Wikileaks

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

This will probably prompt more abuse from KSA but I always thought one of the factors in deciding to invade Iraq was that the September the 11th revenge bloodlust hadn't been satisfied by the up to that point "easy" invasion of Afghanistan.

 

I realised it would be in poor taste to counter your posts on this subject, like crushing a dying dung beetle or a retarded gerbil. Inevitably you felt the need to post more unsubstantiated and ignorant bile. I can't help wondering, if your opinion of western people and their 'bloodlust' is so low - after all, Britain did support both wars fully - why don't you go and live in a hut in Timbuktu and run about naked having given up all material possessions? Oh that's right, because despite espousing a mentality that makes hippys look like Navy Seals, you can't live without your western luxuries, and you probably indirectly fund arms companies and certainly oil companies who have a vested interest in the Iraq conflict. If you're going to talk such nonsense at least back it up and go and live in a tree.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[ChezGiven 0]

Most wars have been about land and religion, only about 0.00001% of human conflic fits under the idea of a 'moral war'. The British empire, the Napoleonic wars, WW1, WW2, Israel-Palestine were not started because the oppressors / invaders wanted to topple an immoral regime. I would say all human conflict untill the 20th century has been about aggressive land grabs. Of course morality comes into any conflict but in WW2, the allied forces werent burning black people in gas chambers whilst issuing propaganda against the jewish concentration camps.

 

Thats the basics of this issue. What moral crime of the Vietnamese did the US use during the Vietnam war to justify their presence there? Thats the analogy i am using.

 

Wikileaks shows us that the US is propagating a view of an immoral culture, whilst acting in the same manner. This is just like using the racist killing of jews by Nazis in concentration camps in propaganda and then doing it yourself and trying to cover it up. There is always propaganda war and it has a moral dimension but i dont believe the allied forces did gas jews so they probably did have and kept the moral high ground. Something the US has clearly lost.

 

I do love the fact you can hardly put a coherent post together, seething having been kicked into touch yet again i suspect.

Edited October 29, 2010 by ChezGiven

[NJS 3956]

This will probably prompt more abuse from KSA but I always thought one of the factors in deciding to invade Iraq was that the September the 11th revenge bloodlust hadn't been satisfied by the up to that point "easy" invasion of Afghanistan.

 

I realised it would be in poor taste to counter your posts on this subject, like crushing a dying dung beetle or a retarded gerbil. Inevitably you felt the need to post more unsubstantiated and ignorant bile. I can't help wondering, if your opinion of western people and their 'bloodlust' is so low - after all, Britain did support both wars fully - why don't you go and live in a hut in Timbuktu and run about naked having given up all material possessions? Oh that's right, because despite espousing a mentality that makes hippys look like Navy Seals, you can't live without your western luxuries, and you probably indirectly fund arms companies and certainly oil companies who have a vested interest in the Iraq conflict. If you're going to talk such nonsense at least back it up and go and live in a tree.

 

As if Blair was some kind of calmimg influence - the cunt was crying "crusade" in his sleep.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"aggressive land grabs."

 

That's exactly what the Iraq war has been. That was the Neo-Con's stated objective regarding the Middle-East.

 

"I do love the fact you can hardly put a coherent post together, seething having been kicked into touch yet again i suspect."

 

Far from seething, I am genuinely amused by your attempts to post regarding subjects out of your depth. That with your hilarious wrestler-style one liners is a potent mix in the unintended humour cocktail. As for being kicked into touch you were never on the park to begin with, you needed me to explain to you why the NATO mission began in Afghanistan as you lacked even the most basic understanding of that conflict; you seem to have great faith in your spurious and unsubstantiated opinions (typical French), despite an outrageous lack of knowledge for a man your age. Keep it up though, you have tickled me.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

This will probably prompt more abuse from KSA but I always thought one of the factors in deciding to invade Iraq was that the September the 11th revenge bloodlust hadn't been satisfied by the up to that point "easy" invasion of Afghanistan.

 

I realised it would be in poor taste to counter your posts on this subject, like crushing a dying dung beetle or a retarded gerbil. Inevitably you felt the need to post more unsubstantiated and ignorant bile. I can't help wondering, if your opinion of western people and their 'bloodlust' is so low - after all, Britain did support both wars fully - why don't you go and live in a hut in Timbuktu and run about naked having given up all material possessions? Oh that's right, because despite espousing a mentality that makes hippys look like Navy Seals, you can't live without your western luxuries, and you probably indirectly fund arms companies and certainly oil companies who have a vested interest in the Iraq conflict. If you're going to talk such nonsense at least back it up and go and live in a tree.

 

As if Blair was some kind of calmimg influence - the cunt was crying "crusade" in his sleep.

 

What the hell are you blathering on about now. A calmimg influence?

 

Out of interest, what do you think of Blair's record of conflicts before Iraq?

[NJS 3956]

This will probably prompt more abuse from KSA but I always thought one of the factors in deciding to invade Iraq was that the September the 11th revenge bloodlust hadn't been satisfied by the up to that point "easy" invasion of Afghanistan.

 

I realised it would be in poor taste to counter your posts on this subject, like crushing a dying dung beetle or a retarded gerbil. Inevitably you felt the need to post more unsubstantiated and ignorant bile. I can't help wondering, if your opinion of western people and their 'bloodlust' is so low - after all, Britain did support both wars fully - why don't you go and live in a hut in Timbuktu and run about naked having given up all material possessions? Oh that's right, because despite espousing a mentality that makes hippys look like Navy Seals, you can't live without your western luxuries, and you probably indirectly fund arms companies and certainly oil companies who have a vested interest in the Iraq conflict. If you're going to talk such nonsense at least back it up and go and live in a tree.

 

As if Blair was some kind of calmimg influence - the cunt was crying "crusade" in his sleep.

 

What the hell are you blathering on about now. A calmimg influence?

 

Out of interest, what do you think of Blair's record of conflicts before Iraq?

 

I took your mentioning Britain's support as some kind of suggestion that if the US was on a revenege mission then they'd have some friends who'd say "hang' on there mate. they aren't worth it".

 

My point is that Blair was just as politically/religiously driven as Bush.

 

 

Of course I accept that any Tory would have been just as much a poodle.

[sammynb 2929]

Truth be known, just like KSA it's all about gas.

[ChezGiven 0]

"aggressive land grabs."

 

That's exactly what the Iraq war has been. That was the Neo-Con's stated objective regarding the Middle-East.

 

"I do love the fact you can hardly put a coherent post together, seething having been kicked into touch yet again i suspect."

 

Far from seething, I am genuinely amused by your attempts to post regarding subjects out of your depth. That with your hilarious wrestler-style one liners is a potent mix in the unintended humour cocktail. As for being kicked into touch you were never on the park to begin with, you needed me to explain to you why the NATO mission began in Afghanistan as you lacked even the most basic understanding of that conflict; you seem to have great faith in your spurious and unsubstantiated opinions (typical French), despite an outrageous lack of knowledge for a man your age. Keep it up though, you have tickled me.

 

Were the allied forces in WW2 gassing jews in concentration camps?

 

What were the moral crimes of the Vietnamese?

 

I asked for your reasons on the NATO mission in Afghanistan so we could discuss it on your terms. I was a grown man in 2001 and was very aware of the media narrative. You would have been about 12 iirc.

 

Floundering tbh.

[Park Life 70]

Al Quaeda's budget has gone from 30m$ dollars (in 2000) in Afg to over 300$ million since op 'Enduring Freedom' after the allied invasion according to CIA estimates. we are going backwards there and imo with hardly any real concrete gains.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

1. Were the allied forces in WW2 gassing jews in concentration camps?

 

2. What were the moral crimes of the Vietnamese?

 

3. I asked for your reasons on the NATO mission in Afghanistan so we could discuss it on your terms. I was a grown man in 2001 and was very aware of the media narrative. You would have been about 12 iirc.

 

Floundering tbh.

 

1. This sort of tact belies a deep stupidity on your part. For a start, you are clearly not aware of what the Allied war crimes in WW2 consisted of and hence you bring up the gassing in concentration camps which actually were not the worst atrocities in the war (In a period of weeks in 1941, more Jews were rounded up and shot dead than were ever killed in all the concentration camps). You should not approach this subject until you have taken my advice and read Robert Conquest's excellent material on it. The reason I brought it up - which you clearly missed - was that even when we have a clear case of good vs evil as in the case of WW2, atrocities will still inevitably be committed by the good side; such is the nature of war. You keep coming back to the point that the US have lost the moral high ground, but this is not the case when compared with Saddam Hussein's regime and the jihadists that now terrorize Mesopotamia.

 

2. I'll rephrase this question for you as you did such a bad job at it. "What were the moral crimes of the Vietnamese according to the US?"

 

Answer: Communism; did you miss that one too? The US weren't too fond of it.

 

3. If there is anyone floundering it is you. You admitted you were not aware of the history of the conflict in Afghanistan because you had 'recently borne a child', have a 'time-consuming job', and between these things you only have enough time to eat croissants and read about macro-economics, another subject in a long list that you have displayed a prolific ineptitude for. It is an embarrassment that I have a better understanding and knowledge of the subject given our respective ages, and especially given your conviction - clearly disproved every time you post - that you are an intellectual behemoth. Given the seismic lack of substance in your posts, you continually (and to my amusement) resort to the one-liners that you probably learned on an office-management course to compensate. If you can't see that, that's your problem, not my problem, you got that?

Edited October 29, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[ChezGiven 0]

So let's get this straight then, the US have not lost the moral high ground in this war?

 

I dont think that highlighting the worst atrocity of the WW2 being outside a concentration camp in any way changes the argument. Shit attempt at side tracking the point you are losing on.

 

The fight against communism was not a moral war, it was an economic one and part of a global power struggle. I don't think that it serves as an analogy for the moral issues thrown up by US propaganda and the proven human rights abuses in the middle east.

[ChezGiven 0]

Vietnam would serve as a good analogy if the US was secretly organising itself as a communist country. Even if you want to push communism as a moral concept, which it isn't, the US were not hypocritical about it.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

1. So let's get this straight then, the US have not lost the moral high ground in this war?

 

2. I dont think that highlighting the worst atrocity of the WW2 being outside a concentration camp in any way changes the argument. Shit attempt at side tracking the point you are losing on.

 

3. The fight against communism was not a moral war, it was an economic one and part of a global power struggle. I don't think that it serves as an analogy for the moral issues thrown up by US propaganda and the proven human rights abuses in the middle east.

 

 

1. Compared with Saddam Hussein's regime and the jihadists, no. That's exactly what I said, I couldn't make it any plainer.

 

2. You seem to lack basic comprehension skills as displayed with the first point. After I cited the atrocity in WW2 (which wasn't related to the point), I said, referring to Allied war crimes in WW2:

 

"The reason I brought it up - which you clearly missed - was that even when we have a clear case of good vs evil as in the case of WW2, atrocities will still inevitably be committed by the good side; such is the nature of war."

 

You either didn't read this, or you're so thick you can't understand basic English. Which one is it?

 

3. Similarly, the fight against Iraq is not a moral war, already covered this; if you had any knowledge of the subject whatsoever you'd be aware of the neo-con's explicit strategy with regard to the Middle-East region and the current global power struggle. How did the US justify the Vietnam war to the public? Did they say, 'this is an economic war'. No they didn't you dense bastard, they excoriated the sins of Communism as inherently opposed to their way of life and thus it became a moral justification for ridding the world of that ideology, and the action in Vietnam is justified to the public. This was while the troops killed plenty of innocent people and introduced them to the pleasures of napalm. The administration's real motives were different to the public justification, but the same is true of Iraq.

 

 

I don't think you even know what your own points are at this stage, nothing you have posted has even come close to touching on some kind of coherent narrative or thread of thought. I don't know if you are stressed out because of your job or what, but I know this: you are certainly a lot more stupid than I ever gave you credit for, and nowhere near as intelligent as you believe yourself to be.

[Park Life 70]

So let's get this straight then, the US have not lost the moral high ground in this war?

 

I dont think that highlighting the worst atrocity of the WW2 being outside a concentration camp in any way changes the argument. Shit attempt at side tracking the point you are losing on.

 

The fight against communism was not a moral war, it was an economic one and part of a global power struggle. I don't think that it serves as an analogy for the moral issues thrown up by US propaganda and the proven human rights abuses in the middle east.

 

It was I'd say primarily about speheres of influence and economic and stemmed from the last days of the 2nd world war and the Berlin talks. Later it became paranoid (Cuba) and ideological (South America - Chile. El Salvador. Nigargua).

Edited October 29, 2010 by Park Life

[ChezGiven 0]

You missed the point twice now.

 

Not once were the US hypocrites with their approach to communism. So i return to the original statement, there hasnt been a situation like this before. The same situation would have been the US enacting communist policies whilst decrying communism. They didnt have to worry about looking like hypocrites either.

 

I saw what you had written but ignored it in my response as it had fuck all to do with the main thrust of the argument.

 

All ideologies have a moral underpinning them, fair enough, you can position the war in Vietnam has having a moral element. Thats one war in the whole history of humanity. I did say the majority were about other things.

 

All irrelevant though, the point is that Wikileaks has exposed the rotten hypocrisy at the heart of the US campaign, a hypocrisy they did not demonstrate in Vietnam. This is worse, from a moral perspective.

[Park Life 70]

Vietnam would serve as a good analogy if the US was secretly organising itself as a communist country. Even if you want to push communism as a moral concept, which it isn't, the US were not hypocritical about it.

 

It was by proxy a war against Russian and partly Chinese influence (both supplied the North with weapons). Later the Korean war was by proxy and later directly a full blown war against the Chinese. These wars war hegenomical in the sense the post 2nd war world had yet to organise itsself with regards to the dominant way of life for the masses in large chunks of the world.

[Park Life 70]

The key to the early days of the 2nd world war was that socialism was gaining ground amongst German workers who were become more interested in labour rights and admired aspects of the Russian revolution. Trotsky himself was killed by Stalin because he was ready to take the fight into the European hinterland and support German workers. Hitler was partly funded by banks to oppose the rise of socialism in Germany. Revolutionary Marxists (Trotsky) believed the revolution could only succeed if exported to other key countries, so as not to be isolated by the banking system, asset reach and geo-political agenda setting. Stalin and the Stalinist revisionists sowed the seeds of the ultimate demise of Commiunism by trying to hold onto power and by default ideology of the revolution (centralised descision making) and later isolationism (failed also to forsee the later rise of China). Trotsky and Marx correctly believed that Socialism could only survive with a good asset reach and with a more fluid descision making agenda (bottom up), where people are psychologically invested in its success by taking part in the process itself (one of the reasons for America's viscious attacks against Nicaragua and Chile by other means). Literacy rates and public access was tripled by local communities and farming land etc was shared (it was a beacon on the doorstep) the U.S. could well do without. The next world changing revolution will happen in America (where the growing disenfranchised are also heavily armed and tiring of the latest playstation releases).

Edited October 29, 2010 by Park Life

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

All ideologies have a moral underpinning them, fair enough, you can position the war in Vietnam has having a moral element. Thats one war in the whole history of humanity. I did say the majority were about other things.

 

All irrelevant though, the point is that Wikileaks has exposed the rotten hypocrisy at the heart of the US campaign, a hypocrisy they did not demonstrate in Vietnam. This is worse, from a moral perspective.

 

You can position every war in the history of humanity as having a moral element, as all conflict inherently does. That's an axiom even, and you look very stupid trying to state otherwise. You did say the majority were about other things and this just compounds and underlines your stupidity.

Your reading of 'the situation' is also borne of your stupidity and an ignorance of Saddam Hussein's regime. The coalition forces have a distance to go before the human rights abuses directly involving them compare to what Hussein accomplished in this field. I have not missed the point, you have just been promulgating a fatuous one from the very beginning.

[ChezGiven 0]

All ideologies have a moral underpinning them, fair enough, you can position the war in Vietnam has having a moral element. Thats one war in the whole history of humanity. I did say the majority were about other things.

 

All irrelevant though, the point is that Wikileaks has exposed the rotten hypocrisy at the heart of the US campaign, a hypocrisy they did not demonstrate in Vietnam. This is worse, from a moral perspective.

 

You can position every war in the history of humanity as having a moral element, as all conflict inherently does. That's an axiom even, and you look very stupid trying to state otherwise. You did say the majority were about other things and this just compounds and underlines your stupidity.

Your reading of 'the situation' is also borne of your stupidity and an ignorance of Saddam Hussein's regime. The coalition forces have a distance to go before the human rights abuses directly involving them compare to what Hussein accomplished in this field. I have not missed the point, you have just been promulgating a fatuous one from the very beginning.

Give me the moral angle on the Norman invasion then? WW1 was started for moral reasons was it? Napoleon's rampage through Europe based on some moral argument?

 

What a wanker you are. I feel sorry for your mum, with this persistent answering back no wonder she sent you off to boarding school.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

You lack basic comprehension skills:

 

"You can position every war in the history of humanity as having a moral element"

 

Does not = "Every war was started for moral reasons"

 

Straw man stuff from you tbh, pathetic. Although we've come to expect you to clutch at straws now for a while.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Park Life 70]

The only moral component to war is for public consumption.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The only moral component to war is for public consumption.

 

Indeed, as is the case with Iraq. Chez is too ignorant to see beneath the Fox news coverage though it seems.

[Park Life 70]

All ideologies have a moral underpinning them, fair enough, you can position the war in Vietnam has having a moral element. Thats one war in the whole history of humanity. I did say the majority were about other things.

 

All irrelevant though, the point is that Wikileaks has exposed the rotten hypocrisy at the heart of the US campaign, a hypocrisy they did not demonstrate in Vietnam. This is worse, from a moral perspective.

 

You can position every war in the history of humanity as having a moral element, as all conflict inherently does. That's an axiom even, and you look very stupid trying to state otherwise. You did say the majority were about other things and this just compounds and underlines your stupidity.

Your reading of 'the situation' is also borne of your stupidity and an ignorance of Saddam Hussein's regime. The coalition forces have a distance to go before the human rights abuses directly involving them compare to what Hussein accomplished in this field. I have not missed the point, you have just been promulgating a fatuous one from the very beginning.

 

For along while the the West were complicit in Saddams atrocities due to the fact he seen as a bulwark against Iran and an expanding Shia militancy in the region.The chemical weapons came from the west and other stuff like Howitzers from Switzerland, sattelite data from America and strategic commanders and advisors from India. A good source is some of the comments and writings regarding Madeline Albright especially her posture just before Gulf War One. Saddam was only finally invaded (not for the attack on Q8 but lies from Saudi Arabia about tank divisions on their borders). All Saddams nonsense was overlooked by the west for a very long time, some Iraqi commanders were still training at Sandhurst and West Point the first week of GW1.

[ChezGiven 0]

You lack basic comprehension skills:

 

"You can position every war in the history of humanity as having a moral element"

 

Does not = "Every war was started for moral reasons"

 

Straw man stuff from you tbh, pathetic. Although we've come to expect you to clutch at straws now for a while.

 

I thought we were discussing moral hyprocrisy? You haven't pointed out a war that fits this example yet. Yes i agree that some hypocrisy is inevitable but we know that the US are acting like total cunts. Its a good thing that Wikileaks brings this to our attention if only for its positive impact on the awareness of the reality of war and the facile nature of the propaganda that has kept this one going for nearly 10 years. 10 years at war, ffs. Its just wrong.

 

As for our example, the US were not acting like communists during their war in Vietnam, so how does Vietnam translate as an analogy? There was no hypocrisy in that instance in relation to their reasons for being at war. They hated communism and they certainly did not support any form of communism in their own country. Slightly different to Afghanistan's suffering of human rights abuses whilst a war against them is justified in the name of human rights. You still havent addressed this.

 

The bottom line here is that you are a deeply unpleasant individual and your world view reflects that. I think you'll find most people reading this agree with that too.

[trophyshy 6432]

I'd love to hold you and I'd love to kiss you but I aint got time for that now.