Dear Mike (Michael Moore)
- Thread starter RandFan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- michael moore
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I've noticed that no one else responds to Ion. I'm putting him on ignore. The guy is obtuse and he just likes pissing contests.Jocko said:
He has refused to back up claims while at the very same moment he demads that I back up claims that I have already admitted that I cannot. I doubt there are many if any to the left of the spectrum that pay him any attention.
Ion is a plonker and no one cares what he has to say. Republican or Democrat.
You get the last word Ion, you are now on my ignore list.
Lothian
should be banned
Kevin,Kevin_Lowe said:
You interpreted the statements in the way they were meant.
I understand that when the Iraqi's take over they will not be able to prosecute any coalition troops for breaking the laws of Iraq.
For example the abusing of an Iraqi civilian by a coalition soldier (perish the thought) would not be tired in an Iraqi court rather the decision to bring charges and the execution of the law would be under an American military process.
And in respect of the oil I understand that contracts for the exploitation of the oil, and rebuilding of Iraq (to be paid for by the sale of Iraqi oil) have been given to American companies under a ‘no tender process’. These contracts are fixed and can not be renegotiated should say it be found that (heaven forbid) the pricing includes an exorbitant profit margin or that a cheaper supplier can be found.
Lothian
should be banned
No problem, It is often said Americans don't understand irony anyway.RandFan said:
I believe that the Americans would by and large treat the Iraqi people better than Saddam (with the odd exception), but they are not going to get the opportunity due to their impending departure. They will not run the country, apparently.
Overall I would suggest that the recent period has brought mixed emotions to the people of Iraq. Many innocent people have been killed but many guilty ones have as well. What is now important is not to dwell on the past which can’t be changed but to look to the future.
I also happen to believe ,however, that America will exploit the Iraqi nation. They have closed middle eastern military bases suggesting a more than short term presence in Iraq. I believe that the contracts for rebuilding Iraq have not been awarded to the best contractor for the Iraqis rather the best contractor for the Americans. I also believe that the pricing of the contracts has not been competitive. As such the Iraqis will have less money to spend on rebuilding.
I make no comment on what Saddam did with the money because it was wrong but surely if the current contracts are not competitively priced then that is also wrong.
Being less wrong than Saddam should not be the Americans aim. They should aim to be fair and right and set a positive example.
Lothian
should be banned
So what is wrong with Iraqi justice ? Have we invaded to leave in place a corrupt legal system ? If justice in the new Iraq is going to be fair why won't America trust it. What message does that send to Iraqis. Should foreign troops stationed in America be imune to American Law, if they promise to have their own trial ?RandFan said:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
No, there are reasons not to turn American soldiers over to the Iraqis.Lothian said:
Perhaps in time we will.
That we have a wait and see attitude towards their new government.
No, but if we were just starting out and the country that freed us from a dictator was unsure of our ability to be impartial then I would have no problem with it.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I have no argument with anything that you have written in this post. Try as I might.Lothian said:No problem, It is often said Americans don't understand irony anyway.
I believe that the Americans would by and large treat the Iraqi people better than Saddam (with the odd exception), but they are not going to get the opportunity due to their impending departure. They will not run the country, apparently.
Overall I would suggest that the recent period has brought mixed emotions to the people of Iraq. Many innocent people have been killed but many guilty ones have as well. What is now important is not to dwell on the past which can’t be changed but to look to the future.
I also happen to believe ,however, that America will exploit the Iraqi nation. They have closed middle eastern military bases suggesting a more than short term presence in Iraq. I believe that the contracts for rebuilding Iraq have not been awarded to the best contractor for the Iraqis rather the best contractor for the Americans. I also believe that the pricing of the contracts has not been competitive. As such the Iraqis will have less money to spend on rebuilding.
I make no comment on what Saddam did with the money because it was wrong but surely if the current contracts are not competitively priced then that is also wrong.
Being less wrong than Saddam should not be the Americans aim. They should aim to be fair and right and set a positive example.
RandFan:
"It should be pointed out that Chirac took the use of force off of the table."
That is a false premise.
I don`t want to derail your thread but I can`t let this pass, especially as I thought we had discussed this and had put this particular myth to bed in the other thread.
Firstly, Chirac did not take the option of force "off the table". All he did was say in March that it wasn't necessary at that moment, which it demonstrably wasn't. Chirac's exacts words in a statement to the French people in March made France's stance very clear:
"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq." (quoted in the Guardian, March 15th 2003)
As you can see, the key words here are "this evening". Chirac understood, quite clearly, that there was no need for violence, since Blix was satisified that cooperation was improving and that progress was being made. The only countries that weren't happy with the progress were the US and UK because they were looking for a reason to attack rather than looking to see if it was possible not to attack.
The French fully accepted that violence might be neccessary -as did the Russians and the Germans in their memorandum of February 24th 2003 in which they state "To render possible a peaceful solution inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm." (www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/ )
If you're so certain that Chirac removed the threat of force why don't you try proving it -go on, refute the evidence I provided earlier. Simply asserting what you want to be true isn't enough.
While you're at it you might want to consider refuting this passage from that rabidly anti-American newspaper (not), the London Financial Times, as it contrasted the German and French positions. I've even capitalised the relevant portion to make the issue clearer:
Financial Times, February 25th 2003:
"Many German diplomats privately deplore the fact that their government has left itself no exit strategy, should the Security Council back military action. They also recognise the danger of isolation should France, which HAS NOT EXCLUDED THE USE OF FORCE, change its approach. "
You're also on shakey ground to say that a coalition defeat or indeed a refusal to attack Iraq in March meant that Saddam would continue to kill Iraqis in their thousands, since Saddam had not been killing on that scale for years. More recently the number of deaths directly attributable to Saddam -according to Amnesty and HRW etc- number in the low hundreds at most and comprised mostly his direct political opponents. This is still disgraceful but it speaks to what should be a fundamental point: Saddam's major attrocities were -without exception- carried out when he was an ally of the US and UK and with our help and approval.
"It should be pointed out that Chirac took the use of force off of the table."
That is a false premise.
I don`t want to derail your thread but I can`t let this pass, especially as I thought we had discussed this and had put this particular myth to bed in the other thread.
Firstly, Chirac did not take the option of force "off the table". All he did was say in March that it wasn't necessary at that moment, which it demonstrably wasn't. Chirac's exacts words in a statement to the French people in March made France's stance very clear:
"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq." (quoted in the Guardian, March 15th 2003)
As you can see, the key words here are "this evening". Chirac understood, quite clearly, that there was no need for violence, since Blix was satisified that cooperation was improving and that progress was being made. The only countries that weren't happy with the progress were the US and UK because they were looking for a reason to attack rather than looking to see if it was possible not to attack.
The French fully accepted that violence might be neccessary -as did the Russians and the Germans in their memorandum of February 24th 2003 in which they state "To render possible a peaceful solution inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm." (www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/24/sprj.irq.memo/ )
If you're so certain that Chirac removed the threat of force why don't you try proving it -go on, refute the evidence I provided earlier. Simply asserting what you want to be true isn't enough.
While you're at it you might want to consider refuting this passage from that rabidly anti-American newspaper (not), the London Financial Times, as it contrasted the German and French positions. I've even capitalised the relevant portion to make the issue clearer:
Financial Times, February 25th 2003:
"Many German diplomats privately deplore the fact that their government has left itself no exit strategy, should the Security Council back military action. They also recognise the danger of isolation should France, which HAS NOT EXCLUDED THE USE OF FORCE, change its approach. "
You're also on shakey ground to say that a coalition defeat or indeed a refusal to attack Iraq in March meant that Saddam would continue to kill Iraqis in their thousands, since Saddam had not been killing on that scale for years. More recently the number of deaths directly attributable to Saddam -according to Amnesty and HRW etc- number in the low hundreds at most and comprised mostly his direct political opponents. This is still disgraceful but it speaks to what should be a fundamental point: Saddam's major attrocities were -without exception- carried out when he was an ally of the US and UK and with our help and approval.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I'm sorry but that is taking the use of force off of the table. Without force what is there to compel Saddam to comply? It took 12 years and the world at one point before 9/11 was calling for the end of sanctions.demon said:
Cirac's rhetoric was wrong and his intentions would have no effect on getting Saddam to comply. Of course now we know that there were French interests that were making lots of money from the Oil for Food program. Chirac did not want that money supply ended.
Yes, it had been 12 years, what's another 12 years?
I think his words speak volumes. He said he would vote against the use of force. Not much more there to say. If you think his promise to add teeth to the resolution in the future was sincere then that is your prerogative. 12 years, what is "cannot continue indefinitely"? Another 12 years? 25 years? What is the point? Saddam had been told time and time again to comply. He did not.
Saddam was still cutting the ears off of defectors. Young men were still disappearing into the night. Hands were still being cut off. Your linkage of Saddam's atrocities to the US is fallacious. There might be some importance to the time frame but that is it. America did not encourage Saddam to torture and murder. We allied with him because he was perceived to be a lesser of two evils. And his revenge against the Kurds came after the Gulf War so your thesis that Saddam was kinder and gentler when he was no longer friends with the US is not correct.
Of course not many chickenhawks dispute anymore my arguments against oil for blood, other than the last few chickenhawks who are still attempting lame distortions:RandFan said:
.) aren't you the cretin who promised to put my arguments on the ignore mode four months ago but still fails to do so, who I proved wrong in the thread asking whether Bush is a dolt (see the unauthorized use of force by Bush against the U.N. resolution 1441, and more), who I prove wrong once again in this thread (see your lunatic claim that 33% of French want Saddam to build "...palaces..."), and who nonetheless supports Bush's crimes in this war?
.) aren't you -like Jocky above- short in argumented data but full of pro Bush emotional 'feelings'?
I think you are:
the last remaining lapdogs who pimp to Bush's crimes.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
RandFan said:
Don't forget Saddam's treatment of the Marsh Arabs, which was an on-going situation at the time of the war. (Even though more Iraqis may have been killed under Saddam's orders following the 1991 uprising, he never totally stopped his repression. The draining of the marshes and his repression of the Marsh arabs took place all throughout the 1990s.)
See:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm
http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2002/nb20021125.html
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
KelvinG said:
Yes, 1000 people is enough.
From what I remember from my university statstics course, the total population is not as important as the sample size, and most polls use a sample size of 1000. Even if the population of France was twice as big, using a larger sample size would not improve the polling accuracy significantly.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Mr Manifesto said:
Snopes.com points out the inaccuracies of that statement. (Although snopes may not be perfect, I trust their integrity a lot more than Moore's.)
From: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm : Again, it's hard to make the case that the FBI was denied any opportunity to question bin Laden family members given that they were directly involved in the process of rounding them up and gave the go-ahead for the flights to leave. Moreover, news accounts indicate that the FBI was not only "all over" the departing flights (grounding some of them temporarily), but had the opportunity to question passengers, and in at least some cases actually did
RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
And this is ironic... how?Number Six said: