</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ April 09 2003,10:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe that photo above is mirrowed? Happens sometimes with photos or tapes. ***[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Maybe he did it himself, looking in the mirrior, like the infamouslu stupid skinhead who tattooed SNIKS on his forehead
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">edit: i think i remember it more clearly now. denoir's post at the time was that if WMDs were found, he'd agree that inspection was not working.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think this is what you are refering to:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (Tex @ ,,,,)
Here's the reasoning. If only a few civilians are killed (or none- but we can only hope), that will allay the fears of a large group who think that Iraq's people have already been subjected to more than they deserve, and more would just be too much. If Iraq's military dissolves quickly, then that will allay the fears that the war will escalate into a Vietnam-type scenario. And finally, if we find stocks of WMD, it will prove dead-wrong people who have full faith that the inspection regime was working right up until the point that the US pulled the plug. So... where do we stand? Will the war still be considered illegal/immoral/just plain wrong even after a positive outcome?
I'll be the first one who will say that the war was a success and that it was right. The fact that it was illegal will be quickly forgotten. Those are however huge "ifs" and they are also very hard to verify since it isn't exactly like we are going to hear fair and objective information on the progress of war. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Can be found on page 299:
Page 299
EDIT: The qoute is from Denoir replying to Tex.
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
-- H. Poincare
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,01:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,01:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe US should reconsider it's willingness to use force all the time. Maybe there are other options?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
which methods i'm sure the critics can apply to end the dictatorship right now. so why isn't other industrial nations use non-militaristic approach to end dictatorship in sub-Saharan Africa?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ask ANC about all the economic support they got from industrialized nations. You would be surprised - I promise![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
and the dictators are nowhere to be found in Africa right now, right?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is that both in case of Afghanistan and Iraq the American military action was not based on goodwill or altruism. Realpolitik doesn't work like that. It was based on American self-interest. Pure and simple. Political self-interest with Afghanistan and economic self-interest with Iraq. Whatever happens to the citizens of those countries is secondary and largely irrelevant. Iraqis will get a better government? -that's great, awsome, makes for excellent TV! Afghans will go back to being under warlords or Taliban? -that's OK, too, 'cause nobody cares anyway! The thing is, I don't understand why you people just can't admit it? Does it help you sleep better at night, knowing that you are "liberating" someone instead of securing your own economic future? Personally, I'd have tons more respect for the one American who would say: "Hell, yes, we did it to secure our strategic interests in Iraq. We did it because our military is capable of such power projection." I still wouldn't approve you position, but I'd at least respect the honesty. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yes, there you go.no nation works for altruism al of the time. not US, not Sweden, not norway, not Japan, not China, not Canada, not France, not Germany, not any other ones.
and it also raises intersting question. why are critics asking for altruism for certain groups while as not attacking the others. if you consider one entity to be altruisitic, then they should admit that even they themselves are under self-interest driven reasons. France surely do not have altruistic reasons to oppose war. and who doesn't? one of the most intersting argument is using altruism for basis of criticism, when the critic him/herself do not have such reasons.
Please read Forum Rules
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 10 2003,02:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">edit: i think i remember it more clearly now. denoir's post at the time was that if WMDs were found, he'd agree that inspection was not working.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think this is what you are refering to:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (Tex @ ,,,,)
Here's the reasoning. If only a few civilians are killed (or none- but we can only hope), that will allay the fears of a large group who think that Iraq's people have already been subjected to more than they deserve, and more would just be too much. If Iraq's military dissolves quickly, then that will allay the fears that the war will escalate into a Vietnam-type scenario. And finally, if we find stocks of WMD, it will prove dead-wrong people who have full faith that the inspection regime was working right up until the point that the US pulled the plug. So... where do we stand? Will the war still be considered illegal/immoral/just plain wrong even after a positive outcome?
I'll be the first one who will say that the war was a success and that it was right. The fact that it was illegal will be quickly forgotten. Those are however huge "ifs" and they are also very hard to verify since it isn't exactly like we are going to hear fair and objective information on the progress of war. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Can be found on page 299:
Page 299
EDIT: The qoute is from Denoir replying to Tex.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
nice job
exposing moderators questionable search ability: perm ban.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,02:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and the dictators are nowhere to be found in Africa right now, right?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
How would Norway singlehandedly save all of africa from dictators if I may ask?
My point was an effort to give you an example that there are other options. But then again - that might not be the american way so just go on ignoring it. You seem to be good at it!
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 10 2003,01:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 10 2003,01:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 10 2003,01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How can you be so naíve? I guess it was just a total accident that the dictator that you had to "get rid of" and the people to be "liberated" were sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves? I mean, if you want to fight evil dictators, why not do it sub-saharan Africa?
As for Afghanistan, read the posts above...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
and what happened as soon as US showed interest in Africa? Critics say US should not do it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Oh come on. Since when did the criticism start to matter to the US? I'm pretty sure that the critisim of the current conflict is greater by an order of a magnitude comapred to criticism of any potential involvement in Africa. Yet the US went ahead and invaded Iraq anyway.
My point is that both in case of Afghanistan and Iraq the American military action was not based on goodwill or altruism. Realpolitik doesn't work like that. It was based on American self-interest. Pure and simple. Political self-interest with Afghanistan and economic self-interest with Iraq. Whatever happens to the citizens of those countries is secondary and largely irrelevant. Iraqis will get a better government? -that's great, awsome, makes for excellent TV! Afghans will go back to being under warlords or Taliban? -that's OK, too, 'cause nobody cares anyway! The thing is, I don't understand why you people just can't admit it? Does it help you sleep better at night, knowing that you are "liberating" someone instead of securing your own economic future? Personally, I'd have tons more respect for the one American who would say: "Hell, yes, we did it to secure our strategic interests in Iraq. We did it because our military is capable of such power projection." I still wouldn't approve you position, but I'd at least respect the honesty.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Realpolitik went out of fashion in the U.S. foreign policy in the late 1960's. ***I think it is in the interests of the world, and especially the Palestinians to see a stabile middle east. ***Once the radicalism dies away, there may actually be a chance for a Palestinian state.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Of course peace in the Middle East is preferrable to war in the Middle East. But whatever gave you the idea that the current conflict is going to increase the stability of the region? As for realpolitik going out of fashion... well... as I said before, if denial helps you to sleep at night just keep it up then.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,02:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">nice job
exposing moderators questionable search ability: perm ban.
I remembered what you were talking about...
So I started at page 360 or so and went bacwards each page looking at denoir posts...hardly an efficient "search" job by me
I was in the US Army for 12 years over all and a Ranger for 10
you guys don't know what the hell you are talking about we could have taking all the oil in 91.If this war was for us to take over Iraq we could have killed them all in 48 hours.its about wmd the rest is just the only way to get them for saddam.and as for what people that don't know what it is to be free think who gives a rats ass.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 10 2003,02:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 10 2003,02
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and the dictators are nowhere to be found in Africa right now, right?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
How would Norway singlehandedly save all of africa from dictators if I may ask?
My point was an effort to give you an example that there are other options. But then again - that might not be the american way so just go on ignoring it. You seem to be good at it![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
start a coalition?
your statement pretty much exposes some questions about how critics act. critics can criticize, but cannot come up with alternative solution. they say "no to this, no to that", soley relying their existence upon being opposite, instead of being something of itself. if it was something of itself, it would say things like. "no, instead of military way, try <insert better solution>".
if you want, we can talk about this over <s>french</s> freedom fries.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, there you go.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, thank you. There's hope for you yet.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and it also raises intersting question. why are critics asking for altruism for certain groups while as not attacking the others. if you consider one entity to be altruisitic, then they should admit that even they themselves are under self-interest driven reasons. France surely do not have altruistic reasons to oppose war. and who doesn't? one of the most intersting argument is using altruism for basis of criticism, when the critic him/herself do not have such reasons.
Well, I don't have the energy to dig up my old posts about Russia's opposition to this war, but, in short, that's pretty much what I've been saying all along. Of course it's in Russian self-interest to oppose it...
Posting Permissions
HOME 
