French Foreign Minister a Steaming Turd
 

Dominique de Villepin says: "With the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, a dark page has been turned."

He then added: "One which we vehemently opposed turning, and threatened to use our veto power at the U.N. to keep from being turned."

What a bunch of assholes.

Perhaps his tears are for the 8 billion dollars in loans that they will not be able to collect.

Then, perhaps your smiles and happyness are for the dollars you are going to collect?

Perhaps you think so, and if it so I'll tell you "there is a difference between U.S. and France: France doesn't kill for money"

Then if you are wrong about your way to get the freedom of iraqi people, don't wonder why the rest of the countries considers U.S. like an devastator and evil empire.

Do you want to the rest of people to think that about U.S.? Unfortunately that's what you are succeeding.

No, France just turns a blind eye to all that in the hopes of collecting money later.

How much are we going to get out of Iraq? Well, first we have to realize that we're sinking, oh, about $80 BILLION dollars in to this war. I'm paying for that, as are my fellow citizens. Then, we're going to have to rebuild the damn country, and we'll probably spend at least $300 or $400 doing that, which puts what we *should* recoup right at about $80,000,000,400 (guessing). Iraq's oil reserves aren't so spectacular that we're going to be swimming in money, Rucita. I'm sorry, but it's just not the way it is. It's not about money or oil. The argument just doesn't hold up.

"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." If you saw a man raping a woman, and you had the power to do something about it, would you?

France wouldn't, because the rapist owes them money. Are you really in the same boat?

Yes, I would, but not what you have done. I mean I'll try other ways before.

You don't understand my previous message. I think U.S. has declared the war on Iraq because of many reasons but principally because September 11th. What I say is: if you think France don't want war because of their own interessting, then don't suprisse if other countries people think the same about you.

By the way I guess Ben Laden still alive and he is the directly guilty, and not so the Iraqi children and babies.

Do I want the rest of the world to think the US is an evil empire?

No, but it is not an evil empire, and they think that anyway. They think what they enjoy thinking.

If someone is big and powerful, everybody wants to find faults and problems and mistakes and flaws with that person. It is the same thing with countries.

So, I would rather be right than popular. Popular is temporary. Right is permanent.

I don't think it's about September 11th. If it was, it would have happened a long time ago.

But we're free to disagree about that, yeah?

France wouldn't be drawing my criticism if they were still sticking to their guns. But they've done pretty much a "170" if you will. Not quite a complete 180º degree turn, but pretty close. Suddenly the war is a good thing? A dark page has been turned? What changed? You know?

I'm against the war too, if the question is "Do you support sending Americans to a foreign land to die, far away from their families, while at the same time killing innocent people?"

But I'm for the war if the question is "Do you support freeing people that desperately want to be freed but cannot do it themselves because the oppresive power they are under is so great?"

It’s being really hard to me to try to explain my feelings and my opinions about Iraq war, because I don’t have a good command of English. So I plead to you to understand me in the most loving, tough but firm, style.

If I were an empire I’d rather to command respect because of my negotiation capability, my talent to make up for poor countries, my acts for remedding the hunger around the world, my intelligence, my diplomacy and my ability to resolve national and inernational conflicts with these wirtues I’ve mentioned, but not only because of my army and my force.

But you think is about the killed kurdish and it happened 15 years ago. Also you think is about the killed Iraqi and Kuwait people and it happened 12 years ago.

By the way, then is it not about the weapons of massive destruction?

I said none of those.

What Bush's motivations were, I can never say. I simply don't know. However, going at it for oil simply doesn't make sense, because it's not cost effective.

The evidence that there <b>are</b> weapons of mass destruction is growing, and the fact that millions of people are becoming free is a pretty huge bonus.

Look, as far as the weapons of mass destruction goes, I'm not sure the war is justified. But when we look at the Iraqis that are gaining their freedom, then it becomes obvious to me that the war is going to have very good consequences.

You said yourself that you hate Saddam and think he needs to go. Well, that's what's happening. Besides civilians being killed, why is that a bad thing?

Besides civilians being killed... besides? Is not that enough reason?

The way of doing all that is the big problem. I still do believe we could have resolve the conflict by other ways.

If the conflict is "weapons of mass destruction", then maybe.

What is too big a price to pay for the freedom of millions? One life? Ten thousand?

Now I'm just guessing, but I bet you could find 100,000 Iraqis that would give themselves if they knew that, in doing so, Iraq would be free from the Ba'ath party. You could maybe even find significantly more.

Let's face it, we weren't getting rid of Saddam without force. And we weren't getting Iraq's freedom unless we got rid of Saddam. For me, that is the compelling reason for this war.

Between 1936 and 1939 in Spain we suffered a civilian war. Is finished and then here started a dictatorship, with dictator Franco. Nobody came here to free us. Finally in 1975 that dictatorship finished. Yes, it was because of many reasons including that the dictator died, but we'd rather this way before the war way. We had ha time for transition and we, ourselves, put up a democracy regime. I think spanish did by the right way because we didn't create more violence.

Anyway if it is the reason, then I believe (not agree with, but believe) it only when U.S. go ahead for other dictatorships...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Let's try this. We are at war. At this point there is nothing the common US citizen can do about it. Don't you think it's reasonable for us to focus on the good that will come from this? Do you think fewer innocents would die if Sadam was left in power and one of his son's took over for him when he died? If you look around the older threads you'll find a lot of us don't believe the reasons Bush gave for going to war. Does that mean we should not be happy about any potential good that comes from our military's actions?

Rucita said: "If I were an empire I’d rather to command respect because of my negotiation capability, my talent to make up for poor countries, my acts for remedding the hunger around the world, my intelligence, my diplomacy and my ability to resolve national and inernational conflicts with these wirtues I’ve mentioned, but not only because of my army and my force."

We have negotiated for 11 years. No one has *ever* negotiated more than we. We tried sanctions, and were assailed for "starving innocent children". Nowhere has anyone ever pointed the finger at Saddam, least of all you, Rucita.

Intractable despots only understand one thing...power. It is what they use to stay in control, and it is the only way to unseat them. Saying that we didn't negotiate enough is simply untrue. And as far as feeding the hungry...name me one nation that provides more aid than the US...just one, please.

I admire your manner when trying to convey your points, Rucita. You are unfailingly polite and obviously firm in your beliefs, but you are off base here, mi compadre. Saddam bad, we kick ass, things get better.

We hope...

You are right, I should have put a qualifier in there...I'd like to, at a minimum, think that things won't get *worse*.

I need to slow down and take a breath. I'm turning into a Hawk, and I don't mean to, but I've seen *so much* crap about Hussein and his cronies' misdeeds, that I'm starting to feel like we didn't go blow shit up nearly soon enough.

Yeah...you better chill out that war woody. :)

The short anwer is the outcome was right for a lot of wrong reasons. Regardless of any rhetoric, the only people who are going to benefit from any of this are going to be the Iraqi people.

There is a new saying "America bashing is the new opiate of the intellectual". Nothing America does will ever be seen as 'right', and IMO a lot of that stems from the fact that we are a successful democratic, capitalist republic that had the gall to last for 200+ years.

As an aside, I don't think I've heard anything really negative about Spain.

I don't think that this would happen in Iraq. Saddam's entire political regime is made up of members of his family. Nearly every political position is filled by one of his relatives because those are the only people he thinks he can trust. I'm sure there are a long line of Husseins ready to take his place when he dies, starting with his two sons. And nearly all of them are sadistic murderers as well. Many of them have committed horrible acts.

How quickly we forget what was America and the world only less than four years ago. Back then, even when America did not intervene in Rwanda and Brundei, America was still well regarded almost everywhere in the world. Polls throughout the world only four years ago tended to be on the order of 70% favorable towards America. Most especially were opinions of American citizens, American entertainment (which scared too many nationalist foreign leaders), and American culture. Today those same polls now stand about 30% and 40%.

With this president, suddenly everything American is getting ugly - even in Canada. The world did not change. A centrist American president was replaced by a low intelligent war monger manipulated by a right wing extremist group that called themselves the Vulcans. The world was not so contrarian towards America - until George Jr made America so ugly.

Again I refer to a speech given by the Norwegian Foreign Mininster warning the world that George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords. Since posted, we now know George Jr accomplished just that. He intentionally destroyed the Oslo Accords AND he undermined virtually every US international relationship.

When America's closest allies even sound anti-American - Canada, S Korea, Germany, Mexico, and Turkey - then Americans better start looking inside America to find the problem. What changed? Right wing extremists got their man and their people into power. Suddenly other nations are all stupid Frogs. Only America can be right.

Why did Clinton get something that no other world leader ever received in the UN General Assembly - a 5 minute standing ovation? Because back then, America was lead by centrists. Therefore America was admired virtually everywhere in the world. Only someone as simple minded and extermist as Geroge Jr could destroy so much so fast.

America was once highly admired everywhere. Then we elected right wing extremists into Congress and Presidency. People who have contempt for other world opinions. People with so much contempt for the world that they would launch war against China over a silly spy plane.

I guess this is what I get for voting Nader. Oh well, I hope War and the Patriot Act aren't too high a cost for planting the seeds of real representation.

Elspod said: “I admire your manner when trying to convey your points, Rucita. You are unfailingly polite and obviously firm in your beliefs, but you are off base here, mi compadre. Saddam bad, we kick ass, things get better.”

Thanks Elspod (by the way “mi compadre” is a Mexican expression, not Spanish ;) )

“Saddam bad, we kick ass, things get better”... well, I hope so too, but unfortunately I don’t think so. I think it's much more complicate than that. Well, What is sure is that we only can wait for a bit long time to see what happen.

My apologies for the intercontinental faux pas...no disrespect intended.

By the way, I just wanted you to know that the proper English for this is "Thanks asshole (by the way, "mi compadre" is damn dirty diarrhea water speak, not noble Spanish)." :)

Thank you very much Dave.

Ru, tell your friends at www.culturacontralaguerra.org that el Sycamoro says:

Bienvenido a The Cellar. Espero que usted permanezca aquí más allá de la charla de la guerra y contribuya a las discusiones finas que tenemos aquí. Obviamente, la charla aquí puede conseguir muy calentada ocasionalmente, pero para la mayor parte, somos gente decente. No asuma por favor de The Cellar que todos los americanos están en ayuda de esta guerra. En el mismo tiempo, somos un grupo muy protector, y no estamos encariñados con el Spam. Esta es la razón por la cual el mensaje inicial de Rucita fue suprimido.

Teniendo dicho esto, ¡goce!

Meanwhile, dave says:

Yo tengo un dolor de cabeza.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=39382

La gente de Cultural Contra la Guerra sentirá mi presencia pronto bastante. :)

Well, don't be too much of a bastante about it.

And you'll be wellcome!

My 30 year old Spanish classes aren't holding up very well...thank the Gods for free Internet translators.

sycamore says:

"Dem peeps up at yo site be feelin' my shizzle on they nizzle real soon now, yo."

I ran it through Babelfish's "Spanish to Ebonix" translator.

Yes, that would be the SoCal/Snoop Dogg dialect of Ebonics...it'll get you around in SoCal, but you really have to learn proper Ebonics...so says Rho. It's kinda like Austrian German and Swiss German...you have NYC Ebonics, Philadelphia Ebonics, and the hardest to understand--Dirty South Ebonics.

It'll be interesting posting to that site. I'm curious to see what these folks have to say about the war happenings...it'll give the War Diary more depth. I don't think they'll understand my humor though...and I haven't used Spanish extensively for some time.

Yes, but look on the bright side. By voting Green you will benefit from all of the oil drilling in ANWAR.:rolleyes:

You can bet that the Greens will be getting some extra funding next year from anonymous donors. All of Cheneys friends will be spending some of the dough they made off of the sweetheart deals for the reconstruction to make sure there is a strong centrist and/or liberal party running alongside the Democrats to siphon off votes.

I really do support third party candidates, and with less at stake I would say help them make that %2 for matching funds. But we are looking at nothing less than the soul of America in this next election. With a conservative-leaning Republican majority in both houses, about the only thing even remotely reigning in this administration is the prospect of running for re-election.

Now imagine this adminstration in its final term. Bush does not have to worry about re-election and Cheney knows with his health he could not run for President. So they have nothing to lose.

Now how scary is that?:eek:

Sir, I am a stubborn man. When my mom told me I couldn't leave the table until I cleaned my plate and ate my vegetables, I sat there staring at the wall for four hours, until she finally stormed in and told me to go to bed.

So, it that same vein, I will still vote Green. Because fuck 'em. I can wait. We'll just see how many elections it takes to freak the Democrats out.

:)

That's gonna be a tough smoke for the DNC. They have to find a way to embrace the platform of the Greens without losing the hard-sought center. I don't imagine it will be an easy sell. The center seems to be annoyed with the extremis on either edge.

-sm

One of the saddest things I encounter at work are those unfortunate white children who talk black ... It's just SILLY. It's been a year or two since I'd dealt with a kid like this, so I thought the trend had passed.

Was dealing with one the other day. She said "yo, yo" a lot, referred to "her crew" and otherwise used pronounciation, cadence and physical gesturing associated with inner city black patois. (The rest of the story is unnecessary to go into here, but suffice it to say that her family, although living in a rowhome, appear to have misplaced their trailer).

I was commenting on this as part of the clinical information I was giving to the female staff member who was doing her admission, who happened to be black, and she advised me of a term that I had never heard before ... "Oh, yeah. One of those. We call them 'Whiggers.'"

Took me a LONG while to stop laughing.

I was one of those unfortunate people at one point...actually, I was a motherfucking pioneer in that field! I was doing that shit (1990-1991) when these little bitches doing it today were in fucking training pants.

Fortunately, it only lasted a short time.

However, being an adopted member of the African-American community, I reserve the right to use Ebonics at any time without scorn. It says so on my Good Whitey card.

Back in high school, my friends and I would take rap/ghetto lingo and put it into "white-speak." It was rather funny...in fact, that's pretty much how Dave and I carry on now.

Some years ago I spent several weeks in Madrid and Oropesa. I walked the streets late at night with no fear. Franco had been dead for about 6 years but I was told by the locals that the police were supreamly powerful. They had great latitude in metering out punishment, on the spot, if they decided you were guilty of something. Also, I believe the Spanish Revolution was heavily influenced by outsides (read Nazis) but even many years after his death, Franco is loved and missed by many.

This Just In
 

Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still valiantly holding on in his fight to remain dead.

(sorry. I all of a sudden got nostaligic over the days when SNL was consistently funny.)

EDIT: When I posted this I had not yet read this thread.

Synchronicity. Cool. :cool:

I think that the actions of the current administration are enough to shock some of the left wing, and right wing into some sense. The Democrats do not have to move to the left. If they stay in the center they will pick up a number of the 'true conservatives' who believe the government should just leave people alone.

I'm not a Libertarian, since I believe that we need a government to protect us from other governments as well as large corporations who could otherwise work the system to gut safety regs, environment regs, etc.

However, we do have too many laws on the books which interfere with peoples rights to be left alone in their own homes. The liberals embrace political correctness and want to limit 'hate speech'. The conservatives want laws against sodomy, soft drugs, etc, even when done in the home. However, the Libertarian ideal is flawed by assuming that eliminating most rules would be an improvement. If my neighbor decided to build an unlicensed toxic waste facility on his property, and promised I would not be affected, and did not have to even post a bond against future damages, what would my recourse be without the law? Would I have to wait for damage to occur before taking action? (BTW, this is not an endorsement for a first strike response, which is a different issue in scope and the effects on civilians).

I think if you could point out to both sides that the amount of freedom you get is the exact amount you are willing to extend to the people whose words or actions you despise, we could agree to shore up the first and fourth amendments and you would get a lot of left and right wingers supporting the center.

If the Greens think that blackmailing a moderate Democratic party into moving to the left is a good idea when the Democrats can pick up these dissatisfied voters, and if the Greens are willing to reelect one of the most un-Constitutional, right-wing regimes (I like that word) in US history, which may have a chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice next term, then I say fuck 'em.

I want to see good government. I want to everyone acknowledge that a police state does not guarantee safety any more than it ended the 'war on drugs' which we have been losing for 20 years, and keep the ideals of the Constitution intact. If the Greens think that clinging to their agenda in this next election to gain an extra point is worth causing this much devastation, then they have a serious problem.

To the extent that the Green party wishes to reform environmental rules and government's attachment to big business, I think the Democrats can and should accomodate them. This adminstration has made such links even more obvious than before and even conservatives are a little sickened by it. If the Democrats could provide such reform, not only the Greens but conservatives like McCain might be moved to endorse the Democratic candidate.

I think that the great upswell of support for the president is mainly due to confusion of support-the-troops, support-the-war, etc. Some people do not wish to seem unpatriotic. I believe this will change when people get into the voting booth.

With Haliburton and other deals being scrutinized, I think people are going to become a little more suspicious of, if not the motives, the post-war choices made in handing out contracts. If you read the British press, they are asking a lot tougher questions than our press, which in general has really rolled over while the war was on.

Considering that the British took a higher percentage of casualties, they are going to look very carefully at who is making money off of this.

A good post, Richlevy. I differ with you on some points in it, but am just going to confine myself to commenting on one of them: shore up not only the First and Fourth Amendments, but the Second as well. An empowered electorate is an effective electorate, and an electorate with the power of life and death is the most effective of all. An electorate deprived of the power of life and death has fewer (some would say no -- at the end of the day, I fall into that camp) recourses to keep its government accountable for its governance, fewer means of keeping its government in its proper place as a provider of certain services, these being the sort that are agreed to be necessary, but are unprofitable in themselves. Such an electorate is on its way to being ruled by an oligarchy.