that long, refusing to destroy the weapons, only to destroy them at a later date and not tell anybody? Even if the WMD magically teleported to some parallel universe, the USA, the UN, etc. etc. is not wrong to believe he had them.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Just don't say the main objective was to liberate Iraqis, because that's a damn lie and you know it. Nope we went in after the OIL baby - just the oil. And to piss France off. And to make GWB a household name. So what if the primary objective was to find WMD - the secondary effect was to get rid of Saddam - which you apparently find objectionable. Oh well - what was that old saying about fools and money ? 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
It's easy to see why you guys have so many enemies. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
Who provided the chemicals used to make the gas that killed tens of thousands of Iranians and marsh Arabs ? The tigress is here :-D
France and Germany perhaps 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
-
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
Christian Graus wrote: But if I did that, and was then subjected to a police raid, would they find Cola in the basement ? Not if you hid it well enough. It is a lot easier to bury a truckload of chemical/bio weapons in the desert and kill the workers who buried it when you have the mindset of Saddam Hussein than it would be for you to hide the cola in your basement where police wouldn't find it. Saddam to top general: Execute plan XYZPDQ! General: yes your most exalted one! General to Captain: Get 5 men, a backhoe and a semi-trailer. Load up all the chemical weapons and report back here. Captain to General: it is done sir - the truck is loaded. General to captain: Follow me (they drive way out in the desert) General to captain: Have your men dig here and bury the contents of the truck. (they dig a hole and empty the truck's contents) Captain: General - what are you doing??? NO!!!! BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG General to Saddam: It has been done Oh magnificent one! Saddam: BANG!
-
Christian Graus wrote: But if I did that, and was then subjected to a police raid, would they find Cola in the basement ? Not if you hid it well enough. It is a lot easier to bury a truckload of chemical/bio weapons in the desert and kill the workers who buried it when you have the mindset of Saddam Hussein than it would be for you to hide the cola in your basement where police wouldn't find it. Saddam to top general: Execute plan XYZPDQ! General: yes your most exalted one! General to Captain: Get 5 men, a backhoe and a semi-trailer. Load up all the chemical weapons and report back here. Captain to General: it is done sir - the truck is loaded. General to captain: Follow me (they drive way out in the desert) General to captain: Have your men dig here and bury the contents of the truck. (they dig a hole and empty the truck's contents) Captain: General - what are you doing??? NO!!!! BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG General to Saddam: It has been done Oh magnificent one! Saddam: BANG!
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Not if you hid it well enough. If the police justifed the raid by saying 'we know where the Cola is' and then when they arrived, having killed a couple of my kids on the way in, and found nothing, would you presume I was a wily cola hider, or that the police lied ? ( Both is an acceptable answer, but (a) to the exclusion of (b) is not ). Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
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 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 Why is it that no-one who tries to analyse this situation thinks for a moment that Saddam maybe did some of the things he did to appear to his people to be standing up to the USA ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
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!!!!!!!!!!".
Terry O`Nolley wrote: 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. Ah, but in this war, we got him for HAVING the weapons that WE SOLD HIM (or as it later came out, for wanting to get some WMD's) - not for using them.
**"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness..." -- Galatians 5:22-23a
-
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.
i believe we destroyed much of his capability in 1998 and it was never rebuilt, and whatever was left over perished, rotted (or whatever you want to call it), or was destroyed. if some is found, then that'd be great, since it would prevent our country from looking like fools. but, yeah, you're right - i'm believe intel that i've heard that backs up what i think is the reality. but, i'm also disinclined to believe anything W says simply because he's the president. and i'm even less inclined to believe him because i think he's an adept "technical" liar - ie. what he says is often true if you interpret what he says in a very strict way, but a non-exacting interpretation of what he says (what most people hear, who don't pay close attention) is basically false. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
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: the world simply is not black and white like this It would danm well be a better place if it were. There are absolutes, good and evil, to believe otherwise is be too cowardly to stand up for what is right and what is wrong. If you now reply that Canada, France, Germany, Russia, etc. did stand up for what is right / good, by not supporting the USA in the Iraq action then don't whine when there are repercussions that you already knew would happen anyway. Daniel Ferguson wrote: I forgot about the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' thing. Remeber it. It will be in effect for at least the next 6 years. Another absolute. Daniel Ferguson wrote: is only a punitive one directed at certain countries who spoke out against the way the US handled the Iraq situation Speaking out against, is one thing. Actively working against is quite another. Daniel Ferguson wrote: Make some decisions based on a mature, fair and free policy, rather than the greedy, self-serving, inconsistent agenda that currently guides the government. What inconsistent agenda? We're at war, we've told the world what we'll do. We're doing what we said we would do. 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)
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: There's a difference between not wanting someone to go to war and losing a war. VERY BIG f***ING DIFFERENCE Objective: Remove Saddam, liberate the Iraqi people Possible strategies: 1) Economic sanctions - tried for 12 years to no effect. All that happened was Saddam kept the money meant for his people and then tricked the pant-wetting idiots of the world into blaming the US for the starvation 2) Inspection regime - tried for 12 years. Everytime inspectors came close to finding something Saddam would kick them out 3) Military - it worked in a matter of weeks. Since the military option was the only serious method that had any chance of working, anyone who opposed the military option were supporters of Saddam's regime. Sure, they could bitch and moan and maybe even fool themselves into believing they didn't support his government. But anyone who opposes the only thing that would remove Saddam is a Saddam supporter. Or seriously deluded. It is good to see that people are attempting to seperate their nations from France on this issue. I had hoped it would go this way. We aren't quite there yet though...... I was referring to France. Not the impotent nations that huddled in paralyzed nothingness wishing the whole problem could simply go away without their having to do anything. So what of the nations that did nothing - even after their help was asked for? Will you help us? NO!!! So why would a nation who doesn't even bother lifting their fat lazy fingers to help remove Saddam Hussein expect to recieve business from the new nation of Iraq?
Terry O'Nelley wrote: Objective: Remove Saddam, liberate the Iraqi people Bullshit. Go read this http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html and find where it says "objective: liberate". 1st paragraph: hello, thanks for coming 2nd paragraph: threat to peace 3nd paragraph: WMDs 4th paragraph: 9/11 and iraq 5th paragraph: summary: threat to peace, threat of WMDs to the US. quote: "We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it? (end of paragraph)" Notice how he clearly states that the goal (objective) is preventing Saddam from using WMDs on the US? I don't see 'liberation' anywhere in there.
« eikonoklastes »
-
Brit wrote: On one hand, it's a slap to France, Germany, and Russia. On the other, those countries ended up with the same number of rebuilding contracts as they would've if the second Gulf War had never happened. I accept your point. It would be a little tacky for any of the three countries to be complaining too loudly about missing out on economic opportunities resulting from a war they opposed. Nevertheless, the retaliatory action reinforces the beliefs already held by many around the world about the Bush Administration, i.e., that it has no respect for the opinions of other countries and considers that acquiescence to US policy is the only acceptable foreign policy stance for other countries to adopt. John Carson
John Carson wrote: the retaliatory action reinforces the beliefs already held by many around the world about the Bush Administration, i.e., that it has no respect for the opinions of other countries Good. That is one major reason I voted for the guy.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: You got my +5 Thanks - but it won't matter. The anti-US/pro terrorist wankers will vote it down anyways :)
mine also.
-
mine also.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: the world simply is not black and white like this It would danm well be a better place if it were. There are absolutes, good and evil, to believe otherwise is be too cowardly to stand up for what is right and what is wrong. If you now reply that Canada, France, Germany, Russia, etc. did stand up for what is right / good, by not supporting the USA in the Iraq action then don't whine when there are repercussions that you already knew would happen anyway. Daniel Ferguson wrote: I forgot about the 'if you're not with us, you're against us' thing. Remeber it. It will be in effect for at least the next 6 years. Another absolute. Daniel Ferguson wrote: is only a punitive one directed at certain countries who spoke out against the way the US handled the Iraq situation Speaking out against, is one thing. Actively working against is quite another. Daniel Ferguson wrote: Make some decisions based on a mature, fair and free policy, rather than the greedy, self-serving, inconsistent agenda that currently guides the government. What inconsistent agenda? We're at war, we've told the world what we'll do. We're doing what we said we would do. 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: What inconsistent agenda? We're at war, we've told the world what we'll do. We're doing what we said we would do. Exactly. nVoteAverage = (nVoteTotal + 5) / ++nNumVotes;
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Just don't say the main objective was to liberate Iraqis, because that's a damn lie and you know it. Nope we went in after the OIL baby - just the oil. And to piss France off. And to make GWB a household name. So what if the primary objective was to find WMD - the secondary effect was to get rid of Saddam - which you apparently find objectionable. Oh well - what was that old saying about fools and money ? 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: Nope we went in after the OIL baby - just the oil. We couldn't have been going after the oil - Venezuela has oil and we didn't invade them! Just kidding - that is one of the asinine arguments that the pro-Saddam folks always use: "You weren't there to liberate Iraq - if you were then why don't you free the other countries ruled by dictators" :) I can't help but laughing. Then when I think they might actually believe that garbage I feel like crying instead. So I compromise and laugh myself to tears!
-
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![^]
-
i believe we destroyed much of his capability in 1998 and it was never rebuilt, and whatever was left over perished, rotted (or whatever you want to call it), or was destroyed. if some is found, then that'd be great, since it would prevent our country from looking like fools. but, yeah, you're right - i'm believe intel that i've heard that backs up what i think is the reality. but, i'm also disinclined to believe anything W says simply because he's the president. and i'm even less inclined to believe him because i think he's an adept "technical" liar - ie. what he says is often true if you interpret what he says in a very strict way, but a non-exacting interpretation of what he says (what most people hear, who don't pay close attention) is basically false. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: i believe we destroyed much of his capability in 1998 and it was never rebuilt, and whatever was left over perished, rotted (or whatever you want to call it), or was destroyed. if some is found, then that'd be great, since it would prevent our country from looking like fools. I agree that some of their stockpile could have deteriorated beyond usefullness, but I don't believe he destroyed any still-potent WMD prior to just before the war. I would also like some of it to be found. Chris Losinger wrote: i think he's an adept "technical" liar - ie. what he says is often true if you interpret what he says in a very strict way, but a non-exacting interpretation of what he says (what most people hear, who don't pay close attention) is basically false. I guess this is true. It has never bothered me because I have always tended to naturally think in facts/literals. I have caught shit from my family and friends my entire life for this. I still have great difficulty in realizing/believing/whatever that other people don't also think the way I do. I have been called manipulative, sarcastic and other nice names because I automatically think the way that way. (I'm sure you have witnessed this behaviour here)
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Not if you hid it well enough. If the police justifed the raid by saying 'we know where the Cola is' and then when they arrived, having killed a couple of my kids on the way in, and found nothing, would you presume I was a wily cola hider, or that the police lied ? ( Both is an acceptable answer, but (a) to the exclusion of (b) is not ). Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: ( Both is an acceptable answer, but (a) to the exclusion of (b) is not ). What? According to your rules, it would a physical impossibility for you to hide the cola where the police couldn't find it. And before we allow the dimensions of a typical basement to disrupt the reality of what we are talking about, lets say that instead of a cola you needed to hide an amoeba - but the police still had to rely on their eyes to find it. Your rules also ignore the fact that your cola could have been at the place indicated when the confidential informer talked to the police but moved afterwards.