[Spliffdaddy]

"As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had," Allawi said. "I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq."

OUCH. That's gotta hurt.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

It's cool, tho. You made your point.

It's OK for the Iraqis to suffer as long as it makes Dubya look bad.

I'm guessing the Iraqis like Dubya more than France & Germany combined.

[ZackS]

He was mad at France and Germany for not helping fund the new government he works for that was created by the US in an action unsupported by those nations.

That is not a smackdown, you're just delusional. IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE. Once you can admit that, the bounty of political enlightenment will be within reach.

[quandarry]

fack iraq!!! fack england!!! fack the usa!!!

fack imperialism!!!

[Spliffdaddy]

"IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE"


You mean liberating the Iraqis was a mistake?

Enlighten me, young grasshopper.

[ZackS]

Yes LIBERATING them from that EVIL EVIL man. Then what? Make Iraq the 51st state? Set up a puppet government? POUR money into a giant cement lined pit and bury it?

Regardless of how "good" "freeing" the Iraqi people was, we did it without sufficient evidence, without the support of the rest of the world, and most troublingly, we did it without a plan. What's better, a strong dictator or a matchstick democracy? Matches don't fare so well in the conflagration of the Middle East. I'm sure anarchy will be good for the Iraqi people once we withdraw support. Hey, at least they'll be free, right?

[Zimphire]

Yeah we should have just let Saddam kill more people Spliff.

Get your hemp gear on and dance around the Maypole flag.

[nonhuman]

You know, you really aught to stop talking about freeing the Iraqis in the past tense. It hasn't happened yet. Saddam is gone, but many are still oppressed. Stop patting yourselves on the backs for a job well done and prove the strength of you convictions by finishing what you started.

[Troll]

You should put "Iraq" in inverted commas! Passing the Interim Council off as representative of Iraq or Iraqis is ridiculous. When Allawi speaks, you need to see the hand that's making him talk. He's just a US puppet and we all know how the US feels about France and Germany ... and 95% of the countries on the planet that thought violence was not yet required.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
You know, you really aught to stop talking about freeing the Iraqis in the past tense. It hasn't happened yet. Saddam is gone, but many are still oppressed. Stop patting yourselves on the backs for a job well done and prove the strength of you convictions by finishing what you started.

Saddam is gone. They are free from a man that let his people be raped, and tortured and killed daily.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
You should put "Iraq" in inverted commas! Passing the Interim Council off as representative of Iraq or Iraqis is ridiculous. When Allawi speaks, you need to see the hand that's making him talk. He's just a US puppet and we all know how the US feels about France and Germany ... and 95% of the countries on the planet that thought violence was not yet required.

There is no higher governmental authority in Iraq. The Interim Council IS the official 'voice of the people' in Iraq. My thread title stands.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There is no higher governmental authority in Iraq. The Interim Council IS the official 'voice of the people' in Iraq. My thread title stands.

The higher governmental authority in Iraq is the government of the United States of America. That is what an occupation is about. The Council is not the official voice of anyone and I doubt that anything but a small minority of Iraqis actually agree with him.

This is the US speaking, not Iraq. He's a US puppet. We all know what his handlers would do with him if he said that the invasion was a mistake and France and Germany were right. He'd be off the Interim Council faster than you can say weapons of mass destruction. Why would he say that anyway? He rode into Iraq and power on the back of the US invasion. He is where he is because of the invasion. Of course he's going to say that the invasion was the greatest thing since sliced bread!

Nothing to see here except more US anti-peacenik propaganda.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
Nothing to see here except more US anti-peacenik propaganda.

Precisely.

The guys in the coailition-provisional-interim-governing-puppet-council-authority are mostly outsiders who were handed Iraq on a silver platter. Does anyone seriously expect them to be representing anything other than American opinions and interests?

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
There is no higher governmental authority in Iraq. The Interim Council IS the official 'voice of the people' in Iraq. My thread title stands.

He might remember what France and Germany did, but I bet nobody in Iraq will remember him, hmmmmmmmm say, one year from now.
So yeah, that is a really important piece of news. But I forgive you spliff, it made the headlines of cnn.com: it is easy to be fooled.

villa

[icruise]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Saddam is gone. They are free from a man that let his people be raped, and tortured and killed daily.

You know, that position might be a little more plausible if the US

A) hadn't failed to anything about Saddam for decades until they suddenly realized that they needed to be seen as having done something about 9-11

B) cared about all other equally terrible abuses of human rights elsewhere in the world

[Developer]

C) Wouldn't break human rights themselves.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Developer:
C) Wouldn't break human rights themselves.

Heh.

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by ZackS:
Yes LIBERATING them from that EVIL EVIL man. Then what? Make Iraq the 51st state? Set up a puppet government? POUR money into a giant cement lined pit and bury it?

Regardless of how "good" "freeing" the Iraqi people was, we did it without sufficient evidence, without the support of the rest of the world, and most troublingly, we did it without a plan. What's better, a strong dictator or a matchstick democracy? Matches don't fare so well in the conflagration of the Middle East. I'm sure anarchy will be good for the Iraqi people once we withdraw support. Hey, at least they'll be free, right?

THE FITTY-FOIST STATE!?!?!!?!?

I thought that France joined the union in 1944?
Or maybe it was Germany in 1945?
Coulda been Japan in 1945 as well...
I know! It was Kuwait in 1991!!!...wait no...
AHA! Afghanistan in 2001

[ZackS]

I love how conservatives couldn't give a **** about human rights or suffering elsewhere in the world and support tax cuts that hurt the poorest Americans but then suddenly become such amazing humanitarians when the issue of Iraq comes up. Makes me ****ing sick.

[Spliffdaddy]

The poorest Americans don't pay income taxes, by the way. So there's absolutely no possible way for a tax cut to "hurt the poor". Tax cuts are a bad thing only if you're a bleeding heart liberal.

Speaking of human suffering - I offer you the Ba'ath party...no longer in control - but apparently missed by liberals who wish for the Iraqis continued oppression.

From here, it sounds mighty stupid to suggest that Iraq was better off under Saddam's rule - but if you hate Dubya, there's really no other option.

[Spliffdaddy]

Yes, Virginia, inaction can be as cruel as taking action. It certainly takes less nutz to condemn an action than to undertake one.

I think the world will not soon forget the inactions of Germany and France.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think the world will not soon forget the inactions of Germany and France.

It'll be a lot harder for Iraqis to forget that the US invaded and occupied their country, killing thousands of innocents in the process - especially while the soldiers are still driving around their streets.

[Spliffdaddy]

And several million Iraqis will appreciate our sacrifice.

One thing is for sure - they aren't likely to have a high opinion of France and Germany.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think the world will not soon forget the inactions of Germany and France.

The world? You mean your little world right? You've convinced yourself that France and Germany were the only ones that thought the war was a bad idea haven't you? You've bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. The propoaganda designed to single out France (and Germany) so that you think that the only people that were against the war were the crazy froggies. The bulk of "the world" you talk about was against the war. Only a tiny minority supported it. So why would they condemn countries that took exactly the same line they did?

I'm not even going to respond to your "liberals love the Ba'ath party and want Saddam in power" argument - it's so tired.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
And several million Iraqis will appreciate our sacrifice.

Yeah right, like they appreciate it now!

"How do I love thee? Let me count the body bags."

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
And several million Iraqis will appreciate our sacrifice.

One thing is for sure - they aren't likely to have a high opinion of France and Germany.

So, hypothetically, Canada invaded the U.S. tomorrow. Would you be happy under the new system, open to universal health care and hockey?

You would love your new Canadian rulers and hold a grudge against Iceland and Greenland for not joining in the occupation?

Or, even though things are bad here in the U.S. (economy in the trash) you might resent OCCUPYING forces?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Troll:
Yeah right, like they appreciate it now!

"How do I love thee? Let me count the body bags."

morbid, and sad, but unfortunately true.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Speaking of human suffering - I offer you the Ba'ath party...no longer in control - but apparently missed by liberals who wish for the Iraqis continued oppression.

From here, it sounds mighty stupid to suggest that Iraq was better off under Saddam's rule - but if you hate Dubya, there's really no other option.

You are WAY beyond ****ed if you believe that!

You know full well that liberals are much too busy plotting to blow up American cities with Anthrax-laced nuclear bombs purchased from Saddam to care about reinstating the Ba'athites.



-s*

[Millennium]

Originally posted by ZackS:
IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE.

Perhaps. But it was done. There is no way to undo it. You can debate the morality of it all you want; such debate is highly useful for some things, but it will not un-invade Iraq.

Now that it is done, would you not say that there is a moral obligation to help rebuild, for that "common good" that you find so precious? Is that not the essence of socialism, where all people pitch in to help the others, for the common good of society as a whole?

Or is this the flip side of the socialist coin, where such ideals can easily -even trivially, on smaller scales- be exploited ruthlessly?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Perhaps. But it was done. There is no way to undo it. You can debate the morality of it all you want; such debate is highly useful for some things, but it will not un-invade Iraq.

Now that it is done, would you not say that there is a moral obligation to help rebuild, for that "common good" that you find so precious? Is that not the essence of socialism, where all people pitch in to help the others, for the common good of society as a whole?

Or is this the flip side of the socialist coin, where such ideals can easily -even trivially, on smaller scales- be exploited ruthlessly?

I don't like your leading question, especially since the Iraq war has become an "ends justify the means" affair.

Do we have a "moral" obligation to help rebuild it? That depends, did we have a moral obligation to blow it up?

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Perhaps. But it was done. There is no way to undo it. You can debate the morality of it all you want; such debate is highly useful for some things, but it will not un-invade Iraq.

We cannot un-invade Iraq and since the deed has been done I wish the best to everyone trying to rebuild the nation. My point is, as you said, the should, the morality of the issue. The more people who understand that Bush was wrong, the less likely there will be another Iraq in the future. Americans will be paying for the mistake in money and foreign relations for years and years to come.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by ZackS:
I love how conservatives couldn't give a **** about human rights or suffering elsewhere in the world and support tax cuts that hurt the poorest Americans but then suddenly become such amazing humanitarians when the issue of Iraq comes up. Makes me ****ing sick.

How do tax cuts hurt the poorest Americans?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Perhaps. But it was done. There is no way to undo it. You can debate the morality of it all you want; such debate is highly useful for some things, but it will not un-invade Iraq.

Now that it is done, would you not say that there is a moral obligation to help rebuild, for that "common good" that you find so precious? Is that not the essence of socialism, where all people pitch in to help the others, for the common good of society as a whole?

Or is this the flip side of the socialist coin, where such ideals can easily -even trivially, on smaller scales- be exploited ruthlessly?

If a man shoots another man, shouldn't there be two courses of action?
One, try to help the victim.
Two, try to apprehend the shooter to prevent him from shooting someone else.

Both goals are important ones. Simply because the victim needs help is no reason to go up to the shooter, pat him on the back and say "well, I disagree with shooting that other fellow, but since he's now wounded, I see no purpose in preventing you from wounding others, or even calling you on your decision. Go forth and shoot some more! We're behind you 100%".

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Icruise:
You know, that position might be a little more plausible if the US

A) hadn't failed to anything about Saddam for decades until they suddenly realized that they needed to be seen as having done something about 9-11

Er Saddam was being taken care of in the late 80s early 90s. Clinton just forgot about it all for some reason.

B) cared about all other equally terrible abuses of human rights elsewhere in the world

One thing at a time.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
From here, it sounds mighty stupid to suggest that Iraq was better off under Saddam's rule - but if you hate Dubya, there's really no other option.

That is what it boils down to.

If it was Clinton that did this, it would be another one of his "Great accomplishments"

[petehammer]

Funny, Z, you agree with Spliffdaddy that we (Liberals) "hate" bush, but yesterday when you made disparaging comments about Clinton you said you didn't "hate" him and said (essentially) that you can dislike somebody's politics and not hate them.

So which is it? You "hate" Clinton like we "hate" Bush? Or you had trouble with his policies like we have trouble with Bush's policies?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Saddam was being taken care of in the late 80s early 90s. Clinton just forgot about it all for some reason.

Yeah, except that he bombed Iraq repeatedly and held an embargo. I think it wasn't Clinton who forgot about it...

[thunderous_funker]

Yet another thread where the most ardent defenders of the US politicians who are most complicit in the crimes against humanity committed in the middle east lecture the rest of the world on "humanitarianism" with shameless ignorance and hollow sanctimony.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
How do tax cuts hurt the poorest Americans?

By greatly reducing the amount of money available for public funding of programs they take advantage of, including public education. How many of the richest 1% send their children to public school?

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by ZackS:
By greatly reducing the amount of money available for public funding of programs they take advantage of, including public education. How many of the richest 1% send their children to public school?

hahahahah! When is the last time you looked at the state of public education? It's horrible, despite pouring billions into the system over the years. Private and church-sponsored schools spend far less per pupil and have far less in terms of capital and facilities, yet they educate their students far better.

Money isn't the answer. You and your ilk are just blind to that because you have a nasty agenda to push, and that agenda doesn't include educating America's children.

[ZackS]

I do not believe a word of your last post. It may not be all about money (it's certainly a large factor) but it's probably not mismanagement. Name one free, public but not governmentally funded religious based school, give me their spending per student, and let me compare that with a public school. Private schools have the luxury of picking and choosing their students to minimize discipline problems and maximize average grades. I need proof, even a secondary source will do.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by ZackS:
I do not believe a word of your last post. It may not be all about money (it's certainly a large factor) but it's probably not mismanagement. Name one free, public but not governmentally funded religious based school, give me their spending per student, and let me compare that with a public school. Private schools have the luxury of picking and choosing their students to minimize discipline problems and maximize average grades. I need proof, even a secondary source will do.

religious schools aren't public, but they don't necessarily get to hand-pick their students. If you're catholic and are a member of a particular church with a school, you can go to that catholic school, whether your IQ is 30 or 130. I went to a private school with a very wide range in intelligence and abilities. However, the commonality was that there was discipline. It was imposed, and insolence, violence, profanity, and disrespect were simply not tolerated. No surprise, classrooms were a place for learning, and standards of education were imposed.

You like pie-in-the-sky fantasies that money can fix it. Yet you ignored my statement that funding has grown by leaps and bounds for decades while performance has gone down.

Vouchers would be an option--not a good one for labour unions and bloated public school budgets--but one that would allow poor parents to put their children in private or religious schools.

Discipline and respect. Compared to the chaos of public education, it's no wonder children learn more in private venues.

[ZackS]

I have been extremely lucky in my schooling experiences. From kindergarten to second grade I went to an under-funded public school in Pittsfield, MA. The classes were large, about 30 students. From what I can remember, the place was a zoo. I then came to Lakeville, CT, an area with a high saturation of upscale weekend houses for New Yorkers. As a result, our public school had about double funding and the same size as my last school. As a result, extra teachers were hired and class sizes got down to about 12-17 kids, depending on the grade. With the extra funding and therefore extra teachers, they got through far more material and were able to quell any disciplinary problems quickly and directly. In addition, the extra funding allowed for more complete special treatment for kids with learning disabilities who would otherwise drag a bulk of the students in his or her classes down.

In the end, the place ran like clockwork. We had the highest test scores in the state and I was able to leave 8th grade with 2 years of high-school math under my belt. In recent years the funding has been cut back severely by the state and the falling economy that's making the once numerous New Yorkers decline in number. The staff has been cut back and overall the place has gone downhill. (partly the funding, partly poor management)

In my experience, I have found that enough money and proper management make the public school experience far better.

[asleep@thewheel]

i think we should liberate all the arabs...

of their ****in' oil!

we ****in' want it, we ****in' take it...just make it look halfassed humanitarian.

were ****in' oil junkies...give us your ****in' oil or we will liberate YOU!

[Spliffdaddy]

More than a decade ago, both Kentucky and Arkansas retooled their systems for funding education, with an eye toward leveling differences and directing more money to poorer districts. Yet neither state has of yet been able to demonstrate a link between higher spending and significant gains in student achievement.

Kansas City nearly doubled its property taxes in the mid-1980s to achieve one of the highest per-pupil spending levels in the country for a district of its size. Yet a decade later, its schools were still failing to produce results.

Ironically, in New York City, an analysis of city schools done last year revealed that some of the worst-performing city schools were among the best funded.

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/...ext/p11s1.html

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
More than a decade ago, both Kentucky and Arkansas retooled their systems for funding education, with an eye toward leveling differences and directing more money to poorer districts. Yet neither state has of yet been able to demonstrate a link between higher spending and significant gains in student achievement.

Kansas City nearly doubled its property taxes in the mid-1980s to achieve one of the highest per-pupil spending levels in the country for a district of its size. Yet a decade later, its schools were still failing to produce results.

Ironically, in New York City, an analysis of city schools done last year revealed that some of the worst-performing city schools were among the best funded.

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/...ext/p11s1.html

While your attempt to misconstrue that article by just quoting the part you liked is admirable, it's never going to work. I read the WHOLE article and it echoed exactly what my anecdote said: "Money is not the solution alone but it most certainly is a factor"

[Spliffdaddy]

Or, in other words, simply adding more money will not improve school performance.

[asleep@thewheel]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think the world will not soon forget the inactions of Germany and France.

by the world you mean those scum ass idiots in washington dc don't you?

or are you one of those who believe the world swings the way your dumbass americacentric mind does...

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Or, in other words, simply adding more money will not improve school performance.

Yes, exactly. That has been my point all along. If the management is good, then putting money into a school results in a better school. If management is poor, you just get a black hole for money. That's no reason at all to pull back on school funding because more funds don't seem to help overall! Schools need money because if it's not one thing then it's the other.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Or, in other words, simply adding more money will not improve school performance.

No, but not having enough money makes things exponentially harder on the students and teachers.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by ZackS:
If the management is good, then putting money into a school results in a better school. If management is poor, you just get a black hole for money.

agreed!

That's no reason at all to pull back on school funding because more funds don't seem to help overall! Schools need money because if it's not one thing then it's the other.

but that's where you slip up. Schools that are 'black holes' for cash, yet continue to get loads of it, have no incentive to improve. Even then, cutting cash doesn't help when the district is mismanaged, apathetic, or the legal system gives too many 'rights' to students and as a result there is no discipline or order in the school or classroom.

[ZackS]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
but that's where you slip up. Schools that are 'black holes' for cash, yet continue to get loads of it, have no incentive to improve. Even then, cutting cash doesn't help when the district is mismanaged, apathetic, or the legal system gives too many 'rights' to students and as a result there is no discipline or order in the school or classroom. [/B]

What I'm saying is that if adding money doesn't work, for the love of God don't cut funding but continue to investigate WHY the money is not working. But at all costs (pun?), do not use money as an incentive for schools to do better, that can only lead to a greater disparity.