3. All comments about a moderator or an administrator should be directed to the moderator or an administrator (if the member does not feel comfortable dealing directly with the moderator) using private messaging or via e-mail.
This too:
4. Excessive ad-hominem attacks of forum members will not be tolerated. We understand that things get heated, but it helps to maintain a modicum of respect for the membership. Attack ideas, not people. Be open-minded and try to help foster meaningful discussion (yes, meaningful discussion is possible if everyone respects each other).
EDIT: Powerdoc, I'm still eating French Fries and drinking French wine as often as I am able....
I got blasted in the kitchen last night at work for not supporting the war. The worst part was that some servers support Bush because "he has heart." They support the war because, presumably, that's pretty much the opinion of the cable news networks.
We have a sandwich called the "French Dip..." Well yeah.. in the kitchen it is the "freedom Dip."
You know..all these people replacing "French" with "Freedom.." Well I have a question. WHAT do you call France then?
Hey Groverat, would you mind acting like the moderator you're supposed to be? All these little thinly veiled adhoms you always seem to resort to are quite unnecessary. From talking to others in here I know I'm not alone when I say that. If you can't support your arguments without resorting to personal attacks and ridicule maybe you should give up your moderator status to someone who can.
Every plan we layed out before now was "accepted by the world" simply because it was American? Are you sure?
Ah, so that was a "US action" now?
You haven't addressed my refutation of your ridiculous assertion that if everyone had equal power the world would be safer.
Or that the US is not diminishing in power.
Or any real address to my rebuttal of your silly idea that this war interrupts "peace" in Iraq.
1) You'll have to agree that the world, because of direct or indirect dependence on the US, has never really voiced disagreement with the US. You don't wanna upset your sugar daddy. It's only now that Europe is no longer ruled by a generation that lived through WWII, a war in which the Americans saved the day, and after which they saved the day again with the fine Marshall plan. Speaking out against the US, in the case of Europe in the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, (nineties?) would not have been wise. Case in point: the rocket-crisis in Belgium, '83, more than 300.000 walked the streets of Brussels (a record of sorts) to voice its disagreement with the US' decision to place nuclear warhead-missiles on a Belgian military base (with American section). Even though many parliamentaries were against this, and the population of Belgium was very much so, the Americans were given free reign. The government gave mr. Reagan ('we'll protect you') what he wanted. Because Belgium wanted it? NO, because disagreeing with the US was not done.
2) It was a UN action on US initiative. They pushed the decision to "free" Iraq through the UN. The US used fabled satellite pictures (like Colon did just now) to get the Saudis to agree to having Americans on their soil. These pictures turned out to be fake. Also, they blew up the presence of Iraqis in Kuweit. Foreign reports say there were no Iraqis at the prime target during wartime: airport. No tanks in the Kuweiti desert either.
3) This is hypothesis. I think the world right now is not a peaceful place. Maybe it wouldn't be if power were divided more equally.
4) US diminishing in power: again, the simple fact that the US could only round up 48 countries for this action, many of them insignificant as to their influence in world economics/politics. The fact that large powers (and allies) like France/Germany and also Russia (an ally these days?) speak out and do not wish to help. That is less power to ya.
5) I sincerely think less people were dying less horrible deaths in Iraq before the US army started this concerted explosive ejaculation on marketplaces and appartment buildings, euh, military targets. I do not think the situation before the war was horrible. I think different people are able to live happy lives in different conditions. What looks oppressive to you might be meaningful to the next guy. I have yet to see proof that many were killed after the gas-attack in 1985 (which took place in an era when the US funded Iraq's war against Iran). But, if you have some beef, show me.
1) You'll have to agree that the world, because of direct or indirect dependence on the US, has never really voiced disagreement with the US.
No I won't because it's crap.
The world has never voiced disagreement with the US? Were you born last week?
Quote:
You don't wanna upset your sugar daddy.
Unless you stand to gain power in a "rival" world "power" (in this case: EU) by doing so: see France & Belgium.
Quote:
It's only now that Europe is no longer ruled by a generation that lived through WWII, a war in which the Americans saved the day, and after which they saved the day again with the fine Marshall plan.
So true.
Quote:
Speaking out against the US, in the case of Europe in the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, (nineties?) would not have been wise. Case in point: the rocket-crisis in Belgium, '83, more than 300.000 walked the streets of Brussels (a record of sorts) to voice its disagreement with the US' decision to place nuclear warhead-missiles on a Belgian military base (with American section). Even though many parliamentaries were against this, and the population of Belgium was very much so, the Americans were given free reign.
How is that different from today?
You lie within one statement:
...has never really voiced disagreement with the US..
You disagree with yourself.
Quote:
The government gave mr. Reagan ('we'll protect you') what he wanted. Because Belgium wanted it? NO, because disagreeing with the US was not done.
Because the US was protecting Belgium. Because the people were so safe under the US blanket they didn't realize what that blanket was made out of. I really fail to see how that equates.
Quote:
2) It was a UN action on US initiative. They pushed the decision to "free" Iraq through the UN. The US used fabled satellite pictures (like Colon did just now) to get the Saudis to agree to having Americans on their soil. These pictures turned out to be fake. Also, they blew up the presence of Iraqis in Kuweit. Foreign reports say there were no Iraqis at the prime target during wartime: airport. No tanks in the Kuweiti desert either.
Ah so those other members of the UN didn't vote for the resolution? Or they did because Bush's father bullied them? And Bush 43 (you know, Hitler-reincarnate) didn't bully them?
I also like how you snipe at the cause. Iraq didn't really invade Kuwait, they were invited.
Quote:
3) This is hypothesis. I think the world right now is not a peaceful place. Maybe it wouldn't be if power were divided more equally.
Evenly-matched nations without a super power over them have no reason not to fight.
Again a case of the child unaware of how the parent gets the money to pay for his toys.
Quote:
4) US diminishing in power: again, the simple fact that the US could only round up 48 countries for this action, many of them insignificant as to their influence in world economics/politics. The fact that large powers (and allies) like France/Germany and also Russia (an ally these days?) speak out and do not wish to help. That is less power to ya.
So your evidence of the US diminishing in power is the reticence of France & Germany?
Stunning!
Quote:
5) I sincerely think less people were dying less horrible deaths in Iraq before the US army started this concerted explosive ejaculation on marketplaces and appartment buildings, euh, military targets.
What a very narrow view. Let's say Saddam is out in 3 months (I'm being nice to you here). After that no more sanctions. No more torture chambers. No more murder squads.
Which Iraq is better to you? Do you think another 12 years with Hussein & sanctions is *better* than a short war of liberation and a better future?
Quote:
I do not think the situation before the war was horrible.
"The steps the Council has taken to date do not come to grips with the fundamental problem," said Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "Sanctions intended to block the government's access to foreign exchange have contributed to pervasive life-threatening public health conditions for millions of innocent people. An emergency commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, no matter how well funded or well run, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and then ten years of virtual shut-down of Iraq's economy."
But I'm sure you know it was peachy keen there, you spent more time there than those who say it was terrible, right? You have first-hand experience knowing that living under Hussein isn't all that bad, eh?
Quote:
I think different people are able to live happy lives in different conditions.
Really? Kind of like how one gets used to daily beatings. We should leave them.
Hussein is just killing his own people. It's none of our business, really.
I can definitely tell you're a from a country no one ever looks to for help.
Quote:
What looks oppressive to you might be meaningful to the next guy.
Tell me, why are there 4 million Iraqis living in exile?
Population: 24 million
Quote:
I have yet to see proof that many were killed after the gas-attack in 1985 (which took place in an era when the US funded Iraq's war against Iran). But, if you have some beef, show me.
Because gas-attacks from 1985 that even Noam Chomsky says are "undoubtedly true" are certainly the lynchpin of this argument. Pretty sad that you have to reach that far back.
Because gas-attacks from 1985 that even Noam Chomsky says are "undoubtedly true" are certainly the lynchpin of this argument.
That just shows how weak your argument is. We've used illegal weapons more recently than that but I don't see you advocating for the dissolution of the United States.
That just shows how weak your argument is. We've used illegal weapons more recently than that but I don't see you advocating for the dissolution of the United States.
Did one of our presidents more recently use illegal weapons on his own civilians?
And beyond that, is that the ONLY reason for ousting Saddam?
Keep defending Saddam, bunge, keep digging that hole.
Did one of our presidents more recently use illegal weapons on his own civilians?
And beyond that, is that the ONLY reason for ousting Saddam?
Keep defending Saddam, bunge, keep digging that hole.
About the only hole I'm digging is deep enough for Saddam and Bush.
Well, thanks to your strong arguments, we know humanitarian reasons aren't a valid reason to go to war. I mean, you did agree that intelligent sanctions would have been better and I for one am really glad that you did.
So if not humanitarian, what else? 20 year old news? We're complicit in that act from the 80's. If you're advocating attacking Saddam because of it, why not go after, at the very least, those who were in the United States government while we were complicit in 1985 and who are still (or again) in the government? If you don't, your hypocritical dogma will show.
Does it matter if one of our presidents is using illegal weapons on his own populace rather than on someone else's populace? If anything you should be arguing that national soverignty should preclude outside interference.
Hussein is just killing his own people. It's none of our business, really.
Ah, some of your famous American sarcasm, and very well executed too.
The only problem being that the US is invading as part of the War on Terror, i.e. to protect its own ass. That's why everyone is so desperate to link Saddam and Al-Queda, and to instill fear into ordinary, duct-tape buying, Americans in order to justify almost anything the administration wants to achieve.
Meanwhile, all the other petty tyrants and dictators that America deals with however, get a blind eye turned to their torturing and murdering activities (if they're not being actively supported, that is) because as long they align with US economics interests then it's all gravy.
Like that guy you sold chemical weapons to back in the 80s when you knew he was using them on his own people. What was his name again?
Of course, it was none of your business then (except in the literal "making money from selling weapons to be used on civilians" sense), after all, he was only killing his own people and, of course, the Iranians, who probably deserved to be horribly gassed for some reason that currently escapes my memory.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
From the posting guidelines :
3. All comments about a moderator or an administrator should be directed to the moderator or an administrator (if the member does not feel comfortable dealing directly with the moderator) using private messaging or via e-mail.
This too:
4. Excessive ad-hominem attacks of forum members will not be tolerated. We understand that things get heated, but it helps to maintain a modicum of respect for the membership. Attack ideas, not people. Be open-minded and try to help foster meaningful discussion (yes, meaningful discussion is possible if everyone respects each other).
EDIT: Powerdoc, I'm still eating French Fries and drinking French wine as often as I am able....
Originally posted by bunge
EDIT: Powerdoc, I'm still eating French Fries and drinking French wine as often as I am able....
Great.
Beware to not become a fat alcoolic guy
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Beware to not become a fat alcoolic guy
Aw, Powerdoc, I thought your livelihood depended (among other things) on the fatness of others?
Originally posted by der Kopf
Aw, Powerdoc, I thought your livelihood depended (among other things) on the fatness of others?
Only limited fatness.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Great.
Beware to not become a fat alcoolic guy
Merde...
We have a sandwich called the "French Dip..." Well yeah.. in the kitchen it is the "freedom Dip."
You know..all these people replacing "French" with "Freedom.." Well I have a question. WHAT do you call France then?
Originally posted by Gilsch
Hey Groverat, would you mind acting like the moderator you're supposed to be? All these little thinly veiled adhoms you always seem to resort to are quite unnecessary. From talking to others in here I know I'm not alone when I say that. If you can't support your arguments without resorting to personal attacks and ridicule maybe you should give up your moderator status to someone who can.
I'll file it away. Thanks for your input.
----
kopf:
Anything?
Originally posted by groverat
kopf:
Anything?
What do you mean, groverat?
Pretty please with sugar on top.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
The worst part was that some servers support Bush because "he has heart."
Bush has heart? I'd even go so far as to say that he farts 'em
As you can suspect, I just wanted to post this fine image.
Originally posted by groverat
Every plan we layed out before now was "accepted by the world" simply because it was American? Are you sure?
Ah, so that was a "US action" now?
You haven't addressed my refutation of your ridiculous assertion that if everyone had equal power the world would be safer.
Or that the US is not diminishing in power.
Or any real address to my rebuttal of your silly idea that this war interrupts "peace" in Iraq.
1) You'll have to agree that the world, because of direct or indirect dependence on the US, has never really voiced disagreement with the US. You don't wanna upset your sugar daddy. It's only now that Europe is no longer ruled by a generation that lived through WWII, a war in which the Americans saved the day, and after which they saved the day again with the fine Marshall plan. Speaking out against the US, in the case of Europe in the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, (nineties?) would not have been wise. Case in point: the rocket-crisis in Belgium, '83, more than 300.000 walked the streets of Brussels (a record of sorts) to voice its disagreement with the US' decision to place nuclear warhead-missiles on a Belgian military base (with American section). Even though many parliamentaries were against this, and the population of Belgium was very much so, the Americans were given free reign. The government gave mr. Reagan ('we'll protect you') what he wanted. Because Belgium wanted it? NO, because disagreeing with the US was not done.
2) It was a UN action on US initiative. They pushed the decision to "free" Iraq through the UN. The US used fabled satellite pictures (like Colon did just now) to get the Saudis to agree to having Americans on their soil. These pictures turned out to be fake. Also, they blew up the presence of Iraqis in Kuweit. Foreign reports say there were no Iraqis at the prime target during wartime: airport. No tanks in the Kuweiti desert either.
3) This is hypothesis. I think the world right now is not a peaceful place. Maybe it wouldn't be if power were divided more equally.
4) US diminishing in power: again, the simple fact that the US could only round up 48 countries for this action, many of them insignificant as to their influence in world economics/politics. The fact that large powers (and allies) like France/Germany and also Russia (an ally these days?) speak out and do not wish to help. That is less power to ya.
5) I sincerely think less people were dying less horrible deaths in Iraq before the US army started this concerted explosive ejaculation on marketplaces and appartment buildings, euh, military targets. I do not think the situation before the war was horrible. I think different people are able to live happy lives in different conditions. What looks oppressive to you might be meaningful to the next guy. I have yet to see proof that many were killed after the gas-attack in 1985 (which took place in an era when the US funded Iraq's war against Iran). But, if you have some beef, show me.
1) You'll have to agree that the world, because of direct or indirect dependence on the US, has never really voiced disagreement with the US.
No I won't because it's crap.
The world has never voiced disagreement with the US? Were you born last week?
You don't wanna upset your sugar daddy.
Unless you stand to gain power in a "rival" world "power" (in this case: EU) by doing so: see France & Belgium.
It's only now that Europe is no longer ruled by a generation that lived through WWII, a war in which the Americans saved the day, and after which they saved the day again with the fine Marshall plan.
So true.
Speaking out against the US, in the case of Europe in the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, (nineties?) would not have been wise. Case in point: the rocket-crisis in Belgium, '83, more than 300.000 walked the streets of Brussels (a record of sorts) to voice its disagreement with the US' decision to place nuclear warhead-missiles on a Belgian military base (with American section). Even though many parliamentaries were against this, and the population of Belgium was very much so, the Americans were given free reign.
How is that different from today?
You lie within one statement:
...has never really voiced disagreement with the US..
You disagree with yourself.
The government gave mr. Reagan ('we'll protect you') what he wanted. Because Belgium wanted it? NO, because disagreeing with the US was not done.
Because the US was protecting Belgium. Because the people were so safe under the US blanket they didn't realize what that blanket was made out of. I really fail to see how that equates.
2) It was a UN action on US initiative. They pushed the decision to "free" Iraq through the UN. The US used fabled satellite pictures (like Colon did just now) to get the Saudis to agree to having Americans on their soil. These pictures turned out to be fake. Also, they blew up the presence of Iraqis in Kuweit. Foreign reports say there were no Iraqis at the prime target during wartime: airport. No tanks in the Kuweiti desert either.
Ah so those other members of the UN didn't vote for the resolution? Or they did because Bush's father bullied them? And Bush 43 (you know, Hitler-reincarnate) didn't bully them?
I also like how you snipe at the cause. Iraq didn't really invade Kuwait, they were invited.
3) This is hypothesis. I think the world right now is not a peaceful place. Maybe it wouldn't be if power were divided more equally.
Evenly-matched nations without a super power over them have no reason not to fight.
Again a case of the child unaware of how the parent gets the money to pay for his toys.
4) US diminishing in power: again, the simple fact that the US could only round up 48 countries for this action, many of them insignificant as to their influence in world economics/politics. The fact that large powers (and allies) like France/Germany and also Russia (an ally these days?) speak out and do not wish to help. That is less power to ya.
So your evidence of the US diminishing in power is the reticence of France & Germany?
Stunning!
5) I sincerely think less people were dying less horrible deaths in Iraq before the US army started this concerted explosive ejaculation on marketplaces and appartment buildings, euh, military targets.
What a very narrow view. Let's say Saddam is out in 3 months (I'm being nice to you here). After that no more sanctions. No more torture chambers. No more murder squads.
Which Iraq is better to you? Do you think another 12 years with Hussein & sanctions is *better* than a short war of liberation and a better future?
I do not think the situation before the war was horrible.
International aid organizations would seem to disagree with you.
"The steps the Council has taken to date do not come to grips with the fundamental problem," said Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "Sanctions intended to block the government's access to foreign exchange have contributed to pervasive life-threatening public health conditions for millions of innocent people. An emergency commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, no matter how well funded or well run, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and then ten years of virtual shut-down of Iraq's economy."
But I'm sure you know it was peachy keen there, you spent more time there than those who say it was terrible, right? You have first-hand experience knowing that living under Hussein isn't all that bad, eh?
I think different people are able to live happy lives in different conditions.
Really? Kind of like how one gets used to daily beatings. We should leave them.
Hussein is just killing his own people. It's none of our business, really.
I can definitely tell you're a from a country no one ever looks to for help.
What looks oppressive to you might be meaningful to the next guy.
Tell me, why are there 4 million Iraqis living in exile?
Population: 24 million
I have yet to see proof that many were killed after the gas-attack in 1985 (which took place in an era when the US funded Iraq's war against Iran). But, if you have some beef, show me.
Because gas-attacks from 1985 that even Noam Chomsky says are "undoubtedly true" are certainly the lynchpin of this argument. Pretty sad that you have to reach that far back.
Originally posted by groverat
Because gas-attacks from 1985 that even Noam Chomsky says are "undoubtedly true" are certainly the lynchpin of this argument.
That just shows how weak your argument is. We've used illegal weapons more recently than that but I don't see you advocating for the dissolution of the United States.
Originally posted by bunge
That just shows how weak your argument is. We've used illegal weapons more recently than that but I don't see you advocating for the dissolution of the United States.
Did one of our presidents more recently use illegal weapons on his own civilians?
And beyond that, is that the ONLY reason for ousting Saddam?
Keep defending Saddam, bunge, keep digging that hole.
Originally posted by groverat
Did one of our presidents more recently use illegal weapons on his own civilians?
And beyond that, is that the ONLY reason for ousting Saddam?
Keep defending Saddam, bunge, keep digging that hole.
About the only hole I'm digging is deep enough for Saddam and Bush.
Well, thanks to your strong arguments, we know humanitarian reasons aren't a valid reason to go to war. I mean, you did agree that intelligent sanctions would have been better and I for one am really glad that you did.
So if not humanitarian, what else? 20 year old news? We're complicit in that act from the 80's. If you're advocating attacking Saddam because of it, why not go after, at the very least, those who were in the United States government while we were complicit in 1985 and who are still (or again) in the government? If you don't, your hypocritical dogma will show.
Does it matter if one of our presidents is using illegal weapons on his own populace rather than on someone else's populace? If anything you should be arguing that national soverignty should preclude outside interference.
Originally posted by groverat
Hussein is just killing his own people. It's none of our business, really.
Ah, some of your famous American sarcasm, and very well executed too.
The only problem being that the US is invading as part of the War on Terror, i.e. to protect its own ass. That's why everyone is so desperate to link Saddam and Al-Queda, and to instill fear into ordinary, duct-tape buying, Americans in order to justify almost anything the administration wants to achieve.
Meanwhile, all the other petty tyrants and dictators that America deals with however, get a blind eye turned to their torturing and murdering activities (if they're not being actively supported, that is) because as long they align with US economics interests then it's all gravy.
Like that guy you sold chemical weapons to back in the 80s when you knew he was using them on his own people. What was his name again?
Of course, it was none of your business then (except in the literal "making money from selling weapons to be used on civilians" sense), after all, he was only killing his own people and, of course, the Iranians, who probably deserved to be horribly gassed for some reason that currently escapes my memory.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
...
Like that guy you sold chemical weapons to back in the 80s when you knew he was using them on his own people. What was his name again?
...
Yea what was his name? Maybe you can pull that out of your ass too.
One vandalized property exists in France; therefore, France must suck.
Hardly.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Flawed reasoning, Scott.
One vandalized property exists in France; therefore, France must suck.
Hardly.
Boy your great at putting words in people mouths huh? Wont serve you well as a liar ooops I mean lawyer though.