We were right. Cuz' i said so. There.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Everyone thought they had? What the hell? I could have sworn I had this memory in my head of a world where most believed the UN over the US, oh wait, the US is everyone, just like the Hollywood movies tell me! And not just the Hollywood!

This is the new argument "making the rounds," and it is such a lie.


Nobody knew whether or not they had them but some people are trying to rewrite history as if everyone else thought that they had them.


Sorry guys, doesn't work that way.

[Spiffor]

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)

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.

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.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Believe the UN over the US? I'm not aware that the UN, as such, even had an opinion as to the existence of illicit arms ...

And the claim was about what people in the know thought. What a billion ignorants on the streets thought is not relevant to that.

UN didn't have an opinion? I thought the whole no support for the war thing says something. Come on. Didn't they want more time too...

[notyoueither]

Only if you distort things, Spiffor. The threat was to SA, Israel, and other possible allies and interests in the region. Nobody ever said Saddam could hit Los Angeles in 45 minutes.

[notyoueither]

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)

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]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Only if you distort things, Spiffor. The threat was to SA, Israel, and other possible allies and interests in the region. Nobody ever said Saddam could hit Los Angeles in 45 minutes.

Bunch of cites

It doesn't precisely look like the Bushies seemed only concerned with the safety of Saudi Arabia, does it?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
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?

In general, I am defensive only when I think I am fighting prejudice. When I understand I am trolled, I quickly stop to bother.

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?

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.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Bunch of cites

It doesn't precisely look like the Bushies seemed only concerned with the safety of Saudi Arabia, does it?

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 also the concern that biological agents could be given to organisations like AQ, or some other. Is that so absurd?

There is also the stuff he was working on. That's even admitted by the critics of Bush. Saddam was paying people to work of programs that existed only in his mind as the scientists took him to the cleaners. How long til he found someone willing to actually do some work?

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?

[Ted Striker]

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 also the concern that biologicalagents could be given to organisations like AQ, or some other. Is that so absurd?

There is also the stuff he was working on. That's even admitted by the critics of Bush. Saddam was paying people to work of programs that existed only in his mind as the scientists took him to the cleaners. How long til he found someone willing to actually do some work?

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?

Give it up.

You are now just being outright dishonest dude.

You may be able to convince yourself of that and lie to yourself but none of us buy your horsesh1t.

[Spiffor]

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.

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]

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]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Give it up.

You are now just being outright dishonest dude.

You may be able to convince yourself of that and lie to yourself but none of us buy your horsesh1t.

Plug your ears and say 'naa-naa-naa, I can't hear you.' That seems to be your style.

[notyoueither]

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.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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?

I think lying to world and invading another country and formally endorsing torture is a reason good enough.

THERE IS A DAMN GOOD REASON PEOPLE BASH THIS MAN.

DUH