Members banned from this thread: jpsartre12


Page 22 of 97 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 963

Thread: The French

  1. #211
    red panda sedan's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    708
    Thanks
    43

    From
    Mpls. MN
    Quote Originally Posted by tubig View Post
    Thinking that management of a political system should be predicated on or against Orwellian standards is not healthy thinking. Orwell was a fictional writer who posited an extremist system. Reality should not be based on extremism.
    Orwell did far more than simply write fiction. From my perspective he is one of the great political writers of the 20th Century. The quote you are taking issue with is actually from a non-fictional review of two books, The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek and The Mirror of the Past by K. Zilliacus. The authors of these books approach political thought from opposite ends of the spectrum. As Orwell observes, "each writer is convinced that the otherís policy leads directly to slavery, and the alarming thing is that they may both be right."

    To characterize Orwell as an extremist is to fundamentally misunderstand him. His only extremist position was his absolute abhorrence of totalitarianism. Even in his fiction he exposed the weaknesses of extreme political systems. He wrote novels like Animal Farm and 1984 which were devastating critiques of collectivism. But he also wrote books like Down and Out in Paris and London and The Road to Wigan Pier which were devastating critiques of capitalism. Perhaps if you read the quote again (or even better, read the review from which it came (or even better than that, read the collected works of George Orwell)) you might have a better idea of what "Orwellian standards" really are.

    I don't disagree very much with the remainder of your post, but I thought my use of the Orwell quote should be clarified.

  2. #212
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    26,141
    Thanks
    2314

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief View Post
    I can see how this would be logical in the GOP. Basically, the same people that gave us, attacked by Afghanistan, so we attack Iraq... now submit, Iran is a threat, so attack Iraq. North Korea is also a clear threat... so maybe a troop surge in Iraq can help there. I wonder if attacking Iraq again can help us with the threat of drug cartel violence in Mexico too?



    I'm not disagreeing what what "could" happen if Iraq became a successful example of a representative government for their people... but do we really have the right to arbitrarily overthrow a country, in order to be an example for a different country? I think a better way for us to deal with so many nations threatening us, would be for us to stop kicking everyone's ass. If we and Israel weren't discussing invading Iran every week... maybe they wouldn't feel like they needed nuclear weapons. As it is... is there anything short of nukes that can protect them from us, should we attack? Not really.
    Attacked by Afghanstan?

    Wrong. Attacked by extremists that purposefully did not declare any national allegiance. This way the left here could create the undermining that they did. Kinda cool to know your arguments serve our enemy..eh?

    If we and Israel weren't discussing invading Iran every week... maybe they wouldn't feel like they needed nuclear weapons. As it is... is there anything short of nukes that can protect them from us, should we attack? Not really.
    Why is it that the rabid left can support an entity that kills innocents to obtain their objectives, while criticizing a nation that is regularly and openly threatened by Iran..simply because Islham teaches that the Jews are evil and must be destroyed.
    Last edited by carpe diem; 19th April 2012 at 04:02 PM.

  3. #213
    Veteran Member Chief's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    25,064
    Thanks
    5828

    From
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    Attacked by Afghanstan?

    Wrong. Attacked by extremists that purposefully did not declare any national allegiance. This way the left here could create the undermining that they did. Kinda cool to know your arguments serve our enemy..eh?
    Afghanistan harbored and protected AQ. That makes them more any enemy than Iraq. Kinda cool to know your arguments are stupid..eh?

    Why is it that the rabid left can support an entity that kills innocents to obtain their objectives, while criticizing a nation that is regularly and openly threatened by Iran..simply because Islham teaches that the Jews are evil and must be destroyed.
    If you had two brain cells to rub together it would be obvious that what I was describing a more realistic way for the US to avoid a nuclear threat. Figuring out how we and all of these other nations can work out our differences and share the world is the long term solution to the nuclear threat. Otherwise, eventually one of these nations is going to figure it out... and then dealing with a nuclear armed enemy is going to be much harder.

  4. #214
    Senior Member Blackbeard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,886
    Thanks
    1

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief View Post
    Al Qaeda's 1998 Fatwa | PBS NewsHour | Feb. 23, 1998 | PBS



    Here are the three points. So, did OBL disagree with us imposing crippling sanctions on Iraq. Yes. Does that mean that Iraq requested his assistance or supported him in any way? No. So, this is not a reason for us to fight Iraq, nor for us to commit much more troops against a nation that did not attack us, as opposed to Afghanistan, who was harboring AQ, who attacked us directly.

    Swing and miss, BB.
    He what? He "disagreed" with our sanctions, Chief? His supposed three facts known to everyone, 1) our continued occupation of Islam's Holy lands where he says the best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people. 2) Iraq itself, where he claims "protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war" 3) Our support for Israel(that he calls the petty state), and what does he state there? That "the best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq."

    For these reasons he calls for all Muslims to kill Americans wherever they can. It's open season on the united States. What follows is not only attacks on civilians in Embassies.....al-Qaeda actually attacks a US warship. Now.....I don't know what it takes for people to realize war has been declared against them, but it took more than that for us. We chose to wait until al-Qaeda unleashed 9-11 and suddenly...people understood, we are being targeted, we have had war declared against us.

    What we've also learned is that going in any getting Bin Laden really doesn't change any real dynamic. One of al-Qaeda's strengths is that there is no head on this snake. Like many other Islamic Jihadist groups they work in cells, cutting off the leadership off doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

    Look at the map Chief. Look to your dilemma on Sept 12, 2001. Two buildings are decimated, this organization has attacked your Pentagon and God knows what else if not for some hero Americans. Even if you remove Osama Bin Laden, you've done nothing. You must remove the Taliban government in Afghanistan and flush out al-Qaeda. But that still does absolutely nothing, for this organzation can headquater in Yemen, Indonesia, or Europe itself. Looking at the reality on Sept 12, something had to be done with Iraq. It is clear that a primary source of al-Qaeda's rage and hate, was Iraq. Many Chief....flat out aren't aware of that. Any President post 9-11...had to take action in Iraq, it was crystal clear to anyone that these sanctions and gimmicks like oil for food, wasn't working. Can you at least understand this, Chief...that the status quo could not be maintained regarding Iraq...that our policies there played a huge role in why we were attacked on 9-11? Good so far?

  5. #215
    Senior Member Blackbeard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,886
    Thanks
    1

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    Iraq was no threat at all. How could a country that has no army to speak of, no air force and no navy be a threat to the world's superpower?
    Ask the overwhelming number of members of Congress as early as 1998, while Bush was Governor of Texas.

    I would agree however would not agree that is a reason to invade them. That's fuckin stupid and makes no sense. Afghanistan harbored the group that perpetrated 9/11, that is a good reason to kick their ass.

    10 yrs later, 4000 lives lost and about 10 times that wounded, many of them critically in addition to costing a over a trillion dollars with Iraq less stable today is clear testament to what a horrible mistake it was. Knowing what we know today I would be surprised if 10% of the population (including military) would consider Iraq to have been a worthwhile venture.

    Iraq had nothing to do with 911. No Iraqi took part in it and Saddam was no friend of AQ.

    You say Iraq was the primary reason for 911 and it's crucial to understand that? You don't mean understand it, what you mean to say is you have to be fucking stupid enough to believe it. You do because you are, the rest of us aren't.
    Iraq took no part in it...but f'n stupid would actually be to think Iraq had nothing to do with it. They merely weren't responsible..they had everything to do with it. Read the Fatwa, Prag. Learn.

  6. #216
    Senior Member Blackbeard's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,886
    Thanks
    1

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief View Post
    Afghanistan harbored and protected AQ. That makes them more any enemy than Iraq.
    Iraq harbored the most heinous of terrorist, Chief. And paid the families of Palestinian terrorists. Saddam Hussein started two wars one in the 80s against Iran, one in the 1990s by invading Kuwait. During those conflicts he killed hundreds of thousands if not millions. A devastating attack on both Iran and Kuwait, retributions against shia and sunni alike, displacement campaigns against the marsh arabs and Kurds, Saddam Hussein terrorized at a clip that makes Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout.

    Those with brain cells that rub together and actualy transmit information to each other see that clearly.

  7. #217
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    97,358
    Thanks
    3814

    From
    Vancouver
    Not many people know that George Orwell was a lifelong Socialist. He went to fight for the Communists in Spain. He eventually realised he was fighting right wing autocracy with left wing autocracy and soon abhored the Soviets and international communism for becoming exactly what they were built to oppose - but he was an outspoken socialist every day of his life.

    We don't teach him that way because it makes discussing his books difficult, and his books are usually taught at Middle School level.

    A former policeman who refused to support injustice in order to fight other injustice. He had the wits and the seeds to not let loyalty to some 'group' blind him to the actions of that group, or trump his personal beliefs of human dignity and political liberties.

    He's my fucking hero.



    Orwell had nothing to say about Germany or Russia. His books were about Britain. His wife worked for the 'Censorship Office' during the War. Sound familiar?
    Last edited by Dr.Knuckles; 20th April 2012 at 06:28 AM.

  8. #218
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    63,032
    Thanks
    29108

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackbeard View Post
    Iraq harbored the most heinous of terrorist, Chief. And paid the families of Palestinian terrorists. Saddam Hussein started two wars one in the 80s against Iran, one in the 1990s by invading Kuwait. During those conflicts he killed hundreds of thousands if not millions. A devastating attack on both Iran and Kuwait, retributions against shia and sunni alike, displacement campaigns against the marsh arabs and Kurds, Saddam Hussein terrorized at a clip that makes Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout.

    Those with brain cells that rub together and actualy transmit information to each other see that clearly.
    Yep, and the U.S. happily supported him in his war against Iran, encouraged him in every way we could get away with.

  9. #219
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    97,358
    Thanks
    3814

    From
    Vancouver
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Yep, and the U.S. happily supported him in his war against Iran, encouraged him in every way we could get away with.
    Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.[3][13]

    President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Decision Directive 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[14] According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, "the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."[15]

    In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[3] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.

    Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.[16] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

    [T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[17]
    Author Barry M. Lando says, by 1987, the U.S. military was so invested in the correct outcome, that "officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency dispatched to Baghdad were actually planning day-by-day strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi Air Force."[7][20] Iraq used this data to target Iranian positions with chemical weapons, says ambassador Galbraith.[15]

    The MK-84: Saudi Arabia transferred to Iraq hundreds of U.S.-made general-purpose "dumb bombs".[3]According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."[21] Lang disclosed that more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments. He cautioned that the DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Despite this claim, the Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[22][23]

    Joost R. Hiltermann says that when the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds during the war, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to obscure Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting, inaccurately, that the Iranians may have carried out the attack.[24

    In 1984, Iran introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council, citing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, condemning Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. In response, the United States instructed its delegate at the UN to lobby friendly representatives in support of a motion to take "no decision" on the use of chemical munitions by Iraq. If backing to obstruct the resolution could be won, then the U.S. delegation were to proceed and vote in favour of taking zero action; if support were not forthcoming, the U.S. delegate were to refrain from voting altogether.

    USDEL should work to develop general Western position in support of a motion to take "no decision" on Iranian draft resolution on use of chemical weapons by Iraq. If such a motion gets reasonable and broad support and sponsorship, USDEL should vote in favor. Failing Western support for "no decision," USDEL should abstain.[33]

    Representatives of the United States argued that the UN Human Rights Commission was an "inappropriate forum" for consideration of such abuses. According to Joyce Battle, the Security Council eventually issued a "presidential statement" condemning the use of unconventional weapons "without naming Iraq as the offending party."[14][/QUOTE]

  10. #220
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    97,358
    Thanks
    3814

    From
    Vancouver
    I have my own theory on the Iraq Wars.

    It's a theory - so don't go asking me for links, there are none.

    The Theory of Dr. Gently.


    Saddam was a brutal dictator with dreams of glory and conquest, and he invaded Iran for this reason.

    The war was going badly and Iran was not only going to win, but looked likely to actually fight all the way Baghdad.

    The US and UK, France and others, not wanting an Iranian domination of the region, propped up Saddam with all the military and diplomatic support they could for Iraq in order to stop Iran. They provided this support while chemical weapons mad from US ingredients were used, and used political pull to make sure no one cared.

    The war ended and the region was stabalised the way the West wanted it - status quo.

    Then bankrupt from the war, Saddam went rogue and invaded Kuwait so he wouldn't have to repay them all he had borrowed, AND get the oil, AND get the port access. He genuinely believed he was destined to do all this and more.

    The Neocons and Downing Street realised what they'd done and, never admitting it was kind of their fault, had to go clean up their mess they had created. Because Bush was was a genius he got the rest of the world to pay for it and join the mission. The world knew who made the mess, but the mess still had to be cleaned up - so no biggie.

    THEN, and here's where things get interesting....

    I think either the US, UK or Isreal got someone inside Iraq, deep, and they found out something horrible.

    Either a weapon, a plan... something that needed to be stopped, but they could not reveal that they knew without blowing the source.

    That left US/Uk with an urgent need to stop Saddam, but no public way to justify it.

    After 911, they saw their chance. With the public ready to support any war anywhere, the governments of US and UK, knowing something they couldn't tell us, had their chance to 'sex up' something that would justify the action they needed to take. They fibbed here, lied here, sexed up this and that and felt that when the dust settled they would "FIND" the WMD they already knew existed, and be justifed in the end by the 'dicovery' without jeapordising their source.

    Then they actually couldn't find it.

    So on we go, with no legitimate reason for the war, no plausible explanation for why they would attack Iraq, and the people that know the real reason can't say.

    I think the Iraq war to remove Saddam WAS actually justified in some way, but they're not telling us why. And the reason I think this is Tony Blair.

    Nothing about Tony Blair says 'illegal war of profit and adventure and ideology'. That story fits Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney to a tee, but it doesn't explain Blair.

    Blair would only have gone to Iraq for a real reason. Good or bad, he would need a real reason. And he's never, ever, provided one. His inability to do so cost him his job and he's taken that on the chin without complaint.

    For some reason or another he had a reason, but he wont tell us.

    That's the modern history of Iraq according to Dr. Gently.
    Last edited by Dr.Knuckles; 20th April 2012 at 07:38 AM.

Page 22 of 97 FirstFirst ... 1220212223243272 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed