| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/16 |
| 2004/1/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12022 Activity:nil |
1/29 US Troop suicides mounting in Iraq war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/eveningnews/main596755.shtml
\_ not surprising... when you sign up for the military, you essentially
become their slave. if you disobey or refuse to fight, you get
the dishonor of being courtmartialed.
\_ Yeah, it would be better if we had an all volunteer force. |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12026 Activity:very high |
1/29 BTW, front page in the SF Chronicle today has David Kay saying that
he talked to all the CIA intel guys and *not one of them* said
they felt pressured although they admitted failure. They honestly
believed it as did the French and German intel they worked with.
\_ I'm sure none of the underlings at Enron felt pressure, either.
They thought there was just a lot of oil in the Cayman islands.
\_ Totally different situation. Get your oranges out of the
apple cart and we'll talk. No one at Enron in a decision
making role ever claimed to know nothing about what was going
on. They all hired lawyers.
\_ http://csua.org/u/5rq
Washington Post article says otherwise.
If someone did tell Kay they felt pressured, don't you think
that would be the end of their carreer with the CIA?
\_ Stop bringing common sense into the discussion! You are
just a Bush hater!
\_ no, I don't. the failure up front is enough to destroy their
careers already. common sense.
\_ France and Russia did *not* agree with the Bush Administration:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html
\_ No one said Russia did. French intel is another story.
\_ Here is a very good (and long) article that indicates that
pressure was applied. It also states that *everyone* thought
that Hussein had WMD:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/media-preview/pollack.htm
Start with "The Politics of Persuasion"
\_ Uh, he says so, but there's not much to tell me he's right.
Also, the guy wrote the book "The Threatening Storm: The Case
for Invading Iraq" in 2002, which a lot of neocons were
waving around prior to the war. In any case, I know what
Powell presented to the UN, and it was total crap, and that
was enough for me.
\_ The fact that he sees both sides of the issue makes him
more credible to me, not less.
\_ So if I told you a big fat lie from one side and at least
a partial truth from the other, you'd swallow that lie?
\_ if you know anything about Bush, he is the type who has repeatly
make decision, find out it wrong, and blame his subordinate so he
is free of all the responsibilities (George Tenet). This entire
David Kay drama is just a way to defuse pressure for Bush. And
yes, I am a Bush hater, and I hate him more for the fact that he
is a such soft shoulder than his undisguised political agenda to
enrich his friends and the wealthy.
\_ Oh really? Tell us about Bush. What is your secret source of
information about his "type" that you claim to know so well?
Your undying hatred? Good thinking. I feel your pain!
\_ Bush is a dumbass. This is how a smart dumbass runs the
country. By delegating responsibility and trying to look
like you know what you're doing. The interesting part is it's
arguable that this might be better than liberals running the
country.
\_ Vote Green! Seriously, though, no President has run this
country in that sense for a long time. There's a zillion
things going on that he might get a 5 second briefing on once
a month, if that. Without delegation you get a G.Davis style
micromanagement idiot who never gets anything done because one
person doesn't have the time or brain power to cope with it.
Pick any Fortune 1000 company. Do you think the CEO is
intimately aware of every product plan for the next 12 months?
Or even what might be happening next week or happened last
week? Not a chance in hell. The Federal Government dwarfs
any Fortune list company and always will. |
| 5/16 |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12011 Activity:nil |
1/29 Condi attacks WMD critics, spouts usual line:
"The president's judgment to go to war was based on the fact that
Saddam Hussein had for 12 years defied the international community."
C'mon, Condi, we defied the international community because they
defied the international community?
http://csua.org/u/5rh
\_ You're right. We should have just ignored it and drove another
nail into the UN Credibility Coffin.
\_ Hmm... Inspectors were in, looking around, reporting that
it looked like any weapons had been destroyed, but that they
needed more time. Looks like their policy was working PRETTY
FUCKING WELL. I'd call that a crowbar for your coffin.
\_ I agree with this. Hans Blix wanted more time, and
I think the other member nations felt that Saddam had
been contained, and was coughing up more documentation.
\_ Hans Blix? Idiot. In 1998 when Clinton pulled them
they said they were 90-95% done and needed more time,
but did they get it? No. They didn't because Clinton
was wagging the dog so hard the dog flew off into the
gutter. Clinton lobbed a few useless missiles in,
"Mission Accomplished!" and we could all forget about
his penis problems. You think? Not really. Try some
history, then you'll have something to think about. The
story predates your entry to college and political
awakening as a freshman at the feet of some leftist
Berkeley prof. |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12007 Activity:very high 50%like:12375 |
1/29 Go go gadget http://rotten.com (work safe) http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam \_ Excellent roundup. Not that it will change a single mind here or anywhere else. Welcome to the United States of Clueless Nobodies And Polarized Axe Grinders! \_ Hey too bad you missed all the Clintonistas from 98 when the inspectors left to the day GWB took office saying Iraq had WMD and we were sure of it. Some of us know our history further back than selective quotes from a handful of people we're trying to discredit. |
| 2004/1/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12003 Activity:high |
1/29 "I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.'
Those were not words we used."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 1/27/04
"This is about an imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
(I can give you whitehouse.gov urls if you like)
\_ Actually, yes please. URLp.
\_ Older quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html
Newer quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html
\_ There's also plenty of other juicy quotes from McClellan and
Rumsfeld like "mortal threat," "serious and mounting threat,"
"immediate threat," "unique threat" etc. etc. etc.
\_ until they retroactively change the press releases. -tom
\_ Do the internet archives track the white house?
\_ Where/what are the "internet archives?"
\_ <DEAD>wayback.org<DEAD>. obGoogle
\_ whitehouse.gov set their pages to request no-archive,
after they were caught modifying press releases to
say "the end of major combat operations" instead of
"the end of combat operations." -tom
\_ url ??
\_ http://csua.org/u/5ro (Washington Post)
\_ Speaking of which, is there an official document I can examine
which lists the reasons for war (i.e. causus belli)? I just
want to check that, in fact, the american people were mislead
by being told that the primary reason for going to war were WMD.
\_ The resolution to grant Bush authority to deal with Iraq:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00023.htm
This is as close to a statement of causus belli you will find.
I have yet to find any transcripts of hearings/debate leading
to it. Any help on finding that would be appreciated. --scotsman
\_ I think the best reference would be Powell's speech to the UN,
which was really the only time the entire case for war was
laid out comprehensively. Of course, technically that wasn't
addressed directly to the American people.
\_ Right... hence my problem with the whole line of attack
against Bush. I mean it might work politically, but the line
of reasoning seems, shall we say, a little suspect.
\_ Not really, its simply a technicality. The imminent
threat of WMDs was always clearly the justification,
from the State of the Union address to numerous
discussions in the media (particularly from Cheney) to
press conferences etc. etc. To argue that the President
is immune from attack simply because the case wasn't
presented formally is specious. Also, the case WAS
presented formally to Congress, who (presumably)
represents the people.
\_ Not _the_ justification. _A_ justification. That's
the whole point! What I keep hearing over, and over,
and over again is 'the president said WMD were the
primary reason for war. There are no WMD. Therefore
the war had no reason, and the president lied.'
This argument, as presented is simply false, because
there were multiple reasons presented in all cases,
and all of them, except possibly (but not necessarily)
the WMD one are valid still.
\_ It was the only justification that mattered.
"We're the good guys, they're evil, let's go
get em" might play in the Bible Belt but it wasn't
what got massive support behind the war. What
got the support was Bush saying "mushroom cloud."
\_ It was? Do you think even a large minority agrees
with you? At any rate, there is a difference
between a 'primary' reason, which presumably is
the first reason listed in some official casus
belli document (maybe), and 'the only reason that
mattered', which, to put it mildly, is subject
to interpretation.
\_ Americans have never been shown to support
wars for purely humanitarian reasons, and
as Human Rights Watch has pointed out the
Iraq war doesn't qualify as justified on those
grounds alone. So what other justification
are you proposing? The only one that I heard
was that we were stopping an imminent threat
to OUR country. Anything else is just spin
after the fact.
\_ So let me get this straight. The human
shredders, the rape rooms, the mass gassings,
the prisons for children, etc. etc. are not
enough for the Human Rights Watch? Or for
you? That's good to know... Let's not
forget Iraq's supposed connection to
terrorists, which is certainly playing out
prominently now.
\_ What links to terrorists? Osama hated
Hussein, and the foreign terrorists in
Iraq now aren't blowing things up to
bring back the Baathists.
\_ Glad you have the inside terrorist
scoop. Our guys don't know that. Can
you please let them in on it and your
information sources?
\_ You can blather all you want about
human rights violations, but much
worse is perpetrated every day by
Mobuto Sese Seku and we're doing
absolutely nothing. Fact is,
humanitarian reasons don't convince
the American public and they don't
convince me.
\_ You are using present tense, but
Mobuto died in 1997. Anyways, do you
have a catalogue of his abuses so we
can compare? I am starting to think
you are just trolling. Bush was not
even President then.
\_ I wasn't aware Human Rights Watch speaks for
this country or people. I think we not only
should have gone into Iraq but many other
countries for HRVs over the years but I
understand that real politik prevents that.
When it doesn't we should do it. BTW, did
HRW 'point that out' before or after the
war? I'll bet it was before when they were
generating fake estimates of 600,000 Iraqi
civilian deaths from war and millions more
from post-war starvation, disease, etc.
\_ The primary justification was that Hussein was an
imminent threat to the US. To bolster that argument,
the administration said that Iraq had WMD. It also
said that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda. The sum
total of this image that the Pres. sold to the
American people was that Hussein had planned the
WTC attack and was now about to hand nukes to the
same group that carried that attack out. The
evidence before and after did not support this
view. Did the Pres. out-and-out lie? I don't know.
Did he play on the fears of the American people to
force them to support his plan to invade Iraq? Yes.
Is the world (and Iraq) better off without Hussein
in power? Yes. Does that fringe benefit justify,
in retrospect, the Pres.'s decision to act
unilaterally? No. The same result could have been
\_ I don't think you have enough of a retrospect
to speculate. Wait 20 years or so. Consider
Lybia, for instance.
achieved through working with our former Coalition
partners. Would Coalition support have resulted in
a better handling of post-war Iraq? Yes.
\_ Please explain in what way we could have "worked
with our former Coalition partners" such that
SH would be tossed out of power and those mass
graves would be unearthed. The rest of your
post is your unbacked and very biased opinion.
I'm glad you have the motd to express your
opinion but it's just your opinion at this
point.
\_ It goes like this: instead of rushing to
invade, the Pres. keeps pursuing his case
against Hussein in the Security Council. At
the same time, he intros resolutions calling
for greater monitoring of the human rights
violations occurring in Iraq. He makes
demands that the Security Council will see
as reasonable but that Hussein will see as
infuriating. Hussein refuses to cooperate
with HRV inspectors, and the US turns this
into a crusade to free the Iraqi people
from a tyrant and mass-murderer. With the
moral issue on our side _before_ the
invasion, our former Coalition allies would
either have to jump on board or risk
appearing utterly callous. Within six
months, we either have our invasion (and a
damn good reason for it), or we have
Hussein weakening his own position. The
invasion of Iraq and the subsequent over-
throw of its dictator is not the issue; how
it was achieved and what the Pres. did to
bully us into it is.
\_ The problem with this is most of the SC
doesn't give a flying fuck about HRVs and
in at least one case, Russia, they were
owed billions of dollars they needed very
badly and weren't going to do anything
to fuck that up. I admire your idealism
but the real world doesn't work like that.
None of them gives a shit about appearing
callous or anything else when there's big
bucks and oil contracts on the line.
\_ Why did Russia just agree to forgive
the Iraqi debts then?
\_ I'm glad we are all so shortsighted and quick to judge the Prez
now, unlike b4 with Clinton. Pluz! If he said, he's a tyrant,
and a magnet for terrorist, do you think that'd be enough reason
to attack? No. Any answer you hear from him you won't accept, even
though it was Clinton's policy for regime change.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles and kept up the sanctions.
His policy was prudent. He didn't send 150,000 troops into
harms way and invade another country unilaterally when virtually
all of our traditional allies disagreed with his justifications.
By the way, you overwrote my post, dickhead.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles which let Bin Laden know
we could hear his phone calls and he immediately stopped
using easily tracked electronic communications after that.
Clinton, big dummyhead, threw away our best source of info on
Bin Laden to cover up his penis problems.
\_ The problem with using this as a political attack on the President
is the average voter will accept that the CIA fucked up. It sure as
hell wouldn't be the first time. For example, the CIA was totally
and completely taken off guard when the Berlin Wall fell and that
sort of thing was their primary reason for existing. Also, the UN
agreed that Iraq had WMD and many foreign intelligence agencies also
agreed so it isn't as if Bush & Cheney sat in a room and concocted
some story. It was accepted around the world as fact that Iraq had
WMD. The only dispute was what to do about it. You can hang your
political hopes on this one if you like but you'd be in the tiny
minority that hates Bush so much that no matter what he says or does
you'll find a reason to hate him. The rest of the country just
isn't like that. Iraq just isn't the issue you think it is or want
it to be and even if it was it still isn't a candidate killer.
\_ The UN did not think that Iraq had WMD. Neither did the French
or Germans. You are just repeating the same tired old lie.
\_ Prove it. URL. The French were bought off. What's your
excuse? They didn't even pay you.
\_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918spin.htm
Go ahead and try and prove that the "UN agreed that
Iraq had WMD." You will not be able to do it, because
they never said that. What is your excuse for continuing
to defend Bush's lies? Did they pay you off?
\_ UN INSPECTORS WERE IN THE COUNTRY! WE KICKED THEM OUT TO BOMB!
Clearly, the containment policies the UN were pushing had been
effective enough to decimate the programs they had. The CIA
should have known this. The inspection teams were all but
screaming it. This is our fuckup, top down. Now Bushco is
trying to absolve itself, and doing a pretty poor job of it.
\_ Bushco? Who exactly kicked out the inspectors, genius? I
don't recall Bush being in office at the time. If you do,
then I want some of what you've been smoking.
\_ They came back in before the war, remember? No, of course
not, just like you don't 'remember' the justifications
for invasion.
\_ Its been clearly documented that there was heavy pressure on
the CIA from the administration to produce intelligence that
fit their preconceived notions. Whether or not this pressure
came directly from the President remains to be seen. Its
kind of amazing to me that people can be so blase about such
a massive failure of government on every level to do the right
thing. Unfortunately, I highly doubt we will ever see an inquiry
into this with our current Congress.
\_Clearly documented? Ok. Where's the documents? URL, please.
\_ Oh please. This is so commonly known, you're just being
pedantic. But if you must, here's a reprint of a relavant
WaPo article from 04 June 2003. This should get you
started. You're welcome. And we all know how "liberal"
the WaPo is, ha ha.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603A.shtml
\_ I read your article. It only says that Cheney visited
to ask about the info he was being given. Some people
said they felt pressured by those visits, others said
they didn't and none of them claimed the pressure was
direct. It's just what a few people felt. You need to
read your own sources with a less biased eye. Thanks.
\_ Bias? You mean, common sense. If you're a lowly
engineer at gigantic XYZ company, how would YOU
feel if the CEO of the company came into your office
and wanted to know exactly how each line of your
code was going to help him make money? You might
feel some PRESSURE to produce RESULTS, wouldn't
you? Don't be a dumbass. There are plenty of
other sources that demonstrate the kind of pressure
that was applied, but digging them out again for
you will never convince you anyway so it doesn't
matter. Even a transcript and full confession signed
in Cheney's blood would no doubt be ignored.
\_ So now we go from proof and clearly documented to
common sense? I note you ignore the others who
said they felt zero pressure. It would be better
if a major decision was taken without anyone ever
going back to ask the guys that produced the data
anything about it or for more details. You're
real rocket scientist material. Remember, we do
rockets in metric now.
\_ No, you accused me of bias, shitheel. I was
explaining to your little rat-brain how
executive pressure works. The article was
an example of something that is COMMON
KNOWLEDGE to everyone, right and left, except
for Pedantic Libertario-Nerds such as yourself.
\_ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
Great New Yorker article about how Cheney pressured
the intelligence community by Sy Hersh.
\_ The newyorker? A source of info on the inside
working of the federal government? Oh, please....
\_ Sy Hersh has more integrity in his little
fingernail than the entire Neocon cabal combined.
\_ Kennedy on the Office of Special Projects:
http://csua.org/u/5rn
\_ Amazon link to Weapons_Of_Mass_Distraction:
http://csua.org/u/5rp
\_ Actually, yes please. URLp.
\_ Older quote:
which lists the reasons for war (i.e. casus belli)? I just
http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html
Newer quote:
http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html
\_ There's also plenty of other juicy quotes from McClellan and
Rumsfeld like "mortal threat," "serious and mounting threat,"
"immediate threat," "unique threat" etc. etc. etc.
\_ until they retroactively change the press releases. -tom
\_ Do the internet archives track the white house?
\_ Where/what are the "internet archives?"
\_ <DEAD>wayback.org<DEAD>. obGoogle
\_ whitehouse.gov set their pages to request no-archive,
after they were caught modifying press releases to
say "the end of major combat operations" instead of
"the end of combat operations." -tom
\_ Speaking of which, is there an official document I can examine
which lists the reasons for war (i.e. causus belli)? I just
want to check that, in fact, the american people were mislead
by being told that the primary reason for going to war were WMD.
\_ The resolution to grant Bush authority to deal with Iraq:
http://http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00023.htm
This is as close to a statement of causus belli you will find.
I have yet to find any transcripts of hearings/debate leading
to it. Any help on finding that would be appreciated. --scotsman
\_ I think the best reference would be Powell's speech to the UN,
which was really the only time the entire case for war was
laid out comprehensively. Of course, technically that wasn't
addressed directly to the American people.
\_ Right... hence my problem with the whole line of attack
against Bush. I mean it might work politically, but the line
of reasoning seems, shall we say, a little suspect.
\_ Not really, its simply a technicality. The imminent
threat of WMDs was always clearly the justification,
from the State of the Union address to numerous
discussions in the media (particularly from Cheney) to
press conferences etc. etc. To argue that the President
is immune from attack simply because the case wasn't
presented formally is specious. Also, the case WAS
presented formally to Congress, who (presumably)
represents the people.
\_ Not _the_ justification. _A_ justification. That's
the whole point! What I keep hearing over, and over,
and over again is 'the president said WMD were the
primary reason for war. There are no WMD. Therefore
the war had no reason, and the president lied.'
This argument, as presented is simply false, because
there were multiple reasons presented in all cases,
and all of them, except possibly (but not necessarily)
the WMD one are valid still.
\_ It was the only justification that mattered.
"We're the good guys, they're evil, let's go
get em" might play in the Bible Belt but it wasn't
what got massive support behind the war. What
got the support was Bush saying "mushroom cloud."
\_ It was? Do you think even a large minority agrees
with you? At any rate, there is a difference
between a 'primary' reason, which presumably is
the first reason listed in some official casus
belli document (maybe), and 'the only reason that
mattered', which, to put it mildly, is subject
to interpretation.
\_ Americans have never been shown to support
wars for purely humanitarian reasons, and
as Human Rights Watch has pointed out the
Iraq war doesn't qualify as justified on those
grounds alone. So what other justification
are you proposing? The only one that I heard
was that we were stopping an imminent threat
to OUR country. Anything else is just spin
after the fact.
\_ So let me get this straight. The human
shredders, the rape rooms, the mass gassings,
the prisons for children, etc. etc. are not
enough for the Human Rights Watch? Or for
you? That's good to know... Let's not
forget Iraq's supposed connection to
terrorists, which is certainly playing out
prominently now.
\_ What links to terrorists? Osama hated
Hussein, and the foreign terrorists in
Iraq now aren't blowing things up to
bring back the Baathists.
\_ Glad you have the inside terrorist
scoop. Our guys don't know that. Can
you please let them in on it and your
information sources?
\_ You can blather all you want about
human rights violations, but much
worse is perpetrated every day by
Mobuto Sese Seku and we're doing
absolutely nothing. Fact is,
humanitarian reasons don't convince
the American public and they don't
convince me.
\_ You are using present tense, but
Mobuto died in 1997. Anyways, do you
have a catalogue of his abuses so we
can compare? I am starting to think
you are just trolling. Bush was not
even President then.
\_ I wasn't aware Human Rights Watch speaks for
this country or people. I think we not only
should have gone into Iraq but many other
countries for HRVs over the years but I
understand that real politik prevents that.
When it doesn't we should do it. BTW, did
HRW 'point that out' before or after the
war? I'll bet it was before when they were
generating fake estimates of 600,000 Iraqi
civilian deaths from war and millions more
from post-war starvation, disease, etc.
\_ The primary justification was that Hussein was an
imminent threat to the US. To bolster that argument,
the administration said that Iraq had WMD. It also
said that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda. The sum
total of this image that the Pres. sold to the
American people was that Hussein had planned the
WTC attack and was now about to hand nukes to the
same group that carried that attack out. The
evidence before and after did not support this
view. Did the Pres. out-and-out lie? I don't know.
Did he play on the fears of the American people to
force them to support his plan to invade Iraq? Yes.
Is the world (and Iraq) better off without Hussein
in power? Yes. Does that fringe benefit justify,
in retrospect, the Pres.'s decision to act
unilaterally? No. The same result could have been
\_ I don't think you have enough of a retrospect
to speculate. Wait 20 years or so. Consider
Lybia, for instance.
achieved through working with our former Coalition
partners. Would Coalition support have resulted in
a better handling of post-war Iraq? Yes.
\_ Please explain in what way we could have "worked
with our former Coalition partners" such that
SH would be tossed out of power and those mass
graves would be unearthed. The rest of your
post is your unbacked and very biased opinion.
I'm glad you have the motd to express your
opinion but it's just your opinion at this
point.
\_ It goes like this: instead of rushing to
invade, the Pres. keeps pursuing his case
against Hussein in the Security Council. At
the same time, he intros resolutions calling
for greater monitoring of the human rights
violations occurring in Iraq. He makes
demands that the Security Council will see
as reasonable but that Hussein will see as
infuriating. Hussein refuses to cooperate
with HRV inspectors, and the US turns this
into a crusade to free the Iraqi people
from a tyrant and mass-murderer. With the
moral issue on our side _before_ the
invasion, our former Coalition allies would
either have to jump on board or risk
appearing utterly callous. Within six
months, we either have our invasion (and a
damn good reason for it), or we have
Hussein weakening his own position. The
invasion of Iraq and the subsequent over-
throw of its dictator is not the issue; how
it was achieved and what the Pres. did to
bully us into it is.
\_ The problem with this is most of the SC
doesn't give a flying fuck about HRVs and
in at least one case, Russia, they were
owed billions of dollars they needed very
badly and weren't going to do anything
to fuck that up. I admire your idealism
but the real world doesn't work like that.
None of them gives a shit about appearing
callous or anything else when there's big
bucks and oil contracts on the line.
\_ I'm glad we are all so shortsighted and quick to judge the Prez
now, unlike b4 with Clinton. Pluz! If he said, he's a tyrant,
and a magnet for terrorist, do you think that'd be enough reason
to attack? No. Any answer you hear from him you won't accept, even
though it was Clinton's policy for regime change.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles and kept up the sanctions.
His policy was prudent. He didn't send 150,000 troops into
harms way and invade another country unilaterally when virtually
all of our traditional allies disagreed with his justifications.
By the way, you overwrote my post, dickhead.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles which let Bin Laden know
we could hear his phone calls and he immediately stopped
using easily tracked electronic communications after that.
Clinton, big dummyhead, threw away our best source of info on
Bin Laden to cover up his penis problems.
\_ The problem with using this as a political attack on the President
is the average voter will accept that the CIA fucked up. It sure as
hell wouldn't be the first time. For example, the CIA was totally
and completely taken off guard when the Berlin Wall fell and that
sort of thing was their primary reason for existing. Also, the UN
agreed that Iraq had WMD and many foreign intelligence agencies also
agreed so it isn't as if Bush & Cheney sat in a room and concocted
some story. It was accepted around the world as fact that Iraq had
WMD. The only dispute was what to do about it. You can hang your
political hopes on this one if you like but you'd be in the tiny
minority that hates Bush so much that no matter what he says or does
you'll find a reason to hate him. The rest of the country just
isn't like that. Iraq just isn't the issue you think it is or want
it to be and even if it was it still isn't a candidate killer.
\_ The UN did not think that Iraq had WMD. Neither did the French
or Germans. You are just repeating the same tired old lie.
\_ Prove it. URL. The French were bought off. What's your
excuse? They didn't even pay you.
\_ UN INSPECTORS WERE IN THE COUNTRY! WE KICKED THEM OUT TO BOMB!
Clearly, the containment policies the UN were pushing had been
effective enough to decimate the programs they had. The CIA
should have known this. The inspection teams were all but
screaming it. This is our fuckup, top down. Now Bushco is
trying to absolve itself, and doing a pretty poor job of it.
\_ Bushco? Who exactly kicked out the inspectors, genius? I
don't recall Bush being in office at the time. If you do,
then I want some of what you've been smoking.
\_ They came back in before the war, remember? No, of course
not, just like you don't 'remember' the justifications
for invasion.
\_ Its been clearly documented that there was heavy pressure on
the CIA from the administration to produce intelligence that
fit their preconceived notions. Whether or not this pressure
came directly from the President remains to be seen. Its
kind of amazing to me that people can be so blase about such
a massive failure of government on every level to do the right
thing. Unfortunately, I highly doubt we will ever see an inquiry
into this with our current Congress.
\_ Clearly documented? Ok. Where's the documents? URL, please.
\_ Oh please. This is so commonly known, you're just being
pedantic. But if you must, here's a reprint of a relavant
WaPo article from 04 June 2003. This should get you
started. You're welcome. And we all know how "liberal"
the WaPo is, ha ha.
http://http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603A.shtml
\_ I read your article. It only says that Cheney visited
to ask about the info he was being given. Some people
said they felt pressured by those visits, others said
they didn't and none of them claimed the pressure was
direct. It's just what a few people felt. You need to
read your own sources with a less biased eye. Thanks.
\_ Bias? You mean, common sense. If you're a lowly
engineer at gigantic XYZ company, how would YOU
feel if the CEO of the company came into your office
and wanted to know exactly how each line of your
code was going to help him make money? You might
feel some PRESSURE to produce RESULTS, wouldn't
you? Don't be a dumbass. There are plenty of
other sources that demonstrate the kind of pressure
that was applied, but digging them out again for
you will never convince you anyway so it doesn't
matter. Even a transcript and full confession signed
in Cheney's blood would no doubt be ignored.
\_ So now we go from proof and clearly documented to
common sense? I note you ignore the others who
said they felt zero pressure. It would be better
if a major decision was taken without anyone ever
going back to ask the guys that produced the data
anything about it or for more details. You're
real rocket scientist material. Remember, we do
rockets in metric now.
\_ No, you accused me of bias, shitheel. I was
explaining to your little rat-brain how
executive pressure works. The article was
an example of something that is COMMON
KNOWLEDGE to everyone, right and left, except
for Pedantic Libertario-Nerds such as yourself.
\_ http://http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
Great New Yorker article about how Cheney pressured
the intelligence community by Sy Hersh.
\_ The newyorker? A source of info on the inside
working of the federal government? Oh, please.... |
| 2004/1/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11930 Activity:nil |
1/25 DK says WMD stuff went to Syria:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html |
| 2004/1/23-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11911 Activity:nil |
1/23 Kay gives up the search for the mythical WMD,
admits that they probably never existed:
http://csua.org/u/5oa
\_ Yeah, I am sure that's the end of it.
\_ Already, the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass
destruction-related program activities and significant amounts
of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.
- Dubya 2004 State of the Union
\_ Yay, SOTU! It's like campaigning, only no one calls you on
your lies!
\_ Yeah, after last year I was expecting some real whoppers.
I didn't hear any obvious lies this year, though. Did you?
\_ well, I wouldn't say the statement was a lie. look at
the words he uses.
\_ I love how it went from WMD, to WMD programs, to
WMD related program activities. Orwell would be proud.
\_ A WMD Program-Related Activity would be writing a memo
saying "Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have some WMDs?"
\_ Read unspinned statements direct from David Kay
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1063926/posts?page=21#21
\_ "unspinned" [sic]? On Fox News? Look at the intro and the
first question--the whole interview is slanted.
\_ how do you slant an interview - he either said the
words or didn't. Are you implying the
transcript is false?
\_ When did you stop beating your wife?
\_ "I have never beat my wife" is a fair answer in an
interview. You think D.K. is an idiot and was some
how entrapped by the Evil Fox News interviewer? This
isn't grade school and he's no grade schooler. He
said what he said.
\_ He's a Republican lap dog given leading questions
by a right-wing propaganda machine posing as
a news program. It's all spin.
\_ That's ok. CNN will rescue us from the clutches
of spin and bias.
\_ Then it wasn't at all "beating your wife"
questions? Then why say it was? Why do you
care at all what is in any of his reports or
anything he does? If he's a (R) lapdog then
he should be out there planting evidence so you
tin-foil hat types can continue salivating.
\_ I'll use small words, so you have some chance
of understanding. I was responding to the
question, "how do you slant an interview?"
with a typical example of a leading question
designed to slant an interview. The
questions given by Snow were not attempts to
put Kay on the defensive; rather, they're
attempts to get him to defend the
administration's position.
As for your last sentence, there's a big
difference between going on TV because the
party machine told you to toe the line, and
falsifying evidence.
\_ I'll use small words, so you have some
very small chance to understand. It
doesn't matter what the interviewer asks.
It doesn't matter how. It never does. Tv
interviews exist so the subject has the
opportunity to spew forth whatever their
views are on whatever the subject wants to
talk about, not the interviewer. This is
true for political, entertainment, sports
and all other standard Tv interviews. In
the next class, we'll be discussing how
you can post to the motd without looking
like the ignorant tinfoil hat wearing slut
you are.
\_ right...that's why the Michael Moore
interview of Charleton Heston had the
same message as Fox News interviews
do.
\_ MM isn't an interviewer. He's a
political figure with an axe to
grind. I shouldn't have to explain
that MM doesn't make any bones about
being a leftist or pretend to be
neutral in any way. Why do you even
bother mentioning MM as if he was
anything else? Do you really
seriously see him as a journalist?? |
| 2004/1/23-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11908 Activity:high |
1/23 US fought the first Gulf War to help Kuwait defend its sovereignty.
So how come US can continue to violate Iraq's sovereignty given that
it has found no evidence of WMD or terrorist activities?
\_ It's never about sovereignty, son. The first golf war was to
prevent Iraq control 36% of world's total oil output. We never
cared about Kuwaiti people, nor does the Kuwaiti Royal Family
for that matter.
\_ That is just one factor. The first gulf war is when
international law, people of Kuwait's interest, and US's
interest are in alignment. Unfortunately, in the second
gulf war, international law is not our our side, and
whether it's in the US's interest and whether it's in the
people of Iraq's interest are highly debatable. It is in
the Bush admin's interest though. You have much to learn, boy.
\_ "international law was not on our side". since there is no
such thing, it is hard to say if it was or not. there are
competing views on this point from reliable people on both
sides of this. The 2nd GW was certainly in the Iraqi people's
interests as long as you're not one of the Sunnis who was
getting along just fine at the expense of the Shiites and
Kurds. You mave much to learn, son.
\_ Why don't you ask Pentagon hawk, Richard Perle, who said:
"I think in this case international law stood in the
way of doing the right thing." As for the existence
of international laws, try <DEAD>www.un.com<DEAD> -> english ->
international laws. Even Perle understood that there
are international laws and the US invasion of Iraq is
illegal. As for whether it is "doing the right
thing", it's highly debatable. You have much to
learn, boy.
\_ I thought I'd replied to this, but I guess not since it
was the same as the rest. 1) Richard Perle doesn't
speak for me or anyone else important. 2) As I said
every other time you bring up this nonsense, if there
is no enforcement there is no law. And slapping "boy"
at the end of your posts doesn't add anything to your
case. You're still naive and ignorant even though you
pretend otherwise. After a dozen times we've gone over
this you are still incapable of telling me how those
"international laws" get enforced. Because they don't
and can't be. No enforcement = no law. I should just
save this to a file and paste it back in everytime your
silly little ass comes on here with worthless URLs to
the UN website. You never have anything new to say
because there's nothing more you can say. There's no
international law. There are a *lot* of international
suggestions, hints, and advice.
\_ Well you did reply to it, at least you tried.
No, law is law. Enforcement is enforcement.
If say commie China invaded some small country
on its border today, it broke international law
irregardless of whether anyone dared to send an
army to chase it out. Your silly ass no perfect
enforcement means no law argument is bogus.
As for slapping "boy", it's just to counter the
use of "son". Your protest against my use of
"boy" without also mentioning the use of "son"
thus exposes you again as the hypocritical
silly ass that you are.
\_ Nice try at a back handed compliment on line one.
I only used 'son' to show you how stupid you look
putting "boy" on the end of every one of your
cut'n'paste posts. As far as the actual topic
goes: China would not be in violation of anything
if they were to invade a neighbor. Law without
any enforcement mechanism is silly. It's the
same idea as when Bush gets attacked for making
the "No Child Left Behind" act but not putting
any funding into it. There's no reason to respect
a "law" which has no enforcement mechanism. If
you'd like to say "oh boo hoo! the law was broken,
woe unto the the earth and all peace loving good
peoples!" go right ahead, it doesn't matter what
you whine about who 'broke' what pseudo-law when
there's nothing anyone can or will do about it,
especially when your 'laws' are, at best, just a
list of rules countries are supposed to more or
less follow BY AGREEMENT, and there's nothing in
any of your 'laws' which says what the punishment
shall be for a violation. There's no internatn'l
legal system, no police, no judges, no cops, no
nothing anyone can or would do to even a second
rate nation, such as France, much less to a Hyper
Super Power like the U.S. It's silly and naive to
talk about violations like that. The obvious
response is always, "So what? Go do something
about it". And the fact that no one can, would,
or even wants to is what makes International Law
and the violation of said myth the farce that it
is.
\_ the only "competing view" is GW supporters in the US.
Everone else in the world knows US broke international
law.
\_ You're right. We should just walk away and let it fall to total
anarchy. Then assholes like you would be here saying "why did
we leave the poor Iraqis to their fate? We should have stayed
and helped them!" Have a cookie, troll.
\_ the sad thing is I don't think the poster intended it as a troll
\_ It is not a troll but a lead to raise additional questions.
And yes, you need to think more before feeling sad.
\_ okay, so your post was written to raise additional
\_ [ expression of sadness noted ]
questions. I've thought about it more, and I still think
it's sad. To each their own, I guess.
\_ um, whatever
\_ Assholes like you should learn to stop putting words into
other people's mouth.
\_ blah blah blah, heard it all before. when you hate the man
so much it doesn't matter what he does or says you can still
put them there.
find fault and make him into hitler if you like and feel good
about yourself doing so. the words were there. no one else
put them there.
\_ I know you have an irrational hatred for Clinton, so you
project that onto others. You need to grow up.
\_ Just tell me one thing: what makes you spill
the drivel about hating "the man" when the
original poster mentioned nothing about it? Where
did you get the juvenile belief that anyone who
questions the Iraq war has to be a hater of
Bush?
\_ What about those of us who support the Iraq war,
but hate Bush for other reasons?
\_ It can't be. If you support the war then
you're a fascist (R) and love Bush. If you
hate Bush and the evil fascist (R)s then you
are opposed to the war to your core. There
is no middle ground in leftist politics.
\_ From reading the motd everyday. Where'd you get
the opposite idea?
\_ all the more reason for you to be less
presumptuous instead of contributing to
the idiocy.
\_ Uhm, what? We're on the motd, so I'm
perfectly in context.
other people's mouth.
put them there.
\_ I know you have an irrational hate for Clinton, so you
\_ I know you have an irrational hatred for Clinton, so you
project that onto others. You need to grow up.
\_ You don't know any such thing. I have no hatred for
Clinton or anyone else. He's just another scumbag
politician no different than the rest. My original
point remains: the poster is a hypocrite and a troll
and you've done nothing to refute that in any way.
\_ So you are saying that any country can invade any other
country by first making false accusations, then invading,
and then saying that they have to stay because if they leave,
since they already destroyed the former regime and its
\_ That's the point. Us broke international law, and
the reason for the war turned out to be based on a lie
and has to be changed to "regime change". If WMD or
terrorists were found, even if democracy and peace
failed, the war would still be justified. Now, we have
20000 Iraqis dead, 500 US soldier killed, thousands of
US soldiers injured, hundreds of bilions of dollars
spent, thousands of Iraqis homes and property destroyed,
and still no WMD. If we can find WMD or at the very
least have a UN mandate, these losses would be
justified, but without them, now it boils down to
the only justification left - whether we can build a
peaceful and democratic Iraq. All the more reason to
put pressure on the administration to do the right
thing instead of throwing Iraqi people's money to
the admin's business and defense cronies. Take this
Ayatollah Sistani problem. If WMD has been found, t
his would be a much smaller problem, but now that
the whole basis of the invasion rests on regime
change, and helping the oppressed Shiites, and now
you have this Sistani mullah whom all the Shiites
seem to adore, and he's ignoring Bremer and
calling for direct elections, there is
very little one can do except try to placate him.
I hope things turned out well, not because of, but
in spite of.
\_ Not finding WMD doesn't make it any harder to clean
up after. It's still a very difficult thing. And as
far as "justifying" all those deaths, lost homes, and
general mayhem in Iraq goes, I don't think the average
Iraqi gives a flying fuck about your "justifications".
That's Western White Boy think. If we rolled in and
found a ton of anthrax on every street corner those
Iraqis would still be dead, injured, homeless, etc, and
not at all agree with your "justification" theory and
be just as pissed off that we're there. Sistani would
still be there as before and we'd still have the same
mess to clean up. It would just be harder, not easier,
because of the resources we'd have to divert to WMD
clean up. You can't justify the loss of family and
home to anyone on the receiving end of that loss.
You're so fucking colonial it makes me ill.
\_ Your fucking underestimation of the people of
Iraq makes me sick. Iraqis can think and they
watch and read the news, and they see the Bush
admin caught in lies about WMD, constantly
change its justification for the war, and
inability to find any WMD. They also read news
about how Bush admin gives fat contracts to
its cronies led companies using Iraqi money and
oil to pay for these. You think all these make
no difference to the Iraqis? Are you that
naive or are you just plain dumb?
\_ Who said the Iraqis aren't smart? I never said
any such thing. Go back and *READ* what I said,
not what you wish I'd said. I'll repeat: the
average Iraqi who lost a family member or home or
whatever doesn't give a flying fuck if there were
WMD or not. They don't give a flying fuck that
Bush is handing contracts to his buddies or not.
They don't give a flying fuck about the whether
the war was "just" or not. Those are your
Western White Boy concerns. They only care that
their family member is dead, their house blown up,
or their business destroyed and no amount of
Western justification for the invasion will change
that. If it was your house that got blown up and
2 tons of anthrax was found next door the day
after you'd still be pissed off your house was
blown up no matter how "justified" some white boy
in the US thinks it was.
\_ So you are saying that any country can invade any other
country by first making false accusations, then invading,
and then saying that they have to stay because if they leave,
since they already destroyed the former regime and its
institutions, there will be chaos?
\_ Bush says: That's a CIA failure.
institutions, there will be chaos?
\_ Whatever the quality of the reason for invading, walking out
now would be a case of two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right. If
you broke the cookie jar you should at least help buy new
cookies and some elmer's glue. There's no relationship
between whether or not invading was right and what we should
do now that we have. The fact is we did invade and now have
a moral responsibility to clean up the mess we made. You
seem to think that we only owe the Iraqi people something if
we had found tons of WMD. That makes no sense to me.
\_ 10 years of Resolutions are false accussations?
\_ Where is the WMD then?
\_ Bush says: That's a CIA failure.
\_ Are you trying to make him look bad?
\_ No, that's the genuine administration position.
\_ And if you want to talk about UN resolutions, no, US
did not obtain a UN resolution to invade
Iraq. There are many UN resolutions condemning
Israel. That doesn't mean other countries have
the right to invade Israel.
\_ Bush says: An earlier resolution made the war legal.
\_ Only problem was Bush tried to obtain a UN mandate
for war but had to withdraw. That shows that the
earlier resolution doesn't stand.
\_ Bush says: The earlier resolution still made
it legal; the new resolution was a chance to
show Saddam that the world was united in
opposition.
\_ earlier resolution says "severe consequences".
analogy would be a law that says it is
illegal to possess marijuana and anyone
found in possession of marijuana would face
"legal consequences". this doesn't give
john doe off the street the right to kill
someone found in possession of marijuana.
To determine what the consequences should be
one should go back to the institution issuing
the law (UN in this case).
\_ the US isn't john doe off the street and
'legal' is not the same as 'severe'. did
you think the original un resolution that
said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
\_ Try http://www.un.org -> English ->
International Laws. Who enforces
it? Member nations through UN
mandate of course. You prefer
throwing away international laws
and going back to genghis khan era?
\_ "member nations through UN
mandate". bullshit. So you
claim the US is in violation of
UN/international law. Why is
there no enforcement? Why aren't
all the member states enforcing
their will upon the US? The law
is the law and must be applied
equally to all. If any are
above the law or there is no
enforcement the law doesn't exist
as such and becomes a mild
suggestion at best. We're still
in the Khan era. We never left
it. When did World Peace
suddenly strike the planet? What
year did the Age of Enlightenment
begin?
\_ [I knew this one would go
unanswered. Score one for
the "international law is
bullshit" side]
\_ No actually I just
feel that it's so
stupid it doesn't
deserve to be answered.
This guy can't even
distinguish between
law and its enforcement.
See above example
about scenario where
commie China invades
a small country.
\_ Been there, done that
and answered it a
number of times. You
just prefer to change
the words around and
reply to your own words
that you put in my
mouth instead of what
was there on screen.
\_ Bush says: An earlier resolution made the war legal.
one should go back to the institution issuing
the law (UN in this case).
you think the original un resolution that
said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
on you in the international courts!"?
on you in the international courts!"?
\_ it's an UN resolution, so go back to
UN to decide what it means. otherwise,
on you in the international courts!"?
\_ it's an UN resolution, so go back to
admit that you are breaking international
law.
UN to decide what it means. otherwise,
admit that you are breaking international
law.
\_ if there was a real thing called
international law then maybe it could
be broken. if you have to go back and
'ask' 10 years later what was really
meant by something then the whole
process is a farce anyway and it really
doesn't matter. tell me, who exactly
enforces this 'international law' you
speak so highly of? where can i go
and read the laws and the consequences
for breaking them?
\_ Just to stick up for those opposed to the war: not all of us are
saying get out of Iraq; we merely don't trust the current
administration to do the right thing while there. We never
should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
\_ A fair position. Question: if Gore was in office, what do
you think he would have done post 9/11 with Al Qaeda, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc?
Were you also opposed to what happened in Afghanistan?
\_ [ Bad idea. ]
\_ I am not the first guy, but I agree with him. We need
to clean up what we broke in Iraq. I was in favor of the
\_ Either way will do. The Jews need more
living space.
the nasty selfperpetuating evil it's mired in now.
Now, realistically, how likely are one of these two to
invasion of Afghanistan. I think Gore would have invaded
Afgahnistan and then called it a day. He probably
would have tried to continue the Clinton peace process
\_ Nah, despite all the wars and killings,
Israel is the peace loving nation, once it
has attained its rightful King Solomon era
Greater Israel size and thrown all the
Palestinians out. Jews need more living
space than present day Israel.
\_ not really. we should just let the arabs
kill them all and then we wouldnt have to
worry about it.
in Palestine and Israel, which was making some progress
unlike "The Roadmap." -Motd Liberal
\_ There is no realistic chance of peace in the Middle
East. Here is how it could happen:
(1) Israel is nuked, or otherwise destroyed, and never
rises up again.
(2) The palestinian society/culture/infrastructure
is irrevocably broken and rebuilt again without
the nasty selfperpetuating evil it's mired in now.
Now, realistically, how likely are one of these two to
happen? What will probably happen is, Israel will wall
itself off and try to live as a besieged state.
Palestinians will continue to blow themselves up and
train their children to do the same, and everyone will
go on their merry (?) way.
\_ nah, the likely outcome is Israel will bring
in more and more settlers, and expand with
more and more settlements until it reaches its
size during King Solomon's times, and all
Palestinians are thrown out of Greater Israel.
\_ Possibly but I think it won't happen due to the
increase in settlements but yet another Arab
inspired war and this time the Israelis will just
push them all out and be done with it like they
started but wimped out on doing 50+ years ago.
\_ Genocide. The Palestinians want genocide, and
eventually they are going to get it.
\_ The palestinian nation is a peace loving nation
and if only the Jews would just jump in the ocean
and all die we could finally have peace in the ME.
\_ People once thought the same thing about
Ireland. While things are still somewhat bad
there, they do credit Clinton with bringing
people closer to compromise. There can be
peace in Israel/Palestine; it just takes the
right time, the right man, and the right
motivation. Bush's policies have set back that
possibility a great deal.
\_ The Ireland situation was different. You had a
different kind of rebel there and it didn't
infect the entire Irish culture. Irish mothers
\_ What do you mean it can't be fixed? If
we can fix Kurds, Shiite and Sunnis in
Iraq, we can fix Jews and Palestinians in
Palestine/Israel. Just send in the marines,
and force these quarrelsome shemites to learn
to live together peacefully or be shot.
\_ Start shooting arabs then.
didn't blow themselves up and leave tapes behind
saying they did it because they loved their
children. Nor did they send their children off
to blow themselves up in discos and pizza parlors
\_ oh boo hoo! if only we understood and
accepted their differences as a people then
we could all just get along! The willful
blindness and naivete of some is TRULY
astounding.
\_ Eh. In some sense I don't _care_ what
exactly goes on in their heads. Do I care why
a serial killer kills? Why should I care why
a serial killer nation kills? I just want to
put the serial killer away to pay back his
debt to his victims. There is no excuse to
be found in palestinians' heads for what they
are doing. It's simply wrong and evil.
\_ SOrry, guess my statement was unclear.
I was trying to say, the Palestinians
(and most arabs) will simply ignore
overwhelming evidence that contradicts
what they wish to believe. It's in
the religion. I should tell the story
about the guy who refused to believe
California is bigger than Azerbaijan.
Basically, people who belive peace is
possiable with those people don't have
any idea what they're talking about.
\_ Yeah those people are inscrutable.
They cannot be understood. Their thinking
process is alien to us. They are like
serial killers. Their culture is evil.
They are not normal humans. In fact,
they can't even be called humans. They
are more like rats. They should be
exterminated. We should burn
them so normal humans like us Jews can
have more living space. long live
Greater Israel!
\_ They may very well be understandable.
But they don't deserve to be understood,
much like any serial killer. The
palestinians have a serial killer
culture.
\_ Pick up an English language arab
newspaper or read them on the net. Then
come back here and tell us how peaceful
and loving and understanding and how
if only the Jews would just give up a
few more square miles here, and there,
and everywhere, peace would be at hand.
Your ignorance is almost painful but
you do the Berkeley hippy long haired
PC leftist thing really well. Give
peace a chance! Think locally, act
globally! Everyone just wants love!
\_ Well, Israel has never stopped the
continuation of the process. With
settlers and ongoing miserable
conditions in the territories, it's
not credible to say they would always
have been the same way. The ones that
went to Jordan seemed to be able to
lead normal lives. Leaving those
camps there for all those years was
a mistake either way.
\_ Jordan? Yeah the ones who went to
Jordan lived nice normal lives
after tens of thousands got
butchered on that side of the
border by their fellow Arabs. If
you don't know the history of the
area you really should take 5-10
minutes to read a summary online
before sharing your opinions here.
The mistake Israel made is they
started to kick out the Arabs 50
years ago but chickened out and
didn't finish the process. That
left them with a few million
really pissed off Arabs inside
their borders which is the worst
situation possible for all sides.
Israel will eventually either lose
a war or be overwhelmed by it's
internal Arab population and then
be no more. The only other option
that exists for Israel to survive
beyond the next 20 years is a war
that they win which has to be
started by the Arabs so the
international community types are
appeased which then leads to
them kicking out the 5th column
Arabs inside the borders now. I
don't see any other paths that
lead to anything other than the
complete destruction of Israel
and genocide inflicted upon the
Jews by the Arabs. At least maybe
someone will pass a UN resolution
asking them to please stop or
something. See the Tutsis for
how that turned out.
\_ Why do you believe that the
Israelis have the right to
kick the Arabs out 50 years
ago? The Arabs didn't kick
the Jews out during the
hundreds years during which
they ruled the region.
I never said they had the right. I said what _/
should have done and that what they did was a huge
mistake. The Arabs are on that land all the way
through North Africa and elsewhere because they
waged a bloody war of conquest to take it from the
previous owners. I don't see you crying about
them. And yes, the Arabs *did* kick out Jews from
all over the ME and took their property as well,
but there's a long history of that through the
ages, so it must be ok. They're just Jews.
You said they left "a few million really pissed _/
off Arabs inside their borders". Well, the only
real problems have been from the ones who have
have been under occupation in fenced camps, while
over time a lot of land grabs and other injustices
have been inflicted on them. I say again, it's just
not credible to wilfully ignore that and pretend
there was no other way to deal with the territories.
It was done out of militarily strategic concerns,
with an eye to the other Arab states. But that does
not mean it was the only option.
\_ Fenced camps? You've never seen the "camps"
which btw are supposed to be weapons free as
guaranteed by the UN which is supposed to be
running them until such time as the people can
be found living space in other Arab nations but
we know none of that ever happened, including
your illusionary fences. I do agree and said so
before that the push was for military/strategic
reasons. There's no crime there.
saying get out of Iraq; we merely don't trust the current
administration to do the right thing while there. We never
should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
administration to do the right thing while there. We never
should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
\_ A fair position. Question: if Gore was in office, what do
you think he would have done post 9/11 with Al Qaeda, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc?
Were you also opposed to what happened in Afghanistan?
happen? What will probably happen is, Israel will wall
itself off and try to live as a besieged state.
Palestinians will continue to blow themselves up and
train their children to do the same, and everyone will
go on their merry (?) way.
\_ nah, the likely outcome is Israel will bring
in more and more settlers, and expand with
more and more settlements until it reaches its
size during King Solomon's times, and all
Palestinians are thrown out of Greater Israel.
\_ Genocide. The Palestinians want genocide, and
eventually they are going to get it.
in the name of anything and say on TV how proud
they are afterwards. Golda said there won't be
peace until palestinian mothers love their
children more than they hate jews. She was
right 40 years ago and it's still true today
and for the future. The palestinian 'culture'
is just broken. The few people that were in
favor of peace were executed by Arafat as
'collaborators' when he came back from exile in
Tunis. Never bargain with terrorists. Letting
Arafat back in and giving him some form of
credibility was the worst possible mistake for
both Israel and the Palestinians who wanted a
nation and a real life and peace. Not until
Afarat is dead and forgotten can anything
positive happen. Bush, Clinton, etc, don't
stand a chance. I find it shocking that you'd
say Clinton was making progress when in fact he
had already given up long before his term was
over. Bush only got involved because he was
pressured into it and wasn't all that serious
about it. This is one of those things we should
not bother with until there's a local change of
some sort. It can't be fixed from the outside
and it is sheer American ignorance and arrogance
in the best colonial sense that says otherwise.
\_ It's amazing how so many people claim to
"understand" the minds of the palestinians,
when the really have no idea. The willful
ignorance ALONE is astounding.
\_ oh boo hoo! if only we understood and
accepted their differences as a people then
we could all just get along! The willful
blindness and naivete of some is TRULY
astounding.
\_ Eh. In some sense I don't _care_ what
exactly goes on in their heads. Do I care why
a serial killer kills? Why should I care why
a serial killer nation kills? I just want to
put the serial killer away to pay back his
debt to his victims. There is no excuse to
be found in palestinians' heads for what they
are doing. It's simply wrong and evil.
\_ SOrry, guess my statement was unclear.
I was trying to say, the Palestinians
(and most arabs) will simply ignore
overwhelming evidence that contradicts
what they wish to believe. It's in
the religion. I should tell the story
about the guy who refused to believe
California is bigger than Azerbaijan.
Basically, people who belive peace is
possiable with those people don't have
any idea what they're talking about. |
| 2004/1/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:11864 Activity:nil |
1/21 Here's some funny shit. Various peacenik lawyers seek revenge on
Tony Blair for supporting the US in Iraq.
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=442590§ion=news
\_ see what the UK gets for trying to remain international and not
giving itself whole-heartedly to Bush's unilateral campaign?
"The U.S. cannot be tried before the court because it refuses to
sign up to it. The UK did."
\_ What does it mean to be "international", exactly? Striving to
surrender your nation to others who don't have your interests
at heart? Good plan. Don't run a country.
\_ learn to shorten your urls: http://csua.org/u/5mw
\_ Shortening urls is great, as long as the poster specifies
what they're sending you to. This simple courtesy is rare,
however.
\_ I prefer the real raw deal. I do not like being sent to unsafe
links. I'm willing to cut n paste. |
| 2004/1/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11801 Activity:nil |
1/15 Iraq war, looking at Saddam capture photo, we went to war
against a homeless person.
\_ dude, don't be a dumbass. he lived in several palaces.
\_ we turned a dictator into a homeless person.
\_ heh that is such a cool concept. I hope we do the same
in N Korea, Libya, Iran, Cuba, and all the countries
that oppose our superior Western views.
\_ Oh, I forgot, the people of Iraq value living
under a leader like Sadam. They'll elect
somebody just like him in the upcoming elections.
\_ khadafi is our bitch now. hopefully the rest will
follow his lead. |
| 2004/1/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11746 Activity:nil |
1/9 WMD Found!
http://csua.org/u/5ij
\_ "Initial tests show could have..." As I recall they said the same
thing about those "chemical weapons vans."
\_ "The Danish army said they had been buried for at least 10 years."
I know, I know, why do I hate America?
\_ 36 motar shells is a far cry from mutiple tons of stockpiles that
could be launched in 45 minutes.
\_ "Where the debate is, is why haven't we found huge stockpiles
and why haven't we found large caches of these weapons? Let's
let the Iraqi Survey Group complete its work." -Colin Powell
\_ Yes, exactly. 36 mortar shells buried for 10 years doesn't
comprise a "huge stockpile" or a "large cache". You need
ALOT more than that to corroborate allegations of an active
WMD program. |
| 2004/1/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11739 Activity:nil |
1/9 An Iraqi Family's tragedy:
http://csua.org/u/5id
\_ Even the guy posting the letters admits they may not be truthful
and that there are numerous flaws in the story and you'll not find
anyone more sympathetic than this guy. He says there's an
investigation going on and we should wait before going off any
further. I agree.
\_ Hey, I didn't say you think should think anything else. But
its an interesting story, especially since Healing Iraq is the
most vocally pro-US Iraqi blog. Let's see where it goes. --op |
| 2004/1/7-8 [Reference/Celebration, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11706 Activity:nil |
1/7 Christmas in Iraq:
http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2516497.php |
| 2004/1/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:11652 Activity:nil |
1/2 The US planned an invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
back in 1973 to seize their oil fields. Good thing
we are above that sort of thing now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3333995.stm
\_ Dur, this is at the end:
"It is made clear that the invasion would probably only be
contemplated if the situation in the region deteriorated to such
an extent that the oil embargo went on for a long time, threatening
western economies."
\_ Oh the horror.. Why that is the last straw-- I hate the U.S. so much
I want to learn German and move to Germany get taxed >50%!
\_ Get a grip man, it was 30 years ago!
\_ what is wrong with getting taxed 50% by a country that actually
does something useful with that money?
\_ Heh. I see you neither lived, nor visited Germany, nor have
any friends who live there.
\_ under Nixon, what a surprise. |
| 2003/12/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29736 Activity:nil |
12/28 They don't even know who to lie to anymore...
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1113227,00.html |
| 2003/12/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11603 Activity:nil |
12/29 Saddam getting chatty.
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4052441 |
| 2003/12/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11594 Activity:low |
12/26 Where is that guy who guaranteed we would find WMD in Iraq?
http://csua.org/u/5dk
Kay is quitting, the search team is disbanding, ready to
admit that you were conned yet?
\_ wmd moved to Syria and Iran.. vials of stuff
\_ Kay is quitting? So he's a quitter? And? When they send someone
who is willing to do the job and not looking for a quickie career
boost, let us know. And why are you such a hater? Why do you
enjoy the apparent failure of others? Would you be upset if we
had found tons of the stuff on day 1 and Bush looked like a genius
to the whole world? I'll bet you would. No one likes a hater.
\_ Why don't you just admit you were wrong and move on? No one
likes someone who refuses to admit their mistakes.
\_ Exactly right.
\_ Because you can't prove a negative. They hid entire air
bases full of air craft. We've found mobile labs that had
no use other than making germs. Connect the dots.
\_ I am a hater because Bush lied us into war, costed us 150
billion in tax dollars, and distracted us from the real national
security issues. Then again, I should of known better when
GWB conned into the office at first place.
\_ Every intelligence agency in the world and the UN believed
Saddam had WMDs. If it was a lie, everyone agreed on it.
Only after it was clear 1441 was ignored by Iraq (and people
started to believe Bush would begin the war) did people start
claiming there were no WMDs.
\_ You keep claiming that, but it is no more true today
than it was a year ago. France and Russia, particularly
disagreed with the Wolfowitz led assessment:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/1054177726543.html
\_ Well for some reason these people disagree with
you: Clinton, Tom Daschle, Bob Kerry, Byron Dorgan
Jesse Helms, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Carl Levin,
Trent Lott ... from the Congressional Record:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts
Then again you probably have better sources than
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
\_ You know those resolutions are from 1998, right?
Do you know what the shelf life of nerve agent is?
And they do not have anything to do with the idea
that "every intelligence agency in the world" agreed
with Bush.
\_ Tell us. What is the shelf life of nerve agent?
So they had them in 1998 but *after* the UN/US
inspectors left they suddenly stopped making
them? That's just plain stupid. Get out of here
with that noise.
\_ Oh yes, our friends the French... who built
Khomeini a nuclear reactor until Isreal blew it
up and provided the Exocet missile and mirage
fighter to attack the USS Stark. And now the
left is relying on intelligence from what is
effectively the KGB? Never mind the billions
in oil contracts these countries had negotiated
despite UN sanctions or the oil-for-aid
kickbacks.
\_ What's wrong with the left relying on the KGB?
It's not like the KGB hasn't been funding them
since the 50's if not earlier. It makes sense.
\_ From resolution 1441:
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council
resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf
Yeah, the one that passed uninimously through the
Security Council.
Yeah, the one that pssed uninimously through the Security
Council. |
| 2003/12/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:11575 Activity:nil |
12/23 Boring MOTD, so I will spice it up:
http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=1789
Details Isreali PR campaign to get more US tax dollars. |
| 2003/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11559 Activity:high |
12/21 Hah! Clinton managed to 'connect the dots' between Iraq and Al Qaeda,
why couldn't your little bush leaguer do it? Muahahahaha!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
\_ Post the printer-friendly link if you're going to post a story:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3527&R=79F61E497
\_ Okay, so now you are agreeing with the Iraqi war because we caught
Saddam? Now it's cool to be Pro-War you're digging up articles
showing that the dems are agreeing that there is an Al Qaida and
Saddam connection? Boy, you commie left wing liberals sure are
standing on your last leg... You were wrong about Afghanistan, you
were wrong about Reagan, you were wrong about Iran, and you were
wrong about Iraq. The only thing you dems are good for is dragging
us into lost causes like Vietnam and Korea. Way to go.
\_ Whoa, whoa, whoa there. Since when was Korea a lost cause?
Yeah, we failed to unite the whole country, but the part we
saved sure turned out well. You should have said Solmolia.
(BTW the difference between Korean and Vietnam or Somolia,
that while the S. Korean's didn't love our soldiers all the
time, the did generally want us there.)
\_ Apparently you don't read enough history. Korea was a lost
cause and it cost Truman the election. The only reason the reds
stopped attacking was that relations were breaking down between
the USSR and Red China. They would've whipped them off of the
peninsula if the USSR had kept on supporting the war (it was,
after all, their jetfighters and their pilots). And I didn't
say Somolia because that's small potatos compared to Cuba (yep,
you dems lost Cuba too, and you also technically lost China to
after all, their jetfighters and their pilots). And I didn't say
Somolia because that's small potatos compared to Cuba (yep, you
dems lost Cuba too, and you also technically lost China to
the Reds, but then the Chang-Kai-Shek gov't was way too corrupt
to keep things under control).
\_ I pine for the days when they taught history in our
country's schools. Do the phrases "third UN offensive",
1951, and "north of the 38th parallel" mean anything to you?
Note that this was previous to any serious Sino- Soviet
breakup. -John
\_ While true that it cost Truman the election, that just means
it looked like a lost cause at the time. Also, Truman was
running the war like an idiot, so just as well he lost.
\_ Appearently, you guys have forgotten how Korean was divided
at first place. It is you arrogant American decided to allow
USSR to occupy Northeastern China and north of 38 parallel
of the Korean peninsula (instead of Chinese Nationalist
Army) after Japanese surroundered in the Yalta Conference,
in exchange for USSR declare war on Japan. Later, you
Americans decided that allowing USSR to declare war on Japan
and occupy Japanese islands was a bad idea after all, thus,
used nuclear bomb (read: WMD) on 300,000 civilians to end
the war quickly.
In all, USSR declared war on Japan for one day before
Japanese surroundered. Number of shots fired upon Japanese
by the Russians: ZERO.
\_ Except for the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 where Japan
kicked Russia out of Korea/Manchuria, started by a
Japanese suprise attack on Port Arthur.
If you guys had any respect of sovereignty of a non-
European nation at first place (i.e. China) , none of this
nuclear holocaust and Korean War would ever happen.
\_ So China would never have invaded South Korea and force
reunification as was done in Vietnam? Neato!
Then again, you guys at the time were still in that White
Supremist mode... not just Americans, but French and English
turned around continue to occupies Algeria and Indo China.
Democracy? Human Rights? give me a fucking break.
-kngharv
as well. French, after crying foul for Nazi's occupation,
turned around continue to occupies Algeria and Indo China.
Democracy? Human Rights? give me a fucking break.
-kngharv
\_ Dude, EVERYONE has problems with Human Rights.
\_ Korea wasn't supposed to "defended" the US. It was a
mistaken statement by the US Secretary of War that included
Korea as a protectorate. After that it became a pissing
match once MacArthur decided to draw China into the war.
\_ So now you are trying to pass off Clinton's bombing of the
to keep things under control).
\_ I pine for the days when they taught history in our
country's schools. Do the phrases "third UN offensive",
1951, and "north of the 38th parallel" mean anything to
you? Note that this was previous to any serious Sino-
Soviet breakup. -John
\_ While true that it cost Truman the election, that just
means it looked list a lost cause at the time. Also,
Truman was running the war like an idiot, so just as
well he lost.
asprin factory in Sudan as some kind of intelligence success?
I guess it is about as real as Bush's WMD. At least Clinton
didn't lose 500 brave Americans over his goof.
\_ That many died a week in Vietnam because of
LBJ's "goof"
\_ No, I'm saying Clinton was able to successfully make the clear
connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq but that little
bush leaguer couldn't even when he had access to Clinton's
intelligence work. Unable to come up with anything new he went
in on the hope we'd find WMD because it was too embarassing to
use the good intel from the previous admin on the Iraq/Al Qaeda
connection. Bill Clinton: connecting the Iraq/Al Qaeda dots!
\_ Read the story. There is no "clear" connection, that is why
they call it connecting the dots. More like seeing things
that aren't there, if you ask me. |
| 2003/12/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11556 Activity:nil |
12/21 Bet you won't see this story in the American press:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1014319.htm
\_ Total Drivel (tm). the only source is
"former Iraqi intelligence officer"... need I type more?
\_ I believe this article stems from the Sunday Express, a
conservative UK tabloid--its political leanings would probably
lead it to want to try and discredit Blair and his friends, get
the picture? Also, have a look at a cover:
http://www.express.co.uk Hardly what I'd describe as a source
of "serious" journalism. -John |
| 2003/12/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11551 Activity:low |
12/20 We said that it was ok to use WMD to Saddam:
http://csua.org/u/5c9
\_ That's not what your link says. Why do you feel the need to lie
and make things up to support your beliefs? That says a lot about
your beliefs out here in the real world.
\_ read the article for once. We essentially said it was ok
to use chemical weapon as long as Iraq win the war of aggression
against Iran.
\_ the 'article' was 1 paragraph long and did not in any way
say what you say it says.
\_ It is a link to an interview. Did you listen to the
interview?
\_ Of course not, duh. Link to text and it'll get read.
No one here has the time to listen to some random
interview hoping for some tiny tidbit. If it was really
all that special, it'd be in print somewhere.
\_ Doh! Sorry for being an idiot.
\_ http://csua.org/u/5cj [washingtonpost.com]
Not quite "it's okay", more of "we don't care." |
| 2003/12/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11544 Activity:nil |
12/19 Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1043839/posts
\_ hard facts would help. |
| 2003/12/18-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11515 Activity:nil |
12/18 David Kay to leave WMD-search group, for "personal/family reasons":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9823-2003Dec17.html
\_ Yeah, he's got "FuckThisBullshitThere'sNothingThereAnywayitis"
\_ Is it "Bullshit" or is it "Bushit"? :-)
\_ It took this long for him to realize WMD is just an excuse to
going to war. Rather Iraq has WMD or not was never an important
issue. This partly explains why the administration kept stripping
his resources to do his job. I feel sorry for him.
\_ He was always a patsy.
\_ DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons
of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could
move to acquire those weapons still--
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
If my boss were this blase about lying to the American people,
I think I would leave for "personal/family reasons" too.
\_ Due to blindness or paranoia or not listening well enough to
the CIA, the Bush administration believed in the WMD theory
enough that the military was outfitted with all the protective
gear for the Iraq assault. It's just that everyone has been
telling Dubya recently, "Um, they probably don't have WMD."
\_ Right. He was lied to. Sure. |
| 2003/12/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11508 Activity:nil |
12/18 Prime model of respect of human right which all middle eastern
nation shall follow:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3329631.stm
\_ yeah he really wants to go home .. by way of being a merc |
| 2003/12/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11507 Activity:moderate |
12/18 are we going to go along to pay Iran for Saddam's deed?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3329671.stm
\_ ``She must be satisfied.'' Persian girls are too high maintenance...
\_ that's a hilarious quote. Are all nations feminine?
\_ Common practice yes.
\_ Common practice yes. For nations and ships. However:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/63240_tblist.shtml
--scotsman
\_ No.
\_ Germany was masculine- the Fatherland
\_ "Das Vaterland". Also La France, Rodnaya/Mother Russia,
etc etc. I can't think of any proper masculine references
to countries. -John
\_ Uncle Sam. Also it's Rodina-Mat'. -- ilyas
\_ Sorry, misunderstood "narodnaya" in the Soviet
national anthem--my Russian is non-existent. And we
were discussing national identities, not
personifications (e.g. John Bull) -John |
| 2003/12/17 [Reference/Celebration, Recreation/Food, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29724 Activity:nil |
12/16 Since mass grave and killing of kurds are considered one of the reason
why we invade Iraq, we might as well to invade Turkey for what they've
done, which put Saddam's oppression looks like a child play:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3325247.stm
\_ So you would advocate turning the entire middle east into one
glass-paved nuclear wasteland, punctuated only by oil wells to
feed the weestern industrial machine?
\_ Not western, just American.
\_ Sounds good to me. |
| 2003/12/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29723 Activity:nil |
12/16 I supported the Afghan War (cause Taliban is hopeless and Osama
is there) but opposed the Iraq War. I am glad there is some
progress on the Afghan front:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/international/asia/16CND-AFGH.html
\_ The what? Ohhh, that thing.
\_ Not all of us only think about whatever CNN feeds us that hour.
\_ this is one of my MANY reasons why I oppose war in Iraq. Taliban
is bad, but anarchy would only allow extremist and drug trafficing
florish. Despite all the progress, there are a lot of things
needs to be done before Afghan again became a hotbed of trouble. |
| 2003/12/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11501 Activity:nil |
12/17 Wow, Saddam really was involved in 9/11
http://csua.org/u/5ax
\_ We shall see. The Iraqi Nationalists have fed us a lot of
phoney intel before, this looks like more of the same to me.
\_ Can you say "Ahmed Chalabi"?
\_ No, actually. I can't. |
| 2003/12/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11491 Activity:nil |
12/16 Follow-up on the Orson Scott Card thing. If you want to know why
he's a loony, read this old interview with him:
http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html?pn=1
\_ Ok I have got to be one of the most liberal posters on MOTD and
Card does NOT sound like an asshole to me. He calmly states the
standard Mormon reason for "protecting marriage" only when pressed,
and never states any kind of "affection for communism," so I can
only imagine what you think you are talking about. If anything
the lesbian author of the article editorializes far beyond the
limits of responsible journalism and comes off as shrill and
intolerant. I don't know what her problem is, and she wouldn't
last two seconds outside of her safe little lefty bubble. As for
Card... writing off all Mormons as "loonies" is basically what you'd
be doing, which is of course your choice.
\_ But actually, his repugnant views on just about everything are
right in line with typical motd thinking, besides the weird
affection for communism that he displays...so never mind. Don't
bother. --op
\_ what "repugnant views" would you be talking about?
\_ " I believe government has a strong role to protect us
from capitalism." C'mon, don't you find that repugnant!?
\_ No. I'm a full on right wing conservative and I do *not*
believe in full on fuck-you-all capitalism. That sort of
thing leads directly to slavery. No thanks.
\_ Child labor laws, the EPA, and the weekend are all things
the government has instituted to protect us from
capitalism.
\_ jeez, he's just a sci fi writer. the amazing thing is that
it would appear that the motd wants to hold its novelists
to higher standards than its political pundits.
Card never really claims to be an authority on modern politics,
just a science fiction writer.
\_Was this somekind of wierd troll? The woman interviewing him
is obviously an idiot. Card sounds very reasonable, and has
some interesting points.
\_ Oh, like that gay rights are "ridiculous," communism is
something that hasn't even been properly tried yet, and the
Vietnam war was a heroic and selfless sacrifice? Its amazing
how predictable the soda motd can be. We should just change
the name of the file to /etc/motd.public.fundies
\_ the gay rights thing is a little much, but he doesn't say
gay rights are ridiculous... he is parroting the same
Mormon notion that "marriage" means a particular thing.
He also doesn't say the Vietnam war was a selfless
sacrifice... he says FIGHTING in it was. And no, communism
was NOT tried in the USSR. Communism can work on a small
scale- go get pizza at Cheeseboard. |
| 2003/12/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11488 Activity:nil |
12/16 from the nytimes:
"In a swirl of reports that some police officers joined the
protest, Captain Challoub made it clear where his sympathies
lay. "Why did they show Mr. President Saddam Hussein on
television and humiliate him?" he asked. "He is our president.
There must be some kind of immunity.""
Even people risking their lives working for us didn't like
their former president humiliated.
\_ Clearly Captain Challoub is living in the past and needs a new
job. He wasn't their president. He was a brutal dictator, not
an elected president. The only thing more stupid than this quote
or your posting it is that I bothered to feed a troll. Do us all
a favor and delete your own post.
\_ It's not necessary to tell us how stupid you are. It is
quite obvious that, elected or not, many Sunnis still liked
Saddam, so why fan the flames? "Bring it on!"
\_ Of course the Sunnis liked being a minority group that got
to oppress the rest of the country. I'm sure the South
African whites felt the same way. Did you have a point?
\_ Oops, the Sunnis like Saddam. We can't use the
"Liberate Iraqis from Saddam" as the reason for our
invasion anymore. Let's change the reason to "liberate
the Shiites from the Sunnis" then. Oh, wait, the
Shiites may not like us there very much either. Maybe
we should change the reason to "help the oppressed Kurds
gain independence". Or maybe we should dig up some
WMD, or maybe find Osama's mother in Iraq.
\_ Wow, nice way to go off topic and duck my question. I'll
take that as a win. To answer your dodge, we invaded
because Saddam was a bastard and Bush Sr. screwed the
people over the first time and setting right his mistake
was the moral thing to do. You understand what it means
to "do the right thing"?
\_ By itself Bush Sr. not going into Iraq is a valid
option. Instigating a Shiite rebellion and then
not going in to help is wrong. There are many
ways to effect change in Iraq. 10 years of
dibilitating sanctions followed by an invasion
and then a clumsily handled occupation is not the
"right thing" to do. ---- (*)
\_ and many Germans loved Hitler. Your point?
\_ Last I checked, Iraq wasn't occupying any foreign
country in the last 10 years. Your analogy is
bogus. In one case we are liberating the Iraqis
(only reason we have left), in the other we were
liberating others FROM the Germans. Because of
that, the opinion of the Iraqis is critical to
the whole endeavor.
\_ By your 'logic' we should have stopped at the German
borders and left Hitler in power.
\_ I don't know where you learned your faulty logic.
When your reason for the invasion is to liberate
the Iraqis, you better be concerned about what
their opinion is. If you say you are doing some-
thing to help someone, you should ask them
whether they wanted it, and whether your action
is actually helping them, or just for you own
selfish interest.
\_ Saddam invaded Kuwait. Part of liberating Kuwait
should have been removing him. Now it has been
done. The analogy to freeing Europe but stopping
at the German border is a good one.
\_ Your analogy is bogus (see (*) above). Give
it up.
\_ I think it was the right thing to do and
the only reason it took 10 years is because
Clinton preferred to take no action.
\_ And I don't think it was the right thing
to do. Thanks for playing.
\_ Way to reduce your point to a matter
of opinion.
\_ The point has been made already.
You only offered an opinion, but
expect something more in return?
\_ The minority ethnic group in Iraq was in favor of
continued slaughter and oppression of the majority
of the population. I'm sure you're aware of that,
little troll. I'll bet you were in favor of
a political change in SA where the situation was
exactly the same. The only difference is that in
SA the minority oppressors were white people and
we know white people are automatically wrong and
evil at all times, right?
\_ Ah, playing the race card again.
First, except for the Kurds, Iraqis are
ethnically the same. The Sunnis / Shiite
distinction is religious, not ethnic. The
Kurds are ethnically different but they
are Sunnis too. Thus your "minority
ethnic group [slaughtering and oppressing]
others" is bogus. There are many Shiites
and also Christians in positions of power
under the Saddam regime. While religious
and tribal affliations do play a role,
it is not in the black and white terms you
portray, and your attempt to castigate
all Sunnis as oppressors is wrong headed
and naive. If you disregard their opinion
and interest, democracy in Iraq is bound to
fail.
\_ You need to realize GW Bush cares more about PR at home than PR
in Iraq. So what if Iraqis don't like us. That just means we
need to kill a few more insurgents. Piece of cake. But hey,
got to win that election first. |
| 2003/12/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29722 Activity:very high |
12/16 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82 Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands and talking arms. He was our bastard back then. What happened? \_ He turned on us. \_ Wait...so bad guys are okay as long as they're on our side? I thought WMDs didn't matter, and we were there to wipe out a bad guy? Can't... handle... hypocrisy... head... exploding... \_ Are you really this naive and stupid? Sometimes you have bargain with the devil. Iran was (and remains) clearly the more dangerous threat. \_ Nah, the most dangerous threat is GW Bush and his free-spending administration. Oh, and our lovely ally Saudi Arabia, from whence most of the 911 bombers and Osama himself hail from. \_ No, *YOU* are stupid. Iran is the *ONLY* muslim nation in the middle east which has a true democratic government, eventhough their power is not seperated in the same manner as ours is. If we didn't support the invasion of Iran by Iraq, we wouldn't have to deal with Saddam right now, after 166 billion dollars and still don't see real way out of this mass. \_ Iran? Democracy? You've got a really twisted idea of what deomcracy is or you know nothin about how their country is run. Sigh. I have been trolled. \_ We didn't think he'd use WMDs. Up until then, Saddam was our secular ally against the more worrisome Islamic revolution. \_ Which, incidentally, we precipitated by sending the CIA to install the Shah in the 1950s. But never mind about that now. \_ No, you are completely wrong. The Shahs father acended to power in the 1920s. Mossadeq was making overtures to the Soviets. \_ I don't know about the "you are completely wrong" poster, but overthrowing Iran's government was really for the oil (at the same time guarding against Communist expansion) that time. ;-) \_ No, Dubya wanted a ratings boost. Saddam's still our bastard. |
| 2003/12/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11486 Activity:high |
12/16 Why do some people still try to claim that the US did not sell
Iraq chemical weapons? The evidence is overwhelming:
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
\_ The author's evidence is tautological. He says, "There were
\_ The only evidence the author provides is "There were
chemical weapons sold..." so it must be so, no citations
no references, nothing.
As for cyanide it is ubiquitous in industrial manufacturing.
For example, there are liters of cyanide compounds in Cory
Hall.
Here is what was provided:
The Corporations That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm
\_ No references? How about the reference to this PBS program:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm
\_ It is good you mention Alcatal, as that is the one compnay
listed on the other link. What is described is illicit
clandestine purchase of a chemical weapon precurssor,
which was shut down when discovered by Customs. This
completely different from the assertion that the US govt
(Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) armed Iraq. As for visiting in
1967, well the US military hosts delegates from virtually
every other military in the world, including enemies (eg.
Soviets during the Cold War).
\_ What do you think are the chances that Saddam will be able to call
Rumsfeld and Cheney as defense witnesses? And if he's denied, how
much will that help him?
\_ You people are bizarre. Here you have one of the crulest most
sadistic tyrants in the 20th century and all you can think
about is indicting Rumseld, who was a civilian throughout
the period in question, and Cheney who was House Minority
Whip and Secretary of Defense, for concocted conspiracies
they were not involved in.
\_ Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense when Saddam attacked Iran.
We sent him weapons to help kill the 'evil' Iranians. When
Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he lobbied to be allowed to
do contracting in Iraq and said the sanctions hurt
Halliburton more than Iraq and should be lifted.
\_ Rumsfeld was Fords Sec of Defense. So did every
CEO of every international corporation. Cheney has
been on the record opposed to sanctions for most of
his career.
\_ Lobbying is now a criminal offense? Golly.... |
| 2003/12/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11485 Activity:nil |
12/16 Sadam Hussein is an actor and the US government is planning to
plant WMD in Iraq: http://www.theonion.com
\_ Nothing on the onion says anything like that. What in Sam Hill
are you talkin' about, boy? |
| 2003/12/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11483 Activity:nil |
12/16 Why the capture of Saddam, although making the world a better place,
is ultimately a "diversion". -sfgate article on what liberals think
http://csua.org/u/5ae |
| 2003/12/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11480 Activity:very high |
12/16 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&u=/nm/20031216/wl_nm/iraq_saddam_vatican_dc_2&printer=1 \- gee i guess the bush administration will only be inviting in protestant deminiations to convert the godless heathens --psb I agree with the Vatican on this one. There was no need to humiliate the man. He's a former head of state and prisoner of war and should be treated with the respect due to such a man. I feel bad for the guy. \_ Me, too! I mean he lost his sons to those evil Americans! I mean what's a few thousand dead worth a few moments of standard doctor checkup after living underground for so long without a shave! \_ Let's be clear: I opposed the premature invasion of Iraq, but I am not at all displeased to see Saddam Hussein toppled and his regime destroyed. Given what he did to his own people, the Mussolini treatment would not have been too severe for him. Now, does showing embarassing videos of the man being inspected for lice and disease help the coalition maintain peace and bring about a swifter transition to a real Iraqi government? Not in the least. Yet another PR blunder for the Bush team. \_ PR Blunder? Obviously you haven't seen the polls. I'm glad aren't in charge. I bet you think the Bay of Pigs was a bad idea also? \_ Ah, dear simpleton, let me lay it out for you in lyrics your little brain might comprehend easier: "For every thing (turn, turn, turn) there is a season (turn, turn, turn)." The Prez' invasion was, like many sexual acts perpetrated by semifunctional adolescents, premature. \_ yeah we should have waited until he started offering $100K for every suicide bomber's family \- we should have invaded iraq on behalf of israel? \_ No, we should have waited until we had proof of his WMDs, -OR- we should have declared our mission to rid the world of oppressive regimes, sacked Saudi Arabia, Burma, and Uzbekistan, and then, with that moral justification firmly established, gone into Iraq. \_ One at a time.. \_ Yeah? Then why not this one? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3324871.stm \_ After all, polls are the only thing that matters. Who cares about morality, I'm in the majority! \_ I have to ask. Is it really all that humiliating to have medical examination? I fail to see why this footage is all that humiliating. It's probably all they had on hand for the press that wasn't either secret or REALLY humiliating. \_ They probably had footage of him showered and shaved, wearing a jumpsuit and glowering at the camera. |
| 2003/12/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11475 Activity:nil |
12/15 How about a break from Saddam? This is something you geeks would
find entertaining:
http://csua.org/u/5a0
\_ This is similar to what was found when someone did neural-net
robots for netrek as a project--they just learned to butt-torp. -tom
\_ What a cruddy article. Long introduction, then four sentences
that said what they wanted to say.
\_ This is becoming a modern urban legend. Watch the Two Towers
documentaries for the truth: the soldiers were programmed to run if
they couldn't see an enemy (to close the distance more quickly).
With many soldiers, they couldn't see the enemy or were facing the
wrong way. Hence they ran away.
\_ No facts! No facts on the motd! |
| 2003/12/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11473 Activity:moderate |
12/15 Saddam almost blown to bits!: (cnn.com)
They heard noises from below. They were about to execute a "clearing
procedure" -- firing into the hole or dropping a grenade into it --
when someone saw upraised hands belonging to a bearded, bedraggled
man. The man had a pistol but did not fire it. When the soldiers
assisted the man from the hole, he said, in English: "I am Saddam
Hussein. I am the president of Iraq. I want to negotiate."
- jctwu
\_ so he's back working for the CIA then?
\_ weak! his sons fought like heros, and he himself is willing to
be captured alive and face trial which is nothing but unjust
humiliation.
\_ Humiliation? That's a bizarre arab concept that didn't appear
in our press until the palestinians whined constantly about
humiliation since they had no other real beef with the jews in
comparison to how other arabs treated and still treat them.
\_ Unjust humiliation? You know, I have a real hard time feeling
much sympathy.
\_ of course. You would have real hard time to see why this
is a war of pure aggression, as we are still trying to
find excuse to justify our invasion.
\_ He will face justice on Earth and in heaven,
says acid bath victim
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1041100/posts
\_ So shall we (ok, only in heaven), who provided him
the chemical agents, and kept quiet when he was
acid bathing the kurds.
\_ If Reagan/Bush had wanted to interfere
your parents and their associates would have
been screaming bloody murder about all of the
people killed and state sovereignty, just as
you do today; sorry you're argument is inane.
It was politically inexpedient at the time.
The difference is Bush was willing to
expend the political capital.
And please stop propagating lies: there
was a university transfer
of two biological agents for research.
Again, apart from the strains, in terms of
equipment for chemical weapons
it was supplied by Europe, (France, Germany)
Russia and China. How do you reconcile
this with their position today?
\_ Ah, "politically inexpedient". What an
excuse. Saddam could also say that if
he didn't keep the Kurds and Shiites under
control those two groups would butcher the
Sunnis the moment they have the chance, or
at the very least, fragment his country.
He could argue that he invaded Iran to
stop the Shiite brand of Islamic militancy
and its threat to Iraq. He could argue that
he invaded Kuwait because Kuwait is stealing
his country's oil, its lifeblood. The person
above is talking about justice and heaven, and
last I check (be it the Koran or the Bible),
God says to do the right thing, not to do
the politically expedient thing.
\_ Saddam could argue anything he likes but it
wouldn't be true. All you've done is create
a short list of Saddam's crimes.
\_ Crimes? Nah, they ain't crimes. They
are all politically necessary, or should
I say, expedient ... snicker.
\_ If you're not interested in discussing
anything don't bother scribbling on the
motd. Oh ho, you're so clever, snicker,
yadda whatever.
\_ Thanks for admitting that your
"politically inexpedient" excuse has
been debunked.
\_ The deadliest weapon in the world is a
Marine and his rifle. It is your killer
instinct which must be harnessed if you expect
to survive in combat. Your rifle is only a tool.
It is the hard heart that kills. If your killer
instincts are not clean and strong, you will
hesitate at the moment of truth. You will not
kill. You will become dead Marines. And then
you will be in a world of shit, because Marines
are not allowed to die without permission!
Do you maggots understand?
\_ SIR! YESIR!
\_ So shall we, who provided him the chemical agents. |
| 2003/12/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11465 Activity:insanely high 66%like:12871 |
12/15 liberal media:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,561468,00.html
\_ p.s. - the "liberal" thing was intended ironically. oh well. -op
\_ excellent troll. 2 cookies for you.
\_ Time is a piece of crap, but that article doesn't appear
biased one way or the other. -tom
\_ "We can measure the meaning of his capture by the measures we
have taken -- old alliances and long traditions discarded to
go to war to take him out and, in the name of democracy, a war
that was opposed by vast majorities in most democracies on earth."
Now, is this really true? Vast majorities opposed the war?
Or is it vocal minorities?
\_ Polls in many european countries rode anywhere from 70-90%
against US actions. How 'bout this one: "by far the vast
majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum"
--scotsman
\_ You're deeply confused about what democracy is all about.
Just because other democratic countries may disagree with
our democratic country does not lead to the conclusion
that our actions were wrong. It only follows that the
people in those countries have a different culture and
belief system from our country. There is nothing that
says all democracies have to agree with each other. It
a simply a form of government, not a rating of good vs.
evil or which team you belong to in the world. If 100%
of people in other 100% of other democratic countries were
opposed to our country's actions that carries no more
\_ not biased? c'mon. 3rd paragraph? Nothing but agrandizing
weight, value or meaning than if 100% of the people of
100% of totalitarian states disagree with our actions.
\_ Even if this is true (how many countries?)... There are
other democracies besides those in europe. Was the vast
majority opposed to the war in some sort of non-changing
sense? Do the polls show consistent 70-90% opposition,
and still do?
\_ You can look for the answers yourself. This is another
thing that gets me about the o'reilly effect. They
bring up questions like this that are relatively
news-magazine-murdered-cheerleader special reports. please.
answerable if you have the time, but people who don't
have the time simply base their outrage on them..
\_ Well, the thing is ... if you don't know the answers
to these questions you can't really say Time isn't
full of shit. Which is the point.
\_ The answer is that the vast majority of countries
opposed the US war and still do. You are just too
lazy to do the research yourself.
\_ Look, in France, the very bastion of
anti-(american unilateralism/english speaking
hegemony), only 59% oppose the war. Where
are the vast majorities in _most_ democracies
of the world? Show me.
Time is full of shit.
\_ http://csua.org/u/59w
http://csua.org/u/59y
\_ Uh... the best this says is that
majorities (far from vast) in _several_
european countries (far from most
democracies in the world) opposed the
war at one point. But poetic hyperbole
is ok, because it's Time, right?
\_ Give it up. You are just making
yourself look bad. They polled 45
countries and a majority opposed the
war in 2/3 of them.
\_ Sure. Now let's compare what the
facts say and what Time says.
Facts: Simple majorities in 2/3rd
of 45 nations in the world opposed
the war in iraq at one point in
time.
Time: Vast majorities in most
democracies of the world oppose
the war in iraq.
Time is full of shit.
\_ 59%? Show me.
_/
http://www.iraqcrisisbulletin.com/archives/041603/html/french_doubts_over_war_opposit.html
This is from april.
\_ Honestly, come on now. It's common knowledge that
the war was opposed by everyone except a couple of
eastern europeans desperate to suck up to the USA.
As if anyone in Poland gives a shit about Iraq.
\_ not biased? c'mon. 3rd paragraph? Nothing but aggrandizing
and romanticizing sensationalist language. the thing of
news-magazine-murdered-cheerleader special reports. please.
\_ What in that paragraph do you think was aggrandizing
\_ besides the whole thing? how about:
"It was an antidote to the contempt expressed by Arab
and European commentators who poked the American
tiger: See, you can't even catch Saddam."
\_ One man's "bias" is another's "perspective." Go away,
dittohead.
\_ I like Time. I read all the major newspapers as well.
Each source has its own problems.
\_ I don't like any media, yet I read them all the time. Each
source has its own bits of useful information. |
| 2003/12/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11464 Activity:nil |
12/15 DNA Testing used to confirm Saddam's Identity:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994481 |
| 2003/12/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11456 Activity:kinda low |
12/14 We wage war under the ground of WMD. What happened if Iraq really
didn't have WMD? Under what ground we should try Saddam? defending
his homeland?
\_ "we" aren't, the Iraqis are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/15/politics/15PRIS.html
\_ I think we can ask the relatives of the 300K dead in mass graves
\_ guess what, not all of the mass grave were produced in reigm
of Saddam. Some of these mass grave were dated back to the
fall of Ottoman Empire.
\_ oh well that makes it ok then. might as well forget about
the attempted invasions of iran and kuwait also, and let this
swell fellow go.
\_ Didn't we support the invasion of Iran?
\_ The coldwar was about the lesser of two evils.
\_ Bwahahahahahahahaha! I damn near peed myself
laughing at this. Nice.
\_ 100+ million killed
20TH CENTURY DEMOCIDE
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
Long live MARX!!!
\_ If you study these figures, you realize that
this guy comes up with some truly absurd
numbers. He claims that the US killed 6000
civilians during our entire 11 year war in
Vietnam, including all civilians killed by
bombings. This is just not believable. He
plays all sorts of other tricks with numbers
too, like claiming that all the Russians and
Ukranians who died of starvation during WWII
are the responsibility of Stalin.
\_ Most of Stalin's purges occurred before
WWII. He gives a detailed explanation
of the numbers in Vietnam.
\_ Is it really about the cold war? If so, how
come Iraq's tanks were all Soviet? I think
it's more about US supporting the despotic
Shah to control oil in Iran, only to see him
overthrown by mullahs, so US use Saddam and
his chemical weapons against Iran.
\_ Iran has been a monarchy for 2000 years; the
Shah was the royal successor. His deposal,
thanks in a large part to Carter and Congr.
Dems was the inaguaration of militant Islam.
Neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pack wanted a
clear victor Iran-Iraq war; better to let the
Muslim fanatics kill themselves off. In
restrospect the only mistake was that
they didn't kill enough of eachother.
\_ The fact remains. Iraq invaded Iran,
(just like Iraq invaded Kuwait) not
the other way around, and US
supported Iraq, helping Saddam in
multiple ways, including chemical
weapons.
\_ The justification of tacit Western
support was militant Islam. Based
on what has transpired since it
was completely justified. The
US did not give Iraq chemical
weapons, although transfers of
chemical and biological agents
were made from US universities.
Furthermore, the US did not
provide military hardware to
Iraq. Even today Iraqs military
orignates from France, Russia,
China, etc... there is no US
hardware whatsoever. Iran
also used chemical weapons, BTW.
\_ Besides assistance with chemical
weapons, US provided military
intelligence, logistics, food
credits (which Saddam easily turned
into money to buy weapons), and
encouraged allies to sell
weapons to Iraq. Iraq is the
one who started using chemical
weapons. US itself also left
all options open if attacked by
WMD, so Iran's response is
consistent with US policy.
US also impose sanctions (all
forms) against Iran during the
Iran-Iraq war, which is started
by Saddam, leading to 1 million
dead. US also sold Iraq 1
billion $US worth of trucks,
and changed the description on
the export licenses from
'vehicles designed for military
use' to 'commercial utility
cargo trucks'. US also allowed
Indonesia to sell attack
helicopters to Iraq (made by
US of course), cluster bombs
from South Africa and howitzers
from Austria.
\_ And what is your point?
This is common knowledge..
I think we should have let
them overrun the Iranian
mullahs.
\_ We tried, but failed,
and then it blew up in
our face.
\_ Hindsight is 20/20, there
was insufficient political
capital to do much else.
In the end the Soviets
were defeated.
\_ Like I said, it has
very little to do with
the Soviets. It's
about our control of
oil in the region.
That's why we are
still there long after
the demise of the SU.
\_ Oh my god you
think its about
oil NO WAY not
not in a million
years. LOL it
doesn't take a
genius to realize
we would have
extricated ourselves
long ago if not for
the oil. Guess what,
every country on the
face of the earth
wants to use oil,
including China,
Russia and France.
come Iraq's tanks were all Soviet?
\_ Look, I am about as anti-war as they come, and even I can see that
this is a pathetic attempt at a troll. I think we should just hand
him over to the Kurds and them do what they will. |
| 2003/12/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11454 Activity:nil |
12/14 Some folks like to re-write history; I call them "revisionist
historians."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.saddam.profile.ap/index.html
just when you think cnn can sink no lower.
\_ um, it's nothing new and has been going on for a while.
\_ What is "low" about that article?
\_ seconded. |
| 2003/12/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11451 Activity:nil |
12/13 Saddam Captured!!!
France sends plane full of defense lawyers to Iraq for Saddam!
\_ ``It's a major event that should strongly contribute to democracy
and stability in Iraq and allow the Iraqis to master their
destiny,'' French President Jacques Chirac said in a statement.
I don't like Chirac either, but he's not completley
retarded.
\_ Which is shot down in the no-fly zone. France commences operation
cheese and whine.
\_ Doesn't it remind you of the brain bug scene at the end of Starship
Troopers? You know they held this news since 10am Saturday PST.
Also, why do they obscure the red flags in the http://cnn.com photo
held by celebrating Iraqis?
\_ It's funny that I get my news first on motd
\_ If we put Saddam on trial, will he reveal all the sordid
history of our many years of cooperation with him?
\_ Maybe he can tell us where the WMD Bush warned us about are. |
| 2003/12/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11426 Activity:high |
12/11 Responding to a reporter's statement today that German Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder had said that international law should be applied
in the awarding of contracts, Bush responded: "International law? I
better call my lawyer. He didn't bring that up to me.... I don't
know what you're talking about, about international law."
\_ Something tells me this is Bush trying to make a funny.
\_ I think it's more like a sodan trying to make a funny
(but I'd believe it if there were a URL)
\_ Its a real quote, I saw it somewhere today...can't be
bothered to find it though.
\_ obgoogle
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-121103contracts_lat,1,7987667.story
\_ It's the front-page story on http://latimes.com. I would've posted
the URL, but someone would have complained about having
to register as a user on the site. The exact quote isn't
on yahoo news either.
\_ Is there a csua registration for latimes?
\_ What I don't understand is that isn't the US paying for the
contracts? If so, why should any non-US-taxpayers have a say on
who get to bid for the contracts?
\_ This is about sharing the spoil of the war. Yes, they
oppose the war and gave US a hard time. At the same time,
we are asking them to write down debt owed to these nations.
We are also asking them to contribute money and troops.
In other word, it's stupid on Bush's part to be an ass
at this moment when we have so many favor need to ask them.
\_ When is he not an ass? He always has this weird swaggering
attitude about everything. He talks like he's a tough guy
even though he is really a billionaire mama's boy.
\_ Sorry. Germany, France and Russia OWE the U.S., not the
other way around. What is with you liberal sissies
cowering before big bad Europe. They are
venal aristocrats - fuck em. THey need us, not the other
way around. This is called Real politik, they would
(and have) stab the U.S. in the back in an instant.
\_ Interestingly, the http://latimes.com article disappeared off the front
page and is not linked anywhere (but the article is still linked
in as earlier in the motd, and on http://news.google.com).
Anyway, here's the authoritative source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031211-1.html
Q Sir, Chancellor Schroeder says international law must apply in
this case. What's you're understanding of the law?
THE PRESIDENT: International law? I better call my lawyer; he
didn't bring that up to me. I asked President Chirac and
Chancellor Schroeder and President Putin to see Jim Baker, to
talk about debt restructuring. If these countries want to
participate in helping the world become more secure by enabling
Iraq to emerge as a free and peaceful country, one way to
contribute is through debt restructuring. And so Jim Baker, with
the consent of the Secretary of State, is going to go over and
talk to these leaders about that. But I don't know what you're
talking about, about international law. I've got to consult my
lawyer.
[Even I agree that there was some creative ellipsing of the quote,
which may have had something to do with the link getting taken down] |
| 2003/12/11 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29704 Activity:nil |
12/10 http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war28.html |
| 2003/12/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11415 Activity:nil |
12/11 Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit, aka Instahack) gets the smackdown:
http://shock-awe.info/archive/001213.php |
| 2003/12/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11390 Activity:nil |
12/9 Are we invading Uzbekistan next?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html
\_ This is exactly why the humanitarian excuse for the war is total
bullshit. We do NOT use our military for humanitarian reasons
until someone determines that an exorbitant economic or political
cost requires it. This is why we were not in Rwanda in '94, and
why we settled on sanctions rather than a military ouster in Iraq
in '91.
\_ Why were we in Somalia?
\_ Shell. |
| 2003/12/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29699 Activity:high |
12/8 45 minute claim proven true!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3297771.stm
\_ And by proven, you mean... alleged?
\_ Your description of the URL is way, way misleading. |
| 2003/12/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29698 Activity:nil |
12/7 Seriously why can't we consider plundering the Iraqi wealth (banking,
oil, etc) for war reparation? In WW2, after the U.S. and the Soviets
took over Berlin, each side plundered as much gold/silver/art as
possible. The winner gets all. Why can't we do the same in Iraq?
\_ Bad PR.
\_ well in most warfare, the winner gets all. Look at the Roman
empire. It's based on conquering nations, plundering wealth, and
using the new wealth to fund more expansions. It's stupid to
conquer and not plunder wealth. So I agree with you. We should
plunder their oil and fund our deficit and expand our great Reich.
\_ Are you a troll or a very just dumb sodan?
\_ I vote for 'very dumb sodan troll.' |
| 2003/12/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11354 Activity:moderate |
12/7 $20,000 per Household: The Highest Level of Federal
Spending Since World War II
Have you received your 20,000$ worth?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036016/posts
\_ Absolutely.
\_ Bad freeper troll. The original statement of USGOV spending $20K
per household differs from implying that everyone gets $20K.
\_ Well no SHIT... Humour is so fucking lost on you people.
\_ Liberating Iraq from the horrors of Saddam Hussein is worth
$20,000 to me.
\_ What about the horrors of George W. Bush? So far we've killed
about 10,000 Iraqis in this little war alone, and we've only
been there since March...
\_ What he do that was any different from any number of oppressive
fuckers out there in the world right now? Also: did he threaten
you personally or something, or do you just not like his 'stache?
\_ Fine, you let them go spend your $20,000. I want mine back!
\_ What did Saddam do that was any different from any number of
oppressive fuckers out there in the world right now? Also:
did he threaten you personally or something, or do you just
not like his 'stache? |
| 2003/12/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11351 Activity:nil |
12/7 When the US and Soviets took over Berlin towards the end of the war
both sides took much of the gold and monetary reserves hidden in
Munich as reparation for WW2. Why can't we do the same for Iraq?
\_ Because we invaded them under false pretenses and without cause?
\_ 'False pretenses' is arguable. 'Without cause' is simply false.
\_ Find a copy of "Uncovered:"
Getting rid of Hussein is a moral enough cause for me.
\_ I actually agree with you on the moral cause- but I meant
political cause, which for the US (for most of the last
century) has always been to counter aggression on another's
part.
Bringing morals into the equation requires that we then
prioritize the list of evil henchman to destroy-- and
Hussein, while definitely near the front of the list,
doesn't top it.
\_ out of curiosity, who does top the list?
personally, i think toppling hussein was more of a moral
imperative than some random Evil Guy because of the
harm we were doing there with sanctions all those years.
we had to either get rid of hussein or the sanctions.
\_ Osama would be #1 (*), Kim Jong Il (though he's too
nutty to attack, something should be done about him),
and whoever's driving the slaughters in Africa-- it's
not on the media radar (so much so that I can't even
name the country) but the number of murders there is
approaching Holocaust proportions. Your point about
sanctions is well-taken.
(*) Part of the reason I'm upset about Iraq is that
it seems like blame shifting-- "Since Osama is too
hard to find [or who knows, maybe he was crushed
in a cave somewhere], let's attack a guy we know
we can find... all those Arabs look alike anyway."
\_ except for the part about how apparently we
can't find that guy either.
\_ ... the best-laid plans of vice and vermin
\_ There are a lot of evil guys in the world. For one,
Royal Families in Saudi Arabia. Unlike Iraq, nor Iran
for that matter, Saudis are *KNOWN* for their link to
al Qaeda.
Further, the war was sold based upon weapon of mass
destruction. If anything, North Koreans are the one
who is closest of getting the nuke and multi-stage
missile. Why didn't we invade N.Korea instead?
Most war of aggression are waged under the moral
\_ Why didn't we invade NK instead? Man, do I
wish we could. But the fact is, even w/o
nukes NK has enough artillery on the border
to reduce Seoul to rubble within 24 hours.
THAT'S why we didn't invade.
\_ Ok, name one such war.
\_ Opium War, in the name of white man's burden.
ground in the history of man kind. This is not an
exception neter. |
| 2003/12/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11345 Activity:nil |
12/7 Best. Iraq War Quote. Ever.
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for
projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to
help them," Colonel Sassaman said.
http://csua.org/u/568
\_ You obviously don't understand the Arab mind.
\_ You obviously have no sense of irony.
\_ Oh then tell me please, Mr. Authority on Everything, how it is
that we need to destroy the village in order to save it?
\_ Actually, I was quoting the Second. Best. Iraq Quote. Ever.
"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a
company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said
as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only
thing they understand is force-- force, pride and saving
face."
\_ The villager photos are being taken with a digital camera, a
Sony one it looks like.
\_ "Kill them. Kill them ALL!" Cue Dark Empire music.
\_ laissez Dieu assortir les morts |
| 2003/12/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29693 Activity:nil |
12/5 Why does everybody care about Finland? What happened to Africa,
Israel, Sunni/Shiite/Kurd debates?
\_ motd darwinism: who's going to delete a finland thread?
it's all the censors have left us with.
\_ Too troolish. |
| 2003/12/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11315 Activity:nil |
12/4 US State Department to censor Wesley Clark's testimony in Milosevic
trial:
http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/03/3fcd71b815e8e
\_ My question is why Wesley Clark would testify at a court which
USA never recognized at first place? Wouldn't it makes a mockery
of our own policy?
\_ You're thinking of the ICC, the International Criminal Court.
Clark is testifying before the International War Crimes
Tribunal in the Hague, about his command of NATO during the
Kosovo action. These are totally different entities. It's
fairly obvious that the State Department is trying to
suppress positive news coverage of a Democratic candidate,
as there isn't much to protect in the way of national security
here. |
| 2003/12/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11301 Activity:nil |
12/2 Laruie Mylroie: The Neocons' favorite conspiracy theorist:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html
\_ Can someone please define "neocon" for me? It appeared a while back
criticizing conservatives, but I have yet to see a definition other
than "sounds scary". |
| 2003/12/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29684 Activity:moderate |
12/1 The liberal case for war in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/opinion/30FRIE.html?8hpib
\_ more like the case for reconstruction in Iraq
\_ correct. And he's wrong in saying that there's nothing coming
from the left other than anti-Bushism. But people are frustrated,
and the protests are more about that than "making lemonade". |
| 2003/11/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:11224 Activity:kinda low |
11/25 Farmer's house to be destroyed in a matter of hours.
Just remember you never really own property in this country.
If the government wants it, too bad.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1028759/posts
\_ what does it mean in the comments section when freepers say
"bump?" Is that like "Heil Bush?"
\_ if it means the same thing as on various other boards, then
it means to bump the thread back up to the top in the thread
index. it works because posts that show activity get moved up.
\_ Bzzt. As with so many freeper links, this does not contain enough
info to make an informed judgement. Does this building constitute
an asbestos hazard? Is this a living unit? What were Farmer
Avery's responses to the letters sent by the Supervisor? Does the
county intend to claim the land under eminent domain? Give us
more info and less sloganeering. --erikred
\_ Read the constitution. it's called immenient domain.
\_ eminent
\_ Not only do you not know how to spell, you don't know your
Constitution. The Fifth Amendment ends, "nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
That's a right for the people, not the government. In this
case, the property is not being taken, it is not being used
for the public, and the property that is being destroyed is
not being compensated for. The government contends this guy's
home was being used improperly and is destroying it. Unless
due process didn't occur, this is Constitutionally okay. Sucks
for him, but sometimes due process doesn't get nice results.
Further, saying "you never really own property in this country"
is fallacious. It's like saying "you never really own your own
body" because there are limits on abortion and the death penalty
exists. Or because you can be jailed. In this country,
property rights are far greater than in most.
\_ I think it is funny that the same yahoos that celebrate when
Iraqi or Palastinian homes are demolished get all up in arms
when it happens to one of them.
\_ Yeah, because inhabiting your own property because you're
tired is just as bad a crime as killing innocents for political
advantage.
\_ I didn't see in the article where Farmer Bob blew anyone up,
shot down any planes, set off any bombs, or sent his brainwashed
children off to a pizza parlor to kill himself and some kids.
\_ Neither did most of those people in Palestine either. They
just happened to live in the same village.
\_ It's a communist plot from America-hating democrats!
\_ Fascist, actually. |
| 2003/11/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11201 Activity:nil |
11/23 "We will in fact, be greeted as liberators." -Dick Cheney
http://csua.org/u/52o
Is this what Dick meant?
\_ absolutely. what's the problem?
\_ I don't know. When US GI liberated France half century
pluralize this _/ \_ missing article.
\_ you \_ are
ago. Soldiers don't get killed on daily basis.
comma _/ \_ didn't \_ missing article
\_ a \_ pedantic \_ twit.
\_ This might be a
fair assessment if
the guy had made one
error, then got
yelled at for
posting ESL crap.
\_ Holy cow, how many errors can you make in a 2 line post???
\_ I like how you pro-war neocons are pretty quiet about stuff
like this. Is it because you now know everyone thinks you're
full of shit?
\_ If your boys hadn't proved to be such wimps in Iran and
Somalia then the rest of the world wouldn't think they can
chase us off with a few bodies dragged through the street on
camera and a hostage or two. As far as "quiet about stuff like
this" goes, I didn't even bother to read the link. What's the
point? If 24.999 million Iraqis came out with flowers and the
last guy moped in his room that day, you'd flash the headline,
"Iraqi hates Americans! Wants Saddam back! Film at 11".
There's no point in responding because nothing we can say would
satisfy you in any way. If your boy had said and done the same
things, you'd be the first out there saying how important it is
to free the Iraqi people and too fucking bad if a few jarheads
get wasted because, hey, that's what they're for, right? That's
paraphrasing your girl Albright, btw.
\_ This is a great example of neocon ignorance and rage. "I don't
even need to read what you have to say, since I believe
everything BushCo and Faux News tells me." GO TEAM!
\_ Stuff like what? We WERE greeted like liberators. Sure,
there are some people in Iraq who don't like americans.
There are plenty of people here in the US of A with that
property too. There are quite a few places here in the US
where the locals would be more than happy to drag around the
bloodied corpses of police officers. What's your point?
\_ We were greeted as liberators by about 15 people. Have you
looked closely at the images of the Saddam statue falling?
The media outnumbered the participants 1.5:1.
\_ I have seen home videos shot by soldiers. They were
greeted by a fair bit more than 15 people as they were
driving around Baghdad. People of all ages.
\_ [ non-sequitur deleted again ] |
| 2003/11/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11181 Activity:nil |
11/21 Paul Wolfowitz flashback, 1991, in regards to the Kurdish and Shi'ite
uprising:
"No one can read about what's going on there without feeling a great
sense of sympathy for what's going on. But that doesn't mean it is in
our power to straighten it out. It's a mess that, to be a little harsh
about it, is to some extent of their creation, and they are going to
have to come up with a solution."
\_ If they did anything effective "world opinion" would have declared
their actions illegal and restore Hussein to power.
\_ Your head must stink from being up your ass so much of the
time.
\_ wow, with a brilliantly written reply like that, what more
need be said? you've certainly shown yourself to be the
most intelligent and educated person on this thread. got
any other little bits of your 'special olympics' quality
wisdom you'd like to share with the class?
\_ hi, motd wowboy! who are you? |
| 2003/11/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11162 Activity:high |
11/20 Keep deleting, and I'll keep restoring, fuckwit. What are you afraid
of, anyway?
Richard Perle admits invasion of Iraq was illegal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
\_ Our wonderful Anonymous MOTD Censor is terrified that there might
actually be non-technical conversation that would highlight his
complete lack of real world savvy. Poor, twisted, socially inept
thing.
\_ No. There is no such thing as international law. We've been over
this before. Laws with no enforcement mechanism are not laws. They
are suggestions. Get over it. Not interested in your or GW Sr's
New World Order, thanks.
\_ I'm curious - why is this rigid debating style of immediate
dismissal, moral absolutes, and snap judgement so popular?
It makes you look like an idiot, and makes everyone listening
or reading just tune out. The hard right and hard left are
equally guilty of it.
\_ It isn't a debating style. It's a fact. A law with no
enforcement mechanism isn't a law. If there is no statuatory
punshiment associated with a violation of an alleged law,
then how can be there a law? Using my brain and knowing what
a law is will only make me look like an idiot to the ignorant.
\_ Regardless of the fact that you completely ignored my
question, I'll take your bait. Of course there's a law.
The WTO and UN, for instance, both have systems to
enforce their rules. These rules worked pretty well in
both the first Gulf War and the US action in Afghanistan.
We decided to flagrantly violate them in Iraq because
we weren't getting our way. We can't just pick and choose
which laws we choose to follow based on whether we are
getting our way in a given situation. How can we ever
expect any other country to take international law
seriously if we don't? International law has got some
really important aspects, chief among them the Nuclear
Non Proliferation Treaty. For an even more recent
example, look up Bush's decisions on steel and textile
tariffs, which are the antithesis of good trade policy
and only serve his immediate political gain.
\_ Bush took an oath to uphold the law of the U.S., not to placate the
rest of the world. I didn't agree with the way the Iraq war was
carried out, but I agree strongly that doing the right thing
should take precedence over following a European interpretation of
"law." [formatd]
\_ I just find this extremely interesting because in the whole
build up to the war, they kept saying that the war _was_
justified under international war via the original UN
resolution. No one bought this argument, and now Perle is
simply admitting that the war was illegal under generally
accepted terms of international law, not a "European
interpretation" as you put it. If the "war on terror" is
ever to be successful, we need to work with and through
international bodies, not against them. Unilateralism and
projection of military power isn't enough, and probably
just works against us in the long run.
\_ I agree that unilateralsim is a bad idea in general
and i agree that it was a bad idea in this case. I just
think that there are circumstances in which it would
be justified, regardless of international law.
\_ Richard Perle is not a decision maker. He is an advisor.
Also, do you believe in following any law just because it is
a law or do you believe it is ok to violate an unjust law?
If you believe the latter, you can't cherry pick which laws
are ok to violate and which are not. |
| 2003/11/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11123 Activity:high |
11/18 Westly Clark on Fox News...
http://tinyurl.com/vf9k
\_ Wow. That was really painful to watch.
\_ thank you for confirming every stereotype about how dishonest
and willfully ignorant Fox "News" is. That's not an interview,
it's a verbal attack.
\_ Thankfully, Wes recognized this and attacked the question. Go
Wes!
\_ hahahhahaha, now you know how conservatives feel about the
liberal media. take that, crackerjack!
\_ liberal media? proof it? Last time I checked, the media
has been puppet of Bush's policy.
\_ last time I posted about the NYT with examples it got
deleted so fucking fast the bits flew off the hard drive.
I could repost but why don't you just search the archive
for NYT instead? the last time you checked you were so
left wing you think the SF chronicle is a bastion of
right wing conservatism.
\_ Isn't it Wesley?
\_ yes.
\_ Holy Smokes! Fox News is SLIMY!
\_ Hot damn! Clark put that putz in his place!
\_ I agree.
\_ Well, he did ok but I think the question caught him off
guard. It was a calculated smear attempt. Any criticism
of the war or its purpose is twisted into an attack on the
armed forces. Fucking disgusting.
\_ The guy does not appreciate the significance of Posse
Comitatus.
He has a very poor choice of words and demeanor.
If a Fox news anchor can rattle him...
\_ Maybe, but have you heard Bush speak? A kindergartner could
beat him in a fair debate...
\_ Including calling the largest land war since
Vietnam a 'side-show'. He predicted a sixth
month war on CNN.
\_ Uh, hello? Russia/Afghanistan? Iran/Iraq? Hutsi/Tutsi?
Gulf War I? How stupid can you be?
\_ I did not realize the U.S. committed troops
to the first three you mentioned. Source?
\_ No one said "only US wars". Anyway, we were
involved in the first two and smart enough to
let the europeans really seriously fuck up the
third one without us.
\_ I thought our troop commitment in Gulf War I was much
larger than GWII. Hmm. Must do research.
\_ You guys aren't making much sense. Sixth month war?
I thought out troop commitment? You make the
ESL guys look like Shakespeare.
\_ Chill out, guy. 1 typo != ESL. You might want
to reread the preceding comment a little less
selectively;
"...the largest land war since Vietnam..."
\_ Obviously he was talking only about ones
that the US was a primary player in, bc who
gives a damn about others, right?
\_ Uhm, the US *was* the primary player in
Gulf War I. Are you really this obtuse
and stupid or are you merely trolling?
\_ Obviously? No. You're adding that
after the fact. "US" is two letters.
If he meant US, he could've easily said
US. And a lot of us give a whole lot of
sound urbane unmolested, Logicboy!
damn about the others.
\_ No! NOOO! Do not you be logical!
Let us rant about Shakespeare to
sound urbane and avoid demonstrating
our vapid stupidity unmolested,
Logicboy! |
| 2003/11/17-18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29638 Activity:high |
11/17 Top US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, dismissed the
new Saddam message as "a voice from the wilderness". Doesn't
Paul Bremer realize that the phrase is usually used to refer
to John the Baptist and prophesies of the coming of Jesus
the Messiah? Are Neocons all fake Christians?
(restored, unfortunately the followups were lost)
\_ hi troll!
\_ Ok, I'll bite--JtB got his head cut off, his boss got nailed to a
telephone pole, their followers got fed to giant cats by effeminate
Italians in dresses. Case in point, we did a Bonnie & Clyde on
Uday and Qusay, the little thugs, so now there's only dad left to
go. What exactly is your point? -John
\_ Come to think of it, Bush Jr. is about as cartoonish as
Nero the Roman Emperor.
\_ Come to think of it, Bush Jr. is as cartoonish as Nero the
Christian killing Roman Emperor. And that's about where
your silly analogy ends.
\_ Open the eyes of Christians to the true colors of the neocon
ideologues. |
| 2003/11/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11106 Activity:kinda low |
11/16 Why Are We Losing The Peace In Iraq?
http://www.military.com/NewContent?file=Defensewatch_111303_Peace
\_ thanks for the link. It's very informative.
\_ because we're not killing enough people?
\_ no, because the Muslims are not killing enough of us.
\_ so if they killed more Americans you believe there would be
peace in Iraq? Uhm, wow, you've exceeded all bounds of
trolldom. there's no way to respond and keep your troll
going, sorry. |
| 2003/11/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:11104 Activity:high |
11/16 Seven million died in the 'forgotten' holocaust
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022860/posts?page=1,50
\_ It's a free republic link, it must be nonsense!
\_ It's a reprint of an article from a real paper. of course, this
is almost certainly illegal. not that i would care normally, but
\_ Unless of course they have permission.
there's a certain irony to all these law and order conservative
motherfuckers building a site on routine violation of
copyright law. kind of like rush limbaugh being a drug fiend
copywrite law. kind of like rush limbaugh being a drug fiend
who for some reason doesn't have to be locked up for ten years
like a typical War on Drugs victim.
\_ how many people have been locked up for ten years for
abusing prescription drugs? none? thought so. come back
when you're less bitter about being in the minority and
want to discuss facts instead of your bitter delusions.
\_ It's not forgotten as are killings of millions of other peoples
during the Stalin's era. The brutal past is probably the reason
why the people in the Baltic states and Ukraine (specially Western
\_ Not just "these days". They've always been. 1955 for a good
example of modern but not too recent events.
like a typical War on Drugs victim.
Ukraine) are so anti-russian these days. |
| 2003/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11092 Activity:nil |
11/15 Iraq's al Qaeda links:
http://tinyurl.com/v2r5 (weeklystandard.com)
\_ you may find this site useful:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
it's a news site roughly as objective and mainstream
as the Weekly Standard.
\_ of course there was a link. it's called "enemies."
\_ so why isn't this on CNN instead of just a conservative web site?
also, "top secret" memos usually don't get leaked
the author of the memo is also a dyed in the wool neocon
http://middleeastinfo.org/article701.html
\_ Doh! DOD STATEMENT ON NEWS REPORTS OF AL-QAIDA AND IRAQ
CONNECTIONS
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
So the memo is real but it is raw data and draws
no conclusions.
\_ "News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed
new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida
and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are
inaccurate."
\_ But everyone knows that the DoD is full of Godless
Commuinists that just want to run down GWB, while
the Weekly Standard is an objective newspaper
that only prints The Truth and is Fair and Balanced. |
| 2003/11/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29634 Activity:nil |
11/13 CNN: "An AC-130 Spectre gunship was called in to destroy a warehouse
in southern Baghdad used by Iraqi insurgents to meet and plan attacks
against U.S. forces around the Iraqi capital, the officials said.
There were no known casualties in the incident."
Great, so we shoot up an empty building (so we won't accidentally kill
civilians) with a plane with a big cannon, and this is the war on
the insurgency?
\_ Hey! It helps to build morale.
\_ According to _Jarhead_ by Swocroft, this is true. Blowing
things up will most certainly raise GI morale.
\_ that's Swofford. and I wouldn't exactly describe his state
at the end of the book as one of "high morale" after
blowing shit up.
\_ They destroyed an abandoned building instead of wasting troops
sitting there to patrol and guard it. What's your beef?
\_ my troll is bigger than yours!
\_ uh? yermom!
\_ That's great. But why stop at "abandoned" buildings? Just
get rid of Baghdad altogether, and go home. |
| 2003/11/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11067 Activity:kinda low |
11/13 The other day on the motd, I said that there are only like 200
guerillas in Iraq. Now, the Bush administration is saying that it's
like 5000. Guess I am wrong. Sorry for being a moron.
\_ Bastard piece of shit. *I* said it was 200-300 and the Bush admin
today said it's more like 3000. Do you have to lie while being an
asshole? I'd rather be wrong than a liar like you. And I didn't
get my 200-300 from the Bush admin. It was my own guess for the
number in the Sunni triangle area, not the entire country.
\_ I am sorry you believe what Bush tells you, too. But thanks for
the apology.
\_ Who do you think you are to not believe what our president
tells us? He is a most honest man. Besides, he got the
data from the most seniorest American commander in the middle
east. Even Christian lass Condoleeza Rice agreed. She never
lies. Have you even been to Iraq?
tells us? He is a most honest man. Besides, he got it from
the most seniorest American commander in the middle east.
Even Christian Condoleeza Rice agreed. She never lies.
Have you even been to Iraq? |
| 2003/11/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11065 Activity:nil |
11/13 http://tinyurl.com/uya4 "Abandoned" building has owner and textile machinery which got wrecked by US plane strafing it. Or is that a different building? \_ Same building. Is Bush personally directing the strikes? \_ Yes, it's just like Johnson in Vietnam. He's actually on the radio counting down to tell the pilot when to drop each set of bombs. War is so cool when you're the king! |
| 2003/11/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11060 Activity:nil |
11/13 link:famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters11-12-212426.asp?reg=MIDEAST Iraq insurgency was planned by Saddam \_ Your article says that "some U.S. Commanders" believe this. I bet "some U.S. Commanders" also believe in the tooth fairy, that doesn't necessarily make it so. |
| 2003/11/12-13 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11048 Activity:nil |
11/12 We like to accuse other countries of war crimes, but won't own up to
our own:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE
Interestingly, Donald Rumsfeld was ALSO the Secretary of Defense when
the investigation was simply filed away and covered up.
\_ America, love it or leave it.
\_ Or fix it.
\_ I like to memorize bumper stickers instead of thinking for myself,
too!
\_ this comment is beyond stupid
\_ has it crossed into the realm of dubya?
\_ Is this what you would have said to Patrick Henry? Could you
stare George Washington in the face and say this? "Stupid
Revolutionaries, if you don't like the colonies being ruled
by England, just leave!". Do me a favor and fuck yourself.
\_ I think he was trolling. He got 4, 3 were small though.
Anyway it's better than "My country, right or wrong!"
\_ Heh, I was going to say there hasn't been anything even remotely
like a war crime since Vietnam and then, hey, what did you dig up
but stuff about Vietnam? What next? Some of the founders owned
slaves! Whatever.
\_ Those who don't learn from the past...
\_ Yawn. Which war crimes are being committed today by US
soldiers?
\_ I would think whatever is happening in guantanamo bay
would considered as war crime. The administration
repeatly state that fight against Terror is a different
kind of war, thus, international rule doesn't apply. This
arguement is errily similiar to what Hitler has told his
staff regards to war against the USSR.
\_ You think holding some dudes against their will is a
war crime? Are you one of those people who thinks in
black'n'white on every subject? A war crime is being
resposible for the deaths of hundreds, thousands or in
WW2, millions of civilians. A war crime is the scum at
the UN engaged in the sex slave trade who are the same
people responsible for ending it. A war crime is one
group of people genociding another. Getting put on a
plane to gitmo, given 3 squares and a Koran, a compass
and access to Muslim clerics is not a war crime, son.
\_ Dude, it's the ESL Conspiracy Theorist Guy. He's so
mired in his Anti-US Utopia, that he's invented his
own english-like vocabulary and a unique sort of
logic to support his POV.
\_ Alright, who let the John Bircher out of his cage
again?
\_ Last time I checked, we were still trying Nazi Criminals couple
years ago. If the statue of limitation is more than 50 years
(as how we treats the Nazis), I think a lot of people deserve
to be hung.
\_ They were convicted in 1945. There's no place in the world
where running away for long enough after a conviction gets
you off the hook. But, yes, I agree with you that a lot of
people deserve to be hung, statute of limitations or not. |
| 2003/11/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11034 Activity:nil |
11/11 http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1443869,00.html Check out your "President"'s latest lie. Now they're 'finding' a huge bomb just kind of driving around the streets. Uh huh, riiight! \_ I bet it was planted personally by Bush to make it look like things we're going well in Iraq! Lying scum! |
| 2003/11/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11020 Activity:nil |
11/10 While ousting Sadam Hussein is a good thing, wouldn't killing Iraqis
and making a lot of fatherless children create a anti-AMerica
sentiments which will create even more Jihad/suicidal bombers?
\_ No.
\_ Why would you believe this? Is there any example in history of this
happening? Nice troll. |
| 2003/11/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11014 Activity:high |
11/10 Retired CIA analyst take on the WMD controversy:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1109-02.htm
\_ Yoo-hoo, Neo Cons? Care to comment?
\_ I am a socialist myself. Having said that, I don't see
anyone, conservatives, liberals alike, should tolerate leaders
lies in order to drag us into war.
\_ one of the interesting trait of George Bush is that while he has
gutts to make bold moves, he doesn't seems to have the shoulder to
bear the responsibility when things are not going his way.
Deny the fact that he linked Iraq with al Qeda is one example,
scapgoating George Tenent and the entire CIA community is another.
While I disagree with 99% of his political agenda, it is this
particular trait which I've completely lost any respect for
him, as a person.
\_ This guy was an intelligence officer during the Nixon
administration - he has no knowledge of current WMD intelligence
beyond you and me. Let's recall what Democrats in the House
and Senate had to say, from the Congressional Record:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947873/posts
For some reason I trust the Senate Foreign Relations
committee more than this guy.
Did you read the Kay report - even the abstract?
\_ Actually he served as a CIA analyst from 1964 to 1990.
Here he exposes more lies from the Bush administration:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06232003.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06272003.html
\_ Useless. That was before the FIRST war. We're now 6 months
after the SECOND war _and_ 12 YEARS of sanctions. You might
as well quote me in a book. My opinion is just as valid as
this guy's.
\_ I am just pointing out the weak attempt (by you,
presumably) to discredit McGovern by saying that he
is from the "Nixon administration" when he worked
way beyond that time period right into the senior
Bush's administration. Besides, his revelations were
not based on some supposed classified piece of
information, but information released to the public
combined with his understanding on how the intelligence
community works and how they interact with the
politicians. In that regard, given his intelligence
background and experience, yes, his opinion is more
valuable than yours.
\_ That was my first comment in this thread. His info
\_ So it is your contention McGovern has more classified
and understanding is ancient. I'm here to discuss my
opinions and he's not. There's no way to question him.
The article is like a hit n run driver. You don't know
that he's done anything more than sit on a beach for
13 years while I've read everything available. My
opinion carries more weight than his until he shows up
and demonstrates post-1990 knowledge.
\_ Interesting. Maybe that's why Donald Rumsfeld
is so horrible as the Secretary of Defense.
Must be because his experience under the Nixon
administration, etc. was totally useless, and
because he went into business for quite a few
years before coming back, his "ancient"
experience had become totally outdated. Maybe,
instead of calling him a senior statesman, we
should call him a rookie statesman.
\_ So it is your contention McGovern has more classified
sources than Senators Joe Biden, Carl Levin, and former
Majority leader Tom Daschle?
sources than Senators Joe Biden and Carl Levin?
\_ I read the NYT and CNN summary which said GWB is eeevvvviill so
I don't need to read anything more! Those pure and neutral
bodies of journalistic integrity and highest principles tell me
all I need to think about any topic! The 300,000 dead Iraqis
that Hussein put in their graves wasn't above the fold of the
NYT so it isn't important! Nyah!
\_ So now we're taking out every regime that kills more than
\_ Don't forget Indonesia ... oh wait, we have a big
gold mine and oil projects there .... sorry, next
country.
\_ If we could I think we should. You think we should pull
back and hide behind our borders in Fortress America? If
the rest of the world is lucky we one day will be able to.
\_ Afghanistan, good war. Iraq, bad war. No one
here except you is talking about a Fortress America.
Your strawman argument doesn't work.
\_ Afghanistan pretty much sucks as a war too if you're
going to include aftermath. Only Kabul is under
control, and that is only by the will of the warlords
who are willing to give the UN their "victory."
\_ yea, but at least the goal is clear right
from the start - disrupting bin laden and al
queda. taking out taliban is a side benefit.
taliban is as hopeless as it get already,
comparable to the khmer rouge. anything is
better that the taliban. as bad as saddam
was, an aftermath worse than what it was
before is quite possible for iraq.
300K? The Africans will be so happy! |
| 2003/11/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10997 Activity:nil |
11/8 Estimated 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves courtesy Saddam Hussein.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-mass-graves,0,2467876,print.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines |
| 2003/11/8 [Health/Dental, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10991 Activity:nil |
11/7 Regarding Lynch, the iraqi doctor who treated her first maintains that
she arrived fully clothed, buttoned, and zipped up. While treating her
injuries, including a broken femur, he noticed no evidence of rape.
\_ Is this the same Iraqi doctor who was complaining how "rude" the
rescue team was during the rescue? Who's to say that one of
the Iraqi guards at the hospital wasn't a "My name is Buck, and
I'm here to f*ck" type guy?
\_ just type fuck. FUCK. sheesh.
\_ Oh? So he did a medical inspection for rape, did he? No. He
did no such thing. Even if this guy isn't lying through his teeth,
if I was the soldier who raped her ass I'd want to avoid any
questions and take the 5 seconds to redo her clothing after. The
last I checked, looking at a broken femur does not reveal evidence
of any sort of rape. Why are you posting this garbage?
\_ If she had a broken femur, you can bet your ass they cut her
out of her uniform post-haste to examine the wound. Any
reasonable examination of her would immediately reveal anal
bleeding, leading in turn to further investigation and at
least suspicion of rape. The Army reports on PFC Lynch and
her "rescue" have been shown to have serious factual errors,
and it does not surprise me that they'd fabricate reports of
her sodomizing rape in order to stir up the red-blooded
American sons and soldiers.
\_ So you know there'd be anal bleeding? You know they took good
care of her? You know they cut away her uniform and did a
proper and full medical inspection? What are these factual
errors in the rescue reports and what is the source of
the alleged corrections? You're just making shit up based on
nothing in particular and presenting it as fact. You don't
and *can't* know any of these things.
\_ Neither can you, but we can make educated guesses.
The only people who know are unfortunately shown
to be often untruthful.
\_ I believe the random medical reports from the US Army
hospital in Germany before I'd believe the Iraqi doctor
who has to worry about his life and his family's.
\_ Random? There is nothing random about it right
from when they decided to treat the whole
incident as a carefully chereographed PR
campaign.
\_ So you think she hasn't been to a private doctor
since then and had it confirmed? Given her other
statements she'd deny the rape if she didn't have
her own proof. So, yes, random.
\_ "[Lynch] also told Sawyer that she believes the U.S. military
overdramatized the story of her rescue in Iraq."
\_ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/07/sprj.irq.jessica.lynch.doctors.ap |
| 2003/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29625 Activity:nil |
11/7 Turkey is not sending trops to Iraq. A blow to President Bush,
perhaps, but Turkey troop would of caused more problem than it
would resolve if they are actually being send ti Iraq anyway.
\_ What is going on at the White House??
\_ "would of"?
\_ The Iraqi Governing Council was screaming bloody murder about the
possibility so we didn't push it. |
| 2003/11/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29624 Activity:high |
11/7 Another chopper is down in Iraq...
\_ Duh, it's post-war partisan cleanup. It happens. Only children
and the naive think war is like G.I.Joe vs Cobra. Say a prayer
for the families of the soldiers.
\_ And blame the men who put them in harm's way needlessly while
lying to the world and destroying your nation's moral authority.
\_ needless is a matter of opinion. what's the exchange rate
between moral authority and something of value?
\_ I don't know but I do know that we
should have a damn good reason (instead of
constantly changing reasons for the war)
for sacrificing American lives.
\_ I prefer to pray for the deaths of Iraqi guerillas and
all anti-American Iraqis. I wish they all die and rot
in hell.
\_ troll
\_ like the first one wasn't?
\_ what makes it a troll? it isn't. --not praying for anything
\_ "Bring 'em on!" -GWB
\_ Bush just created six new job openings in Iraq! |
| 2003/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10986 Activity:high |
11/7 Pvt. Lynch upset about the filming and portrayal of her rescue.
http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/11/07/lynch_portrayal/index.html
\_ this is controversial because??
\_ Aren't you a little upset that the government fabricated
a nice media story about a dangerous midnight special forces
rescue while tacitly admitting that the situation was safe
enough to have a CAMERAMAN there?
\_ The camera was held by a special forces guy, not someone from
the NYT. Feel better now? Or just less ignorant?
\_ Obviously it was a special forces guy. Why did he have it?
Was it to protect his squad, or just to get American hearts
pumping proud patriotic blood? It reminded me of Wag the
Dog-- 8 macho americans storm a dangerous terrorist hospital
and rescue the pretty blonde princess from the axis of evil...
and we've got VIDEO!
\_ because they film a lot of stuff for both training and
how-can-we-improve purposes. if you weren't so anti-
military you might understand how it works.
\_ Which is of course why we see so much footage of bombed
out schools and dead soldiers on the evening news. I'm
not anti-military, I'm against the spin efforts the
government is pushing. It's not fair to the american
public and the soldiers themselves to release footage of
a quasi-staged rescue but forbid releasing footage of
military failures.
\_ if you have to ask...
\_ you're useless
\_ 1. She didn't fight until the bitter end. Her gun was jammed.
2. Contrary to US media, she was not mistreated after her
capture.
\_ interestingly, in today's chron they're reporting there
is evidence of sexual assault in her capture. Article
Titled "POW Lynch was raped by Iraqi Captors, biography says"
\_ [Graphic detail censored to keep motd work-safe.]
\_ one of the few news worthy items got censored? for
work safeness? so its ok for your boss to see the
junk on the motd on your screen wasting company time
and resources but not if it refers to a soldier's
anal rape at the hands of her barbaric captors?
\_ They lied about WMD. They lied about her going
down fighting. They lied about circumstances of
her rescue. Could they be lying about her having
been raped?
\_ not mistreated? so get anally raped by one or more Iraqis
doesn't count as mistreatment? there's a human rights
violation investigation going on since shortly after the
government fell. The WP misreported. Bush nor any other
admin figure said she went down fighting.
\_ Yea, some military doctors says some of her
wounds are unlikely to be caused by the Humvee crash.
She herself remembers nothing except that she was
treated well throughout her captivity.
\_ They're lying about her not being raped, too!
Those bastards! |
| 2003/11/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10975 Activity:nil |
11/6 Newbie C qutions: how do you pass a variable to a system call.
I think you have to define an array with sprintf and then pass it
like so...
//start
// stuff include stdio, argv and argc def and main, etc...
char *cmd;
// lots of stuff here
cmd = sprintf("echo echoing %s is arg1 ", argv[1]);
system(cmd);
//end
It compiles but seg faults. What am i doing wrong? (tnx)
\_ See sprintf(3) man page.
\_ Your bug is about sprintf(). It has nothing to do with system call.
\_ More explicitly (and you'd better be C newbie), you need to allocate
memory for cmd, not just define a pointer to it:
char cmd[128]; // cmd now points to the first of 128 chars on the stack
snprintf(cmd, 128, "echo echoing %s is arg1 ", argv[1]);
\_ better: sizeof cmd
system(cmd);
\_ snprintf() is not ANSI C
\_ yeah yeah yeah, but "good habits" and some other fucker
dinged me for not checking strlen(argv[1]).
\_ snprintf is standardized in C99.
11/6 Day 241 since the Invasion of Iraq.
Still no WMD.
\_ Bush never said it was about WMD
\_ sure he did. several times. I still don't think
that's why we went there in the first place, it makes
me sad our president is so dishonest.
\_ I take a president who lies about blowjob than
a president who lies about going to war any day.
\_ Yeah the lesser of two evils is always good.
\_ COUGH COUGH!
\_ It amazes me that you would try to make this claim:
http://csua.org/u/4x5
\_ "The American people know that Saddam Hussein was a gathering
danger, as I said. And the world is safer as a result for us
removing him from power. ... Saddam Hussein is a man who hid
programs and weapons for years. He was a master at hiding things."
-dubya
\_ That's actually true.
\_ no it's not. Yes, Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man,
but we had no problem with that in the past. He is
ambitious, yet RATIONAL. By removing him, we have
open up all sort of possiblility in Iraq. It is
unlikely that pro-western democracy will prevail, nor
is likely that a relatively non-religious dictator will
again rule Iraq. At best, there will be some sort of
Fundamental Islamic Revolution similiar to Iran 30 yr ago,
worse, it will be a land of anarchy that is heaven for all
the mulism fanatics world wide.
\_ Excuse me? Iraq has *never* been ruled by religious
fundamentalists in anything even remotely like modern
times. And you may have noted the religious government
in Iran is cracking and won't be with us soon. You have
no basis what so ever for any of your predictions.
\_ Uh... What's not true? That Saddam hid programs and
weapons for years? That's clearly and demonstrably true.
That he is a master of hiding things? Also true.
I think you are reading more into this quote than it
actually says.
\_ The world is far more dangerous as a result of the
invasion.
\_ Why? The spacemonkeys are going to blow themselves
up in Iraq, not on US soil. More dangerous for
soldiers, less dangerous for civilians. As it
should be. War is war, after all.
\_ for once, step outside of United States,
you will see anti-US setiment is at the highest
level EVER among citizens of other nations.
This includes Germany, France, as well as
non-Middle-Eastern, non-Muslim nations.
Like it or not, *EVERYONE* think USA is the
aggressor. And Everyone is nerveous about
they are the next target in Bush's crosshair.
\_ Ok, let's accept your claim for a moment. So
what? Are you aware they invented a new term
for the US? We're no longer a mere Super
Power, but a Hyper Power. An entity of such
incredible military, cultural, and economic
super might the likes of which the world has
has never seen before. The United States has
the ability to 100% impose it's will upon the
rest of the world. *That* is what the EU and
everyone is afraid of. The reason they hate
us is because we *dont* impose our will in
the same way they would or have in the past
when they got the chance. They know there's
nothing they can do to prevent American
culture from taking over the world and we're
not even trying!
\_ Do you honestly still believe that Saddam Hussein was
"a gathering danger"?
\_ Yes I do. The man was a nutcase in power. Those
need to be removed.
11/6 Why vote for Dean? Why donate to Dean? Convince me.
\_ for me it comes down to one issue: health care. I've worked full
time and had no health care and i know how much that sucks.
40 million americans have no health insurance, which effectively
means that they can't get health care. I don't think any of the
other candicates care about this, can get elected, and will
have the will to make a national healthcare plan work.
I believe Dean does. Also, don't believe the hype about
Dean being an ultra-leftist. go read his positions on issues
on his website and blog, and listen to the debates on cspan.
he's a moderate who might just change one of the biggest
injustices in our society.
\_ Ever hear of Kaiser Permenante? Just buy it, how
stupid can you be? Instead you want freebies that other
people pay for. Leech.
\_ Let them eat cake!
\_ please use motdedit, you overwrote my response.
\_ Fuck motdedit. In the ear.
\_ sorry. could someone post where the documentation for
motdedit is for the thousanth time please? -evil vi user
\_ motdedit -h?
\_ I don't know about documentation, but reading the source
it seems it invokes what is set as your $EDITOR variable
The file is /csua/bin/motdedit and is written in Perl.
\_ you can also use the shortcut "me" which is the same
file. Less typing! More locking! All is good.
\_ Because Kuninich could never get elected in a million years.
\_ Because he is !Bush.
\_ http://deanforamerica.com click "On The Issues" in the sidebar.
Start with Economy, then Foreign Policy, Health, Campaign Finance,
... well, anything you're interested in. He's got real plans
that can work in the real world. Is he going to be everything
you ever hoped for in a candidate? No. But he has good
compromises.
\_ I like Dean's straight talk. You won't always agree with
him on every issue, but you will know his reasons and he
is the kind of guy who listens to FACTS, unlike the
ideologues who have the RNC in a headlock. This next
election is crucial and Dean is the one to restore real
ethics and our government and real security to our country
with an effective, multilateral foreign policy. You can't
fight terrorism without winning hearts and minds. --aaron
\_ At least we know *you* don't have any biases or an axe
to grind. Now I know I can safely vote for anyone but
Dean and not feel bad for not checking him out.
\_ His site runs FreeBSD
\_ See! Ties to Satan! (Daemon-worship)
\_ OK. So I'm convinced that Dean is the best candidate
in terms of health care. But I'm concerned about other
issues, such as foreign policy. Tell me why Dean is better
for foreign policy than Lieberman or any of the other strong
Democratic candidates.
\_ Presuming you also read the FP link on deanforamerica: I'm
impressed by his attitude toward fighting terrorism, which seems
to be that, yes, we need to destroy the terrorist orgs, but we
we also need to avoid turning more young men into terrorists.
It seems like he understands that men in their 20s, with a wife
and 2 kids at home, don't strap bombs to their torsos because
Allah told them to-- in most cases, it's because they've lost all
hope of ever resolving the issue peacefully.
\_ Oh My gosh, you are saying that Muslim are human too?
Did i just sense sanity in Motd?
\_ I was convinced just watching him. Find some video of his speeches.
I watched him talk in Iowa on CSPAN and it was clear. The other
candidates with a chance don't have a strong message. They do
nothing but attack Dean now. They simply can't win vs. Bush. Kerry
"looks" presidential but that's about it. They act like typical
politicians, criticizing while trying to avoid saying anything too
specific that would open themselves to criticism. |
| 2003/11/7 [Transportation/Car, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10972 Activity:kinda low |
11/6 Doubts about the profiteering motives of the Iraq action?
http://www.hillnews.com/news/110503/profiteering.aspx
\_ And they say there's no looting:
"At a Democratic Policy Committee hearing, Melanie Sloan,
executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, testified that
"Halliburton [formerly headed by Vice President Dick
Cheney] has charged an average price of $2.65 a gallon
of gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait, despite experts'
conclusions that the total price should be less than $1 a
gallon." Sloan added that Iraq's state oil company is
importing "the exact same gas" for 97 cents.
\_ Experts? Which experts? Gas in a war torn country still
suffering partisan attacks should pay half of what I do in
the most stable country on the planet? I think not. Also,
that's not called looting. The word you're looking for is
'gouging'. The real gouging is going on right here in the
Bay Area. I'd bet a buck you're one of the RIDE BIKE! folks
who think high gas prices here are a good thing while at the
same time you're bitching about the high price somewhere else.
\_ personally, i believe gas prices, like other prices,
shoule be determined by the free market. Maybe the
market would set prices in iraq at 4 bucks per gallon,
and at one dollar per gallon in the bay area, but
we won't know until we try will we? It's ironic
that the profiteers who have taken control of our
federal gonvernment claim to be pro-free market
and then appear to be socialists when it makes their
business associates rich.
\_ (1) Iraq is in an area where people are swimming in oil,
and they don't have to ship it half way around the
world, yet they are paying $2.65 which is much higher
than what most of this country is paying.
(2) There is a big difference between higher gasoline
prices due to taxes (that goes to pay infrastructure
improvements and pollution control, etc.) and
higher gasoline prices due to price gouging that
goes straight to pockets of fat cats like Dick Cheney.
\_ If location is so important please explain to me why I
pay 25 cents more per gallon living near a few refineries
than I do when I drive to the more remote parts of the
Bay Area which is getting their gas from the same
refineries? It's called price gouging. As for your
second point, you have absolutely no idea what the price
breakdown is for taxes,fuel costs, transport, security or
anything on Iraqi gas (or US gas either I'd guess). The
real price gouging is going on right here in the Bay Area.
Tell me, you out there RIDING BIKE!?
\_ Since you insist on being a moron, I will explain
it to you. Difference in transportation cost is
insignificant between where you live and other areas
of the Bay Area compared to the other costs of
the gasoline. However, difference in tranportation
cost becomes significant when it is half way around
the world compared to right at the doorstep (i.e.
Kuwait to Iraq). As for the breakdown of price,
the Iraqi state oil company is selling at $1 per
gallon, so can you tell us which of the factors
you mentioned (tax, fuel, transport, security) is
the cause of the additional $1.65 Halliburton is
charging?
\_ You completely ignored my question about why I pay
more living next to a refinery than I do when I
drive 200 miles in land where gas comes from the
same refinery. If you're going to call someone a
moron and then explain why they're a moron, at least
put some effort into your proof. This is the point
where I'm supposed to call you a moron in return but
I won't. Your intellectual dishonesty speaks for
itself.
\_ BC raised taxes throughout his administration and
you're worried about a measly $1.65? Grow up.
\_ Non-sequitor post of the day.
\_ free Kevin!!
\_ That totally follows...
OP: Something bad has happened in the Bush
Administration.
Rep: It's Bill Clinton's fault!! |
| 2003/11/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10962 Activity:kinda low |
11/5 Total amount of lend lease for Russia from US: 11 billion.
That is significant but it's still a small sum compared to
what Russia produced. Granted it's in 1940s dollars (I
presume), but just a few months of a small war against a
minor power like Iraq already cost us like 200 billion.
\_ According to the bottom of the page
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html most of the stuff
was sent afterthey had announced that they intended to take over
the world and fight a war against the US? WTF? And we sent them
2.2lb of uranium metal and 1000+ pounds of uranium compound?
\_ Well the US did invade the Soviet Union. You can see them being
upset about it.
\_ 200 billion is nothing. You need to compare the $$$ spent vs the
GNP or GDP during each conflict to see what fraction of the economy
went towards war. The figures in WWII are astounding. The numbers
today are so miniscule it's barely a line item in the budget by
comparison.
\_ I would welcome figures for:
* The equivalent of 11 billion in today's dollars.
* GDP of Soviet Union in the 1940s in 1940s dollars.
\_ no, you need figures for the US since it was all done in
US currency, then and now. obgoogle.
\_ No, what we need is SU's GDP in US dollars so we
can compare that to the "11 billion" of lend lease.
I think everyone except you understood that's what
is needed and that's what I was asking for.
\_ What exactly does "lend lease" mean? Is Russia supposed to pay us
back?
\_ The UK, USSR, China, and British Commonwealth were "lent" money
for war material. At some point, they provided material for US
troops there (reverse lend lease). After the war, arrangements
were made to pay off the loans. A good percentage was dismissed.
The Soviets stopped payment some time in the late 50's but then
a deal was made with Russia who made a final payment in 2001.
\_ In terms of finished military hardware produced (e.g tanks) it was
not as significant but the raw materials were very significant.
Throughout the 30's we were giving the Soviets pieces
of our nuclear weapons program and nuclear supplies. FDR and
Stalin were in love.
\_ Trucks. Truck were useful. Trucks >> anything else, as far as
supplies were concerned.
\_ We didn't even have a nuclear weapons program in the 30's.
Take your pathetic lies elsewhere. |
| 2003/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10949 Activity:nil |
11/4 Washington Post:
"Only one in seven Americans agrees with President Bush's assertion
that the conflict in Iraq is the most important fight in the war on
terrorism, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A857-2003Nov4.html |
| 2003/11/5-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10940 Activity:high |
11/4 http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp \_ dubya is a dumbass. I still can't believe he went through with it (Gulf War II) \_ This is what I don't understand. Bush Sr. never intended to invade Iraq. I presume that was not just his lone opinion, but rather, consensus among his staff. Consider that a good number of Bush Jr's staff are inherit from his father, wouldn't you expect there is at least SOME degree of consistancy in opinion regards to this Iraq business? \_ Yeah because 12 years didn't change the world at all. Everything in the world remains exactly the same over time and the same response is always appropriate in all situations. \_ Look.. oh ignorant of histoy one.. you always need someone outside to blame.. in this he was a despot that took a little longer to remove. \_ Do any of you so called geeks engage in strategy / role playing games? Do you fight defensively on your own territory or take the offensive and attack. In virtually every game the attacker wins. War is no different, the aggressor has a huge advantage. Hence, fight the Islamicist's on their territory - not in the West. \_ But, but, that would be racist and mean! \_ Nice troll try. Your use of games vs. reality tempted me. \_ I heard Russia won every war that it's the defense in history, but lost every war that it's the offense. \_ Russia lost over 20 million in WWII, St. Petersburg and Moscow were destroyed completely. All of their war material was supplied by the U.S. through lend lease. Napoleon was driven back by the winter. Russia 'won' neither of these conflicts, only harsh, early winters and inept planning by their enemies saved them. \_ Nah, US supplied a little material, but most of it was made by Russians. The number of tanks and planes the Russians made is about the same level as what the US made in WWII. They moved many factories to the Urals. Zhukov is probably better than any of the US or British generals. \_ Are you sure? http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html You are right I exagerated by saying all but a significant contribution. 1100 locomotives 440,000 trucks 12,000 aircraft 28000 jeeps nuclear material 1,200,000 tons of steel. You are right I exagerated by saying all but a significant contribution. \_ WTF? Pianos, new 2 $530 Phonograpbs, except coin-operated 4 $ 67. \_ Zhukov? Yeah right, the guy's got how many Russian soldier's deaths on his hands? If any American general lost 300,000 American lives in a single battle, he'd be executed if he was lucky. \_ 800,000 died in the battle for Stalingrad. \_ I've seen a map of Russia's size over the last 1000 years. They've grown and shrunk dramatically several times which can't happen unless they attacked and won something. \_ Genghis Khan (or should that be Ogotai?) kicked their arse but that's about it. \_ I play Age of Empires, and yes a good defense can win the game. \_ Bull, none of the expert players play defensively you will always lose. |
| 2003/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29609 Activity:nil |
11/4 Ok, so how many of you think that the attacks are carried out by
the so called "Saddam Loyalist"? think about it, if some
country over runs the US, do you think only the Bush Loyalist
would be in the resistance? I think not. No matter how corrupt
Bush is, I will surely be the one to resist any foreign
invasion forces. I hope the idiots at Washington has a good
understanding of the problem and deal with it accordingly. Oh
wait, we are only there for the oil, fuck everything else. We
are out of there once we get the oil... never mind.
\_ By "Bush" you mean "Hu Jintao," right?
\_ No cookie, troll. You can do better than that. |
| 2003/11/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:10915 Activity:nil |
11/3 Iraq: Another Vietnam?
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB106782123961984600,00.html
\_ Yes, everything is Vietnam. I can't wait until the hippie/yuppie
generation retires and we can put their drug induced buggaboos
to rest. Don't trust anyone over 30.
\_ Gulf War I, I don't think anyone disagrees about that not
being a Vietnam
\_ Actually before the war, there was alot of Vietnam talk when
people weren't sure if the UN was going to occupy Iraq.
\_ Groan. The Tet offensive misinterpreted again. It was a big
victory for the US forces, but came on the heels of LBJ declaring
the war nearly over and talking possible troop pullback. Instead,
more troops were deployed and the US was stuck for another five
years. Iraq is NOT Vietnam. Somalia is NOT Vietnam. Bosnia is NOT
Vietnam. Grenada, Haiti, Panama ... NOT Vietnam. Damn Boomers.
\_ yea, but it's looking like the type of urban warfare we have
stated right from the start that we would try to avoid at all
cost.
\_ True, but the article refers to telling the "truth" about
Iraq and compares it to "Tet" as if to say "if only the
American public knew the TRUTH, we would have won Vietnam."
Correspondingly, if America knows the TRUTH about Iraq, we
would win. This at a time where the Administration is
refusing to release info on everything from energy policy to
threat memos concerning 9/11. TRUTH is so subjective.
\_ If Americans knew the truth about Iraq we wouldn't be
there.
\_ If Americans knew the truth, we would've done it right
in '91 instead of playing global politic.
\_ The TRUTH is out there.
\_ so's yermom
\_ IFILE!
\_ It does my taxes?
\_ IRS!
\_ Where are they going to put the monument to all the dead American
soldiers? Isn't The Mall getting kind of full???
\_ Maybe they'll stick some Post-It notes with the names on them
on the Vietnam Memorial.
\_ Why should there be? You do know that the KIAs from WWII don't
have a monument of any sort, right? |
| 2003/11/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10908 Activity:moderate |
11/2 What are liberals and conservatives thinking is the best approach in
Iraq right now? If we get out, we admit defeat but save billions,
but also leave Iraq w/ no security...
\_ Hand over power to an Iraqi governing council, withdraw; when
"resistance fighters" start attacking again (and this time it
will be Iraq and not the US they're attacking), back Iraqi
plea for International Peacekeepers, re-enter country as such,
with full UN/World support. A more moral plan would include the
liberation of Kurdistan, but hey, one step at a time.
\_ Fence. Nukes. Pave. Hand over massive smoldering parking lot
to Iranians as gesture of goodwill. Make nasty faces at
Syrians and Palestinians. -John
\_ Nah, just send them all to Switzerland.
\_ No room; the Yugoslavs and Tamils (don't ask) are all
here already
\_ nuke it first then.
\_ "Admit defeat"? To whom? Bush claims he is planning to hand Iraq
back over to the Iraqis in any case. How would doing this
quickly mean admitting defeat?
\_ Because it is obvious we'd be retreating. The country is not
ready to run itself yet and everyone on the planet except you
knows that.
\_ 38 percent of Americans say it is time to get out of Iraq.
I am all by myself, 38% of Americans? Wow, wish I had
known that earlier. Let me guess: you are the same moron
that said "everyone knows Saddam Hussein has WMD" right?
\_ Cool, let's do math wars! 62 percent of Americans do not
say it is time to get out of Iraq. 38 percent huh? That's
remarkably close to the percent of BC voters. Odd, that?
It couldn't possibly be that these same people who are
opposed to our current policy are simply opposed to
*anything* this administration does, could it? As far as
the _appointed by Americans_ council running Iraq, the
council members themselves say they're not ready so it
would definitely look like we're fleeing and you'd hear
the phrase "paper tiger" a lot just like when Carter was
in office. You *do* remember Carter being in office? That
nasty little hostage crisis bit? Us doing nothing?
\_ Lock down entire cities, search every building, check point at
every block. Open it up section by section as it's cleaned out.
And give the Kurds their own land for God's sake. They're
treated almost as badly as the Jews, the Irish, or Tibetans
have been. |
| 2003/11/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10906 Activity:very high |
11/2 So you all read this right?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
and here Seymore Hersh gives an interview on it:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?031027on_onlineonly01 - danh
\_ Read what? Maybe you'd like to give a short summary before we
all rush off to read the link? Your name on the URL is not enough.
\_ Look, deleting a post because your response was overwritten by
some jackass not using motdedit is not helpful. |
| 2003/11/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10903 Activity:nil |
11/2 My question is, who else, aside from USA, Russia, and China that
makes shoulder-launch missile?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3234543.stm |
| 2003/11/2 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10901 Activity:moderate |
11/1 http://tinyurl.com/taph "US Considering Recaling Units of Old Iraq Army" Like I said, it's a huge mistake to disband the Iraqi army. Our brilliant leaders are finally realizing it. Disbanding the army unnecessarily creates many enemies from those who can cause the most problems. \_ That's very doubtful. It creates problems by leaving a huge pool of unemployed people, though I suspect that very few of those are are actually being recruited by terrorists in the way you seem to be implying. \_ You don't need many. Just 10% will give you a 50000 strong guerilla army. \_ But in context, even 1% is an obscenely unrealistic number. \_ why? is it that hard to believe that some iraqis don't think we should be occupying their country? \_ I'm sure many more than that don't want us there. However, that dislike is not going to 100% translate into the desire to drive a truck bomb into the Red Cross HQ. If there was a 50000 or even 5000 strong guerilla army running around there'd be a lot more killing going on. Nothing that's happened so far requires more than 100-200 people around the entire country. \_ There are 25-35 attacks A DAY on our troops in Iraq. \_ Yes. Everytime a soldier stubs his toe it's counted as an attack. Do you really want a Vietnam style body count? \_ You're being ridiculous and in the process \_ I think most of the attacks are non-suicidal, belittling the real attacks that are taking place. \_ There are plenty of real attacks. However, I don't think every toe stubbing counts. \_ Most of the attacks are non-suicidal, just road side bombs that can be triggered, rocket propelled grenades and a few mortars, precisely the things people with military training would be good at, and most are targetted directly at the occupational forces. The rest are targetted at "collaborators". \_ Few militaries are trained to set road side bombs, rest are targetted at "collaborators". and if they were ex-army and using army weapons such as mortars they weren't trained very well because their success rate with standard military weapons is hovering just above the "got lucky" level. These are random fucks, not ex-army. \_ If there were only 100-200 people, they would've been wiped out by now from attrition, or we can just capture one or two and get them to lead us to the rest. The reason we have not been able to do that shows that the "100-200" is just the tip of a huge iceberg from which acitve ones can be drawn from. \_ Maybe. Maybe not. How many of these attackers have been caught? Zero according to US media. \_ WTF why haven't you been appointed Supreme Allied Commander a long time ago!!! next bath house 'date'. \_ It is almost impossible to be more arrogant than Bush \_ This is basic common sense. Arrogance makes our leaders out of touch with reality until it splatters all over their face. \_ I nominate you for Secretary of Defense and five star general!!! \_ I don't know about five star general, but yea, I will take Secretary of Defense, or better yet, Commander in Chief. \_ Those are positions that must be earned. You're more arrogant than anyone in the administration. We'd all be seriously fucked for years to come if some ninny like you had any say in anything more than which of last week's dirty underwear you'll be wearing on your next bath house 'date'. \_ It is almost impossible to be more arrogant than Bush \_ So do you think Bush is more arrogant or more eeevveeeillll!!!!? \_ Yea, we all should learn from you and prostrate in front of our supreme leaders Donald and Bush and say everything they did were wonderful. I think you will do well as a court jester or eunuch. \_ *laugh* Nice attempt but no dice. *I* was not the topic here. Idiot head above saying he could do better was. I merely observe facts. \_ The media is biaaaaasssed against the right! \_ Yeah and if they had left it in place and the people revolted because this very same army was directly responsible for murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis then you'd be here screaming how the arrogant American leadership didn't listen to you when you said to disband the evil marauders. It must be great to always be right, at least on the motd, eh? [restored] \_ Wrong, I said it was a mistake right after they announced they are disbanding the Iraqi army wholesale. The view that that there is a murderous Iraqi army distinct and seperate from the Iraqi people who were its victims is a naive view. The Iraqi army is a huge conscript army of 500000 which Saddam himself doesn't fully trust. That means almost everyone (all the Sunnis at least) should have a family member, relative, good friend in the army. \_ WTF does have a family member have to do with anything?!? How exactly do you figure that the average post-Saddam citizen is going to be thrilled to see the Iraqi army stomping around again? |
| 2003/10/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10883 Activity:nil |
10/31 New Iraq 'well on way to becoming Islamic state'
Interview with the man advising the white house on the new Iraqi
constitution:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5099.htm
'Any democratically elected Iraqi government is unlikely to be
secular, and unlikely to be pro-Israel. And frankly, moderately
unlikely to be pro-American.'
\_ You are starting to sound suspiciously like a terrorist supporter
there boy.
\_ That's why we will install another dictator there and call him
"president".
\_ Who said any of those things was the point of the invasion? Did
you know that Iraq's new government is also quite unlikely to be
made of cheese, and frankly moderately unlikely to be in favor
of finer French wines for all it's citizenry? |
| 2003/10/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10868 Activity:moderate |
10/30 I'm not sure when this was published, but this compares
current events with Athens trying to conquer Sicily:
http://www.csua.org/u/4ui - danh
\_ I still contend that oil slicks keep seals young and supple.
\_ why not just assume that people who want to listen to NPR already
do?
\_ look, even people who listen to NPR / read harpers don't do it
ALL the time. One of the great things about the motd is that
there are a bunch of opiniated half-bright individuals out there
going through lots of media so i don't have to. Now, they
don't always get it right. But i am happy to have the freepers
post when they find something they think is particularly
interesting, as i am glad to have had this posted. -phuqm
\_ i thought the article was interestiing, and i admit
the tone of harper'ss magazine can be a lilttle obnoxious iis
\_ Re: the quote: isn't folly the result of incompentence and
perversity the result of decadence? (not always but often) -phuqm
\_ [s/Sparta/Sicily/ completed, you're welcome]
\_ Nice article, thanks. |
| 2003/10/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29593 Activity:nil |
10/28 "The spread of democracy in Latin America, Asia and parts of Africa
suggests that this form of government is not unique to Western
culture or to advanced industrial economies."
-- US diplomat James Dobbins
\_ Hahahaha, that is almost as good as the "It would be nice if
foreign countries would stay out of Iraq" remark by Wolfowitz.
Where do they find these guys? Don't they at least make them
take a history test before giving them a job???
\_ Are you sure he's not just being intentionally ironic? What's
the context?
\_ Decide for yourself:
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/gjuly/21_wolfowitz.html |
| 2003/10/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10827 Activity:high |
10/28 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=457620 67% of Iraqis (Sunni & Shiite) see the U.S. as an occupying force. 15% view the U.S. as a liberating force. \_ I see us there as an occupying force. It's because we are, duh! We're not there as traditional conquerers though. \_ i am wondering how many people in the States actually think that we are there for altrustic reason such as human rights, democracy, or well-being of iraqi people in general. \_ Hi Troll! \_ok, that is one. \_ If you don't want to look like a troll then please suggest why we are there. Here I'll help you get started: we're there because the eveeeiilll bushco and his haliburton cronies needed a war to raise their stock prices after their dotcom scam was panned out. Please continue. \_ We are there because oil is a critical resource for our nation, and we need a military presence and influence in the Middle East beyond Israel. \_ Why don't we make a poll. Here: US Is Evil: . US Liberator: Yermom Liberator: .. \_ Blame America First! It's the only way to go! |
| 2003/10/27 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29588 Activity:nil |
10/25 I guess we've dropped 150 billions to Iraq for the wrong reason:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3216397.stm |
| 2003/10/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10792 Activity:nil |
10/25 Iraqi bloggers. These are great, regardless of your opinion on
weblogs or the war in Iraq and the occupation. Different perspectives
from different people that are a great substitute for so called
"objective" reporting.
Healing Iraq: http://healingiraq.blogspot.com
This guy is very much in support of the war and the new administration.
He has a lot of great stuff, particularly on the new right-wing Shiite
movements.
Baghdad Burning: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
This woman is not a supporter of the Americans, although she's no
hardcore Islamist. Good stuff on where all that reconstruction money
is really going.
Where is Raed: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com
This the original Baghdad Blogger that everyone knows. He's still very
coy about his actual position and seems very torn...so I guess you
could put him somewhere in the middle.
Supposedly there are two more, but I haven't been able to find them.
Anyone? There will probably be even more in the future as the access
and electricity situation changes.
(note to motd cranks right and left: this post is balanced and
there is no reason to censor it, unless you're a pud.)
\_ Wait... how can iraqi bloggers be great if your opinion of weblogs
is that they suck...
\_ I was really hoping there wouldn't be a pile-on with this post,
but... I would say that your opinion is perfectly valid, but so
are the bloggers' opinions. None of them claim to be news
reporters - they are simply people saying what they think.
This is not a perspective you can find elsewhere at the moment,
at least about Iraq.
\_ Right wing? You mean Shiite branded Islamic movement?
Baghdad Burning: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
This woman is not a supporter of the Americans, although she's no
hardcore Islamist. Good stuff on where all that reconstruction money
is really going.
Where is Raed: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com
This the original Baghdad Blogger that everyone knows. He's still very
coy about his actual position and seems very torn...so I guess you
could put him somewhere in the middle.
Supposedly there are two more, but I haven't been able to find them.
Anyone? There will probably be even more in the future as the access
and electricity situation changes.
(note to motd cranks right and left: this post is balanced and
there is no reason to censor it, unless you're a pud.)
\_ too bad there are so many fucking puds around here.
\_ it'll get censored for simply not being about linux and riding bike.
anyway, just keep in mind when reading this stuff that no matter
what opinion is expressed, it is from someone in the upper classes
of iraqi society. the typical cab driver not only doesn't have
net access, but probably doesnt own his cab either.
\_ Agreed 100%, though I would argue that this is mostly true of
bloggers in the West as well. |
| 2003/10/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10783 Activity:moderate |
10/24 Hail Bush and his citizens, the ruler of Earth, the Occupier of
Terror, Fourth Reich of this planet!!!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html
\_ Oklahoma City was done by Iraqis and the Government is
covering it up!!! There is a giant conspiracy to trick
Americans into believing that Iraq has nothing to do with
terrorism!!!!!
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/021022a.asp
\_ s/Oklahoma\ City/USS\ Liberty
\_ s/Oklahoma\ City/Liberty
\_ Bush is Nazi, blah, blah.
Actually, the funny is, I just watched Raiders of the Lost Ark,
and one of the Nazi's in the truck scene looks a WHOLE lot like
Bush...
\_ Gee if we went by who we all looked like, then I think all
Asians look like Mao, therefore they are potential dictators
\_ You take yourself way too seriously, man. Look up 'joke' and
'facetious'.
s/Iraq/Isarel |
| 2003/10/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10686 Activity:nil |
10/18 "The group studying defense policy and institutions expected
problems if the Iraqi Army was disbanded quickly a step L. Paul
Bremer III, the chief American civil administrator in Iraq, took.
The working group recommended that jobs be found for demobilized
troops to avoid having them turn against allied forces as some
are believed to have done."
http://tinyurl.com/rfyw
\_ I'm sure. Did you know that we've attempted to pre-plan for
literally ten of thousands of scenarios for various world events
over the years? For just about *any* event there's some government
wonk in a small shared cube that wrote a document saying that
whatever happened would have happened. And five others who said
some other thing would happen. Your tax dollars at work. -U.Sam.
\_ Yea but this seems to be a major State Department study
involving a wide spectrum of Iraqi experts:
"Beginning in April 2002, the State Department project assembled
more than200 Iraqi lawyers, engineers, business people and
other experts into 17 working groups to study topics ranging
from creating a new justice system to reorganizing the
military to revamping the economy."
\_ In China during the imperial times, civilians' revolt per se usually
doesn't pose a serious treat to the political establishment.
It's usually the civilians' revolt mixed with disbanded army /
deserted military units which would seriously threaten the
ruling regime. It's unforunated that those who in charge of
Iraq naive enough to think they could disband the old regime's
Army without serious consequences. Now, these disgruntal boys, with
military training, armed with unguarded military-grade weapons,
are going to make US troops' life as difficult as possible. |
| 2003/10/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10678 Activity:kinda low |
10/17 http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=US_Armed_Forces Ah yes, the General says his God is bigger than the Muslim God. \_ He said his God was bigger than the Somalian warlord's "God" - that the warlord's god was an idol. Of course he is not speaking about good, freedom-loving Muslims and their God. [There was my try at being right-wing. How was I?] \_ He was exercising his freedom of speech rights. Are you trying to take away what makes this country great? Why do you democrats hate America so much? \_ Much better imitation of a conservative. |
| 2003/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10677 Activity:nil |
10/16 " campaign that sent hundreds of identical letters to hometown
newspapers promoting soldiers' rebuilding efforts in Iraq."
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031015/frontpage/124463.shtml
\_ Old news, son. Increase your refresh rates.
\_ where've you been? this is last week's news. |
| 2003/10/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10642 Activity:high |
10/15 Powell mislead Americans/UN in speech on Iraqi WMDs
"... I think my conclusion about [Powell's speech] now is that it's
probably one of the low points in his long distinguished service to
the nation" -Person responsible for analyzing WMD threat for Powell
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
\_ Neo-cons: your response, please?
\_ I had to give up being a neo-con when i realized we were
being systematically being misled by the neocon cabal.
Clark in 2004!
\_ DEAN!!!!!
\_ I doubt I qualify as a "neocon" but i was not against the war.
I did not ever believe they had weapons of mass destruction
Nor did anyone I know.
I will be glad to "respond", if you link to the Actual
speech. It amazes me that someone can put up an article on
website criticising a speach and not include (links to) even
\_ Seriously, the only difference between a politician and liar
portions of the speach in question -phuqm
\_ how did dubya get a csua account?
\_ Well hooray for CBS for having the balls to run this.
\_ "The main problem was that the senior administration officials
have what I call faith-based intelligence," says Thielmann. "They
knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really
blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the
is one is in office. It's really only a matter of who lies
less, and for what purpose. The ends - no Saddam - justify
the means.
\_ Well hooray for CBS for having the balls to run this.
intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame
to the intelligence community and most of the blame to the senior
administration officials." |
| 2003/10/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10630 Activity:high |
10/14 I have been saying this for years, but it is nice to see it
finally getting reported in the media. -ausman
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0342/schanberg.php
\_ 224 lines and counting. Damn you're good.
\_ Heh, the village voice. The media. Heh. And the freeper guy gets
beat on by all sides around here. At least the freepers don't
pretend they're real media. Why don't you just post links from The
People's Daily World or hey! straight from Pravda! They have an
English language version on the net!
\_ You misspelled "Xinhua."
\_ Hey, thanks! Now I can find out the People's Truth about
the advancements and prosperity occuring with each new Five
Year Plan in Greater China!
\_ Hehe, when I was in Shanghai (oh so many years ago), I
had the pleasure of reading that every province in PRC
was on course to meet its Five Year Plan objectives.
I'm reminded of the Italian airforce disassembling,
transporting, and reassembling airplanes just ahead of
Mussolini's tour of the facilities.
\_ The Voice has a readership of over 1/4 M and often breaks
stories that are then covered in the mainstream media. You
may not like their slant, but they are considered serious
media by most of the rest of the world. -ausman
\_ Heh. Let's compare to the number of people who listen
to Limbaugh.
\_ Head count does not a real journalist make as the above
makes clear. At least you admit they are slanted which was
my point.
\_ So is the National Review, but it doesn't mean that there
aren't good ideas in there. Why not discuss the ideas
instead of shooting the messenger? -ausman
\_ The hundreth version of puerile liberal blathering. If
you're going to criticize the Iraq policy don't turn it
into a political grievance free for all. Stay focused.
It is incumbent upon the author, or any liberal
author for that matter, to propose a plausible alternative
strategy for dealing with militant Islam besides
group hug, bring the troops home, close my eyes
the problem will go away.
I'm not holding my breath.
\_ doesn't this entire statement depend on what you subjectively
term 'plausible'?
\_ you think 'group hug, close eyes' is a plausible anti-terror
strategy? -!the above
\_ Waitasec. Are you saying that the neocon method of security
through force of arms is the only reasonable foreign/domestic
policy that's been put out on the table? Take off the
blinders and read, son!
\_ I've yet to see an alternative beyond the standard list of
"we shouldn't do the thing we're doing now" whining. How
about you post a summary in the same way you've reduced the
current policy to a dozen words? -!the above
\_ How about I give you a few buzzwords, and you nitpick
the hell out them as per usual?
-- enforce Economic Sanctions against countries that
delay democratically held elections
\_ Been there, done that, you leftists whine about
how we're only hurting the people and not the
corrupt leaders. It was only this last year
right up to the moment we invaded Iraq that you
were bitching about wanting to end sanctions.
\_ Straw man. Only a very small minority was
for ending sanctions.
\_ Bullshit alert! It was the theme of the day
in your media, plus the motd and wall were
covered with that as well for the local
perspective.
\_ Let's take a poll. I'm liberal. I never
supported this. sig's preferred. -nivra
wanted to end sanctions:
did not want to end sanctions:
nivra,
wanted to switch to "smart sanctions":
ausman
\_ Do you have any evidence that a majority
of "leftists" were in favor of removing
sanctions? Post sources, please.
\_ well apparently, the sanctions worked in
Iraq, as Saddam didn't develop WMD.
\_ With 60,000 tons of material to look through
you don't know that.
\_ The evidence, thus far, points to that.
-- enforce arms embargoes against countries that deal
in nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons
\_ Been there, done that. Talk to China, Germany,
France, and the Russians. I don't see an embargo
of any sort against any of these countries anytime
soon. BTW, history lesson: the Japanese saw our
oil embargo of their country as an act of war which
is part of the reason for Pearl Harbor.
\_ How about the arms embargo against Iraq? Did it
fail?
\_ Yes, actually, it did. They still had plenty
enough to fire at our jets enforcing the no
fly zone and keep 20+ million people outside
the sunni triangle area in terror.
\_ hello? read the original sentence:
"nuclear, chemical, or biological"
see above. evidence thus far ...
Also, who caused dismantling of medium
range missiles shortly before invasion?
oh, that's right, a toothless org
called the UN -nivra
-- pay our dues to the UN, throw our muscle behind the
UN's health and peacekeeping operations
\_ Group hug! This is going to stop middle class
Saudi terrorists how exactly?
\_ the question is, why are middle class
Saudi terrorists attacking the US? Could it
have something to do with our military
operations in the middle east? Oh, just
forget it.
\_ I won't forget it. You're now changing the
topic. I will address. You implied that the
problem is poverty. You know it isn't. The
real problem is we're now engaged in a war of
cultures and different values. Terrorism is
only the tool the enemy uses. They'd use
tanks and bombers if they could. The Arab
world is still bitter about having lost their
once great empire and seen their culture
stagnate. It's easy to argue that Islamic
extremism and the tightly interwoven control
of state religion has held them back and the
anti-democratic Arab nations now need a scape
goat for their own government's failings. The
obvious goat is the West and the US in
particular who were either barbarians or
didn't even exist during the height of their
cultural period but now rule the world.
They're pissed off and until they decouple
their religion from the government affairs and
give their people a voice and their economies
modernise they're doomed and we're doomed to
fight them as well.
\_ The first eight crusades ended in failure.
What makes you think this one will be
any different?
\_ Stop buying the lies. This is not a war
of cultures and different values: they
all want coca cola, self-determination,
and the freedom to practice their wacky
religious practices just as much as we
do. The difference is that their
governments oppress the hell out of them,
deny them education, real jobs, health
care, and freedom of speech. We prop
up their governments and throw our weight
around, so they naturally see us as
targets. They're not at war with USA--
they really just want us to leave them
the hell alone.
\_ This, at minimum, would have given the UN more
strength and enable it to find the truth about
WMD in Iraq, thereby avoiding a costly war/
nation-building process that has drained
US resources from fruitful hunt for Al-Qaeda
terrorists in Afghanistan.
\_ You're assuming the UN wanted to find out the
truth about anything. The UN is an org that
is focused on smoothing things over, not on
catching and punishing anyone. It's a
diplomatic org and was always intended to be.
Trying to give the UN police powers is a huge
mistake. It'll never work and never has.
\_ first sentence, UN charter:
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
DETERMINED to save succeeding generations
from the scourge of war, which twice in
our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to
mankind," Is the US more interested in
"catching and punishing" than it is in
preventing, halting, and winning the war
against terror? Oh, certainly the UN
resolutions and UN mandate failed in 1991.
-- stop making payola foreign aid payments to countries
where the money gets sucked into the pockets of the
ruling class
\_ That would be every non-Western country on the
planet. But in general I agree with you. We
should stop wasting money on third world welfare.
-- avoid armed conflict where possible, but be prepared
with an exit strategy for those places where we must
act
\_ I agree with you here.
\_ Then apparently you disagree with what Bush
has done in Iraq. Armed conflict was not
necessarily called for at that juncture in
time, and he had no coherent exit strategy
at all.
\_ I disagree in part with what Bush has done in
Iraq. I'm disappointed and unhappy that they
weren't prepared to deal with the aftermath of
a successful military campaign. I suspect
they thought fighting would last a few months
and they had time to plan for it. No one
expected the Iraqi military to crumble in a
few days but we should have been prepared for
that anyway.
\_ 6 months out, this excuse holds no water.
\_ you failed to address the first half. You
say you agree that the US should avoid
armed conflict where possible, but Bush
clearly didn't. Re: the 2nd half, the
Bush admin. was clearly predicting and
hoping for a clear, decisive victory,
complete with surrendered Iraqi batallions,
etc. Yet you say they didn't expect the
Iraqi military to crumble? PS. it took
more than a few days... -nivra
-- share intelligence with our allies and justify our
actions with actual evidence
\_ Who are our allies? Is France? Germany? Russia?
\_ 1) we do. 2) justify to? I don't think making you
happy fuzzy feel good at the expense of foreigners
exposing their country's corrupt regimes is the way
to go. After the first few get exposed and executed
the intelligence is going to dry up. Although we
know that American media won't expose the crimes of
foreign dictators because they might lose access to
the country. For 2 points, name that bastion of
left wing thought that knew about Saddam's mass
murdering ways and covered it up! Mea Culpa!
Let the nitpicking begin!
\_ No nitpicking. You posted the standard group hug
stuff and these are the standard responses to which
I've never seen a real counter point.
\_ So you agree with 2 group hug points? Awww.
A little more empathy, and you'll pass the
the V-K.
\_ I agree with 2 points and partially agree with
a third. When I see the left start
complaining about third world welfare to
corrupt regimes I'll take the left seriously.
\_ "Every time anyone says that Israel is our
only friend in the Middle East, I can't help
but think that before Israel, we had no enemies
in the Middle East." -Jesuit Priest John Sheehan
\_ Yeah, the Societas Jesu always were on best of
terms with the Jews since its founding.
\_ Yes, quoting a priest from another religion to
support your anti-Israeli bias is interesting.
Should anyone bother pointing out that the
middle east was a British controlled super sized
colony (plus the french got syria) for the
entire modern era before Israel was created? No,
it sounds cooler and more witty to snap off one
liners which ignore historical reality. You
know we didn't have an energy problem in CA
before all you white people showed up! There
were enough acorns for everyone!
\_ He's nuts, more nutty than Dubya.
\_ Ask anyone outside of CA what they think of people from
Berkeley vs. W. 9 out of 10 will call you the nut.
\_ The Red states maybe. Probably not in the Blue states.
\_ Rush Limbaugh had a map of votes by county. It was a very
funny map because the US landmass was basically red, except
\_ Well Societas Jesu were good friends of the
Jews since their founding.
a few narrow strips near the oceans.
\_ I assume you are refering to the electoral college.
You forget the popular vote was very close. |
| 2003/10/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29573 Activity:nil |
10/13 Democrats say Iraq has WMD
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1000604/posts
\_ Have you even read the quotes?? Try harder, if you're going
to troll. At least come up with something substantial. |
| 2003/10/13-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10605 Activity:nil |
10/11 Interesting Smithsonian article about the history of Iraq:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues03/may03/iraq.html
\_ does it cover the stuff about being kicked out of the garden and
settling there and thus the modern day iraqis are the direct
line from adam and as people who walked the earth before jesus
should be granted deference and respect due the children of god?
just curious.
\_ We are all the children of God, and every sperm is sacred.
\_ Sorry children, but I have to sell you all for medical
experiments
\_ Amen, brother! Amen! |
| 2003/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10603 Activity:low |
10/11 Drugs, Russia and Terrorism, Part 1
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/7/212349.shtml
Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America and the West
http://csua.org/u/4p1
\_ This shouldn't be news to anyone that can read and isn't naive.
\_ "who can read" |
| 2003/10/12-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:10602 Activity:nil |
10/11 Many soldiers, same letter:
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031011/frontpage/121390.shtml
\_ Yeah and they all vote the same, too! We should make sure they
can't vote and corrupt our democracy anymore. |
| 2003/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10599 Activity:nil |
10/11 Dick Cheney Was Right
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/238dkpee.asp
\_ I can smell the troll from here!
\_ doesn't fit your world view so it must be a troll. typical.
we know that when you've got nothing to say you always resort
to the thoughtless "it's a troll!" response. why bother even
posting anymore? we already know you've got no response and
nothing to add. RTFA and you'll see real facts. Hurts, huh? !op
\_ "We don't know," said Cheney today.
On March 16, just before the war started, Vice President Cheney
said, "We know that [Saddam Hussein] has a long-standing
relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al
Qaeda organization."
To bad he didn't tell the truth back in March, eh?
\_ Did you read the article? It addresses your concern.
They were two different questions. The question in the
article was about Sept. 11. What was the question
for your quote. You're being intellectually dishonest.
\_ tjb? what are you doing here?!?
\_ standard motd leftist: if you can't
dispute the facts, insult the speaker
\_ Typical motd child: Doesn't know
jack doodly about the poster, so
he must be on the Other team
(since ALL politics can be
trivially divided into two teams).
\_ Good try. Take another shot?
\_ Do you even know who tjb
is?
\_ yup. and?
\_ You're way too serious
or take yourself way
too seriously.
Lighten up, chum.
\_ leftists like Bill O'Reilly?
\_ BO'R is an entertainer, not a
politcal figure.
\_ Standard motd rightist: post
uninteresting opinion peice
from right wing magazine, then
claim that it is indisputable
"facts," and get all huffy and
pious when people insult you.
\_ Better to post something than
just rant about the evil BushCo
conspiracy and blindly write
off the opposition without so
much as a link, good or bad.
I'm not the op but still no one
has disproved anything in that
URL at all. Just fired up the
old "its a troll!" gun and
ripped off a few shots into
the dark. |
| 2003/10/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10566 Activity:nil |
10/9 What does 87 billion look like?
http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion
\_ $166B total. Why does fixing up Iraq need $6385 per Iraqi? That's
way overpriced! We're not building everything from scratch.
\_ But Halliburton does *quality* work.
\_ That is just the down payment.
\_ Why are they using $1 bills? There exist $1000 and possibly $10000
bills |
| 2003/10/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10501 Activity:nil |
10/7 http://www.newbridgestrategies.com/index.asp \_ >_< Blaaaaaaaargh. How much more obvious can you get? |
| 2003/10/3-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10453 Activity:nil |
10/3 Kay's Report, minus the ranting:
http://csua.org/u/4m3 (CIA page)
(Many thanks to the first person who posted this.)
\_ I'm loving Richard Boucher hyping the vial of botulinum found.
There's probably more in a cubic foot of dirt in the backyard
than in a single vial of bacteria.
\_ Isn't botulism toxin the stuff Ann Coulter injects into
her face to give it that rictus like quality?
\_ You're thinking of the lawyer chick from OJ, then cnn, now
on Fox. Greta something? Coulter is simply hot.
\_ Look, you can buy it on the internet:
link:csua.org/u/4m7
\_ I can buy anything on the internet. yermom was cheap and
no shipping!
\_ So to summarize, they were at least two years from being able
to produce Sarin, had stopped research on nuclear weapons and
had some sort of fragmentary dual use bioweapons research
program. And an intent to purchase or develop some longer range
missles than allowed by UN 1441. But no WMD, right?
But they still might show up in the 600,000 tons of unsearched
munitions, admittedly.
\_ So to summarize, there's some hints of stuff but with 600,000 tons
more shit to go through no one can be sure what's there or not and
they need more time. It's only a preliminary report as stated on
the first page, not a final report. |
| 2003/10/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10440 Activity:kinda low |
10/2 http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx \_ Good that someone is doing this, but I don't like the fact that the \_ Good that someone is doing this, but I don't like the fac that the government isn't doing it directly. |
| 2003/10/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10434 Activity:nil |
10/2 Andrew Sullivan: READ THE (WMD) REPORT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/994199/posts |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10429 Activity:nil |
10/2 Wow, David Kay just reported that there aren't any WMDs, and now Bush
asks for another $600 million to keep looking (on top of the $300
million already spent). Almost a billion to look for something that
isn't there! Go team!
\_ I'll bet you were one of the people who wanted to give the UN a few
more years to look only this spring.
\_ Oh right, the reason they're not finding them right now is
because Saddam won't give them access to the palaces. Wake
the fuck up.
\_ No, because either a) they've been moved, b) they're well
hidden, c) they were destroyed, or d) they never existed.
(d) no one thinks this. (c) is possible but can't be
documented. (b) can only be proved if they're found, can
never be disproved. (a) same as (b). Unlike you I've put
real thought into it and understand that whether or not any
are ever found has nothing to do with whether or not they
existed or when. |
| 2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10417 Activity:kinda low |
10/1 Iraq: What Went Wrong
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16650
\_ need help here. don't speak english. What are the units,
or number of men in a:
regiment ~4000
brigade ~6000
division ~20000
\_ These are all for the US Army. Each military has a different
structure.
\_ thanks. this means, according to Clark, we didn't have
that many people fighting in Iraq when the war started.
\_ WOW. that was a good article. If he wrote even half of that, rather
than being all written by speechwriters/assistants, he's one
heckuva candidate
\_ his opinion on Iraq war is highly regarded. although personally
i can't make a good connection between a good general and a
good president.
\_ general and president are both administrative jobs.
sure beats failed oil company executive, AWOL texas
air national guardsman/draft dodger, and playboy
millionaire.
\_ sorry, but no. they're bother leadership roles. if we
needed administrative types we would've voted Gore in.
\_ we DID vote gore in. GWB somehow stole the election!
\_ OMG! WTF! LOL!
\_ Coming from the guy who lobbed 100+s millions in tomahawks and
destroye, apart from bridges, hospitals, water plants etc.
a few tanks. This against the Christian Serbs who rescued downed
allied pilots in WWII. What a joke. |
| 2003/10/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10398 Activity:low |
10/1 Joseph C. Wilson:"The issue is really transfer of WMD to
terrorist groups which had never occurred before in
Saddam's regime but now that he is toast don't be surprised
if as his last act of defiance he does precisely that."
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_iraq_wilson040303.htm
\_ No wonder Bush went after his wife...
\_ He's an interesting mix of brilliant policy analysis and standard
State Department globalism and anti-American cynicism. He'd
probably have been a really good guy to have in office if the
State Department hadn't destroyed his ability to see clearly.
\_ Nazi's also believed their country could do no wrong..
\_ Bing! We have a Hitler reference on reply #2, could we
get a clean-up crew in here? Thanks.
\_ Did I win? I wrote the thing the Nazi posted replied to. |
| 2003/9/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10376 Activity:kinda low |
9/29 WMD destroyed long before the war, just like we told you neocons:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101031006/wwmd.html
\_ And just how did you know that when the inspectors left in 1998?
\_ Simple enough. I listened to what the people who had actually
been there, like Colonel Ritter, had to say, not the lying
politicians (of both stripes) in Washington.
\_ Ritter? Child-loving Ritter? Who took money from an Iraqi to
do a documentary about Iraq?
\_ Credibility never counts with the Left, as long as they're
hearing what they want to hear.
\_ Who has the credibility now?
\_ It remains to be seen.
\_ So, are you going to present actual evidence of this
slanderous charge, or are you just going to keep
repeating the party line, ditto-head?
\_ Duh, idiot. He was charged and indicted for the sex
offense and has never denied the Iraqis paid him $300k
to make a 'documentary'. Google.
\_ Then post a URL. The only ones i see are on dittohead
sites.
\_ Is MSNBC good enough you idiot?
http://tinyurl.com/p444
\_ And how about the CIA people who were complaining about intel
being cooked to support the WH? Remember Ray McGovern? There
were others.
\_ How about them?
\_ Doesn't matter - time to rid the world of dictators one at a time
\_ start by voting democrat in 2004
\_ Then the entire US can be just like CA! Oh wait...
\_ Ooooooh, SNAP!
\_ Uh, yeah. Like I said, the Left only hears what it wants
to hear. When we stop having elections here let us know
which Democrat started the coup.
\_ Wow, you are really deluded.
\_ Yeah you sure put me in my place. Here's my really
brilliant counter point, "Wow, you are really
deluded". Hah! I sure put you in your place! |
| 2003/9/26-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10343 Activity:moderate |
9/26 Neocon "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle creamed in open
debate with local gal:
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/004301.html#004301
\_ Creamed? Ok, nice way for the URL to cut off his reaponse which
unfairly takes the whole thing completely out of context,
makes unfairly takes the whole thing completely out of context,
but "fair and balanced" wasn't what you were going for so I applaud
your clever editing hatchet job.
\_ and how is an idle threat creaming someone? anyone
american not a soldier walking around Iraq is an idiot IMHO
\_ Way to miss the fucking point.
\_ or possibly they give a damn and are doing something about
the BS coming out of the White House.
\_ idle threat? wtf are you talking about.
\_ Let me ask you, just how long it took the Marshall plan
to work? Or the rebuilding of Japan? Only those who have no
grasp of history think things are "going badly". It's not
just the WH that in most parts of the new Iraq they are
well received. Read the blogs from soldiers in south/north
Iraq. It is just sad all you impatient dolts think every is
about money (shocker!) so therefore it must be bad. Ex-
Clintonites have equally used their connections to benefit
themselves.
\_ Take a deep breath, sit back, and re-write this when
you're calm and more likely to make sense.
\_ ad hominem. Troll score: 7.65 points, 5.0 required.
\_ non sequitur. Troll score: 4.9 points, no cookie.
\_ ad hominem. Troll score: 7.65 points, 5.0 required.
\_ non sequitur. Troll score: 4.9 points, no cookie.
\_ dictionary alert! Troll score: 6.2, 5.0 required.
\_ In both examples you cite we were NOT trying to rebuild
after a war which we started preemptively under false
pretenses and false secondary pretenses.
\_ who started what has exactly nothing to do with how
long it will or should take to rebuild a post-war
country. also the japanese and some germans might
disagree about the causes of WWII and who started what
with what economic acts of war. get a history book and
take rhetoric 1a.
\_ might makes right. actually plenty of contracts were
given out in Bosnia and Kosovo. i supported that act
even if it was purely "humanitarian"
\_ I supported those too, but not Iraq. What's your
point?
\_ So did I. What's *your* point?
\_ The Iraqi bloggers I have read seem to think otherwise.
Check out salam_pax. I have a friend who got back
recently after a three month assignment as a reporter
and he says that 400 people a month are being murdered
in greater Baghdad and that things are not really going
"well."
\_ Of course _your_ bloggers write what you like to read.
If they wrote how well and peachy everything was you'd
stop reading because obviously they're just agents of
the eveil BushCo and should be DDOS'd off the net.
\_ I think you missed the point, perhaps deliberately.
Can you point to any Iraqis who think things are
going well? Sure, the soldiers think things are great.
If you had ever served, you would know why that is
not surprising, or worth much.
\_ Who cares what the average Iraqi thinks? How many
average Iraqis have blogs anyway? Where did your
Iraqi bloggers get the experience as to exactly
how long it should take to rebuild a country?
Their country was never really built up that much
in the first place. Most of the south never has
had potable water and you're going by what some
the eveil BushCo and should be DDOS'd off the net.
If you had ever served, you would know why that is
not surprising, or worth much.
internet using elite have to say? What's wrong?
The Iraqi net backbone is too slow? Can't play
netrek without getting dooshed?
\_ Bile: it's what's for breakfast.
\_ BushCo serves bile to the Iraqi people! I
read it on a blog kept by an average Iraqi
citizen!
\_ Bad examples. The Marshall Plan took place two years after
WWII when Europe was "pacified" and used American money to
help European business rebuild Europe. Japan was also
"pacified" but united as a people and even under those
conditions, took many years of American funding to help
the Japanese to rebuild Japan. Iraq is not pacified, is
not united, and American money supports American companies
rebuilding Iraq, not Iraqi. Try again.
\_ Duh, it took 2 years to 'pacify' those regions? well,
wait 2 year in Iraq then come back and whine if it
isn't going well. What did Europe and Japan do during
the two year we didn't help? If we did nothing but
'pacify' Iraq for 2 years you'd be screaming that we're
not doing enough. You'd be unhappy no matter what
because you're an idealogue and blindly hate the admin.
\_ Unlike post-war Japan and Germany, there are plenty
of Iraqis who were happy to see the former regime go.
There's no need to wait 2 years to "pacify" Iraq.
Hand over control of Iraq to the Iraqis we supposedly
invaded to free. Otherwise, we just swapped the
Bathist regime for the Haliburton regime. No points
for good intentions, folks.
not doing enough. You'd be unhappy no matter what
because you're an idealogue and blindly hate the admin.
invaded to free. Otherwise, we just swapped the
Bathist regime for the Haliburton regime. No points
for good intentions, folks.
\_ There are plenty of prior government Iraqis who
have a lot invested in the way it used to be and
need to be found and imprisoned or executed. If
we left now you'd be the first one screaming on
the motd how we abandoned the average net using
blogging Iraqi to Afghanistan style chaos and how
it's terrible how slow their net has become after
the eveil Amerikkkans left! boo hoo. It's going
to take time, more deaths, and more money. If it
was easy to do, Clinton would've done it.
\_ And if Bush started making Muslims wear little
crescent badges and detained them in
"relocation camps," you'd still be up here on
the motd trying to defend him.
\_ Nice try but you completely avoided all my
points. Since you're the first to scream
"NAZI!" I win, right?
\_ Nah, I just alluded to nazis. You
invoked them. You win, but it's a
phyrric victory.
\_ wait, so we're in Iraq to imprison and execute
collaborators? the pres. says we're there to
rebuild Iraq and hand over power to the Iraqis.
so which are we: liberators or vigilantes? |
| 2003/9/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10329 Activity:moderate |
9/25 Hans Blix gets book deal. It was always about the money. It always
is. $500k to say, "We didn't find anything".
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/6859265.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
\_ C.R.E.A.M. baby.
\_ But he's been saying that all along. If someone wants to pay him,
why not? Besides, is he wrong? May I remind you:
STILL NO WMDS.
\_ What was found or not has zippo to do with this guy going on the
world stage solely to get a name for himself to sell his book
which is going to say what? What we already know?
\_ Solely to get a name for himself? Are you insane? He was
trying to stop a war. And at least one very powerful idiot
didn't listen to him, so now he's writing something that
history will be able to review.
\_ is this the point where I whine bc my response got deleted
and instead go "blah blah blah"?
\_ I see, so it's "free market! free market!" all the way, until
a non neo-conservative gets a small-time book deal? Just trying
to get the rules down, thanks.
\_ The free market has nothing to do with Blix camera hogging while
he was supposed to be working for the world's safety while he
was really just writing a book.
\_ There'd be nothing to write if Bush has listened to him. |
| 2003/9/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10304 Activity:high |
9/23 Bush and Annan's speeches to the UN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/sprj.irq.bush.transcript
http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/58/statements/sg2eng030923.htm
\_ I can't believe he said that! What a POS!
\_ Yep, the era of the UN is past.
\_ "History is a harsh judge: it will not forgive us if
we let this moment pass."
\_ How far up is that stick up your fat ass? |
| 2003/9/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10296 Activity:nil |
9/23 Bringing democracy to Iraq!
link:csua.org/u/4ge
\_ I strongly encourage you to do a smidgen of research on George
Galloway, and on his "interesting" past. Anything like that coming
from him is pretty rich. -John
\_ Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that the governing
council just muzzled the press.
\_ The right way to change a country is like so: after
crushing the former government, you tell everyone it's
over with and to report to work the next day, then you
shoot everyone that's stirring trouble, muzzle the press,
appoint a new government, let everything get stable, then
have an election a few years later and yield control. The
problem with the current plan is they're trying to build
a new government without fully stomping out the old one.
it's a bloody and ugly process and requires everyone stfu
for a while until the partisan activity is crushed.
\_ Nuke the shithole & get it over with. War. Victory.
Army. Military. Own the place. Get the picture? -John
\_ What a heartwarming sentiment, John.
\_ I've given up on trying to reason with the world.
I've joined the mighty troll army. -John
\_ Real Trolls don't sign their posts. -AMC
\_ That's so cool! Someone took my anonymous
nick. I'm now immortal! That rocks! Thank
you!
\_ The Troll King signs whatever he wants. -John
\_ But Ahnuld's Hummer doesn't run on radioactive gas. |
| 2003/9/22 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10275 Activity:very high |
9/21 US Army caught red handed using racist, anti African-American
recruiting methods.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/national/22RECR.html?ex=1064808000&en=221b26ead28a15a5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
And a big FU! to whatever racist deleted this!
\_ troll
\_ "The drop in black recruits may be tied to the Army's increased
focus on the college market, military officials say." Wtf? Perhaps
it's because black college students are less likely to want to
fight for Uncle Whitey's Army.
\_ how sad, a long ass trolling url non shortened url
i am far too lazy to click on.
\_ http://csua.org/u/4fc
\_ What's racist? The fact that they "focus on the college market"?
Are you implying black people don't go to college? What? Man,
some people on soda are weird. -John [restored by erikred]
\_ you're all weird, especiall those who call "troll" but haven't
read the link from the NYT of all places. Exactly what is the
right place one is allowed to post a link without being a troll?
Maybe from your favorite politician's personal website? -!OP
\_ I'm not weird. I think OP is crying 'racist' (meaningless
word, that) without giving a reason why. And I read
the article, is there a problem? Weirdo. -John
And a big FU! to whatever racist deleted this!
\_ Hm I just replied to this asking what is racist about it, and got
deleted. Are you a racist? You *are* weird. -John |
| 2003/9/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10268 Activity:nil |
9/20 These Are Historic Times - Is it to be Lincoln or Sisyphus?
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson091903.asp |
| 2003/9/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10264 Activity:nil |
9/20 http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030919-105619-9614r.htm Poor bastard. BushCo wouldn't have nailed him if he wasn't Muslim. |
| 2003/9/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10247 Activity:high |
9/18 Hans Blix gets in his parting shot:
http://csua.org/u/4dl
Too bad America didn't listen to him, instead of that boob in the
White House.
\_ Yeah, there'd still be hundreds of people getting summarily
executed, tortured, and disappeared off the Iraqi streets
everyday by Hussein's thugs if we had listened to Blix. Your
moral strength is overwhelming.
\_ How do you feel about the US propping up tyrants all over
the world? If you really believe in the Jimmy Carter school
of foreign policy, I respect you, even if I think you are
a bit naive. But I suspect you are just a Bush apologist
who has suddenly found civil rights as a causis belli.
\_ Well said. --scotsman
\_ U.S. can't depose every cruel dictator on earth, but the
only guy worse than Hussein is someone who can reach
S.F. and/or destroy Seoul with nukes. Granted, that
Hussein was bad to his own wasn't the reason U.S. went
after him, but why are so many people wringing their hands
about what a mistake it was to get rid of him? Why are so
many people hoping Iraq descends into anarchy so that U.S.
can be "taught a lesson"? Why do so many people want U.S.
out so that this can happen, paving the way for Iraq to
become the next Yugoslavia or Sudan? And how can these
same people claim to be on the side of "civil rights"? I
personally would be wrong than have millions suffer. Why
is this not so with so many of the self-anointed "civil
rights" activists?
\_ It wasn't a mistake to remove Hussein. The error was the
method. Anarchy already exists in Iraq, and since the US
is unwilling to relent or give up power, few are interested
helping promote a failing policy. And the term you are
misusing should be human rights. Plus the US isn't allowing
others into Iraq unless they bend their knee to Washington.
\_ The reason many liberals opposed the war was not because we think
the U.S. should ignore brutal tyrants, but because the war was
sold to the public based on half-truths and lies. Also invading
another country without U.N. approval and pissing off other
countries...
\_ So you would have supported it if they said it was to free
the Iraqi people? I think not. What does the UN have to do
with it? Since when did the UN become the ruling world body?
I don't recall voting to allow a bunch of third world
actually Fox News, lies. Almost all (all?) of them have
unelected dictators, tyrants, and enemies of the US decide
what my country is "allowed" to do.
\_ If they'd said it was to free Iraq, I'd've suggested
that they consider freeing Burma, Angola, and Syria
first. I'd've also suggested that they lean more
heavily on Saudi Arabia and Egypt before they start
invading Iraq. And finally, I would have suggested
that they demonstrate that they can actually "free"
a country from oppression and install democracy by
first finishing up the process in Afghanistan. Show
me you can do this, and I'll march in your army.
\_ So I'm assuming you can prove it. Ooops. Proof left to reader
since it's obvious to BushCo!
\_ I've seen the Eiffel tower. I've stood at the observation
platform and looked out over Paris. I can not prove I have
done so, nor can I prove the Eiffel tower exists. However,
to say that the Eiffel tower does not exist because I can not
prove it to your level of comfort does *not* make the Eiffel
tower *not* exist. You're probably right. All those mass
graves reports are just BushCo lies.
\_ Most of those "mass graves" reports really are BushCo
or Fox News, lies. Almost all (all?) of them have
turned out to be regular graveyards. You know, like the
kind every country has, even the US. The US killed 10k
civilians in this war at least. How long would it take
Saddam Hussein to kill this many?
\_ Saddom would look fairly moderate on the large list of tyranical
regimes that the US has not only tolerated but also supported
in the past.
\_ And the racism of today would look downright tame
compared to that of the past. Is that your only
way of evaluating right and wrong - precident? The
sins of Ike should be upon Bush?
\_ "I find your lack of faith disturbing.." |
| 2003/9/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10240 Activity:high |
9/17 Should the 30 million dollar reward for Saddam be offered and
eligible to the soldier who bags Saddam?
\_ The 30 mil is for information leading us to him. If the soldiers
have found him, we don't need the info.
\_ yeah but if we get him without info, that would be more incentive
for a soldier to capture him or kill him.
\_ I bet the soldiers have plenty of incentive already.
\_ our soliders aren't bounty hunters. they don't need extra
incentive to follow orders. if they do we're really fucked.
\_ Has Saddam Hussein put a reward on Bush's head yet?
\- isnt this like offereing your company headhunter a referral
bonus? i thinkt eh real question is do you shoot him down like
a dog, or take him alive. --psb
dog, or take him alive. --psb
\_ I bet this was moved to a different point on the thread.
dog, or take him alive. --psb
Yay idiot humor.
\_ Saddam's in my basement. How do I get my $30 mil? -John |
| 2003/9/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10193 Activity:kinda low |
9/14 What is the size of US armed forces anyway? I thought US has
more than 300k troops. Aside from cost, why people say US forces
are strech thin?
\_ the more funding you give to the armed forces, the more it'll
spend on war. the more it spends on war, the more money it'll
need. 300K troop is not enough. Neither is 1 million. It's
never enough.
\_ It's the purpose of the armed forces to be prepared for war.
The more they have, they better prepared they can be. This
is common sense to most people. Let's just scrap the entire
military and save a buck. Would that make you happy, comrade?
\_ Political gain.
\_ around 150k forces depolyed in Iraq alone, probably more in Kuwait
to support them, that's a pretty sizeable chunk of that 300k. When
you consider that you need local troops, troops at premenent bases
like in Europe and Japan, well gee, that seems pretty stretched
to me. Add to that the fact that it is an all volenteer army that
has been seeing recruitment and reenlistment rates plumet... see
the problem yet?
\_ There are more than 300k troops. That's a ridiculously small
number so the rest of what you're saying is silly. Also, all
4 branches easily met and exceeded quota since 9/11.
\_ Where do you get your figures for recruitment rates? My
understanding is the army had no problems filling their quotas
after 9/11 (and the very successful baghdad blitz helped).
The army's main problem is money, not men.
\_ I thought they had cash a-plenty, but that a lot of it
was wasted on pork-barrel projects, like the V-22 and
strategically pointless bases, rather than on boring things
like training and spare parts. -John
\_ Different budgets. Lack of spare parts in the US Army
means they can't strip and replace every part on every
M1-A2 active in the field while on the front at the same
time. You'll note the lack of any reports of soldiers
unable to complete missions due to lack of spares.
\_ can they mobilize all the national guards for Iraq,
leaving just skeleton personel for bases in USA, and
throw everyone at Iraq so the situation there could get
stablized more quickly?
\_ They've done that to some degree. All our gate guards
are National Guardspeople at Kirtland AFB, NM. --PeterM
\_ more people won't help in Iraq. They're doing ok in most
of the country. The reports of trouble from Iraq are *all*
from a small section of the country that was always hard
core pro-saddam. Go check a map every time they report an
event. It's always something just north or north west of
baghdad. That's prime we-love-the-president-day real estate.
\_ yea, the rest are all peace loving shiite mullahs, just
like their brothers in Iran.
\_ ~ 2 million for all branches. |
| 2003/9/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10180 Activity:nil |
9/12 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1041212,00.html This is pretty messed up. Do you think the US soldiers were duped into firing at the police? \_ What we need to do is require that every Iraqi citizen carry a loaded firearm. That's the magic way to end all violence! \_ Pretty much, yes, it is. \_ Yes, because everyone who has a gun would act responsibly, and people with issues would never escalate them to "hey, I'll just shoot the ho, just to let her know" since they'd be required to always carry a gun. |
| 2003/9/12 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10169 Activity:nil |
9/12 Someone quoted The Economist, but didn't provide a reference. I just
came across it, so here it is: The Economist, September 6th-12th, 2003
On Pg. 28, "Would you like your class war shaken or stirred, sir?"
Interestingly, Americans are usually over-optimistic
about their chances of promotion. An opinion poll a couple
of years ago found that 19% of American taxpayers believed
themselves to be in the top 1% of earners. A further 20%
thought they would end up there within their lifetimes.
Also interesting stuff like:
Take wealth rather than income, and America's
disparity is even more startling. The wealthiest 1% of all
households controls 38% of national wealth, while the bottom
80% of households holds only 17%, according to the Economic
Policy Institute (EPI). Around 85% of stockmarket wealth
is held by a lucky 20%.
\_ So you'd rather live in a country where people think there's no
hope of ever advancing and just suck off the public teat? I think
that was tried. We called it communism. We called it socialism.
\_ Holy shit, look at that knee jerk! |
| 2003/9/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:29524 Activity:insanely high |
9/8 http://asia.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3408521 Sigh... once again world leaders were unprepared for the obvious and easily foreseen. Only a week ago Japan announced they're going to _start_ spending $2b/year for the next 5+ years. SK has no plans for defense at all. And in the next year we have a good chance of seeing a few million people anywhere in the region go up in smoke. Literally. \_ According to the 2003 CIA world factbook the military budgets for these countries in 2002 were (roughly): S. Korea: $13B Japan: $40B \_ Percentage for missile defense? near zero. \_ Kim Jong-Il isn't going to do anything. Why not? Because he'll lose if he tries. Kim Jong-Il's most important goal is survival. He merely wants to give off the appearance of being crazy so he can blackmail donor countries. If he did anything, we would invade and he would lose. for sure. \- it's probably actually the case that NKorea is willing to "bid" to higher risk levels. going with the poker analogy, bluffing might be just that when it comes to a single round of poker, but the willingness to run higher risks has implications across repeated interactions. in a MAD world you dont directly threaten the other side, but you threten the other side with your willingness to risk things going out of control. this model applies in a certain modified way in the north korean case. lit. references skipped. BTW, pico iyer has an interesting travel essay on NK from a few yrs back in "tropical classical" i think. there is also an interesting frontline on NK. --psb \_ You know, that's very similar to what people said about Saddam Hussein: he'd either use/have WMD's or allow the inspectors in. 1) we haven't found WMD's (which of course brings up nasty questions of either intelligence failure or someone else getting the weapons. 2) he didn't let inspectors in \_ uhh, revisionist history here? \_ Thanks for the correction--I must be hanging out with the wrong crowd. His obstruction in 1994 led the inspectors to believe that they couldn't accomplish anything (and hence the left). The UN resolutions in 2002-2003 were for Hussein to lead the inspectors to WMD's or produce evidence that the weapons had been destroyed. No one expected him to let his country be invaded rather than comply. \_ the inspectors left in 1998. Not 1994. Also he did start producing serious evidence there were no WMDs, but the adminstration went to the the rest of the world and said he was lieing and they had evidence to prove it. Funny how now they are backing away from that and hoping most people wont notice or care. Which is working in the US but isn't working too well outside of the country. And as has been proven recently the US CAN'T go it alone unless they are willing to make sacrafices and pay through the nose. \_ His evidence was late and weak thus leading to the reasonable assumption + intelligence that there were easily found WMD. Hussein's actions still make no sense. We had a large force at his southern border and were making preparations to invade that were so obvious CNN was showing the work being done on international TV and he still wouldn't blink. \_ Perhaps he was not willing to fully cooperate because US is bombing his military capabilities even beyond the no fly zone, and has pretty much stated that we would try to assasinate Saddam if we find the chance? \_ No, your timeline is way off. We were *way* beyond no fly zones and other sanctions era garbage at this point. If he didn't blink it was clear he'd get invaded and crushed, party over. No blink. You can't judge foreign leaders based on your local concept of common sense. \_ It was clear to him he would get invaded no matter whether he blinked or not. US special forces is all over Iraq by that point, and condition for no invasion is for Saddam to step down and go into exile. Exile means US can assasinate him anytime it wants. The voluminous evidence (several thousand pages) is \_ So how much of your half-eaten Cheetos did you spew all over your screen while typing that? not weak but as much as he can provide given that, as we now know, he really doesn't have any WMD. \_ Obviously I need to stop posting late at night. There is no sane explanation for Hussein's actions. Why do you expect Kim Jong-Il to be different? \_ There's a really interesting long ass article about Kim Jong-Il in last week's new yorker, I guess I could post it somewhere if you're interested. now I feel like psb, this sucks. - danh \- evolutionary ameliorism \_ So you work for the State Department and have access to the psych profiles of foreign leaders? What security clearance does that require? Is there any other secret shit you can maneuvering to prevent a war at all costs. Keeping US share with us? --super spy #1 fan \_ One doesn't need all that "secret shit". It's common \_ Umm, China constitutes > 70% of N Korean imports. Since N. Korea has no natural resources or domestic industry, this means in effect N. Korea survives only through China. PRC military wants military parity with the US ~ 2025, their generals and military reports are very specific that they view the US as adversary. Sorry you are wrong (unless of course you know more thant the entire US defense establishment). sense. The problem with US intelligence services is too much technology and too little common sense. Kim wants to hold on to power for the long term, and to do that his best model is the PRC. Unfortunately, US sanctions is preventing him from following in the PRC's footsteps. He also faces much more serious military pressures and burden as compared to the PRC. South Korea poses much more of a threat as the better model than Taiwan vis-a-vis the PRC, since Taiwan is so small compared to PRC. Yes, Kim might strike if he is cornered. If you let him have a way out, he would take the way out. I think US wants to take him out whereas S. Korea prefers a more moderate, slower, but less risky way. Maybe if PRC continues to prosper economically, it can pull N. Korea out of economic disaster even with US sanctions. Either take Kim out ASAP or help him with economic liberalization are both better than the current impasse. \_ No, it isn't common sense to threaten your neighbors and the US with nuclear weapons if you expect to survive long term. If staying alive and in power was his goal, he's chosen a suicidal and foolish path that only a mad man would take. How do you see 10+ years of nuclear weapons and missile development in a starving nation as a means of survival as common sense? \_ If S. Korea, Japan, US feels threatened by N. Korea, how do you think N. Korea feels about the might of the US? If N. Korea's military is weak, US and S. Korea would likely have taken it out a long time ago, given that USSR is no more and PRC is more and more unwilling to support the liability that is N. Korea. \_ Sigh... if the US wanted to take out NK we could do so right now. NK can *never* be so strong that we can't take them out. You have it all backwards. The *only* reason to take them out is they're getting too strong and building WMD and the means to use them *and* are suicidally threatening to do so. Otherwise no one would care what a backwater starving nation run by yet another psycho is doing to it's people. \_ not "no one." South Korea would care. Most south Koreans still have family over there. \_ Sure and USSR could have taken out Afghanistan. Just throw a few nukular bombs and then send in the whole damn Red Army. 3rd grade arguments aside, the question is always, "At what cost?". And no, the reason N. Korea is more and more a concern is not that they are getting too strong but that they are getting too weak and unstable, and of course, the above stated desires of S. Koreans to have a united nation. As for caring about "backwater starving nations", it's all about projecting power and securing interests, like in Iraq, or Philippines in the last century. \_ don't forget that the current PRC model all started with Mao being *dead*. all through the idiocy of the great leap forward and the cultural revolution there were moderate leaders ready to turn China into a real country, and without the maniac dying all this was totaly impossible. Kim is NK's maniac. \_ Mao is a brutal dictator but not a maniac. Yes, GLF is sheer stupidity but I think Mao really believed it would work, at least initially. As for the GPCR, it is Mao's calculated bid to return to power. The PRC model (a more basic version) has been experimented upon off and on since the commie takeover, by the likes of Zhou, Liu and Deng. Mao did not like it too much not because of its merits/problems but because it gives too much power to Liu and others, sidelining Mao. \_ [troll purged] \_ In Washington the 'common sense' prevailing intelligence is that North Korea is China's client state. They are maneuvering to force the US off of the Korean peninsula so China can expand its sphere of influence. DUH. \_ PRC's main concern is much more than whether US troops is on the Korean peninsula. It's biggest fear is war on the Korean peninsula. Politically, helping N. Korea would be disastrous since PRC has good relations with S. Korea, and need trade with Japan and US. Not helping would be disastrous since its people and military leaders would be questioning why it is giving up what the previous generation gave life and blood for. Economically, it would be disastrous for the whole region either way. Militarily, it would have a hard time matching US / S. Korea. PRC is maneuvering to prevent a war at all costs. Forcing US off the Korean peninsula is way down on the bottom of the list. This is all common sense, and very basic. |
| 2003/9/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10092 Activity:high |
9/5 $90 billion this year, $60 billion next year. How much is the
regime change Iraq war going to cost your typical family of 4 in
total eventually? $4000?
\_ Ask the typical family of 3 that was a typical family of 4 before
9/11 how much it's worth.
\_ NO Iraq-9/11 connection! Never was never will be.
\_ Not much, if it's determined Iraq never did pose an imminent
threat, the WMD never existed, and the U.S. loses further
credibility internationally.
\_ now this is a good troll.
\_ yeah, every single nukular family of 4 lost a member due to
the attacks of 9/11. thanks for reminding us.
\_ $4000? That's like 10 times the tax cut I am going to get next
year.
\_ Chump change. US has supported many initiatives like this in
other countries that keep going on and on. |
| 2003/9/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10091 Activity:high |
9/5 In the end, with regard to WMD, it's not the two-bit dictator Saddam
who lied, but the Bush and Blair administrations. Poor Saddam. He
had no WMD and had been telling the truth all along, hoping and trying
hard to appease the US, while Bush and Blair lied to their
citizens and to the world, patronizing and full of self righteousness.
\_ you gotta learn to at least guise your troll. the post below is
much better.
\_ not really. it only got 1 pathetic bite. both are too
obviously trying to pull heart strings and push hot buttons.
\_ I think you just overwrote the second bite.
\_ It's not a troll, but a irrefutable declaration of fact, and
thus, no followup is expected. |
| 2003/9/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:10088 Activity:nil |
9/4 I love this shit. This is legalization of pirates in the high seas,
and USA is leading charge:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3082548.stm
\_ pirates? am i missing something here? it sounds like it's all
the activity of various nations' navies. when the US decides
to let commercial fishermen with grappling hooks and hunting
rifles board ships, then you can call it piracy.
\_ Both of you should read up on maritime law before resorting
to statements you can't back up.
\_ it's not a question of maritime law, it's a question of
what the word "pirate" means. If a warship attacks or boards
another vessel, that's not piracy.
Pirate:
"An armed ship or vessel which sails without a legal
commission, for the purpose of plundering other vessels on
the high seas."
\_ in the good old days, you can't just goahead and board
other nation's ship in the internation water. Am I
missing something here? --OP
\_ you probably side with China in saying to stop WMD
you need to talk. Imagine if this program were in place
back in Oct 1962 - no Cuban Missile Crisis! Might makes
right - get over it!
\_ Don't you have any pride in our nation as a beacon
of hope for democracy and its ability to bring the
world together? Soft power and our ability to set
the world agenda towards human rights have earned us
much leverage and the admiration of the world. You
should reevaluate the nuance of soft power. --aaron
\_ when were these "good old days" exactly? the good old
days are *right now*. in _your_ good old days ships got
boarded all the time. we called it piracy. it still
happens in some back water parts of the world but is very
rare, that's why ships no longer carry canons, eh?
\_ that is my point at first place. In name of
stopping WMD, we are acting like pirate of
caribean sea. What happened if we are trying
board a North Korean ship boun to Syria in
middle of Indian Ocean, and North Korean in self
defense open fire upon US navy vessel? -OP
\_ A military vessel stopping and searching a civ.
vessel on the high seas to search for contradband
is not piracy. That should be your "point at the
first place". Seriously, you're misapplying the
word. You don't know what it means. When a
US Navy destroyer or Coast Guard vessel stops a
ship, tosses the men overboard, sells the women into
slavery and keeps the cargo for later sale, please
post the URL on the motd and you can talk about
piracy on the high seas. I think you're a troll.
\_ The north korean ship is probably carrying nukes
or missiles or something nastier since that's about the
only thing north korea can export these days, so
I highly support boarding the bastards. What do YOU
think the US should do? Ignore it?
\_ "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men
stand ready in the night to visit violence
on those who would do us harm" - Orwell
\_ It's a nice quote and always true for any
society that has a substantial civilian
population going back to Rome and earlier. |
| 2003/9/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10051 Activity:nil |
9/4 SUPREMACY BY STEALTH
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/974871/posts
\_ Ugh. These people WANT a Pax Americana? I particularly like
the dictum to "Emulate Second-Century Rome." Don't these guys
remember what happened to Rome in the 4th century?
\- R. Kagan isnt a dumb guy, but he's either sort of blinded
by some of what he believes or uses a lot of stuff
disingenuously. I havent had time to process the full
article but his example where he talks about the
Scililian Fiasco [search for Glyllipus] is totally
ridiculous. Obvious, if you have any passing familiarity
with Thucydides [which of course 90% of the readers wont].
[in a strage coincidence the real modern expert on this
is Donald Kagan, who is another crazy right wing nut. note
also the historian "Erich S. Gruen" R. Kagan refers to
has an office in Dwinelle. one of berkeley's best lecturers.
--psb
\_ What's wrong with Pax Americana? Or Pax of any sort.
\_ Cause there ain't no Pax in Pax Americana. -aspo
\_ Pax Romana was somewhat mislabelled too. There always will
be unhappy fringe elements in any empire. This does not mean
the alternatives (i.e. bloody covert or overt conflicts
between major rival powers) are better. -- ilyas
\- 2nd century AD or BC? take your pick ... --psb
BC:
Cary \& Schullard describe the aftermath as follows:
``In other Greek towns they restored the rule of the
wealthier classes, and they made Corinth safe against
social revolution by razing it to the ground and selling
its inhabitants into slavery.'' This was the hard edge
to the vaunted {\it Pax Romana\/}.
--National Identity Myths and the Roman People
AD: [actually a little earlier, but written ~100]
... they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the
west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they
covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To
robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of
empire; they make a solitude and call it peace.
--The Agricola, Speech of [CG]algacus
The imperial destiny drives hard,
and fortune has no longer any gift for us
other than the disunion of our foes.
--The Germania
\_ White Man's burden... I heard that one before.
\_ You prefer what? That muslim fanatics run the world? Someone
is going to run the world whether you like it or not. I prefer
America run it. |
| 2003/8/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29497 Activity:high |
8/28 Required reading:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
\_ this is great, thanks. - rory
\_ no "blog" is required reading. |
| 2003/8/24-25 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29453 Activity:high |
8/23 what's really at stake in iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/opinion/24FRIE.html
\_ NYTimes? With their track record the last few years, you might as
well post something from the National Enquirer. (I didn't read the
link because it doesn't matter what the NYT publishes anymore)
\_ So you're sticking to reputable, unbiased sources like
Washington Times and Fox News then, I'm assuming. Fair
and balanced!
\_ Actually with people like Thomas Friedman and Judith Miller
writing for them the NYTimescan feel like Fox or the
Moonie Times sometimes. Just that no one ever calls the
NYTimes on their bullshit.
\_ That's a decently written editorial with some interesting
points, which, whether you agree with him or not, are
well-argued and well-presented. Regarding the Fox news
comparison, do you rate news sources for the opinions they
present, or for how they present them? I don't know about
you, but I'm more interested in a persuasive, eloquent
argument that I disagree with, than a rah-rah piece of
demagoguery that meshes with my own opinions... -John
\_ Fox TV sounds *exactly* like the NYT to me. It's just
from the opposing view and they don't take themselves
so gravely seriously like the NYT does for some
mysterious reason. Oh yeah, Fox hasn't yet been busted
with multiple flat out ficticious "news reports" unlike
the NYT. I can read opinion on the net without the NYT
filter tainting it.
\_ Well ain't it just peachy then that you have the god-
given right to choose your own news sources. In any
case, that's not a news article, it is an op-ed
piece. And good luck finding something completely
unbiased--if you're not consuming news with a grain
of salt, you've losing out regardless. -John
\_ Summary: Iraq is about culture, but we can't say that because it
doesn't play well on TV. It's an important war to win, on human
rights grounds alone. But Bush has handled this so idiotically--
alienating our allies, trying bear the cost alone while cutting
accelerated production of nuclear weapons, there
taxes domestically, and lying outright about the immediate need
for war-- that we may lose it anyway.
\_ Exactly which allies are those? France, who considers
Iraq their client state? Germany, who sold
Iran their gas centrifuge technology and continually
insulted the President for domestic political gain?
Russia and China which remain Communist states? Please
do explain yourself.
\_ I was going to explain how stupid this person was and
then I saw the he claims Russia is still a Communist
state and realized he has already done my work for me.
\_ All of the same apparitchik remain in power,
the KGB still exists, Putin is KGB, Russia has
accelerated R&D of nuclear weapons, there
is no free press, etc. etc. To repeat, the same
elite holds power but they call themselves something
else. I'd trust the judgement of leaders of
former eastern bloc countries than yours.
\_ How about China? It is a mirror opposite of Russia.
Same party, same people in power, but they've moved to
market economy since mid 1980's. and you call China a
Communist state?
\_ I think China is going for a kind of nationalist
unification of big business and government, which
is what people call fascism.
\_ China's 'aspirations' for political and economic
freedom are transparent in its client state
North Korea.
\_ They haven't moved to a market economy. They have
some of the highest barriers to entry in the world.
The whole thing is a giant state owned business. Can
I get some of that shit you're smoking? |
| 2003/8/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29442 Activity:high |
8/22 Interesting Irving Kristol essay on neoconservatism:
http://csua.org/u/40g
And a very interesting analysis of it:
http://csua.org/u/40h
\_ I thought Leo Strauss was supposed to be the "godfather of
neoconservatism", however inadverdently, or am I completely
mixing things up? Regardless, people who make generalizations
are all idiots. -John
And a very interesting analysis of it:
http://csua.org/u/40h
\_ "People have always preferred bigger government." *sigh*
\_ The analysis is definitely worth checking out. They get a real
kick out of pointing out his intellectual dishonesty.
\_ Well, I don't think he is intellectually dishonest, but he
isn't really a consevative in any meaningful sense. No one
who considers FDR a hero is a conservative. At any rate,
the larger agenda is to discredit the movement as a whole
by pointing to one man, the converse of trying to discredit
Nietzsche by pointing to fascism.
\_ If not intellectually dishonest, then intellectually
lazy. He's very fond of making sweeping generalizations
that cry out for justifcation (such as the one quoted
above) and then moving on without any further
explanation.
\_ I think the neoconservative position probably needs
a larger medium for proper expression than a little
essay, lest people cry 'generalization'. |
| 2003/8/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29433 Activity:very high |
8/21 Amazing how fast "old Europe" and the "irrelevant UN"
are being asked to help shoulder the Bush Admin mistakes:
http://csua.org/u/3zs
\_ ?? What's this have to do with the Jews murdering babies in
Palestine and drinking their blood in their Jew rituals??
\_ UN is dying to get back in the game, become relevent again.
\_ how about, "it's damned expensive to do it alone, I'll get these
UN doofuses to send troops, and we'll still retain ultimate
authority"
\_ Yes. That's why I think that the UN and all those countries
that were opposed to US actions in Iraq should not involved.
Let the US and Bush's admininistration pay the price of
their unilaterality.
\_ The UN is there. Or *was* there until they got blown up. Now
they'll leave and not come back and teach the killers that
they've got no spin and can get anything they want with a few
bombs and a score of dead. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
\_ "Mommy, what's the EU?" "Honey, it's sorta like the USA except
they're more stuck up about it." --1d93d050106585ca20a36ff620fb02e1
\_ "Daddy, what does 'regret' mean?" "Well son, its better to
regret something you have done, than to regret something you
haven't done. And by the way, if you see your mom this
morning, would be sure and tell her...SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!"
\_ you are my hero.
\_ What's that from?
\_ if you cant find it on google, one answer is: Orbital.
\_ Orbital sampled it from one of the more strange
Butthole Surfers albums.
\_ it's like the USA except they believe in godless darwinist
evolution
\_ I don't have any problem with the UN being there proving a nice
soft fat easy distracting target so real Americans are less likely
to get killed. Are you one of the morons that thinks the Iraqi
people were better off with Saddam?
\_ Are you one of those nitwits that believes Saddam posed an
imminent danger?
\_ Are you one of the morons that thinks the Iraqi people were
better off with Saddam? I said nothing about imminent danger.
You refuse to answer a simple qustion because it doesn't jive
with your dogma. The answer is obviously, "No, the Iraqi
people were not better off with Saddam". Thank you for not
playing.
\_ So we went to this war for this reason? Are you joking?
Half of the world probably thinks they're worse off under
their current rulers and Saddam's regime in the 80s was
just one of the many tiranical regimes that US supported
around the world. This would not stand as a legimate
reason for a war from the point of view of most Americans.
It's only now being used as a lame excuse to distract
people's attention from the fact that the Iraq's WMD
threat still hasn't been proven.
\_ Who's calling me a nitwit? Saddam was an EVIL man, and
history will show we made the right decion. -Dubya
\_ And do you know no history that might always make right
and history is written by the victors?
\_ This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq.
Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history;
"revisionist historians" is what I like to call them.
-Dubya
\_ this is one of my alltime favorite W quotes.
\_ isn't California used to be Mexican?
\_ Are you one of the dipshits that pretend they actually give a
shit about the Iraqi people?
\_ Unlike you, I actually do. I assumed there was no real threat
from Iraq but was perfectly happy to see the US invade because
I firmly believe a tragic error was made in 1991 by *not*
going in and finishing them off when the people were with us.
\_ The person above, I believe, was referring to this
administration, not to mention others before it. Do you
honestly believe that this country would ever use its
military force for humanitarian reasons? Have we ever?
Mind you, this is totally separate from the question of
"should we?".
\_ Bush Sr.'s assertion is that the coalition in 1991 would
not accept pushing to Baghdad. The mission the Arab
countries signed up for was to liberate Kuwait, not to
depose Iraq. I suspect this is why Bush Jr. is easy
to rile up when it comes to "revisionist historians".
\_ um, do you think the Iraqi's are better off right now? At least
before, there was an infrastructure and security. people had
jobs. now they get theird foods from trucks. do you really think
the iraqi's are better off right now? if your goal is the long
term welfare of the iraqi's, there were MUCH better solutions
for the kind of money the US is pouring into Iraq. With that kind
of money, you could easily finance a revolution, for example.-ali
\_ who cares about the Iraqi people! The Iraqi oil is MUCH better
off without Saddam.
\_ Get it off your chest. I'm sure ranting is more fun for you
than actually debating anything. When you've calmed down and
grown up, please come back. Some of us would like to talk
with you in a mature way about adult topics.
\_ I love this. This is the Standard Motd Chestnut! Its
always phrased in exactly the same way, with a slight
change of words each time...which leads me to believe
its the same person every time. !op |
| 2003/8/20 [Reference/History/WW2/Japan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29408 Activity:high |
8/20 We've been talking about al Qaeda as if it were one single entity.
Is there a possibility that the entire Muslim community resents
US occupation of Iraq and just want to kill US landmarks and its
people rather than that they want to join al Qaeda?
\_ Americans don't understand the terrorist cells are not like
"Cobra" from GI Joe.
\_ They're not?
\_ Salon had a "portrait of a guerilla" story awhile back--
ordinary guy, working on a degree in English lit in Baghdad,
hated Saddam... wants the US out of Iraq, tried to ambush a
convoy with an RPG (it failed). The spectrum of feelings and
politics is wider than "if you're not with us, you're with the
terrorists" style thinking.
\_ He was a nice killer.
\_ nah, muslims just want non-muslims converted or dead,
the terrorists wanted us out of the Holy Land of Saudi
Arabia, and we left, but they still continue to terrorize us.
Everyplace becomes a holy land to them, everyplace in the world
becomes an occupation.
\_ we left? When did that happen?
\_ Bub, you can score Prozac real easy. Think about it.
\_ Is this where I say "blah blah blah"? The poster made valid
and accurate points in a calm manner. You however are an
idiot. Thank you for joining us this morning.
\_ I notice you are not replying to any of the critiques.
\_ How many terrorist attacks on American happened after we
left Saudi Arabia?
\_ Nah, only 10% of muslims want that. Of course, that's about
100,000,000 people, but hey, who's counting.
\_ excuse me nitwit, didn't 9/11 happen way before occupation of
Iraq?
\_ Dude, how did you get to Cal with your terrible English
comprehension scores? Was it affirmative-action? Alumni
pull? Tell us.
\_ alumni pull at Cal? sheeyah!
\_ You've obviously never met Matt Belizzi.
\_ Like I said before, US is dumb in denying all the Baath
party members their old jobs and livelihood. In doing so,
they just created tens of thousands of enemies from the most
well trained well organized pool of Iraqis. Too cocky.
It is also the direct opposite of what the US did in
post-WWII Japan.
\_ Please show how Saddam-ruled Iraq == WWII-era Japan, and maybe
I won't think your idea is nuts.
\_ I already gave you the explanation why it is a bad idea.
As to Iraq and WWII-era Japan comparison, go read some
history yourself. There are other examples besides Japan.
\_ No, I don't want to read the history myself. That's why
I asked you. Let's start with something simple.
Baathists:Iraq :: ? : Japan. Then tell me how the
Baathists are similar to that group in Japan.
\_ It was the big argument FOR liberation. It would be just like
Japan. Cut off head, replace, wipe up blood, go home.
Easy-peasy Japanesey. |
| 2003/8/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29370 Activity:moderate |
8/16 Scratch one more fuckin bastard.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/08/16/saudi.amin/index.html
\_ Jesus, and Saudi Arabia gave this guy exile? WTF is wrong
with them?!
\_ Islam is all about forgiveness!
\_ I did yermom. forgive me!
\_ Islam is all about Intolerance, except for muslims |
| 2003/8/14 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29344 Activity:very high |
8/13 I just found out that the US Military shifted from using lead bullets
to depleated uranium so that they can penetrate better. While lead
is pretty bad environmentally, how about depleated uranium?
\_ you're kidding about the how bad part, right?
\_ DU is bad, mmmkay http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
\_ DEPLEATED! I mean BALEETED!
\_ DELTEATED! ...Del taco?
\_ URL? And no lead is not an environmental catastrophy. There were
200 bullets fired for every soldier killed in WWII yet I've never
seen a report about mass lead poisoning in France, Russia, or
Germany. Troll?
\_ DU decays into lead eventually, so you've got the worst of both.
\_ If it decays into lead then there's no uranium, so...?
\_ uh, the fact that it decays means it's giving off radation,
yes?
\_ Yes, it radioactively decays off its energy until each
diameter or more. Such as the out of the GAU-8 or CIWS or the
uranium atom changes to lead which is stable.
\_ And you're surrounded by all sorts of radiation from
womb to grave and somehow you survive, yes?
\_ That's not true. DU is generally used for rounds 20 mm in
diameter or more. Such as the out of the CIWS or GAU-8 or the
the main gun on a M1 tank. As for small arms, like the M-16,
there are plans to replace that with a tungsten or other non-lead
core sometime in 2008. But the standard M855 currently has
steel tip with a lead core.
http://aec.army.mil/usaec/publicaffairs/update/fall99/fall9901.htm
\_ Also, DU, having a multi-billion-year half-life, is radioactive
only in the mildest sense. Most lead used is as/more radioactive
than DU.
\_ Yes DU is mild, but surely more radioactive than lead.
\_ It's not the radioactivity that is harmful. The dust
can get into the water supply, or be inhaled, and it's
toxic-- more toxic than lead.
\_ But it's in other countries, so what?
\_ It's in other countries that our lying president and
his family can't seem to keep our military away from.
This means soldiers die, which is bad.
\_ maybe the radiation is what gave the soldiers the weird Gulf
War syndrome?
\_ It is thought to be one of many contributing factors.
\_ Good use of the passive. "It is thought". That's good.
\_ This is a very very old news. DU bullets were used even during
the Desert Storm I. I'd like also to point out that they're used
only in certain types of armor piercing weapons that are used to
destroy tanks and other armored vehicles (including the the 30mm
gun in the A-10 attack plane)
\_ nearly all munitions for M1 Abrams are DU, as well as the armor.
tomahawks are DU tipped.
\_ The Bradley fighting vehicle uses DU ammo for its autocannons.
I recently learned, much to my surprise, that a Bradley blew
up a few T-72s in the recent Iraq war, using it's guns, which
didn't seem large enough for the task...
I guess DU really is better. -- ilyas
\_ Did you know the fuel the airforce uses is incredibly toxic yet
they fly those things all over the planet? How can we let that
go on?
\_ you sound like a wife of an auto mechanic who complains
that his clothes get dirty when he is working
\_ More like coalworkers' wife and black lung. |
| 2003/8/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Reference/Military] UID:29320 Activity:high |
8/11 Here is a pretty lame question but after watching a few Civil War
documentaries, I wonder why neither the confederate and union soldiers
dig protective barriers (trenches) to minimize loss. Also given that
the guns they used were pretty weak why they didn't hide behind
light barriers (wooden or copper, etc). Also they could have mounted
canons behind a movable protective shell (primitive tanks). They
could have done a lot, but instead they fought like stoneage
primates with guns. WTF?
\_ Because you forget that tactics always lag behind technology in
every war. I mean, haven't you ever heard of the expression that
we are always fighting the last war? It means that tacticians
are using old techniques in a changing battlefield.
Technically speaking, you could say that the Civil War could've
just been postponed for 80 years until we had the bomb, then it
would've been a on day war by just nuking Richmond.
\_ Don't forget the Revolutionary war, where they marched in tightly
packed formations, the better to be picked off by inaccurate musket
fire, or the First World War, with cavalry charging the machine guns.
Future generations would probably find our approach to war
equally insane (what, they flew around in steel coffins which would
explode on their own more often than from enemy fire? WTF?).
Maybe the problem is more essential than technology or military
doctrine... -- ilyas
\- well there are lots of norms that in one sense seem irrational.
it's "legal" to spray the other side with automatic weapon
fire, but i believe it is not legal to use a powerful laser to
blind the enemy. does the CA law on speed traps make sense?
it seems like a cop gets in more trouble if they scientifically
measure your speed. --psb
\_ there is rational behind soldier marched in tighly packed
formation, as muskets are so inaccurate that they need a
packed firepower to do decent damage. What was changed
in Civil War was the wide spread use of RIFLES. Neither
the south nor the north was prepared for this. If you look
at the photos taken on siege of Richmond, you will see that
both North and South started to dig trenches for their cover.
Too bad Europeans didn't learn anything from it, thus, they
repeated the same mistakes 40-50 years later.
-kngharv
\_ I agree with you regarding muskets being inaccurate,
and that accurate rifling was unexpected. |
| 2003/8/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29229 Activity:very high |
8/3 Do you guys that besides Uday and Qusay Hussein, amoung the dead was
one of Saddam's grandson? What make us different, if we doesn't
seems to care about killing children who is relate to Saddam?
\_ I speak english - try again.
\_ Good grief, you can't be serious. Surely you can tell the difference
between our assault on an armed house (when our troops told them to
come out, they answered with small arms fire) and the Husseins'
methodical torture, murder, and rape of Iraqi citizens.
\_ obviously, it's not just his english skills that are lacking.
\_ Me no Uday and Qusay Grandssons and killing Iraqi children is as
caring seems differnt but, ah! Yes?
\_ The student becomes the master!
\_ The grandson was busy firing his AK-47 from underneath the bed
before he got shot.
\_ a lot of people won't think that way. They will think that
USA on in its vengeance, trying to kill all Saddam's male
heirs just because Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. |
| 2003/8/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:29223 Activity:nil |
8/3 Edward Said rocks:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1010417,00.html |
| 2003/8/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29200 Activity:insanely high |
7/31 Even the American lackies are deserting us as allies now:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1007288,00.html
\_ You're right, let's track down saddam and reinstate him as leader,
everyone would be better off. You impudent twit.
\_ Heh, reinstating Saddam would be really funny because then it
would be yet another 1950's style "American installed brutal
dictator" situation. He's a bastard but at least he'd be our
bastard! Great plan!
\_ Why don't we just leave? Since when is it an American issue what
kind of government some Arabs halfway around the world have?
\_ Having already intervened and taken down their gov't,
how would you morally justify allowing a descent into
chaos?
\_ Because stability around the world is in our interest
economically and security wise and militarily in too many
ways to even count.
\_ Saddam was well contained and has been under control
since the end of the first gulf war. Nothing
unstable there. No WMD, no Al Queda, just oil.
\_ learn your history, son. We've been fucking around with
Arab's government for half century (hint: Iran).
\_ Arab's government??? nice grammer.
For politicians, loosing on average one man a day for an
Army of 100k plus is an acceptable price to pay. I just feel
damn sorry for the soldiers on the ground, who has to put up
with 130 degree heat in full-gear, on constant alert, and
risk being hit.
\_ Boo hoo. They signed up. It's an all-volunteer force and
has been since Vietnam. Imagine that? They'd asked to go
out and do what soldiers do? Shocking!
\_ Please let me be there to watch when you insist to an
Iranian that he's an Arab. -John
\_ C'mon, it's the motd. Ignorance is strength! Ask him
about lose vs. loose as he's fleeing Bongo Burger.
\_ woah! are you saying they have 802.11b at bongo
burger now?! -alum
\_ Not unless there's a health code violation with that
number now. -John
\_ It wasn't a very big cockroach. Just a wee one!
\_ You Enlish always conflate the ethnicities in the middle
east. Turks, Israelis, Iranians, Pakis and afghans aren't
arabs. Don't let my name fool you into thinking otherwise.
-ali
\_ Middle-easterners are all arabs, US-er's are all WASPS,
out to crush Muslims, and Frenchmen are all cheese-eating
surrender monkeys.
\_ At least the last part is true. |
| 2003/7/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29125 Activity:nil |
7/24 To the germans are idiots dude, look what americans thing:
30% say the Bible is the "actual word of God" to be taken literally
26% thought various disasters in 1999 might "foreshadow the
wrath of God"
28% say the government should have the right to control news reports
20% believe that the killing of civilians in Vietnam was
"relatively rare"
Among others. http://www.pollingreport.com/random.htm for more
The thing is 20-30 percent of people anywhere hold ideas that to
you are total whack and could be used against them in an insanity
trial.
\_ 20-30% percent of Americans think only Germans believe stupid things
\_ Is that the same 20-30%? Then perhaps it's the stupid 30%.
I mean, average is pretty dumb, and if these people are the bottom
30%, then they're really dumb.
\_ 8% fear they are "very likely" to be shot or badly hurt by a
stranger
\_ You know how many live in a place 'less nice' than you do? They
have a very reasonable fear that it is very likely they will be
shot or badly hurt by a stranger. We didn't all grow up behind
tall pearly white gates with guards.
\_ funny neither did I
\_ 34% think the US has found WMD in Iraq (55% of Fox viewers)
22% think WMD were used against US soldiers in Iraq
people decieve themselves to believe all kinds of crap all the time
\_ 30% maybe it is? 26% maybe they do? 28% of course it does. start
writing false reports and a paper can be sued for all sorts of
things. 20% it's a meaningless term. |
| 2003/7/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:29110 Activity:nil |
7/22 Am I the only one, or does http://cnn.com's coverage of Uday/Qusay resemble the Starship Troopers patriotism commercials, especially when the soldiers find the Brain Bug, except this time it's U.S. troops surrounding the Hussein brothers and celebrating? \_ a lot of the propaganda for that film was inspired by nazi and italian fascist propaganda. -sax \_ Of course, that all really misses the point of Heinlein's vision of the United States in the book...but since I haven't seen my copy in months or years, what would I know? \_ yeah, patriotism is a bad thing, down with gov't! if u hate it so much, leave. I hear Canada is looking for people \_ You go first, take your menorah with you. We don't like dying for your kind in the desert. \_ Dude...nationalism != patriotism. Confusing the two is stupid and often destructive to the values this country was supposed to have been built upon. \_ What exactly is nationalism? \_ yes, mindless patriotism is a bad thing. every nation in the world has patriotism and nationalism. if being and American just means blind faith in the stars and stripes to you, it is you who should go move somewhere else. \_ "Remember: Service Guarantees Citizenship" |
| 2003/7/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29084 Activity:insanely high |
7/20 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/weekinreview/20KIFN.html?8hpib Oh no! We are screwed! \_ couple points. 1. Thanks for the article. 2.How come NY Times didn't publish this article *BEFORE* the damn war started? It might just persuade public opinion to some degree. 3. Does any of the Sodans actually believe that democracy and the well-being of the Iraqis are USA and UK's objective? -kngharv \_ 1. nothing new here. 2. it has nothing to do with anything and the NYT published far more biased anti-war nonsense before the war. 3. In part. 4. The NYT has a really shitty track record for reporting and editing in the last few years, maybe you should find another source for your news and information. 5. Why does the NYT *not* tell you about the 90+ mass graves that have been found to date? Why does the NYT *not* tell you about how well the vast majority of the population is doing now than under the mass murdering butcher Hussein in terms of everything from basic service improvements such as power and water all the way to the right to *not* get dragged away and executed just because? No matter what happens now, the people are better off than they were before and we had a moral obligation to help them as much as we could. Freedom is a messy business and it will take time for life to settle down there but it *is* improving and is already better than they had under the Baathists. \_ we had to kill them to save them. They are happy now. \_ If the mass majority of the people are doing so well, why are they dancing in the streets celebrating around destroyed humvees? \_ Don't kid yourself. US always puts its own self-interest first. That's why Donald Duck approved all 50 cases where bombing may likely kill 30 or more civilians. Every single case. \_ 90+ mass graves? Is that from the same source that told us about Iraq buying African Uranium? Or that Iraq has lots of chemical/biological weapons? Haven't you learned by now to take the words of these liars and blindly-following media with a grain of salt? to take the words of these liars and blindly-following-afraid- to-appear-unpatriotic media with a grain of salt? \_ "The very first report, as I recall, was of mass graves that turned out to be cemeteries. But because the news accounts on CNN repeated incessantly that they were "mass graves," it simply confirmed the public's predisposition to believe that Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac. Ever since, the Times has been reporting on bodies being turned up by the hundreds or thousands in one place or another, and in each instance the dispatch suggests that these were the result of Saddam's brutality. My caution is the result of having consulted experts in the history of Iraq, who tell me there are most certainly mass graves all over the country, because it has been at war since 1958. That is, "Nineteen Fifty Eight," when the monarchy fell. I'm advised that most of the slaughter that occurred over this period was in these early years of civil war, when there really were men and families lined up along ditches, machine-gunned or in other ways executed. There are also stories of "mass graves" that followed the 1991 Gulf War, when the USA urged the Shi'ites in the South and Kurds in the North of Iraq to take up arms against the Baghdad regime. I think even Human Rights Watch would have to say that "rebels" who are trying to kill "loyal" should expect to either succeed or pay the consequences, as they did when the USA was nowhere around to back them up." http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2674 \_ Remember the truck they said was used for making chemical / biologial weapons? Experts have come out and said that that's nonsense. Guess that's why you no longer hear about it. |
| 2003/7/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29061 Activity:moderate |
7/16 So, neocons, do you still think the Iraq war was a good idea?
\_ death is always good
\_ Give it up. We still think Vietnam was all good.
\_ C'mon, the neocons want to provoke N. Korea into a war so the
U.S. can be morally justified in taking them out. That would
then leave Iran to deal with. They'd get three wars in one
administration! :D
\_ then they could wrap themselves in the flag again and accuse
anyone who complains about deficits and lack of money for
domestic stuff and dumbass tax cuts of being commies.
wars are darn good and so are deficits. bring it on. |
| 2003/7/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29000 Activity:very high |
7/10 "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/eveningnews/main560449.shtml
\_ What baffled me was that I think there was a good
case for invading Iraq. Bush just failed to make it for some
reason, and choese to bullshit his way through instead.
\_ Powell wanted UN support, if not a UN coalition. The only
way to get UN support was to show Saddam still had WMD in
violation of previous UN resolutions. They couldn't find WMD,
hence the problem.
\_ this liberal media bias is getting out of hand. it doesn't
matter. the U.S. needs to kick every hostile states' ass.
\_ So its okay to lie about the reasons for war and the killing
of soldiers, but lying about a blowjob is an impeachable
Bush did the same thing a month ago, but no one said anything.
offense? I donut geddit.
\_ lying under oath is impeachable offense. lying to
the public is expected.
\_ The problem is that the headline doesn't match the story. The
headline vastly overstates the article. A better headline
would be: "CIA officials warned members of the President's
National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good
enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium
from Africa." (to cut and paste from the article) The
headline is pure spin.
\_ I believe the implication is that if the NSC staff
was warned, Bush would have heard about it, unless you
want to blame Rice.
\_ Implication is different than fact.
\_ It also bothers me that Blair is taking all this flak for
switching from "finding [actual] WMD" to "finding WMD programmes";
Bush did the same thing a month ago, but the U.S. press didn't
note the change in wording at all.
\_ Yeah poor Tony. The British press are so vicious. I agree with
you. They should've left Blair alone.
\_ At least our media knows how to be patriotic. |
| 2003/7/10 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28987 Activity:high |
7/9 Today's quote:
"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the
night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell
\_ Yes, and the same could be said if you were a Nazi under Hitler.
\_ It could? No, not really. BTW, you lose. You're not only the
first to mention Hitler or the Nazis but went straight to it.
\_ Yes, it applies. No, you lose. Try again.
\_ In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics."
All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of
lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. -George Orwell
\_ Who is harming who? It's only now that we are admiting our leader
lied to get popular support for the war, we essentially destroyed
all the infrastructures. We are "rebuilding" Iraq financed by
bonds backed up by next 10 years of oil produced by Iraq, which
only US Firm and its allies are benefiting. Frankly, this is
imperialism at work, almost as blatent as Britian's Opium War
150 years ago. And you are saying that they are harming us?
\_ Stupid or naive - you decide:
\_ they're screwing us anyway with terrorism, we'll screw
them with imperialism
\_ you really think that they were the one who fired
the first shot? |
| 2003/7/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28931 Activity:high |
7/5 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Battles-Past.html ``Some countries learn from their military history,'' said Capt. Mark Miller, commanding officer of A Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment. ``This one (Iraq) obviously didn't.'' Kind of arrogant, isn't it? What is the lesson Iraq is supposed to have learned? \_ They should have known: AIR POWER. Even obsolete or training jets esp. when compared to overwhelming odds of mere ground forces. Then again, the frigging British like to exaggerate their considerable military prowess. Air power defeated the Iraqi govt back then and it happened again...and again. What's even worse is they had rusted MiG-21 jets. They actually had jets but has Iraq ever really developed their air power? They built a few buildings on the base and that's it. Naw, instead they develop WMD to use on Iraqis and Iranians. dumb Look at the Israelies, the old soviets, imperial japan...all great powers have a strong, developed air force and 2nd-rate or small countries can become strong when they have air power. |
| 2003/7/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28926 Activity:moderate |
7/4 Iraq policy critics now want U.S. in Liberia
No Blood for Rubber
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939348/posts
\_ Nonono, this is a *good* war because GWB doesn't want to go there.
Iraq was a *bad* war because he did. That clear now?
\_ This is another perfect example of why Democrats should
not lead troops. Remember the last civil war the U.S.
forced its way into?
\_ Definitely. The world thinks we're the greatest threat
to peace, according to polls, yet they urge us to get
into another war. wtf?!?
\_ Getting into a war is very different from starting one. Isn't
it?
\_ Maybe, but by this logic we would get into every
ongoing war and there are supposedly thousands going on
daily. |
| 5/16 |