or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › French and Germans to Kerry... hell no
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

French and Germans to Kerry... hell no - Page 2

post #41 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #42 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #43 of 125
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.
post #44 of 125
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"

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
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #45 of 125
Quote:
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.
post #46 of 125
Quote:
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.
post #47 of 125
Quote:
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"?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #48 of 125
Damn, shetline, now he's just going to drown the thread under a bunch of feith/mylorie conspiracy garbage.
post #49 of 125
Quote:
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?
post #50 of 125
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
post #51 of 125
Quote:
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.
post #52 of 125
Quote:
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.
post #53 of 125
Quote:
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?
post #54 of 125
You might as well argue that perl has nothing to do with regular expressions.
post #55 of 125
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Now you have me curious...

Why?

Because you are consistently wrong.
post #56 of 125
Quote:
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!
post #57 of 125
post #58 of 125
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #59 of 125
Quote:
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!

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.
post #60 of 125
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are just performing a mental masturbation exorcise here.

Semantics.

Don't let me interrupt.
post #61 of 125
Quote:
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.
post #62 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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...

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.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #63 of 125
Quote:
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.

Nick

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

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.
post #64 of 125
Quote:
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.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #65 of 125
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
No TROOPS for you!



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?
post #66 of 125
Quote:
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.
post #67 of 125
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Proof.. shmoof...

Proof is for anywhere other than PO.

Quote:
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.
post #68 of 125
Quote:
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. \
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #69 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #70 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...)

Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #71 of 125
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
When I do give my digs, they are subtle.

What?!

post #72 of 125
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.
post #73 of 125
Quote:
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.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #74 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #75 of 125
Quote:
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 regimes 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
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #76 of 125
Quote:
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.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #77 of 125
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
The Baker Report given to Cheney early April 2001
Read It
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.
post #78 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #79 of 125
Quote:
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.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #80 of 125
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › French and Germans to Kerry... hell no