 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT
You are mixing everything up. Chirac was elected in May last year by 82% (election, not popularity gallup). The whole affair started in september and you heared nothing from Chirac before february soonest. |
Ah yes, the famous popular revulsion against the far right.
A pity it didn't happen in 1940, but that's all in the past.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
It doesn't matter anyway, Chirac was on the side of right and you are just wrong. The given reasons for invading Iraq have not panned out and it's obvious that the real reasons were typically venal.
|
rofl! You're not serious. Chirac was taking orders from rich French business interests to keep the gravy train running. He knowingly and willingly aided a brutal regime that oppressed its people for his own personal benefit. Bush ain't no better, but please. Spare us the canonization of Chirac.
and you call yourself a communist...
What is so ironic about the whole Iraq thing is that for years France dumped all over the US for propping up nasty tinpot dictators during the cold war. Now that the tables are turned, we have to hear crap about the importance of "Soveriegn nations". My @ss. That doesn't mean squat to suffering people.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
I said that it didn't matter what Chirac's motives were. My point was that the Ameri-scum weren't much different (in fact their motives were probably worse) and that Chirac was on the right side, albeit for different reasons. |
So, Propping up Saddam = right side. suuuuuure.
Time to turn in your commie card.
quote: You can flap on all you like, but this war was waged on fake pretexts partly to make sure that people of limited political awareness, like yourself, would vote for little George in the upcoming election. And you all bought it. |
Oh, how I love it when the Truly Enlighted finally share their wisdom with us poor "limited" folk 
Sorry, bub, wrong set of assumptions of your part. #1 I did not vote for Bush in 2000. #2 I did not support his crappy little war. #3 I won't be voting for Bush in 2004.
quote: And don't give me that crap about the US helping the Iraqui people. Everyone with half a brain knows that foreign policy has very little to do with caring; |
At least my half-a-brain works. Look, this is news to noone. The Bushies find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having the world microscope still focused on their silly war. Now anytime someone takes dump in Baghdad, the news media reports on the quantity and color. They'll simply HAVE TO behave better than Saddam.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:28
|
|
Have to agree with Agathon, the quality (lack of) and evident outlandishness of some of the arguments posted here justifying Americas actions, both in the context of war and what has happened at UNSC, seem to suggest a point of view that is struggling to maintain its credibility against a combination of logic, reason, common sense, and objective analysis.
For example:
"America is an evil, evil place Agathon. Never forget it is far better to live in crappy Arab dictatorship"
If the best one can do is provide wholly subjective, provincialist arguments, then you are doing little better than the crusaders of Western Europe of centuries past. The Arabs may well have something to say in response to your claim. You are judging another culture, another form of government, another peoples way of doing things, by your own paramaters, which while they may work for you, need not work for everyone.
If you do as I do, and take a step back, view things, not from your own personal love of (in my case liberty) the American way of doing things, then you may well arrive at the same conclusion as I and others have, who are often people who have not been conditioned by cultural pragmatism and patriotism, so that they can now see things in an objective manner.
I know I keep going on about subjectives and objectives, but that is of critical importance here, and all issues of international relations. To those that would say that there is no ultimate objective thus there is only subjective, one must also consider that given a context of a certain number of subjectives, there is a pseudo-objective for that context. Otherwise, we will be engaged in a long debate about the nature of cosmology, which is of little relevance to Gulf War II.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:28
|
|
"I apparently understand far, far more about realpolitic, international relations, and human nature then you do. You still can't understand why your vaunted communist theory violates human nature and your views of international relations are based up blind rage and bigotry."
You evidence for this "communist theory" is? As for it violating human nature, that is another story, but I feel you may be referring to Stalinism there. Blind rage and bigotry? Where is your evidence. It would appear that your reasoning is based on prejudices and misconceptions, as well as plenty of strawmen, ad hominems, and the odd ad hoc. Begone cretin.
"Come on and lighten up a bit"
If I may be so presumptuous to speak for Agathon, it is hard to "lighten up", when we are dealing with issues of wars, the victims of war, and the future being dictated by these policies.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|