Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kamchatka · 03-16-2003, 11:53 AM

For the record, I can't stand the present U.S. administration.

That doesn't excuse Chirac's pathetic do nothing position.

Kamchatka · 03-16-2003, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jolimont
Kamchtka I've asked you to give me some proof for the accusations you make against Chirac and you have not. Just as I thought, you're talking out of your ass. You are free to assess the situation as you wish. You are free to call the French any name you wish. Just don't expect any support with that kind of attitude.

[Insult removed]

When the French are invested militarily and economically in making inspections work, those who are will take them seriously.

We aren't holding our breath. But I hope you are.

enemigo · 03-16-2003, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
What's "anti-American"?

Is it anything more than some content-free insult word?

I see it as a right-wing version of the "Race Card" that they spend so much time bitching about.

If you oppose affirmative action, you're a racist; if you don't think the US should support Israel, you're an anti-Semite.

Its the same with this... If you don't line up behind Bush, you're an America-hater.

richard

Jolimont · 03-16-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamchatka
And you are free to continue to keep your head shoved up YOUR ass asking for proof that you are hiding it there.

When the French are invested militarily and economically in making inspections work, those who are will take them seriously.

We aren't holding our breath. But I hope you are.

I will ignore the death wish as again you're talking out of your ass. Get a clue, read something of substance for a change: http://www.prospect.org/print-friend...x-p-02-14.html

livius drusus · 03-16-2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamchatka
And you are free to continue to keep your head shoved up YOUR ass asking for proof that you are hiding it there.

Your insults are vile and entirely unprovoked. Just because you are unable or unwilling to back up your rhetoric with facts doesn't mean you have to resort to slurs. You could say nothing at all, for instance.

Quote:

When the French are invested militarily and economically in making inspections work, those who are will take them seriously.

We aren't holding our breath. But I hope you are.

Are you actually expressing hope that Jolimont die by asphyxia here? From the Forum Rules and Policies:

Quote:

(2) You will not post material that is knowingly defamatory, illegal, abusive, threatening, harassing, or racially offensive. As with anything, you will use good common sense. In other words, you agree not to be a jerk.

From the Political Discussions Forum Rules:

Quote:

(1) Ad hominem attacks, insults and flames are not acceptable. Posts which consist largely or entirely of such comments will be deleted. Otherwise substantive posts which contain some ad hominems or flames will be edited to remove the inappropriate material while retaining the substance of the post.

Your behavior is opprobrious and in clear contravention of the rules of this forum.

Loren Pechtel · 03-16-2003, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Superbad
If we wanted the inspections to fail, and it sure seems like we did, we shouldn't have built up troops, then we could be deciding on what the sever consequences of not disarming are. If we want inspections to work, we just have to be a credible military threat to Iraq. That doesn't mean we have to ship hundreds of thousands of troops into the area.

Bush made it clear he was going to go into Iraq regardless of the UN, so why all the bellyaching that the UN didn't go along with us? It's not just the French now, it's most of the SC. Bush expected that he could bully the UN into going along with this, and he was wrong.

Bombing hasn't gotten the point across. The only credible threat we can pose by now is invasion.

Kamchatka · 03-16-2003, 01:05 PM

[post deleted]

Kamchatka · 03-16-2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by livius drusus
Your insults are vile and entirely unprovoked. Just because you are unable or unwilling to back up your rhetoric with facts doesn't mean you have to resort to slurs. You could say nothing at all, for instance. Are you actually expressing hope that Jolimont die by asphyxia here?

Your behavior is opprobrious and in clear contravention of the rules of this forum.

My suggestion that Jolimont has his head shoved up his ass is no more vile, entirely unprovoked or "opprobrious" than his repeated suggestion that I am talking out my ass.

This thread is all rhetoric. It began with Jolimont asking when Americans will grow up. He accuses President Bush of being a moron, but does nothing to prove it.

My suggestion that he hold his breath in no way suggested that I felt he should die. It suggested that he should hold his breath while his head is shoved up his ass.

Of course you and Jolimont's leap to the conclusion that I was wishing death upon him illustrates my point about what Chirac is suggesting about Bush.

If you intend to be the thought police, punish equal opprobrium evenly.

If not, banish me or go away and let the thread play out.

John Hancock · 03-16-2003, 01:38 PM

Kamchatka

He accuses President Bush of being a moron, but does nothing to prove it.

So here's your proof the moron told Houston Chronicle in 2002 that he's "been to war he raised twins". Leader and Chief

Martin Buber

Oresta · 03-16-2003, 01:54 PM

That doesn't excuse Chirac's pathetic do nothing position.

Au contraire!
Chirac is far from in a "do nothing position". For one, by threatening to use France's veto, he is responding to the American assumption/attempt of/for dominance in the UN. The recent diplomatic blunders of this country stem. in part, from our contempt for "old Europe" and assumption that all their interests are secondary to a ours.
In the second place, he is protecting France's potential oil interests in a post-sanction Iraq. Since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, France, the UK, and the US have jockeyed for oil interests in the Middlle East and on the Arabian Peninsula. Why would anyone expect him do any other than what he is doing? And is it any more or less what we are doing?
No one has the higher moral ground here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2003, 11:53 AM	#21
Kamchatka Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 157	For the record, I can't stand the present U.S. administration. That doesn't excuse Chirac's pathetic do nothing position.

03-16-2003, 01:05 PM	#27
Kamchatka Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 157	[post deleted]

03-16-2003, 01:38 PM	#29
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	Kamchatka He accuses President Bush of being a moron, but does nothing to prove it. So here's your proof the moron told Houston Chronicle in 2002 that he's "been to war he raised twins". Leader and Chief Martin Buber

03-16-2003, 01:54 PM	#30
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	That doesn't excuse Chirac's pathetic do nothing position. Au contraire! Chirac is far from in a "do nothing position". For one, by threatening to use France's veto, he is responding to the American assumption/attempt of/for dominance in the UN. The recent diplomatic blunders of this country stem. in part, from our contempt for "old Europe" and assumption that all their interests are secondary to a ours. In the second place, he is protecting France's potential oil interests in a post-sanction Iraq. Since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, France, the UK, and the US have jockeyed for oil interests in the Middlle East and on the Arabian Peninsula. Why would anyone expect him do any other than what he is doing? And is it any more or less what we are doing? No one has the higher moral ground here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.