b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 4317701 (Thread)

That's

why you probably don't want to go and live in Iraq. Saying that, there's this great architecture college there, I remember three of it's resident bods graduated at the AA. Not that they live in Iraq now though. Mind you I expect the development prospects there are great now. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few developers eyeballing the place. There's nothing more healing to the spirit of a place than whacking up a few seventy-story hi-tech tower blocks.

There were some promising murmers at the ICT trade show in Shanghai about telecommunications there too. Yep, I recon give the place about twenty years and if the Yanks have naffed off by then, it might actually be a nice place for the wife and kids.

That's what I hope anyway. Forgive me for missing the point.

(batteryoperatedlettuce Soon to be nine b3ta yrs old, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:14, archived)

America will probably still be in Iraq in twenty years time,

The only towers there would be owned by Haliburton.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:16, archived)

At least Saddam won't be torturing and murdering the families of anyone who disagrees with him anymore.

A fascist dictator has been overthrown, yet some people can only complain about it.

It's very sad to see that political perspectives have become so narrow that a hatred of the US eclipses all other considerations.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:20, archived)

Even worse

Is that American people's delusion of being a hated race, will surely last longer and appear more pronounced than the actual hatred it's self.

I don't hate America. My company helps contract Developments between US designers and Chinese developers every year. I've never known an area of religious or political contradiction to slow things down in the board room.

(batteryoperatedlettuce Soon to be nine b3ta yrs old, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:26, archived)

It's not a delusion.

Any regular visitor to B3ta would note the depth of hatred for the US that is regularly expressed on the board -- and this isn't a particularly rabid place as politics go.

Just look at this thread -- before I posted, the default assumption was that Americans were inbred, religious hicks who hated science. And you made the broad assumption that Iraq would be okay "as soon as the Yanks naffed off".

There is a lot of bigotry on B3ta, but since most people agree with it at some level, it isn't seen for what it is.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:30, archived)

you misread that...

the statement was made by an American, that the current representitive leader of her country did not agree with a set of otherwise commonly accepted scientific theories.

You assumed the rest.

edit: seriously... b3tans make fun of blair on a daily basis. Does that mean that they think the UK is 100% twattyville? I think you're only reading what you want to believe here.

(Azzek!, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:38, archived)

No I didn't.

Just look at the first post in the thread and the first few replies.

I think this (one ear and two mouths) might be one of the milder defects sported by the people who live in the vicinity of this sign.
(batteryoperatedlettuce, Sun 27 Feb, 4:50, Ignore, Reply)

it says "god bless america" everywhere
and churches/ religious places of worship are pretty common, and they all have signs like those thay say stupid things
('abandonnship- b.n.' sure does like a.b., Sun 27 Feb, 5:09, Ignore, Reply)

And this is a relatively mild thread. Yank-bashing on B3ta is much worse when more of the Poms are awake.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:44, archived)

You mean bush bashing?

that's something else altogether. Admittedly it can get confusing when the word "America" is used in the place of "American Administration", but you have to read this in on context.

You don't see people treating the american members of b3ta any differently based on their country.

Also abandonnship is American, so her opinion isn't yank bashing (unless she's into self mutilation).

(Azzek!, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:54, archived)

No, I mean Yank-bashing

which encompasses Bush-bashing, people-who-voted-for-Bush-bashing, and general prejudice against Americans for being obese, dumb rednecks etc etc etc.

Also, just being American doesn't mean one can't hate Americans. See Michael Moore, Ward Churchill and Ted Rall for examples of Yank-bashing Yanks.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:02, archived)

Michael Moore

hmm... his target is definatley not the entire nation. He's a satarist, many of them pick a new target every time... and don't take sides.
He however has a few that he goes for, and he admits it:
- bush (and the current republican party)
- the NRA (despite being ironically a lifetime member)
- multinational corps
- to some extent the church, but this just seems to be when the church steps in on the side of any of the above

I don't know about the rest... but he wouldn't be supporting an american party so strongly if he "hated america".

That said, i'm off topic. Yes you can hate your own country... but read what she said, are you really implying that she was spitting "vile anti amercian propaganda"!?

Furthermore, the "people who voted for bush bashing" is just bush bashing. You put these people in front of a person who voted for bush and there won't be much hatred, probably a few arguments may arise over difference of opinon though.

And american's have got a stereotype? Get used to it! "when the the Poms get on the board" well there's theirs. The french... yes... WONDERFUL reputation. Etc...

(Azzek!, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:17, archived)

I believe you're missing the point on this one.

Agreed, Saddam was an evil, murderous dictator, however the invasion of Iraq was illegal - America acted of it's own accord, without the approval of the United Nations. Do you remember why America invaded? Something to do with WMDs?

America has done nothing but make the entire area a haven for terrorists. Saddam wasn't a good man, but Bush is no better in any way, shape or form.

Also, it is actually possible to hate Bush without hating America.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:27, archived)

Was it something to do with WMDs at all?

The way I remember it, only Blair cited WMDs as the reason for going to war. Bush merely mentioned them incidentally.
"Make" the region a haven for terrorists is a bit rich, seeing as Saddam didn't exactly exclude them and was probably likely to give them help, particularly if they were going in the direction of israel.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:30, archived)

I'm not saying that there weren't any terrorists before America invaded,

But now, there is no real infrastructure, a whole heap of extra available weaponry (new and used), and some extremely pissed off people. Some might call that a haven for terrorists.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:36, archived)

It does have people in it trying to stop terrorists, though.

Which it didn't before.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:43, archived)

There were at least six different reasons for invading Iraq

but America-haters have rewritten history to suit themselves.

As I said, it's depressing that so many people have been conned into thinking that democracy is somehow worse than fascism or theocracy.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:32, archived)

Has anyone here spoken out against Democracy?

I haven't read any posts like that.

What were the other reasons for invading Iraq? The only ones I remember were mentioned after America invaded.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:34, archived)

Here are the reasons given before the invasion

It helps to be well informed. Don't believe what you see in the Guardian or on the BBC.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:41, archived)

Are you claiming

some kind of conspiracy by the guardian, and international press against america?

I've seen alot more evidence to suggest that there exists alot of collusion between fox and the republican party and many other entities considered by fox to be of financial interest.

I wouldn't take a government press release alone as proof of fact. Not from any country, including my own (so rightly proven with the "children overboard affair")

(Azzek!, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:44, archived)

All three of us are Australian.

This really is quite a silly argument...

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:46, archived)

Not that silly

since our country is an ally of the US, it does concern us.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:48, archived)

I'm glad there's enough of you around at the same time to have one. Usually it's dead at this hour.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:50, archived)

It's proof of the fact

that the government gave a number of reasons other than WMD for the invasion of Iraq.

That is all it's required to prove.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:47, archived)

Which reasons?

The only ones I saw were either about WMDs or weapons inspectors.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:48, archived)

That's because

your sources were not telling the whole truth. I have helpfully provided a link to an original source, so you can compare the reality with what you have been told.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:49, archived)

Why can't you tell me what these reasons are?

Surely if you are as educated as you make out, you'd be able to rattle these off from the top of your head, rather than post some legalese from the white house, and keep referring back to it without so much as a quote.

TELL ME WHAT THESE OTHER REASONS WERE.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:52, archived)

Okay, since you evidently can't understand big words:

* Saddam had WMD
* Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda
* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush
* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire
* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture

See, it's not that difficult if you're literate.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:57, archived)

And how many of these were presented to the UN?

One: WMD's.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:59, archived)

Give up mate

You've been proven wrong.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:02, archived)

About what?

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:07, archived)

Umm

can you provide us with this literature?
We're not convinced... and you can't "prove us wrong" in an argument till you do that (unless mathimatically).

I mean the american explinations for war changed so much that it was laughable at times.
There were no WMD's found
It's VERY hard to move WMD's without detection, or leaving evidence... even during a war.

There's still no sadam to al-queda link... not unless you believe that SCO has nothing to do with microsoft and it owns all linux software ever made and that can fesably ever be though of :)

(Azzek!, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:22, archived)

Sorry mate,

but when the argument consists of "The Americans only ever gave ONE reason for the invasion of Iraq", then it is indeed mathematically possible to prove it wrong -- simply by proving that there was more than one reason. QED.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:35, archived)

Actually, as mentioned above,

They only presented one LEGAL reason for invasion to the UN, and it wasn't true.

Take your QED elsewhere (especially considering that this was originally an argument about the separation of church and state). You've proven nothing.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:38, archived)

I suspect that was the only one the UN would listen to.

Having faffed around over Iraq for ages.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:03, archived)

It was the only one the UN would listen to,

because it was the only viable, legal reason for invasion that america had. Strangely, it wasn't even true.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:08, archived)

"legal" here being defined by the UN.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:40, archived)

Yes.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:42, archived)

Fool.

Carlyle Group - bin Laden - al-Qaeda.

"* Saddam had attempted to assassinate President Bush"

President Bush has attempted to assassinate Saddam.

"* Saddam failed to abide by the conditions of the UN ceasefire"

The US has failed to abide by many UN agreements.

"* Saddam refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors"

That is a lie, as there were actually inspectors on the ground. Bush refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, in truth, just prior to the (second Bush) invasion.

"* Saddam oppressed the Iraqi people with murder and torture"

The US oppresses Iraqis with murder and torture. In the same prisons, like Abu Ghraib, no less!

"See, it's not that difficult if you're literate."

Must be eminently difficult for you then. Why DO you despise reality so very very much?

You've become tiresome; and your bullshit, trite, weather-thinned and vacuous. Our patience wears thin.

(luchador, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:38, archived)

Is the last bit a haiku?

(Azzek!, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:47, archived)

Why not summarise it for me?

Let me know you understand it.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:45, archived)

Just read it yourself

and it will answer the question.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:47, archived)

I'm not convinced you have read it either.

www.b3ta.com/board/4317746

If you can't even tell me what your six reasons were, you obviously aren't as 'in the now' as you'd like people to think.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:49, archived)

The reasons are stated in the link I gave.

Stop playing dumb.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:50, archived)

No, they weren't.

Just give me one reason other than WMDs.

One.

Or would you rather us think that you're just parrotting someone else's opinions?

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:54, archived)

I've read it.

Reasons:
Thwarting weapons inspections,
continuing weapons programs,
aspiring to nuclear weapons,
threatening national security,
threatening peace and security of the region,
brutal repression of its civilian population.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:57, archived)

So have I -

What reasons did you get out of it? Other than weapons inspectors being obstructed?

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:58, archived)

You should improve your reading skills

and stop getting your "news" from useless sources like the ABC.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:59, archived)

touche.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:00, archived)

What's wrong with weapons inspectors being obstructed as a reason?

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:02, archived)

I believe that you were arguing that there were more reasons than

just WMDs. The obstruction of weapons inspectors is just another facet of the WMD issue, not a whole new reason for invasion.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:07, archived)

But the point of this

- I'm guessing - is to say "the war was a mistake". Which only works for the specific reason of WMDs existing in Iraq, since there apparently weren't any. But reasons like thwarting inspections remain valid. Iraq was being aggressive and totalitarian.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:12, archived)

I have mentioned above that I do not deny Saddam's pre-war behaviour,

But this does not give America the right to step in.

Similarly, If I see someone in the pub that looks like they might be able to beat me up, I am not allowed to make a pre-emptive strike.

(

gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:15, archived)

This post is very hard to read

lots of vertical single word lines of text :)

(Azzek!, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 7:35, archived)

www.b3ta.com/board/4317760

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:58, archived)

Seirously

Don't worry about it man.

You would be very supprised how little the opinions surrounding the Iraq war affect business.

I do have a problem with the war though, from a personal point of view. I earn RMB which is pegged to the dollar. The Iraq war caused the dollar to fall, dragging the RMB down a whole two points with it against the pound. Since my money eventually goes back to England, it's now worth over seven percent less than it was before the Iraq war. Those US troops and planes wern't bombing buildings and people over there - they were boming MY bank balance.

(batteryoperatedlettuce Soon to be nine b3ta yrs old, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:37, archived)

There are some things more important than your bank balance.

(Indole Ring, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:39, archived)

Well I realise that now, but

I must have sent George Bush a hundred letters before the war, begging him not to invade Iraq. I now reluctently concede that an enormous loss of life, the spending of a few billion dollars and the ongoing trauma of a fifteen year war, are more important than me having to buy a slightly cheaper car - BUT NOT BY MUCH.

Next time I would like the USA as a nation, to show a little more consideration, and think about the knock on finacial effects to others, and more specifically me.

(batteryoperatedlettuce Soon to be nine b3ta yrs old, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:45, archived)

It's all a lot of moral equivocation

where people grumble about the status quo (er, not the memes) being in some sense rotten while refusing to be pinned down about what they'd prefer.

(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:38, archived)

Well,

I was only kidding about America really. In business terms it doesn't really matter who's running the place, as long as they stay out of the way and play with white paper and war and stuff.

As long as people can get in there and exchange money and service, I'm sure it'll wriggle back onto the map.

(batteryoperatedlettuce Soon to be nine b3ta yrs old, Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:22, archived)