The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. - Dick Cheney

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh by the way:

TLC: Exactly. Love may have been "a" reason but it wasn't "the" reason and in the broad view of things, love was inconsequential to France's decision.

So inconsequential in fact that the French love of the American Revolution and the idealism it represented is never discussed and mentioned as one of the factors bring the French to the American side in history. Oh wait, it gets mentioned all the time and all over the place, which, I suppose just shows, that history deals with matters of little consequence, or else, for TLC inconsequential means things the size of his ass.

Don't forget to mention that less then a decade later the French had their own revolution.... and I don't thimk it was because they hated the British.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What was the reason we invaded Iraq?

Oil

Control, which is btw the central issue implied in the title of this thread.

It is what we do, and we will not apologize for our way of life.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What was the reason we invaded Iraq?

Oil

Control, which is btw the central issue implied in the title of this thread.

Correct. Oil is the issue because of its role in global power.

It is what we do, and we will not apologize for our way of life.

What the hell does that mean? It's empty propagandistic rhetoric. You may as well be a mob spokesman.

It's one thing to defend our freedoms, and quite another to take others' freedoms.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Control, which is btw the central issue implied in the title of this thread.

It is what we do, and we will not apologize for our way of life.

The Bushwhckos gave us PLENTY for which to apologize. The title of this thread refers to statements by the thankfully EX-Vice Traitor In Chief. He, Bush and the rest of their criminal cabal squandered thousands of American troops and possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis with their war of LIES to us and the world. They committed their crimes in our name, and along the way, they committed torture and other horrific war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In addition to the lives they wasted, they squandered trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money our great greatgrandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet, which could have been enough to cover the cost of the way they fucked up the economies of the U.S. and the world.

The best way to start apologizing to ourselves and the world is to show the world that we do not support their criminality, and we will not allow it to go unpunished. It starts with indicting and trying them for their crimes in a court of law. If they are indicted by the International Court, it continues by delivering them for trial by that body.

It most definitely includes ignoring further bullshit from any of the lying POS Bushwhacko traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers and dumping them on the trash heap of history. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You didn't understand it was a humorous reference to "man of war" posting against war?

I got your joke, just assume I did. Then I made my OWN joke. JERKFACE

 

[dualsmp]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What was the reason we invaded Iraq?

Oil

+Weapons Sales
+Handout Lucrative Contracts to Special Interests (eg. Halliburton, Blackwater)
+Build Permanent Military Bases
+Install Puppet Gov't
+Make War Last Long As Possible (see Weapon Sales)

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What was the reason we invaded Iraq?

Oil

Control, which is btw the central issue implied in the title of this thread.

Correct. Oil is the issue because of its role in global power.

It is what we do, and we will not apologize for our way of life.

It's empty propagandistic rhetoric.

It was a quote from Obama & his inaugural address. The meaning and intent is very clear. The message to those that don't love us is very clear. Those that respect us, well they understand, even if you don't.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What was the reason we invaded Iraq?

Anyone asked that question would answer WMDs to the exclusion of all other reasons. In fact, that very subject has been hashed over numerous times in this forum with the anti-war crowd claiming that not only were any other reasons inconsequential, they were of no consequence. Without WMDs we never would have gone into Iraq. None of the other reasons provided motivation for doing so. While they can be cited as factors they were not motivating factors which is precisely why nobody ever bothers to mention them as "the reason." The same applies to France helping the US.

This is wrong.

The first thing to do is to separate the justifications *given* for the war by Bush, with the motives he *actually* had, in the opinion of whoever is speaking.

We didn't make that distinction in the case of France and our revolutionary war, because we didn't go looking in history for differences between France's stated and 'real' reasons.

I don't think anyone on the left has said that WMD really were the only reason for the way. You are distorting their position for your purposes.

The issue with France was 'motives', where the left issue with Iraq was 'justification'.

What the left is saying is that *Bush's position* was that WMD were the only justification for the war. I can show you quotes from Bush where he said that if the issue of WMD was addressed, *we would not invade*. That actually did prove that all the other 'side benefits' of the war Bush mentioned *were not claimed to rise to the level of justification*, or else he wouldn't have said we would not invade if WMD were addressed.

The issue with France is simply the motives; the relevant issue for the left with Iraq s whether the war was illegal.

Because the US has signed the UN charter outlawing us for going to war for the other 'reasons' or 'benefits' Bush has mentioned, that's why WMD are central, because those are how the US claimed the UN charter exception for war based on an 'imminent threat' from another nation. WMD were that 'imminent threat', without them, we were in clear violation of the UN charter we signed.

So those are all very different issues between Iraq and France in the 18th century.

Erm, K. The above really has nothing to do with the analogy I made, nor was I even implying that the issues between Iraq and France's assistance to the US in the RW were identical.

When normal people (I'm excluding the partisan hacks because they'll do whatever they need to steer away from the issues in the first place) think of the reason why we invaded Iraq they generally think of WMDs. Nothin else was driving reason for invading Iraq. In that capacity it's no different from France in that their desire to strike back at the British was the driving reason.

The reason, THE reason, that France helped the US was out of hatred for Britain. It was the primary motivator for their actions and a gamut of emotions that involved nationalism (actually a mild case of xenophobia disguised as nationalism), pride, ego, and a desire for revenge. Boiled down to their essence, all of those emotions were fueled by their hatred. Without that hatred none of the other reasons would have prompted them to do what they did. Love nor idealism would not have prompted it; nothing prompted it until France saw what they was an opening to crush the British. Only then did they decide to join the fray.

You need to learn to use evidence, not jsut make assertions.

No one said that 'French hatred for Britain' wasn't one of the reasons for their allying with the US, though I think I made a point about your misuse of emotion as opposed to their national interests against Britain. Moonbeam didn't even say it wasn't the 'primary' reason for their allying. He said there was a combination of reasons. You have said over and over 'huh uh' but he's the only one citing historical evidence for his position.

You can read the history, the papers, of the time and see how powerful the idealism about the emancipation of man from the millenia of the middle ages was.

You underestimate the role of that in the decisions on foreign affairs.

I've read the history, tyvm. The timeline of France's decision demonstrates that their idealism alone, no matter how allegedly strong it was, was not enough to prompt them to help the US. Only when France saw a military opening and the potential to smack down Britain militarily did they finally act. That fact alone throws ice cold water on the 'They did it because they loved us.' theory.

Of course, you actually have to know a little something about that period in history to understand why hatred was the motivating factor and it doesn't appear that either you or Moonie are that informed. Instead you have to pathetically and weakly argue by telling ME what my own intent was when the problem actually resides in both of your lack of knowledge of the time period and failure to comprehend why my statement was true in the first place.

Give it up. Moonie got owned and you're getting dirty by association.

It's ironic, but predictably ironic, for you to attack him for his ignorance of history, when you are displaying an ignorance of the importance of the idealism of the period in the emancipation of man following the millenia of the middle ages under the corrupt rule of an elite, and of the role of diplomacy.

You are simply overplaying idealism's importance decision, by a large margin. Besides that, you've shown exactly zero proof that it actually played any role in the decision at all.

I'm going to cite now from a PBS source two points, one supporting the claim of the importance of what you call the 'only' important reason, the other showing it wasn't.

5th grade history lesson snipped

Franklin responsible for obtaining that aid. Not simply a cold calculation by the French about their interest, not simply their leaping at the chance out of hatred for Britain.

They loved Franklin. And he was 'almost entirely responsible' for their decision. That doesn't mean instead of the national interest and hate of Britain - he used those things.

But if you don't understad that wasn't all there was to it, the ongoing relationship where the idealism of America fed the idealism in France leading to the French Revolution - which Jefferson prasised strongly early on - you are not accurate. Moonbeam's the one who pointed out the 'combination' of reasons, andyou said he was wrong.

This isn't the first "TLC can't admit his mistake" thread, and you are predictably trying to defend with offense. It has long since been a futile effort to expect to acknowledge wrong.

For what it's worth, I think this is more of a 'you wrote poorly not meaning what you said' issue more than a 'you really think what you said is right' issue.

As for your 'sphincter' language, you need to elevate your discourse if you want any continued responses. I.e., don't be an ass.

This is a fairly minor issue, the main thing is your aggressive attacks and defense of those attacks that are wrong.

At this point it's just not letting you get away with trying to win by saying the wrong thing enough times. I don't expect you to admit wrong, but the other readers can see it.

I question whether it's worth additional bother, but when I see you continuing the aggressive approach, it demands response.

Franklin was likeable and very, very persuasive. If we had sent someone else the French didn't like, all the dealism in the world wouldn't have mattered. So that kind of puts another dagger in the 'idealism' claim. Besides that, Franklin frequently whispered in the ear of the French elite, telling them exactly how they could knock down Britain a notch or two, which fed right into their desires.

btw, the main reason the French Revolution came about was because of the French elite basically bankrupting the country helping the US. Their alleged idealism eventually caused economic chaos. That economic chaos drove the revolution. So, apparently, idealism and the belief in liberty wasn't enough to quell the masses from rebelling in their own country. A bit ironic when you think about it.

Again, I will reiterate. I understand completely there was more to it than hatred. But hatred was the central and most critical factor, by far. All the lengthy responses, examples of idealism, and anecdotes about Franklin don't change that simple fact.

As far as aggressive attacks, I give what I get in here. Moonie went on the offensive based on what he perceived was a weakness in my statement, when the weakness was his penchant for assumptions. Then he wrongly attempted to make this a black & white issue, which was never my intent. It's not the first time he's misrepresented my position in a discussion and probably won't be the last either.

I also recognize the penchant of forum members in general to flock with birds of their own ideological feather. So your attempt to back Moonie up doesn't surprise me either. I wouldn't be surprised if that was even your own primary motivating factor for responding to me. So don't imagine that you've somehow prevented me from "geting away from trying to win.' In fact, that may be an opposing factor between you and me. I'm not in here to win anything. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there are no prizes given out in P&N?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

There is a HUGE difference between being respected and being feared.

Respect comes from respecting while fear comes from terrorising.

Being feared only means that they wait until you turn your back before they shoot you in it or in some cases where people don't fear retaliation, pain or death they will simply get you anyway they can.

Cheneys version of respect is to try to get people to fear you, he's a daft little punk and probably has been since he was in preschool.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Control, which is btw the central issue implied in the title of this thread.

It is what we do, and we will not apologize for our way of life.

The Bushwhckos gave us PLENTY for which to apologize. The title of this thread refers to statements by the thankfully EX-Vice Traitor In Chief. He, Bush and the rest of their criminal cabal squandered thousands of American troops and possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis with their war of LIES to us and the world. They committed their crimes in our name, and along the way, they committed torture and other horrific war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In addition to the lives they wasted, they squandered trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money our great greatgrandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet, which could have been enough to cover the cost of the way they fucked up the economies of the U.S. and the world.

The best way to start apologizing to ourselves and the world is to show the world that we do not support their criminality, and we will not allow it to go unpunished. It starts with indicting and trying them for their crimes in a court of law. If they are indicted by the International Court, it continues by delivering them for trial by that body.

It most definitely includes ignoring further bullshit from any of the lying POS Bushwhacko traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers and dumping them on the trash heap of history. :thumbsdown: :|

Fuck man, think of something new to complain about. Or at least a new way to say it. It's like reading the same post over and over and over and over and over.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
There is a HUGE difference between being respected and being feared.

Respect comes from respecting while fear comes from terrorising.

Being feared only means that they wait until you turn your back before they shoot you in it or in some cases where people don't fear retaliation, pain or death they will simply get you anyway they can.

Cheneys version of respect is to try to get people to fear you, he's a daft little punk and probably has been since he was in preschool.

It's just amazing so many people can't see this.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Control, which is btw the central issue implied in the title of this thread.

It is what we do, and we will not apologize for our way of life.

The Bushwhckos gave us PLENTY for which to apologize. The title of this thread refers to statements by the thankfully EX-Vice Traitor In Chief. He, Bush and the rest of their criminal cabal squandered thousands of American troops and possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis with their war of LIES to us and the world. They committed their crimes in our name, and along the way, they committed torture and other horrific war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In addition to the lives they wasted, they squandered trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money our great greatgrandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet, which could have been enough to cover the cost of the way they fucked up the economies of the U.S. and the world.

The best way to start apologizing to ourselves and the world is to show the world that we do not support their criminality, and we will not allow it to go unpunished. It starts with indicting and trying them for their crimes in a court of law. If they are indicted by the International Court, it continues by delivering them for trial by that body.

It most definitely includes ignoring further bullshit from any of the lying POS Bushwhacko traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers and dumping them on the trash heap of history. :thumbsdown: :|

Fuck man, think of something new to complain about. Or at least a new way to say it. It's like reading the same post over and over and over and over and over.

You know, Bill, if not for Iraq, what do you think the Talibans would be doing right now? Fucking up Pakistan, burning schools, killing shoolgirls or being detained/lieing flat in the ground? Imagine if we had the support of 150K instead of less than 20K to do the job right from the start? We've had no ability to even control a small city properly in Afghanistan OR the border.

It was a very costly mistake and most people know that it was all for the wet dream of invading Iraq at any cost.

I don't believe for one second that ANYONE expected the results from doing that to be any different than they were, i just think they lied because they knew that once it was underway there would be no turning back.

Harvey isn't just pissed off at the lies and misleading information spouted, he's pissed off because if this had been done right, we would be done by now.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
There is a HUGE difference between being respected and being feared.

Respect comes from respecting while fear comes from terrorising.

Being feared only means that they wait until you turn your back before they shoot you in it or in some cases where people don't fear retaliation, pain or death they will simply get you anyway they can.

Cheneys version of respect is to try to get people to fear you, he's a daft little punk and probably has been since he was in preschool.

It's just amazing so many people can't see this.

I think it's partly an age thing, somewhere the fear and respect concept got intermixed but Cheney should be old enough to get it so i don't know what his excuse is.