U.S. vs. Everyone

[Guest Powerplay]

What's it matter who's doing the torturing? People are still being tortured.

 

Again, it's the lesser of two evils argument. If there are only two scenarios possible, and one of which causes less pain on others, you pick that one. Of course it causes pain, but less than the other choice. It may be regrettable, but in the long run it's far more preferable. I know that you are not naive enough to think that in every situation there is a solution where noone gets hurt.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

As for your intentions, they were clear enough: to oppose the United States out of petty spite caused by your irrelevance and impotence and to enrich yourself at the expense of suffering Iraqis.

I love how the administration line changes it from protecting ourselves to protecting Iraqis when our motives are questioned. While Iraqis were indeed being kept in poverty and squalor, this doesn't mean it's alright to steamroller over the system

 

Agan, this is pretty much what happened:

 

January

 

America: "Hay, the inspectors are useless."

France: "We should give them more time."

Britain: "No, I disagree."

China: "..."

 

February

 

America: "I'm warning you, d00d, we'll attack and stuff. Resolution plz."

France: "No, we'll veto you."

Britain: "Like hell you will."

China: "..."

 

March

 

America: "K Saddam, you've got 48 hrs to leave."

France: "UN debate plz."

Britain: "Haha, too late."

China: "..."

 

America: "OK, time's up, start bombing."

France: "..."

Britain: "Kewl."

China: "WTF??!?!?"

 

 

What should have happened:

"Dearest Security Council,

This letter is to inform you that you need to pull all your men out of Baghdad in 48 hours. We begin bombing at dawn.

 

And I want to thank Belgium for bringing such great pastries over the past few months.

 

Sincerely,

-C. Powell"

 

Not only was the UN debates useless and based on flawed rhetoric from the US side, but we winded up largely ignoring it anyway. WAY TO GO, TEAM!

 

IT IS WRONG TO BE FRENCH

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

If there are only two scenarios possible, and one of which causes less pain on others, you pick that one. Of course it causes pain, but less than the other choice. It may be regrettable, but in the long run it's far more preferable.

How are people being less hurt? Saddam's thugs still beat people within an inch of their lives, and many times, beyond that.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

What's it matter who's doing the torturing? People are still being tortured.

 

Again, it's the lesser of two evils argument. If there are only two scenarios possible, and one of which causes less pain on others, you pick that one. Of course it causes pain, but less than the other choice. It may be regrettable, but in the long run it's far more preferable. I know that you are not naive enough to think that in every situation there is a solution where noone gets hurt.

Between Russia in the 80s under Gourbachev and the regimes of guys like Hussein, Pinochet, and Noriegua, I'll take the Soviets. I don't have a problem with the line the US took against Stalin and later Kruschev, but even as Perestroika was taking shape in Russia and Regean was posing for photo ops with Gourbachev, the CIA was still propping up banana republics in Central America because communism was still somehow more dangerous than drug empires and fascist brutality.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

many [Moslems] felt this was not an attack directed at Irak ro Hussein himself but as an attack towards Islam itself

I wish it had been.

 

I'll just assume this was a joke too.

[Guest JMA]

IT IS WRONG TO BE FRENCH

Actually, it's wrong to judge people based on where they're born. We cannot control the place we enter the world at. So, in essense, it's perfectly fine to be French. Just like it's perfectly fine to be Russian, Chinese, Canadian, Swedish, British, ect al. Although, perhaps I'm being a bit too serious. Perhaps not.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You just sound like a dweeb.

[Guest JMA]

You just sound like a dweeb.

Hm. Perhaps I do. But I'm still happy with myself.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

You just sound like a dweeb.

How appropriate, you fight like a cow.

 

 

 

 

......Er, wait, that wasn't the right come-back.

 

 

EDIT: Whoo! Monkey Island reference and an important posting milestone at once!

[Guest Cancer Marney]

That was a comeback? <g>

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

That's because the French are just plain funny. And also because...

 

 

 

 

(drumroll)

 

 

 

 

IT IS WRONG TO BE FRENCH

worst.attempt.at.humor.ever.

 

 

I (for once) found myself agreeing with some of the things Marney was saying but outright saying that being part of a certain ethnic group is wrong is going too far even in jest.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

That was a comeback? <g>

PC game "The Secret of Monkey Island." Comedic swashbuckling adventure game where every pirate drinks Grog™, a guy who too much resembles a used car salesman sells pirate ships, and Evil Ghosts Of Pirates can be destroyed by spraying root beer on them.

 

 

Turns out in this world that dueling has no importance on your ability to weild a sword, but your ability to insult other people during and deliver witty retorts when they insult you. It's all about the one-liners. So a guy will insult you and you have to choose one of three or four retorts. The one that's appropriate for whatever insult gains you points.

 

So if a guy throws down at you and says "You fight like a dairy farmer," the correct response choice is "How appropriate, you fight like like a cow." There's a whole bunch of sequels that aren't as good as the original game, thus why I haven't ever played them.

 

 

I killed this thread darn good, didn't I?

[Guest The Hamburglar]

Supporting brutal dictatorships was vital in winning the Cold War? What rubbish. Every tinpot country in the world could have fallen to Communism and still the outcome of the Cold War would have been the same. The USA always had more money, better technology and a greater military advantage. When they pushed the arms race into overdrive, boom went the Soviet Union. Soviet - led Communism was never going to keep up, so the argument that the imperialism on both sides in the Cold War had anything to do with the outcome is ridiculous. The USA and the USSR just happened to use the sham of an ideological conflict to cheerfully continue the sterling work done by Britain and France in fucking up the poorer countries of the world for their own sordid little ends. Nothing to be proud of, but as it seems to be a universal thing for great powers to do, so no point in singling out either France or the US as drastic offenders.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Every tinpot country in the world could have fallen to Communism and still the outcome of the Cold War would have been the same. The USA always had more money, better technology and a greater military advantage. When they pushed the arms race into overdrive, boom went the Soviet Union. Soviet - led Communism was never going to keep up...

Evidence?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

worst.attempt.at.humor.ever.

 

 

I (for once) found myself agreeing with some of the things Marney was saying but outright saying that being part of a certain ethnic group is wrong is going too far even in jest.

...

 

 

 

Where were you during all the Church of No Ma'am threads? Glad to hear you agreed with my posts, though. That is a first; hope it isn't a last, too.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

PC game "The Secret of Monkey Island..." dueling has no importance on your ability to weild a sword, but your ability to insult other people during and deliver witty retorts when they insult you...

So if a guy throws down at you and says "You fight like a dairy farmer," the correct response choice is "How appropriate, you fight like like a cow."

I remember now! I played that game with my cousin on the really hard mode; it made the puzzles hilariously twisted. That was the one in which you had to drug the dogs with doctored meat to get into the governor's mansion, right? Great game, great memories... spilling a Coke all over the keyboard while fighting my cousin for it at like 4 in the morning...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Every tinpot country in the world could have fallen to Communism and still the outcome of the Cold War would have been the same.  The USA always had more money, better technology and a greater military advantage.  When they pushed the arms race into overdrive, boom went the Soviet Union.

BS. To a great degree it was the fact that we constantly undermined their foreign adventures and forced them to overextend and overspend that made the Soviet Union collapse. That's why they eventually failed to keep up in the arms race. Without the constant back-and-forth over the little tinpot dictators it would have taken much, much longer - at the very least.

[Guest Brian]

The Soviet Union was having problems long before we started pushing the arm race into overdrive. I mean, they were trying to get out of the cold War and make peace some thirty years prior.

 

I don't think it's so much countries using capitalism as countries being anti-capitalist that the US was against. Look at Cuba. The Bay of Pigs was being planned within months of Castro coming into power and he was, at the time, anti-communist. And there were social democracies that were thwarted by CIA-led (or directed) coups.

 

Anyways, Soviets never moved out of their border with direct military intervention. They worked with the countries around their border, but not on the extent the US was.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Without the constant back-and-forth over the little tinpot dictators it would have taken much, much longer - at the very least.

I kind of thought it was the threat of mutually assured destruction, and the fact that the Soviets understood that was a bad thing for everyone, that led them to back off and eventually crumble?

 

That's one reason why these Islamic governments frighten me. In a similar situation they'd ramble about Allah and millions of virgins and we'd all go sky-high.

[Guest fk teale]

Anyways, Soviets never moved out of their border with direct military intervention.

I guess this is why you don't post in current events much.

 

ps. hee hee

[Guest EricMM]

Huh...

 

you don't see that everyday...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The Soviet Union was having problems long before we started pushing the arm race into overdrive. I mean, they were trying to get out of the cold War and make peace some thirty years prior.

 

I don't think it's so much countries using capitalism as countries being anti-capitalist that the US was against. Look at Cuba. The Bay of Pigs was being planned within months of Castro coming into power and he was, at the time, anti-communist. And there were social democracies that were thwarted by CIA-led (or directed) coups.

 

Anyways, Soviets never moved out of their border with direct military intervention. They worked with the countries around their border, but not on the extent the US was.

PLEASE tell me you aren't being serious here.

 

The U.S.S.R was trying to get out of the Cold War for THIRTY YEARS? Heck, Gorbachev didn't even want to end communism --- he wanted to preserve it and maintain the status quo as much as possible.

 

Castro was NEVER anti-Communist. He CLAIMED he was briefly, but that was QUICKLY shown to not be the case. But, I imagine you're one of the people who think that Che was a good guy.

 

And Soviets never moved out of their borders? Ask ALL of E. Europe how true that is.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Well, Marney you may forgot some facts in there. First you must realize the huge Muslim community present in France ( let's say about a good third, maybe even a bit more ) and how many of them felt this was not an attack directed at Irak ro Hussein himself but as an attack towards Islam itself. THAT is the explanation of that ONE poll you mentioned. Yes one poll says a lot about its whole population doesn't it.

 

I won't go about the obvious very self centered reference you made about "leader of the free world", that could make an entire thread.

 

Once again, you blind yourself. Where in the world did we support Saddam ? We disagreed with the means, not the intentions. If you cannot grasp that simple idea, you are a lost cause. Oh and my "moral degeneracy" juste mentioned me to remind you to get lost. That's something I could spit back at you if i was uninformed about your country. Fortunately, I try to learn a bit before making such ignorant statements.

 

About earning influence ... that's what we were trying to do, no ? Unless you see this as a game where you earn "influence and welfare points" ?

 

Come on, don't get started on business deals with Iraq ? Are you THAT stuck in your own bunker that you ignore your own countries dealings with the BIG EVIL. Oh I guess you are better because you only recently took money from the UN oil for food program ... Didn't just about EVERYONE knew that Saddam just got the money for himself, yet you still drove your car around, no ?

This must go both ways, pal.

 

Did I say I wasn't sickened by what happened in Irak ? Not that I think. But what I see if you are crying your eyes out when I discuss government and countries policy. Sorry but I don't believe that a country is led by emotions. Do you really think Bush cried his eyes out on 9-11 and slumped to the floor. Surely the guy felt like he might but he remained calm composed, the way a leader and its whole government should be for the sake of its nation.

 

So yes I do rationalize and I do excuse our obstruction because relationships between countries and frickin war is no place for emotions or "evil" bullshit.

1) I still don't get how us removing a man who has killed more Muslims than any man in recorded history is an attack on Islam. It'd be like saying removing Hitler was an attack on Judeo-Christian beliefs. If Muslims WISH to portray this as an attack on their religion, then they're idiots.

 

2) The U.S IS the leader of the free world (like it or not) and Bush is the leader of the U.S. You may wish to attempt to argue semantics, but that is a weak, WEAK argument to try.

 

3) The French, Germans, and Russians wanted Saddam to remain and for the oil embargo to be lifted so they could make MILLIONS off of oil deals. Don't waste your breath attempting to claim otherwise.

 

4) France has --- for years --- decided that being a pain in the BUTT to the U.S will give them int'l prestige and power.

 

It will never happen. France will always be a second- or third-tier power for the foreseeable future becausem, like too much of continental Europe, the French tend to think that talking issues to death will solve them.

 

5) As Marney has already stated --- when the heck have we taken money from the food-for-oil program? The U.S NEVER liked that program --- but what could we do? The debacle of that program, though, is CLEAR proof why the U.N should not have ANY control over the country.

 

6) Odds are, Bush was so stunned at what happened on 9/11 that he didn't cry. He has a job to do.

 

7) France obstructed --- not on ANY "moral" grounds but simply because they wanted a piece of the pie.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

That's exactly the point. The US changes its enemies like a person changes their socks. When all they were concerned about was "commies", in addition to allowing the government to harass US citizens, they propped up every fascist and military regime they could because the "containment policy" took precedence over anything else. Hence, to keep the Soviets from occupying a nothing country like Afghanistan, we paid the price of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. When the US preoccupation switched to Iran and the Islamic Revolution, Sadaam Hussein was allowed to brutally take power solely because he would oppose Iran with his secular dictatorship. I still have never heard a reason why the US government sold weapons to Iran in the late 80s in the Iran/Contra dealings, unless that also had to do with the Soviets? And as said, once the "War on Drugs" became a big deal, all the drug runners the CIA put into power switched to enemies overnight. Wasn't China a big preoccupation of the Bush administration in 2000-2001? They sure went to the backburner after Sept. 11.

 

Which brings us back to Hussein. I hate Sadaam Hussein, and supported the US attacking Iraq to get rid of him. But the fact remains there are certainly reasons people might not agree, many of them reasonable. The US didn't go after Sadaam because he runs a tyrannical, murderous regime, because if that was their reason they would have taken the bastard out in 1991 as they should have. I personally don't think it was for oil, as most anti-war types think, or WMDs, as most war supporters believe. It had everything to do with what happened on Sept. 11 2001. Personally I think that's a pretty compelling reason, some probably disagree. Whatever the reasoning, there is no morality involved with it.

It's time to enter a little place called reality.

 

The U.S has had to do business with VERY unsavory people in the past because, bad as they may be, they were better than the alternatives. So, we sided with bad people because the OTHER option was WORSE. Is Cuba better now under Castro than they were under --- geez, what was the dictator's name in '59? Batista?

 

Yes, we supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets --- the Soviets were no better than the Taliban.

 

And the U.S had no real role in Saddam's taking power in Iraq. He was in power before the Shah was deposed --- and again, was Iran BETTER under Khomeini than they were under the Shah?

 

Why did we sell arms? Well, though Reagan will never admit it, to get hostages freed --- and possibly to allow the Iran-Iraq war to continue on. The BEST possibility would have been if both sides wiped one another out.

 

China is a HUGE concern right now -- but we have to prioritize and they aren't number one right now. We will deal with them in time -- and the left will gripe about it.

 

The U.S did a good thing for the world in removing him. Iraq is better now than they were in January.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

What's it matter who's doing the torturing? People are still being tortured.

 

Again, it's the lesser of two evils argument. If there are only two scenarios possible, and one of which causes less pain on others, you pick that one. Of course it causes pain, but less than the other choice. It may be regrettable, but in the long run it's far more preferable. I know that you are not naive enough to think that in every situation there is a solution where noone gets hurt.

Between Russia in the 80s under Gourbachev and the regimes of guys like Hussein, Pinochet, and Noriegua, I'll take the Soviets. I don't have a problem with the line the US took against Stalin and later Kruschev, but even as Perestroika was taking shape in Russia and Regean was posing for photo ops with Gourbachev, the CIA was still propping up banana republics in Central America because communism was still somehow more dangerous than drug empires and fascist brutality.

You mean the same "perestroika" USSR that denied that ANYTHING happened at Chernobyl?

 

The same USSR that BRUTALLY suppressed Chechnya?

 

They were better alternatives?

-=Mike

[Guest EricMM]

It's funny. The only way the rest of the world figured out about Chernobyl was when some other country in Northeastern Europe (Switzerland? Denmark? Someone) reported a massive cloud of radiation coming into their country. THEN, when people started asking the U.S.S.R. questions they were like, "yeah... uh there may have been an accident..."

 

They had people keeping their windows closed.

 

I always found the story of the Soviets who gave their lives to stay behind and errect a crude cement block dome over Chernobyl to be unsung heros. It would have been even worse otherwise.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

The same USSR that BRUTALLY suppressed Chechnya?

 

They were better alternatives?

-=Mike

No, that would be the current Russia. Funnily enough, this BRUTAL suppression of Chechnya goes unchallenged by the West because Russia claims it to be part of "The War on Terror." That, and its always handy to have fairly good relations with the Russians, born out by the fact that despite blocking the Iraq war just as much as France, it was France that took all the right-wing rage while Russia's actions were quietly ignored. And really, if you want to compare the Chilean regimes of Allende and the US-backed Pinochet, then feel free. Its hardly a story of a courageous battle against damn dirty pinkos.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The same USSR that BRUTALLY suppressed Chechnya?

 

They were better alternatives?

                                    -=Mike

No, that would be the current Russia. Funnily enough, this BRUTAL suppression of Chechnya goes unchallenged by the West because Russia claims it to be part of "The War on Terror." That, and its always handy to have fairly good relations with the Russians, born out by the fact that despite blocking the Iraq war just as much as France, it was France that took all the right-wing rage while Russia's actions were quietly ignored. And really, if you want to compare the Chilean regimes of Allende and the US-backed Pinochet, then feel free. Its hardly a story of a courageous battle against damn dirty pinkos.

The right isn't fond of Russia --- but they can help us deal with OPEC and, thus, they are infinitely more useful than France.

 

Cruel but true.

-=Mike