Chirac, Schroeder tell Kerry to F*** Off

Politics International Politics
21

[quote=“fred smith”]Traveller:

Are you asleep at the switch. I said we were off target a long time ago, but the 90k was for 1.5 years after the invasion. We are only there now. So we are at 130K for US troops. Big fucking deal, an extra 40K men for a few more months longer? Gosh, guess we have totally lost our credibility then but how about this art looted from the museum? How come we don’t hear about that anymore. If the media could present that as such a disaster when the truth was so very different, what makes you think that we can count on any of those organizations for any credibility. So are you still listening to the media the same one with all the what ifs that have never come to pass as the main source of your knowledge of what is going on in Iraq? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and then that just makes me a F***ing poor excuse for no brains leftist Chomskyite wonder. haha[/quote]

Fred, so government figures were out by nearly 50% and all you can say is “big fucking deal”. All that does Fred is prove you are willing to accept any crap given out by your administration, sad for a man of your intellect.

22

Well the difference now is 40k troops. That is how much we are off schedule. So in wars things happen. I also notice that many government programs cost a lot more than they were originally supposed to. I notice that many education and training programs do not work as they are supposed to as well. So what’s your answer. You must really go ballistic over the weather report! BUT given Bush’s inaccuracies compared with the far greater number by the “objective” media, why are you still believing anything you read in the papers or see on TV at all anymore? Curious that you find Bush’s one or two flaws so worthy of contempt and abuse when the press has been far far far more wrong on so many more occasions. Nicht war?

23

But Fred, the press, weather reporters etc, are not running a country or starting wars, thus the impact of those inaccuracies are a little less important.

What is the cost of those 40k troops plus support elements to the US economy, money that could be spent in other areas.

24

Well if you are so worried about what Americans are spending for those extra 40k troops, why not send another 10k yourself? Why not send us some money to stabilize the region? After all, it is no longer about the US but helping Iraq, yet france and germany do not seem to want to do anything at all. What do you think of that kind of world leadership? Incredibly, Germany seems to think it deseserves a seat on the security council at the UN. I say give it to all four nations and let them have the whole worthless organization. Unless the UN is credible, what is the point of being on or off the security council?

and I disagree. The press is very much an active political participant in this year’s US presidential election. Their sloppy and biased reporting are having a toll on morale especially in Iraq. They have encouraged and supported the enemy or don’t you see it that way? I mean if they stir up anger and resentment in the Arab and Muslim world with their tales of museum lootings and children and women killed and prisoners tortured, what would you call that? Responsible journalism? No. We know that 90% of journalists in America are left leaning and that most European journalists are similar. Their constant preaching sends a message and one that they are committed as journalists to be objective about. How would you rate their reporting?

25

[quote=“fred smith”]Well if you are so worried about what Americans are spending for those extra 40k troops, why not send another 10k yourself? Why not send us some money to stabilize the region? After all, it is no longer about the US but helping Iraq, yet France and Germany do not seem to want to do anything at all. What do you think of that kind of world leadership? Incredibly, Germany seems to think it deseserves a seat on the security council at the UN. I say give it to all four nations and let them have the whole worthless organization. Unless the UN is credible, what is the point of being on or off the security council?

and I disagree. The press is very much an active political participant in this year’s US presidential election. Their sloppy and biased reporting are having a toll on morale especially in Iraq. They have encouraged and supported the enemy or don’t you see it that way? I mean if they stir up anger and resentment in the Arab and Muslim world with their tales of museum lootings and children and women killed and prisoners tortured, what would you call that? Responsible journalism? No. We know that 90% of journalists in America are left leaning and that most European journalists are similar. Their constant preaching sends a message and one that they are committed as journalists to be objective about. How would you rate their reporting?[/quote]

Fred, as usual you manage to miss or ignore the obvious meaning of the post. It is not the money per se - although that would be a factor - but the principle behind it all. Stop be so damn obtuse

26

What principle are you referring to? Invasions without UN permission like Kosovo and Bosnia or invading a country for pre-emptive strikes or invading a country to deal with a humanitarian issue in violation of said nation’s sovereignty? And if which one a, b or c then why weren’t you so outraged before and why didn’t these principles apply? er the same ones that would have and should have gotten the UN to act like it is now in Sudan. Very confusing.

27

So the media got it “all” wrong because of the museum, huh? See if you can blame the following statement about looting and troop deployment on the media:

[quote]L. Paul Bremer, speaking Monday at the opening session of the 91st annual Insurance Leadership Forum in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, said “horrid” looting was occurring when he arrived in Baghdad on May 6, 2003.

“We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said. "We never had enough troops on the ground.”
[/quote]
cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/ … index.html

28

Fred, you incompletist, you were wrong! As usual! It’s not just Chirac and Schroeder, Iran’s Khameini told Kerry to F*** OFF too!

Iran Rejects Kerry Nuclear Proposal
Iran on Sunday rejected a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability.

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be “irrational” for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.

“We have the technology (to make nuclear fuel) and there is no need for us to beg from others,” Asefi told a weekly news conference.

29

Well let’s see major critics of the war:

We are facing more lawlessness and an insurgency that we did not expect all true, but we also defeated Saddam a lot faster than we expected: 3 weeks instead of three months and we faced no major fighting in the cities as predicted though we are now and we have lost 1,050 men to date rather than the 20,000 that was predicted in the war. Guess what? In wars, the overall end strategy is what matters now the hiccups down the line. Let’s see how things pan out with regard to cleaning up Iraq before the elections. So many gloom and doom scenarios. And it was not just that the media was wrong about the looting of the museum, they have been wrong about everything from quagmires to stalingrads to no restoration of power and water to no constitution to no handover of government to civil war to Turkish invasion of Kurdistan, etc. etc. etc.

So we are 40K over target and that 90K target was more of a best case scenario with the proviso that if more troops were required then more trrops would be sent. That was our target. Where is anything like this ever written in stone?

And if that is how you want to judge governments, how about this then. Did Germany’s actions in Bosnia and Slovenia and Croatia meet its objectives or did it start a civil war that is still being fought today.

Remember the noble goals of restoring democracy to Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.? How are you guys doing? Any democracy in Bosnia? Any troop pull backs or are you just as stuck there as you were nearly 10 years ago? We are at 1.5 years and we have passed over more government control to the Iraqis then has been done in Bosnia (9 years) and Kosovo (5 years) so would you like to compare records on the American and European approaches to these problems? It was precisely because the European style approach was taking so long and becoming so “permanent” that the US wanted to have a lighter footprint in Iraq. We may have been wrong in the sense that the insurgency is stronger and has been more disastrous but perhaps we have also forced the Iraqis to wake up and deal with this a lot faster and therefore we may be out of Iraq a lot sooner than the Europeans and all their precious efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo. Wanna bet?

30

Hah! Fred, I see that you are ignoring my point in the above as usual. Just like Fred always does, he states incomplete “facts” and ignores it when people point out his omissions. But I will not be silenced or ignored on this! Once again, I state:

Iran joins France and Germany in telling Kerry to F*** OFF!

31

[color=red]
Iran joins France and Germany in telling Kerry to F*** OFF!
[/color]

[color=darkblue]
and Fred Smith tells Kerry to F*** off as well[/color]

[color=cyan]How’s that for being an imcompletist?!!![/color]

32

I think you’ve misinterpreted the article. They want nothing to do with Iraq. :s[/quote]

Well, for Germany and France it sounds very tempting and challenging to take part in cleaning up the mess we said there would be in Irak. First we tell Bush “do not do it and you get chaos” now he did it and now we should help cleaning up.

Really, sounds like a good idea. It is like I tell my neighbour not to drink that whole bottle of rum, then he does and later asks me if I can help him cleaning the vomit from his shirt.

I say: " Well, sounds good, but … unfortunately … I must reject ".

33

good example bob
even i prefer whiskey over rum

34

[quote=“Rascal”]So the media got it “all” wrong because of the museum, huh? See if you can blame the following statement about looting and troop deployment on the media:

[quote]L. Paul Bremer, speaking Monday at the opening session of the 91st annual Insurance Leadership Forum in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, said “horrid” looting was occurring when he arrived in Baghdad on May 6, 2003.

“We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said. "We never had enough troops on the ground.”
[/quote]
CNN.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/ … index.html[/quote]

yes, Rascal… the media did get it all wrong… again.

Bremer’s own interpretation of his own comments differs from the media reports… Bremer claimed the coalition was shorthanded when it arrived in Baghdad. He subsequently stated the following:

Bremer has stated now that all references in recent speeches to troop levels related to the situation when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 – and when he believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting.

It is important to remember that the US military arrived in Baghdad in May 2003 with only half of the force originally intended. The 4th Infantry Division was scheduled to attack downward from Turkey and sweep through the Sunni heartland. However, it never arrived due to the objections from countries such as… France… in the UN Security Council.

Rather, the 4th ID had to go around to the Gulf and then march north up the Tigris following the 3rd ID. The 3rd ID, meanwhile, had to continue its attack north to assist in securing the towns in the Sunni triangle. Thus, not only was the 4th ID missing from the battle, the 3rd ID had to send units out of Baghdad in order to continue the fight elsewhere.

So, yes… the media did, once again, get the story wrong. And you, apparantly, were duped again too. :laughing:

35

[quote=“bob_honest”]Well, for Germany and France it sounds very tempting and challenging to take part in cleaning up the mess we said there would be in Irak. First we tell Bush “do not do it and you get chaos” now he did it and now we should help cleaning up.

Really, sounds like a good idea. It is like I tell my neighbour not to drink that whole bottle of rum, then he does and later asks me if I can help him cleaning the vomit from his shirt.

I say: " Well, sounds good, but … unfortunately … I must reject ".[/quote]

How convenient.

Tell us then, what excuse do Germany and France have for sitting on their collective thumbs while the messes were created in Rwanda and in the Sudan? Your analogy doesn’t apply in those places, yet, your behavior is the same.

36

[quote=“Tigerman”]

How convenient.

Tell us then, what excuse do Germany and France have for sitting on their collective thumbs while the messes were created in Rwanda and in the Sudan? Your analogy doesn’t apply in those places, yet, your behavior is the same.[/quote]

just let me add this one, as France is always accused of cooperation with Iraq:

“The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.”

from
gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

showing the Saddam / Rumsfeld picture:

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

Regarding Sudan, all western governements share the same opinion.
France had send troups several times to african countries to stop slaughtering.

37

Bob Honest:

What were the German and French plans for dealing with Saddam? Well, let’s see

Germany sold him 50 percent of his nuclear, missile and chemical weapons equipment. France another 5 percent with German types in Switzerland another 8% and Austria another 4 to 5%. Compare this with 3.5 percent for both UK and US and mostly computer related equipment that “could” be used for dual purposes. Most of the German stuff was for direct use not “dual use” which is why Iran is only suing one country: Germany. In addition, all US/UK was sold in 1982-3 when Iran looked set to take Basra.

For conventional, it is Russia 59%, France 13%, China 12%, Poland 8%, Czech Republic 7% and US and UK less than 1% each all sold again during the 1982-3 period.

Finally, in the corrupt Oil for Food program who is most visible? The leadership of the UN and the French, Russian ambassadors as well as certain peace activists like Galloway in the UK and the former Interior Minister of France. Now, why was it these nations did not get involved? or why did they actively oppose? Look at the list, then look at the major opposition:

France
Germany
UN
Russia
China

Detect a pattern here? I for one cannot. What can it all mean? Do you think the French, UN, Russians, Germans and Chinese were all in up to their necks in arming, supplying and milking the system and benefited greatly from having Saddam remain in power? No. Really?

38

[quote=“fred smith”]Bob Honest:

Germany sold him 50 percent of his nuclear, missile and chemical weapons equipment. [/quote]

yes, most western countries supported Iraq, including USA and with agreement of the Nato. Revenge against Iran is one keyword here.

By the way, Germany has sent soldiers (special forces) to Afganistan, former Yugoslavia, Somalia and other countries.

We just rejected to attack Iraq, as it was not involved in 9.11 and we saw the danger the after-war chaos would support radical islam groups there. Worst scenario: Iraq falls to Bin-Laden friends.

If I would list all dirty thrid-world dictators which had been supported by USA, I would need a long list.

Politics is a dirty business. But you must respect the decision of sovereign countries not to attack anybody the are told.

Tell me: do you like the Rumsfeld / Saddam picture or not?
I think you soon tell me it is not Rumsfeld, but the french president with a mask :smiley:

39

I don’t see how the media got it wrong or how I (or anyone else) has been duped when it’s an actual quote? Neither I nor the media related the quote I posted to the situation [n]now[/b] (see further below, too).
Thus, assuming he has been quoted correctly, he does admit that a) there was “horrid” looting and that he claims the troops at the time (when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003) were not sufficient.

That he was referring to his arrival in May 2003 should be obvious from the first paragraph in the quote I posted where Bremer states the same.

The reason why I posted the above was to show that looting did indeed happen, something fred constantly denies or at least downplays by citing the inaccuracy of the reports about the museum only while ignoring all the other cases of looting.

40

I don’t see how the media got it wrong or how I (or anyone else) has been duped when it’s an actual quote? Neither I nor the media related the quote I posted to the situation now (see also further below).
Thus, assuming he has been quoted correctly, he does admit that a) there was “horrid” looting and that he claims the troops at the time (when he arrived in Baghdad in May 2003) were not sufficient.

That he was referring to his arrival in May 2003 should be obvious from the first paragraph in the quote I posted where Bremer states the same.

The reason why I posted the above was to show that looting did indeed happen, something fred constantly denies or at least downplays by citing the inaccuracy of the reports about the museum only while ignoring all the other cases of looting.