Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BGBMAW on March 28, 2004, 03:29:17 AM
-
French Lawyer to Defend Sadam....
this ought to be good..wonder what there defence will be..
HE was a Kind..caring man...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3574503.stm
i knwo we got scum lawyers too..but..just fits well w/ france..
keep up the good work..
Love
BiGB
xoxo
-
You need some fresh bait.
-
wonder who'll defend Bush ;)
-
Originally posted by Pei
You need some fresh bait.
bait stink ... bait is too old...
Plus it's a late repost : Linky here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112578)
-
Damned Frenchies. Tear down the statue of liberty!!!
-
.
-
"In his long career, Jacques Verges defended Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal and former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic...... *snip*
....Mr Verges, now 79, was born in Thailand to a French father and a Vietnamese mother, and grew up on the French Indian Ocean island of La Reunion, where he is said to have acquired his fiercely anti-colonialist views, our correspondent says.
In World War II, he joined General Charles de Gaulle's Free French forces, but later he became a Communist.
During the Algerian war of independence he defended Algerians accused of terrorism against France, and married one of his clients who was jailed for planting bombs in cafes in Algiers.
Later, in the 1970s, he became the champion of extremists from both left and right, defending Palestinian violence but also neo-Nazis and he leapt at the chance to expose what he saw as establishment hypocrisy at the trial of Klaus Barbie. "
Just like flies are attracted to *****....
-
Originally posted by Hristo
wonder who'll defend Bush ;)
Are you suggesting that you or any other third worlder has the balls to come and get him? Bring it on.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
wonder who'll defend Bush ;)
Someone arrested Bush? Awwww mannnnn! ;)
-
Buck Fush!!!!:mad:
-
Originally posted by SOB
Damned Frenchies. Tear down the statue of liberty!!!
No, let's send it back to France after we alter it by having both arms raised in the classic surrender pose. They can put it on their German border.
Heal ya, Damned Frenchies. :mad:
Now you gone and gotten me all stirred up. I think I'll go spank my wife. :aok
-
So saddam should not get a lawyer?
-
AKIron,
not suggesting anything except that history is written by victors, not the ones who were right.
We in the third world, as you say, are well accustomed to that. At least we've seen our share of warlords and their agendas, something you have yet to learn, it seems.
Until that happens, types like Bush will be taking advantage of you, no doubt.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Not suggesting anything except that history is written by victors, not the ones who were right.
We in the third world, as you say, are well accustomed to that. At least we've seen our share of warlords and their agendas, something you need to learn yet, it seems.
Being right and a victor isn't necessarily mutually exclusive as so many so often bemoan. I think I'll forgo your lesson thank you very much.
-
No problem, your choice.
Your man has produced an unnecessary war, thousands of casualties, billions of costs, alienated most of your allies, consolidated terrorist ranks and produced profits for his clique.
All based on false or never proven accusations.
Judge by yourself.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
No problem, your choice.
Your man has produced an unnecessary war, thousands of casualties, billions of costs, alienated most of your allies, consolidated terrorist ranks and produced profits for his clique.
All based on false or never proven accusations.
Judge by yourself.
How about I judge you incorrect on every count?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How about I judge you incorrect on every count?
Please do. Got some unknown facts ?
-
Originally posted by Hristo
All based on false or never proven accusations.
So Saddam's status as a criminal tyrant is false?
-
Originally posted by Hristo
No problem, your choice.
Your man has produced an unnecessary war, thousands of casualties, billions of costs, alienated most of your allies, consolidated terrorist ranks and produced profits for his clique.
Your're talking about Saddam I see. How Ironic
-
Originally posted by Hristo
All based on false or never proven accusations.
Judge by yourself.
So, you are saying Saddam was not inviolation of UN resolution 1441 (and a score of others). Are you saying he was not in violating the ceasefire agreement from the first Gulf war? Are you saying that He was not a threat to his neighbors? Are you saying he is not guilty of countless human rights violations?
By the way, the phrase about "history being written by the victor" don't make a lot of sense. We are living it now, not reading it later.
Just cause you have an axe to grind and hate America don't make what you say valid.
Oh, and as far as consolidating the terrorists...great...let them consolidate...easier to get them that way.
Don't know about you, but I would rather live in a world with no allies and no terrorists than in one with both. Think about.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
So Saddam's status as a criminal tyrant is false?
So you tell me that US invaded Iraq because Saddam was unkind to his own people ?
Wow, why didn't they invade most of Africa, good deal of Asia and a whole lot of US allies ?? In fact, not only US didn't invade, they actually installed and supported dictators and tyrants of their own !
WMDs and Al Qaida ties were the official reason. This has never been proven.
-
Originally posted by Blammo
So, you are saying Saddam was not inviolation of UN resolution 1441 (and a score of others). Are you saying he was not in violating the ceasefire agreement from the first Gulf war? Are you saying that He was not a threat to his neighbors? Are you saying he is not guilty of countless human rights violations?
By the way, the phrase about "history being written by the victor" don't make a lot of sense. We are living it now, not reading it later.
Just cause you have an axe to grind and hate America don't make what you say valid.
Oh, and as far as consolidating the terrorists...great...let them consolidate...easier to get them that way.
Don't know about you, but I would rather live in a world with no allies and no terrorists than in one with both. Think about.
:aok
Don't give me that "hate America" crap. It is for brainwashed idiots, you aren't one of those ? I probably like America much more than Iraq though. BUt I don't like Bush, that is true. As I see it, he cares for his own agendas, not human lives.
Saddam's violation of UN resolutions was the job of UN. US acted without UN approval. Something only country in self defense should.
Good note about world without allies and terrorists, I give ya that. But Iraq war was just bad - less allies and more terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
So you tell me that US invaded Iraq because Saddam was unkind to his own people ?
Wow, why didn't they invade most of Africa, good deal of Asia and a whole lot of US allies ?? In fact, not only US didn't invade, they actually installed and supported dictators and tyrants of their own !
WMDs and Al Qaida ties were the official reason. This has never been proven.
I'm gonna go with Ripsnort's Sig. line on this one.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
So you tell me that US invaded Iraq because Saddam was unkind to his own people ?
Wow, why didn't they invade most of Africa, good deal of Asia and a whole lot of US allies ?? In fact, not only US didn't invade, they actually installed and supported dictators and tyrants of their own !
WMDs and Al Qaida ties were the official reason. This has never been proven.
Uh, no, violation of UN resolutions was the "official" reason. Some just don't seem to get it.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I'm gonna go with Ripsnort's Sig. line on this one.
What no "hate America" first ?
You went directly to attack the poster instead ?
WTG
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Uh, no, violation of UN resolutions was the "official" reason. Some just don't seem to get it.
Did UN authorize US to invade ?
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Did UN authorize US to invade ?
Yes
-
Now really ? What I remember was US acting on its own, despite UN.
I may be missinformed afterall then ?! Got any link to written facts or resolutions ?
-
Certainly not Iron.
And if the new trend for American is to bring democratia and freedom using bayonettes it look like they are far from half way.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Now really ? What I remember was US acting on its own, despite UN.
I may be missinformed afterall then ?! Got any link to written facts or resolutions ?
How about this:
"There was a clear legal basis in existing Security Council Resolutions for the action we took last December. Security Council Resolution (SCR) 1154 made clear that any violation by Iraq of its obligations to allow UNSCOM and IAEA unrestricted access would have the severest consequences. Following Iraq's decision of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with UNSCOM, the Council, in SCR 1205, established that that decision was a flagrant violation of SCR 687 which laid down the conditions for the 1991 ceasefire. The Council also recalled that the effective operation of UNSCOM and the IAEA was essential for the implementation of the ceasefire resolution. By SCR 1205, therefore, the Security Council implicitly revived the authorisation to use force which it had given in SCR 678."
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg01194.html
-
If we keep this diuscussion civilized (even though the topic title itself has prejudice about French), we might discover something new, at least to me.
Did UN specifically say that US (or anyone else) should invade Iraq if this or that condition was not met ? Did it, after the conditiones weren't met, give an official go ?
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Now really ? What I remember was US acting on its own, despite UN.
I may be missinformed afterall then ?! Got any link to written facts or resolutions ?
What if the UN had authorized the invasion....who would you have been pissed at in that case?
Obviously you don't like the fact that Iraq was brought into compliance of the UN resolutions.
-
That's not how things are suppose to work :
the Security Council implicitly revived the authorisation to use force which it had given in SCR 678."
In this game it suppose to be explicit not interpreted.
Btw your link is about ceasefire violation ,nothing about invasion of Iraq that's 2 different things.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
If we keep this diuscussion civilized (even though the topic title itself has prejudice about French), we might discover something new, at least to me.
Did UN specifically say that US (or anyone else) should invade Iraq if this or that condition was not met ? Did it, after the conditiones weren't met, give an official go ?
Iraq never satisfied the conditions of the original cease fire agreement. Any necessary force had been authorized by the UN prior, it was still in effect.
I have to say at this point, when Hussein attempted to assasinate George Bush, his position, if not his life, was forfeit at that time, regardless of what the UN or anyone else thought or said.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How about this:
"There was a clear legal basis in existing Security Council Resolutions for the action we took last December. Security Council Resolution (SCR) 1154 made clear that any violation by Iraq of its obligations to allow UNSCOM and IAEA unrestricted access would have the severest consequences. Following Iraq's decision of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with UNSCOM, the Council, in SCR 1205, established that that decision was a flagrant violation of SCR 687 which laid down the conditions for the 1991 ceasefire. The Council also recalled that the effective operation of UNSCOM and the IAEA was essential for the implementation of the ceasefire resolution. By SCR 1205, therefore, the Security Council implicitly revived the authorisation to use force which it had given in SCR 678."
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg01194.html
OK, 1154 says "severe consequences". Nothing specific, one could say just a warning. And what, to my knowledge, UN inspectors with Hans Blix were in Iraq prior to US invasion and didn't find anything. In fact, even Blix himself said so.
After that 1205 implicitly authorizes the use of force. By whom ? When ? Under what circumstances ? Under UN inspectors not being able to do their job ? But they were in Iraq just then. Is someone's own interpretation of a documant a reason enough for an invasion of a country ?
-
Originally posted by Hristo
OK, 1154 says "severe consequences". Nothing specific, one could say just a warning. And what, to my knowledge, UN inspectors with Hans Blix were in Iraq prior to US invasion and didn't find anything. In fact, even Blix himself said so.
After that 1205 implicitly authorizes the use of force. By whom ? When ? Under what circumstances ? Under UN inspectors not being able to do their job ? But they were in Iraq just then. Is someone's own interpretation of a documant a reason enough for an invasion of a country ?
The UN was then hamstrung by France and Germany. IMO, it will never again be effective. One reason why I won't consider voting for John Kerry, he would submit us to it's authority.
-
OK, as before, we didn't change our views at all on the subject. What looks to you "hamstrung by France or Germany" look to me like a good thing to do.
Off to some less grim topics, thanks for being civilized, AKIron.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
OK, as before, we didn't change our views at all on the subject. What looks to you "hamstrung by France or Germany" look to me like a good thing to do.
Off to some less grim topics, thanks for being civilized, AKIron.
Damn, did I forget to call you a moron? Hope you won't think any less of me. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Someone arrested Bush? Awwww mannnnn! ;)
im just wondering that nobody is trying to give him KIA status
:D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Your're talking about Saddam I see. How Ironic
i would guess that you dont see
-
Originally posted by Blammo
So, you are saying Saddam was not inviolation of UN resolution 1441 (and a score of others). Are you saying he was not in violating the ceasefire agreement from the first Gulf war? Are you saying that He was not a threat to his neighbors? Are you saying he is not guilty of countless human rights violations?
I agree with you.
btw will old US president come to trail as well ? He supported SH in war against Iran.
man can you imagine that Satan Saddam has been supported by USA.
yeah yeah yeah ... i know these times he were lovely white sheep
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I'm gonna go with Ripsnort's Sig. line on this one.
perhaps not the wisest of choices...
-
Man, some people don't quite understand the power, and simplicity of putting a .45 to the front of his head and pulling the trigger.
Saddam deserves it too.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Man, some people don't quite understand the power, and simplicity of putting a .45 to the front of his head and pulling the trigger.
Saddam deserves it too.
LOL you aren't real bright, are you? :D
-
Originally posted by maslo
im just wondering that nobody is trying to give him KIA status
:D
I'm sure terrorists would like to kill the U.S. president. Or are you wondering why an American citizen hasn't attempted to assassinate him? Perhaps you'd like another "stab" at this?
-
Originally posted by Pei
You need some fresh bait.
I was obvioulsy wrong (again!).
Please accept my apologies. Apparently no bait is too stinky for this BBS.
-
It's the fish that keep coming back after they're released that makes it seem as if the lake is stocked plumb full.
-
Originally posted by Pei
I was obvioulsy wrong (again!).
Please accept my apologies. Apparently no bait is too stinky for this BBS.
It's amazing what you can do with a little curry powder....
Tronsky
-
I don't see how you can get around the fact that Bush* admin lied about the WMD - isnt it obvious from Clarke et al that Bush* was looking for a reason to mess with Iraq? Remember O'Neill's reports of Bush* admin wanting to go into Iraq before 9-11 happenned?
Lets not forget that Iraq has a lot of oil. THAT is why we are there. Oil is finite, demand keeps increasing and production will one day start to fall off. It might be happenning now - witness record gas prices.
If oil reserves are falling - the US military industrial complex needs a pipeline - hence we are in Iraq. Welcome to the New World Order brought to you by PNAC and the thugs in the Bush* admin.
-
Gents, in the middle of this barking, you have lost the pearl of the entire thread:
Originally posted by AKIron
... when Hussein attempted to assasinate George Bush, ...
wonderfull :)
:D
:rofl
-
saddams lawyer:
(http://www.ethos-pr.com/noose.jpg)
-
Eagler wins.
-
what hirsto and most of the other euros on this board need to realize is that...
Bush is our president not theirs. They can't vote here and what pleases euros is not what we want our president to consider very heavily.. Also....
We are not socialists (goes along with that euros not being able to vote thing)... we are somewhat altruistic and champion causes from time to time (more than most of the U.S. haters)... we depose an evil dictator or two here and there.... We deposed the sadman and he needed it.. was a big help to his people and the world in general... But... the sadman was not our friend and the sadman was sitting on a lot of oil.
We probly, and our president probly, won't do what you want most of the time because.... well... we don't like the way you run your country.... why should we ask for your opinion on how to run ours?
Much as most of you 3rd world countries would like a U.N and a bunch of "world councils" so that you can leach off the U.S. ...
Not what we want .... sorry... quit whining about our country and president and fix your country.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Naso
Gents, in the middle of this barking, you have lost the pearl of the entire thread:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AKIron
... when Hussein attempted to assasinate George Bush, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wonderfull
[/B]
What? You don't remember the car bomb plot in '93 of Bush and the Emir of Kuwait and that it was traced back to Hussein? Clinton used that as his justification for attacking Iraq's Intelligence HQ. Your ignorance is showing. Oh wait, I know, it was all made up by the EVIL SATAN CLINTON.
:rolleyes:
-
Thank you Ripsnort, for your signature :)
:lol
-
Originally posted by Naso
Thank you Ripsnort, for your signature :)
:lol
I take it by your hilarity that you don't believe this happened. Now it's not only your ignorance showing but also your bias. Oh well, have a nice day in lala land.
Just so you don't think I'm the one making this up, for your reading pleasure:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/briefing/dispatch/1993/html/Dispatchv4no27.html
-
Listen man, It may have happened, but you seem to have difficulty to grasp the irony of a nation that wage war and kill people, and have his own people killed (about 600 so far) for a personal vendetta of Bush Jr for an attempted "elimination" of Bush sr.
Your vision of world seem young, how old are you, padawan?
;)
-
Originally posted by Naso
Listen man, It may have happened, but you seem to have difficulty to grasp the irony of a nation that wage war and kill people, and have his own people killed (about 600 so far) for a personal vendetta of Bush Jr for an attempted "elimination" of Bush sr.
Your vision of world seem young, how old are you, padawan?
;)
I don't know about you, (well maybe I do) but I personally take it very personal that Hussein tried to assasinate my ex-president. Especially one that I liked as much as George Bush. If it had been up to me we would have invaded Iraq at that time and killed the murdering, no honor, sob Hussein.
I'm old enough to have joined the military in '73 and retired in '95. How old are you?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
we are somewhat altruistic and champion causes from time to time (more than most of the U.S. haters)... we depose an evil dictator or two here and there....
Urban legend.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Urban legend.
Right up there with Hitler murdering millions of jews right?
-
Instead of making some incomprehensible post what about giving me 3 examples of applied altruism ?
-
Oh ..oh ... can I? Please? Please?
WWI (you're welcome, France)
WWII (you're welcome, France)
Desert Storm (you're welcome Kuwait ... wth .... and France)
:D
-
Originally posted by Naso
Gents, in the middle of this barking, you have lost the pearl of the entire thread:
wonderfull :)
:D
:rofl
Whats funny?
Saddam did try assasinate president George HW Bush in the early 1990s when he visited Saudi Arabia. Thats a matter of recorced fact, and it was so grevious that president Clinton ordered military attacks on Saddam and his intelligence services in reprisal.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Instead of making some incomprehensible post what about giving me 3 examples of applied altruism ?
OK
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Kuwait
Somalia
Haiti
I'm as sure others can name many more as I am that you will question the altruism of these I've listed.
-
Originally posted by strk
I don't see how you can get around the fact that Bush* admin lied about the WMD - isnt it obvious from Clarke et al that Bush* was looking for a reason to mess with Iraq? Remember O'Neill's reports of Bush* admin wanting to go into Iraq before 9-11 happenned?
Lets not forget that Iraq has a lot of oil. THAT is why we are there. Oil is finite, demand keeps increasing and production will one day start to fall off. It might be happenning now - witness record gas prices.
If oil reserves are falling - the US military industrial complex needs a pipeline - hence we are in Iraq. Welcome to the New World Order brought to you by PNAC and the thugs in the Bush* admin.
WE ARE STEALING THE OIL!!!!! STEALING IT!!!!! MY GOODNESS ITS BEEN AGES SINCE I HAVE HAD TO PAY FOR OIL!!!! WTG OIL INVASION OF IRAQ!!!!
-
We obviously don't have the same definition of altruisme.
IMO you would better double check.
You pretend in all the following examples the interrest of the USA where not endangered or seen as endangered ?
Let see some other examples of altruisme :rolleyes:
1953: Iran 1954:Guatemala 1973: Chili
Either you are lieing to yourself or you delberatly choose to be blind but there never was anything like any form of altruisme in the relation between different nations (France included obviouly).
-
al·tru·ism
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
I had little doubt you would disagree Straffo, but that's ok.
-
Quite right for me even if I prefer a "complexified" version :D
I should stop participate in "café philo" as for me it's :
"doctrine qui considère le dévouement à autrui comme la règle idéale de la moralité"
The translation should be something like : "doctrines which consider devotion to others as the ideal rule of morality".
(FYI a "café-philo" is a meeting of people nitpicking on philosophical debates about ethic,morale , esthetism and lot of other subject.)
I need to dig a bit to find a citation made by Tocqueville about the relation between nations, it pretty well resume my thought.
And btw my post were I commented Lazs2's post should not be preceived as a critic of the USA ,my "propos" was not to bash unnecessarily.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't know about you, (well maybe I do) but I personally take it very personal that Hussein tried to assasinate my ex-president. Especially one that I liked as much as George Bush. If it had been up to me we would have invaded Iraq at that time and killed the murdering, no honor, sob Hussein.
So, in your line, having an american assassinated one of my uncles, I had to declare war on your nation?
Oh, wait, we were already at war, and then become friends.
I'm old enough to have joined the military in '73 and retired in '95. How old are you? [/B]
5 years younger.....
:D
Only 5 years before coming like you.... :eek:
Scaring.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Naso
Only 5 years before coming like you.... :eek:
Scaring.
:rofl
Only if you're lucky. :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Whats funny?
Saddam did try assasinate president George HW Bush in the early 1990s when he visited Saudi Arabia. Thats a matter of recorced fact, and it was so grevious that president Clinton ordered military attacks on Saddam and his intelligence services in reprisal.
Are you sure U.S. never tryied something similar with adversaries?
Just asking.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Only if you're lucky. :)
:p
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
So saddam should not get a lawyer?
No...he should get a very large ugly cellmate named Bin Bubba.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Are you sure U.S. never tryied something similar with adversaries?
Just asking.
If we did, their dead.....Bush is just fine.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
WE ARE STEALING THE OIL!!!!! STEALING IT!!!!! MY GOODNESS ITS BEEN AGES SINCE I HAVE HAD TO PAY FOR OIL!!!! WTG OIL INVASION OF IRAQ!!!!
Damnit Grun, quit hogging all of the free oil! I just had to pay $1.79/gal for some gasoline yesterday. Greedy bastard!
-
Originally posted by Naso
Listen man, It may have happened, but you seem to have difficulty to grasp the irony of a nation that wage war and kill people, and have his own people killed (about 600 so far) for a personal vendetta of Bush Jr for an attempted "elimination" of Bush sr.
Your vision of world seem young, how old are you, padawan?
;)
For your info we are in the process of coming up with a way to wage war where we only slightly inconvenience people. Until then we have to kill them. I know that is very difficult for some to grasp....but it may be useful in Kosovo.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Are you sure U.S. never tryied something similar with adversaries?
Just asking.
Have fun you'll need a few days tho.
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html
-
Originally posted by straffo
We obviously don't have the same definition of altruisme.
IMO you would better double check.
You pretend in all the following examples the interrest of the USA where not endangered or seen as endangered ?
Let see some other examples of altruisme :rolleyes:
1953: Iran 1954:Guatemala 1973: Chili
Either you are lieing to yourself or you delberatly choose to be blind but there never was anything like any form of altruisme in the relation between different nations (France included obviouly).
None of the wars the U.S. has participated in during the 20th century, in and of themselves, promised obvious gain to the American people at the outset (or even in the middle). Let's look back a bit:
WWI
America was strongly leaning toward becoming and staying an isolationist state. As a matter of fact, there was more sympathy for the German side of the war in Europe than the Allied side. Still, Americans, overall, wanted no part of a European war that would only cost us the lives of many of our young men. President Wilson, himself, was pro-peace.
Then the Lusitania was sunk. It sparked an outrage amongst the American population. Wilson, himself, was outraged. Congress pledged support of the allies and declared war. The U.S. sent troops to France.
The French and British soldiers were tired and had suffered great losses. Although the Germans were also suffering, the outcome of the war was uncertain. The addition of American troops and resources was a much needed infusion. Though the Germans were able to launch another great offensive, the allies held firm (and it could be said that the Americans provided the additional support to make this possible). As a result, WWI ended in an armistice followed by occupation and disarmament of Germany.
American troops who fought the battles in the trenches and in the air ... American sailors who waged war at sea ... their families, friends and loved ones ... did not profit greatly from the war but they were proud to have helped their allies defeat the German war machine. A little over ten years later the world would suffer the worst depression it had ever seen, due in no small part to the cost of the world war ... the U.S. suffering along with the rest.
So, though it was sparked by a tragedy, the people of the United States were inspired to go against their initial instincts and wholeheartedly support the allied side in WWI and, as a result, suffered for it.
WWII
Eventually the occupation of Germany ceased and, over time, the restrictions placed upon her were no longer enforced. A bitter and twisted man influenced like-minded individuals to follow him and formed a political party, rising to power and rebuilding the German war machine into something more terrible than it was before. European politicians sought peace through negotiation ... with someone bent on conquest of the continent as well as the extermination of the Jews (and any other group they felt like). Time and again promises were made and broken. Time and again the new tyrant in power took lives and land. War had once again erupted in Europe.
And once again the people of America were hesitant to send their youth back into battle on European soil. Some youth had already volunteered to fight in Spain in spite of the State department's restrictions to do so. Brave idealists who were ahead of their time, unfortunately.
And ... once again ... it took a tragedy to unify the American public in their support for a cause against tyranny .. both in Europe and the Pacific.
The allied forces, who were already receiving some material aide from the U.S, this time, benefited from America's industrial and military might as the U.S. grew into first world fighting status. Nobody could have predicted some of the technological achievements (and terror machines) this war would produce. In the end, once again, the U.S. made the difference between a war lost (or one that was waged until the world itself was wasted) and one that resulted in complete and unconditional surrender of the tyranical powers that had again attempted to take what wasn't theirs.
As a result, the U.S. became the world's first "superpower." And nobody seemed to mind ... at first.
Post War
What did the U.S. do with this sudden rise to prominence? Well, instead of taking advantage of it and taking over the world itself, the U.S. helped other nations rise. And, this too, eventually cost the U.S. It led to a cold war with the Soviets that lasted over 40 years. It led to more conflicts - "police actions" where the U.S. played a prominent role alongside other Nato forces in attempting to keep Communist nations from doing the same thing Hitler did in WWII.
And our allies didn't mind.
Desert Storm
Another tyranical madman decides to take what isn't his. The United Nations condemns this and authorizes force against him. Other Middle Eastern nations condemn him, as well, and ask for help and support. This time the U.S. leads the way (as has been it's stance since becoming a world power) - alongside other coalition forces - in waging war with tyranny. This time it is quickly put down but instead of removing the regime and occupying the country to assure the regime doesn't rise back from the ashes, the tyrant is left in power. Why? Was it because there suddenly was a fear that finishing the job would threaten and alienate other fickle Middle East nations? Or would it threaten our western allies? Resolutions are passed in an effort to convince the madman that he should make significant changes that no longer threaten the stability of both his region and the world in general.
Does he comply? No, he doesn't.
Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom
This time some of the U.S.'s western allies are reluctant to deal with the threat. America, however, has once again experienced a tragedy as a result of a political agenda that supports worldwide terrorism (be it indirect or direct). The coalition steps up to the plate and America provides a big bat.
Bad America! Evil America! You have become like the Nazis!
Wait a second here. Throughout the 20th century the U.S. has answered the call against tyranny. Sometimes it took tragedy, sometimes we led the way. But we were there and we made the difference. And the world, by and large, was thankful. Even the oppressed, under the rule of the tyrants, were thankful. What has changed in the 21st century? The definition of "altruism", perhaps.
-
Arlo:
Bush = Hitler
OK? Trust me, it's THE latest thing from europe...
-
Grun is in a world of his own.
-
Arlo I'll not try to contradict your points,I dont' really disagree completly with them.
But it's just that's not so simple and it's not altruism according to the definition Iron provided us.
Notice I'm not speaking of the individual soldier/sailer/pilot ... I'm more speaking of the state departement, there is a more than subtil distinguo.
As I'm sick today so I'll head back to my bed and check this thread tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
OK
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Kuwait
Somalia
Haiti
I'm as sure others can name many more as I am that you will question the altruism of these I've listed.
WW1 - More to do with protecting the investment of the munitions suppliers who had up to 1917 been supplying the Allies on credit.
WW2 - Your ruling elite, scenting huge profits, wanted in from the start but in the end it took Pearl Harbour to drag you into it.
Korea - UN operation, but feel free to take all the credit as usual.
Vietnam - Yes sure :rolleyes:
Grenada - More to do with protecting US trade interests in the Carribean than anything relating to the welfare of the population.
Somalia - Yeah, you sure left that place in a good state eh?
Haiti - You caused a lot of the of the mess anyway. WTG!
So you basically get 1/2 a point for Korea and maybe for Somalia 'cos I'm feeling generous.
-
RESOLUTION 1441
please argue
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
please argue
I thought thats what everyone does?
-
i cant see how you can argue agaisnt that resolution....But France...Germany..and of course..imagine this..CHINA and Russia did....hmm...good company....
I wonder if there voting for Kerry..lmfao
-
Originally posted by Momus--
WW1 - More to do with protecting the investment of the munitions suppliers who had up to 1917 been supplying the Allies on credit.
And, of course, the sinking of the Lusitania had absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor the will of the constituents to whom our congressmen and senators bear a responsibility which would be undoubtedly forfeit should they seek to exchange the blood of their constituents' children for profit from war.
Our nation has empowered it's people from it's inception and war is something we have never taken lightly nor is our populance foolish to the point of being unable to ascertain legitimate cause for drastic measures, in spite of your misperceptions on such. Such theories, though offered as food for thought in some institutions of higher learning, are spurious, at best and the effect need not point to the root cause.
Originally posted by Momus--
WW2 - Your ruling elite, scenting huge profits, wanted in from the start but in the end it took Pearl Harbour to drag you into it.
Contradictory assumption. If we actually had a "ruling elite" that wanted war we would have gone to war no matter what. As it is, we have an elected body. A government "Of the people, by the people and for the people."
When the attack at Pearl Harbor happened, the country, as a whole, was outraged. In spite of the previous widespread reluctance to enter yet another European war, Congress, acting on the will of the people, supported going to war and declared war on Japan and her allies. Recruitment the following day was phenomenal. There was no dragging at that point at all.
The U.S. committed itself to the defeat of the Axis powers and even set aside it's personal goal of a dedicated campaign against Japan by agreeing at Malta to make Europe a priority.
Originally posted by Momus--
Korea - UN operation, but feel free to take all the credit as usual.
From reports published by PVA on August 15 1953, UN suffered a total casualty of 1,093,839, in which 397,543 were Americans, 667293 were ROKs, and 29,003 were others.
PVA's portion of the score was: kill and wound, 671,954; capture, 46088; pursuaded surrender, 435; total 718,477, in which 290,000 were Americans. PV destroyed or damaged 2,006 enemy tanks, 3,165 vehicles, 44 amored vehicles, 10,629 aircrafts, 583 artellery pieces; captured 245 tanks, 5,256 trucks, 51 amored vehicles, 11 aircrafts, 4037 artellery pieces, 73,263 small arms.
From western sources, UN combat casualty totalled 1 million. It breaks as follows: US 144,173, ROK 844,000 (415,000 killed, 429,000 wounded), Commonwealth 6000, others 8,800 (Hastings). US suffered another 20,000 or so fatality. From military history authored by ROK Defense Department, ROK total casualty was actually 984,400.
Detailed US casualty was: KIA 33,629, accidental death 20,600, wounded 103,248, captured and repatriated 3,746, MIA 8,142.
http://www.centurychina.com/history/krwarcost.html
Originally posted by Momus--
Vietnam - Yes sure :rolleyes:
France pulled out, the U.S. attempted to stave off North Vietnamese aggression by first sending advisors and later troops in force. It turned out to be a lost cause. The only twentieth century example I can think of where the U.S. probably should have followed France's lead.
Originally posted by Momus--
Grenada - More to do with protecting US trade interests in the Carribean than anything relating to the welfare of the population.
U.S. hostages.
Originally posted by Momus--
Somalia - Yeah, you sure left that place in a good state eh?
What happened to your "U.N." stance? The U.N. attempted to intervene in a bloody tribal conflict and, in the end, could not achieve that goal. The U.S. participated in the action, supporting the U.N. If you want to blame someone for the condition Somalia was in before, during and after the U.N. mandated intervention, blame Aideed and the various tribal chieftans.
Originally posted by Momus--
Haiti - You caused a lot of the of the mess anyway. WTG!
U.N. mandate authorizing Operation Uphold Democracy, the movement of forces to Haiti to support the return of Haitian democracy. It succeeded both in restoring the democratically elected government of Haiti and in stemming emigration. In that it was a success. If the powers that be turn to corruption afterwards then just blame the U.S. for not putting in place it's own puppet government, ok?
Originally posted by Momus--
So you basically get 1/2 a point for Korea and maybe for Somalia 'cos I'm feeling generous.
You, however, don't get a point. :D
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
RESOLUTION 1441
please argue
Please read it
Then come back and discuss.
-
Arlo you made the demonstration it was not altruistic better than I'll ever do :)
Note that's not a problem for me, the fact I question the altuistic nature of the act doesn't mean I question the act itself.
(I hope this sentence is clear ... it looked really better in French :))
-
Originally posted by Torque
Have fun you'll need a few days tho.
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html
Well, I will not define this site as an unbiased site.
Just look at the flag! lol :)
The United States also created a secret civilian army in Germany, which drew up a list of 200 leading Social Democrats, 15 Communists and various others who were to be “put out of the way” if the Soviet Union invaded. This secret army had its counterparts all over Western Europe as part of “Operation Gladio”, developed by the CIA and other intelligence services, and not answerable for its actions under the laws of any state.
The international name of this organization was "Operation Stay Behind", "Operation Gladio" was the Italian section of it.
After NATO was formed in 1949, Gladio came under its discreet aegis. “Gladiators” were responsible for numerous acts of terrorism in Europe, foremost of which was the bombing of the Bologna railway station in 1980, claiming 86 lives.
The bombing of the station of Bologna has been attributed to the N.A.R., an extreme right organization.
It's still unknow if this is the truth.
What is known is that:
Some of the N.A.R. chiefs, in particular the organizer (or supposed) of the bombing, was in strict contact with a secret services officer, member of the Massonic lodge P2, and tied with Gladio, plus member of the MSI party, the "nostalgic" Italian right party, and connected with the CIA.
The material used in the bombing (and in others later attributed to the extreme right) was completely comparable to what has been later found in the secret depots of the Gladio Organization.
The purpose of the terrorism was to place the blame for these atrocities on the left and thus heighten public concern about a Soviet invasion and at the same time discredit leftist electoral candidates. NATO feared that if the left came to power in the government of any of its members, they might pass legislation that would be a threat to the NATO installations or operations in that country.
The above It's an oversimplifyed view of the "state sponsored" terrorism that happened expecially in Italy during the '75-'85 decade.
-
I see the BIG GAY BOYmaw has opened his mouth again....
you seem to have this fetish with the French Big Boy....
better get it checked....might be some wierd exotic disease
-
And, of course, the sinking of the Lusitania had absolutely nothing to do with it.
It had plenty to do with being a good pretext for whipping up public outrage to support involvement in the war. However, if you think that it was the main cause of going to war then you haven't done your homework.
Contradictory assumption. If we actually had a "ruling elite" that wanted war we would have gone to war no matter what. As it is, we have an elected body. A government "Of the people, by the people and for the people."
Having a ruling elite isn't mutually exclusive with being a democracy. Are you really too obtuse to realise that?
France pulled out, the U.S. attempted to stave off North Vietnamese aggression by first sending advisors and later troops in force. It turned out to be a lost cause. The only twentieth century example I can think of where the U.S. probably should have followed France's lead.
The point being that while the goal of containing communism may arguably have been laudable, it certainly didn't boil down to altruism on your part since the majority of Vietnamese didn't want you there.
U.S. hostages.
I have a bridge for sale in London if you're interested. Lets see:
US rationalizations for invading Grenada.
1) Reagan claimed the airport had been shut down thus preventing US citizens from leaving the country. This was a lie; the truth was that the US authorities put pressure on neighbouring carribean countries to stop flying to Grenada. By severely reducing the availability of flights out of the country, Reagan was then able to claim that the stranded US citizens were in danger and needed "rescuing".
2) US "hostages.". There were approx. 800 US students in Grenada prior to the invasion. None of these were ever held hostage, in fact the parents of over 500 of them contacted the State Dept to advise that their children were safe and well. This was confirmed by staff from the US embassy in Barbados who visited the island prior to the invasion. After the invasion, US troops waited 3 days before arriving at one of the medical schools attended by the US students, thus giving lie to the claim that they were ever in danger. The students were polled by the college administration as to whether they felt in danger and wanted to leave the island. 90% indicated that they would rather stay.
3)The alleged Cuban "military buildup" on the island.
The airport that was being built on the island was repeatedly claimed by Reagan to be a Cuban project which was intended to house russian miltary jets. This was a lie. It was in fact a civilian project being run by Plessey, a british company and had been underwritten by the government of Margaret Thatcher. Cuban personnel were involved in the construction, as were British, Canadians and Finns. Following the invasion, no evidence of military installations on the airport was ever found.
4) The alleged claim that the OECS (Organisation of Eastern Carribean States) had requested US intervention. This was also a lie; no request was ever made by the OECS, since this would have required the unanimous support of all the member states. The member states of Monserrat, St Kitts & Nevis and Grenada itself all opposed the intervention.
What happened to your "U.N." stance? The U.N. attempted to intervene in a bloody tribal conflict and, in the end, could not achieve that goal. The U.S. participated in the action, supporting the U.N. If you want to blame someone for the condition Somalia was in before, during and after the U.N. mandated intervention, blame Aideed and the various tribal chieftans.
Have you checked the conditions in Somalia recently? I'm not arguing that the US intentions weren't laudable, but if they were indeed driven by altruism then it didn't exactly have the desired effect. No blame intended here though.
If the powers that be turn to corruption afterwards then just blame the U.S. for not putting in place it's own puppet government, ok?
That's a nicely selective reading of history. Are you arguing that the actions of the US backed duvalier regime aren't at least partially responsible for the current mess? Please read this (http://www.cdi.org/adm/Transcripts/802/) then tell me that the history of US intervention in Haiti is one driven purely by altruism.
You, however, don't get a point
On the contrary, it would be more accurate to say that you don't get the point. I expect you still think the Iraq invasion was down to WMD too huh?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
It had plenty to do with being a good pretext for whipping up public outrage to support involvement in the war. However, if you think that it was the main cause of going to war then you haven't done your homework.
Having a ruling elite isn't mutually exclusive with being a democracy. Are you really too obtuse to realise that?
We don't have a ruling elite or are you too obtuse to realize that?
Originally posted by Momus--
The point being that while the goal of containing communism may arguably have been laudable, it certainly didn't boil down to altruism on your part since the majority of Vietnamese didn't want you there.
The Northern ones didn't. The Southern ones did. Just like in Korea. Now Vietnam has no North/South boundry. Korea still does and the South Koreans certainly want us there. Talk about obtuse.
Originally posted by Momus--
I have a bridge for sale in London if you're interested. Lets see:
US rationalizations for invading Grenada.
1) Reagan claimed the airport had been shut down thus preventing US citizens from leaving the country. This was a lie; the truth was that the US authorities put pressure on neighbouring carribean countries to stop flying to Grenada. By severely reducing the availability of flights out of the country, Reagan was then able to claim that the stranded US citizens were in danger and needed "rescuing".
2) US "hostages.". There were approx. 800 US students in Grenada prior to the invasion. None of these were ever held hostage, in fact the parents of over 500 of them contacted the State Dept to advise that their children were safe and well. This was confirmed by staff from the US embassy in Barbados who visited the island prior to the invasion. After the invasion, US troops waited 3 days before arriving at one of the medical schools attended by the US students, thus giving lie to the claim that they were ever in danger. The students were polled by the college administration as to whether they felt in danger and wanted to leave the island. 90% indicated that they would rather stay.
3)The alleged Cuban "military buildup" on the island.
The airport that was being built on the island was repeatedly claimed by Reagan to be a Cuban project which was intended to house russian miltary jets. This was a lie. It was in fact a civilian project being run by Plessey, a british company and had been underwritten by the government of Margaret Thatcher. Cuban personnel were involved in the construction, as were British, Canadians and Finns. Following the invasion, no evidence of military installations on the airport was ever found.
4) The alleged claim that the OECS (Organisation of Eastern Carribean States) had requested US intervention. This was also a lie; no request was ever made by the OECS, since this would have required the unanimous support of all the member states. The member states of Monserrat, St Kitts & Nevis and Grenada itself all opposed the intervention.
Grenada opposed! Oh my.
We acceded to the request to become part of a multinational effort with contingents from Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and the United States.
And yes, we were concerned for the safety of the American students. And yes, the construction had Cuban interests. To divorce civilian and military interests in such is naive. The construction was never finished ... by the Cubans.
Originally posted by Momus--
Have you checked the conditions in Somalia recently? I'm not arguing that the US intentions weren't laudable, but if they were indeed driven by altruism then it didn't exactly have the desired effect. No blame intended here though.
Then why even bring it up?
Originally posted by Momus--
That's a nicely selective reading of history. Are you arguing that the actions of the US backed duvalier regime aren't at least partially responsible for the current mess? Please read this (http://www.cdi.org/adm/Transcripts/802/) then tell me that the history of US intervention in Haiti is one driven purely by altruism.
No more selective than any of the "evil American plot to control the world" version.
Originally posted by Momus--
On the contrary, it would be more accurate to say that you don't get the point. I expect you still think the Iraq invasion was down to WMD too huh?
I'd say the conflict in Iraq was a result of Saddam Hussain repeatedly refusing to comply with UN resolutions and attempting a bluff that failed and ultimately cost him his tyranical control of Iraq. What say you to that? I can venture but I'll let you do it.
Back to the focus of altruism and how we got there:
Lasz offhandedly mentioned that the U.S. is somewhat altruistic in nature and tends to depose tyrannical dictators from time to time to which Straffo responded that that pov is nothing but an urban legend. Yet the track record stands.
German Imperical conquest over Europe in WWI - opposed ... suppressed. The Third Reich and Imperical Japan in WWII - opposed ... suppressed. North Korean aggression on South Korea - opposed ... stalemate. North Vietnamese aggression on South Vietnam - opposed ... failure to suppress. Numerous dictatorships that either directly or indirectly threatened the security of U.S. citizens and/or the world in general.
Now it's easy to take a stance in which you personally doubt the motives behind the measures and yet you're really in no position to be able to ascertain with complete certainty the true motives. You can only decide to agree with other's opinions of what they would prefer to believe those motives to be. As I can side with other sources that counter such.
Rest assured, however, that taking a stance to vilify every single war or conflict the U.S. has been in during the twentieth century does not make a convincing case against current political or military actions in most American's eyes. If you think it does, you know less about us, as a people, than you think you do. Reflect on that and see if perhaps you, yourself, don't see just a little bit of revisionism in your own sources.
Thanks.
-
Arlo you forgot to include the dictators that the US has worked to bring to power.
Also - the Iraq war was about WMD's. If we went after every tin pot dictator who oppressed his people we would be all over africa, south america and asia. But we arent.
Why not you ask?
They have no oil.
Seriously Arlo, Woody would roll in his grave to hear you spout RW talking points under his son's name.
-
Iraq was about non-compliance with UN mandates after Desert Storm. If you want to believe it was about oil ... go to a gas pump.
As far as all the evil dictators the U.S. has worked so hard to place in power over the last century is concerned - name one non-oppressive democratic state rife with human rights that the U.S. has deposed and put a tyrannical dictator in it's place. Also name one that the U.N. itself didn't mandate the need to replace. The U.N./U.S. always replaced the despot with someone the legal government or people chose. If that person becomes as corrupt as the person he replaced, that's not the fault of the U.S. In Iraq right now the coalition is attempting to help the people set up a democracy.
Here's Woody spinning in his grave about an evil dictator:
Now I wished I had a bushel
Wished I had a peck
Wished I had old Hitler
With a rope around his neck.
Hey, round, round Hitler's grave
Round, round we go
Gonna lay that poor boy down
He won't get up no more.
Mussolini [Hermann Goering] won't last long
Tell you the reason why
We're a-gonna salt his beef
And hang it up to dry.
The German army general staff
I guess they missed connection
Went a hundred miles a day
But in the wrong direction.
I'm a-goin' to Berlin
To Mister Hitler's town
I'm gonna take my forty-four
And blow his playhouse down.
How Hitler went to Russia
In search of Russian oil
But the only oil he'll find there
Is a pot in which he'll boil.
[Hitler said to Goering
Here's what he did say
I can't understand this Russian snow,
It's getting too hot for me.]
Now Mister Hitler's traveling mighty fast
But he's on a one-way [single] track
Started down that Moscow road
But now he's coming back.
- Woody Guthrie
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Iraq was about non-compliance with UN mandates after Desert Storm. If you want to believe it was about oil ... go to a gas pump.
As far as all the evil dictators the U.S. has worked so hard to place in power over the last century is concerned - name one non-oppressive democratic state rife with human rights that the U.S. has deposed and put a tyrannical dictator in it's place. Also name one that the U.N. itself didn't mandate the need to replace. The U.N./U.S. always replaced the despot with someone the legal government or people chose. If that person becomes as corrupt as the person he replaced, that's not the fault of the U.S. In Iraq right now the coalition is attempting to help the people set up a democracy.
Here's Woody spinning in his grave about an evil dictator:
Now I wished I had a bushel
Wished I had a peck
Wished I had old Hitler
With a rope around his neck.
Hey, round, round Hitler's grave
Round, round we go
Gonna lay that poor boy down
He won't get up no more.
Mussolini [Hermann Goering] won't last long
Tell you the reason why
We're a-gonna salt his beef
And hang it up to dry.
The German army general staff
I guess they missed connection
Went a hundred miles a day
But in the wrong direction.
I'm a-goin' to Berlin
To Mister Hitler's town
I'm gonna take my forty-four
And blow his playhouse down.
How Hitler went to Russia
In search of Russian oil
But the only oil he'll find there
Is a pot in which he'll boil.
[Hitler said to Goering
Here's what he did say
I can't understand this Russian snow,
It's getting too hot for me.]
Now Mister Hitler's traveling mighty fast
But he's on a one-way [single] track
Started down that Moscow road
But now he's coming back.
- Woody Guthrie
Nice to hear fro Woody Fascist killing machine.
btw hindsight shows us that the UN inspectors and sanctions were working.
nice to see you again Arlo - have you talked HTC into modeling the Spanish thing yet?
-
It's my funtion in life. Yo HT .. Spain dude! Uber Bipes!
You'd think the furballers would rally round my cause. :eek:
-
Originally posted by Arlo
It's my funtion in life. Yo HT .. Spain dude! Uber Bipes!
You'd think the furballers would rally round my cause. :eek:
cept they used .30 cals didnt they? much to small imo :)
-
They had alot of wood and cloth construction too so it works out. :D
-
Arlo, it's simple - name one US "hostage" taken in Grenada.
We acceded to the request to become part of a multinational effort with contingents from Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and the United States.
Unfortunately, an OECS request for outside assistance can pertain only to outside agression and requires a consensus of all the members states to be valid. Of course if you actually knew what you were talking about you'd acknowledge this.
And yes, we were concerned for the safety of the American students. And yes, the construction had Cuban interests. To divorce civilian and military interests in such is naive. The construction was never finished ... by the Cubans
It's stunning the way you ignore the facts I brought to the debate.
1. The Students were in no danger.
2. The Airport was being buit by a british company.
Then why even bring it up?
I didn't bring Somalia up - you did Homer :rolleyes:
We don't have a ruling elite or are you too obtuse to realize that?
Every nation does, democratic or not. To suggest otherwise indicates a severe lack of understanding about how power is actually exercised.
more selective than any of the "evil American plot to control the world" version.
Nice straw man argument - please point out where I've claimed this.
I'd say the conflict in Iraq was a result of Saddam Hussain repeatedly refusing to comply with UN resolutions and attempting a bluff that failed and ultimately cost him his tyranical control of Iraq. What say you to that? I can venture but I'll let you do it.
That's funny, I seem to recall Bush rationalising the decision to invade by claiming that Iraq was a threat to US security, or do you dispute this?
You can only decide to agree with other's opinions of what they would prefer to believe those motives to be. As I can side with other sources that counter such.
You haven't quoted any sources; feel free to do so. All the facts I've given you (which are easily verifiable to anyone with the intellectual curiosity to look them up), you've disregarded. I understand your slavish need to conform to the dominant meme that dicates that the US never acts, like other powers in world history, out of venal self interest, but so far you've brought nothing to the debate save easily disprovable snippets of propaganda.
I've never argued that the US involvement in WW1, WW2, or Korea wasn't in effect a force for good, but your lightweight and rather sophomoric understanding of historical motivations demonstrates that you haven't really done anything but skim the surface when considering the real driving forces behind the rush to war. All you've really done is demonstrate your understanding of the history channel version of events.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Arlo, it's simple - Of course if you actually knew what you were talking about you'd acknowledge this.
It's stunning the way you ignore the facts I brought to the debate.
I didn't bring Somalia up - you did Homer :rolleyes:
To suggest otherwise indicates a severe lack of understanding about how power is actually exercised.
Nice straw man argument.
I understand your slavish need to conform to the dominant meme.
your lightweight and rather sophomoric understanding of historical motivations demonstrates that you haven't really done anything but skim the surface when considering the real driving forces behind the rush to war.
All you've really done is demonstrate your understanding of the history channel version of events.
Momus ... you've been nothing but a smarmy lil arse since you first posted in this thread but I'll still give you a chance to rephrase. Then we'll go from there. If you can't, then go to "pissy euro-political-agenda" hell and don't expect any other response other than .... :lol :D:aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
"pissy euro-political-agenda"
I hate when people use that phrase. Many of the accused may actually be more American than their accusers, regardless of nationality.
Of course then you'd have to define American, and I wonder how that would go on this BBS.
-
Kinda depends on where they're from, really. If I went to a board hosted in Kramtavia, primarily populated by Kramtavians and started or joined in on a thread that critisized the Kramtavian Grand Potentate's decision to send troops into the Splutter Republic because I, as an American, didn't like what that country's leader did or how he did it, even though it not only had no negative repercussions here ... maybe even positive repercussions there .... and here .... then my comments could easily be construed as some sort of "pissy US-political-agenda" crap.
Now .. I'd be the first person ready to modify the description of the hell momus can go to as "just plain assinine-dipchit-political- agenda" hell if momus actually turned out to be a resident of the States. But he could go there just as easily. :D
-
So Arlo, you are telling us, non-US (thirld worlders, as someone of your friends called us), being this a game owned by US people, to STFU?
I would like to know if this is the position of the owners of the place.
Pecunia non olent
Extending your logic, since we pay on foreign corrency (converted by St.Visa), we are B-series players?
Is this the position of HTC too?
-
No, not at all. Don't be so thenthitive and don't read too much into things. What I said was "pissy euro-political agenda." Hawker didn't like that so I gave an example of someone being able to use "pissy American-political agenda." Six of one and a half dozen of the other. Do you have a "pissy euro-political agenda?" As far as HTC is concerned, I can't speak for them. But I seriously doubt they would use the phrase ... on the bbs.
-
Arlo does the phrase the empty can rattles the most ring a bell:aok
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
Arlo does the phrase the empty can rattles the most ring a bell:aok
Don't you go adding the "sniper scuba internet porn predator agenda" to this now. :p
-
Arlo your a funny guy ! hell I like you.
You can come over any time and have sex with my chi waa waa.:aok
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
Arlo your a funny guy ! hell I like you.
You can come over any time and have sex with my chi waa waa.:aok
Calling it your "chi waa waa" won't make it appealing. I suggest keeping your joystick hand as a steady date until you win Lorna's affections. heh :)
ok ..ok ... enough of this. I don't particularly relish giving Skuzzy a headache in the mornin'. He's a nice guy and besides .. it's you and D that should see how far things can go before ya'll get locked down. I should have resisted the temptation. :lol
-
Oh I doubt I will "get locked down".
All I did was post anserws to questions.
-
Trust me .. or don't. :D
-
Although I might get banned for butchering the english language LOL.