Bush's Iraq-Afghan farewell tour marred by dissent

[taks]

Not too familiar with how the American government works are you?

even if he did, do you think he'd care?

 

taks

[Walsingham]

A part of me would still like to see the legitimacy of the Iraq War tested before an international court, because I think it would make future world leaders more cautious about launching military actions abroad, but I don't delude myself that it's actually going to happen.

you'd have to try every one of the security council/UN members that voted to allow force. if they didn't want us to do what we did, they should have voted it down.

 

taks

 

Well, France and Russia both opposed action, but of course they were owed 50 bn and 17 bn respectively by Saddam. So I'm sure it was a moral standpoint.

 

Edit: Got my figures muddled. 7 billion dollars owed to France. 50 billion owed to Russia. Although, that excludes the value of oil extraction contracts to French and Russian oil companies, which might be worth several hundred billion.

[Killian Kalthorne]

No rose coloured glasses needed. Just plain old fashion facts.

 

Fact is the US is worse off than it was 8 years ago.

[taks]

Well, France and Russia both opposed action, but of course they were owed 50 bn and 17 bn respectively by Saddam. So I'm sure it was a moral standpoint.

 

Edit: Got my figures muddled. 7 billion dollars owed to France. 50 billion owed to Russia. Although, that excludes the value of oil extraction contracts to French and Russian oil companies, which might be worth several hundred billion.

yeah, moral standpoint. france also had contracts with saddam for cheap oil. wasn't france also trying to bribe other nations to vote against the US? such actions would otherwise be considered acts of war as well. too bad we couldn't have done their leaders in as well.

 

Fact is the US is worse off than it was 8 years ago.

the whole world is, at least economically. but still better than it has been historically. when we finally figure out that this nonsense "third way" of regulating the economy to death doesn't work, we'll actually see the same sorts of improvements we saw the first 100 years of our country's existence. till then, get used to these cycles. the next one will be either with health care or "green technology" i'm guessing.

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

yeah, moral standpoint. france also had contracts with saddam for cheap oil. wasn't france also trying to bribe other nations to vote against the US? such actions would otherwise be considered acts of war as well. too bad we couldn't have done their leaders in as well.

 

taks

 

Scary comment - I hope you're kidding, but I get the feeling that a part of you really wish that.

[taks]

Scary comment - I hope you're kidding, but I get the feeling that a part of you really wish that.

you can't think that the french actions were those of an ally, can you? i can understand wanting to follow the path the benefits them economically, but to do it in opposition to an ally, while claiming the moral high ground as their true reason is ridiculous. the contracts the french had with saddam were "illegal" anyway, and yet i never hear anyone pointing that out.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

I don't think France has been an ally of the US since you stopped fighting us Brits. Even during the war there's some rather illuminating stuff in the archives about De Gaulle.

 

I don't really have a problem with France, i just get annoyed when people make like the UN blocking the invasion has some moral or even legal (given the corruption) authority.

[taks]

i don't have anything against the french people, but their choice of leaders is about on par with ours (crap), if not worse.

 

personally, i don't give two shakes to anything the UN does. it's all hand-waving anyway. their goals (the UN's) are directly counter to everything i value, so their worth, IMO, is zero.

 

taks

[Brdavs]

Which valuies would those be btw? "God is a republican" complex and everyone not aboard the far right train is a moron? (the fact you allegedly red up on world and spanish history yet still can claim its better we conquered the world cos living under the muslim rule would meen our "extermination due to incompatibility" makes me think you are the moron here.)

 

Taks you need professional help. Folks like you make the upcoming shift in world power balance a welcomed and overdue occurance.

 

 

As far as for our "humanitarian mission"... 1mil iraqis dead as a result and a country that will collapse the week occupying troops ship out? Best thing to do now is to ethnically cleanse it for a relativly "peacefull" brakeup. We can sell the fact we`re going balkans on them behind the scenes to people like taks as a "improvment of the security situation". You dont say? If you ethnically cleanse an area of sunnis the sunni shia violence will go down? You think? Thats a big win for the coalition right there, things are working! Only snag is you gotta employ "slightly questionable techniques" eh heh. Oh well, UN and that stuff are complete muppets anyways, tis our god given right to do whatever we want, UN just wants to *insert prefered phobia* us. USA N1! lol... rednecks...

 

And stating that russia and france had economic interests in iraq is suppose to justify what happened and is happening? It`s an established pracitice that no world power/player moves a pubic hair if its not his/hers interest on the line. And that rings EPECIALLY true for the so called champions of freedom and democracy lol.

 

Its a dirty dirty world people. And after WW2 twas the US that dictated its image due to the given circumstances. Take a friggin guess if its possible to swimm in the ocean and stay dry lol...

Edited December 17, 2008 by Brdavs

[SteveThaiBinh]

Well, France and Russia both opposed action, but of course they were owed 7bn and 50bn respectively by Saddam. So I'm sure it was a moral standpoint.

The war was opposed by eighty-five percent of the population of France. You really don't think that was a factor in a democratic country?

[taks]

Which valuies would those be btw? "God is a republican" complex and everyone not aboard the far right train is a moron? (the fact you allegedly red up on world and spanish history yet still can claim its better we conquered the world cos living under the muslim rule would meen our "extermination due to incompatibility" makes me think you are the moron here.)

you're not making sense. shall i list all your problems in this one statement?

1) i'm not a republican, the closest would be libertarian but i'm atheist so even that one doesn't fit.

2) read, not red.

3) not sure what your point about "red up on world" is anyway. the middle east is ruled by dictatorships in one fashion or another. china is communist. there's no "racism" in the fact that i think democratic rule is better.

 

Taks you need professional help. Folks like you make the upcoming shift in world power balance a welcomed and overdue occurance.

really, and now you're a psychologist or psychiatrist? exactly what have i said that indicates i need such help other than a differing opinion on world matters than your narrow ideology allows? perhaps you're jealous? not sure what shift in world power balance you're referring to, either.

 

 

And stating that russia and france had economic interests in iraq is suppose to justify what happened and is happening? It`s an established pracitice that no world power/player moves a pubic hair if its not his/hers interest on the line. And that rings EPECIALLY true for the so called champions of freedom and democracy lol.

no kidding. i made that pretty clear that i understood such a point, but apparently your blind ideological belief system does not allow you to notice such nuances. the point i made, however, was that in acting the way they did, they pretty much tipped their respective hands as not allies of ours. duh.

 

taks

[taks]

The war was opposed by eighty-five percent of the population of France. You really don't think that was a factor in a democratic country?

wow, strawman alert.

 

really, are you just another one of those people that has a starring role in the wizard of oz? this is becoming a ridiculous joke. and people like rosbjerg wonder why i show so much contempt in here.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Well, France and Russia both opposed action, but of course they were owed 7bn and 50bn respectively by Saddam. So I'm sure it was a moral standpoint.

The war was opposed by eighty-five percent of the population of France. You really don't think that was a factor in a democratic country?

 

Touche. However, I'm perfectly happy to accept there were multiple reasons. Sneaky bastard that I am. But I think if we were discussing a criminal case you'd be able to throw out the presiding judge if they were owed so much money by the defendant.

[Trenitay]

Taks, why is it that everyone that disagrees with you has either a narrow or blind idealogical view?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Touche. However, I'm perfectly happy to accept there were multiple reasons.

As am I. And governments are indeed willing to go against strong popular opposition if they believe it to be in the national (or the government's) interest; our own Dear Tony did. I'm sure the French government factored the economic consequences of regime change into its decision, and it may even be right that it do so. I feel a balanced analysis is important.

But I think if we were discussing a criminal case you'd be able to throw out the presiding judge if they were owed so much money by the defendant.

As in, UN Security Council members losing their voting rights on issues where they have an economic interest? Difficult to implement in the new global economy.

[taks]

Taks, why is it that everyone that disagrees with you has either a narrow or blind idealogical view?

wow... again, take a look around at who i accuse of having a narrow or blind ideological view, then give up your strawman. stb is one of those constant US-bashers, a serial offender in fact, referring to bush and US actions in general in ideological terms, devoid of fact and/or substance. brdavs, i'm sorry, is one of the biggest. shall i go on?

 

yet another strawman. unbelievable.

 

i'm curious, how many of you are capable of taking me on without a strawman? you'll notice that i don't get bent out of shape with those that do, btw.

 

taks

Edited December 17, 2008 by taks

[taks]

As in, UN Security Council members losing their voting rights on issues where they have an economic interest? Difficult to implement in the new global economy.

it's not just about an economic interest, they were violating terms of a treaty. what part of that gave them any right to have any vote on the matter?

 

taks

[taks]

Where did I say that I'm forcing you to change your opinion? I'm just calling your sweeping generalizations bull**** - because you might think that polishing them makes it fine, I simply argue that it doesn't - and your shotgun arguments are hitting anything but their mark.

and i made it clear that my "sweeping generalizations" aren't so sweeping and that your bull**** argument is strawman nonsense. furthermore, you point out that everyone has a right to speak his opinion which means SO DO I!

 

I just don't like the fact that you go all Rambo, because you have a problem with a few idiots.

those are the only ones i'm going rambo with, rosbjerg. why is that so hard to see even after i've repeatedly made that point clear?

 

taks

[taks]

btw, i should add rosjberg, if you haven't noticed, people like me (or with similar beliefs) are outnumbered like 100 to 1 in here. that's fine, but the US bashing is non-stop, so it's hardly a surprise when someone vocal like me gets bent out of shape and fights back. particularly when the bashing comes from folks like stb, a freaking moderator in here. you'll notice too, the difference in tone i take with you compared to someone like brdavs. quite frankly, i respect your opinion, even when i disagree with it, whereas there is very little hope i would ever respect someone like brdavs.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Touche. However, I'm perfectly happy to accept there were multiple reasons.

As am I. And governments are indeed willing to go against strong popular opposition if they believe it to be in the national (or the government's) interest; our own Dear Tony did. I'm sure the French government factored the economic consequences of regime change into its decision, and it may even be right that it do so. I feel a balanced analysis is important.

 

You are right, and I accept the lump implied.

 

If I have an excuse it is that for me, all this legal and moral havering is moot. A subject for intellectual exercise, but practically irrelevant. I have a rather narrow and old fashioned perspective. Bush took decisive action. Saddam was ousted. He was ousted after years of other leaders claiming sanctions would do the job when they clearly weren't. Or should someone equally throw shoes at the leaders who stood idly by when the UN itself estimated that sanctions were killing children in their thousands every month? I consider that far more repugnant.

 

There have been tens of thousands of people killed since the invasion. But the thing which always reduces me to total awe is that people cheerfully blame those deaths on George Bush, not the terrorists from all over the world who conducted their own invasion with the express purpose of chaos death and destruction, and who actually did the killing!

[taks]

that is why i call people ideologues: they'd rather blame bush simply because their ideological belief system does not like him rather than the actual perpetrators of the crimes. any of these middle eastern countries that actually care about their people should be trying their damnedest to stop the insurgents and other terrorists (some are, sort of). they don't care, in general, as it makes the US look bad. in fact, by and large, they support such actions. yeah, those are better countries to be running the world and i'm racist for disagreeing.

 

taks

[Trenitay]

Taks, why is it that everyone that disagrees with you has either a narrow or blind idealogical view?

wow... again, take a look around at who i accuse of having a narrow or blind ideological view, then give up your strawman. stb is one of those constant US-bashers, a serial offender in fact, referring to bush and US actions in general in ideological terms, devoid of fact and/or substance. brdavs, i'm sorry, is one of the biggest. shall i go on?

 

Are you saying you never speak ideologically. You're always completely objective aren't you? They have different opinions than you. At this point I'm a US-basher.And im sure all the reasons I would give you would be ideological.

[Aristes]

To speak with all candor, you people don't have the guts to try us and would lose if you did.

You'd be surprised what I have the guts for. More importantly, do you think we could conduct this discussion without irrelevant throwaway insults? They don't add anything.

 

It's a shame he missed. A shoe in the face is the least Bush deserves. A jail cell in the Hague would be my vote.

 

Not long now.

 

My response to your comment brought down the level of discourse?

 

Look, I am with all honesty saying that there is no European government that will try to take Bush by force and subject him to a war crime tribunal. I'm not saying that big ol' you is not willing to beat up (or throw a shoe at) poor little me. It's not a personal comment. My comment is a statement of what I perceive as fact. There is not enough unity in the European Union to project a united front on war crimes. Hell, if we're honest, I doubt there is a single government in the EU that would seriously propose it, even Spain. The French government has actually been working fairly well with Bush for a while now.

 

Now, if I had understood that your "[n]ot long now" did not referrence your previous comment, then I would have responded differently. I hope you can see that your original post might have been a bit confusing. And it was most certainly as bellicose as my own.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If I have an excuse it is that for me, all this legal and moral havering is moot. A subject for intellectual exercise, but practically irrelevant.

More than likely. Time moves on, and though people may revisit this in the future, the present state and future of the Middle East are more important concerns.

I have a rather narrow and old fashioned perspective. Bush took decisive action. Saddam was ousted. He was ousted after years of other leaders claiming sanctions would do the job when they clearly weren't. Or should someone equally throw shoes at the leaders who stood idly by when the UN itself estimated that sanctions were killing children in their thousands every month? I consider that far more repugnant.

I'm not sure that all the other leaders were saying that sanctions would oust Saddam, though I imagine many hoped it, rather that they would help contain Saddam and Iraq, limiting his ability to do harm in the wider Middle East. Arguably they succeeded (rather partially) in this regard, in so far as Saddam probably wanted nuclear weapons and yet was nowhere near getting them.

There have been tens of thousands of people killed since the invasion. But the thing which always reduces me to total awe is that people cheerfully blame those deaths on George Bush, not the terrorists from all over the world who conducted their own invasion with the express purpose of chaos death and destruction, and who actually did the killing!

Is it the militia to blame for the deaths, or George Bush who created the conditions in which the militia thrived? Is it Saddam to blame for the deaths of those children (for syphoning off UN aid to enrich himself) or the UN for creating and operating the system that allowed this to happen (and some members who actively participated in the corruption, though not all did, I think). Perhaps there's enough blame for everyone, but a substantial share does have to fall with the militia. Who would say otherwise?

 

Again it comes down to international law, and I confess I'm no expert on that, but it feels right to say that if you invade and occupy a country (even legally) and effectively disband its police force and army, then you bear a share of the responsibility for the lawlessness that follows and for the results of that lawlessness. Negligence, not malice, but still a serious matter.

[taks]

Are you saying you never speak ideologically. You're always completely objective aren't you?

there you go with another strawman. everyone speaks ideologically on occasion, the difference is that when rational people notice that the facts change, they change their opinions. that's what i do, how about you?

 

They have different opinions than you. At this point I'm a US-basher.And im sure all the reasons I would give you would be ideological.

yes, they probably would. the US bashing is not based on fact or logic, just ideology. it is tiring.

 

taks