NationStates Jolt Archive

From Max's site - http://www.maxbarry.com/

There’s no question in my mind that George W. Bush has been great for democracy. Previously, a lot of people were becoming disillusioned with mainstream politics, frustrated at having to choose between one corporate-backed rich white guy with good hair and another, slightly different-looking corporate-backed rich white guy with good hair. The feeling was: “What difference does it make if I vote? They’re all the same. What will one guy do that the other won’t?”

Thanks to Bush, now we know. He’s like a walking object lesson in the importance of voter turnout.

I’m Australian, but one of the greatest things I’ve ever seen was a rally outside City Hall in New York in 1999 to protest the police shooting of Amandou Diallo. Thousands of people voicing their grief and outrage… all quietly and competently supervised by the target of their protest, the NYPD. In plenty of countries, the cops would have been beating the crap out of those protestors. In the others, the protesters would have been throwing rocks at the cops and setting their cruisers on fire. But not in the United States. It was, to me, not just impressive but almost magical.

Then there was September 11. In the aftermath, there was a global outpouring of grief and sympathy for Americans—and more than that, of allegiance. If you lived in the US, you might not have noticed this. Your attention was, of course, focused inward. But it was there, and it was extraordinary. It was overwhelming. What I heard over and over was, “Today, we are all Americans.” Throughout the world, people wanted to stand by the US.

I wonder now what might have happened if the war on terrorism had chiefly been a diplomatic one. If the Bush administration had defined what terrorism was and called the world together to expunge it—not just in one country or two, but globally, and no matter in which cause it was employed. In 2001, with that incredible worldwide feeling of unity… maybe it was possible to take that act of great evil and extract from it a great good.

But it’s not possible now. That global unity is gone, and in its place is cynicism and mistrust. It happened because George W. Bush told the world it was irrelevant. As the war on terrorism morphed into an invasion of Iraq, Bush and his administration said it again and again: “You either agree with us or you are meaningless.” Maybe it was ignorance of the importance of international diplomacy. Maybe it was arrogance. Maybe it was even realistic. But one thing’s for sure: the world had offered its hand in solidarity and it didn’t like having it slapped away.

Opinion of the US has fallen so low that America is now widely viewed as the greatest threat to world peace—not just by people in “Axis of Evil” countries, or Muslim countries, but by majority populations in Western countries, like Australia, that are staunch US allies and have troops in Iraq right now. That sounds absurd if you live in the States, I know. But to understand it, imagine you don’t. Imagine it’s China that has more military power than the next 20 countries plus yours combined; China’s new government that rapidly cancels international treaties on everything from anti-missile proliferation to global warming; that announces it has no use nor care for world opinion; that conquers two countries in two years and hints of more to come; China that says other countries must choose to either support it without question or be “with the terrorists;” and China’s new President who describes entire nations as “evil” and his country’s military operations in religious terms.

I hate how the US is viewed by the world today. America is a truly great country, and doesn’t deserve to be considered deceitful, dangerous, arrogant, and greedy. But it is, because in the eyes of the world, George W. Bush is the US. It’s not as if we foreigners watch CNN. All we know about American politics is who’s President and how many bombs he’s dropping on other countries.

Which is why I hope like hell that John Kerry wins the election this November. If he does, people around the world won’t know it had anything to do with who had the better service record, or was more credible on jobs. But they’ll think, “Maybe Americans didn’t agree with Bush after all.” They’ll think, “Maybe they’re not all like him.” They’ll think, “Maybe we can stand together again.”


One of the best essays I've seen on the matter of George the Terrible :)

*gasp* And all this time I thought max was a Conservative!!1!

:P j/k

I like the tshirt that simply says "I bet you'll vote this time hippy"

I like the tshirt that simply says "I bet you'll vote this time hippy"

:lol:

Well said max.
Bush Out!

Very interesting essay,,,but i'm still voting for Dubya.

Kerry is a whimp and the US needs Bush to continue the Wars in Iraq and the other place. (i dont feel like butchering the spelling)

If the US pulls out of Iraq it will prove that the US can not finish what it started and this will be very bad for the US, and terrorists will think they have won.

And besides,,,even thought Max created this awsome website,,if you don't live in the USA, i don't really care what your views are on our country and who runs it.

I hate when people who don't even live in the US criticize us.

:wink: sorry to piss off the hard-core Max cult fans, but thats how i feel. :wink:

"I hate when people who don't even live in the US criticize us."

I'll state upfront that I disagreed with most of what you had to say, but this little quip just put me over the top. What exactly do you mean by that? People who don't 'even' live in the US aren't allowed to voice criticism of the US?

First, what a wonderfully democratic - nay, American - concept! Some people don't have the right to dissent! Great. I find the very premise of your statement morally repugnant.

Second, what does being a US resident or not being a US resident have to do with the right to express an opinion about the US? Are you suggesting that only people living in the US are affected by the US? Forgive me, but it seems obvious to me that citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations where we station troops, all nations with which we engage in trade, and all nations with which we maintain diplomatic relations are to greater or lesser degrees affected by US political, economic, and military actions. They have every right to complain when the actions of a foreign nation have the power to change whole governments, reorder world politics, create and destroy whole national industries. How else will they bring their grievances, if not through voicing their complaints? They can't vote.

Third, are you suggesting that only US residents can truly understand America, and all others have biased foreign views? I would suggest people outside the US may have a more accurate picture of what the US presence in the world means than you do. You may go through life blithely believing that our nation is a shining city on the hill, symbolizing peace, liberty and freedom - and you might be right, as Max's story of police protestors indicates. But the citizens of such nations as Nicaragua, Vietnam, and Cambodia are acquainted with another side of the US - and their perspective is just as valid as yours.

Understanding and accepting that the US is not always right, and not always good, doesn't make me less of an patriotic American. Opening your ears to the unhappy voices of those who 'don't even live in the US' might make you a better one.

Wow! awsome, it's kinda like he read my mind. Go Max :D

There is already 1 anti-bush thread on the front page:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141064

Shouldn't this topic be discussed there? :)

There is already 1 anti-bush thread on the front page:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141064

Shouldn't this topic be discussed there? :)
Don't push your luck.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

What i meant by that post and specifically the one you posted about, was this:

America is hated by many countires because Amercians are genreally arrogant, like myself. I admit that. Many Americans believe we are the best and that is because we are the best.

Certain people like the hard-core muslims are the ones that piss me off, because they are so stuck their religious views that everything else is a blind spot.

Hasn't anyone noticed that almost all nations ruled by a Theological way of government just don't work. Example, the Taliban.

These are the people that piss me off, and certain other people do as well.

The French...not all French are bad,,but a vast mageroty are.

Just because they helped us in the Revelutionary war they think we owe them big time,,,even though we bailed them out twice,,WW1 WW2.

What im trying to get at is that nations and people from other nations who don't understand what it feels like to be an American should not rip our leaders apart.

Free speach is great, and so are opions and everyone can have one, but they need to realise that the US has helped way more nations in the world than alot of others we consider allies.

I hate when people who don't even live in the US criticize us.Yeah, cos the US normally keeps its judgements to itself :roll:

Just because they helped us in the Revelutionary war they think we owe them big time,,,even though we bailed them out twice,,WW1 WW2.America is the only one who EVER referances that, and I don't know who you mean when you say "we", because I highly doubt you were even born then.

Many Americans believe we are the best and that is because we are the best.

Certain people like the hard-core muslims are the ones that piss me off, because they are so stuck their religious views that everything else is a blind spot.
I do not believe that it is necessary to make any explicit argument to counter these comments. I think I will simply emphasise them and allow people to savour their abundant irony themselves. :)

Just because they helped us in the Revelutionary war they think we owe them big time,,,even though we bailed them out twice,,WW1 WW2.America is the only one who EVER referances that, and I don't know who you mean when you say "we", because I highly doubt you were even born then.
And the way that that is followed by this...
What im trying to get at is that nations and people from other nations who don't understand what it feels like to be an American should not rip our leaders apart.
...just blows my mind.

Many Americans believe we are the best and that is because we are the best.

Certain people like the hard-core muslims are the ones that piss me off, because they are so stuck their religious views that everything else is a blind spot.
I do not believe that it is necessary to make any explicit argument to counter these comments. I think I will simply emphasise them and allow people to savour their abundant irony themselves. :)Oh come on. Name one religious reason for this war that was not backed up by common american sense of morality and duty.

There is nothing religious in nature about htis war.

So our president prays. Who cares? So do most americans!

Many Americans believe we are the best and that is because we are the best.

Certain people like the hard-core muslims are the ones that piss me off, because they are so stuck their religious views that everything else is a blind spot.
I do not believe that it is necessary to make any explicit argument to counter these comments. I think I will simply emphasise them and allow people to savour their abundant irony themselves. :)Oh come on. Name one religious reason for this war that was not backed up by common american sense of morality and duty.

There is nothing religious in nature about htis war.

So our president prays. Who cares? So do most americans!
This get better and better. You could not have missed my point by a wider margin! :lol:

And the way that that is followed by this...
What im trying to get at is that nations and people from other nations who don't understand what it feels like to be an American should not rip our leaders apart.
...just blows my mind.
Whoa. Do you think he is trying to suggest that Americans are in some way special? :shock:

Whoa. Do you think he is trying to suggest that Americans are in some way special? :shock:

:lol: Thanks for the laugh TG

Many Americans believe we are the best and that is because we are the best.

Certain people like the hard-core muslims are the ones that piss me off, because they are so stuck their religious views that everything else is a blind spot.
I do not believe that it is necessary to make any explicit argument to counter these comments. I think I will simply emphasise them and allow people to savour their abundant irony themselves. :)Oh come on. Name one religious reason for this war that was not backed up by common american sense of morality and duty.

There is nothing religious in nature about htis war.

So our president prays. Who cares? So do most americans!I think it was the "stuck in @@TYPE@@ views that everything else is a blindspot.

Ah come on Grace, don't dismiss the guy so blantantly...

I think the point hes Making CC is that the President seems to blur his Faith with his leadership. This makes a lot of Americans Queasy. A quote from Woodwards ne Book, in which he asked:
"Mr President, did you ever feel the need to discuss the war with your Father?" the response was.
"Well, I feel the only Father I need to be ok with, is the Holy Father"

The reason things like this make some people upset, is because it fuels Msuliems extreams views that this is a holy war against Islam.. it may NOT be that in your view.. but A devout president can make it 'Seem' that way to extreemists.

And the way that that is followed by this...
What im trying to get at is that nations and people from other nations who don't understand what it feels like to be an American should not rip our leaders apart.
...just blows my mind.
Whoa. Do you think he is trying to suggest that Americans are in some way special? :shock:That can't be. For they hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal.

Very interesting essay,,,but i'm still voting for Dubya.

Kerry is a whimp and the US needs Bush to continue the Wars in Iraq and the other place. (i dont feel like butchering the spelling)

If the US pulls out of Iraq it will prove that the US can not finish what it started and this will be very bad for the US, and terrorists will think they have won.

And besides,,,even thought Max created this awsome website,,if you don't live in the USA, i don't really care what your views are on our country and who runs it.

I hate when people who don't even live in the US criticize us.

:wink: sorry to piss off the hard-core Max cult fans, but thats how i feel. :wink:

see? so self centered that he feels that no one is allowed to have an opinion of the usa. YOU CANT EVEN SPELL AFGHANISTAN?!?!?! oh yea, and you must have been brainwashed by CNN or something because terrorists have nothing to do with Iraq, however we are doing a very good job of convincing terrorists to go against us. by the way GO BACK TO TEXAS WHERE YOU BELONG

You want a relgious reason?

The only reason the terrorists are attacking US troops is because Americans (christians,jews,etc) are considered the infedels to their religion. (muslim,duh.)

This goes back to the Crusades. The main reason why the muslims hate us is because the christians started the crusades and the pope who ordered the first crusade said to kill all the infedels. At that time the infedels were considered the jews and muslims.

The muslims also believe the christians are infereior because of our belief in the holy trinity. God, the son, and the holy spirit.

Muslims believe in one and only one God.

Again, the muslims hate America because of how we objectify women, allow them to vote, and how we all around act is against thier religion.

you have a very good point, bracia. maybe they hate us because we are just all morons?

Again, the muslims hate America because of how we objectify women, allow them to vote, and how we all around act is against thier religion. All Msuliems? Everywhere? Unf, PLease do not generalize, The Extreamist in the Musliem world are a tiny tiny majority. Please don't tell me that These views of Hate are standard Doctrin for the Musliem Faith.

But thats going way way off topic...

Techmainia, im not from Texas,,i'm from Pennsylvania,, and in that case, im from a big city called Philadelphia, so i'm no wheres near any rances. Sorry, nice try tho.

And i din't fell like typing and spelling Afghanistam wrong. I'ts a weird word.

You want a relgious reason?

The only reason the terrorists are attacking US troops is because Americans (christians,jews,etc) are considered the infedels to their religion. (muslim,duh.)

This goes back to the Crusades. The main reason why the muslims hate us is because the christians started the crusades and the pope who ordered the first crusade said to kill all the infedels. At that time the infedels were considered the jews and muslims.

The muslims also believe the christians are infereior because of our belief in the holy trinity. God, the son, and the holy spirit.

Muslims believe in one and only one God.

Again, the muslims hate America because of how we objectify women, allow them to vote, and how we all around act is against thier religion.Bollocks. Of course they weren't keen on the crusades, but something slightly more recent why they might hate the west: dropping a million Jews in their holy land and then supporting them while they kill Arabs without consequences. If you think its about the crusades, why not take it back further, to Isaac and Ishmal? Its about land more than race. Its about murders more than religion. Its about an invading army taking over their country more than its about what the pope said a millenium ago.

Ah come on Grace, don't dismiss the guy so blantantly...

I think the point hes Making CC is that the President seems to blur his Faith with his leadership. This makes a lot of Americans Queasy. A quote from Woodwards ne Book, in which he asked:
"Mr President, did you ever feel the need to discuss the war with your Father?" the response was.
"Well, I feel the only Father I need to be ok with, is the Holy Father"

The reason things like this make some people upset, is because it fuels Msuliems extreams views that this is a holy war against Islam.. it may NOT be that in your view.. but A devout president can make it 'Seem' that way to extreemists....so what? It's because of quotes like that that people are going to vote for him!

You do realize Bush actually liked Woodward's book, right? The book says a lot of good stuff about the right... despite what the booksellers spin :P

Liberal books sell well, so they've been passing this off as a lib book... when in fact, it hardly is :P

You want a relgious reason?

The only reason the terrorists are attacking US troops is because Americans (christians,jews,etc) are considered the infedels to their religion. (muslim,duh.)

This goes back to the Crusades. The main reason why the muslims hate us is because the christians started the crusades and the pope who ordered the first crusade said to kill all the infedels. At that time the infedels were considered the jews and muslims.

The muslims also believe the christians are infereior because of our belief in the holy trinity. God, the son, and the holy spirit.

Muslims believe in one and only one God.

Again, the muslims hate America because of how we objectify women, allow them to vote, and how we all around act is against thier religion.

Whoa, man. No need to go charging off to the late 11th century to find a reason, or to claim that "they hate our freedoms". There's plenty more that are much more recent. Let's try: ordinary Iraqis, today. Why might they hate America and the West?

1) We all spent 20 years supporting Saddam Hussein, propping up his brutal dictatorship and donating the WMDs he went on to use against thousands of his own people. Not much fun for the ordinary Iraqis.
2) We then bombed the living crap out of his (mostly unwilling conscript) army in Gulf War 1, killing tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqis -- sons, brothers, husbands, fathers.
3) We then suggested to the southern Shias that they might like to rise up against Saddam. They did. We stood aside, tutting, as Saddam's US-made helicopter gunships crushed the uprising.
4) We imposed a decade of crippling sanctions on them. Hands up anyone who thinks that Saddam suffered because of this? Anyone? How about the suffering of the ordinary Iraqis?
5) We launch Gulf War 2: This Time It's Personal. After some shock 'n' awe and a few stray missiles here and there -- which kill some ordinary Iraqis -- we pile in. Again, most of the Iraqi soldiers we kill are unwilling conscripts, terrified of what Saddam's thugs might do to their families if they try to surrender or desert. But Saddam's regime is toppled.
6) Extensive banditry and looting break out, and water and power supplied to the ordinary Iraqis fail. US troops immediately rush to secure the oilfields and oil ministeries.
7) Banditry and looting gets worse, especially after the US authorities disband the Iraqi army, cancel their pay and pensions, but let them keep their guns (swift!). Coalition troops seem incapable of dealing with it, or of getting the water and power back on again. But boy, just watch them hand out those contracts! Halliburton makes out like a bandit: ordinary Iraqis have more traditional bandits to worry about.
8] With the underpaid Iraqi police and security forces under daily assault, hundreds desert and join the inevitable bands of fanatics, criminals and resistance fighters that have sprung up everywhere. Coalition troops pump artillery into populated areas as whole towns defect. Ordinary Iraqis suffer.
9) Watch this space...

See? No need to leap straight for the Middle Ages.

4) We imposed a decade of crippling sanctions on them. Hands up anyone who thinks that Saddam suffered because of this? Anyone? How about the suffering of the ordinary Iraqis?Obviously you have not heard of the UN Oil for Food scandal yet. The UN went around our sanctions to allow Saddam to keep exporting oil so that he could give food to his people... but of course, Saddam didn't, because he was evil, and he took the money for himself, and later used it to buy off france and the rest of them so that they wouldn't join the coalition in our war we have right now.

A few of the Arabs/Muslims do hate Americans for religious reasons. Roughly the same proportion, I would say, as those Americans who hate them because of the colour of their skin. Moral equivalence, anyone?

The rest only mistrust Americans, and they do so with good reason - after the end of WW2, the US deliberately destroyed the young democratic/nationalist movements in the Middle East and replaced them with tyrants who gave them a better deal with regard to the oil and arms trade, and reassurance on the subject of their overblown communist paranoia. And no, this is not some leftist conspiracy, it is all documented history, sadly available only to those who are prepared to go and seek out and read some large old books.

In such cases where the tyrants were overthrown, the nationalistic leaders (as often secular as fundamentalist, in fact - Islam optional) immediately became the enemies of the US. Not because their first act was to call for the destruction of America (angry young men in the street can say silly things in the middle of a riot), but rather, the rearrangement of their trade arrangements to suit their own nations rather than external players.

What has been happening in the Middle East since those days, and will continue for a long time to come, is a struggle centred around energy resources, economics and political intrigue, with religion playing the secondary role of a rallying cry. Kind of like American patriotism - which is merely a unifying force, not the driver of US foreign policy.

And now I will bet that this post will be ignored as it shows too much insight. :roll:

Pardon, but I don't see how the UN Oil for Food program undermines his point. Don't you think, as a member of the UN security council and doubtlessly the most influential member of the UN, we would have stopped the program, if we hadn't been profiting from it, too?

Conscript the dissenters.
Press gangs on the high seas!
Back to the good ol' days, arrr...

A few of the Arabs/Muslims do hate Americans for religious reasons. Roughly the same proportion, I would say, as those Americans who hate them because of the colour of their skin. Moral equivalence, anyone?

The rest only mistrust Americans, and they do so with good reason - after the end of WW2, the US deliberately destroyed the young democratic/nationalist movements in the Middle East and replaced them with tyrants who gave them a better deal with regard to the oil and arms trade, and reassurance on the subject of their overblown communist paranoia. And no, this is not some leftist conspiracy, it is all documented history, sadly available only to those who are prepared to go and seek out and read some large old books.

In such cases where the tyrants were overthrown, the nationalistic leaders (as often secular as fundamentalist, in fact - Islam optional) immediately became the enemies of the US. Not because their first act was to call for the destruction of America (angry young men in the street can say silly things in the middle of a riot), but rather, the rearrangement of their trade arrangements to suit their own nations rather than external players.

What has been happening in the Middle East since those days, and will continue for a long time to come, is a struggle centred around energy resources, economics and political intrigue, with religion playing the secondary role of a rallying cry. Kind of like American patriotism - which is merely a unifying force, not the driver of US foreign policy.

And now I will bet that this post will be ignored as it shows too much insight. :roll:Frankly, I haven't heard most or any of that, so thanks for sharing.

But it seems obvious that your assumption is that ewvery president thinks the same way as the president before him... which we all know is complete bull.

Bush has been cleaning up after the mistakes of a lot of former presidents.

Pardon, but I don't see how the UN Oil for Food program undermines his point. Don't you think, as a member of the UN security council and doubtlessly the most influential member of the UN, we would have stopped the program, if we hadn't been profiting from it, too?We had no say in the matter. Kofi Anon and his corrupt buddies wanted money, and we couldn't do a bloody thing about it.

Kofi needs to go

Techmainia, im not from Texas,,i'm from Pennsylvania,, and in that case, im from a big city called Philadelphia, so i'm no wheres near any rances. Sorry, nice try tho.

And i din't fell like typing and spelling Afghanistam wrong. I'ts a weird word.

:shock:

Hey - I live in Philadelphia, too, and I'm deeply troubled by how someone living here could have such Texan views. No wonder Techmania made that mistake. I can assure everyone else out there that there are far more Philadelphians who would agree with Max than those who subscribe to Bracia's views.

4) We imposed a decade of crippling sanctions on them. Hands up anyone who thinks that Saddam suffered because of this? Anyone? How about the suffering of the ordinary Iraqis?Obviously you have not heard of the UN Oil for Food scandal yet. The UN went around our sanctions to allow Saddam to keep exporting oil so that he could give food to his people... but of course, Saddam didn't, because he was evil, and he took the money for himself, and later used it to buy off france and the rest of them so that they wouldn't join the coalition in our war we have right now.

YOUR sanctions?

As for the rest of it:

Pardon, but I don't see how the UN Oil for Food program undermines his point. Don't you think, as a member of the UN security council and doubtlessly the most influential member of the UN, we would have stopped the program, if we hadn't been profiting from it, too?

(bows)

Pardon, but I don't see how the UN Oil for Food program undermines his point. Don't you think, as a member of the UN security council and doubtlessly the most influential member of the UN, we would have stopped the program, if we hadn't been profiting from it, too?We had no say in the matter. Kofi Anon and his corrupt buddies wanted money, and we couldn't do a bloody thing about it.

Kofi needs to go

You don't know what you're talking about Ray.. IF there was any wrong doing, which lets wait for the inquiry to conclude before making a rush to judgement, it most certainly had nothing to do with Kofi Anon. It will have been "companies" who had contracts from different countries. You know, kick backs, like what Hallibuton got caught doing in Iraq? Yeah.. :roll:

But it seems obvious that your assumption is that ewvery president thinks the same way as the president before him... which we all know is complete bull.

Bush has been cleaning up after the mistakes of a lot of former presidents.
And here we reach an interesting point. Obviously, all US Presidents since WW2 have had different styles and opinions, often markedly so. I do not dispute that. However, US policy in the Middle East has remained remarkably consistent, namely, backing at every opportunity, for as long as they remained viable, those leaders and movements who could guarantee American energy security. The most enduring of them all, the US - Saudi partnership, began when WW2 had barely ended, and continues in much the same form to this day.

This is the true strength of the US, one very rarely glimpsed and appreciated. Other smaller and weaker countries think in terms of tactics when it comes to ensuring the continuation of their existence. But only the US has the resources to pursue such a grand strategy, on the timescale of a century, through changing political, economic and social environments. The Middle East is the complex centrepiece of that strategy, and the ultimate name of the game is energy security, and stability of supply. Looking at the record so far, in spite of numerous large wars which have plagued the region, it has all worked like clockwork, with the exception of a couple of hiccups (a cookie to whoever can name them).

It takes a special set of minds to plan and execute such a thing, and not only that, but ensure its future execution, for we are talking about a policy which spans generations. As they came to office one after another, the Presidents of the US, different though they were, only had to follow the general path already set out for them by their predecessors.

I must say I am really quite impressed by this particular achievement of America, though perhaps not too happy about it. Now then, who can honestly say that their understanding of the Middle East situation included provision for something like this?

4) We imposed a decade of crippling sanctions on them. Hands up anyone who thinks that Saddam suffered because of this? Anyone? How about the suffering of the ordinary Iraqis?Obviously you have not heard of the UN Oil for Food scandal yet. The UN went around our sanctions to allow Saddam to keep exporting oil so that he could give food to his people... but of course, Saddam didn't, because he was evil, and he took the money for himself, and later used it to buy off france and the rest of them so that they wouldn't join the coalition in our war we have right now.


"THe UN went around OUR sanctions?"

In how many ways can one small sentance fragment be so wrong.....

You mean, it apears that there might have been some unscrupulous people involved in financial transaction regarding this program of UN sanctions?

Gee... because kickbacks have never happened anywhere else before...

First answer this: Was the UN buying oil? Or actually sending money from it's coffers to Baghdad through this program? OR was it simply workign to ensure that the contracts signed between Iraq and outside countries and businesses satisfied the resolution?

Then answer this: The US continued to purchase much oil from IRaq throughout the program. Which American companies are you accusing of being involved in these schemes that Saddam profited from? Be specific since you are so knowledgeable on the subject.


And then start writing things in a way that they aren't blatant BS.



As to Saddam "buying off France and the others", why do you keep bringing that up when I have continued to point out the BS of that argument.

Point 1) Some French companies DID have contracts with IRaq. True.
Point 2) GW made it very clear he was going to war with or without the UN / France / Germany etc.
Point 3) It was pretty damn clear that old contracts would be null and void after an invasion, and that there would be lots of reconstruction contracts to be had. It was also clear that only coalition members would get those contracts.

So, given points 1, 2, and 3, how can you possibly say that refusing to join the coalition was done by anyone for economic reasons?

Fact is, Chirac stated clearly that he did not beleive that Saddam still had WMD, that he did not believe Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda, and that he did not belive that Iraq was a clear and present threat sufficient to justify war under international law.

And it seems he was correct on each and every count.

It has also come out that he ALSO told Bush that if he went ahead without asking for a second resolution and thereby forcing him to take sides publicly that France would not object. But Bush and Blair insisted he take sides, and he so he did.

And he did so knowing full well that it was NOT in his country's economic interests.


So please explain how Saddam "bought off" France to shoot themselves in the foot going forward knowing full well the economic bounty that an invaded Iraq would bring.

This may be hard for you to believe, but some countries do put other things ahead of corporate interests.

-Z-

On the subject of France, Zep is right. France simply chose to turn down billions of Euros in favour of saying 'no' to the US on the issue. It was not bribed, it simply traded the potential financial capital for a political victory.

Glad to be GLA:

Glad to hear that you are also from Philly,,,but i wasn't saying that ALL philiadelphians are conservative...and i don't have Texan views. I have my views. The only thing i agree with the president is the War on iraq and terrorism,,all that other stuff he sucks at.

For example, but not limited to:

Gay marriage (i am straight but feel what ever gays wanna do let em do it)
Abortion
Stem cell research
Howard Stern and the cleaning up the air waves
ETC

I am only voting for Bush because to me the safety of America is more important to me than if gays can get married or not.People in America need to realize that Kerry is gonna be all over Franch's ass asking for forgiveness and will ignore North Korea, and will want to pull outta Aghpganistan

And i plan on joining the US army in September if i do not get into DRexel University, and i will serve with the Rangers, and i will do it not to be considered a hero, but in order to protect my little sister, her friends, and all of innocent Americans From the asshat counties that can harm us.

And i plan on joining the US army in September if i do not get into DRexel University, and i will serve with the Rangers, and i will do it not to be considered a hero, but in order to protect my little sister, her friends, and all of innocent Americans From the asshat counties that can harm us.
Could you please briefly explain how those "asshat counties" (I assume you mean the Third World) are going to harm your little sister?

I was referring to the innocent children, people of the United States, and that my little sister is innocent,

And that she could be harmed by a terrorist attack, and that i would love to help dissolve the possibility of another attack occurring.

I hope you didn't mean that in a sarcastic way.

No, I was genuinely interested in what you would say.

The thing is, from my perspective, going out looking for a fight only increases the possibility of an attack at home. I must say I disagree with the direction of the current policy. There is too much emphasis on taking the war to foreign countries, and a pitiful amount of attention being devoted to domestic security. Here in Europe, we approach things the other way around. Domestic security first, external actions second, if they are at all necessary in the first place.

No, I was genuinely interested in what you would say.

The thing is, from my perspective, going out looking for a fight only increases the possibility of an attack at home. I must say I disagree with the direction of the current policy. There is too much emphasis on taking the war to foreign countries, and a pitiful amount of attention being devoted to domestic security. Here in Europe, we approach things the other way around. Domestic security first, external actions second, if they are at all necessary in the first place.

Good point. But the one thing i'm going to say,and i may be saying something completly opposite from what i've been saying, is that terrorism is uncontrolable. No matter what, from what i beleive, the terrorists will attack even if we pull out.

And that leaves me with this.. September 11th. From my knowledge, America didnt have any troops fighting Al-Quida, but they still attacked.
It's just now we are soing something about it, but they still attack us in Iraq.

It's a lose-lose situation. And it sucks. :x

Oh, I agree there. Now that is has begun, it will continue for a long time to come. It may only really fizzle out through natural evolutionary changes in the systems of government, political alliances and status quo in the world. And that's easily a decades sort of timescale. I am quite certain that the unrest will continue until the Middle East loses its strategic importance with the depletion of its oil endowment. That's past the middle of the century.

It has also come out that he ALSO told Bush that if he went ahead without asking for a second resolution and thereby forcing him to take sides publicly that France would not object. But Bush and Blair insisted he take sides, and he so he did.


Hi,

To clarify this, what happened was that Chirac met privately with President Bush stating that if he went forward with the war without seeking a second resolution, that France would publically not object.

In reality, Bush and Blair didnt "insist that he take sides", but rather Blair informed Bush that an attempt for a second resolution was necessary for him to commit to the war as otherwise he would risk losing office. So Bush went ahead with it anyway. In reality, Blair was in no immediate danger of losing office with or without a second resolution.

It wasnt due to any necessary "insistance" on France publically choosing a side, but rather Blair's insistance at having a second resolution.

4) We imposed a decade of crippling sanctions on them. Hands up anyone who thinks that Saddam suffered because of this? Anyone? How about the suffering of the ordinary Iraqis?Obviously you have not heard of the UN Oil for Food scandal yet. The UN went around our sanctions to allow Saddam to keep exporting oil so that he could give food to his people... but of course, Saddam didn't, because he was evil, and he took the money for himself, and later used it to buy off france and the rest of them so that they wouldn't join the coalition in our war we have right now.
*wakes up in his bedroom in a gated Community in Florida*

*fumbles around on the nightstand for his cigarettes*

My smokey sense is tingling. Someone's posting bullshit conspiracy theories again!

*sighs and gets up*

I was just starting to enjoy my retirement.

*coughs*

Whoa. Do you think he is trying to suggest that Americans are in some way special? :shock:

:lol: Thanks for the laugh TG

You're welcome

And i plan on joining the US army in September if i do not get into DRexel University, and i will serve with the Rangers, and i will do it not to be considered a hero, but in order to protect my little sister, her friends, and all of innocent Americans From the asshat counties that can harm us.
Could you please briefly explain how those "asshat counties" (I assume you mean the Third World) are going to harm your little sister?

You know...the ones that hate "us"...The terrorists... :lol: :lol: :lol: °

Why don't you give him a REAL challenge and ask him to name one.

*coughs*

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!