"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

Foxfyre wrote:

It remains to be seen if France, Germany, and/or France were beneficiaries by opposing a pre-emptive strike on Iraq however.

It also "remains to be seen" whether or not there is an invisible dwarf on my shoulder who tells me what to do.

We'll just have to keep watch, we can't let something silly like burden of proof and critical thinking get in our way.

Quote:

The oil for food scandal investigation is still in its infancy. It will be interesting to see what rats fall out of that nest if the investigation is thorough and honestly conducted.

My prediction:

You will be disappointed. And that'll leave "what remains to be seen is whether or not the investigation was thorough and honestly conducted".

I mean, I'm all for people clinging to their opinions absent facts under the banner of what is not yet disproven if they want to, but it gets old.

People have been talking about dirty motives on France and Germany's part for years now. I suppose they just "wait and see" which is becoming more and more a vain hope that their opinion is, after years of voicing it and implying it, substantiated.

Simple test:

Those who believe France and Germany's opposition was motivated by money post their reasons and facts.

We can handle this (easily) from there.

Some cautionary notes:

Public opinion. Public opinion is not swayed by back room dealings, unless the whole damn population of the world was bribed you'll have to cede that for many there were non-monetary motivations to oppose the war.

Sums. The amounts being described are chump change, you will ahve a hell of a time illustrating that it would even be profitable for the allegdedly bribed.

I've issued the challenge time and time again, people keep wanting to "wait" in the vain hope that substantiation will materialize.

Why don't you guys just go and feekin' read up on it? You'll note that the corruption being investigated was not even allegedly at levels at which it could have yeilded such influence.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I expect it will not be as embarrassing as it could be because we will give each country to save face in the eyes of the world. The US will gain an edge politically from this though.

Seriously guys, it is to laugh.

"Wait and see, but it probably won't be seen. But believe anyway."

The criteria for critical thought that you have established is the type that lends life to dwarfy.

With such evidentiary standards (or rather a lack of them) any absurdity can be argued. Just ask dwarfy.

0 Replies

If we all just stated facts, this would be a rather dry place, now wouldn't it?

Now, take your dwarfy and go sit in the corner.

0 Replies

It is as speculative for you to assume what will disappoint me Craven as it is speculative for me to think you, for whatever reason, want France, Germany, and/or Russia to be found blameless.

The allegations that funds were illegally diverted to opportunists in the U.N. seem to have a good deal of facts behind them. I have no hopes that go either way other than to have my own questions answered about why some in the U.N. were so protective of Iraq prior to the invasion. This is a matter of curiosity rather than anything of any importance.

It could be quite important, however, to determine the character and integrity of those who are in charge of sensitive and important things and send them packing if they are found to be on the take.

0 Replies

Hey, I have no problem with people who want to set aside time to make embarassingly unsubstantiated vociferations here. As I said, I'm all for it.

Gives me something to do.

0 Replies

That depends on who makes the embarassing, unsubstantiated vociferations. Wondering and curiosity do not quality there I think.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It is as speculative for you to assume what will disappoint me Craven as it is speculative for me to think you, for whatever reason, want France, Germany, and/or Russia to be found blameless.

So? What does that matter unless my speculation is incorrect.

If you think it is, make a case for it. Rhetoric is easy, try evidence.

Quote:

The allegations that funds were illegally diverted to opportunists in the U.N. seem to have a good deal of facts behind them.

Yet the implications that the opposition for the war was motivated by greed has precious little in way of facts behind them.

Quote:

I have no hopes that go either way other than to have my own questions answered about why some in the U.N. were so protective of Iraq prior to the invasion.

I don't believe that for a second. I mean, I bet you do, but I don't.

You probably do in fact believe that you have no hopes that your gleeful insinuations eventually become substantiated. But I don't, I think that on some level you want to deflate the opposition to the war you support by writing it off as corruption.

The fact that there is overwhelming evidence against such a notion is of little import to you. You'll keep "waiting and (never) seeing".

Which is, of course, your prerogative.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That depends on who makes the embarassing, unsubstantiated vociferations. Wondering and curiosity do not quality there I think.

Again, it is to laugh. All you guys do is couch unsubstantiated opinions you find favorable in "wonderment" and "waits and sees".

That you take the opposite tack and actually want substantiation for notions that do not sit well with you belies the nature of these implications.

How many times do you "wonder" about Bush's "secret pact with the Saudis" or "wait and see" if the bullshit liberals allege about Haliburton magically becomes true?

Do you "wait and see" when it comes to dwarfy?

Do you "wonder" whether Bush and the CIA orchestrated 9/11 for political gain?

Answer those to yourself.

My take: you couch favorable opinions that suffer from a total lack of substantiation in ambiguity as a manner of clinging to them. Ambiguity is their only refuge (just like dwarfy, his invisible nature is what keeps him alive, but we'll see him one day).

0 Replies

Iraq owes 3 Billion or so to Germany according to USA today.

Iraq owes 3.5 Billion to France.

Inasmuch as Germanys' GDP in 2002 showed an abysmal 0.2 growth and France's GDP grew only at a weak 1.2%, it is questionable that the monies owed to Germany and France can be considered- "chump change".

It is my OPINION, that economies Like those of Germany and France, burdened as they are with ridiculous Union regulations which have caused their Unemployment rates to soar to nearly 10% will soon be overtaken by the New Europe which feature countries which are not so spoiled and far less bound by Socialistic constrictions on free enterprise.

0 Replies

Gee Craven. Why don't you say what you really think? So let's review. McG and I are totally biased and selective in our opinions about Bush, but you are entirely objective and certain about what we do or do not care about, concern ourselves with, or wonder about?

I would be delighted to enter into a discussion re the Halliburton issue or whether Bush and the CIA plotted and carried out 9/11. Why don't you start that thread. I guarantee we'll participate. Or I will. McG will have to speak for himself.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Gee Craven. Why don't you say what you really think?

I did.

Quote:

So let's review. McG and I are totally biased and selective in our opinions about Bush, but you are entirely objective and certain about what we do or do not care about, concern ourselves with, or wonder about?

Indeed, let's review.

1) I never once said or implied that you and McG are "totally biased".

I will however say right now that you have a penchant for just wildly making stuff up if you think it sounds good. You just make bold lies about what people say to you and imply or allege that they said things that they never once said. It's a cheap ploy in debate. This is example number 1.

2) I never once said or implied that I am entirely objective.

This is "Making stuff up that sounds good" example number 2.

3) I am not certain of your thoughts.

This is "Making stuff up that sounds good" example number 3.

I make an effort to be precise when I speaka nd write. I do say exactly what I mean. You on the other hand frequently make up stuff when things don't go your way in a discussion. A veritable straw man factory.

Quote:

I would be delighted to enter into a discussion re the Halliburton issue or whether Bush and the CIA plotted and carried out 9/11.

That's nice. But now it's a bit late to feign "wonderment" and "wait and see" about that. Look at your history.

You are quick to "wonder" and "wait and see" and keep the jury out on unsubstantiated claims against your perceived opponents but do not do so with Bush and the policticians with whom you align yourself with.

In their cases, it's all about making "factual" claims.

I don't expect you to agree, but there is substantial evidence within your post history to corroborate this.

PS - Pulling a "jury's out" on Haliburton etc now is too transparent, you need to work it in slowly.

0 Replies

Well I don't know what pulled your chain Craven. I won't try to change your mind about what I make up or what lies I tell about other people as you are no doubt convinced that you are spot on accurate. I try not to personally attack, however, and to whomever feels particularly singled out, I will apologize.

Happy?

0 Replies

septembri wrote:

Iraq owes 3 Billion or so to Germany according to USA today.

Iraq owes 3.5 Billion to France.

Inasmuch as Germanys' GDP in 2002 showed an abysmal 0.2 growth and France's GDP grew only at a weak 1.2%, it is questionable that the monies owed to Germany and France can be considered- "chump change".

I'm talking about the kickbacks alledged in the UN. Please try to follow the discussion.

1) Timber commented about their debts, I commented to him. I said nothing of chump change. I spoke of the debt assurances we extended as an example of the absurdity of the "for profit" arguments.

2) McG and Foxfyre then brough up the ole UN oil-for-food stuff at which point I referenced the alleged "chump change".

A quick lesson on reading comprehension:

The figures I spoke of when I referred to "chump change" were not the figures you cite.

So when you cite those figures trying to disprove that they are "chump change" you would do well to note that I'd not claimed they were.

A quick example of the intellect behind such an attempt:

Person A: X is chump change.

Person B: Y is a lot of money, it's not chump change.

Again, just basic reading, you'd likely have gotten the logic right.

But you did not, however, even get the debt figures right. That is funny.

Quote:

It is my OPINION, that economies Like those of Germany and France, burdened as they are with ridiculous Union regulations which have caused their Unemployment rates to soar to nearly 10% will soon be overtaken by the New Europe which feature countries which are not so spoiled and far less bound by Socialistic constrictions on free enterprise.

Everyone is entitled to absurd opinions.

Incidentally here is something or the crowd:

From within the hour. G8 nations agree to reduce Iraq debt.

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=bondsNews&storyID=5386105

From 2003: Joint plan to relieve Iraq debt

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/16/sprj.irq.france.baker/

http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20031217-15.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I don't know what pulled your chain Craven.

Nothing pulled my chain Foxfyre. I'm happy as a clam and enjoying this discussion immensely. So happy, in fact, that I'll let you in on a low dirty debate technique:

When debate doesn't go your way and making up stuff about what the other person said backfires try to write off their opinions as bourne of anger, that way you don't have to address anything they said!

It's usually best coupled with a big civility pretext.

0 Replies

I know what your "chump change" referred to. I put in MY referral to what some have called "chump Change"--the money that Iraq owes to Germany and France. I will state that any country that has, as one of its regulations for its unions, a thirty five hour week, as the French do, is bound to self-destruct in this globalized economy( See Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree).

Now, I am informed that the G8 is agreeing to reduce the Iraqi debt.

That is heartening. I am sure that we received nothing for agreeing to that provision.

I see that Chirac still does not believe that NATO should have a role in Iraq.
He had better inform his fellow Frenchman( by descent) Kerry that NATO should have no role in Iraq since the plugugly prospective candidate, Kerry, has been stridently insisting that we should indeed try to get the cooperation and help in terms of troops of other nations.

How shortsighted of Chirac!!

Maybe he is operating according to the principles of Realpolitik. I understand that we are the only nation in the world that is not allowed to do so!

0 Replies

Well I'm not enjoying it Craven. And I'll go elsewhere for etiquette lessons thank you.

0 Replies

septembri wrote:

I know what your "chump change" referred to.

Indeed, now you do. I trust my illustrations were helpful.

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I'm not enjoying it Craven. And I'll go elsewhere for etiquette lessons thank you.

This is soooo predictable. You start with a shaky argument, when it is questioned you start making up stuff and putting words in their mouths, and when called on it beg off claiming it is confrontational.

Suit yourself, I stil love ya and don't see stupid discussions about politics as confrontantions (then again, maybe if I voiced unsubstantiated opinions I'd think so).

0 Replies

Yep Craven. It's entirely predictable that I will not enjoy an unwarranted blind side personal attack that sidetracks what was otherwise an enjoyable debate. I don't expect other people to enjoy that either. I keep forgetting that nobody is allowed to think or reason or speculate or wonder about anything without being able to post somebody else's opinion here. I love you too, usually, but, since I do this for fun, I'll move on.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

I made no such personal "attack" (unless the criteria is skewed toward making any criticism an attack and your criticisms not an attack).

But hey, I agree that if it ain't fun don't.

0 Replies

One of the points made by a person who is, by all accounts, one of the best debaters of the last century, William F. Buckley, is:

"When a debater is caught in a mistake his or her best course of action is to trivialize its significance"

On these posts it is called "shaky"

Buckley calls it "trivializing its significance"

Buckley sounds so much better and so much more erudite.

0 Replies

"Full Sovereignty for Iraq on June 30"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know