| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/27 |
| 2004/10/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33977 Activity:very high |
10/7 A lot of people say how bad Castro is, but how come Cuba does
so well at sports and also things like infant mortality, in spite
of decades of US sanctions? :
http://www.economist.com/markets/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3270702
\_ Well, universal healthcare has its benefits as well as universal
education and state-sponsored atheletics. I don't know, do you
prefer a communist dictarship where people have to wait in line
all day to buy stuff and any opposition is brutaly squashed
and everyone is equally poor to get a lower infant mortality
rate and a better international baseball team over an oligarchy
run by a couple of rich industrialists and plantation owners which
also brutally squashed opposition to its rule? I guess it depends
on your perspective.
\_ It is true that Cuba is poor, but a lot of it has to do with
our economic sanctions. Without it, there is a big chance that
Cuba might follow China's step.
\_ I'm glad you believe this. Why don't you go over there
and do business then?
\_ because it's ILLEGAL. Weren't you paying attention?
\_ So you must be outraged about Halliburton
doing business in Iraq during the US sanctions
\_ I'm outraged we wasted more than 10 years
"sanctioning" Iraq while every corrupt piece
of shit at the UN, in France, Germany, Russia,
and other places was making billions in bribes
at our expense while the Iraqi people suffered
and the Hussein regime grew stronger.
\_ This is an excellent reason for filing a
grievance with the WTO and then punishing
those nations with crippling tarriffs and
sanctions. If the US would follow through
with its convictions, the world would have
no recourse but toe the line.
\_ Economic sanctions don't do shit. The entire rest of the
world freely trades with Cuba. In fact, our Cuba sanctions
policy going on for decades now should be proof enough that
sanctions are a mindless and useless tactic to use against
any country.
\_ Against Cuba I tend to agree. In general, though, I do
not. Sanctions prevented Saddam Hussein from building
WMD.
\_ Sanctions also made Libya give up WMD programs.
It's harder to control a country when the people
are miserable.
\_ Lie. Libya gave up their WMD a few days after
SH was pulled out of a hole by US troops.
\_ Maybe the guy is just WRONG. You need to
get a little perspective here, guy.
\_ Uhhh, Libya giving up their WMD and coming
back into the world community was a diplomatic
effort going on well back into the Clinton
administration. Gaddafi didn't just watch
Saddam Hussein be captured on TV and suddenly
decide to give up WMD.
\_ None of you can tell the difference between coordinated
multilateral sanctions and unilateral pigheadedness?
Yes, you have to "corner the market" for sanctions to
be effective. No, this is not a surprise.
\_ And universal sanctions are a joke. Look how Saddam
made *billions* (with a B) corrupting the 'global'
sanctions put on his country. It hurt the people to
no end while further empowering his evil government.
\_ Economic sanctions does a lot of damage to small countries,
the reason it does not work on China is because China can
self sustain and be on their own. The same is definitely
not true for small countries. Take Korea for example, if
the US sanctions them, they will starve and die, it's as
simple as that. Cube is poor partly because of our economic
sanction.
\_ No. If the US sanctions Korea, other countries will
simply cash in as they have in Cuba and anywhere else
the US has tried to impose sanctions while our EU
"allies" ignore them for the bucks. Sanctions do not
work. I'd like to see a place where they have.
\_ Because the numbers are faked?
\_ oh yea, where a majority of the people shower with buckets.
One would think that after Communists killed 60+ million
in the 20th century people would learn.
\_ You are a moron.
\_ Comrade, the united peoples of our great state thank you
for your heroic efforts against the propaganda of the
western capitalist pigdogs! You shall be rewarded by being
moved up the People's Moscow Apartment Waiting List by
15,000 spots! You have served the Motherland nobly!
\_ Careful with that broad brush, it paints both ways.
\_ Like I said, you would think people would learn.
\_ You think people would learn to not support imperialism
too, after the hundreds of millions of people the
imperialists killed in the 19th and 20th century.
But they never do, do they?
\_ Oh the horror of an improved standard of living,
a longer life expectancy, and a technologically
based society. What hath we wrought!
\_ At the expense of a psychological scar on the
American psyche (see: Slavery and Race Relations),
the wholesale slaughter of indigenous people
(see: Indians, American), and the continued
exploitation of and dependence on underprivileged
workers and illegal labor in the agrarian sector
(see: Migrant Labor and Illegal Immigrants).
\_ Victory of the proletariat, comrade!
\_ What improved standard of living? Improved
standard of living only happened after the
Imperialists got kicked out.
\_ Cuba spends a huge amount of government money on athletics
(compared to zero in the US). Also, I note that I see athletes
defecting from Cuba to the US frequently, but I can't recall anyone
defecting the other way.
\_ They don't defect to Cuba because the US government has
effectively imprisoned our atheletes and does not allow them
the opportunity to travel to the Golden Land of Cuba. |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33961 Activity:high |
10/6 Something I don't understand. Why are Dubya's people saying that the
Duelfer report doesn't deal with WMDs or WMD-program components being
moved to Syria, when the report seems to say Iraq didn't have any WMDs
to move to Syria in the first place?
Is Dubya misleading again on WMDs, even today, or is he telling the
truth?
Granted it is accurate to say Saddam had full intent to build WMDs
after inspectors left.
\_ Saddam Hussein was dreaming about starting weapons-related program
activities! |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33957 Activity:high |
10/6 Key findings on Iraq WMDs released today:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Summary: No WMDs, no real WMD programs, no mention of Syria,
but all the intent in the world to make WMDs after inspectors left to
protect it from Iran based on interviews w/ Saddam while in the pokey.
No irrefutable written evidence of this intent.
I.e., if Dubya did not attack, Blix would have found nothing,
inspectors would leave, Iraq would have sanctions lifted, Saddam would
\_ inspections would have continued, nice try
be a happy camper and *maybe* actually do restart WMD programs.
The U.S. would get real evidence that Iraq had WMDs, inspectors would
be requested, Saddam says no, we get a resolution to attack based on a
*real* WMD / WMD-program presentation to the UN, and if the CIA did
its job we go in when the capability is in its infant stages.
Instead ... Iran and North Korea are having a ball doing whatever the
hell they want with nuclear while the U.S. is overstretched -- while
the U.S. holds no credible threat to mounting an preemptive military
campaign on these two countries. Iran and North Korea view the U.S.
as their principal threat, and having nukes deter this threat very
effectively.
Here, I even have text Kerry could use:
"But didn't your vice president say that the number one threat today
was nuclear? First, let's grant that the U.S. has had important
successes in Libya and Pakistan, which were resolved with diplomacy
by the way. But a more important question is: Aren't we so
overstretched -- of the 10 Army divisions that the United States
has, nine are in Iraq or preparing to transfer there -- that Iran
and North Korea can now wave the nuclear card at us with impunity?
That is, the U.S. is so *overstretched* that it does not have a
credible threat for a military campaign against either of these two
countries, that they have been able to proceed with their nuclear
programs without fear of consequences? That the invasion of Iraq for
WMDs and WMD programs that weren't there, and the loss of important
allies from this decision -- and the lack of effective military
planning that has led us to be bogged down there now for a year and
counting -- has left the U.S. *more* in danger from nuclear attack?"
(Wow, do I sound like kinney now?)
\_ No -- you're actually kind of coherent.
\_ post it to dailykos.
\_ "The requested method POST is not allowed for the URL /."
(when trying to create a new account)
\_ I think this is what "payback" from the CIA looks like.
\_ Not really. David Kay and Duelfer just wanted to get it right
this time. No lack of connecting the dots like for 9/11.
No conclusions not supported by the intelligence like for Iraq.
\_ there is no risk of iran developing nuclear plants of any kind.
as soon as it does, israel will bomb the crap out of the plan,
just like it did before.
\_ I think Iran doesn't need a nuclear plant to develop the bomb.
All they need is weapons-grade uranium. They know how to make
uranium hexafluoride gas; they have the centrifuges to make
weapons-grade uranium. Israel would need to bomb enough
centrifuges, and know where they were. If I were Iran, and of
course I would want the bomb if I could, I would construct
multiple centrifuge systems, building each system underneath a
large city center to guarantee great loss of innocent life if
Israel bombed. This is just a technical/tactical post, not
really political. |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33955 Activity:nil |
10/6 A nice summary at the end of the article about what was expected in
Iraq and what WMD were found: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720
\_ Bush: history of using WMD makes Iraq dangerous. Err... I am
confused. I thought we were the one who nuked defenseless cities.
We were the one who gave Japan "get out of jail free" card, and
Japanese still hold record on the scale of using chemical/
biological weapon. |
| 2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33949 Activity:moderate |
10/6 If you look in the transcript of last night's debate, Cheney said
the following: (from http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html
"...They know that if you go, for example, to http://factcheck.com (sic),
an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania,
you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton."
Try it. go wo http://www.factcheck.com oops.
I wonder exactly how this happened.
\_ Here's the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12901-2004Oct6.html
\_ whois http://factcheck.com:
Registrant: (I bet it's an offshore Halliburton subsidiary)
Name Administration Inc. (BVI)
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
\_ this is already all over the blogs
\_ It now redirects to Location: http://www.georgesoros.com
"George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, is
beginning a nationwide tour this week to talk about how the war
in Iraq is making America less safe -- and why President Bush
should not be re-elected." How wierd..
should not be re-elected." How weird..
\_ slate claims Soros took advantage of Cheney's blunder and bought
up http://factcheck.com.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107809
Is this even possible? Could the domain name propagation even
happen that fast?
\_ It's more likely someone already owned the domain and put in
a redirect.
\_ slate has corrected the article to state this. |
| 2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33932 Activity:high |
10/5 "Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field. That is
his right, but the president has always said that he will listen to his
commanders on the ground and give them the support they need for
victory." -Bush spokesman, today
\_ adding, "Any commander wishing to go into early retirement should
feel free to request more troops"
\_ bremer was too busy implementing free market fantasy land
laws too do a good job in iraq. - danh
\_ [I will fill in his unspoken thoughts in parentheses.]
Bremer says we should have had more troops early on to prevent
looting (to stabilize Iraq and to crush the insurgents).
He says currently we have the appropriate troop levels (because
Iraqis would be pissed to see more U.S. troops flying in to
occupy them). -liberal
[BTW, Lt. Gen. Sanchez was the lead "commander on the ground"
prior to the Allawi handover, and we know all about what was
going on with him. Today, I can't think of any lead
"commander on the ground" to request additional troops.
Is there one?]
\_ Dubya, some commander in chief. Why didn't he give the troops
a good plan to begin with?
\_ We're making progress. It's hard. You can't have a
Commander-in-Chief who says that it's the wrong war at the
wrong place at the wrong time. You can't have a
Commander-in-Chief that gives mixed messages. We're making
progress. It's hard. You can't have a Commander-in-Chief who
says that it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong
time. You can't have a Commander-in-Chief that gives mixed
messages. We're making progress.
\_ Don't forget Poland!
\_ Like Kerry did?
\_ Tell us how much great Poland has contributed. |
| 11/27 |
| 2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33926 Activity:moderate |
10/5 Truth: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence
that links the two [al Qaeda and Saddam] ... I have seen the answer to
that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a
year in the most amazing way ... Second, there are differences in the
intelligence community as to what the relationship was"
- Rumsfeld, Monday afternoon
Dubya's truth: "A question I answered today ... regrettably was
misunderstood ... I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there
were ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq"
- Rumsfeld, Monday night, via web site
\_ Yoo-hoo, hello? Bush defenders, where are you now? Neo-cons?
\_ There are no "neo-cons" on the motd. It's a mde up term of the
left to make a word that sounds like "neo-nazi". Get over it.
No one is eating that bait. |
| 2004/10/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33915 Activity:very high |
10/4 A clarification: Army chief of staff Shinseki was not fired; no one
listened to him and he retired after his four-year term.
Bush-appointed Secretary of the Army Thomas White was fired.
They both advocated 250K+ troops for the occupation, and actually
Tommy Franks did too, but Franks didn't do it as publically.
It is said that Dubya values "loyalty" above all else.
\_ Shinseki deserved to be fired to the Stryker and the black
beret.
\_ Dubya deserves to be fired for attacking Iraq when it had no
WMD stockpiles and saying "Bring 'em on" when he's not personally
in Iraq holding an M-16.
\_ Have you ever held a M-16? Or served?
\_ Please see reply under "why aren't you in afghanistan ..."
and lengthier explanation written to ilyas
\_ why aren't you in aghanistan w/ an M-16?
\_ I didn't say "Bring 'em on"
Notice the slope of the graph: link:csua.org/u/9bp
(Iraq casualties)
\_ I don't really understand this criticism. Do you not like:
(a) that Bush is commander in chief without 'proper'
military experience (he did serve, though not active
duty). More importantly though, we have this concept
in the US of the military being controlled by civilians.
It prevents 'excesses.'
(b) that Bush uses 'bravado language.' That's a narrower
complaint, but I wonder if it offends an average soldier
on the ground as much as it offends you. I bet it
doesn't. -- ilyas
\_ It's a simple matter: if you were too chickenshit to
fight back then, you'd damn well better be sure about
the wars you're having other men die for now.
\_ ilyas, you overwrote me AGAIN
\_ That's because I hate you. -- ilyas
\_ Stop overwriting dude. You lose respect when you
do and come off flippant.
\_ You know, we keep having this conversation, and I
keep saying the same thing -- when a thread is
this active, what makes you say it was me?
Is this because I am the only one who signs my
name? Sheesh. I probably overwrite posts
every now and again, but you d think with the
number of times I ve been accused of it I do it
24/7 out of spite. -- ilyas
\_ I have never said it was out of spite.
I just think you accidentally do a :w! or
the equivalent or it's a problem with some
merge script. Nevertheless, it happens a lot,
which is why I complain.
\_ Bush "served" in the National Guard so he wouldn't jump
off a helo into a hot LZ and get shot to shit in Vietnam.
He was too important to die there, like many other children
of powerful families. Sorry, I just need to talk about
"intent" when anyone tries to pass off his Guard service
as sufficient.
To address your primary point, your confusion is well
founded. Basically, you need to perceive Dubya as someone
not qualified to lead a war to begin with -- this is easy
to believe when we didn't find WMD stockpiles and with his
escaping into the Guard. Of course, if you believe Dubya
is a strong leader (as the average soldier does), then
you won't have problems with his saying "Bring 'em on".
not qualified to lead a country during wartime to begin
with -- this is easy to believe when we didn't find WMD
stockpiles and with his escaping into the Guard. Of
course, if you believe Dubya is a strong leader (as the
average soldier does), then you won't have problems with
his saying "Bring 'em on". [I didn't delete your reply
ilyas, but I changed the wording in my post to reflect
your criticism]
\_ I don't think you understand Kerry's wartime
service either. He did everything possible
to avoid service and combat. Only because
of an unlucky fluke did Kerry actually see combat.
\_ I don't fault Kerry, or Bush, or anyone else
from wanting to avoid combat. Wanting to avoid
combat is the only rational human reaction.
I would scared of a president who sought out
combat, that would be indicative of mental
illness or terminal stupidity. Have you ever
talked to a veteran of any war? NOBODY wants
to be on the front lines. -- ilyas
\_ But you CAN fault someone for using family
connections to get into the Guard during
the Vietnam War where you would see a nearly
zero chance of being shipped to Vietnam with
your other well-connected classmates. ;-)
\_ Between getting into the Texas Air National
Guard and staying in the U.S., and captaining
a patrol boat on the coast of Vietnam -- there
lies a sizeable gap.
\_ Not when those were originally acting as
an equivalent to the Coast Guard. They never
saw combat. Their role was redefined
shortly after Kerry transferred. Flying
F104 fighter jets is not a cake walk,
mortality rates with mechanical
malfunction were high.
\_ While your points have merit, they are
still not enough. Kerry's real chance
of getting into combat (which came to be
realized as you described) were measurably
higher than dying in an F-104 malfunction.
"However, in retrospect, the [F-104] was
not intrinsically any more dangerous to
fly than lots of other military aircraft
of the day, and the high accident rate can
be blamed more on inadequate and
insufficient crew training rather than
on any flaw with the basic design."
\_ Personally, I think previous service record has little
to do with 'wartime leadership.' An argument could be
made that Bush's questionable showing would impact
soldier morale -- except it obviously does not.
The lack of WMDs is certainly a point against the war.
Personally, I believe humanitarian (and utilitarian,
in that civilian casualties WILL happen)
reasons are enough for exercising US military power,
but I know not everyone agrees. Btw, I differ from
classic libertarians in this way. I also strongly
suspect Saddam had a program and the pieces are in Syria
now, just like the scientists are. -- ilyas
\_ I am not making an argument on soldier morale.
I am not making an argument that you need to have
been a soldier to be a successful wartime president.
I am explaining how rational people can feel that
Bush's comment has problems. The average soldier,
as I have noted, does not have a problem with what
Bush said.
I should also clarify "wartime leadership" once
more. It was Bush's call, ultimately, to take the
U.S. into war in Iraq, so he is accountable for
the good and the bad.
As for your strong suspicion that "a program and
the pieces are in Syria", are you also including
WMD stockpiles -- because we went to war because
they had WMD stockpiles, not because they had a
program.
You also need to consider David Kay's comments on
this.
\_ Yes, I am considering the stockpiles also, and
I think Saddam did have chemical stockpiles.
I think criticisms of the situation in Iraq needs
to be grounded far more in realities on the ground,
and less on what Bush did or did not do 30 years
ago, or what his PR team had him say. Speaking
more generally, criticism of the policy is much
more effective than criticism of the man.
Bush should certainly get all the flak for fuckups
in Iraq, but I at least give him some bonus
points for acting and getting an obviously bad man
'off the streets.' Certainly 'rational people'
who think he shouldn't be POTUS will have
problems with all sorts of things he says and
does. -- ilyas
\_ It's not only what he did 30 years ago; it's
also that Dubya is likely the most inarticulate
president we've had this century, and this does
contribute towards people's negative opinions.
(Is he a strong leader who just has trouble
expressing himself; or is his verbal clumsiness
and 11-minute paralysis during the 9/11 attack
indicative of a man with more serious problems?
You can find reasonable people believing both.)
Anyways, here are Kay's comments.
He was in charge of finding weapons, and he did
have the full faith of the Bush people to find
them, and you better believe he knew he was
ending his career by testifying as he did:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript
A more detailed transcript:
http://csua.org/u/9bq
"My belief that they did not move large
stockpiles of WMD to Syria is based on my
conclusion that there were not large stockpiles
to move. ... I don't know."
\_ As we are progressing in this argument the
defended claim becomes weaker and weaker,
now it has to do with 'large' stockpiles.
Here is what I think. I know very little
of what happened in Iraq before and during
the invasion. I do know this, however:
Saddam used chemical weapons before, and
so had to have the trained units, the
equipment, and the stockpiles at one point.
I don't believe he is the kind of man who
would let it all go even with the UN
inspectors around. Can I prove this? Of
course I can't. But to me, Saddam having
chemical weapons and finding some common
ground with Syria prior and during the war
seems more likely than him just giving them
up. Another thing worth mentioning is that
not one country except the US had any
stake in the US finding WMDs in Iraq.
Everyone wanted the US to fail. So
while I don't accuse any of them of
collaborating with Iraq, a black ops along
these lines, if it did happen, would not
surprise me in the least. At any rate,
no country would try very hard to catch
Saddam moving the stuff.
Bush is inarticulate, and that's a minus.
No argument there. -- ilyas
\_ So what was Kay referring to in saying
"We were all wrong"? I'm pretty sure
he would have loved to have provided
"better news" for Bush.
\_ Kay had no proof. I have no proof
either. I am telling you what I
believe, and why. -- ilyas
\_ So what was Kay referring to in
saying "We were all wrong?"
I don't believe you've tried to
answer this question.
\_ Well, if Kay believes
Saddam didn't have WMDs, I
disagree with him. I don't
think the US truly has the
capability to hunt them down.
This would involve omniscience
and the capability to make the
rest of the world bend over,
including most of the Middle
East. A bunch of sensitive
scientists ended up in Syria,
I don't see why the same
couldn't happen to barrels of
poison. We didn't search in
Syria, heck, we didn't even
search Iraq properly (because
we can't dig up the entire
desert). Again, I am
articulating a belief which
I cannot prove to you, based
on my understanding of
Middle East politics, the game
'other Powers' are playing, and
Saddam's psychology. I am not
making any kind of 'case,' (it
would be very weak if I did) I
am just going with my intuition.
-- ilyas
\_ There are some that feel like that if they attack us, that
we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand
what they're talking about if that's the case. Let me
finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are
such that they can attack us there.
My answer is: please don't.
\_ On August 1, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld replaced General Shinseki
(who consequently retired) as Army Chief of Staff with General
Peter J. Schoomaker after Shineski "questioned the cakewalk
scenario, and told Congress (that February) that we would
need several hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq to put an end
to the violence against our troops and against each other."
In other words, Rumsfeld fired him/forced him out.
\_ Did you take this off http://disinfopedia.org? If so, the above
text has a URL footnote. The URL does not support the text.
There is no doubt that Shinseki was isolated, not taken
seriously, and left out of the loop after what he said broke
on CNN. But to say he was fired is technically not correct. -op |
| 2004/10/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33877 Activity:nil |
10/1 Dear democrats, please don't delete this. I want stimulating
intellectual exchanges, not personal shout matches. I want to
point a few things out and hear from you guys on each and every
point. In the format of "if A is bad, how come B isn't bad?",
I ask you:
A:Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq
B:Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia
A:Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq
B:Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia
A:Bush killed a lot of innocent Afghan/Iraqi civilians
B:Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian
terrorists
A:Bush bombs terrorist camps
B:Clinton bombs Chinese embassy
A:Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit
B:Clinton commits felonies while in office
A:No WMD found Iraq
B:No mass graves found in Serbia
A:Economy on upswing under Bush
B:Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton
A:Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden
B:World Trade Centers fall under Bush
A:Clinton says Saddam has nukes
B:Bush says Saddam has nukes
A:Bush imposes regime change in Iraq
B:Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq
A:Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan
B:Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton
A:Saddam turned over for trial
B:Milosevic not yet convicted |
| 2004/9/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33815 Activity:nil |
9/28 There is no other choice against terrorism but war, and more war!
\_ Actually getting ourselves off of foreign oil so that we no
longer have to prop up corrupt & hated Muslim dictatorships
would be foolish!
\_ Hey! I can get off the oil anytime I want man! I just like
it. That's all. In fact, I could use some right now... Oh
yeah... that SUV really hits the spot... |
| 2004/9/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33805 Activity:high |
9/28 A concise summary of why the Iraq war is an illegal war, how "serious
consequences" clearly did not include an invasion of Iraq:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUS303A.html
(The U.S. proclaimed the UN had made itself irrelevant by not voting
to make the invasion legal.)
\_ There is no such thing as an "illegal war"
\_ Did you read the URL before you posted this? Let me give you
an example. Iraq taking over Kuwait was an illegal invasion.
If you applied the UN Charter to WW2, the U.S. declaring war
against the Axis was legal; but Japan and Germany's preemptive
invasions / wars were illegal.
\_ "Legal" is a definition between a unit and their gov't
- wars are engagements between gov'ts.
\_ See definition of "international law" below.
\_ Was Bosnia an illegal war?
\_ What about the French-American War of 1798? Or the war of 1812?
\_ Both of these "diversionary" responses totally miss the point.
\_ Formed by your head?
\_ Are you the Dumb Jock?
\_ To all threads above:
Main Entry: international law
Function: noun
: a body of rules that control or affect the rights of nations in
their relations with each other
(e.g., the UN Charter embodies some international law, particularly
if you are a member of the UN. E.g. 2, being a signatory of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and building nukes is a violation of
international law - however, if you are not a signatory, or withdraw
and build nukes you didn't violate any laws)
\_ Dear Motd Reader:
Yes, a dictionary always defines foreign policy. Thanks for
asking!
\_ The PP is correct in that there can be such a thing as an
illegal war. Whether or not that is signifigant in the grand
scheme of things is another debate.
\_ Since I thought you would have trouble with a dictionary
definition, I also provided some hand-dandy examples for the
skeptical ... "international law? I thought there was no
'body of law' between nations! That's some funky idea!"
PP is correct in that the debate should not be over whether
it's an "illegal war", because it is, but whether it matters
in the grand scheme of things.
\- hello, you may wish to read the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
BTW, something like the USA enforced "no fly zones" are
also probably "illegal". --psb
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg-Briand_Pact
I am psb's motd google engine!
\- you have done well.
\_ Also mention the EU, WTO and World Bank. Even Republicans
seem to acknowledge the existence of those international
legal entitites. |
| 2004/9/24-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33753 Activity:nil 76%like:33750 |
9/24 If America wuz Iraq, whut would it be likes?
http://csua.org/u/97d (juancole.com) |
| 2004/9/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33750 Activity:nil 76%like:33753 |
9/24 If America were Iraq, what would it be like?
http://csua.org/u/97d (juancole.com) |
| 2004/9/24-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33744 Activity:kinda low |
9/24 Turkmenbashi greatest poet! All hail Turkmenbashi!
http://funreports.com/2004/09/23/56244.html
\_ Just in case if someone doesn't know who Turkmenbashi is, check
out wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov
\_ Thank you, it's much richer with the context.
\_ Holy crap. Shades of Saddam.
\_ Way, way more insane |
| 2004/9/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33720 Activity:very high |
9/23 Ladies and Gentleman, Irony is officially Alive. Apparently,
"60 Minutes II" ran the Bush TANG memo story by preempting a story
about the forged Niger Uranium documents. [why was the last line of
this description deleted?]
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6073449/site/newsweek
\_ I apologize for brutally hijacking a motd thread, but gwbush
is the original master of irony. An example:
James Harding (Financial Times): Mr. President, I want to return to
the question of torture. What we've learned from these memos this
week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon
lawyers have essentially worked out a way that US officials can
torture detainees without running afoul of the law. So when you say
you want the US to adhere to international and US laws, that's not
very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever
justified?
President Bush: Look, I'm going to say it one more time. ...Maybe I
can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to
adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We
adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at these laws,
and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the
instructions...from me to the government. - danh
\_ Yeah, and? The law also allows for people to kill others given the
right political circumstances.
By your logic:
Soldiers, they kill people, that's bad.
But they were following law, so people who make the law are bad.
Therefore The US Government is bad.
But wait a minute, all governments allow people to be killed for
political reasons.
Therefore government is bad in general.
We should do away with government because killing people should never
be justified.
\_ wow. this is too stupid even for ilyas. -tom
\_ If the alternative is to be smart like you, tom, I d rather
stay an idiot forever. -- ilyas
\_ you're doing a good job. -tom
\_ I think we should pass a law that basically sanctions
torture solely for tom, either that or ship him off
to Afghanistan. I'd think that would get unanimous
consent from both the House and the Senate.
\_ I think we should pass a law not only allowing
tom and ilyas to get married, but forcing them to.
Then we could have a whole reality TV show around
the happy couple.
\_ I think tom's peculiar brand of bulldog yapping
is exclusive to the safety of the Internet. I
would be very surprised if he was like this face to
face. -- ilyas
\_ I'm not sure what you mean by "like this." tom
is just as opinionated in real life, but it
doesn't come off quite the same way. Do you talk
so much about your weapons and about punching
people in the face so much in real life? If so,
I bet you get laughed at. A lot.
\_ I don't remember ever mentioning 'my
weapons' on the motd. I think I mentioned
punches to the face once, maybe twice. I have
never threatened anyone with violence. By
'like this,' I mean that tom comes across as
stuck in ad hominem mode about 90% of the time.
I mean I have to wonder about his mental
health sometimes, he seems really angry, all
the time. -- ilyas
\_ Way to miss the point.
\_ i am aware that torture happens in all wars, it's just a fact
of war. the bush administratoin is doing a spectacularly
bad job of lying about it and pretending they had absolutely
no idea this was happening. we're suppoesd to be the
good guys. if you want to turn into aaron, go read
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17430 - danh |
| 2004/9/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33713 Activity:high |
9/23 "And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there
is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named
after President Bush." -Richard Perle 9/22/2003
http://www.aei.org/events/contentID.20031003144313426/default.asp
\_ Are you suggesting that the architect of NeoConservatism is not
prophetic? This is heresy, sir! I wish we lived in an age where I
could challenge you to a duel.
\_ I accept!!! Wooden swords and panda costumes at high noon
on upper sproul. Be sure to stand where the sproul webcam
can see you.
\_ (You do realize that this is not sufficient to get someone
arrested on Sproul Plaza, yes?)
\_ you do realize that it would be entertaining to watch
someone in a panda suit running around with a wooden
sword, yes?
http://www.berkeley.edu/webcams/sproul.html
\_ I dunno, I've seen some pretty freaky stuff on Sproul.
Thanks for the link!
\_ Does this not work under Safari, or is it just me?
\_ It may just be down. It worked for me at
first (Under Mozilla) but now the image won't
load. Addendum: Works now. |
| 2004/9/21 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33666 Activity:kinda low |
9/21 Missing signature mars launch of war on hunger
U.N. Global Tax
http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/21/1095651327340.html?oneclick=true
\_ login?
\_ csuamotd csuamotd (newly made)
\_ UN: We want more of your money to pour into our pockets.
\_ Kofi Annan's son's friends pockets, actually. -John
\_ And you think Kofi Annan and son did not receive any
kick backs? How naive you are then.
\_ For god's sake, "subtlety" for you must be
a fucking sledge hammer. Ever heard of
"implying something"? -John |
| 2004/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33654 Activity:moderate |
9/21 One day after I post about how Dubya is going to send more troops
to Iraq to crush the insurgents, Paul Krugman of the NY Times expresses
his opinion on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/opinion/21krugman.html?hp
\_ csuamotd/csuamotd doesn't work any more.
What happen?
\_try csuacsua/csuacsua
\_ Some one set us up the password change.
\_ use mine! dykewhore / dykewhore - danh
\_ danh must have changed the password in an attempt to
monopolize the free password market with his popular
dykewhore brand name!
\_ I am just trying to prevent your brain be polluted with
liberal biased media. |
| 2004/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33651 Activity:nil |
9/20 http://news.google.com shows "What is Bush Hiding?" and "Finally, Kerry Takes a Stand" as the lead topics. Hmm... |
| 2004/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33647 Activity:very high |
9/20 Novak suggests Bush may withdraw almost immediately from Iraq if
reelected, regardless of consequences:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
\_ How about Bush sending 100K more troops there with the aim of
crushing all insurgent havens while still training up the Iraqi
national guard / police / Army and hoping it gets down in four
years?
national guard / police / Army and hoping it gets done in four
years? If he's going to do a job, he's going to try to do it
right as soon as the election is over. Otherwise he'll just
look like a flip-flopper by abandoning democracy in Iraq.
And, this also puts a lot of people ready to go into Iran.
If you ask me, this is what Bush will do. Heck, we might send
200K more troops there by that logic.
\_ Only if people like you join up to make up the 100k
troop deficit. Time to put your mon-, lives where your
mouth is.... Thought so.
\_ Don't you think this is what Dubya was pulling back all
the troops from Europe / S Korea for?
\_ Bob Novak, mouthpiece of the regime and supreme douchebag. |
| 2004/9/18 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33612 Activity:nil 62%like:33608 |
9/17 PJ O'ROURKE: Why Americans hate foreign policy
http://csua.org/u/93j (Daily Telegraph)
\_ Cf. Orson Scott Card's conversion post-9/11. |
| 2004/9/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33611 Activity:nil |
9/17 "The Truth About Iraq". A non-partisan org:
http://www.optruth.org
\_ A few minutes of effort led to one of the Advisors:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Ann_Wright
Ann Wright resigned her post as deputy chief of mission in Mongolia
on March 19, 2003, "the day before the United States launched air
strikes on Baghdad" because "Wright decided she could no longer
represent a government whose foreign policy she found indefensible."
\_ Meh. We don't need no http://optruth.org.
It's all in the NIE -- Iraq looks bleak. |
| 2004/9/17 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33608 Activity:nil 62%like:33612 |
9/17 PJ O'ROURKE: Why Americans hate foreign policy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1219406/posts |
| 2004/9/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33597 Activity:high |
9/17 2^10 dead soldiers in Iraq .. GO BUSH! FOUR MORE YEARS!
I know he can make it 2^20 with a just a bit more time
\_ You are inferring nukular detonation in a city center of a Western
nation, right?
\_ No, I was thinking more battlefield nukes on the plains
of Iran. Not to mention a good exchange in Korea.
\_ I think he was implying, not inferring. |
| 2004/9/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33586 Activity:nil |
9/16 Soldiers who refuse to reenlist being threatened with Iraq duty.
http://csua.org/u/932 |
| 2004/9/16 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33563 Activity:very high |
9/16 http://csua.org/u/92m (SF Chronicle) Police escorted Sue Niederer of Hopewell, N.J., from a rally ... after she demanded to know why her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed in Iraq. Dvorin died in February while trying to disarm a bomb. As shouts of "Four More Years" subsided, Niederer, standing in the middle of a crowd of some 700, continued to shout about the killing of her son. Secret Service and local police escorted her out of the event, handcuffed her and placed her in the back of a police van. The first lady continued speaking, touting her husband's record on the economy, health care and the war on terror ... [Cue "Two Americas" footage] \_ Posted by someone who never served. Never understands why good people die. And most of all, looks very short-term. \_ you only read news written and posted by veterans? how many vets are there on soda? like 5? - danh \_ Please justify why 1024 Americans have died and between 7000 and 17,000 (not including civilians) have been wounded in Iraq. Also please justify Iraqi deaths. Thanks. \_ Also caused by someone who never served. Never understands how needless war can be. And most of all, is the president of excuses. \_ war is needless? That's like saying humans don't need to eat. \_ "CAN BE". Retard. \_ Some wars are needless. Are you trying to say that all wars are a good idea? \_ I am saying war is as inevitable as you are alive. \_ He died for our oil and for war profiteers. Bless him. He certainly didn't die defending anything. (aside: Soda seems really damn slow lately. It's interfering with my trolling.) \_ Would you die for your country during WW2, or in Iraq? I think everyone agrees dying in WW2 would be worth it. Apparently this mother feels Iraq wasn't worth it. Maybe she should shut the hell up and salute the flag, since dying in Iraq is worth it, too. \_ if the Axis had won then this world would be full of hot blonde women and hot azn women -troll \- and dubya would be the center of attention in a bukkake circle! -liberal troll \_ My history fu is weak. Why was Nazi against Jews but not Japanese? I thought back then Europeans considered all Asians inferior. \_ Simple answer: strategy. Hitler tried to rationalize it to the public by saying that the Japanese were the most 'Aryan' of the Asians. \_ who would have won between Japan and Germany if they fought each other one-on-one? \_ Everyone else, really, but the real answer is more complex. At what point? With what resources? \_ Not to meantion, where? Japan and Germany aren't all that close to each other you know. And their militaries were specialized in different areas. If it was a fight in the middle of Russia (which seems the most likely place) I think Germany would probably trounce Japan. In SE Asia, well... \_ Nazis featured racist ideology, but it wasn't the basis for their actions except with regard to fighting a) Bolsheviks and b) Jews, perceived as having an inferior, polluting culture and controlling business and politics, and importantly being seen as communist allies. It was also a rationalization for conquering Slavic lands for lebensraum. The book "The International Jew" was published in the 20's by Henry Ford's publishing company. The inferiority or not of Asians was pretty much irrelevant (except as it brings into question the other racist ideas). Ironically, Hitler's paranoia about communists had basis in reality as Stalin spelled out a plan of making all of Europe into Soviet states. http://home.swipnet.se/nordling/Stalinspeech.html \_ With all due respect what are they supposed to do? Let her scream, yell and disrupt the rally? |
| 2004/9/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:33562 Activity:very high |
9/16 http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no1/article06.html From cryptogram, ex-CIA on interrogation \_ Cool article, thanks for sharing. -John \_ Excellent, well written, makes some very good points. Thank you. \_ Jeez, I'm beaming like I wrote it myself. -op \_ good article. I think this article, as well as the September 1st school incident in Russia brought a bigger issue: What is a "terrorist?" Terrorist are defined by the tactic they use, not ideology they believe in. While this is relatively clear to most people in case of Vietnamese nationalist and Chechen rebel, I don't think USA has learn that our "terrorist enemy" are the result of our past 40 years of foreign policy in the middle east, from religious support of creation of Israel at the expense of Palestine, to overthrown of popular government in Iran. Without drastic change in our foreign policy, we will not able to end the reluntless attack from Islamic extremist. kngharv \_ Terrorists will attack us regardless of our foreign policy. They don't like the US for what it is -- a free and prosperous place not following Sharia law. If you want to make an argument for a change in US foreign policy, using islamic terrorists is not a good way to go. -- ilyas \_ You're saying they hate us because they hate our freedom? Utter nonsense. Our freedom and prosperity might get some two-bit mullah worked up, maybe he'll convince some young, impressionable losers to do a minor attack; but convincing a man to orphan his children, a normal young guy to give up his chance with that pretty girl at the market takes a lot more than "this old book says that freedom is bad". Even the WTC bombers were normal men once. You can't just call them crazy without wondering what got them there. \_ ob40Virgins \_ there was an interesting Kristof column recently which said that some modern scholars think this is a mis- translation, and that they really get white grapes, not virgins. \_ http://www.angelfire.com/folk/patriotscorner/72Virginians.html \_ They hate the products of our freedom. They are envious of our obvious prosperity, they are made insecure by the inroads our "culture" makes into theirs (viz. blue jeans and rock & roll helping bring down the Soviet Union), they (in the case of the islamists) have issues with our lack of restrictions on women, music, clothing, whatever, and to some degree they feel left behind by economic development. Consider that the "Arab world" has never undergone a sweeping renaissance or an enlightenment or an industrial revolution, combined with the fact that many countries spawning "terror" have a tremendous percentage of unemployed youth, susceptible to demagoguery. So yes, they hate our freedom. -John \_ If it wasn't for GWB, they would love our blue jeans and music and McDonald's and our freedom for women! GWB has ruined American credibility around the world for generations! \_ Well, they don't say 'freedom is bad.' To them following Sharia is freedom, while our kind of freedom is demonic depravity and corruption. We call this 'extremism,' but this was a normal train of thought a couple of hundred years ago in Europe. They are not exactly crazy in a sense of being mentally ill, they are just experiencing an 'outside context problem' (Ian Banks term), and are living in a world we can't understand very well. I am not excusing what they do -- they are of course wrong, and are doing evil. -- ilyas \_ (Responding to John and ilyas) Who are "they"? If "blue jeans and rock & roll" brought down the Soviet Union, why don't we send these instead of an invasion force? And if it's Islamic fundamentalism we are fighting, why did we invade Iraq, one of the more secular middle eastern states. And why are we sending billions of dollars to some of the most fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Perhaps nationalism and belief in self determination have more to do with the resistance we faced in Vietnam and are facing in Iraq than you would like to believe? Did the Vietnamese conduct any terrorist act on us after kicking us out? \_ Because Soviet Union wasn't stuck in a feudal mentality. You can't expect 'blue jeans' to work if it's unclear to someone that jeans are a good thing. A typical russian wasn't fooled by the propaganda. -- ilyas propaganda. As for the Vietnamese, they have no fundamental ideological problem with the West, whereas the muslims do. -- ilyas \_ Nice try to transition to Vietnam=Iraq but no dice. Please provide a URL for us *sending billions of dollars* to Suadi Arabia and Kuwait. We won militarily in Vietnam, despite being the most stupidly fought war in history. We lost Vietnam at home with people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry telling the American soldiers and people lies about our troops and the war. If self determination is the cause of resistence in Iraq then why are there foreign fighters there? Why didn't these self- determined people do anything at all for themselves during Hussein's reign of death? \_ Lies? Are you denying that soldiers didn't kill civilians and didn't commit atrocities? \_ They tried after the '91 war after Bush I promised support but then basically helped Saddam crush the insurgents. Have you ever led a military revolt? I'm sure if they had you around Saddam would have been toast. Moron. \_ The Vietnamese had been fighting against foreign colonizers for over 100 years, 400 if you count periodic Chinese incursions. We would never have "won" Vietnam, though we could still have troops fighting and dying there, if we really had the will. It might even be down to 1000/yr by now. Why would we possibly want to do that??? \_ ob40Virgins \_ there was an interesting Kristof column recently which said that some modern scholars think this is a mis- translation, and that they really get white grapes, not virgins. \_ http://www.angelfire.com/folk/patriotscorner/72Virginians.html \_ Terrorists kill civilians (on purpose). \_ But I thought that's why we went to iraq. So they could kill our soldiers instead of our civilians... \_ Yeah, Iraq is a big honeypot. People complain about the dead soldiers but if we hadn't gone there we'd have HUNDREDS of thousands of civilian deaths! If the stream of terrorists starts to trickle out, we should bomb some villages in Syria and other likely places to flush out more terrorists, like fleas from beating a rug. Eventually the terrorists will run out and we can go home! \_ You forgot to capitalize "thousands" Please tell me you're continuing the sarcasm and don't actually believe this... \_ So the Commander of The Allied bombing campaign in Europe during WWII was a terrorist? Dresden was known to be full of civilians. of civilians and had no legitimate military value. The firebombing was undertaken to break the "will" of the Germans to fight. Is that terrorism in your book? \_ If you kill civilians on purpose as a military leader and with a strategic purpose in mind, people start saying you are a war criminal. But it sticks less if you're on the winning side and the winning side is a democracy. Terrorists do it from a position of little power. War criminals do it from a position of great power. It's similar to "why is it racist when white people make fun of black people, but not so in reverse?" \_ Terrorism performed by national militaries isn't called terrorism. It is terrorism in fact though, and so was Hiroshima. There's no getting around it. (the key is deliberate vs. accidental civilian killing). \_ The U.S. dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, killing 80,000 civilians outright, to end the war early. This is a war crime under the current accepted definition. Because it ended the war early, and may have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and because Japan had attacked first -- many would argue it wasn't a war crime, or at least the definition should be refined so it excludes the 80,000 dead innocents in Hiroshima being a war crime. \_ Victor writes the history. Duh! |
| 2004/9/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33544 Activity:nil |
9/15 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1302718,00.html The confused Iraqi resitence. I don't know man, if you've got problems with the security and economy of Iraq, I think maybe you could try NOT blowing things up. How does this logic work? "Too many things are blowing up! I know, let's blow some things up!" \_ Maybe it's similar to the "logic" of ghetto riots. \_ they're trying to make iraq a total hellhole to embarress the US and make us leave, duh! |
| 2004/9/14 [Health/Women, Health/Men, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33512 Activity:kinda low |
9/13 Police in Najaf have found the bodies of 200
men, women and children in a mass grave.
http://www.memri.org/ticker.html
\_ YOU MUST CAPITALIZE EVERYTHING LIKE THAT SITE! OTHERWISE IT WILL NOT
SEEM IMPORTANT. DRUDGEREPORT UNDERSTANDS. XXX DEVELOPING... |
| 2004/9/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33508 Activity:nil |
9/13 Amazing. Iraq is completely gone to shit and all we can talk
about is Swift Boat and fake memos. This country deserves its shit
media and its shit government.
http://csua.org/u/90u (time.com)
\_ This is Karl Rove desperately trying to change the subject.
\_ Yeah, Karl Rove made Mr. Rather stick his own foot into his
mouth (next to Satan's dick)...
\_ Lovely debate tactic, but this isn't http://freerepublic.com. Come
back when you're ready to act like an adult.
\_ If that was a requirement for a soda account this would
be a lonely place.
\_ Dubya actually said that Iraq being a shithole for U.S. troops
is a good thing, since the enemy is preoccupied with us there and
not busy blowing up the U.S.
As for Swift Boat, a whole bunch of veterans who say Kerry is a liar
is going to do something.
\_ Why doesn't the media disclose the civilian body count in Iraq?
Or in Afghanistan? If "freedom" means being bombed into the
stone age, maybe living under the Saddam regime wasn't so bad
after all. |
| 2004/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33504 Activity:high |
9/13 Won't a terrorist attack backfire? It may unite the country
behind the current administration
\_ i'd rather vote Kerry and let the United Nations take care of us
\_ Poster is incredibly stupid.
\_ but it will make Osama look /<-rad!
\_ If Osama and co had an opinion, they would WANT 4 more years
of Bush. "The one indespensible ally for Osama bin Laden is
US Foreign policy." From _Imperial Hubris_.
\_ Yes. Things have gone so well for Al Qaeda since 9/11.
\_ Have you been asleep? Sure, they lost an ally in the Taliban,
but they now have unrivalled support in Iraq, they're making
headway back into Afghanistan, and they're swamped with new
recruits. Oh, and the US pulled out of Saudi Arabia. Things
are looking pretty sweet for AQ these days.
\_ Read the 9/11 report. AQ is no longer an organization as
such, but a philosophy and an inspiration. We are
k-screwed, even if we do kill Bin Ladin. |
| 2004/9/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33486 Activity:very high |
9/12 I watched this Asian movie and it was fun and exciting (name
of the movie deleted because of spoiler-ness). But seriously,
is it really based on a real story? How many defeated nations in
the history of mankind involve children trained by bitter
adults for the rest of their lives just to assassinate the
ruler? Would YOU train 20 years for a special skill for a one
way death mission? I wouldn't.
\_ sheesh, look at the middle east, it's all they do
\_ I don't think it's a question of if YOU would train for 20
years, I think it's more of if you would have someone else
train for 20 years. After all, when they start training they
have no free will (too young) and when they're old enough they
are thoughly indoctrinated.
\_ Some of us train for 20 years in esoteric skills that we
often come to despise just for a meaningless diploma and
(sometimes) the opportunity to work in a mind-numbingly
dull profession.
\_ 20 years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift...-BD
\_ prediction for the next 20 years. Thousands of fatherless
children of the Afghan/Iraqi war are now trained for one
thing-- revenge. Expect a lot of shit to happen from now.
\_ WELL SAID, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!
\_ bitter adults? Let's see how bitter you will be when you get
nuked.
\_ doubtful. The homeless/fatherless Iraqi childern will be so
hooked on McD, Burger King, Bay Watch, NBA, football, and
beer that they'll have no motivation for revenge.
\_ I am unaware of a foreign business doing business
in Iraq not directly related to the cleanup effort.
are you?
\_ They already have Baywatch. It's really popular there.
\_ "Hey Mom, those women can bounce two balls with no hands!"
\_ Son of the Beach > Baywatch
\_ If you believe this, then you deserve to be nuked/bombed.
\_ Why don't I go shoot your father and see if you have any
motivations. oh wait, you want him dead, never mind... |
| 2004/9/12-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33482 Activity:high |
9/12 Iranian Republican Guard Official in Tehran University
Lecture (Part II): We Plan To Target US Nuclear Warheads
on US Soil; Will Take Over England Itself Not Embassy
http://www.memritv.org/#
\_ When spice flow stops, all eyes will turn to Arrakis. The Baron
and the Emperor himself will be forced to deal with us!
\_ Oh no! The horror! Hide the women and children!
To those of you who have not served, Iran had to convert HAWK
for their F-14s because they do not have any working
Phoenixes. So yeah, I am worried about them coming over here.
\_ Remind me again, how many "volunteers" did they lose 1980-88
walking across Iraqi minefields to clear paths for their army?
Right, loads. And pretty convenient for us that Islamic
Jihad and Hizbullah (who love us, incididentally, and who're not
directly funded by Iran) are not currently recruiting "martyrs"
who'd, btw, be real sad to take a few thousand infidels with
them for their share of doe-eyed virgins? And equally nice
to know that they _haven't_ gotten the Shahab-3 up to 1300km
in range (and it's _not_ based on the No Dong -- great choice
of names there, Dear Leader -- so we can be sure they're _not_
talking to the North Koreans, who've _not_ gotten the Taepodong2
to 3700 miles in range.) So yeah, great for us that those dang
F-14s aren't working right. On the other hand, as long as
they're busy pounding tables and spewing macho bullshit ("We
*thump* will *thump* bury *thump* you!") instead of actually
doing something about it, I don't think hot air ever won a
war. -John
\_ Seoul will be leveled by arty in a matter of hours.
\_ And when the iron boot comes down in response, nobody's
going to come across the Yalu to bail out the KPLA this
time. -John
\_ Koguryo shall rise again!
\_ But China claims that Koguryo was part of Ancient
China.
\_ #251 (Part 1 of this speech) is pretty amusing too. "Islam and
human rights have nothing in common." w00t! Couldn't have
said it better myself.
\_ it's just as true as christianity and human rights have
nothing in common.
\_ Huh? Either I don't understand what you mean, or you
have no understanding of history. I'm not sure which.
\_ huh? God-given rights?
\_ i think pp is saying that the statements are equally
true because they are both false.
\_ The article says "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" which
isn't necessarily the same thing as human rights. |
| 2004/9/9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33428 Activity:very high |
9/8 So after the happy siege, the russians are now saying they will
launch preemptive strikes against terrorist bases anywhere in the
world. Interesting, that. -- ilyas
\_ Their big terrorist problem is right there and always has been:
Chechnya. Putin said he would solve Chechnya five years ago.
All he is doing now is trying to look like he's in control; there's
no new policy as far as I can tell.
\_ Well, I ll give them a year or five. If the russians are serious,
I look forward to the world's reaction to russian 'unilateralism'
with great amusement. -- ilyas
I'll look forward to the world's reaction to russian
'unilateralism' with great amusement. -- ilyas
\_ The UN has already washed its hands of the Chechnya problem,
so don't expect any 'unilateralism' comments on activities
in Chechnya. The Iraq problem, OTOH, was being handled by
an international coalition. The US decided to break with
that coalition and the policy of containment. Hence the
term 'unilateral.' Ilya, you're smarter than this. Are
you just bored?
\_ I am sorry, did you miss what russia actually said?
Preemptive strikes against bases _anywhere on earth_.
Not strikes in Chechnya which is old news, and no one
cares. At this point, the rhetoric itself is amusing me
to no end, since it's, you know, American rhetoric.
On a slightly unrelated note, comments like 'Ilya, you're
smarter than this' are the flip side of the coin with
'You are an idiot' printed on the front. It's a bland
tom holubesque insult slightly sugar coated. You need to
work on your habit of going after the man reflexively as a
conclusion to anything. I mean this is the motd so it's
ok, but in real life people will sort of stare at you.
-- ilyas
\_ Putin == Strong Soviet Leader!
Americans are with the Chechen terrorists, just like
supporting the Afghanistan insurgents!
\_ Containment? In what way was the Oil For Stuff program
containing anything? Who was doing this containment?
France, Germany, and Russia all had multi-billion dollar
deals with Hussein. They sure as hell weren't helping
to contain anything. Are you talking about Guam or
something?
\_ Containing Saddam from being a threat to his neighbors,
and to us from the possibility of his giving WMDs to
terrorists. Bush incorrectly concluded he had WMDs
because the CIA is supposed to be smarter than him and
he thought that was fine. The world was still looking
at a highly circumstantial American case. And Saddam
was not a threat to his neighbors. Are you a total
ignoramus?
\_ http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold06272003.html
Both the CIA and The State Dept said we had him
contained just fine.
\_ Apparently the CIA's opinion changed after 9/11.
They didn't want Saddam on TV saying, "Take that
stupid Americans" and the CIA not having said
anything.
\_ "And frankly [the sanctions] have worked. He has not
developed any significant capability with respect to
weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbors. So in
effect, our policies have strengthened the security
of the neighbors of Iraq..." -- Secretary Powell,
24 Feb 2001 ... So containment was working until 9/11
at which point Bush had an excuse to invade Iraq.
\_ Dubya wasn't listening to Powell after 9/11.
He was listening to the CIA, "no doubt" Cheney,
and "slam-dunk" Tenet.
\_ And you expected dramatic action a week later? A week later the
US was still looking for a target and making speeches.
\_ Listen, dufus: The U.S. had an obvious enemy in Afghanistan,
and had not done anything yet. Russia has been stomping all
over Chechnya for the last five years and more.
\_ It is quite understandable that Russians would use this siege
as an excuse to go after Chechens with links to sesessionalists in
as an excuse to go after Chechen sesessionalist leaders living in
other countries. A number of Chechen leaders have received political
assylum in Europe and Middle east. They might or might not be linked
to Chechen terrorism. They all deny charges of terrorism but Russia
claims they all have links to terrorists and demands their
extradictions. No credible evidence of terrorist links has been
extraditions. No credible evidence of terrorist links has been
presented so far and the Russian requests have been frowned upon. A
few months ago, a Chechen ex-president who was living in Qatar was
assassinated. Qatari intelligence services with the help of CIA
quickly traced the assassination to the Russian special services.
Two russian agents have been convicted and sentensed to life in
prison in Qatar. Russians tried denying any involvment but the
evidence was overwhelming. What Russians are now saying is that what
happened in Beslan gives them a moral right to go after Chechen
leaders living in other countries. Europeans aren't buying this
argument.
\_ Will the Europeans bring it to the UN when their people start
getting blown up on a regular basis? Or just knuckle under and
elect socialists like Spain who will turtle them up until it's
too late? The Islamic world has been fighting against the west
for a thousand years. They still are. It is only now that some
Western nations have come to realise this.
\_ Which I guess goes to show how bad the Islamic World is
at warfare these days.
\_ http://strange.timetrip.net/?entry=throwrocks -John
\_ Would you mind giving a summary of this? I
don't like to watch videos at work.
\_ It's about 20 seconds long. Sight-gag, largely.
\_ A thousand years? The Islamic world? Using the same
broad generalizations that fuel statements like those, the
Poles are part of an economic powerhouse and empire that
has been enslaving and exploiting the third world for 500
years, and Laos is part of a technological revolution.
\_ The Poles don't make speeches to this day about how they
will be retaking Spain.
\_ When the Europeans start being blown up, then the right
thing to do would be to go after the terrorists and I am
sure they well. But my point was that it generally appears
that Russia is pursuing its own political goals by going
after the Chechen leadership in exile. For example,
when Russia presented the "evidence" that Aslan Maskhadov's
representative, Ahmed Zakaev, is a terrorist, the British
laughed so hard that they gave him a political assylum.
\_ So it is ok for EU to sit back until they're getting blown
up, too? Then going after terrorists will be ok? The
British have opened the doors and provided legal
protection to all sorts of vicious evil human garbage.
The Brits giving asylum to someone means little.
\_ That's the whole point. The Europeans are not getting
blown up, nor will they be, because they are no longer
imperialists nor do they support Isreal unblinkingly.
America still cannot admit to itself that these attacks
are the inevitable results of imperial policies. |
| 2004/9/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33418 Activity:high |
9/8 I didn't delete the escaping from Iraq troll, but 63% of Americans
say the war in Iraq was worth fighting. Like I wrote, you don't need
other countries to help, but we don't have enough troops ...
\_ I'm confused. CNN shows that 60% thinks that the war made the world
less safe while 60% supported the war. I just don't get it.
\_ I wish people would stop treating polls like they're scientific
evidence. Polls are as biased as anything else - its all in
how you phrase the question.
\_ Which do you support, inaccurate polls or eating babies?
\_ OOPS, my bad, that 63% figure is from August *2003*!
The current figure is 49% worth it, not a mistake 57%. -op
\_ I wonder what the poll will say when we reach 2000 casualties. |
| 2004/9/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33412 Activity:high |
9/7 Hmmm apparently the Japanese word for Poop needle is Kancho!
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=popvox&id=414&page=12
(Guy #2)
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=popvox&id=379&page=17
This one's about organ donataion. The first and third ladies are
pretty funny.
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=popvox&id=367&page=18
Best one yet! First lady wants to be Bush's "Monica Lewinsky!" |
| 2004/9/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33394 Activity:nil |
9/7 Heheh, such a strange coincidence...
'US Death toll in Iraq passes 1000 mark'...4:27PM, Sept. 7th 2004.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2782294
'Ridge: Terrorists hope to disrupt election.' ... 4:40PM, Sept. 7th
2004.
http://csua.org/u/8y9
\_ Dang. I was hoping to hit 1000 on 9/11.
\_ don't worry, you can rent Fahrenheit 9/11 in October. |
| 2004/9/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33367 Activity:low |
9/6 In line with the thread below about evil. Here is evil:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
If you think it is important to understand this bastards point of view
and attempt to reason with him instead of picking up his ass for
incitement and investigating him for terrorism links then I just don't
know what to say. Nothing would convince you.
\_ "As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women
and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be
okay." Methinks he misunderstands the concept of "hostage" Woohoo!
We've got hostages we've promised not to harm... under any
circumstances except by accident! |
| 2004/9/4 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33355 Activity:nil 50%like:33350 |
9/4 BushCo's response to terrorism v. Putin's. Compare and Contrast.
http://csua.org/u/8x8
\_ I see, a more "sensible" war. |
| 2004/9/4 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33350 Activity:high 50%like:33355 |
9/4 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/04/in ternational1038EDT0487.DTL BushCo's response to terrorism to Putin's. Compare and Contrast. \_ http://csua.org/u/8x8 \_ I see, a more "sensible" war. |
| 2004/9/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33328 Activity:very high |
9/3 The Russian siege did not end well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3624024.stm
Please, let's have a moment of silence.
\_ This shit sucks. How can we be winning the war on terror with
simultaneous horrors in Israel, Russia, and Iraq? Poor out a
40oz for these kids, and the people on those planes as well.
\_ You're a fool. Israel and Russias problems are not our
problems. The 'horrors' in Iraq are an active issue, troll,
which is why we call it the "war on terror", not the "we already
won it war on terror". Go away, troll. You're a sick fuck for
trying to turn this event into an anti-Bush diatribe.
\_ Israel's problems are not our problems? But the biggest
reason given for invading Iraq was that he "supported
terrorists" by which Bush meant Hamas vs. Israel. Have
you forgotten that already?
\_ No, the reason given was WMD. Have you forgotten that
already? And the terrorists he was talking about which was
a secondary reason was Al Qaeda. I think it's weird that
Al Qaeda has been found in Germany, Britain, France, Spain,
Florida, Texas, New York, and a few other places, but no,
no Al Qaeda in Iraq, no sirree!
\_ Go back and reread his SOTU address just before the
war. The big two were: 1) Iraq has WMD 2) Iraq is
allied with terrorists. This lead to his conclusion
that Iraq was a threat to the United States.
\_ Uh? You just confirmed what I said. Thanks! I
wonder if you even read what I said before you
replied.
\_ Not exactly. But you can claim that if you
want. One is not two, at least not in my
math book.
\_ They weren't even giving the kids water. Ugh.
\_ One more reason to justify the raid (even though the govt didn't
plan to do it.) Even if the hostage-takers didn't plan to blow
up everyone no matter what, the kids would soon start to die of
dehydration anyway.
\_ i was expecting over 1000 would die. what's the running total?
\_ Read the article. Currently up to 150.
\_ In Soviet Russia, you divide the number of hostages by 3.
\_ The Russians are just reaping what they sowed.
\_ You're a real cocksucker. Those kids didn't sow anything.
Nor did that Italian journalist, nor did the people in the WTC.
It sickens me that the governments of the most advanced,
richest nations of the world cannot summon the wherewithal
to find a few individual animals and send their intestines to
their families in tupperware buckets, which is exactly what
ought to be done with every fucking ogre who does something
like this. Not go to war, not declare a crusade, just
find someone guilty (there's enough broken fanatics) and set
an example or two. -John
\_ Amen, John. --erikred
\_ the kids didn't sow anything but Putin and the Russian
army did. Once they get their butts out of other people's
land, this will stop happening.
\_ No it won't. Viz. two French journalists kidnapped
despite craven & opportunistic French diplomacy regarding
"muslim" world. Your argument does not hold. These
fucks will not stop. And there is _no_ justification
for kidnapping children and other innocents, even if
"their" army is committing injustice. Hey, even the
fucking koran says so, go figure. -John
\_ It's stupid to think that conciliatory acts will prevent
all terrorist attacks, but it's also stupid to think
that it has no effect on the frequency of said attacks.
\_ no, it is stupid to think that bowing down to terror
will yield less instead of more. dead terrorists
don't kill children, genius.
\_ nah, chechen's terrorism is a direct result of
russian occupation. russian butchered hundreds of
thousands of chechens over the decades. There
wasn't any terrorist acts until the russian sent
in their army to crush chechen's legitimate
aspiration for having their own nation.
\_ Man, I can't wait for that that Native American
justice to start. Ask Me Why I Hate America!
\_ They already tried it 30 years ago. Go read a
book some time.
\_ are you saying it's right for US to kill
indians and take their land?
\_ You forget about the terrorists coming over the
Chechen border into Southern Russia. Russian
occupation falls under the same "preemptive war"
banner as the US in Iraq and Israel in Lebanon.
\_ No, it doesn't. Each situation is unique. It is
naive to say X == Y in all these very complicated
and often decades or hundreds of years old
conflicts. Go read a book.
\_ Well, the Chechens already basically won their
independence back in 1996. In 1999 Chechens invaded
the neighboring Russian state of Dagestan. This led
to Russia re-invading Chechnya.
\_ no, russia claimed victory in 1996 and still
says chechnya is part of russia. they have
never given up that claim, and then they used
a minor skirmish with some extremist chechen
group as an excuse to invade chechnya. note that
the extremist chechens were fighting the russian
army and not committing terrorist acts against
civilians.
\_ Hey look, the Russians took the advice given on the motd!
\_ No, a bomb accidentally went off in the gym, like I speculated
last night as the cause of the roof caving in.
\_ No, a bomb went off in the gym, like I speculated last night as
the cause of the roof caving in.
The roof did not cave because the CTs blew a hole in the wall.
The Ts started it; the CTs responded.
\_ The world is a safer place! -dubya
\_ I love when the socialists get cute and snarky! You always make
me laugh when you post your little one liners in a poor attempt
to make yourself feel smart. Keep them coming!
\_ It would seem that the primitive one liner scored. |
| 2004/9/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33322 Activity:very high |
9/3 http://csua.org/u/8wt "Because He Says So" (6.2 mb Daily Show quicktime link) \_ How about some context before we download 6 megs of quicktime crap? \_ "Weapons of mass destruction related program activities" Did Bush really say that? He is a funnier guy than I realized... \_ How is that funny? \_ As time went on: WMDs -> WMD programs -> WMD related program activities Duh. \_ Yes, and how is that funny? \_ Actually, it was more like Eye witness accounts of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in mobile weapons labs--wheels and rails-- look, SATELLITE IMAGERY OF A TRAILER PARK, these are WEAPONS LABS! -> WMDs, we're going in, we'll be celebrated -> Mission Accomplished ("Major Combat Operations Concluded") now we'll find those WMDs -> OMGWMDBBQ! It's a 20 year old mustard gas shell! -> WMD Programs -> WMD related program activities, and we got Osama bin Hussein like I told you we would back in 2001. Remember September 11th? \_ The link doesn't work, but just google daily show and it's the first video on the upper-right. \_ 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm!!!1! |
| 2004/9/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33310 Activity:nil |
9/2 Op-ed from March 2004, but posted to contrast with Cheney's claim
that Bush's pursuit of the Iraq war forced Libya to disarm on nuclear.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm
- The Iraq War did not Force Gadaffi's Hand
"However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan
initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit.
Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because
Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows,
Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq."
\_ So Bush was just a pawn in Clinton's on going game of power
politics? Yes, this all makes sense. Black is white. War is
peace. Two is one. It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is
since I voted for forcing Kadaffi's hand before voting against it.
Or something inane like that. I'm definitely going to invest in
the tin and hat industries.
\_ You're really a moron, you know that? You undercut any
sensible counter-argument Cheney and friends *could* have.
\_ I don't think he is a moron so much as schizophrenic. |
| 2004/9/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33285 Activity:moderate |
9/1 Three Killed in Rush for IKEA Vouchers:
http://csua.org/u/8vx
\_ Stampedes are fun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3448779.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1203108.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3970622,00.html
http://www.pakistantimes.net/2004/08/29/top7.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/765456.stm
\_ http://members.chello.at/h3llbring0r/mediamarkt -John
>>>>>>> Your Changes Above |
| 2004/8/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33257 Activity:high |
8/31 http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/08/31/iraq.funeral.reut/index.html Vietnam vet buries 20-year-old only son who died in Iraq. Last para: "I shouldn't be burying him, he should be burying me," he said in a sometimes tearful interview. "The war is not worth it now. We need to get the hell out of there." \_ Someone's son got killed in the Revolutionary War also. I guess \_ Correct? Heh. Why don't we conflate the Iraq misadventure with WWII and WWI while we're at it? Why not the Civil War as well? Or how about Vietnam? Oops, we can't compare it to that, that wasn't glorious enough. that should never have been fought either. \_ You're not as intelligent or as funny as you think you are. Please die now, compassionless fool. \_ Don't get angry just because I'm correct. \_ No, but I'll be annoyed by your paranoia and your willful lack of reading comprehension. \_ "God Bless Our Gracious Queen ......" \_ You're comparing the Iraq war to the Revolutionary War? \_ Uh, no. \_ Uh, yes. \_ Uh, no. \_ Uh, yes. \_ Stop having sex in the public, guys! \_ You guys are brilliant. \_ Tastes Great! \_ Less Filling! \_ This is where he trots out some old history book where there is a father with a son who died for the Americans, and the father says, "We should never have fought against the Brits! It's not worth it!" \_ Halliburton shareholders think the war was worth it \_ really? http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y \_ Halliburton shareholders don't like investigations. \_ Okay, I'll spell it out for you idiots. OP posts a quote where some guy said we should pull out because his son got killed. I am merely pointing out that one person's personal tragedy isn't a valid reason to make a decision like that. To illustrate why, I apply the exact same reasoning to a different war- one that is generally regarded as being one that should have been fought. Nowhere am I even hinting that Iraq == Revolutionary War. I'm not even implying that I even support the Iraq War. I could have instead said something like, "someone's son died in a car accident yesterday also, I guess we should ban cars." How the fuck did you people even get into Cal? Are the admissions standards that low now? \_ Awww, nobody takes you seriously so naturally we're all dummies. Poor baby. Are you gonna cry now? \_ No, only liberals are crybabies. \_ That's right -- cry, baby, cry. \_ crying with laughter... \_ Your presence here would seem to imply a resounding, "yes!" \_ Right, except that 30,000 americans die per year from cars. I'll take Bush's infinite war on whatever over the present war on pedestrians any day. Right now our war with detroit is more costly in american lives than the Vietnam war was at its peak. \_ US out of Detroit! Why do they hate America so much? \_ actually it's closer to 50K. -tom \_ Don't forget the part about Iraq not having WMDs. (It wasn't part of the quote, but it was assumed you knew that Iraq didn't have WMDs, and it was our main reason for going, and is probably what the father was thinking when he said the war isn't worth it.) Let's have some hypotheticals. Father: My son died to protect America. Saddam had chemical/bio weapons and is working with al Qaeda, and he was close to having nukes. Father: My son died to remove Saddam, to prevent him from torturing his people and thumbing his nose at the world, and to build a democracy in Iraq. We got Saddam, but I have no idea when we can get out of Iraq, and most other countries aren't helping us because we never had the smoking gun on WMDs. I don't think this is worth my son's life. Many were annoyed at your post because you ignore obvious realities to bolster your own conclusion. \_ And my conclusion was what? \_ "Someone's son got killed in the Revolutionary War also. I guess that should never have been fought either." |
| 2004/8/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33249 Activity:nil |
8/31 GOP Convention summary:
9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
\_ you forgot "Michael Moore is fat"
\_ don't forget "THANK GOD FOR GEORGE BUSH". i puke.
\_ They are reveling in our enemy's victory. Why do they hate
America?
\_ "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and
our people, and neither do we."
\_ To those who would attack America, I say Bring It On!
\_ "I don't think you can win it (war on terror)." -- GWB
\_ "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war (i.e.,
the war on terror) we did not start yet one that we will win."
First quote is from Aug. 28th. Second quote is from Aug 31st.
Talk about a FLIP-FLOP!
\_ He did not flip flop. The Iraq war was a war for oil.
So, he's still right.
\_ Um, what? |
| 2004/8/30 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33222 Activity:very high |
8/30 Bush on terror war: "I don't think you can win it."
Perpetual war! Yay!
http://csua.org/u/8tl (AP via New York Daily News)
\_ Much like the War on Drugs and the currently unfashionable War on
Poverty.
\_ Ah yes, the War on Drugs. And what a successful war it has been,
too!
\_ Unfortunately Bush is doing as well on the war on terror as I am
doing on the war on stupidity...
\_ How about The War on Phonics?
\_ They've misunderestimated me. |
| 2004/8/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33176 Activity:nil 75%like:33174 |
8/26 Iraqi police kidnapping journalists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1291174,00.html |
| 2004/8/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33174 Activity:nil 75%like:33176 |
8/26 Iraqi police kidnapping journalists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1291174,00.html
Meet the old boss, same as the...oh never mind. |
| 2004/8/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:33149 Activity:very high |
8/25 To the guy who keeps saying US is an empire in decline. Consider
the very vigor of political conversation in this country. There is
competition of ideas here, more so than in any other place on Earth.
No empire in decline in history would have such vigor and such
competition. On a somewhat related note, Foucalt once remarked that
americans go on pilgrimages to France the same way the
french used to go to Italy in the 18th Century -- to see _a dying
civilization_. -- ilyas
\_ I've never seen anyone write that statement, but I'd point to the
"why do you hate america / if you're not with us you're with the
terrorists" types to refute your political vigor comment. That
stuff (used non-ironically) really does make me worry.
\_ Erm, America has lots of people, and America (due to its unique
position in the world) is perhaps more loudly heard than some
other places. I don't think the percentage of idiots here is
greater than anywhere else, but the above 2 things perhaps makes
it seem so. There are smart people who genuinely care about
doing the right thing arguing with each other, in heated earnest
here. We take it for granted, but it's almost a unique feature
of our culture -- other places seem a lot more homogenous to
me. -- ilyas
\_ The perception of being full of stupid people probably
partially stems from US media being fairly homogenous in
any given place compared to elsewhere--which leads to
some pretty undifferentiated opinions. For a country
where a comparatively large %age of the population is
college educated, you do hear some fairly shocking views
expressed. The metropolitan/university crowd that you and
I hang out with is no measure--the bulk of the population
lives in places like bumfuck Idaho and isn't quite as
cosmopolitan. That, and American tourists have whiny nasal
voices. -John
\_ That you would put forth the "we're smart and the other
guys are stupid bumfucks" steroetype as a serious point
is, at best, disappointing. The bay area has just as
many closed minded stupid people who believe what
they're told without thought as anywhere else. The
so-called metropolitan/university crowd is nothing
special. Just how much of the rest of this country
have you visited and how deeply have you engaged in
conversation with those unwashed, uneducated, rural,
gap tooth hicks you think occupy the rest of the
non-Bay Area parts of the country? I do agree with you
that our media is pathetic.
\_ I am not merely referring to the BA. I hate to
say it, but rural populations tend to have less
access to differentiated media and education than
urban types. It's the same in Europe, except that
most rural communities are far closer to some
metropolitan center, and hence have better access
to information (not always right.) -John
\_ Rural areas have the same access to newspaper
deliver, TV, cable, the net, satellites, and
everything else a city dweller has. This isn't
the 1850s. You're also still stuck on the
"cities are full of smart people, rural people
are stupid bumfucks" stereotype. I've met more
than enough closed minded morons here to assure
me that stupidity is evenly spread out.
\_ Ilya, whether it is one or not, the US certainly exhibits a lot
of symptoms of "empire in decline". Losing grip on alliances it
once dominated, military overextension, rise of both economically
and militarily viable competition, brain drain (think stem cell
research moving to the UK), currency no longer used as a peg of
absolute value due to several factors including overspending
domestically--I could go on. I'm not doing a chicken little here;
empires nowadays no longer collapse and get overrun by visigoth
hordes, but the US certainly shows signs of moving towards a way
more conservative pattern of international prominence in a lot of
aspects. -John
\_ Diplomatically this is certainly true -- Europe is not fond of
the current administration. Of course, Europe doesn't need the
alliance with the US, i don't think it's reasonable to expect
a tight, Cold War style huddling for warmth. To draw a comparison
to 19th century, none of the great powers felt obliged to be
particularly cozy with Britain -- they had their own interests
to worry about. Military overextension is also true, but only
because we aren't on a war footing. I think the fact that we
fought two wars recently without any real impact on consumers
(compare WWII) is actually kind of amazing. There are some
structural problems with the way americans borrow, but I am not
an economist, and don't undestand the implications of that.
It could be problematic a la the Spanish gold collapse. To
summarize, things are not entirely peachy in the US, but it's hard
to separate short term issues of policy from long term trends.
At any rate, long term negative trends to me seem like symptoms
of a disease, and I don't feel a disease here. -- ilyas
\_ Fallacy of equation. These were not "wars", but rather
what was referred to as "police actions" in the 1950s. And
remember, it's not just Europe--a lot of the world has
reached a level of political and economic maturity unheared
of during the cold war. The imperial presence is
increasingly no longer needed. As for the disease, as an
"outsider", I see a definite fraying of the healthy
relationship between "the government" and "the people". As
for your parallel with Great Britain, they had two
imperial foci--the "great powers" game, and the rest of
the underdeveloped world. We do not have this to anything
near such a degree. As it stands, the US is making the
tragic mistake of pursuing a foreign policy which seems
almost calculated to piss off the unwashed masses around
the world, while not being seen as consistent and moral
enough to get away with it. In any case, you bring up too
many points to address thoroughly, sorry. -John
\_ I am empire in decline guy, but John says most of what I would
say, but better. Didn't England have a pretty vigorous
political culture from 1890-1950, during its similar period?
\_ England at the height of their power was weaker than the US
is today. An empire does not collapse because of 4 to 8
years of short term policy the Europeans don't like. The idea
that the rest of the third world once loved us and doesn't
now because of the current administration is just silly. The
third world never loved us. We only sent them money because
the Soviets did and vice versa. When was this magical period
in time when our allies were super close to us and did all we
wanted? When the Soviets were knocking on their door. Without
the ultimate military threat on their eastern boarder, of course
they don't want to do what we say anymore. They don't have to
so why should they? Countries don't have friends and allies,
they only have self interests. Without the Soviets, it is no
longer in their self interests to go along with any of our
policies unless it directly benefits them. Iraq is a great
example. They made lots of money off Hussein and the Russians
were still owed billions of dollars which they badly needed.
What did we offer in return to replace that money for our allies
if they joined us? Feeling good about toppling a butcher? We
offered nothing and they did the logical thing in their own
self interest. The US may not last forever but it sure as
hell isn't an empire in decline. Even the word 'empire' is
wrongly applied. If this is an empire, then the world has
never seen an empire like this. We have tremendous economic,
political, and cultural power. So much so that anytime we
sneeze the rest of the world quivers due to the great imbalance
of power. But we very rarely actively go out of our way to do
anything with that power. Compare to Rome, the British Empire,
ancient Sparta, the Ottomans, the rise and fall of Islam, the
communist Russians, China right now, and many others.
\_ You error in finding public US political conversation vigorous.
Americans have become more shrill as both sides rush to extremes
and found sin in moderation. America is not an empire in decline,
but one without vision. It's a land torn with selfrighteousness,
selfassurance, and false humility, barely able to trust it's own
council much less that of others, and blindly following a mutant
dogma of "pure" Capitalism and psuedo-Christian ethics to justify
it's lack of humanity and vision. The mistake of empires is not
caused by it's own power, be political, economic, social or
military, but by it's own inability to find the strength to change.
In that, America has the advantage. It has redirected and rebuilt
itself several times. The question lies in will it be able to do
it again when the time comes.
\_ The time is always now. It is always changing. You're looking
too closely at the trees, ignoring the forest. (Heh, I always
wanted to jam that cliche into some conversation, thanks!) |
| 2004/8/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33108 Activity:nil |
8/24 Nope, there's no media bias here. Bush and the election pops up in
the middle of a story about the Iraqi Olympic soccer team.
http://csua.org/u/8qv |
| 2004/8/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33097 Activity:very high |
8/24 Here is the coverage on how we overthrew Iran's democratic government
for oil and installed Shah:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3865983
Please stop whining about how Shah was a legit leader. And freepers,
the radio segment highlight the reason why 9/11 happened. Honestly,
I see our war with Iraq is actually quite similiar to our involvement
with Iran in 1953
\_ he may have been a ruthless dictator, but he was OUR ruthless
dictator. until carter betrayed him.
\_ Betrayed? HAHAHAHAHA! Oh you young scamps today!
\_ 9/11 happened for the same reason as other acts of terrorism going
back for decades: it's a conflict of cultures. Western culture
surpassed Islam hundreds of years ago and never looked back. They
still want Spain back!
\_ It wasn't oil, at least not only. There was a lot of concern
that Mossadegh was about to cut a deal with the Soviets for a
gulf port, however mistaken that turned out to be. And it's not
whining, the Shah had a lot of good points compared to the lunatics
currently in power. -John
\_ Dictators on your side are always better than those against.
\_ Red herring, John. The point is not the Shah's good points
in comparison to the Revolution he helped provoke, it's the
Shah's bad points in comparison to the democratically elected
government that was overthrown in order to install him.
\_ Fair enough, I was just trying to elaborate on on the
reasons for the overthrow in the first place. I don't
claim that it was legit, but there was agitation on the
part of the Iranian communist party in the early 1950s to
increase contacts with the USSR at the time. -John |
| 2004/8/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33087 Activity:insanely high |
8/23 Besieged Al-Sadr keeps grip on shrine
"Iraqi government claims that police had arrested hundreds of the
radical cleric's fighters and taken over his headquarters in Najaf
could have come from Saddam's Comical Ali ..."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,1288386,00.html
\_ Hey! Have some respect for other cultures. They didn't really
mean they had arrested hundreds of Al-Sadr's men and taken over
his HQ's.
\_ I predict that if the Sadr militia isn't exterminated, it was
because of "politics". U.S. military forces won every battle but
lost the war because of "politics". Dang, that's how we lost
the Vietnam War! Hmm, who to blame ... I blame the Iraqi people
the Vietnam War! Hmm, whom to blame ... I blame the Iraqi people
who don't want to take firm control of their own country! And if
France/Germany/Russia had fessed up to their financial motives and
had joined our coalition before the war, we would have had the
international consensus to build a free Iraq!
\_ Funny me.. I thought we were at war against Saddam. Or was
it Al Qaeda? Or terrah?
\_ Your logic is so tortured that I can only assume it was
meant as satire.
\_ ... and if Kerry becomes President, then we'll definitely
have someone to blame!!!!1!
If the economy slows down, it's because he withdrew the tax
cuts. If the economy picks up, it's because the tax cuts
are finally taking effect!!1!!!
If there's a terror attack, it's because he's not protecting
the homeland, like Bush would. If there isn't one, that's
because of the strong homeland security dept Bush set up!
I could be the next Karl Rove!!!!%1!!%$15
\_ I personally think that if we could convince some national
level whackjob to join the csua and post to the motd it
would rule.
\_ stop frothing. it isn't becoming.
\_ Dignity gentlemen. Unless you want your grandkids speaking Arabic,
Chinese, or Spanish.
\_ you are saying that Chinese, Arabic or Spanish are somehow
inferior?
\_ I'd rather that my kids speak Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, _and_
English. Why do you want to limit my grandchildren? Why do
you hate children?
\_ Of all the threads the censors choose to delete or save, why in the
Hell did you leave this useless multi-trolled PoS? Is there any
reasaon at all for these useless bits to waste more precious
bandwidth? Seeing this crap stay but real political discussion
and debate backed by URLs, etc, get purged instantly makes me
think the censoring is not anti-politics, but anti-I-just-got-
crushed-in-a-debate censorship.
\_ An article that suggests the media is, once again, not reporting
reality, versus an endless series of lies about what happened
3 decades ago, and you call the latter "real political discussion".
\_ We know the media reports what they want not what is. The
rest of the posts that follow add nothing. It's 2+ pages of
snarky I-feel-so-clever comments and uhm, yeah.
\_ Uh, but the URL was the _media_ reporting what really seems
to be going on - it was more the Iraqi interim government
that is doing the "sky green, sea pink" reporting. I agree
with you that in general the coverage of the Sadr army
revolt has been abysmal, but the Observer tends to do a
pretty good job. --op [restored]
\_ His entire force is reduced to holding 1 building and the court
yard around it? He's doing well.
\_ You're being sarcastic, but it's exactly what he wants. The best
thing that could happen, as far as Al-Sadr is concerned, is for
the US forces to destroy the shrine and kill him. The
destruction of the shrine will create tens of thousands of
Shiite jihadis overnight, and Al-Sadr's death will elevate him
from a mediocre cleric with a revered father to the status of
a revered martyr.
\_ It's too late for that. He's gotten a huge following just
for resisting the US and keeping them from the Shrine. The US
has been too obsessed by this guy. I'm waiting for a marine
to go nuts and blast the shrine with something big.
\_ "Something big" - obviously you have no military training |
| 2004/8/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33061 Activity:very high |
8/21 I asked earlier about John McCain's face, and I meant no disrespect.
Was he wounded in the jaw or neck area?
\_ I think I heard that he was wounded in Vietnam when he
either went down in his plane or when he was at the POW
camp. I believe the damage was to his vertebrea resulting
in neurological damage of the spine. The direct result is
that he doesn't have full movement of his arms and probably
other areas of his body. I believe that it was similar to
Bob Dole's damage from WWII.
\_ Bob Dole: war hero, injured in combat for his country in a just
war.
Bill Clinton: self proclaimed draft dodger.
Election winner: Bill Clinton.
Given that history shows the voters don't care about war heroes,
why is Kerry spending so much time talking about his war hero
status? It didn't help Dole at all.
\_ Eh, Dole had several things going against him: he had even
less charisma than kerry, clinton had enormous charisma,
and was a VERY popular incumbent. Also keep in mind that
we're a nation at war, and the merit badge of heroic military
service at this time is seen as a necessary trait. I don't
think this was true of the clinton era.
\_ What country are we at war with? --aaron
\_ Uh, Evildoer... uh... onia.
\_ None. It is peace time. In times of peace we don't
need war heroes. So vote for Bush with us Aaron and
let's focus on the economy and other peace time issues
instead of 30+ year old war records.
\_ I think the soliders dying overseas would disagree
with your flip, off-the-cuff analysis. The idea that
we're a nation at peace with soldiers enagaged in
daily battles with opponents shooting rpg's at them
is pretty stupid, actually.
\_ You may not remember Bob Dole's "war on drugs?" how about
his 17% tax cut across the board? Not that he had any chance
but he, among other things, choose wrong platforms. and
honestly, I would choose a 90 yr old Dole over current Bush
any day simply because Dole's character. -liberal
\_ Are you equating the war on drugs with a military conflict?
I don't understand why you mention it. And what's wrong
with a tax cut for everyone that pays taxes?
\_ Who's going to pay for it if you give everyone a tax
cut? Cut spending? Hahahahaha.
\_ Shortly before it came out that his nurse wife was abusing
prescription skills at work, McCain had surgery for cancer in
in his face. I think that is what you're wondering about.
And I am talking about in the 1996 race. -maxmcc |
| 2004/8/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33021 Activity:nil |
8/20 Why the hell was the Mary Carey/military breast implant thread
deleted? Grow a sense of humor lately?
\_ This the best thing on the motd in weeks!
\_ So it was deleted because the motd is supposed to be 100% total
shite now? God the CSUA is lame.
\_ You got that right.
\_ In response to some post in the deleted thread, why do Army surgeons
need peace time plastic surgery training via free breast implants?
There's a huge demand for breast implant surgery during war time?
Shouldn't they instead be getting training via fixing up car
accident victims for free, for example?
\_ Reconstructive surgery (war and peacetime) and no malpractice
insurance. |
| 2004/8/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:33012 Activity:kinda low |
8/19 Did someone hate Douglas J. Feith? Column he submitted to Post ystrdy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13742-2004Aug18.html
\- wow, he's the clarence thomas of the defense dept. --psb |
| 2004/8/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32998 Activity:very high |
8/18 Play if you want. (Hurry, Bush's people will have a response tomorrow
morning!)
13-term House representative Bereuter will be discredited in what way?
[blah blah]
\_ Eh, forget it. I noticed http://cnn.com has some responses already.
They are: political vendetta, entitled to his opinion. I also
missed one, which is: Dismissing him as small fry. There's also
another approach, which is to attack one or more weaker elements
of his letter, which is probably what they'll do tomorrow morning
(something like "we are achieving peace, just as with the
disbandment of the Sadr militia") -op
\_ Why does he need to be discredited? All he's saying is that with
20/20 hindsight, the world was better with Hussein in power than
with him out of power. I think Bereuter says loud and clear all
on his own what he believes. No need to discredit him.
\_ there have been other consequences to that war besides
(in_power? hussein iraq)
\_ The big deal is, with hindsight, Dubya still says going
to war against Iraq was the right thing to do. This Republican
(also vice-chair of the House Intelligence Committee between
2001-2004) has said in hindsight after reviewing all the
data, it was a mistake. |
| 2004/8/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32990 Activity:very high |
8/18 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/18/congressman.iraq/index.html GOP lawmaker: Iraq war a 'mistake' ... Rep. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, who until earlier this month was the vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee -- a panel that reviewed much of the evidence the administration cited before going to war: ... "I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition ... Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action" \_ Hey, what's in the "..." sections? I hate when partial quotes are posted. Now I've got to go read the whole thing to find out what he really said. Motd bits aren't that expensive. Just post it next time. \_ Oh gee.. Another politician who doesn't march lock-and-step! \_ Well, he was vice-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from 2001-2004. He's going to catch a lot of hell, even though he's retiring. What I'm really curious about is how Dubya's people will do it. <SARCASM>He really needs to be made an example of.</SARCASM> -liberal \_ Are you serious? He needs to be make an example of for stating an obvious truth? \_ Are you serious? He needs to be make an example of for stating an obvious truth? [formatd] \_ For breaking party ranks: Loyalty > "making the right decision" > "truth" If it was such an obvious truth that it was a mistake, Bush wouldn't still be saying it was the right decision anyway. \_ Independent thought! Horrors! \_ Another entry for the "No shit sherlock" file. \_ Why isn't this on http://freerepublic.com yet? They're usually pretty fast. \_ it is. \_ Wow, you're right. I see the freeper responses are: he's Kerry's toady; disunity shows weakness, encouraging terrorists; France/Germany/Russia had financial incentives for not joining a coalition; just what is this Asian Foundation he's joining; he lives in a city of liberals. |
| 2004/8/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Finance/Investment] UID:32934 Activity:nil |
8/16 Yermom: discuss
\_ Yo mama so dumb she thinks posting the same troll every day for
weeks on end will actually change someones vote.
\_ Yo mama smells so bad, Saddam tried to drop her on the Kurds! |
| 2004/8/10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32815 Activity:nil |
8/10 Lessig makes a good point about weakening fair use rights.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html?pg=5?tw=wn_tophead_6
\_ FASCIST! The fair use rights want to be free! |
| 2004/8/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32801 Activity:high |
8/10 Bush: "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether knowing
what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."
Kerry: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the
authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to
have but I would have used that authority effectively."
\_ Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own --
why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used
faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would
go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table.
"There are four not hypothetical questions like the president's,
real questions that matter to Americans and I hope you'll get
the answers to those questions, because the American people
deserve them," he told reporters.
\_ Have you stopped beating your wife? The American people
deserve to know the answer to this real question.
\_ The charge that Bush had no plan to win the peace is legitimate
but the charge that Bush relied on intelligence agencies
implies that Bush should have become fluent in Arabic, Farsi,
and Pashto, handed the presidency to Cheney, and went off and
gathered his own intelligence.
\_ No, it just requires that he was willing to search out and
listen to people who disagreed with the *false* phoney
consensus presented by Wolfowitz and Tenant. He could
have found them with Google, or by talking to the numerous
CIA career agents who quit in protest to the hyping of
the intel. The fact that he either does not have people
in his inner circle willing to tell him what he doesn't
want to hear or that he ignores them speaks volumes about
his competence and ability to lead the nation.
\_ So when the President, who already suffers information
bombardment, gets info from the guys he is supposed to
rely on to give him info, he should dismiss them and
read blogs he found from google to create our foreign
policy? This is a joke, right? IHBT?
\_ He has surrounded himself with yesmen and ideologues
and doesn't even read a newspaper. Even after they
failed him, he has not shaken up his cabinet. He
demonstrates a fundamental inability to think
critically. Stop deleting this. If you can't reply,
just nuke the thread.
\_ What newspaper? According to the wall, the mass
media is all dog food and we should get our news
from blogs. If he shook up his cabinet like Tenet
getting the axe, you'd just be here saying like you
have before that he was blaming his subordinates for
what he is resonsible for and he should resign, not
leave the buck at his subordinate's desks. There is
just no making some people happy. You hate the guy
and that's ok but don't try to hide it behind that
sort of noise. Just be upfront about it. It's ok.
[and no i didn't delete anything, get over it. my
reply is there. you havent posted anything that
isnt trivial to reply to.]
\_ Nope, if he shook up his cabinet, I would have
some respect for him. At least he would have
admitted to himself that there was a problem.
As it is, he claims that he makes no mistakes.
He is an arrogant boob and should be trusted
with the kind of power he has. As for what
newspaper, how about the Christian Science
Monitor? How about the WSJ? How about
anything at all??? And what *I* said was that
Bush should fire Cheney, Wolfowitz and the
neocon cabal, apologize to the nation, apologize
to the UN and apologize to France and Germany.
Hell, if he did all that, I would probably
vote for him. But since I post anonymously,
you are to be forgiven for confusing me with
some other "Bush hater."
\_ So you think the WSJ, CSM, etc, have better
access to information than the FBI, CIA, and
other multi billion dollar funded intelligence
agencies?! Ooookeeey.... Why should anyone
apologise to anyone? For what exactly?
\_ For leading the nation to war under
false pretenses. It is okay to make
mistakes. It is not okay to make mistakes,
pretend like you never did it, and not
fix the problem that led to the mistake.
At least the CSM isn't a bubble filled
with people who all agree with each other.
Perhaps you didn't notice that a bunch
of CIA analysts quit in protest over the
poor handling of the intel, as well as
half the British cabinet. I suspect Bush
didn't notice. Here is a bunch of great
stuff from conservative commentators
agreeing with me, that Bush will never
see, because, sadly, he doesn't read
anything except from his bubble world:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/18/bush/index.html
\_ Which false pretenses? WMD was not the
only reason to go in. And has been
posted and censored many times before,
the intelligence agencies in this and
many other countries all believed Iraq
had large stock piles of WMD. Clinton,
Gore, Kerry, Albright, and many others
are on record as saying they believed
he has had WMD for years. Why did none
of them fire all their people and go
read a blog or the CSM? Robert Novak,
1 elected official and 1 random paper
is hardly "a bunch of great stuff from
conservative commentators". It's some
stuff from 3 sources. I don't consider
Novak a conservative, btw.
\_ "Iraq has ties to al Qaeda"
"Iraq can mobilize chemical and
biological weapons within 45 minutes"
"Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors"
And could this be considered a flip
flop? Then: " It costs a lot to
fight this war. We have spent more
than a billion dollars a month
-- over $30 million a day -- and
we must be prepared for future
operations." Now: they plan on
putting off their funding requests
until after the election, then have
to ask for $50B emergency
authorization...
\_ WMD was certainly one of the major,
if not the major justification given
to the American people. And they are
not there. No, your one 10 year old
sarin shell does not count. It does
not really matter that much who else
made the same error, since the
decision to go to war was with Mr.
Bush, but it mitigates it somewhat
He still needs to say mea culpa
somehow. Which he has not.
\_ But they had Weapons of Mass
Destruction-related program
activities!
\_ By "I would have voted for the authority", did Kerry mean he would
have voted for going into Iraq today knowing that there is no WMD
anyway?
\_ I believe he has said that he looked at voting for war powers
as giving the president a new tool for handling the situation,
but that he thought it would be used as a credible threat and
possibly a banner to rally allies behind rather than us diving
in with a pitiable coalition.
\_ Nuance! So really he meant to show the world (again) that the
US is a paper tiger that makes threats but never backs them up
in modern times. Good plan. That'll scare em! That and his
fighting a more 'sensitive war against terrorism' (his words)
will keep the world safe! I'm voting for Kerry this fall for
sure! --Osama
\_ That's not how I read it. I read it as: I would have fought
a war againt Iraq, but I would have listended to Shinsheki
and gotten 300k troops like he requested, not taunted him,
called him a coward and a traitor and run him out of
Washington.
\_ That's not what he said. Anyway, even if that *is* what
he said or meant, 300k troops would do what exactly for
us in Iraq right now and the last year? Make more
targets? Make the Iraqi people even more upset about
the even larger force sitting on their territory? We
have more than enough fire power to genocide the entire
country. Lack of troops is not the problem.
\_ Tell that to the generals who have said otherwise.
The big problem is our military is trained to go
in, destroy quickly, and leave. We are not trained
for peacekeeping missions, let alone nation building.
Bush's biggest failure in Iraq was not taking this
into account and alienating our allies who have a
better track record in this area.
\_ Shinseki was canned for saying we didn't have enough
troops. Now Bush says, "If the military asks for
more, I'll give it to them". The military doesn't
ask. Get it now? (just google for shinseki fired) |
| 2004/8/9 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32785 Activity:high |
8/9 In my opinion, the President retains the final authority, and ultimate
responsibility, of taking the country to war. Congress is just there
to provide him the money, and legal authorization in case he wants to.
(Let's exclude the short < 90-day engagements the President can
send off without authorization.)
On the opposing side, one can say that Congress shares significant
responsibility for authorizing a war.
What do you think?
\_ Your opinion is stupid. Apparently you were napping in US Gov't
101. It's called "checks and balances." Perhaps you should readup
on the Federalist Papers.
\_ 50 years ago you might have been right. The War Powers Act
has allowed Congress to adbicate its obligation to declare
war. They've kept their funding authorization responsibility,
but there are no watchdogs left on the matter..
\_ A) The War Powers Act (enacted in 1973, so you're confused)
sought to limit the Executive branch from so-called "police"
actions such as Vietnam and Korea.
B) The War Powers Act was an attempt to clearly dilineate
what the Executive could or could not do in times of
crisis in committing US Military (either abroad or
domestic).
C) The War Powers Act puts a specific time limit of 60 days
which can only be extended by Congress on any military
action.
D) It requires the executive to report to Congress any
military action taken by US Forces.
Before you go off spouting nonsense again, try to actually
read the War Powers Act.
\_ What's the right answer?
\_ The right answer is that there is no "right answer"
because the dynamic between the executive and the
legislative is constantly changing. Also, the executive
and the legislative are obviously incestious, so the only
"real" right answer is that responsibility falls upon
government. Since we are supposed to be a representative
government the ultimate responsibility falls upon the
people as a whole. Obviously reality is a bit more complex
than this.
\_ I think yer contradicting yourself. And yer dumb.
\_ War Powers Act
\_ I can spend the 15 minutes to google for stuff I thought I knew
in high school and college -- can you summarize your
interpretation anyway? Thanks.
\_ Opinion? It's simple law you can find a copy of on the net. Your
opinion, nor anyone else's here, has anything to do with it. In
my opinion the penalty for shooting stupid people should be a free
dinner at a nice restaurant. The law says I go to jail for a long
time. I prefer my opinion but we follow the law.
\_ Can you summarize your interpretation of the law for me? Thanks.
\_ My summary: I'm not on the United States Supreme Court, so my
interpretation is academic at best. Why do you care about
my or any layman's useless interpretation or opinion?
\_ You seemed to have a good grasp of what the law meant
("It's [a] simple law ..."). Then you implied that you
needed to be on the Supreme Court to understand it ("I'm
not on the United States Supreme Court ...")
It sounds like you're flip-flopping to me. |
| 2004/8/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32688 Activity:nil |
8/4 Did you know, Powell says Bush was correct to assume Iraq had WMDs:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/21/231135.shtml
(sorry, Powell didn't actually say Bush "did the right thing"
- that's lame. As described in Bush-blessed _Plan of Attack_ by Bob
Woodward, Bush never asked Powell his opinion on whether or not the
U.S. should go to war.) |
| 2004/8/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32679 Activity:nil |
8/4 Did you know, Powell re-confirms Bush did the right thing?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/21/231135.shtml
\_ Everyone thinks Bush did the right thing, unless you
are a commie scum bastard
\_ then, Bush must has done the right thing! |
| 2004/8/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32629 Activity:high |
8/3 And here's a big up yours to all the Sandinistas-lovin'-commie-ass
liberals from the 80's. http://csua.org/u/8ey
\_ Nicaraguans reflect upon history of their country and the long
running Reagan-sponsored civil war.
\_ 1. stop editing my posts. post your own.
2. nicaraguans didn't do the reflecting in the article. a
sandinistas-lovin'-commie-ass liberal did.
\_ Yeah, the US is way responsible for the Nicaraguan disaster
in the 90's. I just love how all these communist paradises
happen to fail. |
| 2004/7/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32599 Activity:high |
7/30 Coverup of Iraqi Bridge tossing admitted
http://csua.org/u/8e9 (yahoo news)
\_ You don't seriously think we should let terrorists use the bridges,
do you? |
| 2004/7/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32590 Activity:high |
7/30 All those stories about US soldiers stealing from Iraqis can't possibly
be true!!! Oh wait...
http://csua.org/u/8e0 (yahoo news)
\_ GODDAMITT
\_ Best line in this article: 'In his mind there was nothing wrong with
doing it,' Williams' civilian defense attorney, Bernard Casey,
said...
\_ At least Saddam could buy his own SUVs. |
| 2004/7/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32580 Activity:low |
7/29 Old news, but, this is where Tenet says it's a "slam dunk" case,
as excerpted from the Bush-blessed book _Plan of Attack_:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22552-2004Apr18_4.html
By the way, I strongly recommend you go read this as your primary
source. All the other books, the newspapers, the magazines, the |
| 2004/7/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32577 Activity:high |
7/29 I get it now ... If you sided with the President by voting for the
war in Iraq, and complain about it now, you are said to be using
revisionist history. If you didn't side with the President on the
vote, then you are French. If you sided with the President and
don't complain, you are not a patriot, but a responsible adult.
\_ If you got the same info as Bush as a 19 year Senator serving on
the Senate's intel committe and made numerous public statements
that Iraq had WMD and had to be invaded now, you are a sack of shit
when a year later you turn around and bash the President for doing
exactly what you said he should do when given the same intel.
\_ No. If you don't complain about the lies you were given, then
you're an ignorant pig.
\_ what is the lie and who gave it?
\_ I think this is the part where someone says Bush and the UK
claimed WMD evidence was conclusive, but the UN and other
intelligence agencies said it wasn't.
Blix on U.S. and UK spin on WMD: http://csua.org/u/8ci
\_ SHIT! he played on our fears!!! mommy! |
| 2004/7/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32539 Activity:high |
7/28 100+ Iraqis all blowed up - Washington Post
"Before the explosion we told the volunteers not to stand in the
street until we called them because we had a car bomb six months ago.
... But there were 500 to 600 all standing in line," he said, and they
did not want to lose their places by moving to a side street. Mohammed
Saleh, another bystander, confirmed that account. ... "They did not
listen. They were standing around buying cigarettes and eating
sandwiches when it happened."
\_ since everyone has already seen this in the news...can anyone here
comment on the quality of Iraqi sandwiches?
\_ The camel toe sandwich tasted kinda fishy. |
| 2004/7/27 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32515 Activity:very high |
7/27 So was the home-buying thread intentionally to hijack the motd?
\_ housing prices as a topic are currently the #1 most reliable
troll topic, where reliable means "guaranteed to produce maximum
verbiage, maximum flameage, and minimum knowledge." Politics
have become too obvious.
\_ hey, fuck off. that doesn't make it a troll. housing is an
extremely important issue to absolutely everyone.
\_ I got trolled :(
\_ You missed the Bush lied/did not lie flame war.
\_ Well, he didn't lie, nor did the CIA "trick" him -- I don't
know who came up with that one. -liberal |
| 2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32510 Activity:nil |
7/27 Heh, http://drudgereport.com has a URL on Michael Moore on the O'Reilly show. Moore has been saying that Bush is a liar. O'Reilly says Bush never lied, but he may have been mistaken. Moore can't admit the difference. Now this is what I've been saying all along -- as a liberal. \_ hey, let's hear from the guy who said he spent 20 hours a week for a month researching bush's wmd claims because of a motd thread. what's your take on this? \_ OK, we can probably both agree that Bush said things that were shown to be false. The difference in opinion is conservatives think he was simply mistaken while liberals think he knew it was wrong. In the run-up to the war, conservatives said "Trust that the president has access to the best intelligence that shows that Saddam has WMDs" Now some are trying to say "He was tricked by the CIA". Which is it? Did he know there were no WMDs (and is a liar) or was he tricked, and is being led not leading. \_ He did have access to the best intel. Going back years, everyone in the previous administration, Senators on the intelligence committee, foreign leaders, etc, all stated their belief that Saddam had WMD or was soon to develop working WMD. The intel was wrong. Everyone's intel was wrong. Who is saying that Bush claims he was "tricked"? Whatever on that. If it had gone the other way and the exact same intel said the exact same thing in the exact same way and he did nothing and Saddam nuked something you'd be screaming that Bush is a moron and the worst leader ever. Let's just grant that you hate Bush, Bush can do nothing right for you, and that's that. By taking Bush out of context and making him be the only one to ever say or believe that Saddam had WMD is intellectually dishonest, verging on weak trolling. \_ You are lying and badly at that. Why do you continue to lie about this, even though you have been proven wrong repeatedly? You just make yourself and Bush supporters in generally look deluded and out of touch with reality. Some people believed there were WMD in Iraq and some did not. This has been proven to you repeatedly, yet you still claim otherwise. \_ Bush is responsible for what he says. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk, "The Buck Stops Here"--meaning that he claimed responsibility for his own decisions, rather than pointing fingers. Whereas Bush claims responsibility for things he has nothing to do with, like the economy, and refuses responsibility for decisions he personally made, like unilateral war with Iraq. -tom \_ I don't think that word "unilateral" means what you think it means. \_ A lot of things don't mean what tom thinks they mean. Be kind. He only has a high school diploma. \_ Okay, let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Bush did not lie. Moore says Bush is a liar; Moore is wrong. I have been saying this all along. -a liberal, and op \_ Glad to hear your opinion. My opinion is that Bush is a liar and a manipulator. I have been saying this all along. - liberal who knew that Clinton was lying, too, but didn't think a blowjob and perjury under duress constituted an impeachable crime \_ How can you call him a liar if every intelligence agency in the world (and the UN!) said that Iraq had WMD's? If intelligence said Iraq *didn't* have WMD's and Bush said they did, that would be lying. \_ First of all, every intelligence agency in the world did not say that. I have proven that this is false many times on the motd. The UN and everyone else said that the evidence was inconclusive. Bush claimed it was conclusive. That makes him a liar in my book, or at the very least he acted with reckless disregard for the truth. \_ You're full of crap. British, French, Russian, UN. If the Guatamalan intel agency didn't keep close tabs on Iraq then I'm sorry, you're right, it isn't *every* intel agency on the planet. \_ You have been proven wrong on this so many times it is embarrassing you. Hans Blix, in his own words: http://csua.org/u/8ci \_ "Imminent threat", "yellowcake", putting Iraq and Al-Qaida in the same sentance constantly. "I'm a uniter, not a divider", "Healthy Forest" as Bush-speak for clear-cutting. \_ Never said imminent threat. England and FRANCE still stand by the yellowkcake. Iraq has Al-Qaida ties. And tell SoCal how the "hands-off-the-trees" approach helped the fires down there. \_ Calling it "healthy forests" is blatantly deceptive, and SoCal was mostly chaparall. Selective cutting of the large trees is good forest managment, but it's less profitable. Clear-cutting is very bad for the health of the forest. \_ Because he is a stupid chimp, that's why! -- ilyas \_ what you wrote has proven to be not far from the truth, IMO \_ I don't think the previous poster disagrees with you. \_ But the liar/tricked is a false dichotomy. To be tricked, the CIA, MI6 etc. would have to be lying. |
| 2004/7/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32495 Activity:high |
7/26 Ambush alley in Iraq
http://www.ehowa.com/show/media.html?image=ambushalley.wmv
\_ What is this? My firewall blocked it. |
| 2004/7/24-26 [Computer/Networking, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32461 Activity:nil |
7/24 I'm thinking about getting a PocketPC w/802.11b to use as remote for
my xbox (I'm interested in the web browser to view the media center
html gui). Any recommendations for a cheap PocketPC (or even Palm)
with 802.11b? tia.
\_ Dell Outlet has Axim X3i's for $235. http://csua.org/u/8b2
Otherwise, look for a used device with compact flash and get a CF
wireless card. |
| 2004/7/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32413 Activity:very high |
7/21 If Bush could apologize -- and he won't of course -- he would say:
Hey, look, my intelligence agencies told me that Iraq didn't destroy
all their chemical (sarin, VX) and biological (anthrax) weapons, and
Saddam could have given them to al Qaeda whenever he wanted. The UN
wanted to wait while Saddam stonewalled, and in this post-9/11 world,
I wasn't going to wait any longer. If al Qaeda got chemical weapons,
or by god, a nuclear bomb, they would use them in a second to kill
hundreds of thousands of Americans -- and by then, it would be too
late to argue about what-ifs. As for the battle in Iraq, Rummy told
me we could roll them up, just like in Afghanistan and with my dad,
and that part was true; his pal Wolfowitz said we could have in Iraq a
beacon for democracy that would spread throughout and moderate the Arab
world, and it sounded great -- well, we tried, and we're still trying.
Finally, it turned out that Saddam didn't have any viable WMD
programs, but I'm sure he wanted them, and the world is a safer place
today without him in Iraq. Why is it a safer place even though he
didn't have WMDs? Because we demonstrated how serious the U.S. would
be when it came to playing games with chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons. We showed that we would go it alone, to take a country down
if we thought they threatened our way of life. And we also learned
our own limitations about postwar reconstruction. Better now, than
later, to have gone through all these things.
[As for me, I'm voting against Bush, because (1) he pulled the war
card too early, (2) he didn't have what it took to build a coalition,
as much as Powell wanted to give him one, (3) I don't want a
President who doesn't apologize over the first two points, because to
me, that means he hasn't taken responsibility, and (4) I believe a
smarter individual as President would have better understood just what
intelligence we had, or would have better articulated this to the
public -- that he wanted to take the country to war even when we
weren't sure he had WMDs. I really think Bush isn't smart enough to
write his own speeches, or if he wanted to write and use one, his
people wouldn't let him.]
\_ Too bad he won't say it.
\_ If you're going to troll you need to keep it shorter and on message.
Try, try, try again padawan.
\_ I'm serious. Tell me which part doesn't sound like it matches
Bush's thinking. Note how I never said he lied or did it for
the bin Laden oil connections or to make rich people richer.
Excluding my opinion, I believe this is also exactly how
Clinton saw it, too -- he supports Bush's call on Iraq, except he
would have waited for Blix to finish.
\_ what does phuqm have to say about htis? he's been long absent.
\_ 1) Saddam was half a year away from a nuclear weapon in 1992, best
intelligence suggested several years. Exactly how many more
resolutions beyond 21 (over 10 years) do you want?? Honestly,
when would the UN security council say enough? Never, because of
the ties between Russia, France, Germany, and Iraq, and the
UN oil for food program.
2) A coalition was unobtainable. France, with economic and historical
2) A coalition was unobtainable.France, with economic and historical
ties, viewed Iraq as a client state. Russia was owed billions
by Saddam. China was arming Iraq with state of (their) art
weapons systems. All three of them had ignored UN rulings and
negotiated oil contracts provided the sanctions were lifted.
Couple that with pay offs it is any wonder why these countries
voted as they did???
4) Bush articulated his vision lucidly, you just must not have been
listening. It is the presidents preeminent responsibility to
protect the country. It was a judgement call, one history
will almost certainly vindicate.
Lastly your interpretation of history and international politics is
naive. We have been at war with Islam since the fall of the Shah.
Each time the attacks have increased in scale and sophistication.
Ignoring the problem would likely have resulted in a few nuclear
weapons detonated in American cities.
\_ No one suggested the problem should be ignored. The issue is
that Bush's approach to problem is fundamentally wrong and is
making things worse, not better. |
| 2004/7/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32406 Activity:nil |
7/21 Oh look. Another WMD "find" debunked. Think Fox News will report it?
http://csua.org/u/8a6 (yahoo news)
\_ Think anyone will report it? LOOK! SANDY BERGER! EVILLLLLL
CLINTON GUY!!!!11!!
\_ In May a sarin shell was found. Anyway, Bush says America and the
world is a safer place now that Saddam is gone.
\_ and if Bush says it, it must be true! After all, he said the WMDs
were there! Oh wait... |
| 2004/7/21 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32396 Activity:very high |
7/21 Uhm, ok... this is scary. Assuming this story is true but noting
that it isn't yet confirmed: 3 nuclear armed missiles were found
buried in a trench near Baghdad under six meters of concrete. What
are the odds that something like this could self detonate in the coming
years (or do some other really bad thing like leak into nearby wells
or I dunno) if it was left unmaintained and forgotten?
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040721-081009-2541r.htm
\_ Moonie owned newspaper. Moonie owned wire service. Why don't
you start posting links from the Final Call?
you start posting links from The Final Call? -danh
\_ Mexican Air Force documents UFOs
http://tinyurl.com/6orqd
\_ I'm not going to respond to your Moonie trolling anymore. If
you ever come up with something more than "It's a Moonie paper!"
then we can chat. Go away Moonie Troll.
\_ calling you out on relying on Moonie owned news services
is perfectly valid. Moonie Moonie Moonie Moonie! - danh
\_ So Iraq had "WMD" all along? Or were these just nuclear materials,
not fissionables? Has any other news org picked up this story?
\_ I only know what this link says. It's in the "breaking news"
section. It says they're real nuclear tipped missiles. --op
\_ Funny how no other news outlet is carrying this story.
\_ Let's try again: It's in the "breaking news" section.
\_ zero. The story is almost certainly false.
\_ Good motd answer. True, yet doesn't actually answer the
op's question.
\_ Chance of exploding? Almost nill. For a nuke to go off, all
the conventional explosive charges surrounding the uranium or
plutonium must explode at exactly the right time. If the
different charges go off at the wrong time, you just spread
nuclear material over a small area. During the cold war,
when we were keeping nuclear bombers airborn 24/7 (think
Dr. Strangelove) one of our bombers crashed in Spain. No
nukes went off and the only ocnsequence was some radioactive
contamination of the crash site. -!PP
\_ True, but he also asked about nuclear materials
leakage.
\_ He asked about detonation and leakage. To answer the
leakage question: It would depend on the casing of the
bomb (can water corrode or penetrate it?) and on whether
the particulars of its burial allow it to seep into the
groundwater. If it gets into the groundwater if would
be bad, but at that point you don't have a bomb, you
have a pile of rusty radioactive waste.
\_ Asked by Reuters about the report, a spokesman at the Interior
Ministry said: "It's stupid."
http://tinyurl.com/56kje (reuters.co.uk)
So the gist of it is that Iraq's 'National Inquirer' claims to have
found weapons and the Moonie Times picked up the story.
\_ Yep. "Al-Sabah opened last year with backing from the former
U.S.-led administration in Iraq." --aaron
\_ Possibly it's stupid. Possibly it's true. It is unconfirmed
and the odds that some newly hired flunky of the provisional
government knows everything going on in the country instantly
are zero. I was asking about the danger involved in the
situation assuming it was true. I don't care at all what you
think of the sources. That isn't important to my question and
like I said above, this is the last time I respond to your
Moonie Trolling in a serious way. I've tried many many many
times over the last year or two to get a reason out of you
other than "it's the moonies! gasp!" and got zippo. Go away
Moonie Troll.
\_ I love how you think the only person who has this opinion
is some lone motd nut. Ask any ten people about the
washington times, and eight of them will say "times? don't
you mean post? never heard of it." And the other two
will say "oh, yeah. that rightwing nut rag by the moonies."
Believe me. I've done this experiment. In fact, the *only*
place I've ever "met" *anyone* who's heard of washtimes
and doesn't think it's crazy rightwing propoganda by
a dangerous cult is here on the motd, in other words:you. |
| 2004/7/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32392 Activity:very high |
7/20 Wilson finally shows on the News Hour: Senator Kit Bond
directly calls him a liar.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1175208/posts
\_ Bond calls him a liar. Wilson refutes with reports. Bond resorts
to semantics and long-windedness to try to out-time Wilson.
Wilson continues to refute with documents and facts. Bond demands
that Wilson make an apology to the Pres. Wilson again refers to
documents and facts. Bell rings. Winner, Wilson, with dignity.
\_ Except he is wrong and a liar:
A scam and a sham
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040701-085559-3349r.htm
But you are right... maybe Wilson knows more than the Senate
and MI6.
\_ "[A]n inquiring Iraqi official had visited Niger in 1999"
and had a meeting where the subject of Uranium was never
discussed. How do you go from a trade meeting that never
talked about uranium to the assertion that the Iraqis were
trying to buy it from Niger? Hey, check this out: several
Japanese diplomats met with North Korean diplomats recently.
The North Koreans then allowed abducted Japanese to return
to Japan. How did that happen? According to your logic,
it must have been because Japan agreed to give nuke-tek to
North Korea.
\_ Wilson is assuredly more trustworthy than a bunch of
career politicians. As for MI6, didn't these guys invent
the term "disinformation?"
\_ http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4885826.html
The funniest thing is that Wilson was right all along and Bush
was wrong. Why are you guys trying to drag this out? Iraq never
bought uranium from Niger.
\_ LOL talk about tautological. You cite the liar in order
to defend his earlier statements??? Are you on crack?
From his letter even... 'I never claimed to have
"debunked" the allegation that Iraq was
seeking uranium from Africa.'
\_ Tautological is saying he's a liar because he's been called
a liar. |
| 2004/7/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32387 Activity:very high |
7/20 Are Filipinos embarassed over your country being cowards?
\_ they should be. They should of stand tall and so *NO* to
American at first place.
\_ Chicom troll! U Rock! -Chicom Troll #1 fan
\_ Just want to inform you guys that USA is bullying
just about everyone to contribute troops in Iraq hence
caused a lot of resentment toward USA. An interesting
case is the Korean one. I was talking to a Korea national
(not Korean-American), he told me that Koreans are generally
bitter toward USA for the beheading of one of the translator,
eventhough it is Iraqi who was doing the killing, resentment
toward USA is far exceed resentment toward Iraq
\_ the filipino president just barely won her election and
there were lots of charges of voter fraud, she decided
having the US mad at her was less important than no political
support at home, AT ALL, at this time.
\_ They were scheduled to withdraw in August. Troops home 10 days
early, 1 truck driver alive. Definite cowardice.
\_ Have you stopped beating your wife? And why do you hate America?
\_ http://csua.org/u/89q (Filipino gets hammered, then hammers wife)
\_ I am troubled by the fact that they gave into terrorists but I
fail to see how not withdrawing is an act of bravery. It's
not like an soldiers or government officials would have had their
heads cut off. They could have just decided to let the guy
get fucked to save face. Would that be considered brave?
\_ The thing about Filipines is that it has like a million OFW
(overseas filipino workers) working in muslim countries. It has
take their interest and safety into consideration.
\_ Well in the long run they have just painted a huge target on
those poor OFW's. Now any small-time kidnapper with a beef
against the Phillipines just has to grab a filipino and
threaten to behead them and they'll have the phillipine Gov't
at their knees. Way to reward the terrorists, guys.
\_ Umm... don't you think you might be exagerating a little?
All they got was the withdrawal of a mere 50 troops just 10
days ahead of schedule. I'd hardly call that
'at their knees'.
\_ but maybe this Iraq business isn't where they should make
a stand, and unnecessarily threaten the lives of the OFWs.
Do the Islamic terrorists just kidnap people from random
countries and make random demands on those countries?
\_ They're planning on kidnapping some Finns so they can
demand more cell phones.
\_ Do Filipinos have an inferiority complex?
\_ As Paolo points out, their country is named after
a Spanish king. What do you think? -- ilyas
\_ oh yea, whatever. at least they don't change
their name to barnstone just to cover up
their heritage.
\_ at first, it seems like randomn. But now the pattern is
quite clear: kidnapping the not-so-willing allies, and
put the final straw which break the camel.
\_ Forget OFWs, I bet the Philippines are more worried about the
Muslims in their own country (the embattled southern islands have
lots of Muslim extremists, and reportedly a few of Osama's
illegitimate children).
\_ Last time I check, we dumped over 10 billions in 10 years helping
these "freedom fighters" to do the fighting in Afghanstan. Now,
please tell me who is rewarding the terrorist again?
\_ You have been Trolled. -OP |
| 2004/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32383 Activity:moderate |
7/20 National Review column amazing study in Straw Men and False Dichotomy!
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/lowry/lowry.asp
\_ Yeah... Who ever called W a "manipulative genius"?
\_ Wasn't Bush behind 9/11? Didn't he convince the CIA to fabricate
Iraq-AlQuiada connections? Isn't the whole purpose of the war in
Afghanistan to get an oil pipeline built? Isn't the whole Iraq
War just a big profiteering scheme for BushCo? Didn't Bush
*steal* the election?
\_ Bush Vs. BushCo.
\_ The logical error made over and over again in the above
column is to assume that all people that you disagree with
must hold the same opinions.
\_ Oh poor widdle widdle Bush and his poor whiney widdle supporters.
How can you stand to be hated by the whole world so? |
| 2004/7/19-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32358 Activity:very high |
7/19 Well, just as predicted, here's the Right spin on the Allawi summary
executions as provided by Rushbo:
LIMBAUGH: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is reporting that
the new Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi has executed six insurgents in
front of witnesses, wanting to send a clear message to these people.
Good. Hubba-hubba.
Now that's right. Now, you're going to have -- you're going to have
-- you're going to have some of the powerless fearful Left in this
country saying see, this is what Bush has done. Bush did this, no due
process, they just kill them when you find them. We can't -- America's
going to be hated in the world, blah blah blah blah. Well, the Iraqis
are handling their own affairs.
\_ It was just a fraternity hazing!
\_ from the motd archive
<begin>\_ You know, even if it were true, Republicans would say they
got what they deserved, Iraqis are finally learning how to
take care of their own country, etc. In fact, I bet that's
what's being posted in the freeper boards right now.
\_ you bet? you can't either bother to check? you're just
going to make it up and pretend its true?<end>
\_ So where's the prediction part?
\_ The "prediction" part is about the right-wing spin/
interpretation, not a prediction of the actual act of Allawi
executing insurgents.
\_ So you predicted that the right wing would say what we
always say? That it's none of our damned business? Wow,
who put you on the RNC fax list? Golly.
\_ As predicted? Uhm, I guess. And if we had moved in to arrest the
guy and put him on trial you'd say what? That it's an internal
Iraqi affair and we should let them deal with it instead of imposing
our culture on theirs? Whatever.
\_ He's been on our payroll long enough that we could claim him as
our own... Iraqis would likely love to see Allawi on trial.
It might actually show us standing by our principles for once..
\_ You have your Iraqis confused. The INC guy got discredited
for making too much noise about the corrupt UN Stuff For Oil
program.
\_ Do a little homework. Allawi is long tied to the CIA.
\_ Everyone is tied to the CIA. Half of the Soviet Union
was on the CIA payroll. So what? You're probably on
their payroll and don't even know it. Your Professors
certainly were. If being on the CIA payroll, which you
haven't proven but I'll accept because it doesn't
matter, was such a big deal then you'd really have to
start at the UN if you wanted to clean house. He's an
Iraqi dealing with things in the Iraqi way.
\_ But...I thought we were bringing democracy to
Iraq? BTW, as previously discussed with supporting
URLs, Allawi was also one of Saddam's killers up
until the late '70s.
\_ We brought democracy to Iraq. Now it's their
problem. What's your point? |
| 2004/7/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32345 Activity:very high |
7/19 So we lied about the size of the mass graves...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html
But we've set our goals high and hope to turn those lies true!
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/08/29/afghanistan.mass.graves
\_ Are we supposed to infer that you support Al-Qaida from this?
I.e. "Well, Saddam Hussein/Al-Qaida didn't kill THAT many people,
and we have been killing a lot of Al-Qaida insurgents, so therefore
BushCo/America is bad." Boy, we sure need more people like you
around...
\_ The inferences made on the motd never cease to amaze me. What
about the more rational "I don't like that we decry the mass
graves in Iraq only to find that 1) we turned a blind eye when
they had happened and 2) we are again turning a blind eye to
the same actions in another place." If you're going to condemn
an action, and especially if you use it as a causus belli, you
need to condemn it across the board.
\_ Which is not how the original was posited. The original
was constructed to say that A was not as terrible as
we had initially intended and that we are doing B so
that means that the enemy isn't really that evil and
we are evil because we have allowed the same to happen
to our enemy. Also, you are painting too broad a stroke
here. The causes belli was not mass killings, but mass
killings of supposed innocents. The U.S. has always been
engaged in mass killings, whether it be Germans, Japanese,
or North Koreans. Sanctioning mass killings in the name of
security is what War is all about. If you don't like it
feel free to be a pacifist. However, idealism does not
get you far in the realm of the realpolitik.
\_ First off, the humanitarian reason for invading was well
down the list, but has since emerged as the only reason
left standing. Second, in our history you can count on
one hand the number of times we have actually used our
military for humanitarian reasons. This is not to say we
shouldn't (I personally think we don't do it enough, nor
do we have any division with the proper training to do so),
but it is an historical anomoly nonetheless, and one that
we're taking a nosedive on. Third, the premise that this
was done in the name of security, or that it has done
anything to improve security, is well in doubt.
\_ On one hand? I don't think you can count *any* events
where we used our military for humanitarian reasons. By
its very nature, the military inflicted death upon
another people is not a humanitarian act. I want you to
name that handful of so-called humanitarian uses of US
military power. You can't. There are none.
\_ Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia (supposedly).
\_ Bosnia: indiscriminate bombing from 30,000 feet.
\_ The Bosnians were grateful for the assistance.
We probably saved them from being wiped out.
Haiti: we installed or reinstalled dictators at
the point of a gun 2 or 3 times in the last
few years.
\_ Wrong. Go reread your history of Haiti. Unless
you mean 40 years when you say "few." The
only person installed in the last decade
by the US military was Aristide, who was
the democratically elected leader of Haiti.
Somalia: we got 18 dead Americans, no people fed,
a huge PR mess, and showed the world, once
again, that the US is a paper tiger.
There are no peaceful uses for military power.
\_ How about the numerous times US Marines
have rescued Americans in trouble overseas?
\_ No, we are supposed to infer that op hates America.
\_ The mass graves weren't big enough for you?
\_ So we're going to ship the bodies from Afganistan to Iraq?
\_ So Mazar-e-Sharif, a location of a prison uprising that took 2-3
days to stop and killed a CIA agent would not expect to have
resulted in prisoner deaths? |
| 2004/7/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32336 Activity:nil |
7/18 Afghanistan to Iraq - combat mission photos
http://www.pbase.com/rash/flight |
| 2004/7/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:32335 Activity:very high |
7/16 Iran Accused of Complicity in World Trade Center Attack!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173456/posts
\_ Does Iran have any oil? And why aren't we just shipping the oil
out of Iraq straight to America for free?
\_ Good thing to know we have another war to look forward to after
Bush gets re-elected. Don't you think one will require the draft
though?
\_ I think Bush is sick and tire of pick on easy target. Look at
that "routine" military exercise involved 7 out of 12 air
aircraft carriers. I think Bush want to nuke China out of
existance after he get elected.
\_ At least it's easy to recognize chicom troll from his
hideous engrish. Thanks for weighing in.
\_ a Jew who uses racial slur.
\_ You went to all the trouble of getting a degree from
an American university. Why not go the extra mile, and
actually learn our language?
\_ blame on Berkeley.
\_ I'm getting a headache just trying to read this post.
\_ Is a Taiwan educaton that good? YT Lee should speed up his
"reform!"
\_ How does this make them more complicitous than, say, Saudi Arabia? |
| 2004/7/17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32330 Activity:nil |
7/16 blowkay [bloh'-kay] adj. of an attitude, typically exhibited by the
electorate, that elected officials who have sexual relations outside
of marriage while in office are less deserving of impeachment than
officials whose decisions lead to the loss of human life. Folks say
the new senator from Rhode Island is a skirt chaser, but as long as
he doesn't send thousands of Americans off to die in a war on false
pretenses, he's blowkay with me.
\_ fuck that. I don't think it's too much to ask to have leaders
who don't screw around with interns or lie to american people,
or give government contracts to their buddies without bids
or make deals with terrorists to fund secret wars to support
dictators in latin america or run a secret gang of thugs from
the whitehouse to perpetrate illegal "dirty tricks" on opponents
or let a unwinnable war drag on forever while lying about it
to the american people...goddamn all of them all to hell.
\_ Moron, without corruption there would be no government.
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The founding fathers of this country weren't stupid, and they
knew this, which is why our government is designed to be
a balancing act. You can never eliminate graft or nepotism,
it's the grease that keeps government working. You can't
codify human behavior into simple law. The law is simply
a framework which we work from. |
| 2004/7/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32320 Activity:insanely high |
7/16 http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1156008.htm God, what are we doing. \_ Meet the new Saddam, same as the old Saddam. \_ Oh please, call us back when he's lowering political enemies into acid. \_ Now who's the moral relativist? \_ Woohoo! More back seat driving by people who nothing about the situation, people, or cutures involved! w00t! \_ So was the invasion back seat driving? \_ Well, Bush is a backseat driver, but it's hard to call an invasion "Back Seat Driving." It's even worse when it's a bunch of jerkoff's on the motd who have no clue outside of what they read on the internet though. \_ I guess I should have said the "current justification for the invasion," which seems to be "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq." Seems to fall into your backseat driving definition fairly well. In general I agree with you about motd jerkoffs. \_ Worse? Bush appears to know nothing other than what his advisors tell him. \_ Oh? You're better informed than the CIA, FBI, and military on the ground in Iraq? Do tell! \_ pp is not President, and probably never has and never will have anything to do with actual policy making. maybe he's a bad guy because he's sloppy in his coding or doesn't back up his data often enough...who knows? but i expect a lot more from a president than from some random sysadmin on the motd, and so far I haven't seen it from this POTUS. \_ Fine, I appreciate your right to not like the president, but it has nothing to do with what you're responding to. I was making fun of the poster because what they said was DUMB. Regaurless of what they or I may think about the president. \_ My. Pet. Goat. \_ What. The. Heck? \_ You know, the "My Pet Goat" conspiracy about the President knowing beforehand of the attack on the WTC? He plotted it with the Bin Ladins in order to boost his ratings and allow him to invade Iraq thus consolidating the Saudi and Carlyle Group's power grip over OPEC and oil reserves? Russia bought into it after finding proof of it but kept it quiet so Putin could crack down on the Russian oil "oligarchs?" It's based on why there is no such book called "My Pet Goat" anywhere. You see, the WTC crash happened earlier than was expected. When Bush is sitting in the classroom, he's waiting for the signal to act "presidential." The aide that walked in was actually whispering for Bush to "act naturally." So as an ad-lib he grabs a book and starts glancing through it. But it was just a prop put there by Presidential site stagers. So it's a fake, with a fake name. The title is an insider's joke reference to minding the "Goat," an allusion to Satan. See, GW Bush, is really the true Antichrist in his mortal form. <Ominous music here> in his mortal form. \_ You are truly deranged. You need to untie your panties. \_ Umm... YMWTS http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg detail/-/0026863553/qid=1090014531/ sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-3540963-4296754? v=glance&s=books&n=507846 But far be it from me to throw cold water on your little rant. \_ Oops. Nevermind... \_ Well, you know, that is what a democracy is. A bunch of no nothing voters getting together and trying to decide what our foreign policy should be. I trust the average dude who gets his info from reading the internet way more than I trust your average American voter. And I trust both of them more than you, who seems to have an autocratic streak a mile wide. Let me guess, you are still bitter that a couple of jerkoffs on the motd, using nothing more than Google and their critical thinking, were proven right about their suspicions on Bush's WMD claims about Iraq. It just goes to show you, critical thinking and intelligence are a lot rarer at places like the CIA and the White House than you believe. \_ don't worry, the CIA will get it right by learning from the fucking geniuses at mossad who got busted for trying to infiltrate new zealand (see below.) military intelligence=oxymoron \_ nicely put, but you didn't indent right. \_ Reintroducing the concept of a swift trial? \_ Did anyone actually bother to check if this was true before mouthing off? -- ilyas \_ Here's more information: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1155990.htm I give it a 50/50 shot (pun!) that it's true from all available information currently. It's true: He got tired of innocent Iraqis getting blown up. It's fake: Rumor-mongering by ex-Baathists to discredit him. \_ Its hard to say. I'm sure most of you will dismiss this out of hand, but the jury is still out. Remember rumors and unconfirmed reports of Abu Ghraib were circulating for almost a year in Iraq before the story ever really "broke." \_ You know, even if it were true, Republicans would say they got what they deserved, Iraqis are finally learning how to take care of their own country, etc. In fact, I bet that's what's being posted in the freeper boards right now. \_ Looks like there'll be no way to find out: MAXINE McKEW: Your sources of course will be sought out by other news agencies after tonight. Will they stand up to scrutiny? PAUL McGEOUGH: Well I don't know whether others will find them or not. I won't be making them available to anyone. \_ Gee, I am convinced. -- ilyas \_ Um, you don't think he might want to protect the lives of his sources? Come on ilya, you're smarter than that \_ Sure, it's reasonable. Just not very convincing. -- ilyas \_ FWIW, here's a transcript that the quote above was pulled from: http://csua.org/u/87j (abc.net.au) There are some other links regarding Allawi's former ties to the CIA and as an operative for Saddam and the Baath party in the late '70s. |
| 2004/7/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Science/Space] UID:32315 Activity:very high |
7/16 Outfoxed showing at 7pm tonight in San Francisco, Victoria Theater
at 16th and Mission. Q and A with director afterwards.
\_ Q#1: Why do you hate America?
\_ Why do you hate informative posts? [why do you keep deleting
this response?]
\_ He hates criticism, too.
\_ Q#2: So it would be better if Saddam was still in power?
\_ Because the ends justify anything else right? You know, I think
the world would be better off if all the Jews disappeared.
\_ A: What makes you think this movie is about Iraq? Watch that
knee!
\_ More information here:
http://www.outfoxed.org/Screenings.php |
| 2004/7/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32306 Activity:insanely high |
7/15 I'm not the same poster as below. Today must be "Telling the Truth
about Michael Moore" Day.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/iraq911.htm
\_ Damn you, right wing zealot, damn you all to hell!! Michael
Moore is the messiah and he is going to lead us to the
promised land! How dare you prove us wrong!
\_ this type of 100% sarcastic post is... retarded.
\_ it isn't any worse than "Why do you hate America?"
\_ Gawd, Condi is stupid. I'd almost think Moore expected people
to find the full quote, and discover for themselves how much
crack Condi was smoking.
\_ How did you get "Condi is stupid" from Michael Moore
misquoting the hell out of her? This is what we call
"blaming the victim".
\_ he got "Condi is stupid" from her full quote.
\_ I don't get Rice's full quote. So we attacked Iraq because it
was a cesspool of Islamic fundamentalism? Sounds like BS to me.
\_ Bush repeatedly linked the 9/11 attacks in Iraq. It is not
deceptive to imply that, even though that one quote is
perhaps a bit deceptive on its face. The Bush Administration
really tried to convince America that Iraq had something
to do with the 9/11 attacks and they were so successful
that many people still believe that, in spite of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary and a public
disavowal from Bush recently.
\_ Uhm, the point is that Moore is being deceptive with his
use of editing, like what he did in his previous movie.
I don't know about you, but Moore is the Leni Reifenstahl
of the modern era. It's propoganda, and I think we can do
better than propoganda. The film does nothing to convince
us of its merits. I don't see how it really helps the left.
\_ You're comparing a guy who doesn't like Bush to a woman
that helped justify a regime that murdered millions of
people? Hyperbole anyone?
\_ He is comparing the means, not the ends. You are right,
though, Moore is not in a particularly reassuing
company. -- ilyas
\_ Moore is attacking those in power, Leni is
glorifying those in power and their ideology.
That, to me, is a fundamental difference.
\_ Moore is attacking those in power in a country
with freedom of speech, Leni is glorifying those
in power and their ideology in a country where
there is no freedom of speech. These, to me,
are fundamental differences.
\_ Feh. Both used propaganda to achieve a political
goal. No highground for Moore.
\_ If by propaganda, you mean Moore is promoting
a cause, sure. Bush's State of the Union
address is also propaganda then. shrug.
\_ I understand 'propaganda' to be the kind of
message which appeals to the same part of
the brain which likes the 'circuses' (from
'bread and circuses'). There is this element
to propaganda where you are only really
deceived if you want to be deceived (or you
are really really dumb). Someone who thinks
he is being a friend to the cause by using
these kinds of techniques to 'promote' it is
not a real good friend. -- ilyas
\_ I can say the same for bush's state of the
union address, and all the propaganda
about Iraq's link with 911. Lots of
people got deceived nevertheless.
shrug. If one wants to equate Moore
with Leni, one might as well equate
bush with hitler. Also, by your
reasoning, I guess the Germans of WWII
just naturally really want to kill Jews,
or they are just really really dumb.
\_ So you defend Michael Moore's blatant
misquote by saying it's ok because the
President gives a speech every year?
\_ I call Godwin. You apparently don't
comprehend 'means vs ends' at all.
Best to stop this. -- ilyas
\_ I understand it perfectly.
Both Bush and Hitler uses
propaganda. That doesn't mean
I would associate the two. To
call Moore the "Leni Reifenstahl
of the modern era" is stupid.
Besides, the quote of
Condi was fair enough. She is
deceptively trying to associate
Iraq with 911 using BS like
"ideologies of hatred".
\_ then why not use the full quote
if it means the same thing? why
chop it up to make her look even
more stupid if the full quote does
that and Moore doesn't end up
looking like a scumbag?
\_ why make her look stupid?
the quote Moore gave is
exactly what she said.
Moore is under no obligation
to elaborate on everything
everyone said. That will
make a 5 hour movie.
\_ I don't recall Bush using dubious editing
techniques on other people to make it look
like they said something they didn't in
the State of the Union address. Could you
post a link? Thx.
\_ presenting information that is biased
and deceptive for a political cause =>
propaganda. shrug. Like I said, the
context is very important. Besides,
as presented in the link above, Moore's
quote of Rice wasn't unfair. She
has herself to blame for trying to
deceptively link Iraq and 911 with such
wishy washy BS like "ideologies of
hatred". Bah!
\_ perhaps you missed the numerous reports
from both the US Senate oversight
committee and various foreign intel
agencies that have all recently agreed
that there was a link and that Iraq
really was seeking nukes? Moore is
being smashed for misquoting someone.
He should have given the full quote and
allowed the audience to decide if it
was deceptive or not. He made her say
something she didn't by eliminating the
context.
\_ he quoted her fairly. she is the
one who is trying to be deceptive.
If she doesn't know any link, she
should say so, and not give bS
like "ideologies of hatred".
\_ If I was kchang, I would file
all this guy's responses under
"LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
LA LA LA LA!" (On the Kais
motd, of course)
kchang doesn't file manually -kchang -/
\_ Nah, Lee Atwater is the "Leni Reifenstahl of the modern era."
How soon we forget. |
| 2004/7/15 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32295 Activity:very high 60%like:32292 |
7/14 BUNNYPANTS (& BLAIR) LOSE AGAIN
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/25023.htm
\_ Uhm, this is one of the more bizarre edits I've seen. I...don't
know what to say....
\_ You mean you've never heard of Commander Bunnypants?!?!!!!11!
http://csua.org/u/875 (kbtoys.com)
\_ Nice OPINION & EDITORIAL link, CAPITAL LETTERS boy.
\_ Trouble reading? The URL is clearly from the op/ed page.
As if this is the first time an op/ed piece has been
posted to the motd, genius. Some of you knuckleheads are
posting links from blogs as 'proof' of your points! -!op
\_ the NYPOST editorial pages are even more retarded
than most blogs.
\_ In your opinion. And that's what this is all about:
opinion. Since the NYP has greater readership than
\_ i read the nyp every day, you are a moron.
you obviously are not familiar with the history
of the NYPOST, or who owns and runs it,
or that they have been an even bigger journalistic
laughingstock than normal recently.
\_ Which still puts them well above your blogs and
your rude interruption of my post.
\_ oh are you going to cry? i hope so.
useless unthinking republican drone troll.
\_ hahhaha got nothing to say so you resort
to the lowest form of attack. would you
\_ I'm not sure what's more pathetic --
that fact that you got trolled by a
childishly simple ploy, or that you
need it pointed out to you.
like to try again or just give up and
go home?
\_ ok i'm trying to understand the NYPOST's spin on
lord higgins' report, i don't fully understand it yet.
any blog and people actually *pay* to read it and
other people get paid to write it, I'll take that over
some random blog spew anyday. Are you really truly
seriously trying to claim that blogs are anything more
than raw unedited spewage?
\_ It's still dumb. And OP's caps lock was stuck.
\_ It can be dumb. Lots of things are dumb but
to bash someone for posting from the NYP when
others here don't get bashed the same for trying
to use friggin' blogs as a source of proof for
anything is idiotic. Caps don't bother me enough
to make a whole thread about them. If they
bother you that much I'd like to trade my
problems for yours.
\_ The bloggers pull directly from news outlets
across the board, have no financial stake in
diseminating the information, and some are
remarkably intelligent. Your ranting against
them is ill-founded.
\_ They pull directly from news outlets of
their choice no different from Drudge. What
do you think Drudge is? He's the ultimate
news puller but you don't ever have to read
his personal drivel mixed in. Just the
headlines.
\_ wonkette, the blogger you love to hate, is paid
and has an editor. Many bloggers make a living
on their blogs by selling ads. Does this make
them more respectable in your eyes, or less?
\_ Hey, wait, the above said they don't have a
financial stake in blogging? Which is it? And
how does making a living off it make them any
better than Drudge?
\_ ok i'm trying to understand the NYPOST's spin on
lord higgins' report, i don't fully understand it yet.
\_ So... they weren't lying... they just don't like to read?
\_ I bet you the guy who posted this likes to slam Michael Moore, too.
Compared to the post, he's fucking Truth.
\_ Wow, a poor editorial compared to a different poor
editorial, and you can pick which one is THE TRUTH? Oh, I
see. It's the one that agrees with your poor opinions.
\_ So what, in your opinion, constitutes a great Opinion? Heh.
\_ MY OWN!
\_ Your precious?
\_ You know what they say about opinions and assholes...
\_ Nothing is more important than your own? |
| 2004/7/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32292 Activity:very high 60%like:32295 |
7/14 BUSH (& BLAIR) WIN AGAIN
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/25023.htm
\_ Nice OPINION & EDITORIAL link, CAPITAL LETTERS boy.
\_ Trouble reading? The URL is clearly from the op/ed page.
As if this is the first time an op/ed piece has been
posted to the motd, genius. Some of you knuckleheads are
posting links from blogs as 'proof' of your points! -!op
\_ the NYPOST editorial pages are even more retarded
than most blogs.
\_ In your opinion. And that's what this is all about:
opinion. Since the NYP has greater readership than
\_ i read the nyp every day, you are a moron.
you obviously are not familiar with the history
of the NYPOST, or who owns and runs it,
or that they have been an even bigger journalistic
laughingstock than normal recently.
\_ ok i'm trying to understand the NYPOST's spin on
lord higgins' report, i don't fully understand it yet.
any blog and people actually *pay* to read it and
other people get paid to write it, I'll take that over
some random blog spew anyday. Are you really truly
seriously trying to claim that blogs are anything more
than raw unedited spewage?
\_ It's still dumb. And OP's caps lock was stuck.
\_ So... they weren't lying... they just don't like to read?
\_ I bet you the guy who posted this likes to slam Michael Moore, too.
Compared to the post he's fucking gospel.
\_ FWIW, 'gospel' means "good news".
\_ How about scripture? I'm having thesaurus issues today,
sorry.
\_ writings |
| 2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32276 Activity:low |
7/14 Saddam Iraqi court finds him not quilty (due to improper
evidence by US and British intelligence)
\_ Is this your prediction? Or maybe DrudgeReality?
\_ it's my prediction based on the fact that Johnny Cockrun will
be defending. If the WMD don't fit, you must acquit!
be defending. |
| 2004/7/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32267 Activity:insanely high |
7/12 Malpractice maelstrom
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040713-080936-3867r.htm
Vote Kerry-Edwards!
\_ what is your point...that it should be OK for neurosurgeons to
remove as many cervical disks as they want?
\_ my point is if you think channeling children born with CP to
win malpractice settlements is good for the US medical industry
vote Kerry-Edwards. Is that so hard to understand?
\_ Penalties for malpractice are good for the medical profession
(not the same as medical industry) as it provides an incentive
to not screw up. Manipulating the emotions of a jury is
standard good lawyering. If Edwards has been a robo-lawyer
you could have complained that he was failing his clients.
\_ And if I close my eyes, all the bad things go away!
Penalties for malpractice is one thing, manipulating
jurys to punish the innocent is completely different.
In this link, one guy destroyed a doctor's life, and
killed hundrends by forceing all the neurosurgeons out
of the state. Woohoo! Go Lawyers!
\_ compare with a guy who lied to go to war to settle old score?
sure.
\_ Wow, this is the only criterion allowed? Bush has driven
this country into a fucking ditch, asshole.
\_ How so? Funny since I consider all of the problems the
result of leftist policy.
\_ yes all bad things come from clinton, all good things
from bush.
\_ While conservatives have made mistakes, they
have also manage to do things right from time
to time. The leftists have *never* done anything
right. Some of us vote for the lesser to two evils.
\_ nah, clinton got everything right. bush got
everything wrong. compared to bush, everything
is a lesser evil.
\_ Which ditch is that? The economy is fine, there were
a hundred reasons to invade Iraq, he picked a big one
to push with, but there were plenty more. Since prety
much everyone thought Saddam had WMD, it's hardly a
lie. Maybe he was wrong, but so was everyone else.
I keep hearing how Bush has destroyed the country, and
I don't agree with everything he does, but I see
little base for your accusations.
\_ nah, everyone knows bush says iraq has wmd.
everyone gives what he says a some measure of
credibility because he is the US president and
has the cia, the supposedly most technologically
advanced intelligence agency in the world. now,
he and his subordinates have been shown to be
liars. neither the US presidency nor the cia
has any credibility in the world anymore.
economy is at best sputtering even with the
historically low interest rate and huge fiscal
stimulus, with record budget deficit and
trade deficit, rising oil prices, threat of
inflation looming, threat of housing bubble
bursting, it's much better not to have the huge
drain of money into the Iraq sinkhole, which
is likely to continue for a few more years.
\_ Who gives a damn about what the world
thinks? Most of the world is living on
handouts from the US taxypayer, the rest
is a festering socialist mess. And when
the world gets into trouble, guess who
gets to pick up the pieces, US.
As far as Iraq is concerned, I guess you
are one of those guys who would have
prefered that Saddam got a NK nuke and
gave it to Bin Laden to drop of @ JFK
or something before we took the threat
seriously and started negotitating with
them.
\_ Uh... because they provide us intelligence
and help us catch terrorists...
\_ "Most of the world is living on handouts from the
US taxypayer." Are they? Last I chacked, aid
to foreign governments was a tiny part of the
Federal budget. I seem to recall most of the
world works for a living. But your theory is
good too.
\_ Maybe we should do like Pat B. say and
complete isolate ourselves from the world
for a few yrs and see how the world gets
along w/o the us market to export things
to. The fact that most of the world has
free access to our market is a huge
subsidy by the taxpayer (we are passing
up all the money from tariffs, &c.)
Don't forget all the "loans" we made
and forgiven over the years. Most of
the world would in shambles if we didn't
keep it solvent by forgiving loans and
such over the years.
\_ go ahead, try it. If the US isolates
itself economically from the world,
the country that will be in economic
shambles would be the US itself.
\_ Don't forget we depend on other parts
of the world for oil. That has been
main reason we have all these conflicts
in the Middle East.
\_ Actually, we are in a shitload of debt from
loaning from the rest of the world, mostly
through selling treasuries. 1.4 trillion,
IIRC. Just go to economist and add up the
foreign reserves of countries like China,
Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, India, Spore and HK,
and you will get a rough idea. As for
Saddam, much better to neutralize him the
way we neutralized Gaddafi of Libya.
It takes a little patience and a little
diplomacy, but hey, that's what adults are
good at.
\_ We neutralized Gaddafi only after we
invaded Iraq and scared him shitless.
\_ that's a stupid theory the bush
admin put out.
\_ Its what happened. We invade,
he rolls over.
\_ we haven't seen N. Korea roll
over. What about Iran and Syria?
In fact, some these are more
hostile than before.
\_ Desperation. They know
better than to try
*anything* though, because
the result will not be some
stupid protest in the UN,
it will be total destruction.
\_ Iran is always been
relatively benign. But
in case of NK, they could
do some SERIOUS damage
to Asian economy before
you and your 7 carriers
arrive. That is assuming
they don't have nukes
yet.
\_ I am amazed how many people
bought the stupid theory.
Gaddafi didn't roll over when
we bombed his home and almost
killed him (got his infant
daughter instead). why would
he suddenly roll over because of
iraq?
\_ zzzzzz
\_ Sounds like a deviated septrum. Let's operate!
\_ yea, even deviated septrum makes a more interesting topic
than the above.
\_ Septum.
\_ septrum. search google. |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32246 Activity:insanely high |
7/12 Joe Wilson's allegations were plastered over paper's front pages
for days and received extensive TV coverage. Wilson was identified
by NPR and the media as Kerry's de facto campaign spokesman. Now
that he's been proven a liar by the Senate and MI6 where is coverage?
\_ Proven a liar... You're pushing it a bit. Pat Robertson
\_ Proven a liar... You're pushing it a bit. Pat Roberts
opines in an appendix of the Senate Intelligence report,
and suddenly Wilson is a shameless liar. Never mind that
he was right.
\_ Ok you are right and MI6 and the senate are wrong. Any
other pontifications?
\_ MI6 is often wrong. Note that they just withdrew their
Iraqi WMD report because it was wrong.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=10596
As for the Senate... -John
http://talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0713_wilson_plame_intel.shtml
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB62OSSGWD.html
\_ News flash! Anonymous motd crank doesn't like Kerry!
\_ Attack the man, not the message. Good way to prove your
point and disprove any allegations. How'd you do in
Rhetoric 1A?
\_ As opposed to the hatchet job on wilson?
\_ It isn't a hatchet job if it's true. The seriousness of
the charge can not be so easily dismissed.
\_ Sure it can.
\_ what did he allege, i am not paying attention.
\_ this is the guy who went to nigeria to investigate iraqi
attempts to acquire uranium ore and the same guy with the cia
wife that got her ID exposed. he then lied about his work in
nigeria, his wife's role in getting him, a partisan democrat,
the job in nigeria, and a whole bunch of other things.
\_ Niger, not nigeria. The rest of your charges are all
unsubstantiated Right Wing smears.
\_ Ok you are right and MI6 and the senate are wrong.
Any other pontifications?
http://talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0713_wilson_plame_intel.shtml
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB62OSSGWD.html
\_ I don't know his politics, but previous to this mess, he
gave (unapologetically, like most people playing the system)
to both parties. (e.g. he have $1000 to both bush and gore
in 2000) -phuqm
\_ Don't forget the press crucifying Novak for stating his wife's name.
Now that we know she suggested him for the job and all the denials
were partisan, where are the apologies to Novak?
\_ Not for stating his wife's name, but for identifying her as a
CIA agent. federal offences deserve a little crucifixion. |
| 2004/7/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32237 Activity:insanely high |
7/12 Why is it that even W is conceding that WMD hasn't been found, while
motd conservatives has been telling that us it has? Is W also
a lying liberal?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/international/middleeast/12CND-BUSH.html
\_ Why is it that liberals keep on beating a dead horse that nobody
cares about anymore?
\_ Nobody cares? Tell that to all the families of soldiers that
have died.
\_ Yup, nobody cares, especially the GIs in Iraq, who are more
concerned about getting the hell out rather than finding
WMD. Again, liberals == dead horse + whip.
\_ Obviously everyone cares. It was the premise of the war.
Everyone including Bush still talks about it. U = dumb.
\_ And to all of us that are footing the bill...
\_ If the general public actually cared the left wouldn't need
Mike Moore to browbeat G.W.
\_ If you weren't an idiot then zebras would conquer Zaire.
\_ Hahahaha. You wish that nobody cared about it. We told you at
the time that he was a lying scumbag and you and your kind
shouted us down. Now you will pay for leading America into
an illegal and unnecessary war.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/poll.iraq
54 percent of Americans now say Iraq war a mistake.
\_ Why does he hate America?
\_ Yeah, and 90% said capturing Saddam was a good thing. You can
find a poll at any given point of time to support anything.
Anyway, if you were to take a poll today I'm sure you'll find
less than 40% of the population really cares about finding WMD.
\_ That's exactly what I've been wondering for the last four years.
\_ Dubya concedes that "WMD stockpiles" have not been found. So,
which motd conservatives are saying that WMD stockpiles have been
found? Anyway, Bush's main point is that Saddam could have given
it to al Qaeda *at some point*, which is why we went pre-emptive.
\_ cyclosarin shells, mustard gas shells, sarin shells, very large
chemical attack averted in jordan, missile technology, buried
nuclear components, uranium sought from Africa...
Why do you not question the statements of DOZENS of leading
Dems in WJC's administration and Congress? Iraq, along
with Iran and Syria, was the largest state sponsor of terror.
\_ Uranium sought from Africa? Where have you been, man? That
was completely made up.
\_ He still thinks Iraq had WMD. He's deluded and in need of
meds. His belief in the Uranium story is the least of his
problems.
\_ Woops I guess you are wrong yet again:
A new British inquiry is showing that Saddam did
seek uranium in Africa
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04193/344163.stm
Furthermore, the Senate's report undermines
Wilson's lies.
\_ From the Congressional Record... let's see what
Kerry, Daschle, and Clinton had to say during the
1990's about Iraq's WMD programs:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts
\_ I'm sorry, which of these men invaded Iraq on the
pretext of WMD? None. They called for inspections.
W picked the wrong horse and now he's covered in
manure. Deal with it.
\_ Hmm... rusty old leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war, unrelated
event in another country, missiles that flew slightly farther
than allowed if you remove the guidance system, and some
buried aluminum pipes.
\_ Wrong, it was a gas centrifuge bearing housing. A
massive chemical attack en route from Syria to Jordan
is an 'unrelated event'. Do you know where these
countries are on a map and their respective political
institutions?
\_ oh, so they're next to Iraq, so we should invade Iraq;
great logic!
\_ Assad is Baathist. If the connection is not
self-evident I don't think its worth continuing
this.
this. You would approve of invading Syria?
I would - and I think the Europeans should do it.
\_ Baathist party in Syria and baathist party in Iraq
have nothing to do with each other. politics in Iraq
over the last 30 years have been dominated by
one guy, saddam, and only saddam, it's not like a party
system in america at all. |
| 2004/7/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32201 Activity:nil |
7/9 U.S. NEWS obtains all classified annexes to report on Abu Ghraib
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/prison.htm
The second half is where it gets good. |
| 2004/7/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32195 Activity:moderate |
7/8 Yet more proof that BUSH LIED!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040709/D83NB0AO0.html
\_ You know before the war I remember reading about how the CIA
was dragging its feet and refusing to admit that Iraq
had WMDs which everyone else knew to be true. Funny how now
the CIA is now being blamed for the exact opposite.
\_ Slam Dunk Tenet!
\_ Yeah, but it seems we are among the very few who had that long
a memory span. But it says even more about the media, who
have access to their own archives. They are quite audacious. |
| 2004/7/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31198 Activity:insanely high |
7/7 For all those that still think we're bringing democracy to Iraq:
http://csua.org/u/82s (yahoo news)
\_ Patriot Act?
\_ I've heard that being stupid is kind of like being drunk all
the time. Is that true for you too?
\_ Ah, I love the smell of content-free ad hominem in the morning.
\_ Just responding in kind.
\_ You didn't read the URL at all, did you? Gotta love
the motd freepers.
\_ Given the amount of unrest in the country, a period of curfews and
martial law may be exactly what is needed to clean things up. Of
\_ More like a fleet of C-130s loaded with Daisy Cutters... -John
course, it wouldn't have worked if the US had tried it; it would
have been seen as more American oppression, and the insurgents
would have had a field day. If done humanely, however, this could
could go a long way toward a safe and secure Iraq. Big if, of
course. - motd practicalist
course. - motd pragmaticalist
\_ It might work... But given Iraq's history, there's a good chance
that these temporary measures could become permanent. We shall
see.
\_ Yeah, that worries me, too. - motd practicalist
\_ Yeah, that worries me, too. - motd pragmaticalist
??? This edit is funny how? _/
\_ Without a period of forced stability there is no chance for
long term voluntary stability. Without a bigtime crackdown
on the bad guys how do you think the rest of the country can
just sort of magically recover and move on? At any time the
car or bus you're in could blow up, you can get shot, kid-
napped, etc. Safety is a prerequisite for long term freedom.
Freedom without safety is anarchy which Iraq has seen enough
of recently.
\_ Spoken like a true fascist. Should we station soldiers
on American street corners as well? People are getting
shot here, too you know.
\_ Red herring. People get shot everywhere but not in
sufficient numbers nor blown up on buses, cars, and just
walking down the street that the other places could
fairly be described as anarchy. I ask again, how do
you expect peaceful democracy to magically emerge from
a place in chaos without a period of martial law? The
happy goodness feeling vibes coming from your sending
love notes to the wannabe warlords stomping around and
killing people? Get real. If I was a true fascist, I'd
have dumb people such as yourself shot. I wouldn't try
to educate you.
\_ You know, you should read up on the post WWII Europe
situation. For instance, material on the bloody revenge
against the 'nazi sympathizers' (which by some
definitions was half of the population) in liberated
France is an informative read. The situation there is
interesting to compare to the situation in Iraq today.
Also, the word fascist is overused. These days it has
the effect opposite of what you want. -- ilyas |
| 2004/7/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31180 Activity:moderate |
7/6 Bush lied! (NYT) http://csua.org/u/822 \_ I think this says that the CIA lied, or at least did not do their job properly. \_ shit rolls downhill. \_ I think Bush is responsible for what most of the Executive Branch does, but the CIA is a peculiar institution. Especially since Tenant was a Clinton appointee, I am willing to give Bush a pass on this one. -Bush basher \_ Bush is toast anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe we should all start speculating on who we want in the kerry cabinet. \_ Madeleine Albright as Sec. of State and Colin Powell as Sec. of Defense. Possibly John McCain as Energy. Maybe Ralph Nader. Howard Dean's Net monkeys as the FCC. Hilary as Attorney General! Ok, I'm getting silly now. |
| 2004/7/3-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31150 Activity:very high |
7/2 So, those sarin and mustard shells... They dated from the 80s.
2 of the 18 contained cylosarin. The rest contained nothing.
Rumsfeld said the Polish defense minister told him this
week "that his troops in Iraq had recently come across
-- I've forgotten the number, but something like 16 or
17 -- warheads that contained sarin and mustard gas."
Rumsfeld added: "I have not seen them and I have not
tested them, but they believe that they are correct that
these, in fact, were undeclared chemical weapons."
Watch that spin!
\_ So the cumulative total that we know about is: 2 cyclosarin,
2 sarin IED, 1 mustard gas, various nuclear reactor
components, missile technology.
\_ Two sarin IED? Mustard? Didn't the lab tests come up
negative on those? "Various nuclear reactor components"
you are kidding, right? You mean the parts buried in some
guys garden back in 1991 and forgotten about? You are
really reaching here. Just as I thought, googling indicated
that the mustard had decayed over time and was inert.
JUST LIKE I TOLD YOU BEFORE THE WAR.
\_ Googling? You found an anti-Bush blog? I didn't need
Google to find that.
\_ Where are the references to your mustard, then? All
the stuff I can find was tested as inert.
\_ Let's not forget the timestamps on each. All are from 1980-
1988. How's that reprocessing coming along in NK?
\_ Pretty good I imagine considering they started in
the early '90s.
\_ Oh look, it's a liberal masturbation session on the
motd!
\_ what are you going to do with North Korea and
Pakistein, then? *NOTHING*
\_ Well, we're not going to turn a blind eye through
the entire 1990's while NK built up their nukes.
\_ What does the date matter?
\_ date matters because we knew about Saddam's chemical
and biological weapon back in the 1980s, and we gave
the blessing to use them against Iranians. Our
original excuse to invade Iraq was that he made more
WMD and capable of use them in 45 minutes.
\_ Capable of use them? Are you for real?
\_ Um, no. Saddam had to declare or show proof that he
disposed of the weapons. No age was specified.
\_ Purpose of the weapons inspections was to determine
if he had developed WMD since containment began.
If the shells date pre-containment, then we have
reason to believe that containment was working,
and therefore WMD was not a legit reason to invade.
\_ Um, no. He was supposed to declare everything he
had, not everything he was making.
\_ Read between the lines. Look at the purpose,
not the letter. Look up from the trees some
time and see the forest.
\_ So it was ok if he had a few thousand tons
of old WMD hanging out as long as we knew
about them? You need to *find* the forest
before you start worrying about the trees.
\_ Intel directly after the first war
said that he had been more advanced than
they thought, but that the bombing
campaign had returned him to insigni-
ficant threat level for R&D and
production. Pre-2nd war inspections
were looking for evidence of further
developments. None were found. Also,
if he has/had 1k+ tons of WMD, that
would be significant; David Kay and
crew told us they did not.
\_ Intel? The same intel told us from
multiple countries that he had lots
this time around. |
| 2004/7/2 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31128 Activity:insanely high |
7/2 http://csua.org/u/80x U.S. sending 7 of its 12 carrier strike groups to glower at China this summer. -- ulysses \_ Their flower-power is no match for my glower-power. \_ nice. sugar daddy comes to our rescue again. teach those idiotic nationalistic gung-ho commie bastards some manners .... most likely, they will do something like US trade sanction against cuba instead ... and see whose economy collapses first. \_ It's based on unfound rumors. Sending 7 CSG to one spot is not only an overkill for a message but also very stupid. \_ yea, but there isn't much to do these days anyway ... \_ It's foolishness. It simulates a war footing against China. And even worse, it's deploying 10 out of 12 CSG at a single time, which means naval scheduling will be a mess for the year afterwards. The perfect time for China to invade is a month or two after the exercise while the US is recovering. \_ This is consistent. Foresight, planning and contingency preparation have not been BushCo's strong points. \_ Ah yes. The foresight to anticipate an Iraqi insurgency, the planning to award no-bid reconstruction contracts to Halliburton, and preparing for the contingency that we might not be showered with flowers. \_ Who exactly else in the whole world could have rebuilt an entire country like Halliburton is doing now? No one. There is no one else on the planet that could have bid. Some things just need to get done without bullshit and 24 month bid reviews. \_ well, it's an exercise. it seems reasonable to want to run though it for training purposes. it's politically incorrect but then so is communism. \_ When did communism become non-pc? \_ Communism has always been cool with the politcally correct crowd. They idolise it and its confused followers. \_ come on guys, an url from a 2nd hand ?news? site that is based on a speculation from another totally unreliable site (sina.cn) isn't really a solid starting point for a sound discourse. Oh, never mind. Neither is the motd. \_ But it would be cool if true since only 3 or 4 battle groups carries more than enough fire power to obliterate all signs of civilisation in China. \_ Yes it is true and fairly old news. Seven Carrier Strike Groups Underway for Exercise 'Summer Pulse 04' http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1146624/posts \_ Which is quite different from the op. |
| 2004/7/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31118 Activity:high |
7/1 Polish troops find wmd:
http://tinyurl.com/2fakx (story.news.yahoo.com)
\_ NO WMDS! FALSE PREMISES!
\_ Oooh. 16 warheads filled with mustard and sarin gas...Definitely
one step away from a mushroom cloud.
\_ This is the funniest thing about the "Bush lied" crowd.
"Sure he was breaking his treaties and UN laws, but he
wasn't breaking them ENOUGH." As if there was some sort of
objective measure of how much you can break a law before
you're considered a criminal.
\_ Nobody disputes that he was a bad man and a criminal. What we
on the left dispute is whether it was worthwhile to invade,
and if it was, we question the motives behind the invasion in
light of the fact that there were lots of other bad men to
go after. One of them was named Osama something...
\_ Which country is this Osama guy in charge of?
\_ Another false premise: that we can only go after one guy
at a time.
\_ No, it's not a false premise. We don't even have enough
troops to properly secure Iraq, so we're leaving the
new government of Afghanistan to fend for themselves.
As a result, they control only the capitol and the
Taliban is regrouping in the countryside.
\_ so you want another 130,000 troops in Afghanistan
so we can piss off people in two islamic countries
at the same time and surround iran with large forces
on both sides so we really would look like we're
ready to militarily take over the rest of the middle
east. please say you don't work in PR.
\_ That's not what I said. I said we don't have the
resources to take on two countries at once. We
shouldn't have invaded Iraq while we were still
busy with Afghanistan. There was not any
urgent need to invade Iraq. Except for political
reasons, it could have waited indefinitely.
\_ 16 here, 5 there, 7 over there and a few others everyday and
suddenly you've got a WMD program. What surprises me about
the Bush lied crowd is it makes no sense. If there were none,
and Bush knew it, why would he use that for the reason to
attack? They had several options, WMD wasn't the only reason
we could have attacked. So why choose something if you know
it isn't true?
\_ Because he arrogantly believed that it wouldn't matter after
the Iraqi people welcomed us with open arms and united to
create a perfect democracy in the Middle East. They didn't,
so it ended up mattering. As for the WMD program, wait for
the analysis of the warheads before making any judgements--
if they turn out to be relics of the Desert Storm age, you're
going to look very silly.
\_ As a "Bush lied" person, this is my take on it: He used WMD
as a casus beli because it garnered much more popular
support than removing Saddam and doing the "nation building"
Bush disavowed in the persidential debates. Bush knew there
would be leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war. He suspected there
were nastier weapons but didn't have any proof, but he
figured proof would turn up after the invasion. So he said
they had WMD based on a false hunch. That makes him a liar.
If he said "We think they might have WMD." that would have
made him not a liar, but it makes for a lousy speach. |
| 2004/6/28-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31052 Activity:moderate |
6/28 "Things were better under Saddam" - "Only criminals could say such a
thing. The victims deserve better than this," Idrissi concludes.
http://tinyurl.com/3d6fz
\_ Watch "Control Room." Even Al Jazeera was saying that Saddam was
no good.
\_ only the UN says this cuz they are losing millions of dollars
in the Oil for Food program
\_ Heh, we shall see. Allawi is going to institute martial law. I
expect he will eventually be setting himself up as dictator.
\_ Not a chance. He doesn't have the power base for that. He'll
either get elected properly in January or get shot. |
| 2004/6/28-30 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31050 Activity:moderate |
6/28 I read this today: "the gov. may try...hold terror suspects somewhere
other than its military base in Cuba, where the court said legal rights
apply." What determines where legal rights don't apply... war zones?
\_ I'd speculate that the court would rule that prisoner's have access
to the court anywhere under American control where providing that
access would not put an undue burden on the military. So a brig on
the front line, no, but a brig at a secure base, yes.
\_ Well, given that a US court could indict Manuel Noriega in
Panama guilty of drug offenses, and the US military could invade
Panama (and kill lots of innocent people in the process). Seems
like a court's jurisdiction has the whole world to play with, if
it chooses, since a precedent has already been set.
\_ Now at least we know why Bush wants to go to Mars.
\_ You prefer what? Sitting on this little rock forever or until
the sun grows cold? Leaving it to the future, take care of
yourself now? We stand on the shoulders of giants and have a
responsibility to the future to continue progress. |
| 2004/6/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31048 Activity:moderate |
6/28 Pop Quiz! A CBS News poll today (http://csua.org/u/7yz shows the following results. Q - The Bush administration's policies have made the U.S.: Safer from terrorism (53%), Less safe (28%), No effect (15%) among registered voters. A CNN poll from last week seemed to show the opposite result. Why the discrepancy? \- did the previous poll ask about "bush co policies" or "invading iraq" ... yes, erasing the taliban hurt al quedas training infrastructure, but i think bushco also has also given al queda their latest recruiptment poster in the hooded fellow --psb \_ Correct. The CNN poll question was: Do you think the war with Iraq has made the US safer -- or less safe -- from terrorism? Safer (37%), Less safe (55%), No change (6%). People appreciate that Southwest or United Airlines flights aren't blowing up, but they're irritated that there were no WMDs, with the prisoner abuse, dead Iraqis and GIs, and with the corresponding effect on America's credibility. \_ goes to show that the American people are smarter than your average motd troll? \_ All polls are push polls. Polling shows nothing but it does keep us amused until the real thing. \_ Using sub-sampling and not giving the MoE for that subsample, or even the sample size? Also, the Q is quite different. the CBS poll asked about "the bush admin's policies." The CNN poll asked about "the war in iraq." |
| 2004/6/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31034 Activity:insanely high |
6/28 New Iraqi leadership demonstrates intelligence -- arrange for transfer
of sovereignty two days early, catching enemies off guard.
State Department (Powell et al.) takes over from Pentagon.
Say hello to four more years of Dubya!
\_ Sounds like a total lack of confidence to me. I am not against
the war, but this is defeatism at its best. Are we going to
suddenly withdraw all the troops unilaterally to catch the enemy
off guard too?
\_ Transfering early shows a lack of confidence? It's defeatist?
What are you smoking? Would you like to explain how this is
anything even remotely negative for the US and new Iraqi
goverment?
\_ Chickening out on keeping it on the scheduled date is lack of
confidence on one's ability to defend against the insurgence,
especially when they're trying to make people believe that
they can defeat the insurgence.
\_ Handing over power early was a brilliant move to circumvent
violence planned for the day of takeover and avoid the
nastiness that might have ensued if they'd tried to delay.
HOWEVER, troops are going to remain for quite a while,
and they're going to continue to be targeted and killed.
No love for the Bush reelection campaign. -!op
\_ It sure looks like they're trying to cut-and-run early.
\_ I would say the U.S. gave up on trying to do it all by
themselves.
\_ Why? So the new government can be blamed for attacks instead of the
provisional one? Why would W profit from this?
\_ Because people don't follow these things so closely, despite
saying they're interested when polled. Easily spunnable.
\_ This is what Iraqis have said they wanted all along, and they're
getting it. Who knows what happens now.
\_ "Mr. Khafaji's circle of friends, most in ankle-length
dishdasha shirts, said their principal criticism of the US
occupation was that the US hasn't been brutal enough with
insurgents and criminals. They predicted that Allawi will get
tough. "These murders are supposed to have their throats slit
and be thrown into the river,'' says Kassem Fadel Hassan, the
cafe owner. "Hopefully, we'll start to see that."" w00t! |
| 2004/6/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:31020 Activity:high |
6/26 Why do we have sanctions on Cuba?
\_ Because when Castro ousted Batista, he made ouvertures to the
Kennedy government, who didn't like his leftist leanings. There
followed a spiral of tit-for-tat, at some point the Cubans
nationalized most corporate possessions, which the Americans didn't
like, we organized and fucked-up an invasion, the Cubans got cozy
with the Soviets, who put missiles there, which we risked a
nuclear war to (successfully) get out. The sanctions came
about in the early '60s to try and force Castro out of office, and
have been propagated for a number of reasons, including not liking
commies in our back yard, Cuban human rights violations, and
obstinate right-wing Cuban expats in Florida. Look up the Helms-
Burton act and the history of the United Fruit Company for
starters. -John
\_ I wouldn't call the Florida Cubans right wing. I would call
them ardently anti-Castro. They're a one-platform political
group.
\_ To drive up the cost of Cuban cigars.
\_ because we got pissed off by Cuba's decision to become an
independent country than a colony of United States.
\_Wow, time to get your head out of your ass and read up on
basic 20th Century American history. How's the smell down there?
\_ w00t!
\_ how about next time you actually try to respond intelligently
\_ hard to say,. I think we're just waiting for castro to die now.
the cuba sanctions are pretty pointless
\_ Again, it amazes one how clueless supposedly intelligent people
are. We have sanctions against cuba because of the expatriot
cuban vote in Florida. C'mon, guys, you can't be that behind
politics in America, can you?
\_ so the entire country has sanctions against cuba because
of how a subset of floridians feel? i don't follow...
\_ Cuba has been the Soviets client state throughout
Castro's reign. On behalf of the Soviets Cubans trained
many of the Arab terrorists we fight today and sent
\_ judging by how much money we sent to pakistan
and afghanistan, i bet we trained way more
arab terrorists than the cubans. plus
the soviets aren't a threat anymore, they all
move to UCLA to be armchair historians.
\_ That's what we want you to think. -- ilyas
\_ You don't know what you are talking about.
troops to Nicaraugua, Zaire, Angola, and Algeria, among
others. The axis today between Castro, De Silva, and
Chavez is destroying South America.
\_ Chavez is in a lot of trouble. There's no doubt in
my mind the US has a lot to do with it. US foreign
policy successes (by their very nature) never get
publicized until much much later. -- ilyas
\_ you make laugh
\_ He has something to say. You're a low grade
troll.
\_ Because we can, the best of all reasons.
\- The US mania over cuba has consequences beyond bilateral
relations and domestic politics. It's gone beyond "mere"
mutual neglect. e.g. Helms-Burton. --psb
\_ stupid. we *can* destroy the whole fucking world. but we
don't. we *can* invade and take over all the annoying
EU countries that needle us constantly. but we don't. we
can do a lot of things that would be emotionally satisfying,
but we don't. you're an idiot. |
| 2004/6/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Recreation/Music] UID:31005 Activity:nil |
6/24 http://www.onefinalnote.com/reviews/v/various-artists/no-w-now.asp |
| 2004/6/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31003 Activity:nil |
6/24 Interesting background column on Iraq's interim prime minister:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4064-2004Jun24.html |
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30993 Activity:very high |
6/24 Ron Reagan speaks! First telling Bush & Co, Inc. That real men
don't invoke Ronald Reagan's name to get their agenda pushed thru.
And now he tells Bush & Co. off about Iraq war. It's about time:
http://tinyurl.com/yq79c
\_ wow, nice way to misquote Ron. He never said the first thing
although it was falsely reported that way. Must be the busines
elite controlled media that wants Kerry in office.
\_ Reagan in 2012!!!!
\_ Why do liberals keep saying Bush lied our way into an Iraq war?
Obviously he made his decisions based on the best available
information at the time -- so you should say it was a CIA failure.
Iraq had WMDs, and the head of CIA said it was a slam dunk. What
President would question that?
\_ I'll assume you're trolling, so I'll keep it short: there were
many complaints from the CIA rank and file about being forced
to produce evidence to support a predetermined conclusion.
\_ I can produce an equal or greater number of URLs with
CIA rank and file saying they felt no pressure at all.
Do you have a URL for the bi-partisan 9/11 commission
conclusions?
Besides, who says Bush came down on CIA rank-and-file to
force conclusions? Even Clinton supports Bush going to war;
nowhere does Bill say Bush lied about it.
\_ In the end, it always comes down to a matter of trust.
There will always be missing information from what
either side can learn. It comes down to this: do you
believe Bush to be trustworthy, and do you believe that
he generally acts in the best interests of the country?
I believe the answer is no, and that his actions should
be judged in that context.
\_ So you already didn't like the guy so he must be lying
but if you previously did like the guy then it was ok
to invade Iraq. So your feelings about the man then
make him into a liar and justify your feelings about
the man in a circular pattern that makes it nearly
impossible for him to earn your trust.
\_ I believe the total picture provided by TV media, print
media, and VIPs shows that Bush always acted to defend
the U.S. against terrorism, and was provided poor
intelligence on Iraq. Like I said, even Clinton
supported Bush going to war.
Thesis: "Bush didn't lie."
\_ I disagree. It's not about trust. It's about the
inability to see good policy through to the end. The
UN Weapons Inspectors were doing a good job. The
sanctions and containment were working. Bush wanted to
invade Iraq so badly that he was willing and eager to
accept any intelligence, no matter how dodgy, that
supported his desire to invade preemptively. He pushed
his vision when he should have weighed the evidence more
carefully. He made speeches based on evidence that
should have been examined more than once. He let his
eagerness goad him into believeing something that the
facts did not support, and then he sold that belief to
the American people. That he was careful to let
innuendo do the job for him rather than blatantly lying
is no excuse; that's standard CYA.
\_ It isn't his job to question the evidence presented.
By the time the information gets to him it *better*
already be the best possible information available.
If the President of the United States Of America has
to question the intelligence briefs he gets every day
then we're much more fucked than having what some of
you consider a liar in office.
\_ It is the job of the CoC to understand that an
argument based on one sketchy source is not
a viable argument for going to war. Yes, I want
the President to be able to discern between
reasonable intel and fairy tales based on fluff.
\_ Do you really think the intel is presented as,
"And yeah boss this one questionable character
we paid to say some stuff said this stuff but
it's kinda sketchy. Should we invade now?"
Oftentimes intel has one and only one source
and you're lucky to get that. This isn't
journalism school.
\_ Intel that comes from one source, unless
that one source is the Baby Jesus, is
highly suspect. If you run with it, you
must know that you're running a huge risk
of it turning out bad. When it turns out
bad and results in the needless deaths of
hundreds of US soldiers, it's your duty
to cop to and resign.
\_ Tennet was obsessed with Al Qaeda. Clinton told Bush
that Al Qaeda, North Korea, and Pakistein is probably a
greater security threat than Iraq in terms of priority.
and in case you don't remember, Bush said that Iraq
supported 9/11 attack, and Iraq had tons of WMD, and
Iraq was actively buying Uranium from Africa.
\_ Clinton told Bush what? You know this because? Clinton
said so on 9/12/2001? Clinton said and continues to
say a lot of things. Some are even true.
\_ Bush said there were Iraq/al-Qaeda links, he never said
Iraq supported 9/11. Tenet said Iraq had WMD. Tenet
approved the speech that said Iraq was buying uranium
from Africa.
Thesis: "Bush didn't lie."
\_ where is that Iraq/al-Qaeda link, then? and
in case you don't know. Bush is the commander in
chief. he is ultimately responsible for everything,
eventhough he tend to blame everythign to his
inferiors when things go wrong.
\_ Holy cow! Are you really denying a link between
Iraq and middle eastern islamic terrorism?
\_ So you think we should hang our officials anytime
they make an error? Decision makers must always
be perfect? Anything less and we should do what?
Vote in some idiot just because he isn't the first
guy?
\_ The bi-partisan 9/11 commission said there were
links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm
Bush is ultimately responsible, but the point
I am making is that he didn't lie about Iraq.
\_ Bush didn't lie. He is just misled. He is not the brightest,
you know.
\_ Bush drew very explicit links between Iraq
and terrorism; terrorism, in the minds of
Americans, means al Qaeda; so, many people
took his comments to mean that there were
explicit links between Iraq and 9/11. Cf.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
To say that he did not mean to say that Iraq
was directly linked to 9/11 is a lot like
saying, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome
priest?" and then wondering aloud why your
most loyal men have murdered the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
\_ Ok, so now you're saying he didn't lie and
it is his fault that the media through the
op/ed pages misrepresented what he said and
the American people believed the media. Your
line of reasoning is broken and twisted.
Just let it go.
\_ You're kidding, right? The man is not
the brightest bulb, but he and his
minders (Rove, Cheney) are masters at
putting out the image. Lying by
innuendo is a basic trick in the GOP
playbook.
\_ Ok so now it's just a big VRWC. Ok,
thanks for playing. We went from
"BUSH LIED!" to "Bush is a dim bulb
guy who didn't understand that he was
being manipulated by the evil NeoCon
VRWC". You could at least try to be
consistent instead of allowing yourself
to get pushed further and further away
from your original point, which you
clearly lost, you are better off,
rhetorically speaking, granting the
point and starting a new thread on
your fall back position. So now we
can agree that Bush didn't lie but
possible the evil NeoCons manipulated
the poor dumb drunken coked out Texan.
But that's for a different thread, eh?
\_ 1) There's more than one person
responding to you, so I guess
you win.
2) It's not a conspiracy. It's very
savvy message manipulation and
PR. Why does that disturb you?
\_ Bush didn't lie. He was just misled. He is not the brightest,
you know. Of course, next time US try to tell other countries
about something the CIA found out, they will just rofl, and
ask, "Did your mama told you so this time? Bwahahaha!"
\_ Ok, so we made a mistake. We invaded a country. Who's gonna
pay for this? We, we are gonna pay for this with our blood
and lives when the suicide bomber hit us. Someone needs to
be held accountable for this, as this is not the kind shit that
can be dismissed with a simple, ooops.
\_ Hint: the suicide bombers were hitting us long before we
invaded Iraq. Buy a calendar.
\_ Except for the fact that the intelligence agencies from all
these other countries were saying the same things which you
should know if you're not a complete ignoramous but you ignore
because you have an axe to grind and an agenda to push.
\_ really? what were they saying?
\_ damn, buy a newspaper. the whole western world agreed
back in 1998 that saddam had wmd. there is no reason
to believe that the stock piles everyone believed
existed back then suddenly disintegrated since the
1998 inspectors left because of a blue stained dress.
\_ It is undeniable that Iraq, along with Iran, was the largest
state sponsor of terror. In 1993 after WTCI the Ney York FBI
believed Iraq was responsible for the bombing. Where did Abu
Abbas and Abu Nidal live? Where did the only fugitive of WTCI
live? Saddam had repeated contacts with Al Qaeda. What about
the planned chemical attack in Jordan? Dozens of sarin shells?
WMD components in scrapyards.... [formatd]
\_ Yikes! Facts! Stop!
\_ We should nuke the country that has the most WMD on earth.
\_ Wow! You are soooo smart! Go away, you drooling troll.
This isn't High School. |
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30989 Activity:very high |
6/24 The UN declined to extend the US's immunity from the International
Criminal Court. That immunity expires June 30th, the same day Iraq is
supposed to be turned over to a provisional government. Although Iraq
is not a signatory to the ICC, what would happen if the new "soverign"
government immediatly ratified the ICC treaty? Supposedly US soldiers
could be prosecuted in cases where the US is unwilling to prosecute.
\_ putting sudan on the UN human rights panel even
strays my liberal thought shield
\_ What's wrong with Sudan? Did Sudan invade another country
with no cause other than a desire to control that country's
oil? Did Sudan illegally imprison and torture thousands of
foreign citizens whose only desire is freedom from foreign
rule? Did Sudan betray their own citizens and constitution
by imprisoning them in gulags with no legal recourse? Sudan
is much better qualified to sit on the UN panel than America.
\_ Sudan is in the middle of their own little genocide.
\_ And America is in the middle of a Crusade fueled by a
lust for oil. I still ask you why is America better
than Sudan. I wish our hands were as clean as Sudans'.
\_ what planet do you live on and how much pot
and marx did it take you to get there?
\_ I like the cut of your jib! --aaron
\_ Those soldiers should be prosecuted for raping all those Japanese
woman.
\_ Which soldiers? The American ones who got prosecuted for
raping all tose Japanese women?
\_ all of them got a slap on a wrisk for abduct and rape
14 years old "japanese" women.
\_ No real country would bring an American up on charges. Anyway,
that can only happen in this (bogus) legal context if the country
the person is a citizen of doesn't have a real legal system and
doesn't do anything about their own war crimes. Aaron and similar
echo-chamber leftists may drool at the possibility of 3 judges from
the Sudan, Cuba, and North Korea putting an American soldier or
some high ranking political official on a UN sponsored show trial
but it'll never happen in the real world.
\_ Could we hear from the ehco-chamber motd brownshirts one more time
about how "why do you hate america" is a straw man? I need
a good laugh today. |
| 2004/6/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30959 Activity:high |
6/22 Bush says he is above the law in wartime:
http://csua.org/u/7vs (yahoo news)
\_ Should I even read this obvious troll from an unnamed site?
\_ Basically, Bush said the Justice Department said that Al Qaeda/
Taliban don't legally qualify for Geneva Conventions protections,
but he doesn't want to use this loophole. He also says that
treatment should be "consistent with the principles of Geneva".
\_ This "war on terror" is the most comfortable war the US has
ever fought. We out gun the enemy and we out number the
enemy. We kill 100 of them for every one of us that died.
Yet, we think we need to bypass the Geneva Conventions to
use torture. It makes me wonder what we will do when we
have a real war. Yeah, we are always great at telling
others to do things that we can't follow, BECAUSE WE GOT
BIGGER GUNS, HAHA.
\_ You know, if you listen to the constant whining of the press,
it really doesn't seem like it's the most comfortable war. |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30936 Activity:very high |
6/21 So much for the Reagan bounce.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/iraq_election_040621.html
\_ No one ever said there was one. I want to see Kerry's poll numbers
\_ patently false
\_ it's nice that you both interrupted my statements and failed
to back yours up in any way. score 2 points.
\_ patently means obviously, and he's right. -!op
after a debate. So far, the more news coverage he gets the lower
his poll numbers go right after a press event. His advisors should
be shitting in their pants thinking about that one.
\_ Yeah, just look up on http://news.google.com for "reagan bounce".
Pew poll. Do at least a tiny bit of research before posting.
\_ Like research has anything to do with the motd. Or hyperbole
is unheard of here.
\_ It does, actually. And, you can exaggerate, but at least
don't be totally wrong.
\_ Ok, so you went to google and found some op/eds from stupid
people. You can always find stupid people in op/eds. No
one from either campaign or any responsible person in
government said it would happen.
\_ That's a lot better than "No one ever said there was one."
Good.
\_ I disagree. Go to http://www.pollingreport.com and look at the
the polls done in the last week. The three most recent listed
there all show a modest recovery in Bush's numbers. -Kerry supporter
\_ "Seventy-six percent now say the war has damaged the United
States' image in the rest of the world; that's 13 points more
than last summer. Sixty-three percent say it's caused long-term
harm to U.S. relations with countries that opposed the war, up
12 points..." Where's the bozo who always calls this claim
The Big Lie? |
| 2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30891 Activity:insanely high |
6/18 Russian intel on Iraq, Bush polling data re: Reagan, Iraq, 9/11.
The polling data (yahoo link) shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone.
This is the first I've heard of the Russian intel (first link, myway):
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O1.html
http://tinyurl.com/2zrg8 (news.yahoo.com)
\_ It seems grudgingly given. "Hey Putin, my man, back the ol'
Dubya up, will ya'?"
\_ Putin has to be the most cynical and venal of all politicians.
You can practically hear the greenbacks changing hands.
\_ Would either of you like to quote Putin being grudging or
cynical in this article?
\_ On the "grudingly given" front, dewd, do you really need
to be told?
\_ Why do you ask? Yes. I need to be told. It would
have been easier for you just to answer instead of
pretending to be smart. My father always said no one
likes a smartass. He was right.
\_ The issue here, is that IMO, it would have been
easier for you to think. I don't think you need
your father to tell you that. And I don't feel
like answering to you, and that's my prerogative.
\_ Jesus Christ, just answer the guy's question or
shut the fuck up. It's not that hard if you
actually have anything to say.
\_ Ok, so it wasn't grudingly given. Thanks for
playing.
\_ Yes, you really do need to back up your assertions if
you want to be taken seriously.
\_ I'm really curious where you guys are getting your feel
for Putin. Are there some websites I can check out?
\_ Cue Ilya, re: Russian politicians.
\_ I meant aside from the fact the Russian
politicians are always venal. Russia would have
been the greatest power in the world from 300 years
ago, if they could ever figure out how to govern
themselves.
\_ What's this have to do with Putin and his alleged
grudging statements in the URL? What you say is
probably true but not on topic.
\_ I meant aside from the fact the Russian politicians
are always venal. Russia would have been the
greatest power in the world from 300 years ago, if
they could ever figure out how to govern themselves.
\_ What does this have to do with Putin or the URL?
\_ It also might help if the Russian men came out
of the bars now and then.
\_ Bars? You confused man. 'Bars' are a western
europe thing. -- ilyas
\_ In Soviet Russia, party comes to YOU!
\_ In Soviet Russia, vodka consumes YOU!
-- ilyas
\_ As the majority of Russians would attest, Putin is probably
the best President/Ruler Russia ever had after a centuries
long succession of drunkards, incompetents, and tyrants.
Back to the topic, it is a well known fact that Bush and
Putin have become good friends and like each other a lot.
Have you noticed they have been seeing each other about
every two months in the recent times? |
| 2004/6/18 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30887 Activity:moderate 72%like:30797 |
6/18 New army combat uniform:
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6042 |
| 2004/6/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30879 Activity:high |
6/17 Dubya: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship
between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship
between Iraq and Al Qaeda"
Bubba: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
\_ I did not take millions in campaign contributions from PRC in
exchange for missile and nuclear weapons technology. WJC
\_ Nonono, we're looking for REAL quotes, especially ones with
"relations" involved. |
| 2004/6/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30870 Activity:insanely high |
6/17 I like that. SUV bomb kills at least 35 and wounds over 138 Iraqis
waiting to sign up for the Iraqi army, and it's covered by LA Times,
NY Times, and Washington Post prominently, but buried on http://cnn.com.
\_ It's on the front page.
\_ Before you post, why don't you go to at least one of the other
web sites, and contrast it with the presentation on http://cnn.com.
I said "buried on http://cnn.com", and that's exactly what I meant.
\_ It's on the front page in 2 places, with one of those links
in the top 3 stories. Your definition of 'buried' is fucked.
\_ You like that there are a lot of dead people, or you like that an
SUV helped kill people?
\_ Bombs don't kill people. SUVs kill people!
\_ troll. If you were Rush, people would still listen to you.
\_ You're being obtuse. The PP was probably pointing out that
the OP's conscious choice of words completely obscures the
original point. That doesn't seem trollish at all.
\_ Let's put it this way: Were you "confused" by the time
you finished reading the second sentence? If you were,
then I won't argue with you anymore. Yes, I'm talking
to you, obtuse-boy.
\_ *sigh* You're still being obtuse, but I guess that's
your prerogative. Carry on.
\_ I still don't see the point. Are you saying http://cnn.com is conservative
or white-washing? Unless you're talking about FoxNews, such a
conclusion is non-obvious and should be stated explicitly. Thanks.
\_ If you don't know what's wrong, I'm certainly not going to
tell you! |
| 2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30821 Activity:very high |
6/12 Since when did aaron become bitter about US, foreign policy, and
everything associated with politics? -aaron #1 fan
\_ why isnt everyone? too busy playing everquest? --psb
\_ Progressquest >>> everquest! -- ilyas
\_ why should they be? is it a big shock that not everyone shares
your political philosophy and agenda? i guess its because we're
all just stupid since you have so clearly articulated the loss
of american credibility around the world for generations to come.
stalin would be proud.
\- just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to not
supprt bush? i mean say he got a law passed saying all
income above $1m year was not to be taxed? or say he decided
to try disallow anybody from any muslim majority country
to visit/immigrate to the US? or how about if he req'd
a loyalty oath for any govt employee or said he would apply
a juducal limits test on abortion for all fed jud appointtees.
of how about if in the next 4 months 5000k us service people
get killed in iraq. i dont think any of these will happen,
but if any of these did happen, would you still support
bush? btw, is there a single bush suppert who will sign
his name? i'm not saying this invalidates you point, but
it does seem odd. --psb
\_ Sure, I ll sign my name. Obviously, I am not a Republican.
I am not the guy you are replying to. -- ilyas
\_ I've never seen him *not* bitter. Who cares anyway?
\_ When Bush was (s)elected.
\_ Bwahahaha! You are *still* bitter you got crushed in the
recounts? All of them? Get over it. |
| 2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Recreation/Sports] UID:30820 Activity:insanely high |
6/12 My old HS history teacher used to tell us that the Roman Colliseums
were built to detract citizens from real issues so that they will
be content and not overthrow the emperor. Now that I'm grown up and
know better, I think that is really stupid. I mean, we have football
and basketball today but people are still pretty pissed about Bush
and his policies. What do you guys think?
\_ You are lacking one vital component in your reasoning, the
shows at the Coliseum were free. Football and basketball are
not free, and even TV broadcasts are increasingly not free
(i.e. advent of PPV). Also, the shows at the coliseum were
state sponsored, the NBA and NFL are privately sponsored.
\_ The stadiums are usually locally sponsored.
\_ you are a minority. Majority of people still think Iraq has
helped the September 11th attack, and invading Iraq has everything
to do with WMD and terrorism.
\- hello, roman entertainment for the masses was motivated
by expedient reasons and took the form of public games,
subsidies drama, mime [mime was big] etc. while officially
run by the aediles who were public officials, the $ was
augmented by wealthy individuals [as opposed to now, when
the public subsidizes the stadiums for the wealthy].
however after the fall of the republic, there was less
reason for individuals to pretend to be public spirited.
\- actually looking at some material
this appears more complicated.
i wont bore the "senate and the
people of soda" but i wanted to
leave a note for full disclosure
and can discuss via email if anyone
is interested. --psb
it wouldnt get you elelcted consul and more power in the
senate was not worth much. so later on, some of the
events in the colosium did have a ticket system and women
had to sit in the nosebleed seats. so you cannot generize
between 2nd century b.c. and say the spectacles of the
Neronic age. also outside rome, differnet parts of the
empire were "into" different events ... like i think
gladitorial games were more popular in the west than the
eastern parts of the empire. it is sort of interesting that
individuals figures in costests did develop reputations and
the sort of had non-georgraphic teams and fans ... like
these celebrities would appear on "sports merchandise". --psb
\_ Your history teacher was pretty much correct.
\_ you have never heard the expression "bread and circuses"
[panem et circenses]? this is a troll, clearly. --psb
\_ And Mr. Latin phrase arrives on schedule.
\_ i resisted a discussion of the tribune of the people
and roman land reform law with you plebians. --psb
\_ your little roman era sports speech above was lengthy
but lacked any serious detail that might show you have
done more than watch a history channel episode. would
you do a better job with roman land reform?
\- One is speaking to a History Channel Audience here.
It's reasonable to say something here is wrong.
To say it is incomplete is silly. The large topic
of the relations between the govt, the patrician
class, and the urban underclass, the rural population
etc is obviously something that changes over time
as rome grows from a "city on the tiber" to
"the ruler of the known world" and then changes
form into an empire from a republic and cant possible
addressed in depth here. if you want citations
they can be provided via email. if anything is
incomplete, it is your criticism which is largely
content-free. --psb
\_ TROOOOOOLLLLL!!!!!
\_ Yeah, I built a cathedral in all my major cities and I have the
Colosseum, but my cities are still all in disorder.
\_ Build the "war on terrorism" minor wonder. People will be
\_ Build the "war on terror" minor wonder. People will be
forced to support the government no matter what.
\_ I changed the government type to "Shadow" and it all worked
itself out. If I get a riot, that population disappears.
\_ Iain Banks' thriller _Complicity_ features a Civ-like
game where you can "discover" the drug trade and get your
counsellors hooked so they stop bugging you for reforms.
\_ If you changed it to communist, it would have the same
effect.
\_ Kinda: all of the dissidents would be rounded up and
then shipped out in equal numbers to all of your
cities. It's kind of like congressional redistricting.
\_ Stop using your Mech. Inf. to fight partisans and put them back
in your cities where they can suppress unrest. |
| 2004/6/14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30797 Activity:nil 72%like:30887 |
6/14 Look, The Army goes gay!
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6042 |
| 2004/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30789 Activity:very high |
6/14 if Osama gets caught, give him a sex change operation, big
boobs and release him naked through the streets of saudi arabia
\_ first, give him a queer makeover
\_ Queer Eye For The Fear Guy?!
\_ if osama gets caught, we're not gonna find out till at least
a year later, if at all.
\_ Smart money says he's already dead. How do you get bi weekly
kidney dialysis in a cave?!
\_ By the grace of Allah! Duh!
\_ Smart money says that BushCo has him locked up overseas
somewhere and will unveil him in time for the election.
\_ No, that would be the long odds. I give you 35:1.
\_ Nah, there won't be that big an october surprise. It'll
be Al Zarakawi (sp?) the #2 guy that's been given us some
problems recently or maybe Al Sadr.
\_ Nah, he was always a hypocondriac. He isn't nearly as ill
as he always seemed to think he was or he would've been dead
years ago. |
| 2004/6/12-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30770 Activity:nil 52%like:30761 |
6/11 Iraqi WMD shipped to the Netherlands:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html
[restored a few times now. why do you erase facts? doesn't fit your
hate-bushco agenda? censorship sucks. you can't hide truth.] |
| 2004/6/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30761 Activity:nil 52%like:30770 |
6/11 Iraqi WMD shipped to the Netherlands:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html |
| 2004/6/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30716 Activity:nil |
6/9 When will it end? More documented accounts of brutal and inhumane
treatment of prisons the likes of which the world has never seen
before! This makes me so ashamed to be an American!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29649-2004Jun9.html
\_ Come on, this is nothing new. To give a few examples:
Manifest Destiny, 1800s, "give pox to Injun savages so that our
settlers will be safe"
Spanish War of 1812, "let's create a war for our story"
1940s, "let's lock up all Japs because they're all spies"
1700, "let's import niggers for the farmland"
You still think that the Civil War was about freeing slaves?
Think again. |
| 2004/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30654 Activity:insanely high |
6/7 Was Starship Troopers 2 even in the theatres?
\_ No, and it had a budget of roughly $6 million compared to the
original's $100 mil.
\_ Can't make it any worse.
\_ Wow, it says the original oly made $65 mil. (So it lost
about $35 mil) There IS some justice in the world.
\_ enough justice to warrant a sequel.
\_ Was that just theater tickets, or overall?
\_ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starshiptroopers.htm
\_ If the original had tried to be anything like the book it
might have made money. They stole the title and the
character names. The rest was bullshit.
\_ Best review of original ever:
http://postviews.editthispage.com/movieVideo/StarshipTroopers
\_ it took a somewhat interesting book that had something
interesting to say for its time, discarded the stuff
which is no longer relevant for its shock value and filled
it in with other stuff which is actually relevant to our
current political climate. What is bullshit about that?
\_ They took Heinlein's politics, turned it upside down
and made a bad joke of it, and then fucked up the only
other cool thing by ruining combat by turing the super
nuke and flame thrower wielding heavy infantry into sub
machine gun toting light infantry bug food who
shouldn't have stood a hope in hell of surviving 2
minutes on any bug planet much less actually winning
against them. Bullshit. Shall I go on? I'd have to
dig up my copy to give you specific details but it's
more of the same. Oh yeah, they also completely
skipped the Skinnies. How long ago did you read the
book? I re-read it a few months ago.
\_ Best review of movie ever:
http://csua.org/u/7n2 (independent review, humorous)
\_ Heinlein's politics ARE a joke. His stories are
1950's sci-fi fanboy fantasies. They're fun if you
are in your teens, but hardly great shakes. The only
real disappointment of Starship Troopers was that
Denise Richards didn't go topless. Now THAT is
something Heinlien would have pushed for.
\_ Hmm, service to one's country is a good thing...
joke... with rights come resposibilities... joke
earn voting rights by serving country... ok, yeah
you're right, it's just a joke, we're doing so
much better today with people selling their votes
and corrupt money burdened politics. You should
go re-read your Heinlein. It sounds like you read
him in your teens and missed out on what he was
really saying. You also completely ignored my
point about the movie's silly version of combat
and the complete loss of the Skinnies. Or maybe
you're just a troll and never read his stuff at
all and you're just taking the silly movie as
what Heinlein really had to say and what his
stories were like.
\_ That goverment model has a name, fascism. The
Italians tried this when WWI vets felt that
only they deserved to run the government. In
Heinlein, everyone puts out, women doubly so.
Pure fanboy. Tossing mini-nukes around makes
friendly fire so much more interesting. And
irradiating planets where you hope to inhabit?
Just a bad idea. The movie was tripe, feeding
off Heinlien's good name and an entertaining
read. But never confuse Heinlien with reality. |
| 2004/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30640 Activity:high 55%like:30630 |
6/5 Live free or die: how many more Carl Dregas?
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1297drega.htm
\_ Damn that article has a lot of hero worship for a man who murdered
serveral people.
\_ I don't think you're quite reading the author right. I think
there's a lot of hero worship _because_ he murdered several
people (but they were all The Man).
\_ Oh I am reading it right, I just find it scary how much
hero worship someone can have for a man who shot down
several people in cold blood.
\_ What is this? A radical libertarian site?
\_ Yeah, how many more loonies are we going to get before we make a
psych eval necessary to own a gun?
\_ From my COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!
\_ I want a t-shirt of this and an Iraqi grabbing an M-16 from
a dead soldier. Does this mean I hate America?
\_ No, but even a libuhral like me can see that you
just wrong.
\_ US soldier in foreign country != US civilian in US. Does
this really have to be explained? Why don't you make a
business out of printing up your t-shirt and selling it?
You'll probably sell a dozen or so. |
| 2004/6/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30614 Activity:nil |
6/4 CNN: "Thousands march in Rome against Iraq war"
Actually that's "hundreds of thousands". |
| 2004/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30587 Activity:very high |
6/3 http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2606171 Yet another Democrat beltway insider voting for Bush. \_ This guy is a shill not a Democrat. At the bottom of the article there is a note saying the author is a member of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Take a look at the AEI mission statement (http://www.aei.org/about/filter.all/default.asp \_ Some of my friends who are otherwise Democrats found themselves sitting there on September 12 thinking pretty much the same thing. They deplore what Bush has done to the environment, the economy, and to our credibility, but they're firmly behind him when it comes to striking a strong blow against the perceived source of terror. Some of them were sated after Bush took out the Taliban, but some of them remained staunch supporters of the invasion of Iraq. I think they were swayed because it felt good to be active, to strike a blow, to be on the offensive rather than on the defensive. Most of them have since come to the conclusion that the whole thing has been mishandled, but there's still a nagging feeling in the back of their heads that that a policy of pre-emption against baddies is all right. I'm not a Dem, a Repub, or a Green. I'm a social progressive, and there is no party that represents my viewpoint. I supported the campaign against the Taliban, I support the effort to root out and destroy Al Qaeda, and I still opposed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of WMDs, and I think the handling of the aftermath of the invasion is a black eye on America. Where am I going with this? I don't know, but I'm tired of the labels. They don't mean anything. It's the issues you care about that make up your mind when the election comes. \_ Look you dimwit, how many times does this have to be pounded home before you get it? Iraq wasn't a threat to us. Afghanistan was justified, and the world was behind us. Iraq was and is a huge mistake and a terrible mess. Just because striking a blow makes you feel better, doesn't mean it was the right blow to strike OR that it helped in any way. \_ Hello, asshole, I agree with your second, third, and fourth sentences, and I think the general principle of your fifth sentence is spot on. What I'm pointing out is that quite a few people who would normally be called Dems were prepared (before Abu Graib and thee mounting US losses) to keep W in office just to feel safe. You need to understand that this phenomenom exists, despite your (and my) understanding that the root reasoning behind it is flawed. Well, that, and you really need to stop being a knee-jerk asshole. \_ To deny Iraq, along with Iran, was the largest state sponsor of terror is patently absurd. Where did the fugitive bomber of WTC 1 live? Where did Abu Abbas live? Where did Abu Nidal live? Saddam DID have contacts with Al Qaeda. On and on... \- Do you support "taking out" Syria, Iran, Libya and Pakistan? Can you explain why they are different? Also, can you explain why the US is investing in Iraqi reconstruction and lobbying to have some of their loans forgiven, if "they had it coming"? Do you think Spain should attack Morocco? Any thoughts on North Korea? \_ sicko, the saddam regime had it coming, not the iraqi people. ditto for n koreans |
| 2004/6/3 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30577 Activity:high |
6/3 Ok, now that various US leaders are blaming the CIA for mis-information,
next time someone like Powell goes to the UN to announce, "Hey! our CIA
found this out ...", will the leaders of other nations just roll on the
floor laughing, "Are you sure it wasn't yomama who told you about it?"?
huh huh.
\_ Fuck this, we invaded Iraq based on false information the BushCo
wanted from the CIA, and now he steps down, everything is going to
be ok? Fuck BushCo.
\_ I love this blame game! So who is next?
\_ Rummy! Let's make Powell into both the Secretary of State
AND Defense.
\_ I've got a better idea. Let's just dissolve all three branches
of government and declare Bush to be Divine King descended
from Jesus Christ himself. Cheney and Rummy can hold court
and be the real power behind the throne, and Rove can be
the court jester to distract everyone. Everything will
be so much simpler that way.
\_ Have you frothers got it out of your system yet? |
| 2004/6/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30575 Activity:high |
6/3 Awesome.
link:csua.org/u/7kx (Toles cartoon from WaPo)
\_ Saddam's Iraq was easy to defeat with fewer casualties than Gulf
War I, and the Americans were greeted as liberators. Chalabi says
that the U.S. should have transitioned power faster. But apparently
the Americans wore out their welcome.
\_ That was hilarious. Thank you. |
| 2004/6/3 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30566 Activity:nil |
6/3 Powell: Iraq Will Have No Veto on U.S.-Led Force
In other words, do what we want you to do, or we will remove you
by force.
\_ The US has never granted another power control over our military.
That would be... stupid. What's new? Our men rape Japanese women
every other years and what happens? Nothing. Why aren't you here
bitching about that and blaming BushCo? |
| 2004/6/1 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30525 Activity:high |
6/1 Christopher Hitchens on CSPAN - ardent defender of Iraq
war. Admits he's no longer a socialist.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/wj060104_hitchens.rm
\_ What do you get when you combine the world saving idiocy
of the left with violent tendencies of the right?
\_ the biggest killers of the 20th century were all
leftists.
\_ Hitler is leftist? Uh, yeah.
\_ NAZI = Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
Nationl Social German Workers Party. His political
platform was socialist. He was considered 'rightist'
by other Communists because he did not believe a
Communist Revolution was necessary to implement
socialism / communism.
\_ Oh BS. You are going to tell us next Robespierre was
a modern progenitor of the Republican Party
because he called himself a Republican.
Did Hitler believe in giving ownership of the
means of production to the workers? No.
Doh! I have just been trolled...
\_ Then please dispute this:
A Little Secret About the Nazis
http://russp.org/nazis.htm
\_ How can I hope to dispute with a man who brings up
universal free education as proof of evil?
\_ The article addresses the Nazi's political
ideology - factually refute it or don't
waste my time.
\_ The capitalists have starved to death far
more people than the communists, but since
no one person is in charge, the blame is
diffuse. How many have died because there
no profit to be made in keeping them alive?
\_ this is your reply - capitalism is
evil? Spoken like a true red-diaper
baby. Move to North Korea twit.
\_ I notice you didn't answer the question.
\_ Because it is a stupid question.
Where/ who are you talking about?
\_ I answered this already, but you
wrote over my changes. See below
for most of it.
\_ What is this supposed to mean? This seems to be all
accusation and no substance. Are you claiming African
famine is all the fault of capitalists, or what?
\_ Since the European colonialists set the conditions
in place for the famines and then did nothing once
they occurred, even though they clearly had the
power to stop them, yes, I believe they are the
ones primarily responsible. If you are going to
(quite rightly, I feel) pin 1920s famine on Stalins
collectivization of the Kulaks, you should lay blame
on the head of the Western European colonialists
where it properly lies as well.
\_ When you get into real extremes, the difference between
"right" and "left" is pretty much academic. Tyranny is
tyranny.
\- it is commonly claimed that what is important is structure
[in this case extremeism] and ideology more or less dis-
solves. in other words fascism and communism end up looking
pretty similar as totalitaian systems. while this is partly
true, it's not true across the board. see e.g. "anatomy
of fascism" by r. paxton. you can seach motd archive for
more on this well trop topic. --psb |
| 2004/5/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30490 Activity:nil |
5/30 This should open up some really high paying jobs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3760287.stm |
| 2004/5/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30474 Activity:very high |
9/11 attacks. He starts off slowly with all the Al Qaeda/Hussein
fluff and then brilliantly wraps it up by then end. The Jews really
are out to get us all! And yes, Haliburton paid them to do it so they
could get their hands on the Iraqi oil and the Afghan pipeline routes
later. It is all so clear to me now.
... Non-shortened long URL delelted...
\_ BALEETED?
\_ censorship at its worst. you dont even have the balls to admit
you simply didnt like the message so you killed it, you prick, even
though it fits just fine. restored.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp
\_ If it was about censoring, why was the text and a reason left?
\_ Because without the URL, there's no message. What good is an
answer if you don't know the question? It's censorship and
it's ugly.
\_ I always believe articles from two weeks in the future. I mean,
they're from the future! They must know more than we do now!
\_ You don't understand how magazines work? C'mon, get real. |
| 2004/5/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30471 Activity:very high |
5/27 NYPress report asks editorial writer to go to Iraq to look for all the
good things that are happening there. http://csua.org/u/7ho
\_ Summary: smart ass 'journalist' offers to send John Q. Reader to
Iraq to report on all the good things going on as long as he goes
unarmed, unescorted and wears tshirt with a target on it. Yeah,
this convinced me that there isn't anything good going on in the
entire country. Well, ok, he admits that maybe one day some Iraqi
woman might have learned to bake that day. So instead of answering
the reader's question about why only bad things get reported from
Iraq, he wastes 2 pages fluffing his own ego trying to look clever.
\_ Why do you hate the flag?
\_ Why do you hate white people?
\_ It is clever, and funny, and a little sadistic.
\_ No, it isn't. It is condescending and stupid. For instance,
this journalist isn't treating this Justin fellow as a
customer (which is really what he is).
\_ Yeah, I would've thought that was clever in 8th grade
too. -jrleek
\_ It's still clever.
\_ If you're a moron or a partisan child, yeah -- it's top
notch.
\_ Not even in 8th grade. "You made a valid point so I'm
going to blow you off and mock you and ask you to do
something dangerous which isn't necessary to do to
prove your point but it makes me look clever when I
preach to the choir". If you hate Bush no matter what
he says or does and you think the media is part of some
vast right wing business controlled conspiracy then
you'll find it clever.
\_ If you love Bush no matter what he says or does and
you think the media is part of some vast left-wing
conspiracy then you'll think "the media isn't being
positive enough about what's happening in Iraq" is
a "valid point."
\_ The complaint that the media never reports
anything positive (if they can avoid it) is
hardly new, or exclusive to the Bush
supporters. The correct answer in this case
is, "It bleeds it leads." It has almost
nothing to do with politics. But this silly
little piece of infantile sludge certainly
made it that way. -jrleek
\_ what positive stuff is being hidden from us?
did someone cure cancer and get ignored?
did israelis and palestinians stop killing
each other? did india and pakistan stop
the kashmir bs? good stuff gets reported.
fact is, there aren't a lot of positive
events on the same level of interest that
dramatic violence causes. "neutral" stuff
like politics gets reported a lot.
\_ good duck. they reported months ago that
there were electricity, food, water, crime,
and a zillion other problems *in Iraq* (you
know, the topic of this thread?) yet we
don't hear squat about any of these problems
after they're solved which leaves us to
falsely believe that these are still
problems and nothing good is happening in
Iraq. Next time try to stay with us on
topic, ok?
\_ You can find out about electricity, etc,
if you look enough. What you find won't
be good because, again, there isn't much
good to be found. Most of Baghdad
considers itself lucky if it gets 3 hours
of electricity at a time
\_ jrleek brought up "it bleeds it leads".
And I'm not believing anything one way
or another about electricity etc. just
because genuine issues were reported
months ago, as a result of our invasion,
and the restoration of which isn't
positive but a net neutrality. The
democracy stuff is reported, but it's
inherently boring (blah blah council
did this or that). To do a happy fun
story about fundamental needs not
being a big problem in Iraq, amidst
battles and bombings etc... which one
is more newsworthy? duh. and you know
it's premature to talk about democracy
since it remains to be seen how that
will turn out.
\_ No one hates Bush "no matter what he says or
does." Stop inventing strawmen. Everyone who
hates, or even dislikes Bush, hates him
precisely for what he says and does.
\_ No one, eh? This reminds me of the guy who
remarked, on a newsgroup, that he would hate
Bush even if he invented a cure for cancer.
You overestimate people's rationality.
-- ilyas
\_ The best you can come up with is some crank
on a newsgroup? *laugh*
\_ And the wall, and the motd. Either you
wall cranks should be dismissed as the
partisan cranks you are or you're hate
filled vicious partisans (but oh so
edjumikated and superior to the rest of us).
You can't have it both ways. You still
blindly hate for its own sake. |
| 2004/5/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30466 Activity:nil |
5/27 Dubai, modeled after HK and Spore, is thriving. Model for the
Arab world?
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2709282 |
| 2004/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30453 Activity:very high |
5/27 Track Kerry's Position on Iraq
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerryoniraq
\_ They really need something like this for Bush:
Mission Accomplished! Mission not accomplished!
Baathists out. Baathists in.
Will significantly reduce troops in a year. More troops longer.
WMD. WMD program. No WMD or WMD program.
Chalabi's the next president. Chalabi is a crook.
Eliminate all militias. Negotiate with Sadr militia.
Gitmoize Iraq. Iraq is not Gitmo.
There is an al Qaeda link (Dick).
- There is no al Qaeda link (George).
- Well, now they're all here anyway.
\_ Shut the fuck up you piece of shit!
\_ With debate skills like yours, Bush will win California
in a landslide!
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ Why do you hate white people?
\_ w00t!
\_ I find it humorous that with all of Bush's faults, the best dirt
that they can come up with is that he *gasp* flip-flops!
\_ I find it humorous that with all of ______'s faults, the best
dirt that they come up with is that he *gasp* flip-flops!
\_ If ____ were Kerry his faults would be more than mere flip
floppery but that's the easiest and most amusing charge to
level. I voted for flip flopping before I voted against
flip flopping!
\_ Right, why argue policy or substantive issues when you
can just make up easy shit?
\_ "I HATE BUSHCO BECUZ DEYRE EEEVVVIILL!!" When you're
ready to keep your personal hatred to yourself and
argue those substantive issues I'm here. -real consrvtv
\_ Nice strawman. The only one frothing here is you.
[restored, censors and smashers can go fuck off]
\_ I never froth. I'm just voting for things before
I vote against them. You have *never* seen the
word "hate" come out of my keyboard unless it was
referring to someone else's use or state of
emotion. There are very few things in the world
worthy of true hatred. Politicians aren't worth
the energy it would take to hate them especially
since all you can really do about them in the end
is vote against them and that's not enough to
satisfy the deep hatred I've seen others express.
Have a nice day! :-)
\_ You have a limited understanding of politics
if you believe that all you can do is vote.
I have helped put laws on the ballot that
were then passed, raised thousands of dollars
for my favored candidates, lobbied my
legislators and changed at least a few other
voters minds on the way. Don't diminish
your own power like that. |
| 2004/5/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30452 Activity:insanely high |
5/27 New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133
\_ Mommy, why does the WSJ want me to reigister?
\_ csuamotd@csua.berkeley.edu
\_ As if the WSJ editorial page had any fucking credibility.
\_ Thank you.
\_ Funny, I find that nothing that disagrees with me has any
credibility either.
\_ The WSJ has really gone downhill since Jan or so. Remember
the whole Kerry intern disinformation campaign? WSJ was
part of it. In general, they have become very partisan.
Read The Economist if you want pro Free Market opinions
without the Republican Party slant.
\_ Yeah. Anyone remember Vince Foster's suicide note?
\_ Kerry was fucking some hot chick. Nothing wrong with that.
He has a life long history of womanizing. It didn't hurt
Clinton any. Women voted for him in droves. Kerry should
revel in it. It makes him much more human than his endless
drumbeat about his very short Vietnam stay and his endless
speachifying. It isn't disinformation if it's true. I
think it can only help his campaign.
\_ Is there any way to get the LA or NY Times w/o the
democaratic party slant?
\_ Easy: Don't just read the LA/NY Times. Try BBC, CBC,
and some of the east Asian online mags.
\_ East asian magizines? The Korean newspapers I
read have plenty of party slant... -jrleek
\_ Not really. Read lots of stuff, read between lines.
Apply brain. Most importantly look for what they
*don't* say because that's where they hide their a lot
of their bias. For example, are we still losing 2-5
soldiers per day in Iraq? Is the power and water
situation stable? Are kids going to school? Are people
eating? How many people there are looking forward to
their first real vote in their entire lives? How many
of Sadr's men were killed by anti-Sadr Iraqis? If
Sadr and friends have 10,000 people total, doesn't that
mean there are still ~26 million others who haven't
taken up arms against us? Why hasn't the Shia/Sunni
war broken out? Why haven't the Kurds broken away from
Turkey? Why does nothing good ever seem to get reported
about anything going on in Iraq? Is it true that there
is nothing at all good happening there? If it bleeds,
it leads. Welcome to American 'journalism'.
\_ Americans want news about how we'll be leaving
a nice democracy in Iraq, and no more American
deaths. Americans also want to hear any news about
why this won't be coming soon.
\_ Christian Science Monitor is a great source, without
any discernable partisanship. There is probably no
replacement for the Washington Post, alas. The Week
is good if you only have time to spend two hrs/week
on news. Yeah, if you have time, read everything and
make up your own mind, but I don't have time for that.
\_ The CSM? It's run by evil Xtians! And the WAPO is
run by the Moonies!
\_ No, the washington post is a decent paper. The
washington times is run by the moonies, and it's
a total rag.
\_ If Bush or Condi say something about it, maybe I'll start paying
attention. In the mean time, it's just Republican catnip.
\_ Catnip? Yes, all registered (R)'s get a free subscription to
the WSJ. It's a better written paper than the NYT which has a
rather poor track record for clean reporting these last few
years and those are just the ones we know about.
\_ (1) "The New York Times publicly took itself to task for its
pre-Iraq war coverage, admitting it was taken in by spurious
information from Iraqi exiles with their own agenda to oust
Saddam Hussein." - May 26
(2) The WSJ published the name of a juror in the trial
against the Tyco exec. I've read about WSJ's excuse.
(3) Republican catnip. Circumstantial evidence is what
circumstantial does. Look what it did to Bush. The
weight of credibility lies on him now. I'm going to wait
for him to support the next claim, since everyone is now
watching him carefully, since he has no one left to blame
(already blamed the CIA, already blamed Chalabi, who's left?).
\_ Is this that whole thing from the wall about repeating the
"American credibility is destroyed for generations!" until
it becomes 'truth' Soviet style? You need to be more
\_^Soviet^Bush
consistent if you're going to put over the Big Lie on
everyone. You don't post that crap nearly enough to get
the rest of your audience repeating it.
\_ Do you have any idea how bad the image of America is
overseas right now? Do you ever leave the country?
Read polls? I dunno about the generations bit, but
Bush has destroyed American credibility overseas.
\_ Given that America is as powerful as the next 20
countries put together, perhaps a better question is,
what credibility do the overseas have with us?
\_ Wow, talk about missing the point.
\_ Nuke the rest of the world and we won't have any
credibility problems. Fuck the foreigners!
\_ Alas, no, I am not the person who posted about
credibility earlier. I am still waiting for you to
dispute my points. |
| 2004/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30430 Activity:insanely high |
5/26 Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.20589,filter.all/news_detail.asp
\_ This whole thing is very academic to me. All I really care about
is did the various abuses the prisoners underwent result in new
intelligence that saved lives or did it not? If it saved lives
then whatever if some dude was naked in front of some chick or
had to wear panties on his head.
\_ saved whose lives? every darn torturer would claim that their
torturing is for some greater cause.
\_ Saved American lives. I don't care about any others if it
means a dead American. And no, some torture is pure sadism.
Some is to get information.
\_ If you don't care about Iraqi lives, why are you in Iraq?
For the oil?
\_ American lives >> Iraqi lives >> terrorist rights not
to wear panties on head. Oil is a dead energy source.
The amount being pumped from major sources around the
world has been shrinking the last few years and it's
getting harder and harder to get what's left. They're
pushing the fields too hard and damaging some of them
as we speak and going back 3-5 years in some places.
Fighting for oil is stupid. If that was all it was
about, the money was better spent doing fusion research
and building nuclear power plants. If enriching GWB's
friends was the point, the money was better spent on
research and nuke plants and it would've made for better
polling numbers, too. When I'm elected, that's the way
it'll be. And yes, we'll continue spending money on
space exploration in a big way, too. Lack of progress
in science = death.
\_ Also on this site: Democrats cause cancer.
\_ Is that why they hate America?
\_ Why do you hate white people?
\_ There are so many deceptions, errors of reason and outright
falsehoods in this article that it is hard to decide where to
begin, but I will start by saying the Geneva Convention applies
to the signers no matter what the "other" side does. There is
no provision for being released from it if the other side
violates some provision of it, for reasons that should be
violates some part of it, for reasons that should be
obvious if you think about it for half a second.
\_ Wrong! Have you even read the Convention, or are you
paraphrasing a http://commondreams.org article?
\_ Is it so hard for you to just post the relevant sections or
a link?
"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in
peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases
of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may
arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties,
even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or
total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting
Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed
resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party
to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties
thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in
relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and
applies the provisions thereof."
The second-to-the-last sentence is ambiguous and sets in
motion the debate as to whether a signer is obliged to abide
by the conventions when not in conflict with another signer.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
\_ And if you bothered to continue to article 4 you
would instantly recognize you are a complete moron.
Why do I bother arguing with someone who hasn't
even read the thing????
\_ Show me what part of article 4 applies. Quote
the specific passage. Article 4 just defines
what a Prisoner Of War is. It does not deal
with being released from the provisions of
the GC. I think you are reaching.
\_ You haven't figured out that this was whole
point of Yoo's article? Let me spell it out
very simply: the Geneva Convention applies
to POWs, classification as a POW requires
that the individual satisfy several
preconditions articulated in article 4. Why
do you think every subsequent part and section
begins with some reference to "prisoner of
war"? The title of the the document is
"Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the
Treatment of PRISONERS OF WAR"
Is this a troll - are you feigning
stupidity?
\_ Doesn't GC cover non-combatants as well?
When did we declare the entire population
enemy combatants? How does a democracy of
combatants work?
\_ GCIV covers non-combatants. Resume Fight!
\_ GCIV covers non-combatants.
GCIII covers POWs. Resume fight! *ding*
\_ So when the red cross reports that 70-90%
of those held were not combatants, did
nothing requiring detainment, how the hell
does that jive wth the GCs? Also, see
III4A.6
\_ Most of the world doesn't even accept the
whole "enemy combatant" designation as
a valid category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
\_ Motd. It's like Usenet, but more so.
\_ I have obviously read and understood more of it than you.
\_ John Yoo, Boalt professor, sponsor of both the Patriot Act
and non-GC treatment in Afghanistan. Clerked under Thomas.
Descriptions of what counts as "torture" under federal law. Yay!
"It's fair to say that Berkeley is liberal and Boalt Hall is a very
liberal law school. I wouldn't say I've ever had any problems with
my colleagues. Almost all of them disagree with me, but are
respectful of my ideas. They're more interested in debating rather
than disregarding my beliefs."
\_ impressive pedigree but unfortunately he is a statist.
\_ Just goes to show that no matter how much of a right-wing
extremist you are, there is always someone worse.
\_ Right wing, bad! Left wing, center! Good! Yes! W00t!
AARRRRARRRARRRARAAARRRRGGHGHHHG!!!! -- your guy last fall
\_ Again, when the right reaches for stuff this weak, you
know they know their boy's in trouble this November. |
| 2004/5/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30422 Activity:very high |
5/25 US soldiers are thieves:
http://tinyurl.com/2sdf9
\_ Yes. All American soldiers and by extension all Americans are
thieves.
\_ I don't think US soldiers are thieves, however what they are
doing seems a lot like what happens here where suspected drug
dealers have all of their property confiscated, guilty until
proven innocent ... I'm sure the constitution has something to
say about that.
\_ What constitution? Paul Bremer's diary?
\_ no, you're looking for the military code of conduct.
\_ duh? It's a war, and a tradition that goes back to Valley Forge.
\_ VF? Goes way to the dawn of time. |
| 2004/5/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30382 Activity:high |
5/23 http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/23/wedding/index.html Video of wedding celebration uncovered. Turns out the Pentagon was lying to us. Again. \_ Wow this is so lame. And you know this is the same party and these aren't terrorists? You still never explain all the pre- packaged clothing and room for *300* in a barracks. Whatever. Yes, it's a conspiracy to kill all Iraqi partiers because BushCo and the evil NeoCons are out to destroy all party life and fun in Iraq so Haliburton can sell them American made party trinkets to make all of Bush's friends rich. Yep. \_ From the UAV, I'm sure it looked like a high-level insurgents' meeting: "The wedding videotape shows a dozen white pickup trucks speeding through the desert escorting the bridal car - decorated with colorful ribbons. The bride wears a Western-style white bridal dress and veil. The camera captures her stepping out of the car but does not show a close-up." I'm not op, but it's possible that the prepackaged clothing was stuff these tribal folks were trying to sell, and it was stocked in a small warehouse, which was conveniently interpreted to be a barracks with room for 300. Finally, why would insurgents drive out in the open in a 12 white-pickup convoy when they knew the Americans were always watching? If you ask me, it was just Iraqi civilians who wanted to hold their wedding far from the violence, and one of the relatives knew the perfect place to hold one. On the other hand, it could just be really stupid insurgents, which is possible. \_ Of course there was a wedding *somewhere* in Iraq. What does this video prove? That there was a wedding *somewhere* at *sometime*. You have no idea where or when it happened or if this video has anything to do with it or who the people were in it. It could easily be wedding by day, terrorism by night. \_ article says party ended at night, but attack was around 3am \_ They went to sleep after the party. The first bomb fell while they were sleeping. \_ AP news from Yahoo! This is going to be all over CNN soon ... just in time for Bush's speech on Monday night! Story: http://csua.org/u/7f7 Story 2: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5045772 Slideshow: http://csua.org/u/7f8 [Below restored from yesterday] \_ FYI, Kimmit said U.S. soldiers had seen no dead children at the site. That's because they were all driven to Ramadi. Kimmit notes that is where they filmed the dead children's bodies. Now before you go on with a theory about insurgents digging up children's bodies and splashing pig's blood on them or asking them to sacrifice their lives for Allah, please think before you write. Children were very likely killed in the attack. Kimmit's strongest argument, if it really was a high-level meeting of anti-coalition forces, is "Bad people have parties too" at which there were women and children. \_ How the hell do you know? This is exactly how Jenin played out - remember that one? The military does not willy nilly attack with Cobra gun ships and AC-130s in the middle of the night. Sites are scoped for several days if not weeks and targetting has to be approved up the chain of command. An official has said as much about this incident as well. Why the 2 million dinar, sat com equipment, foreign passports and weapons caches at a wedding? \_ Note I never said it wasn't an insurgents' party. All I am claiming is that children very likely died in the attack. Do you know how much "2 million dinar" is? Do you know that "sat com equipment" is one satellite cell phone? Do you know if Kimmit ever said weapons "cache"? \_ "were very likely" "were driven to Ramadi" is speculative noise, at best. How do you explain the barracks for 300, the hundreds of pre-bundled Iraqi clothing piles so foreigners can blend in with local styles, and all the rest? Hey, maybe there were dead children. Maybe it really was a wedding. It was still a terrorist site for moving in foreign terrorists and it was appropriate to blow it up and kill whoever was there. If it was Osama's wedding and women and children got killed would you cry over that? And frankly I don't understand the problem with killing women and children since we've seen plenty of both who are doing their best to kill just like the men. When you pick up a gun, wear a bomb belt or fire from a holy site you, the place you're standing and everyone around you become legit targets. This isn't a video game or a mother goose story. \_ Note I never said it wasn't an insurgents' party. All I am claiming is that children very likely died in the attack. I urge you to think about where all the children's bodies came from -- don't you think some Iraqi would have said something by now if they were like fake children, old footage, or something? Many people, including reporters, saw the dead bodies at Ramadi. This is not "speculative noise". My "problem" is that Kimmit is being disingenuous when he says dead children were never observed at the site. \_ No I dont think some Iraqi would have said a thing and if they did say anything that backed the Bush admin, you wouldn't hear about it from CNN/Reuters/AP, etc. \_ Anyway, the AP news article I posted should show more concretely that this wasn't faked. It's a three- hour wedding video, for chrissakes. \_ Which means nothing. When was it taken and where? There's nothing more than a wedding video which proves what? Iraqis get married. \_ He never lied. Like I wrote a while ago on motd: "\_ Couldn't it have been anti-coalition forces holding a wedding party at a foreign fighters' safe house?" He did say that it could have been a party thrown by bad guys, and now the video's out, that's probably going to be his primary line now. \_ Video? Damn you're so gullible it hurts. \_ troll or moron \_ idiot. the video proves nothing. neither troll nor moron. |
| 2004/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30374 Activity:kinda low |
5/23 Rumsfeld bans digital cameras, camcorders, and cell phones with cameras
in military compounds in Iraq. Yay!
\_ Yeah, learn from the right-wing motd censors. |
| 2004/5/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30369 Activity:insanely high |
5/23 MOTD Censor fucks bush in ass with his tiny url:
http://tinyurl.com/2d46a
\_ Don't worry! Bush is going to give six major speeches in the next
six weeks. The first one is tomorrow, Sunday!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48487-2004May22.html
\_ Here's the key quote. It's always about money, isn't it?
"Also Saturday, Lugar blamed the Bush and Clinton
administrations for not adequately funding the foreign
affairs budget, noting that the military's budget is more
than 13 times what the nation spends for diplomacy."
\_ Is that quote a joke? Why would we spend the same amount
on a bunch of diplomats as we do on an entire army? Huh?
\_ I'm not sure, but I think he's including foreign aid and
other such diplomatic ventures. |
| 2004/5/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30366 Activity:insanely high |
5/22 It wasn't a wedding and no dead children. Better luck next time.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/22/iraq.main/index.html
\_ OK, if the coalition says so.
\_ You prefer Al Jazeera's word on it? Okey dokey!
\_ I am sorry, but reporters from NPR said that plenty of women and
children were among the dead. the reporter visited the nearlest
hospital got the number from the doctors and nurses.
\_ Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt: "Bad people have parties too."
\_ NPR? Got his info from the local yokels? People who live on
the border who see hundreds of foreign terrorists coming through
and are more likely to be executed as collaborators for telling
the truth than for telling some NPR flunky a lie? People who
are probably in the same tribe as the terrorists who ran the
terrorist station that got blown up? Get serious. He was in
the hosipital and didn't even count bodies, just asked someone.
This is incredibly weak.
\_ Even if it's true, lots of people believed it, because Bush
has destroyed American credibility for a generation. How many
will die because of his disregard for human dignity?
\_ Actually completely the opposite. Bush has restored
American credibility. If anyone thinks about standing in
America's way, he'd better postpone his wedding indefinitely.
\_ Nonsense. That's the same crap you were spouting on the wall
the other day as if repetition = truth, Stalinist style. How
much credibility did GWB have with you at *any* point in his
life? None. So it doesn't matter what he has said and done,
you have always thought of him as "BushCO" and his actions and
words in any direction make no difference to you regarding his
credibility, now, in the past or the future. Your bit at the
end about human dignity is really funny. Is that how you got
so many #1 fans?
\- er, i didnt write the above. while i do read the NYker,
i would not use a comma before "because". anyway, part
of the reason i am so angry about this, is i accepted
much of the WMD analysis and spent some time defending
the "eventual aquisition of nuclear weapons" analysis
based on the ladder of escalation. See e.g. my wall of:
Boredcast Message from 'psb': Fri Jan 17 17:10:51 2003
\-which i have moved to:
/home/sequent/psb/MOTD/preGulfWar.commentarii
\_ It's really disturbing that partha gave it more thought
than bushco.
\_ Wow, you were there when the admin was meeting with
partha about this stuff? You rock!
\_ Yeah... partha for president. w00t!
\- when i am president, saying "woot" wont be covered
by the 1st amd. --psb
\- i accidentally mailed it to http://whitehouse.com instead
of .gov --psb
\_ Get any quality porn in response?
\_ FYI, Kimmit said U.S. soldiers had seen no dead children at the
site. That's because they were all driven to Ramadi. Kimmit
notes that is where they filmed the dead children's bodies.
Now before you go on with a theory about insurgents digging up
children's bodies and splashing pig's blood on them or asking
them to sacrifice their lives for Allah, please think before you
write. Children were very likely killed in the attack. Kimmit's
strongest argument, if it really was a high-level meeting of
anti-coaliation forces, is "Bad people have parties too" at which
there were women and children.
\_ How the hell do you know? This is exactly how Jenin played
out - remember that one? The military does not willy nilly
attack with Cobra gun ships and AC-130s in the middle of
the night. Sites are scoped for several days if not weeks
and targetting has to be approved up the chain of command.
An official has said as much about this incident as well.
Why the 2 million dinar, sat com equipment, foreign
passports and weapons caches at a wedding?
\_ "were very likely" "were driven to Ramadi" is speculative
noise, at best. How do you explain the barracks for 300, the
hundreds of pre-bundled Iraqi clothing piles so foreigners can
blend in with local styles, and all the rest? Hey, maybe there
were dead children. Maybe it really was a wedding. It was
still a terrorist site for moving in foreign terrorists and it
was appropriate to blow it up and kill whoever was there. If it
was Osama's wedding and women and children got killed would you
cry over that? And frankly I don't understand the problem with
killing women and children since we've seen plenty of both who
are doing their best to kill just like the men. When you pick
up a gun, wear a bomb belt or fire from a holy site you, the
place you're standing and everyone around you become legit
targets. This isn't a video game or a mother goose story. |
| 2004/5/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30363 Activity:high |
5/22 Explain to me again why Dubya is reliable and trustworth, while
this man is not:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html
\_ To save the rest of you the bother, "this man" is the infamous
Scott Ritter, taker of Saddam's bribes and molester of children.
When Dubya starts taking cash from Hussein and raping children,
he'll have as little credibility as Ritter. Why were you afraid
to say "Scott Ritter" instead of "this man" as if we wouldn't all
know who SR was? You think we'll all click and read and be mind
controlled into your conspiracy of the week?
\_ I thought it was Paul O'Neil that took money from Hussein. And
wasn't Richard Clarke the one who raped children? No one has
enough credibility or reputation to stand up to the perfection
of morals that is Bush/Cheney, huh?
\_ Ritter took $300k from Hussein. The rest of your post is just
silly. "Your guy is just as bad as our guy so our guy must be
good" makes no sense.
\_ Wow. You've got those blinders on firm, huh. Don't you
find it in the least disturbing that there is a stream of
people from both sides of the aisle that have decades of
experience that are taken to the shredder as soon as they
say a disparaging word against the pres on the range?
\_ If he hadn't taken $300k from Hussein he wouldn't get
shredded for it. There are plenty of people who speak
out very loudly everyday against the current admin and
nothing happens to them. Take off the tinfoil hat
before I go dig up that list of all the people
associated with Bill Clinton who died under 'mysterious
circumstances'. It was over 100 at last count. I don't
buy the conspiracy theory crap in either direction. To
be intellectually honest requires dismisses all the tin
foil hat noise or swallowing all of it. I choose to
dismiss it. Which do you choose?
\_ So you're happier with GWB taking cash from the bin Laden family.
\_ Ritter took $300k from Hussein. How much did GWB take from
the bin Laden family and what's your source? |
| 2004/5/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30326 Activity:high |
5/20 Why I don't have much faith in the oil-for-food scandal.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003969.php
\_ Except that Chalabi wasn't the only one making the accusations.
\_ Uh yeah. Our guys have recovered tens of thousands of pages from
\_ Chalabi deserve it.
\_ Uh yeah. Our guys havne recovered tens of thousands of pages from
Iraqi files about it. It must have never happened. Kofi is a hero!
\_ mind you that USA literally installed Kofi at UN. Go read
about USA's coup to oust UN's previous secretary general.
\_ don't you get it? we just want an excuse to crush our political
enemy. Remember that young Shiite Clerk which we are trying so
hard to arrest? He was being accused of kill someone during the
Saddam's regime. |
| 2004/5/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30325 Activity:high |
5/20 Chalabi, what's going to happen to Chalabi?
http://csua.org/u/7dr (nytimes link)
\_ We need to appoint him as head of the Iraqi governing council.
\_ After or before he is arrested?
\_ That job has a high enough turnover rate that it won't matter.
\_ got you point. let the 'enemy' disposes of him.
\_ Media today is saying State Dept didn't trust him, but Pentagon
loved him.
\_ obOldNews
\_ "My message to the CPA is <dramatic pause>: Let my people go.
Let my people be free.... it is time for the Iraqi people to run
their own affairs."
Mr. Chalabi, if the Iraqi people were allowed to run their own
affairs, you'd be hanging from a lamppost. |
| 2004/5/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30323 Activity:very high |
5/20 On the Nick Berg video - some of their points seem valid, but I
find it hard to believe the whole thing was a conspiracy. What
gives? http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/22827/0477
Is this a known wacko site?
\_ I agree with you. I can refute nearly every one of the first 14
"suspicious circumstances", and then I got tired. And I'm a
liberal.
\_ The low 30s are the only things that sounded somewhat plausible.
Fat arabs? White guys? Left hand to mouth? Why the jumpsuit?
Why would the FBI step in and say to the family "you can't see
the body"? I'm not saying his mother would want to, but it's
the family's call. The rest was too far out there.
\_ Nobody's going to refute this? |
| 2004/5/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30321 Activity:high |
5/20 Some ignorant yokel jarhead opens his stupid mouth about Iraq: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-18-connable_x.htm \_ Heh. This url caption reminds me of the ever tactful Daily Bruin article the other day: "Open your eyes, America: the Iraq war is a disaster!", which basically was wondering aloud how stupid the American people must be to have been buying Bush's story on Iraq for so long. Really makes me see things from their point of view. -- ilyas \_ "We can and will achieve our goals in Iraq." Soldier, when you figure out what those specific goals are (rather than the vague "liberation of Iraq"), you let the rest of us know. We have faith in your abilities; we do not have faith in those who lead you. \_ You're just another talking head! \_ Maybe the people there have a better idea about whats going on than arm chair generals such as yourself? Probably not. What does an in-field active duty marine veteran know that a brilliant young man such as yourself doesn't know better? You attended Cal and ate from the palms of your communist professors. You know how the world works. Where's that 'vodka glasses into the fire with BH' thing when you need it? \_ INFIDEL!!! HERETIC!!1! I fondly remember taking 162 from bh. Especially those nights when we'd all gather around the big, silent bulk of the PDP-10 in the machine room, heads bowed to its greatness . . . and bh would pour the vodka, and we'd munch on potstickers and talk for _hours_ about the imminent coming of the Glorious People's GNU-LISP Revolution that would sweep like a cleansing wave! Some nights we'd watch Animaniacs and listen to the Beatles until dawn. Then we'd shatter our vodka glasses against the wall and weave our way home, staggering up the middle of Hearst singing Russian peasant drinking songs . . . I didn't learn much about operating systems that year, but damn, I learned about _life_. -- I think this is what you want, hope it helps (original anti-BH poster) \_ Actually, I'm a military brat. I grew up around Marines my entire life. When a Marine tells you he's going to finish his mission, you'd better believe it-- and you'd better find out what mission he thinks he's supposed to complete before his can-do attitude turns the whole thing into SNAFU. |
| 2004/5/20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30319 Activity:moderate |
5/20 http://tinyurl.com/2g3gu (news.yahoo.com) And you thought Lindy England was bad. \_ Is she related to Libby Hoeler? Does that name ring a bell to anyone? She was famous during the .com boom. \_ It's definitely not as bad as you're saying. The guy is already dead, and she had nothing to do with his death. \_ and how exactly do you know she had nothing to do with his death? \_ always assume the worst of people. screw that innocent before proven guilty bullshit. \_ The guys who were descerated in Fallujah were dead and the folks dancing around like idjits had nothing to do with their deaths. Their punishment was a hundred or so dead, many more wounded, and a month-long siege. It's all relative. \_ Seems like the little fish that are being fried are fighting back. Hopefully, the bigger fish will get their due. \- random observation: are all the low level people involved so far in the pictures white people? --psb \_ No. There is one black dude involved. |
| 2004/5/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30299 Activity:very high |
5/19 I notice there is a purge/restore war going on in the latest topic.
Perhaps if the URL description were less sarcastic, it wouldn't be
purged?
\_ As long as the PD shoots straight, it's ok by me.
Why are people in LA or PA shooting into the air?
why are people anywhere shooting into the air? This
is a Darwin issue. And here's one of those distorted
half-truths, at best, where you stick in RR and Waco
where people who weren't doing anything to anyone get
murdered compared falsely to people who are in a war
zone firing hundreds of rounds into the air.
\_ Yes, two years ago. However, the CENTCOM report says that
AAA fire did come from the area (and had been since two days
before), and the responsibility lies with those who operated
the AAA guns while there were civilians in the area.
Although ground forces didn't find evidence of AAA guns or
spent shells, the report says they were probably removed
before they could get there.
http://csua.org/u/7d9
\_ Terrorists beget terrorists. Iraqi beget Iraqis. What's wrong
with preventing future terorists from coming to this world?
\_ These kind of stuff will not happen in the US because we
have laws. It happened in Iraq because there are no laws
governing what the US military can do. So what if we bombed
your wedding? Tough luck. The worst that can happen is we
offer an apology after a year long investigation. The truth
is, there are no justice when your country is occupied by
someone else. The only justice you'll get is when you drive
out the invading forces one way or the other. But we don't
care, by then we would've gotten all the oil we wanted. The
moral of the story? Don't be the weak guy. The bully is
always right. Although I do wish sometimes the police would
take the same attitude toward those fuckers in Oakland and
East Palo Alto. Just nuke their fucking house and the city
will be a better place.
\_ hmm a wedding party with 2 million dinars, sat com equipment,
and foreign passports in a safehouse. Yea...
Was the same reporter in Jenin? |
| 11/27 |