| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/25 |
| 2005/10/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40096 Activity:moderate |
10/14 Why do we try so hard to ignore what our enemies say about
themselves?
http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton101305.html
\_ Wow, what a lot of useless hot air. Maybe us motd trolls should
apply for jobs at the Hoover Institution so we can get actually
paid to bloviate. This guy, on the other hand earns his keep as
a writer:
http://www.exile.ru/2005-July-28/victor_hanson.html
\_ You mean the guy who wrote this idiotic rant? There's a
whole lot of unsubstatiated accusations in there, not much
else.
\_ The War Nerd is in the *entertainment* business. You read
crap like that in about a minute and a half, and are
slightly amused, that's the point. Dr. Professor fucktard,
on the other hand, is neither entertaining nor informative,
nor does he propose any usefull solutions to any problems.
\_ Victor Hansen's books on ancient history are all right.
His attempts at making 1 to 1 comparisons of ancient
military forces to current conflicts are really reaching
though, and I can't stand his widely published opinion
pieces in newspapers. It's also hard to say if
'War Nerd' is a real person, I am signed up to interview
his supposed boss in November, I am slightly afraid
to ask him. - danh
\_ http://csua.org/u/dq7 (juancole.com)
Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at UMich,
Ph.D. in Islamic Studies at UCLA, fluent in Arabic and Persian,
thinks letter is a forgery: "the mistakes are those a Shiite might
make when pretending to be a Sunni". |
| 2005/10/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40059 Activity:nil |
10/12 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/international/middleeast/13intel.html Review on CIA performance "acknowledged the deep failures in the agency's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs but said 'the analysis was right' on cultural and political issues related to postwar Iraq. ... 'strong regional and country expertise developed over time' within American intelligence agencies, as opposed to ... heavy reliance on 'technical analysis' for what proved to be misleading or inaccurate information about Iraq's weapons programs." |
| 2005/10/4-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39970 Activity:nil |
10/4 I asked this question a month ago:
8/25 ... if two-thirds of the voters in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces
vote against it, the charter will be defeated [in the Oct 15
referendum]"
hey, is that two-thirds of people who actually vote, two-thirds
of registered voters, or two-thirds of estimated legal voters?
Here's the interim constitution:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html
Shiites and Kurds just voted on Sunday to change the rules from people
who actually vote to "two-thirds of registered voters".
"Given that fewer than 60 percent of registered Iraqis voted in the
January elections, the chances that two-thirds will both show up at the
polls and vote against the document in three provinces would appear to
be close to nil."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/international/middleeast/04iraq.html
\_ I think I said that and I'll repeat it one more time. This
entire 'constitution' thing is for American and American only. It
is no more than dubya's exit strategy. Iraqis under half century
of dictator rule has no concept of law, seperation of power,
even basic right of citizens. In the absent of an independent
judicial branch and impartial law enforcer, this paper doesn't
mean anything. So, who cares if the constitution gets rejected
or not? it is not consequential.
entire 'constitution' thing is for America and America only. It
is no more than dubya's exit strategy. Iraqis under a half century
of dictator rule have no concept of law, seperation of powers,
even the basic rights of citizens. In the absence of an independent
judicial branch and impartial law enforcement, this piece of paper
doesn't mean anything. So, who cares if the constitution gets
rejected or not? it is not consequential. [engrish corrected]
\_ thanks
\_ what do you think is the realistic best-case scenario?
\_ (not pp) In the words of Dogbert "I think I can delay
cannibalism"
\_ The 'best case scenario' I envision is having another
brutal dictator end up ruling Iraq. Oppressive to its
people, but nevertheless be able to put down all insurgency
within Iraq border. At the same time, this dictator
is friendly to USA/Europe and happily supply its oil to
Western powers... much like Saddam Hussin in the 1980s.
I am a left wing liberal and all, but I do have to point
out that there is one thing that is going our way which
we often overlooked. That is, the disarray of Saudi
Kingdom right now is actually a benefit to our cause.
Traditionally, Saudi would never allow Shiite gain this
much influence this close to its border; and the way Saudi
counter Shiite influence was simply supply money and arms
to the Sunnis. Can you imagine what kind of insurgent
we would encounter if Saudi pump money into this?
-- happy Ramadan
\_ Gold plated AK-47s, the horror!
\_ Mind control lasers finally kick in and the Iraqis all become
benevolant followers of Western-Style Democracy. Realistic
best case scenario is a slow withdrawl of US troops, with
Iraq split into three "states" controlled by the Kurds in the
north, Shiites in the south and a mixture in the center. The
oil-rich states will put in just enough money to keep the
center from falling into complete chaos. It'll be an ongoing
civil war, akin to parts of Afghanistan, with "neutalized"
sections in the central state cities. Extremist Islamists
will control some pockets within all three states, but not
enough to truly threaten the state governments.
\_ nice try. you reall think Turkey is going to allow
Kurds in the north became a free state? As soon as Kurds
declear independence, Turks would intervene...r
If I am the Turk leader, I will use this opportunity
to crush Kurds outside my border and sieze control of
northern Iraq's oil field at the same time.
\_ Who said free state? It'll still be Iraq. It'll be the
same as right before the invasion, but they will have
more money and control of the oil. They know they can't
get cocky with the Turks.
get cocky with the Turks and the Turks know they can't
get into the EU if they invade Iraq/Kurdistan.
\_ Just watch, Kurds in Iraq are going to help their
brothers across the border. And who said that
Europe *WANTS* Turkey to join? American would
love to use joining EU as leverage, but would
Europe happily accept Turkey per America's request
when American needs Europe more than other way
around? |
| 2005/9/28-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39914 Activity:nil |
9/28 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-27-fishback-abuse_x.htm "Army Capt. Ian Fishback said he tried for more than a year to get his commanding officers to pay attention to reports of widespread abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops. But it was only after Fishback, 26, a West Point graduate, spoke to Human Rights Watch and several members of Congress that military investigators began to listen ... Fishback said his interest in reporting the abuses was sparked by congressional testimony ... Rumsfeld said that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan follow rules in the Geneva Conventions barring prisoner abuse ..." \_ Yeah, we should use harsh language instead. It works great against IEDs, hijacked airplanes, and suicide bombers. \_ Prisoner abuse has worked against IEDs, hijacked airplanes, and suicide bombers? Please elaborate. Your insanity will be pleasant to read. \_ works just about as well as your ability to detect sarcasm. \_ So, what, you were using some kind of double-sarcasm? You meant that the sarcastic suggestion that we should use harsh language in some way pointed out the ineffective nature of prisoner abuse? This is positively Byzantine! |
| 2005/9/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39891 Activity:low |
9/27 http://csua.org/u/dj4 (sfgate.com) "... graduated summa cum laude in 3 1/2 years with a 3.84 GPA ... ... worked on a master's degree in history while playing professional football ... Pat [Tillman] said, 'You know, this war is so fucking illegal.' ... Another soldier in the platoon ... said Pat urged him to vote for ... Sen. John Kerry. ... Tillman subscribed to the Economist magazine ..." \_ It's not true, I tellz ya. It's just not true: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hannity-Colmes-Coulter-Tillman.wmv \_ "Tillman created a makeshift base library of classic novels so his platoon mates would have literature to read in their down time. He even brought gourmet coffee to brew for his platoon in the field in Afghanistan." Dude, that is so... GAY! \_ Army coffee rations are horrible. Most coffee drinkers brought their own, though, couldn't afford gourmet coffee. \_ He married the coach's daughter in 2002 after dating for ~ 4 years, and he says he wore his hair long and dirty before that to keep the other women off him. \_ sad story. Lack of will of diciplining soldiers is catching up to US military. I am not bothered by this friendly fire incident, but deeply disturbed by the fact that Pentagon is not being straight forward about this whole thing. Why is that? |
| 2005/9/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39883 Activity:nil |
9/26 http://www.csua.org/u/did Told you Sheenan was a whack job. \_ I'm a liberal and I don't like her. She should tone down a bit and stop saying stupid things. I do like the movement that is going on right now. It'll prevent [Jeb] Bush from seeking an election like the way it prevented LJB. \_ Right...anyone who protests is a whack job. All Hall Our Great Leader! -tom \_ Are you an evil socialist? \_ Not everyone who protests, just Sheehan. However, there is no evidence of it in that particular article. |
| 2005/9/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39879 Activity:high |
9/26 A few more bad apples:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1490301/posts
\_ The third post is the best.
\_ http://csua.org/u/dii (LA Times)
"[CPT Fishback] wrote that Army guidance was 'too vague for
officers to enforce American values.' He concluded that violations
of the Geneva Convention were 'systematic, and the Army is
misleading America.'"
\_ if USA is not subject to international jurisdiction, this
thing will happen. If you guys recall, even those who
are responsible for May Lai only got a slap on the wrist.
My favorite story is IR655. They actually got metals for
shooting down an airliner.
\_ Doesn't he know there's a war going on?
\_ That's just great. We should disband the Army and use harsh
words when our enemies invade. I totally lost faith in our
military. All those people they have helped mean nothing when
they are misleading America! For shame!
\_ Did you read at all about the taxi driver who was beaten
to death in Afghanistan? The totally innocent, not a
terrorist, taxi driver. How many more taxi drivers are we
torturing? Laws aren't there just to protect the guilty.
\_ this is not few bad apples. This is systematic abuse that is
directed by people all the way to the top (recall Pentagon decided
that Geneva Convention doesn't apply to war on terror?)
\_ Your sarcasm filter is set too low. Of course it's not a
few bad apples. Of course it goes to the top.
\_ And the Geneva Convention should apply to non-state actors
who do not adhere to it b/c WHY? The executive needs the
fifth freedom in order to properly deal with the enemies
of the republic.
\_ You're one sick monkey. How 'bout you sign up and go over
there? With statements like this, I bet you'd fit right in
with the other PUC fuckers.
\_ The Geneva convention is irrelevant here, except for the
fact that it provides for the protection of civilians when
possible, which we can argue about. However, last I checked,
the US was a civilized country, and civilized countries do not
condone, defend or justify abuse of prisoners of any sort.
There is no argument about this. This is not torture to find
the location of the bomb that'll go off, or punishment, it is
wrong, I don't care what sort of scumbag is being abused. I
don't think this is a case of the military or the US "system"
or whatever being fundamentally fux0red, but there is no
excusing this at all. -John
\_ Well said!
\_ When rights are accorded to prisoners in the context of
war it is b/c there is an implicit understanding that
those same rights will be accorded to our own who are
captured. When this implicit understanding is no longer
true, there can be no claim of rights - as they reserve the
the right to use any and all means against the republic,
so too must the republic reserve that same right. The
extent to which this right is exercised is a matter solely
for the discretion of the executive.
\_ Or in other words, the "they started it!" defense.
Sorry, it doesn't fly; we are signatories to the
Geneva Convention and our treatment of prisoners of
war must be subject to those rules, even if we
think our opponent wouldn't afford us the same
protection. -tom
\_ Conventions only apply amongst those who
actually sign the convention. The provisions
of the convention do not apply to non-parties.
The non-state actors who currently oppose the
republic are non-signatories and therefore
have no claim to rights under the convention.
Furthermore, the geneva convention only applies
to conventional warfare, not this current type
of conflict.
\_ The present Convention shall apply to the
persons referred to in Article 4 from the
time they fall into the power of the
enemy and until their final release and
repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether
persons, having committed a belligerent
act and having fallen into the hands of
the enemy, belong to any of the
categories enumerated in Article 4, such
persons shall enjoy the protection of the
present Convention until such time as
their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal.
[Shocking news, Gonzalez/Rumsfeld ignore this
provising. -tom]
provision. -tom]
\_ No, being a civilized country and adhering to absolute
standards of civilization is not at the discretion of
the executive. Look up "moral high ground". -John
the executive. Are you saying that "the executive"
knows of and condones (or even orders) this sort of
thing? Note that we are not even talking about Matt
Gonzalez' "torture is OK in some circumstances" memo,
but random abuse. Or are you saying that the executive
doesn't have a clue what the armed forces under its
command are up to? I am curious. -John
\_ My view is that the executive branch needs unlimited
pwr to defend the republic - the means which they
choose to employ are at their sole discretion. If
they choose to condone this conduct, then so be it.
If they choose to prosecute this conduct, then that
is okay as well. If they don't know and they choose
not to find out b/c they have something more impt.
to do that is okay as well.
I also reject the view that there is something
special about civilization that compels us to act
in a particular way w/in and w/out. Inside the
walls of civilization I agree that there must be
civilized conduct, but outside, in the jungle,
if civilized conduct is a liability then those
charged w/ the protection of civilization must
be free to dispense w/ civilized conduct.
\_ You're right, so as you're outside the walls of
my civilization, let's have GUN DUEL. -John
\_ Not sure if a gun duel is legal. How about
a StarTrek phaser duel? Is that legal? |
| 2005/9/24-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39845 Activity:nil |
9/23 "The Pentagon announced Friday that it opened a formal criminal
investigation ... Capt. Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate, went to
the [Senate] committee with the charges within the last 10 days because
he was frustrated that superior officers in his chain of command failed
to respond ... The captain is the first officer to go public with
allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq since the Abu Ghraib prison
scandal erupted in April 2004."
http://csua.org/u/dhr (LA Times)
"Reached by telephone Friday night, Captain Fishback, who is currently
in Special Forces training at Fort Bragg, N.C., referred all questions
to an Army spokesman, adding only that, 'I have a duty as an officer to
do this through certain channels, and I've attempted to do that.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/politics/24abuse.html |
| 2005/9/23-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39838 Activity:nil |
9/23 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1575399,00.html Anonymous source in the British Foreign Office reveals top three priorities in Iraq Priority 1: Dubya is not embarrassed. Priority 2: Iran is contained. Priority 3: Iraq can take care of itself. Action item 1: Bring some troops home. Action item 2: Find excuses for action item 1 that support priorities. \_ After Bush's stuffed codpiece strut around the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, I would say Priority 1 is pretty much impossible at this point. link:csua.org/u/dhk link:csua.org/u/dhl |
| 2005/9/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39768 Activity:low |
9/20 Anti-war mother's speech cut short" ... "An organizer was
arrested and charged with using a loudspeaker without a
permit." So if the city wants to ban protests, just don't
issue permit? I guess freedom of gathering in this country is
not as free as I thought.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/20/sheehan.protest.ap/index.html
\_ Feel free to gather, but your freedom to gather should not
impinge on my freedom to have a quiet day at home away from
peacenik numbnuts. There is no other country that protects
individual freedoms to the extent that the USA does. None.
\_ Are you 100% sure about that after the Patriot act? --
born in a country where gay marriage is legal, pot is
legal, prostitution is legal, porn is freely displayed
in stores, you have a right to die if you want, etc.
\_ Yeah, but I bet you don't have a right to buy an
enormous automobile and get cheap groceries at
Walmart in whatever Communist hell you're from! |
| 2005/9/13-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39663 Activity:moderate |
9/13 152 people killed in Iraq today. Look,
before Saddam: No law but order
After Saddam: Law but no order
Which one is worse?
\_ Nono, a haiku is 5-7-5. -John
\_ HEIL GERMAN JOHN!!! HEIL! Wie geht es Ihnen herr Salomon?
Gibt es hier einen Schwulenclub?
\_ W00T! He's back! Hi heil-cherman-john-guy! I was hoping
you hadn't vanished into troll oblivion! A good troll
farmer should always care for his charges. -John |
| 2005/9/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39609 Activity:moderate |
9/9 http://www.countryjoe.com/cjb.htm Listen to the music to Cakewalk To Baghdad, and then read the lyrics. Who are they refering the "Frogs" to? I know Krauts are Germans. \_ 'Frog' commonly refers to the French. \_ Why? \_ Because "craven ingrate loser" is too much of a mouthful. \_ Why do we perceive them to be losers? And what about the word Kraut, where did that come from? \_ Interesting that you don't ask why the frogs are craven or ingrates. \_ I think it has to do with some swampy areas arount Paris. People lived there with the frogs or something.. And don't the French eat frog legs? FROG - "a Frenchman, was common in England by 1870 but became well known in the U.S. only during World War I. It is probably from the French relishing frogs as a delicacy, reinforced by the toads on the coat of arms of the city of Paris." From "I Hear America Talking" by Stuart Berg Flexner (Von Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1976). \- isnt the paris coat of arms a sailing ship in gold with a field of fleur de lys above on a crimson sky all on a blue field? of fleur de lys above on a maroon sky all on a blue field? at least that was what i bought on a large towel in st. denis. \_ I think there's one theory that the fleur de lys was originally a stylized frog. Otherwise your description of the Paris coat of arms sounds correct. \- i think the f-d-l originally being a frog is either deliberate chaff or revisonism or a mistake. i thought it was kind of funny the french kep losing the oriflamme. |
| 2005/9/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39512 Activity:nil |
9/6 http://csua.org/u/d9l (Wash Post) "Many of the towns along the river have been subject to domination by foreign-led fighters, despite repeated Marine offensives in the area since May. Residents and Marines have described insurgents escaping ahead of such drives, and returning when the offensives end." \_ Are they talking about Iraq or New Orleans? \_ yermom. |
| 2005/9/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39459 Activity:nil |
9/2 The big disconnect on New Orleans --
The official version; then there's the in-the-trenches version
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/katrina.response/index.html
\_ When the feds are being this fucktarded and stupid, even the MSM
can see it.
\_ FEMA head wants to be the next Iraqi Information Minister. |
| 2005/9/2-3 [Health/Men, Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39439 Activity:kinda low |
9/2 "Chaos and gunfire hampered efforts to evacuate the Superdome,
and, Superintendent P. Edward Compass III of the New Orleans
Police Department said, armed thugs have taken control of the
secondary makeshift shelter at the convention center.
Superintendent Compass said that the thugs repelled eight squads
of 11 officers each he had sent to secure the place and that
rapes and assaults were occurring unimpeded in the neighboring
streets as criminals "preyed upon" passers-by, including
stranded tourists."
\_ i.e. white people
link:tinyurl.com/92fwx
Huh .. what's going on?
\_ If there was ever proof that men descended from apes...
\_ Dumb question: Why don't the cops/natl guard/etc. just shoot
anyone who's not a cop/natl guard/etc. and armed on sight?
Ordinarily I wouldn't advocate that, but since every extra day
that people can't get rescued means more people dying, getting
killed & raped it seems like the quickest solution.
\- because they quickly duck underwater and escape to their secret
underwater base.
undersea base.
\_ So you're advocating the murder of citizens who are legitimately
brandishing firearms in an attempt to protect themselves from
the armed thugs? Troll harder.
\_ Now, were you a gun control advocate before this?
\_ Certainly not the only reason, but one reason is this: people
shoot back. How many dead cops would you like to add to the
body count and how is a war on the citizens of NO going to help?
There are so many other reasons why this is bad I'm at a loss
to begin ennumerating them. You're just trolling, right?
\_ Okay, let's just let everyone die then.
\_ Your response is non-responsive. Now I know you're
trolling. Thanks for joining us today.
\_ Same reason why you avoid shooting into any possible area,
civilians. Take the gun safety class. If you are not sure of
your target, don't shoot. Too many video games for you...
\_ Uh, you see a mob of armed thugs ... You shoot them
\_ Is he a thug or a man protecing his family? Did he not
hear you? Does he not recognize your authority? Is there
a child standing behind the wall behind the thug? Where
will your stray shots go? Is my objective to kill or
disarm? If disarm, why am I shooting from a distance?
\_ The media are talking about roving bands of armed men.
Somehow cops all over the country, not to mention all
over the world are capable of making this distinction
on a daily basis yet in NO right now, where it should
be REALLY obvious this suddenly becomes 10X harder?
\_ Nothing says photo op better than cops/troops in
helicopters shooting into the city. And being a cop
is different from being a soldier. Unless there are
lives in immediate danger, cops make sure the shots
they take are 'safe' shots. |
| 2005/9/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39424 Activity:nil |
9/1 Woohoo! Two block long gas lines in Atlanta and Alabama.
\_ Uh, typical Iraq gas line is 5 blocks, and it's been like that
for years.
\_ Your point?
\_ If Iraqis moved the Atlanta and Alabama, they would probably
have to wait less.
\_ Per my family member who is stationed in Iraq, people camp
out in line for gas. When they finally get it, a lot of
them (especially young guys trying to impress girls) joyride
around until they run out of gas. Then they get back in line.
They don't really see it as a crisis. Perhaps cab drivers
and truck drivers do.
\_ My point is the Iraqi people are stupid living there. They
should come to the US where the line is only 2 blocks.
\_ Yeah, but then they would get pulled over by the cops for
'Driving While Iraqi." Word.
\_ "Driving While Iraqi" does not make any sense. Driving
While Fucking Iraqi, or Driving and Being Iraq
makes sense.
\_ It does make sense, fool!
\_ For the former, do you mean "Driving While Being A
Fucking Iraqi" or "Driving While Fucking An Iraqi"?
\_ Ah, yes, it's the Iraqi's fault for everything. I see now.
\_ Obviously prices are too low.
\_ Obviously. |
| 2005/9/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39416 Activity:nil |
9/1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4201812.stm "Iraq war 'costlier than Vietnam'" Wait, how can this be? We have a lot LESS soldiers there, a lot less tanks, a lot less choppers, \_ FEWER \_ fewer \_ fewer a lot less oil/food to move around, etc. How can this be? \_ "Mr Donnelly [American Enterprise Institute] said the relative cost of operations in Iraq, at 2% of America's annual GDP, was less than either the Vietnam conflict at 12% or World War II at 40%." \_ Ah, the AEI. Comparing it to GDP, when we're at one of the lowest points in decades of tax receipt visavis gdp |
| 12/25 |
| 2005/9/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39415 Activity:nil |
9/1 New Orleans will be rebuilt...
Where it was: .
On lots of new fill dirt:
Farther inland:
As a shadow of its former self: .
It's best as a land fill:
\_ It'll never be rebuilt. I just realized today that the levees will
be a terrorist target from now on if it is.
\_ There are no terrorists. GW Bush eradicated them, and created
a magnet for terrorists in Iraq so that instead of coming to
to the US, they go to Iraq. The fact that there hasn't been
a single attack in the US means GW Bush's plan is working. You
liberals should look around and have the guts to admit that
Bush's doing a swell job.
\_ I think Dubya's plan was that Iraq would be stable by now and
we'd be out of there. And that we would have found the WMDs.
And Osama would be captured, dead or alive. Something like
that. Well, at least we found out Saddam didn't have WMDs.
I think all the non-old people are also supposed to have
private accounts, too.
\_ We already know it will be rebuilt b/c Ben Sisko lived
there as a kid.
\_ Yes, but it was never mentioned where that New Orleans was.
\_ And why didn't the Ts blow up the levees before?
\_ Because there are easier targets out there.
\_ Possibly because no one thought of it. The whole world knows
about it now. I don't know about the energy necessary, but if
a fertilizer truck bomb could breach the levee, I can't
imagine that they could ever rebuild.
\_ Do it enough and the residents of NO would evolve into
amphibious beings who could survive on raw seweage ... it
might be the key to saving the human race! |
| 2005/8/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39386 Activity:nil |
8/31 Holy crap. Stampede in Baghdad when someone cries suicide bomber
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1083227&page=1 |
| 2005/8/31-9/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39382 Activity:nil |
8/31 Christopher Hitchens - "A War To Be Proud Of" aka flamebait
http://csua.org/u/d7h (weeklystandard.com)
\_ I always find it humorous when people taunt Lefties for comparing
the War with Iraq with Vietnam, but don't flinch an eye when
comparing it to WWII, Hitler, et. al. <chuckle>
comparing it to WWII, Hitler, et. al. <chuckle> I like to point
out how the war on both fronts didn't end until the US/Allies
decided to massively kill lots of civilians.
\_ Um ... oh what's the use.
\_ You were going to say CH is a lefty? CH is simply an idiot.
\_ s/idiot/drunk/g
\_ He _can_ be both. I'm a drunk. I'm not an idiot. |
| 2005/8/29-30 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39336 Activity:nil |
8/29 Church says God is punishing American soldiers for
defending a country that harbors gays. God Bless. Amen.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050828/ap_on_re_us/soldier_funeral_protests
\_ Sheesh, yes these guys are disgusting. They're fairly famous
for it. Just generically calling them a church is somewhat
disingenuous IMO. Their webpage: http://www.godhatesfags.com |
| 2005/8/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39328 Activity:nil |
8/28 Where is the LA National Guard?
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1093
\_ In Iraq?
\_ They're busy fighting the hurricanes over there, where they
live, so that the hurricanes don't get us here, where we
live. |
| 2005/8/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39324 Activity:nil |
t/28 Tom Watson on Iraq:
http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2005/08/sands_of_death.html |
| 2005/8/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39309 Activity:nil |
8/27 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4192004.stm Why didn't these anti-war grannies join Sheehan, or the other way around? See, this proves that us liberals simply can't unite. It's sad. I've lost faith in the Democratic party. Fuck it. -disillusioned |
| 2005/8/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39308 Activity:moderate |
8/27 Told you the Bushi'ites were going to turn violent:
"In one heated moment, members of the pro-Bush crowd turned on
what they mistakenly thought were a group of anti-war protesters,
cursing them, threatening them and tearing down their signs.
A police officer rushed the group to safety."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050827/pl_nm/iraq_usa_protest_bush_dc
They see their dreams of world hegemony crumbling before their
eyes, so they are taking out their frustration on the nearest
available target, right now Cindy Sheehan.
\_ So what became of the reports of people attacking wounded vets
at the vet hospital? Did the anti-Bush attackers see their
dreams of world hegemony crumbling before their eyes, so they
took out their frustrations on the nearest available target,
right now some wounded vets just back from Iraq?
\_ URL? If true, this is disgustig.
\_ I assume the OP was referring to the Code Pink protest
\_ URL? If true, this is disgusting.
\_ I assume the pp was referring to the Code Pink protest
outside Walter Reed.
http://atlanta.craigslist.org/pol/93345236.html
(CNSNews.com is down, but this seems to be a faithful quote.)
http://csua.org/u/d6f (CNSNews)
\_ If this is the case, pp is nicely twisting "protesting at
army hospital" to "attacking wounded vets". Nonetheless
it's a pretty inappropriate place for a protest. -John
\_ When have the "anti-Bush attackers" ever dreamed of global
hegemony. Your message is muddied a bit by your pointless troll.
\_ Uhm, hello? Marxism? Read a book some time.
\_ A hell of a lot of very financially conservative people think
Bush is a mistake in every conceivable way. Anti-Bush ==
Marxism is about as stupid as you can get.
\- without defending marxism as a accurate description of
how national/global economies work, it is a fairly
interesting theory ... you learn something about what
it means to come up with a theory in the social sciences
and stucturally it has a lot in common with ideas that
in terms of substance it is totally unrealted to, if not
antithetical [for example what is the relationship of
natialism to other forces, be the class-consciousness, or
"globalism"/bond market etc]. see e.g. response to
T FRIEDMAN by JOHN GRAY. --psb
\_ Thanks for the tip -- John Gray's article is quite
good. -- Tom "Metropolitan" Townsend
\- you may wish to read the article on
Whit Stillman's "world view" reference in:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/BLOG/MetropolitanJudgment.txt
\_ STW for Code Pink. Context. Thank you.
\_ From a Code Pink website:
"CODEPINK is a women initiated grassroots peace and
social justice movement that seeks positive social
change through proactive, creative protest and
non-violent direct action." Sounds like Evil Monolithic
Communism to me. "positive social change" is probably
a code word for teaming up with the UN to take your
guns away and seep your precious bodily fluids.
\_ And this doesn't scream "MARXIST!" to you? Okey
dokey! Good job at reading between the lines. If
Halliburton's website described the company as being
an environmentally friendly, peace loving, do-no-
evil place, you'd believe that too, huh?
\_ IF YOU ARE NOT WITH US, YOU ARE WITH THE TERRORISTS! -GWB |
| 2005/8/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39306 Activity:nil |
8/27 Is there a web site that'll give me statistics and historical charts
on the progress of the increasingly maimed and dying soldiers in
Iraq and Afghanistan? I was reading this web site that says Iraq
war has the lowest fatality rate (only 10% of wounded soldiers
dead) vs. Vietnam (with 24% wounded dead).
\_ http://icasualties.org. In relation to past wars, yes, casualty rates are
lower, prob because of tactical and medical advances.
\_ that makes sense. we have better technology. i bet we have a
higher percentage of soldiers coming home with non functioning
limbs, if only because in previous wars, they would have did. |
| 2005/8/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39305 Activity:high |
8/27 There are 3000 pro-war anti-Sheehan protestors on tour, with lots
of television broadcasts paid for by moveamericaforward. So, where
are Cindy's ads? Poor liberals can't afford expensive broadcasts?
Secondly Cindy's campaign seems so disorganized, with no clear
financial backers. The first link to her web site says "Donate."
This is sad. We fucking liberals are apathetic and pathetic need to
get out and counter moveamericaforward's mega Cindy-bashing campaign.
\_ Nonsense. She's got a catered camp funded by http://moveon.org and the
rest of the usual suspects. Go STFW for 5 seconds to find out
who is funding her.
\_ The Swifties are going to try and character assassinate her, too.
\_ Cindy was camping out in a ditch for the first week before people
started to organize around her. No one is "funding" Cindy. If
there were no one else there, she would still be.
\_ The Swifties are going to try and assassinate her, too.
\_ The Swifties are going to try and character assassinate her, too.
Let's see if that works out for them. So far, it has not:
http://www.pollingreport.com/national.htm#Bush
\_ Honestly, what's there left to assassinate with Ms. We Are
Waging Nuclear War In Iraq? She's her own worst enemy, imo.
-- ilyas
\_ And so is our ilyas, but we still lurve him so!
\_ People tend to see in her what they want to see:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466555/posts
You are pro-War, right?
\_ I am pro-yermom. I think the characterization of that lady
as a nut is pretty spot on. This 'people see what they
want to see' line is weak. She is a nut. Do I get to
call you a liberal nut apologist now, ausman? -- ilyas
\_ Sure. Liberal nut apologist is a fair
characterization of me. -ausman
characterization of me. Did you even read the
Freeper article? -ausman
\_ I think you should give it a rest. I remember you
were calling Cato right-wing big business lackeys
due to their funding sources. Since people's agendas
are fully determined by their funding (according to
you), we have all we need to know about Sheehan just
from that, right? Except you seem strangely
silent about Sheehan's funding, preferring to talk
about public opinion being split. I mean if you
want to know the reasons people aren't even-handed
or 'see what they want to see,' I don't think you
have very far to look. My characterization of
Sheehan is that she is a nut exploiting her son's
death for political ends, who in turn is being
exploited for political ends. For the record, I had
not a single bad thing to say about Sheehan until
she finally opened her mouth. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, she's been in the media since at least May.
She spoke to Conyer's meeting on the Downing St.
memos. You've complained about a couple of
passages. If you think that's the sum total of
what she has said, you're jumping the gun.
\_ In the political world, I think it's usually
pretty telling where the money comes from,
especially when its origin is from large,
politically charged entities. To be in denial of
this is to be in denial about the realities of
how politics work in this country. Of course,
I think you probably aren't in denial, but you
seem a little hasty in your accusation of ausman's
how politics work in this country. Of course, I
don't think you are in denial, but you seem a
little hasty in your accusation of ausman's
hypocrisy wrt bringing up sources of funding.
(in Sheehan's case, it's so blindingly obvious
In Sheehan's case, it's so blindingly obvious
where her political bias is, I have a hard
time seeing why any sane person would need
confirmation via her monetary backing. -mice
\_ To tell you the truth, I have not really bothered
bothered to do any serious research on Sheehan's
positions. All I really know about her is that
she lost a son in Iraq and is now protesting the
War outside of Bush's ranch. Which is a perfectly
legal and acceptable thing to do. If she starts
to write something of serious intellectual note,
say in the New Yorker or The National Review,
I will read it and decide what I think of her ideas
As far as I can tell, you think anyone opposed to
the Iraq war is a "nut" which means about 2/3
of the populace now. Sure, she is supported
by http://moveon.org and Michael Moore, they are on
the same page politically, at least with regard
to the War in Iraq. Is everyone supported by
http://moveon.org a "nut" in your book? John Kerry,
for example? And how the heck is she being
"exploited for political ends"? Who is exploiting
her? If you willingly work with someone else
for the same political end, you are not being
exploited, you are forming political coalitions.
One further thing and why I will not "give it a
rest." If you disagree with Sheehan then attack
her positions. Do not follow the tried and true
Right Wing tactic of character assassination.
This is what they did to Clinton, Kerry, Schiavo's
husbande and now they (and you) are trying with
Sheehan. If her ideas are so weak, you should be able
to demolish them without resorting to questioning
her sanity. -ausman
husband and now they (and you) are trying with
Sheehan. If her ideas are so weak, you should be
able to demolish them without resorting to
questioning her sanity. -ausman
\_ No, I think someone who says we are waging a
nuclear war in Iraq is a nut. I actually have
no problem with her position per se (being
anti-war), I have a problem with _her_, more
specifically what she says. As I said, I had
no problems with her at all until she opened
her mouth. My position is similar to someone
who doesn't like freepers because they are nuts,
not because what they believe in is stupid
(freepers can hold perfectly defensible
positions on a number of issues). -- ilyas
\_ Okay, now that I think about it some more,
I can see that if you honestly think she
is insane, that it is obvious how she is
being exploited. I haven't read enough of
her to know if she is or not. Do you base
your assessment of her on extensive readings
of her ideas or on one out of context
quote on the motd? -ausman
\- believeing we are waging nukular war
in iraq as am epirical fact is about as
in iraq as an empirical fact is about as
insane as believing in changing water
into wine, transubstitution, astrology,
creationism, or fat reducing creams,
and is about as ignorant as not being
able to locate the pacific ocean on a
globe ... in fact know knowing the diff
globe ... in fact not knowing the diff
between DU bullets and nukular weapons is
probably more forgivable. so sheehan
is in a lot of company if not necessarily
quality company. pat roberson is who is
shocking, not cindy sheehan. --psb
\_ The people that generally refer to DU
use as nuclear warfare know the
difference. It may be a crudish over-
statement, but they've at least got
some research to back up their health
concerns over its use.
\_ This is not an excuse an english
speaking american could use, but
Al Jazeera reported that the U.S. had
used a nuke at one point in Iraq. It
was the same bullshit as typical lies
on foxnews: put it up long enough
for morons to believe, but take it
down in time to still make it look
like a mistake. I did not personally
see this, as I don't know arabic,but
it was pretty well documented at the
time(shortly after the initial
invasion).
\_ I don't think everything lumped under
astrology is necessarily insane, the
influence of the moon on the biosphere
is pretty well documented. -- ilyas
\- and this needs no response. --psb
\_ Do we know Sheehan actually had DU
bullets in mind when she talked about
nuclear war? Do we cut her slack
nuclear war? Or do we cut her slack
because we are sympathetic to her
cause? Would we be as forgiving of
some freeper bogeyman or even jblack?
\- you can be too stupid to be put
to death by the state, but not
too stupid to vote or have a
right to free speech.
\_ The question is not whether one
can be too stupid to have a
right to free speech. The
question is whether one can be
too stupid to be taken
seriously. The question is also
whether we invent excuses for
Sheehan because we agree with
her.
\- i dont think she is an
expert on middle east
policy. is she any more
clueless than the large
numbers who believe WMDs
were found or saddam and
osama sed to have pool parties
together? or is she any more
insane than the "a zygote
has a soul" crowd? i dont
think so. she is a figure
of pathos, not logos, to
put it in "greek" terms.--psb
\_ Are motd types apologists
for WMD-believers? For
Osama/Saddam theorists?
For soul zygote types?
Then why excuse Sheehan?
All animals are equal, but
some animals are more
equal than others?
\- the "excuse" isnt
categorical. i doubt
sheehan knows anything
about measure theory
but i have no problem
with her right or
inclination to sit at
the side of the road
ranting. micahel moore
probably isnt much of
a historian but as an
film maker he has a
certain talent as a
rhetorical terrorist.
i think the immediate
pullout view point is
dumb and unethical
but i think the ethical
position is to have
BUSHCO consigned to the
dustbin of history but
since that is not going
to happen, i'm not
displeased to see things
a little hot for BUSHCO
\_ Hey ilyas, don't tell us about
the stars.
\- "Various polls have shown that erosion of war support has been
faster in Iraq than during the Vietnam War in the 1960s."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9084651/page/2
What do you guys have to say about this? |
| 2005/8/26-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39292 Activity:nil |
8/26 AP Poll on Iraq war:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5580679.html
37% approval of war, 87% support of expression of dissent.
\_ Mission Accomplished! |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39266 Activity:nil |
8/25 "A final version of Iraq's constitution has been completed and the
document will be approved later on Thursday, said government spokesman
Laith Kubba. He told reporters parliament did not need to formally
meet to approve the charter because it had effectively been passed on
on Monday."
Yay!
\_ Are you reading theonion?
\_ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1556425,00.html
\_ So you read the one line that could possibly be a "yay"
and ignored the rest that tells you that they really haven't
gotten anywhere in terms of consensus...
\_ hey, someone thought it was from the onion, right?
\_ It was a joke, son.
\_ "The interim constitution, adopted when the U.S.-led coalition ran
the country, states simply that parliament 'shall write the draft
of the permanent constitution' and that the document 'shall be
presented to the Iraqi people for approval in a general referendum
by Oct 15.'
... if two-thirds of the voters in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces
vote against it, the charter will be defeated [in the Oct 15
referendum]"
hey, is that two-thirds of people who actually vote, two-thirds
of registered voters, or two-thirds of estimated legal voters?
Here's the interim constitution:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html |
| 2005/8/24-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39256 Activity:very high |
8/24 Sheehan refers to terrorists in Iraq as "Freedom Fighters" to a CBS
reporter. Not reported in the news anywhere.
\_ I am sorry, but those fighters in Iraq are freedom fighters.
They are trying to end US occupation and remove puppet
government set up by US. Read UN's charter on self-determination
if you are bored.
\_ I'm sure Iraqis beleive they'll have freedom when the
insurgents have power. Just as I'm sure all the insurgents
are Iraqis. With people like you, who needs enemies?
\_ They freed her son, so what is she bitching about?
\_ Because she couldn't have misspoke. Only Robertson, Rumsfeld,
Cheney, and Bush can do that
\_ You're comparing a housewife with the secretary of defense, the
president, the vice president, and a very prominent religious
leader.
\_ No, the people getting in a flurry over a comment she made
in one of dozens of interviews over the last month are
forcing the comparison.
\_ They can't be freedom fighters. Bush hasn't sold weapons to any
nation sworn to destroy the US in order to fund them yet. But it
is a neat idea.
\_ Freedom fighters don't blow up little children getting candy from
US soldiers.
\_ As opposed to just killing children anonymously via air
strikes like the US? Ooo.. look at the pretty yellow box.
Care package or cluster bomb? Let's find out!
\_ If you don't understand the difference between
intentionally targeting children and collateral damage,
you're a waste of skin.
\_ "Iraqi Body Count" stated that civilian death due to
US Air raid and other military activites is four times
of those who died in suicide bomber. Collateral
damage or not, people hold US for it. If your family
members are accidently killed by foreign occupation
force, you will pick up arm and fight too, regardless
rather the death was intentional or not.
\_ And you're still totally missing the point; if you
went to war to prevent other peoples' families from
being blown up, intentionally or not, you wouldn't
go blow up children intentionally. Dig? -John
\_ sucide bombers don't blow up childrens
intentionally neither. These
bombings are not senseless violence. Targets
was select to serve specific purpose to undermine
US military/political effort. You can blame
resistant for the failure of try to minimize
civilian casuaties, but that is a completely
story than trying to paint them as someone
who is stupid enough to waste precious military
resources on blowing childrens up. Mind you,
that while you see *PLENTY* of dead bodies
due to Iraqi resistance, you don't see *ANY* of
of twenty-thousands plus civilian death on
CNN/BBC.
\_ Ah, intellectually I do, but ask the parent of a dead
child to draw the line and you'll see it is not so fine.
\_ Yet you present a case where you assume that the
children were the target, not the US soldiers.
How does that fit in with your "collateral damage"
POV and as a reflection of your own character?
\_ But the measure of the character of those responsible
isn't whether the death occurred, but whether it was
intentional, negligent, or whether efforts were made
to avoid it.
\_ Yet you present a case where you assume that the
children were the target, not the US soldiers.
How does that fit in with your "collateral damage"
POV and as a reflection of your own character?
\_ The children were all around the soldiers. I
doubt we would bomb a target if it were clear
there were tons of innocents around.
\_ you doubt, but two NGO's finding stated
the contrary. 75% of civilian death
is due to US military activities.
\_ Right, like Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima...
\_ You do realize there's a difference
between tactical and strategic, right?
\_ Your example is flawed in that it is
single incident. One person, one bomb,
dozens of victims. His load is shot.
If the US kills innocents on a less
spetacular level, but more of them,
does that make it more moral? If each
soldier kills only one innocent, is
that better than one man killing many?
that better than one man killing
many?
\_ Well, no -- it's the difference b/t
the commander in chief making the
call, and the guy pulling the
trigger making the call, ie,
strategic vs tactical.
strategic vs tactical. I'm not
making a moral rationalization,
I'm saying the Hiroshima guy is
making an illogical comparison
at least partly based on an
emotional appeal.
That this whole conversation is more at
tactical level...?
\_ So it is better to be a mass murderer
than to kill a few???
\_ No, I'm saying that comparing with
Hiroshima is a red herring in this
context.
context because the decision
making apparatus (I sincerely hope)
was wildly different.
\_ My Lai. Very tactical.
\_ my grind is that most people
involved in My Lai gotten away
with murder. Calley only got
slap on the wrist.
\_ My Lai was a calamity and a crime.
Stop taking the intellectual
coward's route of saying "well they
did it, so it's OK if we do." That
is fucking stupid. Dresden was
probably wrong _in restrospect_.
Idiot. -John
\_ Yah, that's a good point. That
was at least partly the result
of what amounts to strategic
policy in vietnam (free fire
zones, etc). Just as a side note,
I don't condone or see anything
\_ Your example is flawed in that it is
single incident. One person, one bomb,
dozens of victims. His load is shot.
If the US kills innocents on a less
spetacular level, but more of them,
does that make it more moral? If each
soldier kills only one innocent, is
that better than one man killing many?
\_ Well, no -- it's the difference b/t
the commander in chief making the
call, and the guy pulling the
trigger making the call, ie,
strategic vs tactical.
justifiable in the killing of
civilians -- I wasn't a supporter
of GWII. It's abhorrent when
'collateral casualties' become
part of an 'equation' relating
human lives to some politician's
notion of acceptable or cost-
effective or something.
notion of cost-effective.
\_ Do you think they were aiming for the kids or the soldiers?
Is the US aiming for the kids or the terrorists? Whee!
\_ Our freedom fighters flew jetliners into the World Trade
Center.
\_ Yes, it was Iraqi freedom fighters that are to blame for
the September 11th attack. Hmm...Good Kool-aid.
\_ Read it again with your brain turned on. Think
"Afghanistan"
\_ Full quote for those interested
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/24/90434.shtml
I guess it will mean different things to different people.
I mean, if you asked Cindy Sheehan: "What did you mean by
justifiable in the killing of
civilians -- I wasn't a supporter
of GWII. It's abhorrent when
'collateral casualties' become
part of an 'equation' relating
human lives to some politician's
notion of cost-effective.
'freedom fighters entering Iraq'?", that would clarify things a lot.
Currently you have people interpreting her quote to mean that she
approves of suicide bombings in Iraq.
\_ That sounds like she was just instinctively spouting back one too
many government-endorsed euphemisms (in previous eras).
\_ Or intentionally using Reagan's term for the Afghani fighters
we were supporting against the Russians (that later became
the Taliban). -tom
\_ I'd go with "poor choice of words" without any further
explanation from her.
\_ Reagan called the Contras, who targeted civilians, Freedom
Fighters. So she was just using it in tribute to him. |
| 2005/8/24-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39252 Activity:high |
8/24 "You know I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if
he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really
ought to go ahead and do it. ... We have the ability to take him out,
and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."
-Pat Robertson, previously
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take
him out'. And 'take him out' could be a number of things including
kidnapping. ... I was misinterpreted ..."
-Pat Robertson, yesterday
"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that
statement."
-Pat Robertson, today
\_ How do you apologize for being a total lunatic?
\_ Oh and I like it how figures like Robertson, Rumsfeld will deny
saying X when shown direct VIDEO proof of them saying X and think
that's just fine.
\_ For posterity, which Rumsfeld quote? Are you talking about
the WMDs east/west/south/north of Baghdad/Tikrit quote?
Did you mean Cheney instead?
\_ http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/03/ana04004.html
\_ An extremist religious figure preaching violence! What's that? He's
an American citizen and free to say what he likes? Wow, how the
a private citizen and free to say what he likes? Wow, how the
tunes vary.
\_ He has the freedom of speech to advocate murder, but it's a shame
more moderate leaders in his sect don't condemn him for it.
\_ That freedom is going away in the UK.
\_ While I'm no apologist for Robertson, I'd like to see the sentences
preceding the "it". People tend to be a bit sloppy about
antecedents, especially in spoken English.
\_ Corrected. I took the original quote from http://cnn.com, guess they
cut out the "You know" part in the text. Watch video here:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html
If you ask me on the whole it still means the same thing --
his most recent statement spells it out pretty much.
Also, http://cnn.com should not have cut that part out. -op
\_ Still not enough context. I think he was talking about
assassination but I'd like to see the entire discussion, not
just that clip.
\_ For the sake of argument, what would sufficiently qualify
the posted statements for you?
Are you just interested in what he was talking about,
or are you really looking for some "out" for him?
\_ Well, ideally the entire conversation up to those
comments would be best. I'm not looking for an "out".
I've just seen enough stuff taken out of context to be
skeptical of any clip less than complete.
\_ The biggest out for Robertson would be pointing out
that if he said "Assassinate Saddam! Save money!
FREEDOM!!" pre-invasion, people who complained would
have been beaten down as Saddam-lovers.
Theoretically Robertson could have been talking about
how similar Chavez was like to Saddam (torture, WMDs,
he would destroy the U.S. if given the chance, etc.)
before talking about killing him.
Just an analysis by me, not statements of fact.
\_ I'm not interested in an "out". I'm interested in
figuring out precisely what he was saying.
\_ Why? Why are people supposed to pay attention
to what this guy says? Who the fuck is he?
\_ He's someone who meets with your president
on a semi-regular basis to discuss policy
and politics.
\_ Maybe we should concentrate on 'taking out' bin Laden. Do we
have that ability?
\_ Video of the statement: http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006
\_ Longer than the http://cnn.com clip, but still incomplete. It could be
interpreted to be saying "okay, assassination is off the table,
but we should do anything else to get him out of power." I'd
still need to see the whole video.
\_ It could be interpreted that way, but you're really stretching
now. I think it's pretty damn obvious what he is saying.
\_ Yes, especially when he releases a statement saying:
"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize
for that statement."
\_ Which strongly suggests he didn't mean assassination, or
he wouldn't backpedal from it. He makes crazy
statements all the time and doesn't back off from them.
\_ Uh...
\_ Okay, here's Robertson's official press release with the apology
http://www.patrobertson.com/pressreleases/hugochavez.asp
You tell me what he REALLY meant.
\_ Well okay then. So he clearly says that he said we should
assassinate him, and has now apologized. That clears it up for
me. |
| 2005/8/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39228 Activity:moderate |
8/23 Photos from the Iraq war. Warning: Very graphic.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/23/iraq_gallery/index.html
\_ This puts some things in perspective. "Oh no, the British police
accidentally and incorrectly killed one innocent person!" Now
\_ Your moral equivalance/equivocation is disgusting. That's not
perspective. You can call both "wrong".
\_ They _are_ both wrong! But which has gotten more press?
\_ It's not a zero sum game. They both should get plenty
of press. That the war hasn't is a decision of the gov't
and complicity by our media outlets
let's look at the bit in the slideshow where the US Helicopter fired
a missle into a group of 13 civilians. "Oops, our bad." I mean,
it's really they're fault for _forcing_ us to invade. Stupid
it's really their fault for _forcing_ us to invade. Stupid
camel jockeys.
\_ They did have the audacity to have lots of oil.
\_ Actually it was a group of > 50-100 people. Many were partying
by the disabled Bradley. Is it within the rules of engagement
to lob a missile into the middle of the crowd? I don't know.
-moderate/liberal
\_ Not really, but unfortunately the US doesn't have a weapon
that swoops down to beat people with sticks. -John
\_ just admit it, we are not accountable for anything we
do. It is OK to kill Iraqi at randomn. Something
that we don't talk about, but it's a fact. Do you know
how many people got ran over by US convoy due to
aggressive driving? do you have any idea how many
people died as he/she bring his blanket to the roof
to sleep because electricity is not restored? Is
there any consequences for killing civilian?
Without punishment, people bound to do bad things, pure
and simple... And at the mean time, Americans don't
understand why Iraqi hates Americans.
\_ Are you stupid? Yeah, that's exactly what I was
implying. Kill all those non-American civilians! Woo!
It's OK! Moron. -John
\_ Am I saying that all US
GIs are shooing at Iraqis for fun? of course
not. All I am saying is that there are bad apples;
there are those who are trigger happy, justified
or not. The problem is that there are no
consequences for any wrongful actions unless it's
caught by US media. Even so, US militaries are not
subject to any external scruny other than its
own military justice system.
Then, there is the issue of mercenaries or
"private contractors." Their actions are not even
subject to US law and US military.
\_ Bad apples, huh? There are reports that in
faloojeh, we got intel that the "bad guys" were
using taxicabs. The order came down that cabs
were greenlighted as targets. I won't be
surprised when we hear about free-fire zones.
These things happen because of orders. There
may be some bad apples, but the real bad shit
comes from orders that the troops are told are
legal.
\_ All intentional abuse of military power should be
avoided and punished when it occurs. It's wrong.
Nobody's saying that it isn't. I also find it
odd that a lot of people say "hey, all these
abuses go unreported, just look at this link!"
My point was that people who dance around a
burning apc or who generally celebrate that kind
of violence (even if they're in the US military)
deserve a fucking beating. -John
\_ Put yourself in their shoes for a sec. That
same APC has been blowing up _their houses_
looking for terrorists. You'd bemoan its
destruction?
\_ Has it? And no I wouldn't, I'd probably
stay inside wishing it would end. -John
\_ But if your house blows up while you
are in it ... maybe safer to dance
on blown up Bradleys!
\_ Wow, the clever, seductive transition from 'we' in
the beginning to 'Americans' in the end almost had me
going for a second there. Well, aside from the
atrocious engrish, anyhow. Whatever personal guilt,
political/social obligations & responsibilities I may
feel, I'm certainly not going to debate them with a
clown like you. What's the point when your whole
statement makes it clear that you're not going to
listen to intelligent discourse?
\_ Why the hell not? For all the billions we've flushed down
the toilet for space weapons that literally contributed
*nothing* to national defense we could have not only
beat stick drones, but imperial walkers by now.
\_ No, but we do have a ray gun that microwaves people.
\_ sweet idea, had they used that instead, it would be
helicopter flies up, blasts crowd with burning-pain
beam until they disperse, then drop bomb on disabled
bradley to destroy it. |
| 2005/8/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Recreation/Travel] UID:39224 Activity:nil |
8/22 Just wondering, how much vacation do military servicemen in Iraq get?
\_ free paid vacation in Mosul.
\_ All service personnel are guaranteed 1 month vacation a year. |
| 2005/8/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39220 Activity:nil |
8/22 Juan Cole has smart things to say to both the right and the left on
Iraq:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/ten-things-congress-could-demand-from.html |
| 2005/8/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39206 Activity:kinda low |
8/20 http://csua.org/u/d3n Freedom is on the march! "I don't see any difference between Saddam and the way the Kurds are running things here," \_ I bet Jalal Talabani doesn't look nearly as snazzy in a fedora, firing a carbine into the air while adoring Kurdish children dance Kurdish folk dances around him. -John \_ don't you get it? as long as they are on our side, we don't really give them a shit. example. Saddam \_ Yup, and the same is true for the Chinese, Europeans, Indians, Russians, etc. -- one more reason why the world is filled with corrupt thugs running countries. It's only bad if a corrupt thug isn't *your* corrupt thug. |
| 2005/8/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:39202 Activity:moderate |
8/20 Hey is it true Ms. Sheehan is claiming US used nuclear weapons in Iraq?
-- ilyas
\_ I found one source claiming she said:
"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is
contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."
\_ Yeah... I think maybe she _is_ a nut. -- ilyas
\_ I wonder if she's referring to depleted uranium shells?
\_ Yah, that's the first thing that came to my mind also. I
remember it being an issue of concern that was in media a
fair bit. Perhaps she's having a layman's misunderstanding
of what it means to be using DU. *shrug* -mice
\_ "waging a nuclear war" is pretty unambiguous.
\_ It's a commonly used reference to DU in certain circles.
You're being obtuse.
\_ Ummm... I would suggest that people who change the
meaning of well known terms are the ones being
obtuse, not the people who are confused by their
new usage. Furthermore, I think her presence in
those circles pretty much shows her status as a kook.
\_ http://www.dubyaspeak.com
I guess maybe he _is_ the President.
\_ Red herring for the win!
\_ The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21rich.html
\_ So it now becomes an "attack" to quote an individual
or recite their actions.
How about this: no Gorelick/Clinton "wall" to block
Chinagate investigations, Clinton actually actively
pursuing terrorists after WTC1, Kenya, Saudia Arabia,
Cole, millenium, etc., no 9/11, no GW2. I think her
anger may be misplaced.
Of course this scenario is also possible: Carter doesn't
abandon the Shah to the Soviet backed Islamicists in
Iran, militant Islam never takes off.
\_ "...heroic Vietnam resumes: John McCain, Max Cleland, John
Kerry." Tsk tsk. |
| 2005/8/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39201 Activity:nil |
8/20 "Qualls gained attention last week when he went to Sheehan's camp,
which has hundreds of crosses as a tribute to troops killed, and
removed one bearing his son's name. But he said protesters keep
replacing it; he has yanked two more crosses, saying the protesters'
views are disrespectful to soldiers."
http://csua.org/u/d3l |
| 2005/8/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39196 Activity:kinda low |
8/19 CIA releases report saying Saddam Hussein abandonded WMD program
in 1991:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146075,00.html
\_ CHEESE EATING SURRENDER MONKEYS! FREEDOM FRIES! OLD EUROPE!
ACKK - PHHHT!@!
\_ So, does this mean the case is closed on WMD's in Iraq?
\_ Um, where the FUCK have you been? Ever heard of David Kay?
UNSCOM? ISG? EVERYONE we have sent in to look for WMD say
they weren't there.
\_ Dude, didn't you get the memo? We invaded to Iraq to create an
Islamic Republic.
\_republic?
\_ Darth Saddamius |
| 2005/8/19-20 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39182 Activity:low |
8/18 Really, I probably wouldn't admit to this attack
http://csua.org/u/d3a (Yahoo)
\_ Why not? Terrorism and guerilla warfare rely only in part on
intimidating your military opponents into thinking they can be
attacked from anywhere; a large part of the point is to gain
credibility with the kind of gullible young thugs who're easily
impressed with this sort of thing--and what's more daring and
impressive than hitting a US navy warship? -John
\_ Except they didn't. They just killed some random innocent
Jordan soldier. I would file that under "screw up." I see
what you're saying though.
\_ terrorism is weak , nothing more absolute than dropping
a nuke on mecca
\_ That would just incite more retributive attacks. How about
nuking (or really just conventially blowing up) one of those
extremist Islamic schools for every terror attack.
\_ Yeah, cuz killing children doesn't piss anyone off. |
| 2005/8/17-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39155 Activity:moderate |
8/17 Dear brother of the low IQ infantryman who is being sent to Iraq,
what is your brother's stance on Iraq? Is he still believing
Bush and the Faux News?
\_ Uh, he's pretty smart. Go read Starship Troopers, the book.
\_ Send him Stranger in a Strange
Land. Anyone who takes ST as
a guideline for life needs
to have their intelligence
questioned
Combine that and the horror of 9/11, and that'll clue you into
what he's thinking. Anyways, before he signed up, I told him at
least he'll be relieving all those poor guys in Iraq now.
\_ if anything, Iraqis are more poor than under Saddam:
http://tinyurl.com/cnuw9
\_ I think he was referring to US soldiers.
\_ Ah, so he thinks Iraq was about 9/11?
\_ If he were really smart, he'd do pretty well on the placement
exam and either end up doing support or logistic related jobs
(U.S. has a ration of 5-10 support for each frontline man)
or move up as an officer, instead of being just an infantryman.
\_ He scored well enough on the test to do whatever he wanted.
He chose Infantry.
He also chose to start as a grunt, since he didn't want to be
one of those know-nothing officers. If he was going to lead
men, someone would have to promote him.
\_ My sister-in-law did the same thing. She could've been
an officer and chose to be a grunt. She's an idiot. So
is your brother. Sorry to have to break the truth to
you.
\_ I have no idea whether your sister in law is an idiot,
but I've definitely seen this before in non-idiots.
A friend of mine from highschool who was really
really smart, and extremely talented at pretty much
everything he tried (various academic subjects, art
sports) did exactly this. He got really high scores
on everything and chose infantry. His CO wanted him
to do ranger school, but he didn't go just to piss
the guy off. Sometimes very intelligent people act
irrationally, but are still intelligent people.
He finished his army time in the 90's and is a lawyer
now.
\_ i don't know. don't people ever thought that they
might die or seriously wounded for being a infintry?
\_ I mean 'idiot' as in 'fool'. Lots of smart
people are unwise. Your friend sounds like my
sister-in-law. She didn't want to be an officer
because she didn't want to be a 'know-nothing
officer'. I have a lot of family in the military
and they will all tell you that's idiotic. You
definitely want to be an officer. Your friend
would've benefitted by Ranger school, but he
fucked himself over just because his CO at the
time was a jerk. That's a bad decision. FWIW, my
sister-in-law has 2 master's degrees and is
still an idiot for going in enlisted and
refusing to take advantage of what the military
had to offer.
\_ yea, but I watched Heartbreak Ridge, and
I wanna be like Clint.
\_ I could see that being true in peacetime,
but I also respect the decisions of those going
grunt first during wartime. They might not be
so pro-officer that being the case.
Some people really don't feel ready to send people
to die. We're talking Infantry.
\_ They have no problem being ordered to go
kill people, though? You can be the poor
sucker taking orders or you can give them.
At least officers are told what's going
on. There are lots of other benefits, too.
Grunts get paid less and get less respect
(from the brass) to do more work.
\_ (You didn't really need to tell anyone that
officers get paid more, much better perks,
and better career advancement for less
work.)
To repeat again what I've already written:
Some people don't necessarily want to be
Infantry officers during war-time,
especially those with no prior battlefield
experience. And that's fine.
Do I really need to tell you there's a
difference between being reponsible for
a whole platoon, and being one of the
platoon members? I think you're smarter
than that, so I don't need to tell you.
In peace-time, I can see how it would be
foolish not to become an officer if you
could.
\_ If you're talking about decision-making
it's better not to be in the infantry at
all, like was said earlier by someone
else. However, it's always better to
be an officer. Always. Any other
opinion is an attempt at rationalizing
a poor decision, IMO.
\_ I can see: "It's always better to
have money."
I can see: "It's always better to
be an officer, if you can live with
men dying under your command."
I can see: "It's always better to be
an officer if you want to live."
I can't see: "It's always better
to be an officer."
\_ Were you in the military? How
familiar are you with it?
There are people who think
it's better to be enlisted,
but they are (to use the same
word) idiots. I say this as
someone with both enlisted
soldiers (privates) and
high-ranking officers (colonels)
in my family.
\_ No, I haven't been in the
military. I'm the one with the
brother who signed up as a
private.
In any case, I'll go with
"It's always better to be an
officer, if you can live with
men dying under your command"
rather than
"It's always better to be an
officer".
My opinion, only.
Perhaps you can talk to the
colonels again and ask them to
compare the two sentences and
see which one they like better.
Don't push an opinion on them,
please. Oh yeah, and it's
Infantry, too, and you're
getting sent to Iraq.
\_ Their opinion is to join
as an officer if you
can. I know this because
I have a niece who is in
now (not in Iraq - yet),
a brother-in-law who
just came back from
Iraq, and now my nephew
wants to join (Marines).
This is the opinion of
two Army colonels and an Air
Force captain. YMMV.
BTW, best of luck to
your brother!
\_ Thanks. I can agree
with their advice.
The impact of the advice
is to seriously consider
becoming an officer, and
if you don't, its your
choice, and your family
members could always
discuss pros/cons with
the colonels.
\_ Nonono ... you meant: "Sorry to have to express my
opinion of it in that way."
\_ I'd say your brother is worth about 10 of the sissy pricks
like the op that post on the motd.
like the op that post on the motd. -jblack
\_ Which makes you worth what, exactly? Thank God our nation
has brave young men willing to post freeper links to the
motd every 20 minutes.
\_ I'd like to see you serve in Iraq.
\_ Don't make assumptions like that. I spent three years
(as a medic) in the 82nd Airborne and I post on the
motd all the time. -ausman
\_ Great thing. Basing your life on a book promoting fascism,
manifest destiny, mini-nukes and Cold War sensibilities.
Ah Heinlein, where everyone is beautiful, the men all get
laid and the women give it up like it's going out of style...
\_ Fascism? Manifest Destiny? Have you even read the book?
If you have, then either your reading comprehension skills
need work, or you're looking with REALLY biased, politically
slanted glasses.
\_ Have you ever wondered why he wrote ST and SIASL at the
same time. I have a friend who suggested it was on a dare.
"Write two good books promoting opposing political stances
and sell them both."
\_ give me a call when Heinlein writes a good book. -tom
\_ you know he's dead, right? What fiction have you read
that you consider "good"?
\_ yes, I know he's dead, and good riddance.
I've got shelves full of good fiction books.
In sci-fi, notables include Hyperion and
A Fire Upon the Deep. -tom
\_ Perhaps the problem is you see Heinlein as SF
instead of political theory?
\_ perhaps the problem is that he's a hack. -tom
\_ Vinge is good, so is Banks. Banks has some
interesting !scifi stuff also. Vinge gets bonus
points for cool physics, and inventing the
notion of Singularity, Banks get points for the
setting and society, and of course his ship names.
-- ilyas
\_ Bah, Heinlein was a pussy. He should have started his own
religion like L Ron. That's how you get paid and laid, yo. |
| 2005/8/16-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39140 Activity:nil |
8/16 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050816/ts_nm/bush_protester_dc Take that, you godless liberals! \_ "we respect the troops, so we're gonna break your symbols of respect for the troops..." \_ One of the neighbors shot at her, too. How long till she becomes a martyr for her cause? \_ The guy fired a shot in the air. Even in this age of grade inflation and relaxed standards, you still have to die to become a martyr. \_ I give her a week before one of the deranged Freepers blows her brains out. \- Would you like to make a bet? --psb \_ No need. The neighbors are petitioning to ban protesters. This really IS Bush Country. \_ A neighbor (a relative of the guy who fired the shot) has offered them space on his land to stay. \- i am sort of suprised ROVECO hasnt found some iraqi mom whose son was shredded or boiled by S HUSSEIN to "spontaneously" reply saying something like "your son didnt die in vain, pls dont abandon us now. we love bush." --psb \_ Mom and Son probably got crushed to death together, you know the more the merrier principle of torture and despotism. |
| 2005/8/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39120 Activity:moderate |
8/14 "We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing
we will have some form of Islamic republic,"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462953/posts
Isn't this what the anti-war crowd predicted would happen
two years ago? These guys are really slow. Really really slow.
\_ no, it isn't. they said "quagmire, vietnam, chaos", etc.
and some said "theocracy". "republic" wasn't on the list.
maybe you have links that say otherwise?
\_ I very specifically said that the logical thing to fill a
power void in (formerly secular) Iraq was Islamic
fundamentalism. -tom
\_ We don't have a democracy here in the US, why would we want it
anywhere else? (Note the difference between a republic and a
democracy.)
\_ we have Democratic Republic. Islamic Republic seems good to me
\_ Islamic Republic is a code word for theocracy, I thought.
Iran is an Islamic Republic. SCIRI is returning Iraqi
women to the veil: |
| 2005/8/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39118 Activity:high |
8/14 "You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll
stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.
Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says
defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for
2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you
give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes)
and we'll put this war on trial."
Who was it who was criticizing Bush for saying Sheehan wanted the
troops out of Iraq?
\_ Delusional. Terrorism will not end that way. In fact, you
will encourage terrorism by giving them quarter. They must
hunted down and destroyed like Black September was.
\_ Delusional. Hunting down terrorists and occupying Iraq are NOT
the same thing.
\_ So her son joins the military and dies. I don't think she has a
case.
\_ The president goes on a 5 week vacation, in the first week of
which he gives a speech saying that her son and the other troops
have died for a "noble cause". She wants to know what that noble
cause is. I do too.
\_ Fighting to defend your country, reason you signed up
should be good enough
\_ For Casey. But for Cindy, she has EVERY right to scream.
\_ I don't meet with any foreign presidents or sign legislation
on my vacations. Don't know about you.
\_ No, but I'm not president. I also don't take a vacation
in the middle of a large project I have the lead on. (Not
that I've bombed any defenseless countries lately, either)
\_ Defenseless? So there are no coalition casualties?
Funny that. You know he's been on this for 4 years,
right? And that he has the same operational
capabilities in Crawford, right? Moron.
\_ By defenseless (and you know this), I meant they had
no military to speak of and no way to threaten us or
their neighbors. To defeat a country is much easier
than to defeat its people.
\_ It's very telling that the Sheehan critics have no choice but to
attack the messenger instead of the message.
\_ What is her message? We pull out of Iraq and Palestine and
the terrorists go away? That won't work, just ask Chamberlain.
The only way this stops is when the terrorist realize that
we will never stop coming for them and give up.
BTW, she has no case re not paying taxes. Bush doesn't collect
taxes, the IRS does via authority invested in it by congress
which derives its power to tax from the constitution. Also,
when one joins the military one ASSUMES the risk that one may
die.
Personally, I think Bush ought to meet w/ her, just to talk.
She will probably yell and make a scene and all that. If he
just sits there and acts calm and rational she will look like
a total kook and people will stop paying attention to her.
\_ What did Iraq have to do with the War on Terror before we
invaded? Your argument is premised on a fiction. Anyway,
it doesn't matter - all signs point towards Bush cutting
and running from Iraq by spring '06 - just in time to save
the Republican's asses in the Senate.
\_ Iraq is related to the war on terror but not for any
publicly acknowledge reason. After the fall of the
Taliban, Iraq and perhaps Libya were the only countries
willing to accept AQ. Since the logistics of getting
to Libya were probably beyond AQ's capabilities, Iraq
was the likely destination.
Also that whole democracy thing might actually make
the world safer for us.
\_ You need to provide evidence before making the claim
that Iraq would accept AQ.
\_ Iraq would not need to accept AQ. It is a big place
and Saddam had little control outside of the main
cities, so AQ could have moved in and camped out.
The difference w/ Iran is that the gov. does control
much/all of the country quite effectively and there
are enough people who "like" the west in Iran that AQ
would probably get ratted out like in Pakistan.
\_ A-fucking-mazing. So, let me get this straight.
We had to go into Iraq because even though
Saddam was probably not working with AQ, they may
have been hiding out somewhere in poorly controlled
parts of the country, outside of his control. So
we invade Iraq and replace Saddam with a weak
provisional government that can't even keep
control of the major cities.
\_ I am not arguing that the operation has been
conducted well, I'm arguing that the operation
COULD have had legitimate military objectives
and MIGHT have achieved security for the US
if carried out properly.
IF carried out properly.
Regardless of how well the operation has been
conducted, this lady has no case in arguing
that Bush killed her kid. Her kid volunteered
for a job in which the possibility existed that
he would get killed. He got killed. If he didn't
want to get killed, he shouldn't have signed up.
\_ I agree that it people who sign up for the
army should be prepared to accecpt that
signing up may lead to death (just as
signing on as a fireman or fisherman can).
I do *not* agree that that is the same thing
as accepting getting killed for some
total clusterfuck run by arrogant civilians
who have demonstrably fucked up just about
everything they could fuck up from day one.
When a fireman dies in a collapsing building,
that's a hazard of the job. When he dies
because of shitty, broken equipment and
bad decisions by the town government, it's
a whole different thing. I also agree with
you that invading Iraq could have made
sense. I'd love to live in a world where
the neocon delusions could be made to come
true, but sadly we don't.
\_ Uh no, history has proven that joining up
with the military has always had the
hazard of dying at the whims of
incompetant leaders. There's no news
here.
\_ So you don't mind continuing with
incompetent leaders? I do.
\_ In your fantasy dreamworld, there wouldn't
be any terrorism in the first place. The
facts are: before invasion: No or
insignificant AQ. After invasion: Country
filled with AQ. Also, over 1800 Americans
now killed in Iraq ... That is on track to
overtake the death toll from 9/11, so a
decision made by the neocons & Bush will
most likely result in MORE Americans dying
than the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
\_ No one is "ratting out" AQ in Pakistan. In fact,
if appears that they have set up their HQ in
Baluchistan.
Waziristan.
\_ Have you ever been to Pakistan? The
fact that ANY AQ members have been
caught there is REMARKABLE. Unlike
in Afghanistan where they walked
around in the open, their movement
in Pakistan is getting more and more
restricted every day.
\_ No, I have not been to Pakistan, have you?
The truth is that the Baluchistan region
The truth is that the Waziristan region
is growing more independent, not less and
that AQ operations in the country appear
to be totally unrestricted. What is your
source for the opposite claim?
http://csua.org/u/d19 (NYT)
\_ Meeting with her can only cause problems: the media would eat
it up showing Bush as weak, plus it would set a precedent that
any crazy with a cause can camp out and get the President's
personal audience.
\_ "Crazy?" "Nutjob?" Any evidence of this, besides the fact
that she changed her mind? Normal humans are allowed to
change their minds, you know.
\_ She's camped out, on a road, demanding to see the
president. That pretty much identifies her as a crazy
nutjob.
\_ Her fucking son got killed. Ask your mom how she
would react if her (I'm assuming) son was dead
because of an incompetent boss endangering him on a
{dishonest,wrong,stupid} precept and not being held
accountable at all. -John
\_ She's still off her fucking rocker. Having a son
die fighting for a cause you don't believe in
doesn't make you immune to being a nutjob.
\_ She disagrees with The Holy Imperial Bush, so she
is by definition a wingnut moonbat crazy.
\_ Anyone OUGHT to be able to get an auidence w/ the
President. Its not like he's some king anointed by
god to rule over use peons. In the old days, people
god to rule over us peons. In the old days, people
could walk right into the WH and talk to the president
w/o any sort of restrictions.
\_ I'm attacking her because she's a nutjob. I'm happy to discuss
her 'message' with non-nutjobs.
\_ How about this: no Gorelick/Clinton "wall" to block
Chinagate investigations, Clinton actually actively
pursuing terrorists after WTC1, Kenya, Saudia Arabia,
Cole, millenium, etc., no 9/11, no GW2. I think her
anger may be misplaced.
Of course this scenario is also possible: Carter doesn't
abandon the Shah to the Soviet backed Islamicists in
Iran, militant Islam never takes off. |
| 2005/8/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39115 Activity:nil |
8/14 Are any CSUA'ers in Saudi Arabia? I have a really stupid question
(need to find out the price of Movenpick ice cream, don't ask.) I'd
really appreciate it if someone could help me out. -John
\_ John, I know someone ex-EECS in Lebanon (I know it's not Saudi) if
that would help? -jthoms
\_ Nah, really need SA, but thanks anyway! -John |
| 2005/8/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39111 Activity:nil |
8/13 Bush is planning another war. Better get ready for the
draft, students. No way is this going to happen with
an all volunteer military:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050813/ts_nm/iran_bush_dc
\_ Same thing Dubya said six months ago.
\_ And this is new how? Maybe you should take a closer look at
what Iran says internally, that's far more interesting.
\_ Using force does not mean a full-scale invasion. We could just bomb
their alleged WMD facilities and ballistic missiles.
\_ Giving it a second thought, I think this is just a scare tactic.
Any military confrontation with Iran will likely cause the southern
Iraq where the majority of Iraq's population lives to descend into
chaos. Al-Sistrani, Al-Sadr and his boys, and the rest of Iraqi Shia
population are keeping quiet only because they're being brought to
power with the support of our guns, and not because they enjoy
seeing the hordes of armed infidels roaming aroud the holiest shia
cities.
\_ I honestly do not think so. Bush is not in the habit of making
threats that he does not intend to back up with action.
\_ Super War Preview: http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html |
| 2005/8/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39081 Activity:kinda low |
8/10 Pentagon to organize huge march and Clint Black concert to celebrate
9/11. What the fuck?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/335938p-286948c.html
\_ I admit that this is odd, but calling it a celebration is
completely disingenuous.
\_ Can I have Clint Black sing at my funeral? I'm goin'
for _somber_.
fer _somber_.
\_ Okay, I should have put "celebration" in scare quotes. I'm
sure that's not their intention, but it sure smells like it.
Hence my "what the fuck." --op
\_ It's definitely weird, but I guess the Pentagon has some
sort of "right" because it was after all attacked on 9/11
with some 300-400 odd people dying (counting the ones on the
plane). Personally I find the concert in somewhat bad taste,
as I think a moment of silence or a reading of the names of
the dead is much more appropriate.
\_ It is called "waving the bloody shirt" and is an old
tried and true propaganda technique.
\_ http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/08/is-he-fucking-kidding.html |
| 2005/8/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/Canada, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39033 Activity:nil |
8/7 RIP, Peter Jennings:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050808/ap_on_en_tv/obit_jennings
\_ He was killed by lawyers from the tobacco lobby. Doctors say
lung cancer...yeah, right. -whako conspiracy
\_ and on freerepugnant, people are celebrating, 'This man has done
great harm to our country under the guise of "freedom of
the press" and I will not forget that.' |
| 2005/8/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39003 Activity:kinda low |
8/4 psb in the news. Lookin' a little scruffy there, eh?
http://csua.org/u/cxd
\_ And he looks like he's wearing a yarmulke.
\_ Wow, Partha sure has gone gray.
\_ Is that really the same psb? I've never seen him in person,
only on the motd...
\_ Not a chance-- this guy didn't finish his speech with ok thnx.
\_ Um... no. http://www.nynice.org/partha_banerjee.htm
\_ This can't be the real PSB. The real PSB doesn't even have
a college degree, yet this fake http://NYNICE.org site says he
has a MS degree. Hence, this must be a fake PSB.
\_ The One True PSB is less scruffy, and less gray
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/PSB_MISC/PSB-IMF.jpg
\_ That's my point. -pp |
| 2005/8/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39001 Activity:nil |
8/4 Bush describes Iraqi resistance as "dark, dim and backwards":
http://csua.org/u/cx8
\_ Erm, this says he was talking about Zawahri.. Conflating him
with "Iraqi resistance" would be... unsupported. |
| 2005/8/4-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:38998 Activity:low |
8/4 Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth says that extremist Muslims
should leave Britian.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=358019&in_page_id=1770
Amusingly, he could be refering to George Galloway.
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=788
\_ The French have been pissed off at the British for a long time now
for allowing extremist Algerians to operate with impunity. Wanting
fuckwits like Abu Hamza Al Masri to leave is not necessarily a
Bad Thing. -John
\- that fellow is like a bad guy out of a movie ... i mean the
eye patch s one thing, but an eye patch and a hook! i wonder
if he has to be defanged before flying. ok tnx. --psb
\- that fellow is like a bad guy out of a movie ... half blind and
hooks for hands? if he has to be defanged before flying. ok tnx.
hooks for hands? he has to be defanged before flying? ok tnx.
\_ Partha, the directorate approves of your comments. |
| 2005/8/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38972 Activity:nil |
8/3 Watch freepers rant and rave about the liberal MSM and it's reporting
of the death of an Iraqi Major General while in U.S. custody
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456310/posts
http://csua.org/u/cwq (Post) |
| 2005/8/3-4 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38969 Activity:nil |
8/3 "Brig. Gen. Carter Ham ... acknowledged that U.S. and multinational
forces have faced a number of direct attacks from rebels. The reason,
he said, is that U.S. and multinational forces have swarmed the
western Iraq area, limiting rebels from fleeing towns and perhaps
causing more direct confrontations. When asked whether U.S. forces
have been able to diminish rebels from inside Iraq or Syria from
operating, Ham said, 'Absolutely not.' Marines acknowledge many more
troops would be needed to have a permanent presence in every guerrilla
enclave along the river, stretching for hundreds of miles to the
Syrian border. But Ham said today he was uncertain whether the spate
\_ Probably these horrible "flush-less" urinals they've been
putting in highway rest stops over here--they have a valve
at the bottom which drains the things when they fill past
a certain degree, and don't let any smell out of the pipe.
Needless to say, the bits you pee on above the pipe also
smell. A lot. -John
of deaths would lead to more troops being deployed in the area.
... Army Gen. George W. Casey, America's top commander in Iraq, set
November as a goal for U.S. troops to wrest away control of Iraq's
western borders." |
| 2005/8/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38967 Activity:nil |
8/3 Malnutrition in Iraqi children now higher than in Burundi:
http://csua.org/u/cwl
\_ A great testament to Burundi's progress? |
| 2005/8/3-4 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38956 Activity:nil |
8/2 Read NRO writer's last column (dated yesterday) before he was shot to
death in Iraq
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vincent200508020823.asp
\_ typical conservative column. Blame it on the Iraqis!
\_ Huh? The article is almost entirely a quotes from the
Manager of the Power Distribution Directorate. Nor does it
shy away from meantioning that we destroyed a lot of the
infrastructure. What, exactly, is your problem with it? |
| 2005/7/28-29 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38867 Activity:nil |
7/28 Woohoo! Hanoi Jane rides again! Maybe we'll get a picture of her
cutting of the head of an American hostage this time.
http://csua.org/u/cv0
\_ Wow, you're like, 35 years behind the times. Pick up a newspaper,
troll.
\_ you are such a tool
\_ But what does The Free Republic have to say about this?
\_ Lots of famous people are anti war. What's so special about
this case? Fonda's kind of useless anyways, it's not like
there are many conservative fans of hers in the first place. |
| 2005/7/27-29 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38843 Activity:nil |
7/27 I think this is the most interesting blog I've ever read. It's
written by a journalist about his tooling around Iraq. He spends
a lot of time with a unit in Mosul, but the section on the
Yezidis is also really interesting.
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com
Yezidis:
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/06/lost-in-translation.html |
| 2005/7/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38782 Activity:low |
7/22 Not bombers or insurgents, they're terrorists.
http://csua.org/u/ctp
\_ Total garbage. Don't waste your time reading this shit.
\_ I don't know, it is one opinion from someone actually there
in Iraq. I don't agree, but I don't think it is garbage. |
| 2005/7/22-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38775 Activity:high |
7/22 If the military is having such a horrible time finding new recruits,
why don't they just raise salaries/benefits? I think this was the
tact that the Clinton admin. took with the college scholarships
after military service. Also, I'm sure it would have helped
recruiting if the Bush administration hadn't pushed reservists
I meant "national guard"_/
into service in Iraq or extended the enlistment of soldiers
who were supposed to return home so that they would be forced to
stay in Iraq longer. I think you reap what you sow. -mrauser
http://csua.org/u/ctf
\_ Where does the money come from? Also, do you raise salary/benefits
across the board, or just for the new recruits? The former costs a
lot, the latter (or in the form of sign-on bonus) pisses off people
already in the service.
\_ They are. In the form of signing bonuses, for new recruits and
re-enlistment. Variable bonuses depending on MOS and experience,
just like in real life.
\_ In my home country, the best and the brightest work in or around
the government sector, and the really good people who don't,
already applied to those government positions. I hate to insult
military men on motd but it seems to me that this country is
run completely reversed. Perhaps to compete with the powerful
industry of America, the US military branches should offer stock
options (ticker: ARMY, NAVY, USAF). For every unit of resource we
pillage from another country, the military stock price goes up.
\_ I'm glad you think we still went into Iraq to pillage their oil.
Oil prices sure are at an all-time low. I bet you even think
Vietnam was a military action for pillaging. I'm glad you
disparage one of the fundamental engines of capitalism, the stock
market, and compare that with a constitutionally-required service.
Your grasps of these facts surely make you the best candidate to
advise the military on recruitment, and what the heck, run the country.
advise the military on recruitment, and what the heck, run the
country.
\_ ohh, I'm sorry. we are there for WMDs... I forgot about that.
Wait... was this about WMDs?
\_ USMC.
\_ I do not think tha this will help because I think that the problem
w/ recruitment is indicative of larger societal problems - (1) most
people don't feel that it is their job to defend america, thus
they see no need to volunteer for service and (2) most people see
no personal benefit from miltary service.
Additionally with the success of technology in the battlefield
the historical perception that a large standing army (navy, &c.)
is not needed during peace-time has been reinforced.
I would contend that this is not peacetime, its just that most
people haven't realized that (in no small part b/c of TPTB).
Sadly, unless something happens that affects the direct survival
of each and every person in this country, there will likely be
no change in present attitudes. One prays that by then it will
not be too late for the republic.
\_ By "something happens" perhaps you mean "a real threat happens"?
My guess is people aren't signing up because they know damn
well they would not be contributing to the safety of the US,
or of the world. That they're just there as a policing force
to contain a massive fuckup.
\_ It is certainly plausible to think of 9/11 a one time
occurance, but I see it more as the latest in a series
of calculated strikes against the West and Democracy
in general by radical Islam (do not forget the orig. WTC
bombing, USS Cole bombing and the US Embassy bombings).
Also, I think that by focusing on WMDs and Iraq the
real threat that Iraq under Saddam posed is being missed.
IMO, after the fall of Afganistan, the only countries in
the region w/ any infrastructure to support AQ were Iraq
and Libya w/ Iraq being the more logical choice for AQ
to run to b/c it could be reached quickly by land routes.
To "liberate" Iraq was essential in order to prevent AQ
from regrouping and rearming.
Under normal wartime circumstances, there would be no
dispute that the CinC could authorize an invasion to halt
the enemy. The problem here is that the traditional
notions of war are built on the assumption that the enemy
is a nation-state, not an organization - which is why the
invasion of Iraq is not seen by many as a separate action
rather than a new "front" in the war.
I also do not see Iraq as a massive screw up. I did not
think that in my lifetime I would see any hope of a demo-
cratic Iraq. Now there is some hope. Yes it is not perfect,
yes it might have been better managed, BUT it is still
a TREMENDOUS accomplishment. Rome wasn't built in a day.
\_ If they hadn't stolen Florida 2000 and then followed up
by robbing Ohio 2004, none of this ever would've happened.
\_ I fail to see how the current administration had
anything to do w/ either the original WTC attack,
the USS Cole bombing or the Embassy bombings. 9/11
would have likely have happened under Gore's watch
as well.
The difference, I think, is that Gore's response
would have been akin to "peace in our time."
While I would hardly characterize the current
administrations handling of the war as stellar,
at least they recognize that we are at war and
are trying to fight it rather than deny it all
together. |
| 2005/7/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38768 Activity:kinda low |
7/22 Rep. Tancredo (R-CO) says that we shouldn't rule out bombing
Mecca if the terrorists nuke us:
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3937059,00.html
[ Go Crazy! ]
\_ Wow, they like to make 'em crazy up in Colorado. It's just too bad
Hunter Thompson was never elected sheriff of Aspen.
\_ If I was a Muslim who believed that there was nothing more important
than Mecca, then I would be working hard to make sure my country
was building up a big arsenal of nukes.
\_ Paul Harvey said something similar a week ago.
http://nihlist.blogspot.com/2005/06/no-one-ever-accused-paul-harvey-of.html - danh
http://nihlist.blogspot.com/2005/06/no-one-ever-accused-paul-harvey-of.html
- danh
\_ Yes but Harvey is not an elected representative of the people of CO
(or anywhere else AFAIK).
\_ The reason this is stupid is nuking Mecca is not a terrorist
deterrent. Terrorists couldn't give a shit about Mecca. If
anything, the destruction of Mecca will help them. Actual Muslim
states might care, but it's unclear how much extra pressure this
kind of rhetoric puts on them. -- ilyas
\_ If nuking xyz _was_ a terrorist deterrent, would you do it?
\_ Would I nuke something as a deterrent? Do you know what a
deterrent is? -- ilyas |
| 2005/7/21-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38758 Activity:nil |
7/21 Iraq war fatalities
http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html
\_ I'm so glad the Internet did not exist during previous wars.
It's so easy for us to sit here and make something "apolitical"
about the significance of a "human death" as to give us the
feeling of "importance" over our government. When the reality
is, war and dying is the very nature of manunkind.
\_ It's funny that the people that say these kinds of things don't
react quite the same when it's not just "others" dying.
\_ Enlisted Air National Guard. And you? You live in the
delusion that you will die a nice quiet life in your bed
of old age. There are no guarantees of that.
\_ There is a kernel of conservative truth in this troll!
Feed troll at your own risk. |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38710 Activity:nil |
7/19 Biased source, but Rove may not have told the FBI about Matt Cooper
at all in 2003:
http://csua.org/u/crt (prospect.org) |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38704 Activity:nil |
7/19 Iraqi blogger kidnapped by mukhabarat (new Iraqi secret police):
http://csua.org/u/cr8 (raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com)
\_ Oh no.. secret police. |
| 2005/7/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38701 Activity:high |
7/19 Iraqi Prime Minister praises the late Ayotollah Khomeini:
http://csua.org/u/crd (Tehran Times)
Also lays wreath on Khomeini's grave:
http://csua.org/u/cre (Gulf Times)
\_ This is surprising because?? Do you even know the results of
the last 'election' there?
\_ I just think that it's ironic. The Iraqi government we are
propping up as a "model of democracy" is praising the guy that
engineered the 1979 hostage crisis.
\_ Betcha you didn't think it was ironic we were protecting
Shias in the south and north under Klinton.
\_ Nice red herring.
\_ Splitting up Iraq into Shiiteland, Sunniland,
and Kurdland might be a good idea. - danh
\_ How about Future Land and Frontier Land too? And signs
that say "You have to be this tall to..."?
\_ It is, in a way, but you might want to look up "Mohammed
Mossadegh", "Kermit Roosevelt" and "Reza Pahlavi" to get a bit
of insight into why things worked out the way they did, and
why certain people feel about certain other people in certain
ways. -John
\_ You mean the US engineered coup that installed the Shah.
Yes, that's an additional layer of irony.
\_ You can thank Eisenhower for that ... Kissing the
Brit's ass.
\_ Uhhhhh. No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
\_ Uhhhhh. Yes. Eisenhower was Prez, and the
British got us to overthrow the government
because they were going to lose their
insanely profitable oil monopoly in Iran.
\_ You have a poor understanding of history.
What part of "anti-Communist" do you
not understand?
\_ you guys still don't get it.. still blind by our wrong
decisions in the past. Despite Khomeini, Shia is not the
problem. The problem lies extreme militant arm of Sunnis,
which the epic center is in *SAUDI ARABIA*. If you guys
have the slightest knowledge of what Saudi is teaching
to their children, you guys would agree with me that
to fight terrorism, you have to deal with SAUDI ARABIA,
not secular government such as Hussien's Iraq!
\_ It's militant Sunnis and Shias. The Shia side of it just
happens to have originated around a single issue (Israel
and US/Western support for Israel). Iran supports or has
supported Hamas and Hezbollah, I'm not sure about Islamic
Jihad. They've at the very least actively encouraged the
Badr Brigades and SCIRI. -John
\_ Billmon has a funny photoshop related to this:
http://billmon.org/archives/002030.html |
| 2005/7/18-19 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38694 Activity:nil |
7/18 http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm Good stuff on that website. -- ilyas \_ Hmm, that's an interesting site. I'll have to read it through when I have more time. Thanks for posting it, ilya. -mice |
| 2005/7/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38673 Activity:nil |
7/16 Control Room-- this award winning 2003 documentary tells the story
of the war in Iraq from all perspectives, from the US to Arab media.
Many of the challenges are shared by journalists everywhere. They
are all under pressure to spin the story to their employers' wishes.
This is fine and troubling film that challenges all our perceptions.
Highly recommended. Control Room, now my favorite documentary of all
time, MUST SEE NOW: http://tinyurl.com/bjde3 (amazon.com)
\_ Don't forget: If you're an American and you claim that military
personnel blew up the TV station employee on purpose, you might
get in trouble.
\_ I'd shut your mouth unless you are eager to get bombed
accidentally by the smart bombs. -USAF
\_ I'm glad both you hate our military so much. When have you
ever cared about someone else when it didn't involve $?
\_ I don't hate the military -- far from it. I'm just warning
other sodans that, you might get in trouble if you're an
American and you claim that U.S. military personnel blew
up a TV station employee on purpose. I assume you've
watched the movie? |
| 2005/7/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38663 Activity:nil |
7/16 Iraq will be a cakewalk (blast from the past):
http://csua.org/u/cqe |
| 2005/7/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38618 Activity:high |
7/14 "A suicide car bomb exploded next to US troops handing out candy and
toys yesterday, killing 27 people, including 18 children and
teenagers. A suicide car bomb exploded next to US troops handing out
candy and toys yesterday, killing 27 people, including 18 children and
teenagers."
http://csua.org/u/cpn (boston.com)
\_ It's odd that they didn't include "1 US soldier" in the "including"
list.
\_ Yeah, I saw that, just in case you thought for a millisecond that
these suicide bombers weren't total human slime.
\_ Just read an interesting article reinforcing the point that
(a) the "western world"'s response to "terrorism" (no you can't
fight terrorism, it's neither a group nor an ideology, just a
method) is self-defeating, as it undermines what sets "us" apart
from "them", and more significantly, that (b) it's being seen
as fighting criminal incidents while "they" are seeing this as no
less than a global war. Now if someone can come up exactly with
who "they" are, we win. -John
\_ It's just upsetting beyond words.
\_ There's probably a surat that says somewhere that innocent
children killed in jihad, go directly to heaven. I'm not
saying it's cool, but it's the justification their dark overlords
use.
\_ My acquaintance serving in Iraq said that there were always many
threats directed against kids that accepted gifts from American
soldiers.
\_ The main thing I'm concerned about is whoever was stupid enough not
to think suicide bombers would kill children too. Duh. Everyone
manning those two humvees that wasn't guarding an angle is
partially responsible. Yes, you don't have to tell me that the
suicide bomber is ultimately responsible.
\_ You're an idiot.
\_ You're the idiot, idiot.
\_ "Everyone manning those two humvees that wasn't guarding
an angle is partially responsible." That's quite
possibly the dumbest thing ever written on the motd
and that's saying a lot.
\_ Your new post still doesn't suggest to me that you're
not an idiot. Give it a rest. You think I'm saying
something that I'm actually not saying.
Let me spoon feed it to you. Remember that story a
couple days ago about how a lot of recruits got blown
up by a suicide bomber while waiting in line?
Those recruits were protected by tall concrete
barriers. The suicide bomber was dropped off at a
gap in the barriers, where he squeezed through and
blew up. In the same vein, whoever was responsible
for setting up that barrier system is partially
responsible for those deaths. And ... you don't need
to tell me the suicide bomber is ultimately
responsible.
\_ Your utter ignorance of military tactics and
situations combined with your uniquely retarded
method of assigning blame labels you a complete
and total idiot.
\_ Like I said, you still think I'm saying something
that I'm not saying. I still haven't quite spoon
fed it entirely to you, yet, though.
Has it occurred to you that, "Everyone manning
those two humvees that wasn't guarding an angle",
might actually equal 0 individuals, especially
in the context of the sentence preceding that
one?
\_ Seriously, man -- you need to do a little
more research before you can sound off in a
convincing manner. You really are showing
a lack of knowledge about the situation on
the ground. The other guy is being kind of
abrasive (to put it mildly), but he does
have a point in there somewhere.
\_ Dude, you're a putz and not worth my
time. Reread what you wrote and not what
you think you wrote.
\_ I already did, and you obviously haven't
gotten the point yet or are trolling.
Thanks for nothing, buddy.
If you really want to be serious you could
take a poll on whether the ideas I put
forward are "possibly the dumbest thing
ever written on the motd", but I think you
already have doubts about what the results
would be, and would just say, "You're a
putz and you're not worth my time".
putz and not worth my time".
\_ You're both fucking putzes.
\_ Not sure about that, but you've added
yourself to the list, although you
should be credited for being succinct
\_ Why don't we go right to where the real fault lies?
To the parents of the people who got blown up. If
they hadn't procreated in the first place, then
there wouldn't even be someone to get blown up! |
| 2005/7/13-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38606 Activity:high |
7/13 25 years! Jacques de Molay, you are avenged!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4680221.stm
\- if i were king, i would approve.
\_ Partha, you will always remain our Once and Future motd king.
\_ You can't imagine how depressed it makes me to realize psb
turned out to to have a soul of a small time oriental despot.
-- ilyas
\- i guess STALIN makes POL POT look small time? although
if you measure in terms of fraction of your country
killed, mr. pot does pretty well. you may also wish to
see the War of the Triple Alliance.
see War of the Triple Alliance.
\_ I think the only distinction between Pol Pot and
Stalin was that Stalin was placed in a position
where a wider application of power was possible,
not any sort of tangible moral difference. -- ilyas
\- i wasnt not talking about moral difference.
i was a little surprised pol pot is considered
"small time" in ilyas world. BTW, i think you
are misunderstanding my somewhat tongue in cheek
comment about pol pot. but i am touched my your
disillusionment with me. --psb
\_ Well, I asked you once if you were kidding.
You said you weren't. Are you tongue in cheek
or not? Words mean things, etc. -- ilyas
\- roughly this is what i mean: if i were a
absolute despot, i think i would be
inclined to somewhat arbitrarily punish
people whose lifestyles i disapproved of.
this doesnt mean people who wear glasses
or engage in sodomy or other thing violating
dogmatic views of morality but people i
consider decadent. spending $6000 on a
shower curtain would merit punishment.
\_ Well, that might make you better than
Pol Pot or Stalin, who had somewhat broader
tests for applications of power. On the
other hand, to paraphrase someone I know,
who are you to tell me how big a car I
should drive or how big the breasts of my
wife should be, etc? Is this grounded in
aesthetics for you or what? -- ilyas
\_ So when's the marriage to Linsey
Dawn McKenzie, ilyas?
\_ What is this person famous for,
other than having large boobs?
\_ Use google and find out!
\_ What's it like to go through life
without a sense of humor?
\_ I asked him twice if he is joking
or not. I don't think he's joking
anymore, I think he really would
put 'plutocrats' and 'degenerates'
to the torch. The joke's on you.
-- ilyas
\_ hey, you just stomped on dan's
post, and you use vi.
\- i didnt say degenerates
or plutocrats. i wouldnt have
bill gates killed. i would
have the decadent punished
not preverts and all rich
people. trump gets put in
concrete and urinated upon.
bill gates just gets anti-
trust enforcement. --psb
\_ Anyways, sense of humor
guy, I await your apology.
(Btw, sorry for stomping
your post dan, if it was
me). -- ilyas
\- i think you are lacking
a sense of humor about
this too. but maybe it
is because you have
some trauma associated
with growing up in
russia? i can understand
somebody from cambodia
not thinking this is a
good way to make a point
\_ Look partha, I am going
to put this as kindly
as I can. Why have you
been yanking my chain
for 2 threads now?
Is this how you troll?
If you claim to be
serious then I assume
you are, and sense of
humor is not an issue.
I guess what I learned
today is I can't take
any answer of yours
seriously, which is
also kind of
depressing. This
whole "I was joking
after all" thing is
pure wankery on your
part, imo. -- ilyas
\-was not intending
to yank your chain.
although now i am
sort of amused.
i think it is an
interesting state
of affiars to say
that i would get
more milage out of
punishing people
than say looting
the country if i
were given the
keys to the kingdom.
do you love pushkin? |
| 2005/7/13-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38601 Activity:moderate |
7/13 So Molly Ivins makes another mistake in her retraction (but to her
credit she did retract it):
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/23493
She claims: "The high-end estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths in this war
is 100,000, according to a Johns Hopkins University study published in
the British medical journal The Lancet last October, but I was sticking
to the low-end, most conservative estimates because I didn't want to be
accused of exaggeration."
But the study she's citing didn't determine whether people who died
were civilians or not, right?
\_ No. it didn't. It studied Iraqi deaths. period. Thus, the number
includes Iraqis who normally would have died of natural causes.
\_ What the hell is the "Lancet"? I've never heard of it, and I'm
pretty sure I've heard of everything. This sounds like something
only NERDS have heard of. Is that a TV show?
\_ No. it didn't. It studied Iraqi deaths. period. But the 98k
estimate was extra-deaths beyond those Iraqis who normally would
have died of natural causes, estimated excluding Falluja deaths.
Additionally, the study concluded 98,000(iirc) deaths during the
time period studied (approx. the first year or so). IOW,
currently, the death count should be about ~200k. -nivra
currently, the death count should be about ~140k. -nivra
\_ First, I'd like to thank you for correcting my (mistaken)
objections the the Lancet study's statistics. Second, I don't
objections wrt the Lancet study's statistics. Second, I don't
think it's reasonable to do a linear extrapolation to 200K now.
-emarkp
\_ Oops. My original extrapolation showed 140k deaths - straight
proportion from iraqbodycount. I pulled 200k out of my ass.
FWIW, here are deaths from IraqBodyCount: -nivra
up till 3/20/03: 4221 - 5406 (major combat operations)
3/21/03 - 9/20/04: 11740 - 12908 (up thru lancet study)
9/21/04 - 7/02/05: 6877 - 7555 (post-lancet study)
\_ I agree with nivra - Ivins misinterprets the report.
But, her 20K number may actually be accurate:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database
It's too bad the military doesn't record this data, or there might
be a list of civilian deaths caused by U.S. action in descending
order, sortable by military ID and COs. E.g., PFC x is responsible
for 5 confirmed civilian deaths along with 10 confirmed kills,
LTG y is responsible for this many and that many for all under his
or her command. The military loves data, normally.
\_ Hardly. 20k, no matter which way you hack it, is grossly under-
estimating. Most of this has been hashed out between emarkp and
I in the past, but the lancet study is accurate, if not precise.
So use their low end confidence numbers(eg. from the first
quartile). if you want, that still gives you over 2x the number
dead. -nivra
\_ Yeah, I should rewrite that to "20K number may actually be
accurate as a low-end figure for civilian deaths caused by
both insurgent attacks and coalition activity"
both insurgent and coalition activity"
\_ Ok, I looked up the kais motd thread:
http://csua.com/?entry=38205
At 75% confidence, you can state there have been 108k
Iraqi deaths since the war started. At 90% confidence,
you can state there have been 65k Iraqi deaths since the
war started. (Again, estimates do not include Falluja
deaths due to massive outlier status)
\_ Yeah, yeah, I know. The Lancet report talks about total
extra deaths including combatants and civilians as you
noted. I'm talking about 20K as a low-end figure for
civilians only.
Even that 20K number is probably a lot higher, but
we're talking low-end, and civilians only, right.
Anyways, I know pro-war people would have big issues
with lumping in deaths caused by insurgent bombs too.
\-the only think worse than listening to unfunny and
fat molly ivins is listening to unfunny and fat
jeaninnie garafolo. |
| 2005/7/13-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38597 Activity:nil |
7/13 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28385-2003Jun24 One theory is that Miller is the leaker. My theory is that she works for the CIA on WMD, and that's why she knew Plame. \_ That's a stupid "theory." Actually, its a "wild assed guess," probably spread around in attempt at FUD. \_ The CIA does not use journalist as a cover except in extreme circumstances. New York City does not qualify. |
| 2005/7/13-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38594 Activity:low |
7/13 "I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162335,00.html
\_ stop stomping.
\_ stop stomping other people's posts.
\_ That's as silly as giving George Tenet a medal ... Oh wait ... |
| 2005/7/12-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38578 Activity:nil |
7/12 Still think there's no connection between Hussein and Bin Laden?
Think again! http://tinyurl.com/ckl7g (freeper)
\_ "I would characterize it as sort of an on again, off again
relationship. I mean, I don't think these guys were buddies by
any stretch of the imagination, but they viewed each other as
something that could be exploited." That's it? You are crowing
about that? Pathetic. |
| 2005/7/12-14 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38576 Activity:nil |
7/12 What You Don't Know About Guantanamo Bay And What the MSM
Won't Tell You: http://tinyurl.com/ajkk7 (freeper link)
\_ The silence is a bit deafening about the three senators who visited
gitmo and said it's run very well.
\_ Spin spin spin little Freeper. I notice you still haven't
commented on your favorite traitor Rove. |
| 2005/7/12-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38571 Activity:low |
7/12 What's up with the freeper going nutzoid today?
\_ today and every day. I think the fear of Rove being outed
has driven him over the edge.
\_ It's not only Rove, it's whoever fed the info to Rove, since
\_ It's not only Rove, it's whomever fed the info to Rove, since
there's no reason Rove would know it on his own. -tom
\_ There will be others. If you can't beat him, destroy him
should be your motto.
\_ You know that strange feeling you are having? It is
called cognitive dissonance. I know it sucks to find
out that your Republican heros are scoundrels, just
like all the other politicians, but that is just
the way it is. The sooner you admit it to yourself
the better off you will be.
\_ Only those who died for their country are heros.
\_ The idea is not to die for your country but to make the
other guy die for his.
\_ "The object of war is not to die for your country but to
make the other bastard die for his." --Patton |
| 2005/7/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38535 Activity:nil |
7/11 God Bless those who are around me here keeping me safe:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440780/posts [jblack] |
| 2005/7/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38532 Activity:nil |
7/11 The Mother of All Connections - Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
http://csua.org/u/cod [jblack]
\_ "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved
with the September 11th"
\_ A bunch of unverified crap from a bunch of Iraqi nationals
with an ax to grind. Hasn't the Weekly Standard discredited
itself enough peddling the WMD lies two years ago?
\_ Yeah, I saw that on http://freerepublic.com too.
Even they made comments about how incredibly long/dense it was.
\_ so we invaded Iraq because some dude got an ak-47? Where
do you live? I want to kill you
\_ Bring it on. I live in Berkeley (920 Keeler Avenue)
and my number is 510-527-2588
\_ Haha, pwnt!
\_ Stunning. How much study does it take to be this stupid? |
| 2005/7/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38531 Activity:nil |
7/11 War is peace. War abroad keeps terrorist away from our homeland:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440757/posts [jblack]
\_ Better yet, just kill all pesky America-hating towelheads. -John |
| 2005/7/11-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38524 Activity:nil |
7/11 So now that we know Rove is the leaker, any bets on whether Bush will
actually follow through on his own statements that anyone involved in
the leak should be fired?
\_ He said that anyone who did anything illegal would "be dealt with".
\_ "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody
in my administration who leaked classified information.
If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like
to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."
\_ Its pretty funny to see how http://foxnews.com and http://cnn.com are
covering all of this. Its huge news, and all of the headlines
are about Bush's platitudes on the London bombings.
\_ here are some amusing, admittedly slanted commentary
on Fox's anchors comments about the bombing:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/205.html -danh
\_ my bad, I wasn't sure if it was "be dealt with" or something
else. But I'm pretty sure the verbiage has changed from
"leak classified information" to committing an "illegal" act.
You know, like how "WMDs" changed to "WMD related programs"?
You know, like how "WMDs" changed to "WMD related program
activities"?
\_ Make that "knowingly leak classified information." Rove
is using the "I didn't inhale" defense.
\_ Oh. So Rove gets s spanking? The least they could do is make
it a public spanking.
\_ Can we get the Bush twins to substitute in for Rove for
the public spanking? I don't want to see Rove's pasty
white flabby butt, thank you. |
| 2005/7/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38512 Activity:nil 66%like:38536 |
7/10 Real lesson of Vietnam
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson070405.html -jblack |
| 2005/7/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38464 Activity:moderate |
7/7 If only the CIA didn't fuck it up by telling Dubya that Saddam had WMDs
... then we might actually have caught Osama, had Afghanistan as a
beacon of post-9/11 success and a template for international
cooperation, and had reserve forces at home ready for real threats.
Instead ... U.S. soldiers are in Iraq saying "We don't fucking have
enough troops" and Dubya's people are saying "We won't send any more
fucking troops because it will make things worse", enabling terrorists
to get trained and exported from Iraq. SNAFU. Doh.
\_ I think gwbush made up his mind about invading Iraq long
before any intelligence from the CIA got to him, I think it's
dumb to blame the CIA
\_ Indeed, Bush was talking about invading Iraq as far back as
1999.
\_ Well, that's certainly an opinion held by many Americans, just
like the opinion that Dubya relied on intelligence that was dead
wrong. I could see the latter group calling your opinion dumb,
which doesn't get us anywhere. -op
\_ Take a look throught these essays, letters, and editorials:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm
Several of them are signed by both Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, and
they wanted to invade Iraq since 1998 or before. For better
or for worse, they planned this war long before 9/11.
\_ The CIA didn't fuck up, they did exactly what they were ordered to
do -- they told Dubya what he wanted to hear ; what he wanted them
to tell him.
\_ Yes the world would be safer with Saddam in power. Al-queda would
leave the West alone. And we all sing kum-by-a around the fire
place at night.
\_ Yawn. Your sarcasm is misplaced.
\_ We are definitely not singing kum-by-a now after removal of
Saddam.
\_ Whether Saddam supported terrorism or not, it's no great
stretch to imagine terrorists taking refuge in Iraq with
Saddam's blessing.
\_ I can imagine you storing 5 golf balls up your ass,
does that make it true?
\_ !AQ. There were ideological differences between the two
that could not be reconciled.
\_ Yes, but now we don't have to imagine it.
\_ I can imagine all kinds of things, but I think we should
deal with real threats, not imaginary ones.
\_ Saddam had the perfect reason to not allow terrorists
within his borders. They would have been the perfect
reason to invade/continue to deny sactions/stop the
oil-for-food sales.
\_ Do you actually think capturing OBL would be good? It would only
turn him into a martyr and rally support around him. The best
thing we could possibly do is keep him contained and let him
fade into obscurity IMO.
\_ That's because you're an idiot.
\_ No.
\_ No, the best thing we could do is to convert to Islam. That
way he will be less inclined to attack us. We should also
hide Korans in all major terrorist targets. That way, when
they are blown up the burning Korans will fly out everywhere
and land in gutters &c. Then we can denounce bin Laden,
exploder of Korans.
\_ Doesn't work. Muslim terrorists blow up mosques full of
Korans all the time. It's only bad if an infidel
accidently holds on with one hand. That's way worse. |
| 2005/7/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38457 Activity:high |
7/7 LONDON'S BURNING
\_ Nuked again. You're a moron. I did not write this, and
I will continue to put this here. Keep it up. -John
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4659243.stm -John
\_ Don't you just love CNN's tasteless "WE JUST WANTED TO DIE"
headline?
\_ http://CNN.com is definitely the most tabloidy of the major
online news sites. Even http://foxnews.com is respectable.
Is it bad then if http://CNN.com is the 10th most visited web site
in the entire world?
\_ I just got through to my cousin in London. She said that
every line through King's Cross was affected. She normally
takes a train that passes through King's Cross around 8:45
AM but today she was late for work and missed the train.
Thank god. --ranga
\- you know about half the lines go through King's X/Pancras
routing cloud.
\_ I'll take your word for it. I've only been to London
once and I didn't really pay attention to the tube
stations other than the ones I absolutely needed to
know about.
Anyway, my cousin says that the news over there still
isn't saying which train(s) the bombs were on but
that several trains in and out of Kings Cross were
damaged by the bombs. I'm just glad that she wasn't
anywhere near there today. --ranga
\_ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/07/tube_explosions
...three explosions on tube trains between Aldgate and
Liverpool St, at Edgware Road and between Russell Square
and King's Cross...
...There was also an explosion on a Number 30 bus -
travelling from Hackney to Marble Arch - in Tavistock Square...
\- if it went off in Tav. Sq, that is near the Russell Sq. Stn.
Marble Arch is not close to that area. If you know London
slighly, one was north of the City of London, two north of
the British Museum and one near Paddington Station.
\_ Sounds like everyone I know should be okay, then, although
I can't even imagine the transit nightmare that they are
dealing with at the moment - how many millions of people
use the tube every day? --lye
\_ Apparently the bus system is also shut...
\_ I can't tell exactly which tube lines were bombed and where. I have
several friends in London and I'm wondering if they were affected.
--lye
\_ Goddammit. None of the American media seem to care WHERE the
bombs were, just that they happened. --lye
\_ And this because we "invaded" 2 Arab countries? How can you people
continue to believe this is not a matter of us vs. them?
\_ "You people?" Can we at least wait until the fucking blood is
dry before starting the trolling and flame wars? Fucking
christ on a stick.
\_ The blood's been dry since 9/11
\_ Don't you just love CNN's tasteless "WE JUST WANTED TO DIE"
headline?
\_ I just got through to my cousin in London. She said that
every line through King's Cross was affected. She normally
takes a train that passes through King's Cross around 8:45
AM but today she was late for work and missed the train.
Thank god. --ranga
\- you know about half the lines go through King's X.
\- you know about half the lines go through King's X/Pancras
routing cloud.
\_ I'll take your word for it. I've only been to London
once and I didn't really pay attention to the tube
stations other than the ones I absolutely needed to
know about.
Anyway, my cousin says that the news over there still
isn't saying which train(s) the bombs were on but
that several trains in and out of Kings Cross were
damaged by the bombs. I'm just glad that she wasn't
anywhere near there today. --ranga
\_ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/07/tube_explosions
\_ Map with blasts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659957.stm
\_ And this because we "invaded" 2 Arab countries? How can you people
continue to believe this is not a matter of us vs. them?
\_ "You people?" Can we at least wait until the fucking blood is
dry before starting the trolling and flame wars? Fucking
christ on a stick.
\_ The blood's been dry since 9/11
\_ Oh give it a rest. Try to have some respect for the dead.
\_ Who is denying that it's a matter of us vs. them? I think the
main point of the reality-based community is that we should be
pursuing terrorists, not trumping up reasons to invade
countries with secular governments and no ties to terrorists.
-tom
\_ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/07/tube_explosions
...three explosions on tube trains between Aldgate and
Liverpool St, at Edgware Road and between Russell Square
and King's Cross...
...There was also an explosion on a Number 30 bus -
travelling from Hackney to Marble Arch - in Tavistock Square...
\- if it went off in Tav. Sq, that is near the Russel Sq. Stn.
marble arch is not close to that location. if you know london
\- if it went off in Tav. Sq, that is near the Russell Sq. Stn.
marble arch is not close to that area. if you know london
slighly, one was north of the City of London, two north of
the British Museum and one near Paddington Station.
\_ Sounds like everyone I know should be okay, then, although
I can't even imagine the transit nightmare that they are
dealing with at the moment - how many millions of people
use the tube every day? --lye
\_ Apparently the bus system is also shut...
\_ The Taliban govt was a secular govt?
\_ No, I supported the action in Afghanistan and thought
it was foolish to split our efforts by invading Iraq.
We still have something like 5-10 times the number of
troops in Iraq compared to Afghanistan. -tom
\_ I know what you're trying to say, but both the Tablian
and Iraq had well known ties to terrorists. Sheesh.
\- ^Iraq^Pakistan
\_ umm... hello... Iraq had no fucking ties with Al-Qaeda,
and no fucking ties with 9/11. I can't believe you're
just wildly spewing baseless talking points.
\_ I don't recall saying "Al-Qaeda" or "9/11."
Saddam pays Palestinian Suicide Bombers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
\_ oooh... palestinian terrorist support. Do you
have any idea how many arab countries have given
money and support to palestinians over the years?
Why aren't we invading them? Why don't we invade
Pakistan and their support of terrorism in Kashmir?
For fuck's sake, you want to go rooting out
regional terrorism in every part of the known world.
\_ Seesh, are you being trollish on purpose? As
I said, I know what tom meant, and I even
agree, invading Iraq wasn't exactly a
brilliant idea. All I said was that the
statement "[Iraq had] no ties to terrorists"
is factually incorrect.
\_ Apologies for jumping down your throat. Your
original statement lumped both Iraq and Afgh.
into the same group, and they clearly aren't.
\_ What terrorists did Iraq have well-known ties to?
The rest of the world has no idea what you're talking
about.
\- Abu Nidal lived in Baghdad. Iraq had terrorist
ties but not sig ties to the 9/11 effort.
If we dont limit to 9/11 lots of countries
have "terrorist ties".
\_ LOOK! It's a missing white girl on an island with
lots of black people! Oooo! Shiny!
\_ Good point. Also see: http://csua.org/u/cmq
\_ Including the US. Remember the Contras?
\_ Without *trying* to sound callow about all those wounded and
killed today, I think that if killing 40+ innocent civilians
is the best that Al Qaeda can do after months/years of planning
then the organization is weak indeed. One loon with a gun at
a McDonald's managed that. Britain is the US' best ally and
that's all they can come up with?
\- one theory about AQ is there are have little self-help cells
which come up with their own plans. so this may not have been
something with 100s of players behind the scenes. the IRA
bombing campaing didnt kill that many people but it sure
\_ Maybe not their bombing, but the IRA did kill 1500+
\- so did the israeli army.
affected a lot of people. this will certainly have repercussions.
\_ What they're saying is that what they did in Spain they could
do in London.
What you could be asking is, "What kind of security did they use
on those London trains, and how much does it differ from BART
security?"
You can assume Spain was the first time they tried something like
that, so they weren't ready for that shit.
\_ The goal of this form of terrorism isn't about killing the
enemy. It's about getting them to leave your people alone.
Numbers are important only because it gets attention. The London
bombings are just a little reminder that AQ is out there, a
spitwad in the back of the neck. Now comes the overreaction by
the English public (internal domestic retribution) and additional
self-doubt about policies in Iraq.
\_ So I guess it was an overreaction from the Spanish public and
additional self-doubt about policies in Iraq? Cowards!
\_ Domestic overreaction is great news for AQ. One of the
hardest things to do in espionage is to create a true mole,
someone who works on the inside of the opposition, but is
totally commited to your cause. The slightly disaffected
English Muslims can be pushed into an extremist position
if the English public reacts badly. The problem with
demanding an answer to 'us or them" are the people who
say "us" but no longer believe.
\_ I guess 9/11 really worked out well then from Al Qaeda's
point of view. We're leaving them alone more than ever
now.
\_ 9/11 was publicity. AQ played it badly in Afghanistan
when the Taliban couldn't control the warlords, but came
back when the Coalition invaded Iraq. AQ's ranks have
expanded with help from the percieved "new Western crusade"
against Islam. AQ's line has always been "leave us alone."
The problem WAS getting enough support to actually do it.
Now they are gaining new extremists who believe in the
cause.
\_ Even if they got zero recruits, there goal is not
to isolation. You can not reason with it.
\_ Sure you can. There is a compromise situation. It's
just unacceptable to a huge majority of the people it
would affect. The "us" mentioned above mean forcibly
creating a state of tens to hundreds of millions
similar to Afghanistan circa 2000, including many
Muslim holy places and all of Israel. It would make
"Jesusland" look like Las Vegas. |
| 2005/6/30-7/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:38374 Activity:kinda low |
6/30 Apparently, Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" sucks.
\_ I haven't seen a single Spielberg movie I didn't like. In fact
I haven't seen a single Jew-made production I didn't like.
You want proof that the Jews are better? Just turn on TV.
All the intelligent, funny, and likeable commentators, comedians,
writers, and producers are Jews. I wish I were a Jew.
-Not a Jew but TOTALLY worship them
\_ why not move to israel?
\_ suicide bombers
\_ Which are statistically less dangerous than driving in the
U.S.
\_ The motd racist idiot is back, yay!
\_ you should explain why it sucks
\_ I haven't seen it. I've just heard/read a buch of reviews,
and every single one panned it. I'm just a little
disappointed. Here's ebert:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050628/REVIEWS/50606007
\_ you got to give ebert nerd points for picking it apart for
lack of plausibility, and lines like "Three legs are
inherently not stable"
\_ Uh. Tripods are most stable on any varying surface. They're
not redundant, but they are definitely stable.
Now, if they're walking, three is inconvenient, but not
necessarily improbable.
\_ Yeah, I think the core of his argument is that it's less
realistic than Independence Day, and he's fucking pissed!
\_ Three legs walking are more than inconvenient. They just
don't work. John Christopher addressed this in his
Tripods books. He explained that they rotated as they
walked.
\_ Huh? Most of the reviews I saw were favorable. (NY Times, Chron)
-dans
\_ Huh, you're right, LATIMES liked it..
\_ Yes, and the Washington Post loved it
\_ 72% sucks?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_of_the_worlds
\_ I think I would dislike this movie so I will skip it. It seems
pretty stupid. And I don't really care for Cruise. And Spielberg's
stuff, well usually it's good but usually also annoys me in other
ways like having smarmy overly-sentimental scenes.
\_ I haven't seen a single Spielberg movie I didn't like. In fact
I haven't seen a single Jew-made production I didn't like.
You want proof that the Jews are better? Just turn on TV.
All the intelligent, funny, and likeable commentators, comedians,
writers, and producers are Jews. I wish I were a Jew.
-Not a Jew but TOTALLY worship them
\_ why not move to israel?
\_ suicide bombers
\_ Which are statistically less dangerous than driving in the
U.S.
\_ The motd racist idiot is back, yay!
\_ you should explain why it sucks
\_ I haven't seen it. I've just heard/read a buch of reviews,
and every single one panned it. I'm just a little
disappointed. Here's ebert:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050628/REVIEWS/50606007
\_ you got to give ebert nerd points for picking it apart for
lack of plausibility, and lines like "Three legs are
inherently not stable"
\_ Uh. Tripods are most stable on any varying surface. They're
not redundant, but they are definitely stable.
Now, if they're walking, three is inconvenient, but not
necessarily improbable.
\_ Yeah, I think the core of his argument is that it's less
realistic than Independence Day, and he's fucking pissed!
\_ Three legs walking are more than inconvenient. They just
don't work. John Christopher addressed this in his
Tripods books. He explained that they rotated as they
walked.
\_ Huh? Most of the reviews I saw were favorable. (NY Times, Chron)
-dans
\_ Huh, you're right, LATIMES liked it..
\_ Yes, and the Washington Post loved it
\_ 72% sucks?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_of_the_worlds
\_ I think I would dislike this movie so I will skip it. It seems
pretty stupid. And I don't really care for Cruise. And Spielberg's
stuff, well usually it's good but usually also annoys me in other
ways like having smarmy overly-sentimental scenes. |
| 2005/6/30-7/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38372 Activity:low |
6/30 "We need scarier troops! Call the Americans!" (in Haiti)
http://csua.org/u/ck3
\_ Why does the UN think American troops can suppress the armed gangs
in Haiti? We can't even do that in Iraq.
\_ Wow. That's so astute. Your years of military training, or
serving in a guerilla army must lead you to that conclusion.
I guess you forgot Operation Uphold Democracy.
\_ What about Operation Enduring Clusterfuck?
\_ What about it? When's the last time you went mountain
climbing daily?
\_ We have created an ever better training and breeding
ground for terrorists, says the (America hating) CIA:
http://csua.org/u/clg
\_ We will withdraw from Quagmire when the Quagmirians are
ready to clusterfuck themselves. |
| 2005/6/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38348 Activity:very high |
6/28 Analysis of Dubya's speech from the Washington Post:
"The address continued a shift in the administration's emphasis as it
has justified the Iraq war, beginning with the threat posed by
Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, continuing to the need
to promote democracy in the Middle East, and now suggesting a more
seamless link between Iraq and the attacks on American soil."
\_ "An outright lie mired in a mighty river of bullshit."
\_ Why? If all those reasons are bullshit, as you seem to imply, then
why *did* Bush want the war? So he could get the amazing
45% popularity he presently enjoys? So we could bring the price of
oil down to a comfortable 60$/barrel? I think Occam's Razor says
Bush means what he says, and simply fucked up. Repeatedly.
\_ He said to his biographer in '99 that he wanted to be a wartime
president so he could get the things he wanted to done. I think
he means what he says. I don't think he quite grasps the
repercussions of what he says. I think the war was to project
our power over the region, and to yield as much profit, political
and monetarily, as possible. "We're liberating Iraq's money.
Bring your duffel bag! Oh, and don't worry about armoring that
HMV... It's just a soldier."
\_ Occam's Razor says that the reasons espoused by the Project for
a New American Century (with signatories Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.)
which declared the importance of invading Iraq back in 1997,
are the reasons we invaded Iraq. Primarily their reason is
"because we can." -tom
\_ You make naive assumptions about Bush administration motivations.
\- i agree he fucked up. but when the fuckups constitute not
catching OBL, AbuG, making the american reputation take
a large hit, wasted money, people killed ... including
white american people ... well, it seems there should be
more than a "whoops". what more could BUSHCO have fuckedup
before they should have paid some consequences? yes, i dont
necessarily expect BUSHCO to have said "i will not accept
the nomination of my party because i am a fuckup" but i
would have hoped he american voter would have tossed him
out on his ass. instead we compare a person who was
actually within bullet range doring vietnam with a guy
passwd out under a a table in an alabama bar.
passed out under a a table in an alabama bar.
\_ That 45% or whatever is basically not of consequence. He still
won his election. And then one could consider that he and his
cronies have benefited from the situation at large.
Re: voter stupidity there's a good lecture I saw on ilyas's
"libertarian purity test" guy's web site:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/pubcho2.html
"Thus the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental
performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues
and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as
infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes a
primitive again."
"1. For many beliefs, ignorance or idiocy are very (privately)
costly. E.g., if you believe that you can do your job
perfectly well while intoxicated.
2. For many other beliefs, however, ignorance or idiocy are
(privately) costless. E.g., what practical difference does it
make if you don't believe in evolution?"
\_ Bush invades Iraq so he can stay in office and it
makes it seem like he's doing his job leading the
country while he and his cronies get to
continue exploiting us for power/money/influence.
\_ They're busy packing the ranks of non elected
and difficult to remove elected officials with slaves
to their philosophy so when gwbush resigns in disgrace,
it won't matter.
\_ A slave to a philosophy. What a lovely expression.
What does it mean, exactly? -- ilyas |
| 2005/6/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38346 Activity:high |
6/28 http://csua.org/u/cjf (Washington Post) Dubya talks to nation about need to win in Iraq, which I agree with. But the nation will remain divided, and unnecessarily, because Bush does not: (1) Be loud and clear about CIA's judgment that there were no WMD stockpiles nor active WMD programs, it being the number one reason we went in, and how the CIA did believe there was "no doubt". (2) Say we're there now, we made the above intelligence mistake, but we need to win for the sake of the people of Iraq who are being blown up by suicide bombers, for the sake of the world if Iraq devolves into a safe haven for those who would build and train people to use WMDs. (3) Say that we presented a case to the UN for which we had "no doubt", but actually there was a lot of doubt on. (4) Start using the UN correctly. As long as we do not do the above, the U.S. will not have come clean, and we will remain a divided nation. Yet, we may still win in Iraq. I hope at least that happens. \_ Come clean??? Hahaha...yeah, just like we did with Vietnam. When did we do that? \_ Well, Bubba came clean (finally) about Monica, didn't he? Nixon resigned rather than be impeached. Most people think OJ did it, and also understand how he got off. You can be /too/ cynical, you know. \_ Those were all bad examples, none of them "came clean". 2 of those examples were forced to admit their wrong doings after they were full public knowledge. You can't come clean on something where there is "clear" evidence against you (dna sample, tapes). Neither of them "came clean" when they had opportunities, only when the evidence came forth. And OJ never came clean, because again, no "clear" evidence against him (ie. witness). That's why Bush has not "come clean", because there is always the possibility that the WMDs were moved, still hidden, etc. When documents eventually come out that show he had knowledge there was no WMDs and that he had ulterior motives, he may be "forced" to admit his wrong doings (not come clean). \_ Note my points (1) and (2) don't say anything about Dubya having ulterior motives. |
| 2005/6/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38327 Activity:moderate |
6/27 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html "The American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began." \_ Oh... shocker! Let's go in when the enemy has some advantage. \_ Have you seen the memos? Y'know, the ones that said we'd need to find some way to make the war legal. That said maybe we could provoke a causus belli by pressing the Hussein regime. \_ let's bomb random countries! \_ I thought we'd been bombing them for years as they fired SAMs at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. |
| 2005/6/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38323 Activity:low |
6/27 http://csua.org/u/cj5 What is the penalty for War Profiteering? \_ $10,000 fine and no cookies before bedtime. \_ It's not profiteering nor illegal unless there are people in office who are not on your side. \_ And murder isn't murder if it's a hooker. |
| 2005/6/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38315 Activity:nil |
6/27 Pro-Iraq-War editorial:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006876
(login with: dontbug@coldmail.com)
\_ Eh, try Pro-Iraq-War editorial. And I think the assertion that
the insurgency lacks native roots is wishful thinking. I would
hope they were right, as their rosy conclusion is very comforting,
but I doubt they are.
\_ So the Journal is pro-war and biased in its reporting. What a
surprise.
\_ What, you don't believe the editorial and news are separate? So
long NYT then.
\_ Q: Did anyone here hear about the Sunni's signing on a few weeks
ago? I didn't hear a peep about it. Why is that?
\_ It was covered in http://latimes.com, http://nytimes.com, http://washingtonpost.com.
Probably http://CNN.com, but it got outplayed by even more people
blowing up more often.
\_ It is amusing to watch the pro-war crowd switch from trash
talking to the blame game. They are trying to pin their failures
on everyone but themselves now.
\_ They should add this quote too to the top:
"If this does go on for four, eight, 10, 12, 15 years -- whatever
-- and I agree with General Myers, we don't know -- it is going to
be a problem for people of Iraq." -Def Sec Rumsfeld (June 23 2005)
If one side is saying the insurgency is in its last throes, which
it isn't, and the other side says this is bullshit, I think we can
conclude that the WSJ editorial board is bullshitting us too.
If they wanted to be more honest, they could just say, "Listen, VP
Cheney lied to us, but it's your patriotic duty to focus on only
the positive developments in Iraq and to not call something
bullshit even if it is." |
| 2005/6/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:38299 Activity:high |
6/24 Well, we wouldn't want our documentary to come to any conclusions
we don't like....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429939/posts
\_ don't you just hate it when documentary producers go in with
an agenda of supressing the African lion's evil, man-eating,
eco-system destroying predatory aspects? Such bias. |
| 2005/6/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38298 Activity:very high |
6/24 $8.8B in Food For Oil money missing:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1427771/posts
\_ It is not controversial unless the UN steals it. |
| 2005/6/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:38297 Activity:nil |
6/24 Someone was asking for attribution for this quote:
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values
or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized
violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
This is from Samuel P. Huntington, a political scientist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington
\- The explosion with Serge Lang [occasional UCB Math] was kind of
funny. It ocurred about when Kenneth Waltz [fmr UCB Political Sci.]
was the President of the American Political Science Assn. There
are definitely some social scientists who got carried away with
things like game theory or chaos theory, including pretty prominent
people. Waltz is a great prof, and this controversy put him in an
awkward situation. BTW, for an well-thought out and not super
difficult or specialized theory of the sources of inter-state
conflict see Waltz59: Man, the State, and War. It disagrees with
ideas such as "dominating source of conflict will be cultural"
from Huntington. |
| 2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38224 Activity:nil |
6/21 US 'concealing' Saddam's secrets
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4115976.stm
\_ The world needs to know Saddam's brand of undies! |
| 2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38218 Activity:nil |
6/21 Tim Russert interviews VP Cheney on his predictions on post-war Iraq
prior to the invasion http://csua.org/u/cg6 (Post)
\_ It's amusing how quiet the motd conservatives are now that they've
been shown to be wrong in so many ways.
\_ We've learned that there's no point trying to discuss things
rationally with crazy wing-nut lefties who don't give a shit
about facts. -conservative
\_ Facts that are verifiably untrue don't help in a rational
discussion.
\_ "Ah. I'll have to think about that more carefully. That
does suggest a problem in my reasoning." -emarkp
(From yesterday's thread)
\_ w00+! +5 points for using someone's desire to learn
and be rational as an insult!
\_ hey, it's not a crack @ emarkp. At least he gives
"a shit about facts," unlike the previous nutjob
conservative above. -nivra
\_ Yeah, you could scarcely conceal your glee on
wall though. You are pathetic.
\_ Wow. anonymous ad-hominem attacks. I'm honored.
-nivra
\_ There was no attempt to insult. I will spoon-feed it
to you:
"there's no point to discuss things rationally with
crazy wing-nut lefties" conservative guy wrote.
Yesterday, emarkp (another conservative guy) was
discussing the Lancet article with nivra (lefty).
They had a rational conversation, and emarkp
(conservative) left saying nivra (lefty) had a point.
This contradicts the idea that "there's no point to
discuss things rationally with crazy wing-nut lefties".
Got it?
\_ Are you implying that nivra is a "crazy wing-nut
lefty"? I'd guess that the "It's amusing" guy is
(but have no knowledge of nivra's political
leanings).
\_ I'm liberal. And yes, conservativeguy(TM)
will probably view me as a "crazy wing-nut
liberal" as long as he's stuck in his warped,
faith-based right wing echo chamber. -nivra
\_ http://csua.org/u/cg9 (kchang's archive) |
| 2005/6/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Computer/Theory] UID:38210 Activity:nil |
6/20 In the encyclopedia under "cognitive dissonance" it says "see emarkp
and the below Lancet threads."
\_ d00d, cognitive dissonance is "no doubt" there were WMDs to: uh,
why can't we find any? oh yeah, because they're in syria or buried
in the desert. |
| 2005/6/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38208 Activity:low |
6/20 Subthread about mortality rates yanked from above Lancet post
\_ This is ordinarily true, but I would be curious to see some
pre-Saddam data. Naturally, I doubt we could find something like
that. -- ilyas
\_ The study actually recorded pre-Saddam data. Pre-Saddam death
rates were 5.0(3.7,6.3)/1000/yr, Post-Saddam data were
12.3(1.4-23.2)/1000/yr. -nivra
\_ You are telling me that during Saddam's tenure Iraq had a lower
death rate than the United States? -- ilyas
\_ So is the CIA:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
\_ I don't think it's true, myself. -- ilyas
\_ Why not? Look at the population age breakdowns.
\_ Why not? Because it simply doesn't make sense.
Almost every cause of death is more sereve the
less developed you are. I also think certain
types of deaths are simply not reported. I would
also like to note that your typical 'hellhole
middle eastern arab states' all have extremely
low death rates for some reason. It's very
suspicious. -- ilyas
\_ It's even better than that. Post-invasion,
excluding Falluja, the Iraqi mortality rate is
7.9 per 1000 people. According to the CIA
World Factbook, the estimated 2005 mortality
rate in the US is 8.25 per 1000.
\_ The slate article cites UN data as saying:
"Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per
1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to
the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per
1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but
clearly they went up. Whatever they were in
2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5
per 1,000. In other words, the wartime
mortality rate--if it is 7.9 per
1,000--probably does not exceed the peacetime
rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team
assumes." -emarkp
\_ I think it's incredibly shocking if true.
Saudi Arabia death rates are apparently
2.62/1k. Anybody want to comment on why
this might be? Has anybody plotted if
the population growth matches birth/death
figures in the Middle East? -- ilyas
\_ Better diet and more exercise?
\_ I have no idea but I have come to view
the US as a weird place... in many areas
we're not much better off than the 3rd
world places. Iraq was nowhere near as
fucked up as some 3rd world places...
people are relatively educated and so
forth, they have infrastructure. What is
the US death rate among young men in
ghettos? I'm playing GTA: San Andreas
right now and based on this research,
large crowds of people regularly get
shot or run over in downtown areas.
\_ It's not just the US, the Middle East
rates are much lower than those of the
entire industrialized West. I think
it smells of your good ol'fashioned
Soviet-era underreporting. -- ilyas
\_ Look at the age structure of the
populations. I'm pretty sure
80-90 year old Americans are going
to have a higher death rate than
young people in third world
countries. Middle eastern
countries mostly have very young
populations.
\_ Uh, this makes no sense. Middle
Eastern countries mostly have
very young populations because
their life expectancy is low.
How can life expectancy be low,
and deaths per thousand be low,
-- ilyas
\_ Take a look through the
factbook entries. Your
assumptions are... creative.
You're also looking at a
snapshot. Historical data
for the countries involved
would be more useful
\_ Well, Iraq's reported
life expectancy isn't
'low' but it's a good
deal lower than the US.
How can this be coupled
with a lower death rate
in Iraq? Same with any
other Middle Eastern vs
Western nation. -- ilyas
\_ As three posts have
said: demographics.
Historical data would
probably make it much
clearer, but I would
assume these values
are quite cyclical.
\_ I love how this quote exposes Kaplan's
hackery. Well, gee pre-Invasion is
"certainly higher" than what the methods
in the study indicate. The _logical_
conclusion is that the study's methodology
is conservative and under-estimates actual
death rate. Of course, Kaplan doesn't
understand the definition of "unclear,"
so I'm just expecting too much of him, I
guess. -nivra
\_ His assertion that the numbers "clearly
went up" is weak, yes. But weren't we
getting complaints from the world about
how the sanctions were killing Iraqis?
Isn't it reasonable to guess that the
pre-2001 mortality rate was at least 6.8?
\_ sure. -nivra
\_ That data is pre-invasion, not pre-Saddam, and it is from the
same study (they asked people about deaths in the period
before and after invasion). -emarkp
\_ Yes. I had assumed ilyas meant "When Saddam Was Ousted,"
by "Saddam".
\_ Yeah, that's what I meant. -- ilyas |
| 2005/6/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38205 Activity:high |
6/20 Curiosity got the best of me, and I read the Lancet study, too. It's
quite thorough, undeceptive, and straightforward. Responding to
emarkp's post (http://csua.com/?entry=38170
RE: Confidence Intervals. (1)Assuming a normal(it's not, it's
skewed), there's a 90% certainty there were over 40k dead, 85%
certainty over 51k dead, 75% certainty over 68k dead. (2) this CI
DOES NOT INCLUDE Falluja. The author's purposely excluded a huge
outlier, and the most violent region in all of Iraq in order to form
a conservative estimate. (3) the author's are plainly honest about
the difficulties inherent in this kind of war-time study. (4)
Furthermore, this study estimated the number dead at the time of the
study. Extrapolating to today yields: 90%: 65, 85%: 82k, 75% 108k.
Think about that: lowest quadrile = 108k dead. Not including Falluja.
RE: death certificates: Out of 142 deaths, 78 certificates were
asked for, and 63 provided(81%). Additionally, "When households
could not produce the death certificate, interviewers felt in all
cases that the explanation offered was reasonable"
RE: non-war violent crime. That's part of the point of the study.
war-related conditions cause an increase in overall violent crime,
including murder, faction in-fighting, etc.
RE: the cluster analysis: "Because the probability that clusters
would be assigned to any given Governorate was proportional to the
population size in both phases of the assignment, the sample remained
a random national sample. This clumping of clusters was likely to
increase the sum of the variance between mortality estimates
of clusters and thus reduce the precision of the national
mortality estimate." So yes, confidence intervals get bigger. That
was a call they had to make, to reduce researcher risk. But it's
still a random sample. -nivra
\_ Thsi is ordinarily true, but I would be curious to see some
\_ This is ordinarily true, but I would be curious to see some
pre-Saddam data. Naturally, I doubt we could find something like
that. -- ilyas
\_ The study actually recorded pre-Saddam data. Pre-Saddam death
rates were 5.0(3.7,6.3)/1000/yr, Post-Saddam data were
12.3(1.4-23.2)/1000/yr. -nivra
\_ You are telling me that during Saddam's tenure Iraq had a lower
death rate than the United States? -- ilyas
\_ So is the CIA:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
\_ I don't think it's true, myself. -- ilyas
\_ Why not? Look at the population age breakdowns.
\_ Why not? Because it simply doesn't make sense.
Almost every cause of death is more sereve the
less developed you are. I also think certain
types of deaths are simply not reported. I would
also like to note that your typical 'hellhole
middle eastern arab states' all have extremely
low death rates for some reason. It's very
suspicious. -- ilyas
\_ It's even better than that. Post-invasion,
excluding Falluja, the Iraqi mortality rate is
7.9 per 1000 people. According to the CIA
World Factbook, the estimated 2005 mortality
rate in the US is 8.25 per 1000.
\_ The slate article cites UN data as saying:
"Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per
1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to
the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per
1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but
clearly they went up. Whatever they were in
2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5
per 1,000. In other words, the wartime
mortality rate--if it is 7.9 per
1,000--probably does not exceed the peacetime
rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team
assumes." -emarkp
\_ I think it's incredibly shocking if true.
Saudi Arabia death rates are apparently
2.62/1k. Anybody want to comment on why
this might be? Has anybody plotted if
the population growth matches birth/death
figures in the Middle East? -- ilyas
\_ Better diet and more exercise?
\_ I have no idea but I have come to view
the US as a weird place... in many areas
we're not much better off than the 3rd
world places. Iraq was nowhere near as
fucked up as some 3rd world places...
people are relatively educated and so
forth, they have infrastructure. What is
the US death rate among young men in
ghettos? I'm playing GTA: San Andreas
right now and based on this research,
large crowds of people regularly get
shot or run over in downtown areas.
\_ It's not just the US, the Middle East
rates are much lower than those of the
entire industrialized West. I think
it smells of your good ol'fashioned
Soviet-era underreporting. -- ilyas
\_ Look at the age structure of the
populations. I'm pretty sure
80-90 year old Americans are going
to have a higher death rate than
young people in third world
countries. Middle eastern
countries mostly have very young
populations.
\_ I love how this quote exposes Kaplan's
hackery. Well, gee pre-Invasion is
"certainly higher" than what the methods
in the study indicate. The _logical_
conclusion is that the study's methodology
is conservative and under-estimates actual
death rate. Of course, Kaplan doesn't
understand the definition of "unclear,"
so I'm just expecting too much of him, I
guess. -nivra
\_ His assertion that the numbers "clearly
went up" is weak, yes. But weren't we
getting complaints from the world about
how the sanctions were killing Iraqis?
Isn't it reasonable to guess that the
pre-2001 mortality rate was at least 6.8?
\_ sure. -nivra
\_ That data is pre-invasion, not pre-Saddam, and it is from the
same study (they asked people about deaths in the period
before and after invasion). -emarkp
\_ Yes. I had assumed ilyas meant "When Saddam Was Ousted,"
by "Saddam".
\_ Yeah, that's what I meant. -- ilyas
=======
>>>>>>> Your Changes Above
RE: the cluster analysis: "Because the probability that clusters
would be assigned to any given Governorate was proportional to the
population size in both phases of the assignment, the sample remained
a random national sample." -nivra
\_ Could you post a link to the actual study, please? Thanks.
\_ It's changed since the slate article. Here's the URL
(registration required, but bugmenot has a login):
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604174412/fulltext
\_ /csua/tmp/~nivra/lancet.pdf
\- does your asessment of iraq wildly change whether the casualty count
is 50k or 100k? i mean it is ok to invade a country on false
premises, if it only leads to "1 vietnam" [usa deaths = 50k]
worth of deaths ... but at 2V, they really ought to have done
better?
\_ my assessment? No. Iraq is massively fucked up, regardless. -nivra
\_ my assessment? No. Iraq's massively fucked up, regardless. -nivra
\- i meant to sort of just throw it out there. i think the
these kinds of reactions shore up the claim if there were
no pix out of abu graib, it would have been a total non-
story. instead of a lot of people being outraged, probably
at least half the country would have had the "you have to
break some eggs to make an omlette" type attitude. what was
amazing and depressing is the rush limbaugh types not taking
a hard line about what goes on in war but these flip comments
about frat hazing and such. anyway, now i am getting
depressed again.
\_ I brought this up before,
\_ I brought this up before, what went on in AG is the same
kind of shit that goes on in American prisons. Why is
so much attention paid to this one incident? Don't
American citizens incarcerated in our prisons deserve
more humane treatment? -- ilyas
\- that is not what i am saying. i am more contrasting
the comments about gitmo [no pix, only stories and
the "what do you epxect, it is a club med?] type
reaction. and certainly there is evidence of beatings
and such in american prisons, but i dont think guards
wipe their asses with the mexican flag, or tell
or dress up black inmates in hooded klan outfits.
\_ So you think psych torture is uniquely worse than
physical torture? Btw, it's not just 'beatings'
that go on in US prisons. -- ilyas
\- are you deliberately being difficult or
is this your natural mode of thought? this
subthread is no longer worth my time.
\_ Note that this subthread is about as long as my
initial post which was deleted because it was
too long. -emarkp
\_ Look dumbass, a *single* post is easily
moved to another location. There is not
a simple way to move an enitre thread
composed of short responses. In the
Iliad thrad, nobody cut and pasted
the wikipedia article on "aspect".
If they had, that would have been deleted
with a request to leave a pointer.
A pointer to a sloda file or a URL are
functionally the same. Do you have some
persecution complex or is it a full on
messiah complex?
\_ "So I'm glad we could agree that the Lancet study was a pile of
crap." -emarkp
Why the big disparity in perceptions?
\_ The Lancet study is a pile of crap the same way I feel the Bible
is a pile of crap. Did you even fucking graduate from Berkeley?
\_ "It's quite thorough, undeceptive, and straightforward."
-nivra
\_ But wrong. Their methodology punches a lot of holes in a
random sampling, and the results aren't valid. -emarkp
\_ So I guess there is a genuine disparity in perceptions
then (as opposed to a political/fake disparity).
\_ What part of "... the sample remained a random
national sample" do you not understand? You read the
study... tell me what these "holes in random sampling"
are. Don't regurgitate Kaplan, b/c he's full of shit.
The authors are clear on both the methodology and the
impacts of the methodology: "This clumping of clusters
was likely to increase the sum of the variance
between mortality estimates of clusters and thus
reduce the precision of the national mortality
estimate. We deemed this acceptable since it reduced
travel by a third." Certainly, it affected the
precision of the estimate, but not the accuracy.
That's one of the main reasons for the large CI. -nivra
\_ They reassigned random locations to other
governorates that were chosen non-randomly. That
means they are no longer random. Yes, they tried to
"match" governorates but you /can't do that/ or you
bias the data--not just the variance. -emarkp
\_ Did you understand the methodology? The
reassignment _did_ occur randomly. Yes, it
decreases statistical power, but No, it did not
compromise randomness. cf. wolfram link below.
\_ No, they did /not/ reassign them randomly. The
chose a paired governorate and randomly chose
between the two. The choice of pairs was /not/
random. -emarkp
\_ Neither are the initial governates. Duh.
It wouldn't make a difference if they
paired all the fucking country up. Again,
look into the wolfram link if you don't
understand. The pairing screws with
precision, not accuracy. -nivra
\_ ??? The paper says: "We obtained January,
2003, population estimates for each of
Iraq.s 18 Governorates from the Ministry
of Health. No attempt was made to adjust
these numbers for recent displacement or
immigration. We assigned 33 clusters to
Governorates via systematic equal-step
sampling from a randomly selected start."
How is that not random for the initial
selection? -emarkp
\_ The clusters are random, the
governates are not. 18 governates
already assigned by M. of Health.
The authors simply collapsed 18 into
12, then proceeded randomly. -nivra
\_ Sure, but the clusters were
assigned to the governorates at
random. I don't see a problem with
that. It's the non-random
substitution of governorates that
is a problem. -emarkp
You're ok with: _/
P1 = P(cluster_init|population_governates)
They did:
P2 = P(cluster_sampled|population_governates,P1)
Why are you ok with P1 and not ok with P2? (reformatted) -nivra
\_ Ah. I'll have to think about that more carefully. That
does suggest a problem in my reasoning. -emarkp
precision, not accuracy.
you're ok with: P1 = P(cluster_init|population_governates) _/
They did: P2 = P(cluster_sampled|population_governates,P1)
Why are you ok with P1 and not ok with P2?
\_ It's widely known that conditioning on an extra thing can
reverse any inequality among probabilities. This
phenomenon even has a name in statistics. This may be
what is giving you pause. -- ilyas
\_ It's not surprising that people who agree with the motivations of
the war doubt the study while people who disagree trust it. I'm
distrustful of statistical correlative studies in general because
they're so hard to get right and so easy to make bad assumptions.
The Lancet study was a bit cavalier with adjustments to the
sampling. To the authors' credit, they did make effort to
decrease possible effects of adjusting the sampling, but I don't
think it was sufficient. -emarkp
\_ Shrug. Random individuals on the net don't make a big diff to
me. nivra and emarkp saying two opposite things means
something.
\_ Why were death certificates not asked for in 64 out of 142 deaths?
Instead of 63 death certificates out of 78 requested, shouldn't it
be 63 certificates out of 142 deaths (44%)?
\_ no. They only asked for death certificates 78 times. emarkp's op
has the relevant quote. It was a methodolical decision, but still
connsistent with random sampling. -nivra
\_ RE: the clustering. Asserting that changing the sampling doesn't
lose randomness doesn't make it so. They can't use the clustering
as a representative sample just as if the pairs of governorates are
exactly equal.
\_ they don't just assert. They show how they changed the sampling,
and if you understood basic probability, you would understand
that it doesn't change the randomness of the sample. Here, a
stats refresher: http://csua.org/u/cfp (mathworld) -nivra
stats refresher: http://csua.org/u/cfp (mathworld)
\_ No, they did /not/ reassign them randomly. The chose a paired
governorate and randomly chose between the two. The choice of
pairs was /not/ random. -emarkp
\_ see above. precision not accuracy. -nivra
\_ see above. precision not accuracy.
RE: non-war violent crime. Why is that part of the study? Did they
check what crime was like here in the US before and after the
invasion? Was there any correlation?
\_ this has to do with what? The estimate of the number dead
is an estimate of total dead, regardless of prior death-rate.
Furthermore, you don't think the stoppage of electricity, water,
food, etc. could have affected non-violent death rates?
food, etc. could have affected non-violent death rates? -nivra
RE: Confidence Intervals. Without seeing their inputs, I don't
trust the results. Especially when they're just dumping the data
into software developed by "Save the Children". -emarkp
\_ Firstly, they used two different data packages, and results
concurred. Secondly, this is exactly what it comes down to:
you don't "trust" the results. You have no background in
epidemiological studies and are not familiar with software or
terminology, yet you don't trust the results from methodologies
that are clearly described, checked by two presumably standard
statistical packages published in The Lancet. That shows the
underlying reason for the "disparity in opinion".
underlying reason for the "disparity in opinion". -nivra
\_ Yes, the study claims that they compared the "Save the
Children" results with EpiInfo. They don't provide their
source data however so it's pretty much impossible to check
their results. -emarkp
\_ Firstly, the software was not called "Save the Children."
The software was designed to measure death-rates on what
I presume was a project paid for by "Save the Children."
Secondly, they do show source data. They provided all
raw numbers. If you distrust the results, go find other
epidemiological software and run it yourself. I happen
to trust editorial boards of major scientific journals
to trust epidemiological results that the authors ran
on two different statistical packages.-nivra
on two different statistical packages.
\_ I used to trust them more. I was convinced by the
"hockey stick" that global warming was correlated with
human industrial activity. Then someone put random
data into the same analysis engine and the hockeystick
appeared with that data as well. So much for that
trust. -emarkp
\_ Fine. That means the heart of your opinion resides
blatant mistrust of the editorial board of first-
rate medical journal. Finally, something we agree
on. -nivra
\_ No, the reason to investigate is my distrust of
what appeared to be a politically motivated study
and a distrust of /all/ statistical correlation
studies. The heart of my opinion is based on what
I read in the study itself. -emarkp
\_ mistrust of "correlation equals causation" is
reasonable. The authors make no such claim.
In fact, the 98k has nothing to do with either
correlation or causation. It's a simple
extrapolation of the death count based on a
statistical sample -nivra
\_ Neither did the hockey-stick claim it. It
was an extrapolation of global temperatures
based on a sample. And it has been entirely
busted. -emarkp
\_ So your argument is: Hockey stick
extrapolation incorrect. Therefore,
Iraq casualty extrapolation incorrect.
Sounds reasonable to me. -nivra
\_ Take emarkp's post: Of the 6 points he made, 3 were blatantly
invalid: (3) undermines his point, (4) is a non-point, (5)
reflects a failure to understand the study, 2 were directly
addressed in the study: (2) & (6) as quoted above. That leaves
the CI criticism (1), which is a valid criticism of the
"repeated talking point," and not of the "study," since both
times the study used the 98k number, it was immediately followed
by the 95% CI. Furthermore, the CI still reflects a 75%
certainty that there were over 68k dead in Iraq at the time of
the study. -nivra
\_ The very wide CI indicates a severe weakness of the study. Your
assertion that my points are invalid doesn't make it so. -emarkp
\_ At least Kaplan wasn't dense enough to make this argument.
The CI shows the inherent difficulties in war-related
epidemiological studies. It's not a "weakness of the study."
He, at least, understand the difference between the study
and the security situation in Iraq. The CI, if anything,
shows the integrity of the study - it accurately reflects
the difficulty of obtaining a precise estimate. -nivra
\_ Amend my comment to "weakness of selecting any one value"
as the mortality. -emarkp
\_ The study quotes "98k" twice; both times immediately
followed by the CI. Well, gee, what value do
researchers normally choose? How about a mean? -nivra
the difficulty of obtaining a precise estimate. |
| 2005/6/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38203 Activity:very high |
6/19 Before Oct 2004, had you heard of "The Lancet"?
Yes: ....
\_ yup. There's JAMA, NEJM and the Lancet. I'm not anything like a
doctor and I've heard of them just like I've heard of Cell, Science
and Nature. Well-respected journals occasionally publish work they
shouldn't have but this ad hominem (or I guess ad magazineum) attack
because you didn't like the one article isn't working. I suggest
an ad hominem on the authors. That might work better. -- ulysses
\_ What ad hominem attack on the journal?
\_ Don't be tiresome. That's what this is, isn't it?
\_ No it isn't. The poll is whether people have heard of it,
not what they think of its quality. -emarkp
No: .
What is "The Lancet?": ...
I don't give a shit about politics, let's talk about Linux: .
\- If you had not heard of The Lancet, that says more about you
than "The Lancet" ... that is "their" NEJM or JAMA.
\_ Oh wise and noble partha, please enlighten us unwashed
masses on why we ought to be spending time reading some
medical journal in the uk?
\- i am not saying you need to read The Lancet or the
economist ... just that if you havent, that doesnt
suggest they are obscure publications. the fact that
\_ Who is claiming they're obscure?
say sephen hawking has not won the nobel prize doesnt
reflect badly on his importance as a physicist. and were
he to win one day, his reputation will not change one
bit. maybe you didn not know Yale has one of the best
law schools in the country, but this probably would not
surprise you. it may surprise you to learn rutgers has
one of the best philosophy depts around ... however that
doesnt meant rutgers/phil isnt a strong dept. "the lancet"
along with nature, science, cell, NEJM, JAMA is one of the
"standards".
\_ Actually, ed is the standard, but Partha's 100% correct.
This is just the sort of thing you should know as part of
a 100% complete breakfast, sorry. -John
\_ Well, you're wrong. I'd heard of NEJM, but I couldn't
point to any other medical journal that I'd heard of.
Just today I read an AP article about Alzheimer's which
referred to "researchers"--I have no idea where those
researchers are or if they've published anything in a
journal. -emarkp
\_ "Well you're wrong"--great retort there. The Lancet
is at least as prestigious as NEJM. I don't see why
this is so difficult--I wasn't referring to any
content, research, or names that would only be
apparent to someone with background in a given
field, only to op's apparent lack of awareness of
the existence of something that a lot of people,
myself included, find to be a fact that a well-
educated person should know of. -John
\_ Your assertion that this is something you should
"just know" has as much of a truth value as my
"you're wrong". -emarkp
\_ If you're going to pontificate on the validity
of their work, you should at least find out
who they are.
\_ I evaluated one study. Who gives a crap who
they are if they can't do their statistics?
-emarkp
\_ Well, 3 possibilities...
1. The stat work in the article isn't
shoddy,
2. The stat work in Lancet articles
is usually shoddy, or
are usually shoddy, or
3. The stat work in this particular
Lancet article is unusually shoddy.
I haven't seen anyone defend 1 yet, 2
seems unlikely, and 3 brings to mind
interesting conspiracy theories.
\_ And all I was claiming is 1. I have
no opinion one way or another on 2 or
3. -emarkp
\_ You are so right. After I google'ed "The Lancet"
I instantly felt enlightened and educated. With
years of therapy perhaps I will overcome the sense
of shame I now feel for being alive for 20+ years
w/o having heard about "The Lancet."
\_ I love how some folks, when told they don't know
something they should, immediately become
aggressively proud of their ignorance. Just google
it, accept that you're an ignorant hayseed, and get
on with it.
\_ Your assertion "something they should" is simply
wrong. -emarkp
\_ Case in point.
\_ I'm not really involved in this discussion,
but it seems to me that you've defined,
"Things a well educated person should know"
as "things I know."
\_ Another case in point.
\_ Whatever, I'd heard of the Lancet, it
just doesn't seem like that big a deal. |
| 2005/6/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38200 Activity:nil |
6/19 Is the "Downing Street" memo real?
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004746.php |
| 2005/6/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38199 Activity:nil |
6/19 More fuel for the flame war. Passages from Solzhenitsyn compared with
Gitmo reports.
http://billmon.org/archives/001911.html |
| 2005/6/19-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38197 Activity:moderate |
6/19 Before Oct 2004, had you heard of "The Lancet"?
Yes: ...
No: .
What is "The Lancet?": ..
I don't give a shit about politics, let's talk about Linux: .
\- If you had not heard of The Lancet, that says more about you
than "The Lancet" ... that is "their" NEJM or JAMA.
\_ Oh wise and noble partha, please enlighten us unwashed
masses on why we ought to be spending time reading some
medical journal in the uk?
\- i am not saying you need to read The Lancet or the
economist ... just that if you havent, that doesnt
suggest they are obscure publications. the fact that
say sephen hawking has not won the nobel prize doesnt
reflect badly on his importance as a physicist. and were
he to win one day, his reputation will not change one
bit. maybe you didn not know Yale has one of the best
law schools in the country, but this probably would not
surprise you. it may surprise you to learn rutgers has
one of the best philosophy depts around ... however that
doesnt meant rutgers/phil isnt a strong dept. "the lancet"
along with nature, science, cell, NEJM, JAMA is one of the
"standards".
\_ Actually, ed is the standard, but Partha's 100% correct.
This is just the sort of thing you should know as part of
a 100% complete breakfast, sorry. -John |
| 2005/6/18-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38185 Activity:high |
6/18 So I'm glad we could agree that the Lancet study was a pile of crap.
Related question: why was it fast tracked? Where's the guy who kept
saying "The Lancet" couldn't be biased? -emarkp
\_ Perhaps the Lancet booster is the fellow who's been so diligently
deleting your posts.
\_ The Lancet post was deleted because in spite of the reasonable
suggestion to post a link to an external file you did not.
\_ As opposed to the 176 line mess down at the bottom? I didn't
know I had to ask permission to post. -emarkp
\_ That was not one long comment. That was a long thread.
Dont be a dumbass. The suggestion was made before it
was deleted.
\_ There is an enforced maximum for motd posts now?
Since when was this in effect? -- ilyas
\_ If a thread grows to a long length, nothing to
be done about that. But if you have a long
comment to share, whether or not this is a break
with tradition or not, it's better to put in a
pointer.
[response deleted because it was too long]
\_ I'm sick of all this shit from you people who are shitting on
organizations who have been praised for decades up until the
point that they validly criticize the US. If you want to be
\_ I hadn't heard squat about "The Lancet" until their flawed study
which I read myself and found problematic. -emarkp
\_ The fact that a Cal grad hasn't heard of one of what are
probably the two most prestigious English-language journals
of medicine, purely as part of his general education, is
something I find troubling. -John
\_ You've got to be kidding. Have you ever heard of AAPM?
It's quite the presigious group. -emarkp
\_ Why would I be kidding? I'm not a scientist, nor do I
have a medical background, but I've _heard_ of several
AAPMs. Google turns up many minor ones as well. And
it's "prestigious" with a 't'. -John
\_ Why is it so troubling? A lot of people can make it
through life just fine w/o knowing about x random
journal.
\_ It's not 'x' random journal. A lot of people can make
it through life just fine w/o knowing where S. Africa
is located, understanding roughly how an internal
combustion engine works, or who Michelangelo was, but
that's not something I expect of someone who attended a
supposedly world-class school. -John
point that they validly criticize the US. If you want to be
blind to our problems, then you're part of the problem.
When you fuck up at work and get called on it, do you call
the person who called you on it unreliable? How often do you
get fired? |
| 2005/6/18-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38182 Activity:moderate |
6/18 Exactly five years ago, war was beginning.
\_ Captain: What happen ?
\_ Saddam: Somebody set us up the bomb!
\_ Misquote.
\_ Intentional. Pedant.
\_ Liar. Train harder, grasshopper.
\_ Communist. Hottentot. Third-rater. Never give up,
never surrender! Non sequitur.
\_ Capitalist. Squarehead. Greaser. Get it right, or
go away! |
| 2005/6/17 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38179 Activity:high 63%like:38170 |
6/17 [Hey, I was challenged to read this. I did and here are my comments.
Please don't delete it for at least a day or so.]
I've read the Lancet study (Oct 2004) and it does seem to have some
problems. In particular:
- the "100,000 dead" number comes from a 95% conficence interval
spanning 8,000 to 194,000. Pretty big range there.
- "Interviewers were initially reluctant to ask to see death
certificates because this might have implied they did not believe the
respondents, perhaps triggering violence. Thus, a compromise was
reached for which interviewers would attempt to confirm at least two
deaths per cluster."
- "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded.
Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely
for respondents to fabricate deaths.
"It is possible that deaths were not reported, because families might
wish to conceal the death or because neonatal deaths might go without
mention."
- "When violent deaths were attributed to a faction in the conflict or
to criminal forces, no further investigation into the death was made
to respect the privacy of the family and for the safety of the
interviewers.
- "Of these, two were attributed to anti-coalition forces, two were of
unknown origin, seven were criminal murders, and one was from the
previous regime during the invasion."
This suggests that violent crime was mixed in with war-related deaths.
- The slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887 that criticizes
the study points right to the biggest problem: the cluster
reassignments:
"During September, 2004, many roads were not under the control of the
Government of Iraq or coalition forces. Local police checkpoints
were perceived by team members as target identification screens for
rebel groups. To lessen risks to investigators, we sought to minimise
travel distances and the number of Governorates to visit, while still
sampling from all regions of the country. We did this by clumping
pairs of Governorates."
So their random sample is reduced dramatically.
Like all statistial analyses, the results can be hugely varied
depending on methodology. I see the Lancet study as seriously flawed
and the claim of 100,000 extra dead invalid. See the slate article
for a link to the .pdf of the study and read it yourself. -emarkp
\- for a long comment like this, why dont you put a link to
~ping/lancet.blurb. people can put short followups here.
I've read the Lancet study (Oct 2004) and it does seem to have some
problems. In particular:
\- Why dont you move long comments like to an external file?
- the "100,000 dead" number comes from a 95% conficence interval
spanning 8,000 to 194,000. Pretty big range there.
- "Interviewers were initially reluctant to ask to see death
certificates because this might have implied they did not believe the
respondents, perhaps triggering violence. Thus, a compromise was
reached for which interviewers would attempt to confirm at least two
deaths per cluster."
- "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded.
Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely
for respondents to fabricate deaths.
"It is possible that deaths were not reported, because families might
wish to conceal the death or because neonatal deaths might go without
mention."
- "When violent deaths were attributed to a faction in the conflict or
to criminal forces, no further investigation into the death was made
to respect the privacy of the family and for the safety of the
interviewers.
- "Of these, two were attributed to anti-coalition forces, two were of
unknown origin, seven were criminal murders, and one was from the
previous regime during the invasion."
This suggests that violent crime was mixed in with war-related deaths.
- The slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887 that criticizes
the study points right to the biggest problem: the cluster
reassignments:
"During September, 2004, many roads were not under the control of the
Government of Iraq or coalition forces. Local police checkpoints
were perceived by team members as target identification screens for
rebel groups. To lessen risks to investigators, we sought to minimise
travel distances and the number of Governorates to visit, while still
sampling from all regions of the country. We did this by clumping
pairs of Governorates."
So their random sample is reduced dramatically.
Like all statistial analyses, the results can be hugely varied
depending on methodology. I see the Lancet study as seriously flawed
and the claim of 100,000 extra dead invalid. See the slate article
for a link to the .pdf of the study and read it yourself. -emarkp
\_ emarkp, i think you need to be a little less verbose.
\_ So does the Lancet when they're making up numbers. etc. -emarkp
\_ the death amount is 40k to 150k at a 85% confidence interval
and 60k to 120k at a 75% confidence interval. The report did
not claim that all ~100k were killed by American action, on the
contrary, many were known to have died due to the unstable
security situation. If the study is so flawed, why doesn't anyone
else do one to debunk it. We know the Pentagon has its own
numbers, why don't they release them?
\_ I think these numbers: http://www.iraqbodycount.net
are more reliable. -emarkp
\_"Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which
can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that
every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that
many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by
the media. That is the sad nature of war." -FAQ from that
site. So they are a very reliable count of what they are
counting, which is known to be an underestimate of the
total number of people killed.
\_ Unless deaths are over reported. -emarkp |
| 2005/6/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38177 Activity:nil 80%like:38173 |
6/17 And now we learn that we lied about napalm use in fallujah
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=647397 |
| 2005/6/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38173 Activity:nil 80%like:38177 |
6/17 And now we learn that we lied about napalm use in iraq
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=647397
\_ Oh no! We used a weapon in war!?! Next time we shoudl limit
ourselves to just harsh words. Then we can expect the enemy to
honor the same code and limit themselves as well. |
| 2005/6/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38170 Activity:kinda low 63%like:38179 |
6/17 I've read the Lancet study (Oct 2004) and it does seem to have some
problems. In particular:
- the "100,000 dead" number comes from a 95% conficence interval
spanning 8,000 to 194,000. Pretty big range there.
- "Interviewers were initially reluctant to ask to see death
certificates because this might have implied they did not believe the
respondents, perhaps triggering violence. Thus, a compromise was
reached for which interviewers would attempt to confirm at least two
deaths per cluster."
- "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded.
Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely
for respondents to fabricate deaths.
"It is possible that deaths were not reported, because families might
wish to conceal the death or because neonatal deaths might go without
mention."
- "When violent deaths were attributed to a faction in the conflict or
to criminal forces, no further investigation into the death was made
to respect the privacy of the family and for the safety of the
interviewers.
- "Of these, two were attributed to anti-coalition forces, two were of
unknown origin, seven were criminal murders, and one was from the
previous regime during the invasion."
This suggests that violent crime was mixed in with war-related deaths.
- The slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887 that criticizes
the study points right to the biggest problem: the cluster
reassignments:
"During September, 2004, many roads were not under the control of the
Government of Iraq or coalition forces. Local police checkpoints
were perceived by team members as target identification screens for
rebel groups. To lessen risks to investigators, we sought to minimise
travel distances and the number of Governorates to visit, while still
sampling from all regions of the country. We did this by clumping
pairs of Governorates."
So their random sample is reduced dramatically.
Like all statistial analyses, the results can be hugely varied
depending on methodology. I see the Lancet study as seriously flawed
and the claim of 100,000 extra dead invalid. See the slate article
for a link to the .pdf of the study and read it yourself. -emarkp
\_ emarkp, i think you need to be a little less verbose.
\_ So does the Lancet when they're making up numbers. etc. -emarkp
\_ the death amount is 40k to 150k at a 85% confidence interval
and 60k to 120k at a 75% confidence interval. The report did
not claim that all ~100k were killed by American action, on the
contrary, many were known to have died due to the unstable
security situation. If the study is so flawed, why doesn't anyone
else do one to debunk it. We know the Pentagon has its own
numbers, why don't they release them?
\_ I think these numbers: http://www.iraqbodycount.net
are more reliable. -emarkp |
| 2005/6/14-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38130 Activity:nil 66%like:38128 |
6/14 A really interesting article on islamic reform:
http://csua.org/u/cdb (Cario Magazine) |
| 2005/6/14-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38121 Activity:moderate |
6/14 http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/local/11888623.htm The president of Gold Star Families for Peace, a mother who lost a son in Iraq ... "We're watching you [Pres. Bush] very carefully and we're going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people," she said, quoting a letter she sent to the White House. "Beating a political stake in your black heart will be the fulfillment of my life" ... as the audience of 200 people cheered. \_ Hmm, the administration apologists are quiet about this one, once again... \_ I am not a Bush apologist, but I am not sure what sort of comment you are expecting. The lady in question is free to pursue her legidimate vendetta against Bush. What more is there to say? -- ilyas \_ He's probably expecting something like, "Dubya didn't mislead, it was the CIA's fault" or some such. Anyway I do think this is the final administration line when backed against the wall except put more persuasively and at least partly backed up by two bi-partisan reports. \_ I think another interesting question is what this lady would say, had Bush given an adequate (to her) casus belli. It wouldn't bring her son back, would it? -- ilyas \_ Well, she might say crap about the lack of preparation for post-war Iraq, something which Dubya has acknowledged could have been done better. \_ But what does that have to do with the fact that her son is dead, and isn't coming back? Let's say Dubya waged the 'perfect' war. Her son is still dead. He is dead because people die in war, not because someone didn't like the casus belli for this war, or because the planners didn't plan for peace. She is asking for a fix to (or a retribution for) things that wouldn't have saved her son's life, given that the war did happen. -- ilyas because the planners didn't plan for peace. \_ There was no adequate casus belli, that is the whole point. \_ It wasn't too long ago when the pro-war people said the Iraq War was worth fighting for. Where are they now? Why aren't they more vocal now? And why are they not marching to support our glorious and righteous wars? \_ Maybe we have better things to do than reply to trolls? \_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4090626.stm So, are you going to say that BBC = Liberal Bias and dismiss it the same way our government dismisses everything that doesn't support our glorious war? \_ I like how he is redefining success as not doing the worst job possible. I mean, things could have gone worse, so we are doing great! \_ Even the dumb average Americans are slowly realizing that maybe the war isn't worth it afterall. Only a minority of the people outside United States think the war is worth it. Even the native Iraqi people don't think it's worth it. Stop putting your ideology into the Iraqi people and let them speak for themselves. !emarkp \_ Source for the Iraqi people claim? -- ilyas \_ No, I think a lot of people outside the U.S. simply loathe the duplicity leading up to the war. Getting rid of Saddam and other evil shitbags around the world is a noble goal for a country that purports to be a beacon of freedom 'n stuff-- lying about it, and then fucking it up so badly ain't. -John \_ I don't like your tone at all. You are now on the black list for being unpatriotic and spreading dissent. -CIA \_ I don't like your tone at all. You are now on the black list for eating the peanuts out of my shit, pilgrim. \_ I'm so glad we give up so easily these days. It'll make the next attack all the more disillusioning. Why can't we all just get along? Get real people. 2 years and that's it? Let's just leave? The so-called spectre of Vietnam hasn't died after all. \_ The "next attack?" So you are one of the fundamentally deluded who still believes Saddam "must have" had something to do with 9/11? \_ No, but let's get this Machiavellian point across, we are fighting them, so they don't come here. But they will still come though. So long as there are weaklings like you who think second-guessing is helpful in a time of war. |
| 2005/6/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38114 Activity:kinda low |
6/13 "Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to
taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no
choice but to find a way of making it legal...The briefing paper,
for participants at a meeting of Blair's inner circle, said that
since regime change was illegal it was 'necessary to create the
conditions' which would make it legal."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050613/downing_street_ii.php
Sigh...Three guesses on how much coverage *this* will get in the
states. At least Blair is probably gonna get booted...
\_ FYI, I was confused by this article originally. I believe the
mentioned briefing paper refers to the /same meeting/ as the one
for the Downing Street memo. The memo just contains minutes for
that meeting.
The newly leaked material is a "UK eyes only" briefing paper for
that meeting.
that meeting. Also, here's the direct URL to the paper:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html
Note that the "victory condition" is given in point (2) ... I
think some of you are still fuzzy on what this is.
This part is true, the first sentence is hilarious though:
This part is true but hilarious though:
"In practice, much of the international community would find it
difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US
hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater
the prospects of success." |
| 2005/6/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38112 Activity:high |
6/13 To the person or people who have been so kind in their continued
expression of distate for me, I wish to thank you. There is nothing
like the ability to have gained the ire of morons, it merely
reinforces one's belief that the world is indeed filled
with stupidity. However, I suggest that instead of utilizing your time
in this manner, you should seek more constructive application of
your efforts, like getting rid of your virginity, obtaining a
so-called "life", or exercising. Thank you and good night. -williamc
\_ Sign your name moron.
\_ Oh, it's just poor little williamc.
\_ Can I have your stuff? -geordan
\_ I will not stop until you ADMIT that the Iraq war is STUPID and
only fucking idiots like you support our stupid war. ADMIT IT
YOU DUMB FUCK CHINESE RED NECK!!!
\_ Dude, this is pretty fucked up right here. -POC
\_ I believe the Iraq war was a good idea, and even though I think
williamc is usually misguided and abrasive, you're being a
childish craven piece of shit. Where's my insult (I'm a honkey,
and grew up in SF, if that'll help you compose something
appropriate. Don't forget all caps, please.) It's nice to see
motd following its usual bouncing from mobbing target to mobbing
target pattern. -John
\_ Oh dear, what happened to your troll sensors? Ouch. -- ulysses
\_ That wasn't troll, that was just asshole. -John
\_ Jesus H Christ, what is your issue??
\_ Jesus has a middle name? What is H? Herbert? Hughes? Howard?
\_ Humphrey...and that's MISTER Humphrey to you. Punk.
\_ Herman.
\_ You probably don't realize you've used Jesus' middle name
before. It's "Holy".
\_ I thought it was "Fucking". "Tapdancing" seems to be
fairly common also. But that's probably just a nickname.
\_ Let me guess, you are really the Anonymous Freeper, trying
to make anti-war folks look bad. Guess how I know?
\_ Sorry, I got a 760 on my SAT V but I don't know what distate
means. You must be smarter than me.
\_ Well, he also used...err..utilized some pretty big words. He
_must_ be smarter than you! |
| 2005/6/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38107 Activity:kinda low |
6/13 "The more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that
... the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be
settled, through military options or military operations,"
Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq,
said last week ... Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in
Iraq, ... calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea"
... "We push in Baghdad -- they're down to about less than a car bomb
a day in Baghdad over the last week -- but in north-center [Iraq] ...
they've gone up... The political process will be the decisive element."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3222424
(Houston Chronicle)
"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint,
I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if
you will, of the insurgency." -VP Cheney (May 31 2005)
[Another article] Lt. Col. Frederick Wellman ... referred to tribal
members joining the insurgency to seek revenge for relatives killed in
fighting. "We can't kill them all," Wellman said.
"When I kill one, I create three."
\_ This is selective picking and choosing of quotes and events.
Tribal politics is fairly complex business, but generally the foreign
insurgency has been pissing the tribes off more often than not.
Terrorist events in Baghdad are down 90% from 2 months ago.
Al Zarqawi is either dead or seriously wounded and recovering in
Syria, with a lot of his subordinates captured. Perhaps most
importantly, though, security functions are mostly an Iraqi affair
now, with some US help. I think the appropriate way to handle
the insurgency is to make it the Iraqis vs the insurgents fight, which
is what has been happening. -- ilyas
the insurgency is to make it the Iraqis vs the insurgents fight,
which is what has been happening. -- ilyas
\_ I think you are much more highly educated than I am, but
do you really think the insurgent forces are led by one guy?
Al Zarqawi might be a creation of US intelligence. I find it
hard to believe that a leading terrorist group in Iraq would
put out a press release when their alleged leader is
wounded. - danh
\_ No, I don't think the insurgents are 'led' by one guy, because
the insurgency has a very decentralized structure. Having
said that, I don't think Al Zarqawi is a fantasy, or something
other than a very dangerous lunatic. That American psyops
might be putting out fakeouts of various sorts is a good
point. I have heard of some sort of letter to Al Zarqawi
that was 'intercepted' by US forces that was complaining about
how the insurgency wasn't going so well, the locals are turning
against us, etc. Smelled like a psyops thing to me. -- ilyas
\_ Um.. Where do you get "Terrorist events in Baghdad are down
90% from 2 months ago"? In fact, I couldn't even guess where
you got any of these "facts".
\_ I got the 90% thing from http://orbat.com. They pontificate
quite a lot there (probably for fun), but editorializing is
clearly marked as such, and they ARE military analysts for hire,
and not the press, so I trust them more than I would trust
pretty much any publication. -- ilyas
\_ Where's their data? I see them quoting a "Baghdad bombing
index", but they don't give their methodology or data.
\_ Hey guys, don't doubt that insurgent activities in Baghdad
are much reduced with a 1-2 week-old effort to concentrate
on securing the city.
Casey talking about Pillsbury Doughboy, explained:
You poke in Fallujah, they appear elsewhere.
You poke in Baghdad, they appear elsewhere.
You don't have enough U.S. soldiers or have trained up
enough Iraqi police / army (yet) so you can't cover the
whole doughboy, figuratively speaking.
\_ I think that was the bit where incidents are down but total
deaths have doubled or tripled. Lies, damned lies, and
military PR.
you got any of these "facts".
\_ http://icasualties.org/oif
(month/avg. daily casualty)
jun05/2.77 nov04/4.70
may05/2.84 oct04/2.16
apr05/1.73 sep04/2.90
mar05/1.29 aug04/2.42
feb05/2.14 jul04/1.87
jan05/4.10 jun04/1.67
dec04/2.48 may04/2.71
\_ He probably meant "total deaths including civilians",
but yes, I do think he needed to be clear since it
could easily be judged as misleading otherwise.
\_ Civilians are much softer targets than the military,
and you can't compare the intensity of attacks on
the military with the intensity of attacks on
civilians by looking at the casualty count. It
is possible for the intensity of attacks to drop
while simultaneously for the civilian casualty to
increase (if the focus of the attacks switch from
the military to the civilians).
\_ Both you and ilyas need to re-evaluate what the
"Pillsbury Doughboy idea" is in the context above.
This has actually been going on for at least half a year in
Iraq.
\_ Try "for two years.." Ever since we "won".
\_ Well, I didn't want to overreach with ilyas here, in
all seriousness.
\_ Please don't sign for me. It was ilyas' right to
sign his name to his replies, as well as it should
be mine not to sign.
Yes, I know kchang's tool makes it easy. -op
\_ I am amused that you ask for people's indulgence
in this matter, while not noticing your own
indulgence may be required in the matter of posting
with civility.
\_ Am I not posting with civility? Please note
that I originally didn't include "in all
seriousness". I put it in there because I
didn't want to sound sarcastic. -jctwu
\_ Wow. Based on the two posts here, it's either, "Oh my god
we're so screwed and the administration is totally lying or
clueless" or "Hooray! We're winning and things are totally
swinging in our favor and the administration is *wonderful*
and goddamn that liberal media bias..." I suspect you're
both probably full of it. *shrug*
\_ Actually, no. ilyas just has a strong opinion that the
quotes are not representative of what's truly going on in
Iraq, whereas I just posted recent quotes from extremely
senior U.S. commanders on the ground (non-civilian), a
lieutenant colonel, and one from VP Cheney. -op
\_ Really, "picking and choosing quotes"? The title of the article
is: "Military can't stop insurgency, officers say -
They believe the way to end the fighting is through Iraqi
politics". If you have a complaint, it's that the article is not
representative of the military's true beliefs on Iraq.
I do agree that the LTC's statement is the weakest, but it does
remain his opinion.
Also, Casey's statement directly addresses your Baghdad
statistic. Please read carefully next time. -op
\_ I actually don't disagree. The military _can't_ stop the
insurgency, by the very nature of insurgency. This isn't
an Iraq-specific problem at all. The US is slowly learning
appropriate imperialist techniques from their friends, the
British -- make it an arab vs arab fight. Setting 'natives'
against each other was the only way to run a world-wide empire
for a relatively small and unpopulous island nation. I also
think stating that the insurgency is not a military problem
is not the same as stating 'we are so screwed!' I think it's
just the brass talking sense. The winning condition for the
US is for the insurgency to become an internal Iraqi government
problem, perhaps managed with some outside, international
help. -- ilyas
\_ I...err...that's actually pretty insightful.
\_ Don't forget that the Iraq government can't fall apart.
The means can vary but the result should be success.
I would hesitate to say it would be victory if we made
it the Iraqi government's problem and they imploded, but
I shouldn't need to point that out, right ... we're all
smart?
\_ Please note that I never used the phrase "we are so
screwed!" in any of the posts in this thread, nor
intended this as a meaning. My meaning was in the
quotes and URL I presented, which was that we now have
extremely senior U.S. commanders on the ground saying
themselves what I quoted. VP Cheney's quote was also
listed as one from an extremely senior civilian leader. |
| 2005/6/12-14 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38092 Activity:moderate |
6/12 Why don't I hear any leftists whining about US imperial
oppression of Mugabe these days?
Mugabe's L1m Party As Millions Face Starvation
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421595/posts
\_ Nothing to do with leftists or rightists--the man's a shitbag,
deserving of government-sanctioned assassination, and it'd be nice
to hear from _anyone_ (including the US govt., see AIUSA thread
below) that "something" should be done about him. -John
\_ it has everything to do with leftists. He is a leftist, he
is adored by leftists.
\_ Either I'm being (badly) trolled or you're an idiot. I
suspect both. -John
\_ is this projection??? even the left leaning
wikipedia acknowledges hes a Marxist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugabe
\_ You've come from "you leftists are stupid, ha ha,
you adore Mugabe" to "wikipedia calls Mugabe a
Marxist." He's a shitbag, decent people of all
political stripes loathe him. Did you have a point?
No? Next then. -John
\_ I don't understand your vitrol. Mugabe is
a Marxist and, though you may have missed the
news reporting it, was cheered by the left during
his ascendence to power. This same Marxist
scenario has played itself countless times and
yet there are always people like yourself
pretending he is something he is not. Strange.
\_ Whatever pretenses he had to Marxism were
in line with his leadership role in the Rhodesian
civil war against the Smith regime, which was a
reasonably noble undertaking. Overthrow of
bad governments is as laudable if they are white,
oppressive and racist as if they are black,
oppressive and racist. Mugabe has given up any
"revolutionary credibility" by being a vicious
shit. I'm defending neither marxists nor thugs;
I do, however, make allowance for people of any
political persuasion to change their view of a
tyrant once his true colors show. Would you say
that anyone calling himself politically xyz is
automatically xyz? Was Joe Stalin a communist?
What would Marx have said? You tell me. -John
\_ Why don't you hear any? Probably becuase you don't bother to
read anytyhing outside your carefully circumscribed circle.
Slate and The Nation have been griping about this guy for
almost a decade. Glad you finally noticed he was a bastard.
The Right used to love him, because he was anti-Soviet.
\_ The fact that Trotsky disliked Stalin and Mao disliked
Ho-Chi Minh does not preclude them all from being Marxists.
But you are right Mugabe is really more a Maoist, having
received the most support from China.
\_ Oh, that's all right then. I got a newspaper in Berkeley
that talks all about how great Mao was. |
| 2005/6/12-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38089 Activity:nil |
6/12 Does this mean I can stop calling them Freedom Fries?
http://csua.org/u/cc2
\_ I think we can now call them "freedom waffles".
\_ He just wants votes. What do we call people who swing according to
the direction of the wind?
\_ French? Cheese eating surrender monkeys? |
| 2005/6/11-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:38086 Activity:high |
6/10 http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport/statement.html I happen to think AI is not playing a very intelligent game, lately. -- ilyas \_ Wow, that goes even beyond my tolerance of holding the US to a higher standard. If lunatics like this are taken to represent legitimate grievances, Joe Shmo will never take these seriously in the least. -John \_ Yow. Gitmo is bad news, AG was a disaster, but comparing that to Pinochet is strictly KPFA territory. Really, folks, yelling Nazi at people is not a constructive approach. --erikred \_ Reread it. No one was compared to Pinochet. It was simply stated that International Law could be brought to bear, similar to what happened to Pinochet. \_ Read and re-read. By placing Pinochet's name in that context, the author is inviting comparison. Either it's an example of poor editing technique, or it's deliberate. \_ You are just reading into it what you want to see. It is just the most high profile example of what can happen to the powerful when subject to International Law. If they had mentioned Kissinger's midnight flight from Spain would you claim they were comparing Rumsfeld to Kissinger? \_ 'The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.' You read that without immediately drawing a link between what Pinochet did and what has happened in Gitmo and AG? (And OT: Kissinger had/has panache; Rumsfeld's running on sheer gall.) \_ and you think AI was playing very intelligent game when it critizing other countries? \_ AI is like the ACLU--a bit "out there", but fills a valuable function, as many of these groups do, drawing attention to wrongdoings. There are a lot of countries that deserve harsh criticisms, including the US However, there's also the idea of proportionality--while a Gitmo is horrible for a nation that should be a good example worldwide, bearing down almost solely on the US while almost completely disregarding all the far worse shit going on around the world (except for an "oh, yeah, there's Nepal and Darfur, but it's still kind of your fault for letting it happen") is just mad. -John \_ Also, ACLU gets bonus points for noting that prisoner abuse in US prisons is a huge humanitarian problem, and as such prisoner abuse is, sadly, nothing new for the US. -- ilyas \_ my biggest problem with AI is that their selection on which country to pick on seems to be not-so-randomn. Noticably, lack of critism of those nations who are US allies, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I've always assumed it is a PR arm of US or UK in the past. \_ http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi \_ http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/turkey \_ that is my point. couple pages on the internet, nothing more. No voice of boycott / economic / arm embargo or anything close to it. I just wondering why China gets all the blame. \_ Wow. AI can embargo weapons? They are far more powerful than I realized. \_ This somehow suprises you? AI has always been on the lunatic fringe along with PETA. \_ Bzzt. See John's comment above. Also, AI has been more reluctant to engage in hyperbole and guerilla PR than PETA. Cf. PBS vs. KPFA. \_ Since everything they put in that report was true, it is hard for me to figure out why you are so opposed to it. -ausman \_ Do you really not see? Let's imagine a hypothetical human rights body compiling a report on World War II, and mostly talking about Hiroshima, and the Dresden fire bombing. Everything they said was true... -- ilyas \_ You are confused about the difference between Amnesty USA and Amnesty International. Shouldn't the Amnesty sub-branch of a country be most concerned with Human Rights in their own country? The total Amnesty International report focuses first on Darfur, then way down the list on Gitmo: http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/index-eng Would your hypothetical WWII human rights rights organization be wrong to mention Dresden at all? \_ Then they should either not make what looks like a mere footnote out of supposed US responsibility for wrongs in Nepal and Indonesia or be consistent and complete in their criticism of perceived US inaction or wrongs committed elsewhere. -John \_ If, as you say, the purpose of http://amnestyusa.org is specifically the violations committed by the US government, one has to ask why isn't a website devoted specifically to governments that are actually a greater humanitarian problem (NK, etc). As far as I can see, the US is singled out for a unique form of abuse -- the report pasted is just the bashing of the US. That there is a general report which lists other countries does not explain the need for the current website to exist. \_ Are you being deliberately obtuse? Amnesty USA is comprised of those members of Amnesty International that reside in the USA. If there were enough North Korean members to form a North Korea chapter, I am sure they could have their own website, too. \_ No, they would be found and executed by the NK gov. Sheesh. Welcome to reality. \_ Your brain has been classified as: small. \_ Ok. The United States is a uniquely transparent, self-examining society. I suppose it does make it easy to specifically bash them. But this is, as an old jewish proverb goes, looking for what is lost under the lamppost (because that's where the light is). Also, where's Amnesty Europe? \_ Stop trying to defend torture. There is really no defence. And you will find all sorts of national chapter websites, if you take the trouble to look for them. I am sure you can use Google all on your own. \_ You see, people often accuse Bush supporters of the mentality of 'if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists.' Curiously, Amnesty supporters seem to have the mentality 'if you criticize Amnesty, you are defending torture!' Give me a break. This is a red herring. -- ilyas \_ No, you were critizing AI USA for attacking the US human rights record. There is really only one way to read that. No red herring at all. The claim that there is no AI Europe is the Red Herring. Europe is not even a country. Even a five minute search using Google turned up AI France, Germany, UK, Israel, Turkey, The Netherlands, Norway, India, Finland, Norway, NZ and Australia. \_ No, I am not criticising AI USA for the act of criticism itself, but for lack of scale and implied moral relativism. 'Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?' If holding the US to a higher standard is important, then holding Amnesty to an even higher standard is doubly important. important, then holding Amnesty to an even higher standard is doubly important. -- ilyas \_ And exactly how many tank divisions does Amnesty International have? \_ How many tanks does the Catholic Church have? Do you think they are a powerless organization too? You have to watch a lot more people than just those with tanks. This is another red herring. In some sense, though, there is a kind of karma to these orgs. If they get too shrill, people stop paying attention to them. -- ilyas \_ It is amusing that you think that Amnesty International is more powerful than the Pentagon. \_ Your knowledge of Soviet history is lacking. \_ I suppose the fact that Djugashvili said it makes it a RED herring. -- ilyas |
| 2005/6/10-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38077 Activity:kinda low |
6/10 Frustrated U.S. soldiers question the Iraqis' courage, discipline and
dedication and wonder whether they will ever be able to fight on their
own, much less reach the U.S. military's goal of operating
independently by the fall.
"I know the party line. You know, the Department of Defense, the U.S.
Army, five-star generals, four-star generals, President Bush, Donald
Rumsfeld: The Iraqis will be ready in whatever time period," said 1st
Lt. Kenrick Cato, 34, of Long Island, N.Y., the executive officer of
McGovern's company, who sold his share in a database firm to join the
military full time after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "But from the
ground, I can say with certainty they won't be ready before I leave.
And I know I'll be back in Iraq, probably in three or four years. And
I don't think they'll be ready then." http://csua.org/u/cbi (Post)
\_ No one except liberals read and believe in the Post.
Nevertheless, this is a pretty interesting article. Too bad it'll
just get dismissed by GWB, Cheney, Fox News, and NeoRepublicans
because it doesn't show what they want to hear.
\_ Shrug, I'll tell my O'Reilly-watching little brother who's
coming back from Basic Training in Ft. Benning. If he doesn't
believe it, he'll find out soon -- or maybe he'll tell me the
opposite six months from now, if he's still alive.
\_ Why tell him? I mean, if he goes, he'll find out
himself. It's a little late for him to do anything about
it now. Why depress him before hand?
\_ What would you do if it were your brother? Don't tell me
"isn't it obvious". Sleep on it.
"isn't it obvious". Sleep on it before coming back.
\_ If I couldn't bear to be supportive, at least I
wouldn't be a jerk about it. If I understand the
situation correctly, he's already in. That means
he CAN'T LEAVE. He's already promised. Even if
you succeeded in convincing him that it's a bad
idea, he still has to go. All your bugging him
everytime you seem is gonna do is make him dislike
YOU. Not to meantion, bad morale is a big troop
killer. I don't know why you're so interested in
being right you have to try to turn it into a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Or maybe i misunderstood
the situation.
\_ I asked about you, not me. It's obvious you
misunderstood that part.
\_ Huh? Maybe so, I sure don't know what you
mean by this. To paraphrase above, "If it
were my brother, I wouldn't keep bugging
him." I then went on to explain why.
\_ So, you wouldn't tell him that troops on
the ground think it will take longer than
anticipated to train the Iraqi army, maybe
as long as 4 years?
You would let him "find out himself" if he
goes?
Yes or no, please.
goes? Yes or no, please.
\_ Unless it comes up in casual
conversation, I probably wouldn't. No.
Basically, I can't see any value in
constantly rehashing political battles
like this. Especially ones that can
only have negative effect. If you
bring it up, it's just going to look
like you can't stand not getting in
the last word.
\_ Please also note that nowhere in my post
\_ Please note that nowhere in my post
did I say I would "convince him it's a
bad idea" or indicate that I made the
assumption that he could get out. Nor
did I indicate I would be "rehashing
political battles". The rest of your
statements about me rest on these
assumptions.
Obviously, you did not sleep on it like
I suggested, or you wouldn't have made
all these mistaken assumptions.
\_ Well, I've read your previous
posts. It's pretty obvious you
he listens to O'Reilly, and you
try to convince him he's wrong.
What other value could starting
conversations about Iraq with him
have? Please enlighten me.
\_ Sorry, but the one thing I won't
be doing is "try to convince him
he's wrong".
Instead of making these
assumptions about what I think,
it's a lot easier to just ask:
"Are you still trying to convince
him he's wrong?"
Then I would say, "Wrong
about what? What are you talking
about? He can't get out, he's
already signed up. It doesn't
matter if Iraq is 'wrong' or not,
when it applies to the question of
his living through it."
Had you just asked before assuming,
you would have saved a lot of
motd posts.
And then maybe you might realize
what my number one goal in talking
with him about Iraq is, which
I'll let you figure out if you
haven't already. Hint: It's not
trying to "convince him he's
wrong". Hint 2: What I tell him
about the original topic in this
thread will only be a tiny part of
what I have been telling him since
he signed up.
\_ You're saying you're trying
to "prepare him before he
goes?" Since I have no way
of knowing most of what
you've been "telling him
since he signed up."
\_ Why don't you just say:
"Oops, I made all these
assumptions about what you
think which turned out to
be wrong."
\_ Because now I'm
curious what you WERE
trying to say.
\_ Okay, then mostly I
tell him to get behind
cover when he's getting
shot at, don't be a
hero - live to fight
another day, and to pay
attention to his
training, in addition
to, don't be surprised
if the war takes 3+
more years.
Oh, I also told him
what SNAFU stands for
and its origins.
He was pretty surprised
to hear from my other
brother that he might
need to buy his own
body armor.
\_ Then I admit my
mistake. Sorry.
\_ He was pretty
surprised to hear
from my other
brother that he
might need to buy
his own body armor.
\_ [you really didn't want to read all that did you?]
\_ anything short of a fully Islamic fundamentalist government will
fail in Iraq
\_ Shia or Sunni? Their fundamentalists are like oil and water. |
| 2005/6/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38068 Activity:kinda low |
6/9 Pop music=anti-war, country music=pro-war:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158986,00.html
\_ Is Willy Nelson pro-war?
\_ do you have any idea how many USO shows he's done?
\_ What does that have to do with being pro war?
\_ Fox News fans psychotic, Daily Show Fans hip and with it.
\_ Dixie Chicks! |
| 2005/6/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:38064 Activity:nil |
6/9 The next generation of RealDoll(tm)
http://csua.org/u/cb7 (Yahoo! News Photos, work-safe)
\_ I like girls of that ... caliber
\_ Do they call it the Replicant I?
\_ Do they call it the Nexus I? |
| 2005/6/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38061 Activity:nil |
6/9 Robots on Yahoo! News Photos:
http://csua.org/u/cb7
Looks much more realistic than RealDoll(tm). |
| 2005/6/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38048 Activity:nil |
6/8 http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.family.tragedy Story of the Iraq war from a native Iraqi. |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38021 Activity:nil |
6/7 Amusing article on how the out of control guard urine
splashed the Koran of a GITMO inmate:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05158/516835.stm - danh
\_ "Deep Throat, if you're out there please save us." Amen. |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38013 Activity:nil |
6/7 Doesn't today's marijuana decision from the SCOTUS effectively mean
that the federal government can dismantle any state or local law that
differs from federal law through enforcement?
\_ Uh, Alabama? Civil Liberties? Hello!
\_ Yeah, despite my conservative bent, I'm pretty sure this whole
idea went out with the civil war.
\_ What do you mean? I have/had no idea, so I'm curious. !op
\_ I'm not 100%, but it sounds like he is talking about
the 14th amd which made due process applicable to
the states.
WRT the original question, yesterday's decision doesn't
really break new ground. Congress has always had the
power to enact legislation that preempts state law as
long as the legislation falls w/in one of its enumer-
ated powers. |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38012 Activity:nil |
6/7 Marla Ruzicka artile in Rolling Stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7371965 - danh |
| 2005/6/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:38008 Activity:nil |
6/7 Good Intentions Gone Bad - last thoughts on Baghdad
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek
\_ The world would be better if the US media didn't hate America.
\_ Obviously, you don't watch Fox News, the most loved and watched
news in America, except in the West Coast and New England. |
| 2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37997 Activity:moderate |
6/6 Okay, not very PC, but funny:
http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/rnr/77323420.html
\_ The "rants & raves" section is looking better than motd these days |
| 2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37987 Activity:nil Edit_by:auto |
6/6 I just saw an independent film called Gunner Palace. "400 American
soldiers carry out their mission from a bombed-out pleasure palace
once owned by Saddam-Hussein. This is their story." If you're curious
what it is like to be in Iraq, this is the movie to watch. I highly
recommend it to everyone. You don't know Iraq until you know all sides.
http://www.gunnerpalace.com
\_ I put it in my netflix queue a month ago. Please don't put it in
your queue until I get my copy. tnx.
\_ There's a scene where the soldiers stormed into a house full of
old women and children and the soldiers shouted "Get down! Get the
f*** down! Didn't you hear what I said? Come on!" and the Iraqis
just held their hands high, talking to each other and didn't
understand what they're saying.
\_ It's an okay documentary. Very little actions, mostly interviews.
A better one to watch is "PSB Frontline- A Company of Soldiers."
It's not showing anymore because it's too controversial and
some tax payers don't want it to be shown, but you can still get
it on torrents.
\_ Actually pbs allows you to watch it streaming for free:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/company/view
-dans
\_ Is it worth watching? Did you feel like you were wasting your
time? |
| 2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37978 Activity:nil |
6/6 http://csua.org/u/c9h Why am I not seeing these stories in US papers? \_ As Dick Cheney correctly pointed out, America has done a lot more good than evil. So we Americans feel justified to do whatever it takes to achieve our objectives. God Bless -Average American \_ Click your heels three times... \_ 'Cos you're not looking hard enough: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/international/01nations.html |
| 2005/6/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37966 Activity:insanely high |
6/3 WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon on Friday released new details about
mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror
suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim
holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later
fired for "a pattern of unacceptable behavior."
In other confirmed incidents, water balloons thrown by prison guards
caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; a guard's urine
came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; and
in a confirmed but ambiguous case a two-word obscenity was written in
English on the inside cover of a Quran.
The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening ...
the new details, that his investigation "revealed a consistent,
documented policy of respectful handling of the Quran dating back
almost 2 1/2 years."
\_ link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050603/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_bay_quran
\_ link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050603/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_bay_quran
\_ link: http://tinyurl.com/b4pxg (news.yahoo.com)
And I really love the "guard's urine came through an air vent"
rather than "a guard urinated through an air vent ..." It's the
urine's fault.
\_ And Bush drank a keg and pissed on Clinton's lawn and committed
sodomy on the Saudi Prince, yada yada yada yada yada. You know
that sadly, no one in the office cares what Girlie Men have to
say, right?
\_ Official Bush admin policy:
1) Good news is released on Monday if possible.
2) Bad news is delayed until late Friday.
3) Really really bad news is delays until late Friday before a 3
3) Really really bad news is delayed until late Friday before a 3
day weekend.
\_ Clinton didn't do these?
\_ He did Monica. With a cigar, that is.
\_ I don't know, did he? I'm talking about the Bush admin, not
Clinton.
\_ The best part is the freeper response:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1416121/posts
"Who gives a Shiite?...listen closely as I drop kick one of my five
versions of the Qur'an across the floor for my cats to chase"
"Confiscate the damn books and burn them"
"You're so right and we should feed them pork. ... Oh, and serve it
to them on pages of the Koran."
"They're deliberately undermining our war effort. They're evil."
"Most Americans, given the chance, would piss on the Koran."
\_ Who cares how the Koran was handled? What is the big deal if they
flush it down the toilet or whatever? I just don't get it, its
just a damn book, it you own a copy you ought to be able to do
with it as you please.
\_ I'll bet that line of reasoning won't get you far if you go to
Saudi Arabia and start wiping your ass with pages from the Koran
in public.
\_ I loved hearing someone comparing the reported quran
desecration favorably with the crucifix-in-urine artwork.
Context is meaningless in bushworld.
\_ Oh yeah, tell me about how much better the posters on
DU are.
\_ Maybe it's just me, but I would expect more from
a media outlet than from the posters on DU. It was
on some CNN show.
\_ Heck, see how far you get in Saudi Arabia carrying a
bible in public.
\_ So you commie-libs get a pass on burning the American flag
because of "freedom of speech" ? What about those who hate America?
I wish you could see the hypocrisy. This is a war. There really
is only my way or the highway. I hope you remember that when
you are sitting in your A/C office and a dirty bomb goes off
and slowly kills your ass.
\_ Yeah. And we fight that war by abusing people who are
rounded up in mass sweeps, the immense majority of whom had
nothing to do with attacking us, here or there. Fuck you.
Do you really think peeing on a man helps us "fight terror"?
Hint, when someone burns a flag, they're not doing it in front
of someone they've arrested, strapped up by their wrists, and
beaten to a fucking pulp.
\_ You, (I assume) posted a while ago that we do mass
round ups in Iraq. Do you actually belive we randomly
grab 50 Iraqis, beat them up, and pee on their Korans?
\_ The SouthComm report was talking about Afghanistan,
not Iraq. That aside, yes I do believe we go and
round up 50 people at a time. There have been reports
to that effect for the duration of the war. There
are people in Iraq who, wanting to take their neighbor's
land, tell the authorities "Hey, guess who I overheard
plotting a bombing." There is shit that happens in a
war zone that we can't control. But the things we can
control, we should. And if we fail at controlling it,
we can't just ignore that. If your brother was being
held by a foreign army, would you be more or less willing
to abet someone planning to blow them up?
\_ You missed most of my question. How interesting.
\_ I covered your question. Whether we beat every
one of them up isn't the point. We lock them away
with no legal recourse whether doing so benefits
us or not.
\_ I think you should be allowed to burn, shit/piss on, etc.,
the US flag, the Koran, the Bible, whatever. They are just
objects. However, we are trying to win the hearts and minds
of moderate Muslims, you know, part of the "WAR ON TERRA".
If we, in addition to beating them to death, making human
pyramids, etc., also defile the holy books of Muslim prisoners
this makes us more and more likely to lose the PR campaign
and that just cannot be good for our country. So, I do not
see any hypocracy. The problem is not the desecration of the
Koran -- the problem is the effect it has in the Muslim world. |
| 2005/6/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37959 Activity:nil |
6/2 UN says weapons equipment is missing in Iraq:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050603/D8AFSH1O1.html
\_ Dual-use equipment. Be exact.
What the fuck are we doing there?! |
| 2005/6/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37944 Activity:moderate |
6/2 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8008873 Freedom in Iraq. Things are getting better. I have no doubt that Bush will be remembered as the greatest leader in the world, liberating and educating the Iraqi savages. \_ Yeah, you know.. things aren't moving fast enough after a war. Why it took 11 years to rebuild Japan under U.S. occupation, how come a little country like Iraq is taking so long! Like today at Starbucks - it took them two minutes to make the damn latte! Oh.. what was I talking about again? \_ Iraq, Vietnam != Japan, Germany ; Gulf War 2 != WW2 \_ Iraq != Vietnam. \_ Iraq ~= Vietnam \_ Only when viewed from an extrememly narrow single-minded viewpoint. The approximation is essentially useless. \_ Your statements are true only when viewed from an extremely narrow, single-minded, and superficial viewpoint. The similarities lie in three critical elements: (1) We went in under assumptions that proved to be either dubious or false. (1a) The assumptions we went in on were ones in which protecting America was fundamental. (2) When we leave {Iraq,Vietnam} because of political realities even with our superior technology and track record of winning almost every battle we fight, we might lose. (3) We didn't have an effective insurgency in post-WW2 {Japan,Germany}. But I will give you several ways they're essentially different: (1) History isn't written in Iraq yet. We might (1) The assumptions we went in on were ones in which protecting America was fundamental. (that's actually the same not different, oh well) (2) History isn't written in Iraq yet. We might eventually win (form a stable government that doesn't build WMDs and opposes terrorism). (2) Deaths of U.S. soldiers are two orders of (3) Deaths of U.S. soldiers are two orders of magnitude lower, and there is no draft. \_ uh, 50K U.S. soldiers died in Vietnam in 13 years. We have over 1K dead in about 2 years. That's at most one order of magnitude different. -tom \_ Shit, you're right. I was looking at Wikipedia and didn't realize the "287,232" was RVN + U.S. Re-doing the math, yes, "at most" but around one order of magnitude difference in terms of annual rate of deaths. \_ Okay, I was dividing by 7 years of having a significant troop present, which gives a significant troop presence, which gives a 60 times difference in deaths anually, but that might be a wrong assumption. \_ What's an order of magnitude between friends. \_ Well, crap. We essentially agree, you just think your reasons they're the same are more important than mine that they're different. I'm too lazy to list a bunch of reasons they're the same or different, I'll just say the A-3 is irrelevent to my point. -!op \_ I don't think deaths really matter to the Americans. 1600 dead isn't a lot and most people don't care, since there's no draft. What really matters is how much our wonder-weapons cost and how much the military is draining our economy, and how worthless our money has become over the past few years. \_ Deaths really matter to Americans if there's a draft. But yeah, no draft, then it's the money we spend on an inefficiently executed war for core assumptions that turned out to be wrong. Oops. \_ With their new founded freedom of speech they can now say anything, including bad things about the evil US imperial occupation and wage media war in the entire Middle East region. \_ This will be fun when they do something akin to Iran (and what Turkey did once) and vote to abandon democracy for theocracy. \_ The US gov hoped the Iraqi people would vote for a secular government, but instead the Iraqi people voted for theocracy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21679-2005Feb13.html |
| 2005/6/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37925 Activity:nil |
6/1 http://csua.org/u/c8l (Reuters) "The Pentagon on Wednesday postponed [to June 10, a Friday] the release of military recruiting figures for May ... The military services had routinely provided most recruiting statistics for a given month on the first business day of the next month. ... 'Military recruiting is instrumental to our readiness and merits the earliest release of data. But at the same time, this information must be reasonably scrutinized and explained to the public, which deserves the fullest insight into military performance in this important area,' [a Pentagon spokeswoman said]." \_ Is there an election coming up? \_ Nah - if they were thinking about elections, they'd be covering up football hero deaths. Oh wait! |
| 2005/5/31-6/2 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37905 Activity:nil |
5/31 I've noticed weird things in the past few months where Fox News
does a 180 and writes unpatriotic op-ed. Why is this happening?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157960,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157948,00.html
The first one says US has a long history of bad judgements
(war) and the second one criticizes US and its citizens.
\_ Reverse psychology
\_ They can see which way the wind is blowing and are trying
to get ahead of it. |
| 2005/5/31-6/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37903 Activity:nil |
5/31 Mad about suicide bombing? Attack a KFC!
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/31/asia/web.0531pakistan.php
\_ Blame the West first!
\_ Two frozen in the freezer. So do terrorists give you a choice now?
Either get blown to pieces or frozen to death? |
| 2005/5/31-6/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37902 Activity:nil |
5/31 Woodward and Bernstein confirm that W. Mark Felt was "Deep Throat."
See washington post.
\_ Linda Lovelace is turning over in her grave!
\_ She didn't die. In fact, she was born again.
\_ Which came first?
\_ I don't think LL ever came for real.
\_ "On several occasions he confided to me, 'I'm the guy they used to
call "Deep Throat,"' ... [Felt] still has qualms about his actions,
but he also knows that historic events compelled him to behave as
he did: standing up to an executive branch intent on obstructing
his agency's pursuit of the truth. ...
Felt, having long harbored the ambivalent emotions of pride and
self-reproach, has lived for more than 30 years in a prison of his
own making, a prison built upon his strong moral principles and his
unwavering loyalty to country and cause. But now, buoyed by his
family's revelations and support, he need feel imprisoned no
longer."
\_ I'm waiting for a Deep Throat equivalent for GWB. Let's pray for it.
\_ Deep Fist is actually our own Tom Holub! You heard it here first!
\_ And he failed to change GWB's Regime of Incompetency.
Homeland Security begins with regime change, at our homeland.
\_ Not going to happen. Loyalty to GWB is paramount to those in
a position close enough to affect the administration. The
American public has accepted that the current admin engaged in
Operation Iraqi Freedom with less than solid proof. Mr Bush's
Splendid Little War will fall through the same cracks as Reagan's
Iran-Contra dealings. History will judge in another 50 years.
\_ Actually, a majority of Americans still thinks that Saddam
had WMDs.
\_ They also can't find Canada on a map, can't tell you when
WWII happened, can't identify when Jesus lived to within
a hundred years, and can't solve a quadratic equation.
My mom teaches college freshman, and started giving them
a quiz sometimes to see if these things you hear about
Americans' ignorance are true. They are.
\_ And most still think SH had terrorist ties. GWB has
reached teflon levels with this. |
| 2005/5/31-6/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37895 Activity:nil |
5/30 http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring03/Zentz/history%20page.htm http://saugus.byu.edu/writing/contest/fall2002/ethical_journalism.html "Media coverage of Vietnam was a rare exception in the history of combat coverage by the American media. Never before had the press been granted such access to the war zone. And never again would they. That war served as a lesson to the government and a pinnacle of freedom for the media" \_ I think that's because the US wasn't technically at war, unlike, say, during WWII. \_ that is technality. I personally find it alarming to allow President to initiate an arm conflict in a massive scale without declaration of war. |
| 2005/5/31-6/1 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:37894 Activity:moderate |
5/30 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.amnestyintl/index.html Who has more credibility, Amnesty International or Cheney? Also do you believe in Cheney's prediction that fighting would be over before the next administration? \_ Yeah A.I. is totally right. Comparing abuses of prisoners in Cuba to the Soviet Gulags where 16 million died. \_ False argumentation. Cheney: "our abuses aren't so bad, and we've done a bunch of good things, and human rights violators are entirely bad, so because we're not quite that bad, we're not human rights violators." Righteous indignation, indeed. As for gulags, it's a poorly chosen figure of speech. Just like "concentration camps"--invented by the British, remember? -John \_ but we just have queer makeover camps \_ AI has it right -- the bar is much higher for the U.S. (a little abuse goes a long way), so the comparison is fair. Cheney may be viewed as being more arrogant than combative, Cheney may be viewed as being more arrogant more than combative, and is also practicing defining reality. \_ I wish you could grow up in a 3rd world country to see what a little goes a long way really means. \_ This is awesome. That the US is not as bad as a 3rd country is hardly a defence. Are there any other 1st world \_ This is awesome. That the US is not as bad as a 3rd world country is hardly a defence. Are there any other 1st world countries that hold people indefinitely without a trial and torture them for information? \_ There is a hell of a lot of torture that goes on in American prisions, too, mostly in the form of prisoner on prisoner rape. This oftens leads to HIV, too. The authorities could stop this, but choose not to. authorities could stop this, but choose not too. \_ "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality." \_ "our abuses aren't so bad" -- what kind of talk is that from the "leader of the free world". Sounds kinda like this guy: General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks. |
| 2005/5/30-31 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37891 Activity:nil |
5/30 I love Memorial Day! I've never seen so many war movies on A&E and AMC
in one day. Anyways, just out of curiosity, do we have a clear
and accurate hierarchy of the terrorists? For example, in WW2 we know
the big head is Hitler, and his commanders and generals in Africa and
Luftwaffe. As soon as we take out all the head figures, we've won the
war. Ditto with Vietnam, Korea, and other wars. But in the War on
Terrorism, who's the central commander of Al Qaeda, who's supplying
weapons and money, who's coordinating, etc? If we take out Bin Laden
and Al Zarqawi, would it have the same immediate effect as taking out
Hitler? Also, what's going on with Sadam Hussein? Have we injected
sodium pentathol into Hussein so that he would tell us where Bin Laden
is and where he hid his nukes?
\_ http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/turnpike/97/frames2.html |
| 2005/5/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37890 Activity:kinda low |
5/30 "The first blast sent the crowd into a frenzy, forcing many to seek
shelter in the nearby Babil Health Directorate building, where the
other two bombers were waiting. The second and third blasts, triggered
simultaneously, shook the building moments later."
Happy Memorial Day.
\_ This is why I support the insurgents.
\_ Bush says we're winning the war on terror since we've killed
so many insurgents. But how do you measure success when you
don't have a clear idea how many insurgents have blended into
the population, and how many increasingly pissed off civilians
support or turn into insurgents (most for revenge on US
bombing collateral damage) every single day? There are a lot of
things going on in Iraq, and we're not getting a clear picture.
We don't even see pictures of wounded soldiers or caskets like
in the 70s, when journalists have complete freedom on where they
want to go and what they send back to the media (after Vietnam
war, all journalists need to check with the military before they
can send content back). What's going on? I DEMAND TO SEE REALITY.
\_ "You are either with us or against us" -Dubya (Nov 6 2001)
\_ "You are either with me or you're my enemy" -Darth Vader
\_ "He that is not with me is against me" -Jesus,
Matthew 12:30
\_ well, they can go get pictures if not beheaded |
| 2005/5/28-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37879 Activity:moderate |
5/28 Happy Memorial Weekend! Go watch the History Channel, MSNBC, etc
they have a lot of educational shows, like history of wars,
counter culture in Marin County/Arizona, etc. I'd like to take
this time to ask WHERE ARE THE PROTESTORS??? In the 70s, there
were a lot of peace and environmental activists. They actually
accomplished something, like going to the streets, holding anti-war
concerts, speaking out against Nixon, and generally creating
awareness in the public. Many people hate Bush and hate the illegal
and unethical war in Iraq, but WHERE ARE THE PROTESTORS? Have people
gotten soft? Or lazy and apathetic? COME ON. I want to see
protestors creating awareness like in the 70s.
\_ Actually, you're mistaking the 60's for the 70s. Also,
what the hell are you protesting? Do you want us to actually
get out of Iraq right now without resolving the situation?
Don't you think that regardless of whether you were for
or against the war that we have to stay there to insure a
stable middle east? What's your suggestion, we let the country
detoriate even further? What kind of nitwit are you anyway?
\_ You think there's only one solution, hence you're the nitwit
william. I propose splitting Iraq into smaller federations
rather than this monolithic government in which one side
feels short changed. There are many things that could have
been done, like hiring better post-war strategists who have
better ideas on nation building than it is now. If you think
the current solution of killing insurgents is working, you're
a fucking idiot. There's no fine distinction between insurgents
and the growing number of civilians who have strong resentments
towards US.
\_ Hello. Have you been following what's going on in Iraq
lately? I think the 'growing number of civilians' wants
foreigners out now, since they feel they are fighting an
Iraqi government. The last few operations against insurgents
have been increasingly done by the Iraqis themselves (with
American help). -- ilyas
\_ The USSR is no longer financially supporting insurgency groups.
Most non-leftists realize the boomers damaged this country
for generations.
\_ I think you mean "destabilized".
\_ because our wars have brought us peace
\_ Except for the ones that didn't
\- 1. there was a draft in the vietnam example. that caused
major social disruptions (and minor inconvenience to people
like CHENEY) 2. +50k usa casualties rather than low hundreds
\_ low thousands
\- i believe
the 50k vietnam
death figure
is comparable
to the invasion
stage casualty
count, not the
occupiation
count.
in iraq (and the number of vietnamese killed were also much
higher than number of iraqis ... and these number dont matter
higher than number of iraqis ... not that these numbers make
that much to people here anyway) ... but on a narrower question
of something like "why did people get more pissed off over the
secret bombing or gulf of tonkin vs the deliberate or incompetent
mistakes today" ... that's a reasonable question. 3. there is
not really much of a POW legacy to the gulf war. i guess we're
just distracted by Xbox and cable tv and web p0rn to care that
OBL got away.
OBL got away. 4. the victory conditions were more involved in
the southeast asian conflict ... the "mission accomplished"
was declared after getting saddam out. an invasion to toople
a govt != intervetion in a civil war.
\_ too bad, I was hoping that GWB would be remembered the way
Nixon is remembered, but I guess he's going to be revered
by Republicans the same way Reagan was revered. Oh well.
\-http://home.lbl.gov/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt
\_ http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring03/Zentz/history%20page.htm
"Media coverage of Vietnam was a rare exception in the history of
combat coverage by the American media. Never before had the press
been granted such access to the war zone. And never again would
they. That war served as a lesson to the government and a pinnacle
of freedom for the media"
\-http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/NixonObit-HST.txt |
| 2005/5/20-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37790 Activity:nil |
5/20 Headline of the day: "Bush promises probe into Saddam underwear
pictures" (on Yahoo! news)
Sadly now amended:
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/canderson/2005/05/20#23a505 |
| 2005/5/20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37785 Activity:high |
5/20 So we've solved the koran flushing problem. Okay,
how about the slightly broader torturing innocent
people problem?
\_ Start a new thread, dumbass.
\_ Okay. Here ya go.
\_ So who's innocent again?
\_ According to AI, roughly 90% of the people we round up.
Did you read the NYT article: http://csua.org/u/c4s
\_ Oh yes, I've read it. I've read people call things "torture"
that I wouldn't call torture. And then there's the question
of determining innocence without interrogation, etc.
\_ You mean the stuff that doesn't cause death or major organ
failure? Some whiners actually call that torture!
\_ I remember there was a news article that the prisoners
called female interrogators stripping, rubbing their
breasts against their backs, sitting on their laps, and
commenting on their apparent erection torture. Gee, where
can I get training to become a failed terrorist?
\_ Preach it brother! Interrogation is a wonderful tool that
should be used more often. And what does not kill them
makes them stronger, so we're helping them. Another tool
we should use is trial by fire. God will save them if they
are innocent.
\_ I remember there was a news article about someone
complaining about being raped. Gee, where can I
myself raped?
\_ well duh, that's obvious. Get the foes to fight like a real army,
wearing uniforms and all that.
\_ Do you know that we do roundups. Go into a community gathering
and grab 50 people because 1 we want _might_ be there. There's
no 4th amendment in Iraq or Afghanistan. Hell, there's no due
process at all with the people in our prisons there. We defeated
the army that wears uniforms. The people attacking us now are
regular Iraqis who we went there to "liberate". Yes yes yes,
there may be some foreign influence, but they need the support
of locals to operate. And when we do shit like this, it doesn't
help make them not want to support those foreign elements.
\_ Just because they act like psychotic thugs doesn't mean we
should. Ever heard of the moral high ground? And I believe op
said "innocent", like that Canadian dude we delivered to the
Syrian mukhabarat or whatever they're called because they
aren't so restrictive about genital-clamping people with
similar names as suspected terrorists. -John
\_ I think one aspect of this mess that's often ignored is the treatment
of American citizen prisoners in American prisons. All this stuff
that generated international outrage -- that's the stuff that
happens in American prisons every day, and passes mostly without
comment from American media. -- ilyas
\_ Prove it.
\_ This is fairly well documented, you can stroll over to
http://aclu.org, for instance. In fact, much as I am not fond of
some of the stances ACLU takes, I have to give them credit
for immediately linking prisoner abuses abroad with prisoner
abuses at home. -- ilyas
\_ Okay, I'll check it out. Thanks for the pointer (though
perhaps not for the news). |
| 2005/5/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37763 Activity:high |
5/19 "I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have
weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your
claims, that Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. I told the world,
contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity
on 9/11, 2001. Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out
to be right and you turned out to be wrong. And 100,000 people have
paid with their lives -- 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their
deaths on a pack of lies, 15,000 of them wounded, many of them
disabled forever, on a pack of lies. Senator, this is the mother of
all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes
that you supported." -Spoken in the Senate, May 17 2005
\_ url? more detail? Who spoke?
\_ I think it was George Galloway, MP from East London. He's a
major prick, liar, crook and Saddam-hugger (and probably took
a fair amount of illicit bribe cash from the guy) but hey, he's
got some good points. -John
\_ Has to be a lefty since the 100,000 numbers is made up by the
left. My guess is Ted Kennedy.
\_ "Made up" by the Lancet, the premier British journal
of medical research. Science is now "lefty" to the
howling Zealots.
\_ This site: http://www.iraqbodycount.net
says about 20K deaths. Which is right?
\_ This does not pretend to be a comprehensive review
of all casualties, just a numeration of those reported
by the media. I hope you can understand the difference.
\_ Yeah, made up:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887
\_ Your ignorance of statistics is stunning.
http://www.casi.org.uk/analysis/2004/msg00477.html
Quite seriously, you either have no knowledge of
statistics or you are being deliberately ignorant
of the facts.
\_ The salon article slams the stats as well as the
methodology. Which statements do you object to?
What about this one?
"One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be
in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and
shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to
extrapolate from a sample that included such an
extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out,
two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team
recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster."
\_ That is false. The Lancet study specifically
discarded the Fallujah cluster because of fears
that it would skew the data. The whole thing
is riddled with innacuracies:
http://csua.org/u/c4j
http://csua.org/u/c4k (Washington Post)
"The researchers called their estimate
conservative because they excluded deaths in
Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has
been the scene of particularly intense fighting
and has accounted for a disproportionately
large number of deaths in the survey."
The fact is that this the best researched
study on civilian deaths in Iraq published.
It says there are at least 40,000 excess deaths
at a 90% interval. Rather than accept these
findings or do research on their own, war
apologists go for the "shoot the messenger"
approach. Which is not science, it is politics.
\_ The Salon article goes on to mention that they
discarded the Fallujah numbers and picked other
sites. Why do you refuse to read the article?
\_ Why did you pick a quote out of it that
implied otherwise then? Show me an equally
\_ So that you'd read the damn article.
well researched study that comes to a
different conclusion and I will consider it.
For now, this is the best science we have
\_ The point of the
article is that the
science is crap.
\_ The article
is wrong.
and your willful refusal to admit that fact
just makes you look uninterested in facts
that do not support your worldview. I
read the Slate (not Salon) article a long
time ago and watched it shredded in the
blogsphere.
\_ Just READ THE FUCING ARTICLE.
\_ I just told you that I read it many
times.
\_ No, you said you read it, period.
What are your objections to it?
\_ Calling a statistical
distribution a dart board
is foolish.
\_ Not when they're picking a
single value out of a
distribution with a massive
standard deviation. The
dartboard analogy is a good
one.
\_ Do you know anything about
statistics at all? Do you
know what a confidence
interval is?
\_ Yes and yes.
Then you know that to a 90% degree of confidence, the_/
number of excess deaths was 40,000 to 150,000 and to
a 75% degree of confidence it was 70,000 to 120,000.
How should these results be reported in the media
and in a speech? Knowing that the vast majority
of the people you are talking to don't know what
a standard deviation is, how do you report the
results of this peer reviewed, extensively
researched study? What number do you use
and what language do you use to explain it.
\_ Have you read the original Lancet
article or just what a bunch of
hacks have written in reply to it?
\_ No, it's a journal. I read the
guardian and nytimes summary.
\_ You can read it online for
free.
times. You are not smart enough to
be worth talking to.
distribution a dart board\
is foolish.
\_ I couldn't find a free
link. Feel free to supply
one.
/
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604174412/fulltext
You have to register though.
\_ Thanks for the link. I'll read it and follow-up (probably in a different
thread) afterwards.
\_ http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/19/galloway/index.html
"British MP George Galloway returned to London to a standing
ovation after a fiery showdown with U.S. senators who have accused
him of profiting from the U.N.'s defunct oil-for-food program in
Iraq. ... 'We are the enemy within, Mr. Blair, the enemy of all
your wars, the enemy of all your betrayals, the enemy of all your
lies.'"
\_ Ah yes, he said he was coming to defend himself, but as far
as I can tell he just ranted left-wing talking points. In
other words, guity as charged.
\_ Facts are not "left-wing talking points." Those of us
in the reality based community are amused.
\_ 100K dead is not a fact, it's a lefty talking point.
\_ Do you think it's reached that number by now?
\_ Since the Pentagon has indicated it does not officially
track number dead/wounded from collateral damage,
clearly facts don't matter.
http://http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=84438
\_ IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
\_ so, you really think we managed to avoid any civilian
casualties?
\_ sarcasm detector faulty!
\_ It's Captain False Dichotomy! And his sidekick
Strawman Boy!
\_ So tell us then. How many civilian casualties
do *you* think there have been in Iraq and
where do you get your numbers?
\_ Your false dichotomy was that either 100,000
civis died or I think that none did. Moron.
\_ So you continue to refuse to come up with
an answer and resort to Ad Hominem in
an attempt to cover up that fact.
\_ No, I added the ad hominem after pointing
out your false dichotomy for fun.
\_ And you still refuse to come up
with a number.
\_ political threads seem to be
getting stupider and stupider.
\_ yawn.
\_ Iraq Body Count looks more
reasonable at about 20K.
\_ Those are only civilian
deaths due to enemy action.
Overall deaths, which would
include all insurgent and
military casualties, would
have to be higher. There is
also a lot of murder in
Iraq these days, much more
than in SH days. IBC does
not count this, either. |
| 2005/5/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37761 Activity:nil |
5/18 So when are we going to bring McD, coca-cola, Disney, IBM, and
GM to Iraq? Those people are deprived of everything that's good
about freedom. No wonder they're pissed. The sooner we bring
these essential services to the Iraqis, the less they'll want
to fight against us:
http://blatanttruth.org/raisemac.jpg
http://blatanttruth.org/charcoca.jpg |
| 2005/5/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37745 Activity:nil |
5/18 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4541387.stm Yay, things ARE improving in Iraq! Cheaper cost of living, cheaper (and legal) medicinal weed. -troller high on dope |
| 2005/5/18-19 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37744 Activity:nil |
5/18 Mother Nature biggest polluter in Hawaii:
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7753
\_ "Mother Nature is terrorizing us with toxic fume. There is no room
for neutrality in the war against terrorism. Iraq, Iran, North
Korea, and now Mother Nature constitute an axis of evil.
You are either with us, or against us. We can no longer
solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. We
cannot let Mother Nature strike first. As a matter of common
sense and self-defense, United States will act against such
emerging threats before they are fully formed. The reasons for
using nukular missiles on the volcano will be clear, the force
measure, and the cause righteous."
\_ <stupid unfunny joke reply deleted>
\_ williamc, you are most definitely not the humour arbiter around
here.
\_ It's spelled humor, you english prick.
\_ "English". |
| 2005/5/17-18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37724 Activity:very high |
5/17 "I don't care much about world perception of the US. The right
thing to do is sometimes unpopular." says emarkp. Mr. Ping,
can you please explain to me what is right and what is wrong?
Who is the arbiter of righteousness? People? God? If God, then
which God? And if Bible, which version? How about Koran,
is that right or wrong?
\_ Restored. If you don't feel like answering, don't.
\_ No Mr. Anonymous Troll. -emarkp
\_ It's a valid question. Knowing who wrote it is not relevant to
the core of the question. The fact that you need to know who
wrote it says a lot about your character and belief.
And good job for nuking responses.
\_ Oh, I thought the question was for me. So I nuked the one
parodying me and the rest for completeness. I don't answer
questions from anonymous trolls. -emarkp
\_ Restored. If you don't feel like answering, don't.
\_ those who are agree with me and share the same values are right.
those who are not are wrong. simple.
\- hello, this is too big a topic to try and lay out something
\- hello, this is too big a topic to try to lay out something
comprehensive, but one thought: without being a full-blown
relativist or a hardcore "might makes right" adherant [both of
whom are to some extent begging the question, sometimes con-
sciously doing so], it is not unreasonable to believe different
standards apply in "society" and in the "state of nature".
if you are looking out for yourself in the Stag Hunt scenario
than is different from stealing from your neighbor in berkeley,
ca. you can certainly debate to what extent is the international
system like the anarchic [meaning non-hierarchical with no
ruler who can "lay down the law", not meaning it is chaotic]
international system vs a "community" with norms and standards.
\- this may be a little hard to follow if you dont have some
knowledge of the framework/tradition i am coming from.
a concrete example of this difference in standards is how
you assess the question "is lying bad?" is different
in the context of friends, companies and soverign states.
ok tnx.
you assess the question "is lying bad?" in the context of
friends, companies and soverign states. ok tnx.
\_ While there is no "absolute right", there are time when it's
pretty clear. One hopes that one's leadership would be wise and
differentiated enough to know when this is the case. -John
\_ In discussion right and wrong, the concept of right does not
necessarily flow from the notion of divinity. Assume for the
sake of argument that the big bad universe doesn't give a damn
about what a bunch of overgrown hair-less apes are doing on
this minor world. These same apes can have relative notions
of right and wrong that help to maximize their long-term
survival and order their affairs.
The conflict is thus based purely on the choices that a subset
subset of the species feels maximizes the overall survival.
A choice may be right, in that it maximizes overall long-term
survival, but unpopular, in that it creates short-term barriers
to survival for many.
\_ Almost correct, but wrong. You need to rephrase your last part
to "A choice may be considered right in that it is BELIEVED
to maximize..." The point is, 1) you don't know the future
and 2) past does not always predict the future because life
has too many variables to consider. Either you're a dumb ass
or I've been trolled.
\_ I guess this wasn't clear. Whether the choice was right
or wrong can only be judged in retrospect. In the present
it is unknowable whether the choice was right.
it is unknowable whether the choice was right. The belief
that something is right in the present is based on the
notion that your mind has been able to predict the outcome
based on the information that is available.
\_ Yes this is again aligned in conservative point of view. How
do you know with certainty that the money you spent on war
will in the future improve Iraq? There are lots of other things
you can spend your 300 billion on to improve other parts of the
world, and you think that a regime change (resulting in massive
Arab humiliation and resentment) is good in the long term?
I hope there is God, so that you'd go to hell.
\_ No Mr. Anonymous Troll. -emarkp
\_ I never said the Iraq war was right. I said that it could
be right. For example, the argument you have made was made
by many re Revolutionary War, Civil War, Desegregation, &c.
The idea that freedom maximizes suvival of the species was
the basis for entering into those conflicts and may be
considered the basis for entering into the present conflict.
As this idea has served our species well in the past, one
cannot be faulted for believing that it will serve us in
this and future conflicts.
\_ BTW, I have an email address. -emarkp
\_ Why does this keep getting deleted? |
| 2005/5/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37715 Activity:high |
5/16 I think I'm beginning to understand the rationale behind nominating
Bolton. Many Republicans think that UN is useless (case in point
http://csua.com/?entry=35423 and
freeper sites) hence they either don't care who they nominate
for or they want to show UN how pointless they are. I mean, who
the fuck writes "Darfur pretty much proves the UN as useless and
that the world in general doesn't give a rip about humanitarian aid."
\_ He's not really putting a fine point on it, but Darfur, Rwanda,
Srebrenica, Sarajevo... starting to see a pattern? -John
\_ We had to destroy the UN in order to save it.
\_ The UN is an institution where if one powerful country takes the
lead, the framework is there to support the leader.
E.g., if any powerful country decided to spend the money, people,
time, and political capital to get involved in Darfur, the UN would
provide a framework where other countries could help.
Unfortunately, no powerful country did anything significant about
Darfur.
This is how the UN works. This is how powerful countries "use" the
UN correctly.
\_ Nice nuke. As I said, it's also where Libya gets to chair the
human rights commission. I'm not saying it's not better than
the alternative, but there's a lot broken at the UN. -John
\_ Nuke of what? I'm using motdedit with jove and didn't
force an overwrite. Someone else using scp probably is
responsible.
Granted, there's a lot broken, but there's a lot broken about
the American political system too.
We live with the American political system and try to fix it
because it's the best thing we've got.
There's no one saying we can't try to fix the UN too.
\_ In spite of all what emarkp wrote in the URL above, he ignores two
things: (1) the number one reason the U.S. went into Iraq was
Dubya's "no doubt" that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs, and (2)
rebuilding of post-war Iraq is being poorly executed.
Now if the U.S. had presented evidence to the UN that there was "no
doubt" that Saddam had WMDs -- and any of France, Russia, and China
signaled a veto -- THEN the UN might be irrelevant. However, Colin
Powell presented his shit case ("trust us" on the "no doubt" part,
okay?), France signaled a veto, we went in anyway, and the CIA's
judgment now is that Saddam did not have stockpiles and did not have
active WMD programs. If we went into Iraq because Saddam was
manipulating oil-for-food, torturing people, giving money to suicide
bombers, and just because we wanted to get him while he was small
before he could leverage Iraq into a global power because of his
before he could leverage Iraq into a global power using his vast
oil reserves and desire to restart WMDs once sanctions were lifted
-- these are worthwhile goals, but none of these were presented to
the UN or to the people of America as the primary reason for
invading.
the UN or to the American people as the PRIMARY reason for invading.
... Now, we are already in Iraq. We need to win. We need to unify
America. We need to come clean. Dubya needs to do these things:
(1) Be loud and clear about CIA's judgment that there were no WMD
stockpiles nor active WMD programs, it being the number one reason
we went in, and how the CIA did believe there was "no doubt".
(2) Say we're there now, we made the above intelligence mistake,
but we need to win for the sake of the people of Iraq who are being
blown up by suicide bombers, for the sake of the world if Iraq
devolves into a safe haven for those who would build and train
people to use WMDs.
(3) Say that we presented a case to the UN for which we had "no
doubt", but actually there was a lot of doubt on.
(4) Start using the U.N. correctly.
As long as we do not do the above, the U.S. we will not have come
clean and we will remain a divided nation. Yet, we may still win in
Iraq. I hope at least that happens.
As long as we do not do the above, the U.S. will not have come
clean, and we will remain a divided nation. Yet, we may still win
in Iraq. I hope at least that happens.
\_ What is the definition of "winning"? Did we win in Vietnam?
When Israelis give up land for peace, is that winning?
Sun-Tzu says that if you have to start a war, then you've
already lost. What does that mean to you?
\_ The principal victory condition in Vietnam was no Communist
Vietnam. The victory condition was not satisfied.
The principal victory condition for Iraq is no safe haven for
those who would build and train people to use WMDs.
I hope this victory condition is satisfied.
\_ Oh wow. Cool. So we were done before we started!
'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' means nothing to
these people. If you don't fix it, how can you
siphon money out of it?
\_ What are you babbling about?
\_ For this to be a victory condition, you assume
that, before the war, Iraq was a haven for WMD
producers and terrorist training grounds. You
have a long evidence gap to cross to make this
claim. However, since the war, it's getting
closer to this sort of haven. Congrats.
\_ The victory condition before the war was
to destroy all WMDs and dismantle active programs.
Dubya's assumption, as I state repeatedly above,
was that Saddam had WMDs and active programs.
This was clearly a mistake.
The new victory condition is to prevent Iraq
from becoming a safe haven for training /
production of WMDs. As long as we recognize our
earlier mistake -- and I have said repeatedly
that Dubya needs to acknowledge the mistake loudly
and clearly -- it's honest to make this new
victory condition.
\_ The victory condition before the war, and
indeed the condition thata Bush placed upon
himself, was to disarm Saddam, preferably
through non-military means. Exhaust all
diplomatic efforts, he said. A resolution
of force to use as a diplomatic tool, he said.
It was no mistake. They had decided long
before, as we now know, that they were going
to go in. WMD or not.
\_ Actually, Dubya denied it all (the UK memo)
in a statement yesterday. You can believe
Dubya is a lying asshole prick who rushed to
war and fixed intelligence around policy
(all in the name of Freedom) and this may
very well be true, but I still hope Iraq
turns out all right.
I'm guessing another of your beefs is:
That you just don't want to call it
"winning" or "victory condition", but
"pulling America's ass out of the fire
after Dubya fucked it all up" and
"non-fuckup condition" which is actually
pretty accurate.
\_ No shit?! Dubya denied it? Well then,
the Brits must have lied.
You know, I'd love to be able to call
something about this "winning". I'd
love to think we're not making people's
lives miserable and dangerous when they
didn't do anything to us. I'd love to
think that we will be able to help them
create a nation with strong enough
institutions to prevent it from becoming
a haven for dangerous elements. And yes,
we're in a catch 22 of our own making on
this point. But winning this means
nation building. And if you look at
our history of that, it doesn't go so
well.
\_ Well then, you and I hope the same
thing. I think what happened was
that I sacrified some accuracy in
terms in hopes of converting
moderates and less fanatical Dubya
supporters. I gave Dubya the benefit
of the doubt in terms of whether
he's a liar. Really, Dubya could
just say the UK misinterpreted U.S.
intentions, but I doubt it's going
to get even that far.
\_ will the Mormon troller above clarify if this is true... that you
really think UN is irrelevant (and the comment that you don't
give a shit what the world thinks about US), hence you don't
really care if Bolton gets in or not? |
| 2005/5/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:37703 Activity:high |
5/16 Newsweek lied and people died.
\_ Lied?
\_ Yes, lied. They claimed that the military confirmed something
that they didn't confirm. Now they aren't even retracting their
story.
\_ They claimed that the military confirmed something that they
will no longer confirm...
\_ So where were you when the New York Times was hyping the war
in Iraq with hundreds of lies about Saddam's huge arsenal of
WMD?
\_ You do understand that a mistake by one news organization
does not justfiy another mistake by a different
organization.
\_ I'm not defending Newsweek. I think they fucked up and
they should own up to it. However, I think all the
right wing blustering and rage about it is pretty silly
given that we got into a useless war on track to cost
more than Vietnam in constant dollars based on a huge
tissue of lies that was printed in the NYT amongst
many others. Don't hear much blustering and rage about
THAT. It seems like lies are perfectly all right as
long as they justify your desired ends.
\_ Well, I don't think NYT lied, nor did Newsweek. They
made mistakes, but so does everyone. The best they
can do is to own up to their mistakes and correct
their processes so that future mistakes are less
likely. Also, I find it somewhat sad (if it is
true) that there is only "right wing blustering and
rage". We should all be upset about the Newsweek
error, just as we should all be upset about errors
in NYT and elsewhere.
\_ Okay, what was Newsweek's mistake? They got this
tidbit from a "knowledgable source", one they had
used before. They asked two DD officials for
confirmation. The first declined to comment. The
second said another part of the article was wrong,
but didn't question the part about flushing the
Koran. So newsweek ran it. This sort of thing
used to be called journalism. Two weeks later,
their source backs out and the pentagon gets
pissed. Something's fishy. --scotsman
\_ Good journalism requires at least two sources
for a story.
\_ Sounds to me like they thought they had two:
Their source, and the official who read the
story and didn't object. It wasn't a
positive assertion that "yes, this is in an
upcoming report from an investigation", but
it certainly seems they checked it out.
It just really smells too much of shoot-the-
messenger for me.
\_ I'm not sure "no comment" and "That
sounds like something I heard once"
count as confirmations.
\_ What about "I've reviewed your piece
and you can't print this [other
unrelated part]"?
\_ That would be confusing 'not
denying' with 'positively
affirming'.
\_ Which, in an admin that funnels
all FOIA requests through the
white house, seems a line that
needs to be crossed.
\_ This would be the "it's good
enough because doing more is
hard" standard?
\_ Which is why they
apologized, but haven't
retracted.
\_ Newsweek retracted.
\_ Indeed. Sigh.
\_ We should apply this
standard to more things.
\_ And how did people die from Newsweek's lie?
\_ do you even watch any news?
\_ Oops! I read about the Quran flushing and the riot, but I
missed the news that it was a Newsweek lie. -- PP
\_ Watching the news is a big mistake. Reading the news isn't
much better but at least print media sometimes pretends to take
it's job seriously. --!pp
\_ You missed the riots and deaths?
\_ Those were terrorists, not "people"!
\_ The Afghani government claims that the riots there had
nothing to do with the Koran story. Don't know if there
were deaths elsewhere.
\_ (not a troll, really) Afghani == currency. Afghan ==
citizenship.
\_ American Newsweek writers didn't know how inflammatory "flushing
Koran down a toilet" was compared to getting nekkid CIA officers to
sit on detainees laps - otherwise they would have done more vetting.
\_ Newsweek already killed Admiral Boorda.
\_ I posted a long quote from Gen. Myers stating that the US
definitely placed Koran's on the toilet, but can't confirm yet
whether any actually were flushed, but some asshole stomped it.
You and the whole Powerline/LGF crowd are going to look pretty
stupid when it turns out Newsweek was correct.
\_ Where is the quote?
\_ The post may have just been overwritten. Why don't you
repost or post a link?
\_ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/05/mil-050512-dod01.htm
\_ http://csua.org/u/c31
Important stuff is at the very bottom.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Myers is saying though.
What do other people take that last paragraph to mean?
\_ For the most part he seems to be denying the Newsweek
report. I have no idea what he was trying to say here
though: "There are several log entries that show that
the Koran may have been moved to -- and the detainees
became irritated about it, but never an incident where
it was thrown in the toilet."
\_ Yeah I take that to mean that the Koran was moved
to the toilet, but not flushed down it, though it
is not entirely clear that he meant that.
\_ "They have looked through the logs, the interrogation logs, and
they cannot confirm yet that there were ever the case of the
toilet incident, except for one case, a log entry, which they
still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard
to be ripping pages out of a Koran and putting in the toilet to
stop it up as a protest. But not where the U.S. did it.
... That's still unconfirmed; it's a log entry that has to be
confirmed. There are several log entries that show that the
Koran may have been moved to -- and the detainees became
irritated about it, but never an incident where it was thrown in
the toilet." -Gen. Myers
Okay, so there are logs that say the Koran was moved "to" the
toilet, which means to me on the seat (open or closed) or on top
of the water reservoir.
The point of debate is not about stomping on or putting Koran's
"on" the toilet, the latter point the military concedes there are
logs about. The issue is flushing Koran's down the toilet, for
which the military says there are no logs showing this.
\_ So they were "really disrespectful" but not "ludicrously
disrespectful"? The WH puts out a statement saying that
Newsweek is hurting America's image. I say America is
hurting America's image.
\_ You don't get people killed because of Korans moved "to"
the toilet. Flushing Korans is another thing.
Anyways, like I wrote earlier, American Newsweek writers
just didn't understand how inflammatory this was, or they
would have vetted it more.
\_ As noted above, the afghan gov't said that the report
was incidental to the violence. Not a cause. People
are pissed. at us. enough to blow up themselves and
innocents to get to us and those who are linked to us.
And you say it's because newsweek printed an article...
\_ Let's put it this way: If Newsweek's anonymous
Pentagon source didn't back down and Gen. Myers said
"Yeah, we actually do have logs of our guys flushing
down Korans", then the U.S. military would be blamed.
\_ Y'know what. The US Military is already blamed
because we are OCCUPYING THEIR COUNTRY. Because
we are holding people thousands of miles from home
in a legal limbo. The status of the qu'ran in a
gitmo prison is just another speck on our filthy
image.
\_ The one point I can agree with you on is that
Dubya's administration has committed many more
serious mistakes than Newsweek has.
\_ How many other surfaces are there in a military latrine
where one can put a copy of the Koran?
\_ Well, the issue is whether they did it on purpose to
piss off the prisoners.
\_ Is it? I thought the issue was the location of the
of the Koran. The Myers quote made no mention of
the state of mind of the military guard(s). Never
been in a military prison latrine before, but I'm
not coming up with many better locations to put a
copy of the Koran than on top of the can.
\_ Why did they bring one there in the first place?
\_ Ah, that's a different question. I don't
think I've seen any reference to *who* brought
Koran into the toilet. Was it a guard or a
prisoner? But once the book is in the toiilet,
where else better should you put it?
\_ Every prisoner gets a Bible, Koran, or whatever
holy book you want.
\_ Would they give free Playboy subscriptions
if you said you worshipped Hugh Hefner?
\_ What is inferred is that the state of mind of the
prison guards was as you stated: They were
innocently placing the Koran on the john because
it seemed like a good place.
But Myers didn't say that explicitly.
\_ These are supposed to be diaries of interrogations
remember. It makes no sense to respectfully place
the Koran "near" the toilet as an aside in an
interrogation interview. My guess is that they
threatened to flush them as a way to antagonize
the "interviewees." But that is just a guess.
the "interviewee." But that is just a guess.
\_ I don't know, the pentagon guys didn't say
the Koran was "moved to the toilet" during
interrogation, just that it was moved there.
You're assuming this was during
interrogation, but it's also possible
that a gaurd may have picked up a Koran to
get it out of the way and just used the
toilet tank as a convinent place to put it
down. Heck, I read my bible on the can, and
rest it on the tank sometimes. I can see a
gaurd doing this with a Koran inadvertantly.
It's a possibility.
\_ I assumed that it was in a cell that had a toilet in
it, like most jails.
\_ Apparently, some prisoners are kept in en suite
cells, and others are kept barrack-style, presumable
with an attached communal latrine.
\_ I don't understand this logic. Regardless
whether it happened, if the military denies
it, then they mustn't be blamed?
\_ This is hardly the first time this claim has been made:
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6058 |
| 2005/5/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37686 Activity:nil |
5/14 Did you know that Iran has the world's second largest gas reserve,
and the best thing is that it has not been fully tapped yet?
http://www.netiran.com/?fn=artd(3550
\_ The Middle East has been blessed with plentiful oil and plentiful
natural gas. The oil is much easier to exploit. With GTL cranking
up much more of their natural gas can be used.
\_ This is GREAT news! We can go into Iran, LIBERATE the people there
and be greeted with uttermost awe and respect for Americans, while
we tap into their rich resources.
\_ Your sarcasm is only highlighted by your idiocy over Iraq. Yeah,
we're really raping Iraq of its oil. My gawd oil prices are low.
\_ There are numerous factors besides Iraq that determine
the price of gas. Who knows, maybe the price would have been
higher had Iraq not been 'liberated'. Or not. Who knows. -pp |
| 2005/5/14-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:37683 Activity:high |
5/14 This is just depressing stuff. Woman kicked like a soccer ball dies.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/15/MARIA.TMP
\_ Tragic, but you'll note that her family offered to buy her a home
in Chicago and she refused because of the weather. Yes,
homeless is so much better.
\_ The woman got stomped to death after living a life that would
break just about anyone. How about you just shut the hell up
and stop trying to score some meaningless points.
\_ I think you got trolled.
\_ She has mental problems. Give her a break.
\_ Trolling is also trying to score meaningless points.
\_ She had mental problems. Give her a break. Besides, there is
this line in the article: "Calls home became less frequent, and
more desperate for money." I doubt if her family was really so
generous as to buy her a home. Otherwise she wouldn't need to
sound desperate for money. Maybe her family only offered a small
downpayment and she was supposed to handle the mortgage. Some
people like to exaggerate their goodness when there's no one to
counter them.
\_ You might be correct, but people are often reluctant to
give money without strings to crazy/drug addicted people.
This is not unreasonable.
\_ well, in my country, they say that America is a great country
with lots of opportunities IFF you're young and fit, because
if you're not, there's no one (government) to take care of you.
In this case, she got a physically debilitated and things seemed
In this case, she got physically debilitated and things started
to go downhill. In my country, this would never happen. But
then again, my country isn't as big and powerful as America.
\_ What's your country? I was very surprised to see how many
homeless and despondent people I saw on the streets of
"functioning" places like Vancouver, London, Tokyo and
Frankfurt. Even Sweden & Denmark have the pooor, broken
bastards that just fall through the cracks. -John
\_ Simple response - Move back. Seriously.
\_ I will gladly get out of your facsist imperialistic country
and move back when I've made enough money for retirement.
I'll reap social benefits of my country while enjoying
wealth that I earned when I was young and healthy. You
on the other hand are stuck with broken infrastructures
and national deficits. Anyways, this is what I love about
America. I get free education (scholarships), I make lots
of money with only 30% tax, and I get to take everything
from America back home. America IS a great country.
\_ I was going to say "Yeah, but how much tax do you pay in your
country?" But then I just remember that we pay lots of tax
here too.
\_ US is 15% for the poor, 40% for the richest. I am
personally paying 30%, and I wouldn't mind paying 50% if
1) my government would stop squandering money on pointless
war, propaganda, and Corporationally aligned agendas and
2) my government starts improving things INSIDE the U.S.,
like better (more organized) mass transit, better road
systems, better education, and infrastructures in general.
I personally prefer a country run by Denmark/Switzerland
like government with lots of accountability and a sense of
duty and ethics than see it run over by private
corporations like it is now. This whole talk on
privatization on every little thing is sickening me.
\_ I think the word you're looking for is
"accountability." Be wary of using places like .dk and
.ch as examples--they have a lot of problems too, they
just don't show up as much because they're generally
on a smaller scale. -John
\_ Tell us about their problems. Percentage-wise, is it
worst than U.S.? Do they also privatize social
security, electricity, water, and other things?
Is the quality of education level more "flattened"
thoughout the country, or is it very aymmetrical
like the U.S.? -Curious liberal red-neck
\_ I dunno about Denmark, althoug they have a m4d
immigration backlash. .ch privatizes most
utilities to heavily regulated companies. The
problems are way different (mainly to do with
immigration/integration and heavy-handed
bureaucracy stifling business and innovation.)
You can't draw comparisons between ethnically and
culturally homogenous countries of < 20 million
and the US. -John |
| 2005/5/14-16 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37682 Activity:kinda low |
5/14 As of 4:40PM, the followings are respective headline news:
"Offensive Over: U.S. says insurgent strongholds ... 'neutralized'"
-- MSNBC
"U.S. Marines complete offensive on insurgent staging area" -- CNN
"U.S. Wraps Up Border Sweep: 9 Marines And More Than 125 Militants
Killed, U.S. Says" -- CBS News
"U.S.: Matador a Success: Insurgent sanctuary 'neutralized'" -- Fox
"U.S. Calls Iraq Border Operation a Success" -- ABC News
"Syrian military build up on Iraqi border, as US calls western
offensive 'successful'"
Same news, very different political overtones from CBS, ABC,
and Fox Conservative. Fuck American media.
\_ They all sound the same to me. Fuck stupid motd people. In the ear.
\_ He apparently doesn't know what ':' means.
\_ At least all the different overtones can co-exist, unlike in
countries with govt-controlled media where there is only one tone.
\_ What's wrong with those headlines... Should they all be the same? |
| 12/25 |