The W
Views: 97594263
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.7.07 0304
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Can We Go After France Next? Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next(1714 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (83 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1158/4700
EXP: 21360655
For next: 476007

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1177 days
Last activity: 974 days
#21 Posted on 26.3.03 1153.00
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1155.10

    Originally posted by Crip
    font face=Verdana size=-2 color=#cccccc>

      So, do you not support the right of Israel to exist?


    Would you care to elaborate on that statement and HOW it even ties in with my previous post?


You posted about all of the itmes the US vetoed resolutions involving Israel. All of which would punish Israel for defending itself from Palestinian terrorism.
Chico Santana
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 158/509
EXP: 762004
For next: 4205

Since: 2.7.02
From: Jaaaaamacia Mon, No Problem.

Since last post: 3962 days
Last activity: 3960 days
#22 Posted on 26.3.03 1154.47
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1157.11

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake

    Oh, and speaking of the Carter administration... they labeled Iraq as a terrorist state in '79. Guess who reversed that and made buddy-buddy with them afterward?






My bad, it was late. I meant to say Carter and the two that came before him sold Iran 11 billion in Military hardware between 1969 and 1979. Thus adding to the cluter-fuck of a region when the Ayatollah(no, not Y2J)Khomeini took over Iran. I have one question though, why would we have an ambassador(Edward L. Peck 1977-80)in Iraq till 1980 if was labeld a terrorist state in '79? I'm not nit picking, I just don't understand why something that stupid would happen. For those who want more insight on the Globel Arms Trade:
www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9122/912203.PDF
It shows how much weapons in billions France and Russia sold Iraq from 84-88.
Rocket
Braunschweiger
Level: 9

Posts: 6/13
EXP: 3029
For next: 133

Since: 12.2.03
From: Canada

Since last post: 4080 days
Last activity: 4034 days
#23 Posted on 26.3.03 1207.47
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1214.58
Quote:"But, the French have a great record in helping set up new governments.."
Yeah, like the good ol',USA. Funny how everyone forgets that...
As far as surrendering all the time, you're thinking of the Italians. Surrendering to a vastly superior German army after having their army wiped out is not cowardice. Napolean nearly conquering the entire world - not cowardice either. Starting a war with a tiny starving army of unwilling conscripts so Dick Cheney can get new Halliburton contracts - that's cowardice.
El Nastio
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 758/2212
EXP: 7035054
For next: 153582

Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 12 hours
ICQ:  
#24 Posted on 26.3.03 1211.00
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1215.09
Finally, SOMEONE ELSE IS STICKING UP FOR THE FRENCH. Don't get me wrong, I don't like France's attitude about the War in Iraq, but I really don't think all the French bashing is really nesscessary. Unless you start bashing and making fun of Germany and Russia. And China too.
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 151

Posts: 2150/7534
EXP: 43287225
For next: 9351

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 387 days
Last activity: 387 days
#25 Posted on 26.3.03 1211.05
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1215.34

    Originally posted by Rocket
    Quote:"But, the French have a great record in helping set up new governments.."
    Yeah, like the good ol',USA. Funny how everyone forgets that...
    As far as surrendering all the time, you're thinking of the Italians. Surrendering to a vastly superior German army after having their army wiped out is not cowardice. Napolean nearly conquering the entire world - not cowardice either. Starting a war with a tiny starving army of unwilling conscripts so Dick Cheney can get new Halliburton contracts - that's cowardice.







The French surrendered against the Prussians in a week in the Franco/Prussian War, and they surrendered within a month of German attack in World War II. And then of course, the four years of brilliant collaboration by the proud Vichy Government.
Crip
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 35/172
EXP: 145521
For next: 2365

Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3802 days
Last activity: 2576 days
#26 Posted on 26.3.03 1312.41
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1317.29

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by Crip
      font face=Verdana size=-2 color=#cccccc>

        So, do you not support the right of Israel to exist?


      Would you care to elaborate on that statement and HOW it even ties in with my previous post?


    You posted about all of the itmes the US vetoed resolutions involving Israel. All of which would punish Israel for defending itself from Palestinian terrorism.



I believe you must have misinterpreted me. I believe very strongly in the right of Israel to exist, just as I do for Palestine. Those resolutions were asking for Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied in 67 after it fought off aggression from some of its Arab neighbours. None of those resolutions would punish Israel, but rather return Israel to its international recognised borders.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1120/1759
EXP: 4878733
For next: 114137

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1223 days
Last activity: 22 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#27 Posted on 26.3.03 1320.42
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1323.02
Problem with that is that every time Isreal tries to withdraw, the Palestinians step up the attacks. I believe that Bush has the right idea in insisting upong a stronger Palestinian form of government as a first step to peace. Isreal cannot abide by this UN resolution if there is no order in Palestine.

BOTH sides are in bad spots right now, and I think one of the major obstacles to peace in that area is Arafat. He is an ineffective leader, essentially a terrorist in charge of a "country," and he is unwilling to lead Palestine to real peace. Once he is totally out of the picture, and a Palestinian leadership comes to power that cares more about Palestinian statehood than the death of Isreal, then I think that peace there will come about. Not before.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1174/2092
EXP: 6475720
For next: 174970

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#28 Posted on 26.3.03 1405.10
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1405.23
Peace will come about once both sides manage to accept reality. Both sides are still harboring ideas about a possible final outcome that is just never going to happen.

Everyone knows the solution: Israel withdraws all the settlements, Palestinians give up the "right of return," the borders are more or less what they were in 1967, Arab governments recongnize the right of Israel to exist, Israel recognized a Palestinian state, disputed holy sites end up being under some kind of International/Ecumenical/Joint control, and the US and World Community give a shitload of money to both sides to make it happen. There will be some dithering around the edges (small shifts in border, maybe monetary compensation in exchange for the right of return, different ideas about control over holy sites, etc.), but the general blueprint is a forgone conclusion.

Everyone knows this is where the whole thing will end up (whether this is a good place to end up or not is a different story), but there are significant minorities on both sides that still hold onto this idea that they'll get it all, or at least like, 80%. Once they let go of that, things will be much easier.

Of course, the other problem is that even some of the folks that know and want the process to end up somewhere in the middle feel the need to show how big their nuts are (which, despite the hyperbole on my part, is actually not entirely un-understandable) before sitting down at the table.

Crip
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 36/172
EXP: 145521
For next: 2365

Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 3802 days
Last activity: 2576 days
#29 Posted on 26.3.03 1441.06
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1441.34
The problem is, everytime they move forward, groups like Hamas increase their attacks, Israel reacts and we end up in vicious circle.

At some point, as unfair as it may sound, Israel needs to stop reacting in a way that fuels the fire Hamas light.

Arafat has to go or beomce nothing but a figure, I also think Sharon has to go as well, his continued building on occupied territories as well as his history with the attack in Lebanon in 82 makes it just as hard for the Palestines to accept him, as it is for the Israeli's to accept Arafat.

I fear this circle will continue for a long time yet.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1123/1759
EXP: 4878733
For next: 114137

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1223 days
Last activity: 22 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on 26.3.03 1518.10
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1523.15

    Originally posted by Crip
    The problem is, everytime they move forward, groups like Hamas increase their attacks, Israel reacts and we end up in vicious circle.

    At some point, as unfair as it may sound, Israel needs to stop reacting in a way that fuels the fire Hamas light.

    Arafat has to go or beomce nothing but a figure, I also think Sharon has to go as well, his continued building on occupied territories as well as his history with the attack in Lebanon in 82 makes it just as hard for the Palestines to accept him, as it is for the Israeli's to accept Arafat.

    I fear this circle will continue for a long time yet.


I actually think the opposite. The Palestinians have done absilutly nothing to stop Hamas, in fact, they seem to openly encourage them. I think the Palestinian Authority needs to make a much greater, and public effort to oppose Hamas, and attempt to bring them down. That is the gesture of goodwill that will allow peace to come.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 527/2182
EXP: 6917551
For next: 271085

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 242 days
Last activity: 235 days
#31 Posted on 26.3.03 1602.07
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1603.41

    Originally posted by Rocket
    Quote:"But, the French have a great record in helping set up new governments.."
    Yeah, like the good ol',USA. Funny how everyone forgets that...
    As far as surrendering all the time, you're thinking of the Italians. Surrendering to a vastly superior German army after having their army wiped out is not cowardice. Napolean nearly conquering the entire world - not cowardice either. Starting a war with a tiny starving army of unwilling conscripts so Dick Cheney can get new Halliburton contracts - that's cowardice.



The US didn't own nearly three-quarters of the third world at one time...plus, it is hilarious how everyone overlooks Japan....the US basically rebuilt Japan. Where is the great French triumph???

Napoleon? You base French bravery on HIM? Conquering the entire world? Have you ever READ a history book?
Rocket
Braunschweiger
Level: 9

Posts: 7/13
EXP: 3029
For next: 133

Since: 12.2.03
From: Canada

Since last post: 4080 days
Last activity: 4034 days
#32 Posted on 26.3.03 1712.45
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1713.10
Quote:"the US basically rebuilt Japan"

Yeah, after blowing it to shit, and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 393/763
EXP: 1425992
For next: 59945

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 489 days
Last activity: 104 days
AIM:  
#33 Posted on 26.3.03 1752.31
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1753.06

    Originally posted by Rocket
    Quote:"the US basically rebuilt Japan"

    Yeah, after blowing it to shit, and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians.




This is another argument that bothers me. The hindsight one.


To quote Kevin Bacon "These are the facts and they are undisputed."


Yes we dropped the Atom bomb on Japan. At the time we didnt know what effect the Nuclear weapon would have on the future. We did what we did to end a horrible war. Hindsight is 20/20. But we helped rebuild the land we near anniliated inot one of the worlds richest nations.

Yes we armed and trained Osama Bin Laden. At the time we wanted to help the Afghani people fight a greater enemy, the USSR. If we had known then what we know now we may have acted diffrently. Hindsight is 20/20. And now since we were the one who armed him, now we will be responsible for stopping him.


Yes we helped arm and assisted Saddam Hussein. At the time he was an ally in the middle east fighting who we perceived as a greater threat, Iran. We didnt know he would become greedy and invade Kuwait and defy the world. Had we known then what we know now me have done things diffrent. Hindsight is 20/20. And now since we armed him we will be the one to disarm him. Isnt that the way things should work?
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 528/2182
EXP: 6917551
For next: 271085

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 242 days
Last activity: 235 days
#34 Posted on 26.3.03 1802.47
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1806.03

    Originally posted by Rocket
    Quote:"the US basically rebuilt Japan"

    Yeah, after blowing it to shit, and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians.



I ask again, have you ever read a history book?

Do you really think the Japanese wouldn't have used the bomb on the US had they developed it first? Are you really that naive? Are you related to Noam Chomsky?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1163/4700
EXP: 21360655
For next: 476007

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1177 days
Last activity: 974 days
#35 Posted on 26.3.03 1827.10
Reposted on: 26.3.10 1828.13
Quote:"the US basically rebuilt Japan"

Yeah, after blowing it to shit, and incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians.


Yeah....in order to save millions of lives on both sides. If we did not have the bomb the war probably would've lasted until 1955 or so.


    Originally posted by Rocket
    Napolean nearly conquering the entire world - not cowardice either.

Napoleon conquered the entire world? Hell, he couldn't hold on to Europe. He abandoned his military adventure in Egypt and the Near East because of its failure and with it his goal of conquering India.
Rocket
Braunschweiger
Level: 9

Posts: 8/13
EXP: 3029
For next: 133

Since: 12.2.03
From: Canada

Since last post: 4080 days
Last activity: 4034 days
#36 Posted on 26.3.03 2117.14
Reposted on: 26.3.10 2117.50
Quote: " I ask again, have you ever read a history book?"

I thought that was a rhetorical question.

Are you aware that most people don't agree with the statement, "might makes right"?
Also, you shouldn't make fun of Napoleon. Sure he was a little guy, but if it wasn't for him, all you yanks would still be sipping tea and saluting the queen.
Jakegnosis
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 240/645
EXP: 1084014
For next: 73112

Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2769 days
Last activity: 2753 days
#37 Posted on 27.3.03 0042.46
Reposted on: 27.3.10 0044.37
Hey, rockdotcom, I like the avatar and the sig. Does the Wienerboard have an All-Alcoholic in the ranks?

Hooah!
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 67

Posts: 348/1136
EXP: 2590445
For next: 2441

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3656 days
Last activity: 3126 days
AIM:  
#38 Posted on 27.3.03 0334.42
Reposted on: 27.3.10 0336.26

    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    Yes we armed and trained Osama Bin Laden. At the time we wanted to help the Afghani people fight a greater enemy, the USSR. If we had known then what we know now we may have acted diffrently. Hindsight is 20/20. And now since we were the one who armed him, now we will be responsible for stopping him.


    Yes we helped arm and assisted Saddam Hussein. At the time he was an ally in the middle east fighting who we perceived as a greater threat, Iran. We didnt know he would become greedy and invade Kuwait and defy the world. Had we known then what we know now me have done things diffrent. Hindsight is 20/20. And now since we armed him we will be the one to disarm him. Isnt that the way things should work?



So, you're trying to say that the collective government of the United States of America is so (and I'm being very, very charitable using this term) naive as to believe that Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be a threat, given his connections and beliefs? That we thought Saddam Hussein (who has never, ever been anything but a dictatorial loon... the difference was, he was our pet dictatorial loon and now he isn't. See Noriega, Manuel) wouldn't use the chemical and biological weapons we sold him(not to mention material to assist in the making of nuclear weapons) against anyone he felt the need to, including, when we decided he was no longer useful and turned on him, us?

I won't disagree that bombing Japan, as awful an act as it was, was probably the better course of action. But you can't tell me that we didn't know what type of people we were dealing with, and what the likely consequences of our actions would be.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 563/1084
EXP: 2415406
For next: 46458

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2895 days
Last activity: 2892 days
#39 Posted on 27.3.03 0902.08
Reposted on: 27.3.10 0904.42
The U.S. stopped short of truly rebuilding Japan, and they finished it on their own. SCAP left many of the same beuracrats (who hold amazing power in the Japanese government) in power, left the emporer in power, did purge many of the militarists and nationalists, but then changed its mind on them when we decided that the Soviet Union was more important, tried to get Japan to go against Article 9 (the one, in essence, banning Japan from engaging in war), etc. etc.

About the A-Bomb - Yes, it ended the war early. The difference is, we dropped the bomb on two civilian cities (as well as much more damaging air raids on Tokyo), whereas the continued fighting would have involved soldiers, not civilians. Let's look at it this way: The attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon had essentially the same immediate effect. Lots of civilians killed, and a handful of people connected with the government.

The U.S. supporting people in the past to have it come back and bite them in the ass - The problem is, we keep doing it. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan is a loose collection of warlords whom continually fight amongst themselves. I also remember us courting the head of one of the former Soviet states in the area (I can't remember the state, but the oen that borders Afghanistan I would assume) who has a less than pleasant record on trivial things like human rights. Who knows. maybe the Kurds will turn out the same way. I wouldn't be terribly suprised, but apparently the U.S. govt. would be.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1168/4700
EXP: 21360655
For next: 476007

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1177 days
Last activity: 974 days
#40 Posted on 27.3.03 0927.13
Reposted on: 27.3.10 0929.02

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    About the A-Bomb - Yes, it ended the war early. The difference is, we dropped the bomb on two civilian cities (as well as much more damaging air raids on Tokyo), whereas the continued fighting would have involved soldiers, not civilians. Let's look at it this way: The attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon had essentially the same immediate effect. Lots of civilians killed, and a handful of people connected with the government.

I'm going to partially disagree here. Had the invasion come, lots of civilians would have perished. There would have been sieges, disruptions in food supply, water supply, and medical attention. And it would've gone in for years. Sure, use of the A-Bomb is not something we wear with pride. But it is something we had to do for our national interests at the time and it did save millions of lives.

Remember when thinking about the civilians; many more Japanese citizens would have been put into service to repel the invasion and millions more of our own civilians would have been drafted to serve as cannon fodder for the invasion.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 NextThread ahead: Village Voice of reason
Next thread: The end of war arguments?
Previous thread: RIP Edwin Starr, Author of "War (What is it good far?)")
(1714 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Can We Go After France Next?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.224 seconds.