News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

Started by Syt, December 06, 2015, 01:55:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Eddie Teach

Quote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2019, 02:40:45 PM
Irak

Why do you translate your own country's name into English but not Iraq? Goes to Viper too.  :hmm:
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Valmy

Quote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2019, 04:09:13 PM
(Aznar wanted to realign our foreign policy toward the US and away from France/Germany).

Pity Bush wasted that opportunity.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Iormlund

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 06, 2019, 04:17:53 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2019, 02:40:45 PM
Irak

Why do you translate your own country's name into English but not Iraq? Goes to Viper too.  :hmm:

No clue.  :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2019, 04:18:22 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2019, 04:09:13 PM
(Aznar wanted to realign our foreign policy toward the US and away from France/Germany).

Pity Bush wasted that opportunity.

It never made much sense. It's the same issue the Brits are facing now. You can be a major player in a pond of little fish, or a small fish sharing a puddle with a shark.

Malthus

Should be pointed out that Canada managed to stay out of the Iraq thing, without thereby ruining its relationship with the US - Canada was willing to go in with the Afgan thing.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Eddie Teach

The US/Canada relationship has persisted through decades of awful Canadian music. Besides, we know you've got your hands full with Denmark.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Barrister

Quote from: Malthus on November 06, 2019, 04:42:17 PM
Should be pointed out that Canada managed to stay out of the Iraq thing, without thereby ruining its relationship with the US - Canada was willing to go in with the Afgan thing.

But that was 100% about optics/domestic politics.  I read some US pundit or general who commented that Canada did more to help the invasion of Iraq than many of the so-called members of the coalition of the willing, because Canadians in Afghanistan freed up US troops that were sent to Iraq.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Tonitrus

It would be a fair bit of hubris to argue that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

But I don't think one can also easily argue that sitting back and continuing to watch Saddam & Sons run a multi-million person sadistic torture chamber while simultaneously feeding regional and international terrorism was a great alternative either.


Tonitrus

Quote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2019, 04:34:02 PM
It never made much sense. It's the same issue the Brits are facing now. You can be a major player in a pond of little fish, or a small fish sharing a puddle with a shark.

The US is not a shark.  :mad:

A beautiful killer whale, perhaps.  :P

alfred russel

Quote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2019, 02:40:45 PM
I guess we disagree there. Personally I don't think a government that manufactures evidence to start wars or quietly collects data on a massive scale even on its own citizens can be "basically good guys".


I ultimately think the Bush administration was genuinely surprised that WMD were not present. Prewar, the government was searching very hard for evidence of something they "knew" to be there.

To me, it is one of the great mysteries of Saddam Hussein. He stonewalled the inspectors for years, and since he previously had WMD, it seemed only logical he still did. I know there are plenty of theories as to why he didn't open up to the world* that he didn't have WMD, but i don't think any of them add up (other than he was isolated and paranoid, and ultimately not able to assess his own self interest).

*I know he did invite in inspectors post military build up, but at that point it was too late.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

frunk

Quote from: alfred russel on November 06, 2019, 06:18:03 PM

To me, it is one of the great mysteries of Saddam Hussein. He stonewalled the inspectors for years, and since he previously had WMD, it seemed only logical he still did. I know there are plenty of theories as to why he didn't open up to the world* that he didn't have WMD, but i don't think any of them add up (other than he was isolated and paranoid, and ultimately not able to assess his own self interest).

I think he didn't really think the US would invade on such a flimsy pretext when they could have easily done it 12 years earlier, and not opening up both played well domestically and made Iraq look tougher in area relations as well.  I don't think he ever wanted to look weak with Iran next door. 

The Minsky Moment

AR - the US was not the only adversary Saddam needed to worry about.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

viper37

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 06, 2019, 04:17:53 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 06, 2019, 02:40:45 PM
Irak

Why do you translate your own country's name into English but not Iraq? Goes to Viper too.  :hmm:
Because Canada is spelled the same in English and in French, duh!
:P

I keep forgetting about Irak/Iraq.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

alfred russel

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2019, 10:13:20 PM
AR - the US was not the only adversary Saddam needed to worry about.

He didn't need to worry about Iran. Post Gulf War I, Iraq was a neutralized state--the situation was not the same as during the Iran-Iraq War when two roughly equal powers faced off. The US wouldn't stand by while Iran attacked Iraq.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

grumbler

Quote from: alfred russel on November 06, 2019, 06:18:03 PM
I ultimately think the Bush administration was genuinely surprised that WMD were not present. Prewar, the government was searching very hard for evidence of something they "knew" to be there.

I ultimately think that this untruth that "WMD were not present" will win out over the truth that, not only were they present, but US news media were full of the stories of the ill effects suffered by the troops who had to dispose of them.  I was just today showing my history class a History Channel video on Dubya, and it made the same claim that "no WMD were found."
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!