You can thrash away with the technicalities until the cows come home Rascal but really there is nothing you can do about our choices. You think that America SHOULD not have invaded. WE think Germany SHOULD have supported us. We both did what was apparently in our two nations interests. Therefore, you have no right to be angry about America. Get over it. And for someone who trusts in the rules set by the UN, I would clean up that organization a lot more before holding it up to the bright light of day. Go ahead. Believe in the UN all you want but you cannot force others to agree along with you and that is really what you are trying to do. Do the Iraqis (if they took a vote) support your view or ours. If a vote were held today, most Iraqis would vote allowing the US to overthrow Saddam. They might also vote us out, but many seems to realize that it is in their best intersts for security to have us stay. That does not mean that they like it or like us. But… if you wanted to take that vote I think America and its coalition would win and win by a lot. Given therefore that the Iraqis are for the invasion, you are really supporting Saddam and saying that the world system has somehow been threatened by taking down a nasty dictator. But we did so in Japan, Italy and Germany and goodness the world seems better off with out the racist fascists in Germany marching all over Europe killing everyone in sight. No? We can do the same in Iraq. Stay out if you want. Disagree if you want but now that the action is fait accompli, your refusal to offer assistance to the Iraqis seems most unusual, especially given your nation’s strong support of Saddam during his reign of terror, one which you never criticized one that never encouraged you to come to this forum to condemn. Now, let’s talk about restitution. Germany had to pay billions after World War II. Should it now be obligated to pay for the results of the 64.5 percent of Saddam’s wmds that it sold him? What about the US back then? We criticized your arms sales but you did not stop. We had no veto over your actions even though they were clearly and grossly wrong. What makes you think that you have a right to judge or veto our actions now?
Are you being purposely obtuse?
The actions and policies of certain nations of a certain region have for a long time affected negatively the US. Do what you want inside your own borders… but not if in so doing you unreasonably affect others outside of your borders.
The Islamofascists have been acting in a way that negatively affects the US, both within and without our borders. The successful attacks on the WTC and Pentagon and the failed attack on the White House or Capital Building are a few of the most recent of those acts that have had a negative affect on the US. I say enough is enough.
As so many have complained that US policy is to blame for the anger of the Islamofascists, then US policy has changed. The new policy is to encourage democratic reform in the region where the Islamofascists originate.
Iraq needed, for itself, to be reformed badly, in case you hadn’t noticed. Iraq also needed to be reformed in order to give the entire region a chance at and encouragement for reform. There were valid reasons for ousting Saddam, in addition to the overall goal of Iraqi and regional reform.
On a different note, its nice to see that you are indeed consistent. You are apparently just as happy to sit and watch poor Sudanese be killed and starved and displaced as you were watching the same happen to poor Iraqis.
You get points, though, for being consistent. Good for you!
No, I merely agreed about fred’s comment about one’s country leader(s).
The rest was just an interpretation of what I thought fred was saying (i.e. no-one else is to tell another country how to run things), hence I questioned this with regards to America that obviously wants to have a say in the leadership of other countries.
That might be correct in certain cases (as in, it is correct but does not always apply and is not limited to the US only) but ‘unreasonably’ is a bit to general. Surely you will immediately justify any action the US if I said I would entirely agree - so I won’t.
Like in Iraq?
I dismiss this argument on grounds that there is no evidence that forcefully reforming Iraq will have a positive effect on the region. Wishfull thinking perhaps, but nothing more.
Yeah, because I didn’t post anything in that thread proves it all, doesn’t it?
You and your FUCKED UP, self-constructed arguments.
And you are an ASSHOLE to make such an accusation (and spare me scemantics because you used “appearant”).
So Rascal:
Then you cannot oppose American invasions because that would be affecting our sovereign rights. If we decide that it is a matter of self defense or strategic interest, then who are you to say no. Stay out of it. Don’t support it, but oppose, why complain? Could we stop you selling all those wmds to Iraq? Nope. Tried to but Germany would not have its national interests vetoed by the United States. So now that the shoe is on the other foot? Also, you have signed a treaty to keep your deficit under 3%. How are you doing? What about the countries that protest your action? And like I said, if you want to go by the EU, Germany and France have done much to promote a common foreign policy and yet when this would have been (if a vote had been taken) support for the US led invasion, what happens to EU foreign policy then? Hmmm?
Why haven’t you posted anything about Sudan Rascal? It is curious. I would like to know as well? Is being consistent the most important thing to you?
Is Iraq in the very middle of the region where the Islamofascists originate?
And exactly what negative effect, pray tell, could a reformed Iraq have on the rest of the region?
[quote=“Rascal”]lYeah, because I didn’t post anything in that thread proves it all, doesn’t it?
You and your FUCKED UP, self-constructed arguments.[/quote]
Well, do you think Germany and or the UN should be providing assistance to the poor Sudanese and or pressuring the Sudanese government, or, do you believe that no nation has the right to interfere with what the sovereign Sudanese goverment is doing… I remind you of your previous statement:
Well, my, my… that’s a pretty good insult, Rascal.
But, the fact is, I did use “apparent”. So, what are you getting all upset about?
Tigerman:
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
Yes, and it was meant exactly as such - because unlike someone else I don’t hide behind scemantics if I mean it.
:wanker: (both of you)
Well, Rascal, neither do I. However, when I am uncertain, I do use words such as “apparent”, so as not to unduly offend and to give the other person a chance to explain his “apparent” contradictory stances.
Please don’t get so upset at me for doing so. I would have expected you to understand my nuanced statements and inquiries.
Tsk, tsk, tsk… Rascal… I’m utterly crushed by all of these vicious personal insults…
I think I’ll write a letter to the moderator…
Oooops!
Given the fact that I haven’t said anything about Sudan how can you claim I have a contradictory stance? Oh, I get it - appearently I have a contradictory stance. Idiot.
I don’t buy it - it needs a pretty screwed up mind to even remotely assume what you “appearently” (should read: obviously) implied based on the grounds that someone is not participating in a certain thread, in particular that ‘being happy’ part about people dying. There is nothing in what I have said before that would lead to such a conclusion, not finally and not appearantly.
[quote]Tsk, tsk, tsk… Rascal… I’m utterly crushed by all of these vicious personal insults…
I think I’ll write a letter to the moderator…[/quote]
Please do so and recommend me to be banned from the IP forum.
Tigerman:
Be easy on Rascal. It must be difficult in the course of one short week to have been proved wrong on so many accounts. First, he loses out on the fact that the German media was proved biased, then he finds out that Germany was primarily responsible for most of Saddam’s wmds and that America was really less than 1 percent if computers are taken out of the 3.5 percent total and then the yellowcake claim is confirmed as true and now he has his “apparent” yet consistent lack of concern for deaths in Muslim nations thrown in his face. So he resorts to what? The very insults that he condemned so vociferously earlier.
By the way, Rascal, have you been whipping yourself real good with that towel? Put some muscle into it boy. Whip yourself like you mean it. hahaha
You argued that the US had no right to interfere in Iraq’s domestic affairs as Iraq is a sovereign nation and that the US certainly had no right to invade Iraq, despite the terrible suffering of the Iraqi people. I can reasonably from that conclude that you were happy to sit by and watch as Saddam systematically brutalized the Iraqi people.
Then, as I hadn’t seen any post by you ranting against the failure of the UN and or EU to lift even a finger to assist the poor Sudanese people suffering horribly at the hands of their sovereign Sudanese government, I stated merely that it “appears” to me that you are consistent in your stance and that you are just as happy to sit and do nothing as the poor Sudanese people cry out for relief.
I left it for you to explain this apparent consistency in your stance regarding foreign interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. Unless I am mistaken, you do not agree with such foreign interference.
But then, you replied as above, that nothing in what you have said before would lead to such a conclusion. That seems to me to be a contradiction.
Are you saying that you do support foreign interference in the domestic affairs of a soveregn nation when humanitarian concerns exist?
If yes, why did you not support the invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam?
I’m just trying to understand your thinking on these issues.
No need to go ballistic and start with the personal insults.
Although, I really don’t mind the insults at all.
You can (and do) conclude whatever you want - doesn’t mean it’s always reasonable, in particular in light of the views I expressed earlier about people getting killed and that I agreed several times that ousting Saddam was desirable and a good thing (that it happened, not how it happened).
Turn it any way you like - but concluding I am ‘happy to sit by and watch’ as people being killed is an outrageous claim and an insult by itself; I consider it worst than someone calling me names.
You could have spared us (me) that statement because the way you phrased it was implying and conveying a message as described above.
And for someone who claims to know about nuances and scemantics I don’t buy it if you claim that it was not meant as such.
Fuck off. If you want me to explain something ask a question next time.
There is nothing in that statement that asked me to explain and the remark that followed it doesn’t really call for me to explain anything either. Just to remind you of what you actually wrote:
[quote][i]On a different note, its nice to see that you are indeed consistent. You are apparently just as happy to sit and watch poor Sudanese be killed and starved and displaced as you were watching the same happen to poor Iraqis.
You get points, though, for being consistent. Good for you![/i][/quote]
Unfortunately that assumption shows that you did not understand my arguments or that you choose to ignore them.
If the latter doesn’t apply I suggest you go back and read my last 2000 posts or so (here in the IP forum).
I said there is nothing in what I have said that would let you to conclude I am happy to sit back and see people getting killed.
There is a nuance in the English language that relates a sentence that follows another to it’s precursor (?) … re-read it and you will see.
That would depend on the kind of interference.
For all the reasons mentioned before. In a nut shell, and I have said this before, too, I had no objection against ousting Saddam but I do not agree with the means that were used (i.e. the invasion).
Perhaps you can do so without your insulting assumptions and implications in future?
Whatever. I’m just waiting for you to explain your stance(s).
Goodness, Rascal! I have asked you. This is the third time, I think.
[quote=“Rascal”]There is nothing in that statement that asked me to explain and the remark that followed it doesn’t really call for me to explain anything either. Just to remind you of what you actually wrote:
[quote][i]On a different note, its nice to see that you are indeed consistent. You are apparently just as happy to sit and watch poor Sudanese be killed and starved and displaced as you were watching the same happen to poor Iraqis.
You get points, though, for being consistent. Good for you![/i][/quote][/quote]
Like I said… “apparently”. That leaves room for you to explain that things are not always as they “appear” to be. The ball is in your court. Are you going to shoot, or just dribble?
I’ve already admitted to not understanding them. That’s why I’ve been asking you to explain yourself.
Oh, Lord no. That would be torture!
[quote=“Rascal”]I said there is nothing in what I have said that would let you to conclude I am happy to sit back and see people getting killed.
There is a nuance in the English language that relates a sentence that follows another to it’s precursor (?) … re-read it and you will see.[/quote]
It now “appears” to me that you are dodging the question. Here it is AGAIN:
Please explain.
How should Saddam have been removed?
Perhaps some insults are in the eye only of the beholder?
Keep on waiting - since you have shown extreme prejudice I don’t really see what else I should say that you want to hear. I believe you are just lurking for a wrong word to play your little games of scemantics and nuances - and I am actually very tired of those.
And if you like you can claim I am dodging this question - no disagreement - I chose not to answer it (and don’t bother to ask for a reason because it’s explained above).
No goodness here, because you did not ask the first time but instead implied that I am happy […] based on the following definite accusation:
“… as you were watching the same happen to poor Iraqis.” Doesn’t look to me as you are asking for an explanation here but instead have made up your mind already as to what stance I have. There is no ‘aparantly’ after ‘you’ in that part of the sentence - so much for nuances.
You want an explanations then ask a direct question or ask properly and not with a statement that has an insulting overtone followed by a stupid remark.
By phrasing a request for an explanation the way you did you should not be surprised if you don’t get an answer.
[quote]I’ve already admitted to not understanding them. That’s why I’ve been asking you to explain yourself.
[quote]Rascal wrote:
If the latter doesn’t apply I suggest you go back and read my last 2000 posts or so (here in the IP forum). [/quote]
Oh, Lord no. That would be torture![/quote]
Not as bad as having to read 1000 of fred’s posts.
No, my statement was in clear reference to being happy to sit back […]and you replied to that. No dodging here, just pointing out that your response was not related to the part you quoted.
Define ‘interference’ first - there are too many different types that could be considered interference, so I don’t want to run at a risk that you pick the defintion you seem fit after I give an answer.
Is this a TV show here? Repeats, repeats, repeats. Short answer: from the inside or by death of unnatural causes.
Anything really that would not include (but not be limited to) a) starting an agressive war without UNSC backing, b) be based primarily on claims other than humanitarian concerns and c) inevitably would cause thousands to die (or all of the above).
The fact remains - this was was started primarily on the WMD claim, humanitarian concerns ranked way below. Those are just pushed into the foreground after other the WMD/threat argument failed to prove being justified (gotta say this to stay at least a bit on topic).
Given that the US has never shown any interest in invading another country for humanitarian reasons alone I think you can’t fault anyone for thinking it is very hypocritical of the US to claim mainly humanitarian reasons now.
If the US had invaded other countries for that purpose (note: I am not saying it should) regardless of backing by others or the UN perhaps I could believe you. But the fact that the US also supported governements, directly or indirectly, that are guilty of crimes against humanity (torture, genocide etc.) does not support a view in favour of the US.
So fred, there is your answer: the extreme hypocrisy is my beef.
Rascal:
You can say that the US SHOULD have gone through the UNSC even though the actions of several of its actors including the secretary general, Russian, French, German and Chinese ambassadors were compromised by their close business relations with Saddam. I would say that Germany and France SHOULD have supported the US since most of the EU did and they have commited themselves to joint EU foreign policy (except apparently when it crosses their interests).
Given that Germany and France and America and the UK did NOT get UNSC approval for Bosnia or Kosovo, I am surprised at your outrage now.
Given that thousands of people were dying under Saddam and the corruption for the Oil for Food program and given that most of the 10,000 Iraqis who have died now were not killed by Americans or coalition forces, I fail to understand your concerns NOW for innocent civilian life.
AND given that Sudan presents an interesting test case for those who claim that they want the UN to play a central role, then I would have to wonder why those voices have not been actively heard on the Sudan thread.
Finally, given that Germany, France, Russia, China and the UN have now approved the US action and the new government in Iraq, what remains to bitch about? Unless of course, the sole purpose was to bash the US of A, which you have consistently managed to do in a rather desperately pathetic way. Sort of like my efforts to tar the French, but I do not see your other postermates rising to criticize you for your ridiculous anti-Americanism.
So once again your lack of concern cannot be determined just because you fail to express outrage or post about an issue, but you are outraged when this is brought to your attention and you find it insulting. Hah!
I am not 100% certain but I doubt there is such a joint EU foreign policy yet as you portray it, things are in work and the members are still represented individually at the UN.
What makes you think that I had no concern for those killed by Saddam given that I have earlier expressed my agreement for ridding Iraq from Saddam and just repeated / confirmed the very same in my post before?
You are following the tiger’s trail: by highlighting of ‘NOW’ you portray a very unfair view of me as you a) disregard the fact that I actually have expressed my view about this before b) imply that I did not care - both which is not true and you must have been aware of that.
Many reasons I can think of (off?). I however chose not to participate in that thread and will keep the reasons to myself.
I will ignore the rest of your argument as this does not directly relate to the role of the US in Iraq - as mentioned so many times before former actions by other countries do not justify nor excuse what the US does NOW.
So fred, how about you try to actually address the arguments by others rather than sidetracking and excusing things with “but look what Germany did more than 50 years ago” and “we killed less, so what’s your problem” arguments.
Do you think that will ever be possible or do you still wish to portray a view that you brandmark others because of their nationality and assume/imply they are as evil as two generations earlier and always in entire agreement with their former and/or current government?
As said before I do not believe that this was brought to my attention for answering or explaining but rather Tigerman had reached already a prejudiced conclusion.
Perhaps you fail to see the difference here though I must ask to make sure: is it possible that you are biased and distort things to provoke?
Who’s talking about Germany 50 years ago. I want to know why you sold Saddam 64.5 percent of his wmds before the first Gulf War. I want to know why you only post on anti-American threads and never on other ones if you are as concerned about the Sudanese and Iraqi people as you claim you are. I want to know why the US government is a subject of outrage to you but the very organization you look to lead the world, the UN gets nothing despite its gross injustice, corruption and incompetence. Factors that were absolutely crucial in the inability of the US to get a security council resolution authorizing use of force. You can refuse to supply reasons for these but in the absence of your answer, what other choice do we have but to conclude that you do not truly care about the Sudanese or the Iraqis in that it provides you with no opportunity to bash America.
Ooooohhhh…
Why so cryptic, Rascal? What have you to hide?
Tigerman:
Rascal is desperately flailing around trying to escape having to answer for his blatant anti-Americanism. If the US were in fact invading Sudan, then he would be busy posting away but without US action, Rascal has nothing to say because the only reason he posts is to bash America, but what about those 64.5 percent of Saddam’s wmds Germany sold? What about Germany’s pre-emptive force treaty with France? What about Germany’s lack of support for the Iraqi people? and nothing for Sudan? What about it Rascal? Are Germans racist? Don’t black people matter? What conclusions can we draw?
Fred,
Please note that my new title is “The Magnificent Tigerman”.