France, Germany present alternative to war - Page 3

Spiffor · February 9, 2003, 16:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Yet it's wrong when people suggest the US is in it for oil?

I think Thrawn, unlike Imran or PrinceBimz, is realistic.

Ted Striker · February 9, 2003, 16:04

In a fight between Cub Scouts Troop 487 from Rapid City Michigan and the UN, I'd pick the Cub Scouts to win every single time.

Az · February 9, 2003, 16:04

no it's not wrong. It's true. It also does a good thing, on the way.

Lancer · February 9, 2003, 16:05

Do you think France and Germany would have ever thought to produce any plan had the Americans not put the Iraqis up against the wall? No, of course not. Why? Because they are marginalized and powerless. Now they want to save the mass murdering Iraqi regime to save the oil deals they cut with Saddam.

You think I care whether such people 'like' Americans?

If you people riding your high horses should look down. You might find out you're riding an ass... French/German pro Saddam policy.

Thrawn05 · February 9, 2003, 16:05

QUOTE:
_________________________________
Originally posted by Sava

Yet it's wrong when people suggest the US is in it for oil?

_________________________________

If the US wanted the oil, they could of done it in the last gulf war.

Do you see them controling the oil pumps in Kuwait and Qatar right now?

Sava · February 9, 2003, 16:08

I do think its wrong to suggest the War(s) are about oil... on both sides. Oil is a factor, but not the reason.

Thrawn: Nah, but they kept the dictatorship in Kuwait in power that they buy the oil from and then the American corporations profit from it.

Thrawn05 · February 9, 2003, 16:09

QUOTE:
__________________________________
Originally posted by Spiffor
I think Thrawn, unlike Imran or PrinceBimz, is realistic.
__________________________________

I try very hard not to let Idiology take over me. Hence why I rarely get into these types of thread because over half the people arguing do have a ideology and are blinded by it. I'm not accussing anyone here of that, but wanted to point that.

Thrawn05 · February 9, 2003, 16:12

QUOTE:
_________________________________
Originally posted by Sava
Thrawn: Nah, but they kept the dictatorship in Kuwait in power that they buy the oil from and then the American corporations profit from it.
_________________________________

Kuwait is OPEC, every nation gets kuwaity oil.

Thrawn05 · February 9, 2003, 16:14

QUOTE:
___________________________________
Originally posted by Lancer
Now they want to save the mass murdering Iraqi regime to save the oil deals they cut with Saddam.
___________________________________

Doesn't that violate the UN sanctions on Iraq BTW?

Spiffor · February 9, 2003, 16:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Do you think France and Germany would have ever thought to produce any plan had the Americans not put the Iraqis up against the wall?

Obviously not. Most probably, the sanctions would have been lifted too, and everything would have gone back to the situation before 1991, except that less weapons would have been sold to Iraq

Quote:

Why? Because they are marginalized and powerless.

Powerless : probably. However, they are not marginalized : China and Russia wish for a peaceful solution as well. 3 of 5 permanent members of the security council want to avert the war, I hardly call this 'marginalized'.

Quote:

Now they want to save the mass murdering Iraqi regime to save the oil deals they cut with Saddam.

Also they want to get some popularity from their population, and have the media and the opposition avoid talking about difficult domestic issues. It is bad to found a foreign policy on this, don't you think ?

Quote:

You think I care whether such people 'like' Americans?

This kind of attitude will lead undoubtedly to America's downfall. Rather than a leader of the posse, the US will become a mere bully forcing others to their views. If your attitude keeps the power, you won't get any help when your domination will be threatened.

Quote:

If you people riding your high horses should look down. You might find out you're riding an ass... French/German pro Saddam policy.

I'm still wondering if a pro-Saddam policy will be worse or better for the Iraqi people than the incoming slaughter. I don't know what of the two options will have the highest body count.

Thrawn05 · February 9, 2003, 16:31

QUOTE:
___________________________________
Originally posted by Spiffor
I'm still wondering if a pro-Saddam policy will be worse or better for the Iraqi people than the incoming slaughter. I don't know what of the two options will have the highest body count.
___________________________________

You can blame that on Saddam, since he's the one who puts day-care centers near military targets.

The US is going to destroy Saddam "image". The US is not going to bomb bridges, power plants, etc because the people need that for the rebuilding.

EDIT: Fixed some typos

Lancer · February 9, 2003, 16:34

Here's another quote for you:

In a week or two the US is going in to Iraq to defeat a dictator. This is nothing new for the US, excepting that such dictators are usually in the heart of europe, and we're usually bailing out the ****ing French. Along side us as we go in will be our good and loyal friends.

These are all that are going in or getting in. The rest will be left out in the cold because why?

Because we won't forget those who betray our friendship. Remember in the future when you ask 'why?'. When you, once again come crying for help. This is why, that we don't forget.

DanS · February 9, 2003, 16:39

This kind of attitude will lead undoubtedly to America's downfall. Rather than a leader of the posse, the US will become a mere bully forcing others to their views. If your attitude keeps the power, you won't get any help when your domination will be threatened.

Actually, Lancer's instinct is a good one. Our outlook on what is right and wrong, and what is in our interest and not, will guide our actions.

An international concensus is useful in most circumstances (such as the war on terror), but is not strictly necessary in any sense. That said, we will always communicate the rationale for why we are doing what we are doing, and consult with others.

Sava · February 9, 2003, 16:41

Quote:

Actually, Lancer's instinct is a good one

Ethno-centrist racism is good?? Good job at pointing that out for me DanS

Lancer · February 9, 2003, 16:45

I'm not a racist you git. I just don't like the ****ing frogs. I'm 1/8 frog btw, though that's declining since I don't eat frogs legs, got it?

My frog is definately in remission.

Sava · February 9, 2003, 16:47

Okay, Trent...

Jaguar · February 9, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Demerzel
Plus I believe the EU is cutting emissions down, is the US? you produce something ridicuously high like 25% of the world's polluting emissions for 2% of the population?

.02 x 6,000,000,000 = 120,000,000.

Because you are so obviously and irrevocably wrong on our percentage of world population, I am inclined to believe that you pulled both figures out of your ass.

have a nice day

DanS · February 9, 2003, 16:50

Lancer: Ignore lists do remarkable things to keep the clutter to a minimum.

Demerzel · February 9, 2003, 16:52

It's amazing how the US sees things in black and white & good and evil, and then feels it has the right to go on a moral crusade.

What happened to those morals, when you supported dictators all over the world? How come you didn't remove them and put a democratic regime in instead when you supported Saddam back in the '80s when Iraq fought Iran? Oh, things weren't so black & white then?

So much hypocritical bs, you either are the good guys and you fight evil or you don't, don't play the crusader card and label us as needing saving by the US when you're quite prepared to ignore dictators and their abuse of power when it suits you.

Sava · February 9, 2003, 16:54

And apprantly ignoring people isn't a cure for ignorance.

Lancer · February 9, 2003, 16:56

Thanks Dan

great thought.

DanS · February 9, 2003, 16:59

Oh, things weren't so black & white then?

We should learn from our mistakes, and not use past mistakes to excuse current inaction. Democracy has always been more powerful than accounted for in the US foreign policy. A more democratic Iraq would be a very valuable force in the Middle East.

Demerzel · February 9, 2003, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

.02 x 6,000,000,000 = 120,000,000.

Because you are so obviously and irrevocably wrong on our percentage of world population, I am inclined to believe that you pulled both figures out of your ass.

have a nice day

ah the joys of a personal attack ( Ming will be interested I'm sure )

2% of world population of 8 bn peeps = 0.02 * 6,300,000,000 = 116m.

So actually I should have said 4% as that gives 252m Americans ( i thought we were up to over 7bn now ).

So its 25% world pollution from 4% of population! gosh my bad.

Jac de Molay · February 9, 2003, 17:00

Quote:

What happened to those morals, when you supported dictators all over the world? How come you didn't remove them and put a democratic regime in instead when you supported Saddam back in the '80s when Iraq fought Iran? Oh, things weren't so black & white then?

Lest we forget, "9/11 changed everything". In other words, because some terrorists came up with an ingeniously simple plan and got pass pis$-poor security in enacting that plan, we have the duty and obligation to swing our d1ck whenever the balance of power falls out of our disfavor.

Sava · February 9, 2003, 17:01

Quote:

A puppet regime in Iraq would be a very valuable force in the Middle East.

sorry I got crap on my monitor distorting your words...

Oerdin · February 9, 2003, 17:03

It's called the lesser of two evils Demerzel. We supported certain dictators because we felt there would have been a communist dictatorship set up if we didn't. Since communism was/is a horriby oppressive idealogy with world wide pull and a proven history of killing more people then Hitler we felt we had no other choice. Get it?

Jaguar · February 9, 2003, 17:03

5% is more accurate. America is around 330 million, and the world is about 6.3 billion.

edit: that's in response to demerzel. this is a popular thread.

Demerzel · February 9, 2003, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
And apprantly ignoring people isn't a cure for ignorance.

It's a good way for people to ignore views that make them uncomfortable.

I love the way that America was quite happy to talk to the IRA's political wing, when the IRA was bombing N.Ireland and the UK, and only made half-hearted attempts to involve themselves.

Any time, we made a move to do something to deal with the IRA, we were the bad guys.

I wonder how America would have dealt with it.

Let's speculate,

America gets bombed by IRA. America bombs Ireland to rubble in retaliation.

Nice.

Sava · February 9, 2003, 17:06

Dem... authoritative conservatives think that dissenting views are "unpatriotic" and "unAmerican".

Az · February 9, 2003, 17:19

Quote:

It's called the lesser of two evils Demerzel. We supported certain dictators because we felt there would have been a communist dictatorship set up if we didn't. Since communism was/is a horriby oppressive idealogy with world wide pull and a proven history of killing more people then Hitler we felt we had no other choice. Get it?

no.