Political Potpourri III - The next round.

BWhite · 2005-03-14 16:58:53

Wal-Mart fires Solidarity veteran from Poland allegedly for trying to http://newstandardnews.net/content/?act … 4]organize a union.

Tomtas, who was involved in Poland’s Solidarity movement to overthrow a Soviet-style dictatorship in the 1980s, chained himself to a stop sign in front of Wal-Mart on Thursday. Police asked him to leave to avoid arrest, but said he could continue protesting in front of the building provided he does not block traffic.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-15 04:33:01

Another http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co … .html]GOOD ARTICLE from The Australian newspaper here in Australia, written by Iranian author Amir Taheri.
It helps underline the hypocrisy of some Western leaders and the usual suspects of the left-wing 'rent-a-crowd' who support them.

One or two excerpts for those too busy to read the whole thing (though it's not very long).

Over the past two weeks several Western capitals, including London and Paris, have witnessed feverish activity by more than two dozen groups organising meetings and marches to mark the second anniversary of the liberation of Iraq. The aim is not to celebrate the event and express solidarity with the emerging Iraqi democracy, but to vilify George W. Bush and Tony Blair, thus lamenting the demise of Saddam Hussein.
I spent part of last week ringing up the organisers of the anti-war events with a couple of questions. The first: Would they allow anyone from the newly elected Iraqi parliament to address the gatherings? The second: Would the marches include expressions of support for the democracy movements in Arab and other Muslim countries, notably Iraq, Lebanon and Syria?
In both cases the answer was a categorical no, accompanied by a torrent of abuse about "all those who try to justify American aggression against Iraq".

That remnants of the totalitarian Left and various brands of fascism should march to condemn the liberation of Iraq is no surprise. What is surprising is that some mainstream groups, such as the British Liberal-Democrat Party and even some former members of Tony Blair's Labour Government, should join these marches of shame.
The Lib-Dems at their spring conference last week found enough time to reiterate their shameful opposition to the liberation of Iraq at some length. But they had no time to take note of what looks like a historic turning point in favour of democracy in the Middle East. As for those Labour ministers who resigned from Blair's cabinet in protest against the toppling of Saddam Hussein, there is as yet no sign that they might express any support for freedom marches in various Arab capitals.

The situation is no better in continental Europe. Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, has yet to show the same degree of activism in support of the Arab democratic movement as he did in 2003, when he fought desperately to prevent the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. For his part, France's President Jacques Chirac, who in February 2003 proposed an emergency summit to save Saddam Hussein, and appeared almost daily on television opposing the liberation of Iraq, is yet to give the slightest hint that he might favour the demise of any more tyrannies in the region.

It makes you wonder whose side these dimwits are on, doesn't it. :;):

Palomar · 2005-03-15 08:43:54

*Hi Shaun: Well, again, the original stated purpose of U.S. troops going into Iraq wasn't (upon my memory) to liberate Iraq. It was to search out and destroy WMD's. Of course, toppling Saddam would be part of that plan...and liberation as a byproduct (sorry, I don't mean to sound flippant).

But to lament the demise of Hussein? And to even consider a summit to save Saddam, in 2003??

And no matter how much Bush might be hated, Saddam is certainly (at the very least) no better a person!

Chirac sounds like an idiot with severely misplaced priorities (but of course he's not really, I'm sure). IF Saddam had been a relatively fair and "nice " dictator who treated his people "okay," didn't subject certain ethnic groups to a tortuous death via testing chemical agents, didn't have alleged traitors tortured to death in various gruesome ways, had a rather benign dictatorship going over there...and if the U.S. had then gone in for no good reason, I could understand this level of outrage and protestation. But Saddam wasn't a nice guy, and good riddance to scum. ::EDIT:: I recall the shock and protests to Saddam being shown on TV while his mouth and teeth were being examined. I'm trying to imagine people in the U.S. and Europe being shocked and protesting Adolph Hitler being filmed while his mouth and teeth are examined after the fall of Berlin, if he hadn't committed suicide. Frankly, I don't think that would have happened. ::END EDIT::

Seems obvious to me it was in Chirac's favor for Saddam to remain in power...no doubt some "under the table" shady benefit. What MORAL basis could Chirac have for supporting Saddam and opposing Bush? Bush hasn't been more of a scoundrel than Hussein has been, at the very least. Or, if one believes both are equally scoundrels, why favor Hussein?

Politics sure is a dirty business. And of course the big-shots have got to keep "the little people" fired up and angry (misdirection), put on a noble face and take a morally superior stance, to continue their dirty deals behind our backs...for THEIR benefit.

And yes, that can go in any number of directions.

By the way, I find it interesting and amusing that when criticism is applied in the other direction, certain parties clam up or change the subject. :laugh: Criticize the U.S. all you want...criticize the other direction and it's SILENCE. Teehee.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-15 09:17:02

Luc-ee! We got us some trolling going on!

BWhite · 2005-03-15 09:29:02

Those who possess greater power have a greater responsibility to act with prudence and due care.

If a bunch of powerless yahoos march in the street and act like bozos it is only to be expected, and ignored.

When the world's only superpower acts like a crazed 12 year old waving a loaded 45 pistol, that warrants a wee bit more attention.

Palomar · 2005-03-15 10:59:17

*I prefer to think of it as astute observation. :;):

-*-

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … nteresting apology

...and she's "half American."

--Cindy

P.S.: Bill, why does Chirac favor Hussein over Bush? Any insights?

I previously said:

What MORAL basis could Chirac have for supporting Saddam and opposing Bush? Bush hasn't been more of a scoundrel than Hussein has been, at the very least. Or, if one believes both are equally scoundrels, why favor Hussein?

BWhite · 2005-03-15 11:12:27

P.S.: Bill, why does Chirac favor Hussein over Bush? Any insights?

It is NOT "either/or" - - to insist that nuanced question be answered yes or no is one sign of a bully.

Bush or Hussein? My preference is neither. :;):

= = =

Chirac too. We should lose him also.

But if its musical chairs I say lose them all, and don't let Bush sneak in as last man standing.

Edited By BWhite on 1110906919

Palomar · 2005-03-15 11:18:34

P.S.: Bill, why does Chirac favor Hussein over Bush? Any insights?
It is NOT "either/or" - - to insist that nuanced question be answered yes or no is one sign of a bully.

*I don't understand the first part of your reply. But going on:

Bush or Hussein? My preference is neither. :;):

Let's step outside ourselves a minute, Bill. We're both merely bystanders of no nationality. You're not a Democrat, I'm not a Moderate.

Why does Chirac favor Hussein over Bush? It doesn't make sense to me.

Again: At the very least, if one believes both Bush and Hussein are equally scoundrels, why favor one above the other? ???

Simple straightforward question.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Just now saw your edit.

P.S. -- Never mind. I think I get the gist of what you're saying.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-15 11:26:41

It is NOT "either/or" - - to insist that nuanced question be answered yes or no is one sign of a bully.
. . . But if its musical chairs I say lose them all, and don't let Bush sneak in as last man standing.

And all things being equal I'd take all the chairs, stack them up and shout orders from them. But we have only the options currently on the table. I have my differences with the President on numerous points, but I do not see the benefit in bashing every effort of the Administration or this nation when the decision is long since made and the course set. There are successes as well as failures but we have a set range of possibilities and a set number of options. If none are acceptable you can choose take your marbles and go home, but the game goes on.

Where do we go from here is the question, not where we should we have gone two years ago.

BWhite · 2005-03-15 11:28:44

I do not believe Chirac does prefer Hussein over Bush - - your question assumes an either/or choice that does not exist, except as a propaganda device. (Chirac is too ammoral for that, anyways)

Saying "you are either with us or against us" is a usually a lie designed to intimidate.

= = =

PS - - Chirac is a weasel, IMHO. But so what?

= = =

The GOP tried the same strategy with social security. Support the Bush plan to privatize social security, otherwise you weaken the President which empowers bin Laden. To disagree about social security makes you a friend of the terrorists.

Iraq was never about Iraq but about destroying the UN, which has been accomplished. Mission Accomplished was true after all.

:;):

Edited By BWhite on 1110908086

Palomar · 2005-03-15 11:36:37

I do not believe Chirac does prefer Hussein over Bush - - your question assumes an either/or choice that does not exist, except as a propaganda device. (Chirac is too ammoral for that, anyways)
Saying "you are either with us or against us" is a usually a lie designed to intimidate.

*Gee whiz, that was not my intention at all.

I simply don't see how anyone could possibly favor Hussein above Bush -- and I mean on a human, gut-feeling level (politics aside). It seems to me Chirac favors Hussein ::shrugs::

Bill, you and I are on 2 entirely different wavelengths. Frankly I'm beginning to wonder if genuine communication between us is even possible. I sometimes think you intentionally -don't- want to understand or see varying viewpoints.

And -if- you're insinuating (maybe I'm misreading you) that I'm using a "propoganda device"... :laugh: Wow, you'd be giving me waaaaaaay too much credit. I'm not that politically sophisticated by a longshot.

Ah well, enough "mountain/molehill" already.

--Cindy

P.S.: By the way, liberals and Democrats use the old "you're either for us or against us" routine too. A few folks -- like myself -- can see both sides of the coin. But we're rarely given credit for it, and in fact most people don't like that ability for whatever reason.

BWhite · 2005-03-15 11:40:45

I simply don't see how anyone could possibly favor Hussein above Bush -- and I mean on a human, gut-feeling level (politics aside). It seems to me Chirac favors Hussein ::shrugs::

See what drinking Kool-Aid causes?

Why is it either/or? Like 3rd graders playing who is my "best" friend.

Chirac would sell out Hussein in an instant IF it served his purposes.

BWhite · 2005-03-15 11:42:44

World politicians are amoral weasels, ALL OF THEM. Even GWB.

Who they "prefer" is entirely the wrong question to ask and utterly irrelevant.

Palomar · 2005-03-15 11:47:24

*I feel you misunderstood me, Bill. And that you jumped a bit too hastily to a conclusion.

Maybe we've got a genuine communication gap here.

Regardless, I don't feel you gave *me* any benefit of the doubt.

Another fruitless discussion apparently. 'Bye.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-15 12:18:49

Cindy, all I am doing is refusing to answer "why" Chirac prefers Hussein to Bush because I believe the question makes no sense.

And I am explaining why I believe the question makes no sense. If other people wish to discuss why Chirac prefers Hussein to Bush, no proble, its a free country.

= = =

Anyway, why does Putin prefer the mullahs in Iran to Bush? :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1110910745

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-15 12:23:39

Follow the money...

BWhite · 2005-03-15 13:15:28

Follow the money...

Exactly!

A rule of analysis that works equally well for domestic and foreign policy. Some neo-cons have been whining that the French have been thwarting our foriegn policy.

Well d'oh! DeGaulle did that 50 years ago.

= = =

"Crying Wolf" on Saddam's WMD actually makes it harder to stop the Iranian bomb.

Grypd · 2005-03-15 16:44:16

Italy has ordered the staged withdrawl of the 3000 troops that it currently has in Iraq. This follows the Killing of a secret service agent and the wounding of a freed hostage by American soldiers.

So there the repercussions have happened, Italy was a faithful supporter of the coalition in Iraq and a supporter of both Bush and Tony Blair. But with public feeling very negative since the incident. Is this a body blow to the coalition and has put more pressure on Blair as a European

BWhite · 2005-03-15 17:15:44

Italy has ordered the staged withdrawl of the 3000 troops that it currently has in Iraq. This follows the Killing of a secret service agent and the wounding of a freed hostage by American soldiers.
So there the repercussions have happened, Italy was a faithful supporter of the coalition in Iraq and a supporter of both Bush and Tony Blair. But with public feeling very negative since the incident. Is this a body blow to the coalition and has put more pressure on Blair as a European

Tony Blair http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n … 3.stm]gets chopped at the knees!

Palomar · 2005-03-15 17:33:46

Italy has ordered the staged withdrawl of the 3000 troops that it currently has in Iraq. This follows the Killing of a secret service agent and the wounding of a freed hostage by American soldiers.
So there the repercussions have happened, Italy was a faithful supporter of the coalition in Iraq and a supporter of both Bush and Tony Blair. But with public feeling very negative since the incident. Is this a body blow to the coalition and has put more pressure on Blair as a European

*Well I am truly sorry for the death of the Italian agent...and for anyone who dies in Iraq as a result of the war.

But to pull out their troops entirely over this one very unfortunate incident? And the wounded, freed hostage as well?

Finish what you started (or, in this case, -joined-).

Maybe their hearts weren't with the war for starters. IF so, they should have kept their troops home from the get-go, especially as death and tragedy are part and parcel of war...you certainly can't guarantee these sorts of misfortunate events -won't- occur.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-15 17:42:15

Hmmm.
I certainly don't want to get involved in another pointless and acrimonious exchange about world politics but might I be permitted a comment or two regarding the newspaper article I quoted?
My view, for what it's worth, is that Cindy's question could have been tackled more diplomatically and without uncalled-for reference to 'trolling, lies, intimidation, bullying, childishness .. and Kool-Aid'!

Chirac is a weasel, agreed, and I think asking why he opposed the liberation of Iraq so strongly is a valid question, even if it is phrased as "Why does Chirac prefer Hussein to Bush?" I'm not sure I would have posed the question in quite that way, myself, but I think its meaning is no less clear for all that.
And, eventually, it seems Bill answered that question, despite his somewhat theatrical protestations about its structure. He said Chirac is amoral and "would sell out Hussein in an instant IF it suited his purposes". In other words, Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war was much more likely to be born of expedience and greed than any higher motivation.

I believe that statement did indeed answer Cindy's question - and I believe it could have done so much earlier in the piece, too, without all the unnecessary put-downs.
???

Grypd · 2005-03-15 18:10:38

*Well I am truly sorry for the death of the Italian agent...and for anyone who dies in Iraq as a result of the war.
But to pull out their troops entirely over this one very unfortunate incident? And the wounded, freed hostage as well?
Finish what you started (or, in this case, -joined-).
Maybe their hearts weren't with the war for starters. IF so, they should have kept their troops home from the get-go, especially as death and tragedy are part and parcel of war...you certainly can't guarantee these sorts of misfortunate events -won't- occur.
--Cindy

The problem was that the Italian goverment had not been following what was termed the party line when its citizens had been held for ransom. It may well have paid them off.

But what has the Italians really irate is the belief that the vehicle was deliberatly fired upon. The Base commander knew the Italians where coming along the road and the watch on duty knew it too.

But just before the vehicle was due along the road, fresh soldiers appeared and it was them who fired on the vehicle.

Now the Goverment of Italy has not come out shouting that it was just a tragic accident actually they are being for this country very quiet. Public opinion demanded an immediate return but the withdrawl will be staged from september.

BWhite · 2005-03-15 21:06:15

Our checkpoints killed an Iraqi general today.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-16 00:23:38

An Iraqi general, eh?!
It just goes to show that the anti-democratic forces are still achieving their goals in Iraq, despite the best efforts of the Coalition.
The same applies also in the case of the Italian journalist's entourage, of course.
Tragic. :bars:

What's even more depressing is the prospect of Italy withdrawing their 3000 troops in the next 6 months or so. It looks like the Italians are about to make the same mistake the Spanish people made - abandoning the brave Iraqi people just as they're finding their feet.
As we've all agreed, whatever one might think about the wisdom or otherwise of liberating Iraq, now is not the time to cut and run.

On a happier note, I'm pleased to report Australia is sending an extra 450 troops to Iraq soon, to help replace the 1400 Dutch soldiers recently withdrawn. (Such a pity the Dutch, too, have decided to quit at this critical time for the Middle East.)
???

Palomar · 2005-03-16 06:33:03

On a happier note, I'm pleased to report Australia is sending an extra 450 troops to Iraq soon, to help replace the 1400 Dutch soldiers recently withdrawn. (Such a pity the Dutch, too, have decided to quit at this critical time for the Middle East.)
???

*That's an increase of approximately 50%, correct? Australia currently has 950 troops in Iraq, last I read.

And on a different note: Thank you.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-03-14 16:58:53

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#127 2005-03-15 04:33:01

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#128 2005-03-15 08:43:54

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#129 2005-03-15 09:17:02

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#130 2005-03-15 09:29:02

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#131 2005-03-15 10:59:17

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#132 2005-03-15 11:12:27

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#133 2005-03-15 11:18:34

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#134 2005-03-15 11:26:41

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#135 2005-03-15 11:28:44

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#136 2005-03-15 11:36:37

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#137 2005-03-15 11:40:45

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#138 2005-03-15 11:42:44

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#139 2005-03-15 11:47:24

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#140 2005-03-15 12:18:49

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#141 2005-03-15 12:23:39

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#142 2005-03-15 13:15:28

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#143 2005-03-15 16:44:16

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#144 2005-03-15 17:15:44

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#145 2005-03-15 17:33:46

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#146 2005-03-15 17:42:15

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#147 2005-03-15 18:10:38

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#148 2005-03-15 21:06:15

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#149 2005-03-16 00:23:38

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#150 2005-03-16 06:33:03

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

Board footer