Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Not my job. Your the one who is incapable of anything other than repeating yourself over, and over and over again.Axis Kast wrote:Prove the contrary. Prove that France and Germany were ever willing to send troops.]
Of course it's an argument. Your problem is that you think that you're actually making valid arguments, when all you're doing is repeating yourself. That's why I've accepted your concession.That's not an argument.He's not Bush. Concession accepted.
No, no they will not. Unless there is some compelling strategic interest compelling them to do so, Europe will not act.
But if their populations support the United States, they will be more likely to support us when their security interests alone would not justify intervention.
You’re the one who provided the challenge. If you don’t have proof to back it up, that’s not my problem.Not my job. Your the one who is incapable of anything other than repeating yourself over, and over and over again.
You’re the one who’s relying on a single sentence opinion to stand up as an argument.
Of course it's an argument. Your problem is that you think that you're actually making valid arguments, when all you're doing is repeating yourself. That's why I've accepted your concession.
It's nice to see just how stupid you are. The government is supposd to represent the interests of the people.Axis Kast wrote:No, no they will not. Unless there is some compelling strategic interest compelling them to do so, Europe will not act.
Wrong. You made the claim that France and Germany would never send troops. You've failed to provide evidence for this claim. Thus, you've conceded.You’re the one who provided the challenge. If you don’t have proof to back it up, that’s not my problem.
No, I"m not. I'm simply accepting your concession due to your lack of an argument.You’re the one who’s relying on a single sentence opinion to stand up as an argument.
This is a blatant lie. You have proven no such thing. Concession accepted.It has already been proven:
Prove it.Kerry’s supposed “popularity” will win him no new concessions on Iraq.
No, I don't have to point out any such thing, since the sentence you just wrote there is nonsensical, mucch like yourself.You must also point out where Europe is short-changing collective security today as evidence that Kerry will have “wiggle-room” to obtain greater cooperation tomorrow. But, of course, you cannot.
So why don't you and your ilk provide some evidence for this assertion instead of repeating it and pretending that repetition makes something more true.Wired_Grenadier wrote:Germany was never willing to send troops to Iraq, no matter who is in the White House, and if they tried in case Kerry becomes president (they said they won't) the German government would fall.
Which is why, when Bill Clinton responded to the genocide in Bosnia, he was reacting to a mass drive for intervention in the United States, hm? Idiot.It's nice to see just how stupid you are. The government is supposd to represent the interests of the people.
See above. This thread is full of links to articles hawking France and Germany’s refusals to deploy troops in Iraq even if Kerry wins.Wrong. You made the claim that France and Germany would never send troops. You've failed to provide evidence for this claim. Thus, you've conceded.
We aren’t. This is your strawman, dimwit.
A better question is why are you so idiotic as to define "cooperation" as "send troops into Vietnam II".
It's nice to see how desperate you're attempts to dodge the point are getting. He was obviously representing the wishes of the U.S., or are you so deluded that you think the level of opposition to Bosnia was comparable to that of Iraq?Axis Kast wrote:Which is why, when Bill Clinton responded to the genocide in Bosnia, he was reacting to a mass drive for intervention in the United States, hm? Idiot.
Not really. Bush has destroyed his credibility and public image, so no amount of work on his part could be expected to gain useful results.Trying to claim that the problem can be boiled down to a popularity contest is inherently misleading.
Concession accepted. You obviously can't even string together a coherent thought. He wasn't able to convince the world to join him in invading Iraq partly _because_ he squandered the international sympathy.You and your ilk keep complaining that Bush squandered the positive good of international sympathy after September 11th – and yet he was unable to convince the world to join him in invading Iraq. Why?
I wasn't aware that Berlin was located in Canada.Not because he was unpopular from the outset, but because the leadership in Paris and Berlin never considered it worth their time and effort.
Then you'll be able to actually provide the links instead of pretending that they exist.See above. This thread is full of links to articles hawking France and Germany’s refusals to deploy troops in Iraq even if Kerry wins.
Bullshit. You continually try to redefine "cooperation" as "Send troops into Iraq."We aren’t. This is your strawman, dimwit.
Yep. You've defined "cooperation" as "send troops t Iraq", just like I said.Our argument is that John Kerry won’t draw more than token support from Europe for Iraq – at the very best, and that he won’t coax more cooperation on international security as compared to Bush.
Yep. You've once again defined "cooperation" as "Send troops into Vietnam II".And, if you wish to suggest otherwise, you’ll need to point out where France, Germany, and others are purposely holding back their resources today, such that John Kerry will be magically able to mobilize them tomorrow.
The current German government will not send troops to Iraq (if we actually had that much men to spare in the first place).Graeme Dice wrote:So why don't you and your ilk provide some evidence for this assertion instead of repeating it and pretending that repetition makes something more true.Wired_Grenadier wrote:Germany was never willing to send troops to Iraq, no matter who is in the White House, and if they tried in case Kerry becomes president (they said they won't) the German government would fall.
A better question is why are you so idiotic as to define "cooperation" as "send troops into Vietnam II".
Clinton was doing nothing of the sort. He had his own agenda in mind, and was pushing a strategy about which Americans neither knew nor cared very much at all. There was no response to any significant force in American politics.
It's nice to see how desperate you're attempts to dodge the point are getting. He was obviously representing the wishes of the U.S., or are you so deluded that you think the level of opposition to Bosnia was comparable to that of Iraq?
Actually, Europe made clear that it did not – and would not – consider an invasion the appropriate course of action from the very outset. Even as French and German intelligence provided assessments indicating that they believed Saddam was hiding WMD, their governments were still insisting that any problems in Iraq – including the unearthing of WMD – could be handled by inspectors alone.Not really. Bush has destroyed his credibility and public image, so no amount of work on his part could be expected to gain useful results.
International sympathy had nothing to do with it. Clinton was extremely popular overseas, and he struggled mightily to put together a coalition. Moreover, a war in Iraq was far less a cause for concern in Europe than a war in Bosnia.Concession accepted. You obviously can't even string together a coherent thought. He wasn't able to convince the world to join him in invading Iraq partly _because_ he squandered the international sympathy.
Go look above your original posts yourself, douchebag.
Then you'll be able to actually provide the links instead of pretending that they exist.
Liar. I have said that Kerry (A) won’t bring new troops to Iraq from Europe, that (B) minimal promises of aid in the form of medical supplies or civilian aid workers from Europe are irrelevant at this point in time, and (C) Kerry won’t coax out more resources from Europe for collective security, because it is already fully devoted to that effort anyway.Bullshit. You continually try to redefine "cooperation" as "Send troops into Iraq."
No, you fucking moron. You just refuse to argue the real point because you know you’ll lose. Even outside the issue of Iraq Kerry will not build any more effective a relationship vis-à-vis the War on Terror than George W. Bush.Yep. You've once again defined "cooperation" as "Send troops into Vietnam II".
Was public opposition to Bosnia as great as that to Iraq in the U.S.? The answer is that no, it wasn't. You are still trying to dodge the point and bring up irrelevancies about Clinton.Axis Kast wrote:Clinton was doing nothing of the sort. He had his own agenda in mind, and was pushing a strategy about which Americans neither knew nor cared very much at all. There was no response to any significant force in American politics.
Actually, Europe made clear that it did not – and would not – consider an invasion the appropriate course of action from the very outset.
Provide evidence for this claim or concede.Even as French and German intelligence provided assessments indicating that they believed Saddam was hiding WMD,
And this just so happened to be the correct way to deal with the problem.their governments were still insisting that any problems in Iraq – including the unearthing of WMD – could be handled by inspectors alone.
Why don't you make up your mind. First you claim that it was relevant and now it's not relevant. Further, you are continuing to bring up the red herring of "Look how hard it was for Clinton to get help".International sympathy had nothing to do with it.
So what? He still _got_ that coalition.Clinton was extremely popular overseas, and he struggled mightily to put together a coalition. Moreover, a war in Iraq was far less a cause for concern in Europe than a war in Bosnia.
Your inability to support your claims with evidence has been noted, and your concession has been accepted.Go look above your original posts yourself, douchebag.
Yep. There you go redefining "cooperation" to mean "bring more troops into Iraq."Liar. I have said that Kerry (A) won’t bring new troops to Iraq from Europe,
Yep. There you go redefining "cooperation" to mean "bring more troops into Iraq."that (B) minimal promises of aid in the form of medical supplies or civilian aid workers from Europe are irrelevant at this point in time,
Prove it.and (C) Kerry won’t coax out more resources from Europe for collective security, because it is already fully devoted to that effort anyway.
You mean besides reducing how much the rest of the world hates arrogant, ignorant Americans like yourself?
What real point? I'm not the one who's trying to pretend that "Cooperation" really means "Do what I say because I told you so."No, you fucking moron. You just refuse to argue the real point because you know you’ll lose.
Even outside the issue of Iraq Kerry will not build any more effective a relationship vis-à-vis the War on Terror than George W. Bush.
No, but neither has Bush, as far as I know. In that respect the only difference between them is that we know that Bush has failed miserably in everything he tried. If Kerry continues with the same methods, he will fail too, but right now the options on what can be done are a lot narrower than what they were e.g. six or eight months ago.Mange the Swede wrote:I'm sorry, this is perhaps a bit off-topic, but I have a question. Now with the current security situation in Iraq, it's impossible to withdraw any troops from Iraq. Kerry said earlier that he would "put a deal together" in order to reduce U.S. forces in the country, but since France and Germany has made it clear that nothing would change if Kerry is voted president, has he publicly put forward any alternatives to his previous far too optimistic plan?
It’s not a deflection, you blithering idiot; it’s a comparison to the policies of another in the same position. Critics of the current President cannot wave away challenges to their positions that fall back on examples and paradigms seen in past administrations by crying about supposed red herrings. George Bush is an American president – and hence his decisions can (and should) be analyzed using other American presidencies as points of reference.I know this has been said repeatedly, but it is just sad the way the right CAN NOT respond directly to any criticism of George Bush but must instead react by trashing Bill Clinton.
There were two reasons I brought up Bill Clinton’s efforts in Bosnia. First, to deny an argument expressed earlier that Europe’s anger with the United States was particularly related to our fobbing off the United Nations. If it were so simple a case, Bill Clinton’s actions on Bosnia would have caused an equal uproar. Second, because Clinton’s actions prove that governments can initiate what they see as useful policy without necessarily consulting with or responding to the public. Some Americans were disgusted by the confusing stream of reports coming out of Serbia; no large movement existed in this country to force an intervention. That was Clinton’s doing alone. And that denies the argument coming from some liberals in this thread that the key to bringing Europe back into agreement with our policies is to win their “hearts and minds” by electing a president with more personal tact. That won’t do it. Kerry will ruffle just as many feathers as long as he keeps up with the Bush policies – which he’s promised to do. It’s also a matter, as Red Imperator has pointed out, of reconciling two increasingly disparate populations (one in Europe, and one in the United States) who no longer share a similar opinion about appropriate strategy to contain a common boogey-man. Europe’s trying to play a waiting game, and the United States – even the more moderate John Kerry – isn’t about to do that.Was public opposition to Bosnia as great as that to Iraq in the U.S.? The answer is that no, it wasn't. You are still trying to dodge the point and bring up irrelevancies about Clinton.
Prove it.
Money quote, bitch.The British, French and German intelligence services shared information with the United States, but none of them challenged the conventional wisdom that Saddam was hiding chemical and biological weapons and wanted to restart his nuclear program.
No, you fucking prick. I’m arguing that Kerry won’t do anything for the United States at all overseas but make the level of rhetoric go down. But since rhetoric doesn’t stop nations from doing what’s in their best interests, we’ll still cooperate on all the important issues that we would have cooperated on anyway even if Bush remains in the White House.What real point? I'm not the one who's trying to pretend that "Cooperation" really means "Do what I say because I told you so."
Except, of course, that the policies were not dealing with a similar situation, and the president at the time was not internationally hated.Axis Kast wrote:It’s not a deflection, you blithering idiot; it’s a comparison to the policies of another in the same position.
Okay. I'll do just that. Clinton managed to get international support. Bush didn't. Bush even managed to piss off most of the nations in the world with his ineptness. There you go, Bush is obviously the problem here.Critics of the current President cannot wave away challenges to their positions that fall back on examples and paradigms seen in past administrations by crying about supposed red herrings. George Bush is an American president – and hence his decisions can (and should) be analyzed using other American presidencies as points of reference.
This is a blatant lie. As already pointed out in this thread, the UN supported the actions in Bosnia after they took place.There were two reasons I brought up Bill Clinton’s efforts in Bosnia. First, to deny an argument expressed earlier that Europe’s anger with the United States was particularly related to our fobbing off the United Nations. If it were so simple a case, Bill Clinton’s actions on Bosnia would have caused an equal uproar.
You've shown no such thing. Public sentiment on Bosnia wass nowhere near as negative as that towards Iraq.Second, because Clinton’s actions prove that governments can initiate what they see as useful policy without necessarily consulting with or responding to the public.
Which is irrelevant. The will of the people is shown just as much by what they don't oppose as what they do oppose.Some Americans were disgusted by the confusing stream of reports coming out of Serbia; no large movement existed in this country to force an intervention. That was Clinton’s doing alone.
It's nice to see how idiotic you are when you think that it's only the policies that people object to, and not the person in charge of your country.And that denies the argument coming from some liberals in this thread that the key to bringing Europe back into agreement with our policies is to win their “hearts and minds” by electing a president with more personal tact. That won’t do it. Kerry will ruffle just as many feathers as long as he keeps up with the Bush policies – which he’s promised to do.
Do you _still_ believe your drivel about how it was appropriate to invade Iraq to gain better intelligence?It’s also a matter, as Red Imperator has pointed out, of reconciling two increasingly disparate populations (one in Europe, and one in the United States) who no longer share a similar opinion about appropriate strategy to contain a common boogey-man. Europe’s trying to play a waiting game, and the United States – even the more moderate John Kerry – isn’t about to do that.
I told you to prove it. You failed to do anything besides repeat your unsupported assertions and have thus conceded that you cannot prove it.“More time!” anyone? The French and Germans were against the idea of an invasion from the start, and purposely sought to block any form of action outside the sending of a handful of inspectors.
I think you actually meant to say "This is a completely irrelevant statement." The article you linked to says _nothing_ about the policies of France and Germany.Money quote, bitch.The British, French and German intelligence services shared information with the United States, but none of them challenged the conventional wisdom that Saddam was hiding chemical and biological weapons and wanted to restart his nuclear program.
Which is half the point dumbass.No, you fucking prick. I’m arguing that Kerry won’t do anything for the United States at all overseas but make the level of rhetoric go down.
Are you so seriously deluded that you think that invading Iraq was in _anyone's_ best interests outside of the war profiteers that run the U.S.?But since rhetoric doesn’t stop nations from doing what’s in their best interests, we’ll still cooperate on all the important issues that we would have cooperated on anyway even if Bush remains in the White House.
I'm not about to let Axis pretend that his points are valid, so it's up to him to concede whenever he feels like it.Alan Bolte wrote:Can we get out of the rut, please? I was enjoying the thread.
Clinton got international support only after he came dangerously close to making irrelevant all of the international bodies to which he appealed. As was said before, his “shopping around” was an implicit threat: “Either legitimate what I am doing, or I will prove that you don’t matter by doing it anyway.”Okay. I'll do just that. Clinton managed to get international support. Bush didn't. Bush even managed to piss off most of the nations in the world with his ineptness. There you go, Bush is obviously the problem here.
And yet there was no public outcry about how Clinton wasn’t listening to the international community – even before the U.N. validated him.T his is a blatant lie. As already pointed out in this thread, the UN supported the actions in Bosnia after they took place.
Bosnia was a fucking non-question. Nobody cared enough to stop the President.
You've shown no such thing. Public sentiment on Bosnia wass nowhere near as negative as that towards Iraq.
Bullshit. Public ignorance is not public demand.
Which is irrelevant. The will of the people is shown just as much by what they don't oppose as what they do oppose.
Prove that Europe is holding back contributions to collective security because of dislike to Bush. There is no other way to prove that Kerry can coax new cooperation or resources.It's nice to see how idiotic you are when you think that it's only the policies that people object to, and not the person in charge of your country.
A sanctions regime that can be validated only after a full-scale invasion and occupation is an absolute failure. And there was no way to be certain that Saddam – who had a lengthy history of subversion – was in compliance without one.Do you _still_ believe your drivel about how it was appropriate to invade Iraq to gain better intelligence?
Prove what? That France and Germany aren’t going to send troops? There are dozens of fucking links to that same evidence scattered throughout this website – and several scattered throughout this thread. I am not responsible to play “fetch” for your amusment.I told you to prove it. You failed to do anything besides repeat your unsupported assertions and have thus conceded that you cannot prove it.
I think you actually meant to say "This is a completely irrelevant statement." The article you linked to says _nothing_ about the policies of France and Germany.
Is that what you want? To feel warm, and fuzzy, and loved? Because there will be no material or policy change worth mentioning.
Which is half the point dumbass.
Invading Iraq is the first step to clearing out the stagnant regimes of the Middle East that promote terrorism, and have since resisted “diplomatic” efforts to change their downward spiral.
Are you so seriously deluded that you think that invading Iraq was in _anyone's_ best interests outside of the war profiteers that run the U.S.?
Do you like to argue against your own points this much? You keep pointing out how Clinton managed to not piss off most of the world as though that somehow makes Bush's ability to piss off most of the world look good.Axis Kast wrote:Clinton got international support only after he came dangerously close to making irrelevant all of the international bodies to which he appealed. As was said before, his “shopping around” was an implicit threat: “Either legitimate what I am doing, or I will prove that you don’t matter by doing it anyway.”
So now you're a psychologist as well as an idiot. My, you must have a vast list of credentials.Furthermore, most of the world is upset because it feels the United States has created a problem in Iraq rather than taken any significant steps toward solving one.
Which is irrelevant and beside the point. Please try and stop pretending that Clinton has anything to do with Bush, since the comparison can only hurt your argument.And yet there was no public outcry about how Clinton wasn’t listening to the international community – even before the U.N. validated him.
Thanks for agreeing with me. Are you planning to make an argument anytime soon?Bosnia was a fucking non-question. Nobody cared enough to stop the President.
Once again you're showing off how ignorant you are. If Americans are ignorant of what their government is doing, or don't actively oppose what their government is doing, then they are implicitly agreeing with the actions of their government.Bullshit. Public ignorance is not public demand.
And here we have one of the most silly statements by Mr. Kast to date. He actually appears to believe that Bush's personal inability to act diplomatically has no effect on international relations.Prove that Europe is holding back contributions to collective security because of dislike to Bush. There is no other way to prove that Kerry can coax new cooperation or resources.
Thanks for illustrating, once again, that you are nothing more than a parrot for the opinions of the extreme right.A sanctions regime that can be validated only after a full-scale invasion and occupation is an absolute failure. And there was no way to be certain that Saddam – who had a lengthy history of subversion – was in compliance without one.
Failure to provide evidence for your claims is a concession that you cannot provide said evidence. If you are unwilling to support your argument, then you don't actually have an argument, you just have a bunch of ranting without substance. That's why I accepted your concession many posts ago.Prove what? That France and Germany aren’t going to send troops? There are dozens of fucking links to that same evidence scattered throughout this website – and several scattered throughout this thread. I am not responsible to play “fetch” for your amusment.
Liar. I demanded that you provide proof that France and Germany would never send troops.And yet, in your last post, you demanded proof that France and Germany were originally corroborating our assessments about Iraq.
More bullshit from somebody who is so stupid that they think "seething hatred" is the same thing as "general contempt" or even "guarded acceptance". America and those who support Bush are currently at the "seething hatred" stage internationally. Are you so dense that you don't see why this hurts your government internationally?Is that what you want? To feel warm, and fuzzy, and loved? Because there will be no material or policy change worth mentioning.
Yep. You are that deluded. Thanks for playing, but I suggest that you get back on the short bus.Invading Iraq is the first step to clearing out the stagnant regimes of the Middle East that promote terrorism, and have since resisted “diplomatic” efforts to change their downward spiral.
You deny what I have said? You deny that much of the reason the world dislikes Bush is that it feels he has cost them dearly with his War in Iraq?
So now you're a psychologist as well as an idiot. My, you must have a vast list of credentials.
One can be ignorant of many things; that doesn’t imply implicit agreement, dipshit. Do you know how many murders occur in Canada on a daily basis? No? Well, does that mean you support murder?
Once again you're showing off how ignorant you are. If Americans are ignorant of what their government is doing, or don't actively oppose what their government is doing, then they are implicitly agreeing with the actions of their government.
You have yet to prove that, outside Iraq, Bush’s actions have cost the cause of collective security. Certainly you’ve failed to point to any shortfalls Kerry might remedy in that regard.And here we have one of the most silly statements by Mr. Kast to date. He actually appears to believe that Bush's personal inability to act diplomatically has no effect on international relations.
That the sanctions regimes were a dismal failure is self-evident. Nobody could trust the inspectors, since we couldn’t be sure that Saddam wasn’t still in the process of obfuscation.Thanks for illustrating, once again, that you are nothing more than a parrot for the opinions of the extreme right.
When they say, “Gee, we think Saddam has weapons,” but then decline to do anything about it, that’s about as explicit an answer as you’re ever going to get. But you close your eyes and pretend like nothing happened.
Failure to provide evidence for your claims is a concession that you cannot provide said evidence. If you are unwilling to support your argument, then you don't actually have an argument, you just have a bunch of ranting without substance. That's why I accepted your concession many posts ago
Point out where collective security has suffered because of Bush. Point out which countries Kerry will coax into sending significant forces or aid to Iraq. Point out which countries Kerry will bring to give more to the general war on terror. You can’t. Because those examples don’t exist. Bush may be hated, but cooperation hasn’t suffered on the issues everybody is already in agreement on. As for Iraq, Bush was never going to convince Europe it was worth their time – and nor will Kerry.
More bullshit from somebody who is so stupid that they think "seething hatred" is the same thing as "general contempt" or even "guarded acceptance". America and those who support Bush are currently at the "seething hatred" stage internationally. Are you so dense that you don't see why this hurts your government internationally?
ROFLMAO! As usual, the point that inspectors continually and persistently validated the assessments that Iraq had no meaningful NBC capability to speak of before the war sails completely past your head. Only you, Kast, could possibly call a sanctions regime that stripped Iraq of its capability in both conventional and unconventional means an "absolute failure" based off your ridiculous "can only be validated by an invasion" criteria- by that brain-damaged reasoning, every sanctions regime is an absolute failure, because we all know your criteria for 'validate' is nothing but an outlandish '100%-proof of negative or invade on the basis of appeals to ignorance'.A sanctions regime that can be validated only after a full-scale invasion and occupation is an absolute failure. And there was no way to be certain that Saddam – who had a lengthy history of subversion – was in compliance without one.
I see Comical Axi remains as immune to reality as ever.Vympel wrote:ROFLMAO! As usual, the point that inspectors continually and persistently validated the assessments that Iraq had no meaningful NBC capability to speak of before the war sails completely past your head. Only you, Kast, could possibly call a sanctions regime that stripped Iraq of its capability in both conventional and unconventional means an "absolute failure" based off your ridiculous "can only be validated by an invasion" criteria- by that brain-damaged reasoning, every sanctions regime is an absolute failure, because we all know your criteria for 'validate' is nothing but an outlandish '100%-proof of negative or invade on the basis of appeals to ignorance'.A sanctions regime that can be validated only after a full-scale invasion and occupation is an absolute failure. And there was no way to be certain that Saddam – who had a lengthy history of subversion – was in compliance without one.
Seriously, don't you ever get tired of being catastrophically wrong? I mean, not to sound arrogant, but fuck, was I ever substantially right this whole time, huh?
