 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Don't forget Saddam had domestic matters to attend as well. He had to show to his population that he was strong. So he tried to kick out the inspectors when he believed he could go away with it.
|
That's an approach many dictators use. It doesn't help the rest of the world when they are trying to ascertain whether you do, or do not have, a weapons program.
quote:
To say France and Germany profited from this corrupt program is most certainly true.
|
Thank you. Now, does that not render their opposition to Bush meaningless, from the standpoint of pacifism? One might as well be as bad as the other.
As for the scope, I'd be willing to lay even money on France and Germany being the principle culprits with their hands in the till.
If they wish to condemn the US for being mistaken, that's much more culpable than a group deliberately engaging in fraud, eh?
quote:
Hint: they weren't concerned with the welfare of the Iraqi people, but for their own petty interests. Just like the US, Russia, Iraq, and pretty much everybody involved in the whole mess.
|
Good. So why are the French given moral high ground to condemn Bush and his actions? They've got a pretty big plank in their own eye.
quote:
Sure. So sending terrorists strike NY, and preparing to nuke some American target is the way to make the Yanks go away.
|
Whoah. Where did I say Saddam was responsible for 9-11?
quote:
Maybe that's just myself, but I imagine the best strategy for Saddam to have the Yanks stop it is to fall under the radar, and to use the bribed contacts to make trade open once again.
|
Oil for food anyone? Seems Saddam was quite successful in this.
quote:
Froö France, specifically. My, my country must be the heart of evil
|
Well, you sure seem to heap blame on the Americans for everything that is wrong with the world.
Now, I like the French. I even speak French, but blaming Americans for the world's ills gets old fast. Oh, look. The Americans are to blame for the oil-for-food corruption.
quote:
I do not know, but I don't exclude the possibility.
|
Thank you. So it is possible that this is Bush's team, and not the other way around, eh? The man isn't as stupid as you make him out to be.
quote:
I would rather imagine he is an arbiter between different points of views, and he has nearly always supported the POV of Cheney and Rumsfeld, while nearly always opposing the POV of Powell.
|
That's far from being a puppet, if he allows those with different views to be heard on his staff.
quote:
Their identity is not a secret. Look at the list of senior members of the cabinet, and you have it. The Bushies are the ruling team that was bundled with Bush's election.
|
I think they are much more fractitious in private, than they are in public, but this is just my experience in another organisation under somewhat heavy scrutiny. You argue in private, and everything in the board room, stays in the boardroom.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you. Now, does that not render their opposition to Bush meaningless, from the standpoint of pacifism? One might as well be as bad as the other. |
Depends from whose opposition you are talking about. If you are talking about the opposition of the French, German or Russian States, to the war, it is true it had no moral high ground (no more than the American willingness to go to war).
Now, if you talk about the opposition from the people, it's something entirely different. Because the people were not really in the know of the bribing that occured, and it's not like they got a share of it, ya know?  In the public opinion, the opposition to the war was infinitely more principled than among the rulers.
quote:
As for the scope, I'd be willing to lay even money on France and Germany being the principle culprits with their hands in the till. |
You know about it as much as me. I expect we'll have reliable info about who was the most corrupt in 30-odd years.
quote:
If they wish to condemn the US for being mistaken, that's much more culpable than a group deliberately engaging in fraud, eh? |
I don't know who condemns the US for being mistaken. My country certainly doesn't (it has been surprisingly discreet on the whole matter since the war, despite all the "I told you so" gloat-potential). And I certainly don't either. In case you have missed it, I accuse the US not of being misguided, but of having deliberately lied in order to get support for their splendid little war.
quote:
Good. So why are the French given moral high ground to condemn Bush and his actions? They've got a pretty big plank in their own eye. |
Both countries (France and US) tried to get the moral high ground in order to gather support. The moral high ground is nothing else than a propaganda stunt. And I hold any person who believes one country was more moral than another, to be gullible.
For once my personal morality (peace) coincided with the realpolitical decisions of my country. It doesn't happen often, and it doesn't mean the French diplomats are any less immoral than they had always been.
quote:
Whoah. Where did I say Saddam was responsible for 9-11? |
Sorry, I skipped to quick conclusions. It just happens that the (quickly fading) population that thinks "Saddam would have attacked us !" often happens to think he was already behind Sept. 11
quote:
Oil for food anyone? Seems Saddam was quite successful in this. |
Yup, and there was a good chance oil-for-food would be dropped in the not-so-distant future. Saddam had to wait, and to continue flattering his friend States, while appeasing the US. I wonder why he'd have disturbed these progresses by attacking the US. It serves simply no purpose...
quote:
Well, you sure seem to heap blame on the Americans for everything that is wrong with the world. |
"You" = the French or "you" = Spiffor?
I am personally not keen of blaming all the evils in the world on the US, as the evils of the world are due to a great many factors (and a great many "evildoers"). I'm not blaming the US for AIDS, for the Tsunami, or for unemployment. When it comes to saying who started Gulf War 2, however, yes, I say it without hesitation: the Americans wanted, initiated and rushed a war of aggression.
quote:
Now, I like the French. I even speak French, but blaming Americans for the world's ills gets old fast. Oh, look. The Americans are to blame for the oil-for-food corruption. |
 I don't remember reqding that in the nedia. The oil-for-food corruption has always been presented (AFAIK) as a UN problem. It was quite a shock to the trust most Frenchmen have toward the UN.
quote:
Thank you. So it is possible that this is Bush's team, and not the other way around, eh? The man isn't as stupid as you make him out to be.
That's far from being a puppet, if he allows those with different views to be heard on his staff. |
Again, I do not know how decisions are made in the ruling team. For all that I know, Bush may be a puppet, he may be a mastermind, or he may be something in between (which strikes me as the most plausible).
Thus, I cannot tell whether he initiated, tolerated, or believed the forgeries. I cannot tell whether he is the mastermind of the lie, an associate, or a victim. This is why I use the word "the Bushies", because I consider the lie to have been orchestrated by the Bush team, no matter how Bush himself was personally involved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
In the public opinion, the opposition to the war was infinitely more principled than among the rulers.
|
As a whole? I'd be less confident in that. Sure, there will always be people who disagree with the war regardless of who is involved, but there will also be those with a vested interest in Iraq under Saddam.
quote:
In case you have missed it, I accuse the US not of being misguided, but of having deliberately lied in order to get support for their splendid little war.
|
True, but the evidence seems to point out that they were misinformed, rather than deliberately lying.
quote:
Sorry, I skipped to quick conclusions. It just happens that the (quickly fading) population that thinks "Saddam would have attacked us !" often happens to think he was already behind Sept. 11
|
I'm still a Canuck. For all my empathy with Americans, we tend to see some things differently.
As for you personally, I'll qualify that statement to say that many people, particularly europeans, (Canucks included) tend to blame the US for most of the world's problems.
quote:
This is why I use the word "the Bushies", because I consider the lie to have been orchestrated by the Bush team, no matter how Bush himself was personally involved.
|
I see his staff sincerely believing that Saddam had more weapons than he was shown to have after the war. I don't see evidence that they deliberately fabricated such evidence, and that their concerns seemed reasonable given the lack of compliance by Saddam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
How does this make sense, Spiffor? You want to impale Bush and co. for lacking morals while admitting that every other government is equally lacking morals. |
I don't specifically wish to impale Bush and Co, because I don't think there is any government that wouldn't propagandize to get support for its wars, in this day and age. The Bush government is not any worse than any other in that regard.
The excuses for war have been a non-issue ever since the war had begun. Threads about those excuses serve little purpose, except for people like me to gloat. If you look at my posts in this thread, I do not single out the Bushies as being especially evil or immoral. I'll single out the Americans as being especially gullible (and the only reason I single them out is not because they are any more gullible than the rest of the world, but because they seem not to understand they are yet another country, with yet another manipulative leadership, and yet another manipulated population)
quote:
Who is more immoral, a government that goes to war over a mistaken pretext, but who topple a mass murderer in the process, or a government that strives to keep a mass murderer in place because of the money they are being bribed with? |
Both, since none of them behaved out of moral motives. All actors in this mess were motivated by their greed.
quote:
And again with the lies. You do not grant that people in the know throughout the West were mistaken about Saddam's capabilities and programs? |
I can grant them that they could be believing Saddam had traces of its old WMDs, and that he had traces of his old programs.
I cannot grant them that they believed Saddam posed an immediate threat to the US. This "immediate threat" meme, which was the main propaganda for the war along with the AQ links, was a lie as much as you can get.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't specifically wish to impale Bush and Co, because I don't think there is any government that wouldn't propagandize to get support for its wars, in this day and age. The Bush government is not any worse than any other in that regard.
The excuses for war have been a non-issue ever since the war had begun. Threads about those excuses serve little purpose, except for people like me to gloat. If you look at my posts in this thread, I do not single out the Bushies as being especially evil or immoral. I'll single out the Americans as being especially gullible (and the only reason I single them out is not because they are any more gullible than the rest of the world, but because they seem not to understand they are yet another country, with yet another manipulative leadership, and yet another manipulated population)
quote:
Who is more immoral, a government that goes to war over a mistaken pretext, but who topple a mass murderer in the process, or a government that strives to keep a mass murderer in place because of the money they are being bribed with? |
Both, since none of them behaved out of moral motives. All actors in this mess were motivated by their greed. |
OK. So you want to have your fun by slagging off the US and its administration while rubbing the noses of various Yanks, and others, in the pooh. Cool. Why then do you get defensive when others get their jollies slagging off France and their administrations, past and present, for their sins?
Why do you seem hurt by the France bashing when you seem to delight in US bashing? If all the administrations are equally lacking morals, why can't we all have 'er, no matter who we want to slag? Why so defensive when the canons are pointed at your glass house?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Where on that page does it say Los Angeles, or any other American city was under imminent threat by missile? There is a lot of hyperbole. Threat to "our country, to our friends and to our allies," and such. I don't see 'he can launch on 45 minutes notice and hit Washington. Ahhhh!' |
There is nothing of it, and I don't remember having posted about such statements (although I do remember posts written by a PrinceBimz guy, who was convinced that Saddam would nuke NY in very short notice if there wasn't immediate action against him).
In this thread, I have consistently pointed out the lie that Iraq was an "immediate threat", which was big in the PR, and repeeated often enough by the Bushies.
quote:
Saddam was no threat, to anyone, and never could be even if the sanctions were lifted? Really? What colour is the sky on that planet? |
Do you really think I ever thought something like that? If yes, you should really correct your reading problems. If not, it may be nice if you tried to debate honestly. Thanks 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
In general, I am defensive only when I think I am fighting prejudice. When I understand I am trolled, I quickly stop to bother.
1. I am not hurt by France bashing from people who admit they are doing so. I am hurt only by what I consider to be prejudices. I had my fair share of France-bashing during the buildup of the Iraq war, so I'm not really sensitive to it now.
2. Who said you can't? Certainly not me. I don't remember having ever cried to momma Ming when France was bashed. |
Prejudice. Good word. What is the prejudice behind much of the Bush bashing on this forum and others like it? Could it be anti-Americanism, or be misinterpreted as being so? Could it be prejudice against anything from the political right? Where do the frequent Nazi allusions, or outright statements come from?
re France, in another thread, I said France sucks as an ally. I think the facts support that given what happened to the Czechs, the Poles, French involvement in NATO, and speeches in Quebec. You didn't seem to like it. Do you think the facts are prejudiced?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
There is nothing of it, and I don't remember having posted about such statements (although I do remember posts written by a PrinceBimz guy, who was convinced that Saddam would nuke NY in very short notice if there wasn't immediate action against him).
In this thread, I have consistently pointed out the lie that Iraq was an "immediate threat", which was big in the PR, and repeeated often enough by the Bushies.
Do you really think I ever thought something like that? If yes, you should really correct your reading problems. If not, it may be nice if you tried to debate honestly. Thanks |
I am being honest. You're the one saying he was no threat whatsoever. That is clearly false. He was a threat then or in the future. Due to past actions, both to his own people and to his neighbours, the world is far better off with him deposed. You say, 'no.' That is the basis of the entire disagreement.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2005 21:46
|