| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2005/5/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37674 Activity:high |
5/13 Halfway to Vietnam:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0128-33.htm
The funny thing is, this doesn't even include the $50B being
asked for right now.
\_ Good figures and decent arguments, but the thing is no matter
what you say, pro-Iraq war people (such as emarkp) will
always counter claim that the invasion made the world safer,
which is an argument that you can't prove them wrong. And people
like that will argue that because we are brave and have
principles, the new Iraq will be much better in the long run,
with Democracy, and Freedom, and Western ideas spread around
Middle East, hence we did the right thing, blah blah blah. And
once people like that reason in such logic alone, they
have no choice but to consider every other argument as heresy.
These are the same people who even if they gained insights
from your perspective, they'll still not admit mistakes because
they're brought up with the idea that it's better to be
firm and to stand up for your belief than to be wrong [from
other people's perspective]. So to make my point short,
I don't think this article contributes to anything.
I for one am tired of seeing all these articles that point out
why the war is good/bad. I'd rather see articles that make
proposals and extensive academic studies (based on history,
economics, and things like that) on how to make Iraq better,
cheaper, safer, and faster.
\_ What good are extensive studies when those in power don't read?
\_ Good point. That's why it's important for voters to vote for
someone who is somewhat intelligent, open minded, and did
well in school without having to make academic donations.
\_ Personally I'd trust someone w/ common sense rather
than an over-educated joker. Now a under-educated
joker w/o common sense is a whole other matter.
\_ Are you sure that's what emarkp really thinks?
\_ Obviously Korea and WWII were horrible ideas as well, thank God
you appeasers were not around then.
you cowards were not around then.
\_ They were. They were just vastly outweighed by the clear
political and moral imperative of fighting those wars. Can you
say the same about Iraq? Oh, and nice bit of sophistry,
labelling those who question the legitimacy and wisdom of
invading Iraq "appeasers." I guess they're all traitors. -John
\_ Actually there were many people in this country who thought
that America should stay out of WWII, b/c the Nazi's were
correct in what they were doing (Lindberg comes to mind).
There were still others who believed that America should
not interfere in Europe's internal conflicts. FDR wanted
to go to war much earlier, but didn't have public support
till Pearl Harbor (the invasion of Poland wasn't enough
for many people).
The Globe, ie. Jew York Times, was I'm sure the same rag
whining about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. As always with
leftists, its better to appease tyrants then take action.
\_ ok, when are we going to take out Saudi Arabia? most
of sucide bombers are Saudi nationals, most of 9/11 hijackers
are Saudis... I am waiting for your action to take on
such tyrants.
\_ We are taking on the Saudi's to some extent. At this
point it is probably better to push them to fix their
problems rather than go in there with guns blazing.
\_ why not? what make you think we can fix their problem?
\_ why not? what make you think we can fix their
problem?
\_
\_ The way I see it the main thing that leads to
terrorism and despotism is poverty and a lack of
education. Both are present in SA. The best way to
combat poverty and lack of education is with
liberalization of social and economic policies. While
this can be achieved by military force, the
preferable method is achieve it by peaceful internal
transformation.
The Saudi power structure includes some people who
see the need to liberalize (even if they don't like
the religious import of that decision). These people
will likely take control of the nation in the
foreseeable future. A military intervention at this
point will mean that these people won't be able to
institute liberalized policies in the future, so
whatever would be gained in short term would be
offest in the long term.
foreseeable future (via succession). A military
intervention at this point will mean that these
people won't be able to institute liberalized
policies in the future, so whatever would be gained
in short term would be offest in the long term.
The difference I see in Iraq (and NK) is that there
is no equivalent within the power structure.
As I see it the main problem w/ Iraq was that there
no way to fix the problem w/o going in guns blazing.
This is perhaps why NK is the next place we are going
rather than Iran.
Historically NK is similar to Iraq as well. We had
to go in to Iraq a 2d time b/c the first time the
civilian leadership didn't finish the job. Same w/
NK, Truman should have let MacArthur finish the job.
\_ MacArther also promoted using 3-5 nukes on China. That's
one of the reasons for his early retirement.
\_ MacArther also promoted using 3-5 nukes on China.
That's one of the reasons for his early retirement.
\_ MacArthur's threat was an intimidation tactic,
not even Truman believed that MacArthur would
really use nukes against China.
The real problem was that Truman wanted a
"limited" engagement and MacArthur wanted to
win. Given the amount of progress MacArthur
had made before he was relieved, and the fact
that the remaining 2 yrs of the war were a
managed retreat, Truman's decision to avoid
winning was a bad one, just like Bush I's
decision to not go to Baghdad and depose
Saddam was a bad one.
Saddam was a bad one. -jblack
Saddam was a bad one. [incorrect attribution
removed]
\_ Ah yes, the world is good or evil, and you either
win or lose. Narrow minded NEOCON TROLL ALERT!!!
\_ So you disagree w/ me? What are the
factual basis for your claims?
\_ So you disagree w/ me? What is the
factual basis for your claim?
\_ Why was Bush I's decision not to go to Baghdad
a bad one? His reasons for not going were to avoid
all the shitty problems we have in that country
today. We now know that the UN inspectors WERE
doing their job, there was no Al-Queda-Saddam
connection except in Cheney's imagination, and
we would be $300B and 1500+ soldiers lives richer.
\_ Several groups within Iraq rose up against
Saddam after we invaded Kuwait. Saddam's
army was on the run and the people were
opposed to him, it was a good opportunity
to rid the middle east of a useless dicator
and to ensure long term stability in the
region. The "problems" we are having now
may have been avoided. Even if they could
not be avoided, we had the advantage of
world opinion and internal resistance on
our side which would have made the whole
cleanup job MUCH easier.
Whether or not Saddam was building WMD or
the UN inspectors were doing their job is
largely irrelevant. There would have been
no need for UN inspectors w/o Saddam. We
could also have avoided years of military
expense involved in enforcing the no-fly
\_ We haven't even gotten to the thing
that Bush I truly feared: A civil
war between the sects.
zone.
I personally prefer resolution of issues
rather than uneasy compromises.
rather than uneasy compromises which is
why I view Bush I's decision as a mistake.
I do not mean to imply that I believe that
Bush II's decision to invade Iraq was
appropriate (at that point in time).
\_ We haven't even gotten to the thing
that Bush I truly feared: A civil
war between the sects. And of course
you can say all this stuff, you are
just projecting the best-case scenario
to something that didn't happen, just
like administration officials before
the invasion: That we would be greeted
as liberators and that the war would
pay for itself because of Iraq's oil
riches.
\_ I agree that it could have been
much harder than I make it out
be. However, it seems evident
that the cleanup would have been
much better because the whole
world was behind us at that point.
Perhaps some would have dropped
out during the extended cleanup
effort, but many (far more than
are part of the current "coalition")
would have remained to help out.
Re Civil War: While this remains
a possiblity, given the elections,
&c. I do not believe that it will
happen.
\_ Didn't you get the memo? Anti-semitism is no longer hip for
Conservatives. In any case, the fantasy of unlimited wealth
and unlimited power has brought down most of the world's
great empires. There are always more dictators to fight, more
heathens to convert, more French to taunt, etc, than there is
time and money to do it all. When governments (and citizens)
throw out the idea of costs vs. benefits, then they are
surely on the road to ruin.
\_ Ok so NY Jews are 99% leftists so what am I supposed
to refer to them as? How do you know I'm not Jewish?
\_ Didn't you get the memo? Anti-semitism is no longer
hip for Conservatives. In any case, the fantasy of unlimited
wealth and unlimited power has brought down most of the
world's great empires. There are always more dictators
to fight, more heathens to convert, more French to taunt,
etc, than there is time and money to do it all. When governments
(and citizens) throw out the idea of costs vs. benefits,
then they are surely on the road to ruin. |
| 2005/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37651 Activity:high |
5/11 "A photographer witnesses the devastating aftermath of six Iraqi
children whose parents [who were mistakenly identified as
insurgents] were shot before their eyes by U.S. troops" Pretty
awsome gory graphics, here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7818807/site/newsweek
\_ God. That child's terrified face. Thanks. Now I won't be able
to sleep.
\_ if only they can make first person shooter games as graphical as
this... that'd pretty AWSOME. Blood splat, children crying, head
blood gushing out. It'd be a great seller.
\_ Stupid left-wing propaganda. Regardless of the violence, lack of
infrastructures, and shortage of necessities of life for the
Iraqi civilians, we're bringing freedom to their country!
FREEDOM!!! -conservative
\_ Is the URL outdated? I see a picture with caption "Bomb victims:
Bodies lie outside a hospital in Hawija, the northern Iraqi town
where a suicide bomber killed dozens of job applicants waiting
outside a police and army recruitment center on Wednesday"
\_ Bottom right, "Photo gallery with audio".
\_ The article at that URL--is that news or opinion? And people say
Fox News is biased....
\_ It's a columnist. Information and analysis from an author.
God, you people are fucking clueless.
\_ So..just like Fox News?
\_ If you want "just the facts, maam," follow AP articles.
If you want the facts placed in a context, be it social,
historical, political, etc., follow columnists. If you
want to see the context that Bush wants it in, watch Fox
News.
\_ So the bias of this article is okay, but that of Fox
News isn't?
\_ I have no problem with "bias". Bias is inevitable.
I have a problem with people who limit their
curiousity to the point of myopia. I also have
a problem when the "just the facts, maam" reporting
isn't just the facts. Fox's bias in their analysis
is not a problem in and of itself. Their penchant
for flat out lying and failing at fact checking is.
\_ You asserted that FN is a puppet of the Bush
admin. Now you're complaining about its facts
beging wrong. Can you substantiate the claim
either that FN is a pawn of Bush or that FN has a
higher rate of error than other news
organizations?
\_ Here's a collection of John Moody memos showing
a disturbing trend of ... shaping the news to
flatter the current administration:
http://csua.org/u/86m
\_ A blogger quoting "Outfoxed"?!
\_ Do you question the validity of the
memos?
\_ Yes. Prove that they aren't simply
pulled out of someone's ass.
\_ I've wasted enough time on your
stupid shit. Wake the fuck up.
\_ Got it. When confronted for
facts, you have none. Got it
loud and clear.
\_ How do you go through life
rejecting any piece of
information that doesn't fit
into what you've decided is
"right"? Do you have no
intellectual curiousity at
all? I'm curious as to what
else in this crazy mixed up
world you believe in against
all empirical evidence? I
gave you facts, and you said
someone pulled them out of
their ass. Believe whatever
the fuck you want.
\_ Why do you reject FN as a
news outlet based on a
single source?
\_ 1) I didn't reject FN.
I said, effectively,
that they editorialize
in their news, and give
you a perspective that
lines up with the
current admin's
desired context.
\_No, you didn't say
that.
\_ Go back and read
what I wrote.
\_ I did. You
didn't say
that.
_/
"If you want to see the context that Bush wants it in, watch Fox
News."
\_ Which you have yet to prove.
\_ Tell me how that statement "rejects FN as a news outlet"
\_ Non sequitur. I didn't say that statement means what you say
I said it means.
2) It's not based on a
single source. It's
from personal
observation, and from
commentary in numerous
locations from people
who follow these things
more closely than you
or I ever could.
You're asking me for
a dissertation on the
motd. Fuck off.
\_ Numnerous people who
say "everyone knows
FN is biased".
\_ You're utterly
hopeless. Facts
are not untrue
just because you
don't like them.
\_ Then why do
people reject
FN as a news
source when FN
has its facts
right?
\_ Now who's
making
claims
without
backing
them up?
And here's a link to Media Matters' backlog
of Fox missteps, misstatements, etc.
http://csua.org/u/c13
\_ A left organization.
\_ Yes, so?
\_ So how much does Media Matters watch
CNN?
\_ Look for yourself, dumbfuck.
\_ Thanks for clarifying that
you're an idiot.
Take them with as much salt as you like.
David Brock was once a Scaife-funded
journalistic hitman, but apparently decided
he wanted to be able to sleep at night.
And I won't post it again, because it's been
posted too often, but the PIPA study that
showed those who got their news primarily
from FN were far more likely to be misinformed.
\_ A lefty group that doesn't understand cause
and effect. None of these compare FN with
(say) CNN or CBS.
\_ I never said anything about CNN or CBS.
\_ Examples. I asked you to prove that
FN was worse than any other news
organizations.
\_ Prove to me that they're up to par.
\_ Hey dumbass, you made the claim
that FN has problems, you
provide the proof or shut up.
\_ So they drove towards a checkpoint after dark. When they were
ordered to stop as is customary done after dark, they didn't slow
down even after warning shots were fired. What do they expect?
I think they deserve a Darwin Award.
\_ But the Arab media won't report any of these. They'll only say
American GIs shot at innocent unarmed Iraqi civilian family and
killed the parents.
\_ It means the checkpoints are set up in a way such that it's
acceptable to have some collateral damage as long as the
American soldier is okay. Nothing wrong with that, right?
\_ No. It means the checkpoints are set up in a way such that
it's acceptable to have some collateral damage, when
someone doesn't follow orders, as long as the American
soldier is okay.
\_ "orders" in this case refers to bullets flying over
your car?
\_ well stuff like this is bound to happen unless
it's very clear there's a checkpoint ahead. if some
Iraqi dad driving his little car with fucking 6 kids
packed in the back like some clownmobile in the
evening and suddenly there's gunshots, maybe he's
not the brightest bulb but maybe you don't think
that calmly or well in such a situation either...
\_ So, was it very clear there's a (U.S.) checkpoint
ahead?
\_ What! The foreigners are imposing rules on the natives and would
shoot them if they don't comply??? |
| 2005/5/11-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37638 Activity:moderate |
5/11 Told you it was the smoking gun:
http://csua.org/u/c0p (yahoo news)
\_ Well, the people decide if it's a smoking gun or not, but it did
appear on http://CNN.com's front page today:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html
If you ask me, Dubya et al. will just say they had two bi-partisan
committees (9/11 Commission and WMDs in Iraq Commission) say that
political pressure did not change analysts' intelligence judgments.
Sorry to be trite, but, Paula's getting away with it, why can't
Dubya?
\_ Where is the full text of the memo so I can decide for myself?
\_ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Blair's people have not disavowed authenticity of the memo, and
have instead said it's "nothing new", and that the UK tried
hardest to go the diplomatic route.
Unfortunately, Saddam accepted the UN inspectors when asked,
and the U.S. kicked them out this time instead of Saddam kicking
out the inspectors.
and the U.S. kicked them out this time instead of Saddam.
Dubya's people told Dubya that Saddam definitely had WMDs and
that Blix wasn't going to find anything because Blix's people
were inept.
Dubya's people == The Stupid. Dubya == (no words are necessary)
\_ Check your history. Saddam Hussein never kicked out any
inspectors. Last time, they left of their own in advance of
Clinton's bombing campaign. It's interesting that otherwise
well-informed people seem to not know this. That's not meant
to be disrespect, BTW. I just think it's interesting.
-- ulysses
\_ "kicked them out" is a simple way of saying that in 1994
(or was it 1998?) Saddam simply made it impossible for them
to do their jobs and so they left.
\_ It is a bit more complicated than that. First, they left
in a huff because SH was not co-operating, then the UN
condemned SH, then SH let them back in, then he kicked them
out and Clinton threated SH, then SH let them back in
but did not co-operate, then Clinton pulled them out
and bombed Iraq in Desert Fox. IIRC. Shit, it turns out
to be even more convoluted than that:
http://csua.org/u/c12
But in any case, at least once, SH kicked the inspectors
out.
\_ See, this is exactly what I thought it was. It wasn't that
Bush had decided to go into Iraq. It was that Bush didn't
think anything other than military action would get Saddam to
disarm so given the ultimatum, he expected Saddam to reject
anything other than armed conflict. Smoking gun my ass.
\_ "C reported on his recent talks in Washington.
There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military
action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to
remove Saddam, through military action, justified
by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route,
and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the
Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion
in Washington of the aftermath after military
action."
The inspectors were on the ground. Saddam posed no
threat to us or his neighbors. Bush wanted this war
and he got it.
\_ You're a sick fuck. I wish there were ghosts so the 100k+
people who have died because of this man could twist your
soul in every last pit of hell.
\_ What 100k+? The number dead depends on your political
bias. http://csua.org/u/c10
\_ It wouldn't have to if we actually bothered to COUNT
THEM. Sick fucker.
\_ If the US kept count, then we'd be arguing over
the accuracy of the count. Whether you'd argue
for over- or under- counting depends on your
political bias, of course.
\_ How 'bout we just say "LOTS." I hope LOTS
of ghosts twist your soul in hell.
\_ How do you know it's "LOTS"? When is it
"LOTS" anyway? Isn't that subject to
interpretation depending on one's political
bias?
\_ How many would not be "LOTS"? You really
are an obnoxious little bastard.
\_ Exactly. It all depends on your
personal bias.
\_ No, I think you're an obnoxious
little bastard regardless of
personal bias.
\_ The Lancet is a medical journal, it does not have
a political bias. It is just reporting inconvenient
\_ HA HA HA HA HA!!
\_ Let me guess, you are one of those guys
who thinks evolution is an evil plan
to turn our children away from Christianity?
facts so the Neocons try and politicize them.
\_ Oh look, more oil-for-food scandal news! |
| 2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37624 Activity:high |
5/11 When I was really young, I used to think that suicide bombers were
stupid because after they blow themselves up, there would no longer
be any more bombers. I thought that if I had to bomb, I'd just place
bombs around so that I can live the next day to bomb more people.
Anyways, as silly as my childish idea may seem, what baffles
me today is how bombers keep coming and coming, as if they're
resurrected or something. Where are they getting these people?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4535323.stm
\_ theres lots of desperate poor /expendable people in the third
world. The _real_ bombers are the ones that are arming the suicide
bombers and giving them the orders.
\_ Yes, there is an unending supply of people willing to kill
themselves. The only limitation is on the planning and
infrastructure.
\_ Because the population is infinite!
\_ No, the population just has to reproduce more quickly
than it explodes.
\_ You don't undertand tribal societies very well. When you kill
one member of a family, the rest of the family is honor bound
to avenge the death. That is why our campaing to bomb the
to avenge the death. That is why our campaign to bomb the
Iraqis into submission is doomed to failure. We think of
the self first. They think of the family honor first.
\_ how is blowing up yourself outside of a line of dudes
applying for a job avenging your family honor? - danh
\_ Like I said, you just don't understand it.
\_ Wasn't it Sun-Tzu or some famous general who once said that
war cannot be won without psychology? I think this is a perfect
example where we have superior fighting force that doesn't
understand anything about psychology. Superior force != winning.
\_ Li Zi said that if one is
willing to give a way his life, he would trigger fear
down to thousands of people.
\_ When Bush decided to invade Iraq 2 years ago, I told everyone that
it's going to be very similar to how Israelis and Palestians
fight, that we (and civilians) would be on the receiving end of
waves of suicide bombings. No one said anything, and some even
shrugged it off because they're hot blooded and want nothing but
revenge for 9/11. We have a lot to learn about ourselves.
\_ I haven't seen the waves of suicide bombings in the US.
\_ From my what my Syrian and other friends have told me most
of the bombers either have mental problems or are borderline
mentally retarded, and thus are vulnerable to brainwashing.
\_ yes, and your point being...?
\_ That it isn't cultural.
\_ From interview given by NPR, most sucide bombers are Saudis,
Syrian comes in second.
\_ How come most armies don't use suicide bombers then?
\_ I am not aware of any armies that do.
\_ Early on in Vietnam War, NVAs would kill round eyes
or S Vietnamese generals, take their clothes, then
dress up as S Vietnamese soldiers. They got into the
U.S. compound and at the right time, get close to
American generals and... KABOOM! In addition, they
used a lot of orphaned children (with backpacks) as
bombs because they knew that Americans didn't shoot
at children. They also wired up dead Americans with
bombs so that when they're found, the rescuers
would get blown up as well. While these things
didn't diminish the US military power, it had
detrimental effects on the morale of our troops.
Needless to say, I think the NVAs were much better
at psychological warfare than Americans.
\_ Meh -- I don't think it was so much a matter of
the NVA being good at psychological warfare, as
it was a matter of the US being so bad at keeping
up troops morale (not to mention being crippled
by politics from the counter culture back home).
There were just so many things wrong with the
way the US was prosecuting the Vietnam War in
terms of goals, strategy, philosophy, recruitment
practices, etc. Relating the morale of US
troops late in that conflict to ANY nation's
efforts at psych warfare would be speciously
conclusive.
\_ The Kamikaze was on suicidal missions, although they
used planes instead of bombs.
used planes instead of bombs. I think the US
military cannot give orders to go on suicidal
missions. It can only ask for volunteers. Don't
know about other militaries.
\_ Japanese had a ton of different ways to
commit suicide. Kamikaze planes are just the
most famous.
http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html
There is at least an oral history of Koreans
and Russians suicide bombing tanks in WWII.
\_ Luftwaffe pilots did suicide missions
when the Red Army was closing in on
Berlin. They fly their planes into
bridges taken by the Russians to blow
the bridges up.
\_ A story that resonates w/ Poles is that
Polish prisoners in German camps actually
did suicide dives out upper-floor windows
to land on top of and kill individual
German guards |
| 2005/5/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37598 Activity:kinda low |
5/9 Can this be happening? Fox News reports gay/straight men's brain
responses differ. "It is one more piece of evidence ... that is
showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said an expert
on brain anatomy. I'd expect this to be on CBS news, but it is coming
from a source that is suppose to assert that there is no global
warming, that there is WMD, and most importantly that gayness is a
choice (totally curable via religion). What's happening to Fox News?
\_ Maybe if you watched Fox News sometime instead of just hearing
about it from your moonbat friends, you wouldn't be so
confused.
\_ How is this moonbat? I thought one of the main arguments
against fundie nutcase "keep the homos away from our children"
frothing was that "you don't become gay, you are gay." That
would imply a difference, no? -John
\_ Huh? I was just saying that, for the most part, Fox just
reports news. So it's not really a surprise when they...
report news. The editorial shows are where things get
wacky.
\_ Yes. However Fox blurs the line between editorial and news.
They advertise their editorial aggressively during prime
time or whenever there's plain news. Then they make a
smooth transition from news to editorial, and do it so
well that average Joe's don't even realize they've stopped
watching news. Unlike other news they don't even
call their editorial "opinion" or "editorial." They call
it Talking Points, The Asman Observer, etc, and then
tag the word "The most watched news, fair and balanced."
Lastly, even when they present news from regular sources
like AP, they re-word it in ways that fit in their model.
For example, whereas CNN/NBC/ABC would say "Bush Visits
Iraq", Fox would say "Bush Spread The Word of Freedom in
the Middle East." It's subtle and hard to detect when you
only read one news source, but you can definitely see
it when you start reading a diverse source of news.
Lastly, during editorial, they stick in good looking men
like Brit Humes to represent one side, and then a small
weakly Colmes boy to represent the other, and call their
entire network "Fair and Balanced." This is fine because
other broadcasters do it as well, but at least they don't
advertise it as Fair and Balanced, because that's BS. No
news source is ever fair and balanced.
\_ Are you kidding? Is there any news source that doesn't
claim it's fair and balanced regardless of reality?
\_ I haven't seen CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN advertise that
they are fair and balanced. Please provide a
link. -tom
\_ I don't recall having seen CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN
admit that they are biased. Please provide a
link. -jrleek
\_ Read it again; pp said they all "claim to be
fair and balanced." That's a positive
assertion for which proof should be available.
(If true.) -tom
\_ Plenty of news sources wear their bias on their
sleves. La Repubblica is the official Communist
Party organ in Italy, for example. It is much
less common in the US, granted. |
| 2005/5/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37574 Activity:low |
5/8 If the US spends millions on border patrol and can't even stop
walking illegal immigrants from crossing, how are they going to
stop sophisticated operations on moving illegal contrabands and
new Islamic insurgents (thousands of America haters + growing)
crossing Iraq borders from all sides?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/09/iraq.main
\_ On their own, they might find it dificult to secure the border.
That's why they're calling on all Iraqi patriots with pickup
trucks and lawnchairs to come out and monitor the border.
\_ Because they all have weird names and talk funny, and TSA will
be able to confiscate all the rocket launchers they hide in their
shoes, and finally, all the kebab-grease they leave on the INS
finger print readers is sure to give them away! -John |
| 2005/5/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37572 Activity:nil |
5/8 Here's another link for the dimwit who thought Blair got "re-elected":
http://csua.org/u/bz7 (cnn.com)
\_ Still can't get over the fact that WAR is good thing.
\_ War ... war never changes
\_ I come in search of the holy G.E.C.K. |
| 2005/5/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37536 Activity:moderate |
5/5 John Howard, George W. Bush, and now Tony Blair. All sent
troops, all had protestors to deal with, who swore to bring
them down "for the people." All now re-elected.
Muwhahahawa.... War is man's greatest legacy. Forever here.
\_ You dipshit. Labour just lost a significant number of seats.
Blair was not "elected" to anything. Labour still holds parliament
but by a slim margin. It is entirely likely that they may sack
Blair in favor of a party leader seen as less radioactive.
Also, Labour's new majority is so slim that they will likely no
longer be able to prosecute a war that is supported by only
20% of the British public.
\_ you lost get over it.
\_ Hi freeper! Your stupidity is revealed by your continuing
insistence that a prime minister is "elected." Here's a
Yahoo! news article that explains pretty clearly what
might happen. I think that they even use mostly two
syllable words, so you're in luck.
http://csua.org/u/byy (yahoo! news)
\_ Oh do teach me something about a parliamentary
government wise one. Tell me about the hostage
while you are at it.
\_ The PM in Spain (Aznar?) didn't get re-elected. But maybe it's
because of the explosion days before.
\_ yeah they tried to blame the communists.
\_ Basques, actually. -John
\_ Whoever wins gets to rewrite history, how things came about and
how they made the world better. I have no doubt that 50 years from
now, Blair and Bush will be revered like Gods, for saving earth
from the tyranny and threat of Al Qaeda and Sadam Hussein |
| 2005/5/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37488 Activity:nil |
5/3 See, I am not the only one who thought it was a "smoking gun."
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/001795.html
Will Bunch is the senior political writer for the Philadelphia
Daily News.
\_ You can never trust a Philadelphian. Goddamn "brotherly love".
\_ Perhaps the mainstream media felt stung by CBS/Rather memo-gate
and thought a new memo with text like this was definitely forged
and/or easily dismissed by right-wing commentators as the biased
perspective of a Labour Party staffer.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a
perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as
inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no
enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.
There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after
military action." |
| 2005/5/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37463 Activity:moderate |
5/3 The difference between Tony Blair and Dubya's town hall meetings:
Late last week, at one of his ritual grillings - this time at the BBC
television program "Question Time" - the audience booed when he
appeared and then became even more hostile. "That is a lie! You lied
to this country, and that is why we can't support you!" shouted one
young man, accusing Blair of exaggerating the intelligence about
Saddam Hussein's threat to the world. "What new stealth taxes do you
intend to introduce first?" asked another. "Mr. Blair, I think you're
very lucky that we have a weak opposition at the moment," said a
third, in possibly the kindest remark of the half-hour session.
"Right, I take [it] that's not a compliment," a perspiring Blair
answered meekly. In his pour-your-heart-out style, Blair readily
admits that the wear and tear on him has been "relentless."
\_ I think this is less of a Bush/Blair contrast than a US/UK contrast.
\_ You're wrong. Blair doesn't screen his "town hall" audiences.
Try getting in to a Bush town-hall when you drive up with a
"Bring the troops home" bumper sticker. We the people may be
partly to blame, with our star-struck attitude toward people
on the TV, but I think the change came from the top. Our
politicians have come to think they don't have to answer to us.
That's why we have packaged "debates" where the candidates can't
TALK TO EACH OTHER. That's why you're not allowed in to a
"public" meeting with YOUR OWN PRESIDENT if they don't like your
t-shirt. This is not in US tradition, though it does feel like
it's slowly becoming US character. And that's really depressing
and sad.
\_ Labour town hall meetings like that are very likely planned
to let Tony take some abuse. It makes him look better if he
sits there looking contrite and sheepish for a bit while
people lay into him. E'ist had a good point--they called
them "cathartic". -John
\_ The point is you'll never see someone on national TV
telling Dubya "That is a lie! You lied to this country,
and that is why we can't support you. You dumb monkey!"
\_ That's because the election rules are so way different,
as is parliamentary seat allocation and third-party
presence. Not saying it's better of worse, but yeah,
I'd like to see that on national TV. -John
\_ Yeah, but in the United States we get to have guns, so who cares?
\_ but you can't have bullets..
\_ Well, we've become a lot more meek since the 70s. People are less
vocal and are less likely to question the government. We no longer
show caskets of soldiers, soldiers getting shot in the head,
and soldiers committing war crimes. We no longer take weeds
in quantities close to the 70s, and we no longer light up incents
and peppers. We no longer draw peace sign and instead prefer
putting on SUPPORT OUR TROOPS stickers that you can buy from
supermarkets. We no longer have Woodstock, with public figures
and children's idols singing how they hate the war. 911 has turned
people to be mindless lemmings, the way Neo Republicans want them to.
\_ I take it you've only studied late war/post war history in
depth?
\_ The Vietnam War was pretty popular only two years after
we started committing troops, too. Just wait till the
Iraq War drags on as long....
\_ That's nice how you tie rampant drug use as a good thing
with 9/11 making us slaves. I guess you served with honor.
\_ BUD DAY thinks your troll fu is weak. |
| 2005/5/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37441 Activity:high |
5/2 Can someone please tell me this memo is fake before the freepers do?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html
\_ My UK minions assure me that it's real. Quote: "Death's too good
for him. They need to invent the Pit of Sysiphus for him.." -John
\_ Doesn't the Conservative Party practically run the Times? - danh
\_ Who's quote is that and who is it referring to? Blair's in
reference to Saddam? Your friend in reference to Blair? -dans
\_ I believe John is quoting his UK minion, who feels that
Blair should be in the Pit of Sisyphus.
\_ Okay, that was pretty much the only reading that made
sense to me. That said, my memory of the Myth of Sisyphus
is hazy... I know he was condemned to roll a boulder up a
hill in Hades for eternity, and every time he rolled it to
the hilltop it would roll back down and crush him.
Where's the pit come into the picture?
\_ Maybe he's wishing Blair an eternity of answering
silly, pedantic questions :-) -John
\_ This is it: the smoking gun. Proof that Bush lied. Good work.
\_ WTF are you talking about? You don't score too well on reading
comprehension tests, do you? This is proof that Tony Blair
lied, but it's quite a stretch to try to pin internal minutes
from an UK government meeting on the US president. Don't get me
wrong, I loathe Bush at least as much as you do, it's just that
you don't improve our collective credibility much by crying,
``smoking gun, smoking gun!'' every time some marginally
incriminating document pops up. Unless of course you're a
troll, in which case, way to go, Mission Accomplished! -dans
\_ You a dullard. Here, in the simplest possible terms for
you:
"AS a civil service briefing paper specifically prepared
for the July meeting reveals, Blair had made his
fundamental decision on Saddam when he met President
George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.
When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President
Bush at Crawford in April, states the paper, he said
that the UK would support military action to bring
about regime change."
I will find the quote from after that were Bush
contradicts that in a second. Are you sure you aren't
really a Republican pretending to be a Democrat?
" Straw warned that, though Bush had made up his mind
on military action..." -Aug 2002
" THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I have told the
Prime Minister that my hope is, is that we could
achieve a disarmament of the Iraqi regime peacefully.
I haven't given up on the fact that we can achieve
it peacefully. We have no plans to use our military
until -- unless we need to. I explained to the
Prime Minister, just like I explain to every citizen
who is interested in this, the military is my last
choice, not my first choice." -Oct 2002
Do you see how Bush claims that no decision to use
military force has been made, even though the decision
was made months before?
\_ And you are the bloody boy who cried wolf. I see how you
can make a case for your point, but what you're so-called
smoking gun lacks (aside from the smoke and the gun) is a
bullet-proof piece of evidence that the decision was,
indeed, made months before. Keep in mind that I *believe*
this to be the case, but it's one thing to believe that
events happened a certain way, and an entirely different
matter to have unassailable evidence (cf. The Pentagon
Papers) of what took place. -dans
\_ Did Straw meet with Bush or did just Blair? If Straw
didn't hear it from Bush directly, then it's all just
hearsay and not admissible.
\_ you've been trolled. that sentence is dripping w/sarcasm.
\_ you're stupid.
\_ I think there maybe an error. Jack Straw was not the foreign
minister at the time. Robin Cook was - he resigned in protest
over the invasion.
\_ From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Cook
"After the 2001 general election he was moved from the
Foreign Office to be Leader of the House of Commons.
This was widely seen as a demotion, but Cook welcomed
the chance to spend more time on his favourite stage.
As Leader of the House he was responsible for reforming
the hours and practices of the House."
Jack Straw was indeed Foreign secretary from 2001 on. |
| 2005/4/28-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37416 Activity:nil |
4/28 Can you sue people in another country? I didn't think you could,
but I just read about some texan men who are suing Pope Benedict
over some sex abuse cover-up.
\_ you can sue anyone for anything. Whether it actually gets rejected
is a whole different story. Like, I'd love to sue Sadam Hussein and
GWB for making me sleepless at night, and I can in fact file suit
but the chance of it going through is nil.
\_ Assuming that this is a civil action and they are not suing the Pope
under a Fed statute (such as a human rights statute), 28 USC Sec 1332
(a)(2) allows fed cts to hear a dispute between US citizens and
citizens of a foreign state (provided that the damages alleged are
more than $75K). The practical problem here will be enforcement. While
some foreign cts are willing to enforce US judgments, most are not. |
| 2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37390 Activity:high |
4/28 http://csua.org/u/bw0 Dubya asks networks and cable to show prime-time 8:30 EDT news conference, the first prime-time conference since last year. The topic last year: Iraq. The topic this year: Social Security. Yes, reporters will probably ask about the Duelfer report, and I predict Dubya will say "Removing Saddam was the right thing to do. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein. The people of Iraq no longer suffer under the rule of a ruthless dictator." If reporters persist, Dubya will say, "By removing Saddam, we have given the people of Iraq a taste of freedom. Freedom is on the march. Freedom has spread to the Ukraine ... to the people of Lebanon ... and Libya saw the example we made out of Saddam and gave up their nukular program." If asked specifically about the lack of WMDs, Dubya will say, "I always supported reforms to our intelligence services, and I have informed members of Congress to take the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission seriously, so that the events of that day will never replay again." "Was it worth it? Sure it was worth it. Ask the person who got his hands cut off because he opposed Saddam. Ask the Kurds who were gassed to death because they wanted freedom. Of course it was worth it, and if I had to do it all over again, I would." I'm sure you can think of more. \_ What is your fucking point. Yes he'll say things that you predicted. And that is the appeal to an average American-- a President who sticks to his guns, a President who is repetitive, a President with whom he can relate more to [than an intellect]. The fact of the matter is, most academics think he sucks, but the average Joe doesn't think so. The average Joe selects the President, and the average Joe prefers George W Bush, not some uncharming intellectual dweeb. \_ You haven't seen any polls in the last three months. This president being popular is a myth. \_ So where are the Vietnam-like protestors? Where are the tomato throwers? Bush may not be popular but he is a lot more popular than say, Nixon. \_ There have been tons of protestors. If you haven't seen them, you're watching too much tv news and not enough newspapers. Also, the protestors in vietnam-era were probably a similar proportion of the population. Minds are changing. Majorities don't build in protest. They build alongside them. \_ whoah there, nellie. Here comes the "at least we're not as bad as Saddam" argument again. \_ The whole reason we have Dubya is "at least he's not as bad as Kerry" although a lot of people are having second thoughts \_ The average Joe still thinks there were WMDs in Iraq. \_ The average Joe probably couldn't point to Iraq on a fucking map or tell you what the difference between Iran and Iraq is aside from a letter of the alphabet. \_ Wait, there's a difference? \_ Keep laughing. The Average Joe selects our Idiot In Chief, and will continue to do so until you stop making fun of his low intelligence and until you DO something about it, like education and awareness. \_ You think I'm laughing? Once again, the Average Joe still thinks there were WMDs in Iraq. That Dubya hasn't been loud and clear on the facts of the primary reason we went to Iraq is the greatest tragedy of his presidency. \_ None of the reporters asked about the lack of WMDs. Why didn't some brave reporter ask: "Mr. President, you are known as a plainspoken man, who prides directness and honesty over long-winded explanations. From what your intelligence people are telling you now, did Saddam have weapons of mass destruction or not? Please don't give me a long-winded explanation: Please answer with a Yes or No. If the intelligence folks are not sure, please tell me which they think is more likely. In a Washington Post / ABC News poll take March 13 this year, 56% of Americans say they think Saddam did have WMDs." -op \_ According to Tenet it was a "slam dunk" so there you go. |
| 2005/4/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37379 Activity:moderate |
4/26 Is CNN reading the motd? Sometimes, occasionally, the facts of the
matter are spelled out cleanly to the people.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/27/iraq.main/index.html
It is unlikely Iraq shipped banned weapons material into Syria before
the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to a report released by the Iraq
Survey Group, a CIA/Pentagon team searching for Iraqi weapons
programs. In October, the group said that the 1991 Persian Gulf War
likely destroyed Iraq's capabilities of producing weapons of mass
destruction and that Iraq had none when the United States invaded.
After the October report, Vice President Dick Cheney and other U.S.
officials said they believed Iraq possessed such material before the
war and had moved it across the border into Syria, where the weapons
may have been transferred to terrorists. The group's final report --
released Monday on the U.S. Government Printing Office's Web site --
threw doubt on that possibility. The group also said it had been
unable to complete its investigation because of security concerns and
couldn't rule out an "unofficial" transfer of material. The report
said that 12 years of international sanctions against Baghdad after
the Gulf War had damaged Iraq's scientific community and these
experts' skills were in a state of "natural decay." The group added it
was unlikely that scientists were capable of recreating the destroyed
weapons programs, meaning Iraq would have possessed little, if
anything, to transfer.
\_ How does all that add up to CNN reading the motd? When I see a
headline that someone in the Senate "illyased" a debate, I'll
believe they're reading the motd.
\_ What does it mean to "illyas" a debate? Are the Dem's
currently illyasing the judge debate in the Senate? I know
the Republicans are thinking of nuking it...
\_ WTF?? I went to the link just now and http://CNN.com removed all of this
stuff from the URL. Oh well, at least it's here: -op
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/index.html |
| 2005/4/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37370 Activity:kinda low |
4/26 Islamic scholar convicted his political activity. url not shorteded
because it is kind of interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050426/ap_on_re_us/terror_paintball
\_ I am skeptical of their use of the term "islamic scholar". This
guy just finished a phd in computational biology. They cite no
evidence that this guy is any kind of actual religious scholar
or leader of any kind beyond his circle of freinds from paintball
and the internet. I'm guessing the word "kingpin" is from some
dipshit prosecutor who wants to be a star.
\_ Yeah, that "political activity" is called treason. And not
just the Ann Coulter version, that's the real deal.
\_ Yes, this is treason. The word has almost lost its real
meaning because it is constantly being abused by Bush
war supporters that claim anyone that disagrees with
them, like that jackass LTC whose blog was posted in the
motd yesterday. Reporting accurate, but unhappy, news about
events in Iraq is not "treason."
\_ Yeah, everyone who who misused the word treason are
\_ Yeah, everyone who who misuses the word treason are
traitors!
\_ I'm not suggesting letting this guy go free, but how is this
different from the militia groups that seem to get a free pass?
\_ According to the Michigan Militia group, they exist to protect
Americans in case our government/military becomes corrupted.
\_ Since when do militias get a free pass? |
| 2005/4/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37359 Activity:high |
4/26 emarkp, I have a present for you. Per your request I've made motd
tracker to eliminate your name as a possible motd write suspect:
http://csua.berkeley.edu/~kchang/24/?incr=1&elim=emarkp
Sense of humor required to view the site -kchang
\_ You are soooo cute. And to think that you were up at 2:30
working on this (according to your script--which appears
to work better for times than it does for people). You
/definitely/ have a life. -emarkp
\_ You obviously never experienced tech grad school
as a single dude, no kids, with weird sleep hours.
And BTW is that an insult above?
\_ Who's asking? -emarkp
\_ I'm so happy. I've never had my own stalker before. -emarkp
\_ You should compare notes with lila. She was in the same
position before.
\_ aaron doesn't qualify?
\_ He's more of an equal-opportunity stalker. -emarkp |
| 2005/4/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37355 Activity:moderate |
4/25 Duelfer's WMD report is now officially complete.
The only new stuff was addenda, the first one titled:
"Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq"
ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the
evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war.
... The declining security situation limited and finally halted this
investigation. ...
ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out
the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It
should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in
custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program,
or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such
movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of
residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime,
ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further
investigation. It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to
fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that
conclusive information would have been found. ...
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was
unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria
took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of
limited WMD-related materials.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004
\_ Uhhhh... do I know you in person? If so, please call me. If not,
can we meet and talk in person? You have my email. Let's sit down
in a coffee shop or something, we can discuss this calmly -kchang
custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program,
or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such
movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of
residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime,
ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further
investigation. It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to
fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that
conclusive information would have been found. ...
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was
unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria
took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of
limited WMD-related materials.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004
\_ still trying to justify Iraq War?
\_ no. -op
\_ So, now we're up to possible weapon related programs by proxies?
\_ well, if anything changed, the Intelligence Community is much
more confident saying "we're not sure, or probably not on WMDs"
rather than "NO DOUBT they got 'em!$!#52".
\_ I don't recall the intelligence community EVER saying that
Sadam had WMDs. I do remember Bush and a lot of politicians
acccusing Sadam without any reports to back them up, and with
several to contradict them.
\_ National Intelligence Estimate 2002
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions
and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological
weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN
restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a
nuclear weapon during this decade. ...
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its
chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program,
and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the
view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its
nuclear weapons program. ...
Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This
Estimate
High Confidence:
...
- We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
- Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological
weapons and missiles.
Moderate Confidence:
- Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient
material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by
2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84)
Low Confidence:
...
"We were almost all wrong" - David Kay, Jan 2004 to Senate
\_ As I have said before, the only way that David Kay's
statement makes sense is if you redefine "we" in such
a way as to only include war supporters. Since most of
the planet opposed the war, it is not a very useful
statement. Remember, at least two CIA analysts quit
over what they saw as the politicizing of intelligence
information. We also now know that Wolfowitz and
Rumsfeld set up the Office of Special Projects to
do an end around the CIA.
\_ Yes, I agree that saying
"The 2002 NIE on Iraq's WMDs was almost all wrong.
The NIE contained the official collective judgment of
the Intelligence Community."
would have been much more accurate.
As for your remaining points, the bi-partisan
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the U.S. Regarding WMDs wrote:
"After a thorough review, the Commission found no
indication that the Intelligence Community distorted
the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction. What the intelligence professionals
told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what
they believed. They were simply wrong."
-- Now, it could be that the bi-partisan Commission
is wrong, too. But why would I want to waste my time
arguing "Dubya LIED to us!" (which may be true, but
who's got the audio tapes?) with the 2002 NIE text
and Commission report as they are, when I can much
more easily argue incompetence at all levels of
government and lay down some facts:
56% of people polled mid-March this year STILL
thought Saddam had WMDs.
\_ Go ahead and believe the Washington whitewash
if you like. Read Sy Hersh's take on the whole
thing. He has more integrity than all eight of
thing. He has more integrity than all ten of
those politicians who signed that bogus report:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
\_ Please note that I made no comment about
my confidence in various elements of the
bi-partisan Commission report.
My point is how you slam home the undeniables
to the average Joe's.
My point is that your approach is not very
persuasive to those who can be persuaded.
\_ No, you are misreading the PIPA report. Only
56% of Bush supporters believed that. Not
56% of all Americans. Unless are reading
the results of a different poll perhaps?
\_ http://csua.org/u/bv7 (CBS News)
\_ http://csua.org/u/bv7 (CBS News Jan 2005)
\_ http://csua.org/u/bdm (Post/ABC Mar 13 2005)
56% of ALL Americans. The greatest tragedy
of Dubya's presidency is he has NOT been
loud and clear about what happened to the
primary reason he took the U.S. to war.
Dubya continues to let this misperception
linger among the majority of Americans, and
his people DAMN WELL KNOW ABOUT IT.
\_ If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance,
baffle 'em with bullshit. |
| 2005/4/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37344 Activity:high |
4/25 There are Cal students today who don't remember the Cold War.
I'm old.
\_ Do you remember viet nam?
\_ you are ancient.
\_ *I* don't remember viet nam. I was asking OP. I claim that
as the boundary of "old".
\_ As far as I know, Vietnam still exists.
\_ Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?
\_ You mean how she said that we would meet again some sunny
day? Wonder what ever became of her.
\_ She's a bit busy watching blue birds over the white cliffs
of Dover. And "We'll Meet Again" is a bit older than the
Cold War. Bonus points if you know the tune at the
beginning of Dr. Strangelove. -John
\_ When I hear does anybody here remember Vera Lynn, I
think Pink Floyd 1980, an album my Neil Diamond
listening dad bought on advice of my cool uncle
think Pink Floyd The Wall (1980), an album my Neil
Diamond listening dad bought on advice of my cool uncle
and which I would blast all the time when I was a kid.
No "turn that crap down" could be claimed since he
owned it ...
\_ Vera! Vera! What has become of you?
Does anybody else in here, feel the way I do???
Thank God at least some of the new students know
what I am talking about when I make Pink Floyd
references. I think The Wall saved my life. You
think I am exaggerating, but I am not.
\_ wow. so am I.
\_ With all the interest last week in the viagra/cialis/levitra link,
don't tell me you're surprised.
\_ I know how you feel, my intern was only 3 yrs old when the Berlin
Wall fell. He thinks that the USSR and Communism, &c. were all part
of ancient history. |
| 2005/4/23-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37334 Activity:kinda low |
4/23 Awesome series of essays written by a foreigner living in Saudi Arabia.
Not unbiased commentary of course, but very well written. This country
is one of our allies, apparently.
http://victorhanson.com/Middle_East_Chronicles.html
\_ "R. F. Burton" doesn't sound like a native Arab to me.
\_ 1) It's an alias. 2) He's a foreigner. That's the whole point.
\- FYI: richard burton is the name of one of those victorian
adventurers who went into remote africa, central asia and
probably most famously into the middle east, infiltrating
various muslim-only facilities in disguise. --psb
\_ Not to mention making the famous translation of The
Thousand and One Nights.
\_ Including Mecca during Hajj.
\_ "apparently"? did you forget they have a lot of oil?
\_ Nothing much in the article surprises me. Man, is that country
going to be messed up if their oil production ever peaks. That
article reinforces what I believe is the ONLY punishment that
might deter terrorists: Give them sex change operations and dump
them in a country like Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
\_ we would have not have won the Cold War without the Saudis. The
inner Royal Family is firmly aligned with the West. Unfortunately,
since the Royal Family numbers in the tens of thousands, there are
quite a few who do not share their sympathies.
\_ Not necessarily true about the Cold War, although possible.
That said, we made a great many deals with evil people and
corrupt, broken systems during that episode. The letters are
excellent--reminds me a bit of Graham Greene. However, the fact
that he's still living there is kind of sad. -John
\_ outside of a few Western style democracies scattered around the
world, governments are completely corrupt. You either dealt
with them or they fell into the Soviet sphere of influence.
\_ Yes, and to a substantial degree we had ourselves to
thank for supporting or even establishing them. The
concept of aiding a neutral bloc went entirely counter to
US foreign policy throughout the Cold War. It was "with
us or against us" in many but not most situations. -John
\_ Don't tell that to a Singaporean.
\_ Gorbachev won the cold war for you.
\_ Yeah, russia was in perfect shape before Gorby!
\_ It was in its usual shape. That still doesn't change
the fact that the cold war could go on indefinitely.
\_ Anybody who claims that people doing honest reporting from Iraq
are "aiding and abetting the enemy" is automatically someone
that I am not going to waste my time with.
that I am not going to waste my time with. You should not tolerate
this kind of crap either.
\_ I read most of the links on that page, I think the articles about
life in Saudi Arabia, and "we are not getting the full story in Iraq
about how wonderful life is after elections" articles are by 2 different
people. - danh
life in Saudi Arabia, and "we are not getting the full story in
Iraq about how wonderful life is after elections" articles are by
2 different people. - danh
\_ I think he's pointing out that the reporting is not honest.
\_ So you think that the reporters are lying about what
they see? See that is why he is not worth bothering with.
Because the people reporting are not omniscient, he calls
them traitors. This is what has happened to the once proud
tradition of conservatism in this country. A simple
difference of opinion is considerd grounds for executing those
who disagree with the party line.
them traitors (which implies they should be killed).
\_ whatever happened to the berkeley I used to know?
where "traitor" was a word of praise... |
| 11/23 |
| 2005/4/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37248 Activity:high |
4/18 Here's a fun one. If you could pick any historical era to have lived
during, what would it be? I would choose Enlightenment era Europe.
\_ If you mean other than the current era, I would choose Ancient
Greece, around the time of Socrates.
\- you mean during the peloponnesian war and plague of athens
which kills +25% of the population? what are your second and
3rd choices? the black death and london 1666? --psb
\_ To see Socrates deliver the Apology would be
worth it. The only thing that even comes close
would be to see Lincoln at Gettysburg.
\- Socrates was ugly and smelled bad. --fwn
\_ Yeah, but he was honest about it. -socrates #1 fan
\- i think it is pretty tough to pick an "old time"
to actually live in [no antibiotics,anesthetics etc],
but if i had to pick single day, I would rather go
hear Homer the singer of songs tell of the Wrath of
Achilleus. Not only would it be an amazing and
unique performance, but you could answer the great
"Homer Question". If I had to pick from from 5th
Century Athens, tough call between Apology and
something like the Pericles Funeral Oration. However,
speading the day with Socrates in Pireaus beats
both of those [and certainly beats Symposium] ...
"I went down yesterday to Pireaus with Glaucon
some of Ariston and PSB son of NGB ... Polemarchus
some of Cephalus, noticed us in the distance and
son of Ariston and PSB son of NGB ... Polemarchus
son of Cephalus, noticed us in the distance and
sent his slave to tell us to wait for him ...".
If I had to spend 5 min somewhere, it's temping
to be a "fly on the wall" at the meeting of Attila
Hun and Leo I [one of the two "Great" Popes] to
figure out what the hell he said to get Attila that
figure out what the hell he said to Attila that
got him to turn around and go home. There is also a
story about Scipio and Hannibal meeting [in Plutarch,
I believe] but I am not sure that really happened.
\_ Ah but would you understand anything these people
were saying?
\- It would be greek to me.
--pater andron te theon te
\_ If I get to keep all the knowledge that I know now then take me
back to 1995.
\_ Only the modern era has the three most important inventions:
Hot running water, air conditioning, and dentistry.
\_ Just a few years back so I could take advantage of well known
stock price fluctuations.
\_ Sheesh, don't you guys understand the term "era"?
\_ Early 1930s or late 1940s if I got a boatload of cash. -John
\_ This really depends on WHAT I'm going to be. Do I get to choose
to be a peasant or a war lord?
\_ Let's say you keep your current relative level of wealth and
power. So, if you're in the 80th percentile for wealth now,
you'd be in the 80th percentile then. Bush would get to be a
warlord; maybe you can be a successful merchant. -!op
\_ So how do I find out what percentile I'm in? Am I above 80%
by the simple virtue of having a degree from Cal?
\_ In 2003, the 80th percentile U.S. household made $86,860.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032004/hhinc/new05_000.htm
\_ If I can keep prior knowledge, I would pick the 40s. In fact,
I'd pick 1945. I'd study to be a nurse, and then work at New Haven
Hospital in Connecticut. I'd wait for a new born, Georgy, on
7/6/1946. And then I'd "take care of him". By doing so, I will
have saved a lot of innocent blood and revived our Great Nation.
\_ Such a deep sense of patriotism, and you served when?
List other government offices you've served in:
\_ oh, I dunno, offing stalin might have done us better.
\_ Stalin affected Russians, and I don't really care about
them. I care about how US economy and US policy is fucked
up, because I'm an American, and I'm here. Now. 21st century.
\_ you are reason #1 why we should go back and start offing.
\_ unless it is a holiday you experience relative to your real life,
only a romantic fool would prefer to live in the past. born there,
you will miss the context within which it seems so nice to
modern daydreamers... i'd consider the future but not without
some reasonable travel guides so i can pick the utopian or livable
parts and avoid some b-movie post-apocalyptic cannibal feast.
\_ Soylent green is PEOPLE!!! |
| 2005/4/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37240 Activity:low |
4/18 Just curious, who (what country, where) has reminants of Hitler?
Is it Russia? Or is it still in Germany?
\- Brazil
\_ There are rumors that Russian soldiers removed his charred body
to Russia after his adjudant burned him & Eva Braun in front of
their bunker on 30.04.1945. Other eyewitnesses say that he was
thrown into an unmarked hole & buried. As far as I can tell, the
NSA is keeping his brain alive inside a jar next to Kennedy at the
Smithsonian. -John
\_ I heard a story second hand from a Russian soldier who was there
that he saw a whole room full of dead hitler lookalikes at one
point. So if that's true, who knows what body was what?
\_ Lord knows I'm not one to let a straight line go to waste,
but this one's just too easy. :-) -John
\_ I'm trying to remember this joke correctly ... During the
US invasion, one of Saddam Hussein's generals meets with
Saddam's 20 body doubles. He tells them "I've got good news
and bad news. The good news is, even though American bombs
hit the palace Saddam was hiding in, he's still alive so you
still have your jobs. The bad news is, he lost an arm in
the attack." |
| 2005/4/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37201 Activity:high |
4/15 This is Bush's idea of a diplomat:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/15/101542/050
\_ Why dont you just put a link to the DUmmies while you are at it?
\_ Do you actually think sending a guy like this as UN ambassador
is good?
\_ "let alone such a critical posting to the UN". What?
\_ eh?
\_ Those DemocRATS, at it again!
[freerepublic.com channeling is now complete]
\_ So what? Personally I think that Bolton chasing a bunch of
UN losers around and hounding them b/c they are complete
jackasses would be a good thing. The UN is a complete sham
even being involved in it is a waste of US time and resources.
\_ Didn't the UN help us get a coalition together for Gulf War 1?
\_ Yeah, but they tried to stop us once, so now we must
all hate them forever.
\_ So what? Once in nearly 50 yrs they were remotely
useful for America. Our involvement in the UN is
a complete and utter waste of time and money.
\_ Didn't the UN have inspectors in Iraq before Gulf War 2?
Didn't the inspectors say they haven't found anything yet,
and we went ahead and attacked anyway -- asking the
inspectors to leave because we didn't think they were doing
a good job?
Didn't we already know there was a big oil-for-food scandal
before we attacked, but cited "no doubt" of Saddam having
WMDs as the #1 reason for attacking?
Didn't the U.S. inspectors sent after the invasion say that
it was their judgment that Saddam destroyed his existing
WMDs and put to sleep all his arms programs?
WMDs and put to sleep all his WMD programs?
Didn't we spend MUCH LESS on Gulf War 1 than on Gulf War 2
because of direct contributions of cash, equipment, and
personnel from our partners, both Arab and Western?
\_ So what? Yes, there were UN inspectors in Iraq before
we invaded. Big Deal. They were doing a lousy job and
wasting US time and money.
Yes we knew about the oil-for-food scandal, but w/o
the UN diplo-nuts there would never have been a stupid
oil-for-food program in the first place.
Yes OUR investigators think that Saddam destroyed his
WMDs prior to the invasion, but if we had waited for
the UN to get its act together who knows what might
have happened? Clearly OUR investigators wouldn't be
there and the UN inspectors would have kept up their
keystone cops routine.
So what if we spent less for Gulf War 1? We didn't
finish the job. The UN was part of the problem, Bush
I was the other part. Bush I should have sacked
Saddam back then and not left it for his son to
complete the job.
BTW, how come pretty much ever UN operation is a
unmitigated failure (Sudan, Sierra Leone, Rwanda,
E. Timor, Angola, Bosnia, &c.)? The reason is
simple, the UN is filled w/ a bunch of jackassess
who are all about lining their own pockets and
don't give a damn about what actually happens.
\_ The UN does a great job all the time all over
the world. I am not going to bother trying to
explain it to you because your mind is already
made up. Just google for UNICEF and World Food
Program for dozens of hits and you will see
what I mean. Just because they don't grind
your ideological axe doesn't mean they don't keep
millions from starving every year. Most people
think this is useful. I guess you would rather
see these people starve.
\_ Even these so called "successful" programs
are so grossly mismanaged that hardly any
of the money actually reaches the people
who need it. When UN money reaches a 3d
world country it goes straight into the
pockets the local politicians and their
families and not into the hands of the
poor starving people who need it. Don't
tell me this is red-state non-sense.
My family is from one of those poor 3d
world countries and I've seen how the
programs are implemented first hand.
If the goal was to keep millions of ppl
from starving, then the UN would have
worked w/ local gov to implement self
sufficiency programs decades ago. The
UN bureaucrats don't give a damn about
ppl, they just care about themselves
and the nice new benzs they can buy w/
the money.
\_ We went into Iraq because we had "no doubt" Saddam
had WMDs. I don't remember Dubya saying on the eve
of the invasion that we attacked because we weren't
sure.
If you really think Bush Sr. should have went into
Iraq, well, it's a nice thought, but the conversation
would have gone like this:
"Help us, we'll only do Kuwait." [half a year later]
"Oh, y'know, we did so well, fuck you all, I'm going
in for the kill. BTW, thanks for the dough, Bush1
p0wnZ U 4ll!1!"
\_ The conversation would have gone like this:
Saddamn is out of Kuwait. He is on the
run. The Iraqi ppl are rising against
him. There will never be a better time
to deal with him. Either we go in now,
or you fools let him regroup, rearm and
attack on a larger scale.
As for the other UN missions, I don't think you've
thought through these either, which is clear after
your Bush Sr. comment.
Whether you like it or not, and as much as you see
it as a failure and I do not -- the UN is here to
stay, especially now that the U.S. is overstretched
militarily and financially. Bush Sr. knew HOW to
use the UN, and Bush Jr., not knowing how to use the
UN and seeing it in the same way you did, fucked it
up. Thank God Condi is there now to resume Powell's
goal of international cooperation -- except this
time, Dubya really trusts Condi (to Dubya, Powell was
just daddy's good friend there to make sure Dubya
didn't fuck things up too bad). We need
international cooperation for Iran and North Korea,
because we don't have the guns, the money, the proof,
or the people to do it ourselves.
\_ Not to mention the fact that Bush I didn't go into
Iraq because he didn't want to deal with all the
shit we're dealing with now.
\_ Saddam also actually HAD the WMDs at that
point, too.
\_ Just FYI, there are much more sane and reasonable liberal blogs out
there than the mixed nuts at Kos. Try Josh Marshall or something.
The Kossacks are just as bad as the Powerline nutjobs, but less
influential. --lib
\_ Uh, Marshall will refer to Kos all the time. If they're putting
out verifiable, factual information, what's the problem? Is it
because they allow comments and Marshall doesn't?
\_ They don't just allow comments. They promote rabid comment
nuts into full time contributors to the blog.
\_ Is anyone else coving this specific story from this woman?
Kos was breaking this one this morning when I posted it, so
they had the best info. I would post (have posted in fact)
Drudge when they were breaking news. Let the Right Wing Nutjobs
blow it off because they don't like the source. They will just
be that much more surprised when it blindsides them. |
| 2005/4/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37116 Activity:moderate |
4/8 http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.main/index.html Coming soon to a conservative blog / radio show near you! ... at least four videos in the man's camera show roadside bomb attacks on U.S. troops. All had been shot in a manner that suggested the cameraman had prior knowledge of the attacks and had scouted a shooting location in sight of the target. "The individual in question was carrying press credentials from CBS News. ... " a U.S. military statement said Friday. \_ Blogs are the new yellow journalism. \_ Journalists are not military intelligence. They never will be. You can't expect them to be your spies. \_ this is old news to those on conservative forums \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1379990/posts |
| 2005/4/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37081 Activity:moderate |
4/5 Watch total moron write about how "we were ALL wrong!" on WMDs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28418-2005Apr5.html
(Yes, you can be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and be an idiot.)
\- Richard Posner has been called a lot of things for sure, but
nobody ever calls him an idiot. The same is said for Scalia, but
Posner >> Scalia. --psb
\_ OK, he has a lot of poorly founded assumptions in there, and
neglects a lot of very compelling arguments that counter his
article's points. -John (!op)
\- He's writing in the WaPo. He writes more substantially
but still to the general informed reader at:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com
You can also follow Poser via "Article iii groupie". --psb
\- This is a good article about Posner, by Alan Ryan, who
is well-regarded philosopher. --psb
http://csua.org/u/blb
\_ OK, I wasn't commenting on Posner per se, as I know he
can be a smart guy, but even smart guys write shit
articles occasionally. And this one is not worthy. -John
\- Posner does "skip steps" a lot. You have to have some
insight into the Giant Hedgehog World View to follow
what he is saying often. Also, sometimes he is
making a narrow technical point and should do a little
more to circumscribe his comments and clearly indicate
certain generalizations should not be drawn. He really
is somebody who weighs in on everything (see google).
One reason he probably wont be nominated to USSC. --psb
\_ If there is an opening, many feel that Posner
will be nominated b/c he is universally recognized
as one of the finest minds in the judiciary, the
Cardozo or Holmes of our generation if you will.
\- you mean you dont think BUSH I was correct when
he said THOMAS was the best man for the job?
while i think he'd be a good chief [would be
respected by current justices, is a machine
when it comes to productivity] i would be
surprise to see ROVECO nominate him, --psb
\- You know if by some miracle posner became
chief justice, he might bag on THOMAS some,
which would be really awesome. here is the
hatchet job on DOUGLAS. --psb
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/posner-antihero.html
\_ I think Posner is better than Thomas,
\- gee, really?
(which does not imply that Thomas is
a bad justice, I would be overjoyed
to be as "bad" as Thomas.)
\_ Is Posner being a devious asshole, by ignoring his higher
intellectual faculties? Is Posner helping his good friends /
associates while consciously ignoring the obvious truth of the
matter?
Perhaps. Until then, he's an idiot.
His reputation for non-idiocy may have gotten him on the Post
opinions page for this article, but his non-idiot cachet just
took a big hit.
\_ He's not an idiot. He is a very smart and clever propagandist.
Note his use of "nearly every competent observer." Anyone who
disagrees with the Establishment line, is by definition,
incompetent and not worth listening to. It is this kind of
self-sustaining insular world view that has put Washington DC
on such a collision course with the rest of the world. These
people are like Michael Jackson: they are nuts, but so wealthy
and powerful that they can just fire anyone who tells them
anything they don't want to hear.
\_ Competent observer means those who have invested sufficient
time and resources into investigating and observing the
situation. This does not mean anyone who disagrees w/ the
establishment's line is incompetent. In this case there were
no parties who had invested as much time and effort as MI-6,
CIA, &c. into investigating the situation and had reached a
dissenting opinion.
When it comes down to it, who are you going to trust, the
spooks or a bunch of loony tie-dye pot smoking kooks w/
purple hair and body piercings shouting free mumia, free pot
and no blood for oil? I'd go w/ the spooks everytime, they
have a much better track record than the kooks.
\_ The kooks knew about COINTELPRO before anyone else. |
| 2005/4/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37025 Activity:kinda low |
4/1 U.S. Soldier Convicted of Killing Iraqi Walks Free
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=4&u=/nm/20050401/ts_nm/iraq_courtmartial_dc
\_ your url is long and tax free
\_ I'm amazed he was convicted of anything. I don't know how we have a
military that can accomplish anything when this kind of thing goes
on.
\_ Yep, it's GOOD to be the invader isn't it?
\_ FOAD. It's a question of ethics on the battlefield.
\_ It's a sad case. If you were in Infantry, it
would have been drummed into you that if there is
a mortally wounded enemy lying down in front of
you, defenseless, and probably suffering terribly
(this happens a lot when you're a U.S. soldier),
you JUST CAN'T PUT THEM OUT OF THEIR MISERY --
even if you personally think it's morally
justified. However, the guy was trained as a tank
commander, so he probably didn't know. He's a
poor guy, since he did what he thought was right
and probably spent a lot of time securing the role
of company commander. His Army career is over, he
can't even be a desk jockey.
\_ It doesn't say what kind of discharge he got. If it was a
dishonorable discharge, that will be a huge burden on him
for the rest of his life.
\_ http://basic.armystudyguide.com/benefits/after_the_army.htm
6. Including Commissioned and Warrant Officers who have been
convicted and sentenced to dismissal as a result of General
Court-Martial. [included with Dishonorable Discharge] |
| 2005/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36994 Activity:high |
3/31 "We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost
all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"
-Bi-partisan Commision on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
U.S. Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, in letter to Pres. Bush
\_ What fucking difference does it make? "The world is better
without Saddam", no shit!
\_ I wonder if this will significantly change the 56% of those polled
in mid-March that still think Saddam had WMDs.
\_ That would require people actually paying attention.
\_ you misspelled "with brains".
\_ You don't need brains. All you need are conservative
talk show hosts talking about how "EVERYBODY was wrong"
how Dubya ain't a liar, EVERYBODY thought Saddam had
them. Instead, they're all talking about a vegetable,
but that's life, uh, the culture of life.
\_ "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of
the most lethal weapons ever devised. ... The United States and
other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we
will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward
tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of
horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be
removed. ... Recognizing the threat to our country, the United
States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use
of force against Iraq." Pres. Bush, 3/17/03
\_ "The commission said it was ``not authorized to investigate
how policy makers used the intelligence assessments.''"
I thought that's what this one was supposed to be...
\_ Nonono ... they were authorized to investigate whether policy
makers PRESSURED the intelligence analysts / agencies while the
intelligence was being analyzed.
If you were right, then Condi "centrifugue tube" Rice would be
out as the moronic Stanford Provost that she was.
\_ Listening to NPR's freshair made me really depressed
to hear how many morons are in the State Department and how
good they are at squashing people who actually come up with
good ideas. Damn depressing.
\_ I told you so. -motd thought leader
\_ So it was for oil right? Yeah prices are at record lows.
So it was a distraction right? Yeah Iran is going to nuke Israel
A narrow vision
\_ It was to assert America's military strength, and change US
policy to one of aggressive intervention, per PNAC. -tom
\_ which is yet more proof that republican men have bad
sex lifes and take it out elsewhere just like the famous
quote from Good Morning Vietnam ... The world would be a
safer place if there was alot more sex (and the condoms to go
with it)
\_ say WHAT? tom holub is a hard core left wing socialistic
dweeb and he's not getting any.
\_ wrong, kchang. -tom
\_ Tom does seem to take the MotD awfully seriously.
Tom, do insults here keep you up at night?
\_ No, but yermom does.
\_ It is not George's fault he trusted the most important decision
of his life to a guy code named "Curveball."
http://csua.org/u/bjl |
| 2005/3/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36947 Activity:very high |
3/29 Like I said long time ago, we should've kept Saddam in Iraq the same
way we kept Hirohito after WW2. Then we could use Saddam as a powerful
puppet to rule their own people:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4388919.stm
\_ That's just plain stupid. Keeping Saddam around isn't akin to
keeping Hirohito around after WW2, it would be more akin to
keeping around Hitler or Tojo. What they should've done was keep
a popular 2nd or 3rd in command person around. You definitely
couldn't keep Saddam in place, and you definitely couldn't keep
his sons in place.
\_ Equally impossible. Iraq was and is divided into three
groups. There was and is no popular face man. Elections are
easy, governing is hard.
\_ FYI, the BBC article is talking about how the Sunnis are
holding up formation of the govt by pulling out at the last second.
The Kurds and Shias need to include Sunnis in the govt.
\_ There are three top spots in the govt. The Shias are taking spot 1,
the Kurds spot 2, and they say the Sunnis can take spot 3. The
Sunnis all of a sudden are saying: We don't want spot 3 no more,
have fun with your non-inclusive government.
\_ Freedom is on the march! |
| 2005/3/25-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36890 Activity:nil |
3/25 Insurgents looking for a way out:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7b2a3b4e-9d4e-11d9-a227-00000e2511c8.html
\_ Amnesty!
\_ Stella!
\_ Isn't that basically what the whole election thing was about? Give
them a way to save face without strengthening them (the way Israel
inadverdently did with Hizbollah when it pulled out of Lebanon--
wise move, maybe the execution could have been better)? I guess
the goal right now is to alienate the real hardcore ones from the
casual "oh-look-it's-an-rpg-7-in-my-closet-now-how-did-that-get-
there?" types... -John |
| 2005/3/22-24 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36818 Activity:low |
3/22 "We've found Jewish Nazis, gay Nazis, blacks who wanted to be white
supremacists. The reason it isn't so unusual -- these are powerless
people to whom images of powerful people are appealing."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/school.shooting
\_ The boy killed his 60 year old grandpa and his **30** year old gf.
\_ Native Americans have big equipment.
\_ Wears bullet proof vest during the killing spree before shooting
himself to death. I mean, what's the point of wearing bullet proof
vest?
\_ Presumably to increase the odds that all but one bullet gets
used on victims.
\_ you know, we spend billions on the Iraq war to protect ourselves
from terrorists, yet our own people terrorize ourselves. 86
billion dollars spent on war is a lot of money that could have
been spent on civic and social programs that might have prevented
this tragedy. FUCK YOU GEORGE BUSH AND BUSH SUPPORTERS. I hope
you guys go to hell and experience eternal sodomization by satan
\_ Yeah, and had we spent that money on places like Afghanistan
Syria and Iraq BEFORE 9/11 we could've prevented around 3000
deaths. C'mon, people, are you forgetting the people who lost
their lives because of terrorism?
\_ uh, yeah williamc, war in Iraq and Homeland Security
have made US much safer than before, I can just feel it
\_ To Canada with you!
\_ To Iraq with you, and you fight with the Army you
have, not with the Army you want!
\_ But...what if they like it?
\_ From http://www.nazi.org/nazi/national_socialism/judaism
"thus we are supporters of the Zionist state, Israel, insofar as it
confines its influence to its own activities." |
| 2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36726 Activity:nil |
3/16 Maybe there were WMD in Iraq:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2114820
\_ That troll is so two days ago.
\_ "looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery
from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations"
!= "Saddam's Iraq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a
contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of
the weaponry in case of attack or discovery"
We thought they had WMD stockpiles and active programs --
instead, they had no WMD stockpiles, and no active programs --
just dual-use equipment and dormant programs -- which we did NOT
go to war for.
And anyone still calling Dubya a liar isn't doing themselves any
favors -- you need hard evidence (audiotape) for that. From what
you've got, you can only say he laid it all on "Slam Dunk" Tenet,
Director of the CIA who would be the expert on the topic.
Such an audiotape would need to have Dubya saying:
"Yeah, Tenet's 'proof' is all circumstantial, but I'm going to go
with saying 'no doubt' anyway, because, if America shows uncertainty
or weakness, the world will drift toward tragedy. Besides, this is
the guy who tried to kill my Dad."
It's almost like you had a tape of Kerry saying:
"Yeah, that intern I had gave really great head!" |
| 2005/3/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36705 Activity:moderate |
3/15 http://csua.org/u/bdm (Washington Post poll) Question 24: 56% of Americans still think Saddam had WMDs. Question 9: 56% of Americans support private accounts, 56% of Americans also support taxing all income for Social Security instead of the first $90K. What does this tell me? Americans want to be able to invest part of their Social Security payments into the stock market and reap increased yields. Americans also want the gubmint to cover their asses if the stock market goes south. Yay! \_ Heh (pro/against), Korea (47/34), Vietnam (24/69), Gulf (82/15), Afghanistan (93/6), Iraq (48/51). You know, in every major conflict known to mankind, soldiers bring back beautiful local hotties back to their vatherlands. I wonder how long before US soldiers bring Viet^D^D^D^DIraqi hotties back to the States. \_ iraqis not so hotties as iranian \_ Apparently you like the female mustache? |
| 2005/3/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36689 Activity:low |
3/14 Maybe Iraq did have WMD related program activities
http://tinyurl.com/5olzn (nytimes)
Thanks to kchang's kais motd:
__/~*##$%@@@******~\-__
/f=r/~_-~ _-_ --_.^-~--\=b\
4fF / */ .o ._-__.__/~-. \*R\
/fF./ . /- /' /|/| \_ * *\ *\R\
(iC.I+ '| - *-/00 |- \ ) ) )|RB
(I| ( [ / -|/^^\ | ) /_/ | *)B
(I(. \ `` \ \m_m_|~__/ )_ .-~ F/
\b\\=_.\_b`-+-~x-_/ .. ,._/ , F/
~\_\= = =-*###%#x==-# *=- =/
~\**U/~ | i i | ~~~\===~ You know, we totoro
| I I \\ do not appreciate this.
/ // i\ \\
( [ (( I@) ))) ) /
\_\_VYVU_/
|| * | |\|\
/* /I\ *~~\ | OO\
/~-/* / \ \ ~~M~\ | /^^\|
____----=~ // /WVW\* \|\ ***===--___ |_m_m/
\_ WMD related program activities
!= "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - Dubya, 3/17/03 |
| 2005/3/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36667 Activity:nil |
3/13 Iraq will likely not be an Islamic state:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=575516
(relevant bit is about 1/2 way down the page)
\_ The Iraqis will tell us anything at this point, if they think
it will make us go away faster. |
| 2005/3/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36585 Activity:nil 66%like:35387 |
3/8 Bush announces exit strategy from Iraq: http://csua.org/u/bb2 |
| 2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36572 Activity:moderate |
3/7 I've heard that armed forces in other countries (Switzerland,
France, and even UK) are REQUIRED to take extracurricular classes like
military history, Western Civilization, foreign languages, etc. How
about our armed forces in Iraq, how well educated are they? And what
about the liberal motd guy who has a brother that loves Bill OReiley,
how is he doing in Iraq right now? Is he still worshipping OReiley?
\_ No they're not. The officer candiates must take some additional
theoretical training, as well as some "how to be a gentleman" type
classes (as a bunch of their guys will essentially be farmboys.)
Basic training? All the guys I knew in the Swiss, French, German
and British armies spent basic training running around, screaming
a lot, doing pushups (as one does) and smoking dope and drinking
loads whenever they had the chance to get out. This is the big
argument against draft armies--not only do you get the usual
losers, but you also get the losers who'd much rather be
anywhere else. -John
\_ I had another big argument with him, but this time handed him some
articles penned by O'Reilly saying how the U.S. was very wrong about
WMD intelligence, and also gave him the CIA key conclusions on this.
He was so convinced about WMDs, but now he sees the other side, he
is much less angry.
After that, he read a whole bunch of books on what military life was
like, and will be starting boot camp at Ft. Benning March 11.
I also think he got my basic message that Dubya really needs to
unite the country and the world.
\_ Marines? Navy? Army?
\_ Army National Guard, Infantry
\_ Most of the guys on the ground in Iraq are not well-educated
and would be unemployed if not for the military. My
acquaintance in Iraq (who is still here on leave for another
week) said that lots of guys have nothing to go home to and
when their enlistment ends they work as private contractors.
He brought back lots of interesting photos and videos in
addition to telling stories. He's been there 6 months and in
the Army for almost 13 years. BTW, he's in NW Baghdad, an area
not particularly friendly to the US unlike some areas. If you
really want to know what the heck is going on over there then
e-mail me. --dim
\_ It's alright dim, I have a pretty good idea what's going on.
I watch Fox News every day to keep up with current affairs.
Everyday, our troops are spreading freedom. They are building
infrastructures that provide food, water, shelter, and
teaching Western ideologies to the Iraqi savages. The world is
safer today thanks to George W. Bush. God Bless America !mormon
\_ The more you watch Fox News, the more inaccurate your
view of the world becomes:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
\_ LIBERAL LIES! Everything but Fox is full of liberal lies.
Truth is in Fox and truth in God. -real conservative |
| 2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36568 Activity:high |
3/7 Ilyas, you really don't see the difference between lying about sex
Don't you think the people in the same car with her could
easily, so easily refute this?
vs lying about a war? Do you consider shop lifting and murder
to be the same as well? What would you think if Bush lied
about sex and Clinton lied about war? Just think for a second.
\_ Reading comprehension is your friend. -- ilyas
\_ Reading comprehension is Ilyas Insult #4.
\_ Lying about sex is much worse than lying about war. Everybody
knows that.
\_ Your whole statement is based on the "fact" that Bush
lied. Some of us don't agree w/ that for various reasons.
In contrast, everyone agrees that Clinton lied.
In a legal theory, a shop lifter is considered less culpable
that a murderer. On one moral level there is no difference
btwn the two, both are willing to do something which is
\- Your brain has been classified as: small.
\_ Why? While one can say that shop lifiting
is in some ways just a property crime and
no one is really hurt, it is still a crime.
It is a violation of someone elses rights,
and in an absolute sense all such violations
are equally wrong.
generally viewed as wrong (it is like Shaw haggling for
price). On an even deeper moral level, it doesn't really
matter what they do b/c the universe doesn't give a damn
about the activities of a bunch of apes on a minor world.
\_ This boggles the mind. If he didn't lie, he made a concerted
effort to avoid knowing information that would have contra-
dicted what he was saying, which is worse than lying.
\_ He either saw the reports with the massively qualified
language regarding Iraq's weapons and knowingly stated
qualified intelligence as fact (lie), or he didn't even
read it and just read what was on the prompter (incompetence).
I'm not sure which is more frightening.
\_ You do not know what intelligence he saw and whether
he willfully avoided seeing intelligence that would
not support the invasion plans. You are assuming
this. It is plausible that he was not presented w/
such evidence or that those presenting pro-war
evidence strongly discounted it. As I stated below,
I think that he was subjectively honest in his
belief that we needed to attack Iraq. In order
to "lie" he would have to have known your version
of the "truth" and then chosen to state otherwise.
\_ So do you think that Dubya told the truth about WMD in Iraq
in the leadup to the war?
\_ I believe he was being subjectively honest. Whether or
not this subjective belief reasonably corresponds to
the actual state of affairs in Iraq is debatable. Many
times one has to make decisions based on limited,
partially incorrect, qualified, &c. info. You do the
best you can. I think that he did the best he could.
Would I have made the same choice? Maybe not. I can't
say for sure. I wasn't sitting in the Oval Office.
\_ There is insufficient evidence (audio tape) to say that Dubya lied.
There is sufficient evidence that he laid it all on Tenet, Director
of Central Intelligence, who said WMDs in Iraq was a "slam dunk".
As for Bubba, the sentence "I did not have sexual relations with
that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" is not a lie. Bubba has huge brain, and
in his huge brain, believes oral sex != "sexual relations".
Nevertheless, Bubba probably lied about the Lewinsky affair in a
previous court appearance -- someone send me a URL, please.
As for lies to Hillary, of course he lied. |
| 2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36565 Activity:very high |
3/7 Isn't it weird that 33 people got killed in Iraq today and it's no
longer on headline news? Instead, Michael Jackson's trial is
on it. It's like we no longer care about deaths in Iraq. Weird.
\_ But those are brown people.
\_ good point, thanks. I guess they'll be on headline news when
they're white, or when they're brown people with special
Vitilgo skin whitening disease and noses that change frequently
\_ MJ is white though
\_ and female.
\_ And he *loves* children.
\_ It's not on the Conservative Media Cartel's list of stuff the public
should be informed about. Kind of like Gannongate, which, if it
had happened under President Clinton, would be broadcast 24/7 like
Monica Lewinsky was.
\_ Oh come, ON. You don't think there's a difference between a
reporter getting 1-day passes to press conferences, and a
president commiting perjury?
\_ Do you think there's a difference between lying a personal
matter and lying about the need for war?
\_ Do you think there's a difference between lying about a
personal matter and lying about the need for war? Or how
'bout marital infidelity vs. outing a CIA agent working on
WMD proliferation (to bring the argument closer to Guckie).
I'm sickened that Clinton would cheat on his wife. I'm
sickened that he lied under oath. But it was a personal
matter and a civil suit and it was thrown out as meritless.
Also, no one fucking died.
\_ it was not thrown out. He was disbarred in Ark. and
before the USSC. The suit was settled for money.
How is Iraq and different than Kosovo, at least we
are fighting on the right side this tims.
\_ Are you pro-Serb? I am not quite energetic right now
enough to tell you why Iraq is not Serbia. - danh
\_ It smelled of "Christian: good. Muslim: bad."
bullshit. I'm guessing emarkp.
\_ The settlement was on appeal. The case was dismissed
in a summary judgement: "There are no genuine issues
for trial in this case." - Judge Susan Webber Wright
\_ 'Also, no one fucking died.' I think it's a little trickier
than that. People can die because of indirect action
(sanctions, etc), and inaction. If you want to pin
unintended casualties on Bush, I will pin people Saddam
killed during Clinton's term on Clinton. -- ilyas
\_ Don't forget Vince Foster. He died.
\_ I think we should execute Bush for killing Iraqi
children. With his texan, oil-stained hands. -- ilyas
\_ How many millions starve to death each year just
because there is no profit in feeding them???
\_ We are talking about American lives here.
\_ Wow, I'm impressed. That was a very successful
subject change. "Dang, he caught me in a stupid
statement! Change the subject! Bush Bad!"
\_ Conservatives prefer a bumbling but honest fool to an
intelligent prevaricator.
\_ A political hack, with no journalistic experience but
working as a prostitute, somehow gets a press pass
in order to lob softballs week after week. Yes, this
is a scandal. Not on the order of Monicagate though. |
| 2005/3/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36549 Activity:moderate |
3/6 What have the Americans ever done for us?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1510003_1,00.html
\_ This kind of sums up the fundamental problem with most "pro-" or
"anti-American" arguments--it's either "you're a bunch of fascist
pigs", without paying attention to the good aspects of fascist
piggery, or "love it or leave it, they saved us from Hitler", which
flies in the face of the idea of being able to criticize a nation
on its bad aspects, no matter how good the overall picture (yes,
Ilya, I know, total war and all, don't start pleeease.) -John
\_ Even a Bald Eagle will poop on your windshield wussy
\_ Well, there's the aquaducts...
\_ Taleban: great move, kudoes! Oh, wait, the Taleban are coming back?
Um, wtf?
\_ Most likely the Taliban are not coming back:
http://tinyurl.com/4cso7 (yahoo news)
Iraq: Yay, no more Saddam Hussein! Oh, wait, what's with this
insane surge in suicide bombings, stil no steady electricity,
and a religious-dominated new slate of parliamentatians?
Libya: Yay, the negotiations we've been working on since 199x have
finally borne fruit.
Syria: ??? What did the US do in Syria? Oh, you mean the popular
uprising against Syria in the wake of the bombing of a
popular Lebanese politician? Hm, did the Americans bomb his
car?
Egypt: Yay, elections! Wait, did the Egyptians say they're going to
abide by them?
Saudi Arabia: See Egypt, with more oppression of women.
Israel/Palestine: Um, the US killed Arafat?
\_ You seriously believe this?
\_ Of course not. After all, he's
dead, isn't he?
\_ Of course not, because the CIA is
not that competent.
\_ "It was always the express goal of the Bush Administration to
change the regime in Baghdad, precisely because of the
opportunities for democracy it would open up in the rest of the
Arab world."
Really? 'Cos they sold it to us as him being an imminent threat,
what with those weapons of mass destruction and all.
\_ "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some
of the most lethal weapons ever devised. ...
The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day,
nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists
could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or
hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any
other. ...
Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to
act, this danger will be removed." -Dubya, 3/17/03
\_ "Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history --
revisionist historians is what I like to call them." -GWB |
| 2005/3/6-7 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36547 Activity:kinda low |
3/4 "Screwdriver had to be taken away suddenly"? Is this one of those
PATRIOT act things where you can't tell us what the hell is going
on?
\_ Since I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, I decided
to put the word "screwdriver" into http://news.google.com. It turns out
there's actually a hell of a lot of mayhem caused by
screwdriver-wielding thugs worldwide. So what *are* you talking
about?
\_ I assume "screwdriver" is a CSUA machine. It's mentioned in
motd.official.
\_ Ok, I figured that out now... I'm still glad I googled
"screwdriver", though. Very amusing.
\_ did it have a link to a story on the kid who died outside
an internet cafe a few years ago after he was stabbed in
the head with a screwdriver?
\_ You should google "skrewdriver." This will lead you to
some of the best of the web.
\_ Is "best of web" poorly done irony? Or are you some
post-post-modern bemused intellectual? I didn't
think UCB admitted white supremecy nutjobs.
\_ Taken down, not away. Our volunteer sysadmins are doing some
work on the machine, and on various other CSUA machines.
How many types of emergencies d'you think might cause this?
Think for a minute..... --PeterM
\_ I was lead to understand it got hacked. |
| 2005/3/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36530 Activity:kinda low |
3/4 http://csua.org/u/b9i "Well," the insurgence says to the hostages, "Are you really sure you want us to release you?" \_ That's Ironic. I bet there was poor communication between the convoy and the US troops. So some soldier sees a car rolling up fast with a bunch of guys with guns in it and... \_ Yes, because people in cars with guns in Iraq is such a odd sight. \_ Oh, tell us of all your adventures in Iraq! \_ US Soldier: It's coming right for us! |
| 2005/2/28-3/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36460 Activity:high |
2/28 Hey, where's "GOOG is way overpriced at 100, they will tank when
shares are unlocked in February" guy? -tom
\_ Brilliant troll. Welcome to the dark side. -troll
\_ GOOG is below it's November high. Hasn't done much lately.
Check out stocks like BHP, RIO, PBR.
\_ "Hasn't done much lately"? It is up 80% in less than a year.
\_ yea, but the last time there's a big debate about it
was when it's around 200. Now it's 187.
\_ Wrong about the timing. Correct in the end. You will see.
\_ Well gee, then, Mr. Prognosticator, when should we start
shorting Google to make back the enormous sums we would have
lost if we'd listened to your advice in the first place? -tom
\_ If you had shorted when I said (after February) there's
a good chance you are actually ahead at the moment.
Addendum: Buy LEAPs now for 2006, especially on a run-up.
\_ The puts or the calls?
\_ The WMDs were destroyed just before the invasion, buried in the
desert, or shipped to Iran or Syria. You will see.
\_ Yes, ilya.
\_ That wasn't me, but yeah, I agree. Did you also think
insurgency wasn't funded and operated from Syria? -- ilyas
\_ Hey have you seen this:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical
munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq
unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons
stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications
that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions
thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's
desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered
ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD
be discovered."
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/transmittal.html
"From the evidence available through the actions and
statements of a range of Iraqis, it seems clear that the
guiding theme for WMD was to sustain the intellectual
capacity achieved over so many years at such a great
cost and to be in a position to produce again with as
short a lead time as possible - within the vital
constraint that no action should threaten the prime
objective of ending international sanctions and
constraints."
\_ I responded to this, but some idiot deleted it and
I don't care enough to write another reply. -- ilyas
\_ You had written "Hussein would have nothing to
gain by doing so". Obviously, you think the
ISG-provided reason for destroying WMDs is BS.
\_ Yeah, I do. -- ilyas
\_ You should read these:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect1
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxG.html
\_ The CIA is trying to make GWB look foolish.
\_ "We were almost all wrong, and I certainly include
myself here." -David Kay, first ISG head
\_ Yeah, that is the Administration line. It
conveniently forgets the 15M who protested
the war worldwide.
\_ Trying to predict the stock market is stupid. Nobody does this
consistently, which means at the end of the day a few people
get lucky. I think the statistic was that 90% of day traders lost
money over the long haul. It is especially stupid to try to
predict how one particular stock will perform a short period
of time. So, Tom, it's not time for you to gloat, but perhaps
time for you to dump.
\_ I'm not gloating; I don't own GOOG and I never have. From the
start, I was just pointing out the fallacies of the dweebs
predicting it would crash and burn. -tom
\_ Well, the problem with your post is that you can't predict
whether a single company will crash and burn or not,
especially so close on the heals of Enron and WorldCom.
So if a person were to predict that a company will crash
and burn they are no more or less right than if you
predicted that it would NOT crash and burn. The fallacy
here isn't that people predicted that the company will
crash and burn, the fallacy here is that anyone attempted
to predict anything at all.
The correct method of "prediction" would be to assign it
percentages, but under the terms of probability just because
you have a higher probability of being right or wrong
doesn't mean that you are actually right or wrong. Therefore
your belief that GOOG wouldn't crash and burn is no more or
less valid than other people's belief that it will. The
only thing that really is valid is that your belief probably
has a higher chance of being right than others, at least in
my opinion.
\_ The fallacies were in logic, not in conclusion. I
happen to disagree with the conclusion also, but that
was not my point. -tom
\_ If you think they are fallacies, then why not?
\_ This sentence makes no sense.
\_ Dubya-speak universal translator engaged:
"If you think GOOG won't crash, why not buy some?"
\_ GOOG is too young a company to realistically
value; comparing its value with YHOO (which people
were doing at the time) makes no sense at all.
I prefer to buy more mature companies, so I didn't
buy GOOG. It's on my watch list, and I will buy
some if the valuation is established enough to
be clear. -tom
\_ Google is at what people think it will be worth. Yahoo is
at what it is actually worth. The two companies are about
the same. Google is not worth that much more than Yahoo,
but their stock prices says otherwise. We'll see. -none of
the above poster.
\_ Their stock price says they are worth about the same: GOOG $51B,
YHOO $44B. -tom
\_ YHOO has PE 56, GOOG has PE 130. Any reasons why I should buy
GOOG instead of YHOO?
\_ Google has a much higher growth rate.
\_ Google maps is completely awesome.
\_ Yup. Or try searching for movie: anything, then playing
around.
\_ Are you saying this sarcastically? I didn't know they had
a map and I just tried it with firefox and it sucked shit,
the image won't even come up. Come on.
\_ Works for me. Sounds like you're blaming them for your
incompetence.
\_ You couldn't get <DEAD>maps.google.com<DEAD> to work? Under
Firefox? Not only does it work for me under firefox,
it works on Mozilla 1.6 on Linux. And no, I wasn't be
sarcastic, Google maps is seriously a great product.
\_ IE works, java on my firefox is broken. damn.
\_ Wow, it is nice! -pp
\_ I had too much security on my firefox java script, after
I enabled all the checkboxes, it works.
\_ Wow! Now I know why I also have this problem. After
I enabled only the "Change images" box, it works.
Thanks! -- !pp
\_ It looks similar to microsoft street and trips, is it the same?
\_ I just tried it. It looks cool, but it doesn't have the turn-
by-turn map like in Yahoo which is sometimes useful.
\_ Yes it does. Try clicking on the numbers next to each
direction step.
\_ I see. Is there an easy way to print out the turns?
\_ When all is said and done, there are more than a few people who
shorted GOOG. But for the stock to fall, there needs to be a real
reason. The key is Google ads. As spiffy as GOOG is, you need to
follow the money. As far as they can pull in the cash, they're
gonna do fine. The shorters are going to have to wait for a while. |
| 2005/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36433 Activity:high |
2/25 Best... Freeper... Post... Ever....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350645/posts
\_ What...the...fuck...? I don't even understand the intent of the post
or of any of the replies enough to even make fun of them.
\_ wow wtf is that? tangent: kids with flags and uniforms make me sick.
\_ I feel a great swelling of pride... in not being one of those
people.
\_ On the other hand, you post here.
\_ Touche'.
\_ The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Mom in the upper right corner is just
too perfect.
\_ Since you all seemed unable to figure this out, the thread is for
the morale of troops who visit the site, of which there are
a significant number. So, my reply is you all are pricks.
Do you mock the USO as well?
\_ Posting morale boosters for the troops to freep is akin to having
your anti-war rally blessed by UBL. I mean, sure, the sentiment
is there, but it's still ick.
\_ Bad analogy. There are probably quite a few soldiers who
read and enjoy freerepublic, and appreciate the support.
The idiocy in the freeper post isn't idiotic because it's
a freeper post or because it is intended to support or
entertain the troops, it's idiotic because it's idiotic. |
| 2005/2/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36412 Activity:very high |
2/25 Ever wondered what it's like to be a soldier in Iraq? What it's like
to roam around the Iraqi street, to interact with the Iraqi people,
and to be ambushed by enemies that you can't even see? Ever wondered
how our soldiers retaliate? And ever wondered if the Iraqi people are
really pro-USA or secretly pro-insurgents? I recommend "PSB Frontline-
A Company of Soldiers." Watch it on PBS. If you can't then get it on
torrent: http://www.mininova.org/get/10752/frontline022205.torrent
This is neither pro-war or anti-war, it just shows you the way it is.
\_ Some of us don't have to wonder. Some of us keep in touch with
people in Iraq and Afghanistan. -- ilyas
\_ Note you can know exactly what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan
and be either pro- or anti-Dubya.
Bush is a moron, but he's a good guy. This tends to lead
to mostly defendable intentions in foreign policy, but
incredible mis-steps in execution occasionally.
\_ Occasionally? name a non-misstep. intention is shit when one
is so royally imcompetent.
\_ He's not a "good guy". Who's not a good guy anyway? Who has
mostly indefensible intentions in foreign policy? Idiotic.
\_ I have an acquaintance coming back from Iraq this weekend for
leave (US Army). He has told me before that the Iraqis are
overwhemingly pro-USA. It only takes a few dufuses (Saddam's
ex-dufuses) to create trouble. I'm sure he'll have more to say
than fits in his usual letters.
\_ I think it entirely depends on where you are stationed. The
Kurds love us, the Sunnis hate us, in Baghdad it depends on
the neighborhood.
\_ Please tell him thanks and that he's appreciated.
\_ poor guy, he's a victim of Bush's incompetence
\_ 1. He is career military and it beats paperwork.
2. He find values in doing things like handing out
books to kids who never had them.
\_ Seconded. There are lots of us back home who really
value his service.
\_ Thanks for sharing this info. In the video an Iraqi civilian
gets killed and one of the soldier said "Shit, I got a ...
collateral damage. God damnit, someone call civilian
ambulence." Then they quickly run away as to not get ambushed.
Later on there was some intelligence that indicate that the
family of the killed civilian is pretty mad at US soldiers
and is planning to do something for revenge. So let me ask
you this, is there really a fine line between the good guys
and the bad guys? I mean, couldn't it be possible that
regular civilians get mad and join the insurgents, or the
other way around?
\_ You're a few wars behind.. Welcome to the reality based
community.
\_ No. In the Crusades you had the good guys and the
bad guys and it's easy to distinguish between the two.
In WW1 WW2 you had the Axis vs. the Allies, and it's
easy to distinguish between the two.
\_ Were the Crusaders the good guys or the bad guys?
\_ The answer is in Indiana Jones.
\_ Uh, oh, you're going to overload ilyas' binary reasoning circuit.
\_ what reasoning is that? That he's right and you're wrong
that I'm hollier than thou Bush-like reasoning?
\_ Sure, it happens but not in large numbers. Most of the people
there are like people here. They just want to be left alone
to live their lives. They don't want to be a part of anyone's
revolution, but they certainly hated Saddam.
\_ 100,000 is not a large number???
\_ Try >200k.
\_ 25 million people live in Iraq, and I doubt the number
of peaceful civilians who suddenly took up arms is
100,000. They are ex-military, foreigners, and others
with an agenda.
\_ Hint: the insurgency has grown steadily. The longer we
are there, the more we're seen as occupiers, the more
people will take up arms. Yes, there are outsiders, but
the majority are iraqis. They gave us a year of
relative calm. When the electricty and water didn't
come back on, they came at us harder.
\_ What makes you think it has grown in numbers? Links? |
| 2005/2/22-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36371 Activity:moderate |
2/22 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/22/casualty.hoax.ap Does the suspect look Asian or black? I mean, this guy looks just like Mr. Mackey in South Park, with a big ass balloon head or something. http://www.southparkstudios.com/img/content/characters/49a.gif \_ http://www.southparkstudios.com/img/content/characters/49a.gif \_ Black. The sketch artist sucks donkey dick, but he drew crinkly hair. |
| 2005/2/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36245 Activity:nil |
2/18 Great blog on strategies in current global war. I particularly like the
section on large scale attacks vs. system disruption.
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas |
| 2005/2/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36243 Activity:nil 76%like:36239 |
2/18 Winning Their Hearts And Minds:
http://csua.org/u/b46 (Christian Science Monitor)
\_ That dude needs to get a talk radio show.
\_ Interesting article, thanks. (Note: link not BS from pundits)
\_ Dear kchang, it would be nice if your motd archive can translate
shortened url (csua.org or tinyurl) into actual url since the latter
tends to remain valid longer. Many ppl read links from the archive
when they have time rather tha following the motd live.
\_ dear anonymous person, if you move your mouse over the URL,
you'll see a summary and the actual url. And if you go to the
entry, you'll see the entire cache up to 8K. Try the following
url. This feature has been around since May of last year:
http://csua.com/?entry=36239
Is this feature good enough for you? |
| 2005/2/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:36239 Activity:high 76%like:36243 |
2/18 Winning Their Hearts And Minds:
http://csua.org/u/b46
\_ That dude needs to get a talk radio show.
\_ Interesting article, thanks. (Note: link not BS from pundits)
\_ Dear kchang, it would be nice if your motd archive can translate
shortened url (csua.org or tinyurl) into actual url since the latter
tends to remain valid longer. Many ppl read links from the archive
when they have time rather tha following the motd live.
\_ dear anonymous person, if you move your mouse over the URL,
you'll see a summary and the actual url. And if you go to the
entry, you'll see the entire cache up to 8K. Try the following
url. This feature has been around since May of last year:
http://csua.com/?entry=36239 |
| 2005/2/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36202 Activity:very high |
2/16 "Iran Threatens to Shoot Down U.S. Drones" Why don't they just
shoot it down? I take it they don't have the capability? If
anyone's flying drones over the US airspace, you bet we would
shoot it down on the first opportunity.
\_ what is the international law on sovereignty of airspace? And how
high do the drones fly? Just curious...
\_ Bush breaks International Law again. What do you think?
\_ WRONG. Bush IS the law, international law.
\_ Prepare to be JUDGED!
\_ 15 years in the academy
He was like no cadet they'd ever seen
A man so hard his veins bleed ice
and when he speaks he never says it twice
they call him judge, his last name is Dredd,
so break the law and you'll wind up deeeeeeeeaaaaad!
Truth and justice is what he's fighting for
judge Dredd the man: he is the laaaaaaaawwwwwwww!!!!
Respect the badge!!!
he earned it with his blood.
fear the gun!!
your sentence may be death because
I am the laaaaaaawwwwwwwww!!!!
\_ Where's chicom troll to lecture us on the inherent hypocrisy of the
US and how China is so much more logical and humanitarian....
\_ you are stupid. dumb US just destroyed Iran's arch-enemy
Saddam for them, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars,
and 1500 lives and counting, and are still battling the Iraqi
Sunnis while Shiite religious fundamentalist parties just
dominated the election in Iraq. why would they want to
shoot down US planes? chicom troll is not stupid like you.
even if iran wants to shoot down US plane, they will warn
first like above, otherwise, US will lie and say they got
shot down in iraq, blah blah. now, after the warning,
when US plane got shot down, the whole world will know
it's because they violated Iran's airspace and has only
themselves to blame. no point getting into unnecessary
fight with US when it is serving as your running dog.
the past few years, all the mad iranian mullahs have been
laughing hysterically at US idiocy and for their regime's good
fortune.
\_ Do you have a problem with the above statement? Are you
suggesting the US will simply protest someone flying
drones over its airspace? What about the time one CIA
drone fired a missile at a target on the ground in
another country? Oh I get it, they are all terrorists,
and as such they don't have any rights that you so
proudly claim and try to enforce upon others, but choose
to abandon at the first sign of trouble for yourself.
Better yet, call all your enemies terrorists. (Oh wait,
I take it back, you are already doing that)
\_ yay! chicom troll's young padawan speaks! -chicom troll #1 fan
\_ Wow, nice merging. This response belongs with the stupid
guy, not the problem guy.
\_ China has been intruding Japanese marine territory with subs for
years.
\_ Iran claims to have already shot some down. They are going
public with the info now.
\_ link? |
| 2005/2/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36195 Activity:low |
2/16 Sunnis admit poll boycott blunder
http://csua.org/u/b2z
\_ they learned faster than our minorities |
| 2005/2/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36188 Activity:very high |
2/15 Freedom Is On The March!
http://csua.org/u/b2s (msnbc)
\_ If they're gonna come out, they should have damn solid proof. Now
it's going to be a muddy I say you say he says type of deal.
\_ I seem to remember that Custer Battles employees once got into
a shoot out with *each other* in the lobby of their hotel. |
| 2005/2/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36146 Activity:moderate |
2/11 Shock and Awe. Saudi candidate says that women should
be allowed to drive:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050209-113151-9154r.htm
\_ Only in a religion as nutty as wahabism could this persist,
and only because they've got oil. At least it keeps the muslims
backwards and prevents them from developing their own tech.
\_ It was less than 100 years ago that we didn't allow women to
vote.
\_ True, but 85 years is a pretty long time on the human
time scale.
\_ No... no it isn't. In the past 20 years or so things
have changed enough so that 85 years is a long time
on the human time scale, but we haven't had those 85 years
yet.
\_ Whatever. Since the industrial revolution 85 years
has become a long time.
\_ We've got plenty of fruitcakes here in the US too, it's just
that not enough of them are in positions of power (yet?). They
just run the show over there.
\_ Aren't the Mormons opposed to women driving? |
| 2005/2/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:36064 Activity:high |
2/4 "The United States would dispatch 690,000 troops and 2,000
warplanes if war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, according
to a South Korean defense policy paper released Friday"
\_ That seems like a lot. Anyone know how many troops we have?
\_ I think if you count everyone in training, on leave, resupply,
and doing 'back end' work it's about that many. We have 125k
active duty in Iraq and that's a stretch.
\_ We won't need troops soon. We'll have armored death robots
within a few years. -John
\_ I think we should make Imperial Walkers. Why not? Unlike
missile defence I'm pretty sure they would actually work.
\_ I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.
\_ Link?
\_ doubtful. Marines fall short of recruitment, and is in trouble:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/marines.recruiting.ap
\_ Did you actually read your own link? It doesn't say they're
in trouble. It says they were 84 recuits short of their
3270 recruit goal in January, but they were 184 over
the goal for that quarter.
\_ There are only 450k active duty soldiers in the entire Army,
so that seems like a bit of a stretch. I am sure we would
activate the Reserves and pull in the IRR though and they
number at least another 1/2M. |
| 2005/2/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36031 Activity:high |
2/2 The top entry on Iraq the Model tells some interesting stories
from the elections
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com
\_ Great link -- thanks for sharing it. -mice
\_ shucks I thought I was going to see Iraq models in swim suits
\-If I think "We're from the Mujahideen and we're not going to
hurt you" is the funniest thing I have read in weeks, does
that make be a bad person? |
| 2005/2/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36007 Activity:kinda low |
2/1 An interesting (as a point of view of a military guy) essay on
the modern war of attrition:
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04summer/peters.htm
-- ilyas
\_ If one takes that long to say something, the author probably isn't
saying anything at all.
\_ Why do you find it so interesting? |
| 2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35993 Activity:very high |
1/31 Is Al Qaeda ineffective? I ask this because despite spouting so
much bile and hatred they haven't really done much of anything.
As the train accident in LA showed, it's easy to stage simple
attacks and yet all they have to show are a train bombing in Spain
and the WTC. I am starting to think the WTC was more lucky than
good. Is Al Qaeda as large of a threat as most of us thought on 9/11?
\_ Oh. It's only 1300+ and counting.
\_ 1411 to be exact.
\_ Your number is old. 1435.
\_ Al Qaeda is effective in the Russian guerilla warfare sense -- they
are using very limited resources to tie up a LOT of resources of
the enemy. -- ilyas
\_ Understood, but I guess the surprise is how limited their
resources really seem to be. Even Hamas seems to be a
stronger, better-backed, and better-funded organization. They
make the most of what they have, but what they have seems to
be 'not much'.
\_ Al Qaeda may well be smaller and less funded than Hamas.
Their only claim to fame is pulling off an attack on US soil.
-- ilyas
\_ And on US embassies. And on US warships. Not to mention
MASSIVE loss of US civillian life. And the first WTC
bombing.
\_ All of this was on or before 9/11, no?
\_ Mostly, yeah -- I was responding to the notion that
WTC II was their only claim to fame.
\_ Bali nightclub bombing was after. weren't there
refinery explosions in germany or something claimed
by al qaeda? American compound in riyadh in may 03.
daniel pearl
\_ This is almost stupid enough to call troll on it, but it's dim,
so i think it's sincere. Coordinated embassy bomings in africa,
uss cole, etc. now have expanded their presence to over 60
countries. they're dispersed, and growing, and bush hasn't done
a thing to actually work on it.
\_ Wow, now THIS is a troll. Since 9/11 there hasn't been one
successful attack on U.S. soil. If your Al-Qaida was so
powerful why haven't they done even one suicide bombing in
America? Oh, I guess you're going to blame the LA train wreck
last week on some sort of government cover-up. Tinfoil hat
time.
\_ As ilyas points out above, they've done an incredible job
costing the US billions of dollars, thousands of lives,
and tying up a HUGE portion of the US's military power with a
trickle of resources. What should be obvious is that if we
didn't tie up those resources, then it's far more likely that
rather than military personnel lost in combat it would
probably be as many civillian lives somewhere else. Your
observations are accurate, but your standards of evaluation
are all wrong.
\_ You seem to be suggesting that if we had not invaded Iraq,
the US would have suffered around 14,000 civilian terrorist
casualties in the past 2-3 years.
\_ [This is now incoherent because PP backed off of his
absurd assertion]
\_ [PP was too busy trying to beat the motd spinlock
and didn't think all the details through.]
\_ Motd spinlock never happens! Someone who posts
way more than me says so! -- ilyas
\_ That claim was never made. Reread the
archive, dude. -4 hp for poor reading
comprehension.
\_ Ilya was being sarcastic. Now who's got
poor reading comprehension?
\_ Sarcastic...you keep using this word..
perhaps it doesn't mean what you think
it means.
\_ You can be sarcastic AND wrong.
Sarcasm is fun; being misquoted is
irritating. Crap. Ilyas trolled me,
didn't he? DAMN YOU ILYAS! -4 hp to
me for being gullible.
\_ Before 9/11 there hadn't been a us attack for many years.
And now there are all those nice soldiers in Iraq to blow
up instead.
\_ Attacking military targets isn't a particularly good
way to terrorize the US populace at large.
\_ You know the goal isn't terror. Terror is just one
of many tools. The goal is to further an agenda.
This isn't a Bond movie.
\_ No, but it terrorizes the Iraqi population, which makes
our job there harder, more expensive, and with higher
casualties to boot. If they hurt the populace enough,
the US may even be forced to withdraw which would be a
PR disaster (not to mention a massive ideological
failure). Also, if it gets bloody enough for our
troops, the government may even lose popular support,
which gives further validation to the effectiveness of
terrorism overseas impacting domestic policy (ie, the
US populace at large).
\_ so Saddamn didnt terrorize the iraqi populace?
\_ ??? Are you responding to the correct thread?
\_ But it is a good way to 1) drain our resources and
2) solidify and "train" their people.
\_ On the other hand, if all of the attacks happen in the Middle
East (e.g. Cole) then they fade into irrelevance. Same thing
if the attacks come decades apart. You'd think there would be
more attacks in the US, Japan, or Europe and yet nothing. To
me this indicates they have a severe lack of resources and
thus spend a lot of time planning to use them efficiently.
\_ I get the impression that they have a few smart people at the top
who move very slowly, and a lot of low level poor ignorant angry
men. Rember that 9/11 was years in planning and only then it was
the second try to destroy the WTC. I don't think they have
the resources to make chem or bio weapons, but given enough time an
a state-sponsor they could put them into use.
\_ Yeah, I'd have to agree. That's why I was and continue to be
surprised that people believe that that 9/11 has changed the world.
Staging an attack on U.S. soil is *very* hard, but anyone can
get lucky once in a while. There will not, however, be another
attack on U.S. soil of any substantial magnitude (over 50
casualties) masterminded by Islamic fundementalists in the next
15 years (you heard it hear first).
\_ I guess the idea is that they shouldn't have gotten lucky --
US had gotten too lax in its handling of terrorism. The
World Trade Center was a wake up call. It was the wake up call
that serves as the 'changed the world' part. That's just a
guess on my part though. You're probably right about the 15
years part.
\_ If Dubya didn't start the practice of scanning checked-in luggage
for bombs, you can bet there would be a synchronized commuter
plane event.
\_ Yes, but how many unsuccessful attempts at terrorism has there
been since 9/11?
\_ why make a move when the great satan imperialist is sending
its running dogs all over the place. let them run around raging
mad doing stupid things and waste money and get tired, making
their friends turn away, and making new enemies, then when they
are broke and exhausted and got kicked out of iraq with tail
between their legs, then add insult to injury and start
bombing and terrorizing them at their home again. by then their
will would be totally broken, and they will cry like girl.
\_ Wow! This r3wl5!!1!
\_ You WIN!
\_ I would suggest that the 'kicked out of Iraq' part isn't
going according to plan. |
| 2005/1/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35991 Activity:nil |
1/31 I thought it was interesting how NYT in earlier reports painted a very
rosy picture on Sunni turnout, and LAT later came out with numbers
which didn't fit the picture:
Quoth NYT: "The figure [55 to 60 percent] was based on national
returns, Mr. Ayar said, and included the provinces of Anbar and
Nineveh, which have large Sunni populations. The predicted low
turnout in Anbar, a hotspot of Sunni resistance to the American
occupation, was exceeded to such an extent that extra voting
materials had to be rushed to outlying villages, where long
lines were formed at polling stations, Mr. Ayar said...
Even in the so-called Sunni Triangle people voted, too. In
Baquba, 60 miles north of Baghdad, all the polling stations that
reported indicated a huge turnout. In Mosul, the restive city
to the north, large turnouts were reported, even in the Sunni
Muslim areas, and despite threats and scattered attacks with
bombs, mortars and small arms fire."
http://csua.org/u/aws
\_ Updated news --
The fact that polling stations indicated a "huge turnout" in
Baqubah, "large turnouts" in Mosul, and other Sunni areas
most likely came from there being few polling centers there:
"Voting was almost nonexistent in the largely Sunni provinces
of Al Anbar, Salahuddin, Nineveh and Diyala, Western
officials said. For instance, in Baqubah, a city of 300,000
north of Baghdad that has a substantial Sunni population,
just 17,000 people voted." [~ 12% turnout, Baqubah]
http://csua.org/u/awu (LA Times, 1/31 Monday)
"But some U.S. officials estimated that 175,000 had come out
in Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital. About
54,000 voters were said to have turned out in the city of 1.8
million." [~ 6% turnout, Mosul]
http://csua.org/u/awv (LA Times, 1/31 Monday)
(If you say half the people in each city are kids, then you'd
have 12% and 6% turnout among Sunnis.) |
| 2005/1/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35982 Activity:nil |
1/30 Not surprisingly, the following headlines appear:
Fox: Bush Calls Iraqi Vote 'Resounding Success'
CNN: Bush praises historic vote
ABC: Iraq Voters Defy Threats, Boycott Calls
MSNBC: History Vote
\_ eh?
CBS: Iraqi Voters Defy Insurgents |
| 2005/1/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35980 Activity:very high |
1/30 Preliminary reports say that Iraq vote is a success. Fuck.
\_ If less than 50% of eligible voters vote, massive idiocy
causes votes to get miscounted all accross the country,
the two dominant parties engage in blatant voter fraud while
banding together to shut out any other party, and most politicans
run for office with essentially no chance of losing, what do you
call it? The United States of America.
\_ I call bullshit on you. No one on the motd actually opposses
democracy for Iraq. You're a republican troll trying to make
liberals look bad in the eyes of the gullible (like ilyas).
\_ You are new here, right? Is this honestly the first atrocious
thing you've seen from motd liberals? -- ilyas
\_ Fuck you, ilyas. Find me one post from the archives where
anyone is actually hoping that the Iraq election will fail.
Why is there no follow up by the supposed op? Or by the
theoretical hordes of evil liberals who want Iraq to fail.
\_ Oh, just watch the liberals try to spin it into a failure.
In fact, it's started already, as evidenced below.
\_ *shrug* And if the positions were reveresed, the
conservatives would be doing the same. Are you new to
politics?
\_ Whatever. It's still the Democrats who will be
doing the spin this time.
doing the spin this time.$a
\_ So? You're a tool for the soulless political
machine. It's sad.
\_ *shrug* And if the positions were reversed,
some conservative would be saying the same
thing as you are now. Are you new to politics?
[It's called satire, son.]
\_ The irony is that I'm not liberal, but
I'd still be deploring the two-party
polar all-or-nothing foolishness that the
system encourages...and you'd still be a
partisan tool without independant thought
or an original thought in your head. Poor
guy. Perhaps this whole subthread ought to
be nuked.... [brain cramp corrected]
\_ [ Dumb-asses removed. FOAD, the both of you.]
\_ Uh oh. Out or order deletion. Shouldn't this thread
be ilyased now in the name of equal treatment?
\_ This makes me laugh. -- ilyas
\_ Makes me ill.. -scotsman
\_ I'm so sick and tired of hearing you liberals moaning and
bitching about the current administration. Perhaps the
decision to go to war was not a good one, but what
alternatives do you liberals have? You keep criticizing
that Bush has no exit plan, blah blah blah. Did Kerry tell
us what he would do differently? No. Do you guys have
better alternatives? No.
\_ Yes, we did. The alternative was NOT to go to war. Duh.
\_ War is bad. Elections are good. Reasonably functioning
elections are better. Calling those responsible for war
on false premises to account is good. Getting on with
things and trying to help make the world a bit sunnier
despite initial false premises is good. I don't
understand the black-and-white attitudes about
conservative/war/election vs. liberal/no war/no elections-
a slightly differentiated approach would be nice. -John
\_ Um, dude. You'd rather it was a total failure? I'm glad the
death toll so far has been low, and i hope the 72% turnout is
not a staggering overestimation, but the failure to pull in the
sunnis is a BIG problem. I have the feeling that our being there
is the only thing preventing a civil war, and this election is not
going to change that, or get us closer to an exit. -scotsman
\_ The election being successful makes it harder for us to justify
bringing our troops home.
\_ OK, we're there for false reasons. However, we are there,
and the chaos, while it may not be our fault directly, is
certainly a result of our actions. I don't know about you,
but I consider it the moral duty of my country to clean up
messes it helps create, and to call to account our elected
(legitimately or not) officials afterwards. To
cut and run and to leave those poor bastards (yes, some of
them actually _want_ and believe all that freedom and
democracy and mom's apple pie crap) in the lurch would be the
most craven and unworthy action I could imagine. -John
\_ It went like everyone predicted. Lots of turnout in Shiite areas,
little or no turnout in Sunni areas.
The 72% number is a preliminary number from the Iraqi election;
they have backpedaled to 57% now.
The "success" comes from the Shiites being able to vote and
preventing the Sunnis from crashing the party, since the U.S.
didn't invest too much in Sunni participation, anyway.
The tactical success comes from a military standpoint comes from
restrictions on vehicle traffic and the ringed security system
(U.S. on outside, Iraqi police on inside), which limited attacks
to mortar fire and suicide belts, and encouraged Shiites who
got to the inside of the ring to see only Iraqi folks working.
\_ Quoth NYT: "The figure [55 to 60 percent] was based on national
returns, Mr. Ayar said, and included the provinces of Anbar and
Nineveh, which have large Sunni populations. The predicted low
turnout in Anbar, a hotspot of Sunni resistance to the American
occupation, was exceeded to such an extent that extra voting
materials had to be rushed to outlying villages, where long
lines were formed at polling stations, Mr. Ayar said...
Even in the so-called Sunni Triangle people voted, too. In
Baquba, 60 miles north of Baghdad, all the polling stations that
reported indicated a huge turnout. In Mosul, the restive city
to the north, large turnouts were reported, even in the Sunni
Muslim areas, and despite threats and scattered attacks with
bombs, mortars and small arms fire."
http://csua.org/u/aws
\_ Updated news --
The fact that polling stations indicated a "huge turnout" in
Baqubah, "large turnouts" in Mosul, and other Sunni areas
most likely came from there being few polling centers there:
"Voting was almost nonexistent in the largely Sunni provinces
of Al Anbar, Salahuddin, Nineveh and Diyala, Western
officials said. For instance, in Baqubah, a city of 300,000
north of Baghdad that has a substantial Sunni population,
just 17,000 people voted." [5.7% turnout, Baqubah]
http://csua.org/u/awu (LA Times, 1/31 Monday)
"But some U.S. officials estimated that 175,000 had come out
in Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital. About
54,000 voters were said to have turned out in the city of 1.8
million." [3% turnout, Mosul]
http://csua.org/u/awv (LA Times, 1/31 Monday)
\_ I'm heartened to hear that so many people voted. I hope there's no
election fraud, and I hope this means we can now begin withdrawing
our troops. I still disagree with BushCo's lying to get us in in
the first place, and I still think Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld should
be pilloried for the cock-up they made of the initial security
situation. Looking forward, this will mean nothing is Allawi
continues to allow torture and ignores the desire of the Kurds to
break away and form their own independent Kurdistan. For now, an
excellent turn-out is a great step forward. --erikred
\_ Dubya didn't lie. He honestly believed there was "no doubt"
Saddam had weapons, as he realized his own intellectual
limitations and trusted CIA Director Tenet, who said it
was a "slam dunk" and in a recent speech was still confused
as to how wrong both he and his agency were.
As for WMDs, the final Duelfer report will be released in
Feb, and Dubya might finally say something about the lack
of WMDs in Iraq.
\_ he already said something about the lack of WMD, jctwu:
http://www.depresident.com/bush-joke-wmd-iraq-video.asp
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/033104_Bush_makes_sick_jokes.html
\_ I don't believe it. The administration decided to do the war
and then went all out seeking whatever justification it could.
Not the other way around. I believe Dubya knowingly
misrepresented both the case for the war and the projected
aftermath. I believe he thought it would all turn out ok
and that they probably would find something to justify it
and in any case Saddam was bad etc. I'll laugh if Iraqis
end up voting themselves back into a monarchy or something.
\_ Even though I was against the war, this is great news. People in
Iraq were threatened, yet went to the polls in great numbers, even
Sunnis. And the death toll was pretty mild compared to previous
death tolls, probably due to the insane security precautions.
Unfortunately, given past performance, there is a good chance BushCo
will fuck up something else over there. There's definitely a
lesson there for us -- those of us who don't vote because it's too
much effort or they don't care ... Wanting the Iraq vote NOT to go
much effort or too much apathy ... Wanting the Iraq vote NOT to go
well because it makes Bush look good is pretty pathetic. -eric
\_ Sunnis did not go to the polls in great numbers, as polling
centers were reported as suggesting. See LA Times links above. |
| 2005/1/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35973 Activity:high |
1/29 Any Saturday night trolls want to predict what will happen on Iraq
election day?
\_ Lots of people will vote, some will be killed, and Iraq will
continue to be violent and occuppied by the U.S. with very little
real change.
\_ Probably a coup.
\_ we'll invade iran as a distraction
\_ Kurdish independence.
\_ Lots of motd wankery.
\_ We have a winner!
\_ There will be lots of polling booths and security in Shiite areas
(where ~ 80% want to vote), and not very many or no polling booths
at all in Sunni areas (where seemingly > 50% have said they will
definitely NOT vote). Why have polling booths somewhere where
people won't vote, security will be an even more incredible bitch,
and they'll probably mortar you to death anyway? -op
\_ some will vote, some will not, but it'll be run democratically
and people will slowly understand that democracy > dictatorship.
In time the terrorists will understand as well and begin to
accept democracy and appreciate what we've done for them. God Bless
\_ basically, if all the shiites vote and the sunnis do not, it's
like saying the sunnis don't want yer stinking election
and will wage war / continue the insurgency with the shiites
\_ Iraq is made up of a lot of different ethnic groups who hate each
other. My guess is that the ethnic majority Shia will win the
election, take over the assembly/congress/whatever and pass laws
that will be favourable for them while screwing everyone else
(since they got really screwed under Sadam's rule). It'll be like
the Republicans taking over the country and passing anti-abortion,
anti-gay marriage, and faith-based initiative laws and piss off
liberals. |
| 2005/1/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35968 Activity:nil |
1/28 Just a few dead enders left fighting us in Iraq:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050104-110330-6820r.htm |
| 2005/1/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35953 Activity:high |
1/28 From that Yahoo! News (AP) article on Guantanamo Bay events:
In another case, Saar describes a female military interrogator
questioning an uncooperative 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly
had taken flying lessons in Arizona before the Sept. 11 terror
attacks. ... The female interrogator wanted to "break him," ...
she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and
began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them
against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection.
The detainee looked up and spat in her face, the manuscript recounts.
\_ I guess he didn't know a good thing when he saw it. They
decapitate people. We send women to fuck them. This is why
America is so great!!!
\_ I GUESZ HE DIDNT NOW A K00L TH1NG WHEN HE SAW IT, THEY
DECAPIT8 D00DZ. WE U/L BABEZ 2 FUCK THUM. TH1Z IZ WHY
AMURICA 1Z SO RAD!!!
\_ MEBB HE WUZ PRETENDING 2 B TORTURED!!!1! -TROL
\_ I WANNA B THE MALE SOLD1UR 2 INTURROG8 A FUMALE TURRORIST
UZE1NG ANY MEANZ NECESSARY!!! |
| 2005/1/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35937 Activity:nil |
1/27 MANIFEST DESTINY!!! Just as we freed the American continent
with our generosity (free small pox laden blankets for
American Indians), we should free the Iraq country for
better use for Americans. MANIFEST DESTINY!!!
\_ We missed you aaron. |
| 2005/1/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35934 Activity:high |
1/27 We haven't had a major foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
Are the policies working then?
\_ terrorist are waiting for hillary
\_ Perhaps. How many major foreign terrorist attacks have we
ever had? The incidence is a little too rare to evaluate.
\_ We didn't have one until Bush took office. Obviously Bush is the
weak link here.
\_ First WTC bombing was under Clinton.
\_ GAAAAAH! FACTS!!!! IT BUUUUURRRRNNS!!!!
\_ ZE GOGGLES DO NUHZING!!!
\_ That wasn't a "major" attack now was it? Was it? Huh?
Yeah that's what I thought. Bitch.
\_ RTF911CR. The *intent* was to kill about a quarter of
a million people.
\_ NOOOOOOOOOO! THE FACTS!!!!! STOOOOOP ITTTTT!!!!!
\_ Uh, detonating a large truck full of boom fuel underneath
the WTC is not a major attack? Just because it wasn't
as bad as it coulda been... -John
\_ 1000 people were injured. Luckily the buildings
did not fall.
\_ I need some fuel to go boom boom.
\_ People do think increased airport security is protecting America,
but the majority also think invading Iraq when they had no WMDs
and without allies nor enough of our own people made the world
more dangerous.
Dubya's people would like to tell you that we're fighting the
terrorists in Iraq instead of in der Fatherland, I mean Homeland.
\_ Der Vaterland
\_ Not to sound like a nutjob, but there's a credible Iraqi link in the
OK city bombing. http://csua.org/u/avr
\_ If you do some research and still think the Iraqi link is
credible you ARE a nut job.
\_ The ok. city bombing iraq connection is my favorite conspiracy
theory ever. Yeah. The government had TOP SECRET information
tying Iraq to the bombing, but hatch a BIG CONSPIRACY to
cover it up, while simultaneously making asses of themselves
in front of the world trying unsuccessfully to tie Iraq to
terrorism. The illuminati stole my tinfoil hat to give it to
the skull and bones so they could play frisbee with the
trilateral comission.
\_ So are you dismissing Jayna Davis' research? Do you have a
refutation of the direct evidence she has?
\_ You may find this link helpful:
http://www.stopabductions.com/main.htm
\_ Swift boat guy! We missed you! |
| 2005/1/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35893 Activity:very high |
1/25 $1.5 billion for a new embassy in Iraq. What the FUCK?
\_ Holtzmann's shields are expensive.
\_ And the "defensive" lasguns
\_ Shields are suicide in Irakkis anyway. They'll just end up
bringing a worm.
\_ Then we can use the family atomics.
\_ So...has Dune been translated into Arabic? I somehow
hope not.
\_ Frank Herbert is Muslim, so probably.
\_ frank herbert is a was now, he died
20 years ago, and was not muslim.
\_ ??? Where did you find this? And according to
the most recent Dune FAQ, no, Dune has not been
translated into Arabic (at least not officially),
but is has been translated into Turkish.
\_ The last catfight here over Herbert and Islam was
about a year ago so I guess we're due.
\_ I supported the action in Iraq, but this is beyond ridiculous.
\_ It's going to contructed by Haliburton, right? $1.5B might not
be enough.
\_ no it is not ridiculous. The embassey will be 1/2 the size of
Texas and it'll have enough space for an airport and
everything else, like McD and Walmart.
\_ When Iraqis can start being blown up at Home Depots and
Burger Kings, then they will truly be free. |
| 2005/1/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35882 Activity:nil |
1/24 Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss:
http://csua.org/u/ata
\_ MASS GRAVES! |
| 2005/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35834 Activity:very high |
1/20 NY Times opinion username/pw: nty42322
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/opinion/21herbert.html
"In January 1945, with World War II still raging, Franklin Roosevelt
insisted on a low-key inauguration. Already gravely ill, he began his
address by saying, "Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends,
you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form
of this inauguration be simple and its words brief." Times have
changed. President Bush and his equally tone-deaf supporters spent the
past few days partying hard while Americans, Iraqis and others
continued to suffer and die in the Iraq conflagration. Nothing was too
good for the princes and princesses of the new American plutocracy.
... As the well-heeled Bush crowd was laughing and dancing in tuxedos
and designer gowns, the situation in Iraq was deteriorating to new
levels of horror. The Black Tie and Boots Ball was held on the same
day that 26 people were killed in five powerful car and truck bombs in
Baghdad."
\_ I don't know if I agree with your point, but I think it's pretty
darn cool and considerate that you posted a user/pass. -John
\_ As if you cared when sanctions were killing Iraqis. C'mon
you won't admit it but if Kerry won, there'd be just as many
balls, just as big of a parade, and with Kerry's tone - even
longer speeches.
\_ It's obvious that the NYT and you, the poster, obviously know
nothing about history. May I remind you that William Henry Harrison
died from pneumonia due to giving out a 2 hour speech in bad
weather and having attended no less than half a dozen balls
commencing that night? This kind of commentary is the usual
leftist drivel is the sort of crap that just plain undermines
the Democrats. Before you believe in something, or before you
post, try actually doing some research on the history of
inaugration. And lest you be too ignorant to forget, LBJ's
inaugration was hardly a small affair. The point, for the denser
of the crowd, is that there is nothing different about
this inaugral that is different from those performed since
the beginning of this country. Attempting to dredge up
one which actually IS and attempting to discredit the current
one, however, is just really bad journalism. (William Henry Harrison,
for the clueless on the MOTD, was our 9th president and served
for some 30 odd days before dying).
\_ So your point is that it's OK for Bush to have an extravagant
inauguration while Americans and Iraqis are dying in his
mistaken war because most other presidents are just as bad?
Or is your point that Harrison was stupid and so its OK for
Bush to be stupid too? Why shouldn't people who have
loved ones in Iraq be upset with the president for celebrating
while people are dying? -!op
\_ I don't think that's his point. Not that I particularly like
the idea of any Bush inauguration, low key or not, I think
his point is that you're being hysterical. -John
\_ You're right. They do have the right to party it up while
Iraq is turning to shit.
\_ FDR was Stalin's best friend. In fact FDR was jealous
of Stalin because he was a more effective collectivist.
So perhaps if FDR spent more time reflecting on his
objectives rather than worrying about appearances,
Eastern Europe would have not been subject to 50 years
of Soviet rule, who were equivalent if not worse
than the Nazis, and the Cold War may have been averted.
Let's not forget the NYTimes glorified, almost deified,
Uncle Joe during the '30s and '40s.
\_ And the Republicans used to be for the little guys, and the
Dems were the party of choice for crypto-Klansmen. So what?
You think the same guys who were writing those glowing reviews
of Uncle Joe are still writing the OpEd page for the NYTimes?
\_ In spirit yes... except they are secular Jews and
gays.
\_ +5 self troll!
\_ have you ever seen any of the board of NYTimes
editors? It is not a troll just a simple
fact of life.
\_ Is William Safire a gay Jewish man?
\_ you leftists are fed this propaganda from
the NYTimes and you don't even know who
ths source is. Yes Safire
is Jewish.
\_ This thread has really diverged. If you
wish, you may start another thread about
your argument, since it's hard to tell how
serious you're even taking yourself.
\_ Does anyone know when the motd anti-semite
came on board? I don't remember all these
weird tinfoil hat-ish rants about Jews
starting until very recently...
\_ How do you know I'm not Jewish?
I am moderately pro-Isreal...
But I am not going to ignore
obvious constructs of our society.
Do you really think AIPAC is
larger than any other lobby
except AARP for fun? |
| 2005/1/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:35760 Activity:moderate |
1/17 Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the
Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct.
The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their
enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so
carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not
realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological
and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the
image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of
violence and militarism. -MLK
\_When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village
and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able
to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and
white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will
be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro
spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty,
we are free at last!"
And yes, they are free at last.
\_ No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it
by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. -GPJ
\_ MLK was a marxist.. you didn't know this? I wonder if he ever
talked to any of the Cambodians or Viet boat people?
\_ Cambodians? Luckily the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and
unseated the US and China supported Khmer Rouge from
power. Otherwise, the killing fields would be even
power. Otherwise, the killing fields would've been even
worse.
\_ Yeah, luckily Cambodia was invaded by a rival communist
power to stop an oppressive government... Hmmm, doesn't
this somehow sound vaguely familiar?
\_ doesn't sound familiar at all. do elaborate.
\_ MLK was on FBI's top 10 most wanted list as well. From
US government's track record (black panther), i am still
wondering who killed MLK.
\_ MLK was on FBI's top 10 most wanted list as well. From
US government's track record (black panther), i am still
wondering who killed MLK. |
| 2005/1/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35702 Activity:high |
1/13 I don't want to talk about Iraq anymore, it makes me feel bad
so I just delete any mention of it on the motd.
\_ Would you please just stop reading the motd instead?
\_ Would you please stop posting about Iraq. I think OP has
a point. The Iraq thing always devolves into some stupid
postings about how many people think we should be there,
how many people don't, how everyone who's a liberal hates
America and how everyone who's a conservative is a red-neck.
It's just boring, we don't need the same posts over and over
again, that's what the motd archives are for. And if you can't
talk about anything else other than Iraq, you need to broaden
your horizons. Talking about Iraq on the motd doesn't help anyone,
it doesn't chagne anyone's minds, it doesn't do anything. If you
really care about Iraq go out and do something and stop wasting
bits on the motd.
\_ Hey, asshole. We're at war. I'll say it again. We are at
war. If you think the same shit is just getting re-hashed,
try adding something new. Saying it doesn't matter makes
you a bad person.
\_ Don't contribute and skip over it then. Censoring it again
and again is just going to make me more determined than
ever to post about it. And yeah, I talk about plenty of
other stuff too, but ignoring problems usually does not
make them go away. And I know at least one person whose
mind was changed because of what he read her, so you can
mind was changed because of what he read here, so you can
take your stupid idea that talking to people never changes
their minds to someone who might buy it.
\_ Neither does harping about it constantly. you're a moron.
If you really want to do something about Iraq either:
A) Go serve your country and join up.
B) Get involved in politics. The motd isn't the place
to harp about Iraq. It's been done, it does nothing.
I suppose you're one of those people who insists on
pounding a screw with a hammer even though people
keep telling you to get a screwdriver.
\_ I am involved in politics. This is part of what
politics is all about, using your soapbox to
try and influence opinions. As far as "A" is
concerned, I have friends in family in Iraq
concerned, I have friends and family in Iraq
right now, both civilians and military. I would
go myself, but my wife would leave me.
\_ No, everyone should talk about what I want to talk about
to the exclusion of everything else.
\_ Write a filter instead and read the filter. Then you can avoid all
the topics you want.
\_ But that will make aaron angry, and he'll spend all his time
thinking up alternate spellings of "Iraq."
\_ Aaron is always angry, it's just a chemical thing with some
people. Nothing causes it except his own body.
\_ Hasn't aaron been squished yet? |
| 2005/1/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35695 Activity:nil |
1/13 I like how http://CNN.com suddenly pulled the No WMDs in Iraq online poll and replaced it with Prince Harry w/Swastika. The poll was running 69% mistake 31% not a mistake. |
| 2005/1/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35692 Activity:very high |
1/13 "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing
in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S.
have stayed out?"
Did Right Thing 46%
Should Have Stayed Out 48%
\_ "Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong
decision in using military force against Iraq?"
Right 49% Wrong 44%
\_ "Is the OP an idiot who has nothing better to do with his life
other than to re-ask the same stupid question over and over again
about something that nobody cares about?"
Yes 100% No 0%
\_ Oh boo hoo hoo, no one but me cares about the most
important political issue of our time. Right.
Were you one of those morons who helped beat the
drums for war 2 years ago and now wants to forget
about the whole thing and pretend like it never
happened?
\_ In a word, yes.
\_ As long as American soldiers and Iraqi civilians
are being killed as a result of this choice, I refuse
to shut up about it. Help me bring the troops home
and you will never hear one word about it (from me
at least) again. |
| 2005/1/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35685 Activity:insanely high |
2/27 Editorial defending Washinton Post's pro-war stance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8531-2003Feb26.html
[Resuscitated from 2003:]
\_ The huge problem with this editorial is "[Saddam] unquestionably
possessing and pursuing biological and chemical weapons". It's
still a question. If a group of smart people can't get this
right, what can you say?
\_ What smart people? The French? Or the Germans who sold them
all of it between '91 and now?
\_ The Washington Post editorial staff, of course.
If you can do a good job convincing people of your assertions
please contact Colin Powell.
\_ hmm... theory of evolution...
\_ It is not a question to anyone with half a brain. Bush lied
to you, get over it, stop trying to rationalize it.
\_ So how do you know there are no WMDs? -- randomly curious
\_ I'm not the guy you're asking, but:
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions
have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally
destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in
1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad
resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a
policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions
lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force
against it should WMD be discovered."
Duelfer report, Key Findings
\_ So basically you take the word of Duelfer (and later
Kay). That's fair, just keep in mind findings !=
truth, and people may reasonably disagree. I mean
there's only so much inspectors can do in a hostile
country.
\_ They've had access to everyone in the old government
and all sites for >18 months. They've talked to
everyone. There were no weapons.
\_ Duelfer was second. Kay was first. They both
agree.
Remember, these guys were handpicked by Dubya.
Kay went in KNOWING he'd find weapons. He came out
saying, "We were almost all wrong."
Don't you think he could have said, "We still think
he had them, they could be in Syria or buried
somewhere, or Saddam blew them all up just before
we attacked." I'm sure Dubya would have loved that,
and Kay would have loved to tell him that -- so
why didn't Duelfer or Kay say those things?
Instead, Kay threw away his career, and Duelfer
finished the job.
\_ Because an inspector has to announce what he has
to given the evidence. No evidence = can't
credibly say weapons are there. No evidence
!= no weapons are there. Do you see the
difference?
\_ I'm going to agree with the guy who said
"beyond a reasonable doubt".
\_ Duelfer also reported that Saddam's generals thought
there were WMD's. See:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html
\_ "Senior military officers and former Regime
officials were uncertain about the existence of
WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up
to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent
mixed messages."
This doesn't translate to "no doubt" and
"slam dunk" exactly.
\_ From the same link:
"Saddam surprised his generals when he informed
them he had no WMD in December 2002 because his
boasting had led many to believe Iraq had some
hidden capability, according to Tariq .Aziz.
Saddam had never suggested to them that Iraq
lacked WMD. Military morale dropped rapidly
when he told senior officers they would have to
fight the United States without WMD."
Sounds like his generals were expecting it. If
Saddam's own generals were uncertain, how could
we ever have had intelligence showing now WMD's?
\_ That is why Dubya's demand that Saddam
prove something that was not falsifiable
was such a dumbass thing for him to do.
Not as dumb as you for going along with it
though, since you are a Cal student and
should understand logic better than that.
\_ Not dumbass. Clever like a fox.
\_ If Saddam had no WMDs, how could we ever
have intelligence showing there was
"no doubt" Saddam had WMDs?
\_ It was definitely beyond a reasonable
doubt. Statements like "no doubt" and
"slam dunk" were mistakes.
\_ Are you saying that it was beyond a
reasonable doubt that WMD stockpiles
would be found?
\_ Bullshit. The people who knew the
most and had no axe to grind all said
that SH probably did not have any
WMD. You were conned.
that it was uncertain whether SH
had WMD or not. You were conned.
\_ I don't know as in am 100% certain, but lets say that
it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
\_ The post you are responding to was from Feb 27, 2003,
pre-invasion
\_ Oh, I see. My bad. DAMN THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!!!
\_ Why is this resucitated? Just some random thing or is this relevant
to anything?
\_ [wall is talking about aaron in 2003, so I revived this]
The point is that the Post editorial staff, for some reason,
knew unequivocally that Saddam had WMDs and active WMD
programs. Dubya reaffirmed this certainty on the eve of
the war.
When the Post claimed this, poster said, "What?"
When Powell showed the Security Council, China, Russia, and
France said, "What?"
When Tenet said it was a slam dunk, Dubya said, "What?"
When Tenet showed him how it was a slam dunk, Dubya said, "What?"
-- but still took the country to war
"No doubt", "slam dunk", "unquestionably" indeed.
\_ CAC will delete this in five minutes, because it makes
Bush look bad.
\_ The time order was more like Bush told us that it
was certain that SH has WMD, then the press started
partoting him.
parroting him. Read _Manufacturing_Consent_ by Chomsky.
This is how it always happens.
\_ To be precise, Dubya himself never really stated it
clearly until his speech on the eve of the attack.
It was mainly Cheney and other minions saying this.
Dubya stated it somewhat in State of the Union 2003, but
not too clearly. |
| 2005/1/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35676 Activity:high |
1/12 CNN (today)
"The search ended almost two years after President Bush ordered the
invasion of Iraq, citing concerns that Saddam Hussein was building
weapons of mass destruction and may have hidden weapons stockpiles."
Dubya (two years ago):
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the
most lethal weapons ever devised."
Why can't CNN just be accurate? They can write:
"The search ended almost two years after President Bush ordered the
invasion of Iraq, citing intelligence that Saddam Hussein was building
weapons of mass destruction and concealing weapons stockpiles."
... isn't that much better?
\_ why the liberals are always wrong-- if the WMDs are found,
then Bush is right. If they're not, they've gone to Syria
or have been destroyed, and that means Bush is still right.
See how pointless it is to argue on this topic?
\_ This is where you tell them about David Kay. He was hand-picked
and blessed by Dubya, went in almost certain to find something,
and came back saying, "We were almost all wrong."
Then you tell them about Duelfer--Kay's replacement and also
hand-picked and blessed by Dubya--and his same conclusion that
Saddam had destroyed all his stockpiles and did not have any
active WMD programs and strove to keep them dismantled so he
could get UN sanctions lifted.
So, if there weren't any stockpiles, how could Saddam give them
to Syria?
It was only after the UN stopped monitoring at which he would
rebuild his WMD programs.
\_ um, MOST (more than 50%) of the Americans don't care about WMD
and even some liberals don't care anymore. The pretext for the war
was not important, the important thing is that MOST of the
Americans think the war's a good thing and has made the world
safer. Time to shut up my liberal mouth and just agree with MOST
of the Americans.
\_ You can try asking some of your Dubya-voting friends
whether they think Iraq had WMDs. My guess is the majority will
say they're now in Syria, buried in the sand somewhere in Iraq
perhaps never to be found, or Saddam just destroyed them right
before the invasion.
\_ I think that's what Safire says. As I recall, as of a few
weeks ago, he's still convinced they'll turn up. If they're
right, I just hope they don't "turn up" when some construction
worker's backhoe busts through a drum of nerve gas.
\_ yes exactly I have 2 Reddie friends and that's what they say
the problem arguing with them is that you can't prove them
wrong.
\_ One wonders why you are so sure yourself.
\_ I am not sure of myself, but I know that asking
someone to disprove something that is not falsifiable
is the sure mark of an idiot.
\_ No, most Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake and
not worth the cost in lives and treasure:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
At best, you can claim 50% for your case, at worst only
30%.
At best, you can claim 50% for your case, but the truth
is, when asked the critical question "Was the war worth
fighting" only 42% say yes. So you are losing the hearts
and minds in the US as well as Iraq.
\_ If the question were, "Was it the right thing to do to
send troops into Iraq", I bet your results would flip.
Choice of words is important in polling questions.
\_ I bet it wouldn't. Do you have any evidence of this
claim, or are you just wishing that it is so?
Read the results for the question "Do you think the
Iraq war has [made America safer]" Only 51%. |
| 2005/1/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35628 Activity:nil |
1/10 http://www.columbian.com/01072005/clark_co/230560.html |
| 2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35625 Activity:nil |
1/9 Can some of these Fox News idiots be sued in British court
for calling just about anyone who disagrees with them traitors?
http://csua.org/u/anb |
| 2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:35592 Activity:nil |
1/7 http://csua.org/u/ama "Also, in an apparent sign that American relief agencies want to keep a lower profile, several trucks delivering supplies from U.S. AID removed large banners marking the source of the shipments." Why? \_ Use you brain. They're in a muslim part of the world, they're also in a low security part of the world, especially with the disaster. Easy targets for extremists with twisted agendas. |
| 2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35590 Activity:moderate |
1/7 Yahoo! News - AP: Sri Lankan Teenager Raped by Rescuer:
http://csua.org/u/amb
Hope the rapist's genitals be bitten off by dogs.
\_ so? in Vietnam there were a bunch of things going on...
thousands of villages were burned down and thousands of
kids were raped. There are also thousands of Viet/White and
Viet/Black children born in the 70s. God knows how many
women and children are being raped in Iraq. That's the
nature of war. Here is a pretty good article
on psychological/biological reasons for rape behaviors
in ALL wars: http://tinyurl.com/n1us
\_ This article borders on pop psychology, with little meaningful
analysis aside from vague hand-wavy references to other
researcher's works. I don't think this goes very far toward
making or reinforcing your point. Perhaps you should STFW for
something a little less sensational and a little more analytical.
\_ Tsunami = War. Ok, I got it.
\_ the scale is just so off. One rape in the rescue mission vs.
hundreds of rape in wars. Totally off scale. Personally I'd
trade in 1 rape to get rid of 1 unnecessary war.
\_ I don't see anything in the article that says the guy
was actually part of any rescue operation. It sounds
like it was just some dude who also happened to be
washed out or something.
\_ No, he wasn't part of a rescue operation -- he rescued
the girl, then subsequently forced himself on her. In
that context, he's 'a rescuer'. That's how I read it,
anyhow.
\_ Yes that's what the article says. However, the
headline itself is very misleading, although true.
-- OP
\_ Sorry, I'm just trying to make sense of the 2nd
poster's connection between the tsunami and the
vietnam war.
My point is that there are even more rapes in wars, why doesn't -/
anyone care about that? Hundreds of rape vs. 1 rape in the
disaster. Your sense of scale is warped.
\_ Uhm, his sense of scale is fine; it's your sense of compassion
that's fucked in the ass.
\_ Somewhere there's a bridge missing its troll.
\_ Well, tell that troll to learn how to formal his posts.
\_ Well, tell that troll to learn how to format his posts.
\_ How the hell do you "formal" a post troll?
\_ Well, presumably, one starts by spelling format with a
't' instead of an 'l' -- otherwise especially obtuse motd
denizens get confused.
\_ Put it in a Tux! |
| 2005/1/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35559 Activity:nil |
1/5 Message from Iraq: link:tinyurl.com/48lpn |
| 2005/1/5-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35557 Activity:high |
1/6 I'm trying to compile an album of famous anti-war songs
(the ones that have actually made it to the top 100 in the last
50 years) and I have the followings. Please add to the list,
thanks for your help:
Eve of Destruction - Barry McGuire
Fortunate Son - Creedence Clearwater
Incense and Peppermints - Strawberry Alarm Clock
Universal Soldier - Donovan
War - Edwin Starr
We Got to Get Out of This Place - Animals
What's Going On - Marvin Gaye
Where Have All the Flowers Gone - Kingston Trio
I Ain't Marching Anymore - Phil Ochs
\_ I don't think "We Gotta Get Out of This Place" was an antiwar song.
Bob Dylan's most explicit anti-war songs ("Masters of War" and
"Blowin' in the Wind") don't seem to have charted, but are famous.
"Knockin' on Heavens Door" might qualify, as could Les McCann's
"Compared to What."
\_ Black Eyed Peas - Where is the Love?
\_ Kinky Sex makes the World Go Round - Dead Kennedys
\_ Born in the USA - Bruce Springsteen
\_ Imagine - Beatles
\_ John Lennon
\_ Puff the magic dragon.
\_ Puff the magic dragon. -lewis
\_ http://www.zmag.org/songs/songarchive.htm |
| 2005/1/4 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35541 Activity:high |
1/4 emarkp, jrleek, and other conservatives who think the war on
Iraq is a good thing and has made the world safer, please
read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6786899/site/newsweek
\_ Funny, I never remember saying the Iraq war is a good thing or
has made the world safer. Why do you continue to mix me and
emarkp up? Are the names that similar, or are you just stupid?
-jrleek
\_ you're a conservative.
\_ Wow, good thing you can use that word to extrapolate
_all_ of my political opinions. I take it you're
'liberal?' because, you know you can only be one or the
other. Oh, and don't forget, liberal = democrat and
conservative = republican. -jrleek
\_ Personally, I pride myself on being a raving, wingut
moderate.
\_ I pride myself on being a radical apathetic.
\_ Why would anyone read this drivel? And what does this have to do
with the war in Iraq being a good thing and/or making the world
safer?
\_ I envy you. -poor dumb bastard suckered into reading drivel
\_ OP is an idiot. 'Nuff said.
\_ Man, I wished he had signed his post. |
| 2004/12/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35494 Activity:high |
12/30 Slate article on modern casualy rates vs. 1966:
http://csua.org/u/aj2
\_ The math kicks ass! "Let's just multiply the figure by this
ratio here..." -- ilyas
\_ This is a non-article. The bottom line is, it wil take 72 years
to reach the same casualty level that we had in Nam, and in Nam
we didn't even take the whole country, we were only dealing
with the South. You can spin the numbers anyway you want, the
casaulty rate is about 1%. The only war where the rate was lower
was the Spanish-American war. |
| 2004/12/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35446 Activity:low |
12/26 Blast From The Past:
http://www.minimumeffort.com/nutshell.html
\_ Reason why we invaded Iraq: Because Bush doesn't like Saddam
Hussein. Duh.
\_ Here is a better one:
http://www.aaiusa.org/news/aainews031803.htm |
| 2004/12/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35442 Activity:nil |
12/26 Well, look who's a proponent of affirmative action for religious
minorities all of a sudden:
http://csua.org/u/ai8 |
| 2004/12/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35423 Activity:high |
12/23 emarkp, thanks for your answer (and bravery). Here's my new set of
questions. Do you think the war in Iraq has made the world safer,
and why? What do you think about the worldly perception of the
US, from Western European nations, Asia, Africa, and others?
Also, what do you think about Darfur, and do you think it is a good
idea to install democracy there the same way we're doing in Iraq?
How about Iran and Syria, don't they deserve democracy as well?
Thanks, just trying to get more insight -moderate
\_ - Yes, I think the war in Iraq has made the world safer, because:
- Saddam was personally financing Palestinian suicide bombers
- Saddam's regime had state-sponsored rape, etc.
- Saddam's control of huge oil reserves allowed him tremendous
influence over the world
- Saddam was willing and able to pursue nuclear and biological
weapons, and ties were being establishing with Al Qaida.
- A side effect was Libya's disbanding their WMD program.
- Iraq was the most viable target after Afghanistan, and creates
pressure on its neighbors to either eliminate terrorism or face
similar consequences.
- An Iraqi democracy can increase its oil output and hence
decrease the worlds dependence on other terrorist-supporting
regimes like Saudi Arabia.
- I don't care much about world perception of the US. The right
thing to do is sometimes unpopular. Frankly I find the UN
obsolete and unwilling to act. I think if the UN is to be useful
it should expel all non-democracies.
- Darfur pretty much proves the UN as useless and that the world in
general doesn't give a rip about humanitarian aid. I don't see
any good guys there that we could support to sustain a democracy.
- Iran and Syria are definitely next on the hit list. Hopefully
with a democracy on their borders, the people of Iran can bring
about change. Syria will most likely have to be changed by force.
-emarkp
\_ THANK YOU emarkp, thanks for sharing your thoughts in a
well-mannered, non-typical-liberal-cursing style. I now
understand the psychology of Conservatives better, and
hopefully I can use those ideas for my agendas -moderate |
| 2004/12/22 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35394 Activity:nil |
12/22 Just realize Bush's big political gamble. His State of Union address
is about a week after Iraqi election...
\_ What political gamble? It's his second and final term. He can
basically do whatever he wants without worrying about
repercussions. It's not like anyone can even recall him. |
| 2004/12/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35387 Activity:nil 66%like:36585 |
12/21 Bush Supporters: I am just curious. What is our exit strategy
on Iraq?
\_ troll
\_ huh? what is an "exit strategy?" -Bush Supporter
\_ You mean "cut and run"? That would be dishonorable and
cowardly. We're going to fight as long as it takes.
We have always been at war with Eurasia. |
| 2004/12/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:35385 Activity:high |
12/21 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/12/21/sudan.darfur.dead If the US wants to bring Democracy to the world, why isn't it helping Darfur? 70,000 dead is... more than we killed the Iraqis. \_ If those 70,000 dead bodies could be converted into 200 Billion barrels of oil, we'd be there in a flash! \_ USA never cared about democracy. We talked about it, but it's always our imperial interest that comes first. We are also racist in heart. It's unfortunate, because Darfur would be a perfect opportunities to wage propaganda war countering Osama Bin Ladin's rhetroic, casting doubt on Osama's claim that Arabs are under siege. |
| 2004/12/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35382 Activity:high |
12/21 Funny how my mind works. NYTimes headline "Blast Kills at Least 24 at
U.S. Base in Iraq" I read as "Bush Kills at Least 24..."
\_ omgwtfw00t!
\_ Yeah!!
\_ Bush killed over 1000+ servicement, 15000 Iraqis, and the world
credibility and trust of US. |
| 2004/12/21 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35379 Activity:very high |
12/21 Hey, chicom troll: is it just me, or was "Hero" a huge propaganda
push for the reunification of China?
\_ John, stop using racist slur. we all know what that "chi" in
chicom stands for.
\_ "reunification" imply china ever not unify. This is lie of
USA diplomacy.
\_ Oh christ. My granny could spoof chicom troll better than you.
\_ typical arogant USA troll. I like to see you spoff chicom
trol better!
\_ whta's chicom?
\_ Not sure. I once posted a quote from the Simpsons and some
anon. motd coward accused me of being chicom.
\_ Chinese communism? *shrug*
\_no, OP meant "Chink Communist"
\_ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chicom
\_ Isn't that what the fuck we are doing to Iraq? You fuckhead?
\_ China's propaganda machine pales in comparison to what
BushCo tells to the Iraqi people. You want to hear what real
propaganda is like? Go to Iraq and see what the US is
capable of. And shut the fuck up.
\_ I don't know who to believe, chicom troll or capitalist
scumbag... neither is better than the other. China has
Mao, US has Cheney/Rumsfeld. Evil is what evil does. At
least Mao led China to independence from western aggression
and tells the world don't fuck with us. What the fuck has
Cheney and Romsfeld done other than pocketing billions from
the Iraq war and fucked California during the energy
crisis? The US has sunk to a new low and all the while you
are still chewing out chicom troll jokes? You are hopeless.
\_ Haha, you are my hero! -- ilyas
\_ Mao told the world don't fuck with the Chinese because he's
fucking them himself.
\_ Yeah, just like how the US fucked millions of
native americans, but its ok when WE do it because
we got bigger guns!!
\_ What's the casualty during the Cultural Revolution? How
did Cheney and Rumsfeld fucked millions of native
Americans? (Not that I like Cheney or Rumsfeld, but they
were compared to Mao above.)
\_ http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/marerror.htm
Mao: Great Leap Forward 1959 25.6M
Mao: Cultural Revolution 1965 1.1M
Gulf War 1991 .08M
\_ This is as accurate as some site claiming US killed
billions of native americans.
\_ Iraq war casualty is about 1K U.S. + 15K Iraqi = .02M
\_ Mao: Let's kill our own people for our future
Bush: Let's kill everyone else for our future
Seriously, I don't know what is worse...
\_ Both are bad, but I think the former is worse. A
country's leader is supposed to put his/her countrymen's
interest before people of other countries.
\_ you are, of course, speaking from the perspective
of a narrowminded American. Switch Bush/Mao and
see if your statement is still valid in the
perspective of the mass.
\_ how many chinese would there be (given birthrates)
if mao hadn't eliminated 30 million?
\_ You must be Taiwanese and believe all the lies the
Taiwanese media says about China. |
| 2004/12/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35374 Activity:high |
12/21 So, uh, what's to prevent all the polling places in Iraq from getting
all blowed up?
\_ For one thing, there are 7000 of them, so it will be hard
to hit them all. For another thing, most of the Sunnis are
looking forward to winning the election and being in power,
so the vast majority of the population in most of the country
are going to be interested in protecting them.
\_ You do realize the Sunnis are a minority population in Iraq,
right?
\_ ^Sunnis^Shiites
\_ Thank you.
\_ The Kurds all appear to be ok with it too. The Sunni are
the ones who have a problem with it.
\_ that is because we pratically redraw the border and allow
Kurds to have virtual independence. |
| 2004/12/17-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35342 Activity:high |
12/17 For the person who didn't believe me on the armor production,
do a google news search for "Armor Holdings", the company that
supplies the armoring for those vehicles. After Rummy said his
"It's a matter of physics", they came out and said "We can boost
production by 22% with no extra investment, but we haven't heard
anything from the military about doing so." Fuck you. You're
apologizing for people who truly do not support our troups.
\_ Uhm, if you knew anything armor you'd realize that you typically
don't get something for nothing. Sure, you can put more armor
on a vehicle, but the vehicle gets heavier, uses more gas,
and is less manueverable. Anyway, the world isn't perfect,
neither is the U.S. Army. There are tradeoffs. Deal with it.
\_ Um, are you Rumsfeld? That was the biggest non-answer
on this thread.
\_ 1000 fatalities isn't enough to make the American public
care. How many people on here actually know someone
who died in Iraq?
\_ Again, fuck you. --scotsman (i know two.)
\_ with how many degrees of separation?
\_ Seriously. Fuck you.
\_ why do you hate America?
\_ I don't actually know any black people who have been
lynched either. Or Jews killed by the Nazis.
\_ I know people who have lost family members to the Nazis.
I would have to be pretty freakin old to actually know
someone who was killed before 1945.
\_ So you get the point then?
\_ That in 60 years no one will be left to remember
what a dumbass Bush was? We will have history books
to remind us. And oh, look! Their children will
still be around to remind people of the stupidity
of starting a war for no good reason:
http://csua.org/u/aex
\_ That's the point! You don't have to personally
know someone that was effected to care about it.
\_ I didn't believe YOUR ASSERTION dumbass. I still haven't seen any
sourcing for your claim. Do you believe everything everyone tells
you without question?
\_ What claim? Isn't it enough that Rumsfeld was pretty directly
grilled by a bunch of combat troops about why they're not
getting enough armor? With 1,000+ fatalities, you'd think the
military-industrial complex would go into overdrive. I don't
care if the war is right or wrong, it's being run by a bunch of
sad amateurs. -John
\_ John, don't be a fucking moron. ~1100 fatalities in 1.5 years
of combat is nothing. In order to achieve the same numbers
that we lost in 'Nam we'd have to fight for 50 years, five
times longer than 'Nam. 1100 fatalities equals about 1% of
our ground forces in Iraq. That's like a fucking unheard of
fatality rate for a war. If it WERE run by morons like JFK
and LBJ in 'Nam, we'd have 10000+ casualties by now.
\_ I wrote a long rant in response to this, but deleted it,
as it's pointless to clog the motd with basic historical
concepts. You can look it up in the archive if you want.
Upshot: You are completely off, your premises are wrong,
your Vietnam comparison is a straw man, and I encourage
you to go to the Cal ROTC office and ask any of their
(generally) very friendly military history instructors to
explain why you are wrong--they'll probably lay out more
eloquently and succinctly your fallacies. You're at Cal,
dialectical process and all that. And kindly have the
courtesy to sign your name if you insult me. -John
\_ 'sad amateurs'? I think you mean 'politicians'
\_ Wolfowitz has never been elected, and Rumsfeld was last in
office in '69. They're the NeoCon version of Ivory Tower
professors, and their experiment has resulted in the
the current Mess-O'Potamia.
\_ But that's kind of my point-o-potamia, isn't it?
\_ If you're making some comparison between the two,
I'd agree. If you're saying they're not sad
amateurs, I'd have to ask you to step outside for
reeducation by fisticuffs.
\_ What part of SEARCH ON FUCKING GOOGLE do you NOT UNDERSTAND. It's
been reported by the entire media. Fuck you.
\_ I did a search, first few links I clicked on didn't have any
info. Do you understand the difference between SEARCH ON
GOOGLE and a fucking source you dumbfuck?!?
\_ Boy, you're angry. Read below. -John
\_ I'm irritated when someone makes an inflammatory claim
and backs it up with "stfw". My answer is a big fat
FUCK YOU. If you don't think it's worth your time to
source your claims, it's not worth mine to take them
seriously.
\_ Sourced below. Put up or shut up.
\_ I'm annoyed with both of you. Yeah, he should've
put up a link, but you should have looked harder.
Two wrongs don't make a right, even on the motd.
\_ God, you're both lazy pricks. Here's a recent Bloomberg article:
http://csua.org/u/ael Here's a Google Cache of the original
article: http://csua.org/u/aen
\_ You know, I'm having a hard time actually finding the full text for
Rumsfeld's response. I wonder why that is? You do know that the
vehicle supplier is only part of the chain, right?
\_ http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html
\_ Yes, the supplier is part of the chain. I would argue they
are the start of the chain. They were never asked to increase
production, even when they had told the pentagon they could.
That's a military leadership failure.
\_ No, that may mean that the rest of the chain can't handle
faster production.
\_ They are _the single provider_ of up-armored humvees
according to the article. They say they could increase
production immediately with no new investment. You're
being unreasonably apologistic.
\_ So you're saying there's no limit on transport and
deployment? Apparently the rest of the supply chain is
handled by Santa Claus.
\_ This is before transport. They didn't set anything
in motion. They failed.
\_ If the rest of the chain couldn't handle that
supply it would be pointless to "set anything
in motion" you moron. They'd just be humvees
sitting in a warehouse in the states.
\_ "It's a matter of production and capability of doing
it." SecDef apparently disagrees with you, soldier.
\_ This is called 'passing the buck'. It's like when your
boss asks you why something isn't done that should've
been done by now and you blame someone else, even though
you could've done your part of the job without that
person having done theirs. This company is trying to
avoid taking blame by saying 'We weren't specifically
asked!'. I am sure they were not going out of their way
to tell the military they could produce more for free.
\_ Uhh, why wouldn't they want to produce more? They
get paid by the piece sold you know.
\_ I guess you've never worked in/for government.
\_ "I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that."
This is just not your day for reading, is it?
\_ What do you expect them to say? Don't take
everything at face value. I am not saying the
company should produce more when it is not asked
to, but they are painting it to make themselves
look better.
\_ To look better to whom? Apart from you, who's calling
them liars? Not the military, and they're the ones
who would gain most from being able to pin this
on the company. Face it, SecDef dropped the ball.
No amount of signed letters is going to fix that.
Also of note, Rumsfeld was asked basically the same question
8 months ago at a similar town-hall meeting. He bullshat on
them then, and did so again.
(Oops. It was general meyers who took the question.)
\_ Huh? Wha? meyers is in this thread? Uh oh -- time to ilyas
it.
\_ No, it was General Myers. -meyers, no relation
\_ Hi, you are both dipshits. Have a good weekend.
-- ilyas |
| 2004/12/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35337 Activity:nil |
12/17 Pretty cool story from Iraq.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/12/love_is_stronge.html |
| 2004/12/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:35282 Activity:nil |
12/13 is there a website that keeps track of where all
the blogs of soldiers in afghanistan/iraq are?
\_ obGWB censored blogs |
| 2004/12/13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35256 Activity:high |
12/13 You probably won't see this on Fox News.
The thing that really caught my eye was the 5,000 deserters:
http://csua.org/u/aao
\_ Their source .. _C_BS News. About as reliable as the female condom
\_ Source = Pentagon
\_ "Dan Felushko, a 24-year-old marine, told the CBS program 60
Minutes this week that he left Camp Pendleton, Calif., and
came to Canada rather than Kuwait, because he felt it would
have been wrong to fight.
"I didn't want, you know, `died deluded in Iraq' over my
gravestone," he said.
According to the CBS program, some 5,000 American men and
women have deserted the military since the war began. They are
largely accused of cowardice back home, but they say they are
acting out of conscience."
Source looks like 60 minutes to me. Not exactly reliable or
agenda-free.
\_ Do you think "agenda-free" news even exists anymore? Just
curious.
\_ Hello. I think pp is probably a typical republican
jive ass motherfucker, but this is the agenda free
news:
http://www.cspan.org
\_ CSPAN IS COMMUNIST PINKO GARBAGE!!!1!!1 YOU CAN
TELL BECAUSE IT'S NON-PROFIT AND RUNS ON
GOVERNMENT MONEY!!!!!11!!
\_ The only talking head I've seen that I believe is
unbiased is Tim Russert. No one else.
\_ You've got your blinders on firm. If you had said
Aaron Brown, you might have had something here.
\_ Is that why he was so easy on GWB?
\_ why are they unhappy? Would they be happier with MP-40 or MP-44? |
| 2004/12/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35233 Activity:very high |
12/9 "...troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing
centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their
identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would
receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at
all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the
deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned."
http://csua.org/u/a9s (boston.com)
Hmm...required to wear badges. Remind anybody of anything?
\_ at least they pay a flat tax
\_ Well, it's not like the Fallujans are missing anything.
It was much worse under Saddam. Anyway, Mr. Liberal Troll,
do you actually have a point? See, the problem with you is
that you say "blah blah blah, U.S. is acting very badly
in Iraq." But the problem is that Iraq was much worse
during Saddam, so your argument doesn't hold. It's like
like saying "Oh, the Americans are evil because they
interred the Japanese." Well, the Japanese killed over 8
million Chinese, so out goes your argument.
I mean, seriously, are you brain damaged?
\_ damn. There's that argument again. At least we're not as
bad as Saddam.
\_ I think it's the same guy. His knee likes to jerk.
\_ He also doesn't seem to understand that people of a non-
liberal bent can disgree with him, too. Poor fellow.
\_ let me explain why you might be brain damaged instead, ok?
suppose you're a civilized human being, which implies that
you must not exude offensive smell. if you go around saying
"i don't smell like shit. i smell a little bit better than
shit," you're not going to get people to say "oh yeah, you do
smell good." now, here's the tricky part. think of this, except
replace smelling like shit with "acting like a nazzi". And see
if the little lightbulb in your head lights up. ok?
\_ Let's imagine this situation. Say a bunch of people in
Compton, CA, decided to stop killing each other, organize,
and start regularly setting off bombs in major metropolitan
areas in the US.
Now what do you suppose the appropriate course of action is,
for the US gvt? (No acting like Nazis now!) |
| 2004/12/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35216 Activity:high |
12/8 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/12/08/coverup Sgt. Frank "Greg" Ford, ... told his commanding officer ... that he had witnessed five incidents of torture and abuse of Iraqi detainees at his base, and requested a formal investigation. ... Thirty-six hours later, Ford ... was then strapped down, loaded onto a military plane and medevac'd to a military medical center outside the country. Artiga immediately said Ford was "delusional" and ordered a psychiatric examination ... \_ So how many of you motherfuckers who voted for Bush still think Abu Gharib was some kind of independent action by a few grunts with no knowledge of superiors? Shit rolls downhill. When the guy at the top has no respect for human dignity, international law, or even the regulations of the US armed forces (do you bastards seriously still believe he wasn't awol?) that attitude has a way of percolating down. \-http://www.cafepress.com/ipa_politics.14488324?zoom=yes#zoom \_ I thought you no longer gave a fuck, aaron. \_ Tin foil hat time I see. My, aren't we bitter liberals today. You're absolutely right, though. Saddam's methods of prison torture was much more humane than the U.S. sponsored prison torture. I for one say that we were better off with Saddam. Oh, btw, didn't Kerry vote FOR the war? \_ Wow. you make such a convincing argument. At least we're not as bad as Saddam. Shouldn't we as a nation be so proud of ourselves? \_ Hell yeah! That's why we live in the U.S of Fucking A. Our policies are much better than Saddam's policies, our method of government hands down has beaten dictatorships like Hitler's Germany, Mussolinni's Italy, and Tojo's Japan. We're better than the Brits, and a hell of a lot better than French. To top it off, our society is better than the former Communist hegemony. If you don't fucking like it, get a plane ticket, get out. We don't need your tired sorry ass ivory tower defeatist attitude anymore. It's tiring. You lost the election, you lost the vision of what America is, you've lost touch with the common people. Face it, your dogma is just plain wrong. Seriously, give up your citizenship for someone who acutally WANTS to be here and isn't going to bemoan the state of affairs on the fucking MOTD every fucking day while sitting on your panzy ass doing nothing about it. \_ hey, shithead. i also think the the US is the best country in the world. You know why? not because of flagwaving shitheads like you. every country has mindless fucks like you, including the enemies you name above. What makes the US as good as it is, for all its problems is the poeple who have fought to make it better by criticizing it over the centuries. oh yeah, and it was the "ivory tower elitists" who were thrown out of nazi germany and came over here to win the war. the nazi enemy had far more flagwaving fucks like you than we did. we won in spite of fucks like , and we will continue to be the best nation on earth in spite of fucks like you. \_ gung ho, today, aren't we? Why don't you do something about it and sign up to go over to iraq? \_ because he's a fucking pussy like his commander in chief. \_ No fucking shit we're better than Hitler's Germany, asswipe. Some of us aspire to a lot more than that. Maybe YOU should give up your citizenship to someone who cares about the constitution, civil rights, and the things that once made America a great country. \_ If US policies are so much better than Saddam's, why did you just juxtapose the two side by side? Your comparison implies US policies are similar to, but slightly better than those of a dictator. Now I see why you're so proud. \_ -2 flame. \_ AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! \_ Good Red Herring, but not good enough. -Vet \_ Didn't Stalin do that to dissidents too? \_ Yeah, but we are not quite as bad as Saddam Hussein. At least not yet. \_ http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17001 \_ About time the people who really pushed this policy start paying for it. I knew it wasn't two Spec 4s and a Staff Seargant. This kind of approval of torture had to come from pretty far up in the chain of command. I hope the officers involved fry. -Vet \_ In your personal opinion, what is the highest point in the chain of command where people are at least complicit? And which chain of command would that be--army or CIA? \_ God knows. The Battalion Commander at the very least had to be aware of what was going on and was obviously trying to cover it up. I dunno about anything higher than that. The Guantanamo torture memos by Gonzalez have set the conditions for all this to happen, but that is guy is getting a raise due to rah rah boy and his buddies. When I say Battalion Commander above that guy is getting a raise to AG due to rah rah boy and his buddies. When I say Battalion Commander above I mean the Army MI BC. I don't know anything about the CIA or how they do things. \_ I wouldn't neccessarily trust a single sourced Salon story. I am a liberal, but I know sensationalist reporting when I see it. I would like to see a second source for this story. |
| 2004/12/7-8 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35206 Activity:high |
12/7 Whatever happened to all the artists that are suppose to sing anti-war
songs like the 70s?
\_ Anti war songs question Our President's authority, and who would
want to do that?
\_ Last March, Joan Baez played at the march in the city. We have a
generation gap where music has fallen to something you listen to
in the background. If you troll for non-marketplace music, you
will find PLENTY of anti-war songs.
\_ Wait till we have been fighting in Iraq for five years. They
are coming.
\_ http://www.lacarte.org/songs/anti-war/updates.html#summary
\_ Eminem's Mosh
\_ http://protest-records.com/mp3
\_ http://www.countryjoe.com/warsongs.htm |
| 2004/12/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35180 Activity:high |
12/5 http://fallujahinpictures.com About as graphic as you imagine, and very depressing. \_ Hmm. The pictures are graphic and very disturbing, but the strict focus on mutilated bodies and wounded people seems to slant the 'photo-essay' into a potentially distasteful political message while neglecting to capture any real sense of the iraqis as a people. I mean, if even *one* picture other than blood and gore (in the two weeks of grisly images I scrolled through) had been included, I wouldn't have formed this opinion. \_ What do you want? People in a refugee camp? Someone parallel parking? Or walking their dog? They're addressing the failure of the media of showing NONE of this gore, not the lives of Iraqis.. If they were trying to show that, they would go there with cameras themselves. \_ Well, whatever it is, it isn't journalism. It's kind of a mirror image of foxnews. What I want to see is real reporting on the *overall* situation in Iraq, not just what brave marines fighting(fox) or dead people(this blog) look like. These pictures could have been from any war. \_ Which is a point in itself. They could be from any war, but they're from this one, and you haven't seen them anywhere else. Finding some modicum of real reporting isn't hard. You just have to look outside this country. \_ I think these pictures are counter-productive. The public didn't see stuff like this during WW II. I have a relative in Iraq and he send back a lot of cool pictures of him with Iraqi kids and stuff, but that's not 'news' either because it doesn't fit anyone's agenda. \_ USA Today and Fox have have images like this (US soldier with Iraqui chidren) on a regular basis. It's not news but its great propaganda. I would guess there's a new one of these each week in USA Today, for instance. This does not belittle your relative's experience. The implication such pictures have not been showing up in the mainstream media is simply false, though. \_ I haven't seen very many positive stories. It's not that they don't exist, but that the negative and sensationalist stories are far more common. \_ No pictures like this from WW2? Are you sure that you know what you're talking about? Pictures of Auschwitz and other concentration camps were critical in raising awareness of what the Nazis had done. Just because the pictures don't support the US agenda doesn't mean that they should be censored, as they essentially are in the US media. \_ WW II was all but over by then. I have old newspapers and they were not full of pictures of all the people that died on D-Day, for instance. This 'journalism' really began with Vietnam. \_ How is it journalism to deliberately not report something? Keep in mind that there are huge technological leaps between WWII and Vietnam (satellite communication, etc.) and between Vietnam and now (too many to list). As has been discussed in many other places, Gulf War 2 is probably the most heavily covered war zone ever. And the journalists covering it have technologies at their disposal to increase frequency and detail of stories that previous generations could only dream about. The availability of a technology that increases information means that it is likely to be used, regardless of how much you wring your hands about it. Moralizing will not turn back the clock. Digital cameras and the Internet are a Pandora's box that we cannot close. \_ The media has an obligation to present a story, not to become 'reality television' like showing car chases. The media obviously doesn't show scenes like the beheadings. Heck, they won't even show the inside of a slaughterhouse (for animals). We know certain things happen in war and to focus on those few hideous things is to ignore the big picture. There's a good reason the media doesn't show graphic images and they shouldn't. Let people seek them out if they want them, but not in the mainstream. \_ The only obligation the corporate media has is to generate revenue for their shareholders. That's it. Fuck the corporate media. |
| 2004/12/4 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35172 Activity:nil |
12/4 The War Effort, a new kind of comedy about a new kind of war:
http://www.campchaos.com/thewareffort
\_ Say, Hank. You got any more pudding? |
| 2004/12/1-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35152 Activity:high |
12/1 Required reading for anyone that thinks we are winning the war on
terror. And before any of you jerk your knees, note the .mil address.
"Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic
Communication"
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf
\_ One can infer that you are trying to say that we are not winning
the war on terror based on this single report. If that presumption
is correct then you are merely fact-finding for your own case
instead of attempting to really understand the situation at hand.
This paper is merely one of thousands of proposals that go in
front of government bodies and the opinions stated in it are
policy strategies that are suggested. They may or may not
be correct. Merely drawing up one study group paper and saying
that it proves your point that we are not winning the war
against terror is fallacious at best. Politics, unlike
computer science, does not have one definitive answer. It is
a complex interplay of socio-economic dynamics. One should
never presume to know definitively whether one is "winning"
or "losing" something based on one opinion or one report.
Take, for example, the Cold War. There are pundits who claim
that we won the cold war and there are those who claim that
we did not but instead the Soviets merely imploded due to their
own internal conflicts. You can argue either way based on which
papers you select and which facts you wish to draw up. That
doesn't mean you are more correct than any other pundit. It merely
means you found what you are looking for in a myriad of facts.
Anyway, the document is some 100+ pages. If you actually did an
in depth study of the paper I doubt that you would find that
it conclusive can tell you whether the war on terror is won or
lost. It is also beyond the scope of the motd and probably
the majority of the CSUA members to determine this on their
own without a true context. It would be as silly as trying to
give a CS major a case book and tell him/her to defend
Scott Peterson in trial. -williamc
\_ you win the award for longest post that doesn't say anything.
\_ pshah! Maybe second place. read this:
/csua/tmp/motd.kinney
\_ Easy with the axe-grinder there, dude. Did you read what
the PP wrote? It is clear
s/he thinks we are not winning the "war
on terror", but he never claims that he came
to this conclusion because of this one report. -nop
\_ And who exactly would benefit from a report saying we're not
winning the war on terror?
\_ anyone in the "reality based community"
\_ Are you really this mired in partisan stupidity? It would be
of benefit to anyone that wants to see terrorism stamped out
of existance. If our tactics aren't working then we need to
change them, but this sort of presumes that the policy makers
REALIZE they're not working. It also helps to understand WHY
they're failing or why they're not working as well as they're
supposed to. I hope I've missed your point(and I'm sorry if I
did), but if not, then I find myself wondering how someone as
stupid as yourself even manages to dress himself in the
morning....this all ought to be kind of self evident.
\_ You're a moron if you think terrorism can be "stamped out
of existence." So who dresses *you* in the morning?
\_ I didn't say it could be. -4hp for poor reading
comprehension.
\_ And I never said anything partisan. -9hp for poor
reading comprehension for you, dumbass
\_ I think I already covered this. Feeling a little
defensive, are we? If you'd actually read what I
said instead of hysterically knee-jerking, you'd have
realized that.
\_ Okay, let me spell it out for you, dumbfuck.
A sales consultant for a network security services
company gives you a report telling you that your
network isn't secure. Who exactly would benefit
from such a report? How is this knee-jerk? Because
I'm not as gullible as you are? Idiot.
\_ Uhm, so you're saying that you just assume
he's obviously biased and is therefore full of
shit? So, on that basis, you do no
due-diligence, but sit back and tell yourself
how clever and world-wise you are for avoiding
*that* pitfall? That's just stupid.
\_ No. No.
\_ I bet you also scoffed at Kerry's "nuisance" comment..
\_ His thinking may be partisan, but he's not necessarily
stupid. A classic political tactic for poo-pooing opposition
to your plans is to point to threats ("we have always been
at war with Eurasia!") I agree with you, objectively
speaking it is best to pragmatically go about analyzing
your mistakes and weaknesses so you can do a better job, but
let's face it, recent US politics has, more than at any time
I can recall, relied on "terrorism" as a threat to grant a
blank check for "the government" to commit questionable
actions. It's easy to take a cynical view. -John
\_ Hmm. I think it's much less depressing to just assume that
the guy is a partisan moron.
\_ And that would be the incorrect assumption. FYI- the
election ended a month ago.
\_ FYI, partisanism exists and causes issue with or
without an election going on.
\_ how does this report say we are not winning the war on terror?
\_ You really should just read it. Essentially it says we are
making a collosal "strategic mistake."
\_ Thank you for pointing me to this report. I have been saying
more or less these exact things for at least a year now and
had decided that the US was hopelessly going to screw things up,
at least for the next four years. At least somebody in
government is starting to think about these issues in the
right way. -ausman |
| 2004/12/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35145 Activity:nil |
12/1 Very interesting interview with Chalmers Johnson, author of
"The Sorrows of Empire."
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/cj_int/cj_int1.html |
| 2004/11/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35111 Activity:high |
11/29 The hunt for weapons of mass destruction related program activities in
Iraq continues. 619 days and counting.
\_ The flogging of a dead horse continues, 619 days and counting.
\_ Well I still have not heard Republican spokesmen admit that the
rationale for the war was a complete sham.
\_ "everyone thought they were there" "we know he had them,
we sold it to him" "he intended to get them" blah blah
\_ But you don't hear "We were wrong. We distorted the
evidence."
\_ Um, haven't you read the Duelfer report? We were wrong,
without distorting evidence.
\_ Not to disagree with you, but the Senate report on
pre-war intelligence on Iraq blamed it all on the
"Intelligence Community" (CIA, NSA, DoE, FBI, etc.).
Sample:
Conclusion 2. The IC did not accurately or
adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties
behind the judgments in the Oct 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate.
\_ Why is it a dead horse? Aren't we still in Iraq, killing
civilians, losing troops and wasting American lives and
money? Must suck to have the blood of 100,000 innocent
civilians on your hands. I did everything I could to stop
Bush, but because of idiots like you, America went to war.
\_ This is patently absurd. If you did everything you could to
stop Bush, why is he alive and you unincarcerated?
\_ Okay, I did everything I could within the law.
Pedantic bitch.
\_ I find your lack of resolve... disappointing.
\_ "I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've
got an intelligence group together to figure out why. But Saddam
Hussein was a unique threat. And the world is better off without
him in power. And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that
Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more
dangerous." -Dubya
\_ The founding fathers would be happy to know that eventually
such a proficient orator is running the country they
started.
\_ Oh please. Jefferson was terrible in public.
I think there's too much hero worship of the FFs
going on in the US. They were intelligent men,
some were even great men, but not without rather
distasteful personal or functional flaws (like, you
know, everybody else). -- ilyas
\_ If you want to know why there is ilyas bashing,
this is a sample of what elicits it.
\_ ilyas bashing happens for the same reason
flamewars happen on the internet. Lots of
bored people physically insulated from the
people they are spittling at. Try to start
a flamewar, or 'bash' someone at a bar sometime,
tough guy. -- ilyas
\_ the context of the original question was lost.
it is, paraphrased: "Why ilyas-bashing more
than tom-bashing?" |
| 2004/11/28 [Recreation/Dating, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Kinney, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35094 Activity:nil |
11/28 Kinney, if it wasn't for your girlfriend, would you still be working
in Iraq? |
| 2004/11/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35033 Activity:nil |
11/23 What's the point of voting in Iraq when the ethnic minority
Iraqis will never get a chance to win in the first place?
\_ What was the point of voting in the US even though the minorities
never had a chance to elect a non-white candidate?
\_ The up coming election is for the Iraqi version of congressmen. |
| 2004/11/19-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:34986 Activity:very high |
11/19 How I Began to Teach About the Vietnam War
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1284084/posts
\_ I love free republic guy. Do you have a family?
would you like to come over for Thanksgiving? - danh
\_ what do you think of the article?
\_ It is well-written, balanced, historically accurate, and
insightful. It does not do the author justice to have
his article reproduced among the steaming ill-informed
monkey-shitpile that is http://freerepublic.com -John
\_ So what kind of monkey-shitpile is soda wall, John?
\_ article was fine. I do not agree that the US had
any clear way of "winning". losing over 1/10 of their
population to US explosives didn't phase the Vietnamese
at all while they were defending their home turf. - danh
\_ No, no, no! You are wrong. The Nixon bombings were
effective and broke the stalemate at the Paris
Peace talks. If Watergate had not happened we may
still have had an effective cease fire. In addition,
the Tet offense was a disaster for the North, and they
didn't try an invasion like that again for many years.
It's a common myth that the VC were invincible. They
were not. We were constantly beating them, it's just
that we should've invaded the north. We couldn't because
of China. The U.S. didn't lose Vietnam, they abandoned it.
\_ The article was fundamentally flawed, in that it glossed
over the fact that the United States *did* support
illegitimate and unpopular regimes after the overthrow
of Diem.
\_ All of you are missing his fundumental thesis. ie "It
was a good idea, but we &*%)ed it up." All of you saying
"Yeah, but we did this wrong" should be agreeing with
him. Also, by extension, we shouldn't not help anyone
else just because we boned it up once.
\_ It was a bad idea, AND we $*%)ed it up.
See post below for why.
\_ I assume you mean the domino theory one? True, the
domino theory turned out to be incorrect, but I
don't think that made Vietnam a bad idea. Korea
didn't turn out perfect either, but I'm dang glad
we protected SK.
\_ Bad idea, good idea. Let's call it a mistake.
Also, Vietnam != Korea.
U.S. participation in Korea, Gulf War 1, WW2
were not mistakes.
\_ No, his fundamental thesis was that he had been
taught three incorrect things by the anti-war
movement: 1) that the gov't of SV was illegitimate,
2) that we had no legitimate reason for being in
Vietnam and 3) that we couldn't have won anyway.
"These are that there was never a legitimate
non-communist government in Saigon, that the
U.S. had no legitimate reason to be involved in
Vietnamese affairs, and that the U.S. could
not have won the war under any circumstances."
The article is bad because 1 and 3 are correct, imo,
and no serious person held #2. I am sure you can
find a few Communists and the like who believed
#2, but most Americans, even anti-war Americans,
believed that the US had a commitment to fight
Communism. They just didn't think Vietnam was
the right place to do it and they didn't like
the way we fought it. The whole line of argument
of his that Dinh was legitimate is a red herring,
since most of our support came after he was
deposed and we supported the coup that deposed
since most of our support for the wary came after he
was deposed and we supported the coup that deposed
him to boot!
\_ Ever hear of SEATO? Yea but you are right
NATO was a stupid idea too.
\_ The three "axioms" he mentioned I don't think are that important.
The key issue is the dominoes did not fall after we lost the
Vietnam War and expended significant national resources in doing so.
\_ Wrong, one significant domino did fall. Ever heard of Cambodia?
\_ American ideals and beliefs are one thing, but how many times
have US allowed its selfish self-interest to take precedence over
these. People around the world like democracy, freedom, rule of
law, etc., but they don't like US trying to bully other countries
for its selfish goals and interests. Just because US, as a
country, is one of the better representatives of these ideas, does
not mean its use of power abroad is just or in support of these
ideals. To assume so is the biggest hole in the argument the
author put forth.
\_ Apparently you need to get yourself a copy of "Weatlh of Nations"
and read it from cover to cover. It's amazing what a little
education can do for even the weakest of minds... But I doubt
you will so here's the capsule. A) All countries are after
their own self interest, that's just how it works. B) Having
a country like America look after its own self interest in the
world is not merely justified, it's necessary for not only
the continuation of America but life as we know it. C) If
it wasn't America it would be China or Russia. I know a
LOT of people who are MUCH happier with America at the reigns
rather than China or Russia. D) If people REALLY dislike
America so much why is everyone always trying to get in, yet
hardly anyone ever leaves? And if you think that American policy
is bad, just take a look at how other colonial powers treated
their subordinates. The Americans, by contrast, have been
exceedingly gracious. Yes, we are the Romans of our era, and
being as such we will need to recognize that we are indeed an
august nation and have certain responsibilities that others
do not have.
\_ "We are better than China and Russia. Hence you should
support us in all that we do!" What a stupid logic.
\_ America is not perfect, but it sure beats any and
all alternatives thus far conceived by mankind. |
| 2004/11/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:34970 Activity:insanely high |
11/18 The Vietnam War Crimes You Never Heard Of:
http://www.vietnamwar.com/MyLai.htm (The Charlie Company)
http://hnn.us/articles/1802.html
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/RapeWarfare.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0438/turse.php
\_ I can only assume you mean "I'm so out of touch, I've never
heard of all these Vietnam War crimes." Since I'm pretty sure
the rest of the civilized world has heard of them before. Pver
and over, in fact. |
| 2004/11/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34963 Activity:high |
11/18 Sowell on the killing of the wounded insurgent. I was wondering
the same things.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041118.shtml
\_ "Terrorists are not enemy soldiers covered by the rules of
war. Nor should they be. They observe no rules." I stopped
reading after this. By the same token, the Genova convention
is obsolete, because anyone can say the enemy is not covered.
\_ i'm not losing sleep over it.
\_ Hello. I do not condone the murder of the wounded man, but
people who do not act like an organized military are not
afforded Geneva Convention protections. End of story.
-- ilyas
\_ Ilya, war is no longer declared between nations and fought
by cavalry regiments adhering to strict rules of combat.
It's a dirty, filthy brutal mess, and you're going to see
more and more irregular forces fighting wars. The Geneva
Conventions were not designed to strictly protect "soldiers"
based on some static definition of who wears what; the
brutality committed against civilians and irregulars in wars
since they were signed has been despite them, not as a
result. The Conventions seek to limit the damage done by
wars as a natural result of the kind of barbarism unleashed
in a war of any kind. If you were to capture OBL himself, if
he is defeated and can no longer defend himself, it is your
responsibility as a combatant to treat him according to a
basic set of standards. You may _not_ sodomize, shoot, or
torture him. Period. Legalese aside, the US must follow a
higher standard of conduct than terrorists, undemocratic
states, irregulars, tyrants, etc. There is no argument that
can justify anything that goes against this imperative.
None. The only justification that the USA have for engaging
the rest of the world, unless it is against some body that
has directly attacked us, is moral authority. When that
fails, the whole basis for being the (necessary) world
policeman is destroyed as well. -John
\_ The only 'moral' argument I can offer is of a utilitarian
nature, and that is if you must wage war, wage it as
quickly and brutally as possible, so it is over as
quickly as possible. I simply disagree with your morals.
A captured, ununiformed man who tried to kill soldiers
forfeits his life, in much the same way a civilian who tries
(or does!) kill a cop. There is no way to wage moral war,
by the way. War is inherently immoral. -- ilyas
\_ Quickly, yes. Brutally? That is counterproductive.
A democracy should not wage unprovoked offensive war,
which is essentially what we have done, but even if you
disagree with the {morals,ethics} of this, being
purposely nasty to people _after the fact_ has never
in any war, ever accomplished anything. Furthermore,
it is not in the authority of an individual soldier to
mete out summary justice or punishment, ever. It is
his duty to win, and it is the duty and authority of
a military chain of command to deal with uninformed
soldier-whackers and their ilk. This is a simple,
black and white issue; if a captive is killed in self-
defense while trying to harm a soldier, it is (as with
your cop example) regrettable but probably unavoidable.
If it is a captive killed after the fact of trying to
harm a soldier, it is a crime. Period. -John
\_ I also disagree that a democracy should not wage
offensive war, I simply don't see why offensive war
\_ You've obviously never played Civilization
\_ EU or Victoria >> Civ. -- ilyas
is always unjustified. Similarly, I don't see why
executions of ununiformed people, if properly
authorized, are wrong (they certainly were not in
this case, and the soldier will be dealt with).
I think given that a certain portion of the population
(or, in the case of Iraq, mostly foreigners)
is actively soldier hunting with guns and bombs, I
think the situation has moved past pleasant
discussions, and basically such people need to be
killed. If captured, they can possibly be killed
after a trial or some such, but a short military
trial is not unreasonable in my eyes. These people
are not conscripts of a state, they are not taking
orders. They can leave at any time, yet they fight.
There is a reason GC is applied to uniformed
soldiers, it's not just a quaint 19th century
cavalry thing. Btw, brutality and quickness are not
tied together just as a turn of phrase. Brutality
really is the most efficient way. Not moral, of
course. -- ilyas
\_ I'd love to prove you wrong, but some baboon
keeps overwriting my reply. Screw it. -John
\_ Ironically, it's probably ilyas, esp
considering how active he is in this thread.
\_ this is total bullshit. I never understood how people
get away w/ calling our enemies in this Iraq war
"terrorists" instead of soldiers or whatever other
military jargon people use.
Isnt this what the british said about the US in the
Revolutionary War? (I mean, not literally about the
Geneva convention per se, but this mentality)
\_ Because they _aren't_
soldiers. Soldier = in a chain of command, wears
uniform, etc. Certainly, armies employ 'spies'
and other unconventionals. But if they are caught,
they are not afforded the GC protections, are
tortured, etc. This has been done in every war, by
all sides. This is a distasteful business, etc.
but why is this new to anyone? People can't seem
to separate 'distasteful', 'reprehensible', etc.
from 'unlawful.' US is not being unlawful. -- ilyas
\_ Thank you John Yoo Jr. Sodomizing and torturing
innocent people or executing guerilla fighters are both
against the Geneva convention, and both these groups of
people ARE covered, as much as the administration would
like to argue otherwise.
\_ Sodomizing innocent people is against the rules of
war. Is there a link detailing protections
ununiformed people (guerillas, random fuckers with bombs,
etc.) are granted? My impressions are such folks
are shot on the spot if they are lucky, or 'questioned'
if not. Methinks you be full of shit. You can't expect
the military to gingerly handle folks who are out to
kill them. -- ilyas
\_ I'm not asking them to shake hands and be polite,
merely refrain from torture and executions. Is
that too much to ask of the US Army?
\_ I dislike torture. I think executions are morally
justified. YMMV. I have yet to see a document the
US signed which forbids either being applied to
ununiformed folks with guns/bombs. -- ilyas
\_ It's called 'framing the debate'. This way it's about how
you treat terrorists. If you call them rebels or
insurgents or, god forbid, freedom fighters that opens up
all sorts of unpleasant questions about what they're
fighting for.
\- i agree with your sentiment but i dont think you have
picked a good example. i think a better example [i have
not giventhis huge thought, so there may be even better
cases] is agent orange. i bet in the NVA were spraying
american troops with agent O, "we" would have called
that chemical warfare. i dont like the writing
especially but you may wish to see waltzer: just and
unjust wars. --psb
\_ Why would calling them rebels or insurgents open up
unpleasant questions? I don't think you can call them
freedom fighters. I don't think they're calling
themseves that. I suppose Bush would say they're
freedom fighters -- they're fighting freedom!
\_ Hahahahaha!!!
\_ Just to add more facts:
Dubya says Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists are not
afforded GC protections. Former Baathists and other Iraqi
nationals fighting aginst Americans probably are covered
as long as they are easily distinguishible from civilians.
\_ Ummm.. yeah. If they were wearing uniforms and acting
like soldiers, then sure.
\_ This whole 'uniforms and be in an army' thing just seems
like trying to justify raping people with glowsticks.
Uniforms don't matter because you should not be
commiting war crimes on civilians either, and if someone
is pointing a gun at you you know they're a combatant.
The 'act like soldiers' thing is meaningless. Do they
not deserve protection because they did not surrender
when the invaders disbanded their army? Guerilla
warfare is a perfectly valid battle tactic, just not one
the the US army handles well.
\_ Guerilla Warfare != Terrorism. Car bombing
civilians and beheading hostages is not
"Guerilla Warfare"
\_ Of course not everything they do is guerilla
warfare, and I never defended terrorism or
brutality. It is a perfectly legitimate tactic to
take sniper shots at an occupying foreign army.
Denying these people the GC protections is a bad
thing. Realize that the Iraqi insurgency is not
some unified force for evil, but many people
fighting for different reasons and using different
tactics.
\_ That's true. So far I haven't seen a lot
of evidence that the army is lumping them
into one group. But sometimes it's
better to be safe than sorry.
\_ Like pp said, al-Zarqawi != The Insurgency
\_ Unlike previous battles in Iraq, the Fallujah
insurgents have been easily distinguishable from
civilians.
If you say: "That isn't enough, you need to wear the
uniform of the Iraqi armed forces", well, then who cares
about the occasional GI who got hit in the face the
previous day and doesn't want to take any chances? He
could have nuked all five guys in the mosque, in which
case, he would only need to show he didn't violate the
rules of engagement.
\_ I just don't think we can condemn the soldier out of hand. We don't
know the circumstances, and "insurgents" have been booby trapping
dead bodies and running suicide missions. We kill Japanese just
fine in the same situations.
\_ "He's fucking faking he's dead! He's fucking faking he's dead!"
*brapbrapbrapbrap*
"Well he's dead now."
== He's going to unload a wad of C4 on you!
In the mean time, the entire video is replayed over and over
again in Iraq and across the Arab world while U.S. citizens
are trolling http://freerepublic.com and /etc/motd about hidden
grenades and uniforms. U.S. broadcast and cable networks
cover nekkid Desperate Housewives character jumping into the
arms of a uniformed NFL football player. |
| 2004/11/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34960 Activity:moderate |
11/18 Can someone give me a link on a survey of the public perception
of different wars (ww2, vietnam, iraq) and why people feel that
way? For example, why the average folks back in 1967 didn't
care about bringing freedom to the S Vietnamese, but that
we (at least 53% of the voters) think that the war on Iraq
is a good thing?
\_ Helloooo, I didn't know if you noticed, but in Iraq we
actually conquered the whole country? Vietnam was like Korea,
the U.S. didn't fight to win, they fought for a stalemate.
The insurgency in Iraq is definitely troubling, but unlike
Iraq you don't have a North Vietnam to deal with. The casualty
rate is also much lower for U.S. troops this go around. In order
to reach the casualty numbers of Nam we'd have to go at it for
another 40 years.
\_ It took Vietnam 15 years to rack up all those casualties, and
we've only been in Iraw for about 1.5 years. We're averaging
maybe 3 deaths a day and I think about 4 times as many injuries,
many of which are permanant and disabling.
\_ We never conquered the whole country. We deposed the government
and disbanded their army, but roving bands of insurgents have had
free reign in areas ever since. We may be able to retake areas
controlled by the insurgents, but we don't have enough men to
control the whole country at once.
\_ We can't even keep Afghanistan under control, but the
"liberal media" doesn't like to report what goes on over
there. Do you have any idea the effect of the surging
opium growth in Afghanistan
\_ Oh man how I wish I was a heroin junkie right now.
\_ WW2: Pearl Harbor.
Vietnam: Draft.
Iraq: 9/11.
You don't need a survey.
\_ WW2 had a draft also. But it also had a huge propaganda
machine supporting it. If you think the US news media
did too much to promote the Iraq war, that's nothing compared
to how WW2 was promoted.
\_ Pearl Harbor trumps Draft.
\_ The draft was less important than the key question of "why are
we fighting?" Plus the constant reassurance of victory by
political leaders ("light at the end of the tunnel") was given
a severe blow by the Tet Offensive and constant television
imagery. Quiz time! Compare and contrast the impact the images
of the RVN general executing a captured VC vs the US Marine
killing the injured insurgent.
\_ Tet was a major disaster for the NVA and VC.
\_ Nope, major success for the PVN, as it essentially won
them a huge PR victory (a) and wiped out most VC cadres
in the RVN which might have caused trouble after an
eventually PVN victory. -John
\_ But it was a larger disaster for US political opinion.
At the time the US was talking about the end of the war
by Christmas. The month-long battle to take Hue back was
a huge slap in the face of the public.
\_ Quiz response:
For Vietnam, the U.S. did not have Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
\_ What about Korea? That's almost a forgotten war. Other than MASH
nobody ever talks about it.
\_ Korea was a war of great expectations. The US and most of the
others who eventually joined were fighting against communism.
The US and the rest of the world became war weary after the
battleline stagnated. The question of "Why are we fighting?"
came up again and US opinion were more than happy to settle
for a tie. |
| 2004/11/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics] UID:34945 Activity:high 75%like:34910 |
11/17 Platoon >>> Full Metal Jacket
\_ I think that if you want to see what viet nam was like in a movie
made by an actual vet, you should see platoon, but fmj is still
a classic film for other reasons.
\_ Apples to oranges, dude. While both are about the Vietnam War,
they're very different stories that don't sensibly compare.
\_ in Vietnam war the US soldiers raped a lot of village
women and even children. How about Iraq? How many children
are we raping right now?
\_ "Easy, just don't lead 'em so much. Hahaha" -John
\_ Nice try for a troll. You get -1 points.
\_ No, seriously, why is this a troll? Let's ask a few
fundamental questions. In Platoon the US Army seems very
unorganized and when you're out in the field you're
pretty much your own boss and you can do whatever you
want (rape 10 year old girls, kill their parents, etc).
Is the US Army still like that nowadays?
\_ Because you're stupid if you think that the U.S. Army
goes around raping children. Nice try at trolling.
Better luck nexttime. Don't let the door hit your ass
on the way out.
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effect your trolls
had on China?
\_ the US Army doesn't allow it but it also gives each
soldier so much power that he can do whatever he wants
when he's on the mission, without anyone watching over
him. Now it's pretty damn hard to guarantee that every
single soldier knows a thing about ethics isn't it?
\_ I wish you'd sign your post. If you really do or did
go to Berkeley you must be one of the dumbest sons
of bitches ever to attend. One would think that the
minimal standards for SAT scores would enforce some
sort of common logic within all entering freshman.
-williamc
\_ Dude, he's so clearly got an agenda he's trying to
push. The sorry thing is that he's so fucking
transparent about pushing it, and that it's such
a lame duck agenda to begin with that no one is even
going try to answer is stupidly phrased, poorly
researched, clearly biased "thought-provoking"
questions. Christ, this guy is a moron. And
you know what's truly pathetic? He's probably
congratulating himself about 'once again hitting the
Americans in the face with their own hypocrisy' when
no one bothers to answer his lame provocations. -POC
\_ Well, maybe over time he'll learn somethin'.
College kids can be pretty unwise. At least he's
apparently making some sort of attempt to discuss
his lame issues.
\_ Yeah, I guess. I'm not as optimistic, but
hey, I sincerely hope I'm wrong here. -POC
\_ Replace "soldier" with "cop" and you will see why your
argument, while making valid assumptions, is basically
flawed. -John
foreigners can't or usually don't file a complaint against _/
soldiers, but citizens do file complaints and they go to
civil courts. Civil court vs. military court, hmmmm. Oh, and
thank you for not resorting to name calling like the other
posters. -op
\_ Obviously it is an order of magnitude worth of difference, but
the similarity lies in the fact that a cop has a lot of de
facto control over you in a given situation. Sheriff Cletus can
seriously cause you problems if he feels like it, even if there
is eventual recourse. -John
\_ John is often cool like that. I still don't understand why that
german-john guy gives him such issue. Oh, and I'll stop
'resorting' to name calling if you'll actually do some research
before rudely dissing the service-men and -women who have
_volunteered_ to put their lives at risk for some abstract
notion of duty, honor, or just plain pursuit of betterment.
They've shown more courage than your ill-informed, agenda-driven
attacks. -POC
\_ maybe John should ask what actions he made several
years ago that caused someone to hate him/resent him
and is now harrasing him. Introspection may help.
\_ OK I have engaged in introspection and inspected my
navel and I'M SORRY I KILLED YOUR DAD, OK?!? -John
\_ that homeless guy John threw a rice cooker at got
a Soda account - danh
\_ Learn how to post to motd.
\_ I never threw a rice cooker at anyone. I dropped a
wok off the 4th floor of CZ, and a bunch of the nasty
Berkeley ex-hippies who lived across from us got mad.
\_ I threw a full sack of potatoes off the top of
CZ, because I suspected there was a mouse in it.
No one said anything, you unlucky bastard.
\_ Heh, I knew a guy that hurled a couch (with help)
from the 10th floor of Unit 1 into the RA's little
backyard. -POC
\_ Well, nobody said anything about the watermelons,
the old PC, Dave Menache's electric guitar, or
the several dozen pounds of tomatoes we launched
with the 3-man slingshot. Just the wok. -John |
| 2004/11/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Finance/Investment] UID:34900 Activity:nil |
11/15 The administration continues it war on poor people:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/12/epa.pesticidestudy.ap/index.html
\_ Huh?
\_ Can't get a job? Need to pay the rent? Just poison your
kids and get a thousand bucks and a camera to document your
child's suffering!
\_ Did you read the article? That's why they're delaying
the study. |
| 2004/11/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34897 Activity:nil |
11/15 Slavery in the North
http://www.slavenorth.com/index.html
\_ I'm curious what point you were trying to make by posting this.
I thought it was common knowledge. |
| 2004/11/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34892 Activity:moderate |
11/14 Mass civilian death in Fallujah? Sadly, there is not a single US
media outlet that I can find covering this story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4004873.stm
http://csua.org/u/9z2 (reuters.co.uk)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1350926,00.html
\_ If we fought WWI or WWII like this we might as well let
the enemy win.
\_ What are you blathering about? WWI and WWII weren't entered
on false pretenses and without a plan to win.
\_ Not to be unsympathetic, but what the heck are they still doing
there? We warned them for months ahead of time.
\_ Fallujah is a city of 200 to 300,000 people. Apparently most
of them got out, but there were about 30,000 that were still
there when the attack began. The biggest problem seems to be
that these people have no food or clean water, and the army
is still not allowing the red cross to go in and supply
food and water.
\_ I can see the reality of the situation, but that doesn't
answer my question.
\_ It's tough to say. Human beings are funny creatures. If
a big army invaded your country and then told you to leave
the home you grew up in because they were going to blow it
up, would you leave? I don't think it's such an easy
question to answer. Humans are very good at denial.
\_ Then they will die. Psychological illness is very bad
in a warzone. -- darwinist
\_ No need to use an alternate sig, ilya.
\_ Many Floridians stayed at home because they could no
longer afford to stay in a motel. What if the people
can't afford to leave, are too frail to leave, have
no where they can stay, etc.?
\_ Are you familiar with the concept of a refugee?
If folks with big ass guns tell you to leave for
a couple of weeks, you should probably leave.
If you honestly have no better choice than to stay
at a place that's about to get bombed into
the stoneage, you are in deep trouble. I am not
sure what you expected from a military
operation. Would you rather the torture/kidnapping
rigs operating in Fallujah kept going?
\_ Imagine a city the size of Oakland, with higher crime. Now some
foreigners are telling you to leave. If you do leave, anything
you don't bring will get looted, and violent gangs will use your
house to take pot-shots at men with 155mm cannons.
\_ Put like this, I have a hard time believing the US is going
to get out of this without a bloody nose.
\_ BUD DAY doesn't like your tone, son.
\_ Heh, it's always Bud Day in East Oaktown. |
| 2004/11/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34886 Activity:nil 75%like:34882 |
11/14 AP Pictures from Fallujah
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1279726/posts |
| 2004/11/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34883 Activity:nil |
11/14 Body of Caucasian woman with blonde hair found in Fallujah:
marines
http://csua.org/u/9yo |
| 2004/11/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34882 Activity:high 75%like:34886 |
11/14 AP Pictures from Fallujah
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1279726/posts
\_ just mark it as a freeper link, ok? |
| 2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34843 Activity:low |
11/11 Things falling apart in Holland. http://www.slate.com/id/2109523 \_ Motd poster uses misleading headline. <DEAD>127.0.0.1<DEAD> \_ cf Yeats, The Second Coming \_ things falling apart in the world after Iraq, what's your point \_ Well, the article claims that the prime suspect Mohammed Bouyeri became radical post 9/11, and the murder of Theo van Gogh was the trigger point of the violence, but I'm sure we can squeeze Iraq in there somehow. \_ There was no intention in winning points in some kind of my side/your side motd battle with the post. I would hope that all of us, no matter which side we belong to in the great motd war, can view with sadness the murder of van Gogh, the violence that followed, and the worsening attitude in Holland. -op \_ Hey, can we blame Ayatollah Khomeini issuing a death sentence on Salman Rushdie on the Iraq invasion too? \_ Ought to check out the film, guys. Lots of body. \_ At least van Gogh wasn't buried alive too. |
| 2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34841 Activity:low |
11/11 http://tinyurl.com/5sude hahaha, insurgents are getting desperate as we tighten the noose around Fallja. \_ Your post is eerily similar to Bush calling the whole insurgency the "last desperate gasps of resistance" last year. \_ As much as it would be good for us to 'win the peace' in Iraq, I know that won't happen. So I wish we could just hurry up and lose as fast as possible to minimize our casualties. |
| 2004/11/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34821 Activity:very high |
11/10 So, er, can anyone explain why we gave the Fallujah rebels so much
advance warning about what we were going to do?
\_ To prevent civilian casualties. The goal was not to destroy the
rebels/terrorists, but to control the city. It makes it possible
to conduct the vote in January. Rebs/terrs in the urban areas are
the cause to most of the Coalition's headaches. The civies will
return and the US will pump in money and fix up the city. Hearts
and minds.
\_ look at Grozny
\_ Come out or I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down.
\_ US lacks stealth anyway. We can't even do a small raid without
the insurgents getting tipped off, let alone a massive operation
like Falluja.
\_ That's the cowboy style, seriously. Wasn't that how we fought the
war in Vietnam? |
| 2004/11/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:34817 Activity:nil |
11/10 When Vietnam vets came home (Soldiers being spit on is
just an urban myth)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276799/posts |
| 2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34803 Activity:moderate |
11/10 This is kinda funny: Protest Warrior vs Gael Murphy
http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/Miami/military_shield.php
\_ Wow, imagine what good the fine folks of Protest Warrior could
accomplish if they'd just grow up. |
| 2004/11/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34796 Activity:nil |
11/9 The Sunnis tell us that they're not yet ready for Democracy
at this moment so we resort to killing them, so that all living
Iraqis will have a chance at democracy. Bush allah akbar! |
| 2004/11/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34781 Activity:high |
11/9 I've been wondering about this. During the campaign, why doesn't
Kerry just openly say that the war on Iraq is based on a lie,
a lie the Bush administration knew from the beginning. The WMD
was just something that would play nice with the general
public, but they would've went in anyway, and because of their
action, the united states is not any safer than it was before.
Does this just not work with the general public? Were they
afraid most Americans just don't want to hear the truth? Like
when any company loses a court battle, they always deny any
wrong doings, etc, but will pay?
\_ Because he voted for it and later said he'd do the exact same
thing even knowing that Saddam didn't have WMD.
\_ When asked how she would have handled the war if she'd known then
what she knows now, Senator Hillary Clinton retorted, "Well, we
never would have had the war!"
\_ Because the WHOLE WOLRD thought we'd find stockpiles! -Dubya
\_ Except of course for Sean Penn.
\_ Look up the countries who opposed the war, but who's
intelligence agencies said there were stockpiles.
\_ Because, even knowing everything we know today, it was still the
right thing to do! -Dubya
\_ Is it?
\_ The majority of Americans think so!
\_ An uninformed majority is a mob.
\_ The US under Bush is the biggest threat to world pace since
Hitler. I think we should invade and take preemptive actions
against ourselves!!
\_ You've obviously never served.
\_ Dubya served with honor in the Texas Air National Guard!
\_ What about all the shit they teach you at school, you are
innocent until proven guilty, that you can't punish someone
for something they haven't done. Which is the foundation of
our law enforcement system. Why don't we start arresting
anyone who 'might' commit a crime? "Knowing what I know
today, it was the right thing to do", fuck off.
\_ The "innocent until proven guilty" premise does not translate to
Presidents and heads of state who, because of the enormous effect
of their mistakes, obsessions, and biases, are expected to be
more circumspect in the employment of the destructive forces at
their disposal. The President *must* be willing to take
responsibility for the errors he has made, especially when those
errors result in the full deployment of our military; this is
why Bush was very careful to shift the focus of the reason for
war from the unproveable charge of WMD to the more popular goal
of deposing Saddam Hussein. If Bush had made this case prior
to going to war, he would have simulataneously had a harder time
getting support for the war and had a much more stable rationale
for the war. He erred.
\_ they got Capone on tax evasion, we got Saddam on wmd usage
against the kurds..
\_ And Dubya probably thinks the 2004 results were a stamp of
approval!
\_ One of the things that people forget, or fail to
meantion, is that Bush CAN'T admit it was a mistake, even
if he thinks so himself. Admitting the war was a mistake
would be such a morale shock to the troops, and the
country, it would be the equivalent of overtly saying,
"We're going to let another 10,000 or so troops die, and
then pull out leaving Iraq in a state of civil war and
disaster." He touched on this in the debate when he said
he didn't think a president who thinks the war is a
mistake should be put in charge. Morale is VERY
important.
\_ If Bush were truly concerned about morale, he should
apologize for not greeting the coffins of the fallen
soldiers who have died for their country.
\_ Dubya was visiting the wounded in Walter Reed yesterday!
[GOP]Karl_Rove p0wnz u!
\_ Yawn. wounded != died. Cf. "dictionary."
\_ Visiting wounded soldiers >> Greeting coffins
[GOP]Karl_Rove STILL p0wnz u!
\_ Obviously, you never served.
\_ THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT CARL ROVE BETTED ON. Once we are
in war, there's only one option. You don't question why
until after the war, long after Bush is dead. FUCK BUSH
AND CARL ROVE.
\_ Dubya took out Saddam -- someone who has used chemical weapons
during war -- while he was small, before he could get big again.
Dubya didn't even want to ask the UN, but Powell convinced him
to try.
Dubya also showed that the U.S. will do whatever it takes to
anyone it deems a threat to the U.S.
\_ Someone explain to be where the term 'Dubya' came from?
What does it mean?
\_ It's his middle initial, to distinguish him, George W.
Bush, from his father, George H.W. Bush.
\_ Wow, that's almost straight from Andrew Card's mouth. Let's
review: post-combat weapons inspections have revealed that
the sanctions were preventing Saddam Hussein from "getting
big again"; the campaign in *Afghanistan* showed that the
US will do whatever it takes to defuse those it deems a
threat; the debacle in Iraq has shown the world that anyone
can tie down the US military nearly indefinitely by prodding
the President's pride. US military might is at its lowest
perceived competency level in decades.
\_ Wow, if only Kerry put it as convincingly in the debates...
But, Saddam was gaming the oil-for-food program, and
Dubya's people would say that he WOULD get big again
after sanctions were lifted since no WMDs would have been
found, Saddam would still be in power today, and we would
never have found out if he had them or not.
IMO, the U.S. should have been gaming Saddam, not the other
way around. Instead, the U.S. broke all the rules and put
the hammer down on him when it found it was losing the
game.
\_ You're right, Kerry should have hammered him more than
he did. Ah, well. Anyway, sanctions would not have
been lifted because Bush would have had any attempt to
lift sanctions vetoed in the UNSC. Furthermore, Bush
should have had the balls to call France and Russia on
their violations of the sanctions; robbed of his two
semi-allies, Hussein might have self-destructed faster. |
| 2004/11/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34778 Activity:insanely high |
11/9 What's the difference between Sadam killing thousands of uncooperative
Iraqis because they don't accept his ruling, and Bush killing
thousands of ethnic Iraqis because they don't accept democracy?
\_ We are killing in the name of democracy which is a more noble goal.
\_ KILLING IN THE NAME OF/KILLING IN THE NAME OF/DUH DUH DUMMMM DUH
DUHDUDHDUH SWERREEEEAAAAACHH RAWAAAARRRR </rage against the
machine>
\_ someone has been playing too muh GTA:SA
\_ Is RATM on the soundtrack? -no ps2
\_ yup
\_ Moral relativism. You = teh ghey.
\_ cuz the people we kill don't want other iraqis to be free
\_ Oxymorons for the day: military intelligence, smart weapon,
friendly fire, compassionate conservative.
\_ unbiased mainstream media, kerry electable, youth voter,
hollywood/heart of america, voted for it before....
\_ intelligent motd conservative attempting variation on
theme to drive home stupid point but falling flat
\_ There are no difference, period.
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effect the opium trade
had on China?
\_ Why do you hate China?
\_ Are you Yiddish? Do you understand the effect the holocaust
had on Yehudah?
\_ Why do you hate Yehudah?
\_ A foreigner can see this with less bias than you do.
\_ I bet BUD DAY has no bias at all!
\_ BUD DAY vs. Ditka? (No Bears' bus)
\_ ?? Care to elaborate?
\_ Ummm... one opresses all other Iraqis for a self-centered
ideology, and the other makes all Iraqis equal?
\_ oppresses via kidnappings, head chopping, car bombs in busy
markets, suicide bombers, etc. You know, the people that he'd
be howling to see put down like rabid dogs in the street if they
made an appearance in HIS neighborhood.
\_ According to Economist, number of Iraqis killed since invasion
is not 15000 as per US's figures, but 40000 or more.
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814
\_ You've obviously never served.
\_ What does that comment have to do with The Economist article
cited?
\_ Why doesn't the Economist just sign Form 180 and get it
over with?
\_ I'll sign form 180!
\_ No, I'll sign form 180! --spartacus
\_ Whatever the number, it is still going to be lower over the long
term than what Saddam was doing to his own people on a daily
basis. It is a horrible and terrible thing that innocent people
die during war but they were also during under Saddam. His
killing was a permanent situation. The war is a temporary
condition required to remove his bloody paws from the people.
\_ How long did Saddam ruled Iraq and how many people died
as a result of his misrule?
\_ Americans love to kill people in the name of freedom
and democracy. They killed 4 million Vietnamese to
save the Vietnamese. That's comparable to the number
of Jews incinerated by the Germans.
\_ You're an idiot. 4 million is an estimate of Vietnamese
civilians killed, 1955-1973. Add to that ca. 1 million
combatants. A majority of those were done in by other
Vietnamese, including North & Viet Cong. -John
\_ http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Vietnam
\_ Exactly. And aside from a fair number of RVN
civilians done in by US napalm, most of it points
to casualties from NVA/VC. Point? -John
\_ why do you say most of the civilian casualties
are due to NVA/VC?
\_ Because they're a bunch of murdering fucking
commies, and they're coming for you AND your
dog, that's why. -John
\_ Didn't you know? The US Military has
declared a Free Fire Zone in your bathroom.
If you have any business there, you'd better
do it quick.
\_ nah, majority killed by Americans and their corrupt
S. Vietnam lackeys.
\_ One is a murdering turd and the other murders Kurds?
\_ Where is the evidence? The Constitution demands an actual head
count for the purposes of the census, but the "100,000 dead Iraqis"
figure is tossed willy-nilly without a list of names. Besides,
we don't target Iraqi citizens, and Saddam did.
\_ 100,000 people was a bogus figure generated by some guys who
came up with a range of ~8000 to just over 200,000 dead so they
split the difference. Once the lie started spreading, the
origin was lost and now this 100k number has become a pseudo-
factoid tossed around like reality.
\_ The 100K number is not bogus, but it has a high uncertainty.
They used the 'cluster' statistical methodology, which is
"THE STANDARD" in epidemiological studies, and gives very
good results if your sample size is large enough. Basically
you randomly pick a bunch of small neighborhoods spread out
over the whole country and interview every person in those
neighborhoods about their family members who died and what was
the cause of death. Then extrapolate those results to the
whole country. Because they got only 33 neighborhoods, their
estimate was 98K dead, but the margin of error was 8-190K
people dead. The best estimate is 98K, but there is 90%
certainty that over 40K have died. Also, they deliberately
threw out a neighborhood in Fallujah because the death rate
was much higher there and they didn't want to skew the sample.
The 8-200K dead figure is the 95% confidence interval, I think
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA???
\_ The 100k number came from a survey using the same
methodology as used in kosovo and other conflicts,
and has been generally accepted in the past. But,
as Firesign Theatre would say, everything you know
is wrong.
\_ Nobody knows how many Iraqis are dying because frankly,
nobody cares. The only thing that is important is
to reduce American casualties to a minimum.
\_ You dickwad, I hope a terriorist hit you soon, motherfucker! |
| 2004/11/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34772 Activity:high |
11/8 Someone please explain how the Fallujah fight works. The US
army goes in, the civilians and insurgents flee, and victory
is claimed. But eventually when the civilians and insurgents
come back, they'll just do more sniping and suicide bombing.
So what's the point of attacking Fallujah in the first place?
\_ we will hunt down and fight and kill the evil-doers.
\_ Same mistake we made in Vietnam: we think that grabbing land will
somehow equal victory, but Zarqawi (sp?) and the rest of the heads
of Team Fallujah have already left. Watch out for the next
Fallujah sometime soon.
\_ Some people always escape. You don't need to kill 100% of the
enemy to render them ineffective as a fighting force. A few
kill leaders and lots of dead bodies is usually enough. Watch
out for the next Fallujah? This isn't the first city that's
been stomped on like this. How come we don't hear about all
those other cities still being terrorist havens?
\_ Wow, you're really dumb. You have no idea what
guerilla warfare entails. Get ready for your object
lesson.
\_ Yes, I do know. What exactly are your gueillas
going to eat and shoot with and hide once the world
passes them by? Do you read the Arab press? Since
they started killing Iraqi children and cops, their
support has plumeted. This is mop up. It'll go on
beyond their elections but there won't be any more
Fallujas. The political situation has changed. You
put way too much faith in a bunch of random angry
dudes with no training. I'll take the U.S. Marines
on this one.
\_ Even the marines are admitting that the bigwigs
are no longer in the city. They'll take their
support elsewhere and set up shop, and the Sunnis
will boycott the election.
\_ "Che Guevara". You can't have a revolution
without goons. -John
\_ It's a matter of whether they can permantly secure and bring
order to Fallujah and other cities with Iraqi forces. If not,
it's a lost cause.
\_ It'll be difficult to snipe while wearing bags and leashes, and
with LYNDIE keeping an eye on them.
\_ Fallujah is the symbol and HQ of the insurgents.
Naturally, if the U.S. pacifies the city and it re-erupts in
violence, that's bad!
\_ It has their FLAG, dumbass. -geordan |
| 2004/11/9 [Recreation/Computer/Games, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34771 Activity:high |
11/8 Why do these guys look like the terrorists in Counter-Strike?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041108/481/bag11811081424
\_ Because they killed all the sodomizing homosexuals who could tell
them that lumberjack shirts and checkered kaffiyehs simply do
not match. -John
\_ On a side note, does it ever get cold enough in Iraq or the rest
of the Middle East to justify owning a balaclava?
\_ Yes. Ever been in a desert at night? It gets cold.
\_ Damn, good point. Bang goes another theory. |
| 2004/11/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34765 Activity:nil |
11/8 http://csua.org/u/9vg (New York Times) American-led large-scale assault on Falluja has begun "They'll win if it's bloody; we'll win if we minimize civilian casualties." -Marine A Falluja resident who tried entering the city on Monday said he had found no way through the seal. The resident said the situation was much different from the situation in April, when Americans battled the Falluja insurgents before withdrawing and when there were many gaps that gun runners could exploit to keep the insurgents supplied. |
| 2004/11/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34758 Activity:very high |
11/7 Isn't it funny that all the multi-billion dollar eye-in-the-sky
surveillance program that you and I paid for... the SR-71, the
U2, and the spy satellites... can't tell you with certainty
that Sadam has WMD or not? So much for our smart, all electronic
"intelligence"
\_ we have the tech to see someone give us the finger from 60k ft
\_ you can go underground. You still need human intelligence.
\_ You obviously never served.
\_ and you have?
\_ Are you Chinese?
\_ Are you Yiddish?
\_ You can directly blame Jimmy Carter for starting this all-tech,
no-people nonsense. Yet another legacy of his utter failure.
And yes, he was also the first President to say nukular, so you
grammarians can add that to your list, as well as the need to
invent terms like "double-digit inflation" and "stagflation" and
showing Islamic psychos that the US can be cowed with terrorism.
\_ First "nukular" president was Eisenhower.
\_ Not to mention being responsible for the oil shock, the Yom
Kippur war, Leonid Brezhnev and the Iran hostage crisis. He
is also directly accountable for the unraveling of the Bretton
Woods dollar/gold exchange system, the Vietnamese invasion of
Cambodia, and the Polish military crackdown on Solidarnosc. In
fact, the evil bastard wimp is probably the reason why the
middle east will be destabilized for generations to come. And
did you know that he also started the China opium trade? -John
did you know that he also started the Yiddish holocaust? -John
\_ You're right, John. Carter was a great President.
\_ No, I'm just trying to provide a counterpoint to my stated
conviction that he was THE ANTICHRIST who is single-
handedly responsible for all the world's ills. -John
\_ You forgot disco and the death of Jon Bonham.
\_ JOHN B ONHAM IS NT DEAD YUO FUKCING COMMUNIST.
\_ And John Lennon.
\_ Yeah, but I hear he swings an awful lot of pipe.
\_ Must be all those peanuts. |
| 2004/11/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34756 Activity:very high |
11/7 So does anyone really believe anymore that Bush lied about WMD? The
Duelfer report proved 2 things:
1) Iraq didn't have WMD's
2) Had we infiltrated Saddam's top level of generals, we still would
have though he had WMD's.
\_ He sure as hell didn't tell the truth. Look up the word "lie"
in the dictionary and I think it is obvious that he lied according
to definition number 2. It is what is called in linguistics as a
"contested case" though, so I don't really expect you to admit
v "contested case" though, so I don't really expect you to admit
that the word has multiple definitions.
\_ Everyone knows what "lie" means. We don't need you to help us
parse what the definition of "is" is. Thanks.
\_ Au contraire. I have posted the definition of it and
had people insist that it was wrong or inapplicable
in this case. The op is trying to do this right now.
Do you admit that Bush lied?
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
\_ In other words you're upset that Bush was 'wrong'. All
the claims about lying did not use this definition but the
one where the lie is to intentionally deceive. Are you now
saying Bush didn't intentionally deceive anyone?
\_ No, all the claims did not say that Bush intentionally
decieved. You just decided to read it that way.
I have no idea if Bush deliberatly decieved. I know
that he spoke with reckless disregard for the truth,
in that he claimed certaintly when he had no business
doing so, but I doubt that he knew he was uttering
a falsehood when he did so.
\_ Um, his claims about WMD's would have been verified
by Saddam's own generals. They were confirmed by
every intelligence organization in the world. If you
define this as lying, you're a fucking moron.
\_ Except for all those intelligence organizations
that said they didn't have them, oh and the
WEAPONS INSPECTORS. You know, the guys who
were responsible for KNOWING THIS STUFF. But
hey history is hard, lets make up facts later.
The fact is Bush and his administration gave
solid data about where and how many WMDs were
in Iraq and it was ALL WRONG. But rather than
let weapons inspectors do their jobs they
insisted we go to war right now, and look
where that got us.
\_ If you read "Plan of Attack", you'd find that
Dubya's people were telling him that Blix was
pooching the WMD hunt. Dubya's people were
convinced Saddam had WMDs -- and Dubya wasn't
going to take the chance of Blix reporting
Saddam didn't have anything, especially when
Tenet said he had them for sure.
\_ No they were not confirmed by every intelligence
agency in the world. Either you are badly
misinformed or simply lying, it is hard to say
which. Every intelligence agency in the world,
including the CIA, said that they did not have
enough information to tell one way or another.
And I see no evidence that Saddam's own generals
believed that he had WMD. Is this another one
of your fantasies? Here is the relavent quote
from your own source: "ISG found no credible
evidence that any field elements knew about
plans for CW use during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
It is amazing to me that in your twisted
view of reality Bush telling an untruth
is actully him telling the truth. You are truly
a brainwashed sheeple. War is Peace?
\_ "The whold world thought we'd find stockpiles"
- GW Bush
Dubya could be lying right here, but I don't
remember Kerry ever having challenged him on
this sentence.
this sentence. -Depressed Liberal
\_ Yeah, hence his downfall. But then again,
the only politician I remember being
outspoken in oppositiion to this was
Barbara Lee and look what happened to her.
\_ Yeah, and you wonder why Edwards didn't
take "no doubt" Cheney quotes and roast
him on those during the VP debate.
\_ She got re-elected?
\_ Bush was responsible for knowing more about the Iraqi military
capabilities than the Iraqi generals before invading. No more blood
for big oil! And no more posting quots from Clinton, Gore,
Albright, various UN officials, or any other foreign leaders who
said the same things Bush said about Iraqi WMD. Bush lied! Men
died! No more war for oil! Down with the moronic bible thumping
pig fucking red neck Republicans! AAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
\_ Another trash talking anonymous Republican troll.
You are pathetic. -ausman
You are pathetic. You can't even shut up for a minute,
as even President Bush has asked us to do, to try and
help bring the country back together. -ausman
\_ Wow an anonymous taunting Republican coward on the motd.
What a novelty. Both Bush and Kerry have asked people to
try and bring this country together, but you just can't
help yourself, can you? -ausman
\_ A salute Bush for not caring what his critics in the
reality based community say. - danh
\_ Please. The man wanted to invade Iraq so much that he pressured
the CIA to provide intel to support his plans. All contradicting
evidence was ignored. He lied.
\_ But the bi-partisan reports said that the "pressure" did not
alter any of the CIA's opinions.
Summary: The CIA thought Saddam had WMDs -- they even thought
the aluminum tubes were dual-use at least (though clearly wrong
in hindsight). The State and Energy departments were the ones
who didn't think the aluminum tubes were nuke related. But,
for Dubya at least, CIA trumps State Department where
intelligence is concerned.
\_ With Rumsfeld breathing heavily in his ear, Dubya was bound to
discount anything Powell had to say; why do you think the
invasion was executed with blatant disregard for the Powell
doctrine? The Pres. wanted what he got, and he got what he
wanted. It's hardly a leap of logic to see that Henry II was
responsible for the death of Sir Thomas a Beckett even though
Henry never actually told anyone to kill him.
\- What if he actually said "Who will rid me of this
troublesome yeast?" ? --psb
\_ Then they killed the wrong prelates; Chimay is on the
other side of the Channel.
\_ If the topic is: "Post-war Iraq, why didn't Dubya follow
the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force?", well, Rumsfeld
was right about Afghanistan even when all the generals were
telling him he was wrong. The same generals were saying
the "same" thing about Iraq. You're Dubya. Who do you
believe? (Yeah, it's a specious argument, but this at
least provides "plausible deniability" -- which is PLENTY
for the True Believers.)
\_ The True Believers don't even need that. They still
believe that Saddam had WMD, and they still believe that
Saddamn was directly responsible for 9/11. See, they
believe these things because the President said as
much, and they will continue to believe him until he
tells them otherwise. You don't need a conspiracy
theory to understand the immense charisma and its
deletorious effects on the ability of his followers to
to see the truth.
\_ Rumsfeld was not right about Afghanistan. The US
lucked out pretty heavily on that one, for one, by
having Germans and Poles ready to pick up some of the
slack while we went on an (unsuccessful) Osama-hunt
through the south. The country has barely managed to
hold together, the central government has little
authority beyond Kabul, opium production is up due to
lack of central control, and people seem to be putting
up with the status quo simply because there's at least
a smidgeon of hope that things will get better. You
simply can't have an invasion with the minimum amount
of force required to win the military victory without
planning for the aftermath, which, in Afghanistan, can
best be described as "amateurish". -John
\_ I think it doesn't do much to condemn Dubya as knowingly (1) having
lied or (2) misled the American people -- without smoking gun
evidence (tapes) of deceit from him. I do think Dubya should be
held accountable for losing world respect from there not being
weapons, Abu Ghraib, and the post-war quagmire.
"The Buck Stops Here".
Of course, everyone who voted for Dubya in 2004 would rather have
Dubya as President than Kerry -- and that's 59 million and counting
-- but that's how democracy works. -liberal
\_ So who was responsible for Omaha beach? And where did that buck
stop?
\_ I am stupid. I compare everything to WW2. Kill me now.
\_ As if infiltrating Saddam's generals is as easy as flipping a
light switch, or putting on a hat. Saddam fed living people into
*plastic* *shredder* *machines*. Sometimes head first, sometimes
feet first. Most who slam Bush for removing Saddam don't mind
abortion either, so I guess torture and mass murder are O.K.
\_ The American people wouldn't have supported Saddam sending
our boys to take out Saddam if he had no WMDs.
Anyways, we're there now, and Dubya supporters want to look
forward, not back.
\_ And the US has already killled 100,000+ civilians. Do you
think the grieving widows care if their husband died in
a shredder or in an air raid?
\_ If it means a safer America, 59+ million Americans think it's
worth it! Anyway, it's probably only 10-40,000 civilians.
Ask Iraqis - they still think it's worth it!
\_ No, probably 100,000+
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
And do the Iraqis still think it was worth it?
I know the latest poll has 97% of them wanting
us to leave. And most Americans no longer
believe the fable that the Iraq war has made
us safer.
\_ "These numbers seem to be inflated" - Human Rights Watch
in the URL you posted.
Yeah, Iraqis want us to leave, but the question was
whether the war was worth it.
You're right about most Americans thinking it didn't
make us safer, but most Americans also think going into
Iraq was the right thing to do. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34678 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2522316 BUSH: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions. ... BUSH: Yes. Again, you violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people. -- Was Dubya kidding or not? I take this as some light-hearted joking, or did he look irritated and say it seriously? |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34622 Activity:high |
11/3 I know indeed what evil I intend to do,
but stronger than all my afterthoughts is my fury,
fury that brings upon mortals the greatest evils.
-Euripides, _Medea_
\_ It is a dark time for the Rebellion. Although the Death Star has
been destroyed, Imperial troops have driven the Rebel forces from
their hidden base and pursued them across the galaxy.
Evading the dreaded Imperial Starfleet, a group of freedom fighters
led by Luke Skywalker has established a new secret base on the
remote ice world of Hoth.
The evil lord Darth Vader, obsessed with finding young Skywalker,
has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of
space...
\_ we destroyed the death star? i don't think so. we don't even
have a skywalker.
\_ Maybe it's from Bin Laden's perspective. He might fancy
himself a Skywalker.
\_ We are down 2 death stars in NY.
\_ Return of the Caliph!
\_ I am the one, Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit
I am the emperor of lies, you grovel at my feet
I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain
And still you play the sycophant and revel in my pain
And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate
I am the politician, and I decide your fate
I march before a martyred world, an army for the fight
I speak of great heroic days, of victory and might
I hold a banner drenched in blood, I urge you to be brave
I lead you to your destiny, I lead you to your grave
Your bones will build my palaces, your eyes will stud my crown
For I am Mars, the god of war, and I will cut you down
\_ I think I saw this in the opening to an episode of Andromeda
\_ Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
\_ Right, exactly. Now who were the more passionate here?
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
... And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
\_ "The issue is not a mean one. It is whether you will be content
to be a comfortable England, modeled and moulded upon Continental
principles and meeting in due course an inevitable fate, or whether
you will be a great country, an imperial country, a country where
your sons, when they rise, rise to paramount positions, and obtain
not merely the esteem of their countrymen, but command the respect
of the world." - Benjamin Disraeli
\_ I liked my Euripides the most. Short and to the point. --op
\_ I think we're making different points here.
\_ i was referring more to the big spew above than your
Disraeli quote.
\_ I rate the probability that Lemmy Killmeister rips
off your head and shits down your neck as: high. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34615 Activity:nil |
11/3 So I was talking to my O'Reilly-watching younger brother last night
about how Dick Cheney was wrong about there being "no doubt" about
Saddam having WMDs or even WMD programs. My brother replied, kind
of emotionally, that Saddam definitely had them, and maybe they were
moved to Iran or Syria or they were still hidden. He said he "knows
how the world works".
I told him about David Kay, who Dubya appointed, who said "We were
almost all wrong"; and the Duelfer report, which concluded there were
no WMDs or WMD programs. I told him Saddam wanted to play by the
rules to lift sanctions, but pretend that he had WMDs to deter other
countries, and that he thought the CIA knew he didn't have them.
I told him as soon as the UN looked away, Saddam would restart his
WMD programs. I told him that Cheney said "We just don't know" about
WMDs being moved to Syria or Iran, since there were trucks spotted
moving across the border with contents unknown. My younger brother
insisted Saddam had weapons. Why? He said again, rather strenuously,
because he "knows how the world works". He sugested that David Kay
is a politician. I said "What motive does he have?" "Maybe to write
a book!" "He's been ostracized. He went in almost certain there were
WMDs. He was hand-picked by Bush. What motive does he have?"
"He's being political." My younger brother "knows how the world
works", and probably voted for Dubya.
\_ My cousin also believes this, because he says be have taped
conversations that Saddam himself believed this. Supposedly there
might have been people in his own government who may have mislead
Saddam, and by extension, the intelligence we gathered.
\_ The problem is that, the Duelfer report notes that the U.S.
has been interrogating Saddam, and he has been forthcoming in
appeals to his vanity. Saddam didn't have them, he wanted
Iran to think he had them, he would rebuild them as soon as
sanctions were lifted and do what he could get away with.
\_ the problem is not your brother, but Fox News that mixes opinions
and facts and distorts views for the right wing agenda. |
| 2004/11/3 [Politics/Foreign/Canada, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34596 Activity:nil |
11/03 The last/next thing to elect:
http://www.harpers.org/ElectingToLeave.html |
| 2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34471 Activity:low |
10/30 So, there's this buffoon who actually believes that chauvinist
actually has a good point in committing barbarism on the
motd. Too bad he didn't sign his post. I think it's pretty
sickening that someone who supposedly went to Berkeley would
think like this. Of course, we have John Yoo here on
campus too. Perhaps you didn't know anyone who died in the towers
in Lebanon. Perhaps you don't know anyone who died in the wake of a B2
under a cluster bomb. Perhaps you didn't know anybody who was killed in
Iraq. Unfortunately not all of us are as lucky as you are, and the
loss of life and pain that many of us have suffered due to barbarism
is not something which is fun to speculate about. You might sit
in your ivory tower speculating about how moral and supreme your master
civilization is, and how the supposedly free people are justified
in barbarism, both of which are patently false statements because a
chauvinist is neither rational nor is he free. There are self-
righteous apologists who attempt to blame everyone but themselves,
and unfortunately to the victims of barbarism and to those
who knew them that answer is simply not acceptable. In
response I can only offer you that I did know someone who was
a victim, and it is close to home... I do not condone the
retribution which others like OBL seek, but I cannot sit idly by while
someone actually supposedly supports these monsters.
-williamc
\_ So, there's this buffoon who actually cannot seem to read, but
does like to run his mouth. Too bad he signed his post. I think
it's pretty sad that someone who supposedly went to Berkeley can't
seem to read. Of course, we have other morons here on campus
too. Perhaps he doesn't know any Iraqis who died in Iraq. Perhaps
he doesn't know anyone who died elsewhere in the Middle
East. Fortunately, most of us are probably as lucky as he is, and
the loss of life and pain that many of those towel head foreigners
have suffered due to US foreign policy is not something we should
worry our pretty little heads about. We might sometimes sit in
our ivory towers speculating about how rational Bin Laden is, and
how the supposed poor people might in fact believe they are
somehow, someway justified in terrorism, both of which might
conceivably be possible. There are Islamic apologists who attempt
to blame everyone but themselves (and we all know they're
personally responsible for all of this), and unfortunately to the
victims of terrorism and to those who knew them that answer
[whatever that means] is simply not acceptable. In response he can
only offer us that he did know someone who was a victim, and it
was close to home... he does not condone the retribution which
others seek [again, whatever that even means], but he cannot sit
idly by while someone actually supposedly supports these monsters
[way to villify them -- someone's been playing a little too much
Black & White].
\_ Did this person actually condone the terrorist acts or merely
agree that U.S. foreign policy tends to breed terrorists?
\_ TROLL ALERT.
\_ are you a Republican? Are you religious?
\_ Heh, lookup "williamc" in the archives and ask that again.
\_ when things went bad in Mogadishu many years ago, the Americans
showed up thinking they were welcomed because they were going
to bring peace, properity, freedom, women's rights, and
everything that us westerners value dearly. Guess what? Every
villager pretty much hated the Americans and killed them when
they had the chance.
The idea that western value is the best thing in
the world and that everyone else should feel the same way, is
Bush-minded. If the US is truely tolerant, it should just
leave the world alone.
\_ Nice try, no cigar. The US in Somalia were hated by members
of the various tribes/clans that had the most to lose. It's not
a question of "western values", my good friend. It's the
problem of how the US has sought to communicate/transmit/impose
those values. There are certain things going on in the world
today that are just plain Wrong (tm) by anyone's cultural
understanding, and you won't get away with the cheap trick of
trying to hide them under local cultural quirks that must be
tolerated by the evil imperialist West. There's an interesting
editorial by Youssef M. Ibrahim touching on this in this
weekend's IHT; I strongly suggest having a read. -John
\_ I don't know what started this thread but if someone was saying
the ~3000 dead people on 9/11 somehow deserved it due to some
sort of 'collective guilt of the people' they need to pull their
head out of the sand. That's the polite version. I'll leave it
at that. |
| 2004/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34458 Activity:high |
10/29 More BushCo incompetence. Enough other unsecured high explosives
left sitting around to be looted to make 10s of thousands of roadside
bombs. How many more smoking guns will it take to get this chimp out
of office? 4 more days!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/10/30/international1256EDT0534.DTL
\_ Oh yeah, it was far more important to get these french,
russian explosives than it was to look for WMDs.
\_ This is what I don't get. HDX/RMX can be used as the compressor
in a nuclear device. The IAEA told us those stocks were still
there under their seal. Why wouldn't al qa qaa be one of the
first locations secured? This really seems like the highest of
incompetencies. How can you excuse it away? |
| 2004/10/30 [ERROR, uid:34454, category id '18005#1.625' has no name! , , Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34454 Activity:nil |
10/29 I fully expect this to make the front page of the NYtimes
for the next few days
EXPERT TELLS OF DESTROYING MOST OF SADDAM'S CACHE
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/31351.htm
\_ If you watched CNN between 9-11pm tonight, you would find that
CNN emphasized the part where both the Army guy and the Pentagon
spokesperson said "I don't know" to whether any of what he exploded
were the IAEA-secured explosives in question. Aaron Brown and Paula
Zahn both kept pounding this point. |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34415 Activity:nil |
10/28 Did anyone else notice the constant cutaways to an unnamed US barracks
in baghdad, with US soldiers watching the game, during the World Series?
With the caption "Multi-National Force" underneath what were clearly
only US soldiers? Interesting how the FOX News tilt has made its way
into their SPORTS coverage! And after the game, the first question
they asked one of the Red Sox was something along the lines of "What do
you have to say to the soldiers over in Baghdad?" |
| 2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34401 Activity:high |
10/28 Smoking gun on the explosives issue:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102904Y.shtml
\_ Liberal media consipracy. Jason Blair. CBS. NANANANANA
CAN'T HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAR YOU.
\_ This isn't anything like a smoking gun for anyone seeking a real
answer. Your link says that they don't know what they were
looking at. It says the place was looted but it would have been
"unlikely" anyone could haul 380 tons of anything away while the
streets were "jammed with American armor". This is a very serious
issue and you're making a big fucking joke of it. If the stuff was
gone before we got there, we need to know that. If it was somehow
looted (all 380 tons) by the guys with the pickup truck mentioned
in your link, then we need to know that. If it was moved to Syria
or just other places inside the country which had 1 *million tons
of other crap all over the place, we need to know that. Your link
is speculation, not fact and certainly not a smoking gun. No one
needs to cry out "liberal bias!" to see your link doesn't say what
you say it says. Your link isn't biased. It reports facts. You
are spinning the facts presented by the media into biased and
unsubstantiated conclusions.
\_ see first comment
\_ http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1
Couldn't be clearer.
Yahoo News on the analysis:
link:csua.org/u/9pc
\_ The second URL doesn't go anywhere.
\_ There has been no smoking gun. It's STILL not clear what happened
to the 380 tons of RDX/HMX between March and May 2003. Securing
this facility was not a priority for Dubya -- finding bio,
chemical, and more significant nuclear components was his priority.
\_ No it wasn't. This was one of the biggest friggin
NUCLEAR sites in Iraq!
\_ What else besides RDX/HMX was nuclear-related at
Al-Qaqaa in March, 2003?
\_ A huge amount of dual use manufacturing and
research equipment. Also all looted.
\_ Are you sure this was at Al-Qaqaa?
What is clear? The general problem of not having enough troops,
widespread looting of explosives from arms sites and from every
public institution that began immediately after Baghdad fell (if
not earlier), and the post-war plan being botched in general.
\_ What are "proximity fuses" made out of? This is a serious
question. |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34373 Activity:high |
10/26 Woops
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml
\_ I read it... didn't get it. What's noteworthy here?
\_ Meaning that someone who stockpiles large amounts of nerve
agent antidote and documents on how to "engage in chemical
warfare" is likely to possess large amounts of actual nerve
agent, which is likely to be floating around somewhere, and
is probably a whole lot easier to thieve or hide than 380 tons
of conventional explosives, meaning it's likely to be a Bad
Thing (tm). -John
\_ Sorry, are you suggesting that the 380 tons of conventional
explosives reportedly stolen may have actually been nerve
agent and that no one wants that out in public? That's scary.
\_ No, I think he's saying that there are stockpiles of Iraqi
WMD floating around somewhere that Bush never found.
\_ Sorry, the WMD that EVERY SINGLE REPORT says do not
exist?
\_ Look, the reports just say they never found any,
nor did they locate evidence to the contrary.
Relax, nobody is saying GWB & co. knew something
you didn't. But c'mon, we (or at least the Kurds
and Iranians) know that the Iraqis had poison gas
at some point, and this sort of thing sure makes
me wonder whether there still isn't a bunch of it
around somewhere. Plus, weren't the WMD inspectors
looking for some grand nukular bomb building
scheme? -John
\_ I thought you were on our side, John! WTF?!
\_ This was posted as evidence of NYTimes fraud on the missing
explosives as an exposition of the timeline. -op |
| 2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34371 Activity:moderate |
10/26 Majority of Bush supporters believe things that simply
are not true:
http://www.pipa.org
\_ http://Pipa.org?
\_ Being a Bush supported would have to mean you at least partially
believe that "Bush is a good President", so you're already in a
world of make-believe! |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34359 Activity:nil |
10/26 Media Watchdog: 'October Surprise' Blows Up in Faces of
NY Times
NyTimes pulls a CBS
http://csua.org/u/9no
\_ "Cybercast News Service"? Whoizzat?
\_ right-wing news outlet. Media Research Center is a right-wing
source as well. You better believe the right-wing is spinning
this as much as they can: Dubya lost 380 tons of HMX and RDX
(not just artillery shells and general-use explosives) at a site
we knew about and that the IAEA explicitly warned the U.S. about
before the invasion ("hey dumbshits, don't forget about the
Al-Qaqaa site with the stuff that can start a fissile reaction").
\_ Uhh, it is becoming increasingly clear that the NBC story
was wrong. The troops were jsut there for a resting stop
and no inspections were done. If there were 380 TONS of high
explosives taken from the facility in the month leading up to
the start of the war don't you think people would have known?
I mean shit you don't think we had every single satalite we could
looking at places like MAJOR AMMO DUMPS. you can spin away but
it might be better if you jsut faced facts for once. There was
NO postwar planning. Bush and co really thought that the iraqis
would rush to love us and everythin would be wonderful. The fact
that they are still refusing to admit their mistakes is leading
to disaster after disaster in Iraq.
\_ Like the Bush ANG memos eh? I should just believe the 'facts',
as in whatever the Jayson Blair says is a fact.
\_ NBC pulled the story. Get a grip.
\_ Uh, hardly any of the oil refineries were affected during the same
time period, unlike Al-Qaqaa; the "it was gone before we got there"
excuse is incredibly stupid.
\_ Of course it was gone before we got there. If you take your sweet
ass time guarding sites other than the oil ministry it gives the
bad guys plenty of time to steal explosives. The only alternative
"It was stolen right under our noses" makes no sense because if you
actually assigned people to guard the stuff nobody could have simply
waltzed off for it. Saying "It was gone before we got there" is a
bit like saying "Things are always in the last place you look".
\_ Uh, it was last seen before the war, like 5 years before. Do you
have any clue about this story at all? Let's blame Bush for
the missing gas Saddam used on the Kurds. After all, it could
have been there JUST before the Americans got there...
\_ What was last seen before the war, like 5 years before?
Are you talking about the RDX and HMX at Al-Qaqaa?
\_ No it was last seen shortly before gulf war 2. There were
inspectors in iraq shortly before the US told them to bug
out because war was coming. This was one of the sites they
had under inspection. |
| 2004/10/26 [ERROR, uid:34358, category id '18005#8.67931' has no name! , , Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34358 Activity:nil |
10/26 <DEAD>www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933<DEAD> (NBC News, dated today) "At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ... Mohammed J. Abbas, a senior official at Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology, reporting the theft of the explosives. The materials were lost through 'the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security,' the letter said. The letter informed the IAEA that since Sept. 4, 2003, looting at Al-Qaqaa had resulted in the loss of 214.67 tons of HMX, 155.68 tons of RDX and 6.39 tons of PETN explosives. It was not clear how Iraqi authorities arrived at that date." "Reporter Lai Ling Jew ... embedded ... 'There wasn't a search ... The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers headed off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons nothing to keep looters away.'" \_ Woops, once again NYtimes and CBS are exposed as frauds http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/nytrogate.html \_ I can't tell if you are being ironic or not, please help me. - danh \_ "Cliff May over at the Corner writes ... Sent to me by a source in the government: 'The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. ...'" Uh, I think "government source" just saw the first NBC News article (incorrectly reporting HMX/RDX as already missing) and echoed that. |
| 2004/10/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34343 Activity:high |
10/25 How come no liberal magazine can put this so well?
Maybe I really am a Buchananite Conservative:
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_10_25/feature.html
\_ Buchanan has valid points about WWII. That said,
one can not project power in the Middle East from aircraft
carriers and repeated threats of enforcement become
ineffectual if they aren't backed up with force. Assymetrical
warfare necessitated a new strategy.
\_ Yes, it's preemptively invade Iraq before the UN inspectors
can assess Iraq had no WMDs or WMD programs, without enough
troops to win the peace, and then still say that we should have
still invaded even knowing what we know today! In the meantime,
because of our bungling in Iraq, we possess no credible military
threat to Iran or N. Korea as they continue building their nuke
capability. Yay!
\_ Iraq was a military fuckup based on political
considerations, just like Vietnam was; fucking up a
military action like that is as reprehensible as lying
about your reasons for doing so (or, if you choose, going
about it in an incompetent manner--they're both
unforgivable.) Getting rid of evil dictators, for whatever
reason, is not. -John |
| 2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34274 Activity:high |
10/21 E.L. Doctorow, author, on The Unfeeling President:
http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm
\_ http://www.lyricmania.com/l24994 |
| 2004/10/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:34213 Activity:nil |
10/19 Australian reporter captured by insurgents near embassy. They threaten
to kill him, accuse him of working for CIA or being a contractor.
Proves to insurgents he's just a reporter via google search.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3755154.stm
\_ More on this here. Read the last two entries. Everything here is
great stuff, though.
http://back-to-iraq.com |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34129 Activity:very high |
10/14 Did anyone catch Bush saying "You know, it's pointless/unreliable/
whatever to quote outside... oh, never mind. Let me quote blablabla".
That was so funny. His notes have to be prepared by someone else.
[contentless wind removed]
\_ BUSH: In all due respect, I'm not so sure it's credible to quote
leading news organizations about -- oh, never mind. Anyway, let me
quote the Lewin report. [http://csua.org/u/9he]
\_ They repeated my claims that Saddam had WMD, so you can see how
unreliable the mainstream press is.
\_ i do find it amusing that bush keeps critisizing kerry
for believing his iraq lies
\_ He believed me, now he doesn't. He's a flip-flopper.
We need a president who has the courage to believe his
own lies in the face of overwhelming evidence.
\_ Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself!
\_ They were not lies. Every Senator, Congressman, President
Clinton, his staff, Dems, Reps, everyone, repeated the
exact accusations at one time or another. That you have
a selective memory on this issue indicates self-delusion.
\_ Wow, you know what everyone in the world said. You must
have a super big brain. Funny, I remember posting in
the motd that SH probably did not have any WMD. My
memory must be faulty. As for the self-delusional
charge, please look up the psychological term
"projection." Here is what Barbara Lee really had
to say about SH and WMD:
http://www.counterpunch.org/lee0930.html
I defy you to find one quote where she claimed that
he had them.
\_ Yes, I laughed out loud. "not so sure it's credible to quote
leading news organizations about -- oh, never mind".
[contentless wind removed]
\_ i'm sorry, but 'wc -l /etc/motd.public' still shows more than 0
\_ Yah, sorry -- it tends to grow and repopulate at a rate which is hard
to keep up with. |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34125 Activity:high |
10/14 This is getting down right irritating. Doonesbury link shortened
for motd readers *again.*
http://csua.org/u/9h0
\_ Doonesbury's not been funny, witty, informative or thought-
provoking in about 20 years. Why do you bother?
\_ This has nothing to do with Doonesbury. |
| 2004/10/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34121 Activity:nil |
10/14 Where's Saddam?
http://tinyurl.com/livc -John |
| 2004/10/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34098 Activity:very high |
10/13 Insurgent Alliance Fraying in Fallujah
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28105-2004Oct12.html
The proposal the [insurgent] delegation took back to Fallujah calls
for surrendering control of the city to the Iraqi National Guard. U.S.
forces would remain outside the city unless the lightly armed
government forces were attacked. But first, all foreign fighters must
leave the city, and the foreigners are adamantly and publicly opposing
the plan. Their representative voted against it in a meeting last week
of [Falluja]'s ruling mujaheddin shura, or council of holy warriors,
which supported the peace proposal, 10 to 2. The local insurgent who
cast the other negative vote was later persuaded to change his mind,
residents say. ... substantial support remains for the foreigners,
especially given the number of civilian casualties caused by U.S.
airstrikes.
[Yes, a way out. Local insurgents can say they're working with Allawi
to kick out the foreigners, saving face, while U.S. soldiers continue
to kick ass and Iraqi National Guard troops finally stop running away.
By "continue to kick ass" I mean suffering a small number of casualties
per month from IEDs, while still decimating any enemy who doesn't run
away. This doesn't kill insurgents, though -- the Iraqi National Guard
is the ONLY way out. We tried this before, and it was called
Vietnamization. But, unlike the peasantdom of Vietnam, Iraqis know a
secular government and would like to have one again, not an al Qaeda
proving ground. -liberal]
\_ I'm always up for more articles on U.S. soldiers kicking @$$.
More links please.
\_ go pick up the atlantic monthly and read
"5 days in fallujah"
http://marinecorpsmoms.com/archives/000096.html - danh
\_ I couldn't find the article I was looking for. Basically
it's about how the U.S. went all out in Samarra and the
insurgents lost since the U.S. didn't leave time for
them to regroup. Also, the Iraqi National Guard didn't run
away this time.
\_ I don't give these type of articles much credence, whether they
express opinions either way. I doubt very much that reporters
have a handle on what is going on there.
\_ You know, I did a http://news.google.com search on Karl Vick (reporter
who wrote the article), and I see a lot of pieces that make
America look good. Could be a coincidence - maybe not. -op |
| 2004/10/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34050 Activity:moderate |
10/12 Doonesbury's _this_ close to reading the motd:
http://www.ucomics.com/doonesbury
\_ and, since typing in url's from comic strips is annoying...
here it is:
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=72659
\_ thanks!
\_ Garry Trudeau on Charlie Rose last night... great interview.
\_ now for once i wish i had watched the charlie rose show - danh
\_ order the tape
http://www.charlierose.com/shop |
| 2004/10/12 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34045 Activity:insanely high |
10/12 Bud Day is the most decorated soldier since MacArthur in WWII
A True War Hero Speaks on Kerry
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14898
\_ I would like to point out the incumbent has involved us in
a long messy guerilla war we have no hope of winning ever,
just to promote the 100 percent free market ideals
of his masters. thanks. - danh
\_ I really wonder what people like yourself did during the
first years of WWII or Korea. I imagine some committed
suicide because of the impending doom.
\_ You, sir, are no FDR!
\_ Hey, it's hard work. No one said it wasn't going to be hard
work. -Dubya
\_ Er, didn't this already get posted, discussed, flamebaited,
and run into the ground? Swift Boat Guy, are you back?
\_ Yes. The thread has been restored in its entirety.
Gawd Bless AmeriKKKa.
\_ So Bud Day, a POW, does not think kindly of the anti-war movement.
What's new? It was a very ethically challenging time.
\_ To sum: John Kerry, WDYHA?
\_ Attaboy... don't ever think about your mistakes. It's just a
sign of a poor leader.
\_ All the medals in the world can't change the fact that Vietnam
was arguably America's dirtiest war. I love the smell of napalm
in the morning. That soldier needs to read The Best and The
Brightest.
\_ Why, because Kerry and Fonda said so?
\_ Open your eyes. Four million civilians died in this war.
As for you, you can watch Fog of War, in which the Secretary
of Defense at the time gives his personal views of the war.
\_ i think a larger ratio of the population in Vietnam died
than the russian korean french and german population excuses
you give
\_ 4 million is exaggerated. McNammara is responsible for
the outcome, he is an asshole of grandest kind - why
should I listen to anything he says? He completely
botches the war effort and then expects people to listen
to his contrite exculpation - he was part of the problem.
800,000 died in the battle of Stalingrad, more at Kursk,
300,000+ at Okinawa, 2+ million in the Korean War.
Was Korea a bad idea too?
\_ *YES* If USA didn't cross the 38th parallel line,
Chinese would not of being involved. You would have
\_ *YES* If USA didn't cross the 38th parallel, PRC
would not have being involved. You would have
a lot less casualty then. Unfortunately, USA's
mentality was blinded by their ideology, completely
miscalculate the rational behind China's involvement.
mentality was blinded by its ideology, completely
miscalculating the rationale behind China's involvement.
Then again, we are waging this "war on terror" and
"war on iraq" without clear understanding of why our
enemy was fighting against us neither.
"war on Iraq" without a clear understanding of why our
enemy is fighting against us.
\_ above has been processed by volunteer english
correcting daemon
\_ thank you
\_ "You ... we" Make up your mind.
\_ Nothing wrong with crossing the 38th parallel
to destroy a regime that believed in the evil
communist cult, and invaded first. US probably
should have started a dialogue with PRC though.
\_ Crossing the 38th parallel was fine. We should
have talked to the PRC about it, but there's
nothing wrong with crushing an expansionist
oppressive communist regime that attacked first.
Furthermore, there were plenty of reasons to
reunite Korea at the time, and it has only
become more desireable in hindsight. -jrleek
\_ WW2: America and its allies were attacked first.
Korea: South Korea was attacked first.
Vietnam: ... duh.
Are you really this stupid?
The 4 million figure has generally not been challenged,
with notable exception to your "4 million is
exaggerated" brilliant expository.
Why should you view McNamara's interview? He was
Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War. If you
don't want to hear this viewpoint, it's certainly
your right to block out this essential primary source.
\_ Your history is completely wrong. Ho
Chi Minh attacked the South, not the other way
around. Vietnam was a defensive war honoring
SEATO treaties.
\_ The reason for a war, while important, does not
excuse bad conduct. You could argue either side,
from "we continued a French colonialist spat" to
"we were safeguarding an independent country." The
problem is that there was never a clear mandate,
the RVN was a corrupt and doomed system (for
whatever reason), US leadership treated the war
as sort of a playground for new ideas, and many
US troops acted wrongly. In a situation like that
of the US in Vietnam, having the clear moral high
ground is tremendously important, no matter what
you do. We lost it, so even if the war was fought
on good reasons (as I think) both strategically and
philosophically, we fucked it up royally. -John
\_ Just little fact. When WW2 ended, USA actually
recognized N.Vietnam government for a split
second, then reversed its decision once USA found
N.Vietnamese government's Communist nature.
It is unfortunate that until TODAY, most people
in USA still don't understand people's desire
of self-determination over all other things
which USA treasures: Christianity, human right,
democracy. For many, USA is just an continuation
of European's imperial conquest, driven by
doctrine of White Man's Burden written centries
ago.
\_ Yup, let's stop paying all those third world
countries. Fuck White Man's Burden, let em
starve.
\_ Yes, we should support self determination for
Taiwan.
\_ Chicom troll = pwned.
\_ And Tibet.
\_ I would like to point out the incumbent has involved us in
a long messy guerilla war we have no hope of winning ever,
just to promote the 100 percent free market ideals
of his masters. thanks. - danh
\_ I really wonder what people like yourself did during the
first years of WWII or Korea. I imagine some committed
suicide because of the impending doom.
\_ Er, didn't this already get posted, discussed, flamebaited,
and run into the ground? Swift Boat Guy, are you back?
\_ Your Vietnamese history is wrong. The three
regions of Vietnam voted, two chose to stay
aligned with France. The third, the North,
split. This was not good enough for Ho Chi
Minh, so he attacked the South.
\_ huh? what have you been smoking?
\_ Do you think that posting this again day after day is going to
convert more voters to your crusade?
\_ Only what I want to talk about matters and I will keep posting it
and reposting it ad initium forever. Get used to it. |
| 2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33997 Activity:high |
10/8 I'm looking for all the war video footages, like the F16
Fallujah and the Apache Helicoptor killing. Is there a
depot for these kinds of things? ok thx.
\_ kazaa lite resurrection. get the entire Apache footage -
not the edited ABC News version.
\_ would you like video footage of terrorists blowing up children
in Iraq for your home made propaganda film, too? |
| 11/23 |