War on Iraq: Bush is gettin pwned

[|MP|Buccaneer]

But isnt it extremly hard to show you dont have somethign I mean it could be in any corner of thier country.

They agreed to prove it.  How hard should it be to prove it?  They acknowledged what they had back then, and how much.  If they had done what they were supposed to do (destroy it with inspectors watching) it's real fucking easy.  But, they haven't cooperated with inspectors in that whole time (and are still not at 100% yet).  

Hey, if they were dumb enough to destroy huge stockpiles of the stuff, and not record it in any way, I'm not going to feel too sorry for them when UN forces go marching in.  They knew what they had to do.  I don't believe that they are that stupid, I believe that it's just that well hidden.  They've had 10 years to hide it.


So, no matter what his intentions, the UN resolutions still need to be enforced, don't they?

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Yes the resolution has to be carried out your right but even if Iraq had a record of it and it all checked out I Doubt Bush would accept it just like he hasnt accepted any other documentation of Iraq cooperating with the UN teams. The WMD could be ANYWHERE in Iraq so are we gonna search EVERYWHERE?

[kami]

I didn't know where to post this so I just posted it here.

This is written by a famous Swedish historian and columnist in the online issue of the biggest evening paper here (Aftonbladet). I translated it myself so please commend me for my splendid language skills.

The American Arrogance Irritates Us Europeans
??In these times I often feel like quoting president de Gaulle who once said that
?France is the light of the world? or president Mitterand who said ?A fair and generous France can enlighten the path of humanity?. They often talk like this, French statesmen, whether they come from the right or the left.
??The more lyrically nationalistic the French statesmen become, the angrier their opponents, especially Brits and Americans. Today the curses rain over president Chirac in the anglosaxon press where the epithet ?perverted? is one of the milder ones.

??The French supremity and unpredictability has always irritated the French allies. That France has its interests to defend, like the US has theirs, and that the French interests aren't always the same as the American, seems to be a constant source of surprise and amazement in Washington and London.
??In the massive anti-war wave that sweeps over the world with millions of protesting people, there is also an ever increasing anti-American wave. Those who deny it, refuse to see the truth and these anti-American feelings have always been exceptionally strong here in France [translator's note: he now lives in France] and not only in the leftist circles.
??The Americans usually attack France for its ungratitude, twice the US came and saved them in the 20th century.
??But the Americans forget that there would never have been a USA, atleast not in 1782, without massive efforts by French troops in the battle against the British army and the first country in the world who recognized the US was France, with Sweden as a good second.
??There are many explanations to why so many Frenchmen and other Europeans today dislike America and Americans. The American arrogance, despotism, righteousness, ignorance of other countries and cultures, irritate of course. But the underlying cause is, in my opinion, an increasing cultural difference. It may sound strange since we Europeans and Americans look alike and often are related to eachother, the language is not a problem, American music is playing everywhere and American movies dominate the cinemas, not to speak about the more and more common seniors, even in Sweden, who walk around with American teenage clothes and eat American junk food.
??Yet there is a fundamental difference already in the outlook on democracy, this idea that the US says itself to be fighting for in the whole world. A real democracy for a Swede or a Frenchman is an equal society, without too big social differences. For an American this sounds like classical communism.

??A Swede or a Frenchman thinks that the government should intervene, protect, and help the citizens. A society without a social safety net, where not everyone has the same right to education, work and residency, is an unjust society. This is why most of the European countries today have well developed, and of course very costly, social safety nets, unemployment funds, sickness funds, support for adult education etc. In all EU countries the citizens have the right to atleast four weeks of vacation.
??All of this goes without saying for us, rights we associate with democracy and justice. But an American thinks that the less the government intervenes, the better. It's up to every man to get an education, plan their social and medical necessities and to negotiate yourself to a vacation.

??In all of the European countries, even in the catholic Europe, church and state are separated. No European politician would call for a combined prayor and political meeting, as they do in the US. European presidents don't call for God's blessing over the congregation and your country in the end of their speeches. Something that is seen as routine in the US.
??Every American is totally convinced that God is with America, as he is convinced that everyone in the world should be like him - to think like an American.

Herman Lindqvist
Published: 2003-02-16

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Yes the resolution has to be carried out your right but even if Iraq had a record of it and it all checked out I Doubt Bush would accept it just like he hasnt accepted any other documentation of Iraq cooperating with the UN teams. The WMD could be ANYWHERE in Iraq so are we gonna search EVERYWHERE?

And I scream once again, not liking Bush is no reason to say he's doing the wrong thing.  I don't like him, but that doesn't make him wrong all the time.  It doesn't matter what you think he'll do.  What matters is what has happened so far.  So just give it up.  Be a man and just finish saying you were wrong in this case.  That Bush can do the right things for the wrong reasons, that you were completely off base with the burden of proof shit, and that your anti-Bush attitude colored your conclusions more then the facts.  Don't just try to excuse it away with "I bet he wont accept it if proof comes".  It's weak.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Good post kami to bring that viewpoint in.  I think it generalizes all Americans as the conservative side that happens to dominate all three branches of goverment so I guess rightfully so.  I certainly am with Europe on the goverment providing a social safety net through taxes and so I would tend to have his perspective rather than an American perspective.  But I agree with his main point that the US thinks its system is the best and feels it needs to convince/force others to adopt it.

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

Well boys...get ready for war. Looks like Bush is going at this like the Lone Ranger. He's ready for war and if Iraq doesn't provide evidence in the next month....they're history. No ifs, ands, or buts. Kill Saddam, Not Iraqis!!!

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I translated it myself so please commend me for my splendid language skills.

And I so do.  

The American Arrogance Irritates Us Europeans

Just as the European Arrogance irritats us Americans too.  

?France is the light of the world? or president Mitterand who said ?A fair and generous France can enlighten the path of humanity?. They often talk like this, French statesmen, whether they come from the right or the left.
??The more lyrically nationalistic the French statesmen become, the angrier their opponents, especially Brits and Americans.

The French supremity and unpredictability has always irritated the French allies.

Did you translate that part right?  Is he saying that the French are supreme?  If so, is it a wonder why that attitude pisses people off?  

Is he trying to show why Americans think the French are arrogant?  Because he gives a good example of why we would.

French interests aren't always the same as the American, seems to be a constant source of surprise and amazement in Washington and London.

Actually, I think that it is the failure to look past it's own needs and to those of NATO as a whole that really shock us.  Speaking for myself anyway.

??The Americans usually attack France for its ungratitude, twice the US came and saved them in the 20th century.
??But the Americans forget that there would never have been a USA, atleast not in 1782, without massive efforts by French troops in the battle against the British army and the first country in the world who recognized the US was France, with Sweden as a good second.

Nope, haven't forgotten it at all.  But, and there is a but, didn't the USA show gratitude towards France for a long time after that?  And I wouldn't call it massive efforts.  It was needed, and made a difference, but he's overstating it.

And saving France twice in the last 100 years, that is a bit more recent.  It would be nice to see some gratitude maybe.  Some lingering good will.  Not contempt and hostility.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Yet there is a fundamental difference already in the outlook on democracy, this idea that the US says itself to be fighting for in the whole world. A real democracy for a Swede or a Frenchman is an equal society, without too big social differences. For an American this sounds like classical communism.

Actually it sounds like socialism, not communism to me.  And socialsim isn't democracy.  And if you believe in what Marx wrote, you'd know that he said a true socialism can only evolve from a democracy (don't quote me, he said it better).  It's one of the reasons he gave that the Soviet Union would fail.

And, I don't care if France, or any other country choses it.  That's all great and find for them.  It's just not where I want to live.

He goes on to talk about some of the differences, but like the European way is better.  That Americans should accept that and adopt it, not like we should accept the differences, that each place can govern itself, and that it's choice is it's choice.

What Americans (like me) fight against is fake or forced democracy / socialism.  Like fake elections in Iraq, where only one party can be voted for.

??In all of the European countries, even in the catholic Europe, church and state are separated. No European politician would call for a combined prayor and political meeting, as they do in the US.

Really?  Not ever in a time of crisis?  Sorry Kami, I know you didn't write this, but come on.  Does anyone want to bet that I can't find a political statement from a European that invokes the word "god"?  And he's acting like that is the norm!  

Oh, church and state are seperated in America.  There is no national church, or recognized sect.  But seperation of church and state doesn't mean athiest either.  You can have a moment of silence, or call down for "gods" blessing without actually joining the two.  

Every American is totally convinced that God is with America.

 

Every one, eh?  Even the athiests?

And what about all those countries that call us "godless"?  

Maybe our views are just somewhere in between.  Maybe most of us thing that the seperation of church and state doesn't have to mean the absense of the word God.  

as he is convinced that everyone in the world should be like him - to think like an American.

And just like "every" Frenchman is convinced that the would should be like him, to think like a Frenchman.  You can pretty much replace American or Frenchman with any other nationality, and it will be just as correct, and just as wrong.

This guy seems to be as big a mouth as GWB.  He has to have a big mouth to fit both feet in there.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

I disagree in owing when it comes to magnitude of war. WWII was an extreme circumstance and maybe if our country was over run by anti-semites then they would help but its a different context. Thats just my opinion.

[kami]

Bucc, perhaps it doesn't fit in on you, I never said it did, but in my opinion, it fits in on way too many Americans.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I disagree in owing when it comes to magnitude of war. WWII was an extreme circumstance and maybe if our country was over run by anti-semites then they would help but its a different context. Thats just my opinion.

Bondo, Loudnotes, Tasty,  this is one of the examples on why I think quoting is a good thing.  I have no idea what, in the sea of comments thus far, that Zaitsev is talking about.

Ok, I've finished the rest of this post, and come back to the begining.  I think Zaitsev is saying that neither side owes the other any gratitude because of the size of the war.  I don't actually know what he means by that, but I think it's in regards to France thinking it is owed gratitude due to the American Revolution and Americans think they are owed gratitude due to the two world wars.  

I think.  It would be easier to figure out if there was a quote there to work from.

Bucc, perhaps it doesn't fit in on you, I never said it did, but in my opinion, it fits in on way too many Americans.

Kami, what makes you think that?  Honestly, how many Americans have you met that it fits, how many that it doesn't?

I read that article and see a Frenchman that is everybit as arrogant as he's claiming Americans are.  Note, I said a man, not all the French.  He questions (you tell me if it was sarcasim or not) why Americans see the French as arrogant, just because they pronounce their superiority?  That's why I asked about it.  He goes on, saying why the European system is better.  Followed by complaining that Americans think theirs is better.

Does nobody see the hypocricy in that?  I don't care if you like one system over the other, isn't he doing what he is bitching about?

And I think it's good that he's a Frenchman.  He's living in a place that he finds right.  I'm glad that America is different, and I live here.  What's wrong with that?  Everyone should live where they feel the best about it.  We shouldn't belittle each others systems.  If it works for them, it works for them, and I'm happy for them.  Our system works for me and is better for me.  So, they don't need to tell me their system is better (Bondo) and I don't need to tell them ours is.  

We can try to learn from each other, better each other, but the guy that wrote it, he's just as bad as what he says Americans are.

But I agree with his main point that the US thinks its system is the best and feels it needs to convince/force others to adopt it.

Isn't that what he was doing with the "European System"?

And I don't agree that all three branches are dominated by conservatives.  Or is anything not liberal now a conservative?  (just like I get that title so often).  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Republicans control both Houses of Congress, Republicans control the White House, Republicans have majority of the Supreme Court.  That sounds like all three branches to me.

And no, I don't think the Europeans force there ideals on others.  They think they have better ideals but unlike the US they don't actively pressure countries to adopt them...that is the crux of his whole argument.

And I think in the argument he directly stated that France is arrogant and thus has some strained allies.  He isn't denying that.  He is just pointing out that the US too is being arrogant and taking it a step further and is likely to isolate itself from its allies.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Republicans control both Houses of Congress, Republicans control the White House, Republicans have majority of the Supreme Court.  That sounds like all three branches to me.

God, if only I could jump like your logic, I'd be in the olympics.  Since when does Republican equal Conservative.  There are no liberal Republicans?  No Moderate Republicans?

You want to judge the Supreeme Court, judge them by their decisions, not by who put them in office, especially when the President and Congress both share in the decision, and both were not of one party when most (none that I can think of) of the judges were appointed.

My own opinion is that they've been more liberal then conservative, but closer to moderate then either end.

Our President, ok, he's conservative.  You get one of out of three so far.  But don't say that Republican means Conservative.  Both parties are full of moderates too.  Or don't we exist?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Republican is the conservative political party, Democrat is the liberal political party.  Certainly there are huge variations in the beliefs of people in the party and there are conservatives who aren't Republicans and liberals who, like me, aren't Democrats...but they are proper generalizations.  So don't criticize me for using the well accepted generalizations of the US political system.

[*DAMN Bander]

Old-Europe, New-Europe BAH.

The U.S. and the Brits (as u already said yourself) dont really need ANY other nation to conquer Iraq.

The only reason they are going for "partners" is to make it look like a "united nations" action - only without the official U.N. sanction

Some Pollak, Chez or Hungarian ex-commies will make absolutely no different on a battlefield that will be a bombed out city landscape.

I really doubt that U.S. will send in troops into the citys. i bet it will be a flight-bomb-return mission again. no casualaties but great tv pictures.
then we will see a few months some "nation building" after U.S. will present us a new Iraqi-Karsai (aka a nice man with no real power) and show us some pictures of "succeed" - then we will move on to the next scene (choose one: iran, north korea, saudi arabia - maybe osama went home - maybe austria, cuz bander is evil etc.)

I am a little better informed than most of ya on afghan issues and besides kabul and khandahar all other cities are as unsecure as before. western funds are not comming in as promised. and many gouverneurs who have been elected in the west have no sympathies among the people who live in their provences. Medical Care is still devastated, Shools not rebuilt, all in all its almost as bad as it was under the taliban (without hyperreligious bullshit. but still not even water or electrical light in 85% of all areas!)

thats why i dont like that "nation building" stuff a lot. its just some cosmetic "happy end" shit wich is only good enuff till the next "terror war" eliminates it out of the media interest.

thats why i hope we can disarm the almost disarmed irak without bloodshed under the iraqi civilians (also those who will be dragged into the iraqi army, as cannonfodder and to save some republican guard asses)

i still say - send in a sniper *bang*, saddam dead. make it look as if some "internal clan struggle" was behind this. whats the problem? never watched james bond or something?

i say IF we say its okay to violate U.N. right then lets violate it this way.
at last it only killes one asshole instead of a lotta poor people.

iraq is a laught, the only state wich could be hit is israel. i guess this is one of the reason the u.s. wants to smash iraq as fast as possible. protecting one violent regime from another one. funny. or is it the oil? or is america really more scared from saddam than from a osama b. (whos still not found.) what a efficient war against terror.

Bander

[*DAMN Bander]

Conservative, Republicans = CCCP Hard, CCCP Light

Bander

[kami]

Just as the European Arrogance irritats us Americans too.  

European arrogance isn't what is playing world police.

Did you translate that part right?  Is he saying that the French are supreme?  If so, is it a wonder why that attitude pisses people off?  

Is he trying to show why Americans think the French are arrogant?  Because he gives a good example of why we would.

He is not saying that the French are supreme, he is saying that it's weird how you Americans suddenly jump on them when they've always been the same.

Actually, I think that it is the failure to look past it's own needs and to those of NATO as a whole that really shock us.  Speaking for myself anyway.

Their only problem with helping Turkey was that it would be like a sign to the world that the war had already started.

Nope, haven't forgotten it at all.  But, and there is a but, didn't the USA show gratitude towards France for a long time after that?  And I wouldn't call it massive efforts.  It was needed, and made a difference, but he's overstating it.

And saving France twice in the last 100 years, that is a bit more recent.  It would be nice to see some gratitude maybe.  Some lingering good will.  Not contempt and hostility.

He's pointing out that you both have been grateful for a lot but that it's history. Both countries have their history to be grateful to the other about. But now when many Americans are playing on the ?France is ungrateful? line, the French get angry because they shouldn't have to agree with you just because of that.

[kami]

Actually it sounds like socialism, not communism to me.  And socialsim isn't democracy.  And if you believe in what Marx wrote, you'd know that he said a true socialism can only evolve from a democracy (don't quote me, he said it better).  It's one of the reasons he gave that the Soviet Union would fail.

And, I don't care if France, or any other country choses it.  That's all great and find for them.  It's just not where I want to live.

He goes on to talk about some of the differences, but like the European way is better.  That Americans should accept that and adopt it, not like we should accept the differences, that each place can govern itself, and that it's choice is it's choice.

What Americans (like me) fight against is fake or forced democracy / socialism.  Like fake elections in Iraq, where only one party can be voted for.

Well that's what I mean, perhaps it doesn't fit on you, because you're slightly more enlightened than the average Joe who would scream ?COMMIE? without a second thought. Most European systems are tilted to socialism because that's what most people want, but that doesn't mean we don't have democracies, does it? European countries are just as democratic or even more than the US.
He's not really saying that the European way is better, he's not saying that America should adopt our way, he's just saying that atleast we don't try to push our way onto others.

Really?  Not ever in a time of crisis?  Sorry Kami, I know you didn't write this, but come on.  Does anyone want to bet that I can't find a political statement from a European that invokes the word "god"?  And he's acting like that is the norm!  

Oh, church and state are seperated in America.  There is no national church, or recognized sect.  But seperation of church and state doesn't mean athiest either.  You can have a moment of silence, or call down for "gods" blessing without actually joining the two.

Well just look at any of Bush's speeches, they all end with ?god bless us all?. It happens A LOT more often in America, you'll really have to search hard to find something like that in Europe. In sweden you'd get decapitated in the press if you even mentioned god in that way.
I just get disgusted when I hear him saying stuff like that and thinking that God MUST be with them and no one else. I feel like puking just thinking about it.

Every one, eh?  Even the athiests?

And what about all those countries that call us "godless"?  

Maybe our views are just somewhere in between.  Maybe most of us thing that the seperation of church and state doesn't have to mean the absense of the word God.

I hate people who call you godless as well, because people call me that too. It should mean that you don't mention anything about religion in politics.

And just like "every" Frenchman is convinced that the would should be like him, to think like a Frenchman.  You can pretty much replace American or Frenchman with any other nationality, and it will be just as correct, and just as wrong.

This guy seems to be as big a mouth as GWB.  He has to have a big mouth to fit both feet in there.

A Frenchman is not convinced that everyone should be like him, that's rediculous. That does not fit in on many other people, perhaps radical Islamistic people.
This guy does not have a very big mouth, he's quite moderate on everything actually.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Okay, My last post was achwardly worded. But it seems in most political post I see people saying France owes us for World War I and II. But we didnt join those wars to save France, it was just part of the deal, if France was in a different theatre and they were the only ones attacked we wouldnt have done anything. In addition to this I dont see twhere Owing escalates into them sending troops just because we are one up on them. Maybe if we are over run by a horrible group then they owe us But world war II is a lot different then the upcoming war in Iraq. Totally different scenerios. "Oweing" does not come into effect here.

[<FBI>"Sixhits"]

[quote author=Buccaneer
God, if only I could jump like your logic, I'd be in the olympics.  Since when does Republican equal Conservative.  There are no liberal Republicans?  No Moderate Republicans?

..........

Our President, ok, he's conservative.  You get one of out of three so far.  But don't say that Republican means Conservative.  Both parties are full of moderates too.  Or don't we exist?

Buc, I think you're slightly misinterpreting the notion of control that was raised by Bondo. Its not an issue on political slant or the grades of a Republican's or Dem's point of view. It's the fact that they are a social/political group. As such, they are united in goals. They are a unit. Despite that people within, say, the Republican party can and do disagree they function within a greater  framework. Thus, the issue of control over all branches of government is quite valid. They hold majorities in the house and senate, hold the office of the president, and there are more conservative, republican appointed judged on the supreme court. I think there is no better example of proof in regards to the Supreme Court's right-leaning than their interference in the recounts in Florida and their subsequent handing over of the office of the president to Governor Bush.

Additionaly, its is an absolute truth that on the average Republicans are more right leaning (i.e. "Conservative") and Dems are more left leaning (i.e. "Liberal"). Both parties trumpet this. Being a Republican is thus by default the essence of not being liberal -and if you are not liberal, what direction are your politics oriented?

Further the concept that a moderate is going to be "switchable" or "open minded" is broken. A moderate, in my mind, is someone who is on the leading or trialing edge of their party's politics. However, they must still function within the greater frame of their political party. They are not politically mutable, they are just "less" stringent in their adherance to lesser policy issues. Few politicals are truly politically mutable - the senator from Vermont being an exception.

To attempt to argue that because "some" of those in the Republican party are more morderate than others within their party the party as a whole is not conservative is false. To presume that because some within the party are more moderate that the party cannot exicute its control over the various branches of government is further inaccurate. It may make some policy issues harder to overcome (such as making abortion illegal), but in more "broad" issues, like war, we can see the party being incredibly tightly intergrated.

six