| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/16 |
| 2003/7/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:28908 Activity:nil |
7/2 LURD Performs Ritual To Hold Ganta -Buries Alive Girl, Cow
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939538/posts
\_ you read free republic.
\_ we all know that it's ecchang posting all the free republic links.
\_ wrong -op
\_ wow, you are pathetic. you delete my freeper post and replace your
own. |
| 2003/7/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28881 Activity:high |
7/1 A Real Conservative take on the Bush War:
http://amconmag.com/06_30_03/buchanan.html
\_ Yet more evidence that the world is ending: I agree with Pat.
Repent, sinners!
\_ yes, the world is ending. The worlds top golfer is black, and
the worlds top rapper is white. |
| 2003/7/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:28876 Activity:high |
6/30 It's only war crime when someone else is doing it...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3035296.stm
\_ Perhaps because it is not in our nation's best interest to defer
to vague international bodies on this or any other matters? Also,
while you're chewing over that consider that the US has a real court
system, a culture that creates citizens opposed to any sort of war
crime (in fact, the US invented the concept), and given that any
body that lacks the power to enforce it's edicts is useless so is
the ICC. The US is the only thing that gives the UN or any other
similar entity any authority. If we withdrew and ignored all of
these pesky little socialist clubs they'd all collapse. I'm not
sure if you were trolling or you actually believe in all these
silly little multinational oddities but they do not and in fact
can not work as you might wish. There is no such thing as
'international law' outside the fantasies of certain anti-American
Europeans (France, Belgium, Germany) and the Blame America First
crowd in the US. -xyz
\_ Of course it's not in the purity temple's interest to submit to
foreign oversight. They're all terrorists. Probably have
weapons of mass detruction too. Let's nuke them, because any
nation that threatens another...
\_ If you had a real response instead of knee jerking I'd be
happy to discuss it with you. -xyz
\_ bye bye "isolationism" -- being sold with the same rationale1
bravo doublespeak miracles from the new reich!
\_ I'm not in favor of isolationism. Submitting to the will of
Eurocrats and the third world is not the only way to
participate in the world. -xyz
\_ Most countries' citizens are opposed to war crimes, except that
they tend to overlook the crimes when it's committed by their
own country. It is the same for US. That's why we need UN.
- fgh
\_ It is in our nation's best interest to work through international
bodies rather than act like a gung-ho cowboy. US is suffering
from classic overextension, and its strength is overrated.
Our military rules but it is resulting in huge budget deficit,
and putting a huge drag on our tired economy. States are
close to bankrupt, trade deficit is soaring, fed has no more
room to cut interest rate. US economy is supported by asian
nations buying US treasuries, stocks and US dollars. That should
not be something we should count on forever. - abc |
| 2003/6/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28800 Activity:moderate |
6/21 http://csua.org/u/3bi "BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. troops psyched up on a bizarre musical reprise from Vietnam war film "Apocalypse Now" before crashing into Iraqi homes to hunt gunmen on Saturday, as Shi'ite Muslims rallied against the U.S. occupation of Iraq." \_ Damn, I love the smell of napalm in the morning. \_ it's the smell of victory. \_ Reuters? It's like reading a Blair NYT article. \_ ??? On what basis this comparison? \_ Years of reading Reuters and applying critical thinking skills instead of passively accepting what they say. It's like reading Pravda with an occasional true story in it. \_ Your skepticism foo is much greater than mine, then. |
| 2003/6/21-23 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28796 Activity:high |
6/21 I will need to find a place to rent starting near the end of this year,
1 bed room or even a studio. Almost anywhere in the bay area is OK.
It must have broadband, not be in a slum/war zone, and not be run-down,
otherwise just want the rent to be as low as possible. Where
should I look into/avoid? When should I start looking? Any url?
http://craigslist.org _/
Ok tnx. -- away from BA for many years.
\_ Adams Point area of Oakland (north side of the lake between harrison
and lakeshore. There are a ton of buildings around me with signs
up. A 1 bd goes for just under $800 most places. And there are
a number of very nice buildings, nice restaurants, decent bars.
BART and freeway accessible. --scotsman
\_ can prob find an in-law cheaply in SF in the sunset/parkside
district.
Office-- their have some good, not-too-expensive places listed.
\_ YMCA?
\_ Your entire running-dog-pound of a country is a war zone.
Love, -Chemical Ali
\_ Didn't this guy get scrubbed in a missile attack or something?
\_ http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=25679
\_ If you're an alum, pay your dues and take advantage of the Housing
Office-- they have some good, not-too-expensive places listed. |
| 2003/6/17 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28752 Activity:nil 73%like:28746 |
6/18 http://csua.org/u/39y Yet another american soldier raping the local population. If our soldiers are raping allied civilians, what do you think they're doing to Iraqi women? \_ Buying them cheap. The starving and hopeless give the best bang for the buck. \_ the main issue is that US Military is pretty much immued to the local jurisdiction. And that USA tend to be very protective of her own subjects. This is nothing new. A century ago, British nationals could pretty much get away with anything in China for the same reason. \_ Damn! I wish I could be immued to the local jurisdiction! \_ Nonsense. You seriously want our soldiers to be subject to the concept of 'justice' that exists in the many places we send our troops? That's so naive and childish a concept it borders on the infantile. If you want to avoid US Soldier/Local Civilian problems, the only way is to not have our soldiers in other countries. The end results of that could be far far worse than the once per 4 years rape that happens. If you were truly concerned about the locals around the world, you'd be screaming everyday about the UN boys from other countries that are actively and openly engaged in the sex slave trade buying, selling, and raping the same women they're sent there to protect. \_ US troops are hugely involved in the local sex trade, too. Have you ever been to a military base overseas, or even in the US? The nearest town is almost always full of prostitution. It is hypocritical to condemn the UN soldiers of doing this while ignoring the fact that the US does the same thing. -veteran \_ There is also a problem with sexual assault/rape within the armed forces, and fraternization, too. -veteran#2 \_ It would be better if the US soldiers weren't customers but our officers are not actively engaged in buying, selling, and moving women around the world. You're trying to make some sort of moral equivalency which doesn't exist. Example: a pot smoker in Berkeley is *not* the same level of criminal as the grower moving a few tons of pot every year. Both are criminals but one would get a small fine at worst while the other would get big time at the big house. (insert your drug of choice in that) \_ And the US tends to cover up those nasty rumors about permitting military contractors to have child sex slaves. http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/163052.html \_ True enough. While visiting prostitues certainly creates the demand for the sex trade, it is not the same kind of crime as actually running it. -veteran \_ Flapdoodle. There's no need to make this an either-or proposition. Improve the process by which these cases are reviewed by military tribunal, and hand over suspects in non-frivolous, evidence-supported cases. This will protect the troops from malicious and baseless accusations and still address real problems. \_ Ok, let's say a US soldier is involved in an evidence supported case in Pakistan. You're going to turn that guy over to the mullahs running the northwest province under shariah islamic laws? Why don't you just do him a favor and put him in front of a firing squad instead? \_ Hey, if you do the crime in a foreign country, you get to face the consequences of your actions. That said, we could even modify the process to weed out crimes for which we have no analog here in the US and (like Mexico) refuse to extradite criminals if we believe the expected punishment will be cruel and unusual by our standards. There's a lot of room to work with here. \_ The difference is that a soldier doesn't have any choice about going to some third world shit hole with brutal laws and no justice. As a civilian I can choose to not be subjected to that by simply not booking the flight. Soldiers go where they're told to go. They should be subject to the US code of military justice. That's why it exists. I'm not in any way saying rape is ok or that our guys shouldn't get punished for it. I'm saying they should be consistently subject to the same code no matter where they might be assigned. \_ We have a draft again? Oh whoops, it's all volunteers. And last I checked, I was able to contain my hormones enough to not rape anyone. Bring 'em all home, stop wasting my dough. -John \_ My country Singapore is the smartest. We let US have small base in Singapore in case commie China turn into big bad wolf. US has no better choice since getting kicked out of Pilipines. Also, we tell US to follow local jurisdiction just like Michael Fay. Small little red light district in Geylang for horny US GIs, but no mischief or arse gets cane. Neighborhood bullies like Malaysia and Indonesia also don't dare to cause mischief with US base in Spore. By the way, we detained like 10 terrorists without trial over the years. US beat us by detaining 762 in Guatanamo Bay. Poor GIs in boring Geyland with ugly spore girls must miss Olongapo bad. \_ LAH! \_ Guatmo.. A lovely place. Females staying there are advised upon arriving to lock their doors and keep a loaded firearm nearby because the US marines and navy boys tend to get a little wild. I've had female friends talk about being woken up in the middle of the night as drunken sailors and marines attempted to knock down their door for a little unrequested R&R. \_ I'm sure they're willing to pay after. What's the problem? \_ Yermom keeps wanting more than the $5 she's worth. |
| 2003/6/17 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28746 Activity:high 73%like:28752 |
6/18 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030616/ap_on_re_as/japan_us_military_10 Yet another american soldier raping the local population. If our soldiers are raping allied civilians, what do you think they're doing to Iraqi women? \_ Buying them cheap. The starving and hopeless give the best bang for the buck. \_ the main issue is that US Military is pretty much immued to the local jurisdiction. And that USA tend to be very protective of her own subjects. This is nothing new. A century ago, British nationals could pretty much get away with anything in China for the same reason. |
| 2003/6/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28709 Activity:nil |
6/11 Ex-Saddam Media Man Says Iraq Had No Banned Arms
http://csua.org/u/383 |
| 2003/6/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28687 Activity:nil |
6/9 Democracy: that was what the war is all about:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2978186.stm |
| 2003/6/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28680 Activity:kinda low |
6/9 V is coming back:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/09/television.visitors.reut/index.html
\_ Was a sci-fi allegory of the nazi take over of germany in the 30s?
Say what? More like what happened when the Europeans took over the
world and used/abused natives everywhere. I see my girl Diana is
coming back. Too bad she won't be anything like her younger self.
\_ No, it's more like Republicans that lie and cheat their way
into office, and invade nations claiming to protect the world
from WMD's when they were after oil all along.
\_ Waaah! The republicans really want to eat Iraqi flesh!
\_ Mmmmmm... Iraqi fleeesh... <garrrgh>
\_ Wow dude, you really need to take a break from the leftist
propaganda machine and chill out for a bit. |
| 2003/6/5-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28644 Activity:very high |
6/5 Does anyone have a copy of the Guardian article saying that Wolfowitz
said that Iraq was about oil? They removed the article and apologized.
\_ Try google's cached pages.
\_ Does google cache news? I can't figure it out. I did find:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0604-10.htm
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7345&TagID=2
\_ Except it's not what he said, troll.
\_ Dude, read the page. The explanation of the retraction is on
the right hand side (of the commondreams link, anyway)
\_ Read it. Not impressed. It's the Guardian for God's sake.
\_ http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2971
\_ Here is the retraction:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html
\_ some more thorough quotes from the wolfowitz interview, albeit
from the ever-obnoxious conservative "weekly standard":
http://csua.org/u/34v
\_ what's "ever-obnoxious" about the weekly standard? is it that
you find the writing poor, the research is poor or you simply
disagree with their political views so it must be automatically
'obnoxious'? |
| 2003/5/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28590 Activity:nil |
5/30 http://www.detnews.com/2003/entertainment/0305/30/c01-178421.htm Right wing nut head takes over and destroys another radio station with the help of Michael Powell and his endless efforts at eliminating small time radio and killing all neutral voices on radio. We want our air waves back! |
| 2003/5/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28588 Activity:moderate |
5/30 Anybody know what happened to the dear_raed blog? I've heard it's back
up, but where?
\_ It's back up at the same old place: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com |
| 2003/5/30 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28583 Activity:nil |
5/29 sigh... AOL/TimeWarner surrendered the browser war...
\_ You just noticed? That happened years ago, genius.
\_ I think he's referring to the $750M settlement with MS today
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/technology/microsoft
\_ yup, that is what I am refering to. While the outcome of
the war is clear years ago, AOL didn't wave the white flag
until now. Notice the word "surrender" I refered earlier..
- OP, not as genius as you think
\_ They waved the flag years ago. Netscape was never serious
competition after the sale. AOL could have put real resources
into it, used it for their own services, etc, and never did.
This $750m thing doesn't make it official. It was already
official in 97/98.
\_ Only if your definition of "winning a war" is synonymous to
"winning a war through DoJ punitive actions" |
| 5/16 |
| 2003/5/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28578 Activity:insanely high |
5/30 "US choice of disarmament to justify Iraq was political: Wolfowitz"
http://csua.org/u/32e
\_ *HELLO* you just figure that out? Look at the obvious:
1. we impose sanction against Iraq in name of WMD.
2. we topple the government there by force.
3. we lift the sanction without proving that Iraq doesn't have
WMD from reliable sources.
We are in a catch-22 situation. If Iraq has WMD, then the lift
of sanction won't be justified. If we can't find WMD in Iraq,
then, the most persuasive arguement to go to war at first place
won't be justified.
\_ Why would you maintain sanctions if there is no government there
to build or launch WMD?
\_ Why? We're good at whup-assing people we don't like. We
just happen to a bit too selective about it for my
liking. -John
\_ You're right, we knew that all along. There is no need to remind
us about it. However, what's peculiar about this article is that
it's being published in mainstream press and it quotes a
high-ranking government official (and not say, some anonymous motd
poster). -op
\_ Dear OP Scum, you're more likely to get the truth from me than
you are to get it from any government official in any
administration. --some anonymous motd poster
\_ Hint: there was no second war in the gulf. The first one was never
finished. We were just finally finishing what was started in '91.
\_ you then should finish off the revolution war and war of 1812
and topple the crown in Britian
\_ We should finish the Korean ware too. If nothing else
will will make the world safe for H07 K0R3AN CH1X, LCDs
and cheap DRAM.
\_ We already have all those.
\_ If NK attacks, we would lose all of them so we
should preempt them and protect our investment
in free access to H07 K0R3AN CH1X, high quality
LCDs and cheap DRAM.
\_ Idiot. The shooting never stopped in Iraq. We continued to
bomb them since the "end" of the "first" gulf war and they
continued to shoot at our planes. But you knew that and were
just being intentionally stupid when you wrote your drivel.
\_ In his quote above, Wolfowitz is saying that those in the Bush
administration wanted war in Iraq for different reasons:
. To free the Iraqi people from a tyrannical dictator
\_ Why, in 12 years of discussing it, did they never use this as
a talking point in the press? This is a bullshit afterthought
that they threw out because focus groups pounced on it. We
have never used our military soley for "freeing people from
tyrrany." In fact, more often, we've been the ones installing
the tyrranies.
\_ The current administration hasn't been in office 12 years.
. To depose a government which may sponsor terrorism
\_ Against us? That's a BIG "may"
\_ Terrorists are terrorists. You think they're choosey who
they target?
. To enforce UN resolutions
\_ HAHHAHHAHHHAHAAAHAHH! wow. You really swallow this stuff whole?
Our selective choices of which UN resolutions deserve enforcing
should give anyone pause.
\_ We should've let the UN sink years ago anyway.
. To facilitate movement of U.S. military out of Saudi Arabia
\_ And into Iraq? Yeah, that'll win us points with the imams..
\_ Actually, yes. It will.
. To create a democratic secular Arab government
\_ Wouldn't it be nice.
\_ You had a better plan for this or you think Arabs are
genetically inferior and incapable of secular democracy?
. To prevent the distribution of WMDs to terrorists
\_ Find the stash first... We claimed, very publicly that we had
solid proof of when and where development was happening. We have
a little trouble with the truth.
The only reason the Bush administration could agree on was the
last. Disarmament was the reason selected to be emphasized
to the American people and the world at large; hence, this was
a "political" decision. |
| 2003/5/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:28540 Activity:very high |
5/25 More on US racist imperialism
20TH CENTURY DEMOCIDE
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
\_ this is a good site in terms of murder by government statistics,
but like (it often seems) everyone, they just aren't too bright.
I'm sick of hearing this drivel about how "democracies" don't
fight one another.
\_ what's the most destructive war you can think of in which
both sides were democracies?
\- how many democracies were there in the world between
1648 and 1945? --psb
1648 and 1945? how many democracies were there in
the year 1812? --psb
\_ world war II, Hitler was democratically elected as was
mussolini. Finland was a democracy at the time they
were fighting on the side of Germany et. al. The whole
idea is just stupid. It is more true and slightly less
meaningless to say "countries with mcdonald's in them
don't go to war against each other." That is to say
that countries with stong economic interdependencies
and countries with similar cultures, are less likely to
\- the interdependence theory [sic] is pretty iffy.
in fact it isnt really a theory. does it apply to
france and england since 1066? were the alliances
of the peloponessian was explained by "cultural
and econ ties"? how about the post 1945 relations
between the US, Su and China? and of course the
war of 1812 again. the main problem is like that
with freudian theory ... it's hard to test because
it is so vague. it's not so much right or wrong
but either meaningless or more charitably an
assertion not a theory. (see APSR Dec97,pp913-917)
the %GDP in exports in 1900 was quite high ... that
level wasnt equalled for almost 50yrs after ww2.
remember states (should) seek security. interdependence
(often) means vulnurability. do you think germany
and japan liked being "interdependent" on other
countries for oil in the 1930s? there is a
huge lit on this since kohane and nye book.
e.g. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/copeland.htm
--psb
go to war; but the idea of being a democracy somehow
magically keeping you from making war on other democracies
is just stupid.
\_ They were elected but then took over and made them into
100% dictatorships. They were not democracies in any
sense of the word by the time any shooting started. I'm
so tired of know nothing smart asses like you spouting off
like you know something. This isn't a dorm lounge chat at
3am about whether or not God exists. It's the motd and you
can't get away with making up shit like that here.
\_ dear moron, i notice you didn't address Finland. Also
I can name a number of other examples of democracies
\_ Finland was a semi-autocratic nation under Field
Marshal Mannerheim at the time. Likewise, it was
not a case of 'two democratic nations', as their
alliance with the Germans was a logical continuation
of being invaded by the USSR in 1939 and losing >10%
of their territory. Your point about nukes is wrong,
and your historical points are shaky. Likewise, your
list of criteria about nations with residual
totalitarianism below will find few applications in
modern Europe. Plus, 'dear moron' is not a way
to win arguments. Just some free advice. -John
fighting one another, but you will just explain all of
them away until you are left making some stupid
statement which boils down to "Europe hasn't had any
warfare since world war II". (btw, the reason for this
is simple: NUKES). I was asked for the "most
destructive" example and i gave it. It is not the best.
It was the most destructive though. Asking to specify
"the most destructive" is practically an admission of
defeat already. If you don't accept democratically
elected govenments that turn dict. then you prob.
don't accept countries with nominal/residual monarchy
or countries with slavery/without universal suffrage
with makes the NUMBER of democracy/years in existence
pretty damn small with which to be making sweeping
generalizations like this. Of course, a complete
lack of data points (or intelligence) has never been
enough to stop Poly Sci folks from spouting nonsese.
\_ aristotle hated democracies cos he felt it ruined athens.
caused them the wwar.
\-how is this relevant? i'm tempted to say this is
wrong, but it is really more correct to say this is
meaningless. --psb
\_ Very well stated. who is this? -scotsman
\_ Exactly. There may be some anecdotal evidence that
\- it's not "anecdotal
evidence". it's an
issue of is it a
"mere corrletation"
or is there a causal
explanation. and then
is the data fudged
on the correlation at
all. --psb
democracies don't go to war with one another, but
if you consider why countries go to war, there is
no reason a democracy wouldn't go to war with another
democracy.
\_ Ooo Yea baby! I've been waiting to hear this for some
time.
\_ And you're incapable of typing it yourself?
\_ Too hard for me.
\-Hello, YMWTS: ~psb/DemoWar.commentarii. --psb
\_ How about adding another counfounding variable:
the deep fear of war European nations
(where a large number of the world's
democracies are) had after WWI and WWII,
which broke down the barriers for greater
efforts at integration such as the EU.
Or is that weak?
\- What are you trying to explain?
yes weak. "fear went down" is not
an explanation; it is an assertion.
why didnt the EC happen after the
"fear went down" after napoleon was
defeated? the concert of europe was
a very different answer than the EC.
how about "the frenchies stopped
fearing someone capturing paris again
aftger developing their "force de
frappe". on the period between ww1/2
see EHCarr 20 yrs crisis. that is a
damn good book and Keynes: Econ
Conseq Peace.
On the point of everything being
warm and fuzzy among the euro-allies:
what do you think is more likely:
--brit/france turn over their nuke
arsenals to a "EC joint nuke command"
--"team player germany" builds its
own nukes.
now it is possible neither will happen
in the next 20yrs, but if you were a
betting man, which would you bet on?
--psb
\_ But but but, isn't it true that the
nationalism and naitional rivalry
among European nations as seen in
the earlier half of the 20th
century very much went away? Isn't
that part of the reaction to the
horrors of WWI and WWII? Or do you
there a better theory for it?
\_ To add to it, another coun |
| 2003/5/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28468 Activity:kinda low |
5/17 All the Iraqi people I've heard interviewed says this Ahmad
Chalabi guy is a crook, yet US still want him to be part of,
if not the leader of, the future Iraqi government. This guy
has good relationships with several US congressmen.
\_ Al Jazeeri interviews?
\_ it is one of the most neutral press on the face of the earth.
\_ Nah, CNN, NBC, etc.
\_ All the Iraqi people? Okey dokey, which Iraqi people is that,
exactly and what role do they want in the future government and
what role did they have in the previous government and what do they
stand to lose if this guy gets any power? Thanks.
\_ Try doing a search on "Ahmad Chalabi", and follow that up
with a mental exercise counting all the crook leaders US
supported starting with Saddam Hussein.
\_ Pffft. Show me the urls. I'm not doing your work for you.
\_ one has to be non-white to really notice this. Anybody else
bothered by the fact that Chalabi is a white guy? Iraqis don't
look like that. Why is this white guy trying to rule over a
nation of dark skin people?
\_ just like Jesus.
\_ with his blond hair and blue eyes just like the movies!
\_ I don't know man. I used to have this classmate whom I
thought was russian, he being really fit, with short blonde
hair and blue-green eyes. Turns out he was Kuwaiti.
Maybe they are descendants of the Mamelukes?
hair and blue-grey eyes, like one of those russian gymnast.
Turns out he was Kuwaiti. Maybe they are descendants of the
Mamelukes? |
| 2003/5/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28463 Activity:insanely high |
5/15 I highly suggest everyone read this... a compelling, eloquent
talk by Arundhati Roy that I was lucky enough to witness:
http://www.cesr.org/roy/royspeech.htm
[reposted... if someone wants to repost any of the responses that
also got deleted, feel free]
\_ Holy shit! She had to travel to Iraqi to find out that wars not
only kill civilians but destroy civil infrastructure, too! What
a shocker! I'll sell all my stock in General Dynamics at the
opening bell! Who would've thunk war kills people and blows shit
up? This is highly compelling!!!
\_ Compelling my eye. Bitch bitch bitch. Where was she when
Hussein was producing those mass graves of his? Or is it only
fashionable to bitch at the United States because someone with
a large wallet and a guilty conscience might be knocked for some
mula there?
\_ You miss the point. Mass graves were not a reason to go to
war. Internal injustice has never been a reason.
Anyway the problem with her speech is what the person below
says: it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what the
dumb bastards in Texas et al think.
\_ So if you saw millions of people getting killed in death
camps in another country, you'd write it off as an internal
political debate and it's not your problem, eh? You're one
sick bastard. And I mean that as a statement of fact not a
childish motd insult.
\_ Reasons are not important, effects are.
\_ You seem to imply that the war has had good effects.
If we were in Iraq to right the wrongs of a half-century
of bad foreign policy, excellent. But so far all I see
is a lot of angry proto-terrorists who are getting
getting some good practice with looting and lawlessness.
\_ You mean the war had no good effects? Are you insane
or trolling? Don't let the western coverage fool you,
Iraqis are happy as can be that Hussein is gone, and
that is what's important. Interestingly enough, this
looting of which you speak was greatly exaggerated by
the western press, and turns out was often perpetrated
by baath party members.
\_ Nah, Iraq is currently an anarchic mess. Hopefully
US troops would impose some order soon.
\_the truth is, most people in iraq were probably
deeply ambivalent about the US's intervention.
check out that "where is raed" weblog as a good
(and fascinating) anecdotal example of this. Also
true is that the costs of this war (and by that I
include the years of sanctions since they are all
part of essentially the same western aggression)
are quite real and severe (loss of life,
diminished quality of life for nearly all but the
iraqi elites) while the benefits are only
questionable.
\_ Ah yes, sanctions, the same sanctions people like
you said would get Iraq out of Kuwait in '90 and
now are a tool of "western aggression". Make up
your mind.
\_ This is where a lot of (us) liberals tend to get
confused: we want to believe, ultimately, that
any war is wrong. The sad truth, however, is that
sometimes military action is required to effect
meaningful change. Military action prevented the
ultimate genocide of the Kosovars and caused the
topple of Saddam Hussein. These are good things. The
difference between the two (and where most Cons get
mixed up) is that the first was a necessary action
carried out when all other alternatives had been
tried and the danger was imminent, while the second
involved a brash decision to brazenly and callously
disregard the alternatives despite a lack of
evidence of a need for urgency. We're all happy
that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. What
we (liberals) are unhappy about is the way it was
done. And despite what you may think you learned in
high school civics, the ends does not always justify
the means. In this case, the means have compromised
the security of the ends. --erikred
\_ I suppose you get easily flustered. Regardless
of why you may think Bush went to war, it seems
pretty clear that ousting Saddam was a good
thing. How can this be confusing? The man
gassed hundreds of thousands. If you want to
question motives fine, we can have an argument
about that, but questioning whether the outcome
of the war was a good thing makes people not
take you seriously.
\_ I suggest you read my post again and then
consider erasing your response. I'm not
arguing that getting rid of Saddam Hussein
was wrong. I'm saying that the way it was
done was wrong. --erikred
\_ Why was the way wrong? The diplomatic
way would have taken longer, (perhaps
infinitely long). Meanwhile Hussein
would have had free license to continue
his butchery. How is a faster way not
more humane? Do you really hate Bush this
much?
\_ hundreds of thousands? why don't you just
say millions. the most he gassed are
the iranians during the iran/iraq war,
during which the us actively supported
iraq.
\_ because he didn't gas millions. however he
is responsible for more arab deaths than
any other individual, group, .org, or
entity throughout *ALL* of history. think
about that for a second.
\_ most of those deaths occurred when the
US was *actively* (with money and
weapons) supporting Iraq and Saddam.
and US leaders at the time knew about
it. Hence Arundhati's point that
ousting Sadam is in some sense a good
thing to do, but if we hold him
responsible for those deaths we should
likewise consider those that
enabled him war criminals.
\_ yea, I supported war against the taliban but
not iraq. taliban is hopeless and anything is
better than taliban.
\_ but the baath party wasn't hopeless? it just
needed a slight diplomatic push to reform?
\- AR for someone who comes across as a nice person is sort of a
rhetorical terrorist. --psb
\_ Good god, partha. What does that make you? At least she's
easy to look at.
\- i think jhumpa lahiri is more attractive. --psb
\_ that lahiri is more attractive doesn't mean roy is
altogether unattractive. and both are certainly more
pleasing to the eye than you, partha.
\_ Dis not the Everlasting And Infinite Beauty of The PSB!
--psb #1 Fan
\- was she smoking [tobacco] when you saw her?
ask her wht she think about giving money to
tobacco companies. --psb
\_ Really, is that the best you can do?
\_ Infidel! The psb shall crush you like the tiny
insect you are and devour your soul!
--psb #1 Fan
\_ If DanS were here, he should observe the correct
use of brackets in a sentence.
\_ AR speaks from a place of outrage, and it's a justifiable
outrage. Unfortunately, the only people who want to hear
what she has to say are the people who already know all of
this. If the outraged want their message heard by the rest,
they'd better learn how to soundbite it, give it punch, and
market it. Only when it appears as a matter of course on
The View will it actually have any chance of waking people up.
\_ Outraged about being civilised and not lingering in, or
returning to, some third world feudal shithole?
\_ Where was this wench and all the other libs during Clinton
taking out Slobo? All this rhetoric is thinly veiled proganda
(by communists) aimed one side of the political spectrum- Iraq
simply provides a rallying point. Also, if not for Western
imperialism in her native land she would be burned to
death in her husbands pyre.
\_ Communists? Who the fuck are you, J. Edgar Hoover? Nobody
bothers blaming the communists anymore. Just chalk it up
to the ineffectual intellectual left and be done with it,
you rabid left-baiting twink.
\_ "Nobody bothers blaming the communists anymore". That's a
silly statement. When the Soviets were around, you leftists
claimed they weren't "Real Communists" so they didn't count as
such. Now that they're working on making a real western style
capitalist democracy you make some silly noise about the
commies being dead and completely duck his question about
Slobodon and Kosovo. Your rhetorical fu is weak! You are
busted! Thank you for playing, please review chapters 1 and
2 in your Rhetoric 1A book for the quiz on Monday.
\_ Please say something intelligent / factual if you want
me to reply, and not prate trite epithets.
\_ I'd like to see a response to the Slobo question.
\_ She probably was not supporting that US intervention
either... although many were. A genocidal dictator
was taken out of power and tried in international court.
This is very different from the Iraq case where the US
provided a dictator with money and weapons for years, and
then when he stopped obeying orders took the country
by force.
\_ imperialism does not go hand-in-hand with modernization/
globalization. You are probably one of those fools who shouts
about how great women in Afghanistan have it now that Bush
has intervened.
\_ 1) statement of opinion, not fact. you can't possibly back
up your imperalism/modernization comment.
2) modernization is *not* globalization.
3) who the hell wants globalization anyway?
\_ Case in point: Cuba. A modernized country that is not
part of the US international trade empire. |
| 2003/5/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28380 Activity:high |
5/8 Pat Buchanan on the War on Iraq:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32433
\_ GO PAT! GO! (link unread, any reference to Pat always has his
campaign slogan as the right response)
\_ strange. I am a left-wing liberal, but i find myself agree
with a lot of what he said. |
| 2003/5/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28375 Activity:moderate |
5/8 kngharv, can you post a url (or two) supporting what you were saying
about the looting of various ministries in iraq? thanks
\_ If you tell us wtf you're looking for I'm sure any of us could
find it. If you spent 30 seconds on google I'm sure you could
find it. Why don't you just email kngharv instead of posting your
oddball mystery missed connections style crap on the motd?
\_ whoa, take a deep breath homey. If you so desperately want to
answer my query, I think there's enough info up there to do
some google'ing; I tried myself and while I was able to find
something on http://wsws.org I was hoping kngharv might have an
article from a more reliable source. This is hardly "missed
connections style crap". In fact, it is specifically regarding
something that he posted on this here motd yesterday. Maybe
if jwang wasn't deleting the damn thing every hour you would
have had a chance to read it. |
| 2003/5/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28371 Activity:very high |
5/7 I've never seen a convincing explanation of why exactly G.H.W Bush
didn't go all the way to Baghdad in '91. Can anyone provide such
an explanation?
\_ he had a 100hrs victory with less than 200 casualties, a figure
that he didn't expect to hold in taking the country. Then again,
what were the final tallies on this ass kicking?
\_ ghwbush said the world coalition he had gathered then
had given him authority to kick iraq out of kuwait, not
overthrow the iraqi government. that doesn't seem too
incredibly far fetched to me. - danhr
\_ The objective of the 1991 Gulf war was free Kuwait from Iraq and
prevent Iraq from controlling 40% of Arab's oil reserve. The
objective was achieved without invading and occupies Iraq.
It was a big miscalculation on Iraq's part. Iraq had invaded
Iran in the past with USA's blessing, Hussin didn't expect
USA would turn against him second time around.
\_ Um, Iraq informed the US of the plan to invade Kuwait.
The US did not object, so Iraq took that to be implicit
approval. Then Bush and fellows feigned shock when the
the invasion took place.
\_ Iraq also claimed our forces were NOT at the airport, or
within 100km of Bagdad. Their credibility of facts sucks.
\_ More proof that Israel is in control of US foreign policy.
\_ Nyet, comrade! They only talked to some low level official
in country and got an ambiguous reponse. They heard what
they wanted to hear. Please try to avoid mass rewrite of
key elements of history.
\_ Ambassador April Glaspie was a low level official?
\_ Yes. Ambassador to >insert 3rd world BFE country here<
is never a serious position.
\_ Except in times of crisis and in hot-spots, I
tend to agree with you.
\_ She told them effectively the US would not accept
Iraq invading Kuwait, regardless of what the media
tries to portray. In fact, she has maintained and
repeated this position many times.,
\_ In fact, she has maintained all along that she did
not give "the green light" and that she was the
target of a "deliberate deception," but she
acknowledges that the majority of what was reported
about her meeting was true. In other words, she
neither objected nor gave express approval. Saddam
then read into that what he wanted. Let's not pretend
however that the US expressly told him not to do it.
\_ Is it our job to play red light/green light with
thugs? I don't recall seeing that written anywhere.
Maybe it's in one of the Federalist Papers I missed.
\_ We armed them, we trained them, and we supported
them when they were at war with Iran. They were
in effect our client state, and as such, yes,
we had an obligation to red light the invasion
if we were truly opposed to it. We weren't,
so we didn't.
\_ US didn't arm Iraq. The Soviets and French did.
The Chinese sold more arms to Iraq than the US.
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf
\_ US bad, UN good, EU good, Israel bad, PLO good,
Arafat good, Sharon bad, Bush bad, Chirac good,
France good, China good, Britain bad, Russia
good. Clear now?
\_ Yawn.
\_ Exactly, Iraq arms came almost entirely from
China, France, and Russia. After all it was
an exocet missile launched from a Mirage that
hit the US naval vessel in 87. During the
Iran / Iraq war we should have provided more
military support to crush militant islam in
Iran. So the complaint should be we did not
do enough, as opposed to too much.
[MOTD reformatd]
\_ But we did tell them not to do it. So what's
the problem? And no they weren't a client state.
It was a business arrangement.
\_ They are/were however a client state of
France. And frankly, our assistance during
the Iran / Iraq was completely justified,
given the threat of militant Islam which
has manifested current events.
\_ And here's the crux: When did we tell them
that? I'd love to see that url.
\_ You're aware this pre-dated the current
concept of 'the web' and urls, right? So
the odds of getting an accurate and direct
quote from that time is near zero. When you
find the url that proves it either way,
please come back and let us know. In the
mean time, those of us old enough to recall
the events will just have to get by with
our aged and withering memories.
\_ Graduated in '92. Are my memories not
fresh enough for you? 'Cause I do not
recall Bush telling Saddam not to do it
when Iraq massed troops on the border.
\_ 92? Sorry. You were still under the
thumb of the Berkeley PC establishment.
Maybe next time.
By comparison, even now many still don't understand the logic
behind the 2nd Gulf War.
\_ It wasn't a second war. It was the completion of the first
which should've come years before GWB2 got into office.
\_ http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
Basically Bush Sr didn't want to get us into the situation
that we are in now: having to occupy and rule an Arab
nation against international opinion.
\_ Couldn't say it better than GWB himself:
link:tinyurl.com/amxh
(RealPlayer file) |
| 2003/5/8 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28369 Activity:high |
5/7 Day 47. Still no wmds.
\_ But I bet the jews are pleased at getting america to do their
dirty work.
\_ Are you really an anti-semite or do you just play one
on the motd?
\_ KILL THE JEWS! KILL THE JEWS! http://www.masada2000.org for details.
\_ Haven't you heard already? The bar has been lowered. All we're
looking for now is evidence that they used to have WMDs several
years ago.
\_ Frankly, I never cared if there were or weren't. The WMD was just
for the consumption of the great masses. I believe what we were
really doing was cleaning up the mess we left behind in 91 and the
only disappointment is that it took 12 years to get around to it.
\_ I disagree... I'm not against the war per se (incidentally I
am against the war, but that's a seperate discussion) but what
I am against is anyone who believes that the reason we are
there had anything to do with "wmd's" or terrorism. We are
there to satisfy the needs of american business... anyone
who doesnt realize that this country is run by corporate
america is deluding themselves.
\_ What business is in the Iraq? WTF are you talking about?
It took two years to find Saddams nuclear program after
GWI.
\_ OIL! stupid. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserve
in Arab world. and Bush just issued a plan to
"privatize" much of Iraqi economy. Take a wild guess
which company will end up buying the assets of formal
Oil Ministry of Iraq?
By the way, if you notice, virtually all of the
government building were looted, except the
Oil Ministry. Hostipal, water treatment plants,
Universities were all allowed to be looted,
(by some account, even encouraged by US soldiers)
but Oil field, and its refinary infrastructure
were well protected by US arm and forces.
70 years ago, US forces were doing the same thing
inside China protecting the interest of then
Standard Oil company. So, this is not something
new. Just please believe that we are doing all these
for the goodness of the mainkind.
\_ OIL OIL OIL! OILITY OIL OIL OIL! OILITY OIL! |
| 2003/5/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28329 Activity:nil |
5/4 "We went to war just to boost the white male ego"
http://csua.org/u/e42 |
| 2003/5/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:28327 Activity:high |
5/4 The UN solves a critical hunger crisis with skill and diplomacy
without resorting to military force in this link. If it was the
Bushies, you know the military would've been called in and we'd
be bombing the whole place "in order to save it and feed the
hungry": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,449436,00.html
\_ Kinda how they solved that Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouge
Korean crisis, Idi Amin, Rwanda... Sorry to say it, but you are
a moron, and Im putting it nicely.
\_ Sorry to say it, but you got trolled, and I'm putting it
nicely.
\_ As did you...
\_ That's pretty pathetic. |
| 2003/5/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28312 Activity:nil |
5/2 So we still haven't found WMD in Iraq yet. Assuming we never do,
and it turns out the intelligence was all wrong, do you think we
should apologise, leave and help Saddam get his country back? In
not, why not since we went in under false pretenses if we find
nothing. Iraq was innocent.
\_ The WMD were indeed just a pretense (as the War on Terrorism
was already funded, this kept them from needing to secure funding
specifically for ousting that really bad guy who just happens to
sit on humongous oil reserves. go go gadget congress). But there
were many reasons why we went to war. However, the administration
has to answer the people on this point (snicker snicker). I'm
interested to see how they handle this question come election
time. |
| 2003/4/30 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:28274 Activity:high |
4/30 Initially when we went into Somalia, the people loved the US troops.
We brought them food and they were fed. After the situation stabilized
the Somalis turned against us. And culminated by dragging a dead US
soldiers through the streets. Beware that history might repeat
itself.
\_ Tell that to George W. "I look to history, but only selectively"
Bush.
\_ Wow, that's a really cool rewrite of history. I like how you saw
a hollywood movie made from a book and then decided how the world
works from there and can be applied to all other cases the same way.
I'm glad you don't work in foreign affairs. Keeping hacking java.
Stick with what you know, you'll do better.
\_ Yea, like I said, this looks like another Palestine, except a few
times larger.
\_ Somalia was never stablized. Warlords ruled most of the country.
The US went in to cover food aid and then got mixed up in nation
building. Right now, Afghanistan is a closer match but without
constant media showing Somalia's millions of starving. Iraq will
be MUCH different from both. I agree with the Palestine analogy.
\_ Only difference is that unlike Israel, US civilians are not
at the scene, and hence not as exposed. Hopefully US military
personnel fend for themselves better. Otherwise, it can get
ugly. |
| 2003/4/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:28270 Activity:kinda low |
4/30 http://nypress.com/16/18/news&columns/cage.cfm \_ Nice. In all fairness, description as follows: Scathing Op/Ed piece on NYTimes' lack of journalistic integrity. |
| 2003/4/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28261 Activity:moderate |
4/28 http://csua.org/u/df5 US Pulls out of Saudi Arabia. \_ All trolling and meta trolling deleted. And on the US isn't pulling out. Sheesh. What sort of imperialist hegemon would pull up and leave the most oil rich country in the region? \_ The hegemon with a new, more mobile armed forces transformed to respond to a nonconventional, often hidden enemy. \_ And a new country to play with that has lots of room, it's own oil, and borders on RILO (Regimes I'd Like to Overthrow). \_ you know the acronym is only clever if you don't have to spell it out you fucking moron. \_ If we pull out of Saudi Arabia then the terrorists have already won. \_ Don't worry. We're not pulling out. \_ Yermom is now happier. |
| 2003/4/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28234 Activity:high |
4/25 Repton soldier dies
According to her account, Jenkins was working in crowd
control in Baghdad when an Iraqi child playing with
unexploded ordnance approached a group of soldiers,
tossing it toward them. Jenkins recognized
the danger and threw himself on the explosive
as it detonated...
http://tinyurl.com/ad1e
\_ Another victim of the imperialist hegemon. They want a war?
Let's give them a revolution! Regime change in Washington!
\_ ANOTHUR VICTIM UV THE 1MPURIALIST HEGUMON! THEY WANT A WAR?!?1?!?
LETZ G1VE THUM A REVOLUSHUN! REGIME CHANGE IN WASH1NGTON! |
| 2003/4/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28233 Activity:very high |
4/25 Can foreigners file lawsuits against US citizens, corporations, or
other entities in the US?
\_ Unfortunately, yes in most circumstances.
\_ of course! What you think if you break a contract with a
foreigner they can't sue you for breach of contract or something?
\_ ok. Then why can't the Iraqi people file a class action
lawsuit for wrongfully death of their family members as
a result of the bombing?
\_ They can, and they should. Unfortunately, US courts
have a tendency to dismiss cases against the military
in times of "war." The only way they're likely to see
any results (and this is a long shot) is if they take
it up with the World Court at the Hague.
\_ which US does not recognize. USA has a tendency
to disregard international law of any sort when
they found it inconvenient.
\_ there's no such thing as international law. all
countries ignore this silly internation law
fantasy when they find it inconvenient and why
shouldn't they? do you *really* want some 3rd
world dictators deciding how you can live your
life in this country? do you want the EU making
the same decisions? there aint no democracy in
the UN, kids. i never understood why *any*
American citizen would want the UN to have any
power or control over our government. maybe it
is just a case of simple ignorance about the UN
and the world in general. or maybe you're just
trolling? either way, it's a silly concept.
\_ Don't be stupid. UN has served us well for
years. It's a good tool for controlling
the world. Only the current president is
incompetent in using the UN to achieve US
goals.
\_ Please cite a war or genocide it has
prevented. The UN was founded by Communists,
prevented. Provide evidence for
all this success you cite. Could it be
you are historically ignorant?
The UN was founded by Communists,
and continues to be run by Communists,
look it up.
\_ A big chunk of the world really don't
give a fuck about your commie liberal
right wing facist war. If US is so
great, why did it kill Indians, invade
Filipines, oppressed blacks, experiment
on its own people? Why should anyone
trust your benevolence? Why don't you
just fuck off and stop bothering other
countries.
\_ Good plan. Anyone who has ever done
anything bad in the past is not
permitted to attempt to do anything
good forever after. I like it. I
predict world-wide chaos and complete
collapse within about 5 minutes of the
enforcement of that policy. Can I
vote for you for public office?
\_ Well, the person is saying
abolish the UN and just trust US
benevolence. US has shown again
and again that it mostly only
cares about its own self-
interest. Why did it give all
the chemical weapons to Saddam?
Sorry, we'll pass. Fuck off.
\_ Idiot. All countries only
care about their own self
interest. Any country that
doesn't won't be around for
too long. Can you be anymore
naive? I think not.
\_ Oh, so you believe in law
of the jungle. I see.
\_ I believe in reality.
Please name the country
that has ever acted in
anything other than self
interest in foreign
affairs and policy.
\_ At no point did anyone say to
just trust the US. If you want
to create your own straw man to
knock down and it somehow makes
you feel smart to do so then be
my guest. Just do it somewhere
else. I'm sure there are
plenty of mindless forums out
there that would welcome your
sort of anti-intellectualism.
\_ It's called using a
strawman against a
strawman. If you can't
take it, go away.
\_ No. It's called making
shit up and putting words
in other people's mouths.
Your debate fu is weak.
\_ If UN did not sanction Iraq for 10
years, Saddam would have been able to
acquire all kinds of new and
replacement parts for its army.
\_ If the UN hadn't sabotaged sanctions,
they might have worked.
\_ Sanctions haven't ever worked
anywhere. The victim country ends
up with hungry civilians while the
leaders and military continue to
shit on gold toilets and fill their
Swiss bank accounts.
\_ *sigh* ok, i'll bite. Run by
communists now? what? do you mean
people who used to be communists?
people who are just as bad as
communists? or do you actually
believe that the whole UN is controlled
by the Chinese?
\_ I'm not the previous person, and he's
wrong about the communist thing but he
was close. It's really run by a bunch
of socialists which is just as bad.
\_ just as bad? socialists?
so northern european countries
that have socialized healthcare
and more welfare than you agree
with are as evil as the Soviet
Union or the Kmer Rouge?
Do you seriously believe that?
This is exactly how communists
sound when they talk about the
evil capitalist imperialist
oppressors. and they're full
of shit, too.
\_ Evil right winger nutter imperialist
hegemon fascist! How *dare* you raise
a challenge to the New World Order and
Internation Law as embodied by the
corrupt beaurocrats at the UN? Next,
you'll be coming up with links about how
UN 'peace keepers' have engaged in the
sex slave trade almost everywhere they're
sent. How could you think such a thing
of people who only have your best
interests at heart? From each according
to their ability, to each according to
his need (or ability to manipulate the
leftist press in the EU and USA).
\_ Nah, US is the New World Order.
\_ Uhm, no. That's not what was ever
meant at all. Start a new top
level thread if you want to discuss
this in detail.
\_ Actually, no, they can't. Anyone can file anything
they'd like but it's going to be instantly dimissed.
Anyway, there weren't any wrongful deaths.
\_ they *should*? Who are you, some kind of anti-war
fanatic? -gw bush #1 fan
\- in general you can only sue the govt, when the
govt decides to let you sue "him" ... so in
some cases the govt may reserve the standing
issue to citizens. the jurisdictional issue
is more complicated. you may wish to learn about
"conflict of laws" also read something like
C. Rembar: The Law of the Land on the development
of the right to sue the king. --psb
\_ we all knew this. you're taking it too
seriously. (and anyoen who didn't know this
can go back to where ever they came from!) |
| 2003/4/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28231 Activity:moderate |
4/25 War is just a racket: http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm \_ And doesn't work with cable modem? \_ Full text: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm \_ Nice little communist rant from before everyone understood how poorly communism works in the real world. This guy dropped dead in 1940 for those not interested in reading pre-WWII communism++ garbage. \_ The man's points are valid even if you don't agree with his politics. |
| 2003/4/19-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28174 Activity:high |
4/19 Question for you video nerds. If you have a giant pile of
videos of Saddam Hussein, how hard is it to make a convincing
piece of "new" footage? Could any yahoo with some artistic skill and
a good computer do this? If so, what's all the fuss about these
bits of footage of Hussein?
\_ Synthesizing novel convincing human motion from data is an
interesting open problem in computer vision. -- ilyas
\_ There is a new video clip showing Hussein with Laci Peterson!
\_ It's not Laci Peterson, it's Laci Rocha.
\_ All you need is a PM and FCP. Seeing is not believing. |
| 2003/4/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28171 Activity:high |
4/19 The impending battle to lift UN sanctions on Iraq
Russia in New Push to Lift Iraq UN Sanctions (FLASHBACK 2000)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/896221/posts
\_ Oh, those rascally Russians. I mean, it's not as if the
U.S. has changed its mind and dropped all pretence of Iraq
actually having WMD. |
| 2003/4/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28150 Activity:high |
4/16 Blix will save us and lend us credibility! And oh yeah, let's make
the Middle East nuclear free so it's safe for Arabs to attack Israel
again! Gotta love those ultra leftist Europeans for their transparency
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44572-2003Apr17.html
\_ 1. The Bushies have yet to show us the proof that either Iraq or
Syria have WMD.
\_ I'm sure the childish little ding on their name lends much
credibility in the circles you walk in. I don't care if
there isn't a single WMD in the entire country. There's
24+ million people now free of brutal oppression. Does that
mean *nothing* to you?
\_ It does. And if things turn out well that will be great.
But if you remember the whole reason for the war in the
first place was SADDAM HAD WMDS AND WE HAD TO GET THEM
BEFORE HE GAVE THEM TO TERRORISTS.
\_ Saddam is gone. Things have already turned out well.
And there were many reasons to go into Iraq. I don't
care which of the 15-20 announced reasons you'd like
to latch on to. I'm happy that Saddam is out of power
and maybe dead, that the Baath party in Iraq is dead,
that the Kurds are free, that the Shi'ites are free,
that there's one less country supporting terrorists,
and that finally the US is properly feared and
respected as the super power it is and not a paper
tiger willing to be bound by the dictates of the
jealous and bitter weaklings who dominate the UN who
would love to take advantage of our generally good
nature to fuck us over, keep us down, and then spit
on our graves once we bowed to "the international
community", whatever *that* is.
\_ Wow. Can we meet so I can do a psych profile on
on you and the roots of your aggression against
the world?
\_ Did our "generally good nature" also led us to
support such lovely rulers like Pinochet,
Marcos, Suharto, ... , and yes, Mr. Hussein
himself? Not to mention Mr. Bin Laden too.
\_ Things have not turned out yet. Things are still
in motion. The war continues.
2. Israel does not need nukes to deter an attack from its
neighbors-- its military forces and its superior battlefield
technology do that.
\_ So the Israelis wasted their time and money on the nukes?
Maybe you should write a letter to their embassy explaining.
While you're at it you might explain how their conventional
forces will help deter anything when (not if) some nuthead
gets nukes in the region. Which military college or school
of international affairs did you get your PhD from, btw?
\_ It is not as easy to build/acquire nuclear weapons
as you imply. Do some research before you spread panic.
Next, as things stand now (as opposed to your pre-
Armaggedon fantasy), the Israeli military and its
level of tech are sufficiently superior to their
neighbors to deter a conventional attack. The nukes
are a nice piece of insurance, admittedly, but they
are not the end-all of military preparedness or
deterrence.
\_ And you would know because you've previously ruled a place the
size of California and know that it's hard to hide stuff in a
place so small?
\_ well they swore they had proof of WMDs, so you would think
that me[a]nt(sp) they had some idea WHERE THEY WERE.
\_ I wouldn't think that at all. Why would you think that?
\_ And, not that it really seems to matter to the current
administration, but our credibility is short on this point.
Blix was correct in saying 'internationally backed inspections
would have "considerably more credibility."'
\_ Credibility? With who? I'd rather know that Americans were
there and come up with whatever is or isn't there then go along
with the spy infested anti-American UN inspections team who now
has even less incentive to prove Iraq had WMD.
\_ The world outside of the US and Britain does matter, no
matter how much the Bush apoligists try to deny it. It is
amusing to see how Bush's rhetoric has changed entirely
from talking about WMD to "freedom." "The Iraqi's are
liberated!" conquest==liberation in Bushspeak |
| 2003/4/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28145 Activity:nil |
4/16 About the Private Lynch thing, yeah the article is silly when you
look at it as a "this was a special forces rescue, of course they
handcuffed everyone, pointed guns at them, etc." However it also
is obvious that if YOU had been the person handcuffed, threatened,
etc. you'd probably not be too happy either. This is why many
Iraqis aren't so happy with the us occupying the country. They
don't love having foreign invaders who can't even speak their
language come in and point guns at them.
Oh and I wonder how many of you thought the whole Elian retrival
thing was done perfectly ok.
\_ Dr. Harith's reaction sounded pretty effete and out of touch |
| 2003/4/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28141 Activity:high |
4/16 The Truth about the Private Lynch rescue
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-648517,00.html
\_ frankly, Dr. Harith sounds pretty effete and out of touch
\_ How so?
\_ he said his colleagues weren't treated courteously
during the POW rescue
\_ How dreadful! They used standard swat team tactics to go
into a place with unknown dangers and actually dared to
do as trained and not assume that just because some clown
is wearing a stethoscope that he's a nice friendly happy
smiley doctor. It would've been better if they didn't
cuff him and he pulled a gun and shot a few I guess.
\_ It would have been better if they'd secured the area
and then let the doctors get on with their work.
\_ WTF do you think they mean by "securing the area"??
Everyone who isn't on the team goes into cuffs and
gets a boot on their back. That's what it means.
The ignorance around here is shocking.
\_ They walk in, raise their arms and show their
naked palms in the international sign of
nonbelligerence, and say, "Ok, people, now
please don't do anything." What do *you*
think "securing an area" means?
\_ lol
\_ True, can't really argue with you on that one. But
keep in mind some of these doctors are still a little
touchy from Gulf War I when we were bombing their
hospitals.
\_ I wonder if Lynch will ever be able to tell her own story.
\_ Probably after she leaves the Army, but not until then.
\_ If an Iraqi told you guys the US Flag originally had 100 stars,
but Bush had the CIA secretly remove 1/2 of them using the FBI
and special forces, you'd probably start checking the ashes
of the last flag you burned to look for the missing 50 stars. -ax
\_ I didn't read the link. Why would I care? Is there a conspiracy
about her rescue? Was she really not rescued? Did the evil
Bush admin send out special ops to change the road sign so she
could be ambushed and then rescued for PR purposes later? Don't
you have something better to worry your little head about?
\_ I didn't read your post. You suck.
\_ Yes. You did read my post. Anyway, I got a few minutes and
read the link. It was even more stupid than I imagined.
\_ What makes it stupid? It sounds like a pretty likely
scenario for what happened. What is stupid is the US
insistence on stonewalling the whole thing. We did
nothing to be ashamed of.
\_ It's stupid because it's the standard droning anti-US
noise told entirely from a single perspective without
the slightest shred of critical thought or research
into the hows or whys of the way a swat team style
action works. "I look like a doctor so I should be
left alone to wander about in a combat zone doing my
doctoring!" Ridiculous. So anyone who can find a
white coat and a tie shouldn't be secured in a combat
zone? Need I go on?
\_ What's stupid is the US media repeatedly calling
it a "daring" rescue attempt. Now we know how
"daring" it was.
\_ Silly rabbit, the whole rescue took place in Sound Stage 9.
There was no war. There was no ambush. There were no POWs.
And there certainly was no rescue. Lynch is actually a
bit actress who did soft porn on the side.
\_ They probably used the same stage as the moon landing.
\_ Naw, they use computer graphics nowadays. The same team
that did Shrek, I think.
\_ I thought she looked a little like the village girl
from Wag The Dog.
\_ Lynch is not as busty. |
| 2003/4/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28126 Activity:very high |
4/15 First the national museum, now, the national library.
And believe me, history will blame USA for this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2948021.stm
\_ It wasn't the library at alexandria. I agree it's a loss but
it is hardly an earthshaking one. History may blame anyone
they want for anything but I know of ~30m Iraqi's who are
happier free sans old books than enslaved with old books right now.
Perhaps it would be better to not help anyone who lives near a
library because, hey, books are more important than people, eh?
\_ That was a really weak attempt at justifying the American
forces do nothing while morons burn the Iraq's
national library, please try again. - danh
\_ I don't know. Life in Iraqi still sucks more than pre-sanction
Iraq. It may improve, but it's a big hole to climb out of.
\_ In fact, a good number of those interviewed are saying that
the same bullies are back in power (Baghdad police), and that
only Saddam has changed.
\_ Yes, but they're OUR bullies now. Go Democracy! |
| 2003/4/14 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28111 Activity:nil |
4/13 The US is at war with Syria. The US has always been at war
with Syria. |
| 2003/4/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28103 Activity:high |
4/12 motd conservatives, when we don't find WMD, will you vote for
impeachment?
http://www.sundayherald.com/33080
\_ no. why do you say "when we don't"?
\_ RTFL. Looking more likely day by day.
\_ You do realize this doesn't even make sense don't you? Impeach-
ment is not for getting rid of someone you don't like. It's
for getting rid of a TREASONOUS president. Nothing Bush has
done can be construed as treason. Remember, Clinton was not
impeached for sex, he was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury.
\_ invading Iraq, endangering citizen of USA for nothing...
i think it's a treasonous act.
\_ Iraqi Information minister also states, "We have completely
defeated the American Dogs, and driven them from Bagdad!
Isreal is next!"
\_ Why dignify such stupidity with a reply. The depravity of
the op is self-evident. |
| 2003/4/11 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28086 Activity:high |
4/11 http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c2229999/20980532.html Truly amazing. If we'd gotten butchered they would've said to bring the troops home to avoid Vietnam quagmire. We roll over them and they say that proves we didn't need to be there. Some people will twist anything to suit their agenda. \_ how many different ways do you listen to bill o'reilly? tv? radio? car radio? mp3 player? his stupid "oh I'm being oppressed!" newspaper column? fan fiction? truly amazing. \_ WTF are you talking about? I don't listen to BO'R and if I did so what? Ad hominen is not an effective debate tactic. \_ Where are those weapons of mass destruction? \_ Since there are over 1000 sites and the US/Brit forces don't yet have safe control of the country and they've only checked out 20 sites and it can take more than a week to test a sample and then double check it because in this case they *must* be certain, the WMD are either in labs all over the country or in some cases being tested right now. You expected what? Big glowing neon signs that say, "WMD HERE!"? |
| 2003/4/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28079 Activity:insanely high |
4/10 NOOSE TIGHTENS ON IRAQ-SEPT. 11 CONNECTION
link:www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/5599583.htm
\_ Just curious for those who believe there's no connection between
Iraq and terrorism against the US: if the US comes up with either
documents or people in post-Saddam Iraq that say otherwise will
you believe it? Is there anything that would change your mind? |
| 2003/4/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28075 Activity:nil |
4/10 The News We (CNN) Kept To Ourselves
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html
\_ So this idiot didn't tell these stories because it would've gotten
people killed or tortured yet his stories are all about people
getting killed and tortured. I see appeasement has once again
worked well to keep people safe from oppression and suffering. |
| 2003/4/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28074 Activity:nil |
4/10 Saddam's Yacht drifting. According to maritime law, it's yours for
the taking if you can salvage it.
http://csua.org/u/cdb sell it on ebay for millions of dollars
and then brag about it on the motd. |
| 2003/4/10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28073 Activity:nil |
4/11 Do you really think Democracy will work in Iraq? What if everyone
votes to have another form of government? |
| 2003/4/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28068 Activity:high |
4/10 One of my "liberal" coworkers was against the war, and now that we've
"liberated" the Iraqis, she's arguing about how great it is that they
no longer have this oppressive regime that would torture its people
and so forth. So do most supporters of the war think that it is about
a) Regime change for the Iraqis:
b) Nat'l Security:
c) Financial Gain for Americans as a whole:
\_ Few people doubted that US would win militarily without too much
trouble. I personally predicted 2 weeks when asked. I was a
little too optimistic. I have always found the WMD and Al Queda
link accusations weak in evidence and the response disproportionate.
Regime change for the benefit of Iraqis is the only possibly
legitimate justification for killing tens of thousands of Iraqis.
However, regime change as justification is illegal under
international laws and may become a dangerous precedent, so the
WMD excuse. I hope things work out well.
\_ Really? It was just a couple weeks ago when pundits were
muttering about fedayeen, too few troops, and I thought I
even heard talk of quagmire. For example (abstract only),
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D1EFD35540C748EDDAA0894DB404482
\_ That's relatively speaking, like arguing whether Cal's
football team would lose 52-6 or 42-10, and the opposing
side's coach telling his players not to take Cal lightly.
\_ did you even read the link? to quote: "It is not likely
to change the outcome of the war, but it will prolong the
fighting, make it more costly for his adversaries and
profoundly affect the way it is seen in other Arab
countries and around the world." now in light of this
quote, is your Cal analogy fair?
\_ How about this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34229-2003Mar26
\_ What about it? Army guys playing down
expectations and painting a more formidable enemy to
cover themselves in case things don't go as well as
planned? What do you expect them to say? "This is
a turkey shoot." ?
\_ Again, did you even bother to read the link?
\_ Err ... yes. Did you? Also, try using http://csua.org,
at least for the long nytimes link above.
\_ It is about A and B. C is a long term side effect but in the
short term wars cost money.
\_ U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A!!! |
| 2003/4/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28066 Activity:very high |
4/9 Ignorant Arab Americans don't understand Al Jazeera was always
on their side and just trying to tell the truth.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/04/09/sprj.irq.dearborn.rally/index.html
\_ Weapons grade plutonium found in huge underground area
beneath Iraqi nuclear complex. Fox News Channel was always on
our side and just trying to tell the truth.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html
\_ Unfortunately Fox is trigger happy with reporting,
so we'll have to wait and see.c
\_ U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A!!! |
| 2003/4/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28064 Activity:insanely high |
4/9 It is sickening that the Iraqi people who welcome the imperialist
hegemon instead of rising up to fight to protect the Leader of the
Arab nation and throw off the yoke of their Western oppressors who
will only enslave them, exploit their resources, and place them under
the control of a military dictator. Don't they understand they were
much better as a free Arab nation. I shed tears for the Iraqi people
who lived in a free republic only days ago and are now slaves.
[this is what you extreme leftists sound like to other people]
\_ Nice try Trollboy. Go back under the bridge. -gwbush
\_ Silly troll, the knee-jerk liberal reaction you seek is to be
found out on Sproul Plaza. Go thither with your mocking scree,
that they may jackboot you in the head. -gwbush
\_ He shoots! He scores! The crowds go wild! Troll leads 1:0!
-gwbush
\_ nope, just to you
\_ as an extreme leftist how would you know how you look to other
people?
\_ Why should I care how one extremist views another, trollbot?
\_ Sorry, you're knocking on the wrong door. I voted for Clinton
twice. |
| 2003/4/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28061 Activity:nil |
4/9 to that guy who is so upset the media keeps covering
the deaths of journalists, here's a BBC guy who
thinks the Iraqis did it:
http://csua.org/u/cce - danh
\_ It's not hard to find out if US really didn't do it and
want to clear its name. I mean, they have the control of
the hotel and can easily to find the fragment of the explosive
shell.
By the way, Al Jazeera's office was hit by a missile. Considered
Al Jazeera's office was on US target list in the past, considered
that US has overwhelming control of its proximity, it is unlikely
that it was the works of Iraqi.
\_ Idiot. We also dropped 3 missiles into Iran and at least 1 in
Turkey. Must be we're at war with Iran and Turkey, too, huh?
It's a *war*. Shit happens in war. It isn't a nice near clean
little ps/2 shoot em up. People die. Even people no one was
aiming at. I've got sympathy for the civilians too stupid or
unable to leave the city beforehand. The journalists? Fuck
'em. They're vultures. We didn't kill nearly enough of them.
There were Iraqis all over the city at the time. It *very*
easily could have been Iraqis. Your "considering" is armchair
bullshit. I don't know who it was but it doesn't take a brain
the size of a planet to figure out it could have been either
side. Your attempt to look like an intellectual while really
just showing your "hate America" bias is transparent.
\_ just a guess, 4 years ago you were
probably pretty rabidly anti-the government
in charge and made all sorts of wild
accusations about abuses. So why was that
not hating america?
\_ We'll be at war with Iran soon enough.
\_ yet *more* journalist death coverage? enough already! will
this journalistic narcissism ever stop?
\_ ok now you're just being dumb and you're no longer
funny. please start spouting off about
ride bike/use gnu-linux, thanks. |
| 2003/4/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28052 Activity:very high |
4/9 I'm supporting the efforts in Iraq. However, do you think the
U.S. media is underemphasizing civilian casualties and
underemphasizing the grieving families of the casualties?
\_ Underemphasizing civilian casualties and INSTEAD showing
grieving families? That's a strange dichotmy, because I've
seen both in the news.
\_ I meant underemphasizing both civilian casualties AND
showing the grieving families. -op
\_ your clarification is suck. You need to use
underemphasizing twice so it is clearer.
\_ No.
\_ Yes, unquestionably.
\_ I don't know about underemphasizing civilian casualties, but
they sure as heck are over emphasizing the press casualties.
\_ are you the guy from earlier? what's your deal?
you get raped by a paperboy in junior high? - danh
\_ Yes, yes, It's all true! Why me? WHY?!?!
\_ Yeah but those are brown people. There's lots of them...
\_ there are lots of "brown" people in America and in the U.S.
military.
\_ Yeah, but they're *our* brown people.
\_ Do you think the media underemphasized the grieving families of
those killed in 9/11 at the towers and the pentagon? I think
the media has done just fine making Iraqis into real human beings
while making dead American civilians and military into body count.
\_ are you trying to draw a link between iraq and 9/11? Troll boy.
\_ No, I'm showing you how the media treats Americans as body
count but people from other countries become real human
beings for some reason. This is a knock on the American
hating media, not a trollish link.
\_ U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A!!! |
| 2003/4/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28049 Activity:nil |
4/9 I am getting annoyed at the coverage of the 3 reporters killed at
the Palestine Hotel and the Al Jazeera office. 100+ US and British
soldiers were killed. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians dead. Thousands
of Iraqi soldiers gone. And the press obsesses over 3 reporters?
Get a grip and get some perspective.
\_ Everyone knows the Palestine Hotel is full from top to
to bottom with journalists, the balconies are brimming
with cameras covering the war, Al-Jazeera told US Central
Command months ago where their offices are, and
the US armed forces can't get it together enough
to refrain from shelling the hotel? It says in
in the Geneva Convention somewhere "Thou shall
not fire tank shells at journalists, not even Arab
ones, sayeth the Lord."
\_ It's still 3 dead out of thousands. How many apartments and
markets were bombed? How many innocents killed? Let's have
more coverage of that. Or is the life of a reporter
worth more?
\_ hey we're all on the same side here. a big issue
is the us army claims it heard or saw gunfire coming
from the palestine hotel and felt the need to shell
it, forgetting that the remaining, alive reporters
in the building heard no gunfire at all for hours
before they got hit with a tank round.
\_ I applaud your overuse of linefeeds.
\_ Hello? Reporters are human beings, not newsbots. Their #1
concern at all times is themselves. Why do you think they
*still* talk about Herb Caen in the Chron?
\_ There is a difference between knowing *why* a story is
there and accepting that the story *should* be there.
Perhaps the difference is too subtle for you. -OP
\_ oh! what a zinger! perhaps you should re-read the OP
and see that, unlike you, I was actually on topic.
thanks!
\_ Adding "-OP" to your post after I reply doesn't help you
any. Go re-read what you said and try not to do any more
post-reply editing. It's cheap and makes you look stupid.
\_ Note my original post's use of the term "perspective".
It takes no great genius or empathy to appreciate why
a story about the death of journalists would be of
interest to other journalists. It requires perspective
to place those deaths in the context of the thousands
other innocents killed in the war, and to understand
over-coverage of the 3 dead at best shows a lack of
impartiality and fairness, and at worst diminishes
the loss of those thousands other dead. The question
was never why the coverage was there. The question
has always been whether the coverage was appropriate.
The other participants in this thread have grasped that
distinction. It is a shame that you have not. -OP
\_ Death rate of reporters in current war: 1%
Death rate of coalition forces: 0.1%
\_ Yeah, but "full from top to bottom with journalists" doesn't
mean that people with guns can't be in it too. Also, I bet
that a camera-man "shooting" you looks similar to
a dude pointing a rocket-launcher at you.
\_ there were no guys with RPGs in the palestine hotel.
I concede that a bunch of cameras sticking out of windows
on balconies might look like weapons. It doesn't excuse
theq us army from lying about hearing weapons fire
from the hotel. plus they're still lying around it,
publically, but privately saying "yeah we might have
made a mistake and thought those cameras looked like
iraqi republican guard."
\_ And of course it isn't at all possible that it was a
round from an Iraqi shooting at the Americans? Nope,
can't be that. Not at all possible for stray rounds
to kill reporters IN THE MIDDLE OF A FUCKING WAR
ZONE, GENIUS!!! sheesh.
\_ It was Geraldo. He snuck back into Iraq and was shooting
wildly with his six gun like a drunken cowboy. |
| 2003/4/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28048 Activity:nil |
4/9 And here comes the lies and illusions of the imperialist
hegemon, claiming that the victims somehow killed themselves!
media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,932481,00.html
Of course, since we've heard from people in Jordan and the
motd that the people celebrating in the streets is all just
lies and there's no chance anyone could be happy to see the
red white and blue roll into town crushing tha Baathist
butchers directly responsible for the deaths of more than a
million people, this journalist thing must not have happened
either. The Americans aren't even in Baghdad. They're in a
quagmire, shooting at everything that moves, unable to tell
friend from foe on the ground. The Iraqi people shall rise up
and destroy the evil imperialist hegemon invader in the name
of Allah and the great Arab nation!!! Long live Saddam!
Death to Bush!
\_ Aren't these lyrics from the latest Toby Keith album?
\_ U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A! |
| 2003/4/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28047 Activity:nil |
4/9 How could we have a war without Jane Fonda getting in her two
cents? http://www.startribune.com/stories/389/3814120.html
``What it's going to mean for (America's) stability as a
nation, for terrorism, for the economy - I can't imagine,''
Fonda said Tuesday. I'm sure she can't. Jane, Jane, Jane,
what are we going to do with you? Still trying to revive her
proud moral position from Vietnam.
\_ you make a good point--she was right, despite the derision
lumped on her by pea-brained yahoos.
\_ she was right? about what? I like the line about how they
put on some silly staged play for her when she was in Vietnam
and she was stupid enough to believe it was for real.
\_ She was hot in Barbarella. |
| 2003/4/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28042 Activity:insanely high |
4/8 Fighting censorship here at motd. Restored
FNS: Majority of foreign journalist in Iraq considered US'
attack on Palestein Hotel and Al Jazeera Office an deliberate
act. Contrary to what US DoD have stated, there were no fire
fight anywhere near neither Palestein Hotel nor Al Jazeera office
during the attack.
Al Jazeera, which lost a journalist as result, pointed out that
its office in Kabul during the war against Afghanistan was on
US military's Target list and was destroyed. Aside from Al Jazeera,
Office of journalist from Saudi Arabia and UAE were also destroyed
by US military.
\_ Dude. It's a fucking WAR. People are shooting
all over the place. Mistakes happen. There is no
conspiracy to slaughter journalists, there is no
shadow directive to wipe out critical voices,
there is no dark plot to silence opponents. Some
yahoo was driving a tank down the street, thought
he got shot at, and "shot back". These are nervous
19 year old kids with HS educations having grenades
thrown at them, not smug know-it-all college brat
armchair admirals. Furthermore, the guys reporting
on this knew the risks when they put themselves in
harm's way--war journalists get killed. Even good
ones sometimes--Ernie Pyle and Robert Capa are just
two examples. It doesn't excuse that it happened,
but maybe you might consider wiping away your
paranoid fog and _thinking_ before shooting off
your gob. And PLEASE learn some basic English grammar
before marking an ass of yourself--this is supposed
to be a University. You're embarrassing. -John
\_ Bzzt. Even the German press is disputing this claim.
\_ Can you put up a link? Provide any proof at all aside from your
vague accusations and unsubstantiated engrish conspiracy theories?
Or are you really just the whiny-assed, just-got-to-college-and
-am-still-full-of-antiestablishmentarianism bitch that you sound
like?
\_ I'm skeptical that the US would intentionally fire on
journalists (what purpose would that serve), but every
article I have seen on this incident has stated that
witnesses in the area claimed that there was no fire coming
from the Palestine Hotel:
http://csua.org/u/cb7 (NYT)
http://csua.org/u/cb8 (Guardian)
http://csua.org/u/cb9 (Wash. Post)
-!op
\_ censorship in its worse form. US military desperately
want to silence those who leak out information which
they don't want people to know. By staging such
superfical accident, you would be suprise how effective
it can get. Then again, this is my personal opinion.
I was refraining myself dumping personal bias when
I posted the information earlier. The information
sources are Television footages from various nations.
It may sound overly negative because I have skipped
all the American one. You guys can see that in the US
yourself. -op
\_ Thanks for the links.
\_ You have no concept of what censorship means
during war. The military is not there to gratify
every civilians whim for full disclosure. The
military must kill the enemy and, unfortunately,
anyone else who gets in the way. Period.
\_ You're preaching to the choir, man. I think you
have me confused with another poster.
\_ BS, I saw TV footage of weapons fire coming from the building.
Maybe that was a hoax too? And frankly, you are in the middle
of a battle field - what do you expect.
\_ the TV footage is presumably provided by embedded American
journalist. We don't know rather that particular footage
is the Palestein Hotel or not. And, FYI, these are not
accusation just from journalist of Arab origin, I know that
Italians were saying the same thing.
\_ The embedded journalists aren't all americans. Why do you
dispute his claims based on the reports of some reporter
who wasn't even there?
\_ "pizza" is now called "freedom pie"
\_ so's yermom |
| 2003/4/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28035 Activity:very high |
4/8 If Saddam has a network of underground tunnels, why aren't special
ops going through the tunnel system already? (they captured palaces)
\_ Who says they aren't? Just because Geraldo and Arnett and Al
Jazeera are walking around the war zone doesn't mean our special
ops guys takes them on every mission. sheesh. this isn't a movie!
\_ true that there are special ops possibly going down there. |
| 2003/4/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28030 Activity:high |
4/8 Godmother of Baghdad
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7145
\_ this is from David "American liberals are responsible
for Stalin murdering millions" Horowitz's website,
who cares besides that one guy who's always posting
frontpagemag urls? - danh
\_ But they are, can't you see? Plus, Hitler was really
a liberal.
\_ No. Hitler was a socialist. BTW, since you mention Hitler
first, you automatically lose. You lose extra points for
not even bothering to accuse someone else of being Hitler.
\_ No, I was just trying to get someone to delete this
whole idiotic thread. But I think this whole thing is
proof that deliberate trolls don't get deleted.
\_ RACIST! HITLERITE!
\_ from the same site:
"MOMENT OF TRUTH
(For the Anti-American Left)
Every movement has its moment of truth. At an "anti-war"
teach-in at Columbia last week, Anthropology professor
Nicholas De Genova told 3,000 students and faculty, "Peace
is not patriotic"
In other words, bad troll, no cookie.
\_ This whole thread is a troll. Censorbot, ACTIVATE! |
| 2003/4/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28029 Activity:high |
4/8 This is what you get for tell people what US of A
doesn't want you to tell:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2928153.stm
Call me a cynic, but I think US destroyed Al Jazeera office
deliberately.
\_ Ok you're a cynic
\_ and you're naive.
\_ Great way to gain credibility for your opinions. Go around
belittling the competence of your opponents by name-calling
and questioning their knowledge. Anyone who disagrees
with me is obviously an idiot. -John
\_ cynic sounds right, but naive is mightily persuasive!
\_ John, the first was a joke and the second was just an
idiot the rest of us chose to ignore. Why couldn't you?
\_ And a few French embassies. And so what? It isn't for telling
people what we don't want them to tell. It's for being lying
sacks of shit and enemies of our nation. We bomb our enemies.
Why is that a big surprise? Anyway, if they weren't hanging out
with Iraqi snipers trying to get a good photo or story, they
wouldn't be getting killed or bombed as often.
\_ You know, freedom of the press is one of the things that
foreign oppressed people particularly admire about the
United States. This tarnishes our reputation a bit,
don't you think?
\_ Our press is quite free. What are you talking about? If
you're concerned about freedom of the press, look at the rest
of the non-Western world.
\_ What am I talking about? I am saying that deliberately
killing journalists makes our comittment to free
press look less than sterling. What are you talking
about?
\_ Who said we deliberately killed journalists? If we
wanted to deliverately murder journalists I think the
U.S. marines have proven quite capable of killing
anyone they're pointed at. One or two dead here and
there *in a war zone!!!!* is no big surprise. How many
journalists do you think we killed in Dresden? sheesh.
\_ freedom of press only applies to people of US Citizenship
and people who have no threat to the big brother. Look
at MLK, he was assasinated by the big brother.
\_ For the people! Kill whitey! Death to the Man! Blame
America First! Yeah! Down with big brother!
\_ Um, since when was being a war correspondent a safe and cushy
job?
\_ Worked for Wolf Blitzer and they promised to not target any
civilian areas and we know that being in a war zone as a civvy
is really safe so it must have been intentional murder. |
| 2003/4/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28027 Activity:nil |
4/7 What is the official Israeli stance on the war?
\_ Preemptive war and targeted killings without support
of a world body (in fact, scorn from a substantial number of
nations) are fine to insure domestic security, especially if
the other side is associated with suicide bombers. |
| 2003/4/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28025 Activity:high |
4/7 Here is a completely absurd question (I know this will never happen
but..) Imagine that Saddam Hussein and his cabinet of ministers are
all captured alive. Suppose, that six months later the we still fail
to find a credible proof that Iraq was producing WMDs. What other
excuse will our government use then for not reinstating Saddam
as the president again since he represents the legitimate government
of Iraq?
\_ You don't consider finding evidence of biological weapons and
chemical weapons enough proof of WMD?
\_ All planted by the US government.
\_ What evidence? So far everything that has been announced to be
a "Smoking Gun" eventually turned out to be missilies with
conventional warheads, or pesticides, or some other non-WMD
related chemicals. (e.g. http://csua.org/u/c9d
\_ He was killed while trying to escape, of course. Or we could just
release a video of him being some Bubba's bitch in prison. That
should fix his political future.
\_ How about a major blockbuster hit movie in which he is Satan's
gay lover? Thank you Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
\_ Excuse? So you consider WMD's an excuse (from your use of "other")?
How about 12 years of UN resolution violations?
\_ Never proven. And it would be upto UN to prosecute these.
\_ I used -excuse- word because the WMD argument was used merely
as an excuse to start the war. They didn't show us a credible
proof so far that these weapons exist and if they do whether
they posess any treat to USA.
\_ And how long has Israel been violating UN resolutions?
\_ Oh no! Israel has been brought to the table. Now someone
surely will -have- to delete this thread.
\_ irrelevant since he will be tried for War Crimes ie: Kurds
\_ American propaganda. The Kurdish accusation is absurd on its
face. There is no proof that chemical weapons were used.
Even if there were, the proof was manufactured by the
US and Kurdish traitors. Besides, the decision to use
chemical weapons were made at a local level. And Saddam
actually thought he was authorizing the spraying of fertilizers
anyway, and it was an honest mistake that chemical weaponry
were loaded into the missiles instead. Besides, Iraq did
not possess chemical weaponry, so it was impossible it
was used against the Kurds. qed.
\_ The truth is that the much touted "Saddam uses gas
on his own people" myth is almost assuredly a lie:
http://truthout.org/docs_02/020303C.htm
Saddam used mustard gas many times on the Iranians,
but that is not really the same thing.
\_ And of course, Iraq's actions during that war were
done with a full US support and approval.
\_ You mean our boy Jimmy who told Saddam he'd have
our full support if he invaded Iran? That support
and approval?
\_ The US did not approve of Hussein's use of gas.
\_ Yep. Guy citing top secret hush hush US intelligence
you-can't-read-them-just-trust-me-what-they-say
documents. Got me convinced.
\_ How about these Marine Corp assessments, that
say also that it was Iranian, not Iraqi gas?
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf
\_ On the other hand, here's something more recent:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
Whether recent means more likely to be slanted by
current politics or based on more recent information
is of course based on your own prejudices.
\_ Here is a very long, well documented, though
sometimes overstated summary of the evidence:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html
The Army War College assessment does not
disagree with the CIA document above, except
in omission. Both say there was a battle, both
say Iraq used mustard, but the Army and Marines
decided that Iran used blood agent, which caused
most of the casualties observed by the foreign
press. In any case, the evidence is weak, not
the slam dunk it was portrayed in the US press.
\_ The US government lies all the time to get us to agree to
dubious wars. GWB is hardly the first:
http://goatee.net/2003/deadly-deceit.html |
| 2003/4/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28017 Activity:nil |
4/7 Yeah Arnett... you were fired for telling the truth. Why don't
you ask the interviewer to look out his windows now and see
Stars and Stripes.
\_ This is all an illusion. The Americans are in a quagmire
in all parts of the country. They aren't 100km from
Baghdad. They are stuck in the Baghdad airport. They have
been beaten at the airport and send running. Hundreds of
Americans were killed. They commit suicide against the
walls of Baghdad and we encourage them to do so. There are
no WMD in Iraq. Chemical Ali is still alive. Saddam is
still in complete control. We have used only one third of
our might. This shall be the mother of all battles! Peter
Arnett is a quality journalist who reports the truth, not
an American hating ultra leftist. And now you know the
rest of the story! (I always wanted to say that... heh)
\_ In all fairness, Arnett was once a quality journalist
whose reporting won a pulitzer. These days he seems
to be suffering the journalistic equivalent of
stockholm syndrome. |
| 2003/4/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28008 Activity:high |
4/5 How come the US hasn't planted any "Made in IRAQ" WMD in Iraq yet?
\_ Why would it have to? What difference would it make at this point?
\_ You are right, the Bush adminstration has no credibility in
any case. All their excuses for war have turned out to be lies.
\_ Hmm. I was more implying that at this point, we're committed
to the war, and whether we find WMD or not, US public opinion
will remain largely unchanged. Now that we're actually in
Iraq, I doubt finding WMD will sway international opinions
much either. *shrug*
\_ WMD was just an excuse. Iraq used chemical weapon roughly at the
same time as USA used it against Vietnam.
\_ Is this another reference to sarin? Or are you talking about
agent orange? Including agent orange in the set of WMD is kind
of semantic.
\_ I believe he's referring to the discredited Peter Arnett
stuff about using sarin in Vietnam on our own guys and local
friendlies. Some people just can't but help believe anything
bad said about America. |
| 2003/4/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:28007 Activity:insanely high |
4/5 What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the
homeless, whether the mad destruction is brought under the name
of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
- Gandhi
\_ Gandhi was a British subject, disgruntled because he could not
become an officer, who slept with preteen girls in the
nude, was fixated on his own feces, gave tacit approval
of the wholesale slaughter of Muslims after independence,
advised the Jews of the Holocaust to go quietly, and was a
supporter of the caste system.
\_ Interesting; could you cite a few sources?
\_ So what? Look up ad hominem.
\- i imagine this is a troll, but in case it leaves some of
with mistaken impressions:
1. he was a british subject as a consequence of birth.
g. washington was also a british subject.
2. "couldnt not become an officer" ... "yes, g. washington
also was disgruntled because he couldnt become archbishop
of canterbury"
3. girls and feces ... feces not quite right. something
possibly to the girl stuff. i dont think there was any
accusation of molestation. YMWT(see) the play "gandhi vs.
the mahatma".
4. muslim: the main reason i replied. that is 100% opposite
to the actual state of affiars.
5. jews: dunno the answer there
6. caste system: more complicated than that
People in india have much more complicated and diverse
reactions and mpression of Gandhi in india. I dont think
much of this particular quites but he has some others that
much of this particular quote but he has some others that
arent to be believed slavishly but worth thinking about.
\_ You want a real answer? The answer is that it doesn't matter to
the dead, but for millions of others who didn't get dead it
matters a lot. It's a naive and childish but catchy little quote.
\_ It matters to me, if I get a good paying job because the economy
improves because market and consumer confience recovers because
of a decisive military victory for whatever reason and because,
in time, we will have virtually unlimited supply of fuel.
\_ In time we will have a virtually unlimited supply
of fuel, but not because of Iraq or the war. Rather
the source will be our own waste coverted to fuel
via a fast depolymerization process (see this month's
discover for more info).
\_ moron... in time, we will only be running out of fossil fuel.
\_ The world has 2000-4000 years worth of coal, much of which is
in the U.S. Probably a good 200 years of oil, also.
I'm not advocating relying on fossil fuels, which is
a bad idea for alot of reasons, but we're not running
out any time soon.
\_ on the contrary, estimates of oil reserves can vary widely.
there are those who think oil will run out by the 2050's.
I.e. well within your projected lifetime.
\_ 2000+ years coal and 200 years oil!? Are you serious? URL
for sources please?
\_ I got those numbers from a UN report, which is
available on the web, but I can't find it right now.
if you're patient, I'll post it tomorrow, when I can
ask the guy who showed it to me(I'll post it anyway.) |
| 2003/4/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29936 Activity:nil |
4/4 Yesterday I noted a pre-invasion UN study that estimated 500k civilian
injuries and wondered what the current estimate was. To partially
answer that question, Iraq claims that 500 civilians have been killed
in the conflict. A bit premature to say, but the UN estimate seems
a bit high.
\_ The UN estimate included deaths from starvation and disease.
Plus we haven't reached Bagdhad yet, where the mass of civilian
casualites can be expected.
\_ Certainly more injuries and deaths is expected. Note that I
qualified my point with "A bit premature to say". How many
casualties from Basra? -OP
\_ url please.
\_ http://csua.org/u/c5f (sfgate.com)
\_ Unlike the movies, being injured does not equate to being killed.
That said, the current number of casualties is closer to 10K than
500k. But it's early and the UN assumed chem weapons would be used.
Still time....
\_ I am certainly aware of the difference between injury and
death. Note that I said "To partially answer that question".
However, it seemed unlike that the ratio between injury and
death is even 100 to 1. -OP
\_ Generally it's between 2:1 and 5:1 depending on the cause.
\_ How can the UN assume chemical weaponry would be used if the
UN position is that there is no proof that Iraq possessed
chemical weapons? Or did the UN assume the US would use
chemical weapons?
\_ The US is the villain here. We used sarin gas on our own guys
in Vietnam (says P. Arnett). Why wouldn't we gas the Iraqi
civilians, too?
\_ Is it me, or does it seem that a lot of Sodans are rooting for
more casualties?
\_ It's not you. The extreme left wants a million Mogadishus and
isn't happy that it's gone relative well thus far. It's like my
HS english teacher who wanted to see 50,000 US casualties in
whatever war we were in at the time so we'd come home and stop
fighting.
\_ I voted for Ralph Nader, and am a member of the extreme
left. I was opposed to the starting of this war for many
many reasons, but now that we are in it, I'm hoping we
crush the Iraqi forces as fast as possible, with as few
casualties as possible. Not all people who don't agree
with you are just like your highschool english teacher.
\_ Ralph isn't the extreme left. Sorry to tell you but you're
a lot more mainstream than you seem to think.
\_ Ralph is not mainstream (except maybe in SF). He got
what, 3% of the vote???
\_ Bullshit. Nobody wants dead soldiers. We would however,
prefer to see Bush cronies held responsible for the
soldiers that have died, and the civilians, and the
rampant bald-face lying, and the criminally inept
diplomacy. Clinton was strung up on a rack for getting
a little nookie. Bush has ruined the economy,
destabilized the entire middle east, and given cushy
contracts to his corrupt friends-- but if someone
questions his peroxide-white reputation he's labeled an
anti-American.
\_ I'd normally respond to this point by point but it screams
"troll" and I've been trolled enough lately.
\_ How come people often ignore the fact that the economy had
already started going downhill before Clinton's term ended?
\_ everyone knew Gore would lose
\_ Note that I did not say "more *US* casualties". In fact,
given the rest of the thread, it should be obvious that I
was talking about Iraqi (and specifically Iraqi civilian)
casualty. I posted something that implied the civilian
casualty situation isn't as dire as predicted, and a couple
of posts jumped in within 5 minutes to try to imply that
1) I am grossly incompetent (to not even know the difference
between injury and death), 2) there are many more casualties
(URL please, btw), and 3) more is forthcoming. Hence my
observation that some Sodans seem to want the casualty number
to be (much?) greater. -OP
\_ want and convinced it will be are two different things.
I want a government that never lies to us, I know full
well that wont ever be the case. |
| 2003/4/5 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28001 Activity:moderate |
4/4 http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/05/sprj.irq.sahaf/index.html Here's the best line from the article. I wonder how he plans to keep this promise and I wonder what the highly independent Al Jazeera has is reporting is going on at the airport: "Sahaf said he would take reporters to the airport later in the day, after it was cleaned up." \_ think poker bluff? |
| 2003/4/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28000 Activity:high |
4/4 http://csua.org/u/c61 (http://www.cnn.com US troops introduce profiling to Iraq. Where will it stop?? \- Profiling is fine, racial profiling is not. -Smart Liberal oboxymoron \_ Oh yeah? You think they're looking at anyone who isn't of Middle Eastern origin like that? \_ moron , everyone in iraq is middle eastern, so they are not profiling race, but characteristics of paramilitary \_ Ah, the ignorant speak. So you don't know about all the people from African and South Asia that work in Iraq and thus live there and etc? You think the only people who might want to shoot an American soldier are Middle Eastern? This is clasic racial profiling. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting this gross violation of human rights and heaping shame and humiliation on the Iraqi people in their own country! \_ Looking for tattoos indicating Fedayeen Saddam membership is gross violation of human rights? \_ Are they checking tatoos on the non-Arabs? If not, then yes, it is racial profiling. \_ you are the one that is racists, human beings can't be profiled as terrorists or paramilitary because of their race means that you are the racists , sack of shit \_ If this parsed into some form of English, I'd respond. \_ Yes -- normally I'm pretty decent at deciphering other people's egyptian, but I'm struggling with this one. -mice \_ That's why I chose to let this one go. Maybe the poster would like to come back and try again in modern English. \_ I think it's something like "you are the ones who are the ball-lickers." |
| 2003/4/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27999 Activity:low |
4/4 So is that the real slim saddam?
\_ Will the real slim saddam please stand up? |
| 2003/4/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:27994 Activity:high |
4/4 Associated Press article on Yahoo news: http://csua.org/u/c59 "Al-Jazeera is based in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar. It has received funding by Qatar's government but is an unusually independent voice in the Arab world." Does this give Al-Jazeera more credibility? \_ do you have a point? \_ I meant people have been saying that Al Jazeera is biased towards Iraq. Now that AP calls it independent, maybe it is not as biased as we think? the Iraq side. Now that AP calls it independent, maybe it is not as biased as we think? \_ No. It doesn't say what you think it says. It says it is an 'unusually independent voice in the Arab world' which means it doesn't necessary spout off the noise from the government that funds it, but isn't necessarily unbiased. So, no, it doesn't come across any more neutral than it did before you mis-read your own posting. \_ Of course they're biased. Al-Jazeera is based in an Arab country and their primary audience are Arabs. \_ So our US media are all biased too? \_ All media is biased. Some is more biased than others. \_ More than what? NPR? Fox News? \_ Than the motd. \_ The motd is the final authority on all things. \_ No it isn't. (hah! now you go into a Kirkian Logic Loop!) \_ But it is, but it says it isn't and if it says it isn't i\ t must not be because it is but if it is then it can't be because it says it isn\ 't but .. But it is, but it says it isn't and if it says it isn't it must not b\ e because it is but if it is then it can't be because it says it isn't but .. B\ ut it is, but it says it isn't and if it says it isn't it must not be because it\ is but if it is then it can't be because it says it isn't but .. But it is, bu\ t it says it isn't and if it says it isn't it must not be because it is but if i\ t is then it can't be because it says it isn't but .. But it is, but it says it\ isn't and if it says it isn't it must not be because it is but if it is then it\ can't be because it says it isn't but .. But it is, but it says it isn't and i\ f it says it isn't it must not be because it is but if it is then it can't be be\ cause it says it isn't but .. But it is, but it says it isn't and if it says it\ isn't it must not be because it is but if it is then it can't be beca |
| 2003/4/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27974 Activity:high |
4/2 'We didn't fly to Baghdad to drink coffee'
(Former Russian Generals help Iraq prepare for war)
http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/04/02/Wedidntflyto.shtml
\_ They didn't do so well. |
| 2003/4/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27972 Activity:high |
4/2 Those who supported DOS attack on Al Jazeera and think
Al Jazeera is pro Iraqi, think again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2911935.stm
\_ I'm a conservative, I don't think.
\_ This is a perfect example. I, a conservative, originally
posted the reply 'I'm a liberal, I don't think'. So, instead
of an original witty reparte what does some moron do, but
transpose the word 'liberal' for conservative.
\_ Are you seriously bragging that you are the one who posted
'I'm a liberal, I don't think'!?
\_ Thats a little better.
\_ bad troll. no cookie.
\_ all blatant trolling crap deleted. everything else left alone.
\_ How can you distinguish this from two evil stepsisters fighting?
\_ From that article: "The US and UK have accused the station of bias
and criticised it for airing pictures of dead Western troops." Who
is right?
\_ Right? In what sense? |
| 2003/4/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:27968 Activity:high |
4/3 That Jessica Lynch is tough. I heard she shot several Iraqis and
she didn't want to be taken alive. Two broken legs, broken arm,
and at least one gunshot wound.
\_ She's a Palestinian.
\_ Uh, no, she's not. She's from Palestine, West Virginia. She's
as white and American as a girl can get.
\_ the guy above was joking...
\_ What do you call someone from Philadelphia?
She's a Palestinian. This is a useless but
correct fact.
\_ Do you have a URL you can post? This is interesting.
\_ turn on cnn/msnbc/foxnews/cbs/whatever for 30 seconds.
\_ like saving private ryan
\_ no, nothing like saving private ryan.
\_ Don't forget that she was also stabbed.
\_ How'd she get the broken legs and broken arm?
\_ I'm only guessing here, but from bullets?
\_ Good assumption.
\_ or maybe a little retrobution after she ran outta bullets and
\_ or maybe a little retribution after she ran outta bullets and
got captured.
\_ I wonder why the Iraqi soldiers didn't execute her or sexually
assault her. I thought extreme Muslims treat women with little
respect.
\_ Well, they said she was crying all the time. Maybe they just
couldn't do it.
\_ you dont know what they did to her.
\_ We're pretty sure they didn't execute her, though.
\_ Clones! |
| 2003/4/3 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27964 Activity:high |
4/2 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-04-02-freedman_x.htm Don't blame Jews for this war \_ I blame the Jews in West Palm Beach who voted for Pat Buchanan. \_ blame canada \_ Shut your fucking face, unclefucker \_ So I keep hearing how the Jews own the media and the banks and the government. Someone forgot to tell me where to sign up to get my share! --jewboy |
| 2003/4/3-4 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27963 Activity:very high |
4/2 All these discussion regards to weapon of mass destruction.
Did we use Sarin gas during the Vietnam War?
\_ no, we used agent orange. Fucked up the jungle good. And our
own soldiers.
\_ all signs point to maybe
\_ No. Peter Arnett got busted and fired for saying so in 1998 with
zero proof and CNN retracted the whole story. The guy has quite a
journalistic record of excellence.
\_ "Zero proof"? How about the testimony of multiple sources,
including two military officers? The only reason CNN retracted
the story was political pressure.
\_ bullshit. URL. 2 military officers? The ones he was
quoting that he hadn't even met? Or maybe it was the
American officer he claimed got gassed and was dead yet
was there in studio 25+ years later to confront him with
his own lies? You're fucking nuts or intentionally ignorant.
Or maybe I just got trolled... damn. Trolled again.
\_ http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/tailwind_army.html
We certainly used some kind of gas stronger than
CS. Perhpas not Sarin, but the Army will not admit
to what exactly it was.
\_ exactly. the point is, we used weapon of mass destruction,
and we are not particularly proud of it (remember NY
Metro Museum wanted to do a exibition on 50 annualversiry
of Hiroshima, but dropped the idea because political
pressure?). Japan used chemical / biological weapon
at a scale which makes Iraq looks like a child play,
and we forgive them. If we take out this issue of
WMD, what else you can think of to support US's war
against Iraq?
\_ exactly not. we didn't use nerve gas in vietnam and you
have zero proof of it anywhere.
\_ Governments in Japan and Germany are not the same as
those in power during WW2. We did not forgive those
war-time goverments; we hanged them.
\_ go back to your history book. We forgave Japan.
\_ Give me one source.
_/ (reformatted to fit)
\_ Emperor Shoowa stayed in throne until 1989.
\_ General Hideki Tojo danced at the end of a rope
in 1948 after an extensive trial that laid all
blame at his feet.
\_ On a powerless throne because it was easier than
losing a half million more people on both sides
doing an ugly mainland invasion.
\_ Unit 731 of Japan: http://csua.org/u/c3e
\_ "JAPAN ADMITS DISSECTING WW-II POWs"
<DEAD>www.ipsystems.com/powmia/unit-731.html<DEAD>
"The prisoners were eight American airmen ...... torn apart
organ by organ while they were still alive."
\_ And? Never doubted the claim, just the forgiveness.
\_ Don't forget they also ate their POWs,
including Aussies and Americans.
\_ They were hungry. Have you no compassion??
We forgave them after we hanged a bunch of them. -John
\_ We placed blame on certain people and hanged those people. This
does not imply forgiveness; it implies assigning singular blame
and punishment for crimes committed on behalf of a nation.
\_ And after we demilitarized them and after we
dismantled their government and after we sort
occupied their country and after we nuked two
of their cities....
\_ Yup. You want a job done right the first
time around. In the case of the Germans,
we didn't. What's all this about nukes
anyway? We haven't nuked anyone in years.
Nor have the Israelis or the Brits or the
French or even the Rooskies. Nukes all
around!
\_ not if some giant fuckheads in the Pentagon
and Congress have their way with implementing
small scale nukes. I hate everyone right now.
\_ Because he's there. Reason enough.
\_ Who let the Jews get nukes?!
\_ Clinton, who else?! What do you think that Monica
Lewinsky was really looking for in Billy's pants?
\_ Biological and chemical warfare covers more than what most people
think (ie. death by disease or exposure to toxin). In Vietnam,
Agent Orange was used, but mostly as a biological warfare tool.
The chem part was "accidental" or unintended. The bio part was to
remove jungle and destroy crops. Starvation is bio-warfare. The
attacks GWI and GWII vs. water delivery and treatment sites, while
\_ ageng 0 was a weed killer for jungles to remove enemy cover
called infrastructure attacks, are biological in nature. It can
be argued that while not using a WMD, the US is using biowarfare.
\_ Then can I also say shooting an enemy with a gun is biowarfare,
since it stops his biological function?
\_ Hell, is feeding someone Mexican food biological warfare?
How about milk if you're lactose intolerant?
\_ Agent O was not to destroy crops. Sheesh. It's easier and
cheaper to kill peasants if you want to stave out the country.
\_ agent 0 was a weed killer for jungles to remove enemy cover |
| 2003/4/2 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27958 Activity:high |
4/2 Total number of US military deaths in Vietnam: 58,135
Present total US deaths in current gulf conflict(*): 44
The current conflict has been running for about 1 week.
Extrapolating in a completely ridiculous fashion, we can conclude
that the current conflict may continue for another 1321 weeks
(25 years) before we see Vietnam's level of casualties.
(*) Let's be honest here, Vietnam wasn't a war, it was a police
action, so we'd be hard pressed to call the current conflict a 'war'
\_ You could really not run a war worse than Vietnam. The civilians
in charge at the time were complete morons.
\_ Agree with the first part, but you seem to imply that our current
civilians in charge are not, in fact, morons.
\_ Maybe they're not morons, but morAns.
http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/morans.jpgmf3937.jpg
\_ Notice that his T-shirt says "Cardinals"? That explains
why.
\_ What do you have against people from St. Louis?
\_ It could always be the Arizona Cardinals...
\_ St. Louis? Arizona? I was referring to Stanfurd.
\_ And that would be Cardinal, sans 's'
\_ So are we Cal Bears or Cal Bear?
\_ Vietnam was a war. You degrade the men who served and the people
who died by mincing words like that. Police action is when a cop
pulls you over. Soldiers, platoons, mines, ambushes... that's war.
\_ I meant no slight to the fine men and women who served and
gave their boides and lives in Vietnam. I was, however taking
a shot at the gub'mint of de good ole US of A. Vietnam was not
a war. No decleration of war ratified by Congress was ever
made. -op
\_ That's hardly a worthy definition. Wasn't the war powers
clause (prez can wage war for 90 days etc...) passed in 1974
in response to the war? It does not take congressional action
to wage war, just generals and soldiers.
\_ Actually, the war powers act was written to LIMIT the powers
of the president. It didn't give him more power to wage war,
it said that instead of being able to do whatever he wanted,
he had to consult congress after at most 90 days.
\_ Agreed, I meant that it was the result of Congress not
liking the fact that a president can wage war without any
official support. The relevant part was the fact that
they considered what the executive branch had done was
a war.
\_ Depending on how one looks at it, Congress did give permission
to make war with Vietnam with the passing of the Gulf of
Tonkin resolution. Similarily GWII has been argued as a
continuation of GWI (ie. the war never ended) or as an
extension of the War Against Terrorism resolution (it made
Afghanistan possible too).
\_ But the Tonkin incident never happened. Still, you can
only call Vietnam a war.
\_ Yep and yep. Saddam wasn't part of Al-Queda and you
see how well that worked out for Iraq.
\_ Except the War Powers Act is clearly unconstitutional to
begin with.
\_ True, but then you have to get the courts to kill it.
\_ Good god, it wasn't mean to be a discussion of the fucking war
powers act you morons. It was meant to be a moderately interesting,
albeit wholly unscientific factoid. -op
\_ you're the moron who said it wasn't a war. |
| 2003/4/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27952 Activity:very high |
4/1 Is it possible that Iraqi RELEASE Jessica Lynch instead of
what US said that she was being rescued? It doesn't make
any sense that she was the only one who was rescued.
\_ no, this is ridiculous. are you the founder of the local chapter
of the "hate america first society"? much better to trust in the
goodness of saddam and his militia fanatics than the us military
rescuing one of their own? nuts. where do you get this crap from?
\_ and it makes sense that Iraq released her?
\_ Sure it does. First of all, she was wounded badly, possibly
necessitating treatment that lightly wounded or uninjured POW's
wouldn't need. Second of all, the Iraqi's are under no obligation
to handle all of their POW's identically. I think if you'll look
into this, you'll find that it's actually quite common for POW's
to be split up upon capture -- I can think of a variety of reasons
why -- morale, safety, secuity, secrecy, etc. -mice
\- What do you think about the US releasing a list of targets
in Baghdad 12 hrs before it bombs them? Then civilians can
get the hell out of the neighborhood. If SADDAM uses this info
to put hostages in the bldg, ostensibly this will be detected
and the US can skip bombing those on that day and then go back
to not announcing and say "see, saddam->bad". Is there any
downside to this? ok tnx.
\_ i assume this is hypothetical and we're not really releasing
target lists. i think it's a terrible idea. you don't win
wars playing patty cake. this isn't a playground scuffle.
\- yes but there is a PR war too. Dropping leaflets doesnt
win the war, but it might help on the margin. --psb
the harder and faster and heavier they're hit now, the more
lives will get saved in the long run by having it end sooner.
\_ Well, I'd think that it would be pretty difficult to
reliably identify POW's. If we could, then yeah, we'd very
likely eschew bombing the building(s) housing them -- but you
can make a pretty safe bet that there would be Special
Operations guys moving in with little delay: Special Forces/
Delta, SEALs, etc. Of course, I'm a little more cynical. I
suspect that motives of the 12 hour notice are less to do
with humanitarian reasons and more to do with strategic/
political thinking. The targets that we're likely giving
warning on aren't 'targets of opportunity', so they're not
likely to move in 12 hours -- so in that respect the warning
makes little difference. If there's civillians there, and
US munitions kill them -- we can safely blame Saddam and his
regime; if there aren't any then we still win the moral
high ground with our humanitarianism. Of course, I wasn't
aware of the 12 hours notice thing, so I'm basically talking
out my ass, and likely completely wrong. -mice
\_ do you find Jessica Lynch cute?
\_ Actually...yes. -mice
\_ what's a nice lady like that doing in the military?
\_ how do you know she's nice? why can't nice girls join
the military? btw, she happens to be the daughter of a
coworker of mine.
\_ heh Likely meeting many fine, healthy, -available- young
men.
\_ Why would a fine young woman like this want to do that
when she could go to Cal and join CSUA instead?
\_ Yeah and then she could learn about the latest distro
and all the kewlest bike rides and we could show her
all the kewl stuff she can do in pine! sweet!
\_ You must have missed the 'fine' and 'healthy'
words in that sentence.
\_ you think fine and healthy young women would
prefer to be abused and raped in service
\_ But where is Navajo Lori, Jessica's roommate, and my friend's
cousin?
acadamies?
\_ gee i hope so. i hate doing the ugly sick ones.
\_ Was she sexually assaulted by the Iraqi soldiers in any way?
\_ But where is Navajo Lori, Jessica's roommate? Still MIA. |
| 2003/4/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:27944 Activity:high |
4/1 Anyone have an english URL for Leslie Cheung today?
\_ First result in Yahoo search: http://www.lesliecheung.com
\_ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2487595
(4/2) Yesterday I didn't realize why someone was asking for this
until I watched the news last night. Sigh.
\_ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2487595
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2906999.stm
others found by searching on http://news.google.com
\_ It's on <DEAD>sjmercury.com<DEAD>
\_ And http://www.sfgate.com |
| 2003/4/1 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27941 Activity:nil |
4/1 It's raining Land Rovers in Iraq. I guess this is what happens
once you run out of ammo:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12278226,00.html
\_ I can't seem to get "<DEAD>www.sky.com"<DEAD> from ANYWHERE. |
| 2003/4/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:27935 Activity:nil |
3/31 Sharon is preparing the new Palestinian homeland:
http://www.iht.com/articles/91651.html
\_ Ok, I have read the entire article and couldn't find either
"Palestinian" or "homeland" mentioned even once in it.
\_ You have to read between the lines. Sharon is maneuvering a
Syrian war so that he can transfer the Palestinians there,
which the current peace treaty prevents. |
| 2003/3/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27924 Activity:high |
3/31 Why Iraqis are never going to see the Americans as liberators
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2479.htm
\_ the most disturbing news I heard over the weekend was some middle
eastern professor here in the US saying that Iraqis won't fight
for Saddam. They hate him. But they will fight for Iraq. Don't
underestimate Iraqi nationalism.
\_ hell it looks like even the iranians are willing
to fight for iraq.
\_ They realize they could be next. "Axis of Evil" --dim
\_ Relax, Iran. There's still Syria. --erikred
\_ that's why some higher public officials wanted a small force --
a force big enough to win, but small enough not to look
like invaders. They wanted to emulate the latest war in
afghanistan. |
| 2003/3/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27922 Activity:high |
3/31 Anybody think that the republican guards are sitting around in their
tanks waiting to be bombed from the air? You don't have to be a
military genius to figure out that this war will be fought in the
streets of bagdad. Saddam probably sent the troops home wearing
civilian clothes and stashing weapons in houses. Preparing for door to
door combat.
\_ Duh, of course they're not. You, Sir, are a military genius! Was
there a point you were trying to make? Did you have a suggestion
for our military leadership to better conduct the war?
\_ actually, it would be nice if they would listen to this sort of
thing, b/c it really appears they are not.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080814
\_ Actually, I think the US military has been afraid of exactly
this since the war was first contemplated. It's not the
US military that wanted to go to Iraq. Not AT ALL.
\_ The point is, when this turns into door-to-door combat, it'll be
another somalia. Soldiers dressed up as civilians dragging a
dead body around the streets in front of live TV broadcasted
around the world. What do you think that'll do to the morale?
\_ Hmm, I actually find that REALLY unlikely. Though there
are some surface similarities, the situations are radically
different, both politically and strategically.
different, both politically and strategically. -mice
\_ I agree. Somalia was a very limited mission with the
incident in Mogadishu due to a bad operation plan without
Hui in Vietnam during the Tet offensive, except with
decent heavy support. A more accurate parallel would be
Hue in Vietnam during the Tet offensive, except with
greener American troops, tighter rules of engagement, and
higher US concentration of logistics and heavy support.
I wonder if the US will stop doing the chem-alert dance
within city limits and under fire.
\_ many republican guards are surrounding baghdad. There is
a special republican guard unit inside of baghdad, maybe 15000
troops?
\_ So far Saddam's battle plan has been working a lot better than
the American's battle plan.
"So far"? And the sky is green, right?
\_ You call losing 75% or more of the country in a week a really
great plan? Sending out suicide bombers at the point of a gun?
That's a plan? Please send some email to Saddam with more great
military advice. It'll only make the job that much easier. You
haven't studied a whole lot of military history, if any. This
war is going fantastically well for a weeks' worth of fighting.
If you can call a week and a total route a war.
\_ true. But beware -- the hardest part is still to come.
The Siege of Baghdad continues. If only we can
create some sort of Trojan Horse.
\_ Touched a nerve, eh? First take some prozac. Second, yes I
have studied military tactics. He is doing what he set out
to do in the only way he could. He still has the bulk of his
infantry *intact* and is using every possible unconventional
guerilla tactic to sting the so-called coalition's ass.
Considering the overwhelming conventional force against him,
yes, his battle plan is working to a "T". He will bloody the
coalition badly if they are drawn into city fighting. He was
smart to not leave his forces out in the open where they would
have been shot to pieces. Don't take this the wrong way, I am
for US/Britain victory, but covering what has happened so far
with blind rhetoric won't hide the truth. Capisch?
Roger-and-out.
\_ not-op: I am the gamemaster. I give you a choice. Which
side would you like to be on? Saddam? or Coalition?
\_ not-op: Err ... how 'bout God's side. |
| 2003/3/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27916 Activity:high |
3/30 Anyone else see/hear/read Peter Arnett's "interview" and "reporting"
from Baghdad? Why is this clown still in the air? He's already been
bumped down to Nat'l Geo and he still somehow gets airtime. It's like
Heraldo except Heraldo knows he isn't a real reporter but Arnett lacks
this critical bit of self knowledge.
\_ update: turns out NBC fired his ass and he's apologized as well. -op
\_ Yeah... but mentioned that what he said is 'something we all know
about the war.'
\_ Only if http://arabnews.com and al jazeera is your idea of a source
of truth. Arnett drank the Iraqi PR lemonade. Afterall, we
know from the Iraqi Ministry of Truth that the coalition is
losing on all fronts and the brave Iraqi peoples have risen
up and killed thousands of Americans and destroyed hundreds
of tanks and are pushing the evil USians into the sea! |
| 2003/3/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27914 Activity:very high 50%like:27659 |
3/28 Just another day at a peaceful anti-war rally:
http://csua.org/u/bfa
\_ And the pro-war side is blameless.
http://csua.org/u/bfb
I'm not disagreeing with you; the world is pretty fucked up.
\_ Are you seriously stating a moral equivalency between
civilian casualties of war and someone whose "anti-war"
stance is to push the Jews into the sea?
\_ Are you saying that all war protesters are violently
antisemitic? Of course not. I'm just saying
there are a hell of a lot of reasons to be against
this war.
\_ blame the local iraqis solders who forced civilians into the
crossfire
\_ Or the inept diplomacy of a simple-minded President.
\_ Okey dokey, it's easy to spout off about someone else's
failures, how about you tell us the non-violent yet
effective actions you'd take as US Pres. that would have
made certain Iraq was disarmed? Inspections? There were
no inspections from '98 and they only went back in under
tremendous pressure due to the US military buildup and
even then they weren't doing anything useful since a)
they didn't want to and b) the whole .org was filled with
so many spies the Iraqis knew what was going to be
inspected before the UN guys on the ground in Iraq did.
I've yet to hear a single response from anyone in the
government, the media, the public, or private about how
to disarm Iraq/Hussein without fighting if he doesn't
want to do it voluntarily. Just lots of noise about,
"bush is stupid!". Maybe he is stupid but you're not
doing any better.
\_ How about not pissing off a collection of nations
that were squarely in our pocket because of
September 11th? How about putting a real
effort into Afghanistan? How about prioritizing
this effort with respect to North Korea? How about
just keeping your goddamn story straight, and not
lying to the public? Are we there for disarming
him, are we there because he's a war criminal, or
are we there because my misguided domestic policy
and tax refunds has turned a budget surplus into
a recession and I need a quick shot in the arm for
the next election? Or maybe it's just a cover to
get the flag-waving jingoes out in force and allow
me to push some of the worst civil rights
legislation through congress in 40 years? How
about not claiming some stupid forgeries as
"evidence" of nuclear arms dealing? Sure, rattle
sabres, let people know you're serious. But don't
treat war as the foregone conclusion. |
| 2003/3/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27911 Activity:high |
3/29 A little late but I had a busy day:
http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/SR2RisetoPower.htm
http://www.indianaobserver.com/2002/12/I69Iraq.html
http://www.arationaladvocate.com/dejavuonthebrink.htm
Some of this is fact. Some is opinion. These and other links you can
easily find yourself show the Baathist/Nazi link in action, attitude,
goals, etc. If you want to dig deeper go look up Michel Aflaq, the
founder of the whole Baathist insanity. Here's a starter on Aflaq:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/837uvzrs.asp
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/jan-june03/sb_1-24.html
\_ nice links, thanks
\_ Good stuff. Refresh my memory: You're posting these to prove
what, exactly? Or you're posting them as informational links?
\_ This was the Saddam is a Nazi vs. the Saddam is a Stalinist
thread from over the last few days. Having read these and a
few other links I confirmed my previous understanding that the
Baathists are Arab Nazis but was unaware they were also fans of
some of the earlier Russian communists to some extent.
\_ It's an idiotic argument.
\_ There are people who will argue whether the flames are
blue or green when the point is that your arse is on
fire.
\_ Yeah, it would be better to discuss something deeply
intellectual like which linux distro is better or car vs.
bike, or whether the war is about oil or just pure meanness
on the part of dick cheney. You've totally nailed it with
your deep and incisive commentary and editorial. How can I
learn to be as smart as you?
\_ Um, go back in time and prevent your past self from
getting that lobotomy?
\_ oh! ouch! it's like 1st grade all over again!
*laugh* It's too funny that the motd can sink even
this low. I thought most of the grade schoolers
left when the motd got a little harsh on that sort
of infantile stupidity.
\_ Apparently not: we're both still here.
\_ 1) Another common thread of 20th century genocidal dictators is
where many developed their political philosophies - the
cafes of Paris.
\_ That's because Paris used to be where you went to be educated.
Things have changed now and the U.S. is where you go to get an
education. Hence all the terrorists who are educated in the
U.S.
2) Hitler was a socialist.
\_ the cafe's of Austria then?
\_ 'many'
\_ Hilter was more fascist than socialist, but then again lots of
of people had similar POVs. And the key to Soviet socialism,
German nationalist socialism, and Italian facsisism is the
emergence and misinterpretation of Darwinism. That is, thinking
survival of the fittest rather than understanding evolution.
Which leads us to the roots of pure capitalism and the American
sense of superiority....
\_ It does? How so? This hasn't been a pure capitalist society
in your great grand daddy's lifetime. The American sense of
superiority comes from having a robust economy, an effective
military, and a flexible and adaptable culture that rolls
with the punches. That 'sense' is because it's true.
\_ I agree in part, but the greatest contribution America
has made is put forth in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
No amount of wealth or power can overshadow rights and
government ordained by God.
\_ "Bill of Rights" & Constitution establish religions via
"ordained by God" therefore are unconstitutional
\_ So you wrote them?
\_ Uh... what? They establish no such thing. Are you
one of the left wing nutters that thinks the Pledge
is a violation of your rights too? |
| 2003/3/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27909 Activity:high |
3/29 How did this Iraqi farmer manage to shoot down an Apache helicopter
a few days ago with his ancient-looking rifle? Is this even possible?
\_ No.
\_ It's possible if you listen to Iraqi state owned/run 'media' and
think it's real. In the real world, no. Anyway, the apache is an
attack helicopter. It's built to dish out damage and get the hell
out. It is not built to survive heavy attack so I'm very pleased
to hear we only lost 1 or 2 in a direct close up attack like that.
\_ Given what I am reading in non-US news sources, it seems like
coalition helicopters are lost in nearly every
attack/search/rescue operation. Some of those loses are
non-combat-related but Iraqis did shut down a number of them.
This is not surprising since they do have the weapons capable
of that but farmers' rifles certainly don't qualify as such. |
| 2003/3/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27908 Activity:high |
3/29 I don't like this suicide car bomber killing at all. Would Iraq
become a Palestine, but 5 times the size?
\_ The scary thing about this war is that there have been already
many reports that the population of the Southern Iraq is not as
welcoming towards the US troops as expected. For example, one of
Iraq's Ayatollas has already issued a fatwa to fight the coalition
troops. Yesterday, there was a report on ABC news about how those
trucks with humanitarian aid in the Southern Iraq were being sacked
by a mob before reaching their destination. I was shocked to hear a
guy from the crowd yell "We hate Americans!" to a reporter's
question about what he thinks about Americans. The answer was yelled
back so odiously that I think he really meant it. And we thought
that they (specially Shiites in the South) can't wait to be
liberated from Saddam's regime. However, I changed slightly my
pessimistic outlook after this was followed by a tragic story where
a bunch of Iraqi civilians who were traveling in a car were killed
by the US soldiers who mistook them for terrorists. After the
burial, their relatives told that they forgive the soldiers (who by
the way, offered apologies and also helped to bury the dead) since
they understand the difficult times they're living in. I thought
that was very touching.
\_ If you were some pro-saddam fedayeen you'd take the American
food and then scream into the camera how you hated Americans,
too. Why do you take that stuff so seriously? Once it's all
over and the thugs are wiped out and powerless you'll see what
the Iraqi people think for real, good and bad. |
| 2003/3/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27902 Activity:very high |
3/28 Alternative to Al Jazeera:
http://english.daralhayat.com
\_ What is wrong with Al Jazeera?
\_ what isn't?
\_ well, it haas been down for the last few days and though
back up, it is slow and presently link:english.aljazeera.net is
NOT in english (sat 1:20 am) That being said the above site
is pretty weak. http://www.arabnews.com seems a lot better.
\_ http://arabnews.com is better at what?
\_ Americans cannot reach http://aljazeera.net, for whatever reason.
I hear that you can still reach it from overseas, though. |
| 2003/3/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27893 Activity:high |
3/28 Can you think of any realistic scenario of peace? (Iraq)
Assassination of Hussein maybe? (not necessarily by Coalition forces)
\_ Yeah, after American forces get finished killing off all
resistance in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudia Arabia.
\_ not a moment too soon. oil propping too many tyrants.
\_ no, we're there to genocide innocents. get real, fascist!
\_ You forgot Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, the Sudan, Pakistan, and I'm
sure a few others I've forgotten, too. |
| 2003/3/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:27891 Activity:insanely high |
3/28 News of Foreign Sources:
* Morale of US troops start to budge. Troops start to avoid
certain color of candies as believed they bring bad luck
* Some units of US troops' rations are reduced due to supply
issue
* 8 civilian death 33 injured in latest US bomb raid
\_ Rather than posting from "Foreign Sources", how about you state
where you got each bit of news, with a URL if it was from the
web? Anyone can make shit up and post it on the motd. Also, I
know anti-American propaganda and American defeatism isn't the
only thing "Foreign Sources" are publishing yet I note that's the
only thing you are posting. Sources would increase credibility.
\_ Keep this up. Some (but by no means all) of this I haven't
heard about, particularly after Al-Jazeera got shut down.
Even the Guardian has been curiously monotonous about its
coverage. -- ulysses
\_ they will bring the 70,000 sunni kurds from the north.
\_ Those damn green M&Ms. Gonna get laid? In this desert? Lying
sacks of sugar.
\_ That's funny. The army here ride these 40 year old 3-gear
monsters that weigh a ton. Says something about how well
they built them that they're still in use. -John
\_ Did they report about those 40,000 gorillas from Brazil that
Hitler is training to storm the Maginot Line, or the Gulf War
Virus?
\_ I hope the military equipped the soldiers with Linux.
\_ I think you're joking but all of that equipment will need
some sort of rudimentary operating system. Most of it is
probably Wind River stuff but just imagine an army powered
by M$ equipment....wait some recent news is starting to make
sense...
\_ "Windows: Famous for stranding billion-dollar battleships at
sea." http://csua.org/u/bdc
\_ They will all ride bike.
\_ http://www.militarybikes.com/military.html
\_ That's funny. The army here ride these 40 year old
3-gear monsters that weigh a ton. Says something
about how well they built them that they're still
in use. -John
\_ Maybe they just can't afford new ones? Example, "It
says something about the T-55 that it's still in use".
\_ The paratroopers aren't as good as the old
American and British bikes (I used to have
a 35 yr old Raleigh) but they are still
better than what passes for a "rugged" mtb
these days.
\_ Yes, keep posting. We want to know. |
| 2003/3/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27887 Activity:very high |
3/27 "The UK says the discovery of chemical weapons protection suits at a
deserted Iraqi command post in the south could indicate that Iraq
intended to use chemical weapons in the war" -- bbc
So far, this is the basis for US "proof of WMD". Never mind that
the "command post" was a hospital.
\_ Are you the guy that insisted US involvement in Iraq was just
sabre-rattling?
\_ No, that's me! -not op |
| 2003/3/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27886 Activity:nil |
3/27 I figured out the Iraq problem. Saddam is rolling an above average
number of sixes and fives on his two dice. Maybe they're loaded.
\_ No, the problem is that we're only rolling 1 or 2 dice on the attack.
That heavily favors the defender.
\_ That fits. Trying to minimalize casulties and the number of
armies that you need to move to the Middle East.
\_ Or we're so hung up on using Power Attack that we're stuck
with a crappy attack bonus. |
| 2003/3/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27883 Activity:very high |
3/27 Why does it seem to take such a big effort to fight this war against
Iraq? Iraq is not a dominant country to begin with. Supposedly the
US today has many more smart weapons than in the first Gulf War, while
the Iraqi military has worse equipment and lower morale than 12 years
ago. Yet, it took us several long months just to get our troops and
supplies ready to start the war. And with Britain helping and massive
Iraqi troops surrendering or leaving their posts, we are still not
reaching Baghdad swiftly and Saddam is still standing. If the US can
even win this war easily, what do we expect if another dominant
country similar to the USSR, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan launches
a war against us in the future?
\_ Since you bring up WW2: DDay cost the allies roughly 5000 dead and
I don't know how many more wounded. At DDay+8 the allies had gained
about 10 miles in some places and suffered a few thousand more dead.
Iraq+8 we've lost roughly 100 dead, unknown (to me) wounded, and
gone about 250-300 miles. In WW2, the bombing policy over Germany
was known as de-population. The idea being that since they had a
hard time knocking out factories, they'd instead kill the civilians
who worked in the war factories since neighborhoods make better
targets and you don't care which house you hit, just more is better.
In Iraq we're trying very hard not to kill civilians. Iraqi
official government media claims 92 civilians which even if true
makes this the lowest civilian casualty war in modern history and
maybe ever. Go read what happened on the German/Russian front.
Go read about Dresden. We could Dresden the whole place in minutes
but we don't. You know why? Because we really actually are honest
to god, the "good guys" here.
\_ Stop. Iraq isn't WW2 Germany, an overland invasion isn't
establishing a beachhead, the middle east isn't northern France,
and it isn't US vs. Iraq. It's US vs. Osama^H^H^H^H^HSaddam.
See? "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
\_ Nothing is exactly the same. Ever. So let's not ever look
at anything that ever happened in history before because it
isn't exactly the same. Good plan. Buds?
\_ Dude, they're bad analogies and distort history. Iraq
doesn't have the firepower that Germany did vs. the Allies
at that point in WW2. D-Day in France forced the Allies to
ship in all supplies as opposed to trucking them over from
Kuwait. Hedgerow'ed and hilly Northern France isn't desert
and the US claims not to be fighting the Iraqi people as
opposed to defeating "the Hun."
\_ I suggest that you gather a little more information about
military campaigns. There are many numerous examples in our
history. Also, Iraq had a failry large standing military -- quite
a large one, iirc. Check your 'facts'.
\_ Iraq had the second largest standing army before Gulf War I.
And why don't you think the US is performing a swift job? It has
only been less than 8 days. Were you expecting a 6-day war?
\_ With supposedly far superior weapons and air power and
satellites, and months of preparation, I was expecting them to
have already defeated all the major Iraqi divisions and already
in Baghdad going house to house hunting for remaining
oppositions.
\_ Really? I thought Turkey had the biggest army in that region.
\_ What a stupid data point. Hey idiot, before GWI thousands of
Iraqis soldiers were still living. Before the tech bubble
popped, WebVan stock was real valuble, so now it should still
be worth a lot right?
\_ Iraq is fighting a defensive war which is easier than in Kuwait
(where they really didn't have much time to dig in, and the local
population didn't want them around). Iraq is much larger than
Kuwait. The US forces are using untried tactics trying to reley on
airpower and special forces to take land. Oh and most important,
war is a slow thing. You don't just get everyone into a 747,
Kuwait.
drop em off and say "Do Your Thing!" Plus I almost forgot, the
number of surrendering Iraqis is much less this time around.
\_ Iraq: area 168,927 sq. mi.
Kuwait: area 6,880 sq. mi.
\_ Caveat: I'm not for the war, but... The war is going slow because
the troops are under orders not to fire on targets until they have
clear shots on hostiles. The Pentagon is being extra careful to
avoid civilian casualties and any appearance of improper
behavior on the battlefield. Given the amount of scrutiny this
war is under, that's a smart thing to do. --erikred
\_ is it really? i'm not sure. the whole world ouside of the
u.s. is against this war already. we can go through the whole
thing with less than 100 civilian causalities, and the
rest of the world will cry bloody murder. the american
public, meanwhile, will continue to do what the corporate
media tells them and support the war right up until the number
of US dead rises to unnacceptable levels. it seems to me
that the biggest factor in what the world and the US thinks
of this war a year form now is whether we win fast and
decisively, which will be bloody.
\_ If the Bush Admin is to adhere to the new doctrine of
US superiority, then you're absolutely right, the smart
thing to do is to end this quickly, no matter what the
cost in civilian life/property; that's the only way to
secure American dominance. If they had the slightest
doubt, however, that they could blitz the Iraqis into
submission, the current policy of reducing civilian
casualties makes sense: you don't want a long, drawn-out
AND bloody conflict. --erikred, and you are?
\_ as some people have mentioned:
1. military forces are trying to reduce civilian casualties
2. kuwait has smaller land area.
3. Turkey didn't allow land forces to launch attack from their
country
4. in 1991, Republican guard were centered around Kuwait.
the coalition outflanked and crushed them in the open desert.
\_ Wrong. They were based between Bhagdad and Kuwait and not
hurt badly during GWI.
\_ I define "around" to be the area between Baghdad and
Kuwait. There were Republican Guard units in
Iraq ready to sweep into Kuwait.
\_ I define that as Southern Iraq. Admittedly, the RG ran
back to Baghdad with their tails between their legs, but
they weren't "crushed."
5. Now, we are going to do urban warfare -- more difficult
to do if you want to reduce civilian casualties.
\_ We still haven't gotten to the hardcore urban warfare yet.
The US has gone around most urban areas.
\_ yes. It will be a tough fight in Baghdad.
6. Not enough coalition forces at the present time?
7. Longer supply lines are vulnerable to guerrilla attacks.
8. Iraqis have tow missiles and new tactics?
\_ 9. That darn sandstorm.
10. Iraqis don't like us.
\_ 11. Iraqi loyalists are preventing Iraqis from surrendering
\_ The problem is the US set expectations for swift victory. A big
show of power, "shock and awe," smash up a division or two, and
*poof* lots of Iraqis would surrender. To do this quickly, the
US put "light" divisions on the front (emphasis on speed, easily
transported to Middle East, a "furstest with the mostest" POV),
not the heavy tank divisions which suck gas, need lots of
infrastructure to maintain, take a while to setup and are bad at
urban warfare. Even if Turkey agreed to letting the US in, there
weren't enough blue water port facilities to offload a heavy cav
division in such a short time. The tanks on the front now are
the reserve maintained by the US after GWI. Running an invasion
based on airpower, swift light troops, low civilian casulties,
and hopes for a demoralized enemy is kinda... well.. stupid.
\_ bring back Schwarzkopf?
\_ I heard that Tommy Franks wanted lots of armor/tanks,
but Rumsfeld overturned him? In any case, the coalition
can still bring in armor to Iraq. The plan doesn't have
to be static.
\_ The problem is getting the tanks to Kuwait, getting the
troops to the tanks, setting up logistic support, and
the worst part, manuvering the heavies in while pulling
the lights out. Even worse, by the time this all happens
it may be an urban warfare situation so the heavies are
no good. Did I forget to mention how much extra putting
in the heavy divs is going to cost? Big ole bucks...
\_ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/27/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html
120,000 more troops are being deployed, many are heavy mechanized. |
| 2003/3/27-28 [Consumer/CellPhone, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27881 Activity:kinda low |
3/27 CDMA or GSM in Reconstructed Iraq?
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/2171271
Thoughts: It's noble that the US plans to use US funds to install
a wireless telephone system in Iraq. It galls the hell out of me
that we're now about to wrangle about whether we get licensing fees
for either the makers of CDMA or GSM. Proposal: Howzabout the
makers of whichever system they do install waive all licensing
fees for the next ten years as a token of appreciation for the
damage this war (and I mean from both sides) is inflicting on
the Iraqi people? --erikred
\_ Huh? Why should Qualcomm carry the burden? Or would they get
money from US taxpayers to make up for the licensing fees?
Make it phones from Motorola, infrastructure from Lucent, and
licensing fees for Qualcomm. Nothing for Siemens or Alcatel
or those Hans Blix type viking countries. Oh, nothing for
Nortel either.
\_ I wanna see Yahoo/SBC convince Iraqi citizens
to "upgrade"
\_ It gets harder and harder to believe this war is about
humanitarian reasons when the profit-vultures are already
trying to divide up the spoils.
\_ are you kidding me??? you actually thought this had
anything to do with "humanitarian reasons"???
\_ Do we really want to install wireless phone network there? In
Somalia, it was the wireless phone by which the warloads got wind of
our special forces' strike. Else they wouldn't be prepared and
there would've been fewer US casualties. |
| 2003/3/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27874 Activity:moderate |
3/26 The Onion captures the motd:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html
\_ History indicates you are wrong.
\_ Touche'. --op
\_ I'm glad you found a popular humor site that supports your
position. Does this give you warm fuzzies and reaffirm your
beliefs? I know I always go to the onion to find out what's
really going on and to get a fair and balanced perspective on
the world.
\_ You don't think it's a fair characterization? We've gotten
nothing but stonewall rhetoric for *months*: "The Iraqis
have WMD-- look, satellite pictures of trucks!" "Iraq's
been angling for nuclear weapons from Nigeria." "We have
more support than we did during Gulf War I (and 3 countries
are actually helping)". The administration is lying, holding
scripted "press conferences" and hoping that if they keep
repeating themselves the Iraqi dictatorship will just keel
over in fear. Things will not be alright.
\_ Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking.
You've had your say already.
\_ That's the spirit! |
| 2003/3/27 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:27872 Activity:nil |
3/26 What the Slimes were saying about Afghanistan after 3 weeks -
NY Times article entitled: Quagmire Recalled: Afghanistan as Vietnam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/876504/posts
\_ What part of that article doesn't still hold true? The Vietnam
comparison was weak, but it basically says that
* the war is going more slowly than hoped
* real ground troops are required
* air power / special ops are not enough
* setting up a new government will be difficult
All of this has been borne out. The country is still controlled
by warlords in nearly every area; there are still many terrorist
hideouts that can't be searched by a small force, and the special
ops teams are spread too thin.
\_ No one said it would turn into the flower of central asian
democracy in a week. I see no problems there that time won't
cure.
\_ time and support, yes. I'm not saying the situation is
horrible. But the article was right. We did need regular
troops, and those troops were sent. Not enough, because of
Iraq.
\_ They were wrong on every account. The Afghan national army
was being trained, and is now making progress. |
| 2003/3/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:27864 Activity:nil |
3/26 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/fashion/23DIXI.html "... the backlash against [The Dixie Chicks] was not a spontaneous, widespread outburst, but instead was led by a small group of activists, beginning with http://Freerepublic.com. ... the phenomenon even has a name getting 'freeped,' slang for being deluged with angry e-mail messages from users of the site." \_ FR gets more traffic than Salon. \_ DC were pretty stupid to make such statements given where their fan base is. Freedom of speech extends both ways, and those fans are exercising it well. \_ yeah, they should just release a punk album. i'd buy it. \_ boo hoo, it sucks when activism goes the other way huh? like a very small number of morons shutting down the financial district for the ego boost, the $500k police overtime cost, and to hurt the hourly employees who sat in traffic for an extra 2-3 hours instead of earning money to feed their kids. i've got zero sympathy for people who mouth off and then whine like babies when they take an economic hit for it. you've got the right to mouth off in this country and others have the right to not buy your product, not listen to what you say, and do their organised best to shut you down. the left has been doing this for years. sucks now that it goes the other way now, huh? head/pig/insert. |
| 2003/3/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27856 Activity:nil |
3/26 I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam:
http://csua.org/u/b78
\_ a line that sums it all up formt the link, "Jake was so shocked at
how naive he had been. We all were. It hadn't occurred to anyone
that the Iraqis might actually be pro-war." Here we see the inner
workings of the young leftist: knows better than the poor dumb
third world 'native peoples' he's trying to "help" because he's a
smart and powerful Westerner and only he knows what's best for
them, so he got on a bus to stroke his ego and save the world.
There's a reason people grow more conservative as they age. It's
called "growing up". Some grow up earlier than others. Getting on
a bus to hell and talking to the victims of a Baathist Nazi bastard
like Hussein can mature some folks a little sooner than normal.
\_ Huh? I thought the claim has always been that the Iraqis
would be pro-war and would rush out in droves to welcome the
American liberators. |
| 2003/3/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27849 Activity:nil |
3/25 Petition Ready: Request Moore go on Hunger Strike
http://www.petitiononline.com/moore131/petition.html |
| 2003/3/26 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27848 Activity:nil |
3/25 These are the true inheritors of the Babylonian Empire and
they are responsible for all of the technological advances
made in the Muslim world since 700 AD.
Its interesting because some consider Hammurabi's Code of Laws a
progenitor of Magna Carta.
Persecuted for centuries, Iraq's Assyrian
Christians once again wary of their future
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?eo20030227a2.htm |
| 2003/3/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27840 Activity:insanely high |
3/25 Civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes fuel rising anger in Iraq
- http://latimes.com, you probably need to register, but take a look at
the photo gallery link on the right.
http://csua.org/u/b8b#latimes
\_ oh the horror! plez! people have no stomache these days. get real
this is war - GW1 was a fluke - most wars thousands of peep die.
\_ an excellent reason to avoid wars, you're right.
\_ A stitch in time saves nine.
\_ Let's be consistent and disband the police department.
\_ huh?
\_ LAtimes is username:password
\_ csuamotd:csuamotd
\_ What other csuamotd accounts are there?
\_ huh? why do you need more than 1? |
| 2003/3/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27836 Activity:very high |
3/24 After we defeated Germany and Japan in WWII, we occupied the countries
and we helped them rebuild. We're still there today. Is Afghanistan
and Iraq going to be any different? After we bomb the hell out of them
we're going to foot the bill and rebuild their country. And stay
there for the next 50 years? Is this the so-called "Bush Doctrine"?
\_ The Bush Doctrine is preemptive strike on countries we fear may
give WMD to extremist groups.
\_ When do we staring bombing North Korea?
\_ As soon as we're done with Iraq and Bush gets tired of
diplomatic avenues.
\_ You scare the hell out of me, and it's because I'm afraid
you're right.
\_ You'd prefer what? We let them build a few nukes each
year until they've tested a missile that can hit
California and then what? Because of a lot of small
minded people we won't even have a realistic anti-ICBM
defense in place by then. It'll come about 2 years
later which is 2 years too late for SD/LA/SF. Poof!
\_ Disagree. I think Bush will hit Iran first, since we
are there already. It's cheaper to just knock Iran out
THEN hit N. Korea later. I don't think UPS gave US
government enough of bulk discount for ferrying
250k troops and equipments
\_ I'd prefer to see Syria get smushed but I think you're
right about Iran. We build up some big air bases and
bring in a few hundred thousand more troops then the
Iranian nutters get the axe.
\_ There is no counterbalancing Soviet power so no, it won't take 50
years.
\_ True. The US will probably stop helping them out in a few years
or until the spice flows again. The spice must flow!
\_ Arrakis --> iraq
Shaddam IV --> Saddam
Feydaykin --> Feydayin
CHOAM --> OPEC
spice --> oil
\_ that's idiotic. put down the lame scifi and read some
history.
\_ boy that's clever.
\_ Ah, the geek, and geekier-than-thou.
\_ dammit, there must be some reason i read all six of
those books half a dozen times. just let me have
my moment.
\_ What about the 4 new ones? |
| 2003/3/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27834 Activity:moderate |
3/25 We actually blame Iraq for this:
http://csua.org/u/b81
\_ I blame Clinton.
\_ Bill O'Reilly will probably blame San Francisco
\_why can't we blow up bridges, schools and cemeteries from 30k ft?
\_ it was hit by a guided missile.
\_ it was hit by a guided missile. any incidents like this
would make US' occupation a bit more difficult. Trust me |
| 2003/3/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:27826 Activity:very high |
3/24 THE WAR THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/71309.htm
\_ The New York Post is a tabloid with about as much credability as
as the weekly world news. Please don't post NYP articles, it just
makes you look like a moron.
\_ oh, as opposed to freerepublic
\_ is there a list of 'motd acceptable' news sources? I should we
should only allow NPR quotes and Salon.
\_ This is a serious question. What makes you think that our attempts
to create a democracy by force in Iraq will be any more successful
than our attempts in Afghanistan, Panama, Haiti, etc?
\_ We never attempted in Afghanistan, it seem to be going
as well as expected thus far. It worked in Japan,
South Korea, Europe, Taiwan, Chile, and was working in Iran.
What is the alternative? I propose there are only two:
1) kill the Arabs ala colonial Europe or Rome.
2) make it more attractive economically to lay down arms
and live and prosper with a non-belligerent society.
\_ Taiwan? South Korea? Europe? What the heck are you
talking about?
\_ history?
\_ History? US invaded Taiwan to bring about
democracy while it is under dictator CKS?
\_ You do not build weak, nascent democracies
to counterbalance the Soviets. You align
with stable dictatorships with capitalistic
tendencies in order to transition to liberal
styles of government.
This was the essence of US Cold War policy,
I'm actually expected to explain this?
\_ Sure, but how is this relevant? We are
talking about the feasibility of a direct
US invasion and regime change here.
This is not analogous to any of the
countries you mentioned except Japan and
Germany. Vietnam, for example, blew up
in our face because while we were thinking
of fighting against communists and the
soviets, we miscalculated vietnamese
nationalism.
\_ "except Japan and Germany" is the
point. thanks.
\_ I would grant you that, but I
would also point out that Japan
and Germany were actually occupying
nations they invaded when we decided
to topple their regimes. Perhaps
there are better ways to change /
mellow out the regime in Iraq under
scenarios similar to what happened
in places like Taiwan and South
Korea, given that there is limited
evidence that we would be successful
in building a democracy in Iraq.
How much effort and resources are
we willing to devote to this
enterprise, or would we just get
another puppet dictator, someone
like Ferdinand Marcos or the
Saudi sheiks, who constantly steal
from their people? |
| 2003/3/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27819 Activity:nil |
3/23 What motivation is there for anyone to follow the Geneva Convention
in terms of POW treatment? Everyone's up in arms about how the Iraqis
are treating those captured, but why should they care about so-called
international law? |
| 2003/3/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27814 Activity:high |
3/23 TrollP. My dentist was arguing that the UN has become obsolete, along
the lines of the League of Nations. Now... I'm not going to argue
with a man who has a drill in my mouth. I was just wondering if
those right of center agree with that thought or if it is just
pure ignorance. I don't care what those left of center think.
\_ UN obsolecense rests on the premise that the US is the single
hyper/uber-power, and that no one can oppose us. This is premature,
as we still do not have the means of neutralizing unstable regimes
armed with nuclear weapons, and we've yet to prove that we can
smoothly execute a military campaign against a vastly inferior
target. The credibility of the Bush Admin's claim of UN
obsolecense hinges on an unqualified victory over Iraq. If
they cannot deliver such, the UN will emerge more popular (and
relevant) than before.
\_ Okay, look at it this way. The UN is a body of 'leaders' that
aren't elected, have no system of accountability, and yet still
dictate what constitutes 'proper' action for sovereign nations.
It just doesn't make very much sense to me to give any credence to
UN's 'authority'.
\_ The Bush admin just invaded Iraq without UN Security Council
creidbility by actually enforcing the 17 UN security council
approval, the whole time saying they didn't need a yes
vote to invade... but just in case kept trying to get one.
looks like the bush admin thinks the UN is pretty irrelevant
now. Thanks guys! see you in hell.
\_ Ha, this happened to a friend of mine when he was a kid. He said
his mom was arguing with the dentist and his dad was horrified.
His dad was like "just agree with the man! Our son is in his
hands!"
\_ If anything Bush has actually preserved any semblance of
credibility by enforcing the 17 UN security council
resolutions. That said, the US should never have joined the
United Nations. It was organized by Communists and has
been a complete failure at preventing conflict, instead
tacitly approving a number of genocides.
\_ So Bush has preserved the principles of the UN by ignoring
the principles of the UN? Put head back in sand.
\_ Better to pass endless resolutions forever. If *those* are
UN principles then we can do with out it. No one needs an
international debate club comprised mostly of third world
despots. |
| 2003/3/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27813 Activity:high |
3/23 Assume that Saddam actually has POWs and he's torturing them. What is
the next step for the US/Britain?
\_ It's not that *WE* aren't torturing those suspected terrorist.
\_ Yeah, so it's good to go. Grab a few repair techs and shoot
them in the head going for that Mogadishu effect. It's a good
plan that only a sick fuck like you would think was ok.
\_ Seems unlikely. The average soldier right now is probably more
worried about fratricide and accidents.
\_ If this war ends soon, this will probably go down as the only
war in history where one side had more casualties due to
accidents and traitorous fucks than from enemy fire.
\_ obviously you don't know much about history.
\_ enlighten us. provide counter example.
\_ He's not torturing them as it appears they were executed.
\_ As far as your question goes: the plan continues. If we think they
might be alive and there's a possibility of some dramtic hollywood
style rescue, we might try, but I doubt it. The tanks and APCs will
continue forward and the Baathist-Nazi bastards will be crushed. |
| 2003/3/23 [Politics/Foreign/Asia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27807 Activity:very high |
3/22 What are you all you Bush defenders going to do when it turns
out that he lied to us all to drag into an unjust war?
http://csua.org/u/b66
\_ I don't care what reason we gave in '03. It should've gone like
this in '91. His father is the one who committed the crime. The
son is fixing it 12 years later. Works for me.
\_ Oh wow, so now any country can invade any other country
based on a crime committed sometime in its history.
\_ No. Any country can and always has been able to invade
another country based solely on the ability to do so. What
planet have you been living on where someone else's permission
was required?
\_ Removing Saddam is justified by any measure. However, if
Bush lied to do so, then fuck him, I say. Fuck him right
out of office.
\_ Gee, who do you think is a more likely liar, Bush or Hussein?
\_ Probably both.
\_ whether it's justified or not, the more important concerns
are of sovereignty and international law
\_ LOSERS of wars don't have sovereignty, dumbass.
\_ Oh, I see, law of the jungle eh?
\_ On *this* planet, between nations, yes. If I go into
your house and shoot your ass there are police and the
rest of the legal system to apprehend and punish me in
some way. If my country invades your country and
yours is too weak to stop it, then your country is a
footnote in history. There are more dead countries,
kingdoms, empires, etc in the history books than
currently exist on the planet. When this changes you
can let us know.
\_ the bush administration has decided abiding by
international law and the UN is for SUCKAH PUNKS.
this may lead to a few misunderstandings with
a few other countries in the very near future.
\_ What is international law? People keep using that
word without really thinking about what it might mean.
Is it backed by some principle, or is it just arrived
at by consensus of participating countries? I, for one,
wouldn't want a consensus of mostly nasty countries
determining what my country could or could not do.
\_ I really love when the lefties get upset that the US
is in violation of Kyoto, the land mine ban and a few
other treaties we never ratified or even signed in
some cases and then pretend we're in violation of some
mythical "international law".
\_ Most ppl get upset that the US failed to ratify
treaties that seem to be in the interest of
humanity at large for short-sighted business
reasons. Find me a reasonable rationale for
failing to ratify Kyoto, landmine, and chemical
weapons treaties.
\_ Kyoto: it's based on junk science and doesn't
put real limits on China, India and other 3rd
world nations that can easily out pollute us in
a few short years. Landmines: they'd want us to
pull up the mines in the DMZ between N/S Korea.
Chemical weapons: we've got a shitload of the
stuff and destroy it as fast as the plants will
run. What's your problem with that? Most "ppl"
run at the mouth based on ignorance and don't
have a clue what they're talking about beyond
what NPR told them to think.
\_ You usually do not invade a sovereign nation under
international law. The legal basis for invading
Iraq depends on UN resolutions after the war in
1991 started by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Here is
an Economist article about its legality:
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1648347
\_ Why not? What if the country is nasty? Are you
willing to let people under a nasty regime suffer
because of the principle of sovereign immunity?
I think people's lives and happiness are more
important.
\_ If every country felt this way, there would be
no end to the wars. Think about it for a
second: the Christian countries would all
want to invade everyone else to "save" them.
The Muslim countries the same. All in the name
of "happiness." [formatd. again for you.]
\_ No end to wars? There will always be wars
so long as there are limited resources,
people disagree with each other, or religion
still exists. I think it's cute that you
believe wars will somehow magically end if
every country was just happily isolationist.
Are you a GO PAT! GO! follower?
\_ watch out! more imaginary missles incoming!
\_ laugh as he continues to keep FERC from stopping his energy
company buddies from raping California.
\_ Oh really?
Daniel Weintraub: New energy lessons from the last
crisis in California
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/5932213p-6893078c.html |
| 2003/3/22-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27805 Activity:very high |
3/22 American kid/human shield 'shocked back to reality'.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r
A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with
Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with
14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government
minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the
Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to
reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they
would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were
willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from
Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster
the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He
and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing
made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic
products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got
chewed up from foot to head."
A few of you might also like to check out the history of the Baathists
in Iraq. They're not just "Nazi-like" but are actually Arab Nazis.
The truth is out there for those who are interested in knowing it.
\_ I've posted this before, only to be deleted. People didn't seem to
like the source.
"It is Michel Aflaq who created the party and not I,"
Saddam told an interviewer in 1980.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/837uvzrs.asp
\_ Saddam was a bloody tyrant right from the start, yet we supported
him all those years, giving him weapons and technical help when
he used his nerve gas against Kurds and Iranians.
him all those years, giving him weapons and technical help while he
was using nerve gas against Kurds and Iranians. Note that Iran-
Iraq War was started by Saddam when he invaded Iran.
\_ Just because we've done evil in the past doesn't mean we're not
allowed to correct it later. If the standard for who is allowed
to fight evil is only people who have never done anything evil
then no one would be left to do so.
\_ Except that it calls into question as to whether our
stated reason for the war is the real reason for it.
\_ Why is this any more believable than the stories about babies
being pulled from incubators in the last war? Don't be so quick
to swallow the propaganda.
\_ ie, believe the news stories that support your stance on war.
\_ babies? incubators? What are you talking about? Ok, ok, you're
right. Anything that supports a point of view different from
yours must be lies. Afterall the UPI has such a long history of
supporting right wing conservative christian anti-arab, pro-
israel, anti-minority racist lies. Did I miss anything in my
list? Do we still hate rich white people too? Why don't you
just post a list of the things we're allowed to believe and the
ultra left wing 'media' resources you use to 'learn' of those
events?
\_ Your historical memory is weak, child. Bush I sold the
war against Iraq with such a story:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html
\_ Why do you think his arab neighbors aren't jumping to support him? |
| 2003/3/22 [Science/Space, Recreation/Food, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27804 Activity:high |
3/21 Let's say we dig through the rubble and find Saddam's body. How can
we tell it's him and not one of his dozen body doubles? It's not like
we have his DNA.
\_ meanwhile the real saddam is doing what? shaves off his moustache
and goes to work as a waiter in a paris bistro ... who spits in the
food of americans? if he has no public face or power, in a sense
it is still mission accomplished. --psb
\_ it'd still be fairly easy to recognize him then, too.
\_ We get Mossad on his ass. hunt him to the end of the earth.
\_ Except that we DO have his DNA.
\_ From where?
\_ From examining his relatives |
| 2003/3/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:27802 Activity:nil |
3/21 http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003234 "Jacques Chirac says France will not authorize a U.N. resolution allowing the United States and Britain to administer postwar Iraq." \_ France also threatned to veto a resolution that authorized the use of force against Iraq. \_ "Authorize" a UN resolution? How arrogant. \_ The U.S. has to come back showing respect to the UN after having defied it. \_ Too late. Another international institution ruined by Bush. \_ Let's return the Statue of Liberty. She's an ugly biotch anyways. |
| 2003/3/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27800 Activity:nil |
3/21 Regarding Saddam's TV appearances of late, a rhetorical question:
why would Saddam bother looking like Saddam? If I were in his place
I'd use the same body double for every public appearance and have
surgery to look like just another Tom, Dick, or Abdul.
\_ Then the body double would have you executed and just be you maybe?
\_ Presense. Looking like someone doesn't give that person the same
sort of charisma. And it feeds into the dictator ego. |
| 2003/3/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27790 Activity:high |
3/21 My favorite quote from the wall in the last few days, "low estimates
are for 250,000 dead iraqi civilians. wonder how they'd vote."
\_ Two or three times, if I know Chicago politics.
\_ 3500 died during the first Gulf War, 35,000 died in the months after
as Saddam suppressed uprising. This from Human Rights Watch.
\_ You should do some research. US forces were there while Saddam
put down the uprising in the south of Iraq. In fact, some of it
happened in the view of US forces, but they had orders not
to interfere.
\_ And if they did you'd be pissed off they went beyond their
mandate. Whatever. Some people are never happy.
\_ good point.
\_ Do you have a URL for that? The estimate i've seen
agrees with the around 30,000 from Hussein putting down
a rebellion. But i've seen around 80,000 for deaths
from US action:
http://csua.org/u/b4f (business week)
\_ The conservative estimate is >= half a million Iraqi soldiers
got toasted in the first gulf war. I did not make up the number
nor am I saying it is too many or too few. Supposedly they died
for a good cause because we learned a lot about the efficacy of our
weapon, and hence it does help protect American life indirectly.
War kills, and God blesses us to be the winning side.
\_ People die in wars. The Iraqis had a choice. They didn't have
to invade their neighbor. Ask the Kuwaitis about how fun it was
to live under the Iraqis for a short period of time.
\_ I checked. It's from Tom. What did you expect? |
| 2003/3/21 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27789 Activity:high |
3/21 Is this war about terrorists, or WMDs, or regime change, or oil, or
dollar vs euro, or Bush personal vendetta, or American hegemonism,
or a combination of all of the above? What do you guys think?
\_ I had a "well, duh" moment yesterday. The only reason it's
all been couched in the "protecting us from terrorists" context
is because that context is already funded. It's about oil. period.
--scotsman
\_ You need another moment. It's about oil, in the sense that oil
is what makes Saddam rich, which gives him the capability
\_ Nothig wrong. It's just greed.
to sponsor terrorists. Dubya has said, "After all, this is the
guy who tried to kill my dad" in a speech, and he figures
Saddam's going to get his revenge one way or another. The
Bush view is "get them while they're small" -- preemptive
strike -- and make them an example.
\_ And what's wrong with controlling the 2nd largest source of
energy on the planet?
\_ what's the first largest source of energy? or do you mean
second largest source of oil?
\_ currently its the same thing.
\_ It's going against the will of the people, squandering
resources in order to recoup the losses of some of our
largest corporations. And what's wrong with it? That
innocents are less important than those companies' bottom
lines.
\_ the will of which people? you want to see the latest
polls on support for the war and support for bush? the
last bit is just your opinion of the root cause.
\_ The Congress of these United States. The funding
for this war is misappropriated from the struggle
against "terrorism". Are you one of those who compares
the state of affairs in Iraq to the Cuban missile
crisis?
\_ So you think Congress doesn't want this to happen?
You're aware they voted October/02 for military
action? You're aware they could vote anytime to do
all sorts of things both real and symbolic? The
last I knew they were going to vote on a resolution
to say they support the troops. And WTF does the
Cuban Missile Crisis have to do with this? Can you
please try to stay in the same century with us?
\_ Nothing wrong. It's just greed.
\_ adults would call it control of strategic assets. ya know,
important things you need to keep your culture alive.
\_ Next thing we know, you will be calling it 'lebensraum'.
\_ Haven't you figured it out yet? The war is about the Jew Sharon
and Zionsim.
\_ Kill the Jews! Push them into the sea!
\_ War on the nexus of militant Islam, rogue states, and terrorism
- they are all intertwined. Reestablish negotiating position
of the US to one of power. Transition of US foreign policy from Cold
War - first major transition since the 1940's. Proxy war on the
Saudis.
\_ What is your definition of a "rogue state"?
\_ Iran, N. Korea, France, Germany, China, Russia. -Dubya
\_ nah, thoes are our reluctant allies!-dubya
\_ hi trollboy! love ya, kid! |
| 2003/3/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27780 Activity:very high |
3/20 First American casualties:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A687-2003Mar20.html
"Earlier two other U.S. military helicopters made crash landings
during operations along the Kuwait-Iraq border. One was later
destroyed by American warplanes to prevent it from falling into
Iraqi hands, Defense Department officials said."
Wtf are we doing?
\_ Fighting the jew's war for them with our blood and money.
\_ Are you Palestinian, French, or German?
Why do you hate jews so much?
\_ Why not? Doesn't everyone hate Jews? It's so chic!
\_ NYTimes just had a full page ad by some Jewish organziation
calling on Jews in US to be against the war.
\_ No surprise. Jews are mostly leftist.
\_ Not possible. Anyone who disagrees with Sharon is
an anti-semitic pro-Hitler Jewkiller. See above.
\_ What in hell does a Jewish .org being against the war have
to do with Sharon? You've lost it or I just got trolled.
Either way, this makes no sense.
\_ We'll probably kill more of our people than they will.
\_ Sounds like the kind of incident that happens even in training
exercises. Sad, but so?
\_ Sad, and what the poster above you wrote.
\_ More of the men will die of throat/mouth cancer from tobacco chew
than will die during their entire time in the Middle East. We
should invade Virginia to force them to stop spreading this deadly
plague which is killing our troops and humiliating our peoples and
driving them to terrorism.
\_ they'd just get executed. you can harass the government in
\_ Or, alternatively, we could send all of our states' attourney
generals to Iraq to harass the government there with
lawsuits until they go bankrupt.
\_ they'd just get executed. you cant harass the government in
a dictatorship. you can only kill and replace them.
\_ That doesn't sound so bad either.
\_ I thought that was standard procedure. From what I saw in the movie
"Black Hawk Down", the US troops did the same thing in Somalia. |
| 2003/3/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27776 Activity:nil |
3/20 http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2003/03/21/61827.html If true this is interesting. Not much info yet. The headline is: "Saddam Hussein's Son Hurt in Fight with Father's Body Guard" |
| 2003/3/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27774 Activity:high |
3/20 Iraqi blog (can't verify authenticity):
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com
\_ http://www.msnbc.com/news/809307.asp |
| 2003/3/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27764 Activity:high 54%like:27762 |
3/20 Autobots Roll Out!
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828
\_ I hope he's not indicative of the type of ppl in our military
\_ oh trust me, he is
\_ why should anyone trust you? |
| 2003/3/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27762 Activity:nil 54%like:27764 |
3/20 Look out Saddam here comes Optimus Prime:
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828 |
| 2003/3/19-20 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27758 Activity:high |
3/19 Any war protestor in Berkeley? -alumni
\_ "alumni" is plural, dumbass. I doubt you are multiple
people. -aaron
\_ Well, specifically it means a group of male graduates if
you want to nitpick. If you ever used the terms data and media
as singular then you're being hypocritical.
In modern usage alumni to refer to singular or plural in
conversation is fine. I assume you're one of those anal people
who insist on accenting the e in resume.
\_ you're just wrong.
\_ Resume is probably too pedestrian for them. I'm sure
they favor Curriculum Vitae instead.
\_ no, we're all for the war here in Berkeley - danh
\_ there is a protest at 5pm at powell and market
in SF - danh
\_ where you there, danh? I passed by the protest on my way
back from the IETF meeting at the Hilton.
\_ Forget the protest. When does the looting start? I need a new
pair of sunglasses.
\_ why wait for looting? if there's a real riot, and someone
sees you looting, you might actually be shot. if you go
steal a pair of sunglasses now, before the riot, the potential
for getting shot is zero. just don't steal from Fred's.
\_ Sir, I admire your honesty and realism.
\_ So here on Wilshire, the street was shutdown and the cops were
beating up protestors. Whatever happened to the hippie movements,
it migrated to LA? -happy UCLA CS student |
| 2003/3/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27755 Activity:high |
3/19 The rest of the world can see that we are marching to
Sharon's orders, even if we cannot:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html
\_ Yeah! Kill the Jews! Push em into the sea! Round em up and slap
a yellow star on em then gas em! YAAAAAAA! Wow, I feel so much
better having gotten that bit of mindless hatred off my chest.
\_ I see you cannot debate the points raised by the story
so you resort to race baiting.
\_ Let's see: Likkud fuels the AEI, which fuels the PNAC,
which sets the agenda for the Bush Administration. The
only thing the article lacks is a reference to the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm not a Bush-
supporter, but this article is insulting.
\_ I can't believe I am dignifying this with a response, but any
article that must cleanse itself by stating that it is not a
conspiracy theory, thus obviously thinks it may be perceived as
one, is starting on shakey ground already.
\_ Fine, read this one then, that says much of the same thing,
but in much less detail:
http://csua.org/u/b1f
But I suppose Rueters and the NYT are part of the vast
anti-Semitic conspiracy in your worldview. |
| 2003/3/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27753 Activity:high |
3/19 Forget WMD, Terrorism and Liberating the people of Iraq. Its
all about the Euro:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
\_ More and more people are beginning to believe this. |
| 2003/3/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27750 Activity:high |
3/19 "the death of the man in his 30s was the first related to the latest
protests over the U.S.-led war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54702-2003Mar19.html
Bush's first victim in Gulf War II.
\_ obcookie |
| 2003/3/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27749 Activity:nil |
3/19 Ok do you believe the war has started now?
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1084275,00.html
Or now?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/til/jsp/modules/Article/print.jsp?itemId=3895393
Or maybe now?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2863065.stm
It's probably just cowboy rhetoric and bluster.... Nevermind, this is
not the war you're looking for.
\_ Sure! The war's started! |
| 2003/3/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27745 Activity:nil |
3/18 Just curious. The person who claimed the US would be backing off the
war noise over the next several weeks and how you "told us so!!!!":
do you still believe your earlier statements? I'm the one who said
about a week ago that this coming weekend would be the start.
\_ When the bombs drop, I'll admit I was wrong. I wasn't trying
to troll either.
\_ is your point simply that behaving irrationally, or bluffing,
are effective means of diplomacy?
\_ Whoever said it was effective? Anyways, I still think the
U.S. won't do anything until it gets support from Russia,
France, and China. I wouldn't be surprised if the troops
sit there for a month waiting for Iraq to surrender
(which it won't).
\_ You are living in the past. Many people fail to
understand Bush. He is not a complex man, what you see
is what you get. Unlike Clinton, he means what he says.
\_ at least I had a job when Clinton was in office.
\_ As an intern?
\_ I miss the intern days. The WH was so much more
fun when we took government seriously and we
smoked out and nailed all the interns and stroke
of the pen, law of the land... sigh. Oh for the
dotcom days when we all had bubble jobs based on
VC money with no business plans.
\_ What I see is a moron. Is that what I get? He could
have gotten much more support for the war, and made it
much easier for American troops and tax payers if he
and his underlings just learn some basic diplomatic
skills.
\_ Could he have? France has been obstructing US
efforts to control Iraq the whole time.
\_ So you figure he could've gotten the votes in from
France/Russia/China how exactly? Do you understand
how diplomacy works? To get their vote in a useless
body (the UN), we'd have to buy them off with
something that has real value. You're so smart, how
about I give you my vote at the next CSUA meeting and
in exchange you give me 50 bucks. That sounds good
to me and you'd show good diplomacy. I'd not veto
your resolution to oppose the war or something.
\_ I am not referring to getting votes, but
generating bad vibes all over. Even in terms
of getting votes, if the Bush administration has
done it smarter instead of like a gung-ho cowboy,
he may very well have gotten enough votes to
force a French veto rather than having to
withdraw the resolution. Even magazines like the
Economist which openly supported the war thought
Bush and his underlings screwed up the diplomacy
big time.
\_ Ok, I'll buy that. Yes, there are some bad
vibes. Maybe it could've been better, maybe
not. Either way I believe the French were hell
bound to veto anything that would had a trigger
clause in it. I believe that because they said
so so many times. The WH reaction to that was
too flustered but in the end most countries
either already liked/hated us and will continue
to do so as before. The long term effect on
how much any other country likes/hates us is
about zero because this isn't a play ground.
\_ we got UN support in Afghanistan, and in
Iraq last time, so the assertion that
France was going to veto stuff just because
they "don't like us" is not only absurd, it's
contradicted by history. -tom |
| 2003/3/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27744 Activity:nil |
3/18 Just curious, what is the consensus on how long the war with iraq
is going to take? live outside of US
\_ There is no consensus, of course. That's what makes living
in the US fun. I'm sure there's consensus in France.
\_ My guess is the troops will move in at the same time the bombs
start falling on military c&c behind the lines so it'll take about
4 days to get to Baghdad and then God only knows what'll happen in
the city. The military may surrender. They may go house to house
which could take weeks. They will probably lose most of the city
right away and then there'll be hard mop up in a few sections for
a week or maybe two if they're really suicidal.
\_ It could all be over in a day if they would just use one or two
of the neutron bombs we've got. None of our troops would get hurt
and all of the oil wells and buildings would be intact. |
| 2003/3/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27743 Activity:nil |
3/19 I'm really worried about the economic impact of the war. Bush still
hasn't given us concrete numbers of how much this all costs. I've
heard $100 billion tossed around. Where the hell is that going to
come from? social security? Medicare? Cutting foreign aid?
Printing more money? After the last gulf war there was a brief
rally in the stock market and we plunged deeper into recession after
that. I think the same will happen again.
\_ Not to mention that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ended footing much of
the bill for the last Persian Gulf excursion. In other words, we
never actually saw the whole cost last time. We're on our own this
time, monetarily.
\_ What do you mean "saw the whole cost". We made money last
time.
\_ I've already bought a few blocks of halliburton and others.
\_ After all this time I can't believe that you are still in the
dark on this. Its all about the OIL! He's going to take all of
Iraq's oil and sell it and use the money to pay off the national
debt and give all his zionist-fat-cat-worker rich cronies a huge
tax break so that they can all buy new Escalades and drive over
the poor workers-of-the-world who are trying to unite in order to
form a more perfect commune. |
| 2003/3/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27737 Activity:nil |
3/18 To make the motd less boring, take a part in the following informal
survey.
Saddam Hussein will..
Flee Iraq within 48 hours:
Take the Bribe and flee quietly:
\_ Whatever happened to noriega?
Declare and offer to surrender all of his WMDs to avoid the war:
Order a preemptive strike on Israel and US troops in the region:
Flee Iraq within a few days after the war starts:
Try to flee Iraq once Bagdad is surrounded by US troops:
Be toppled and possibly assassinated in a coup attempt:
Surrender himself to US troops:
Commit a ritual suicide:
Threaten to cover all of the Gulf's baby seals with oil and other
chemicals if the US proceeds with the war:
Announce that Osama Bin Laden has been hiding in his presidential
palace all the time:
Admit that the real Saddam Hussain died during 1991 bombing of
Bagdad and he's only his genetic clone:
Admit that one of his grandfathers was Jewish and ask Israel for a
political asylum:
Rally on Sproul against the war and the Zionist expansion in the
middle east:
Wait out Bush's bluff and embarrass the U.S.: .
\_ It is not a bluff.
\_ Of course it's a bluff. I heard it on NPR.
Keep on downloading warez and mp3s until the net connection dies: .
Play hide and seek with the US--to make his point: . |
| 2003/3/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:27725 Activity:nil |
3/17 'For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds
nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell
us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations
between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader,
one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.' -Pat Buchanan
\_ Someone besides me quotes Pat? Cool!!! -ax
\_ No, lots of isolationists and racists quote Pat. GO PAT! GO! |
| 2003/3/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27706 Activity:low |
3/15 Very interesting program from http://Marketplace.org It explains why USA is sure Iraq has the know-how to build Atomic weapons link:csua.org/u/ad5 \_ "They fucking looked at the receipts, duh." - B. Hicks. (valid then, valid quote now). \_ Virus warning. The uninfected original is at http://marketplace.org, but it uses real player, which will try to put advert loaders in your startup. \_ what is the name of the virus? how do i know i got infected or not? (norton antivirus already running) \_ Iraq has blood agents and nerve gas, but isn't close to nukes. \_ Dead is dead, thanks. And how do *you* know they aren't close to nukes? And even if true, you know why? Because the damned jews killed their french built nuke plant. that's why. \_ Arthur Kent, AKA the Skud Stud from GW1, has a History Channel special on this coming up soon. \_ Any relation to Clark Kent, AKA the Man of Steel? Quest for Peace anyone? Maybe a quality respirator instead? |
| 2003/3/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27699 Activity:insanely high |
3/13 Turns out that the "evidence" that Bush presented of Iraqi
attempts to build a bomb are crude forgeries. Two guesses
as to who passed them to British Intelligence:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents
\_ "Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen plenty
of malice, but I've never seen incompetence."
\_ "Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen
plenty of malice, but I've never seen incompetence."
What a ridiculous statement.
\_ he's talking about the technical services division
\_ You peaceniks could very likely set the stage for
use of a nuclear weapon in this country. Ask yourself this,
Russians). You believe Saddam will allow Iran
to go nuclear and not Iraq? Had the 1st Gulf War not occurred
Saddam would have been nuclear by 92 /93. He had 20,000 +
personnel working on his program. Exactly where do you think
all that expertise went? This is not a time to play self-
righteous isolationist.
Iran is 1 / 2 years tops away for a nuclear weapon - if they
don't have one already (thanks to the Germans, French, and
Russians). You believe Saddam will allow Iran to go nuclear
and not Iraq? Had the 1st Gulf War not occurred Saddam would
have been nuclear by 92 /93. He had 20,000 + personnel working
on his program. Exactly where do you think all that expertise
went? This is not a time to play selfrighteous isolationist.
\_ Ask yourself this warmonger: France, Britain, Russia,
China, Pakistan and India all have nukes, yet none of
them have been used against the US. Why is that? How
would Iraq be any different?
\_ Understand this. I am for enforcing the 17 resolutions
against Iraq, no more no less. Terms of the cease
\- hello, do you think the us should stop enforcing the
no-fly zone over the northern kurd area?
that was a us+brit idea ... not un sanctioned --psb
\ Take an educated guess.
fire dictated full disarmement. If the distinction
between the countries you mentioned and Iraq is
not clear to you, I don't think anything would be
gained by explaining it. And BTW, I seem to
remember about 50 years of war between the US, China
and Soviets, a little something called the Cold War.
Which, incidentally we did not win by protesting
for peace and groups hugs.
\_ In spite of Reaganite crowing, the Cold War was
won primarily with a policy of containment. A
good argument can be made that detente, or a policy
of "peace and group hugs" reassured the USSR
enough to allow more moderate influences
to take power.
\_ Right, this was a foregone conclusion
after the US left Vietnam, Vietnam invaded
Cambodia, and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
Take ~20 % interest rates, double digit
inflation, definitely a foregone conclusion.
\_ The Cold War was won by the US on 12 Oct 1986.
Not because of any peacenik group hug, but
because the President was able to make it
clear to the Soviets what we wanted, a world
in which the dread threat of nuclear destruction
did not hang over Europe, Asia or America.
The only way the Soviets were going to have
have any part in this world was if they agreed
to Zero Option.
On all accounts detente was a failed policy.
Every "accord" signed under detente limited
the rate of production and deployment, not
the total number of deployed weapons. Detente
didn't make the world safe for anyone, it
just kept making more and more dangerous in
smaller and smaller increments. |
| 2003/3/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27694 Activity:high |
3/13 Been getting a lot more telemarketer calls in the past few weeks
than before, what's going on?
\_ Have you been protesting the war in Iraq? Could be the FBI.
\_ you got on a list. every time you get a call insist that
they take you off the list. within a few weeks the calls
will stop. amazing how legislation to stop telemarketers
actually works.
\_ you should ask them to put you on their do not call list,
not to be taken off their list
\_ I've been doing this for like a year. Still get lots of
telemarketer calls. The National DO NOT CALL ME
YOU PUNKS list should help.
\_ my experience has been that requesting to be put on
a do not call list works...with one glaring exception.
AT&T. i've told those fucks more than four times now
to put me on their do not call list, and they say
they've done it, then they just call again.
i can only take solace in the fact that as a former
fone phreak i've cost them almost enough to compensate
me for my time.
\_ Note the date/time, name, and address of callers.
You can ask for $500 as a fine... I've written
down how this process works but don't have it
handy. You basically mail them and ask.
\_ we're all in this together... |
| 2003/3/13-14 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27690 Activity:low |
3/13 In all these pictures of military guys lately, the soldiers have
have a backwards American flag patch on their arm.
What's that all about? Symbolize anything?
\_ http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html#3
The last question.
\_ Someone ought to tell Old Navy that it has been
violating Section 8d for the last 5 or so years.
\_ It's so the Iraqi's can see it facing the right way in their
rear view mirrors as they flee.
\_ omg! you're right! someone notify the pentagon.
\_ It's a secret message from the skull and bones crowd
to the novus ordo seculorum people.
\_ you got it. this is why the bank of England flys their flag
backwards also.
\_ especially when the wind is in the wrong direction. |
| 2003/3/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27666 Activity:nil |
3/11 RUSSIAN THREATS TO UNITED STATES SECURITY IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/862609/posts |
| 2003/3/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27659 Activity:nil 50%like:27914 |
3/10 An Open Letter to Anti-War Protestors
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6578
\_ I might as well write "Hello You Warmongering Fools"
\_ Did you even *read* the link? No. You didn't. You're not even
remotely close to the link topic. You might as well learn to
read before you try writing anything. |
| 2003/3/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27651 Activity:very high |
3/11 Told you it was all one big bluff. GW's people just ain't that
crazy, and Powell was on board, so you knew we weren't attacking:
(until later that is)
"The goal is to not have a war. The goal is to have the pressure be
so great that Saddam Hussein cooperates," said Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. "Short of that, an unwillingness to cooperate, the
goal is to have the capabilities of the coalition so clear and so
obvious that there is an enormous disincentive for the Iraqi
military to fight against the coalition and there is an enormous
incentive for Saddam Hussein to leave and spare the world a
conflict."
\_ when did you tell us this? the war is going to happen.
\_ search ~mehlhaff/tmp/motd,v for "You heard it here first"
\_ gee, anonymous motd poster, you're smart!
\_ If we don't go to war I will vote for Bush
\_ If we don't go to war I will vote for Bush
\_ Ah know! :D
\_ so how come the rest of the world doesn't get what the US is
doing and/or go along with it?
\_ The U.S. is backing down. You'll see more signs over the next
few weeks.
\_ We may be backing down politically but we're stepping-up
the military actions.
\_ Apparently because the world is full of idiots who are more
interested in looking good and making useless symbolic statements
than actually getting anything done.
\_ Thanks for joining us! Have a seat.
\_ Can't we all just get along?
\_ Depends. Are we French, German, and Russian and making
or hoping to make huge bucks off Iraq?
German equipment to develope nuclear and chemical
weaponry is grossly exaggerated.
\_ The importance of Iraq as a customer for French and
German equipment to nuclear and chemical weaponry is
grossly exaggerated.
\_ And all it cost was the goodwill and trust of Old Europe, the
Muslim population, and most of the UN. Plus maybe $10 billion for
military costs.
\_ And don't forget NATO!
\_ Good riddance on all of that, except the $10B.
\_ France? Don't want it, never had it. (I was actually in
Paris post 9/11, and there was *no* goodwill. If anything,
there was a snickering you-deserved-it attitude.) Muslim?
Never had it, never will. UN? Let's talk about things that
matter, should we? But I forgot, we're talking about France,
so obvious we are not into relevance. $10b? That's welfare
for engineers and defense corps.
\_ The UN? It's mostly third world dictators. They understood
that when they created it thus the security council exists.
\_ CA would veto the war resolution too.
What they didn't deal with was the fact that certain nations
with permanent seats had no business having such a gift. If
France and GB can have seats, I think CA and Texas should too |
| 2003/3/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27640 Activity:insanely high |
3/9 Does anybody here really support going to war? I saw Blix giving
his report on Friday and it seemed like he was making progress.
If you do support the war, why?
\_ You don't seem to understand that the inspectors are there only to
confirm that voluntary disarming has taken place. They are not
detectives. They do not have the capability of finding anything
that the Iraqis might be trying to hide. Once you understand and
accept that fact you'll understand why the anti-Saddam folks want
to see this happen and get his ass dead or in prison along with the
rest of the bastards in the Baath party.
but sometimes it is less bad that "containment". Also Sadaam is
\_ you don't seem to understand that the OP was asking a
question, not making a statement.
\_ The real issue for anti-war has nothing to do with Saddam,
at least for me personally. United Nation was founded on the
base of national soverignty. Whatever we think we are doing
the right thing, fundamentally, what we are doing is no differ
from Japan's invasion of Manchuria / Soviet invasion of Czech,
and yes, Nazi's invasion of Poland. War, idealogically, should
be last resort. If there are more than one country who adopted
preemptive strike policy, then the world will be in a much
\_
terrible place to live.
\_ So you believe that anything going on inside the borders of
another nation is a-ok and no one on the outside should do
anything about it because of national soverignty? You think if
we knew for real what was going on in the concentration camps
we should have left the Nazis be so long as they didn't stomp
on their neighbors? Would you agree that Milosevic was ok
with all the ethnic cleansing going on? It was inside his
country, after all. What if Israel forced all the Arabs out of
policy transformation the likes of which has not seen since the 1940s.
This was expected at the end of the Cold War, but was delayed
pre-1967 Israel by force? Or executed them all just because they
policy.
That aside I think his domestic agenda has been a disaster,
namely spending like a liberal.
can because it's their country, right?
\_ Well we are supporting Pakistan. Angola seems to always be
below the "killing our own citizens" limit as is Indonesia
and North Korea. The US still refuses to sign many
international treaties against things like bioweapons,
chemical weapson, land mines, war crimes, etc. Too bad about
all of that.
have had to argue against the hawk's strident remarks.
\_ Too many people on Earth. War = death. Death = good, as long as
it's not my death.
\_ Ah, techno-libertarian-geek politics in a nutshell.
\_ then, US should unleash all its nukes on China and India
first. Take out those 2 countries will elimate almost
1/3 of world's population.
\_ Yes, because the people in Iraq deserve to be freed from a
tyrant dicator and get a try at "democracy". Tyrants like Saddam
only respond to force and violence. The only reason Blix is in
Iraq is because of the threat of war. I do not like violence,
but sometimes it is less bad than "containment". Also Sadaam is
but sometimes it is less bad that "containment". Also Sadaam is
aparently manufacturing more al Samoud 2 missles to replace the
ones he's had to destroy. If you lived in Iraq, what would
\_ I say we overthrown Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Jordan
government first. Saddam may be a dictator, at least its
a republic. I would think absolute Monarch should go first.
\_ A republic? It's a dictatorship. You can't have both.
Sheesh. Anyway the other Arab states you mention are mostly
heading in the right direction, albeit slowly or at least
have a chance of doing so. The Baath party in Iraq will
never give up power. Force is a last resort. Saddam is
beyond that point. The others are no where near it.
you want, freedom or more inspections?
\_ You're in the minority on this one. Pretty much everyone cares
one way or the other. Go back to hacking Java. We'll wake you
when it's over.
\_ A better question might be does anyone here really care?
\_ "Those who are good at getting rid of trouble are those who take
care of it before it arises" - Master Sun
\_ unfortunately the Supreme Court kept that from happening.
\_ That gosh darned electoral college - what were
the founding fathers thinking. Oh thats right, you have
absolutely no idea.
\_ "If your forces [votes] are not equal to those of the
enemy, avoid their edge for the time being, waiting for
a gap; then make a determined bid for victory."
- Master Sun \_ Unless you're Al Gore.
\_ "When you know neither the
arts of defense nor the arts of offense, you will
\_ You're way off topic, trollboy. Move on, nut head.
lose the battle"
\_ Yes, I think Bush has handled the war on terror impeccably,
policy transformation the likes of which has not seen since the
1940s. This was expected at the end of the Cold War, but was delayed
above reproach. We are in the midst of an overarching foreign
policy. Nato is dead (has been dead), so is the U.N. The
geopolitical alignment is shifting, regardless of the who the US
president is. That aside I think his domestic agenda has been a
disaster, namely spending like a liberal.
\_ Hey! Clinton didn't do-nothing, know-nothing! He did a lot!
He started the current shitfest in Israel/Palestine. He blew up
an aspirin factory. He blew up some camels. He chicken shitted
out when the going got tough in Somalia. He did a lot!
\_ The New Pax Americana? The world's policemen? I thought the
Republicans were against that.
policy transformation the likes of which has not seen since the 1940s.
This was expected at the end of the Cold War, but was delayed
for eight years by Clinton's do nothing know nothing foreign
policy.
That aside I think his domestic agenda has been a disaster,
namely spending like a liberal.
\_ You can't beat the locals at their own game in their own country.
Stronger or more inspectors won't work. Inspectors are meant to
\_ The Soviets never honored the ABM or SALT treaties either,
they were a joke.
\_ Neither did we. What's your point? So they spent their
country into the ground and are now quite happy to dump
their nukes. Sounds like Reagan's Soviet policy worked
pretty damned well. "The bombs will drop in 5 minutes".
\_ The Soviets did honor the ABM treaty. They were allowed
to build a test facility (which they tricked the US into
thinking was real) near Moscow. It was covered. The US
never signed SALT or SALT II.
\_ To paraphrase Harry Belafonte, Powell's a house servant.
You know that the smartest and scariest guy in the fray is
Rumsfeld.
\_ Riiight... I suppose Condi is too. Modern liberal philosophy
is implicitly racist, and you are a disgusting wretch.
\_ If you're going to base your political philosophy on what
an aged song writer/singer of little ditties has to say, you
have no business having an opinion. Perhaps you should see
what Streisand or Garafalo or a number of other hollywood
knuckleheads are saying? At least they were born in the
last century so senility isn't an issue yet.
\_ Here's the end deal with me. The reason for war can be stated for
humanitarian reasons. But not getting our traditional allies to
join us is just plain stupid. There is no rush for war. Iraq has
been slowly toturing and killing it's own people for decades, in
no small part thanks to the US and it's allies. Hussain will make
an error and then war can be had. The US needs to PROVE to the
world that it is right. And it really hasn't.
verify when a state truly wants to disarm (like former Soviet
states). Saddam will only be disarmed by force, and disarming by
force de facto equals "regime change". We'll end up where we would
have ended up anyway, but Rummy and Wolfy should have watched their
words and followed Powell's advice. Then France, et al. may not
have had to argue against our dig in, for whatever reasons. |
| 2003/3/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27638 Activity:high |
3/9 Look at these desperate losers trying to call a crop duster a 'smoking
gun'. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605557,00.html
\_ A remote-controlled crop duster with a 25-ft wingspan? In
combination with the anthrax that Iraq has?
Note also that it wasn't declared by Iraq.
\_ You don't have to declare farm equipment! And they don't have
any anthrax. The inspectors haven't found any because there
isn't any.
\_ I didn't know Iraq was remotely dusting their crops, why don't we
do that here in the U.S.? Thanks for the insight.
\_ Well, I guess we haven't wanted to dust israel with aerosolized
anthrax or botulin toxin lately. |
| 2003/3/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27634 Activity:nil |
3/8 When Will Americans Come
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003156 |
| 2003/3/6-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:27609 Activity:very high |
3/6 Mall t-shirt part II: http://csua.org/u/a48 Now the mall wants to drop the charges because they know they screwed up bigtime. \_ dropping charges doesn't mean anything. They want to apprehend the person who is in their view politically incorrect. By arrest him first, file charges later, then release him, The mall has achieved this goal. Same tactics is oftened used in mainland China. Most people gets the message and become silent afterwards. \_ Um, okay. Most people would consider this a victory for the demonstrators and the guy who was arrested. He's probably not planning on being silent since he's considering a lawsuit. I think a reasonable person would say the mall failed miserably and that this will send a message to malls across the country that they shouldn't try the same thing. \_ call me a greedy bastard. What I really want to see is a civil lawsuit against the mall. As previous motd stated, there is no law (hence protection) governing this kind of issue in New York State. Consider that New York is the 2nd largest State in the Union. Such law is long overdue. \_ What you don't seem to understand is businesses don't want such a law, neither do a probable majority of the public. So in the sense anything is overdue, it would be annuling California's law. \_ California isn't the only state with limited \_ California's law does not provides that you may exercise your 1st amd. right to free speech in a quasi-public forum (privately owned, but operated with the intention that any member of the public can attend) at any time you chose. What it provides is that you may exercise your 1st amd. right at a reasonable time and place within the forum and that such a time and place may be determined by the owners of the forum. \_ the CA state supreme court said the following in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal.3d 899 (1979), aff''d, 447 U.S. 74 (1980): The free-speech guarantees of the California Constitution "protect speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned." - danh free speech protections in quasi-public forums. Colorado, Oregon and New Jersey among others protect free speech in quasi-public forums. As far as what the majority of the public want, that is irrelevant since the purpose of the first amd. is to protect the freedoms of the minority from the will of the majority. \_ You are a greedy bastard. \_ This doesn't work as well in the States because we're not that subtle, we haven't internalized our protests to avoid persecution, and we love to sue to make our voices heard. In real terms, sure, the mall achieved its goal by expelling the t-shirt protesters, but in perceived terms, they've lost by having to make the retraction. \_ Will all of you with anti-war desires please form a PAC, stop being so cheap, and pay for your results like every other special interest? I had to live through the hippie movements in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, and I'd really like to keep the new millennium hippie free. Thanks. -ax \_ 1. anti-war not necessarily equal to hippie \_ Would people mind dressing up a little for protests then? They get international press and everyone outside the US thinks we are slobs. -ax \_ Most people outside the US agree with the protestors. \_ And you know this how? You've polled the world and the world is qualified to make this judgement and makes it from a neutral point of view and not an anti-American or selfish perspective? Uh huh. 2. this whole thread is not about war/anti-war. it's about freedom of expression and consistutional right in semi-public areas \_ Malls are private areas. \_ not true... in most of America (ie, suburbia) there are no general shopping districts, per se, and few public places for people to congregate. Malls spring up to fill this gap, and therefore act as de facto public places. \_ You are wrong, except in California. If you read the USSC opinion posted here yesterday the mall was completely legal in its behavoir - as it should be. \_ You fail to understand why people move to suburbia. They move there precisely to avoid having to deal with the unwashed masses, crazies, and generally anyone who deviates from their beliefs and values. \_ it has nothing to do with anyone else's political in a store at the mall. Sure, I care about freedom of speech and all that good stuff, but aren't we missing the more important issue here? The guy BUYS a shirt in a store within the mall, which I'm sure the mall doesn't mind one bit. But then as soon as he WEARS it, they get pissy. That's probably his best bet at winning a lawsuit (although it probably wouldn't be as nice of a case for 1st amendment rights then). beliefs. thats such an idiotic and silly smear. it is entirely and 100% because it is cleaner, safer, easier to live, more convenient and mostly free from crazies and criminals. you're not as clever as you feel. the only reason to live in a crowded city such as SF is you're young and \_ you think black people should still be forced to attend different high schools? besides, the point was to disprove that protest "doesn't produce anything" like the endless party, you're old and have near zero rent due to draconian rent control laws. or you're a criminal and there's a higher victim density there. --happy in the burbs \_ Hahaha thanks for making my point. \_ I weep for you poor soulless bastards. \_ Which is why the t-shirtters are getting support both from the Right and the Left: they may disagree vehemently, but they both want the right to do so loudly and publicly. \_ Protest, by its very nature, doesn't produce anything. It only prevents things from happening. \_ bzzt. sorry. wrong. cite: most progressive change w/in the last 30 years \_ 'progressive change'? is that a good thing? If all those protestors would pick up trash, or join the Peace Corp, or actually DO SOMETHING USEFUL other than complain, that would make the world a lot better place than chanting "No War For Oil". -ax \_ gee, ax, are you joining the Peace Corps? Or are you for the war and joining the Army? -tom \_ I'm just tired of seeing the same unhappy faces protesting every issue that comes up: compaining doesn't accomplish anything. How many bodybuilders or athletes do you see running around protesting? There are do'ers and complainers. Those who can't do, complain. -ax \_ While our elected officials (and one appointed one) don't seem to realize this, we are living in a democractic society, and protest is vital to its workings. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. [Margaret Mead]" As for bodybuilders and athletes, I don't think being more concerned with your shoe contract than with world politics really qualifies as "doing". -tom \_ Republicans are that small group, and they are changing the world. Protest by voting or PAC's, don't clog the streets with sloppily dressed people followed by a celebratory riot. -ax \_ I used to give you more credit than this. -tom \_ I didn't say they were changing it for the better! -ax \_ that's not what I mean. voting is important, but it's not the primary agent of social change. Look at the civil rights reforms of the 60's--do you think they were driven by the election of Ronald Reagan as governor and Richard Nixon as president? No, they were driven by protests and the work of activists. As for PAC's, government-for-hire is the *problem*, not the solution. -tom <- \_ I think the protestors would be more effective saying that they have mobilized >51% of the voters and Bush won't get re-elected if he goes to war with Iraq. Protests, as they stand now, are a very vocal minority trying to bully more than their fair share of representation out of the government. It's one vote per person, not more votes for those who yell the loudest. Which is why I too hate PAC's, although at least lobbiests are well dressed and don't turn over newspaper stands and throw rocks. -ax \_ More to the point, the protesters need to protest _and_ mobilize the vote. Protest gets the message out there; votes are what gets the politicos to listen to your protests. \_ not really. its still about money. \_ The funny part about this argument is, ax is complaining about how protestors aren't "doing" anything, in a case where the protestors actually *did* something. Do you think the mall would have dropped the charges without the protests? -tom \_ Wearing T shirts and putting on bumper stickers isn't doing anything. How do you get peace? You crush all your enemies. Peace is just the lack of war. Sitting on your ass in a tied died shirt smoking a doob isn't peace. Your peace is provided by the men and women who wear the US flag on their shoulder and actually go out and do something to prevent terrorists from dropping anthrax in your bong. -ax \_ How about the strategy of, "Don't make enemies?" \_ counterexample: al qaeda would not be attacking the US if we were not an ever-present aggressive military presence in the middle east. -tom \_ The same people who run Al Qaeda also plan to turn the entire world into a Taliban-ish muslim state. That includes your pampered ass. \_ Al qaeda says that they wouldn't be attacking the US if we weren't in Saudi Arabia, but how can you believe the words of a bunch of criminals? \_ What do Gordon Liddy and Pat Robertson have to do with this conversation? \_ what possible *reason* would they have to attack the US if we weren't in the middle east? Bush has already warned us that a war in Iraq is likely to *increase* terrorist attacks in the US. -tom \_ Duh, read a history book. We're the infidels and they believe it is the word of God that they should convert the entire world, at the edge of a sword if necessary. Wake up. Read their own websites if you're feeling nerdy. \_ rhetoric for minions and motivating factors for the leaders are two entirely separate things. the former just needs something to believe in. the latter needs something to show for it (money, power, increased followings). You need the history book, not to mention philosophy, civics, etc. \_ If you knew anything about how islamic politics works, then you would be aware of the fact that most of the leaders are in it for the simple purpose of eliminating the unbelievers from the face of this world. \_ This is a convenient reading of history. Who has fought more wars in the last 100 years, the Arabs or the Europeans? How about the last 1000? \_ OK, so Bernard Lewis is wrong and you are right. \_ Actually this is fairly normal. The mall got the person off of their property with a minimum of costs and doesn't wish to alienate anyone, so they drop tresspassing charges. Besides, a trial would cost the mall money and bad publicity. \_ What makes this interesting for me is that the guy bought the shirt in a store at the mall. Sure, I care about freedom of speech and all that good stuff, but aren't we missing the more important issue here? The guy BUYS a shirt in a store within the mall, which I'm sure the mall doesn't mind one bit. But then as soon as he WEARS it, they get pissy. That's probably his best bet at winning a lawsuit (although it probably wouldn't be as nice of a case for 1st amendment rights then). \_ I think it was a "Make your own T-shirt" booth, not a stock one at Anchor Blue. It's sorta like that Nike guy wanting "Sweatshop" on his sneakers. (I think both are fine, btw). \_ Just because you bought something at the mall doesn't mean you can use it at the mall. Think cigarettes, music CDs, "massagers," nude photography, etc. It's still private property. \_People who keep insisting that "the mall is private property so they can do whatever they want" need to learn about the legal concept called "public accommodation." \_ Didn't you read the legal opinions presented here yesterday? The mall was perfectly legal in its behavoir - as it should be. The only reason they are backing down is because its politically incorrect and they are a business, ie. they want to make money. \_ Public accomodation doesn't imply public forum. They can still say no to the tshirt if they felt it was disruptive. \_ Can they say no to blacks if they feel that they too are disruptive? \_ if they wear shirts saying 'kill whitey' \_ hi red herring troll boy! missed you, you race baiter, you! on the count of 3, lets all hate all white people in the name of advancing equality! \_ I wasn't bringing up a race issue. I was using race to point out how the flaws in the "they can still say no" argument. But you missed that point entirely. \_ You failed to deliver it. Your failure is not my fault. So you're not only a race baiter and a poor debated but you can't take responsibility for your own failings. Typical race baiter drivel. \_ Ah, good example. If the mall can prove that somebody is being disruptive, they can refuse them service or access. If they can't, then it's a question of discrimination, unless they are a private club. So excluding blacks to a publically accessible area (the mall) for no reason is discrimination, UNLESS they can prove that their presence will present a danger to public safety. Very tough to do. |
| 2003/3/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27579 Activity:very high |
3/2 http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html Not surprising that we've been spying on the other members of the security council, but it still sucks. \_ you do remember what happened to that plane that crashed while spying on China, right? \_ or China spying on the U.S. stealing our nuclear and other technological secrets. \_ wait a second... please tell me you're not talking about that one Chinese scientist guy who got arrested for "stealing secrets" \_ Champion of human right. That scientist was shackled from waste down, in a solitary confinement 23 hours a day for 9 month before he was released on the ground of lack of evidence. \_ Get it right. Only some of the charges were dropped. He is still guilty of some serious offenses. For someone who betrayed America he was treated very very well. \_ SOMEHOW China got schematics for one of our nuclear warhead designs. It might not have been Wen Ho Lee, but someone, somewhere either was very stupid or sold us out. --PeterM \_ still, it's not an excuse for lock up people based upon his nation of origins... despite that it is part of American's tradition and the cornerstone which this nation is build upon. \_ Yeah, just like the design of gunpowder, years ago. \_ Gun powder chemistry and nuclear chemistry are vastly different. Gun power can be made at home using stuff that occurs naturally in most parts of the earth. \_ technology is technology. it may look simple in the hindsight. \_ You are either funny or humorous, but not both, both of you. \_ Every country with the resources spies on every other country they can afford to spy on. To think otherwise is naive and childish. This isn't the playground where little bobbie looked inside little jennies lunchbag and stole her cookie. \_ That's filthy! \_ No, this is worse. It's bad enough that we're spying on members of the Security Council, but it's unforgiveable that we're incompetent enough to get caught at it. We're supposed to be the sole remaining World Power, and we can't even bug phones without a leak? \_ Did you even read the article? The NSA wasn't caught \_ What part of "without a leak" didn't you get? in the act. Rather some traitorous coward leaked a classified memo to the press. BTW, why shouldn't we be spying on the countries that make up the sec. council or any other country? Most of these nations wouldn't hesitate to stick it to America given the chance. \_ get out of American and travel around the world. you will then learn America is not as popular as you would think. \_ I have traveled in Europe and Asia. So what if a bunch of people living in conditions barely fit to be called civilized don't like America. Who fricking cares?!? Just because they've got a flag, a parliment and a bunch of bureaucrats grown fat on bribes isn't any reason for the finest nation in the history of this world to yeild to their worthless opinions. \_ This is kind of attitude along with what US's action which reflect such attitude, are the reason why other nations hates America. And remember, there was point in time we don't care about Pakistein and Afghanistein. You will be suprised sometimes how much these people, who barely consistutes as civilization as you described, can be either helpful or debilitatingly harmful. \_ And that makes it right to listen in on their phone conversations and email to determine which way they're going to vote on a resolution the Pres. says isn't necessary anyway? Look up the word "ethics." \_ Can you be so naive to think that we can trust the other members of the security council? Except for the UK, none of the other permanent or temporary members can be considered trustworthy. It is in the best interest of this nation to know what the hell those fools are upto at all times. When you swim with sharks... \_ We're the most powerful nation on earth, and we have the most extensive intelligence network in the world, and we're using that to figure out whether six fence- sitters are going to back a war we pretend we can wage w/o their support are going to vote with us or not? Pshaw on your shark analogy. \_ You sound like Jimmy Cartah, aka mr. ethics, and CIA Director Stansfield Turner. Based on their sucess in North Korea, Iran and Nicaragua, maybe you should reconsider your position. \_ whoever deleted my post... fuck *YOU* next time, be a man and try to some up with something to counter my arguement instead of being a fucking chicken \_ Nicaragua? You mean the country that fairly and freely elected a socialist government over our objections? I'd consider Nicaragua a victory despite our best intentions. |
| 2003/3/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27575 Activity:very high |
3/1 GIMME SHELTER Baghdad's Hilarious Human Shields
http://www.iconoclast.ca/MainPage.asp?page=/NewPage10.asp
\_ These people are idiots, and are giving principled opposition
to this war a bad name.
\_ Exactly which principles are those? They seem
to characterize the pacifist position perfectly.
\_ Sane foreign policy. The rule of law. A stable
world. The fragile global economy. Pacifism is
quite distinct from a reasonable opposition to this
war, which I'm sure you're aware of Mr. Troll.
\_ Then what is your middle east solution.
The region will only to continue to destablize.
Wanting to remove an oppresive dictator
and remake the geopolitical dynamic in
the middle east is now considered an insane
foreign policy? An exactly which
law are you conveniently referring too?
Certainly not the Constitution.
\_ Kyoto! We're in violation of Kyoto! And the
international law against land mines! And the
international law that says we have to obey the
whims and wishes of every 3rd world crack pot
dictator. And the one that says 'stability' is
more important than 'freedom'. Yeah! Take that!
\_ Um... Didn't _we_ write the law that stability
is more important than freedom?
\_ I was just gonna point out the irony of having a bunch of
pacifists support a dictator who (literally) has human
meat grinders in his prisons for people he doesn't like.
Who wants to bet on these people being captured and used
as hostages by Hussien if things get hairy?
\_ not anymore, he released the entire prison population
several weeks ago. kind of weird.
\_ Not really. Able-bodied men can help defend
the country.
\_ But he'll still have those useless idiots available as
hostages.
\_ The sad thing is that these people do not realize that US
military will not hesitate to bomb into oblivion any strategic
Iraqi targets regardless of whether there are any human shields
from Western countries present there. Fools.
\_ and "strategic Iraqi targets" includes "anywhere there are
people wearing turbans"
\_ Of course it does. Why wouldn't it? Geeze.... |
| 2003/2/28-3/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27566 Activity:moderate |
2/28 link:forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/134.html on the richest but least deserving people on the planet. A few of your heros are on list this. \_ Saddam Hussein is worth at least $2B? Wow! \_ I wonder why the great hero of the people's collective movement has $110 million. Could it be that he is a *gasp* evil oppressor capitalist swine pig-dog at heart who hasn't tried pure berkeley sytle communism?!? \_ are you for real? actually wait you are all the same guy, why do i even bother. \_ yeah there's only 1 conservative on the entire motd for all these years. I'm sure thinking that makes you feel better about being in the minority. \_ Castro is taking all the money himself to save his people from corruption, much like a loving parent shielding his children from harm with his own body. I assure you that Castro himself receives no benefit or joy from the money. Quite the contrary. \_ Come on, this is Forbes. Like they don't have an agenda... \_ Yeah, but as long as those numbers aren't fake we can use them. \_ Did you read how they arrived at those numbers? Estimating Castro's wealth as a stipulated fraction of a guess at Cuba's GNP? I was suprised. Forbes usually does better than that. \_ So what is the difference between the inherited wealth of a King or Queen and the inherited wealth of say, the Walton's or any of the other on the top 500 who acheived their wealth from inheritance? \_ You can't tell the difference between wealth stolen from the people though force of arms and wealth earned by a relative and passed on? Okey dokey! Mars or Venus? \_ Which is which? Most fortunes are acquired through the violence and treachery of one's ancestors. \_ care to back this up with a real reference? \_ Someone please tell me how Oprah is worth $1 bil. At least Jailbird Stewart sold something tangible. Oprah spouts feminazi drabble \_ years ago oprah gained seveal hundred million in cbs stock when cbs bought king world, maybe she diversified? producing and owning the syndication rights to a popular television show is tangible. |
| 2003/2/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:27559 Activity:high |
2/27 Editorial defending Washinton Post's pro-war stance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8531-2003Feb26.html
\_ The huge problem with this editorial is "[Saddam] unquestionably
possessing and pursuing biological and chemical weapons". It's
still a question. If a group of smart people can't get this
right, what can you say?
\_ What smart people? The French? Or the Germans who sold them
all of it between '91 and now?
\_ The Washington Post editorial staff, of course.
If you can do a good job convincing people of your assertions
please contact Colin Powell.
\_ hmm... theory of evolution... |
| 2003/2/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27554 Activity:insanely high |
2/27 Do muslim countries allow birth control? Turkey most likely does, but
what about Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?
\_ what, you on drugs? They need all the population they can get to
fight the evil god-less capitalistic pigs. Go alalalalalalah!
\_ Wow. I laughed out
loud when I read
this. Thanks.
\_ I read that just over 50% of Palestinians are under 15 yrs old.
\_ I read that just over 90% of Palestinians are under 15 yrs old.
\_ birthrates in the middle east are really really high,
i think it's closer to 48 percent of all Palestinians
clear: 50% of Palestinians are under 15 yrs old.
are under 15.
\_ and what percentage of Americans? The rest of the world?
Statics like that are meaningless without some reference.
\_ It's not meaningless at all, the meaning is perfectly
clear: 90% of Palestinians are under 15 yrs old.
\_ It has no context and therefore has no value and thus no
meaning. Did you know that in Sweden roughly 50% of all
people who are the children of two natives are female?
Pretty shocking about those Swedes, huh?
\_ just think of all that bombfodder.
\_ Not even close:
link:csua.org/u/a1c
Where did you read this? The same place you read that 90%
of all reporters are Democrats?
\_ Except the latter is true. Go find it yourself or come up
with a counter number. The motd is not the place to seek an
education. You have to provide that yourself.
\_ Oh, how clever! Someone switched it from 50% to 90%... |
| 2003/2/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27539 Activity:high |
2/26 Voice of Iraqis- Why dont antiwar types want to hear them?
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri022603.asp
\_ do you think the iraqi people think the US will invade,
knock over hussein, and leave? or do they think the US
will install a military led government that will exist
until the end of time?
\_ What do *you* think the Iraqi think? That is clearly more
important than what they really think.
\_ You know it's all about the oil! As if the Iraqis wouldn't love
to sell us all the cheap oil as fast as they could pump it.
\_ You know I bet if you went to an anti-abortion rally and tried
to get the microphone to speak against them you would get a
far less polite response.
\_ The Iraqis are misled and misinformed brown people. We white
people know what's best for them better than they do.
\_ You didn't read the article, did you?
\_ Actually I did. You had to retake Subject A, didn't you?
\_ I guess meant "we white people" as the anti-war crowd.
He thought "we white people" was the pro-war crowd.
Is that your meaning?
\_ Given the context, I meant the former. However,
you can just as well say the latter. What does
the fabled Arab street want? Ref Melian Dialogue.
\_ Many Iraqi-Americans are opposed to the war. They almost
all hate Hussein but many (most?) do not support a US
dominated effort to overthrow him. Such complexities are
probably too much for your binary brain to handle, though.
\_ There are lies, damned lies, and equivocations.
\_ OBTW, learn how to indent correctly.
\_ The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of
passionate intensity. |
| 2003/2/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27533 Activity:very high |
2/25 What day do you think we officially begin the attack on Iraq (not
counting the constant low level bombing of radar and SA that's been
going on since 91)? I put 5 bucks on march 16th, Iraqi time.
I don't understand why this was deleted. Restored.
\_ Beware the Ides of March.
\_ Bad choice. Two days before the full moon? A lot depends on what
level of intensity the US wants to start with. Probably a week
or two of airstrikes to be followed up by invasion, airborne to
get the airport with full assault through Turkey and Kuwait. Still
need a couple of weeks to get the troops set in Turkey. Push it
to bombing around March 21 and invasion a week later.
\_ Pave. -John
\_ We already have Special Forces on the ground in Iraq. How does
this not count as officially beginning the attack?
\_ They are spying. They have not actively disrupted Iraqi
operations. Guiding missles and bombs to targets doesn't qualify.
\_ Because by that standard, the 1991 war never ended. If you want
to go by your definition, there's no need for any new
resolutions, congress, the UN or anything.
\_ APRIL NEVER ENDED!
\_ So if Iraq sent infiltrators into the United States to
blow up selected military targets, that would not be
considered warfare by you? Just making sure you are
willing to consistent here.
\_ It is warfare. It isn't a mass invasion. That would be
Mexico, currently. |
| 2003/2/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27520 Activity:nil |
2/25 Thank god! Rosie has spoken and says war is wrong and we're doing
bad and that she just wants saddam and osama "to go away". I rest
can more easily at night knowing great minds like this are getting
quoted on world affairs and influencing the public.
\_ Sounds like she's arguing for the side of war. You can do that
effectively by reducing the opposition's side of things to an
absurdity, or making their essential position look really dumb.
Which she's done very well, according to your quote.
\_ This is called "straw man argument" and is considered weak
debating technique.
\_ Not really. It may fall under the description, but it's
not a particularly good example.
\_ Except in this case you *know* Rosie isn't in favor of war.
She's just your typical hollywood leftist loud mouth idiot.
Although I do admit that I too would like saddam and osama to
"go away". It's got a deceptively simple and childishly joyous
quality. |
| 2003/2/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27508 Activity:high |
2/24 Iraq War Humor:
US secretary of state Colin Powell was recently approached by
an Iraqi newspaper reporter and was accusingly asked, "Isn't
it true that only 13 percent of young American citizens can
locate Iraq on a map?"
Secretary Powell stopped, turned, and stated "Yes, this fact
cannot be denied....but, unfortunately for you, all 13 percent
are United States Marines.
\_ not sure if the following is a joke or not,
from the New Yorker:
The other day, Secretary of State Colin Powell was reminded
that his boss [the President] is in bed by ten and
sleeps like a baby. Powell reportedly replied,
"I sleep like a baby, too -- every two hours I wake up screaming."
\_ Not sure if the following is a joke or not,
From the New Yorker:
The other day, Secretary of State Colin Powell was
reminded that his boss [the President] is in bed by
ten and sleeps like a baby. Powell reportedly replied,
"I sleep like a baby, too -- every two hours I wake up
screaming." |
| 2003/2/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27491 Activity:nil |
2/22 http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030221-050222-6573r I think Suhr can eyeball it a hell of a lot better than some faked commission bullshit. It's a fact. |
| 2003/2/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27489 Activity:very high |
2/21 Whether you are for or against an Iraq War: What do you think
is going to happen militarily? Lots of Iraqi casualties, very
little for the Americans? A cakewalk for the Americans? A
political victory for the Iraqis?
\_ If we go in with a UN mandate, everyone will surrender.
\_ war in iraq will mean the end of america. the jihad is already
primed after the unjust war in afghanistan, and a war in iraq
will just unleash the rage of muslims everywhere. it will mean
military defeat in iraq without, and uprising and reprisals in
america within. american streets will run red with blood as
we once and for all cleanse the world of these infidels. this
is the will of allah.
\_ I've seen the Will of Allah. All I get the Original Star Trek
Commemorative plate and a free wings coupon from Hooters.
\_ Hey, where's the nearest Hooters? I feel like a road trip.
\_ Militarily, Iraq will be defeated. They can't defend themselves
effectively in the desert environment against the well trained, well
equiped coalition ground forces that are supported by the
unchallenged air forces dropping precision munitions on the Iraqis.
Remember the "Desert Storm". Iraqis' only hope of slightly changing
the odds in their favor is to entrench themselves in the large
sites. Baghdad is a large city with a population of over 4 mln
people. It will sure be somewhat hard to take it and the US troops
might suffer heavier than usual casualties there. But, IMHO, if it
gets to the point that Baghdad is under a siege, surrounded by a
couple of hundred thousand coalition troops, I am sure the US won't
stop there and try to take over it at any cost (be it time or human
lives). Eventually, the game will be over. Saddam knows that. I
suspect that his strategy of moving the warfare into the cities is
nothing more but a PR move to persuade the US and UK that this war
will be longer and bloodier than they expect. If the war really gets
to that stage, either Saddam will likely try to flee to a third
country or he'll be removed from power by an internal coup/unrest.
\_ I agree that there won't be some big final street to bloody
street battle. SH isn't going to stick around to get his ass
shot off. If he does, it's over. If he doesn't there'll be
mass surrender in the first 48 hours and the rest will surrender
within a week to ten days.
\_ I think the US will crush Iraq with less than 1000 casualties.
Then we will have to occupy the country for the next 10 years
with 2 divisions of troops. Whether this is a good thing or not
depends on your feelings about empire.
\_ Saddam can drag the diplomatic game on and on until warm weather
comes. Then the US soldiers will faint of the intense heat
inside their anti-chemical-biological protective suits. Also, if
the battle goes into the cities, is it going to be another
Somalia? |
| 2003/2/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27476 Activity:high |
2/21 You heard it here first:
The U.S. will not invade Iraq unless it has shown convincing evidence
(what it's presented so far, isn't). We will not get the votes for
a serious resolution next week. Crazy people do want to detonate
a nuke in Los Angeles / New York / D.C.
\_ Haha.. Stupid commie beatnicks will not alter the course of history
And just as well, cuz either way, the religious war will continue
\_ Jewish ppl were very stout protesters of vietnam. Funny how they're
conspiciously quiet when it comes tho iraq.
\_ Hope that wasn't a serious thought. The vietnamese wanted
Whitey out. Iraq wants the Jews dead. Big difference.
\_ Maybe they figure Sharon and Bush make a good team. Hey,
Genocides' good as long it happens to the right ppl, oi vey?
\_ If you're going to get Yiddish on us at least use the words
properly. "oi vey" does not even come close to fitting in
this context. Maybe Sharon and Bush are hip to any old
genocide, maybe not, but for certain you're an idiot.
\_ URL? Anyway, doesn't matter. I know President Sheen will lead us
to the promised land of pure utopain liberal secular pacifist
(unless the left feels a need to bomb) humanism! Thank you for
saving us President Sheen!
\_ You know, Martin Sheen is a very strong Roman Catholic as is
the character he plays on WW.
\_ So what? I'm a very strong atheist. I work out all the time
and keep very fit. What of it?
\_ Pick up a history book.
\_ I'm waiting for Pres Stupid Fuck to declare war on germany/france.
\_ President Sheen would never do that! They're our key allies!
\_ Seems to me this is more of a war of Texas vs. Iraq. Why not just
send the texans to fight it?
\_ Yeah! No blood for big oil! Excuse me while I change the oil
based tires on my imported bike!
\_ don't tell people that there are petroleum products that
you don't pay for by the gallon |
| 2003/2/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27469 Activity:nil |
2/20 I saw President Sheen on tv last night saying how invading Iraq
is bad. I hope Congress listens and doesn't declare war. Think
of the children! |
| 2003/2/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27465 Activity:kinda low |
2/19 Peace Movements: Then and Now
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=6228
\_ wow, fear the commies! Commies everywhere! Damn reds!
\_ Completely unfounded drivel! Congratulations and welcome to
the motd!
\_ that was particularly content free, thanks!
\_ Oh so THIS is what David Horowitz's fearsome magazine and foundation
are about. God, I can't tell you how relieved I am. |
| 5/16 |