French terrorists and American idiots

[Pekka]

Right, and like I said, there's a reason for these things that were said, adn that reason is not very well spoken. If they would have been able to handle it better, they would have.

But after that, I mean, let's face it. France pretty much took the driver's seat and tried to accelerate the car off the bridge. It's a different thing when you put it in action, like going around the EU and trying to gather a coalition of the 'we're not going to'. It's one thing to refuse, start some arguing, but it's another thign to actively seek to destroy the coalition of the willing before it happens. So, when compared to that, some rhetorics is peanuts, really. And especially so because we know the admin isn't very well spoken. So they actually do have a valid excuse. It always takes two to tango.

[Barnabas]

France was a much much cooler country before the french revolution

[Sirotnikov]

Saddam wasn't "probably" better, he definately was better. That is, if you'll look at the results while ignoring all that propaganda bull****. Iraq was relatively calm after USA betrayed Saddam.

How Iraq was "relatively calm" in the 1990's?

Do you have data you can show to support claims of less people being executed for imaginary crimes or political dissent after 1991?

Yes, Saddam was a ruthless murderer - like many other rulers (he just knew too much about his former US allies and their support and so he was eliminated, unlike most other murderers).

What exactly did he supposedly knew?
What other ruthless murderers do you know that are still in power?

So what? For example, let's put all civilian casulaties in Iraq on Bush shoulders and guess who has more blood on his hands?

Lets put all Iraqi casualties of the Saddam regime on Saddam's shoulder. Lets include Iranian and Kuwaiti war casualties for better comparison.
Lets also put all casualties of Baath loyalists since 2003 on Saddam's shoulders.

And the fun is just starting, guess what will happen in Iraq and nearby regions after USA will run away from Iraq?
After that, Saddam will look like a saint in comparision. That is, it will look so for many who live in Iraq. I can bet that even now most people in Iraq think that Saddam wasn't that bad compared to USA and their puppets.

Is that what ORT is telling you?

I'm sure that if you poll people and ask them to rate the Mokhabarat, and the current resistance on the scale of ruthlessness and efficiency - you would be in for a surprise.

But I'm just a commentator.

[Sirotnikov]

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.ph...9qn8p6z7nzj8xp

...
Negative sentiments and views have been driven not only — or even primarily — by what the United States does, but rather by an animus against what Europeans have believed that America is. While the politics, style, and discourse of the Bush terms — and of President Bush as a person — have undoubtedly exacerbated anti-American sentiment among Europeans and fostered a heretofore unmatched degree of unity between elite and mass opinion in Europe, they are not anti-Americanism's cause. Indeed, a change to a center-left administration in Washington, led by a Democratic president, would not bring about its abatement, let alone its disappearance.

Anti-Americanism constitutes a particular prejudice that renders it not only acceptable but indeed commendable in the context of an otherwise welcome discourse that favors the weak. Just as in the case of any prejudice, anti-Americanism also says much more about those who hold it than about the object of its ire and contempt. But where it differs markedly from "classical" prejudices — such as anti-Semitism, homophobia, misogyny, and racism — is in the dimension of power. Jews, gays and lesbians, women, and ethnic minorities rarely if ever have any actual power in or over the majority populations or the dominant gender of most countries. However, the real, existing United States does have considerable power, which has increasingly assumed a global dimension since the end of the 19th century, and which has, according to many scholarly analyses, become unparalleled in human history.

While other public prejudices, particularly against the weak, have — in a fine testimony to progress and tolerance over the past 40 years — become largely illegitimate in the public discourse of most advanced industrial democracies (the massive change in the accepted language over the past three decades in those societies about women, gays, the physically challenged, minorities of all kinds, and animals, to name but a few, has been nothing short of fundamental), nothing of the sort pertains to the perceived and the actually strong. Thus anti-Americanism not only remains acceptable in many circles but has even become commendable, a badge of honor, and perhaps one of the most distinct icons of what it means to be a progressive these days.
...

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Pekka
It's about time they get a chance to taste the good life and I hope the middle class includes as many Chinese people as possible. They've been kept in the dark for too long the the CPC. So now, when they aren't communist anymore, except the title, I think it'll be exciting, it'll also relieve a lot of tensions in the region, as the interest of the PRC becomes more and more globalized, rather than holding on to old bastions of what ever old era crap.

I really don't think China is a threat to the West in the least bit. They're not hostile by nature, looking to destroy us.

China is capitalist therfore its a good country. China is not a threat to the west in any way. They will be more advanced, which is a good thing since they will share their technology. 1,3 billion Chinese driving cars is a good thing.

That makes real sense.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Pekka

It's one thing to refuse, start some arguing, but it's another thign to actively seek to destroy the coalition of the willing before it happens. So, when compared to that, some rhetorics is peanuts, really. And especially so because we know the admin isn't very well spoken. So they actually do have a valid excuse. It always takes two to tango.

They did real damage back then.

Com'on the US just needed flags not actual troops (except maybe Brithish troops) and they just had to settle with cheap eastern EU flags and not expensive benelux or nordic flags. France didn't do any real damage, they just made a fuss. And France always makes a fuss. Why not let them be?

[Provost Harrison]

Well bear in mind that France had vested interests in the current status quo. The war was always going to have this division, and both sides were equally cynical in their actions.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
France was a much much cooler country before the french revolution

Indeed, the temperatures were lower back then, but that wasn't exclusive to France...

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
How Iraq was "relatively calm" in the 1990's?

In comparision.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov Do you have data you can show to support claims of less people being executed for imaginary crimes or political dissent after 1991?

No, there were no wars so i guess less people died because of his actions compared to previous years.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov What exactly did he supposedly knew?
What other ruthless murderers do you know that are still in power?

For example, who in CIA gave him all these WMD. Who gave him orders. But he knew too much so he was silenced. That's why he wasn't been judged by a world tribunal.

Bush, Putin, Blair, Moshe Katsav etc. The difference is in rhetoric while the only thing that really matters is a body count caused by their actions. I don't say that it's exactly a bad thing, after all it's hard not to do it. I just want to say that there are too much double standarts and worthless rhetoric while many leaders are no less murderous than Saddam.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Lets put all Iraqi casualties of the Saddam regime on Saddam's shoulder. Lets include Iranian and Kuwaiti war casualties for better comparison.
Lets also put all casualties of Baath loyalists since 2003 on Saddam's shoulders.

Wait a little. Iran war was a USA affair, it doesn't matter if they did it with Iraq hands. Besides, that's where Saddam got all his WMD from USA. And that's why CIA was 100% sure that he still has some WMD somewhere (after all, Saddam didn't use it all).
Kuwait war happened because USA provoked Saddam. Saddam was sure that USA will not mind if he'll invade Kuwait (USA gave him some clues). But he was no longer needed after Iran war and so he was dumped by USA.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Is that what ORT is telling you?

I'm sure that if you poll people and ask them to rate the Mokhabarat, and the current resistance on the scale of ruthlessness and efficiency - you would be in for a surprise.

But I'm just a commentator.

No, i don't watch TV and i don't read newspapers. All official sources of any country are full of lies and propaganda. Western newspapers are full of bull**** as well.

No, i'll not. Now Iraq is under a foreign occupation, in a civil war and with a destroyed economy (even compared to what it was before US invasion). It's like saying that Chechens do live better after two Chechen wars. Only shameless hypocrite can say something like that.

Besides, there were opinion polls just after US invasion. Majority said that it didn't become better after US invasion. Now situation is much worse...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ellestar

Lets put all Iraqi casualties of the Saddam regime on Saddam's shoulder. Lets include Iranian and Kuwaiti war casualties for better comparison.
Lets also put all casualties of Baath loyalists since 2003 on Saddam's shoulders.

Wait a little. Iran war was a USA affair, it doesn't matter if they did it with Iraq hands.

Why would you say that when the historical record supports the conclusion that it was provoked by Iran? In fact Saddam went to considerable lengths to foster good relations with Tehran after the fall of the Shah. It was their actions that forced the conflict.

Kuwait war happened because USA provoked Saddam.

I fear for the state of the Russian educational system if you really believe half the "facts" you post are true. The war with Kuwait happened because of Kuwaiti provocation. We had nothing to do with the Iraq/Kuwait dispute beyond a foolish statement from a State Department official.

[Cort Haus]

Green Day

[Sirotnikov]

Ellestar, you are either a really really low talented troll, or an idiot.

I could respond to any of your fictitious claims, but the fact that you bring up Moshe Katsav in:

Bush, Putin, Blair, Moshe Katsav etc. The difference is in rhetoric while the only thing that really matters is a body count caused by their actions.

Shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are spewing drivel.

You probably included Katsav as the Israeli president, attempting to blame him of some Israeli wrong doing, without realizing that in Israel - this is an immaterial post.

The worst thing Katsav has ordered is for an extra spicy sauce to be served in some reception ceremony. To accuse him of something, would be like accusing the Queen of England of the Iraq war.

Learn some history, before you spew TASS nonsense.

[Pekka]

RIght, I mean in most countries, people don't even know who the president of Israel is, because it doesn't mean anything.

Body count must be related into the context. If you say only this or that matters, and disregard the importance of context in general, well that's not just very smart at all.

It is also a mistake to assume, that any leader has lots of power, I mean leaders like Bush, Blair etc. Yes, they do have power, but we exaggarate their power often times. They have the power to set things in motion, after that, who knows what happens. Reality has so many variables in play at all times, that you just never know. So, their power is extremely relative.

But it is easy to blame everything on few people.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Pekka
RIght, I mean in most countries, people don't even know who the president of Israel is, because it doesn't mean anything.

Body count must be related into the context. If you say only this or that matters, and disregard the importance of context in general, well that's not just very smart at all.

It is also a mistake to assume, that any leader has lots of power, I mean leaders like Bush, Blair etc. Yes, they do have power, but we exaggarate their power often times. They have the power to set things in motion, after that, who knows what happens. Reality has so many variables in play at all times, that you just never know. So, their power is extremely relative.

But it is easy to blame everything on few people.

I agree with what you said, but here comes that double standarts thing. Iraq isn't USA so you can't be a peace-loving hippie or a ****** and expect to wake up next morning as a leader of your country. In that context, other leaders had more choices to avoid bloodshed than Saddam. Leaders like Bush and Blair do have a lot of power if they have some balls to do what should be done instead of thinking about second terms, about what their party will say and so on. So, presidents sometimes have more power than dictators, after all presidents don't risk their lives.

[Underseer]

What? You mean if you continually ridicule other nations and ignore everything they say, piss all over most of the agreements you previously had with them, then do things that are incredibly immoral and harmful, then your relations with those nations sour?

THAT'S NOT FAIR!

WAH!