French and Germans to Kerry... hell no

[trumptman]

No TROOPS for you! (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html)

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

Hmmmm.... seems Kerry won't be able to deliver what he has contended was really just a matter of Bush, not a lack of ability or desire from the French and Germans on Iraq.

I wonder what the Kerry plan is now?

Nick

[kneelbeforezod]

Putting aside your spinning of statements like "I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops" and "[France has] no plans to send troops either now or later" into "hell no" and "No TROOPS for you!" for the moment...bear in mind that 'international military assistance' is not limited to France and Germany. I expect Kerry's plan is the same: Work with the rest of the world instead of against it.

[groverat]

I don't know if Kerry promised French/German troops or not, it seems to me that his point is that he will work with our allies, not against them (as the Bush administration has).

[Scott]

France/Germany/Russia were against freeing Iraq from the start because it would ruin their lucrative business relationship with the anti-Semitic dictator.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Putting aside your spinning of statements like "I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops" and "[France has] no plans to send troops either now or later" into "hell no" and "No TROOPS for you!" for the moment...bear in mind that 'international military assistance' is not limited to France and Germany. I expect Kerry's plan is the same: Work with the rest of the world instead of against it.

Originally posted by groverat
I don't know if Kerry promised French/German troops or not, it seems to me that his point is that he will work with our allies, not against them (as the Bush administration has).

Are you two reading from the same set of DNC certified talking points?:lol:

I posted this link before, but it is good because it shows the constant spinning and changing regarding Kerry and his Iraq position. It is why he has no credibility in this area.

LA Times-Allies Not in Formation (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kerryiraq9aug09,1,7671568.story?coll=la-home-headlines)


In an interview with The Times last week, Kerry said that by building up international support, it would be a "reasonable goal" to replace most U.S. troops in Iraq with foreign forces within his first term. There are now about 140,000 U.S. troops stationed there, or 88% of a total international force of about 160,000.

In the last several days, Kerry has begun arguing that he could substantially reduce the number of U.S. troops within the first six months of a Kerry administration. In an interview with National Public Radio on Friday, Kerry said: "I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan."

The proposal could be accomplished by increasing the number of foreign troops and boosting the size of the Iraqi security force, Kerry aides say.

Also note this...

Analysts said, moreover, that if the United States was able to reduce its military by substantial numbers in Iraq, at least one or two major nations — such as France or Britain — would have to accept a lead role.

But suppose I even give you the full benefit of the doubt. Kerry is going to have to find 140,000 people, obviously from a major military power, but of course not Germany or France, instead from some source that... well we can't name or identify.

That is supposed to make us feel better about something getting done? That is a "better plan" than what is going on now?

:rolleyes:
Nick

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
Are you two reading from the same set of DNC certified talking points?:lol:

That's rich.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Scott
France/Germany/Russia were against freeing Iraq from the start because it would ruin their lucrative business relationship with the anti-Semitic dictator.

Of course they were. So were we once. :no:

[rageous]

Originally posted by Northgate
Of course they were. So were we once. :no:

I would assume that the point was that we no longer were, unlike them.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Putting aside your spinning of statements like "I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops" and "[France has] no plans to send troops either now or later" into "hell no" and "No TROOPS for you!" for the moment...bear in mind that 'international military assistance' is not limited to France and Germany. I expect Kerry's plan is the same: Work with the rest of the world instead of against it.

Cut the sematics. The intent of the officials' statements were clear: No more toops. In addition, it seems to me that trumptman is not the only one has had some fun with his titles of threads.

Did you really believe they would send troops? What other countries will send troops? Russia?

Oh: And since Russia is "no longer a Democracy" and it's "Bush's failure", I guess Kerry will not deal with them either. They'll need their troops to oppress their own people.





:lol:

[Northgate]

Originally posted by rageous
I would assume that the point was that we no longer were, unlike them.

You can't hold France and Germany to a standard we once were in violation of. You can't shake a finger at them for doing exactly what were doing fifteen years ago. Saddam was no worse or better when Haliburton was conducting business with Iraq then he was when France and Germany were.

Scott was just spewing more mindless GOP banter.

God I just wish we could elevate the national conversation to something that resembles reality. I'm really getting tired of all this "America is infallible...we've never ever done anything wrong or shady". It's insulting and intellectually dishonest.

We need to get our collective head out of our asses and wake up to the grim reality of the destruction we have wrought in order to fix the error of our ways.

May the Un-American jingoism commence...

[rageous]

Originally posted by Northgate
You can't hold France and Germany to a standard we once were in violation of. You can't shake a finger at them for doing exactly what were doing fifteen years ago. Saddam was no worse or better when Haliburton was conducting business with Iraq then he was when France and Germany were

Actually, you can a shake a finger at them. Otherwise you are claiming that Germany couldn't shake a finger at anyone that has supported genocide in Sudan. Or Kosovo. Or Liberia...

Of course they can.

[rageous]

Originally posted by Northgate
God I just wish we could elevate the national conversation to something that resembles reality. I'm really getting tired of all this "America is infallible...we've never ever done anything wrong or shady". It's insulting and intellectually dishonest.

Oddly enough, I don't think you'll find one person who has claimed American foreign policy has forever been pristine and infallable, other then people like you who repeat that claim that was never made to begin with.

That said, and since reality is what you so crave, the real reality is that no country should be held hostage by their foregin policy of old. Yes, the United States once supported Hussein. No, that does not mean that in today's world we are not allowed to deal with him, and chastize others for being as stupid as we once were.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The intent of the officials' statements were clear: No more toops.These guys are politicians. A politician saying 'we do not currently anticipate sending troops' has a very different meaning from 'we will never send troops under any circumstances.'

In all honesty, it will be very difficult for Kerry to sell German and French leaders on selling the German and French public on going into Iraq. But if a sale is to be made it is going to be by Kerry. Bush wouldn't even be allowed put his foot in the door.


In addition, it seems to me that trumptman is not the only one has had some fun with his titles of threads.Spin is spin. The issue being discussed in this thread is interesting enough without pretending that European nations hold some kind of hostility or contempt towards Kerry.


Did you really believe they would send troops?Maybe, if they can see a valid reason for doing it or get something out of it. Like I said, it will be a difficult sell for Kerry.

[faust9]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
These guys are politicians. A politician saying 'we do not currently anticipate sending troops' has a very different meaning from 'we will never send troops under any circumstances.'

In all honesty, it will be very difficult for Kerry to sell German and French leaders on selling the German and French public on going into Iraq. But if a sale is to be made it is going to be by Kerry. Bush wouldn't even be allowed put his foot in the door.


Spin is spin. The issue being discussed in this thread is interesting enough without pretending that European nations hold some kind of hostility or contempt towards Kerry.


Maybe, if they can see a valid reason for doing it or get something out of it. Like I said, it will be a difficult sell for Kerry. [/B]

Here's the big difference too: Bush is LOSING the coalition of the willing. Kerry at least will have a tough time but has an opportunity to make this a world wide endeavor--not a kangaroo coalition. Opportunity V. No hope which will you choose come November?

[Northgate]

Originally posted by rageous
Oddly enough, I don't think you'll find one person who has claimed American foreign policy has forever been pristine and infallable, other then people like you who repeat that claim that was never made to begin with.

That said, and since reality is what you so crave, the real reality is that no country should be held hostage by their foregin policy of old. Yes, the United States once supported Hussein. No, that does not mean that in today's world we are not allowed to deal with him, and chastize others for being as stupid as we once were. \

In an ideal world of which we don't live.

[Gilsch]

What a bunch of tools. Do you really think France and Germany would say "yes, we will be helping in Iraq with Mr. Kerry, but not with Bush"?

:lol:

It's no wonder the RNC mails out brochures telling voters that if the Liberals win they will ban the Bible. :lol:

:no:

[rageous]

Originally posted by Northgate
\

In an ideal world of which we don't live.

Wrong.

In an ideal world we would have the infallable foreign policy you cry about phantom people proclaiming exists now.

In the real world we deal with current situations, and can't handcuff ourselves with past erroneous decisions.

[faust9]

Originally posted by rageous
Wrong.

In an ideal world we would have the infallable foreign policy you cry about phantom people proclaiming exists now.

In the real world we deal with current situations, and can't handcuff ourselves with past erroneous decisions.

So are you saying "In the real world we would base or foreign policy on actual intelligence, and not on fabrications and half-truths"?

[Towel]

Originally posted by faust9
Here's the big difference too: Bush is LOSING the coalition of the willing. Take note of that, all ye who think we aren't really going it alone. We all know that Jose Aznar lost his election, and Spain is no longer among our Iraq partners. Australia's John Howard is up for re-election on Oct. 9, and his opponent is making a huge issue of "misleading the country into war". If Howard loses, Australia might be right out, too. The UK public is so firmly against the war that Tony Blair has had to backpedal and now almost apologize for getting them into it. If he weren't a politician of Clintonian proportions, he would already be out of a job.

Bottom line: our "coalition" is falling apart. Bush can't even keep our few nearest and dearest allies in the fight, mostly because he never convinced any of the people of those countries to support us. Can Kerry? Yes, I think he can. Everyone likes the schradenfreude of seeing an arrogant giant stumble, but there are limits to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. The right tone and the right President will go a long way, I think, to bringing others in to help.

[rageous]

Originally posted by faust9
So are you saying "In the real world we would base or foreign policy on actual intelligence, and not on fabrications and half-truths"?

Yeah, that's what I said. Precisely.

I am no longer going to address fabricted comments in an attempt to bait me into a pissing match.

You can read what I said specifically, and try and explain to me how it is wrong. I think you will find doing so rather difficult, but I don't doubt that you'll try anyway.

[faust9]

Originally posted by rageous
Yeah, that's what I said. Precisely.

I am no longer going to address fabricted comments in an attempt to bait me into a pissing match.

You can read what I said specifically, and try and explain to me how it is wrong. I think you will find doing so rather difficult, but I don't doubt that you'll try anyway.

I'm not baiting you, I'm calling your comment stupid if you want me to be blunt.

You said: Wrong.

In an ideal world we would have the infallable foreign policy you cry about phantom people proclaiming exists now.

In the real world we deal with current situations, and can't handcuff ourselves with past erroneous decisions.

in response to: In an ideal world of which we don't live.

Which was in turn a response to a statement made by you: Oddly enough, I don't think you'll find one person who has claimed American foreign policy has forever been pristine and infallable, other then people like you who repeat that claim that was never made to begin with.

That said, and since reality is what you so crave, the real reality is that no country should be held hostage by their foregin policy of old. Yes, the United States once supported Hussein. No, that does not mean that in today's world we are not allowed to deal with him, and chastize others for being as stupid as we once were.

I bring all of that up because you may have meant one thing; however, readin the thread leaves a distinct tast in ones mouth which is encased in my strawman response.

While I agree that foregin policies need to change with time, your statements in and of themselvs paint or current FP as a correct respones to past policy failings. Going to war with the wrong country is worse than handcuffing one's FP. Charging into Baghdad was a blunder to say the least and to present a shift in FP as the difference between handcuffed by the past and actually going to war over half truths is stupid. That is what you appear to have done because you where not clear with your responses.

In the real world we deal with current situations not trumped up situations as Bush has done. Remember, you may have meant one thing but when presented in the context of this Kerry/Iraq thread it comes off differently.

My 2¢.

[rageous]

Well then you're just assuming I said our current actions were correct, which again is you reading something I did not write.

My sole point was that even if Rumsfeld met with Hussein in the 80s, that does not mean the US can't say that Russia, Germany, and France's business that was being done in pre-war Iraq was bad.

Yep. We did work with a bad man too. Does that mean we are no longer allowed to point out when others do?

No.

[bunge]

Originally posted by rageous
In the real world we deal with current situations, and can't handcuff ourselves with past erroneous decisions.

And the current situation for both France and Germany is a difficult one. They can't upset Bush because he might be president again. They gain absolutely no benefit from announcing that they would help Kerry. Instead, Kerry will still have to earn their support if in fact they are willing to help.

Trumptman, you started a thread identical to this one a few months ago and it was wrong then just as it's wrong now. My first paragraph completely dismantles your entire argument. This thread should simply be closed.

[bunge]

Originally posted by rageous
Yep. We did work with a bad man too. Does that mean we are no longer allowed to point out when others do?

It simply means our opinion of right and wrong in this matter is irrelevant; untrustworthy.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by bunge
It simply means our opinion of right and wrong in this matter is irrelevant; untrustworthy.

Yup.

[rageous]

Originally posted by bunge
It simply means our opinion of right and wrong in this matter is irrelevant; untrustworthy.

Then the same can be said for any ally of any significance. So I guess we should all just fuck around and do nothing.

[Towel]

Originally posted by rageous
Then the same can be said for any ally of any significance. So I guess we should all just fuck around and do nothing. No, it just means you shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt. If they can convince you with evidence, that's great. But "trust us" shouldn't do it.

It would have been more convincing, at least, if the cast of characters were a little different. But it was many of the exact same people who arranged the sale of chemical weapons precursors to Saddam in the 80s, who were the people now saying "trust us".

[crazychester]

Originally posted by faust9
not a kangaroo coalition
Hey! Leave the roos out of it.

Originally posted by Towel
Australia's John Howard is up for re-election on Oct. 9, and his opponent is making a huge issue of "misleading the country into war". If Howard loses, Australia might be right out, too.
Um he's not actually. Latham - he's not making a big deal out of it. Because it's not the best way for him to win the election. He has aid we'll pull out and the troops will be home by Christmas. But it's not the focus. Not because the majority aren't opposed to the war but because they're more interested in things like saving Medicare.

With one proviso. Any Australians die in Iraq or terrorist attacks between now and next Saturday, Howard is fucked.

I think Kerry might have had a chance of winning over France and Germany at some point had he been president. But not now. They're not stupid. They know the US is screwed in Iraq.

[rageous]

Originally posted by Towel
No, it just means you shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt. If they can convince you with evidence, that's great. But "trust us" shouldn't do it.

It would have been more convincing, at least, if the cast of characters were a little different. But it was many of the exact same people who arranged the sale of chemical weapons precursors to Saddam in the 80s, who were the people now saying "trust us".

Gah I swear to God... I never said their word should always be taken at face value. Ah screw it. There's no dealing with people who can't just read what's written instead of reading what they want the hidden message to be.

[Towel]

Originally posted by crazychester
Um he's not actually. Latham - he's not making a big deal out of it. Because it's not the best way for him to win the election. He has aid we'll pull out and the troops will be home by Christmas. But it's not the focus. Not because the majority aren't opposed to the war but because they're more interested in things like saving Medicare. Sorry, all I know about Ozzy politics I learn from the Economist. :) My point is that our support in Aus rests on a single individual, as in Spain and the UK. If he loses, our coalition shrinks again. I'm curious, though, why Latham isn't making a big issue of Iraq? Is it simply not a front-burner issue for Australians (in the absence of a domestic terror attack), or is it considered such an obvious policy change that it's not worth wasting time on it?

[Towel]

Originally posted by rageous
Gah I swear to God... I never said their word should always be taken at face value. Ah screw it. There's no dealing with people who can't just read what's written instead of reading what they want the hidden message to be. What were you arguing again? ;) I totally agree with your original point, which, I think, was that nations should never feel constrained by their past foreign policy choices. Nations are always free to act in their self-interest, and it doesn't have to be primae facia consistent with their past. Just because we fought a war with communist China didn't mean Nixon shouldn't have gone there. If you believe nations can act altruistically (I do), it's also never too late to do the right thing.

The issue, though, is how to apply that to Iraq. Was it actually in our national self-interest? Who decides that? And was it "the right thing to do"? Who decides that? Can we trust the people who decide?

Bush tried to cast the war in terms of self-interest, but he never really sold that to the American people, much less the world. And hindsight has been a killer. So he's now relying on the moral argument - it was the "right thing to do". It comes down to the "Saddam is a weapon of mass destruction" argument. He's so bad, that going to war now was necessary and right. Can we trust that judgement? Specifically, can we trust our own leaders, and can the world trust us? Credibility matters, and the past actions of our leaders and our nation affect credibility. That still doesn't mean we couldn't do whatever we wanted to do, but it certainly means other nations are free to sit out and watch us sink or swim - and we're free to throw out our leaders if we start to sink.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Scott
France/Germany/Russia were against freeing Iraq from the start because it would ruin their lucrative business relationship with the anti-Semitic dictator.

The world is simple for you.

There is only white and black photography with high contrast paper : small grey tones are not for you.

[crazychester]

Originally posted by Towel
Sorry, all I know about Ozzy politics I learn from the Economist. :) My point is that our support in Aus rests on a single individual, as in Spain and the UK. If he loses, our coalition shrinks again. I'm curious, though, why Latham isn't making a big issue of Iraq? Is it simply not a front-burner issue for Australians (in the absence of a domestic terror attack), or is it considered such an obvious policy change that it's not worth wasting time on it?
Because people are more interested in their hip pockets. Medicare (free health care for all) enjoys huge support among the population regardless of political persuasion. Howard has been watering it down ever since he came to power. It's his Achilles heel.

And because people are resigned to the fact that both parties will always acquiesce to the US more than the general population would like.

Also, we don't trust politicians even if we voted for them. Just because they say they're going to do something, it doesn't mean they will. They're all lying, cheating mongrels. So why get too worked up about it. How about we grab half a dozen tinnies out of the fridge and go to the beach instead.

We are apathetic, leisure junkies, didn't you know.

Howard LOVES Bush. Thinks he's the bees knees. Strange really because, while I don't like Howard, he isn't an idiot and you'd think George's intellectual deficiencies would preclude such a sycophantic relationship developing. But the fact is, if George asked John to give him a blow job, Howard would try so hard to please he'd make Linda Lovelace look like a rank amateur.

As a side note, Howard was in Washington on 9/11/01. A friend of mine is in the press gallery and she was there reporting on the trip. Howard was giving a press conference when someone came in and told them all about the attack. They rushed into an adjoining room to see the Pentagon in flames. They were then stuck in the building for some hours during the general lock down.

She described how Howard was pretty much in a state of shock the whole time. That he sat glued to the TV all day, saying little, stunned by the events. Her theory is that this first hand experience has coloured Howard's view of things ever since - left a lasting impression and given him a different perspective. Hence, his unswerving loyalty to George.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
The world is simple for you.

There is only white and black photography with high contrast paper : small grey tones are not for you.

What do you do when the mods are resorting to subtle personal insults?

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
And the current situation for both France and Germany is a difficult one. They can't upset Bush because he might be president again. They gain absolutely no benefit from announcing that they would help Kerry. Instead, Kerry will still have to earn their support if in fact they are willing to help.

Trumptman, you started a thread identical to this one a few months ago and it was wrong then just as it's wrong now. My first paragraph completely dismantles your entire argument. This thread should simply be closed.

Please speak to your boss about the fumes in your workplace. They are affecting your reasoning.

They don't have to announce they would support Kerry. But they also don't have to announce that they WON'T support Kerry as well. That second distinction is one you have not addressed. They could show support simply by ignoring the question or not addressing it. Instead they have chosen specifically to announce that no matter who is president, they are not sending troops. Silence can speak just as loudly as words sometimes. Germany and France have specifically chosen not to be silent here. They have fully announced their intent and it is that if Kerry is president, their actions will not change in Iraq.

Nick

[faust9]

Originally posted by trumptman
What do you do when the mods are resorting to subtle personal insults?

Nick

Insult or observation?

You say Tomato I say tomato.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
What do you do when the mods are resorting to subtle personal insults?
Revel in the role perpetual victimhood, and go on proudly fighting back against the nasty liberal elite who's always trying to kick you good, patriotic, God fearin' conservative folk down? :D

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
Revel in the role perpetual victimhood, and go on proudly fighting back against the nasty liberal elite who's always trying to kick you good, patriotic, God fearin' conservative folk down? :D

I've noted on numerous occasions that only conservative threads are ever locked here on PO. I don't have to be a victim about it, but that doesn't mean I have to be silent about it either.

Originally posted by faust9
Insult or observation?

You say Tomato I say tomato.

Actually your intellect has much in common with a tomato.

But of course... that is just an observation.:rolleyes:

Nick

[groverat]

Are you two reading from the same set of DNC certified talking points?

Unless the DNC talking points start with "I don't know if..." (which is what my post starts off with), then no.

Foreign != "French/German" either.

If you can show a link that says Kerry promises French/German troops then you'll have something. Hell, we have foreign troops in there now.

Is it impossible for you not to be an insufferable prick? I'm just curious.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
What do you do when the mods are resorting to subtle personal insults?

Nick
I don't know. But if you post something as inflammatory and stupid as did Scott, you deserve any criticism you get.

As if France, Germany and Russia were motivated to deal with Saddam because, like him, their governments were anti-Semitic. Do me a favour. Scott deserves it.

Maybe you could advise him on legal advice, Nick. There have to be grounds for libel there, no? Give him your lawyer's number, perhaps?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
Unless the DNC talking points start with "I don't know if..." (which is what my post starts off with), then no.

Foreign != "French/German" either.

If you can show a link that says Kerry promises French/German troops then you'll have something. Hell, we have foreign troops in there now.

Is it impossible for you not to be an insufferable prick? I'm just curious.

Two points, Bush already has other allies that have sent troops and provided support. The focus is specifically on who has not yet sent troops and who has an military force large enough to help send the 140,000 troops home that Kerry claims will happen when he is president.

That is why the various articles keep going to Germany and France. Also because both Bush and Kerry have or will seek NATO involvement and both are members of NATO with the largest forces.

I mean I could say I'm speaking about someone who loves the Longhorns, lives in Texas, is getting married, etc..etc...

Of course I could mean Powerdoc, I didn't SAY Groverat. Of course when people start looking at who fits the description, they can eliminate certain people even if they can't point at you.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I don't know. But if you post something as inflammatory and stupid as did Scott, you deserve any criticism you get.

As if France, Germany and Russia were motivated to deal with Saddam because, like him, their governments were anti-Semitic. Do me a favour. Scott deserves it.

Maybe you could advise him on legal advice, Nick. There have to be grounds for libel there, no? Give him your lawyer's number, perhaps?

My lawyer is already busy calling Shawn. Scott will have to get his own.

As for you, all you have shown is that you believe barbaric behavior is justified if you believe the intentions of the person to be wrong.

But then that is always part of leftist thinking nowadays, thought control, political and sexual correctness, loving Big Brother.

Scott claimed their business dealings were lucrative. He claimed Saddam was anti-semitic which he was and always will be.

There is a growing stink around the investigation of the U.N. Food for Oil program and that is likely what Scott is addressing. If you care to address that, it is fine but insults won't convince anyone that the parties involved didn't siphon off millions while pretty much allowing Saddam to do as he wanted.

Nick

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by trumptman
My lawyer is already busy calling Shawn. Scott will have to get his own.

As for you, all you have shown is that you believe barbaric behavior is justified if you believe the intentions of the person to be wrong.

But then that is always part of leftist thinking nowadays, thought control, political and sexual correctness, loving Big Brother.

Scott claimed their business dealings were lucrative. He claimed Saddam was anti-semitic which he was and always will be.

There is a growing stink around the investigation of the U.N. Food for Oil program and that is likely what Scott is addressing. If you care to address that, it is fine but insults won't convince anyone that the parties involved didn't siphon off millions while pretty much allowing Saddam to do as he wanted.

Nick
All I have to do is to scroll up. I see that Scott posted this:

France/Germany/Russia were against freeing Iraq from the start because it would ruin their lucrative business relationship with the anti-Semitic dictator
Scott is suggesting that France, Germany and Russia were... well, you can read the first half of the sentence for yourself. He didn't need to remind us that Saddam was anti-Semitic. No, he dropped that in to make the inference that Saddam's anti-Semitism contributed to France and Germany's desire to keep him in power. Powerdoc's response wasn't barbaric enough for horseshit like this.

You can call powerdoc's post 'barbaric' in an attempt to win an argument on the internet, but look, I've just scrolled up to read his reply to Scott's post and I see that, no, actually, it wasn't 'barbaric' at all. You're sort of.. changing the facts. 'Telling a lie', if you will.

Finally, Scott may or may not have been 'addressing the growing stink over the oil for food program'. Maybe on the 'phone to his cousin, or on another forum altogether. But clearly not in his post (I know, because I just scrolled up, and re-read it.) And yes, on re-reading, it looks like Scott's more interested in making the inference that France and Germany conducted their business with Saddam because they liked his policy vis-a-vis The Jews (he doesn't like 'em.)

Powerdoc's post said that Scott's perspective tends to be short on detail and is consistently black-and-white. Powerdoc is damn right.

[Fellowship]

One thing is for sure, Bush's war was planned before 911 in Cheney's Energy Task Force planning. This war has split the world. This war was an invasion. This war has not made America safer. This war has served only for hyper-conservtives who drive Ford F-250's and Hummers with their hunting licenses in hand to go around in their hunting outfits screaming how good this war is and how patriotic our troops are.

Anyone who questions this war is "unpatriotic" and "antiamerican" :rolleyes:

We can afford 200 Billion + and over 1,000 service member's lives on this misguided war but we can not do anything about runaway healthcare costs and failed schools in this country.

I think the conservatives on this board need to think outside the Republican party box for once.

Why is it both Republicans and Democrats here on the boards treat "their" party as if it is their baby and..... Their baby NEVER does wrong.

Can you guys not stand back for once and think on your own from a perspective which is not "owned" by a party cheer script?


Fellows

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
So are you saying "In the real world we would base or foreign policy on actual intelligence, and not on fabrications and half-truths"? What intel?

We had to start all over after 9/11. Noone on the ground to provide any real intel. I am surprised that we know anything about SH and his terrorist friends, or anyone in that region. Anti-US forces were allowed to grow and now we are dealing with the intel cuts of the 90's.

There is a ton of blame to go around on this. If the Iraq war was wrong in your opinion, then fix the problem, not the symptom. John Kerry had a direct hand in all of this.

Getting real intel is the problem. Putting Kerry in office does not fix the problem, though I doubt it will hurt it unless he continues his pattern of Intel cuts.

As stated by many here, it will take a decade or more to fix the intel problem.

Kerry can't act on real intel either. He will have to deal with incomplete info. Which means, according to your standpoint, he can't act legitimately for throughout his entire term, even if elected and then reelected.

Oh wait, he's a dem, and your logic only applies if a republican holds the office.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
We had to start all over after 9/11. Noone on the ground to provide any real intel. I am surprised that we know anything about SH and his terrorist friends, or anyone in that region. Anti-US forces were allowed to grow and now we are dealing with the intel cuts of the 90's.
Except that OSINT triumphed greatly with Iraq, showing that it was an analysis and political problem. There was no shortage of HUMINT sources there. Hell, we even had a team operating entirely in the open: the UN inspectors.

Note, too, that in Iraq the biggest breakdown happened on the HUMINT side, demonstrating that good analysis and little HUMINT came up with the most accurate picture. In other words, the exact opposite of what you are saying above. That's why people in the intel community are pushing for an independent OSINT agency.

We could go on about the state of the intel community and what the issues have been over the past couple of decades, but what would be the point? I'd have to dive into a discussion of actual theorists, models and methodology, noting the conflicts and changes between and within each, which is where the real core of intel community issues resides.

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
What intel?

We had to start all over after 9/11. Noone on the ground to provide any real intel. I am surprised that we know anything about SH and his terrorist friends, or anyone in that region. Anti-US forces were allowed to grow and now we are dealing with the intel cuts of the 90's.
Interesting how you say "what intel?", but then casually toss out the phrase "SH and his terrorist friends".

I guess this means that when you have no "real intel" on someone, that you must naturally assume that whoever you have no intel on has a bunch of terrorist buddies who you can't track or know about because of your lack of intel, but who you know are in league with the guy you have no intel on, precisely because you have no intel?

Would it be an impertinent question for me to ask how we'd know that Saddam had "terrorist friends" in the absence of "any real intel"?

[giant]

Damn, shetline, now he's just going to drown the thread under a bunch of feith/mylorie conspiracy garbage.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Except that OSINT triumphed greatly with Iraq, showing that it was an analysis and political problem. There was no shortage of HUMINT sources there. Hell, we even had a team operating entirely in the open: the UN inspectors.

We could go on about the state of the intel community and what the issues have been over the past couple of decades, but what would be the point? I'd have to dive into a discussion of actual theorists, models and methodology, noting the conflicts and changes between and within each, which is where the real core of intel community issues resides. There is a real use for spies, undercover agents, and turncoats. That is what we really needed. OSINT has proven very useful, but like you said it is open to interpretation and the mood and leanings of the interpreter. Humans have been known to be wrong, I think.

The need is for spies in these US unfriendly places to assure OSINT is correct. You can't read facial expressions or body language or even notes passed between people from a satellite in space. A friendly in SH's circle could have cleared this up for us right quick, no?

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
OSINT has proven very useful, but like you said it is open to interpretation and the mood and leanings of the interpreter. Humans have been known to be wrong, I think.
Well, no fucking shit. That's kind of the point of learning about information or intel management and analysis. You do realize that learning the various methods for dealing with this is the first thing for a new analyst to learn? Obviously not.
The need is for spies in these US unfriendly places to assure OSINT is correct.
Bullshit. "Spies" are exactly where all of the crap information on Iraq came from.

I think you missed this when I added it to my post above:

Note, too, that in Iraq the biggest breakdown happened on the HUMINT side, demonstrating that good analysis and little HUMINT came up with the most accurate picture. In other words, the exact opposite of what you are saying above. That's why people in the intel community are pushing for an independent OSINT agency.
You can't read facial expressions or body language or even notes passed between people from a satellite in space.
I hope you realize that this is essentially the exact opposite of OSINT rather than an example.
A friendly in SH's circle could have cleared this up for us right quick, no?
We have had tons of "friendlies in SH's circle." Hell, even journalists accurately knew everything about him, from his daily routine to who he was meeting with where.

Naples, I will always be bewildered at your insistence on attempting to make authoritative statements on subjects where you aren't even aware of the basics.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
OSINT has proven very useful, but like you said it is open to interpretation and the mood and leanings of the interpreter.
I just have to add that I find it unbearably ironic that you would make this statement.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by shetline
Interesting how you say "what intel?", but then casually toss out the phrase "SH and his terrorist friends".

I guess this means that when you have no "real intel" on someone, that you must naturally assume that whoever you have no intel on has a bunch of terrorist buddies who you can't track or know about because of your lack of intel, but who you know are in league with the guy you have no intel on, precisely because you have no intel?

Would it be an impertinent question for me to ask how we'd know that Saddam had "terrorist friends" in the absence of "any real intel"? Well you see that is where the rub is. You can act on what you have, or take the chance that you are wrong, and do nothing.

With many here in PO, they feel they and those who read the intel tea leaves in the way they agree with, are right. The other half (more like 2/3) of the intel community and those who agree, feel they are right. What to do?

If you are the president and you have to make a decision, do you just hope that you are wrong and do nothing, knowing the intel is incomplete?

Everything that was known about SH, said he could not be trusted to do what was best for the world, let alone his own countrymen. Check my other thread on Iraq/AQ links. There are plenty.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
I just have to add that I find it unbearably ironic that you would make this statement. Now you have me curious...

Why?

[giant]

You might as well argue that perl has nothing to do with regular expressions.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Now you have me curious...

Why?
Because you are consistently wrong.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Because you are consistently wrong. So you're saying I'm RIGHT?

I can die a happy man, now. Newby thinks I'm right!

Woohoo!

[giant]

:err:

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
If you are the president and you have to make a decision, do you just hope that you are wrong and do nothing, knowing the intel is incomplete?
At times when available information is scant, you often have to employ this tool called reasoning to connect the dots. Now, I realize our current president doesn't have great access to this tool, but gosh darnit, he does know how to be "resolute" and "stay the course" and all that other stuff. That's what counts! :rolleyes:
Everything that was known about SH, said he could not be trusted to do what was best for the world, let alone his own countrymen.
The fact that you can't trust someone doesn't make that person automatically suspect for doing every manner of bad thing.

If you live in a world where "them ay-rabs are all the same", perhaps a connection between Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorists seems like a natural thing.

If, however, you understand that Saddam Hussein, although occasionally invoking the name of Allah for show, practiced a remarkably secular form of tyranny in the Arab world, and if you understand that he was much more motivated by promoting his own cult of personality than the Glory of Islam, then you'd have to think long and hard about how likely a collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the likes of Al Qaeda would be.

Having done said thinking, the idea that, "just to be safe", you bomb and invade every source of unknown possible danger, without regard for how you might create new dangers in the process, might begin to seem like not such a great idea after all.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by shetline
At times when available information is scant, you often have to employ this tool called reasoning to connect the dots. Now, I realize our current president doesn't have great access to this tool, but gosh darnit, he does know how to be "resolute" and "stay the course" and all that other stuff. That's what counts! :rolleyes:

The fact that you can't trust someone doesn't make that person automatically suspect for doing every manner of bad thing.

If you live in a world where "them ay-rabs are all the same", perhaps a connection between Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorists seems like a natural thing.

If, however, you understand that Saddam Hussein, although occasionally invoking the name of Allah for show, practiced a remarkably secular form of tyranny in the Arab world, and if you understand that he was much more motivated by promoting his own cult of personality than the Glory of Islam, then you'd have to think long and hard about how likely a collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the likes of Al Qaeda would be.

Having done said thinking, the idea that, "just to be safe", you bomb and invade every source of unknown possible danger, without regard for how you might create new dangers in the process, might begin to seem like not such a great idea after all. You are just performing a mental masturbation exorcise here.

Semantics.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You are just performing a mental masturbation exorcise here.

Semantics. Don't let me interrupt.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by trumptman
What do you do when the mods are resorting to subtle personal insults?

Nick

Coming from an expert in this aera like you, you may be right.

However I truly believe that Scott is an intelligent people, and I would appreciate that he put some water in hiw wine.
I have read several Scott's comments about the frenchs this last time, totally out of context, and I am getting fed up with them.

If my comment offended Scott, I am sorry and I apologize in advance, but I a m tired about this french baiting.

Normaly I don't like to discuss with other people of members, but your comment Trumptam obliged to do so.
Now for the conservative persecution, that's your own opinion and you are entitled of it. Let's just say that we think here otherwise, and your victimhood whin will not give you a special status.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
All I have to do is to scroll up. I see that Scott posted this:

Scott is suggesting that France, Germany and Russia were... well, you can read the first half of the sentence for yourself. He didn't need to remind us that Saddam was anti-Semitic. No, he dropped that in to make the inference that Saddam's anti-Semitism contributed to France and Germany's desire to keep him in power. Powerdoc's response wasn't barbaric enough for horseshit like this.

You can call powerdoc's post 'barbaric' in an attempt to win an argument on the internet, but look, I've just scrolled up to read his reply to Scott's post and I see that, no, actually, it wasn't 'barbaric' at all. You're sort of.. changing the facts. 'Telling a lie', if you will.

Finally, Scott may or may not have been 'addressing the growing stink over the oil for food program'. Maybe on the 'phone to his cousin, or on another forum altogether. But clearly not in his post (I know, because I just scrolled up, and re-read it.) And yes, on re-reading, it looks like Scott's more interested in making the inference that France and Germany conducted their business with Saddam because they liked his policy vis-a-vis The Jews (he doesn't like 'em.)

Powerdoc's post said that Scott's perspective tends to be short on detail and is consistently black-and-white. Powerdoc is damn right.

Here is the quote...

France/Germany/Russia were against freeing Iraq from the start because it would ruin their lucrative business relationship with the anti-Semitic dictator

You can infer Scott meant this... I can say it relates to that. The most rudimentary breaking down of this sentence will show that anti-Semitic is an adjective assigned to the noun dictator.

There is no way you can diagram this sentence or even infer that anti-semantic in any way relates to France, Germany or Russia. I think perhaps you are letting your mental picture of Scott and what you believe of his intentions cloud your judgement.

My own posts are very long on detail and yet the same people who prefer knee-jerking to thinking still attempt to dismiss them with the "black and white" thinking type insult. Powerdoc did not add the detail, he merely insulted.

Additionally I did not describe Powerdoc's reply as being barbaric. In fact I described it as a subtle insult. I said that you believed barbarism was permissable when you disagree with someone. That is my take from the total sum of your posting, not just this thread or one post.

You seem to be having trouble assigning adjectives to their proper nouns.:lol:

Nick

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by trumptman
Here is the quote...



You can infer Scott meant this... I can say it relates to that. The most rudimentary breaking down of this sentence will show that anti-Semitic is an adjective assigned to the noun dictator.

There is no way you can diagram this sentence or even infer that anti-semantic in any way relates to France, Germany or Russia. I think perhaps you are letting your mental picture of Scott and what you believe of his intentions cloud your judgement.

My own posts are very long on detail and yet the same people who prefer knee-jerking to thinking still attempt to dismiss them with the "black and white" thinking type insult. Powerdoc did not add the detail, he merely insulted.

Additionally I did not describe Powerdoc's reply as being barbaric. In fact I described it as a subtle insult. I said that you believed barbarism was permissable when you disagree with someone. That is my take from the total sum of your posting, not just this thread or one post.

You seem to be having trouble assigning adjectives to their proper nouns.:lol:

Nick My friend, you are expecting something that never happens here. As a matter of fact. the rules of english, are not even applied.:lol:

If an adjective has been uttered in any sentence where you have posted, it can be applied to any noun in any other post. English is applied on a curve. It is a tactic used to cause the person on the other end to defend themselves, causing the argument to derail.

I see it almost every thread I read here.

[rageous]

Originally posted by Fellowship
One thing is for sure, Bush's war was planned before 911 in Cheney's Energy Task Force planning.

I challenge you to actually provide proof that the Cheney energy task force meeting was the catalyst for war. You are taking a very long leap off a very high cliff.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by trumptman
No TROOPS for you! (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html)



Hmmmm.... seems Kerry won't be able to deliver what he has contended was really just a matter of Bush, not a lack of ability or desire from the French and Germans on Iraq.

I wonder what the Kerry plan is now?

Nick
Did it ever occur to you that maybe France and Germany don't want to be part of the Iraq war no matter who's president at that time?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by rageous
I challenge you to actually provide proof that the Cheney energy task force meeting was the catalyst for war. You are taking a very long leap off a very high cliff. Proof.. shmoof...

Proof is for anywhere other than PO.

Conjecture and viscous extreme attacks on GWB is all you need here.

Anything else is wild eyed extremism.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Proof.. shmoof...

Proof is for anywhere other than PO.
Originally posted by giant
I just have to add that I find it unbearably ironic that you would make this statement.
Twice in one thread! You're on a roll.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Conjecture and viscous extreme attacks on GWB is all you need here.

Kinda reminds what it was like around here during '98. What comes around goes around I guess. :\

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Placebo
Did it ever occur to you that maybe France and Germany don't want to be part of the Iraq war no matter who's president at that time?

Sure, that easily occured to me. It sort of is the point. Kerry's assertion about foreign troops often has an inference in it. The inference is that Germany, France and others would have helped if Bush had done... insert laundry list.

Kerry has claimed that after he is elected, he will be able to convince foreign leaders in Germany and France to contribute troops because of the very persuasive reasoning that... he isn't Bush.

But most of us don't buy this and hence, the thread.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Coming from an expert in this aera like you, you may be right.

Hey, you're right. When I do give my digs, they are subtle. As opposed to the pure venom that is far too often tolerated by the mods here.

However I truly believe that Scott is an intelligent people, and I would appreciate that he put some water in hiw wine.
I have read several Scott's comments about the frenchs this last time, totally out of context, and I am getting fed up with them.

And I am almost sure that you would tell someone who is PERSONALLY fed up with someone on a personal level to take it to personal messages.

If my comment offended Scott, I am sorry and I apologize in advance, but I a m tired about this french baiting.

Sure and some of us are tired of personal insults from a multitude of people on here. If I had a dime for every personal insult I got from Shawn, giant, faust, bunge and a few others, I would be as rich as giant claims to be. (See.. subtle...)

Normaly I don't like to discuss with other people of members, but your comment Trumptam obliged to do so.
Now for the conservative persecution, that's your own opinion and you are entitled of it. Let's just say that we think here otherwise, and your victimhood whin will not give you a special status.

It's not an opinion. It is factual. It is almost impossible to get a thread on a liberal topic locked on here. Even when they clearly have started off with nothing but an attempt to bait and insult.

This is every thread started and locked in PO.

Let me show you a flipflop - SDW2001
Our Jewish Media Lies to Us - Hassan
Ali Dashti: Re Irshad Manji - Ghost Killa
Both Parties Suck - Fellowship
Bush has a magic time machine - Trumptman
Pick a Candidate - Trumptman
Bikes Against Bush - xterra48
Prevention without preemption - NaplesX

Now I would toss out Hassan and Ghost Killa from being representitive of either side since I believe those threads basically both revolve around Mika and either baiting him to come out, or him revealing who he is to others.

Other than that we have locked threads by SDW2001, myself, and NaplesX. Fellowship's thread was locked when people went nuts over him saying he was going to vote for Bush. So it started out neutral but when he showed some conservatism, it ended up locked.

I would consider xterra's thread a legitimate left leaning thread that was locked.

By my math that shows 5:1 on conservative threads being locked to liberal ones. BTW, this ratio is much better than it was in AO. There it was even worse. When we do as Faust asks and compare the sample in reference to the actual percentages of people who are libeal and conservative here it just becomes ridiculous. I mean most liberal vs. conservative polls here show up as about 80% liberal and about 20% conservative. So being one fifth of the population, we end up with 500% more threads locked? If it were representative, it would be about 20 liberal threads locked for every five conservative, instead it is ONE.

So no, it isn't just my imagination.

Nick

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
When I do give my digs, they are subtle.
What?!

:wow:

[giant]

BTW, trumpt, you were explicitly told by a mod to stay away from me. I know that repressing your obsession with me is as difficult for you as telling the truth, but at least make an attempt.

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Please speak to your boss about the fumes in your workplace. They are affecting your reasoning.

They don't have to announce they would support Kerry. But they also don't have to announce that they WON'T support Kerry as well. That second distinction is one you have not addressed. They could show support simply by ignoring the question or not addressing it. Instead they have chosen specifically to announce that no matter who is president, they are not sending troops. Silence can speak just as loudly as words sometimes. Germany and France have specifically chosen not to be silent here. They have fully announced their intent and it is that if Kerry is president, their actions will not change in Iraq.

Nick

Silence can speak louder than words and there's absolutely no reason to give Kerry any hint that they would listen. This would piss Bush off, in case he wins, and wouldn't help them in any way if Kerry wins. It would also run the risk of pissing off their public voting audience. Saying anything but an unequivocal "no" would be a lose-lose situation for them.

You're still 100% wrong, just as you were before.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Silence can speak louder than words and there's absolutely no reason to give Kerry any hint that they would listen. This would piss Bush off, in case he wins, and wouldn't help them in any way if Kerry wins. It would also run the risk of pissing off their public voting audience. Saying anything but an unequivocal "no" would be a lose-lose situation for them.

You're still 100% wrong, just as you were before.

Please try to make sense when you post. Also they already said no to Bush, so how would saying nothing to Kerry be a losing situation? They've already given Bush nothing. What is there to gain?

Nick

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by rageous
I challenge you to actually provide proof that the Cheney energy task force meeting was the catalyst for war. You are taking a very long leap off a very high cliff.

The Baker Report given to Cheney early April 2001

Read It (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/energytf.html)

Under this scenario, the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma, suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic energy shortages. These consequences can include recession, social dislocation of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military intervention. Moreover, this approach leaves festering the conflict between rising energy demand and its potentially devastating impact on the global environment.

The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies. Goals should be designed in a realistic fashion, and they should be clearly and consistently stated and defended to revive U.S. credibility on this issue. Actions and policies to promote these goals should endeavor to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction. A new plan of action should be developed to use diplomatic and other means to support U.N. Security Council efforts to build a strong arms-control regime to stem the flow of arms and controlled substances into Iraq. Policy should rebuild coalition cooperation on this issue, while emphasizing the common interest in security. This issue of arms sales to Iraq should be brought near the top of the agenda for dialogue with China and Russia.

Fellows

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Please try to make sense when you post. Also they already said no to Bush, so how would saying nothing to Kerry be a losing situation? They've already given Bush nothing. What is there to gain?

Nick

They didn't say nothing to Kerry, they said "no" to whomever asked.

What is there to gain? As I said, their own voting population is fairly anti-Iraq war, so they have votes and popularity in their own country to gain.

You are just 100% wrong and refuse to admit it.

[Towel]

Originally posted by Fellowship
The Baker Report given to Cheney early April 2001
Read It (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/energytf.html)
Fellows Very interesting find, Fellows. I read over the bits pertaining to Iraq. To be fair, the report never explicitly endorses regime change, much less an invasion. It does point out the catch-22 situation of wanting to re-open the Iraqi oil industry without bolstering Saddam, and of how sanctions were simultaneously reducing the threat he posed while strengthening his grip on the country. You could interpret that as a very elliptical endorsement of a more radical solution, but if you take the report at face value it's fairly common-sense stuff.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
They didn't say nothing to Kerry, they said "no" to whomever asked.

What is there to gain? As I said, their own voting population is fairly anti-Iraq war, so they have votes and popularity in their own country to gain.

You are just 100% wrong and refuse to admit it.

What is there to gain? Hmmmm... the ability to help influence American elections for one. How about the achievement of having the world's largest superpower have a leader that is doing exactly what you desire.

But again they LOSE nothing regardless. Gee, Bush might alienate them. Well don't they already claim Bush alienates our allies. It already plays right into what they desire. They still get to blast Bush as hateful, unilateralist, America-first or America only...etc.... There is no loss.

So they hvae everything to gain, nothing to lose, and can achieve their result at a minimum by just being silent.

But you somehow believe that for some reason, that when they say the WON'T support Kerry, it is because they really do support Kerry but just don't want to piss off Bush.

That sort of twisted reasoning just doesn't make sense.

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
What is there to gain? Hmmmm... the ability to help influence American elections for one. How about the achievement of having the world's largest superpower have a leader that is doing exactly what you desire.

But again they LOSE nothing regardless. Gee, Bush might alienate them. Well don't they already claim Bush alienates our allies. It already plays right into what they desire. They still get to blast Bush as hateful, unilateralist, America-first or America only...etc.... There is no loss.

So they hvae everything to gain, nothing to lose, and can achieve their result at a minimum by just being silent.

But you somehow believe that for some reason, that when they say the WON'T support Kerry, it is because they really do support Kerry but just don't want to piss off Bush.

That sort of twisted reasoning just doesn't make sense.

Nick

Typical
Trumptman
Lies

I never said they really do support Kerry. Don't lie about something I never said.

Their own popluous would turn against them if they offered troops. That's something to lose, but you ignore it.

Politics are about constant negotiations. They have the upper hand unless they give it away. Offering troops now means they lose the upper hand in potential future negotiations with Kerry. Kerry will have to earn the troops if he is to get them.

Quit saying that there is no loss when you know there is.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Typical
Trumptman
Lies

I never said they really do support Kerry. Don't lie about something I never said.

Their own popluous would turn against them if they offered troops. That's something to lose, but you ignore it.

Politics are about constant negotiations. They have the upper hand unless they give it away. Offering troops now means they lose the upper hand in potential future negotiations with Kerry. Kerry will have to earn the troops if he is to get them.

Quit saying that there is no loss when you know there is.

Quit saying they have the upper hand on Kerry when he will likely go down to defeat instead of prevailing in part because their actions discredit him. That is no position of strength and you portray it as such. Silence was the clearest position of strength and they choose instead to intentionally say they were not sending troops which in part helps discredit Kerry and makes it harder for him to get elected.

Since when is helping elect the man you supposedly hate a position of strength? Stop bullshitting us.

BTW, bunge, I don't have to label all your posts lies. They are so transparent, that I'm sure even the dullest member of the board sees what fakery you post.

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Quit saying they have the upper hand on Kerry when he will likely go down to defeat instead of prevailing in part because their actions discredit him.

Of course they have the upper hand. The U.S. needs (or wants) their support.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Of course they have the upper hand. The U.S. needs (or wants) their support.

No Kerry wants their support. Bush asked for it, and then went ahead anyway. He continues to periodically ask for it.

To make it quite clear, we do not need them. We prefer not the take the burden alone, but we will.

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
No Kerry wants their support. Bush asked for it, and then went ahead anyway. He continues to periodically ask for it.

To make it quite clear, we do not need them. We prefer not the take the burden alone, but we will.

Nick

Uh, yeah if this was 1918!

The world doesn't work that way anymore. And anyone who doesn't see that is living in the past.;)


OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
No Kerry wants their support. Bush asked for it, and then went ahead anyway. He continues to periodically ask for it.

To make it quite clear, we do not need them. We prefer not the take the burden alone, but we will.

Did Bush ask for it because he didn't want it?

They have to say no to keep relatively positive relations with the current administration. They are smart to say no to keep their populations positive. They are smart to say no to force Kerry, if he wins, to negotiate for their support.

It's crystal clear. You're in denial.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Did Bush ask for it because he didn't want it?

They have to say no to keep relatively positive relations with the current administration. They are smart to say no to keep their populations positive. They are smart to say no to force Kerry, if he wins, to negotiate for their support.

It's crystal clear. You're in denial.

We're just going to disagree on this. Laying more cards on the table never puts you in a better position of strength. The more options you have, the less strident a position taken, the easier it is to reverse it.

You basically argue the opposite here. It might make sense to you, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

Nick

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
You basically argue the opposite here. It might make sense to you, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

Actually, I'm arguing that they shouldn't put any more on the table. Saying they would give Kerry troops does just this, lays all of their cards on the table. By saying no, they're keeping their current position without showing anything else.

I think you want to see the no as definitive, which would mean that they laid their cards on the table. I see the no as a non-answer for all of the reasons I've said before. It's a political no in my opinion.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Actually, I'm arguing that they shouldn't put any more on the table. Saying they would give Kerry troops does just this, lays all of their cards on the table. By saying no, they're keeping their current position without showing anything else.

I think you want to see the no as definitive, which would mean that they laid their cards on the table. I see the no as a non-answer for all of the reasons I've said before. It's a political no in my opinion.

Well there you go. That last paragraph pretty much sum up the difference. I consider silence to be laying no cards on the table. You consider saying no to be a NON-Answer?!? To me it sounds like a definate answer. Not only that, but it shows a continuation of a previous policy.

It seriously undermines the Kerry contention that their policy is based off Bush and not world or self-interest. Kerry argues that they would act in the world and self-interest, but basically Bush is so terrible that they sit on the sidelines. Kerry claims that they would come off these sidelines if he were elected. Silence isn't laying a card down. It is holding them close to your chest and allowing someone to believe what they want about the unrevealed cards/answers. Kerry could have filled that unrevealed information with whatever he desired. Now instead he has been undermined.

Nick

Nick

[bunge]

No offense, but I think you're simply misunderestimating politics.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
No offense, but I think you're simply misunderestimating politics.

No offense but that the understanding of politics is exactly why silence would have been profoundly effective while not pinning allowing anyone to claim they undermined Bush. It is the win/win scenario politically and they didn't choose it.

Nick

[bunge]

By remaining silent they're telling the current president that they may in fact be willing to give Kerry support. That undermines their current and potentially future relationship with the president of the United States.

That's unacceptable politically.

[pierr_alex]

Even if we'd agree to send troops in Iraq it wouldn't changed things a lot.
We're a small country after all.
We don't have a lot of military people: Just enough to protect ourselves, not enough to 'invade' another country ;-) ( just joking )
So don't count on this(us) to solve YOUR problem(s)

[bunge]

Hell maybe? (http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=328)

[Powerdoc]

I am always cautious with this type of report Bunge, but if it's true, it's not very good for Bush. He screwed up a support voluntary, because he was too much in a hurry. And why was he in a hurry : because there was so many WOMD to be find by the US inspectors ...

Anyway it's just conjectures ...

[pierr_alex]

Interesting (if true, but I think it is - Every options were kept opened at that time)

I love this part of the article:
" The book also discloses that French officials became convinced the United States had eavesdropped on Chirac’s phone conversations after a U.S. official warned a French military official that “the relationship between your president and ours is irreparable on the personal level. You have to understand that President Bush knows exactly what President Chirac thinks of him. "

Chirac is known for having a (sometimes) very colorfull langage in private.
I'd really like to know what he "thinks of him" in his own words ;-)

[tonton]

Originally posted by pierr_alex
Chirac is known for having a (sometimes) very colorfull langage in private.
I'd really like to know what he "thinks of him" in his own words ;-)

Probably pretty close to what most people outside of head-in-the-ground neoconservativism think of him. Colorful language and all.

That brings to mind a question I have. Don't any of you Bush supporters care at all that the majority of the entire rest of the world hates him, thinks he's a joke, thinks he's evil, stupid, self-serving...(ad nauseum)? Doesn't that bother you at all? From an international perspective, GWB is the least respected American in history. Ever. And that affects the amount of respect the average American as afforded as well.

I don't know. When Bill Clinton was president, in general, EVERY nation outside of the US had a certain amount of respect for him. At the time I was proud to be an American. Now, as a human rights activist, I actually apologize for being an American. Seriously. The Bush administration has made fools of all of us. I am truly sorry for the terrible, selfish, stupid things my country's leader has done. And that is unacceptable. My country went from the moral high-ground to the moral shithouse in a single administration. And anyone with integrity would agree.

[shetline]

Originally posted by tonton
That brings to mind a question I have. Don't any of you Bush supporters care at all that the majority of the entire rest of the world hates him, thinks he's a joke, thinks he's evil, stupid, self-serving...(ad nauseum)? Doesn't that bother you at all? From an international perspective, GWB is the least respected American in history. Ever. And that affects the amount of respect the average American as afforded as well.
I think the answer is obvious... Bushies pretend that international dislike of Bush is a badge of honor. Them foreigners all hate on Bush, ya see, because he's tough, stands strong, and don' let 'em push the Dubya around, nosiree. They're all freedom haters! Whadda we care what they think?

[giant]

They think patriotism means slamming every country but the US. The foolish logic goes like this: I love my country because it's the best, so all other countries suck compared to US.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton
Probably pretty close to what most people outside of head-in-the-ground neoconservativism think of him. Colorful language and all.

That brings to mind a question I have. Don't any of you Bush supporters care at all that the majority of the entire rest of the world hates him, thinks he's a joke, thinks he's evil, stupid, self-serving...(ad nauseum)? Doesn't that bother you at all? From an international perspective, GWB is the least respected American in history. Ever. And that affects the amount of respect the average American as afforded as well.

I don't know. When Bill Clinton was president, in general, EVERY nation outside of the US had a certain amount of respect for him. At the time I was proud to be an American. Now, as a human rights activist, I actually apologize for being an American. Seriously. The Bush administration has made fools of all of us. I am truly sorry for the terrible, selfish, stupid things my country's leader has done. And that is unacceptable. My country went from the moral high-ground to the moral shithouse in a single administration. And anyone with integrity would agree.

I don't remember everything being a roll in the hay for Clinton. I remember him being accused of blowing up aspirin factories in Iraq. I remember him taking lots of heat for basically not backing down after the U.S.S. Cole was hit. I remember plenty of negative articles about his lack of true progress in the middle east, etc. Happy and progress aren't the same thing.

I can't say I have traveled abroad and read the newspapers or spoken to the actual people in various countries since Bush took office. My view on it though is that our own media bias is reflected even more abroad in part because there are no counterbalances to it with regard to speech. I always find it very curious that a large majority of the blue states are basically the large media centers. Chicago, New York, California for example. Also the rest of us don't consider France and Germany, or even a decent chunk of Europe to be the rest of the world.

Nick

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
I don't remember everything being a roll in the hay for Clinton. I remember him being accused of blowing up aspirin factories in Iraq. I remember him taking lots of heat for basically not backing down after the U.S.S. Cole was hit. I remember plenty of negative articles about his lack of true progress in the middle east, etc. Happy and progress aren't the same thing.

I can't say I have traveled abroad and read the newspapers or spoken to the actual people in various countries since Bush took office. My view on it though is that our own media bias is reflected even more abroad in part because there are no counterbalances to it with regard to speech. I always find it very curious that a large majority of the blue states are basically the large media centers. Chicago, New York, California for example. Also the rest of us don't consider France and Germany, or even a decent chunk of Europe to be the rest of the world.

Nick

Ask the man on the street (or the woman on the street) in Europe and in Asia, and yes, Clinton was respected. There was no denying it. That said, so were Reagan, and, in greater China, anyway, Nixon.

Now as to the second half of your post, did you ever stop to think that the people living near media centers might be... I dunno... better informed? That also explains the so-called "bias" in the education sector. Stop and chew on that for a bit. Maybe you should pay attention to the intelligent people around you, in school, as well as in countries that realize that the US is not the center of the world. The most mature thing a man can do is to admit that he's wrong. Saddam didn't have any weapons. And "desire" for weapons, without any action toward getting them, is not enough to account for this war, and all of its cost in lives, economics, the prospect for peace, and respect for America.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton
Ask the man on the street (or the woman on the street) in Europe and in Asia, and yes, Clinton was respected. There was no denying it. That said, so were Reagan, and, in greater China, anyway, Nixon.

Now as to the second half of your post, did you ever stop to think that the people living near media centers might be... I dunno... better informed? That also explains the so-called "bias" in the education sector. Stop and chew on that for a bit. Maybe you should pay attention to the intelligent people around you, in school, as well as in countries that realize that the US is not the center of the world. The most mature thing a man can do is to admit that he's wrong. Saddam didn't have any weapons. And "desire" for weapons, without any action toward getting them, is not enough to account for this war, and all of its cost in lives, economics, the prospect for peace, and respect for America.

Actually television is pretty terrible with regard to informing people. It gives them a bite of sugar instead of a meal of true nutrition. You also forget that I do work in education. The complaints about public education are generally true with regard to test scores and things of that nature. It is also true that education is overwhelmingly filled with women which definately tend to trend Democratic. They trend that way because very often they end up divorced and want the government for a husband. At the elementary level, 95% of all teachers are female.

So the factors you mention that you believe help explain away the bias actually confirm it. Try again.

Nick

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
They think patriotism means slamming every country but the US. The foolish logic goes like this: I love my country because it's the best, so all other countries suck compared to US. You have just proved yourself a parrot.

Bush's job is to protect US interests, period. Sure, some uneducated rednecks feel that way, but most straight thinking people see things more clearly.

The very same attitude by your past forefathers, right after WWII, prevailed at that time. Read this and replace Europe with Iraq where appropriate.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1947marshallplan1.html

You will find that GWB is following the pattern established way back then. You will also see that any standing in the way was met with a pullout of support for that nation. The plan to help EU recover worked and is proven. There is no reason to believe the same approach won't work in Iraq.

The fact that you and others ignore, despite knowing it's truthfulness, is that the ME and the world is better off without SH in power. You want the luxury of being able to criticize this president, so you won't admit the latter fact. Fine. But, everyone knew that drastic measures were needed to put down the SH problem and quell the growing threat and the widespread acceptance of terrorism in the ME. Spin till you are dizzy, if you haven't already. For the rest of us that want right to be done, recognize the Iraq war for what it is. An attempt to do the right thing for the US and in turn the rest of the world.

Consider it an intervention.

[faust9]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You have just proved yourself a parrot.

Bush's job is to protect US interests, period. Sure, some uneducated rednecks feel that way, but most straight thinking people see things more clearly.

The very same attitude by your past forefathers, right after WWII, prevailed at that time. Read this and replace Europe with Iraq where appropriate.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1947marshallplan1.html

You will find that GWB is following the pattern established way back then. You will also see that any standing in the way was met with a pullout of support for that nation. The plan to help EU recover worked and is proven. There is no reason to believe the same approach won't work in Iraq.

The fact that you and others ignore, despite knowing it's truthfulness, is that the ME and the world is better off without SH in power. You want the luxury of being able to criticize this president, so you won't admit the latter fact. Fine. But, everyone knew that drastic measures were needed to put down the SH problem and quell the growing threat and the widespread acceptance of terrorism in the ME. Spin till you are dizzy, if you haven't already. For the rest of us that want right to be done, recognize the Iraq war for what it is. An attempt to do the right thing for the US and in turn the rest of the world.

Consider it an intervention.

How exactly is the world better off? You make a statement--you should be able to back it. I've seen reports that say terrorism is on the rise (Colin had to eat crow a few months back). I've seen reports that say violance in Iraq has gone up since we've invaded. I've seen reports that say AQ recruitment has gone up. I've read reports of 100's of inocent people dying in nightclubs due to AQ car bombers. I've read a lot of govenrment released reports that counter your view. What proof you do have to support it?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
How exactly is the world better off? You make a statement--you should be able to back it. I've seen reports that say terrorism is on the rise (Colin had to eat crow a few months back). I've seen reports that say violance in Iraq has gone up since we've invaded. I've seen reports that say AQ recruitment has gone up. I've read reports of 100's of inocent people dying in nightclubs due to AQ car bombers. I've read a lot of govenrment released reports that counter your view. What proof you do have to support it? I stated what I believe. You can choose to adopt any view you wish.

I will mention a couple of threats that no longer exist now, as a result of the Iraq intervention:

1.) UNOFF program - it was costing the world billions (US) and SH was putting a lot of that money into his war chest.
2.) Libya's WMD programs.
3.) The vast underground WMD superstore supported through Libya
4.) SH's threat to Israel
5.) SH's threat to Kuwait
6.) SH's threat to the Kurds
7.) SH's threat to any of his own people that even looked at him funny.
8.) SH's constant and consistent treats toward the US and it's allies, in virtually every speech he gave since 1990.

I could go on, but what is the point? You're already addicted to the DNC Kool-aid.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You have just proved yourself a parrot.
You have a lot of nerve.
Bush's job is to protect US interests, period. Sure, some uneducated rednecks feel that way, but most straight thinking people see things more clearly.
How the hell would you know what 'straight thinking people see,' Clinton Body Count? :rolleyes:

[faust9]

Originally posted by NaplesX I stated what I believe. You can choose to adopt any view you wish.

I will mention a couple of threats that no longer exist now, as a result of the Iraq intervention:

1.) UNOFF program - it was costing the world billions (US) and SH was putting a lot of that money into his war chest.
What fucking war chest? He had no army (2 week war remember that). He had no WMD. He had no pilotless attack drones. He had nothing we said he had!!!


2.) Libya's WMD programs.

Which a) we didn't know about and b) were given up as a result of British negotiations and 20 years of sanctions


3.) The vast underground WMD superstore supported through Libya

I guess you've missed the big headlines on all news sources--except newsmax--that these WMD's didn't exist.


4.) SH's threat to Israel
5.) SH's threat to Kuwait
6.) SH's threat to the Kurds

It's our job to protect Isreal from a toothless dog. Do you not understand that SH HAD ZERO FUCKING WMD and no attack capability.

Also, Kuwait/Kurds: The two US submarines and one US carrier in the Gulf at all times played a big role in SH no attacking these countries places. Add the constant US warplane coverage and you'll see the Kurds were safe. Now place the costs of containment on one side of the scale and the costs of war on the other. Human lives and $$$. War loses out no matter what you say/feel/believe because the FACTS trump your feelings.

7.) SH's threat to any of his own people that even looked at him funny.

What about all the other bad men in power then? Should we wage costly wars to impose or brand of freedom upon them if they like it or not? BTW hom many inocnet Iraqis have died over the last 18 months?


8.) SH's constant and consistent treats toward the US and it's allies, in virtually every speech he gave since 1990.

Please... Who the fuck cares about a "Threat" Kim Jumg Ill threatenes us all the time. The growl of a tootless dog is just that--a growl.

I could go on, but what is the point? You're already addicted to the DNC Kool-aid.

This from a Jim Jones Bush follower.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
You have a lot of nerve.

How the hell would you know what 'straight thinking people see,' Clinton Body Count? :rolleyes: Amusing how you cling to those sophomoric tactics.

Stick your right hand thumb and your pointer finger out at 90 degrees from each other and place that on your forehead. Look in mirror. Wave hello to yourself.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I will mention a couple of threats that no longer exist now, as a result of the Iraq intervention:

1.) UNOFF program - it was costing the world billions (US) and SH was putting a lot of that money into his war chest.You've mentioned the oil for food program a couple of times in recent threads...I'd be very interested to see where your information is coming from. Can you provide sources for the following assertions?

- The oil for food program was costing the world billions.

- That a significant portion of these billions was coming from the US.

- That Saddam Hussein was putting the money he skimmed into weapons development / stockpiling.


Cause it really seems to me like you are pulling these facts right out of your own arse. But hey, I'm open to learning something new.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Amusing how you cling to those sophomoric tactics.
WTF are you on? You come out of nowhere attacking me with "You have just proved yourself a parrot." STFU.
Stick your right hand thumb and your pointer finger out at 90 degrees from each other and place that on your forehead. Look in mirror. Wave hello to yourself.
WTF are you even talking about? You're the one that buys into any crap geocities conspiracy theory you can find. And you have the nerve to say I use 'sophomoric tactics.' You are just making totally random stupid statements.

Go pick fights with someone else.

[the cool gut]

Nick, what in the hell do you expect France and Germany to say? Sure, we'll send in troops if Kerry gets elected? That would be pretty dumb of them, and it would be bad for Kerry as well, because it would look like France and Germany are manipulating the election, which they would be - and YOU would be the first to point that out.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Amusing how you cling to those sophomoric tactics.

Stick your right hand thumb and your pointer finger out at 90 degrees from each other and place that on your forehead. Look in mirror. Wave hello to yourself.


Talk about sophomoric!:no:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I stated what I believe. You can choose to adopt any view you wish.

I will mention a couple of threats that no longer exist now, as a result of the Iraq intervention:

1.) UNOFF program - it was costing the world billions (US) and SH was putting a lot of that money into his war chest.
2.) Libya's WMD programs.
3.) The vast underground WMD superstore supported through Libya
4.) SH's threat to Israel
5.) SH's threat to Kuwait
6.) SH's threat to the Kurds
7.) SH's threat to any of his own people that even looked at him funny.
8.) SH's constant and consistent treats toward the US and it's allies, in virtually every speech he gave since 1990.

I could go on, but what is the point? You're already addicted to the DNC Kool-aid.

If we attacked everyone who fit this discription in the world ( or even close to it ) we'd be busy around the clock!

Get real! Lots of figures in the world hate the U.S. and threaten their neighbors but we didn't attack them. But, we've already been over all of this.

[faust9]

What about Cuba for Christ's sake!!! How dare Fidel Castro threaten the us with his-----WORDS!!!

<chant_until_lungs_hurt>Bomb Cuba.</chant_until_lungs_hurt>

Seriously Naples, how do you justify the war? The reasons you gave don't cut it by a long shot. The fellowship of the shrub is failing due to the lies. Weak reasons for war. Poorly executed post-war. Troops are dying. Inocent Iraqis are dying. AQ recruiting has skyrocketed. Terrorist attacks have gone up. Violence in Iraq is escallating. How do you truely justify this?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
WTF are you on? You come out of nowhere attacking me with "You have just proved yourself a parrot." STFU.

WTF are you even talking about? You're the one that buys into any crap geocities conspiracy theory you can find. And you have the nerve to say I use 'sophomoric tactics.' You are just making totally random stupid statements.

Go pick fights with someone else. Look, lets put this to rest right now.

The thread where that was brought up was discussing controversies involving presidents, if memory serves. I simply pointed out that there are people that believe in such conspiracy theories such as the "Clinton Body Count" line of thought, and not all of them are big dummies as you would like everyone to believe. And the link that I was from here originally. A respected radio personality from pittsburgh:

http://www.warroom.com/

I never said that I bought into the whole conspiracy, just that it existed and seems to persist, despite you calling it "kooky" or whatever.

Move on.

Is it one of those keywords that makes the utterer a "Kook"? If so you have said the keyword ten fold over me.

I will say it again... Sophomoric, on your part.

EDIT: Fixed spelling so that the peanut gallery would settle down.

[FormerLurker]

I hear giant is a great cook - he bakes a delicious cooky
:lol:

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by faust9
What about Cuba for Christ's sake!!! How dare Fidel Castro threaten the us with his-----WORDS!!!

<chant_until_lungs_hurt>Bomb Cuba.</chant_until_lungs_hurt>

Seriously Naples, how do you justify the war? The reasons you gave don't cut it by a long shot. The fellowship of the shrub is failing due to the lies. Weak reasons for war. Poorly executed post-war. Troops are dying. Inocent Iraqis are dying. AQ recruiting has skyrocketed. Terrorist attacks have gone up. Violence in Iraq is escallating. How do you truely justify this?

The problem is that many US conservatives feel they have the obligation to support Bush whatever he did.

If Bush lost the elections, I am ready to bet, that some conservatives voices will be more vocal against the Iraq war. Powell for example was not very big for this war, but he was obliged to follow the president and neo cons line. Unfortunately he was not brilliant at this game, and he lost credibility : bad for a man who derserved more than this.

[giant]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
I hear giant is a great cook - he bakes a delicious cooky
:lol:
Mmmmmmm. kookies.

http://www.fireantav.com/ai/homermmm.gif

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
What about Cuba for Christ's sake!!! How dare Fidel Castro threaten the us with his-----WORDS!!!

<chant_until_lungs_hurt>Bomb Cuba.</chant_until_lungs_hurt>

Seriously Naples, how do you justify the war? The reasons you gave don't cut it by a long shot. The fellowship of the shrub is failing due to the lies. Weak reasons for war. Poorly executed post-war. Troops are dying. Inocent Iraqis are dying. AQ recruiting has skyrocketed. Terrorist attacks have gone up. Violence in Iraq is escallating. How do you truely justify this? War is hell.

But the time is past to justify it. It is underway and you either win or lose. If you back away you loose. If you show uncertainty, you lose. If you show weakness, you lose.

Terrorist attacks will go up because of the bold attack on 9/11. It was a victory for radical Islam. Who is to say that if not for Iraq, the US mainland would have sustained even more attacks. Who is to say that 9/11 isn't the cause for the new recruits to AQ?

You seem to be more than willing to speculate in your favor, but not the other way.

As far as I am concerned, any tie with AQ is good enough reason to oust SH, given his vast history. There are many, many connections between AQ (and many other terrorist groups) and SH. Maybe not enough for you to consider SH a threat, but to me more than enough.

Not only that, the total disregard for human life and the atrocities committed by him, in itself, is also more than enough for me.

The UNOFF revelations are more than enough for me.

As far as Castro goes, is he developing WMD is AQ filtering in and out of his country at the aid of his government? Has he disregarded 17 UN resolutions? Has Castro dropped chemical weapons and wiped out whole towns?

You can't honestly justify bad actions with other bad actions? Well maybe you can. I can't.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
War is hell.
:rolleyes:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Mmmmmmm. kookies.

http://www.fireantav.com/ai/homermmm.gif That was my first thought too.

Very funny. Homer is my hero:D

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Homer is my hero
Why doesn't that surprise me?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
I am always cautious with this type of report Bunge, but if it's true, it's not very good for Bush. He screwed up a support voluntary, because he was too much in a hurry. And why was he in a hurry : because there was so many WOMD to be find by the US inspectors ...

Anyway it's just conjectures ...

Well, I used the word "maybe" because it doesn't mean "yes" and it doesn't mean "no". It means "I'm not sure" so I think we agree.

It is conjecture, but the truth is it's very plausible. If it turned out to be true I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

[tonton]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/13/germany.iraq/index.html

Wonder what might make Germany change their mind... or "who", to be more accurate.

[Smircle]

Why would any of our leaders support a nation that tortures and kills prisoners, ships captured persons to some place outside their own borders to keep them out of their own judical system and starts illegal wars?

Masochism would come to mind...

You spilled the shit, you clean it up. After you have redeemed yourself, if Kerry needs help from us, he better offer a good deal. The only difference to Bush is that there won't be a deal with him, he is a lost cause.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You have just proved yourself a parrot.

Bush's job is to protect US interests, period. Sure, some uneducated rednecks feel that way, but most straight thinking people see things more clearly.

The very same attitude by your past forefathers, right after WWII, prevailed at that time. Read this and replace Europe with Iraq where appropriate.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1947marshallplan1.html

You will find that GWB is following the pattern established way back then. You will also see that any standing in the way was met with a pullout of support for that nation. The plan to help EU recover worked and is proven. There is no reason to believe the same approach won't work in Iraq.

The fact that you and others ignore, despite knowing it's truthfulness, is that the ME and the world is better off without SH in power. You want the luxury of being able to criticize this president, so you won't admit the latter fact. Fine. But, everyone knew that drastic measures were needed to put down the SH problem and quell the growing threat and the widespread acceptance of terrorism in the ME. Spin till you are dizzy, if you haven't already. For the rest of us that want right to be done, recognize the Iraq war for what it is. An attempt to do the right thing for the US and in turn the rest of the world.

Consider it an intervention.

Once again the world doesn't work that way anymore. We have to get along with these other countries because we need them. This isn't High School football where all you have to do is show school spirit and boo the other team. Although I don't think some of you got rid of that notion over the years. You really need to realize we don't run the world and we need the rest of the world as friends. That's the way it works now days and if you don't like it I'm sorry but you're living in the past.

[SpcMs]

Originally posted by tonton
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/13/germany.iraq/index.html

Wonder what might make Germany change their mind... or "who", to be more accurate.
They are falling over themselves to explain that it was not their intention to publicly state that they were more likely to send troops if Kerry gets elected. The message was loud and clear though, imo.