How will Kerry "rebuild our alliances"?

[Graeme Dice]

I keep pointing out that Clinton gave the proverbial finger to the U.N. when he couldn’t drum up support for his own little war, and that the fact that nobody gave two shits suggests that today, they have ulterior motives when they claim to be offended by Bush’s decision to ignore the United Nations.

Thanks for arguing my point again. Clinton going to NATO instead of the U.N. didn't make people angry because he did it diplomatically. You know, without being arrogant and telling people "It's my way or the highway."

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?

That isn't what you said. You said that the fact that he's insulting didn't matter, which basically puts your deductions into the realm of guesses.

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?

Nice way to dodge the point with an irrelevant analogy dipshit. The "actively opposing" part would be where a person doesn't sit back and let people be murdered without complaining about it and doing whatever is in their power to prevent murders.

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.

Kerry isn't Bush. Therefore he's not a knuckle walking ape with the leadership abilities of a large block of slightly moldy cheese.

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.

Wrong. We now know that the sanctions were working exactly as desired, even though the U.S. tried their best to prevent them from working by planting national spies on the U.N. inspection teams.

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.

Thanks for pointing out that you don't have any evidence yet again. They _did_ do something about it. They passed resolution 1441 to force Saddam to accept inspectors back into the country.

Point out where collective security has suffered because of Bush.

Afghanistan is little more stable now than it was in the summer of 2001. Iraq is _less_ stable than it was in 2002. Bush has angered the entire world to the point where sympathy for the American population is at the lowest its been for decades. That's why security has suffered.

Point out which countries Kerry will coax into sending significant forces or aid to Iraq.

And once again dipshit decides to bring out his redefinition of "cooperation" to mean "Send troops into the meatgrinder known as Vietnam II."

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.

It's not my job to do so, since the definition of "cooperation" doesn't mean "Send troops into the meatgrinder known as Vietnam II."

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.

Your problem is that you actually believe the propaganda that's been force fed to you, so that you actually believe that the war in Iraq was a good idea. That makes you a gullible fool who quite rightly deserves to be mocked at and laughed at.

[Wired_Grenadier]

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.

Our pre- and postwar policy speaks for itself. As do multiple statements by our Foreign Minister and our Chancellor. As for "evidence" , take a tour to www.google.com using the words Germany, Schroeder, Iraq.

A better question is why are you so idiotic as to define "cooperation" as "send troops into Vietnam II".

As far as I can see, I didn't. I simply stated that Germany won't send troops, I didn't tackle the topic of cooperation at all.

[Axis Kast]

Thanks for arguing my point again. Clinton going to NATO instead of the U.N. didn't make people angry because he did it diplomatically. You know, without being arrogant and telling people "It's my way or the highway."

No, you blithering moron. I specifically stated earlier that my mention of Clinton was in relation to those who accused Bush of ignoring the international community. Whether diplomatically or not, Clinton did the same thing to the U.N. – by going to NATO, he touted the former organization’s irrelevance. My point is that Bush isn’t being criticized for actually ignoring the U.N.; that’s just an excuse.

That isn't what you said. You said that the fact that he's insulting didn't matter, which basically puts your deductions into the realm of guesses.

Global anger that the United States acts without taking international opinion into account is a much more important reason why there is such opposition to the War in Iraq than George Bush’s sometimes-offensive dismissals of “Old Europe.” Frankly, the rest of the world feels that, because our actions are so far-reaching, we should consult with them before we take any, and then act on that consultation. George Bush feels otherwise. Tension results.

Nice way to dodge the point with an irrelevant analogy dipshit. The "actively opposing" part would be where a person doesn't sit back and let people be murdered without complaining about it and doing whatever is in their power to prevent murders.

You try to do whatever is in your power to stop each individual murder in Canada on a daily basis? What the fuck are you doing wasting time on this board, Mr. Do-Right?

Kerry isn't Bush. Therefore he's not a knuckle walking ape with the leadership abilities of a large block of slightly moldy cheese.

That’s right. Kerry’s an avowed protectionist who’s pledged to follow Bush’s plan – in addition to holding an “advisory” meeting with a handful of our Cold War allies so that he can ultimately tell them he’s got to stay the course, and they can ultimately tell him he’s crazy. Real progress to expect there. Dumbass.

Wrong. We now know that the sanctions were working exactly as desired, even though the U.S. tried their best to prevent them from working by planting national spies on the U.N. inspection teams.

We only know because we invaded Iraq to throw out the regime responsible for obfuscation. And don’t even pretend that those spies had no place on the U.N. inspectorate – whose widespread corruption is being questioned to this day.

Thanks for pointing out that you don't have any evidence yet again. They _did_ do something about it. They passed resolution 1441 to force Saddam to accept inspectors back into the country.

As a stalling tactic – and one to be paid for with the blood of American and British troops, at that.

Afghanistan is little more stable now than it was in the summer of 2001. Iraq is _less_ stable than it was in 2002. Bush has angered the entire world to the point where sympathy for the American population is at the lowest its been for decades. That's why security has suffered.

Global sympathy does not affect contributions to mutual security. You lose.

And once again dipshit decides to bring out his redefinition of "cooperation" to mean "Send troops into the meatgrinder known as Vietnam II."

Uh, here’s a newsflash, piss ant: Kerry’s promises to bring foreign aid into Iraq are relevant to the troops issue.

It's not my job to do so, since the definition of "cooperation" doesn't mean "Send troops into the meatgrinder known as Vietnam II."

The general war on terror is larger than just Iraq, fucktard. And if you can’t prove that Kerry is going to “change it up” in terms of cooperative security – i.e. intelligence-sharing, etc. –, then you lose, hands down.

Your problem is that you actually believe the propaganda that's been force fed to you, so that you actually believe that the war in Iraq was a good idea. That makes you a gullible fool who quite rightly deserves to be mocked at and laughed at.

Gee, it couldn’t be because my country is the one to call when Saddam Hussein starts acting up. Or that there was no way to guarantee those sanctions without sitting in Iraq. No. Never.

[Graeme Dice]

No, you blithering moron.

Stop talking so much about yourself.

I specifically stated earlier that my mention of Clinton was in relation to those who accused Bush of ignoring the international community.

So what? You don't get to define narrow parameters for how your arguments are to be taken.

Whether diplomatically or not, Clinton did the same thing to the U.N. – by going to NATO, he touted the former organization’s irrelevance. My point is that Bush isn’t being criticized for actually ignoring the U.N.; that’s just an excuse.

Still trying to bring up Clinton's diplomatic success and pretend that it was a failure? Boy you really are grasping for straws.

Global anger that the United States acts without taking international opinion into account is a much more important reason why there is such opposition to the War in Iraq than George Bush’s sometimes-offensive dismissals of “Old Europe.”

Boy you're stupid. George Bush is the one who did the acting without taking international opinion into account.

Frankly, the rest of the world feels that, because our actions are so far-reaching, we should consult with them before we take any, and then act on that consultation. George Bush feels otherwise. Tension results.

Yep. And lookie here. Once again, it's the fault of George Bush.

You try to do whatever is in your power to stop each individual murder in Canada on a daily basis? What the fuck are you doing wasting time on this board, Mr. Do-Right?

Strawman. I said "complaining and doing whatever is in their power". That does not require a person to actually stop murders in progress, just to support those who do.

That’s right. Kerry’s an avowed protectionist who’s pledged to follow Bush’s plan – in addition to holding an “advisory” meeting with a handful of our Cold War allies so that he can ultimately tell them he’s got to stay the course, and they can ultimately tell him he’s crazy. Real progress to expect there. Dumbass.

Once again you try and dress up your "Cooperation means do what we tell you or else" argument in excess verbiage to pretend that your saying something new.

We only know because we invaded Iraq to throw out the regime responsible for obfuscation.

Which is irrelevant and a sign of just how incapable you are of acting without your thoughts having been approved by the government.

And don’t even pretend that those spies had no place on the U.N. inspectorate – whose widespread corruption is being questioned to this day.

They had no place on the UN inspectorate. I'll accept your concession now to your claim, since I know that you won't be willing to provide any evidence for it.

As a stalling tactic – and one to be paid for with the blood of American and British troops, at that.

Thanks for conceding, yet again, that you don't have any evidence by writing some more irrelevant soundbites.

Global sympathy does not affect contributions to mutual security.

Wrong again. This is one of the most laughably ignorant things I have ever seen someone write. Global sympathy _directly) affects mutual security by allowing democratically elected governments to interact with the U.S. Without the sympathy of international populations, any government that acts to help the U.S. will simply be kicked out of power, just like Spain.

Uh, here’s a newsflash, piss ant: Kerry’s promises to bring foreign aid into Iraq are relevant to the troops issue.

Nice way to dodge the point, yet again. Why don't you try to make relevant points in the future, instead of continually redefining "Cooperation " to mean "Do what we say or else".

The general war on terror is larger than just Iraq, fucktard.

That's right. The general war on terror has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq was a war fought over the control of resources and to make a few war profiteers richer.

And if you can’t prove that Kerry is going to “change it up” in terms of cooperative security – i.e. intelligence-sharing, etc. –, then you lose, hands down.

Wrong again. I don't have to "prove" that Kerry can do anything. I simply have to point out that the other candidate is completely incapable of improving the situation.

Gee, it couldn’t be because my country is the one to call when Saddam Hussein starts acting up.

Except of course that Saddam Hussein was _not_ acting up. He was actually bowing to international diplomatic pressure.

Or that there was no way to guarantee those sanctions without sitting in Iraq. No. Never.

Didn't I already tell you to get back on the short bus?

[Graeme Dice]

As for "evidence" , take a tour to www.google.com using the words Germany, Schroeder, Iraq.

Which doesn't even come close to meeting the standards of evidence, which requires specific examples that are relevant to the situation at hadn

As far as I can see, I didn't. I simply stated that Germany won't send troops, I didn't tackle the topic of cooperation at all.

Sure you did, like the other Bush apologists, you've tried to redefine the terms of the problem.

[Axis Kast]

Still trying to bring up Clinton's diplomatic success and pretend that it was a failure? Boy you really are grasping for straws.

Clinton’s successors or failures are irrelevant. All that matters is that he ignored international opinion as formulated in the U.N. and was confronted by not a single meaningful opponent. One cannot look at that example, then turn around and argue meaningfully that George W. Bush is now under fire for doing the same thing. No. His opponents will use the U.N.’s disapproval as a tool, but that is not actually their primary cause for concern.

Boy you're stupid. George Bush is the one who did the acting without taking international opinion into account.

Clearly, you cannot even read.

Yep. And lookie here. Once again, it's the fault of George Bush.

But it doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

Strawman. I said "complaining and doing whatever is in their power". That does not require a person to actually stop murders in progress, just to support those who do.

It is within your power to put underwear over your pants, don a cape, and devote your life to fighting crime. And yet you don’t.

More than eighty percent of Americans didn’t support the American Revolution. But just because they didn’t actively oppose division from England either doesn’t mean that they necessarily supported it. They were neutral. The issue didn’t matter to them enough to become involved on either side.

Once again you try and dress up your "Cooperation means do what we tell you or else" argument in excess verbiage to pretend that your saying something new.

Not at all. I’m asking you to point out what benefits Kerry will bring to the table besides this bullshit, “He’s not George Bush, and he’ll make everyone feel better!”

They had no place on the UN inspectorate. I'll accept your concession now to your claim, since I know that you won't be willing to provide any evidence for it.

The U.N. inspectorate was full of holes. In retrospect, placing our spies on that body to ensure that it was doing what we wanted (nay, needed) it to do was only intelligent.

Wrong again. This is one of the most laughably ignorant things I have ever seen someone write. Global sympathy _directly) affects mutual security by allowing democratically elected governments to interact with the U.S. Without the sympathy of international populations, any government that acts to help the U.S. will simply be kicked out of power, just like Spain.

Spain’s government suffered a defeat because it supported Iraq. But even had people liked Bush, that would not have changed their assessment that Iraq wasn’t worth it to them. From the moment it was proposed, a war in Iraq was vigorously opposed. This was immediately after cooperation in Afghanistan, mind you.

That's right. The general war on terror has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq was a war fought over the control of resources and to make a few war profiteers richer.

Changing the face of the Middle East is the only way to reduce terrorism. “Negotiating” with governments whom we know will take us in bad faith isn’t smart or “humane” – it’s stupid and blind.

Except of course that Saddam Hussein was _not_ acting up. He was actually bowing to international diplomatic pressure.

You mean 140,000 guns.

[Vympel]

And don’t even pretend that those spies had no place on the U.N. inspectorate – whose widespread corruption is being questioned to this day.

Nice dishonest little bait and switch- the UN weapons inspections have fuck all to do with the Oil for Food program.

Furthermore, you extend this lie by pretending the spies were somehow related to this fantasy UNSCOM corruption of yours, rather than being there to spy on Iraq specifically outside UNSCOM mandates, which is what actually occured.

You'll just pull out any piece of dishonesty to further your BS, won't you?

Not to butt in further on Graeme's argument, but

You mean 140,000 guns.

BIG FUCKING DEAL. That you harp on American + British guns hanging over Iraq's head as some sort of *huge* minus and vindicator of your non-existent argument when we currently have that amount of troops IN fucking Iraq getting shot and blown up daily, to the order of over 1,100 troops in the fucking dead cold ground and many times that number maimed for life is fucked up in the extreme.

And in your typical fashion, you're still thrashing your bullshit "we couldn't be 100% sure without invading therefore sanctions were an obvious failure" reasoning without modification, never mind its patent bullshit and so bereft of any reasonable standard of evidence (like in the past almost 2 years repeatedly arguing with you as to why the bullshit the administration was peddling about Iraq was wrong- with reference to how Iraq couldn't possibly be hiding any meaningful capability with the detailed knowledge we had of its infrastructure thanks to the efforts of UNSCOM) it beggars belief.

[Graeme Dice]

Clinton’s successors or failures are irrelevant.

I'm not the one who keeps bringing them up, you are.

All that matters is that he ignored international opinion as formulated in the U.N. and was confronted by not a single meaningful opponent.

I'm sorry, didn't I just say that you don't get to define the parameters by which your argument is read? Oh wait, that's right, I did just say that.

One cannot look at that example, then turn around and argue meaningfully that George W. Bush is now under fire for doing the same thing.

Of course one can. Bush managed to piss people off while attempting to get UN approval. Clinton didn't piss those people off, so people aren't mad at him.

No. His opponents will use the U.N.’s disapproval as a tool, but that is not actually their primary cause for concern.

And of course, you being the all-knowing supreme being are able to tell what their primary cause for concern is.

Clearly, you cannot even read.

What? Are you now arguing that Bush acted in concert with international opinion? Why don't you make up your mind sometime about what your position actually is?

But it doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

I see, so it's George Bush's fault that most of the world is mad at him, but that doesn't mean that he's the one to blame for most of the world being mad at him. Do you really like your doublespeak that much?

It is within your power to put underwear over your pants, don a cape, and devote your life to fighting crime. And yet you don’t.

More strawman I see. That's doubleplus ungood.

Not at all. I’m asking you to point out what benefits Kerry will bring to the table besides this bullshit, “He’s not George Bush, and he’ll make everyone feel better!”

How many many times are you going to try toredefine what cooperation means?

The U.N. inspectorate was full of holes.

Prove it.

In retrospect, placing our spies on that body to ensure that it was doing what we wanted (nay, needed) it to do was only intelligent.

Thanks for not providing any evidence and thus conceding the point.

Spain’s government suffered a defeat because it supported Iraq. But even had people liked Bush, that would not have changed their assessment that Iraq wasn’t worth it to them. From the moment it was proposed, a war in Iraq was vigorously opposed. This was immediately after cooperation in Afghanistan, mind you.

Once again the doublethinker tries to disguise the fact that it's _Bush's_ fault that the US invaded Iraq.

Changing the face of the Middle East is the only way to reduce terrorism. “Negotiating” with governments whom we know will take us in bad faith isn’t smart or “humane” – it’s stupid and blind.

More doublethink I see. How hard do you have to suppress your intellect to convince yourself that Iraq is less of a recruiting ground for terrorists now than it was in 2000?

You mean 140,000 guns.

Wrong. Saddam let the UN inspectors back in long before Bush proved that Bush was acting in bad faith.

[Vympel]

Prove it

Regarding Kast's oft-repeated dead horse "UN inspectorate full of holes!" absurd exaggerationist rhetoric, he considers his argument-winning examples to be Chinese technicians installing fibre-optic cable to Iraqi air defenses 3 years ago, or the inadequate trickle of illicit black market spare parts Iraq tried to import to prop up it's deteriorating military infrastructure (which failed)- he can't even begin to identify any meaningful threat arising out of his bullshit, nor can he make a hole in the fact (reaffirmed over and over by successive inspectors of both the UN and US) that Iraq had been overwhelmingly disarmed. The Duelfer report even states that between 1998 and 2003, Iraq's capability *deteriorated*.

In short, sanctions/inspections did their job, and none of Kast's nitpicking of Iraq's feeble attempts at transgressions put a dent in that point. But just expect him to repeat himself.

[Axis Kast]

The Duelfer report was made only after our occupation, Vympel. That rather says a lot about what was required in order to be able to make what many consider to be a final statement about Saddam's capabilities.

[Durandal]

Sure, invading and occupying the country was one way to determine whether or not Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, just as dropping a beer can off the roof of a skyscraper is one way to discern its contents. I'd hardly call either "necessary."

[Graeme Dice]

The Duelfer report was made only after our occupation, Vympel. That rather says a lot about what was required in order to be able to make what many consider to be a final statement about Saddam's capabilities.

You really like your fallacies, don't you.

[Patrick Degan]

The Duelfer report was made only after our occupation, Vympel. That rather says a lot about what was required in order to be able to make what many consider to be a final statement about Saddam's capabilities.

Begging the Question Fallacy. Iraq's lack of capacity to sustain a WMD effort of any sort was perfectly observable; particularly by the rather evident deterioriation of the country's industrial and technical infrastructure over twelve years. War was not a necessary condition to establish the lack-of-threat Iraq posed to the outside world.

[Wired_Grenadier]

As for "evidence" , take a tour to www.google.com using the words Germany, Schroeder, Iraq.

Which doesn't even come close to meeting the standards of evidence, which requires specific examples that are relevant to the situation at hadn

As far as I can see, I didn't. I simply stated that Germany won't send troops, I didn't tackle the topic of cooperation at all.

Sure you did, like the other Bush apologists, you've tried to redefine the terms of the problem.

No, I simply stated that my country won't send troops, no matter who is in charge in the U.S. . How is that being a Bush apologist? I'm not supporting AK here in this discussion, I simply made a statement based on the actual decisions my government made. That's how things are, and how they will be even after the November elections.

[MKSheppard]

No, I simply stated that my country won't send troops, no matter who is in charge in the U.S. . How is that being a Bush apologist?

Shush, Wired. You're confusing Graeme.

[Wired_Grenadier]

Seems so. I've hardly written twohundred words in this whole thread, but so far he has been a master in reading between the lines...even if there's nothing...