QueenZone discussion #1112912

Mr.Jingles wrote: Right wing in Canada = moderate conservative. Left wing in the U.S. = moderate liberal.

Sir GH wrote: Wow... this is from a right-wing newspaper: link Discuss.

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: It's similar to those "popular historians" you will find who write books about history like "What if Hitler had been killed before he rose to power?" or "What if Constantine had never become Christian?" Makes interesting reading to be sure, but it's "What If" history...interesting to think on, but pointless. It doesn't change anything in the present.

Paul Rodgers wrote: vote Queen

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: It's similar to those "popular historians" you will find who write books about history like "What if Hitler had been killed before he rose to power?" or "What if Constantine had never become Christian?" Makes interesting reading to be sure, but it's "What If" history...interesting to think on, but pointless. It doesn't change anything in the present.

Tero wrote:

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: It's similar to those "popular historians" you will find who write books about history like "What if Hitler had been killed before he rose to power?" or "What if Constantine had never become Christian?" Makes interesting reading to be sure, but it's "What If" history...interesting to think on, but pointless. It doesn't change anything in the present.

Your comparison would be accurate (but its contents just as faulty) if we were still talking about Hitler in 1940 before the USA joined WW2, or if we were still living in 400AD during the Roman Empire... It's not really the same thing as long as the story is still unfolding in front of our eyes. It's not like the situation in either Iraq or Afghanistan has been resolved, is it? To think it's "pointless" at this stage is like saying it's pointless to watch a football game after the halftime, or like quitting reading every detective novel once the corpse has been found!

Sir GH wrote:

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: It's similar to those "popular historians" you will find who write books about history like "What if Hitler had been killed before he rose to power?" or "What if Constantine had never become Christian?" Makes interesting reading to be sure, but it's "What If" history...interesting to think on, but pointless. It doesn't change anything in the present.

Sure it does... decades or even centuries later, things can be altered to meet the needs of current "agenda X". It's called "collective history" !

JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: so the article was taken from the file marked *stating the bleeding obvious* we've all known this from the get-go,nice of them to finally admit it though. if only Zimbabwe had oil....

Zebonka12 wrote:

JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: so the article was taken from the file marked *stating the bleeding obvious* we've all known this from the get-go,nice of them to finally admit it though. if only Zimbabwe had oil....

I want to get together with a bunch of my chums and fake an oil discovery in downtown Harare. (<< However you spell it). Seriously. You'd have an occupation force in there by tomorrow evening.

JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: if only Zimbabwe had oil....

Tero wrote: No, really. You seem to insist that the past, present, and future are all separate things with absolutely no connection between them, and that's just plain stupid. Surely you must know that past actions have an effect on the present actions, and help us in predicting the future actions?

ThomasQuinn wrote: Interesting how you talk of far-left propaganda, and cite a book by a right-wing propagandist as your source. EDIT: if you'd care to read a few professional reviews of the book you mention, you'll find that it is severely criticized for being highly unprofessional in its research. Oh, and Eric Margolis is a notable 'Eisenhower-Republican' and an expert on the Middle East. Calling him far-left is laughable, and naming ADAMS as his superior in expertise is simply hilarious.

Yara wrote: This guy is priceless. There was actual, CLEAR evidence for the threat Iraq posed to the U.S, but it turned out that it was very, very wrong. Hahaha. I mean, just take the time to read the available intelligence documents not only from the U.S, but other countries as well. Oh, yes, people do say what their boss need them to say sometimes. That's what's called lack of intelligence, not faulty intelligence.

Charlie Brown wrote: Hello dear Yara. Some people seem to think that the US suddenly created the notion that the Iraqi regime had nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in 2003. They seem to forget that the regime used poison gas in its war against Iran and that the Israeli Air Force bombed the nuclear reactor the regime was building in 1981. Also the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors in 1998 which resulted in air strikes against suspected weapons sites.

pittrek wrote: Reporter : Mr. President, do you think that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ? Bush : No, I don't BELIEVE it, I KNOW it. Reporter : How can you KNOW it ? Bush : Well I still have the bills !

YourValentine wrote: "They seem to forget that the regime used poison gas in its war against Iran and that the Israeli Air Force bombed the nuclear reactor the regime was building in 1981. Also the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors in 1998 which resulted in air strikes against suspected weapons sites." That was not the "reason" the Bush administration told the world. The USA was supporting Iraq in the war against Iran. They never bothered about the Kurds and they don't bother now when Turkey marches into North Iraq to hunt Kurdish "extremists" killing hundreds of people. The reason the Bush administration told the world was that the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was refusing to show them to the UN inspectors. This was a blatant, obvious lie, it was always denied by the UN inspectors and the Iraq had no chance whatsoever to prove they did not have what they did not have. Saddam Hussein had been a dictator for decades and the USA had not cared about that. Al Quaeda never set a foot into Iraq as long as the dictatorship was still in place. Today the Iraq is a very important base for Al Quaeda. Yara has a very valid point when she says it's not an academic issue, it's a moral issue. Estimated 1,2 million Iraqui civilians have been killed since the invasion and that is a number Saddam Hussein did not manage in his whole life. The war against Iraq with all the ugly happenings like Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo Bay has ruined the reputation of the United States as the moral leader of the Western World for good. In the primaries the democratic candidates tried to convince the voters that they would retreat but there was not a single word of compassion for the incredible suffering in Iraq. It was all about "how can we get our boys out of there". In the mean time the dying and suffering continues day in day out, the US invasion opened the country for all kind of religious extremists. Christians who lived in Iraq undisturbed until the invasion now have to flee the country and the USA is about the only Western country refusing to give these people a home, well done Mr. Reborn Christian Bush. If people speak out the simple truth they are "anti-American", "Bush haters" and that has to be such a bad thing. For all other "rogue" leaders the world calls for putting them on trial and holding them responsible but there was never the slightest attempt to impeach Bush for his crimes. It's not that we did not know all along that the alleged WMD were a brutal lie, everbody knew it. Colin Powell admitted to lying in the face of the world and he said it was the worst day of his life. It was also the worst day in the lives of millions of innocent people who were killed, injured, humilitated, made homeless, driven out of their country. I wish the official USA had a word of sympathy for the suffering Iraqui people.

YourValentine wrote: That was not the "reason" the Bush administration told the world. The USA was supporting Iraq in the war against Iran. They never bothered about the Kurds and they don't bother now when Turkey marches into North Iraq to hunt Kurdish "extremists" killing hundreds of people. The reason the Bush administration told the world was that the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was refusing to show them to the UN inspectors. This was a blatant, obvious lie, it was always denied by the UN inspectors and the Iraq had no chance whatsoever to prove they did not have what they did not have. Saddam Hussein had been a dictator for decades and the USA had not cared about that. Al Quaeda never set a foot into Iraq as long as the dictatorship was still in place. Today the Iraq is a very important base for Al Quaeda.

wrote: Hold on a second. Here are the facts: 1) The US government received intelligence from several typically credible sources, such as the CIA and other intelligence agencies, which indicated a threat to the United States. 2) The US government acted upon that intelligence and initiated the war. 3) After the inception of the war, the intelligence was proven to be faulty.

Yara wrote: Well, Clinton was not ousted from the office. He did get away with it. But the scandal took such proportions for a simple reason: the American population, according to every respectable poll, is very religious. No surprise they'd feel outraged by Clinton's sexual misconduct.

wrote: If there was any proof to anything that you had said, there would be one more Vice President behind bars than there is now. If Bill Clinton could hardly get away with sexual misconduct, what on earth makes you think a Vice President could get away with forcing CIA officers into faking reports? Seriously.

wrote: Hold on a second. Here are the facts: 1) The US government received intelligence from several typically credible sources, such as the CIA and other intelligence agencies, which indicated a threat to the United States.

2) The US government acted upon that intelligence and initiated the war.

3) After the inception of the war, the intelligence was proven to be faulty.

YourValentine wrote: I don't know - you tell me. Do you think the world enjoys what is happening under the Bush administration? The USA is supposed to be a democracy, so why can it happen that the Bush administration was allowed to invade Iraq for no reason against the vote of the UN security council? Why can it happen that the US army tortures and murders people in the Iraq and are not held responsible ? Please don't tell me there is no proof, there were actually dozens of videos on YouTube before the army realised how damaging it was and they were all removed. Why can it be that the army in the Iraq has the order to shoot everybody who moves in a combat area with no discrimination ignoring all provisions of the Geneva convention? And please don't say it's not true, it has been well documented and testified by numerous veteran soldiers. Why can it be that the US administration runs a prisoner camp in Guantanamo Bay where people are held like animals for years with no legal help, no charges filed, no court although the Supreme Court has ruled various times that it's all unconstitutional? Please tell me, I really would want to know. Do you think it's fun for the rest of the world when the biggest power all of a sudden acts like the worst dictatorship and still claims to be the saviour of the world? How can you as a citizen stand by and watch and deny?

YourValentine wrote: All I know is that from the start the majority of the whole world including the UN security council did not buy the lies of the Bush administration and the proof of the lies comes from US intelligence officials and the US Senate. If you still prefer to believe Mr. Rumsfeld and Fox News you are in denial.

Gym Bitch wrote: Hillary Clinton strongly supported the Iraq Resolution of 2002. link

Gym Bitch wrote: from the link in the previous post: "Much of Iraq's debt is held by Saudi Arabia, Russia, France and Germany, all of which provided little or no aid to Iraq at an international donors conference in Madrid in October."

YourValentine wrote:

Gym Bitch wrote: from the link in the previous post: "Much of Iraq's debt is held by Saudi Arabia, Russia, France and Germany, all of which provided little or no aid to Iraq at an international donors conference in Madrid in October."

You should be honest in quoting your own article and this was said about Germany and their willingness to forgive Iraqui debts: YOU'RE RIGHT - WHY DONATE TO SOMETHING YOU ARE SHUT OUT OF. I DID NOT INTEND TO QUOTE THE 2ND PART OF THAT SENTENCE. I WANTED TO IMPLY THAT FRANCE, GERMANY AND RUSSIA'S OPPOSITION TO THE WAR WAS PARTIALLY DUE TO THEIR HEAVY INVESTMENT IN SADDAM'S IRAQ, BUT I FAILED TO ELABORATE. "German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told The Wall Street Journal recently that his country was open to debt relief. He noted debt relief had been critical to Germany's reconstruction after World War II." The donor conference in Madrid was a totally different story. Russia, France and Germany did not want to pour their money into a war they did not support. Also, international bidding was not happening in Iraq, all contracts were given to American companies such as Halliburton and Bechtel in closed or no-bid processes. You cannot change the rules in your own favour all the time and then blame the other countries for not playing along. Just look at another bit of the article you quoted above: "The United States is pushing wholesale relief. In addition to France, Baker plans to visit Germany and Russia — like France, sharp critics of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq — as well as Britain and Italy, which backed the invasion. Pentagon officials appeared to complicate the effort last week when they indicated they would bar France, Germany, Russia and other countries that opposed the war from bidding on key Iraq reconstruction contracts How would you respond to such an arrogant attitude? Would you give your money to a country that acts like they own the occupied country and all their resources? I don't think France and Germany are less compassionate than other countries but the USA was asking for money for their own corporate interests, not for the rebuilding of Iraq (which has not proceeded much to this very day). I don't think Hillary Clinton's approval or the approval by other Democratic senators makes the war any more legitimate. In "old Europe" people were against the war and not fooled by the lies at all. ("LIES" - WHAT A WONDERFUL WORD ... REPEATING THE WORD MUST MAKE IT TRUE) It was one of the rare cases when the population and the government were on the same side. In Spain Aznar lost the elections and Zapatero, who had promised that he would call back the Spanish troops from the Iraq, won. AZNER LOST THE ELECTIONS BECAUSE AL QAEDA'S BOMBINGS IN SPAIN "SUCCESSFULLY" CHANGED THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE OF SPAIN.

Joeker wrote: the only reason we fight is because we're insecure about our penis sizes.

ThomasQuinn wrote:

Joeker wrote: the only reason we fight is because we're insecure about our penis sizes.

And that goes for the women, too?

YourValentine wrote: It's true that the outcome of the Spanish election was influenced by the Madrid bombs. Zapatero had promised from the start to call the troops home and the bombs had an impact. It was not only not wanting to have the war in their own country, it was also the Aznar administration trying to blame the bombs on the ETA knowing it was a lie. People were fed up being fooled and lied to by their own government. Just recently Zapatero was re-elected.

Joeker wrote: the only reason we fight is because we're insecure about our penis sizes.