US retaliation against France etc.
-
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.
-
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.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: According to your rules, it would a physical impossibility for you to hide the cola where the police couldn't find it. Assuming I had cola, yes. :P Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
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
jdunlap wrote: Ah, but in this war, we got him for HAVING the weapons Yes. But the person I was replying to was merely beating the dead horse by bringing up the tired fact that the US sold chem/bio to Iraq decades ago.
-
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: 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!!!!!!!!!!". Or the alternative - the US was happy to take money from madmen in exchange for weapons, on the proviso that they did not use them. Your alcohol analogy is so obviously flawed it's not funny. 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: It's f***ing despicable to use the word "liberate" and "iraqis" in the same sentence. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/goto/?getPage=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eknoxstudio%2Ecom%2Fshns%2Fstory%2Ecfm%3Fpk%3DIRAQ%2DREALITY%2D12%2D05%2D03%26cat%3DII&return=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edrudgereportarchives%2Ecom%2Fdsp%2Flinks%5Frecap%2Ehtm[^] Amazing how bitchy you folks get living there. 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)
-
Are you willing to say that Canada, Korea and Mexico are "against evrything American" and are "enemies" ? Well, yeah, you probably are. Nevermind... Read the document this is all based on. This isn't about France, Germany and Russia; those countries are not mentioned in Wolfowitz's document. The countries that are mentioned are those included in the "coalition". All countries not mentioned are (by definition of "include") excluded from bidding on contracts. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: Are you willing to say that Canada, Korea and Mexico are "against evrything American" Yes, but not all of Korea. Canada, yes. Mexico, yes. Korea, those citizens old enough to remember we saved their bacon, no. The younger generation in Korea, yes. 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)
-
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: There are absolutes, good and evil, to believe otherwise is be too cowardly to stand up for what is right and what is wrong. Ridiculous. If there are moral absolutes then it takes no courage whatsoever to stand up for what is 'good,' because everybody would agree that it is 'good.' Same for being against what is commonly accepted as evil. For example, in our society, taking a stand against something like pedophilia isn't really couragous. Courage comes from acting on your less popular set of morals and beliefs in spite of the fact that a vast number of people disagree. (say prayer in school, for example.) However, the line between courage and fanaticism is very, very, thin and depends on which side you're arguing. You'll only be couragous to those people who agree with your moral opinions. Eco
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: According to your rules, it would a physical impossibility for you to hide the cola where the police couldn't find it. Assuming I had cola, yes. :P Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Oh, but you do have it![^] Full circle, cycle complete, clap clap clap. :-D Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
-
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!
You gotta tell them what they want to believe. I personally, as a life long Republican and a fellow Texan , am writing George a letter and trying to get the camel dung removal concession. Gotta be some big bucks there with all those bombs going off and scaring the shit out of the camels. Maybe I can sub contract the work to a German company. Not French cause they would probably find some way to cook and eat the product :) 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
-
You gotta tell them what they want to believe. I personally, as a life long Republican and a fellow Texan , am writing George a letter and trying to get the camel dung removal concession. Gotta be some big bucks there with all those bombs going off and scaring the shit out of the camels. Maybe I can sub contract the work to a German company. Not French cause they would probably find some way to cook and eat the product :) 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
Right on! I was stationed at Fort Hood for 18 months. I lived off-post (in Copperas Cove) and got to really enjoy central Texas. DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS
-
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!!!!!!!!!!".
The US (and to a lesser extent the rest of the developed world including the UK) were happy to turn a blind eye and take his money so helped to create the monster. Its called taking responsibility for your actions. Instead, now people worse than him in some smaller countries around there are getting support in order to support the US's short term goals. The tigress is here :-D
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: There are absolutes, good and evil, to believe otherwise is be too cowardly to stand up for what is right and what is wrong. Ridiculous. If there are moral absolutes then it takes no courage whatsoever to stand up for what is 'good,' because everybody would agree that it is 'good.' Same for being against what is commonly accepted as evil. For example, in our society, taking a stand against something like pedophilia isn't really couragous. Courage comes from acting on your less popular set of morals and beliefs in spite of the fact that a vast number of people disagree. (say prayer in school, for example.) However, the line between courage and fanaticism is very, very, thin and depends on which side you're arguing. You'll only be couragous to those people who agree with your moral opinions. Eco
Eco Jones wrote: because everybody would agree that it is 'good.' What were you smoking last night? 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)
-
John Carson wrote: Such an approach has a legitimate place in relation to countries that are fundamentally hostile to the US. I would say that a nation that supported our enemy in a war is a hostile country.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I would say that a nation that supported our enemy in a war is a hostile country. For a programmer that is a VERY illogical conclusion, how did Germany and France support Iraq during the war? :wtf: Does that mean that I am supporting Red Cross by not sending them money?, makes it very easy to be generous then... :doh: "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
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: 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 f***ing 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. And the smartest person is the one who thinks that 'doing nothing' is equal to 'supporting', hm? This, by the way, has nothing to do with rewarding, because if Iraq was free it would choose whoever it wanted. No, this is about punishment. And that is not childish, it is very stupid. Allthough the arrogance of the majority of US is such that you think you live in a vacuum, you are still a part of the world, and you are just as dependant on foreign trade as are any other country. How smart is it to offend 2 of your largest business partners? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
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. While there is still Guantanamo, I think US should avoid mention human rights... "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Eco Jones wrote: because everybody would agree that it is 'good.' What were you smoking last night? 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)
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I would say that a nation that supported our enemy in a war is a hostile country. For a programmer that is a VERY illogical conclusion, how did Germany and France support Iraq during the war? :wtf: Does that mean that I am supporting Red Cross by not sending them money?, makes it very easy to be generous then... :doh: "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
France and Russia had military advisors in Iraq the day before the war. France promised to veto any action that might overthrow Saddam. Russia and France shared intel with Saddam.