This article may be from the Toronto Star, but look at the byline.
Interesting, isn't it?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote: But they have committed nearly $300 million for Iraqi reconstruction. As well, for the past two years, Canada has sent more than 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, which freed U.S. troops to focus on Iraq.
Oh! That's right! Nobody wants to rebuild Afghanistan! Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"This is no way to treat a long-time friend..."
Friend? B)
Really, this is just symptomatic of the "if you're not with us, you're against us" doctrine, and but so therefore (with apologies to Timmy) Canada is Not Alone in its indignation.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
Ah, the Star.
Gotta hand it to them, for speaking out against the Fast Ferry project... They rightly called Rochester boring and dull.
People want to go to Canada, but for the life of me I can't figure out WHY people would want to come here?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "This is no way to treat a long-time friend..."
Friend? B)
Forgot to mention, we are not their long-time friend. Mexico is, along with Britain. We are just virgin territory just WAITING to be invaded.... the future 51-55th States of the American Dictatorial Empire.
And who would care if the Americans invaded. Like the whole world likes to say: "Blame Canada!!"
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Boo Hoo. You're being included in the rebuilding: it just a ploy so to encourage countries to forgive Iraq's astronomical debts and as usual it's being handled (and reported) in a ham-handed manner. Whining like a child that diding get the last cupcake just make you look silly.
As I pointed out: why not rebuild in Afghanistan? Or Iran for that matter after their quake?
Mabye it's because Iraq's going to be the new "west freindly" country in the region and Canada wants to be in on the ground floor, eh?
While i dont personally feel this way, many Americans look at canada right now as our fairweather freind that refused to send troops when we needed them. And you sided with FRANCE against us, and being associated with Chirac's snide attitude is going to take some serious fence mending with the mainstream that feel Canada is intitled to nothing in Iraq. While it's not fair, Canada was rarely reported in a positive light before the war started and less so during "official" fighting.
I laughed my ass off when Saddam was captured and the very first PM's to vocally congradulate the US/Britan were those of France and Canada. Chriac actually said it was "a great day for freedom". Hypocritical prick. Hell, even Russia was pleased....at least offically, anyway, that we'd caught Saddam.
Canada miight see itself as being rightously snubbed by the US just now, but most people in the US see it as "just desserts".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
"...the future 51-55th States of the American Dictatorial Empire."
Did you guys lose a few provinces when I wasn't looking? I mean, I'm sure we wouldn't want Qu�bec, but still...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:It may stick in our craw to watch Germany and France get rich in Iraq when American blood opened doors they tried to jam closed. But that will be Iraq's best chance to remain independent and free with the support of the whole world.
Instead, we're creating a situation where it will be perceived by the German and French and Russian governments and people that it is in their interest to topple the pro-American regime. How does that help us or anyone? Forget past affronts -- in making future policy, we must think about what will lead to the best chance for the new Iraqi government to succeed.
Part of the problem with allowing Russia a say in anything is that they'd likely support a new warlord's position over a democratic one if it makes them money and strengthens their position in Iraq. If everyone was really on the same page concerning Iraq becoming a stable, independant democracy, I'd love to see all theses "snubbed" countries have an equal say. Mabye I'd feel more charitable about it all if two of my freinds werent shipping off this month to do peacekeeping in the middle east with only Canada, Russia, Germany and France's best wishes at their backs instead of troops. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If everyone was really on the same page concerning Iraq becoming a stable, independant democracy..."
This would seem to be a different page than the US is on, no?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
TSN: Last I heard, the maritimes would constitute one state, Ontario another, the Praries the third, and BC the fourth. It would appear that the US is not interested in the vast space of ice known as the Territories. And Quebec would be independant. Unless you would like to stop that.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Probably a Puerto Rico kind of thing. We wouldn't want anyone to think they were actually part of the country, but we'd still want to control them.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
An odd way to describe the complicated relationship between Puerto Rico and the Federal Government.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Mabye it's because Iraq's going to be the new "west freindly" country in the region and Canada wants to be in on the ground floor, eh?
Or maybe it's because Canada doesn't like being slapped in the face for not slavishly offering military backup when the US went the "hey, let's invade a sovereign state on a shaky set of assumptions and scoff everyone who politely declines to join our little foreign crapshoot even though we will probably come to depend upon them for aid because we have grossly underestimated the task of rebuilding the country and we could be bringing our economy to the edge of bankruptcy unless we attract some of the sponsors we're pissing off but we won't admit any of it at this stage because we're playing things Bogart and don't want to break character yet" route despite repeated warnings from the international community that such acting wouldn't sit well with the majority of its members, Canada included.
Maybe.
But then, who'd have thought the US would actually organize a donor conference to bail itself out?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So you warned us, sat in judgment of us, decided that you wanted nothing to do with the whole situation, sent no troops, congradualted us when we toppeled the dictatorship and again when we caught saddam, and are now upset that you're not being given the spoils of a war you condemned. Great! Like I pointed out: there's PLENTY of oppournitunities in Afghanistan...why arent all the other countries leaping in to rebuild there? Mabye it's because they'd have to put their own ground troops in to secure any kind of rebuilding effort: the UN sure as hell isint going to send any.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Let's see....British companies were selling Iraq the materials and technologies to build a "Super Gun" that would have been able to fire artillery shells into Israel.
The French and Russians were selling Iraq a...well... a complete armory.
The Chinese were selling Iraq missiles and tech.
Sounds to me like these countries HAD their share of business dealings in Iraq. To bad about that regime not being able (or around!) to pay for all that stuff.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah. Still, even if Iraq wasnt toppled, they wouldnt have paid dick anyway: Saddam was sinking the country into a black hole of debt to keep himself in power.
Conversly, the US has sunk itself into a simmlar hole to topple Saddam.
Funny thing is, if Mexico could just paid back what it owes us, we'd probably be back in a surplus again! Man, we give away too damn much....and knowing we'll never get any it that back.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: Let's see....British companies were selling Iraq the materials and technologies to build a "Super Gun" that would have been able to fire artillery shells into Israel.
The French and Russians were selling Iraq a...well... a complete armory.
The Chinese were selling Iraq missiles and tech.
Sounds to me like these countries HAD their share of business dealings in Iraq. To bad about that regime not being able (or around!) to pay for all that stuff.
Such amazing ignorance. No mention of the decade-and-a-half of US support for Saddam.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: So you warned us, sat in judgment of us, decided that you wanted nothing to do with the whole situation, sent no troops, congradualted us when we toppeled the dictatorship and again when we caught saddam, and are now upset that you're not being given the spoils of a war you condemned.
No, more like: "we" warned you, then you judged "US" for daring to issue such warnings, boldly ignored them and did your regime change thing anyway, hit a bit of a snag, begged "us" for help which "we" were still willing to lend in spite of your poor manners, and THEN you came up with this haughty "ploy" just to teach "us" a "lesson" for "condemning" you. Can "we" AT LEAST say "arrogance" here?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Such amazing ignorance. No mention of the decade-and-a-half of US support for Saddam.
Such amazing ignorance. No mention of the much more recent twelve-years of US opposition to Saddam.
It takes real effort to overlook that.
Next you'll be saying that it's inconsistent of us to be sending this earthquake assistance to Iran.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, at least you're being a consistent idiot
How about this Rob? How about it is inconsistent of the US to pat a dictator on the back for fifteen years and tell him "good job", and then all of a sudden point a gun at his face and say "Sorry bud, need the boost in polls", and then when Junior decides he needs a boost in polls over a decade later, oh look, the Bush family's favorite whipping dog is still wandering around Iraq.
Oh, yes, and then it IS very inconsistent to say "Wow, look, we're a model of virtue, and a big shiny city on a hill. Woohoo!"
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'd say consistant bad decisions are a Bad Thing. Inconsistant good decisions are preferable. But that's just me.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, I suppose if six years of Rob's interminable Clinton-whining is enough to excuse the fact that he voted for him in the first place, then anything goes, eh? 8)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: So you warned us, sat in judgment of us, decided that you wanted nothing to do with the whole situation, sent no troops, congradualted us when we toppeled the dictatorship and again when we caught saddam, and are now upset that you're not being given the spoils of a war you condemned.
No, more like: "we" warned you, then you judged "US" for daring to issue such warnings, boldly ignored them and did your regime change thing anyway, hit a bit of a snag, begged "us" for help which "we" were still willing to lend in spite of your poor manners, and THEN you came up with this haughty "ploy" just to teach "us" a "lesson" for "condemning" you. Can "we" AT LEAST say "arrogance" here?
It's arrogance to expect our closest ally to side with us? M'kay.....
Canada's just going with whatever the general consensus wants instead of backing us up. Even with all the snide and stupid remarks between Bush and your PM, the general attitude towards each other has really sucked. Bush comes off as imperilistic and your PM (name escaped me at work) comes off as petulant and frankly, advasarial in the american press.
Mabye we'll get lucky and replace both administrations with ones that want to work together.... Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Canada's just going with whatever the general consensus wants instead of backing us up.
Yes, because the wishes of the majority have no place in a democracy, or at least they haven't since about, ooh, November 2000. 8)
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
quote:your PM (name escaped me at work) comes off as petulant and frankly, advasarial in the american press.
I am shocked and appalled that something as political as the demeanour of a foreign world leader, one who opposes certain American actions, could be represented in such a way so as to villify. Petulant and adversarial? Next you will tell me that Canadian media plays Bush Jr. as dumb, or that, say Muslim extremests consider him evil.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"It's arrogance to expect our closest ally to side with us?"
Well, yes. If you're doing something wrong, you shouldn't expect your allies to support you, just because they're allies. I mean, if someone looks at you funny, and you tell your best friend "hey, hold that guy down while I beat the shit out of him", your friend shouldn't do it just because you're friends.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I thought that the UK was the US's cloest ally?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Maybe he meant geographically. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And how many Americans can tell that, hmm?
(Americans are bad at geography = super new happy funtime originality joke to the max)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"It's arrogance to expect our closest ally to side with us?"
Well, yes. If you're doing something wrong, you shouldn't expect your allies to support you, just because they're allies. I mean, if someone looks at you funny, and you tell your best friend "hey, hold that guy down while I beat the shit out of him", your friend shouldn't do it just because you're friends.
You've never held down anyone for your freinds? Some freind you are!
It's all a case of the Ends justifing the means: Canada's POV was that it's a war without reason and the US (general population anyway) was that it was a war to help both the Iraqui people and the world in general by removing a tyrant from power....and therein lies the problem with Canada's refusal to send troops. Americans are looking at Canada as an ally that wouldnt help us fight against a bunch of oppressive fucks while our troops suffered for Canada's morals. Huh. We're Klingons invading Cardassia and Canada is the Federation deciding to condemn our invasion.
It didint start out as a Trek refrence, but there you go.
This means, of course, that Cheney is an Israli in disguise.....
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
...and that Canada will soon place Worf in charge of the Ministry of Defence, a plucky crack Canadian team will infiltrate Iraq and bring back Saddam in order to do blood tests, and then the US will lead a strangely ineffective attack on the Skydome?
Right.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Skydome is your DS9? That's just sad.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Pat Hentgen is our Sisko, you filthy ape.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"We're Klingons invading Cardassia and Canada is the Federation deciding to condemn our invasion."
Um... Didn't the Klingon's weakinging of Cardassia ultimately cause Cardassia to join up with the Dominion, resulting in a galaxy-wide war with millions of deaths which ended up only being won by the good guys becauser of a magical deus ex machina?
Great analogy.
The fact is that, just because is Country1 is friendly with Country2, that doesn't mean Country1 is required to (or even should) support Country1 when Country1 goes rogue and starts invading stuff.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
We didint "go rogue". A few countries with massive debts owed by the Iraquis were vocal in the UN against us and several smaller countries that have known oppression within the last century were with us along with Britan. I wont get into our motives because that's been done to death and really here is no country without plenty of shades of gray in their decisions here.
Canada, France and Germany all condemned the idea of invasion. Then decreed it "a great day for freedom" once we got saddam. So it's such a "great day for freedom" that you condemned it from the start and now want to be treated as if you were in our corner all along? Fuck that noise.
Bush is a moron for letting the exclusion of these countries become public knowledge when they could easily have kept it quiet and only a minor amount of indignation would have resulted instead of the press running with it and making it seem even more exclusive than is intended. If they'd been slick about it, they could have issued all the contracts with only minimal US press coverage, but theyt blew it.
I think we should give all the contracts possible to the smaller countries that vocally supported us. The ones Chirac threatened with EU exclusion for siding with us.
Then Britan and the US should have their share to (ha ha) offset the cost of rebuilding Iraq from the ground up.
Once Iraq is stable and (hopefully) a independant country, it'll be free trade to whoever wnts to bid on whatever and all the "snubbed" countries will have a fair chance to compete in a democracy the US and Britan established.
France and Germany are already dominating the EU, so their plates kinda full already anyway.
Despite all the congradulations from Canada, France, Germany, Russia and, of course, the UN on capturing saddam and installing a new government, I really get the feeling it's sour grapes. They expected, -and in some ways- wanted the US and Britan to fail -and still do. Everyone wants to US to intercede in any conflict to maintain the peace through the UN but they also want the US to be completely bound by UN resolutions to take no action against our own enemies.
As dumb as the policy excluding non-supportive countries is from a internatinal politicals POV, those same leaders that now want "in" would love to be able to say "I told you so" if we failed to remove saddam.
Bet on it.
Partially it's a anti-Bush thing and partly it's an anti-american sentiment now that we're one of the few real superpowers left.
The world powers may resent our presence in the middle east, but we're actually doinf what's been idly hoped for in the UN for decades: establishing democracys and removing dictators. It's just not under their control and they dont like it one bit.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Didn't the Klingon's weakinging of Cardassia ultimately cause Cardassia to join up with the Dominion, resulting in a galaxy-wide war with millions of deaths which ended up only being won by the good guys becauser of a magical deus ex machina?
Great analogy.
I only meant Gowrons speach about the Federation sitting in judgment while Klingon blood was spilled making the quadrant safe. Not the whole Dominion storyline.
Nor do I think Canada is great analgy for the Federation: they're too benign. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Good. I'd hate it if hostilities were to break out between the US and Canada because those wouldn't cease until Cheney was unmasked as an orthodox yarmulkehead on A Mission� to plunge the West into chaos so his ultra-paranoid people could conquer the world and that could take forever and the two years of global war between the Western quadrant powers and Iraq and Israel which would then ensue before their forces could be driven back to Palestine Prime (or Baghdad or whatever) where they'd be forced to surrender would also suck major balls.
Or something. The analogy is crap anyway, except maybe for the part where the US (along with the remnants of Canada's nasty French seperatist movement) assumes responsibility for pushing Iraq straight into Israel's arms. B)
[ December 30, 2003, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Lee: Such amazing ignorance. No mention of the decade-and-a-half of US support for Saddam. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how does my "Ignorance" invalidate my statement? What was the world situation when the U.S. was aiding Iraq?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The word is "Iraqi", dammit. No 'u'.
"Canada, France and Germany all condemned the idea of invasion. "Then decreed it 'a great day for freedom' once we got saddam."
They were praising the end, not the means. Just because we accomplished something, that doesn't mean we did it the correct way.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Well, at least you're being a consistent idiot
How about this Rob? How about it is inconsistent of the US to pat a dictator on the back for fifteen years and tell him "good job", and then all of a sudden point a gun at his face and say "Sorry bud, need the boost in polls", and then when Junior decides he needs a boost in polls over a decade later, oh look, the Bush family's favorite whipping dog is still wandering around Iraq.
Oh, yes, and then it IS very inconsistent to say "Wow, look, we're a model of virtue, and a big shiny city on a hill. Woohoo!"
Thank you for the sterling example of crap revisionist history, which manages not only to completely ignore the years between 1992-2000, but in fact the entire invasion of Kuwait. That must have took a great deal of cognitive dissonance to accomplish. I don't envy you the headache you're going to have in the morning.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Taken".
And the invasion of Kuwait isn't a very good excuse. I mean, under any reasonable circumstances, it would be. But, in a country that's selective about which invasions it's going to condemn, and which it's going to ignore... That's just hypocrisy, and not worthy of recognition.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Selective condemnation of military actions is what the UN's all about.
Condemnation by consensus.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Even with all the snide and stupid remarks between Bush and your PM, the general attitude towards each other has really sucked. Bush comes off as imperilistic and your PM (name escaped me at work) comes off as petulant and frankly, advasarial in the american press.
I thought Cartman was an Aussie? Didn't his PM back the US in this lillte illegal war. Canada's position on the war was as follows. There was no immediate threat to the US and under UN charter you are not supposed to invade a country unless you can show imminant threat to your own. Canada does believe in honouring the treaties and charters that we sign, unlike some other countries that I can think of. The US was never able to even show that Iraq had the means to attack the US so Canada did not back them in this war. Canada did try to put forth a resolution in the UN which would have eventually given the US the backing it needed for an invasion but only if the WMD claims could have been verified. The US dismissed this resolution out of hand. As far I have seen so far these claims have not been verified even though the US has gone over the area with a fine tooth comb for more that 8 months now. Before the war, all US claims had been proven false by the inspectors on the ground, and still that was not enough for the US to look back on it's "intelligence", and I use that term loosely, and say "Hey maybe we have this wrong". Instead they defied the global community and attack a soveign country without showing provacation. How could you expect us to back you on this? Especially when the US started the name-calling and accusations by claiming the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada without proof, threatened us without proof, snubbed us when we were the first country to help your citizens after 9/11. We sent blood, food, rescue workers, money, blankets and then your president thanks everyone but us in his post 9/11 speech. Canada was not the nation which started the bad blood after 9/11.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Threatened you how?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
My standpoint is... that Bush was ALWAYS going to go back to Iraq and finish what his 'Daddy' started. No one, of course foresore 9/11 and so that and the resulting ousting of the Taliban of course had to take priority. The funny thing is - if you remember pretty much when the Afghanistan thing started to die down, CNN and FoxNews started going "where next?" "who's next?" etc. with their little titles on the screen and commentators who really know very little, yet have maximum exposure. If you want to blame anyone for a lot of problems - I'd start with the media... ever since The Gulf War (1) they've been BAD = REAL bad.
Then of course there was a gap and I thought nothing of it - until CNN and Fox and BBC World etc brought up the subject of Iraq again. Now I'm not condoning anything that that Iraqi regime did - but it's all a little sus - when something that is brought up on a cable news program is put into play a month or less later. We then had the weapons inspectors problem again, then resolution 1411 or what ever it was then more threats and then Bush had the opportunity to finish what his father started.
*I* still believe there are weapons out there. That regime wasn't stupid - they didn't hold power for more than 20? years and be careless and stupid too. They would most definately have complexes and bunkers hidden in the desert wastes.
What annoyed me about the Gulf War (2) was people were forgetting about Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden. They still don't seem to mention it much. There was that capture in Pakistan of that Taliban bigwig - but that's the closest so far.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Indeed. It looks like the world's most infamous terrorist leader is still alive (according to the latest tape) and probably planning more attacks (or giving the orders to carry some out).
So while we've captured Saddam, we haven't found the WMD that was the numero uno reason for invasion and we haven't caught bin Laden. Two very important goals for Bush & co. have not been fulfilled.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
On the contary. I believe the BushCo primary goals have already been achieved. The Afghani natural gas pipeline project into Pakistan is well underway now that that pesky Taliban has been removed. And does anyone have any guesses about how well Halliburton will make out while rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastucture this time? The only remaining unanswered questions are primarily public relations and diplomatic issues. Otherwise they've accomplished what they set out to, eh? Osama bin who? Guantanawhere?
Also, now Canada produces mad-cows as well as Terrorists. Also I'm making a joke to point out that at one point 'Blame Canada' was a joke.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
LOL - I remembered flicking past FoxNews the other day and they had their annoying 'title of the minute' up and it was "Blame Canada".
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:And does anyone have any guesses about how well Halliburton will make out while rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastucture this time?
About as well as they did when they rebuilt Bosnia's?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: LOL - I remembered flicking past FoxNews the other day and they had their annoying 'title of the minute' up and it was "Blame Canada".
I love that. Using an extremely ironic tune in a non-ironic capacity just shows the user out to be really, really stupid.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Or an obnoxious and opinionated assh�le, for that matter.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: LOL - I remembered flicking past FoxNews the other day and they had their annoying 'title of the minute' up and it was "Blame Canada".
Yes, we're doing everything to fuck your country up. Not supporting the War on Iraq, calling your President a Moron, and now poisoning your food system with Mad Cow along with high amounts of cholesterol and stuff.
Oh, before anyone forgets, the name of our Prime Minister is now Paul Martin. He has been for basically a month now....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Wait, I thought we sent them the Mad Cows?
Like Anne Robinson.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I've never actually heard Martin's name spoken. Is it French, or the English pronunciation?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Most likely english.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Well, nice that Jason hasn't been commenting for a while. Everytime I read his idiotic comments I start getting really nauseous. (And that hasn't even got anything to do with the fact that he can't even spell such a simple word as "friend" correctly!)
He represents the typical know-it-all (although he doesn't really seem to actually know a lot) arrogant American hypocrit that people from other countries love to hate - with GWB as the ultimate incarnation.
I come from Germany and I don't even bother that we are excluded from getting "a piece of the pie". We opposed the war in Iraq and rightfully so. The US had no right to start that war, and having captured Saddam doesn't justify it in any way. The main US argument for having to attack immediately were the WMDs - and there is still no WMD in sight!
The sad fact is, the US only do whatever suits them best at any moment:
They backed Saddam when it suited them. They attacked Saddam when it suited them. They supported Osama when it suited them. They hate Osama for not kissing their ass. They help the Afghans when it suits them (against the Russians.) They fight the Afghans when it suits them (when they are part of the "axis of evil". Oh, I forgot the trademark!). They even rename something as unimportant as French fries, just because they don't like the French. Why not rename the Hamburger and call it "Londoner" or even better "Freedomburger"? I mean how much more childish can you get. I think the current trigger-happy US administration is far more dangerous to the world than Saddam ever was!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: he can't even spell such a simple word as "friend" correctly... arrogant American hypocrit...
Irony of ironies, "hypocrite" is spelled with an 'e.'
quote: The sad fact is, the US only do whatever suits them best at any moment:
And this makes them different from Germany, how? Or are you implying that the German government works AGAINST it's people's interest? At least that would be historically consistent.
quote: They backed Saddam when it suited them. They attacked Saddam when it suited them.
Yes, this is called "politics" and Germany does it too.
quote: They supported Osama when it suited them.
Repetition of a meritless accusation will not increase its' validity.
quote:They hate Osama for not kissing their ass.
Yeah, those several thousand murders have nothing to do with it. Eselsarsch.
quote: They help the Afghans when it suits them (against the Russians.) They fight the Afghans when it suits them (when they are part of the "axis of evil". Oh, I forgot the trademark!).
1. Entirely different groups of Afghans. The folks we supported (and the Afghans we support today) are the same folks. 2. Afghanistan was never mentioned as part of the "axis of evil." It really takes a socio-political oberarsch not to know that.
quote: They even rename something as unimportant as French fries, just because they don't like the French.
Who are "they" in your little paranoid fantasy world? The folks who went in for "freedom fries" numbered about, what, sixteen people? I have a whole list of legitimate reasons to dislike France, from their long history of political backstabbing to their Dixie-Chicking" of Serena Williams, but I still call them french fries.
quote: Why not rename the Hamburger and call it "Londoner" or even better "Freedomburger"? I mean how much more childish can you get.
We already did that twice, a few decades ago when we had to bomb your country back into civilization.
quote: I think the current trigger-happy US administration is far more dangerous to the world than Saddam ever was!
I think you're a loon.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: LOL - I remembered flicking past FoxNews the other day and they had their annoying 'title of the minute' up and it was "Blame Canada".
I love that. Using an extremely ironic tune in a non-ironic capacity just shows the user out to be really, really stupid.
The user? I assume you mean FoxNews?
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Or an obnoxious and opinionated assh�le, for that matter.
Who?
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: Yes, we're doing everything to fuck your country up. Not supporting the War on Iraq, calling your President a Moron, and now poisoning your food system with Mad Cow along with high amounts of cholesterol and stuff.
Surely you know by now that I am from AUSTRALIA!?!
Not EVERYONE on the 'net is from North America.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: LOL - I remembered flicking past FoxNews the other day and they had their annoying 'title of the minute' up and it was "Blame Canada".
I love that. Using an extremely ironic tune in a non-ironic capacity just shows the user out to be really, really stupid.
User? I hope you mean FoxNews.
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Or an obnoxious and opinionated assh�le, for that matter.
Who?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: Well, nice that Jason hasn't been commenting for a while. Everytime I read his idiotic comments I start getting really nauseous. (And that hasn't even got anything to do with the fact that he can't even spell such a simple word as "friend" correctly!)
WHOOO HOO, Austin! Now you're FLAMIN! Actually asshole, I've been working thirteen hour shifts and looking for a new apartment. Go back to the FIRST page and read that I dont PERSONALLY agree with the blame Canada is getting but you didint bother to read everything before jumping the gun did you?
quote: He represents the typical know-it-all (although he doesn't really seem to actually know a lot) arrogant American hypocrit that people from other countries love to hate - with GWB as the ultimate incarnation.
If you'd actually READ what I posted, you'd see that I'm speaking from the POV of most american's feelings towards the so called "snubbed" countries: I have plenty of gripes with Bush's cronies. I also suck at typing: as you do as well aparantly.
quote: I come from Germany and I don't even bother that we are excluded from getting "a piece of the pie". We opposed the war in Iraq and rightfully so. The US had no right to start that war, and having captured Saddam doesn't justify it in any way. The main US argument for having to attack immediately were the WMDs - and there is still no WMD in sight!
I actually agree that the reason stated for the war has never panned out, but I think the war was long overdue and was late housekeping from the first gulf war when the US left the Iraqi's we called to rebel out in the cold and all the allies washed their hands of any wrongdoing.
quote: The sad fact is, the US only do whatever suits them best at any moment:
They backed Saddam when it suited them. They attacked Saddam when it suited them. They supported Osama when it suited them. They hate Osama for not kissing their ass.
Here's where you become a horse's ass: we hate Osama for killing a few thousand civillians. We could give a fuck if he "kissed our asses" as you say.
quote: They help the Afghans when it suits them (against the Russians.) They fight the Afghans when it suits them (when they are part of the "axis of evil". Oh, I forgot the trademark!).
While you bring up several undisputable (and shameful) facts, you really should look to your own country's past before judging anyone. Many of the things you're citing are twenty years old and not the direct responsibility of anyone that can fix things now. Or are you still blaming Russia for invading Afghanstan and France for selling Iraq weapons? Past leaders have made mistakes that current leaders cant put right with a wave of a wand and good intentions: being from Germany, you should see that, right?
quote: They even rename something as unimportant as French fries, just because they don't like the French.
I'd agree there: Republicans sniping from the US is as petty as another government calling our president a "moron". The fact is, there are always people that stir up trouble within an administration and while I'm not familliar with Germany's current political climate, I'd imagine you could pick out a troublemaker or three in your own government with no trouble.
quote: I think the current trigger-happy US administration is far more dangerous to the world than Saddam ever was!
Now that's dumb: I must have missed the mass graves here in America, the starving masses and the brutal dictatorship. So the US is "trigger happy" while Germany sits in judgment: quite the historical role reversal, no?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Well, no mass graves to speak of, there are far more starving masses than there ought to be, and I'd call the dictatorship more strong-arm/manipulative than brutal. At least as far as interior policy goes.
[grammar edit]
[ January 08, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
We could give a fuck
COULDN'T!
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
When did you become the herald of grammar around here? Our resident Nixpicker hasn't quit his job yet, y'know. B)
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Obviously the Fourth Reich is coming... currently known as the European Union.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oh, I doubt that. At least Britan and the EU's smaller members would break away long before that could happen.
Now an economic Reich, I could envision though....
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
That's what I was talking about. Bankers are the true policy makers.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: User? I hope you mean FoxNews.
Who else would I be talking about?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I think the current trigger-happy US administration is far more dangerous to the world than Saddam ever was!"
"Now that's dumb: I must have missed the mass graves here in America, the starving masses and the brutal dictatorship."
Well, that seems to be his point. Saddam Hussein was really only a threat to his own country. Bush is actually causing people to die in other parts of the world.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Exactly. Thanks TSN.
And @Jason: Interesting to know that you contend to sucking at typing. Even more interesting that it's always the word "friend". Actually, in my dictionary "hypocrit" is spelled WITHOUT the "e". Anyway I was typing from memory and in contrast to you I am NOT a native speaker remember?! Try to write your previous post again, only this time in German. And THEN try and critizise my English!
About my flaming comments: This IS the Flameboard, isn't it? Anyway, if I have misread what you meant, I apologise. But actually I DID read each and every posting from page one on, including the whole article in the link. (And I have read other comments by you in other topics here at Flare - they only further my opinion about you.)
But be that as it my, I stand by my arguments. Above all that Bush is more dangerous to worldwide peace than any of the Saddam imitators around the globe. If there is a room filled with gunpowder somewhere in the world, GWB is bound to be the first to rush in with a burning match!
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Additional:
quote:While you bring up several undisputable (and shameful) facts, you really should look to your own country's past before judging anyone. Many of the things you're citing are twenty years old and not the direct responsibility of anyone that can fix things now. Or are you still blaming Russia for invading Afghanstan and France for selling Iraq weapons? Past leaders have made mistakes that current leaders cant put right with a wave of a wand and good intentions: being from Germany, you should see that, right?
Of course I see that past leaders have made tragic mistakes - our own past is the most horrendous example of that, I agree.
But do you really want to tell me that Bush's intentions were good when he started a war without a justified cause? (And when he lied to the international community about the WMDs thus undermining the future credibility of his own politics?) Sure, the war was overdue, but I don't understand why GWB's old man didn't finish the job properly after the first Gulf war anyway? It would have been much easier then than it has been now.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm still shocked that Jason actually bought up World War II merely because someone from Germany posted. Do you have any idea how to argue?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I was going to post a very witty reply in German. Unfortunately the only German I can remember is Achtung Englander! Which isn't much help.
Actually, I'm surprised no one's flamed WizArtist for making anti-EU comments. Where are all the pro-Europeans screaming warmongering, nationalist bigot?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Not only WMD. Even Colin Powell admits there is no hard evidence Iraq/al-Qaeda were connected. This after GWB repeated many times before the war that there were connections.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I'm still shocked that Jason actually bought up World War II merely because someone from Germany posted. Do you have any idea how to argue?
I brought it up because many of the things Austin ites are twenty years old and not the responsibility of Bush or any american in power today, yet he insists on labeling "Americans" as being "dangerous" nad "Trigger happy". If we're going to critisize a country for mistakes made over the past twenty years, why not sixty? Why not a hundred?
Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
what are you, one of them Jews or somethin?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: Of course I see that past leaders have made tragic mistakes - our own past is the most horrendous example of that, I agree.
But do you really want to tell me that Bush's intentions were good when he started a war without a justified cause? (And when he lied to the international community about the WMDs thus undermining the future credibility of his own politics?) Sure, the war was overdue, but I don't understand why GWB's old man didn't finish the job properly after the first Gulf war anyway? It would have been much easier then than it has been now.
I NEVER said Bush was justified in his reasons for War: WMD and threat to the US. I HAVE said that freeing Iraq from Saddam should have been reason enough and was loooong overdue. As to America being "dangerous" by invading Iraq, I'd wager that the total casualties in this war have been FAR less than the victims of Saddam's reign: many of wich were children.
The reason GB1 didint finish the job was because public and international support wasnt there and the biggest mistake was made by Schwartzkopf (sp?) during the cease fire, he allowed Iraq to continue to fly (and buy more!) helicopter gunships to "protect their border from invasion". Saddam wasted no time using those gunships to kill all the rebels THE COALITION asked to rise up against him. For Washington's part, they dumped all responsibility for the cease fire on Schwartzkopf with no direct washington oversight. Someone should have caught the mistake. Nice huh? I've seen interviews with american soldiers that were stationed only a few miles away from where the rebels and kurds were getting wiped out and were ordered not to assist our former allies. Our taking Saddam was long overdue. Combine a porly drafted cease fire with poorly enforced trade restrictions on Iraq and you get the force the US encountered (and still fight) the second time around. Lying to the interntional community is a intresting point and was certainly a stupid move but what about France and Russia lying about supporting Saddam against restrictions? Russia had military experts stuck in Iraq hen the invasion started even! Not that two wrngs make a right by any stretch, but two of our biggest critics were trading illegal partners with saddam. It's easy for the majority of americans to be dismissive towards them when their motivations are so clear.
If you've really read my other posts, you'll see that I'm no Bush supporter (particularly because of his domestic policies) but that I think we'll be stuck with him for another four years like it or not.
A prediction for the future: While the international community rushes in to assure Iraq's future is democratic (and west-freindly, no doubt) Afghanistan will go largly ignored and either the US or UN will be back there for "peacekeeping" before the close of the decade.
I dont, however see the european fears of the US reaving through the middle east one country at a time making colonies and israel freindly territories. It's not going to happen. THe US now has a foothold in the region to launch operations against our enemies and THAT is definitely an underlying reason for the invasion in the first place. This is my third time through this post editing for typos so enjoy my diligence. Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
quote: Originally posted by Wraith:
Actually, I'm surprised no one's flamed WizArtist for making anti-EU comments. Where are all the pro-Europeans screaming warmongering, nationalist bigot?
Probably attacking Jason.
Does anyone truly believe that Finland has the same clout as Der Faterland? Also, does several CENTURIES of hatred and fighting become non-issues in a couple of decades? You know there are still people hacked off at the assassination of ArchDuke Ferdinand or the reign of Vlad the Impaler. Like the American government... I don't trust it or the EU, or the UN.
It's been my experience that the masses are sheep led by a few that offer them the delights of selfindulgance and avarice for their support. That is why "Majority Rule" tends to BAD DECISIONS Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"This is my third time through this post editing for typos so enjoy my diligence."
And, yet, I still count at least twenty of them (and that's being generous).
"I HAVE said that freeing Iraq from Saddam should have been reason enough and was loooong overdue."
So, do you also believe that we should, as soon as possible, overthrow the governments of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran (Ayatollah Khamanei), China, and the Sudan, to name a few? How about leaders in countries we traditionally hate, but who have started trying to be nice to us, like Libya, or like President Khatami in Iran? Maybe we should invade Russia while we're at it. They may not be communist anymore, but we never did like them, and it's not like they're really that better off than they were twelve years ago.
So, essentially, my question to you is: Once we start invading countries on the basis that they have bad leaders, where do we stop?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Once we start invading countries on the basis that they have bad leaders, where do we stop
Well, TSN, I don't think President Bush would authorize the US Military to invade the United States and overthrow his administration ... but we can dream, can't we? Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Y'know, you don't always have to make the extremely obvious joke.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Party pooper.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Not to mention Zimbabwe, where Mugabe rules with an iron grip...and remember Liberia? Wasn't Charles Taylor responsible for more than 10,000 deaths? And didn't he get off scot-free with a trip to Sierra Leone?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
If anyone thinks that this war was ever about anything other than petroleum, Israel, and money, A) they are dead wrong, B) they've flunked history, and C) they should really think about taking a couple of critical thinking courses.
US motivations in the middle east weren't even close to approaching humanitarian concerns, and if they had been (as was stated above) there are several regimes currently functional on the planet presently taking far more atrocious actions against their own citizenry you would think might make them a higher priority. I'm not saying Sadaam wasn't a brutal and cruel dictator, and that in many ways his people were suffering. But we all know that, really, that isn't the reason why we're there.
So what then? Enforcing UN resolutions? That kind of goes out the window when the UN asks you not to invade. Removing an imminent threat the the US population? Haven't seen hide nor hair of any imminent threat. This was and always has been about controlling resources and money. An argument could be made that in some way this is protecting American interests, but no one that I've heard is making that argument. And even if they were, I'm not so sure Joe Average in America is really reaping the benefits. Especially if his Reserve Unit is activated and he gets shipped off to Iraq to rebuild Iraq's (oil) infrastructure throughout the unforgiving desert in 115� F heat.
Also WTF? Indeed, wild speculation, but still, WTF?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: So, do you also believe that we should, as soon as possible, overthrow the governments of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran (Ayatollah Khamanei), China, and the Sudan, to name a few? How about leaders in countries we traditionally hate, but who have started trying to be nice to us, like Libya, or like President Khatami in Iran?
Nope: I dont think the US is the "world's policeman" or that it's some kind of mainfest destiny that American ideals should dominate the world....nor do I think that UN resolutions have any meaning any more. Any country with enough clout can (and has) violated resolutions in the past with no consequences. The UN was originally meant to act as both a forum for settleing diffrences without war and policing/ enforcing the decisions it made. It does neither.
As to the US invading, I'm torn. On one hand, it's looong overdue. We should have invaded during the first gluf war, or at least after they tried to kill GB1. Our removing Saddam is something I think we'd really have to have done eventually. Backing down would only have led to Saddam feeling more invincible and rallying the Arab world further against the west. If nothing else, freeing Iraq SHOULD gain us a ally in the arab world (though we're sure not doing a very good job making freinds via Bush's admin.). On the other hand, we are focusing a LOT of attention and rescources on Iraq, building up a huge deficit and leaving Afghanistan behind like a albatross necklace and have not caught Bin Laden. Also, several of my freinds are serving "over there" and the body count is stacking up day by day. Our very own Griffworks is serving "over there" right now, in fact.
Regardless of the reasons why we're in the region or what the original motivations were, we ARE there for the long haul. We (and the whole UN) need to make both Iraq and Afghanistan a stable democracy and a military ally. Most of all, we need to make the people living in that region our freinds and trading partners so their quality of life improves and the underlying reasons for terrorism are eliminated.
As to invading anywhere else....we should have invaded Saudi Aribia if we were going to invade anywhere. It wont happen because of Saudi oil: that's where Bin Laden and middle-eastern terrorism's support is and always has been.
quote:So, essentially, my question to you is: Once we start invading countries on the basis that they have bad leaders, where do we stop?
I'd say that we invaded based on two things: one is that SAddam's regime was a proven enemy to the US and two was that GBJr needed something we could win to both follow up the easy victory in Afghanistan and to divert attention away from his curtailing of civil liberties in the name of "Homeland security" and not catching/ killing Bin Laden. Where do we stop? We stop with a free Iraq, some kind of international presence in the region to assure the government doesnt topple and whaen Bin Laden is dead or caught and his organization is broken. That doesnt mean invading everywhere but it surely will make the US unpopular with many governments that harbor terrorists.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I dont think the US is the "world's policeman" or that it's some kind of mainfest destiny that American ideals should dominate the world."
Then where's the justification for invading Iraq? If we did it because SH was a bad man, we're being "police". If we did it because he violated UN resolutions, then why do we support Israel's doing the same? If we did it because he was a threat to us... well, he wasn't.
You can't just say "well, we don't have a specific justification, but we're happy with the results, so it's okay".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
NO you cant: we had two good reasons and blew the chance both times.
Well we suport Israel and condemn Iraq because one is our pal in the neighborhood and the other has tried to kill our president. Crappy reason, but there you are.
I sure dont think Israel deseves theie preferred status, and who knows? Once Iraq and Afghanistan are stable, they may even fall out of favor. We can hope.
As to our unlimately being justified: HIstory will be the judge of that. Rooseveldt was called a fool and a warmonger by congress prior to he Pearl Harbor attack for wanting the US to enter WWII and history may well say that BUsh was a fool for setting this precedent in US history.
The most I can do is vote against him.
I DO think that we have the chance because of the war to improve the region and our relations with it (again, it'll have to be handled far better to actually work).
Here's a question for you: if, -for instance- Syria were found to be harboring Bin Laden and refusd to surrender him to a world court, would invasion be justified then? I ask because it may yet become an issue the US has to face.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, I don't honestly know much about how the World Court works, so I'm not sure how a situation like that is typically handled. But, should the US just up and mount a unilateral invasion as anything other than a last resort? No.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
WEll, I dont think it'll be *quite* so rash but I can forsee the situation happening. If Bin Laden were to hide in any arab country, that country's leaders couldnt just hand him over: their own people would rise up against them.
I wonder if we'll see something around....late aguust or so.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Not to mention Zimbabwe, where Mugabe rules with an iron grip.
But Mugabe's a black 'elected' [sic] president and therefore is always right about everything. And anything we try to do that is against him is just a futile attempt by the white imperialist oppressors to crush black people. Or so I'm told.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, often a "elected dictator" starts off as an elected official that grabs power and becomes "presedent for life" of some other silly title. When we (the US in particualr, here) leave Iraq and they possibly elect a brand new oppresive dictatorship we could be right back where we started....or worse even. In the long run we'll have to take our chances that the Iraqui people really do want change.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Gambling with the future of Iraq and the people in it is just a little too costly, what with those outstanding contracts that would be threatened by something as pesky as true autonomy and all, for the US to hand over the reigns and leave non-reimbursed.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well..."non-reimbursed" is relative. I'm sure there will be a nice air force base in it for us at the least.
And I'm SHOCKED that you might think the Bush administration capable of any electoral wrong-doings. Shocked, I say! Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Iraqi.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
...the other white meat.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Quiet you.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Even though he was the Treasury Secretary, this does make you think...
[ January 11, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Veers ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
And this all -amazingly- comes to light now.... Just in time for his new "tell all" book to become a bestseller! Funny how theses things just seem to happen, huh?
Really, how many meetings on WMD are we supposed to believe the Treasury Secretary was in on?
Bush: Paul, do we have enough cash to invade Iraq?
O'Neil: ...um...only if we create a massive defecit that will last forever and that...
Bush: GREAT! Thanks for coming by, Paul.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
That's why I said, "Even though he was the Treasury Secretary..."
I realize that he was probably did not sit in on intelligence briefings.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yah, I got that.
On a middle eastern note, Democracy is about to be subverted in Iran: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386771.stm This could be the start of something baaaad.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
@Veers (and everyone else too for that matter): Talking about intelligence, did anyone take the free IQ test in the sponsor banner above the article? Really interesting... Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I love Reuters. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Treasury Department has asked for an investigation into how a possibly classified document appeared in a televised interview of ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, a department spokesman said Monday.
Treasury Spokesman Rob Nichols said that "based on the '60 minutes' interview aired Sunday night there was a document shown that appeared to be classified."
Senior Treasury Department staff met Monday morning and decided to refer the matter to the department's Inspector General, who will review to see if further investigation is warranted, Nichols said.
Hell hath no fury like a disgruntled ex-employee.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Or a disgruntled and humiliated administration, eh? Y'know, like the one that revealed that what's-his-name's (Wilson?) wife worked for the CIA after he criticized the Bushies.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Unsupported allegation. No one knows who leaked that info. Since it doesn't seem to be a very well-kept secret in the first place, and the journalist who published her name has claimed that he asked the CIA for confirmation and they didn't tell him he couldn't say anything, and says he was told her name by several sources, and since 50-odd leaks like this are probed every year without signifigant results, It doesn't seem comprable.
I mean, next you're going to tell me Halliburton overcharged the Army for its oil in Iraq. Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Really, how many meetings on WMD are we supposed to believe the Treasury Secretary was in on?
Bush: Paul, do we have enough cash to invade Iraq?
O'Neil: ...um...only if we create a massive defecit that will last forever and that...
Bush: GREAT! Thanks for coming by, Paul.
As treasury secretary, he was a permanent member of the National Security council. I'm no expert but I would think that this would get him into a lot of meetings about the security of the nation. Although seeing as the info about WMD was primarily made up bu Bushco, he probably didn't hear about many WMD.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Even as a NSC member, he wouldnt be informed on all (or even most) aspects of the investigation.
Now if Powell were to say something like that...
I was watching an excertp from O'Neil's interview this morning and he actually seemed suprised that his book would incur a public backlash against him personally. Either he's a great actor or a complete moron.
Possibly a bit of both.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Even as a NSC member, he wouldnt be informed on all (or even most) aspects of the investigation.
And you know this how? I'm sure as a Joe Smoe, you would know more about what goes on in the highest level councils in your country than someone assigned the position.
quote:Either he's a great actor or a complete moron.
Possibly a bit of both.
Perhaps you are right, the republicans are known for picking complete morons to lead their party.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: On a middle eastern note, Democracy is about to be subverted in Iran: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386771.stm This could be the start of something baaaad.
"Baaaad" as in "worse than when you subverted Iran's democracy yourself by installing the Shah to protect your oil interests there which prompted the Islamic Revolution and led to thirty years of fundie-rule"?
[ January 13, 2004, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yeah, this is almost as bad as when Ug supported Togar's clubbing of Gunt for the dry side of the cave, and then turned around and clubbed Togar six weeks later.
I mean, if you're going to play "who did what bad to whom first," you might as well go all the way, right?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Right. Just don't insult the Iranians who are fighting and dying for social reforms in their country by pretending to be concerned about a situation people like you were responsible for in the first place. Or better yet, ask THEM what THEY think of your so-called "old crap" before you raise that defense again, asshole.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:I mean, if you're going to play "who did what bad to whom first," you might as well go all the way, right?
Or, possibly, Cartman could just be eloquently and succinctly pointing out the part the US has previously played in supporting fundamentalist regimes when it has suited 'American' interests, and so where do we get off saying this one is bad where the other wasn't. Not that either was good, and clearly this is a bad thing, but Cartman does have a point. Whereas your clumsy caveman analogy does not seem to. Bring a real argument next time.
[ January 13, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yes, but America is the country of Freedom and Liberty. These are American values that no other country in the entire world shares. Therefore America (and, by extension, the Republican party) is always right. See, doesn't that make sense?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: On a middle eastern note, Democracy is about to be subverted in Iran: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386771.stm This could be the start of something baaaad.
"Baaaad" as in "worse than when you subverted Iran's democracy yourself by installing the Shah to protect your oil interests there which prompted the Islamic Revolution and led to thirty years of fundie-rule"?
Yeah, I'm always doing that kind of stuff on the weekend: it's a hobby of mine.
I meant, "Baaaad" as in the current majority that LIKES some degree of self-determination will be completely governed by strict fundmentalists under a false democratic pretense and violence will likely ensue.
And yes, the US has certainly played a role in the situation (for all who think I was'nt reading your posts).
[ January 13, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grokca:
quote:Even as a NSC member, he wouldnt be informed on all (or even most) aspects of the investigation.
And you know this how? I'm sure as a Joe Smoe, you would know more about what goes on in the highest level councils in your country than someone assigned the position.
You know, I thought his position was one of the many offices that is only invited to NSC sessions as deemed essential to the situation, but I looked it up and you're right: he would have been required at NSC sessions What do ya know? So, I may have spoken too soon. I cant say it's impossible that he heard there were no WMD to be found (because we've ALL heard -or at least suspected- that) but it seems unlikely that he'd be briefed of the search's progress specifically. And that's what he's claiming: to have been directly told there were NO WMD to be found. The timing of this "revelation" makes the whole allogation seem bogus and rubs me wrong. "Tell all" books piss me off.
Is he trying to inform the public or using his former position to sell books?
CNN reports today:
quote:Ousted Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said today he wishes he could take back unflattering comments he made about President Bush in an upcoming book, but doesn't believe he gave its author classified documents.
quote:Either he's a great actor or a complete moron.
Possibly a bit of both.
Perhaps you are right, the republicans are known for picking complete morons to lead their party. [/QUOTE] Gotta agree there, but it's not so much the leaders I hate as the prople the appoint to actually run the country (the Poindexters, Ashcrofts, Oliphants and the rest of the jerks we dont get to vote on).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"'Baaaad' as in 'worse than when you subverted Iran's democracy yourself by installing the Shah to protect your oil interests there which prompted the Islamic Revolution and led to thirty years of fundie-rule'?"
Now, now... We screwed up the Iranian government to protect British oil interests.
By the way, I recently read the book All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. It's an account of the 1953 coup. Pretty interesting read. I'd recommend it.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Right. Just don't insult the Iranians who are fighting and dying for social reforms in their country
Ironic, given the Iranian decision to install the Fundies, who turned out to be even more repressive than the Shah was.
quote: Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane: Or, possibly, Cartman could just be eloquently and succinctly pointing out the part the US has previously played in supporting fundamentalist regimes when it has suited 'American' interests, and so where do we get off saying this one is bad where the other wasn't.
Succinct, yes. However, the next time Cartman says something eloquently will be the first. His temper is not conducive to that sort of speech, as he prefers to utilize "asshole," and similar erudite comments.
However, my point was that claiming that past behavior, on the part of nations, necessarily negates OR supports the validity of future behavior is... specious at best, deliberately obtuse at worst. Many nations other than the United States have gone to war with former allies, or allied with former enemies. Such has always been the case, and is likely to always be the case as long as nations persist.
It's a reducio ad absurdium argument. One might as well blame the British and Russians, who invaded Iran in 1941 and deposed Reza Shah, who while a bit dictatorial, was also hailed as a great reformer who "gained true independence for Iran," and replaced him with his weak son and a strong parliament, which Mosaddeq eventually rose to control with his own authoritarian style, until the coup.
Anyway, as TSN kindly pointed out, He wasn't right about whose interests were being protected (In fact, the truth is that the Brits suggested the operation to the CIA), Although, given the option of protecting the interests of "the west" vs the soviet union, I'd pick the west any day, so the point sort of crumbles there, as it turns from an "The US is selfish" argument to a "Defense of Europe" scenario.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Reza Shah may have been a "great reformer", but he was still a sadistic dictator. I mean, Hitler and Stalin "made the trains run on time", but that remains little consolation for their problems.
And the coup in Iran wasn't a "defense of Europe scenario". The Brits just couldn't stand that their "right" to oppress Iranians and take their oil was being interfered with. "Iran will go communist if Mossadegh stays in power" was just the semi-plausible excuse they used to help convince Eisenhower.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Reza Shah may have been a "great reformer", but he was still a sadistic dictator.
Since my Iran site didn't contain that in his bio, what'd he do? Anything specifically worse than other Middle Eastern leaders of his time?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Ironic, given the Iranian decision to install the Fundies, who turned out to be even more repressive than the Shah was."
Ironic, yes. But they needed to get rid of Mohammed Reza, and they made a mistake when they picked the people to replace him. That doesn't mean they deserve the "you made your bed, now rot in it" treatment.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Since my Iran site didn't contain that in his bio, what'd he do? Anything specifically worse than other Middle Eastern leaders of his time?"
Well, I don't know much about other Mid-East leaders of the time. Though, my Hitler/Stalin reference wasn't meant to imply that he was anywhere on their level. They're just the most obvious examples.
The one story I remember from the book I mentioned was that, supposedly, he was visiting a village one day where the people were running out of food. He made inquiries and found out that the bread-bakers were hoarding the wheat to drive up prices. He went into the first bakery he came to and had the baker thrown into his oven and burned alive. The next day, there was affordable bread available all over the village.
I believe the book mentioned that this particular story may not have been 100% accurate, but apparently that's the sort of methodology he was known for.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Since my Iran site didn't contain that in his bio, what'd he do? Anything specifically worse than other Middle Eastern leaders of his time?"
Well, I don't know much about other Mid-East leaders of the time. Though, my Hitler/Stalin reference wasn't meant to imply that he was anywhere on their level. They're just the most obvious examples.
The one story I remember from the book I mentioned was that, supposedly, he was visiting a village one day where the people were running out of food. He made inquiries and found out that the bread-bakers were hoarding the wheat to drive up prices. He went into the first bakery he came to and had the baker thrown into his oven and burned alive. The next day, there was affordable bread available all over the village.
I believe the book mentioned that this particular story may not have been 100% accurate, but apparently that's the sort of methodology he was known for.
He sounds positively Socialist! Damn greedy capitalist breadmakers!
Not to mention "legendary." Like Katherine the Great and the horse.
Anyway, who's giving Iran the "you made your bed" treatment? Nobody here. Last I heard, the US strongly supported democraticreform in Iran. Not surprising, given the amount of time that has gone by. Times change. Administrations moreso.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not that anyone here has said it, but what I hate seeing is people pointing at (Iranian President) Khatami and saying he's the bad guy. It's the hardliners who we should be worried about, not him. Khatami actually wants reform in his country.
Again, not that anyone has said it, just my two cents on modern day Iran...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, both articles mention him being a moderate.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Last I heard, the US strongly supported democraticreform in Iran."
Yeah. And labelling the whole country "Evil" was a great way for Bush to show that support, wasn't it?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
'mostly evil'
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Like Germany and France... Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So the US stops Britain from intervening to protect British interests in Egypt/the Suez, then goes and intervenes for the British, to protect British interests, in Iran?
That baking story sounds almost like a parable, like Alexandercutting the Gordian Knot or a Mullah Nasruddin story. . . That's not to say it couldn't be true, I might add.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
My (probably completely skewed) view is that Iran can probably 'get there' on it's own, without American (or other) 'help'. They at least seem to try to modernize and very slowly move to some sort of democracy.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: Like Germany and France...
Bush never called those countries "evil"....at worst they were once refered to as "old europe" and that was taken far out of context....and the term was Rumsfeld's.
....that's not to say Bush likes those countries or anything though.
Mabye they'd be part of an "Axis of Unhelpful? "Axis of Unsupportive"?
Mabye Bush will come up with a system for describing countries we dont care for using the silly "Terror Alert" as a standard: The highest level would be "Evil Countries". Next would come "Countries whose governments really suck" Then "Countries whose governments suck, but we do business with anyway" "Former World Powers that still think big" "Used to be Russians" "Probably wont last the year" "Trading partners that hate us" "Allies that hate us" "Owe us lots of money"
You get te idea: this way we'll have "threat level" names for everything and no one will really pay it attention anyway. Like the "Terror Level". Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
No, they make up the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America", or the "Axis of Somewhat Evil", or the "Axis of Occasionally Evil", or maybe the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dont you need three or more countries for an "Axis"? Mabye they'll make a few "Partnerships of dickweeds" or something..
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
quote: Originally posted by: Jason
Dont you need three or more countries for an "Axis"?
NO! just a Shicklegruber with an identity crisis and a deep sense of self-loathing.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Actually, two countries are enough to form an axis.
When reading Cartman's post I was reminded of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". A la "Sir Robin the not-quite-so-brave-as-Sir-Lancelot"... Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Dont you need three or more countries for an "Axis"?
Hmm. What if we invite Canada as well? OK, so it wouldn't be a straight axis, but then, Iraq, Iran and North Korea aren't exactly on one line, either. B)
But back to the discussion at hand...
Although, given the option of protecting the interests of "the west" vs the soviet union, I'd pick the west any day, so the point sort of crumbles there, as it turns from an "The US is selfish" argument to a "Defense of Europe" scenario.
Yeah, you would. That's why Iran is governed by fundamentalists now, because people like you, in their SELFLESS quest to "defend Europe", didn't stop to think wether "protecting the interests of the west" by paying for them in Iranian blood was the right thing to do.
BTW, you want eloquence? I'll give you eloquence. I respond with "erudite comments" not because I have a temper, but because of the unbounded arrogance with which you shrug off your complicity in some of the most brutal crimes against humanity ever committed by resorting to this pathetic tale of Gnugnug and Uunfuufuu at Tanagra to justify the behavior of past administrations, like it matters to the people who still suffer from the outcome of your little games EVERY DAY wether such power politics are par for the course or not. Those mass graves in Iraq? People like you helped fill them, and until you drop that smug superior attitude of yours, I'm going to STAY "erudite", comprende?
As for the US "strongly supporting democratic reforms", the Bush administration doesn't even have a coherent POLICY vis-a-vis Iran: first, it cut a deal with the fundies before the war in Afghanistan, which was honored, then it arrested the Iranian rebels in Iraq because they were purported terrorists, when in fact they belonged to the only organized Iranian opposition group in existence, one that has always advocated a secular democratic government, and now it's pressuring Iran about its nuclear program again. Yeah, that's showing support alright.
And you know what? If I were an Iranian student demonstrating against my government, about the LAST thing I would want would be a public endorsement by the president of the United States. Why? Because 1) the Iranian dissidents want to be perceived as patriots, not as tools or dupes of the CIA seeking to overthrow a regime the US doesn't like, as that would provide the Iranian government with the perfect excuse to cut them down, and 2) they hate the US for all the misery that was inflicted on the population of Iran by the Shah, so any approval from Bush & Co would just rub MORE salt in their wounds. Can you at least grasp these basic facts of life? Good.
Wait, did I say salt? Make that acetic acid.
[ January 14, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Cartman, not all of Iran hates the US (or the "west" for that matter). Mainly it's the fundamentalists that have the country in a stranglehold. And, of course, being "evil".
The current problem in Iran is this idiotic "Guardian Council".
quote: Iran's parliament - the Majlis - is dominated by the reformists who have won all major national elections since 1997.
But it is the Guardian Council, a highly conservative body, that has the power to decide who can and cannot stand for public office - a power parliament has tried and failed to end.
So their Parliment has failed to disolve the council that's causing the current trouble? I'm searching, but I cant find out why they cant vote to get rid of them -unless the majority of Parliment is not nearly as "moderate" as they claim.
That's not to say that the selfsame Parliment is not responsible for Iran's WMD development and that none of them are sympathetic to terrorist causes or anything.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"So the US stops Britain from intervening to protect British interests in Egypt/the Suez, then goes and intervenes for the British, to protect British interests, in Iran?"
No, the other way around. The Iran coup was in 1953. The Suez War was in 1956.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
One more thing, Rob. If you're going to berate ME for tossing around expletives like "asshole", don't make the mistake of peppering your own posts with them as well.
Next time, just keep your mouth shut, eh? For your sake and for ours.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: The current problem in Iran is this idiotic "Guardian Council". So their Parliment has failed to disolve the council that's causing the current trouble? I'm searching, but I cant find out why they cant vote to get rid of them -unless the majority of Parliment is not nearly as "moderate" as they claim.
As I understand it, Iran's parliament is more or less stifled by the clerical establishment (which is itself headed by the Supreme Leader who can veto anything and also controls most organs of oppression, of course), and the religious hierarchs ultimately decide which laws are passed and which aren't.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The "Supreme Leader"? Lousy Iranian Cylons.....
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
quote:As I understand it, Iran's parliament is more or less stifled by the clerical establishment (which is itself headed by the Supreme Leader who can veto anything and also controls most organs of oppression, of course), and the religious hierarchs ultimately decide which laws are passed and which aren't.
So Iran is really Microsoft...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hey: a really good Frontline is on just now dealing with the hunt for WMD and what really was and was not there. Check it out.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I only watch Smartline.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
He also said he didn't think stockpiles of WMDs existed. Wow. He must be another hippie-liberal who wants Bush to fail. And I heard on the news the guy who's replacing him doesn't think they exist, either.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, he was VERY vocal that WMD did exist and even went so far as to give the Bush admin half-ases proof in the form of those aluminium cylenders that "were probvably used to make bio weapons". Much later (and after those cylinders revealed no trace of anything) Kay became frustrated by the Bush administratoin's "giving up looking" for WMD.
That Frontline episode I mentioned has several interviews with Kay and Hans Blix. Blix actually still doesnt rule out Iraq having had WMD during the war: only that there was no evidence for them at the war's start.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
My mistake. Just a little bit of bad grammar there. Instead of "doesn't" I said "didn't."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
He didint?!? Either he's the world's biggest liar now or he has been for the past two years.
DUring that Frontline episode I mentioned eariler, Kay is very defensive about his beliefs that there were and still are WMBD in Iraq or that Saddam went to great lengths to make the world believe he had them to deter invasion.
For him to say now that he never thought there were WMD is like Cunard saying they always thought the Titanic would sink. It's backpedaling on a grand scale.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Or maybe the nine months of fruitless searching disillusioned him enough to recant his earlier statements. And he didn't say "I NEVER believed Iraq possessed large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons", he said "I DON'T believe Iraq possessed large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons", as in "no longer". Why do you think he quit in the first place?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Because the Bush Administration just gave up the hunt for WMD and swept the whole thing out of the headlines. His quitting (almost) brings the topic back into the media for a moment. I think we may see Kay giving more interviews as we get colser to election day though...
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Well, It's good to see the story's getting coverage somewhere. I've had CNN on for over an hour and they just got around to it.
Funny quote of the day: "A country fails it's people when it comprimises it's values to achieve stability" - Dick Chaney On Iraq's past leadership.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Colin Powell says Iraq may not have had WMD"
Now that is backpedaling.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
It's called and Arkansas Two-Step.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Consensual adulterous blowjob vs. unilateral use of force on foreign soil counter to the wishes of the UN (perhaps ironically to enforce UN resolutions) wherein hundreds of US soldiers have been slain (which isn't to mention coalistion casualties or Iraqi deaths), thousands wounded and international peace/world stability put in severe jeopardy. It's a question of scale really.
So we've got two walk offs. Now even the venerable Colin Powell has cowed. I'm sorry, but things just aren't looking too good for the white house. Next thing you know Halliburton will be paying back (paying off?) the US government as restitution for potential overcharging for gasoline in the region.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Now the Dems are talking about forming a "special investigation" into the WMD claims.... Let the payback witch-hunt commence!
While I'm not saying it's undeserved, it's just that they know they'll nevr win the white house with the group of losers running now.... unless they can tear down Bush's popularity with this investigation by september, that is.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Now the Dems are talking about forming a "special investigation" into the WMD claims.... Let the payback witch-hunt commence!
They s/b forming a "special investigation" to find out where their party is hiding viable presidential candidates...unless THEY don't exist either.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, they did find the aluminum cylinder that Al Gore was created in.
I just want Bush's final act while in office to be Presidential Decree stating "...and I wouldve gotten away with it it, if not for you nosy kids and no weapons of mass destruction!".
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
That was just a New Mexico weather balloon.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
David Kay as Fox Mulder Hans Blix as Dana Skully.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Cartman as Cigarette Man?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Austin as Agent Spender.
Charles, Omega and Psyliam as the Lone Gunmen, of course. Psyliam is the one with the long "rougish hair".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Sol System as Alex Krychek.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
TSN as the mothership
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Avon as the weekly "redshirt" character.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Seigfreid as that alien bounty hunter with the big square head. Reverend as that Gray that loved Baseball.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Hey! I want to be Krycek!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Charles, Omega and Psyliam as the Lone Gunmen, of course. Psyliam is the one with the long "rougish hair".
Langley, wasn't it?
I call Byers! You can be Frohickie, Charles.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Except that, by definition, Charles has to be the one with the beard.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I rather fancy being Det. Munch, from the Homicide crossover ep. . .
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Avon as the Fluke-Man.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Y'know, it's just kind of hard to watch an episode of "Law and Order: SVU" and imagine it happening in the same reality as "The X-Files" ...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, it seems, according to this site, that both shows, along with many others, all took place in the head of the kid from "St. Elsewhere".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You're just mad because you're "the mothership".
Okay, we'll fix it: TSN as the old english conspiracy guy.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Y'know, it's just kind of hard to watch an episode of "Law and Order: SVU" and imagine it happening in the same reality as "The X-Files" ...
It also means that that FBI guy from Homicide works for the same FBI that employs Mulder and Skully and supresses the truth about aliens.
Naaaaaa..
Manufactured Snay as Deep Throat (the first one, not that 21 Jumpstreet guy).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Don't forget that, later on, there was a reluctant female Deep Throat.
Hm... There's a phrase I don't use too often...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not wihout your attorney present anyway...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Oh, bugger, I should have gone for X, the mid-period Deep Throat. He was cool, and a bit of a bastard.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I say First of Two as AD Kersh. We can avoid the race differences for now.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Jason as Inspector Dogget.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Now, now. We can't all be Jos� Chung.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Oh, bugger, I should have gone for X, the mid-period Deep Throat.
Mid-period is the best time for that sort of thing, apparently.
I am Langley! Woo!
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
I can't wait to read the first chapter of "The Flare-Files" novel that's soon to be posted on here. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It's good. Simon has sex with every other member (sometimes twice) and Tim ends up so large that he produces enough gravity to causes people to stick to him.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Wow...his own "Personal Gravity Well"
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
LOA as Monica Reyes.
Tora Zial as Agent Diana Fowley.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Wow...his own "Personal Gravity Well"
Tim has already outgrown the personal model.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Giving the Chinese French-made armaments is equivalent to DISARMING them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Seriously, this would give China far better weaponry. And advanced systems that NATO uses and would strengthen France's position as the dominant economic power (with their partner, Robin...er... Germany) of the EU.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Not to mention it allows them some more insight into the workings of our NATO related weapons.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
This isn't exactly the first time the French have done something like this though, is it? Argentina, Iraq... Well, they had to make sure they worked OK so they could ask more for them and who cares if a few rosbifs get killed along the way? Idiots.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's the first time they've pulled this shit since the EU got rolling though. If France can sell weapons to China, then all of the EU can. So UN restrictions and resolutions are even more pointless.
Greeeeaaat.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
And the Europeans will come crying to the US to help them when their own weapons are returned in a less amicable fashion.
Or worse... They'll start supplying both Pakistan and India.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Selling weapons to dubious regimes is something the US would never stoop to, of course.
And, really, you're not in the most auspicious position to cry foul over the UN's inadequacy, either.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
NO we sure arent....but for France to sell China weapons is to contradict all their prior UN rethoric about human rights violations.
France's position a EU leader makes the decision to sell all the more dubious. Who can really veto them if they decide to sell to China or anyone else? Do the other EU members have any say in what is sold to potential EU enimies?
What are the checks and balances in the EU?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
On paper every member has an equal say in EU affairs, but in practice all the strings are pulled by Germany, France, and Britain (and Italy and Spain to a lesser degree), so you can forget about anything being vetoed unless it harms any of those nations' interests, which are, of course, predominantly economic in nature too.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sweet: A charter member of anti-communist NATO is intrested in selling weapons to strengthen one of the few Communist countries left.
Money talks and old treaties walk, eh?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: It's the first time they've pulled this shit since the EU got rolling though
Depends how you define 'got rolling'. The original European Community thing (iron and steel, I think), was set up in 1957. So they have definitely done it since then! Exocet, anyone?
The EU wouldn't stop it anyway; France and Germany control the whole thing. They never pay any attention to the dircetives, etc issued by Brussels. Just look at the Growth and Stability [sic] Pact.
quote: What are the checks and balances in the EU?
Eurocrats in Brussels produce vast numbers of pointless laws that increase red tape exponentially and further their aim of a European superstate. France, Germany and their allies proceed to do as they wish. We get screwed over.
quote: And the Europeans will come crying to the US to help them when their own weapons are returned in a less amicable fashion
Why would China declare war on any European nation? And please, never, ever lump all Europe together as one unit again. As you may have noticed, Eurpean nations are still independant, despite the best efforts of some in Brussels and will react in different ways; look at Iraq.
quote: Or worse... They'll start supplying both Pakistan and India
The Uk already does, although we prefer India. They have more money. We also train officers from both armies.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
No THAT is really fair...
Funny to think that France and Germany are supposed to control the EU. Here in Germany at least the feeling of the general public is that Brussels is controlling everything from milk quotas to what color toilet paper in offices has to have. Fucking Eurocrats. I share the general feeling in Germany that these money-wasters should be shot to the moon...
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Money talks and old treaties walk, eh?"
Yeah, just ask Bush.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: [QB] Why would China declare war on any European nation? And please, never, ever lump all Europe together as one unit again. As you may have noticed, Eurpean nations are still independant, despite the best efforts of some in Brussels and will react in different ways; look at Iraq.
Why would I do that which Europe has done for itself so effectively? Sorry, but EVERYONE answers to the WORLD BANK. And it is always the bankers that order the world.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:
quote: And the Europeans will come crying to the US to help them when their own weapons are returned in a less amicable fashion
Why would China declare war on any European nation?
Because you know, they've had their eyes on Belgium for the longest time.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, they may as well. It's not like anyone else wants to look at it.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Quote Monty Python: "Other News: an atomic bomb has just been dropped in Belgium. Most of the country is now a barren wasteland. Life for most Belgians continues as normal..." Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
How very true
quote: Why would I do that which Europe has done for itself so effectively? Sorry, but EVERYONE answers to the WORLD BANK. And it is always the bankers that order the world.
Uh... OK. Refering to Europe as if it is one country is just something that irritates me. It is inaccurate and unhelpful. I sincerly doubt there is some World Bank inspired plot to take over the world Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Belgium has Van Damme, dammit. And he, being from the only European state that was ever overrun and invaded TWICE last century by the Germans (who, as all vicious predators do, instinctively prey upon the weaker before attacking the stronger), not because of any merit of its own but because the country was less trouble to conquer than going around it was and is thus considered wimpier than FRANCE (even if this reputation is in fact not deserved by the Belgians (anybody who can get Indiana Jones to join THEIR army can't be that pathetic (and yes, I just nested parentheses))), is now immune to EVERYTHING.
The Chinese will have a tough fight ahead of them.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Wow. Go Belgium.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Maginot comes to mind....
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The Maginot line did exactly what it was designed to do. Belgium just happened to be the Germans' detour.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Yeah, send the Germans through the "Scenic Turnout" of the benelux countries.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not that the line would have been effective once Paratroopers came into use anyway.
It was an intresting idea that was about 50 years too late in execution.
The sad thing is that Maginot himself was against the idea, got stuck finishing the project and it was named after him. Now a smart man is forever associated with a useless military novelty.
History am cruel.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Actually, Maginot was the one who pushed France's parliament to fund the project. And, in fact, the line itself didn't fail France so much as the "Maginot mentality" of false security did. There were three schools of thought: Joffre favored a line of fortifications along France's eastern frontier with Germany, a series of defended concentration areas from which troops could counter any attack which attempted to penetrate between the defenses, Petain was a supported of defense in depth like the Hindenburg Line, and de Gaulle argued for a buildup of tanks and planes. But France had no stomach for mobility and attack (aka. modern warfare, which was around the corner in 1930) after losing the unimaginable amount of one and a half MILLION of its soldiers in WW1, so it went with the line and payed the price. That's the real cruelty...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I stands corrected.
STill bites though: from the documentaries I've seen on the line, it would have been the ultimate WWI defense. It even have fans to repel gas attacks.
Back to topic for a moment, I saw that the Carnegie Report on the "evidence" for war is probably going to be delayed untill after the elections to be as politically impartial as possible but they did say theres more to blame than the CIA's intelligence being faulty.
I think it should be investigated, but after the elections it'll be a non-issue if the Dems win or a vindictive witch hunt if they lose.
Also recent, the BBC is wearing a bit of egg on it's journalistic face this week...I'll try to track down a link....
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I would provide one, but I saw it on TV and can't be arsed looking for it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yah..I heard about on NPR this morning. I'll find it later.
What happened to the reporter? Killed, I'd imagine.
Or working for The New York Times. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So...this manages to make America's own leaks to unscrupulous reporters seem *almost* tame.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I love the fact that the news source you've gone to to investigate the BBC fucking up is...the BBC.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You know, Hutton may have acquitted Blair, but I don't think anyone else in his camp will.
And what's this crap about impartiality, anyway? If BushCo DID falsify or otherwise tamper with the "evidence", then that's all the more reason why it SHOULD be brought out BEFORE the elections, don't you think?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Because it's big enough to need it's own, really. Plus Lee has provided handy links for those of you coming late to the game.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I love the fact that the news source you've gone to to investigate the BBC fucking up is...the BBC.
Find me another English news source to go to, please! I'm sure as hell not going to link anything written by The Sun. It's a one man show over there for serious news: hence the scandal.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: And what's this crap about impartiality, anyway? If BushCo DID falsify or otherwise tamper with the "evidence", then that's all the more reason why it SHOULD be brought out BEFORE the elections, don't you think?
Not at all: it needs ro remain seperate from election agendas to maintain any kind of credibility at all: it'd be far easier to dismiss the report's findings if it appeared to be a Democrat backed witch hunt. The timinig sucks for voters but there'll so much spin on the WMD issue as we approach the election that it shouldnt get dismissed as part of the inevitible batch of "tell all books" and interviews that only obscure the facts.
Ideally, that's what an Independant Council/ Inquiry is supposd to be for. Otherwise, it's like the accuser acting as judge and jury.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Find me another English news source to go to, please! I'm sure as hell not going to link anything written by The Sun. It's a one man show over there for serious news: hence the scandal.
I know. I was watching a BBC News report on the whole thing. The man in the studio was talking to someone standing outside BBC television centre, asking them about the situation. Which was brilliant, when you consider that the anchorman was almost certainly IN Television Centre, and the anchorman probably had just put a coat on and wandered outside.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That's acutally VERY funny in a Daily Show kind of way. It would have been hysterical if it was snowing outside where the reporter was. "Bob...ccccan I ccome in now? It's fffreezing out here!"
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)