I recently found out why France and Russia are so staunchly resistant to removing Saddam.

Saddam owes Russia $8 billion dollars. If a new government is put in place then Russia will be screwed out of the money.

France has sold 1/2 of Saddam's arms and most of his communications systems to him. If the U.S. removes Saddam, then they will lose that trade with Saddam.

So, we see now that the U.S. is not the greedy one. But wait, if the U.S. is not into Iraq for money, then how can we use Iraq to bitch about U.S. imperial greed...?

[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 10-25-2002).]

I think your forgetting about puppet transitional government and oil rights.

Russia is sometimes called an ally to Iraq; one of the few left. But the trickster Putin is no friend of Saddam, so he�s most likely aiming for - and trying "behind the scene" - to get rid of Saddam, and in the same time keep Russias deals and influence.

As for France. In this situation I�m not sure they can have any use of their deals, or any hope of whatever money Iraq ows them.
So, I�m sceptical that�s the (main) reason for France�s standpoint. As far as I know, France is also in agreement with the other countries of EU. To support a UN approved US attack, when all other options are tried.

I�m far from sure, but I believe that France�s weapons deliveries started as a part of the Bush Sr project, to supply Iraq with arms during the Iran/Iraq war. If so, that could also have implications on France�s actions now.

There has been so many strange things going on, that we could easily fill this conspiracy board with facts and theories about Iraq�s arms, and how they got it.

Ewige Blumenkraft! FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
I think your forgetting about puppet transitional government and oil rights.

---

I think you're an idiot.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20021025/D7MSNL580.html

Russia wants to remove any threat of Saddam's removal under any circumstances. It's their fault for giving him $8 billion worth of credit. They should've checked his credit report first.

Don't let Saddam borrow, make him pay cash next time.

Oh my god, how many times must it be repeated?

Yes, the States is going into Iraq for its own selfish reasons (no, the desire to rid the world of a dangerous threat is not credible, or realistic).

Yes, any state who opposes this invasion does so for their OWN selfish reasons. (no, moral concern for a country which is in danger of arbitrary invasion from a hostile force is not a credible or realistic reason to oppose this invasion).

WAKE UP, there are no good guys here. There are no bad guys. There are a bunch of states angling to establish a scenario most to their liking. And thats it.

Swallow the god damn pill... SWALLOW IT!

Get the dick out of your ass, faggot!!! FAGGOT!!!!

You just look for the lamest excuses to bitch at America, so shut the fuck up. But wait, all of a sudden, there are NO good guys? Selfish reasons NOT to attack Saddam?

You finally admit that other countries are stupid. Why, then, is it always your anti-American run-around? Just shut your ass.

I made this post to point out France and Russia's "selfish-reasons". Why-oh-why do you have a problem with that?

[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 10-26-2002).]

Everyone hates America. We didn't do anything wrong, people are just jealous. We have more than one reason to go after Iraq. Whats wrong with money being one of them?

France is full of dick sucking bitches. I fuckin hate France. I don't know why the fuck they have nukes...

As for Russia, its not like they dont need that money. I doubt they would support Iraq, but at the same time I'm sure Iraq is hesitant to be too willing to pay back a converted country. Iraq may not be commie, but they don't like the idea of a country converting from a communistic/socialist government to a succesful democratic republic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by buttthrax:
Get the dick out of your ass, faggot!!! FAGGOT!!!!

You just look for the lamest excuses to bitch at America, so shut the fuck up. But wait, all of a sudden, there are NO good guys? Selfish reasons NOT to attack Saddam?

You finally admit that other countries are stupid. Why, then, is it always your anti-American run-around? Just shut your ass.

I made this post to point out France and Russia's "selfish-reasons". Why-oh-why do you have a problem with that?

[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 10-26-2002).]

---

You fool. You have totally misunderstood my point. I have described a political world where America is not the moral custodian of the planet AND YOU DON'T LIKE THAT.

The reason you don't like that is because you don't understand your political world. You have aligned your own personal identity and self worth with your country. You have made an initial error of judgement right there.

I am one of the few non-Americans on this BBS who is NOT bitching at the States. I am telling you, over and over again, that the States is a self serving entity JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET. If you can't understand this then please tell me, at least, where you dispute my claim.

Your knee jerk reaction to criticism of the States belies how much you have been manipulated by your Statesmen.

Of course there are selfish reasons not to attack Saddam (though you should say the people of Iraq, there is one more example of the manipulation you have been subjected to...) you described them in your first post. I.e. Russia not wanting an attack because they lose money.

Yes, ALL countries are self serving. Notice I don't describe them as stupid (a description you think I have made) because they are not. Furthermore, this is not "suddenly" something I am saying, I have been saying it all along.

Please tell me (for my own education) where I gave you the impression that I had a problem with you showing France's selfish interests in this current Iraq scenario?

It seems I have pissed you off; I am intrigued as to how this came about - acknowledging, of course, that I am also pissed off with your reaction. There's an education to be had here, for both parties concerned (you and I).

Your turn.

***Everyone hates America. We didn't do anything wrong, people are just jealous.***

No never we are perfect. We just kill about thousand and thousand of men, women, and children but that's ok. I still don't understand why others hate us !

***We have more than one reason to go after Iraq. Whats wrong with money being one of them?***

What wrong with hijackers blowing the WTC; there families will also receive good some of money. War with Iraq would cause more brutality, deaths, and humiliation. According to your statement, war for money is ok.

***France is full of dick sucking bitches. I fuckin hate France. I don't know why the fuck they have nukes...***

They have nukes because they are willing to spend the time, expenses, and research.

***As for Russia, its not like they dont need that money. I doubt they would support Iraq, but at the same time I'm sure Iraq is hesitant to be too willing to pay back a converted country. Iraq may not be commie, but they don't like the idea of a country converting from a communistic/socialist government to a succesful democratic republic.***

Not all democratic governments are successful and what is your definiton of democratic ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by username911:
No never we are perfect. We just kill about thousand and thousand of men, women, and children but that's ok. I still don't understand why others hate us !

---

Just so I can discuss this with you, just exactly who are these "thousand and thousand of men, women, and children"?

Nox

Nox

***Just so I can discuss this with you, just exactly who are these "thousand and thousand of men, women, and children"?***

The U.S. government and military have directly slaughtered literally millions of civilian people in the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Japan, France, Germany, Korea, Thailand, Panama, Grenada, Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Iraq , Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.

U.S. government-supported death squads and servant-states have carried out appallingly vicious campaigns of state terrorism. Under the direct control of the U.S. government they have committed the torture and genocide of additional millions of helpless, civilian people in Indonesia, East Timor, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Guyana, Cuba, Colombia, Chile, Brazil, China, the Philippines, the Congo/Zaire, Italy, Palestine, Israel, Afghanistan, Turkey, Greece, Iraq, and Iran.

username911

I�m NOT saying that your are totally wrong, or totally right, but...

Let me make a few adjustments to your list:

Vietnam:

There was, since long, an ongoing, brutal war in Vietnam, with Soviet supported troops on the "agressor" side, when USA decided to intervene. Through a lot of disastrous (to say the least) decisions and actions, USA escalated the war instead of bringing it to the fast end they hoped for. A lot of people died because of these actions, and therefore (seemingly) for nothing. Had USA stayed out of it, Vietnam, and possibly Cambodia, Laos and more, had become puppet-states of the Soviet Union, like the countries of Eastern Europe or the slowly dying - and literally so! - North Korea.

Japan:

As far as I can remember USA put an end to the Japanese part of WW 2, after the Japanese had tried to conquer most of the far east and killed vast amounts of people. Not to mention that they attacked USA. Some estimations say that MORE Japanese people would have died if it hadn�t been for the nuclear bombs; other estimations say the opposite, of course...

France:

???!!!

Germany:

USA has not killed any Germans since WW 2...
Nuff said!

Korea:

Almost the same scenario as Vietnam.

Bosnia:

A UN sanctioned action to stop the civil war. And a successfull one, to that aim.

Yugoslavia:

See Bosnia, as it was a part of that operation.

123Tool will be fast to point out that the US governments didn�t take part in any of the above mentioned wars to save people from coming under Soviet oppression, or even to save Europe from the Nazis. Neither were they interested in the people of Bosnia. I have my doubts that it�s that simple and one-sided, but let�s assume that 123Tool is correct. USA do what they do for USA. Period.

Well, let�s call it "side effects" then. Because truth remains that USA, when they have been successfull, have saved a lot of people from opression and worse.

This is not to say that US governments or agencies etc haven�t supported and kept in power opressors themselves. The Shah of Iran is an excellent, often forgotten, example. Why was he helped to power and kept in power by the USA?! Oil! He protected the oil and the US interests in oil, in the Middle East. By doing so he also "happened" to protect the western world�s, and therefore the whole world�s, interests in the Middle East oil. Call it another side effect, if you want.

This brings us up to today and what�s often said; that USA go to war against Iraq only to protect their own interests in oil...

"I don�t give a fuck about oil when lives are lost!" I hear people say.

Well, it just happens that the way we have built our society, lives will be lost if we don�t get enough oil!

All and everything will slow down, enough to bring the economy along. An effect that will seep all the way down to the countries of the third world, where people already are dying. But you haven�t seen nothing yet, compared to the dying rates that it will come to, if the world economy crumbles the way it will without (enough) oil.

All this might seem like a rant. If so, read it again and slower. Then consider that I have left out a lot of things that complicates this picture even further...

It IS a rant in the sense that I sometimes grow tired by too much simplification and too many generalisations.

All the signals are jammed because nobody knows where the real power is...

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-26-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 123Tool:

WAKE UP, there are no good guys here. There are no bad guys.

---

Yes, buddy. There are good guys. The Iraqi defectors who want to remove Saddam's bitch ass are the good guys. The people of Iraq want him gone. They are sick of the dictatorship.


[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 10-27-2002).]

Buttthrax do everyone a good turn and please read up on your case before you make it; no one likes an over zealous patriot.
Why do you have to cuss everyone out? Does it make you feel cool? If it does you can�t be over the age of 8, or if you are, your state of mind isn't.
You have to realize that almost all (if not all) countries have some skeletons in their closet, and America is not the kind, free, and great country the media makes it out to be. Yes if you live in America you could be worse off, I�m not saying we should condemn America and all move to Canada (eww). Just know that America is NOT the protectors of freedom, America is NOT the liberators of the world, and America is selfish and cruel just like the rest of the world.
So Buttthrax what do you have to say about that? Clam, educated response please
One more thing, I realize you have an amazing high number of posts for someone who has only had an account since sept. Please dont tell me you only got one because you were feeling guilty in light of the one year mark of sept. 11, and wanted all us "America haters" to be put in our place

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hells Hero:
Buttthrax do everyone a good turn and please read up on your case before you make it; no one likes an over zealous patriot.
Why do you have to cuss everyone out? Does it make you feel cool? If it does you can�t be over the age of 8, or if you are, your state of mind isn't.
You have to realize that almost all (if not all) countries have some skeletons in their closet, and America is not the kind, free, and great country the media makes it out to be. Yes if you live in America you could be worse off, I�m not saying we should condemn America and all move to Canada (eww). Just know that America is NOT the protectors of freedom, America is NOT the liberators of the world, and America is selfish and cruel just like the rest of the world.
So Buttthrax what do you have to say about that? Clam, educated response please
One more thing, I realize you have an amazing high number of posts for someone who has only had an account since sept. Please dont tell me you only got one because you were feeling guilty in light of the one year mark of sept. 11, and wanted all us "America haters" to be put in our place

---

1) I did read up, hows about you do the same. All you spout is the same old anti-war, anti-America crap. I've heard it all before.

2) The cussing out is pure entertainment. Coming up with new insults is always fun.

3) Maybe America isn't kind, but it is great.

4) America is NOT the protector of freedom. Good job Hell's Hero! The Constitution of the United States is.

5) When you say America is cruel and selfish, do you mean (a) the government, do you mean (b)we have many cruel and selfish people, or that (c)our corporations are?

(a)Yes, our government is cruel and selfish, just as every government, in many aspects, but I don't think the government's forgein policy is. For the most part, our forgein policy is simply pre-emptive and reactionary self-defense.

(b)There are cruel and selfish individuals all over the globe, not just in America.

(c)I don't know or care about the IMF or corporations and the accusations of their cruel and selfish activities. But it is not the U.S. putting kids in sweatshops, it is the cruel and selfish people where the sweatshops are who do.

6) Sept. 11? WTF?


Yes, there are many annoying, obnoxious, idiotic, naive, greedy, dickhead people in America, but that is their right. However, there are good people here, as everywhere. I am not here cause I like the dickhead people or gay laws, I am here until the U.S. constitution expires.

I made this post originally to point out the specific backdoor conspiracies that were going on between France/Russia and Saddam. Oh, the reactions I get...

And yes, we should topple Saddam. All the Iraqi defectors want him gone once they get out and realize WTF was happening and they get a taste of freedom. They hate his fascist ass.

"I hate the government and love America."

-James A. Traficant

[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 10-27-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by username911:


No never we are perfect. We just kill about thousand and thousand of men, women, and children but that's ok. I still don't understand why others hate us !

---

I guess you couldn't comprehend my point. My point was that there is no clear good, no clear bad. In this world of imposed "niceness" and political correctness the highest up are bad guys if we don't take care of other countries looking for handouts, and we are held responsible for the actions of other countries malevolence. You think we're the only country out there with blood on our hands?

quote:

---

What wrong with hijackers blowing the WTC; there families will also receive good some of money. War with Iraq would cause more brutality, deaths, and humiliation. According to your statement, war for money is ok.

---

Again I guess you're too dumb to realize my point. I didn't say, "Money alone is a good reason to go to war, an none other." Money is one of the reasons, and whats wrong with that? Think other wars in the past haven't been motivated for monetary purposes? Gulf-War Ring a bell? American Revolution ring a bell? Civil War (indirectly)? There is always death in war. And avoiding war in fear that some brave men would die is just "dick between your legs" semantics that end up getting you more fucked. If we had been more agressive in rooting out terrorism before, than we might have not been attacked on September 11th. That was a delay of combat, and look what happened?

quote:

---

They have nukes because they are willing to spend the time, expenses, and research.

---

That wasn't my point and you know it... France is notorious for being a jittery war-concerned country (recently, don't bring in any "Napoleon was good" bullshit) and they puss out of fights really quick. France and GB reneged on their deal to stop Germany from invading Poland because Neville Chamberlain was a pussy and France is full of 'em. It's not good to place nukes in the hand of a jittery person. They would probably use them, then the second after the nuke landed they would call the country they just shot it at and surrender so they wouldn't shoot back.

quote:

---

Not all democratic governments are successful and what is your definiton of democratic ?

---

I never said they were all succesful, but Russia is certainly looking to become one, nyet? Democratic being loosely similar (in one way or another) to our democratic republic here in the US, or other democratic republics/parliaments and so on around the globe, usually consisting of a capitalist/semi-capitalist economy (market aspects) with government intervention on many aspects decided by the people.

Fox, good post. "side effects", I like it. Your point about oil is well taken. However, are you sure we (the developed western world) couldn't be doing better in terms of our "side effects"?

Butthrax started this post because he wished to uncover an example of selfishness on the part of France and Russia. I have been trying to show him that this example of selfishness is not a unique instance but instead indicative of how world politics works. How (therefore) the States works.

You know I believe states are self serving (I always try to make a simple case in order to reach as many people as possible by the way; this requires generalising) but I also believe that once the people can see that their state is motivated in this manner, they can bring their own pressure to bear.

I believe people live lives of hypocrisy - this means they have a certain value system which unbeknowest to them is totally corrupted by their lifestyle. They don't realise their lifestyle is corrupt - because they listen (for the most part) to the outpourings from self serving groups and states. My message is therefore forced to be simplified. Simplification and generalisation are tools. And they are exhausting tools to use, but like any skill it gets easier with time. And still, people like butthrax remind me of the difficulty of my (self appointed; so I shouldn't whinge) task.

So we can now see I am neither more nor less than the groups and organisations I am describing; all of which are intent on manipulating as many people as possible in order to create the world environment most to their liking. I am comfortable with this.

People do what they know. And for most this means taking in their states messages without much analysis as they are the easiest to digest simply due to the fact that they have grown up under the influence of that state. (are you listening butthrax?) You could insert the word "community" instead of state and "complex system of moral values" instead of messages if you wanted a more complex description of human beings in general. So, people do what they know and I am going to try to change what they know.

Fox, I like your statement "The signal board is jammed because no one knows where the true power lies..." or it was something like that...

The true power lies in your credit card.

Is that a simple generalisation? If it is then I say "good."

Every time you pay for anything, you tythe to your overlord, you pay your master, you influence your world. We, everyone, are voting every day.

Do you know what you are voting for? Who? I suggest you find out and then start making some serious decisions.

Come to Canada! Your money is worth more here! Less BS~! They dont call us The Great White North 4 nothing! The states will watch our back while we drink 8 percent grain alcohol!!!

123tool!

Whether you know it or not, it�s actually very obvious that you generalise to make your points clear, rather than because your reality-tunnel is that narrow. So when I wrote in my post above that I grow tired of generalisations, I was not refering to you and your posts. I was not even refering to posts in this thread alone...

I believe you are very close to the truth(s) with your self-serving states theory. Certainly close enough to use a simplified version as a much needed "wake up call".

Still it feels like you might have actually missed some things, and not only avoid them for the clearance of your message.

One such thing is that many self-serving organisations are not sovereign states, but they are still powerfull enough to enforce parts of their agendas on sovereign states. The state in question then (knowingly or unknowingly) acts on behalf of that organisation�s agenda, while it to the rest of the world looks as if that state is doing it on their own (for a self-serving purpose).

A few more or less global companies, investors and banks, have become publicly known examples of this. But there are other organisations who�s aims are others than economical. They are far from "secret world governments", they are very seldom "cults", but they are more or less secretive, and they all have one thing in common: They couldn�t care less about single sovereign states.

Another thing that comes to my mind is that you, among others, seem convinced that a politician (or any man of power), couldn�t do anything for a good cause he happens to believe in. Meaning that it would be useless if you and I or anybody "good" became politicians, as we would become as "them".

As much as it is true that power corrupts, ideologically more than economically, I beleive that many people in power, including those in governments and oval officies, have managed to keep some of their integrity and ideology and therefore also some of their "goodness". I also believe that they, within the limits of (world) politics and economy, work according to their beliefs when they can.
If so, it must also happen, from time to time, that a state acts for a "greater cause". not only and not allways, but still.



No one conglomerate of businessmen, politicians, or masonic manipulators control Control. They do however administer its needs.

FoxLeonard

[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 10-29-2002).]

HeY BuTTTThraXXX!

HoNk!

YoU sAy You'Re OnlY iN U.S.a. fOr tHe conSTiTutIOn, BuT HeY---thAt THinG wAs PuT OuT To PAsTuRe YeArs AgO!

We AmErICanS HaVe FrEE SpEEch As LonG As We Don'T AcTuallY SaY anYThiNG.

wE HaVe ThE RiGhT to Bear ArmS iN ThE pRiVacY Of Our OWn LiVinG RooMS.

We HAve FreeDoM Of ReliGIOn As LonG AS We WoRsHip OnlY ThE GoVeRnMenT LinE.

We Are FrEE FroM DOUBlE JeOpARdY UnLeSS ThEiR iS A ReTrIAL Or AppEaL.

We HAve THE FreeDoM To VoTe FOr OnE OF TwO CandidAtes ThAt RelY oN ThE SamE CoRpoRaTE MonEY To FooL YOuR Ass. HonK!

We hAVe ThE FreeDom of ThE PRess In ThAt We'RE Free TO BeLiEvE iT OR NoT.

We HAve THE RiGHT To PRiVacY As LOnG As---Oh, WaIT, ThaT PaTrIOT AcT ThINGY KinD Of NaILeD ThE CoFFIn LiD DoWn On THat.

Oh, Hey, I CaN ChOOSE BetwEEN CaBlE anD a DiSh. AlSo, I caN ChOOSe beTween RoCkY RoAd And PlAin VaniLLa.

So WherE You MovInG To BuTTTTTHRaXXX?

HOnk!

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
username911

I�m NOT saying that your are totally wrong, or totally right, but..

---

Fox,

My thanks for your post. I have no good excuse for having missed user's initial question or I would have put in an answer. I must admit, yours was better than mine would have been.

Nox

I'm gonna start the Nation of Buttthrax, but all the land taken. Maybe I'll take over Antarctica.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Fox,

My thanks for your post. I have no good excuse for having missed user's initial question or I would have put in an answer. I must admit, yours was better than mine would have been.

Nox

---

You�re welcome & Thanks!

But it wasn�t on your behalf. I just couldn�t stand letting it stand as it stood... or something like that...

FoxLeonard

Fox, jeez man, sometimes you make my head spin trying to keep up with you...

I reread my last post and simply put, it came unstuck towards the end - the last few questions were meant to be a general rant to everyone, upon rereading I see it looks like its aimed specifically at you. How can I stand here and lambast a person for not being aware of their commercial responsibilities when you've previously tried to introduce me to a world wide company conspiracy? (Amway, I mean). So, sorry, that would have sounded shitty; I can only acknowledge that you've done serious thinking about these issues...

Anyhoo, in your last post you have again made me face up to the points I'm trying to make in the harsh light of reason and argument deconstuction. Excellent...

Yes, it's now obvious I've missed some things. And I've also skirted around others.

Yep, I have made an assumption of lumping states and companies and organisations under the same banner. I still believe that (generally speaking) they will follow their own agendas to the exclusion of all else. (Agendas being their own survival first; thats a key distinction; it explains why selfishness can be rationalised to a certain extent). However, you are right to point out to me that these entities do NOT hold the same characteristics exactly; you highlighted this extremely well by showing that organisations and individuals can influence a government "from inside" its social boundaries.

As to how much a "secret" organisation could insert their agendas onto a state without their knowledge; well, I don't know due to lack of information - but I do know states work against each other in a similar fashion where possible, so your hypothesis sounds plausible.

I don't plan on becoming a politician, in the traditional sense because I do believe the art of politicking creates confusion in your value system. (I also lump politicians, business execs and grand high poohbars under the same banner - when I'm generalising). Yes, their are good people out there (and you could be one of them, if you think you're strong enough - do it man) working in positions of influence... and they ALL believe they are good people.

You have skilfully shown how some actions by states could be for a higher cause by showing a description of individuals that I agree with (that some of them are genuinely good). Excellent...

However, we can also see (if we swallow this state's self interests theory) that these instances are exceptions and not indicative of a rule. Therefore, you have shown where a generalisation falls down. You're right to do so; and I don't mind admitting because most of the people I aim my simple generalisations at will have long since stopped reading this post.

However, another aspect of rationalising is to understand that its best to assume when analysing state's and other group's actions that they are NOT acting in the interests of a higher cause. That they might do sometimes (even where it's not a simple accident) is a moot point.

Anyway, I don't believe it matters. I believe we can sidestep these issues when we wish to influence our state. All of the aforementioned politicians/execs/poohbahs are motivated (generally) by one thing alone... keeping their job. I have experienced this time and time again in the workforce and through my own country's smalltime politicking (I haven't met too many secret organisations yet, but I'm assuming its the same). I wish to goad people into educating themselves further. To create a fashion of virtue. For people to throw out their Nikes and force that company to switch to making a profit out of child sponsorship (for instance).

I don't need to be a politician to do this. I just need lots of money. And I'm not likely to get popped off like some Senator in an airplane because I won't be standing against any particular group or state. I'll just be trying to convince people to be nicer to each other. Publicly, lavishly being nice to each other.

Shit, I'm getting off track, my point is this, I believe you could do a great deal of good by becoming a politician, and you have a higher chance of doing SOMETHING than I will. However, I'm like the guy in the cardpit, holding a garish cocktail in one hand and some dice in the other. I'm a gamble, pure and simple (and yes I know the house odds).

[This message has been edited by 123Tool (edited 10-30-2002).]