One vandalized property exists in France; therefore, France must suck.
Hardly.
France does not suck at all. After all Powerdoc is from France and I respect and admire Powerdoc very much. France has tremendous culture and class. We must be careful to label a country based on a political difference here and there.
I would love to visit France sometime. Hmmm maybe powerdoc could show me around
France does not suck at all. After all Powerdoc is from France and I respect and admire Powerdoc very much. France has tremendous culture and class. We must be careful to label a country based on a political difference here and there.
I would love to visit France sometime. Hmmm maybe powerdoc could show me around
Fellows
Be sure to take pictures of all the defaced war memorials to the people NOT FROM FRANCE that died to save those "people" from the Germans.
Be sure to take pictures of all the defaced war memorials to the people NOT FROM FRANCE that died to save those "people" from the Germans.
I would only submit that to continue to harp over France is no greater a virtue than those who continue to harp over America.
Sure there are some things I take difference with with some of French stance. I would expect that the same is true with some abroad who take difference with some American stance. To harp over and over and label an entire country serves no real positive purpose.
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.
Better than the previous sanctions, not as good as regime change.
Unless, of course, you know better than the leaders of international aid organizations and watchdog groups. I'm sure you do.
"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." - Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch, not exactly a war-mongering right-wing attack dog group, now is it?
Sanctions do nothing to Saddam and kill the people. That's it. Sanctions destroy the economy and ruin their lives, their health systems and their infrastructure. It's a little more complicated than the mean 'ole US blocking some contracts.
The only problem being that the US is invading as part of the War on Terror, i.e. to protect its own ass.
It's both. Crazy, eh?
Quote:
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 who?
Please provide some evidence that they're as bad as Hussein while you're at it. Also show how they are supported by the US.
Thanks.
And past that, why would hypocrisy or inconsistency nullify a just action?
You don't want to go to France. There is dog shit all over the sidewalks. And the people all talk funny, like they speak French or something. Food is good, service is horrid. But you still get to tip anyway. And I mean Paris is a nice romantic city but if you're willing to take a lady to Paris then you're probably already ravaging her loins and so you can do that back at your good ole American double wide trailer for a lot less money and still have more time left after you're done procreating to watch one of those Spaghetti Westerns that come on late at night on one of Teddy Turner's networks. Hopefully Clint and not that bastard John Wayne. Except it's all ****ed up anyway cause when they edit the final scene in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly for TV they trim it to TV dimensions and all of the gunfighters are in the perimeter and so they get cut out of the climactic scene. That, coupled with burqas has pretty much ruined my faith in humanity.
Anyway, unless the French immediately assassinate Chiraq and replace him with the Human Beat Box that country will just shrivel up and fall into the Atlantic quite soon. But when it goes out Atlantis style then the Iberian Peninsula will not be a peninsula anymore. What is this world coming to when a peninsula is not a peninsula?
You don't want to go to France. There is dog shit all over the sidewalks. And the people all talk funny, like they speak French or something. Food is good, service is horrid. But you still get to tip anyway. And I mean Paris is a nice romantic city but if you're willing to take a lady to Paris then you're probably already ravaging her loins and so you can do that back at your good ole American double wide trailer for a lot less money and still have more time left after you're done procreating to watch one of those Spaghetti Westerns that come on late at night on one of Teddy Turner's networks. Hopefully Clint and not that bastard John Wayne. Except it's all ****ed up anyway cause when they edit the final scene in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly for TV they trim it to TV dimensions and all of the gunfighters are in the perimeter and so they get cut out of the climactic scene. That, coupled with burqas has pretty much ruined my faith in humanity.
Anyway, unless the French immediately assassinate Chiraq and replace him with the Human Beat Box that country will just shrivel up and fall into the Atlantic quite soon. But when it goes out Atlantis style then the Iberian Peninsula will not be a peninsula anymore. What is this world coming to when a peninsula is not a peninsula?
Sanctions do nothing to Saddam and kill the people. That's it. Sanctions destroy the economy and ruin their lives, their health systems and their infrastructure. It's a little more complicated than the mean 'ole US blocking some contracts.
You can state this as fact, but it's just opinion. And it's your opinion, without any basis. Most of the world disagrees with you.
If it wasn't for the French you'd be English. What a horrible, ungrateful people you are.
This is an interesting historical question even if it was not the gist of your post, at least not in earnest. Of course, we would not be English to this day, that is a patently absurd suggestion. I don't think anyone would dispute that the US would have been free of British rule in all probability by the end of the 18th century and even in the most pessimistic sense by the 1830's. The "US" culture dating to even the 18th century made independence sooner rather than later inevitable at least as much so as it was for Australia and Canada and other Anglo colonies. As we know as well of course even those places which were non-Anglo colonies have now gone free of British rule, except for miscellaneous islands and perhaps Northern Ireland.
Moreover, a decent argument can certainly be made that the US would have won the Revolutionary War without French help. Still it is open to debate. Obviously it would need to be fleshed out of course by someone less lazy than I. Still, the more interesting question then is how events would have been changed by other developments. Start with land most obviously, Louisiana purchase, Texas, Spanish-American War, Alaska etc throughout the century. Maybe things would have worked out differently from First Peoples. Then you can look at govt and constitutional outcomes with a different set of leadership which was not the greatest between Jackson and Lincoln. Immigration trends would ahve possibly been different. Even perhaps a fracturing of the US into different nation states. It tis fun to speculate about. But I digress since bagging on the Chiraqis has gone stale. For now.
And, why would hypocrisy or inconsistency nullify a just action?
Oh, that's a tricky one, let me see now.
Is it perhaps because this 'just action' is being done by basically the same people, for the same reasons as all of the many unjust actions? And that the 'just' outcome for the oppressed in Iraq is therefore no more than a by-product, something that will be sacrificed at the first opportunity for profit?
As revealed in another thread the CIA is proposing a chemical weapons using, war-criminal as a possible Iraqi leader.
You can state this as fact, but it's just opinion. And it's your opinion, without any basis. Most of the world disagrees with you.
Most of the world? Like who?
Human Rights Watch agrees with me. I've linked to many international aid organizations that agree with me. UNICEF being a particularly staunch opponent to sanctions.
So who exactly disagrees with me? You? Oh, "most of the world". Do you have *any* backing for that? Any at all?
This isn't new, the sanctions have been protested for as long as they have been in place.
You're not seeing any right-wing pro-war sources here.
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.
Not "dealt" with (past tense), but "deals" with (present tense).
Who does Bush 43 support that is worse than Hussein?
Quote:
Is it perhaps because this 'just action' is being done by basically the same people, for the same reasons as all of the many unjust actions? And that the 'just' outcome for the oppressed in Iraq is therefore no more than a by-product, something that will be sacrificed at the first opportunity for profit?
Did you know that Suharto ruled basically throughout Clinton's term (until 1998)?
Who does the Bush administration support right NOW that is worse than Hussein? Eh?
Musharraf ain't too nice, I'll give you some help.
All countries boardering afghanistan excluding Iran is supported by US and may not be worse than Hussein but sure is in the same league.
And the silent accept of Russias labeling their fight in Chechnia as a war against terrorism. What russia is doing down there is another league_worse than what Saddam have done since the last war against him.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Flawed reasoning, Scott.
One vandalized property exists in France; therefore, France must suck.
Hardly.
France does not suck at all. After all Powerdoc is from France and I respect and admire Powerdoc very much. France has tremendous culture and class. We must be careful to label a country based on a political difference here and there.
I would love to visit France sometime. Hmmm maybe powerdoc could show me around
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
France does not suck at all. After all Powerdoc is from France and I respect and admire Powerdoc very much. France has tremendous culture and class. We must be careful to label a country based on a political difference here and there.
I would love to visit France sometime. Hmmm maybe powerdoc could show me around
Fellows
Be sure to take pictures of all the defaced war memorials to the people NOT FROM FRANCE that died to save those "people" from the Germans.
Originally posted by Scott
Boy your great at putting words in people mouths huh? Wont serve you well as a liar ooops I mean lawyer though.
I suppose I'll need the "truth" then. Can't be fumbling words like that in front of the judge.
Originally posted by Scott
Be sure to take pictures of all the defaced war memorials to the people NOT FROM FRANCE that died to save those "people" from the Germans.
I would only submit that to continue to harp over France is no greater a virtue than those who continue to harp over America.
Sure there are some things I take difference with with some of French stance. I would expect that the same is true with some abroad who take difference with some American stance. To harp over and over and label an entire country serves no real positive purpose.
Fellows
Originally posted by bunge
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.
Better than the previous sanctions, not as good as regime change.
Unless, of course, you know better than the leaders of international aid organizations and watchdog groups. I'm sure you do.
"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." - Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch, not exactly a war-mongering right-wing attack dog group, now is it?
Sanctions do nothing to Saddam and kill the people. That's it. Sanctions destroy the economy and ruin their lives, their health systems and their infrastructure. It's a little more complicated than the mean 'ole US blocking some contracts.
"...no matter how well funded or well run..." - war-mongerer fascist baby-eater
-----------
stupider:
The only problem being that the US is invading as part of the War on Terror, i.e. to protect its own ass.
It's both. Crazy, eh?
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 who?
Please provide some evidence that they're as bad as Hussein while you're at it. Also show how they are supported by the US.
Thanks.
And past that, why would hypocrisy or inconsistency nullify a just action?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
[B
I would love to visit France sometime. Hmmm maybe powerdoc could show me around
Fellows [/B]
you are welcome
Anyway, unless the French immediately assassinate Chiraq and replace him with the Human Beat Box that country will just shrivel up and fall into the Atlantic quite soon. But when it goes out Atlantis style then the Iberian Peninsula will not be a peninsula anymore. What is this world coming to when a peninsula is not a peninsula?
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
You don't want to go to France. There is dog shit all over the sidewalks. And the people all talk funny, like they speak French or something. Food is good, service is horrid. But you still get to tip anyway. And I mean Paris is a nice romantic city but if you're willing to take a lady to Paris then you're probably already ravaging her loins and so you can do that back at your good ole American double wide trailer for a lot less money and still have more time left after you're done procreating to watch one of those Spaghetti Westerns that come on late at night on one of Teddy Turner's networks. Hopefully Clint and not that bastard John Wayne. Except it's all ****ed up anyway cause when they edit the final scene in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly for TV they trim it to TV dimensions and all of the gunfighters are in the perimeter and so they get cut out of the climactic scene. That, coupled with burqas has pretty much ruined my faith in humanity.
Anyway, unless the French immediately assassinate Chiraq and replace him with the Human Beat Box that country will just shrivel up and fall into the Atlantic quite soon. But when it goes out Atlantis style then the Iberian Peninsula will not be a peninsula anymore. What is this world coming to when a peninsula is not a peninsula?
Originally posted by Scott
Be sure to take pictures of all the defaced war memorials to the people NOT FROM FRANCE that died to save those "people" from the Germans.
"People" eh?
If it wasn't for the French you'd be English. What a horrible, ungrateful people you are.
Originally posted by Harald
"People" eh?
If it wasn't for the French you'd be English. What a horrible, ungrateful people you are.
It's been paid back several times over. Next time I hope the US lets the French fend for themselves.
Originally posted by groverat
Sanctions do nothing to Saddam and kill the people. That's it. Sanctions destroy the economy and ruin their lives, their health systems and their infrastructure. It's a little more complicated than the mean 'ole US blocking some contracts.
You can state this as fact, but it's just opinion. And it's your opinion, without any basis. Most of the world disagrees with you.
Originally posted by Scott
It's been paid back several times over.
If it wasn't for the French you'd be English. What a horrible, ungrateful people you are.
This is an interesting historical question even if it was not the gist of your post, at least not in earnest. Of course, we would not be English to this day, that is a patently absurd suggestion. I don't think anyone would dispute that the US would have been free of British rule in all probability by the end of the 18th century and even in the most pessimistic sense by the 1830's. The "US" culture dating to even the 18th century made independence sooner rather than later inevitable at least as much so as it was for Australia and Canada and other Anglo colonies. As we know as well of course even those places which were non-Anglo colonies have now gone free of British rule, except for miscellaneous islands and perhaps Northern Ireland.
Moreover, a decent argument can certainly be made that the US would have won the Revolutionary War without French help. Still it is open to debate. Obviously it would need to be fleshed out of course by someone less lazy than I. Still, the more interesting question then is how events would have been changed by other developments. Start with land most obviously, Louisiana purchase, Texas, Spanish-American War, Alaska etc throughout the century. Maybe things would have worked out differently from First Peoples. Then you can look at govt and constitutional outcomes with a different set of leadership which was not the greatest between Jackson and Lincoln. Immigration trends would ahve possibly been different. Even perhaps a fracturing of the US into different nation states. It tis fun to speculate about. But I digress since bagging on the Chiraqis has gone stale. For now.
Originally posted by groverat
Like who?
Please provide some evidence that they're as bad as Hussein while you're at it. Also show how they are supported by the US.
Thanks.
And past that, why would hypocrisy or inconsistency nullify a just action?
As bad as Hussein? They were Hussein (amongst others).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...528574,00.html
Pinochet:
http://www.lakota.clara.net/
Noreiga:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega
Suharto:
http://www.etan.org/et2002a/february/01-09/09ksngr.htm
Far to many to list...
Active support: School of the Americas:
http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=539
And, why would hypocrisy or inconsistency nullify a just action?
Oh, that's a tricky one, let me see now.
Is it perhaps because this 'just action' is being done by basically the same people, for the same reasons as all of the many unjust actions? And that the 'just' outcome for the oppressed in Iraq is therefore no more than a by-product, something that will be sacrificed at the first opportunity for profit?
As revealed in another thread the CIA is proposing a chemical weapons using, war-criminal as a possible Iraqi leader.
Do these people never learn?
Originally posted by bunge
You can state this as fact, but it's just opinion. And it's your opinion, without any basis. Most of the world disagrees with you.
Most of the world? Like who?
Human Rights Watch agrees with me. I've linked to many international aid organizations that agree with me. UNICEF being a particularly staunch opponent to sanctions.
So who exactly disagrees with me? You? Oh, "most of the world". Do you have *any* backing for that? Any at all?
This isn't new, the sanctions have been protested for as long as they have been in place.
You're not seeing any right-wing pro-war sources here.
Pinochet, Noriega, Suharto
All gone. You said:
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.
Not "dealt" with (past tense), but "deals" with (present tense).
Who does Bush 43 support that is worse than Hussein?
Is it perhaps because this 'just action' is being done by basically the same people, for the same reasons as all of the many unjust actions? And that the 'just' outcome for the oppressed in Iraq is therefore no more than a by-product, something that will be sacrificed at the first opportunity for profit?
Did you know that Suharto ruled basically throughout Clinton's term (until 1998)?
Who does the Bush administration support right NOW that is worse than Hussein? Eh?
Musharraf ain't too nice, I'll give you some help.
And the silent accept of Russias labeling their fight in Chechnia as a war against terrorism. What russia is doing down there is another league_worse than what Saddam have done since the last war against him.
Originally posted by groverat
Most of the world? Like who?
China, Germany, France, Mexico, Canada, Belgium, Turkey, Russia....