| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/27 |
| 2006/4/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42642 Activity:high |
4/3 has anyone pay attention to Moussaoui trial? don't you guys find it
troublesome for US goverment seeking death penalty for someone who is
already in jail for entire month prior to 9/11 attack? how about
classifying jet-fuel-filled airliner as "weapon of mass destruction"
when it is clearly not?
\_ A death trial will mean a lot of people in Texas and Virginia
shooting bullets into the air and party all night. Yeehaw!
\_ hi troll. 'i fob motd guy' thing is really done. you can
post your questions with no pretending to be ESL. if you like,
trying later again with no fake thing, i sure a bunch a people
be happy chatting about it.
\_ It's all fun and games until the Iraqi airforce bombs your
party cuz you were shooting bullets into the air!
\_ hi troll. the 'im fob motd guy' thing is really done. you can
post your questions without pretending to be esl. if you'd like
to try again later without the fake thing im sure a bunch of people
would be happy to chat about it.
\_ it's not troll. In my eye, we are seeking death sentence
because Moussaoui committed "thought crime." Further, I think
US department of justice change the definition of "WMD" for
seeking death sentence. In that case, gosh, the search of
"WMD" is over in Iraq, as Iraq has PLENTY of jet liners
when we invade it.
\_ A "thought crime"? You do realize that it's possible to be
an accomplice to a crime without being present when the
actual deed is done, right? If he knows a crime is going to
take place with a high degree of certainty (especially
such a heinous one) and chooses to do nothing (and in
Moussaoui's case, had originally intended to participate)...
\_ you're a troll. i told you: try again in english in a few
weeks and im sure people will be happy to discuss it. the
fob troll thing just isn't that funny. |
| 2006/4/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42634 Activity:nil 75%like:42632 |
4/3 Any idea why soda's SSH has been flaky the past few days?
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html -jblack http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html -jblack |
| 2006/4/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42608 Activity:nil 80%like:42603 |
4/1 Freepers react to kidnapped reporter saying her statements were made
at gunpoint. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607576/posts |
| 2006/4/1-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42605 Activity:high |
4/1 The fellow who as been the editor of the e'ist for the entire adult
lives for most of you is stepping down. Interesting farewell
restrospection at:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6744590
Main topics: 1. globalization 2. poverty 3.iraq
--psb
\_ Synopsis: fact #1 fact #2 ... fact #n ... that's why
the Iraq War is a good thing and we should redouble our effort."
Economist's view is that "Conservative think tanks are the
answer to liberal academia." Go figure.
\_ thanks for the article. his big cop out was arguing that
his support for the Iraq war was right, but that George Bush
let us down. Please ... you cannot decide whether to support
a war without taking into consideration the capabilities of
the leadership taking charge of the war and its aftermath.
Even a really good leadership would have a very difficult
time in the case of Iraq, and would likely make things worse
instead of better, and also tie us up for a long time.
That's why the war is a bad idea. He
should just say, "we're wrong", and I will have more
respect for him. I like Economist better before him
Economist also become more pro-American from a
politics standpoint instead of representing a more multi-
faceted worldview. I don't necessarily disagree with that,
but alternate viewpoints tend to be fresher and more
interesting, as opposed to feeling like just another
US based rag.
\_ He should have been more skeptical, but many thinking people,
myself included, had no inkling of a clue that this would be
so horribly mismanaged. Afghanistan was pulled off fairly
handily, and despite it being pretty obvious from the get-go
that the whole WMD thing was a sham, I am still in favor of the
invasion of Iraq, for reasons I've stated repeatedly. There
is no inconsistency in that article whatsoever. -John
\_ Actually many thinking people, myself included, know that
the aftermath would be terribly difficult to manage.
That he didn't have a clue, doesn't mean he was dumb,
but it does mean he was wrong. Afghanistan was a country
that was totally exhausted from years of war, and anything
was better than the Taliban, and there was international
support, and Osama bin Laden was there, so our goal and
aim was clear. OBL was our target. Nation building was
a secondary goal. If it worked out, great, if it didn't,
it was okay.
\- I wish he had used stronger words of condemnation too
but he does say: 1. maybe we should have been more skeptical
of governments, as we are inclined to be 2. recall they did
run a cover story called RUMSFELD RESIGN ... did any other
not-obviously left papers say anything comparable?
not-obviously-left papers say anything comparable?
I supported an Administration I didnt
trust believing that the consequences
would repay the gamble. Now I realize
that intentions do shape consequences.
--Michael Ignatieff, NYT Magazine
--psb
\_ I wrote the above before reading the last
paragraph, so yes, it's a little bit better,
but I think my above comments stand.
The other change for the worse, at least from
my standpoint, is a shift in weight towards
an Atlantic centric coverage. There also seems to
my standpoint, is a slight shift in weight towards
a Atlantic centric coverage. There also seems to
my standpoint, was a shift in weight towards
an Atlantic centric coverage. There also seemed to
be a change in the people covering asia, or at
least east asia. I find the analysis and
insights not as astute as before. One example
was the coverage of Taiwan politics, for
instance. The Economist was all enamoured
was the coverage of Taiwan politics.
The Economist was all enamoured
with the "upstart" DPP and Chen Shui Bian,
Taiwan's current president. I haven't read
Taiwan's current president. I haven't read a
single article even slightly negative about
him since his first election 6 years ago.
Such one-sided coverage is more akin to
Newsweek as opposed to the old Economist.
Newsweek than to the old Economist.
Economist is still good, but my favourite
these days is WSJ. And I agree with the
poster below about the jab at China. China
pretty much laid out its bottomline pretty
laid out its bottomline pretty
clearly. And the likeliest miscalculation
would be from the Taiwan side, at least for
the coming few years. 15 years from now, it's
the coming few years. 10 years from now, it's
harder to say. What do you think of the
Economist's coverage of South Asia? I don't
know enough about the region to judge.
Economist's coverage of India? I don't know
enough about India to judge.
\_ I think he completely down-played China's role on reducing
proverty. Instead, he emphasis on China might 'mis-calculate"
over issue of Taiwan. If he actually pays attention to the issue
of two Chinas, he will know it's Taiwan that has been provoking
the mainland for past 10-13 years.
\_ There is only one China.
\_ Agree, and it is called Taiwan. -FreeTai Troll
\_ you mean Chinese Republic :p
\- the e'ist takes jabs at lots of people. like the "greetings
earthlings" cover, the man-mountain kohl cover, poking at the
french, the notorious "chink in their armor" comment etc.
\_ I second the thanks for the link and the frustration with
his analysis of the Iraq war. Most galling is his comment that
given the information at the time, invasion was the right decision.
Regardless of whether or not Saddam was trying to develop WMD,
it was clear that he was not a threat to anyone in the region,
much less the Europe or the US. Unfortunately, at the time, it was
made to seem that the opposition to the war came mainly from
intelligent, though admitedly lunitic fringe types like Chomsky and
Said, but many respectable people who concede that force is
occasionaly necessary were also against it. Here's Ken Waltz's take
on it at the time:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con6.html
(I'm not sure who this is aimed at, as psb probably knew that, and
the ecst doesn't read the motd...) Bill Emmott did win points in
my book when he wrote that letter to Dan Savage, though.
\_ What about all those blank missiles Chine fired towards
Taiwan? What do you call that? Fuck you ChiCom. -Free Taiwan
\_ It's very simple: Taiwan will never willingly join the PRC
until the PRC gets its shit together and creates
until the government gets its shit together and creates
a predictable, fair and democratic form of government.
\_ It's not so simple. TW's government is so fucked up and
current government is not even legit in many people's eye
due to election fraud back in 2004.
\_ Which govt? Taiwan, PRC, or US?
\_ All three. When all of them function with integrity
and honesty like Denmark, we'll all live in harmony.
\_ ^government^PRC
\_ I was under the impression Taiwan was basically an oligarchy
these days anyway.
\_ And what in the world gives you that impression? They
have more parties that could legitimate win the election
each year than we have here in the US with our two party
system.
\_ you have no idea. The comment on oligarchy is actually
a more accurate description of TW's politics today.
\_ Feel free to qualify your statements at any time. |
| 2006/4/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42603 Activity:nil 80%like:42608 |
4/1 Freepers react to kidnapped reporter saying her statements were
coerced. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607576/posts |
| 2006/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:42597 Activity:kinda low |
3/31 Nice try but I have MORE time than you.
\_ Shut up and eat your Freedom Fries:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/11/politics/main543555.shtml
\_ you don't. see above. you'll get a few things here and there
but in the long run there's absolutely nothing you can do of
any consequence. |
| 2006/3/31-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42586 Activity:moderate |
3/31 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_re_us/attacks911_calls This is a pretty depressing article. Makes me proud to attack terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. \_ I don't think anyone was ever ashamed to attack terrorists. It's the innocent people caught in the middle that many can't stomach. \_ Iraq? Are you still believe Iraq has anything to do with this? \_ At the time of the attack we thought Iraq had something to do with it and even some of the Democrats supported it. At any rate the attack was done out of good intentions and our brave Commander in Chief actually did something. Had Frenchy Kerry been our president he'd already given up and surrender to Iraq and Iran. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607156/posts \_ First of all, if he is brave, he would actually *GO* to Vietnam like John Karry. Secondly, there are evidents suggesting that Bush decided to attack Iraq only weeks after 9/11, when there are no evident suggesting there is any link between Iraq and 9/11. Thirdly, have you realize Bush has bankrupted both our Treasury *AND* our credibility around the world because of this? \_ Let me just say one word. 911! -libUral thinking like a conservative \_ he should of invade Saudi Arabia instead. Majority of hijackers are Saudis... no? \_ There is no need to invade the Saudis since high ranking officials are already "bought" \_ I don't think anyone was ever ashamed to attack terrorists. It's the innocent people caught in the middle that many can't stomach. Is what happened to those 9/11 victims worse than men being mistakenly identified, hauled out of their homes to the screams of crying women, thrown in prison with no trial, tortured to death, and later found to be innocent? 9/11 was horrible. So is what's happened since. \_ Our will to defend our way of life will never flag. At times there is collateral damage, but that is the price we are willing to have others pay for our Freedom. \_ Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius? \_ Just replace "Freedom" with "quest for the revival of the Muslim Caliphate" and it works for bin Laden too! \_ So which innocent guys have been tortured to death? That's a pretty bold claim. What's the evidence? \_ We care why? \_ Welcome Time Traveller/Recent Cryogenic revivee! Google \_ cryonic "Abu Ghraib" |
| 2006/3/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42578 Activity:high |
3/31 "Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them ... I
believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision, that Saddam
had been a threat to the international community long enough."
- Sec State Rice (Mar 31, 2006)
\_ "But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on
September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the
proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes
into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and
perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done ... Or we
could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go
after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced
there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is
no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with
Saddam Hussein still in power." -Sec State Rice (Oct 16, 2005)
\_ It's a different kind of middle east these days for sure. |
| 2006/3/31-4/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42576 Activity:low 50%like:42573 |
3/31 Questions About Carroll's Captivity:
http://csua.org/u/fdv (Washington Post column)
(From Washington Post, with citations from NY Times)
\_ Not to mention from LGF and NRO. Fuck Howie.
\_ The LGF quote is not exactly flattering. I'm not sure what
your problem is.
\_ He's giving them a voice they don't deserve. Yes, there are
questions. It just happened. How 'bout we find answers rather
than cloud the discussion with vague and stupid speculations,
especially from those who have decided that she's an enemy
of the state. Another example of "X says world is flat.
Opponents disagree." Fuck Howie.
\_ Update: family claims video was made under duress.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_carroll_2
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_carroll_2 |
| 5/27 |
| 2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42552 Activity:nil 93%like:42546 |
3/30 http://tinyurl.com/p3fpg (news.yahoo.com) Carroll freed in Iraq!!! HAPPY NEWS finally. \_ I bet the Freepers think this is bad news. \_ Pretty much: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1606219/posts My favorite is "does she look Arab to you?" \_ Considering the Italian journalist was later found with some of the ransom money, some degree of doubt is appropriate. Here is the real victim of this story: Remembering Allan: a tribute to Jill Carroll's interpreter http://csmonitor.com/2006/0306/p01s03-woiq.html?s=t5 |
| 2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42549 Activity:nil |
3/30 what do people think about the British memos supposedly
saying Bush/Blair were thinking of ways to fake cause
for invading Iraq in case we didn't find WMD quickly?
Excuse my poor English. I'm talking about these:
http://tinyurl.com/eabyg
I don't know where the original NY Times story is.
Just for laughs I looked around on Fox News . com for the story
but I can't find it.
\_ What?! Are you saying the NYT and Foxnews are the same since
neither has the story?
\_ No, not at all. I doubt it was ever on Fox News. Please
prove me wrong! The NY Times article is now behind
their paywall.
\_ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183689,00.html
I typed "blair memo" into their search engine. It was the
first link. You sure tried really hard, huh?
\_ I guess your brain uses different buckets for the
hashes, i didn't think of that since there seems to be
secret BLAIR memos coming out every other month.
anyway I don't want to imply Fox News is a bunch of
scum sucking administration sycophants. I am surprised
at the lack of public outcry. I know we've been
debating whether Bush made up shit when invading
Iraq but the memo seems pretty damning.
\_ Hey that is a DIFFERENT blair memo. See, a new
shocking one comes out all the time! Please read
the above urls again. My BLAIR memo has Bush
suggesting we paint a plane in UN colors so Saddam
would shoot at it and then we can invade in
retaliation.
\_ As I said before it was overwritten: it should be
no surprise that there are multiple memos on the
same topic between the leadership of two close
allies on an important issue.
\_ Well, Dubya doubted Blix would find the WMDs, but he was sure that
Saddam had them, so he attacked in March '03 to prevent Blix from
not finding them longer. |
| 2006/3/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42546 Activity:nil 93%like:42552 |
3/30 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_carroll_released Carroll freed in Iraq!!! HAPPY NEWS finally. \_ I bet the Freepers think this is bad news. \_ Pretty much: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1606219/posts My favorite is "does she look Arab to you?" |
| 2006/3/29-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42513 Activity:kinda low |
3/29 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq Bush blames Saddam for the ongoing civil war. \_ "I want the Iraqi people to hear I've got great confidence in their capacity to self govern," Bush said. "I also want the Iraqi people to hear -- it's about time you get a unity government going. In other words, Americans understand you're newcomers to the political arena. But pretty soon its time to shut her down and get governing." What the fuck is he talking about? "I want the Iraqi people to hear I've got great confidence in their capacity to self govern," Bush said. "I also want the Iraqi people to hear -- it's about time you get a unity government going. In other words, Americans understand you're newcomers to the political arena. But pretty soon its time to shut her down and get governing." Bush said Iraq's instability "is the legacy of Saddam a tyrant who exacerbated ethnic divisions to keep himself in power." Yeah, see, this is the whole "opening the gates of hell" thing people tried to WARN YOU ABOUT... Fuckhole. (failed on second cut and paste. fixed.) \_ Why didn't he listen to his Daddy? Especially when he knows his daddy is about 10 times as smart as he is! \_ being smart doesn't win ya elections post-9/11 for you and your party. being ruthless against the Tewwowists does! Even Hillary gets that. \_ I love this "9/11 has changed law of physics" arguement. It is almost comical. And by the way, we are talking about IRAQ here... why makes you think 9/11 and Iraq has anything to do with each other? \_ The president told us that the Iraqis were harboring Al Qaeda, and if you can't believe your CINC, whom can you trust? -John \_ Bob. |
| 2006/3/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42488 Activity:low |
3/28 Hey all you armchair intelligence analysts! Here's your chance to be a
star if you can read Arabic and have a lot of free time:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm
\_ "Another administration official described the political logic: 'If
anyone in the intelligence community thought there was valid
information in those documents that supported either of those
questions--W.M.D. or Al Qaeda--they would have shouted them from the
rooftops.' ...
\_ "Under pressure from Congressional Republicans ... posting on the
Web 48,000 boxes of Arabic-language Iraqi documents ....
Public doubts about the war have driven Mr. Bush's approval rating
to new lows. A renewed debate over Saddam Hussein's weapons and
terrorist ties could raise the president's standing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/politics/28intel.html |
| 2006/3/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42478 Activity:nil |
3/27 Poll. The small scaled Iraq Civil War will: .
get better:
get worse: .
stay the same:
split up into three pieces
split up into three pieces and Iran and Turkey is redrawing their
borders:. |
| 2006/3/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42470 Activity:low |
3/27 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060327/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq U.S. and Iraqi army units (headed by a Sunni) kill ~ 20 Shiite insurgents in or just outside a Shiite mosque in Baghdad. Baghdad governor cuts military/political ties to U.S., Baghdad council suspends cooperation with U.S. on reconstruction projects. Iraq president calls for investigation. \_ so, should mosques be a place of sanctuary, or a safe base of operations from which to launch insurgent attacks with impunity? \_ they should be a place of sancturary, unless they are used as a base of operation for insurgents \_ which sure looks like what was going on from the quoted news story. And yet, protest from Baghdad governor. \_ "And yet, protest from <political official doing what's popular with his constituency>" \_ what do Shiite insurgents do? I know Sunni insurgents attack Americans, Iraqi police, and blow up Shiite civvies. \_ Probably they attack Americans, Iraqi police, and blow up Sunni civvies. \_ Aren't nearly all Iraqi police Shiites? Can you give me a URL of Sunni civvies getting blown up as an intentional target by Shiites? When's the last time Shiites attacked Americans? http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/2006-03/27/article05.shtml _/ \_ http://csua.org/u/fcn (islamonline.org) \_ So which is it? \_ Not quite. They attack Americans, and with the acquiescence of the Iraqi Police, execute Sunni civilians. \_ "Police and representatives of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who holds great sway among poor Shiites in eastern Baghdad, said all those killed were in the complex for evening prayers and none was a gunmen." So believe al-Sadr now? \_ Bush vs Al-Sadr. Who has more credibilty? \_ FYI, my take on this: Iraqi army (headed by a Sunni) told U.S. Army that a Sunni dentist was taken hostage by al-Sadr Shiite militia 12 hours ago. Americans, wanting to send a message to Shiite militia (who have been on a death squad spree on Sunnis since Feb 22), went on a joint op with Iraqi army. Iraqi army entered the mosque and shot everyone up, including the 80-year-old imam; Americans stayed on the outside and shot up all the Shiite militia running out. -op \_ Mission Accomplished! |
| 2006/3/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42459 Activity:low |
3/27 Right, things are SOOOOO stable in Iraq right now -- it's so obviously
*all* the media's fault:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/27/iraq.main/index.html
\_ The first thing you need to understand is why this is not civil war.
The helpful editors at exile.ru have spelled out exactly why this
is not civil war. Please take note.
http://www.exile.ru/2006-March-24/the_civil_war_debate.html
\_ Unbelieveable! He's setting up the strawman and attacking it again!
\_ Riiiight, 30 dead in a suicide bomb, 16 dead execution style,
(in one weekend!) and that's just a strawman... Uh huh. Your
worldview is tweaked, man.
\_ He was refering to the comment, not the article, moron.
\_ Uhm, yes -- I thought that was pretty obvious, but thanks
for sharing Ad Hominem Troll!
\_ The levels of violence are the same pre-Shiite mosque attack and
post. Iraqi politicians have looked into the abyss and didn't like
what they saw. Nothing to see. Move along now.
\_ Wow. Unfounded claims abound!
\_ It must be true if Gen. Casey, Rummy, and Dubya say so, duh!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/07/rumsfeld.iraq
\_ So look at the rhetoric. This is getting scary. Rummy's
clearly saying that the free press is providing aid to the
terrorists. How long before we start getting laws that
restrict _all_ actions that "further the cause of terror"?
Of course no one will think that applies to the press... at
first. All it'll take is one more large attack.
\_ A thousand points of light! Not at this junct-ure ... Not gonna
do it! A thousand points of light!
\_ break up with her, man. she won't worth it. |
| 2006/3/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42455 Activity:nil |
3/27 Bush was determined to go to war, WMD or not:
http://csua.org/u/fc8 (NYT)
\_ OMG! This is totally smoking gun material! Spread the word!
\_ Well, Dubya doubted Blix would find the WMDs, but he was sure that
Saddam had them, so he attacked in March '03 to prevent Blix from
not finding them longer. |
| 2006/3/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42438 Activity:nil |
3/25 One mans story of torture:
http://csua.org/u/fc3
\_ Last I checked "Olga" was not a man's name. Anyway, what would
you say the line is between torture and interrogation? Is any
form of aggressiveness questioning beyond bounds with prisoners of
war?
\_ The electric shocks probably count as torture.
\_ Probably. What about other things? Where is the line? |
| 2006/3/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics] UID:42423 Activity:low |
3/24 http://dribbleglass.com/interview An Interview With God \_ <DEAD>www.godhatesamputees.com<DEAD> is more fun \_ Hey Mormons, what do you guys think about this? \- While the creator [of the WEEB site, not The Creator] seems to be having fun with most of the answers, he seems to think the 3 words advice at the end is a serious bit of moral philosophy. But it's not so simple, otherwise one of the large brains since Plato would have figured this out. In fact that bit of advice is "less powerful" than the Golden Rule ... the negative prescription doesnt address what are your affimative obligations to others, the fact that human evil is not the only source of harm [natural catastrophe, disease], or the problem of what do about those who will not follow that dictum [just war, law], nor how to allocate resource, a large problem in the area of ethics in public policy. \_ Power Schmouer, I prefer my moral platitudes to be *right* rather \_ Power Shmouer, I prefer my moral platitudes to be *right* rather than powerful. Just because some weak willed tool WANTS someone to keep him from falling off the wagon (by rule of law or whatever other means), or keep the dangerous ideas of communists or Satans out of his head, does not mean I want him doing that unto me. Some of us prefer the Confucian version of the golden rule, and see it's lack of "power" as a plus. -phuqm (!top) \- i am not sure what your interpretation of "power" here is but i mean it in the sense of "theoretical power", meaning it covers a lot of cases, as opposed to being narrow or situational. \_ My intent, was to use *your* definition, which, tnx, I didn't really need you to define. 1) because i got it. 2) because it doesn't matter, almost regardelss, my point is going to stand. "breadth", or any other characteristic of the western golden rule you want to hold out as a positive characteristic is less important to me than the fact that I *don't want* people doing unto me just becuse they would have me do unto them. Get it? rule, and see it's lack of "power" as a plus. Anyway, the vast majority of world problems would in fact be taken care of if people managed (they could not) to "do no harm." As for resources, The majority of famines in this day and age can be linked to political causes as opposed to natural scarcity. -phuqm (!top) they would have me do unto them. Get it? Those cases where it applies but "do no harm" doesn't, I often don't like it's implications. -phuqm |
| 2006/3/24-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42415 Activity:nil |
3/24 Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060324/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_war
\_ Luckily, the intelligence was wrong?
\_ OMG! Our Beloved Ally spied on us! Eeep! What is the world
coming to! Isn't this against International Law?! |
| 2006/3/23-25 [Recreation/Pets, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42396 Activity:nil |
3/23 http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/22/doghandler.sentenced/index.html Abu Ghraib dog handler conviction "He also was convicted of allowing the dog to participate in the lewd acts of licking peanut butter off of a woman's chest and a man's genitalia." (Not off prisoners, but fellow soldiers, for entertainment) \_ Dog's razor sharp teeth + genitalia == Worst jackass episode evar! \_ A dog's not going to _accidentally_ bite you while licking peanut butter. \_ Uhm, either way, why would anyone want a dog doing that to them? Yech! \_ I beg to differ. I think the dog would try to take a bite out of what it's licking. For instance, I've never seen a dog satisfied with just licking a piece of meat - it usually tries to bite a chunk off of it. -!pp \_ dogs are experts at licking balls.. \_ Dogs know the difference between a hunk of meat and a person. \_ That's true in general...but once a dog gets excited, the line often gets a little blurry, then Bad Things are (much) more likely to happen -- especially when you've mixed dog+genitals+food. -!PP \_ I don't think peanut-buttered dangling penises are things a dog normally knows much about. \_ How drunk would you have get to test that theory? \_ That would be a great darwin award. \_ So this joker just magically got it in his head one day to "release the hounds"? What about his superiors? \_ I think the way it worked was: there was a lot of bad stuff that happened that produced some sort of results. The superiors didn't order or condone it, but probably rewarded the results. The people we're seeing are the failures who got caught. \_ Umm... "let slip the dogs of war"... \_ So all the underlings had spontaneous outbreaks of uncontrollable urges to torture inmates? I still don't know how anyone prosecuting the absolutely lowest people on the totem pole do not break out laughing uncontrollably. \_ Maybe they used to be Wal-Mart executives. "Here's your payroll. You can't actually run your store with it legally, but that's your problem. Be creative!" |
| 2006/3/21-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42359 Activity:kinda low |
3/21 So it turns out that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth and
Bush was the bullshitter. This must really be a bitter
pill for Bush voters to have to swallow:
http://csua.org/u/fbb
\_ Poor Saddam! It was so unfair that he was deposed by the evil
George Bush! We should reinstate him right away so he can bring
peace and freedom back to his Peoples!
\_ You're missing the point. The point is that GW is actually no
better than Saddam. He launched this war declaring that he had
proof that there were WMD. Instead he has been proven a liar
numerous times over and is as much of a terrorist as Osama bin
Ladin. So stop pretending that you are "holier than thou" and
are doing the Iraqi ppl a favor, because you clearly are not.
\_ Bush said there were WMD and there aren't, true. Where's the
proof that this was a lie and not a mistake? Quite a few
people with no vested interest in an Iraq invasion also
said they were there. I realize you're already convinced, but
just as an exercise imagine you're the prosecuter in the
impeachment trial. What evidence are you going to bring
out to support the lying claim?
\_ Look up "Downing Street Memo". Was huge in the news all
around the world (except here). But seriously, some
things are just plain obvious. Are you going to say that
Barry Bonds never took steroids just because we can't
convict him for it? - pp
\_ I had heard about it, but I only just read it now after
you posted that. Ok, impeach the son of a bitch.
I'm convinced.
\_ I'm saying that OJ got acquited because the gloves
don't fit. -not the pp and not the op
\_ I think Bush has plausible deniability on this one.
"Plausible deniability" is code for "you know I did it,
but you can't prove it." It's obvious that Bush and
the rest of the PNAC crew were planning to go to war
with Iraq from the outset of his presidency (and even
before), and were looking for an excuse that would fly
with the public. -tom
\_ Fine. There's a clear public record that indicates
that they were going to invade Iraq regardless, I
agree. But how does that prove Bush was *lying*
about WMD's? Where all the other people who said
about WMD's? Were all the other people who said
publicly that there were WMD's who had no affiliation
with PNAC or the administration lying also? I think
Bush is despicable, and should be run out of office
for a variety of reasons, but I find the lying label
to be tiresome since there does not appear to be any
proof, and I think sticking to that particular line
discredits Bush's critics. Our country desperately
needs Bush's critics to not be discrecited in any way
needs Bush's critics to not be discredited in any way
right now.
\_ Yes I agree. Saying that someone lied probably
seems pretty petty. People lie all the time, but
usually for a lot smaller causes. But I can see
your point. In regards to proof, look at comment
above regarding Downing Street Memo. Even without
the memo, it was pretty obvious tho. When we first
went into Afghanistan, poeple were already making
predictions that Bush would try to fabricate reasons
to go to war with Iraq. When that actually happened,
...well guess what? Now, the Muslim world is having
a field day in how Americans are taking over their
lands and trying to pretend that they are spreading
freedom. What we do will only exacerbate the
terrorism. If you look at it, we are really the
authors of our own distress. (i.e. we are the
problem, not the solution)
\_ Yes Bother! I hear you! Restore Saddam! Let Freedom Ring!
Kick out the American Occupiers, the Great Oppressors of
Our Once Free Peoples and give us Our Great Leader back to
restore us to the greatness that was once Greater Iraq's 19
states! Only Saddam can give us the Freedom and Peace we the
Iraqi Peoples have earned! Praise Allah! Alahu Akbar!
\_ See, here's the problem. We did a Good Thing, but did
it badly and incompetently, and under super-dishonest,
illegal premises. Like going down to the rail yards and
shooting the guy pushing drugs to little kids because the
cops won't deal with him. Which doesn't change the fact
that it's a Good Thing. Which doesn't change the fact
that it was stupid, incompetent and illegal. No, I don't
have a point. -John
\_ We took out the guy pushing drugs, along with most of
the kids, and now are in the process of installing
another guy to push different drugs. Oh, and now
there's a turf war among other pushers competing
for the neighberhood, and lots of innocent people
are being killed in drive-bys. -tom
\_ Except for the "installing another guy to push
different drugs" part, which is silly, isn't that
sort of what I said? -John
\_ Why is that silly? We basically have a history
of doing that. Didn't we basically install
Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq? Didn't we
basically arm Osama bin Ladin with advanced
military equipment when he was fighting
the Russians in Afghanistan? We have created our
own worst enemies time and time again.
And seriously, if we have this policy of
installing puppets around the world, at least
get it right. --!tom
\_ Yes, we have done this. I am not referring
to historical events. I am referring to now.
And I see a reasonably good-faith, albeit
incompetent and probably doomed effort to
get the Iraqis and Afghans to vote for a
democratic representative govt., even if it's
a disingenuous ploy to get them off our
backs. -John
\_ You are begging the question; it's not clear
that removing the pusher was a Good Thing. -tom
\_ He was a murderous, totalitarian thug. Getting
rid of these is always a good thing if you
don't fuck it up and don't do it on dishonest
premises. The fact that we have installed and
supported similar thugs in the past, or that
a lot of the world is prepared to tolerate
such thugs in the interest of geopolitics
should not be an obstacle to removing them. My
point is that if you're going to do it, do it
right--how is this begging the question? -John
\_ What would be sad is if the Iraq debacle
ended up discrediting idealistic ventures
to secure freedom around the world in the
future.
\_ "Getting rid of murderous, totalitarian
thugs is always a good thing" is an
unfounded statement. It's only a good
thing if the result is something better
in the end. I said before the invasion
that the most likely result of a power
vacuum in Iraq was an Islamic fundamentalist
government, elected or not; that was
completely predictable, and as such,
the benefit of removing Saddam has to
be weighed against the likely result.
I still think it would be hilarious if
the Iraqis elected Osama bin Laden. -tom
\_ OK, maybe I'm nitpicking semantically,
but I don't consider getting rid of one
thug to have him replaced by another to
be "getting rid of a thug". I consider
that to be an amateurish fuckup. In
which case, yes, you're right. But it
occurs to me in Iraq that the danger is
not us putting in another thug, but
bloody civil war. -John
\_ Oh... I dunno. Did the guy at the rail yard end up
dead? Ok, so the first shot took out a window and the
second hit a stray dog. The third killed him so the
kids stand a chance now. Actually the initial take down
was beautifully executed. It was afterwards that things
could have been better, mostly I think because we're now
afraid to deal with chaos with the giant hammer required
because then people start screaming about human rights
for terrorists so we go half assed and drag it out
which is much worse than just dealing with it up front
and going home. As far as illegal, sorry but pft. In
the international realm, might makes right. There is
no higher authority. Without effective enforcement,
you don't have laws, just suggestions from your
neighbors and handshake agreements.
\_ More reason to actually have WMD so Bush will think twice
about an invasion. Go North Korea!
\_ Nah. The Bush voters don't care.
\_ Except the same documents also show continued deceit and that
Saddam's generals were honestly surprised when Saddam didn't have
any WMD at the start of the war.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2006/03/17/1493281-ap.html
\_ Hey we invaded, the burden of proof is on us to find
the stuff.
\_ We invaded Iraq because Dubya, I mean Saddam, I mean, Saddam's
generals, had no doubt he had WMDs!
They are obviously buried in the desert ... probably in Syria ...
\_ We have always been at war with Eastasia.
\_ let's go start a land war!
\_ Let's have a War
So you can all Die.
Let's Have a War
We can all use our Brains.
Let's Have a War
Redeem this space.
Let's have a War
We have this place.
Let's have a War
Jack up the Dow Jones
Let's have a War
We can save New Jersey
Let's have a War
Blame it on the Middle Class
Let's have a War
Like rats in a cage.
Let's have a War
Sell the rights to the networks
Let's have a War
Nevermind about that last time.
Let's have a War
Give life a little twist.
Let's have a War
The Enemy's Within..
\_ You just made my fucking day. Thanks.
\_ No wonder we couldn't find the WMDs, Saddam used
iocaine powder! |
| 2006/3/21-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42356 Activity:nil |
3/21 Not a Civil War:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
\_ Has Bush been "on the ground" there since he served up the
plastic turkey? |
| 2006/3/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42341 Activity:high |
3/20 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060320/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_joe_johnson Are most American Christians as stupid as this guy? \_ The frightening part of this whole thing is that we "screened", armed, and sent this guy into action. \_ I used to work with a super-redneck guy from rural Idaho. When he signed up for the Navy during the Vietnam war, he told them "I want to go kill some fuckin' commie gooks in vietnam right NOW!" He was totally serious, and he spent the war working in a mine factory in Hawaii. Presumably the recruiters didn't want his crazy ass anywhere near the warzone. So, even in 'nam the system worked from time to time. want his crazy ass anywhere near the warzone. \_ Joe, Jan, Josh, and Justin Johnson? Yeeeesh. \_ lol. funny observation \_ Don't generalize Christians like that. They come in all shapes and sizes. Yes, some are like Joe. What makes you think he's a bad choice for a volunteer army that needs recruits? \_ His motives and mental health? \_ You don't think most army recruits join to kick some ass? Fire their rifles in battle? Ever seen Jarhead? \_ Er, I don't think Jarhead is a documentary. -!motives \_ Er, I don't think Jarhead is a documentary. \_ the reference is merely intended to show "typical" recruit mindset. \_ When I was at the Moffet MEPS, the people that I met were pretty diverse. I don't think I'd be comfortable with your generalization at all. About the only thing I'd agree with was they were typically very young. -!motives very young. \_ Kick some ass != take revenge for the death of a family member and convert the heathens. \_ Does this guy realize that majority of Iraqi casuaties came from American bombs during the invasion phase? \_ Tell me, mr. Simpson, why do you want to join big Brothers of America? |
| 2006/3/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42337 Activity:very high |
3/20 Why protest the Iraq war? Why not protest the insurgents who
are preventing Iraq from being independent and free?
\_ One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. By starting the
war in an illegitimate way, we make it even more obvious who
are the real terrorists and who are the real freedom fighters.
\_ People who target children are terrorists.
\_ There ya go. Bush is a terrorist then. Add bombing
news organization (a la "Control Room") and bombing
weddings, and trying to legitimize torture as crimes
against him. Countless others, no doubt. Bush is really
no different than Osama bin Ladin. In fact bin Ladin could
even be considered the "holier" of the two.
\_ it's not "insurgent." it's domestic violence caused by
foreign al Qaeda operatives. Iraqis greets us with all the
flowers they can find in the desert.
\_ Why don't you get off your ass and organize that protest yourself?
\_ presumably we have control over our government. we don't
have control over the insurgents.
\_ in a way we do. We can let the insurgents win. Or we
can prevent them from winning.
\_ Which is why we need to protest the Iraq war. The current
methodology there is turning normally law-abiding citizens
into insurgents.
\_ do you have evidence for it? I haven't heard of this
(law abiding citizens into insurgents).
If Iraq is peaceful, US goes away, and everyone should
be happy.
\_ !pp: If not doing the fighting, supporting it.
An insurgency cannot continue without community
support.
\_ You don't think kicking in their doors and killing
their relatives creates more insurgents? I guess you
must have your head buried in the sand or something.
\_ You are really fucking stupid and naive.
\_ please tell me that Iraqis don't kill innocent
Iraqis.
\_ That is really stupid and naive.
\_ make your case why it is stupid and naive.
\_ I know you're trolling, but maybe you just got the newest
RNC talking points email. It does upset me that the only
people who have it together enough to organize large
anti war demonstrations are the Marxist Israel hating
dumbasses ANSWER.
\_ Because they may not have started the war, but they seem intent on
finishing it.
\_ Iraq *was* independent. -tom
\_ so is Cuba.
\_ Was it also 'free'?
\_ Define the term. Iraq's government was very much able to
make its own decisions and policies; it was not beholden
to outside interests. People in Iraq probably had more
personal freedom than in most Middle Eastern countries;
certainly not as much as we enjoy in the U.S., but that's
probably not a reasonable metric. -tom
\_ In nuclear chemistry, a piece of a nucleus becomes "free"
after significant energy has been "liberated" from the
system. Once we've "liberated" all the energy from the
Middle East, it will be free.
\_ Personal freedom if the death squads weren't coming
after you. You have some weird ideas about freedom.
If you mean that they left you alone as long as you
were a good worker bee, then sure. I think everyone
else impressed by the the scope of their personal freedoms
had already been killed or left the country.
\_ Heat and noise, but no light.
I was comparing to other countries in the Middle
East. They're all bad by our standards. -tom
\_ So? You say yourself that 'our standards' are
not a reasonable metric. I'm not sure I'd agree
that life under Saddam was better than in most
other Middle Eastern countries. He led his
country into bloody wars, killed his own people,
and filled the government with his cronies. That's
not better than, say, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, or
most Gulf states. It may be better than Afghanistan
and Pakistan, sure.
\_ As opposed to the current death squads who will just
kill you for being on the other team.. As tom said
"not a reasonable metric"... Seriously, the "we got
rid of saddam" rhetoric doesn't fly when we can't do
any better.
\_ Saddam had decades to make things better. I
think 'we' will do a lot better.
\_ you ignore two major pieces of evidence:
one, we're oh-fer in improving countries
by installing U.S.-friendly governments, and
two, Iraq is a major clusterfuck. -tom
\_ Would also discount South Korea and
\_ Would you also discount South Korea and
Japan? In general, I'd agree with you, but
then, many of those governments we
installed were reflective of the general
dogma of 'containment' in the Cold War. -mice
\_ Japan's situation was not really
analagous. You might argue Korea. Yes,
many of the governments we installed were
due to the containment policy, but the fact
is, for the people actually living in those
countries, things tended to stay bad or
get worse once the Red Menace had been
eliminated. We now have a new containment
policy, explicitly expressed by PNAC,
and it's gonna pretty much suck for anyone
unfortunate enough to get in our way. -tom
\_ I thought for Korea, we just installed
our strong man and let him rule, kind
of like Saddam, and then the Koreans
slowly and peacefuly transformed their
country into the democracy of today.
Perhaps that's what we should have done
with Iraq too?
\_ Germany? Italy? I don't really know what
you would call analagous if not Japan.
We've removed 'bad people' from power
before and made things better.
\_ How are Japan and Korea analogous?
These are MOSTLY passive people in
resource barren lands. Plus there
was very little history of Western
"corruption" in those lands before
they installed governments. America
and Europe has colonized / "fucked\
over" the Middle East since the 1900s,
and we wonder why Muslims hate us.
Lastly, we didn't lie to start a war
against another country. Lying to
start ANY war is despicable in my
opinion, because it pretty much means
that you knew you would never had
gotten support by telling the truth.
People only lie if they have something
to hide, no? It's pretty obvious
Bush had a lot to hide. -- !tom
\_ Is Egypt? How about Pakistan?
\_ Compared to Iraq, yes. If you are advocating an
invasion, though, you might be able to persuade me. |
| 2006/3/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42335 Activity:nil |
3/20 "Americans have never retreated in the face of thugs and assassins
and we will not begin now." -GWB
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4826754.stm
Uh, what about Vietnam? Bay of Pigs? |
| 2006/3/19-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42315 Activity:high |
3/19 Supporter of Bush and Iraq War: I would like to hear your opinion
on this one. Thanks http://csua.org/u/fam (ny times)
\_ Look, this is a war. I guess you never studied history about
how you never play fair. No one ever does. That's how you win.
You should get back to drinking your latte and your naive world
where everyone "can just get along" Life is not that way.
\_ If you think you know how to win this war, I suggest you let
the white house know right away. 'Cause in case you hadn't
noticed, they're not winning it. But don't let that stop you
from supporting the invasion of Iran. Dumb redneck fuck.
\_ It's also naive to think that the purpose of the invasion
was ever really about WMD, it's about fighting terrorist on
their lands, not in the streets of America.
\_ Too bad Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. -tom
\_ If Terrorism is a real concern, then, Bush, Co. will
use terrorism to justify for the War. Instead, Bush & Co.
knew terrorism won't sell in general public... except
few dumb ass such as you.
\_ Actually, they seem to be doing fine, liberal moron.
\_ Aren't you supposed to be in church all day today, asshole?
It's Sunday, after all.
\_ Why are you wasting do much of your mother earth's
resources to spew your drivel on this evil
military-funded computer network? Shouldn't you be
out protesting for better state-funded meantal
out protesting for better state-funded mental
hospitals for you and your moonbat friends?
\_ You're still here? Isn't it time for you to
molest your sister?
\_ This is *EXACTLY* how Japanese justifies slaughter of 20-30
million Chinese as well.
\_ You should really take your meds more
regularly.
\_ You guys are hilarious! Thanks MOTD!
\_ I am actually curious how you come about the assessment
that "they seem to be doing fine." Do you have any evidence
to back up this position? Because you know that it is in
the extreme minority now. You do know that, right?
Without resorting to insults, please explain to me
how you have come to believe that the US is doing well
in Iraq.
\_ This about covers it: http://csua.org/u/faw (CBS)
Basically, people who are actually on the ground
and have a clue do not say the same things as the
journalists hiding in the green zone searching
through military dispatches for bad news. I was
being a little trollish when I said, "doing well",
but I think they are currently doing about as well
as can be expected.
\_ I really wouldn't call Ralph Peters unbiased in any
circumstance. He was in the Army for a while and
probably has more knowledge of military strategy
than a lot of reporters, but I think most of Iraq's
firefights are guerilla battles that the Army he
was in has a hard time finding. Also, just go read
some of his other columns, there are gems like
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14321
\_ uh, so why do you think Ralph Peters, New York Post
reporter, who is an ardent supporter of Bush and the
war in Iraq, "has a clue"? I think the answer is
in the question. -tom
\_ In this case, "about as well as can be expected"
seems to translate to "haven't been forced out in
helicopters a la Saigon."
\_ Thank you for the link. I am not sure a war supporter
should be bringing up colonialism but there he did.
Do you ever look at the Iraq Index, buy the Brookings
Institute? It is the closest thing to an unbiased
set of observable facts that I have run across. I
did notice that electricity production is up, which
is a good sign.
\_ why we tried people for war crime, then? I am talking about
those who uses gas chambers? are you admiting that we also
uses torture chambers and not that different from Saddam?
And in case you forgot, we STARTED the war.
\_ Don't forget about "get back to driving your Volvo" and other
cliches.
\_ So in other words, any cost is worth it when we're talking about
saving <a measureable number of> American lives. Think about
that |
| 2006/3/17-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42287 Activity:nil |
3/17 Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. He says
pre-emptive strike is a good thing, and so is Iraq War. Is he
considered a "neo-conservative"?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060317/cm_usatoday/inactionfailed
\_ There is no definition of "neo-conservative". Stop trying to nail
it down--you can't.
\_ you prefer to be referred to as "idiot"?
\_ Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. There are many
places that define it, and the definitions in general are as
close to each other as definitions from different dictionaries
of the same word. Just because it isn't in the dictionary yet
doesn't mean there's no definition.
\_ i would say he is a "neo-con disciple" |
| 2006/3/16-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42276 Activity:nil |
3/16 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_air_assault We're launching major assaults and killing all the insurgents! We're winning the war on terror! Yee haw!!! -neo con troll \_ http://www.blackanthem.com/World/military_2006031411.html \_ "The Arab genious for failure could still spoil everything..." This sounds like "White man's Burden" again! |
| 2006/3/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42272 Activity:nil 66%like:42264 |
3/15 Bush Will Be Judged On The Iraq War:
http://csua.org/u/f9n (Yahoo News, opinion piece from AFP)
\_ you didn't read news didn't you? Mission Accomplished! |
| 2006/3/16-18 [Health/Women, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Industry/Jobs] UID:42271 Activity:nil |
3/16 Is this Vivagel stuff available for purchase in Australia?
http://tinyurl.com/n77h2 |
| 2006/3/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42264 Activity:moderate 66%like:42272 |
3/15 Bush Will Be Judged On The Iraq War:
http://csua.org/u/f9n
\_ you didn't read news didn't you? Mission Accomplished! |
| 2006/3/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42259 Activity:low |
3/15 http://csua.org/u/f9h (latimes.com) If there were a board game called "Iraq Post-War Reconstruction" and you could play as the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds, the Iraqi nationalists, the Iranians, al Qaeda in Iraq, or the U.S., who would you play and what would you do? \_ "What a strange game. The only way to win is not to play". \_ Never fight a land war in Asia. \_ I'd prefer to play as Halliburton or Bechtel and I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. \_ This would be one of those games where the winning conditions vary according to faction; the easiest (from a simple strategy POV) would be to play the insurgents (goal: prevent the other groups from achieving their goals by turn 100). \_ I'd play the U.S. and leave, thus winning by being the most powerful faction. \_ It depends. What are the rules and winning conditions for each side? In the current game, IMO, the Shiites and Kurds have already won. Everyone else is struggling to avoid last place. \_ I'd say the Kurds are arguably in the best place, insofar as they have the option of taking their toys and going home to an an independent Kurdistan. |
| 2006/3/14-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42236 Activity:low |
3/14 "BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi authorities discovered at least 87 corpses
men shot to death execution-style as Iraq edged closer to open civil
warfare."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq
THANK YOU Mr. George W. Bush!
\_ yawn. just another day in Iraq.
\_ Beacon of Democracy in the Middle East. And we are going to
duplicate our success in Iran!
\_ what does this have to do with global warming?
\_ My ass is getting warm.
\_ Mission Accomplished!
\_ Job well done!
\_ Major (American) combat operations are over. |
| 2006/3/14-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42232 Activity:nil |
3/14 Retired General William Odom, former head of the National Security
Agency and security adviser to Ronald Reagan, wrote that the Iraq war
"is serving the interests of Osama bin Laden, the Iranians, and is
fomenting civil war in Iraq." He describes the Iraq war as "the most
strategic foreign policy disaster in U.S. history."
\_ That's sort of an odd way to phrase it.
\_ Maybe he means as opposed to a tactical disaster, like the Bay
of Pigs invasion/Iranian hostage botched rescue? The whole
invasion was run from the start by crackpipe sucking neocons. |
| 2006/3/9-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42165 Activity:nil |
3/9 http://www.csua.com/?entry=36278 Read bullet #2 on Iraq. Pretty lame considering our failure in Iraq now |
| 2006/3/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:42152 Activity:kinda low |
3/8 Unlike most Berkeley geeks I have a blonde gal fetish, esp those
that have nice boobs and nice butts. From time to time I dream
of having sex with a hot blonde dressed as a nurse. I think
I got the cravings after getting bombarded by images of
Hello Nurse in Animaniacs. Or maybe it was Lisa Hayes in Robotech.
Then again I didn't even reach puberty when those cartoons came out.
I don't know. Do you have a weird fetish or fetishes and do you
know where you got it from? -soda geek
\_ Lisa Hayes is a brunette. You're probably thinking of Dana
Sterling from the Robotech Masters. -dans
\_ I thought Miriya was hot. I guess I have a thing for chicks
with green hair. Maybe he's thinking of Rook.
\_ I thought Miriya was hot. I guess I have a thing for giant
chicks with green hair. Maybe he's thinking of Rook.
\_ I think this guy can help you out:
http://www.free-webspace.biz/KlnkingArchive/klnking.html
\_ Tananda!
\_ heh, yeahhh. Did she and Gleep ever work out their issues?
\_ You went to the wrong school. You really wanted to go to a second
tier school in SoCal for that. And if you were serious about your
fetish, any place in Florida.
\_ Is this a backhanded way of expressing your racist view that
blondes are dumber so they don't go to 1st tier schools like
Cal? Fucking racist chink, go back to your country.
\_ Not dumber, but apparenty an evolutionary mistake that's
about to be corrected:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2284783.stm
\_ A hoax: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/blondes.asp
\_ Racist? Not at all. It is a cultural statement. I do find
it amusing you accuse me of racism in the same sentence you
call me a "chink". In fact, calling me a "Fucking racist
chink" is the finest bit of stupidity I've seen on the motd
all week and that's saying a lot for this last week. I'm
curious though: how did you decide I was a "chink" as you say?
\_ No, just an observation by someone who obviously visited
both Cal and USC. We can argue the "whys" later.
\_ Texas (or really anywhere in the South), too. |
| 2006/3/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:42138 Activity:high |
3/8 Any motd commentary on the ranting geography teacher?
http://csua.org/u/f63 (article)
link:csua.org/u/f64 (mp3 of rant)
\_ You posted it. What do *you* think about it?
\_ Fair enough. I don't have all the facts, but I understand
he's been complained about before, which I would assume
means he's been warned. I was originally somewhat
ambivalent about it. I've had ranting teachers before, no
biggie, but that rant is really over the top. Assuming he's
been warned before, I think, in a perfect world, he would be
fired for incompetence. However, this being the public
school system, he'll probably just be punished in some
vaugely passive-aggressive manner, like making him teach
math or something. -op
\_ Addendum: It seems he may have been complained about
before, but was never explicitly warned or diciplined, so
I'm downgrading my recommendation to "warning and a
slap-on-the-wrist." -jrleek
\_ There are a few moments that are over the top, but, overall,
not that ridiculous a rant. I don't quite follow your claim
that, because he rants, he is incompetent. Frankly, if he
did the same thing, and used it to foster an interactive
discussion with his students, he'd be a really great
teacher. Even as a rant, what he's saying is more thought
provoking and challenging than most of the pablum served up
in high school. This is a good thing, assuming you want high
school to teach kids solid critical analysis skills that are
a key tool needed to synthesize raw information into well
thought out and informed opinions. Contrariwise, this is
terrible if you want high school to pump out cogs suitable
for working dull 9-5 jobs in an industrial economy where
obedience is more important than ideas. BTW, why don't
most so-called conservatives on the motd sign their posts?
-dans
\_ Most people that post here, conservative or otherwise,
do so anonymously. -mice
\_ Good point. I suspect I've got some unfair selection
bias. -dans
\_ He's incompetent because he's not teaching anything,
he's just ranting. He is not using it foster any
discussion. How are they supposed to discuss it
while they're supposed to taking notes? What he's
saying is not even really "thought provoking" because
he gives no context or evidence for any of it. Some
of the questions he asks the students aren't even
really defineable. "What is the most violent country
in the world?" The kids dejectedly mutter "us,"
knowing the answer he wants. Assuming you could even
figure out what that question is supposed to mean,
don't you think Sudan, for example, might be a better
choice?
Anyway, he just jumps from subject to subject in a
disjointed rant that has nothing to do with the topic
of the class or teaching the kids anything but
"America is bad." He offers no evidence, and expects
no discussion becuase he mostly references topics that
no high school student can reasonably be expected to
know enough about to call him on his BS. Some of his
facts are even flat out wrong.
BTW: didn't think it was important, but, if you
prefer. -jrleek
\_ Who gives a shit? His rant isn't about geography, which
is what he's supposed to be teaching. I think the
content of an off-topic rant is less important than
the length. It seems to me that crazy digressions are
not relevant to the teacher's qualities as a teacher.
My highschool physics teacher went off on some pretty
crazy stuff about conspiracies and all the people he
thought should be executed and so on, but he was still
a great physics teacher because he was *usually*
talking about physics, and we all learned the material
(as proven by superior AP exam scores). If anything, I'd
say my highschool physics teacher's rants helped us pay
attention to the physics because you never knew when
something whacky was coming. Of course in today's
neo-fascist school environment, he'd probably end up
fired for the stuff he said about politics and we'd
end up with the moron creationist chem teacher teaching
us instead.
\_ Reasonable point, although I was responding
specifically dans' statement. In this case, the
rant seems to have been about 20 minutes, at my
high school that would be approx. 1/2 a class
period. The kid claimed he does this
frequently.
"Neo-fascist school environment?" You haven't
been around a high school in a while, huh? I
can pretty much guarantee you, nothing has
changed. (At least since I was in school)
-jrleek
\_ What year did you graduate high school?
\_ You first, anonymous man. -jrleek
\_ 1994.
\_ 1998.
\_ Uh...ok, so both pre-Columbine and
pre-911. I call bullshit that
nothing's changed. Do you have
a younger sibling in high school
or something? Where's your
circumstantial evidence that
nothing's changed?
\_ Yes, my little sister just
graduated from the same
school I did. That's pretty
much all the evidence though.
Many of my firends were still
there for when Columbine
happened too. Admittedly,
you're now more likely to get
in trouble for threatening to
shoot people at school, but I
wouldn't exactly call that
"fascist."
\_ WRT the ``what is the most violent country in the world
question,'' I agree that it could be phrased better.
If you want to talk internally violent, then yes,
Sudan definitely is up there, though the US' homicide
rate is, to my knowledge, the highest among developed
countries. If you want to talk about externally
violent, then you can make a strong argument for the
US. Is Sudan on the warpath? Is it attacking its
neighbors? To my knowledge, no. If Sudan got angry
at, say, France, would it be a threat? Probably not.
The US is one of the few countries in the world with
global reach, and, in light of Russia's decline,
possibly the only country with an arsenal capable of
literally wiping countries off the map or destroying
the world with the push of a button (MAD was a real
part of political policy making in the cold war).
\_ Wow...just...wow.
On a technical note about the `dejected'
response, I think that's a reasonable interpretation of
the response, but not the only one. This was likely
recorded with an inexpensive omni microphone, thus when
one speaker projects from the front of the room, it is
much clearer than when many speakers talk from all
directions at once. In my experience, getting *any*
response from a class room of high school experience is
hard to do. Then again, maybe I just suck as a
teacher. :) One also must realize that not all
learning or discussion happens in the classroom. Push
students buttons enough in the classroom, and they'll
argue and discuss material outside of the classroom.
If this is the teacher's strategy, he's executing it
poorly, but, in the right hands, it can be a very
powerful technique.
On the evidence side of things, I agree
that his discussision of capitalism was one of the
over the top moments where he doesn't justify his
statements. On the other hand, most of his statements
about US dealings in Latin America are factual and, to
my knowledge, accurate (cf economics of coca). I don't
like the idea that high school students are too dumb or
too ignorant to go toe to toe with a teacher that
raises obscure facts. When my teachers did this, I
took it as a challenge and I learned from it. IMO,
when you raise the bar for the brightest students, it
lifts everyone up, and when you cater to the lowest
common denominator students, it pushes everyone down.
BTW, thanks for signing. Nice to know who
I'm arguing with. FYI, I gradugated in '97 -dans
Thanks for signing your name, it's good to know who I'm
arguing with. -dans (graduated highschool in 1997)
\_ Sudan is also supporting militias attacking
Chad. And, your point is that he's
incompetent? agreed. -jrleek
\_ US: EVIL, ANTI-US: GOOD!
\_ If American public schools don't teach
students that dissent and critical
questioning of our leaders is a patriotic duty
and a key ingredient in a healthy democratic
society, who will? Maybe your joking, but if
you're serious, your vast oversimplification
suggests that your school did a poor job of
teaching you those vital critical analysis
skills. -dans
\_ Um, maybe PARENTS should teach their
kids this sort of thing?
Maybe schools should concentrate on
teaching kids the basics of things
like math, science, grammar, &c.
\_ Schools need to teach students things
like critical reasoning; furthermore,
a high school teaches civics, which is
supposed to be sort of an "owner's
manual" for a democratic republic.
This does include "dissent". But
not in geography class. -John
\_ Well, that depends whether you think
geography is just map reading
skills and memorizing place names.
That's a reasonable approach to the
field if you're teaching
kindergarteners. The actual field is
more interesting, complex, and
subtle. It encompasses geopolitics,
and is a reasonable venue for
discussion of the how the US
interacts with the word. It's not
really a leap from that discussion to
civics and decent. -dans
\_ In the context of the subject. If
the guy's gonna rant about
politics, whatever they are (which
he is) it belongs in a civics
class. -John
\_ I disagree. I think the main
problem w/ US education is that
it focuses too much on what the
student feels, &c. instead of
devoting time to the essentials
like math, science, languages,
&c. While dissent and discussion
can be useful, the place for
this is HS debate team.
\_ Okay, so are Sudan's incursions into Chad
equivalent to the US invasion of Iraq? I could
see how one might argue that, morally, the answer
is yes. But I think once you bring the question
of degree and scope into it, I don't think the
comparison holds water. The US toppled the
government of Iraq in, literally, weeks. How
long have Sudanese incursions into Chad been
taking place? Are they having a substantial
impact on the nation of Chad as a whole? Could
Sudan wage an effective war on another country on
the other side of the globe? Does Sudan have
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons that
could literally obliterate a country? I am in
no way asserting that the US' actions are
equivalent to Sudan's, but I do think that the US
is orders of magnitude more powerful than Sudan,
and thus, we must hold it to a significantly
higher standard. Most of the time US citizens do
hold our nation to a higher standard, and our
government behaves accordingly. There are,
however, exceptions, such as our incursions into
Latin America. Many actions by the current
administration also fall below the necessary
standard. And no, my point is not that he's
incompetent. I think some of the points you
raised are valid, and are areas for improvement.
I think it's a pretty considerable leap from the
points you raised to the assertion that he's
incompetent. You seem to view this as a very
binary matter. -dans
\_ I had avoided listening to this rant for a few days now, but
I listened to parts of it just for you. The way I understand
it, it sounds like he was talking during class rather than
during lunch or after-school or something.
If he said this during lunchtime or after-school (ie when
the students were free to come and go from class), I think
that his spiel was perfectly okay.
But, during class I think this isn't okay for at least
the following two reasons:
1. His job is teaching Geography not Geo-politics. His
blathering doesn't teach kids anything useful about
geography, such as how to read things like elevation,
distance, water currents, &c. on maps.
Arguably he doesn't even teach students reasonable
geo-politics. Many of these problems have no sol'n
that all sides can reasonably agree on.
\_ Um, have you ever taken a college level Geography class?
Geography *is* geopolitics. See:
http://geography.berkeley.edu/ProgramCourses/OpenLetter.html
-dans
\_ No I have not taken a college level geography
class. I was too busy taking real classes to
waste my time/money on nonsense classes like
geography, history, &c. This fluff stuff is
\_ In the words of some old, dead English guy, ``There
are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than
are dreamt of in your philosophy.'' Eh. It's all just
fluff stuff to you. You sir, are an idiot. -dans
\_ The fluff stuff, my friend, is "a tale told
by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing."
something one can learn on the side if one
has nothing more productive to do. I didn't
want to waste the precious time in school
on that type of drivel.
Regardless of this, whether or not I have
taken college level geography is irrelevant
to a discussion of High School geography.
Its like asking if I've taken o-chem, when
the conversation is about 9th grade bio.
HS geography is about trying to get 9th and
10th graders to locate different countries
on a map and hoping that they figure out
that Africa and Asia a different continents.
It is not about trying to give them the low
down on every regional war, &c.
\_ Were you actually that stupid in high school? How the
hell did you get into Cal? As far as I know, Cal
doesn't have legacy admits like Harvard. -dans
\_ Cal only considers GPA, SAT and SAT2
for admissions. If you study hard in
HS, it is pretty easy to get nearly
perfect scores on each of these and
have your pick of engineering majors.
There is no point talking about the complex
stuff if, say, the students can't figure out
that Georgia is a country and a state.
\_ Americans don't need to waste time learning geography.
They just need to do what they're good at doing and
their good 'ol government led by the greatest
president in the world, GWB, will take
care of everything. Ok?
\_ Learning geography doesn't help you
build a better transistor, write
better code, sequence DNA, &c.
If the choice is between wasting
time on geography or taking more
math and science, the choice to
me is OBVIOUS. But, if you want
to take the bs classes to pad your
GPA and feel good about your place
in the world, don't complain when
Asian engineers and scientists
take over all the major US industries.
\_ Yes, because understanding the world around you
and applying that understanding in the ballot
booth is much less important than the newest
language feature or most recent BSD kernel
release. Philosophy is for those *other* people
that run the country, and therefore clearly is
beneath the lofty study of us engineers!!!1!one
\_ Philosophy is mostly for people
who can't get into a real major
(or are driven insane b/c they
majored in math).
2. His job is to ensure that the maximum number of students
learn the maximum amt of geography w/in the school year.
His actions may run counter to this.
\_ That's got to be the most ridiculously bad, oversimplifying
misuse of mathematical/economic jargon I've ever seen used to
describe what a teacher's job is. Plus you don't even know
what Geography is. -dans
\_ Geography is map reading: the study of the earth and
\_ Err, you might want to look at the course descriptions
in the berkeley course catalog. I suspect you'll
be unpleasantly surprised.
\_ I'm talking about HS geography, not college
level geography where they can teach all sorts
of stuff and label it whatever they want.
its features and of the distribution of life on earth.
This guy's performance should be measured on based on
how well his kids can read a map and figure out where
different flora and fauna occur, &c.
After listening to a dozen or so of these talks, some
students may conclude that their time during his class
is better spent doing AP Chem homework or playing GBA
rather than learning geography.
This attitude can lead to many students tuning out the
parts of the lecture that are objective. Given the
difficulty of teaching kids, teachers ought not take
affirmative steps that can make learning even harder.
\_ Ok, I also finally gave in and listened. Geez. The problem
here isn't the guy's political positions, it's that his lecture
is stream of consiousness. CIGARETTES!! GUNS! WMDs!
CAPITALISM! BUSH!!! VIOLENCE!!! I've taken science classes
that were stream of consiousness by profs who didn't bother
to prepare, and it's retarded no matter what the content
is. "Here's a picture of me with a nobel laureate! One time,
I was taking a piss, and I invented a new transistor! Fermi
functions!!!"
\_ Alright buddy, how about less exclamations and more vacations?
\_ #DEFINE LEARNING_GEOGRAPHY ROTE_MEMORIZATION_AND_LEARNING_BASIC\
_MAP_READING_SKILLS_A_KINDERGARTENER_COULD_PICK_UP_IN_A_WEEK
-dans
\_ Well if a kindergartener could pick it up in
a week, why is it that only 25% of graduating
seniors are considered proficient in geography?
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/geography/results/natachieve-g12.asp
\_ Maybe because we don't teach it to kids in
kindergarten when it might actually present a
an exciting challenge? -dans
\_ Okay, we don't teach it in kindergarten,
and we don't teach it in HS. So kids never
learn it. Teaching geopolitics when you
don't know geography is like trying to
teach calc to someone who can't even do
algebra.
\_ Geography encompasses both map reading and
geopolitics. The two go hand in hand. You must
be a robot if you believe typical high school
students will learn anything from a semester long
class where all they do is read maps and memorize
the names of places. -dans
\_ Personally I would rather have spent
a semester learning things like how
to read navigation charts, elevation
charts, the historical development
of major cities, biodiversity, &c.
rather than some self-godwin'ed
drivel about US BAD, WHITE MAN KILLS!
\_ I prefer to read about how us
British conquered and ruled the
world, and how we administered
150 million Indians through the
Indian Civil Service, much more
effectively than the incompetent
Americans did with their conquests.
If geography doesn't help you rule
the world more effectively, what good
is it? |
| 2006/3/7-9 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42130 Activity:high |
3/7 http://csua.org/u/f5w (telegraph.co.uk) "The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme." \_ All options are on the table and we will be greeted as liberators. Oh, the country is oil rich so they can pay for their own reconstruction, the American taxpayer is off the hook again! \_ We are sort of greeted as liberators. Most of the fighting is fuckhead Sunnis who can't handle only getting 20 percent of the political power since they are only 20 percent of the population, vs the dominant Shiite population who are viewed as infidels by the Saudis, Al-Queda, and that Zaqardi Jordanian fellow. I think the only solution is to wall the entire area in and let them kill each other over which of Mohammeds cronies should have led Islam 2000 years ago. What a bunch of retards. \- it's a little tough to take you as a serious commentator when you write about islam 2000yrs ago. --that indian fellow \_ to use a forest fire term, we need a "controlled burn" \_ Think of it as evolution in action. Of cource, CSUAers not breeding is also evolution in action. \_ So it will cost only 500 billion dollars in 3 years, just like Iraq. Hehehehe. \_ It makes sense. We can combine Iraq, Iran and the Kurds into one giant OhFuckIstan. \_ Why the Kurds? They're doing pretty OK on their own. It's a Sunni/Shiite thing. Haven't the Kurds had it bad enough already? \_ that is because they are pratically independent from Iraq right now. I can totally see couple years down the road USA will invade Kurd-controlled territory along with Turkish troops. \_ I can't wait to see US invade Iran. It would be a lot of run to watch. Too bad it won't happen, cause with Iraq, US is already like a girl with jeans and panties bundled around the ankle, butt naked and hobbled. fun to watch. Too bad it won't happen, cause with Iraq, US is already like a sissy with jeans and panties bundled around the ankles, butt naked and hobbled. \_ And you made this determination of American military capacity based on your vast wealth of military knowledge and deep understanding of history, logistics and military psychology? I don't think there will be an invasion, but not because the US military couldn't flatten the Iranians. \_ I think it has more to do with American forces being stretched really thin, continuous inability to suppress resistance in Iraq, and Iran being several times larger in size and population (several times larger than the entire population of Iraq, not the Sunnis population of Iraq). Also, an invasion would likely turn the Shiites in Iraq against US. Then there is the difficulty for the US military to recruit new soldiers, soldiers complaining about length of stays in Iraq, a weak US economy with huge budget and trade deficits, lack of international support, etc., etc. Iran also doesn't have internal religious and ethnic divisions like in Iraq, and hasn't been under a decade of sanctions. Note: pop of Iraq 26 million. pop of Sunnis in Iraq ~5 million. pop of Iran 68 million. \_ Also don't forget, the Iranians have this fun tendency, all the wanting to hold hands and listen to rock & roll aside, to strap on bomb vests and send hordes of fanatical 8 year olds to do things like clear mine fields and gnaw off invaders' feet while they sleep when you attack their country. So unless you're really when you attack their country, so unless you're really really sure of what you're doing, don't have any, oh I dunno, "other current engagements that may be requiring some of your attention and military resources", and have a whole buttload of allies in the area who're actually willing and able to send in their own brute squads (or even publicly prepared to say that they support what you're doing), not to mention not having any several big, mean countries that are sort of counting on Iranian gas and oil and money for nuclear reactor bits expressing "doubts" about what you're up to, I don't really know if it's such a fantastic idea to go invade them. -John \_ When your trigger happy President is also a fanatic, it's not such a crazy idea to attack others fanatically. \_ Nobody's attacking anyone fanatically, just dishonestly and incompetently. If we can't even run a war/occupation/counterinsurgency right, then given all the above crap, I think starting another war is knid of silly. -John another war is kind of silly. -John \_ John, you just won the longest sentence of the year award. |
| 2006/3/3-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42087 Activity:nil |
3/3 "Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad now as they were under Saddam
Hussein, as lawlessness and sectarian violence sweep the country, the
former U.N. human rights chief in Iraq said Thursday...the level of
extra-judicial executions and torture is soaring, and morgue workers
are being threatened by both government-backed militia and insurgents
not to properly investigate deaths."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_human_rights
\_ Sure, but the American People Are Safer (TM)
\_ Shiites have the FREEDOM to form their own death squads |
| 2006/3/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42072 Activity:nil |
3/2 poll. Iraq Civil War will be:
prevented:
break out soon:
going on right now: |
| 2006/2/28-3/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42025 Activity:low |
2/28 http://csua.org/u/f3r (Wash Post) Over 1,300 Iraqis dead in last weak. It's okay, because they're probably mostly Sunnis / Baathist hold-outs. \_ Over 1,300 Americans dead in the last we*e*k as well. And? \_ Bad troll. No cookie. \_ It isn't a troll. It is making a point about the op's post. People die. It happens. More than 1300 Americans died in this country just last week. And? What is the point of the op post? Thus, "And?" If op had a point, they should have made one. OP is the troll here. \_ You're either stupid or trolling. That 1300 is because of violent protests/clashes after the bombing of the mosque in Samarrah. OP is either sarcastic or stupid, which is a step above you. \_ Calm down and read the post again. Note that the poster does not mention *where* the Americans in question died. Most of them died of old age in their beds in the U.S., presumably. -!pp \_ That's exactly the fucking point, and exactly why that poster is either a troll or stupid.. God, who's putting lithium in the berkeley water supply? \_ OMG, good point! We're all going to die someday so it doesn't matter if someone kills me! You just blew my mind! \_ 1300 certainly did not die because of violent crime. The point is that the Bush Administration is lying to us (again) by minimizing the violence. \_ Ethnic cleansing - it's okay! \_ Darfur is ethnic cleansing. You're clueless and knee jerk. \_ No, I'm making fun of the asshat that thinks 1300 deaths is "okay." \_ I think he was being sarcastic. No deaths are "ok" but people die. How/why they died is more important than the number. \_ Okay, how's this? Imagine if 16,000 Americans had died in the last two days because the Italians and the Irish in New York had decided to start killing each other. Would that be "ok?" I think the thrust of the article is that far more people died over the weekend than most media had been reporting. Sadly it takes a certain death "threshold" to get media attention these days, as we seem to have gotten used to Iraq being a total clusterfuck (along with most other things our government is doing these days). \_ If it bleeds, it leads. You won't find me defending the media but frankly what's going on in Iraq is actually pretty minor compared to many situation in both the distant and very recent past as well as *right now* in several parts of the world. I'm much more disgusted at all the other things the media ignores than their Iraq coverage. Most people can't even tell you that Darfur isn't a new brand of beer or an ice cream flavor. \- Darfur is trivial compared to the toll of malaria. So was the tsunami. There is more to it than "if it bleeds it leads" and the 1300 is just a small chapter of the overall iraq story. \_ What? You think the tsunami wasn't covered or we're not pumping enough cash into malaria/insect control? And you think an act of god is worse than one people enslaving and wiping out another race with intent and malice? No. You're just a lame troll. D- \- i'm not trolling. my point is the that significant of a story isnt just a matter of the casualty numbers. darfur is being convered a fair amount. not much is being done about it but the coverage is there. there are a lot of aspects to the malaria story ... how foreign aid dollars for public health are spent, the stupidity of DDT usage policy etc. it is interesting to note the difference in casaulaty counts in ex-yugoslavia where the US led sig intervention and conflicts in africa with much higher casualty counts where nothing was done. \_ Good point -- we'd better just sit back and let them kill each other until the butcher's bill is at least as bad as some of those other places. Right. Thanks for the insight, there, Tex. \_ Good way to completely and intentionally miss the point. \_ Thanks. |
| 2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42008 Activity:nil |
2/25 http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32829 Bush To Iraqi Militants: "Please Stop Bringing It On" \_ you're only 22 months late with that link |
| 2006/2/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41965 Activity:nil |
2/22 Iraqi civil war, here we come? :(
http://csua.org/u/f21 (juancole.com)
\_ Sadly, Mr. Cole is quite well-informed and knowledgeable about
this situation. I say "sadly" because I would prefer to think that
will not come to pass. but I know that he's right. |
| 2006/2/18-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41920 Activity:low |
2/18 http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13880387.htm "It's apocalyptic out there. Life has definitely gotten worse for" Iraqis, said Maj. Curtis Strange, 36, of Mobile, Ala. Mission Accomplished! \_ Curtis Strange, huh? http://Realcities.com? Ok, I'll bite: What is Major Strange comparing to and was he around during the Hussein era to compare? I suspect he was in Alabama at the time not studying the socioeconomic situation across the Iraqi demographic spectrum. Then again, maybe he's entirely right and we should pull out, and reinstate Hussein. Things should get better right away. He's a man who knows how to put down an insurgency. \_ THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS ARE TO STAY THE COURSE OR INSTALL HUSSEIN!! ALL LIFE IS BINARY!! YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS! \_ Okey dokey! Propose a different solution and we'll discuss it. Thanks for contribution nothing. \_ And what exactly have you contributed, bitch? \_ A list of still unanswered questions that directly pertains to the OP and a clean mouth. You? Nada. \_ I already told you my plan. It starts with impeaching Bush and turning him and his whole war cabinat over to the Wolrd Court to be tried for War Crimes. You didn't the World Court to be tried for War Crimes. You didn't seem to interested. \_ Realcities is where Knight Ridder puts their wire stories. Didn't you see that this from KR newspapers, from the byline? \_ Shrug, ok its KR. What about my other questions? \_ Maybe he's assuming that the Iraqis had a better life when their town wasn't all blown up and "apocalyptic". when their towns weren't all blown up and "apocalyptic". Just a guess, though. \_ Wow, Iraq is just one town? \_ You do realize you're an idiot, right? \_ Hard to face your own incompetence, huh? \_ No, you're still the idiot. Just briefly, it is within the realm of possibility that Maj. Strange knows a bit more about the Iraqi situation and the extent of it than you do, but a news article can only be so long, and the major has no real input on which of his sound bites make it into the article. BTW, it makes you sound real intelligent to suggest the only two options are pulling out or reinstating Saddam. \_ Umm.. Can't you read? I never suggested that, you're freakin' out on the wrong guy. I just snarked about the town thing. Sheesh. If you wanted to respond to the binary post, you need to correctly format your post so everyone knows who you're responding to. \_ there. fixed. the grammar police strike and ignore all contextual content. yay! -!pp |
| 2006/2/17-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41909 Activity:nil |
2/17 BETTER OFF WITHOUT SADDAM! LALALALALLAL!!!!!11!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060217165312
\_ Weird... you didn't even read your own link. Whatever.
\_ Wow. Sarcasm detectors are in full on failure today...
\_ Weird... Mormons don't get sarcasm. Whatever.
\_ Uh, whatever. 1) not mormon, 2) your headline has nothing
to do with the link. It's non sequiter, not sarcasm.
\_ So... You're saying you're just stupid?
\_ Obviously, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying since
the way I read the English language is nothing like the
much better way you invented. I just read it like most
other people. The way you read things that aren't
there is truly an innovation worthy of a Bill Gates
company. Have you IPO'd yet?
\_ I'm glad your grasp of English is better than your
Latin. You're still an idiot.
\_ Coming from you that makes me an uber genius. If
I was a Mormon would you love me more or less
than you do now? I still want to invest in your
English language reinterpretation company. What
is your stock ticker?
\_ I didn't make the "mormon" comment. You still
seem to have a broken sarcasm detector. I hear
they have pills for that.
\_ U R TEH KEWL D00DE! KAN EYE B U?
\_ I love it when idiots try to "out" people on the motd.-jrleek
\_ Even better when they're wrong. |
| 2006/2/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41879 Activity:nil |
2/15 Bill Tierney, former UN weapons inspector and CENTCOM intelligence
analyst, releases tapes of Saddam talking about the inevitability of a
WMD attack on the U.S., even though Iraq would have no part of it, and
the effort to hide an Iraqi biological WMD program from inspectors:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996
Mr. Tierney was also convinced Saddam had a nuclear capability, and
obtained the location of Saddam's uranium enrichment plant by talking
with God:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/02/14.html
Mr. Tierney passionate about standing vigil for Terri Schiavo:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/national/28scene.html |
| 2006/2/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41860 Activity:nil 80%like:41856 |
2/15 Was 9/11 an Osama miscalculation? AlQ losing the hearts and minds?
http://tinyurl.com/9o9v6 (baltimoresun.com)
\_ How delightfully hubristic |
| 2006/2/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41856 Activity:nil 80%like:41860 |
2/15 Was 9/11 an Osama miscalculation? AlQ losing the hearts and minds?
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.terrorism12feb12,0,5943431.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines |
| 2006/2/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Reference/Military] UID:41835 Activity:moderate |
2/14 Laser guns to be deployed in Iraq:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002170.html
\_ "But 10 months later . and after a prototype destroyed about 90% of
the IEDs laid in its path during a battery of tests . not a single
JIN has been shipped to Iraq," the Times notes.
So, uh, I assume it doesn't magically find IEDs on its own (which
seems like the actual problem). Couldn't an M-16 barrage destroy
90% of known IEDs in one's path?
\_ We don't like to litter M-16 shells
\_ It would drive in front of convoys and detonate any IEDs
in the way, rather like a minesweeper of sorts. It "finds"
them by blowing them up if they exist.
\_ ? How does that work? Is it just shooting lightning all
over the place?
\_ "JIN would sweep dangerous areas clear of bombs before
U.S. troops entered."
\_ Reading more about it (in other articles) I think my
characterization is wrong. I wonder if they have
multiple products?
\_ Kind of. The idea is to saturate a volume of space with
very short bursts of lightning. That should be sufficient to
detonate or render useless any IEDs in the area.
\_ Watch this video: http://www.ionatron.net/default.aspx?id=105
Essentially, it has an extended arm that sweeps over an area.
The arm is shooting, straight down, the aforementioned
femto-second laser pulses. The end result is an explosion or
a shorting out of the IED. Yes, this could damage the unit.
a shorting out of the IED. Yes, this could damage the g-unit.
\_ In WW2, they had tanks with large horizontal rollers/bars
that had numerous heavy chains attached that spun around
the roller setting off mines. How is this any different
except that it requires hi-tek, a lot of cleaning and will
break more easily?
\_ Some IEDs are cell-phone operated. Beating the ground
with chains might set off mines, but it wouldn't
necessarily set off an IED or disable it. |
| 2006/2/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41813 Activity:nil |
2/13 http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml This is the problem with going to war with allies and coalitions. No imagination. There's bad apples in every army, but at least ours had the imagination to do panty-heads and human pyramids. The Brits are giving all rogue soldiers a bad name. \_ "A DIY grenade lands and explodes inside the compoundblasting out \_ "A DIY grenade lands and explodes inside the compound - blasting out shrapnel and a cloud of grey-white smoke." Yeah, they are just kids, yeah. \_ If you think that your example somehow justifies the abuse, please do us all a favor and go hunting with Dick Cheney. \_ I'm only suggesting something that counters what the article said about those people being just kids. \_ Well, given the source (News of the World), I'd say you're rarely going to go wrong accusing them of sensationalizing a story. |
| 2006/2/11-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41802 Activity:nil |
2/10 Recently retired CIA Senior Analyst says Bush Administration
politicized and distorted the intel to make their
case for the war in Iraq:
http://csua.org/u/eyc (Foreign Affairs)
\_ Pillar coordinated intelligence on Iraq from all 15 agencies of
the intelligence community, and he was "the" senior analyst for
the Middle East. He says "politicized", but not "distorted". He
does say "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify decisions already
made.
the Middle East. He also says there was "cherry-picking" of
intelligence to justify decisions already made.
\_ So the war is this guy's fault?
\_ Hah! +1 funny! |
| 2006/2/10-13 [Recreation/Humor, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41791 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto |
2/10 Rave Party! (No clue, don't ask)
http://www.glumbert.com/media/rave.html -John
\_ http://www.exile.ru/2004-September-04/war_nerd.html |
| 2006/2/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41772 Activity:very high |
2/8 Does anyone else feel that these stupid demonstrations by Muslims
(including the Paris riots) are actually working against Al Qaeda?
I mean, it seems they are uniting the US and Europe against them.
\_ Muslims that used to fight each other have lately been solidified
by the cartoon and are uniting with each other in protest to
what they perceive as the big white oppressive dickheads that
keep interfering with the Middle East. So, you're the stupid one.
\_ Isn't it more important to stay on good terms with Europe
than with some extremist faction(s)?
\_ Al Qaeda are insane. Not in the deprecating "we just don't
understand their 'otherness'" sort of way... literally certifiably
insane. There isn't some master group that's planning all activities
of all groups that claim to be Al Qaeda (another problem) for some
grand, achieveable, sensible goal. They're batshit.
\_ We should give Al Quaida more credit. They are kicking the
shit out of us in Iraq. They're a lot smarter than you think
they are.
\_ You're an idiot. No such thing is happening in Iraq. Stop
using KOS as your primary news source. AlQ is a bunch of
psychotics whose primary 'tactic' is sending other people's
children into crowds of civilians to blow themselves up which
pisses off all the locals. The local insurgents will whither
away and stop blowing shit up as we reduce troop levels and
the new central government gains its footing. We can and
are reducing troop levels because AlQ has been getting
butchered.
\_ Death rate up? Check.
Electricity production down? Check.
Oil production down? Check.
Are we losing the war in Iraq? Yes.
It doesn't take Kos to see that, just a sober and
honest assessment of quantifiable statistics.
\_ Death rate up from what? When Saddam was killing 5k
a month of his own people?
Electricity down from what? When Saddam was cutting
off the south from power to punish and keep them in
line?
Oil production down? From foreign terrorists killing
local oil engineers and sabotaging pipelines here and
there, but less often than before?
Losing? Absolutely not. Complete and utter crap.
Your 'sober and honest assessment' needs some serious
reassessing. Adding something called "context" wouldn't
hurt either. While we're at it, let's not mention the
nation wide votes they've had that went off with no
serious events and that the Sunni's didn't boycott the
most recent one. Join us out here in the real world
where both good and bad things happen but where over
time the good things increase while the bad things
decrease. KosWorld is a dark, ugly, depressing place
and not reality based.
\_ And Bushworld is a happy, pretty place with flowers
and candy. Yeah, life may suck in Iraq, but it
doesn't suck because of Saddam any more! Yay!
And it only took $430 billion to do it! Yay!
And it only took $430 billion (so far) to do it! Yay!
\_ That's a weak rhetorical ploy. If you can't
respond to the charge, bang your shoe on the
table and get sarcastic and bitter. Maybe
next time you'll bring some facts along to help
you out. Too bad the facts aren't on your side.
\_ "less than before" "complete and utter crap"
"saddam did it worse". You call these strong
arguments? You've offered no facts, and by
all accounts, you're full of shit. Granted,
those accounts are hard to come by because
JOURNALISTS CAN'T DO THEIR FUCKING JOB BECAUSE
IRAQ IS A SHITHOLE BECAUSE OF OUR FAILURE.
\_ I gave a summary for the simple/closed
minded of facts that should be known. That
you're unaware the Saddam used the
electric system as a political control or
killed thousands of his own peoeple every
month is not entirely your fault. As you
say, the journalists aren't doing their
jobs and only give us the bad side so people
like you who are unable or unwilling to dig
deeper to find the truth are left believing
in the "quagmire" and "vietnam" DNC fax
points idiocy. Stop reading KOS.
\_ #1: wtf is KOS? I obviously don't
read it.
\_ "Obviously"? You claim not to
but sure sound like a daily
reader. "obviously" is not the
word I would have chosen esp.
for someone on the motd with
your political bias. The motd
has had numerous Kos links on
it for a long time. Unless
you're brand new here, I find it
extremely unlikely you're not
only never read it but don't even
know the name. Whatever. Make
any BS claim you'd like in that
regard. I don't care what you
read. It won't help you since
your mind is already made up.
YOU SMART! THEM DUMB!
#2: If you believe that we've won the
war in Iraq, why don't you prove
your confidence by moving over
there and living there for a
couple years. Obviously, living
in the United States, you have never
ever experienced living in a
war-zone, let alone a war that
is illegitimate.
\_ Don't misquote me. I never said
we won Iraq. We're still there,
duh. So there's some magical
difference for civilians in a
"ligitimate war" vs an
"illigitmate war"? Riiiight.
You're way too into your own
politics to think clearly. War
is bad, k?
#3: I think you should be happy that
you will never have a smart bomb
drop on your wedding. Now stop
trying to make it seem like the
Iraqis have it good.
\_ We carpet bombed German cities
and fire bombed Dresden. I
feel bad for the civilians of
all wars, but as these things
go, Iraq was pretty easy on
the civilian population. Are
you opposed to all war for any
reason? What is your answer to
Darfur? Should we ignore it as
we have? How many civilians
continue to die there and many
other places throughout history
while "good men stood by and
did nothing"?
#4: Better yet, if one day we have
higher taxes because of all the
money we've spent on this war
(and hence one of the reasons
for our all-time high federal
deficit), I want YOU to personally
volunteer to pay more taxes
because you are in support of our
government wasting money out there.
Obviously supporting the war and
not wanting to back it up with
your wallet is hypocritical.
\_ Sure, do I get to *not* pay
the share that goes to other
things I disagree with? I'll
make out really well. I'd be
quite happy if I only had to
pay for the things government
does that I like. Since I like
so few of them my taxes would
drop to near zero. What would
your tax burden look like? You
call me a hypocrite before you
got an answer. I'm sorry, but
you're flat out dead wrong. I'd
be very very happy to be taxed
under your "only pay for what
you like" plan. Right now our
taxes are the lowest they've
been in decades and are due to
automagically rise again at the
end of the 10 year tax cut deal.
I'd be surprised if they did
anything but go up given where
they are now and the history of
taxation in this country and
others but it won't have a damned
thing to do with Iraq.
\_ Oh, I think you'll see more appeasement and self-censorship from
Europe. "Islam is protected by an invisible blasphemy law. It
is called fear."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2025314,00.html
\_ While I agree that the Muslim riots are really hurting thier cause
in the long run, your claiming that Muslim = Al Quaeda
(even radical muslim = Al Quaeda) is either a major troll or
racist bullshit, and probably both.
\_ Where did I claim that all Muslims = Al Qaeda? However, Al Qaeda
certainly seems to support these activities and yet it works
against them. IOW, I don't see bin Laden issuing a video
telling the rioters to stay calm. I'm sure he also sees,
say, this cartoon, as blasphemy.
\_ you are an idiot. alqueda sees all westerners as agents
of satan. it doesn't care what satan say or not say. it
just want to destroy them.
\_ If you use "Al Qaeda" in the greater sense, meaning something like
"the body of people in the muslim world who actively or tacitly
support cutting the heads off infidels and things like honor
killings and sharia", I hope that the recent collective temper
tantrum may cause at least a few people who use their brains to
re-evaluate their position. I also assume there are a fair
number of educated and decent muslims who're aghast at this. That
said, I believe this will western societies to think much more
critically about islam, and to tolerate less of the whingeing,
bullying snits you tend to see when someone feels offended by the
evil crusaders. -John
\_ moderate muslims are losing the war against fundamentalists
because western imperialists keep helping the fundamentalists
by doing stupid things like invading Iraq.
\_ there are no "moderate muslims". it's a myth. who exactly
are these mythical "moderate muslims"? Can you name any?
I believe your so-called "moderate muslims" are the normal
people who just want to live their lives and be left alone.
The average "muslim in the street" is not going to take up
arms or in any other meaningful way stand up to AlQ, Hamas,
Fatah, etc. Quite the contrary, Hamas just got *elected*
if you'll recall. You have no friends among the "moderate
muslims" for there are none.
\_ er .... the muslim world is bigger than you realize.
\_ the average Iraqi is pretty much a moderate, until
your stupid president and his lackeys decided to
invade the country illegally. I came from a country
with 20% muslims and my work group of 7 has two muslims,
so give me the bullshit about no moderate muslims.
your stupid president and his gang decided to
invade the country illegally.
invade the country illegally. even now, most
Iraqis are still moderates, including many of those
who just want to kick you out of Iraq. there are
some bad terrorists, but most of those are
foreigners. there is also a general shift
toward fundamentalism especially among the
toward fundamentalism among the
shiites cause they are falling under the
influence of the iranian mullahs again thanks
to your stupid war.
\_ The stupid war makes a pretty convenient scapegoat.
Anti-Americanism (and anti-Westernism, anti-secularism,
and anti-not-killing-your-daughter-for-being-rapederism)
are widespread in large portions of the muslim world
that haven't been invaded by the US (or anyone.) You'll
note the popularity of Bin Laden #1 Fan Club t-shirts
on the streets of Pakistan and Jakarta and wherever
after 9/11--well before the stupid war. The Iraq war,
while fought on dishonest premises, is just a
convenient excuse and outlet for thugs. Think again,
young padawan, cosmic truths may be revealed. -John
\_ killing your daughter for being raped is more
tribal than islamic. indonesians were mostly
pro-US before the Iraq war, and last I check both
it and its neighbour malaysia have become more
and more democratic moving away from one party
rule. many surveys have shown that there is
considerable goodwill towards America and what
it represents among the common people in
many muslim countries, but that it had evaporated
since the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of
iraq.
\_ BZZZT!!! Sorry. They're both one 'party'
dictatorships. Name the 'other party'
that ran in the last election in either
country. Oh wait. There wasn't an
election in either place. Why do you
insist on coming here and saying such
trivially destroyed lies? Do you really
think you're fooling anyone? If you're
going to troll, you need to base your
garbage on half-truths at least. Trolling
from a position of truth is always the
best way to get under people's skin. The
Young Troll Advisory Board has rated this
troll as: WEAK!
\_ Really? How come this economist
article says you are talking out
of your arse?:
http://tinyurl.com/cb4m6
rule. many surveys have shown that there is
considerable goodwill towards America and what
it represents among the common people in
many muslim countries, but that it evaporated
after the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of
many muslim countries, but that it had evaporated
since the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of
iraq.
\_ The Economist says you are
talking out of your arse:
http://tinyurl.com/cb4m6
\_ It's not unjustifiable. Illegal? Why don't you
report it to the police?
\_ Illegal as in without the expressed
authorization of the United Nations. But
not even that... we didn't even have the
consensus agreement of the world to invade
Iraq. We just unilaterally invaded the
country. Complete bull-shit. Why do you
think so many people are rooting for our
downfall? Obviously, by abusing our superpower
status, we aren't earning any friends.
\_ don't tell me, tell your friends in Europe,
Canda, Asia who were predominantly against
Canada, Asia who were predominantly against
the war.
\_ Undoubtedly the war hasn't helped, but claiming
that these muslim countries were hotbed of happy
pro-American sentiment before it is sort of
silly. -John
\_ Nobody is claiming that. Also don't confuse
being moderate with being pro-American.
\_ Read pp's post. He said "Indonesians were
mostly pro-US before the Iraq war." Cosmic
truths may be revealed to you. -John
\_ "These muslim countries" >> "Indonesia".
"considerable goodwill" != "hotbed of
happy pro-American sentiment".
Learn to read.
\_ "These muslim countries" in reference
to Indonesia and Malaysia. As you
say, learn to read. Supreme cosmic
truths may be revealed. -John
\_ In Indonesia, US popularity
was 61% in early 2002,
plummeted to 15% in 2004,
rebounding to 30+ percent
after Tsunami efforts.
\_ oh wow, you win. |
| 2006/2/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41768 Activity:nil |
2/8 America hearts Saudi Arabia
http://csua.org/u/exl (Reuters)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/08/cartoon.protests/index.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/13149/60748
"The 350 pilgrims were killed on January 12 and soon after [Hajj
fatalities], Saudi newspapers (which are all controlled by the state)
began running up to 4 articles per day condemning the Danish cartoons.
The Saudi government asked for a formal apology from Denmark. When
that was not forthcoming, they began calling for world-wide protests."
\_ Juan Cole's take:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/fact-file-on-reaction-to-danish.html
\_ shit, I need a blogger account to reply to his entry.
but basically, what I want to say is, "Can't they both be true?"
That is, Juan Cole's chronology may be entirely accurate, but
this does not preclude Saudi Arabia from suddenly turning up
the heat 10 notches.
\_ I think Juan is saying even if SA turned up the heat, it
doesn't diminish the authenticity of the outrage.
\_ that is one of the things he says, but he also says,
"the allegation that this thing was fanned by Saudi Arabia
does not seem to be substantiated by the FBIS" |
| 2006/2/7-9 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41746 Activity:nil 90%like:41744 |
2/7 http://csua.org/u/ex5 (http://www.editorandpublisher.com Them libruls just hates the troops... mmmhmm.... |
| 2006/2/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41745 Activity:nil |
2/7 http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm "She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," Lowery said. The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in a two-minute-long standing ovation. A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed the president smiling uncomfortably. ... \_ fyi, for posterity, according to the CNN video, the applause lasted for ~ 15 seconds, and the reverend didn't appear to expect it. also, it appears the applause was much greater for Bill Clinton. -op \_ This is precisely why Drudge is useless. Did he "nod his head toward the row of presidents..." on the "misdirection" line in your viewing? |
| 2006/2/7 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41744 Activity:nil 90%like:41746 |
2/7 http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001958360 Them libruls just hates the troops... mmmhmm.... |
| 2006/2/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41716 Activity:moderate |
2/6 The cartoon controversy: the Saudi factor
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748
\_ too bad he based this entire thing on bad dates from a single
source. but it isn't a bad theory overall.
\_ cool article. I've been saying all along that Saudi is problematic.
if we are serious about curbing Islamic Extremist, we need to deal
with them. FYI, Aljazeera did a survey, something like 66,000
out of 78,000 muslims said that official apology from the original
Dannish newspaper is good enough.
\_ This presumes two things: (a) that there is something wrong
with what the Danish paper did (maybe it was in questionable
with what the Danish paper did (it was in very questionable
taste and judgment, but that is different) and (b) that "islam"
and the umma as such have some inherent right for their
sensitivities to trump some of the core values and rights that
lie at the heart of what we so cavalierly call "Western culture."
Neither (a) nor (b) is the case. As for Islamic extremism, one
can only hope that pictures of people threatening to bomb
embassies and kill paper editors over cartoons will bring what
we keep being told is the "moderate majority" of muslims to
their senses, and make them realize how truculent, thuggish and
frankly, prone to infantile outbursts their co-religionists are.
To be honest, I don't see anyone asking for an apology from
anyone in the "islamic world" over the sort of acceptance you
get towards pictures of people having their heads cut off because
they are infidels, or over really vile anti-semitic shit that
you get on a lot of islamic web pages. Regarding what I see as
western kow-towing to this sort of horseshit collective temper-
tantrum, I've written a number of retailers that have removed
Danish products from their shelves in many countries, explaining
that they don't deserve my custom, for what little it's worth,
and I hope others will do the same. -John
\_ What if some CEO of company, President of a country, or
university made some anti-semitic remarks, or remarks
offensive to feminists, and some members of said groups
decide to boycott products of the company, not visit the
country, etc., will you be against that?
\_ The point of the article was that the Saudis deliberately
inflamed the issue, in order to distract attention from the
fuckup of the Hajj stampede.
\_ Yes, I know, I like the article. I was mainly venting,
the whole thing is pretty disgusting. As for boycotts,
go ahead; however, I find knuckling under to a fairly
barbaric condemnation of a society's fundamental values
(have you read what some of these signs say?) to be pretty
sad. I think this is not one of those cases where you
can even claim there is a gray area. -John
\_ a) It is not up to *YOU* to judge rather the cartoon
is offensive or not. b) don't you get it? they
are not attacking our value. They are attacking our
100 years of imperial foreign policies of supporting
repressive regime, overthrown democratic governments,
carve out their homelands to server other Western
interest, etc.
\_ Are you saying there would be no outrage if the
cartoons were published by a newspaper from a
non-imperialist, non-supporting repressive regime,
etc., nation?
\_ I don't give a shit if the cartoon was offensive
or not. They are not attacking "our" anything,
this is DENMARK we are talking about. HELLOO? It
is your and my right to even consider arguing about
this on a public (or any) forum. And it's "serve
other interests". -John
\_ Re-read and meditate, young padawan. Cosmic truths
may suddenly become clear. -John
\_ so Islam is a Religion Of Peace and we made them
beat their wives? if only their wives had just
listened and done what they were told they wouldn't
have had to beat them. |
| 2006/2/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41702 Activity:very high |
2/3 Muslims are psychos..
\_ None of the muslims I've met were psychos. I've worked very closely
with a guy who's a devout muslim for the last five years, and
"reasonable" is one of the first words I would probably use
to describe his personality. Along with "brilliant", "hard-working",
and "funny."
\_ My guess is that you've prob just never really met the truly
great ones nor even normal ones in every day life. What is
portrayed in the news will always be a biased in one way or
another.
\_ My guess is that you've prob just never really met the truly
average ones who make up the bulk of the ignorant and stupid
who are currently rioting and attacking people over a friggin
cartoon.
\_ See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm
re rioting and attacking over a cartoon.
\_ I think you're truly missing the bigger picture.
There's a reason why the majority of Arabs/Muslims
are anti-American. Although I agree that they have
a very extreme culture, they are people too and
their anger with the West is justified. How
would you like it if you're family was killed by
Americans? We just roll in there and say we're
"liberating" them, while we're bombing the crap
out of them and taking their oil. There are
just so many easy ways to see why Arabs
would hate America. But not just the Arabs. We're
making it way too easy for the rest of the world
to hate us too.
\_ Re the BBC link. I posted this to provide a
reference re 'currently rioting and attacking
people over a friggin cartoon.' I was not trying
to make a substantive point.
That said, I completely disagree that the anger
toward the West is justified. If anything, the
West (and primarily America) is the greatest
source of peace and prosperity that has every
been known in the history of mankind. Even at
its worst moments, this nation and its people
have a kind of benevolence that no other people
exhibit.
If anything the anger that motivates some in
the Islamic world is based on a historical
distrust of non-Muslim societies. The Islamic
world has has been in conflict w/ the "West"
and parts of Asia (notably India) for several
hundred yrs. The primary src of conflict is a
refusal by some Islamic sects to accept the
possibility that there are various alt. belief
systems exist by which people can live.
In the absence of such acceptance, the conflict
cannot be resolved, save by the defeat of one
side or the other. I for one pray that the West
is victorious; for all its faults, the West is
infinitely superior to Islamic rule.
\_ I agree with you about Islam vs. the West in
general, but I take issue with your claim of
America's unique benevolence. There are a lot
of benevolent peoples out there in the world.
What makes America unique is that it is a
benevolent(or at least benevolent-intending)
_world_power_.
\_ (I'm someone else). Yes, and being the world's
first benevolent world power make us even
'better' then if we were some friendly third
world nice country. It is exactly that which
makes us better. Imagine how the world would
look if Hamas had the power the West has now.
\_ this makes them different from the truly average christians
who blockade women's clinics and blame our nation's problems
on gay people how?
\_ A few thousand nut heads != a few million nut heads.
How long since you were in a math or logic class?
\_ Maybe you should ask if America is part of the
problem. Every time you bomb the crap out of an
Iraqi wedding and bomb a Arab news organization,
you create 10x more extremists. So perhaps we might
\_ This is an oft repeated but unproven statement.
Lot of bad things happen to people in lots of
countries but you don't see the victim's families
blowing themselves and other people up over it.
There is something fatally flawed in Muslim
'culture' that leads to this response and as the
weaker party in this exchange they can't hope to
ever get anything from violence except even greater
violence in return on the Shock and Awe scale.
be fueling the extremism??? HMMMMMM....
Now how about this... we go to war against them and
then make up "evidence" to try to get people to
support our war against them? Where are the WMD
that we so infamously proclaimed?
\_ Where? In Syria. I thought that was commonly
understood. Shrug. Sky? Still blue. Check.
Ask yourself this question: Why did we go into
Iraq when we did? Why did we have to go in there
\_ Out of curiosity, what is your answer to this
question?
right there and then? Did Saddam do anything crazy
to provoke this war? NO, we brought this war to
Iraq, which means we INVADED Iraq. If I were
\_ Uhm, yes, we invaded Iraq. Who called it anything
else? When a foreign army crosses a national
boundary against the government's wishes, we usually
refer to that act as an invasion, especially if it
involves thousands of aircraft and missiles dropping
bombs in concert with tanks and infantry smashing
your army. What was your point? You come across
as frantic.
Arab, I would have MANY good reasons to hate
America.
\_ LOL. A few thousand nut-heads? So I suppose that when
Bush put his gay bashing bit in the state of the union
speech right before the election, that was so he could
win a few *thousand* votes? And the massive GOP efforts
to get anti-gay resolutions on ballots accros the
country during the presidential election year were
carried out by a few "thousand" lone nut Christians
way outside the mainstream, to a appeal to a few
thousand of their fellow nuts? And the "Left Behind"
series of books about how all us non-christians will
burn in hell in the soon-to-come apocalypse, those are
all best sellers because a few "thousand" Christians
read them? Or, since you seem interested in math
and statistics, maybe the over 50% of the approximately
290 million people in the U.S. who believe the Earth
was created 6000 years ago exactly as described in the
Old Testament, maybe that number is a few thousand as
well.
\_ When all those "evul xtians"(tm) start blowing shit
up and killing people over cartoons or maybe a jar
of piss with a holy symbol in it, you can come back
here and tell us about it and get taken seriously.
Until such time, your comparison of wide scale
culturally encouraged terrorism to some nutters
outside abortion clinics once a month & their odd yet
harmless non-scientific origin beliefs is simply
stupid. I understand your find "evul xtians"(tm)
scarier than a billion people "Far Far Away"(c) who
want you dead but some of us see the larger picture
outside the confines of the ivory ring around
Berkeley.
\_ Umm, I think the reason why they are terrorizing
us is because they don't want to see us
\_ We already have succeeded.
succeed. They want to make sure that we don't
profit from their oil. Obviously they don't
\_ Profit? They profit, we lose, everytime I
fill my tank or turn on a light.
\_ Real American patriots RIDE BIKE!
have a resources to launch a full-scale invasion
against us, so they do what they can to cause
chaos in our areas of interest. If we never
went into Iraq, I doubt Al-Quaida would be there.
\_ AQ was already there. They're an inter-
national terrorist organisation with members
in every country on the planet. Iraq is the
only place they didn't have anyone? Ok....
\_ Did I say anything remotely positive about the
Evil Muslim Hordes out there who want to
destroy America? No, I didn't. I agree
that they are a far far greater danger to our
civilization than the drooling fucks in Red
State America, but that doesn't mean they can't
both be threats to our civilization.
\_ When you're comparing the puppy across the
street who ate your lollipop to the pillaging
hordes setting fire to everything just past
the stop sign it is hard to take you
seriously. Whines about evul xtians don't
belong in a discussion about which of our
neighbors may or may not be card carrying
Evil Horde members, blazing pitch torches
and all. Your dismissing of half the country
as "drolling fucks in Red State America"
doesn't lend any weight to anything you have
to say either. Here's a quote for you to
think about for a while, "If we love our
country, we should also love our countrymen".
I think you're close minded, ignorant,
mildly retarded, and terribly confused, but
I don't think you're completely hopeless yet.
Drop the hatred thing and stop worrying your
self about silly shit like what the reasonably
harmless xtians are doing and you'll see more
clearly where the real threats to your future
are.
\_ Even if one accepts you premise that the ave. Christian
blockades abortion clinics and blames nat'l problems on
gays, it is fairly tame behavior compared to rioting,
car-bombings, suicide bombings, &c. Even the loonies who
listen to Pat Robertson, et. al. don't go around actually
blowing up abortions clinics on a DAILY basis. Other than
the IRA I can't actually think of a group w/ predominantly
Christian membership that actively uses terrorism.
NOTE: I have worked w/ numerous muslims over the years,
and they were all uniformly nice, decent people.
\_ Ditto about the nice, decent thing. The muslims I
know almost uniformly were resigned and frustrated
about muslim nutjobs. That said, there is such an
amazing number of individuals in the umma preaching
or apologizing for violence for a number of reasons
that it's hard to ignore. That, and I find it
absolutely fucking repugnant that the US state dept.
issues a statement condemning a bunch of cartoons, no
matter how offensive they may be to someone. They
should be screaming bloody murder about freedom of
the press--have we no pride left? Guess not. -John
\_ Didn't the whitehouse make an official statement
against Team America?
\_ Touche. -John
\_ What'd they say? |
| 2006/2/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41701 Activity:moderate |
2/3 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/20060203/cm_ucrr/iraqscivilwarhascost3000perusfamilysofar Iraq's war has cost every family only $3000 so far. That's actually not too bad... \_ Yes it is too bad. \_ Counting for inflation the Iraq war has cost more than the 13 years the United States was in Vietnam. \_ If this were an ideal world, we should have a democracy where all the pro-war advocates should have to foot the bill for the Iraq war, and the anti-war people don't have to pay a single cent. I find it absurd that I will be paying extra taxes over the next XYZ years to help fund this illegitimate war and get us out of our federal deficit. It's been an absolute waste of money, not to mention immoral. \_ You don't understand what democracy is. I find a lot of the things my tax dollars are wasted on absurd but in our democratic republic we don't get to vote ourselves goodies directly. We have to bribe public officials to direct other people's money to us indirectly. In direct democracy people would soon be voting themselves other people's money without the middle man who at least makes some pretense of trying to run the government properly. Mob rule/democracy is nothing like ideal. |
| 2006/2/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41700 Activity:low |
2/4 Iraq war I-- 1/100 security officers were private contractors.
Iraq war II-- 1/4 security officers are private contractors.
A reduction of troops next year means more growth for private
corporations next year. Invest wisely!!! -smart investor
\_ I don't think the various merc companies are issuing public stock. |
| 2006/2/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41698 Activity:nil |
2/3 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/ap/world/mainD8FHM1580.shtml "The president is said to have told Blair the U.S. "was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq. The aircraft would be painted in U.N. colors, so that if Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach of U.N. resolutions, the book said. |
| 2006/2/3-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41687 Activity:nil |
2/3 Titanic-size shipwreck, casualty-wise:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_ship_sinks
\- hello you may wish to read: http://csua.org/u/evv
somewhat interesting discussion of estonia sinking. |
| 2006/2/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41663 Activity:low |
2/1 Why can't we use the Army to stop these border incursions?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060117-121930-3169r.htm
Oh that's right, someone sent it all to Iraq. My bad.
\_ Obviously you don't know the law very well. And you don't know
anything about the military troop strengths either. Put down
that latte and consider being selfless for once.
\_ I don't know much about military troop strengths. But as far
as the law is concerned, isn't it okay to use US military to
defend the US border against foreign military? Is law even an
issue here? --- !OP
\_ I agree with you. that is why I have always proposed build
a Berlin Wall across Mexicon/US border, equipped with
land mines, search lights and machine gun towers. A side
effect of this wall would be that it will *FORCE* American
to think about how much of our economy is actually depend
upon those illegal immigrants... after the fact that our
agriculture, hotel, and other industry start to feel the
effect of such wall!!
\_ The issue here is about incursions by Mexicans in military
uniforms and Humvees with guns, not the average illegal
immigrants.
uniforms and armed Humvees, not the average illegal
immigrants. (Unless you're saying since the Mexican
military support our economy by buying Humvees, we have to
let them intrude our border.)
\_ Please find a non-Moonie reference to the Mexican
army being inside our borders. -tom
\_ http://csua.org/u/evj (Yahoo! News)
'EL PASO, Texas - It wasn't just Mexican military-
style uniforms that suspected drug runners were
wearing when they were confronted by Texas lawmen,
the Hudspeth County sheriff says.
The men carried Mexican military-issue weapons and
drove a military Humvee, said Arvin West, whose
officers who were involved in the standoff.
"It was military," he said Friday. "Due to the
pending congressional hearings I can't comment
further."'
Of course this claim is up for verification, but it
shows what the issue is.
\_ Heh. You'd never see this if all you read is
the NYT.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/7ho7g (NYTimes)
\_ Here's something a little more solid than the AP
article:
http://csua.org/u/evk (latimes.com)
Heavily armed personnel in a military-style Humvee
from Mexico helped drug smugglers fleeing police to
escape back across the border, according to
authorities. An internal Border Patrol summary of
the incident said the Humvee was equipped with a
.50-caliber machine gun. ...
"'It's clear you're dealing with a large number of
incursions by bona-fide Mexican military units,
based on the tactics and the equipment being used,'
said T.J. Bonner, a Border Patrol veteran and
president of the agents union.
Corrupt police or military? The lead to the article
says "Mexican government personnel".
\_ Because they occasionally kill shepherds and make the US look dumb.
http://www.dpft.org/hernandez/gallery
\_ Why don't we use the army to take out the Moonies?
\_ I am pretty sure that would be a violation of the Posse
Comitatus act.
\_ That's crap! Moonies are wild, untamed! |
| 2006/2/1-3 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41654 Activity:nil |
2/1 The 12 Muhammad pictures the religion of peace is declaring war on
Denmark for:
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm
\_ I'm sure Pat Robertson wouldn't mind declaring war on Islam.
\_ Pat Robertson isn't actually attacking people right now.
\_ Wow, those are pretty tame.
\_ Cool, other newspapers have reprinted them out of principle.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1700224,00.html |
| 2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41635 Activity:low |
2/1 http://csua.org/u/ev6 (LA Times) "experts point out that the U.S. gets ... about 10% -- of its oil imports from the Middle East. In fact, the majority now comes from Canada and Mexico -- and Bush said nothing on Tuesday about them." http://csua.org/u/ep1 (doe.gov) Nov 2005 crude oil imports (barrels/day) published Jan 23, 2006 - Percentage of total crude oil imports into U.S. - Middle East ~ 22% (Saudi Arabia + Iraq + Kuwait) Canada+Mexico ~ 35% Nigeria+Venezuela ~ 22% Other countries contribute a maximum of ~ 7% each. These are ~ approximations because only the top 15 countries are listed (imports from other countries are assumed negligible). \_ Do you seriously think.... that if the Middle East stopped exporting oil.... that our prices would not increase? \_ it's a global market anyway. \_ So which one is correct? 10% or 22%? \_ Maybe it's 22% of the imports, 10% of all oil. \_ Then the article should read "about 10% -- of its oil from the Middle East" instead of "about 10% -- of its oil imports from the Middle East". \_ I think you're expecting too much from the newspapers. You're lucky if you get information that's correct to the first order, and there's almost no chance they will get anything subtle right. \_ Agreed. Newspapers are ok at the "what," not so great at "how," and absolutely dismal at "why." I imagine historians have to pretty much discount any newspaper account of an event as misinformation. The only thing you can say is that they're a damn sight better than television news, which is dismal at pretty much everything. \_ I remind myself that these journalists probably couldn't even handle high school calculus. Then I am not so annoyed or surprised by the quality of their analysis. |
| 2006/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41574 Activity:kinda low |
1/27 Army admits to kidnapping family members as tactic:
http://csua.org/u/et0 (yahoo news)
\_ I didn't think that was a big deal for the Army.
\_ Hostage taking is a very big deal.
\_ So what?
\_ You probably approve of the rape, wiretapping and torture, too. |
| 2006/1/27-29 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41570 Activity:nil |
1/27 http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/economy/gdp/index.htm "Far less growth than forecasts in the fourth quarter, as economy manages only 1.1% annual rate gain." U.S. GDP growth (from preceding period) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2002 2.7 2.2 2.4 0.2 2003 1.7 3.7 7.2 3.6 2004 4.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2005 3.8 3.3 4.1 1.1 "The preliminary estimate of fourth quarter 2005 GDP is inconsistent with the underlying strength of the U.S. economy ... I would not read too much into today's numbers. They are somewhat anomalous, reflecting some special factors." -Treas Sec John Snow (Jan 27, 2006) (durable goods +9.3% Q3, -17.5% Q4 -- summer auto incentives) "However, investors seemed to welcome the seemingly negative report ... Investors may be betting that slower economic growth will mean the Fed can stop raising interest rates soon." |
| 2006/1/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41543 Activity:nil 67%like:41539 |
1/26 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/26/115712.shtml?s=ic Former #2 Iraq air force general Georges Sada (also thrown in jail by Saddam for his refusal to execute 40 American POWs during the Gulf War) says two pilots ("know them very well", "very good friends of mine") told him that Saddam flew (chemical) WMDs to Syria in the months preceding and in anticipation of the 2003 Iraq invasion. Sada, in an interview with Hannity & Combes last night, also says Iraq's nuclear capability has long since been destroyed. Sada also pushed his new book: "Saddam's Secrets". \_ The name reminds me of the Conan skits. My question is will Sada have to apologize to Oprah later? |
| 2006/1/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41539 Activity:nil 67%like:41543 |
1/26 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/26/115712.shtml?s=ic Former #2 Iraq air force official Georges Sada (also thrown in jail by Saddam for his refusal to execute 40 American POWs during the Gulf War) says two pilots told him that Saddam flew (chemical) WMDs to Syria in the months preceding and in anticipation of the 2003 Iraq invasion. Note Dubya has only said "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong", not that Saddam never had WMDs. |
| 2006/1/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41526 Activity:nil |
1/25 http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060125/3/2emvs.html Hey, regarding the above Reuters article, do you think it makes a gross mischaracterization of the L.A. Times column? It seems to me that Reuters person is saying Joel Stein said that /everyone/ who supports the troops is a wuss (Stein only said this about those who are against the war AND support the troops), and that Stein said that U.S. troops are "ignoring their morality". What do you think? I wrote to the Reuters reporter, and after two e-mails, he still thinks I'm smoking crack. |
| 2006/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41523 Activity:low |
1/25 Remember the L.A. Times columnist who wrote that he didn't support the
troops, and how the freeper reaction was pretty tame? Well, apparently
all the wackos are on http://littlegreenfootballs.com:
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060125/3/2emvs.html
"Michelle Malkin quickly nominated Stein as 'one of the most loathsome
people in America.'"
http://tinyurl.com/8nmhl http://tinyurl.com/7ns9o (lgf)
"If I ever run into the a**hole, I'm going to knock his frickin' block
off."
"If Al-Reuters thinks theres only 1 guy who'd punch this jerk upon
viewing him on the street, they are WAAAAY off."
"#13 krazykounselor: And you are a stupid, chickenshit, worthless pile
of shit. It would be worth the jail time to get my hands around your
scrawny neck."
\_ I'm glad you are able to express your freedom of opinion
by holding troops in subjective respect. I'm sure you can do
that in a theocracy/socialist paradise as well.
\_ I'm glad you are able to express your freedom of opinion by
holding troops with unqualified respect. I'm sure you can do
\_ There's a diff. between fear and respect
that in a theocracy/socialist paradise as well.
\_ http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz
Little Green Footballs or Late German Fascists?
The funniest thing is that registration for LGF is closed.
They are against free speech, even in practice.
\_ 77%. It's possible to get 100%. There are no trick questions.
Yes, there are Late German Fascist answers in there.
\_ 85% too many hints |
| 2006/1/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41519 Activity:very high |
1/25 Transcript of radio interview with that L.A. Times columnist
Note that probably all right-wing sites are saying this shows how
pathetic he is
http://radioblogger.com/#001332
\_ Hell, many left wing sites think he's pathetic.
He's making a meaningless distinction to stir the publicity
pot. And he's falling on his face cuz he's, well, a schmuck.
\_ "Shmuck"? Yeah. To be fair, the shmuck factor is in taking the
subject way too light-heartedly when he does have at least one
valid, very important point.
\_ Which is? He feels like a hypocrite because he thinks
soldiers have a choice about what wars they're told to
fight in?
\_ That when you sign on as a soldier, you need to take
responsibility for putting yourself in a position where
you are expected to follow orders, for good or for worse.
Reporter: "And I think you're saying the average guy
out there who's considering recruitment is justified in
saying 'I don't want to serve'?"
Murtha: "Exactly right."
\_ Stein's is a different argument from Murtha's. Murtha
makes sense. Murtha is talking about people that aren't
already in. If you're already in and you try to make
this distinction, you are arrested. The problem is
not with the men. It's with the commanders. Murtha
knows this. Stein apparently doesn't.
\_ Stein knows that once you're in, you're in until
your term is up, and you are expected to follow
orders until then.
\_ And how long does Stein think that term is? Does
Stein know that people are being stoplossed?
Called up on IRR?
\_ He would say he "sympathizes" with those
people. Anyway ... I'd like to emphasize I
agree that his treating this in such a
light-hearted way was schmuck-worthy if not
insulting.
\_ Up next, transcripts of O'Reilley beating some schmuck up on TV.
\_ This transcript isn't quite like that. The guy is actually
honest throughout the entire interview, and the interviewer
calls him on everything but doesn't shoutfest him down like
O'Reilly.
\_ The guy doesn't really address the column at all.
\_ What do you mean?
\_ The interviewer spends all of his time trying to paint
the guy as a pure pacifist.
\_ That may be true, but Stein had plenty of opportunity
to defend his position, IMO ...
\_ Stein may be a schmuck but there's a point there, that he's not
making very well however. And I'm not sure how to talk about it
either. But basically assume you don't support the Iraq war. What
should the mindset be regarding a parade in honor of the troops
there? Assuming you "support the troops" like any proper American.
I mean, are you celebrating only their service to country? Such
a parade would necessarily also honor the goals for which they
fought. Many might disagree with the actions and goals of the
troops, even though they were just being good troops. It may
be argued that besides questions of needless costs and deaths etc.,
the whole Iraq war additionally hasn't helped matters. Or was
immoral. That the casualties were in vain. In that case instead
of a parade one would be sorry for them etc. But furthermore,
not supporting the goals of the troops is not supporting the
troops themselves. How does that affect their morale, or
the will of the country to fully commit to their cause, as
in Vietnam? Anyway I think everyone can agree that Stein's
tone in the article was unwise and he makes a fool of himself.
\_ The "goal of the troops" is to survive and complete their
missions. The military is a tool of the state. This is
by design and necessity. To lay the blame of military use
upon the soldiers is misplaced and wrong.
\_ Completing their missions, exactly. So what if you disagree
with those missions? I'm not saying anyone should
blame the soldiers (except those who signed up afterwards,
perhaps) but it gets to the point of "supporting the troops".
Should someone who disagrees with a military action
/celebrate/ the soldiers who carried it out? He would be
celebrating the accomplishment of that mission.
\_ I would celebrate the safe return of our troops and
their risking their lives without having any say in
defining the overall mission, and take the assumption that
they joined up out of a selfless, genuine desire to defend
freedom(TM). -someone else |
| 2006/1/25-26 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41512 Activity:nil |
1/24 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_breaking_point Something the Iranian president would be happy to hear. \_ didn't our Great Leader say something about not giving comfort to the enemy? Go Dubya! |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41502 Activity:kinda low |
1/24 If a crime boss/gangster outsourced the killing to a hit-man,
will the crime boss be held liable?
\_ The man most recently executed in California outsourced
all his killings.
\_ Of course. Criminal conspiracy.
\_ Typically, this is the wife who wants her husband dead for some
reason and hires someone or convinces some boy to do it for "love".
\_ Didn't someone just get executed for ordering the killing of his
son's gf because she knew about his robbery?
\_ So if the US 'outsourced' torture, should it be held...
\_ Only if it wasn't done to "protect the American people"
\_ This is not entirely clear. If a non-US citizen is captured
in a theater of war and turned over to a country that does
not forbid the use of torture, it is not clear that any
const. provision has been violated (though a geneva conv-
ention provision may be violated, if geneva is applicable).
But, if a US citizen is turned over to a foreign power, then
the use of torture by the foreign power under the color of
US authority would be a violation of the 8th amend. |
| 2006/1/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41499 Activity:high |
1/24 L.A. Times columnist does not support the troops
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1564056/posts
\_ Why post the freeper link? The real article is way funnier.
(And not in the ways he intended) http://csua.org/u/er5
\_ What exactly is wrong with his position? At least it's rational.
The idea that people who pull triggers are somehow not morally
culpable is not just stupid, but dangerous.
\_ yeah, there are a surprising number of genuine "at least he's
honest" freeper posts ... but there was also one:
"Hey- at least he's honest. Now get the rope."
\_ As a person who didn't support the war but who does support the
troops, my big problem with his position is that it proposes
a binary viewpoint: you're either against the war because you're
a pacifist, or you're not against the war. Baloney. I believe
that a disciplined and actively used military force is necessary
not only to our own national defense but also to the deterrence
of tyranny and genocide. I just don't think Iraq was an
appropriate target, and I think the administration made an
utter cock-up out of something that could have been done much
more smoothly. I think we need to withdraw our troops, not
because I think it will make everything better, but because I
think that's the only way we can salvage any real regard for
our military might.
\_ Indeed. You don't blame the hammer when you smash your thumb.
\_ I don't see that it proposes that binary viewpoint. It
proposes that the guys pulling triggers are in some way
morally responsible. I suppose the author is neglecting
those who don't see it as immoral, but simply unwise.
\_ "So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American
imperialism ..."
^American imperialism^whoever is President at the time |
| 2006/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41491 Activity:nil |
1/23 Really, people...
Is it incompetence or embezzlement?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/international/middleeast/24reconstruct.html |
| 2006/1/21-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41464 Activity:nil |
1/21 Naive lad or wanna-be terrorist?
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=38
\_ Can't he be both?
\_ So you mean he didn't know it was a 'bad thing' when he went
off to Iraq to kill Americans and made up some BS story about
his "immersion journalism class" which no reporters bothered
to check up on? The worst part of this isn't that some kid
went off to kill Americans in Iraq from Florida. It is that
we knew in 1996 his dad was a criminal and didn't do anything
about it and then in 2006 our news media failed us by feeding
us unfiltered lies without doing the most trivial checking on
the story and no follow-up either and these people still live
here enjoying the freedoms and wealth this country provides
while looking for other ways to betray our country.
\_ Your assertions, while fascinating, are actually speculative
and not wholly supported by anything printed in the article.
As for the part about his dad being a criminal (in _1985_),
his crimes were actually against then-dictator Saddam
Hussein; you know, the guy we toppled? If anything, it sounds
like we should have been calling Dr. Hassan instead of
Chalabi when we planned this boondoggle. |
| 2006/1/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41401 Activity:kinda low |
1/17 Iraq, the petrodollar, and the upcoming Iranian oil bourse ... This
article ties it all together neatly:
http://energybulletin.net/12125.html
\_ Not to diminish the article's theses, but when I watch anime
with an apocalyptic backstory, they always seem to invoke this
style of storytelling. Art - life - art?
\_ We're running out of reasons for the Iraq invasion. Since
"bringing democracy" to the Middle East means Hamas and
other pro-terror hardline Islamic being to run the show,
which is way worse (for the USA) than the repressive
regimes we currently support -- and every other reason
was just a lie or BS -- supporting the petrodollar seems
like a reasonable theory.
\_ Coherent yes, reasonable maybe, likely no, a contributing
factor, yes.
IMO the most likely explanation is, Part One, that 9/11
changed everything: We now knew terrorists would blow up
a nuke in a U.S. city if they had one.
\_ See, 9/11 didn't _change_ that. It might have changed
it for Bushco (i.e. woke them up), but we've known that
for decades.
\_ It is either disingenuous or ignorant to claim
that 9/11 caused the Bush administration to care
about invading Iraq. See:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
(letter to the Clinton administration, dated
1/26/1998, signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz,
Perle, on why we should invade Iraq).
After the election, the administration was clearly
building up for an invasion of Iraq; 9/11 actually
delayed their plans.
Their statement of principles:
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the
United States stands as the world's
preeminent power. Having led the West to
victory in the Cold War, America faces an
opportunity and a challenge: Does the
United States have the vision to build
upon the achievements of past decades?
Does the United States have the resolve to
shape a new century favorable to American
principles and interests?"
Invading Iraq is about showing the world that we
can do pretty much whatever we want, pretty much
whenever we want to.
-tom
\_ I agree completely. Above, I was addressing the
distinct point of "terrorists would blow up..."
\_ Of course you knew, but how about for most
Americans? How about, let's say: a possibility
became a real concern after 9/11.
\_ I posit that it shouldn't need to be a "real
concern" for "most Americans". It's something
that we pay the government to do for us. That
whole "provide for the common defense" thing.
It's only a "real concern" because Bush
propogandized it after he FAILED his first
time around.
\_ ob blame Clinton for 9/11, but then we
start getting off topic ...
\_ ob read the 9/11 commission report, and
look up project bojinka
Part Two, Dubya, boy genius, did not question the reports
that Saddam had WMDs. That, combined with Saddam's
previous "misbehavior" -- deploying chemical weapons in
the Iran-Iraq war, invading Kuwait, trying to kill
Dubya's dad and other potential unsettled scores with the
U.S., killing/torturing Kurds like nobody's business, and
having two sons who would continue the tradition -- all
combined, led Dubya to make the call to invade Iraq.
That's the most likely theory, IMO.
(Then again, Dubya, master diplomat, didn't exactly get
the entire world on the same page, since he based his war
on "no doubt" Saddam had WMDs, and never showed damning
evidence to this effect. You know he has them, you know
he does -- so why doesn't the evidence you provided show
this?) -moderate/liberal |
| 2006/1/10-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41315 Activity:moderate |
1/9 Total Iraq war costs estimated to be $2 Trillion
I hope you warmongers feel like you got your money worth:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060110/ts_nm/iraq_cost_dc
\_ I'd delete this post not because I don't agree with you,
but because you're going to cause jblack to retaliate by
polluting motd with massive freep drivels
\_ That comes out to ~$77k per Iraqi. Not too bad in my "The Price
of Freedom According to Warmongers" guide book. What price do
*you* put on the freedom of a single person?
\_ how many civilians killed by US bombing again?
\_ You can pay it then. Don't make me do it...
\_ Umm, you call civil war freedom?
\_ Let us know when there's a civil war and we'll talk. I
certainly call the present situation a vast improvement over
the Saddam years by any measure, unless you were a Baathist
thug during that time period.
\_ What does it matter what you think? You don't live there.
I find it amazing that Americans feel they can say whether Iraqis
are better off or not.
\_ If you didn't notice 190 people were blown up last
weekend. It is a civil war. Civil wars aren't always
two armies shooting tanks at each other.
\_ Wow, a tank shooting cannon? Are the tanks crewed when
they get fired? Kind of gives a whole new meaning to
the notion of "terminally guided munitions".
\_ Think really large trebuchet.
\_ Insurgency, not civil war. Very distinct concepts here.
\_ it's like northern ireland except with a lot more
bombs plus beheadings and suicide bombings
\_ Right. An insurgency.
\_ Right. An insurgency. Use a dictionary, kid.
\_ That's not a civil war. Nothing like it. Back to
KOS for you.
\_ Definition of "civil war": http://csua.org/u/ekk
Definition of "war": http://csua.org/u/ekl
So, how exactly is this not a civil war?
\_ "civil war" cf.'s "war"
"war - 1 a (1) a state of usually open and declared
armed hostile conflict between states or nations"
(yes, I know defn 2 is much more general, but you
often use that sense in, "my sister and I are having
a war!")
So, are the Sunnis+terrorists: open (half/half),
declared conflict (yes on the terrorists, half/half
on the Sunnis), and between states/nations
(not really in a strict sense).
On the other side, I think http://m-w.com defn 1a(1) of
"war" is faulty -- the American Heritage dictionary
also includes "between ... parties", and I think
that's correct.
Also, it is 100% correct to say that the
insurgency has strong elements of a civil war --
it is an armed conflict between mostly Sunnis
and mostly Shiites/Kurds, and they're all Iraqi
citizens. -someone else
\_ huh? it's not a civil war. stupid. it's a war of
liberation to kick out American Big Oil imperialists.
I mean WTF are these people who live thousands of miles
away doing in my country, setting up torture camps,
shooting civilians, destroying cities, etc.? They
have proven to be totally incompetent in running the
country. In any case, nobody asked them to come.
yea, Saddam is a bad dude, but this is much worse.
These foreign invaders have no clue how to run the
country.
\_ Let's see, unemployment still running at 35%+, Iraqi murder
rate 4X what it was under Saddam Hussein, still no electricity
for over half the day in most of the country, oil production
actually *down* from what it was before the war, women forced back
into wearing scarves and the veil... how is this all an
improvement?
\_ Under Saddam, the south got water and electricity or not
when Saddam felt like it using basic resources as a stick
to keep the Shia in line. Under Saddam, ~5000 people/month
were killed by the government. Under Saddam, the oil money
\_ that is due to UN saction, not Saddam's fault per se.
went straight into Saddam's pockets. Under Saddam, women (of
the wrong tribe or political affiliation) were sent to rape
camps. Yeah, those were the days! Really, this whole Saddam
\_ Women enjoys much more rights and freedom under Saddam's
Iraq than most of the Arab nations... and it is getting
worse as Shiit dominate the politics
\_ Not to mention that we have brought back the torture
chambers and rape rooms. Or perhaps it is more accurate
to say they never went away, just the names of the
people running them changed.
trial thing is such a huge mistake. We should not only let
him go, but reinstate him because he ran the country so much
better. Truly you have found the answer to the ongoing
problems across the entire Middle East: install a strong man
bastard, call him "our bastard" and ignore everything as
long as the oil keeps flowing. I love you cold war warrior
types who are willing to sacrifice any number of people in
the name of "stability". Go form a political group and call
yourselves "Stability By Any Means Necessary". It fits.
\_ I will blame the gwbush administration for incredibly weak planning
and thinking that they would be able to control a tribal society
that has been fighting for hundreds of years, with a few
Marines and KBR contractors.
\_ "you cold warrior types"? It's the same damn guys, at
least at the leadership level. I never thought the
"our bastard" doctrine was acceptable, which is part
of why I don't trust a guy like Rumsfeld to have supposedly
suddenly had a change of heart. I actually supported the
idea of invading Iraq, but I don't trust anyone in this
administration to do it, now that Powell's gone, and
my mistrust is being shown to be well-placed by events
on the ground.
\_ wow! you've been brainwashed pretty well by the
Bush propaganda machine.
\_ thank you for adding absolutely nothing and disputing
nothing posted above. personal attack is not a good
way to make a point, not even on the motd, despite a
few people's opinion to the contrary.
\_ *yawn* Right, and a long unsubstantiated, vitriolic
rant contributes soooo much more. Puh-leaze.
\_ Sounds like France.
\_ Well, no. In France, it is illegal to wear the hijab.
\_ We're running a sale on Iraqis this week. So that would be
$3.95 + tax.
\_ Whoa! Really? You mean we could've done the whole thing for
only $100MM if we'd waited a few years? I feel really
stupid now. --former blood thirsty oil drenched warmonger
\_ Man, you should have been a Necromonger -- then you'd get
to keep what you kill. |
| 2006/1/5-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41251 Activity:nil |
1/5 Wow, this is the first time in a long time (years?) I've seen the U.S.
admit to a bombing error. Previously it was always, "known safe house"
"insurgents making false statements about civilian deaths" etc.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/05/iraq.target/index.html
\_ So what? USA never get punished for it. US military can do
everything they want, and call it "mistake." and continue to
do what they are doing.
\_ Ever consider the possibility that this is the first bombing error
in years? I'm sure not. |
| 2005/12/29-2006/1/4 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41164 Activity:nil |
12/28 Former Iraq Hostage Makes Bizzare TV Appearance
If nothing else, the picture is worth checking out
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392690,00.html |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41123 Activity:nil |
12/22 Remember Murtha's "80% of Iraqis want US to leave"? Here's where it
came from (and other useful info): http://factcheck.org/article366.html
\_ why those cheeky http://moveon.org people.
\_ http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228
Look at the bottom-most table.
Confidence in Public Institutions: Percent Confident
Police 68%
Iraqi Army 67%
Religious Leaders 67%
[...]
U.N. 31%
U.S./U.K. Forces 18%
To address the specific question of "when to leave":
Leave now 26%
Post-election 19%
Security restored 31%
Security restored and only Iraqi forces 16%
Longer 5%
Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq:
Support 32%
Oppose 65%
To be accurate, I would say most Iraqis don't like us there,
but a little more than half want us to make sure things are stable
before we go ... |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41115 Activity:kinda low |
12/22 Can't get any Americans to volunteer for your illegal war? No
problem, just hire mercenaries, 100,000 and counting...
http://csua.org/u/eev
\_ everyone has a price.
\- you know i dont really feel that sorry for the
highly paid mercenaries who take jobs in the
security sector. i'd spend your sympathy points
on people like the poor [financially] nepalis
duped into jobs in iraq and then killed or
people serving in the military/reserves in
iraq who are under ORDERS to do things like
this for shit pay and no option to walk away.
you can (not love) cigarette and gun mfgrs and
still believe they should not be sued for
lung cancer/gun deaths. you seem to be an
incoherent liberal. i say that dispassionately.
\_ All the poster mentioned was about hiring
mercenaries. Where the hell did you come
up with that other stuff?
\_ Interesting, mr. or mrs. dispassionate. I don't find any
implication about sympathy for the mercenaries in either the
above post or the article. So far, between the two, I'd
choose yourself if I had to pick who is "incoherent". Which is
a shame, since all your other points are good - if applied to
a different discussion perhaps.
\-hello you may wish to see:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/01/content_370757.htm
and
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1018/p01s04-usmi.html
the incoherent liberal comment comes from using expressions
like "illegal war" and the general tone of the comment.
it's the article which raises the issue of whether
the killed mercenaries were "wronged" and the OP appears
to be in sympathy with that position. cigarette companies
have fave funded bogus science and engaged in sleazy
advertizing but i have little sympathy for people suing
them.
\_ FTA: "Addicott, a retired Special Forces officer, estimates that the
number of civilian contractors in Iraq surpassed 100,000 this year.
'That takes into account not only people specifically hired to
provide armed security, but also those in transportation,
construction, food services, housing, laundry etc. Americans and
non-Americans.'"
Your claim of 100,000 "mercenaries" is exaggerated. Or do you call
people doing laundry "mercenaries"?
\_ Not the original poster, but "war" is not supposed to be a
business opportunity. It is the weight of the state brought
to bear to protect itself or its interests. Privatizing war
takes actions outside the sphere of influence of the state,
meaning the state responsible for war and all its fallout
cannot control the actors. This is dangerous for stability,
not to mention morality. This is EXACTLY what Eisenhower
warned us about. "100k mercenaries" is an exaggeration in
terms, not in numbers. Private interests fighting our wars
for profit is reprehensible.
\_ You're an idiot. Everything is a business opportunity. And
yes, it is an exaggeration of numbers if you're calling landry
workers part of 100,000 "mercenaries".
\_ You're an amoral fool who's blind to history and social
responsibility. Nice to know you.
\_ So I'm the one blind to history even though every war in
the past shows people moving in to make money AND help
people? You're quite a piece of work.
\_ I didn't say it doesn't and hasn't happened. I'm
saying it's wrong. Read up on Truman.
\_ Okay, so I'm *not* blind to history? Good. Now,
you need to understand that economic opportunity
!= bad.
\_ When it's based upon war, I posit that it is.
I posit that death is not a commodity that we
as a people should be proud to traffick in.
\_ So arms manufacturers shouldn't make any
money? Laundary soap shouldn't be sold at a
profit? Hell, first aid kits should be
free? What planet do you live on again?
\_ How the fuck do you imbeciles make the
leap from what I said to "should be free"
You're not worth bothering with.
\_ You missed the questions about selling
things for profit. Answer those if
you object to "for free".
\_ good luck with your crusade!
\_ People don't do things for free. Many American soldiers
especially those from low income or low education or
low opportunity - are in the army to improve their
lot in life. They're as mercenary as the contractors.
They're just willing to work for less.
\_ Do you really want to let this comment stay posted?
Do you know how stupid you sound?
\_ No wonder American GIs commit crimes like raping
schoolgirls in Japan. They are just low people at
their jobs.
\- you may wish to read the chalmers johnson
book sorrow of empire and blowback he is
a fmr ucb prof who went a little nuts.
see wall archive etc ok tnx --psb
\_ I guess you saw Jarhead |
| 2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41083 Activity:kinda low |
12/19 "The round-table with the vice president came after hundreds of troops
had gathered in an aircraft hangar to hear from a mystery guest. When
Cheney emerged at the podium, he drew laughs when he deadpanned, 'I'm
not Jessica Simpson.' Shouts of 'hooah!' from the audience interrupted
Cheney a few times, but mostly the service members listened intently.
When he delivered the applause line, 'We're in this fight to win. These
colors don't run,' the only sound was a lone whistle."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543165/posts
\_ Uh, hello jblack?
\_ Is there a reason why you are posting this as a link through
freerepublic when in fact the actual story itself is from
SFGate? Seems like a rather convoluted way to post a story.
BTW, the part you excerpted is not part of the freeper excerpt,
but is part of the main article.
freerepublic when in fact the actual story itself is from SFGate?
Seems like a rather convoluted way to post a story. BTW, the part
you excerpted is not part of the freeper excerpt, but is part of
the main article.
\_ You get two links for the price of one!
And you desensitize the freeper-link-deleter.
As for your BTW statement, you get info that people may not
notice unless they click through twice.
\_ Plus, you get your daily dose of Freeper rants! |
| 2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41078 Activity:moderate |
12/19 Bush approval rating at 47%
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1421748
\_ Bush approval rating unchanged at 41%
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html
\_ I guess the +/- of these polls sucks.
\_ Bush approval rating unchanged at 41%
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html
\_ I guess the +/- of these polls sucks.
\_ So when is the impeachment? Where is Motd Poll Guy? We haven't
had an official update in weeks.
\_ He's been a lot more contrite lately and in fact the Iraq
election was pretty calm. The number of suicide bombing
have gone done drastically in the past few months and
things are in fact improving. I don't like Bush but I'm
glad to see things starting to improve. Who knows, maybe
we'll have a lot of troop reduction by next year. One can
only hope so.
\_ "The number of suicide bombing have gone down drastically"?
I thought it was: More attacks, less areas.
\_ Only limited data points, but 23 suicide bombings in
11/05, 50+ in 10/05, ~35 in 8/05, 70 in 5/05. So it is
true that the number dropped drastically in 11/05, and
that drop may be part of a trend. But the article doesn't
provide enough information to be certain. The number of
car bombings are also lower (from 130 in 2/05 to 68 in
car bombings is also lower (from 130 in 2/05 to 68 in
11/05), but again the article doesn't provide enough
information to know if that's a trend or an aberration.
In general, I again find it discouraging how *little*
useful information is provided by news sources.
http://csua.org/u/edg
\_ Isn't there supposed to be a quarterly report to
Congress measuring progress?
Oh goodie, I answered my own question, it's the first
google hit for "congressional report iraq progress".
I see, the report is only up to October. |
| 2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41024 Activity:moderate |
12/14 I'm a Republican but switched to I after the Iraq War. However,
Bush has since then grown up and admitted mistakes and took all
responsibilities, and in doing so he gained my faith in the
party again. It's good to be back. -Republican 2008
\_ After watching a recent interview with Bush, I have to admit that
he seems like less of a complete retard. He is actually admitting
that he has made mistakes. Of course, this still doesn't alliviate
the fact that he IS still a retard.
\_ So the unprecedented expansion of the size and power of the
government doesn't bother you? Endless deficits and total
fiscal irresponsibility doesn't bother you? The lack of any
realistic longterm plan to deal with America's energy problems
doesn't bother you? And I suppose you're probably proud to have
a president who is either so fucking stupid he actually believes
there is a real scientific controversy over "intelligent design"
or so craven that he's willing to lie about it to score points
with the theocratic wing of your party. Yep. You sound like a
typical republican to me. I'm sure your fellow bible thumping
pigfuckers are glad to have you back.
\_ They have a great plan:
1 - Get control of the white house
2 - Manipulate the "free" market
3 - PROFIT!!
\_ Is this a troll?
\_ Eh... could be. Why not be safe and throw rhetoric back?
\_ Dubya is channelling hillary, who "took responsibility" for her vote
for the war a few weeks earlier.
But don't worry, there's still three more years of the country
being run by a frat house president.
\_ Reagan showed the way to "accept" responsibility without having
to worry about consequences. It also worked for Rumsfeld.
\_ So you voted for his distant cousin in the last election who,
oh nevermind, don't let facts bother you.
\_ why so angry at a fellow sodan?
\_ Disappointed. Not angry.
\_ "When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence
agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of
mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence
agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove
Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out
to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go
into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong
by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just
that." -GWB, 12/14/05
In other words, like Tookie, he did no wrong, and anyway it wasn't
his fault if he did.
\_ I bet you are much less tolerant to those who lied about his sex
life. 15,000 US casuaties, 30,000+ Iraqi casualties, versus
a blow job... hmm...
\_ Don't forget the cigar stuff. That has to be worth maybe a
squad of Marines and a small Iraqi village.
\_ Interesting. I was an R, I supported (and still support) the Iraq
War, but switched to I because of Bush + congress' ineptitude at the
border and at spending. I have no interest in returning to the R
party anytime soon. -emarkp |
| 2005/12/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41007 Activity:nil |
12/13 Military spying on anti-war protesters.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051214/ts_nm/security_pentagon_spying_dc |
| 2005/12/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40980 Activity:nil |
12/12 U.S. Soldiers bring wheels to Iraqi man without legs
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=8328
\_ Yes jblack, the US Army is great, GWB is great, and whining
liberals should shut their mouths. I gotcha.
\_ "We killed 30,000 Iraqis but by giving wheels to one Iraqi man
without legs, we sure feel heck a lot better!" !gwb
\_ Hmmm... I wonder about how practical that is. Is it better for
him than a wheelchair?
\_ Obviously no, but a real customized American wheelchair costs
well over $5000, and the US government can't afford to pay
such an exorbitant price especially when it needs to
finance the War on Terror.
\_ ^War on Terror^tax cuts
\_ I'm glad you think we're paying for the tax cuts
for the rich. I bet you even thought Clinton was
right to intervene in Serbia.
\_ So, don't get a "real customized American wheelchair."
There are much cheaper/easier designs. Since the army
guy build it from scratch, he may have investigated other
designs.
\_ And now this guy has no incentive to better his life!
-libertarian |
| 2005/12/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40946 Activity:nil |
12/9 Larry Elder column that basically amounts to a fisking, but it's
kinda funny:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2005/12/08/178212.html |
| 2005/12/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40945 Activity:nil |
12/9 Krauthammer manages to make a lot of sense on the Saddam trial
http://csua.org/u/e8t (Washington Post)
\_ Yeah, I've been wondering about this myself. |
| 2005/12/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40944 Activity:nil |
12/9 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12005029_1 Norman Podhoretz on Iraq. Posted mostly because I like the part where he bashes the "stability at any cost" types about half way down. |
| 2005/12/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40935 Activity:nil |
12/9 Someone posted this below. I read it for school but had forgotten it
until now. I think it's worth a repost on its own:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm
\- "if you liked the melian dialog" ...
you may also wish to read 1. the agricola [short]
2. the germania [short] 3. all of thucydides history of the pel
war [long] especially say the declaration against megara.
if you are really interested in the pel war, you can read
the D. Kagan series, but that is pretty tough going.
it begins with http://csua.org/u/e8j btw, D KAGAN is sort
of a crazy right wing loose canon. BTW, i'm not a normative
believer in might makes right. i list the mel dialog for aesthetic
reasons. for a framework about how to think about power and
the international system, see "theory of international politics"
by k.n. waltz. however "man the state and war" is really a
prerequisite to TIP ... both are very very good, but TIP is a little
hard to follow ... it is denser than you might think.
btw, the melian dialog has come up many times over the years
here. see /csua/lib/wall archive. --danh
\- "It was the business of a diplomat to cloak the interests of
this country in the language of universal justice."
--Minister Walewski to OBISMARCK |
| 2005/12/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40921 Activity:very high |
12/7 Yesterday on the radio I heard a lady say (paraphrased)
"Palestinians have the right to participate in the armed
resistance." What does this mean? The only meanings I can think
of are either meaningless or ludicrous.
\_ That's why I like to call NPR "National Palestinian Radio".
Sympathy with terrorists, pretentious boring shows and shitty music,
now that's a winning combination.
\_ Without the context of the discussion, it means even less to us.
Was she talking about Israel? Iraq? The US? Mars?
\_ I only caught a snipit, but she was talking about how evil
Israel is. The real quote went more like, "The wall
continues, and the Isreali soldiers beat or arrest any
protesters in the way. And those are the ones engaged in
non-violent resistence. You know what happens to those in
the armed resitence. The Palestinians have a right to do
participate in armed resistence, you know."
\_ Consider two questions: Did the colonies have the right
to declare independence and take up arms against the
British? And, did the Confederacy have the right to secede
and take up arms against the Union? I think most
Americans would say yes to the first and no to the second,
but that's because history is written by the winners. -tom
\_ Because the concept of "rights" is illusionary. As you
\_ Because the concept of "rights" is very ephemeral. As you
say, history is written by the winners which is just
another way of saying Might Makes Right.
\_ The concept of rights is the basis of civilization. -tom
\_ Not sure I agree. Individual rights (or lack
thereof) have little to do with the rise of
civilizations and there are probably savages who
afford many rights to their tribe members.
\_ But how much is that predicated upon relative
isolation and plenty?
\_ I'm with tom on this one. Without some form of
encoded rights (Hammurabi comes to mind), you
don't have much of a civilization. I differ
from tom in that I see them as something that
can be granted or taken away by the stronger,
whereas I believe he sees them as a natural
right and a part of being human. If I have
stated his position incorrectly, I hope he'll
step in and clarify.
\_ More important to civilization:
agriculture
\_ hunter/gatherers dont have civil.?
government (does not equate to rights)
\_ tribal chief?
religion
\_ atheist societies cant have a civil.?
education
\_ plenty of non-western societies without
school systems.
currency
\_ or cash.
arts and writing
\_ or writing, but yes they all have art
Hammurabi was the king of an already powerful
civilization.
\_ There are implicit rights inherent in
most of what you list. Currency and
agriculture both require property rights.
Education, religion, and the arts
require the right of expression.
The existence of a government requires
a right of government. -tom
\_ Yes, but these "rights" can be limited
to a small subset of individuals,
perhaps the ones with weapons. I
wouldn't really call those rights.
If someone with a gun tells me to
dig a hole then what rights are
encoded there? His right to threaten
me?
\_ Your right to dig a hole. ;-)
\_ Yes. However, they only exist if everyone agrees
they do and enforces them. A stronger entity who
chose to violate a weaker entity's "rights" would
find little to no impediment leaving the weaker
with limited recourse. "Rights" are a noble concept
and a good theory but they don't exist without both
the strength and will/desire to enforce them.
\_ Your commentary is fairly circular, here.
Anyone can have the strength and will/desire
to take up arms against a nation; that doesn't
mean they all have the right. I would argue
that Osama bin Laden had very little right to
organize the 9/11 attacks against US civilians,
despite the fact that he had the strength and
will to do so. On the other hand, Eritrea
had a strong right to defend itself against
Ethiopia (and Kuwait against Iraq). The
question is where Palestinians fall on that
spectrum. -tom
\_ Circular? Not at all. Might -> Right. Very
direct. It just so happens that reasonably
good people run most of the planet right now
so we have "rights". If the Nazis had won WWII
or the Soviets had won the Cold War, there
wouldn't be a whole lot of talk about human
rights violations around the world. As was
already said a zillion times, the winners write
the history. They also declare what rights,
if any, everyone has afterwards until the next
time.
\_ "might->right" is a thought-ending cliche.
Does a murderer have a right to shoot
someone else, just because he has a gun?
-tom
\_ No, of course not. Society has more
might than the murderer and says they
don't. There have been societies where
the answer would be "yes" if, for
example, the killer was a noble and the
victim a peasant. Fortunately, we don't
live in a society like that. Although
you're mixing personal interaction with
international affairs, the same M->R
concept still applies quite readily.
\_ No, it doesn't apply in either case.
Taiwan may not have the *ability*
to resist a Chinese takeover, but
they certainly have the right to.
-tom
\_ The Chinese would say otherwise.
And that's the point: rights are
not absolutes. They do not exist
as laws of nature, physics, etc.
They are an issue of ethics or
possibly morals which is the realm
of Man where the only rights you
have are those you can keep by
force or those a stronger entity
chooses to allow you to have. In
either case they are not "rights"
as you seem to be defining them in
the Natural or Physics sense.
\_ There's this thing called
'Philosophy' which allows people
to deal with abstracts that
aren't necessarily quantifiable.
\_ Yes, we've been discussing
it in those terms for about
2 hours now. Join us if
you'd like.
\_ No, I've been discussing
philosophy, and you've
been spouting cliches.
-tom
\_ Too bad you chose to
end it like that. Oh
well. And here I was
beginning to think
you could actually
engage in an honest
intellectual discussion
without resorting to
that. My mistake.
I'm done here.
\_ "[R]ight, as the world goes, is only in question
between equals in power, while the strong do what
they can and the weak suffer what they must."
\_ "But God chose the foolish things of the world to
shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the
world to shame the strong."
\_ They have a right to be homocide bombers!
\_ Oh, I didn't know those Palestinians are fighting against gay
rights.
\_ They're more like flaming.
\_ It means someone has an opinion that you don't understand. Congrats.
Your next step will be reading books without pictures in them.
\_ Wow, what an amazingly moronic troll.
\_ The main difference is that their side has used suicide bombers on
civilians, and people are kind of pissed about that.
\_ suicide bombing is a highly evolved method of resistance
twisted, but ingenious
\_ On civilians?
\_ Yes. It's cheap, and among a demographic that's fucked
up enough to go for it, every bombing makes you even more
admired. Now if, as in the case of Iraq, you're actually
hurting (directly or indirectly) the people you depend
on to some degree for support, well, then that's not very
ingenious. -John
\_ Unless say you want to start a civil war and you're
only blowing up Shiites.
\_ Unless say you're a Sunni and your buddies are only
blowing up Shiites, and you want a civil war.
\- always an enjoyable read:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm
\_ Which they're not. -John |
| 2005/12/7-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40915 Activity:moderate |
12/7 The Third Geneva Convention clearly states that it applies
in all cases (see Article 2) even if the other side does
not follow it. And that the signatories are prohibited
from engaging in "outrages upon personal dignity, in
particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" (Article 3)
upon any POW (Article 4) including anyone from the former armed
forces who has laid down their arms. If there is *any*doubt*
about the persons status, they are assumed to be POWs until
a "Competent Military Tribunal" has determined their
status (Article 5). This was clearly not followed by the
Bush Administration.
\_ You sure about Article 2? My read is that if there are three
warring Powers and two Powers are signatories and one is not,
the one Power is the exception.
\_ No, not sure. But Iraq said it would follow the Geneva
Convention.
\_ Yeah, even Dubya said Geneva applies in Iraq ... however,
the Dubya legal team have often pointed to Article 4, Section
A.2 to indicate that some detainees aren't covered. As to
whether they check people against this rule formally, well ...
yeah, if they didn't do that, we would be violating Article 5,
wouldn't we?
\_ Furthermore, the Fourth Geneva Convention is intended to
apply to all not covered by the Third.
\_ No cigar. Article 5, "[w]here in the territory of a Party to
the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual
protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in
activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual
person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges
under the present Convention..." In other words, armed
insurgents, and in a later paragraph spies and saboteurs, are
not covered by Fourth Convention. Fortunately, "such persons
shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of
trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular
trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be
granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person
under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent
with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case
may be." You can certainly argue the lack of humanity. When
there is a trial, they will have to be treated according to
terms laid out in the treaty. Unfortunately, we probably get
to decide when the trail takes place or whether better treatment
is consistent with our security.
\_ Yes, everyone agrees that the Geneva Convention (via Article 2)
applies in Iraq. Unfortunately, all that article says is that the
Geneva Convention applies. Article 4 defines to whom the treaty
applies. Unfortunately, according to Article 4, it's unlikely
the Iraqi insurgents are covered. Fortunately, Article 4 also
clearly lays out what the insurgents ("organized resistance
movements" in the language of the treaty) have to do to be covered
(having a commander, fixed visible sign, open carry, following
laws and customs of war). Now why the insurgents would not
follow these simple rules is beyond me.
\_ Don't forget Article 5, which says if there's "any doubt" that
someone can be covered by Geneva, they get protection until
a "competent tribunal" judges otherwise.
\_ And the administration would say that it approaches mathe-
matical certainty that the Iraqi insurgents do not meet the
requirements in Article 4 for an "organized resistance
movement" (i.e. command structure, fixed visible sign, open
carry, following laws and customs of war). Therefore they
are not bound by the "any doubt" provision in Article 5.
OTOH, I am sure the adminstration and members of the US
armed forces would be *thrilled* if the insurgents decided
to act in ways consistent with the requirements of Article 4.
The insurgents may choose to come under the protection of the
Geneva Convention any time by altering their tactics and
behavior.
\_ 4.6 is probably a better bet for the insurgents than
4.2 b/c 4.6 only requires them to adhere to the customs
of war.
Re competent tribunal - this can be almost anything
including a summary procedure by a jag officer. I
think it will be exceedingly difficult to find a
single instance where someone hasn't looked over the
case and made an Art 4 determination.
\_ OBTW, your claim that Article 4 covers "anyone form the former
armed forces who has laid down their arms" is clearly misleading.
If you read Article 4, those people are only covered by the
treaty "if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason
of such allegiance [of belonging or having belonged to the armed
forces of the occupied country] to intern them". IOW, if a former
member of the armed forces were arrested for being a former member
of the armed forces, then they are protected by the Convention.
If the former member of the armed forces were arrested for (say)
shoplifting, then that person is *not* protected. |
| 2005/12/7-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40905 Activity:nil |
12/7 Need a job? Are you tech saavy and have a passion for politics?
The WHIG is hiring people to market ideas that retroactively
justify the Iraq War, and ultimately sell the Iraq War to the
public.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051207/od_nm/bush_spin_dc
\_ The war doesn't need retroactive justification, and can be
fully vetted today.
\_ Someone needs to reread their Orwell.
\_ Are you kidding? He's hired! |
| 2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40883 Activity:high |
12/6 Condi is the next Dick Cheney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534543/posts
"Torture is a term that is defined by law. We rely on our law to
govern our operations. The United States does not permit, tolerate
or condone torture under any circumstances."
"The United States has not transported anyone and will not transport
anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where
appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred
persons will not be tortured."
\_ Translation: Torture is what we say it is; if we do it, then it
isn't torture. What happens in Saudi Arabia, stays in Saudi Arabia.
\_ What is torture depends oon what your definition of is is.
\_ It all depends on what your definition of is is.
\_ Actually this is interesting b/c it implies that the protections
of convention 3 will be applied regardless of the person's art 4
status. If this is the administrations official policy, it seems
like a big change.
\_ This how every other Geneva Convention signatory interprets it.
Only the GWB Whitehouse claims this "enemy combatant" exemption.
\_ Go read convention 3 and you will see that Art 4 status is
(1) not applicable to non-state actors and (2) only provided
until a competent tribunal makes a determination re Art 4
status if such status is in dispute. That other signatories
interpret it in a particular way is irrelevant b/c the admin.
is not obligated to follow an interpretation which is not
supported by the text. If the admininstration has chosen to
extend Art 4 protections I applaud it.
\_ I'm sorry, but many of these "terrorist" are state actors.
\_ Which state? My understanding is that if found out of
uniform (no, bomb belts are not a uniform), they are
EC until said tribunal determines otherwise. That is
the point of the tribunal, no?
\_ Go read Convention 3 and then tell me which part of
Art 4.1 applies to the terrorists. Here is a link to
the text:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention#Article_4
\_ "armed forces"? You mean like Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marines? (Yes, terms and words do have
specific meaning.) Insurgents are not considered
specified meaning.) Insurgents are not considered
part of the "armed forces of a Party", nor are they
volunteers or militias "forming part of such armed
forces". Usually 4.2 is considered to apply to
Iraqi insurgents, especially since the Article 4.2
specifically mention "militias and members of other
volunteer corps, *including those of organized
resistance movements*" [emphasis added]. Problem
there is that Iraqi insurgents may not meet defitions
2 and 4 of an "organized resistance movement".
\_ I did not mean to imply that the insurgents
could be considered armed forces of a party
or milita (esp. since I do not think that
any state is directly opposed to the US).
I agree that only organized resistance or
possibly spontaneous resistance can apply
to the insurgents.
Assuming arguendo that only one of the four
requirments of 4.2 need to be met (in reality
all four are required), the insurgents can't
possibly qualify b/c (1) there is no identif-
iable chain of command, (2) they do not carry
insignia identifying themselves, (3) they do
not carry arms openly and (4) they do not
adhere to the customs/laws of war (ex. suicide
bombings are not customs of war).
The best bet is probably 4.6, but the problem
is that the insurgents don't adhere to the
customs/laws of war. |
| 2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40882 Activity:kinda low |
12/6 Giving this its own thread:
I'm curious about other people's thoughts on this. How strongly
ingrained do you think the current government/military in Iraq will
be? I.e., when we leave, how resistant will it be to neighboring
influences? How incorporated are the national vs. local governing
systems going to be? The reason I ask is that I suspect our
attempts at instituting a government from the top down are going
to result in a papier-mache veneer while the religious leaders, who
have strong, direct, authorititative local ties, gather control.
--scotsman
\_ once we leave, its' kurds. vs. shia vs. sunni. ROUUND 1, FIGHT!
\_ I wonder if anyone's considered the strategic benefits of letting
middle eastern states develop all the nukes they want, just not
long-range delivery systems.
\_ who needs a delivery system? just use a barge. manned
delivery systems (ala suicide bombing) is their specialty.
\_ Hell, all they have to do is stick it in an oil
tanker.
\_ Neutron bombs would be better than nukes. It would be
to hard to get at the oil if they nuked each other.
Seriously, there is enough incentive to avoid control
by Iran or another Saddam that things in Iraq might
work out. It might not be as nice as Turkey, but it
could be okay. Just focusing on Iraq, I think, misses
the big picture and that is the democratic squeeze on
Iran and Pakistan.
\_ We should give them Neutron Bombs. Regular nukes might
make it hard to work the oil fields.
Seriously though, I think that the Iraqis might make
this thing work b/c the alternative is oppression at
the hands of Iran or another Saddam. Maybe it won't
be as nice as Turkey, but it could still work out ok.
Just focusing on Iraq, I think, misses the bigger
picture and that is the squeeze on Iran and Pakistan.
\_ traditionally, there is a sort of proxy ideology war between
Shia vs. Sunni. Traditionally, Iran is a strong Shia backer,
but most successful of all, it's Saudi's backing of Sunni.
Saudi used to fund Sunni dominated regime, and fund all sort of
islamic school which teaches Sunni sect. The problem with this
Iraq thing is that Saudi is kind of in trouble on its own and
can't really provide support for the Sunni in Iraq. So, we are
looking at Sunni will be eventually get squashed.
\_ Nononononono! The Saudi position remains unchanged. They
still fund militant wahabiism both inside and outside Saudi
Arabia with both private and public funds from the royal family.
Where'd you get the idea anything at all has changed in that
regard, they're "in trouble" (whatever that means) in their
own country or they can't support anything outside their own
country? If that were true, a lot of people would stop pointing
at Saudi Arabia as a prime source of terrorist funding that
needed a good ass kicking. The Shia are campaigning hard for
the elections on the 15th. Why should they have to squash
anyone when they're the majority population? That makes no
sense. The Kurds only issue is how much oil falls under their
regional control. The Sunnis are the only ones with something
to lose because they had too much before and there aren't enough
of them insane enough to form anything more than small terrorist
groups blowing up markets and election lines. A country of 26MM
people can survive with a few suicide bombers every week forever,
however that doesn't seem to be an effective long term method if
the government and people can hold out as Israel has shown.
\_ In the end, it will be who controls the oil will control the
country. The question is will there be an actual country to
control or will it be nominally diced into a federation of
states of Kuridstan, Iraq, and Poor-Assed-Sunni-stan. There
is a question of how much factionalism exists. Will Iraq be
akin to Afghanistan? |
| 2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Computer/Companies/Google, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40877 Activity:nil |
12/6 GOOG is with the terrorists:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/al_qaeda_google |
| 2005/12/5-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40866 Activity:moderate |
12/5 Why Iraq Has No Army:
http://csua.org/u/e6u (article from Atlantic Monthly)
\_ I'm curious about other people's thoughts on this. How strongly
ingrained do you think the current government/military in Iraq will
be? I.e., when we leave, how resistant will it be to neighboring
influences? How incorporated are the national vs. local governing
systems going to be? The reason I ask is that I suspect our
attempts at instituting a government from the top down are going
to result in a papier-mache veneer while the religious leaders, who
have strong, direct, authorititative local ties, gather control.
--scotsman
\_ Good article.
\_ Summary: Yeah, training Iraqis is better than before, but it's
still way too slow, we need to increase it 500% RIGHT NOW, plan
to stay in Iraq for a long time, grow deep roots with political
allies on all sides of the conflict, and cut some $$$ weapons
programs to fund all of this.
\_ The article doesn't really address _how_ the training is occurring
or should be occurring. What I mean is this: The Iraqi army knows
(1) how to fight, and (2) how to keep the populace in line. It's
been doing that for decades under Saddam's rule. So why can't it
keep the populace in line, or deal with insurgents? Is it lack
of motivation from troops? lack of belief in political
legitimacy of the government that translates into no one wanting
to put their lives on the line? What is the problem? Why is only
1-3 battallions of over 100 classified as Level 1? What
distinguishes that batallion from the 100 others, and how can
we replicate it? I don't think teaching Iraqis how to shoot
guns will cut it.
\_ Actually, there are entire pages that address just that point.
Look for the bit about the differences between a "soldier"
and a "gunman," and the bit about "death blossom" marksmanship.
\_ Actually, I thought the Iraqi secret police and informants
kept the populace in line.
\_ my worry is that Iraqi army, which made from various militia
from various sect, may end up fighting each other. It is hard
for me to imagine any incentive for any of them loyal to
the central government.
\_ Or even better the iraqi army comes to fight the US.
Just like in Afghanistan we arm the radicals who will come
to hate and eventually fight us. I agree with whoever said
that like Germany and Japan we should develope Iraq's economy
but not thier military (not this post). Training Iraqi troops
is just going to end up screwing us.
\_ Those 1-3 Level 1 battalions were probably Kurdish peshmerga,
already battle-hardened.
\_ Yes, US should spend more effort and resources on
developing Iraq's economy. They should at least have
good plans and proposals so Iraqi can have something
to look forward to. Of course, economic development
is only possible when safety can be assured. These
things need to go hand in hand. People keep bringing
up Japan and Germany. The difference is that when
Japan and Germany were defeated, their populace were
ready to cooperate with the US. In Japan's case,
they listen to their emperor. In Germany's case,
you have Soviet Union serving as a big stick on the
other side, and Nazism is a defeated ideology by then.
other side, and Nazism was a defeated ideology.
\_ Japan and Germany had no large scale insurgency fighting
against us. The truth is that the Iraqis can never
hope to rebuild their economy and infrastructure
without an effective army and a police force. If
we ever want to leave Iraq (nevermind bring "democracy")
we'll have to build this for them. As the article
makes clear, if we don't do this our only other choice
is to cut and run - leaving Iraq to a likely very
awful(-istan) fate.
\_ The post WWII German insurgency was no smaller than
what's going on in Iraq right now. They used to
call it "mop up operations" but that's not a very
polite term, is it? |
| 2005/12/5-6 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40849 Activity:nil |
12/5 Excellent segment from CSPAN.
Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War
on Terror
You can listen here:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev110105b.cfm
\_ This isn't "from CSPAN", it's from a Heritage Foundation
neocon, author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's
Failures Unleashed Global Terror". Other upcoming events:
"The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred
Christian Holiday is Worse Than You Thought." Get a clue. -tom |
| 2005/12/2-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40822 Activity:moderate |
12/2 What a shock. Liberman's comments about Iraq were ignored after Murtha
made front page everywhere. http://newsbusters.org/node/3038
\_ it's hard to say what happened. lieberman goes over
there and thinks everything is rosy. murtha goes over
there and thinks iraq is about to dissolve into civil war.
i read the paper today and see more news of suicide bombings.
i think of how much the iraqi people must be in on it for
insurgents to attack our troops with such impunity. who is
right? and let me amend this, I cannot think of any reasonable
way for america to 'win'. I think gwbush wants to create
a democratic magic land where the kurds, sunnis and shiites all live
together in harmony and provide the US with cheap oil for
the next 50 years. he must not have noticed the sunnis and
shiites hate each other over an event that happened almost
2000 years ago, they're not going to start being nice to
each other after we throw several cluster bombs at them.
we fucked up, the sooner we're out of iraq, the sooner it
can split into three countries.
\_ Well, that's debatable, but not if one side of the debate is
refused media time. Let me amend this: I think you're wrong.
It's a shame those who try to voice the evidence they see of
things getting beter are being silenced.
\_ So if I kill someone with my barehands on national TV I
get equal time to "debate" my innocence? If I am a neo-nazi
I should get equal time to "debate" my side of the issue?
What the hell.
\_ How's it been for you under that bridge?
\_ 1) yes, absolutely you are entitled to a speedy trial by
a jury of your peers. uhm, duh? and 2) you have the
right to say what you want, but you don't have the right
to force others to listen. In this case, we're talking
about national issues of foreign policy as debated by
federal level elected officials and it is absolutely
necessary and critically important to hear all the facts
from all sides, not just the ones you want us to hear.
welcome to america.
\_ Umm.. splitting into 3 countries is pretty dang unlikely.
In case you haven't noticed, that leaves the Sunnis with no
oil. And it's not like the shia or sunni are cleanly
seperated or something.
\_ there are many examples in recent history where the only
way for ethnic groups that hate each to get along with
each other is if they are ruled by a fascist dictator
like tito or saddam. notice how the egyptians
sort of allowed democratic elections and the muslim
brotherhood, a bunch of terrorist islamic fucks, are
winning representation.
\_ I don't disagree with either point, but I don't see
how B follows from A.
\_ so you think we should have left Saddam in power to keep
order in Iraq and prevent ethnic violence?
\_ since apparently the administration in charge
is a big believer in faith based power ("If I
believe in something really hard it will come true")
yeah, we should have left Iraq alone.
\_ so you're in favor of brutal dictatorships? i was
\_ Are you chinese? Do you understand the effect
the opium trade had on China?
being sarcastic and it was a rhetorical question.
i didnt expect anyone to actually agree with the
idea that saddam was doing a good job keeping the
majority ethnic groups in line.
\_ You're trolling, right? You have to be. I just
can't accept that anyone can so badly misinterpret
what "faith guy" was saying.
\_ Not at all. He's being a twit. I'm saying
what the obvious conclusions of his points
are. In fact, I think he's either terribly
stupid or just trolling.
\_ So you're saying that Bush is equivalent to Saddam
Hussein? -not pp
\_ Wow, that's....that's quite a leap of logic there.
\_ Murtha >> Lieberman
\_ apples >> oranges
\_ yermom >> yergf
\_ Why? Lieberman was the VP candidate.
\_ http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Murtha_360_Nov302005.wmv
\_ Were you planning on summarizing the video?
\_ No.
\_ What a retard. Oil was never "supposed to pay for this
deployment". Some people were saying that should be the
case, but it was never policy.
Murtha's on crack or something. His reasoning for "Iraq
can take care of itself" is that the administration has
been wrong on other stuff. WTF?
\_ "Some people"? You mean like DoD officials TESTIFYING
BEFORE FUCKING CONGRESS?
\_ DoD people don't decide how things are funded.
"FUCKING CONGRESS" does that. Those DoD people
were giving their opinion. They are not financial
policy makers for the country in any way, shape or
form.
\_ "giving their opinion", huh? They weren't
writing motd entries. They were testifying
to congress in their official capacity, under
oath, before the policy makers made their
decision. Your above statement "it was never
policy" means nothing. It was a lie, and part
of the tactics employed to loosen the purse
strings.
\_ I shall try again: Congress decides how to
spend money, not the DoD. Congress decides
how to fund a war, not the DoD. Congress
controls the purse strings, not the DoD.
The brass can testify to anything they like
and if Congress chose to, they could follow
that advice and slap an oil tax on Iraq to
pay for the war, but Congress chose not to.
Who exactly lied? Who exactly said Iraqi
oil dollars would be used to pay for the war?
\_ Because someone changed their minds about the war. Lieberman has
always supported it.
\_ Lieberman got an OpEd in the WSJ. That hardly qualifies as being
ignored.
\_ That hardly qualifies as the MSM paying any attention especially
compared to the incredible press Murtha got. BTW, who was
Murtha before they dug him up and put words in his mouth? I've
never heard of him before. Have you?
\_ Are you going to try and pretend that the pro-war position
does not get any press? Bush alone got more lines of newsprint
than Murtha did. Lieberman is just another shill for the
pro-war, pro-torture crowd, so naturally he has to compete
with the rest of you. And no, I had not heard of Murtha
before. But I had not heard of Wolfowitz before he started
a war for no good reason whatsoever either.
\_ I'm stating flat out that a (D) Senator with along record
in office who has been to Iraq 4 times in the last 1.5
years gets ignored by the MSM when a no name like Murtha
gets mega air time every day after 1 visit. I leave it to
the reader to figure out why this is so. I'm going to
ignore the trollish parts of your commentary that you
stuck in to amuse yourself. |
| 2005/12/2-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40819 Activity:low |
12/2 So much for the Gulf of Tonkin incident:
Analysis Casts Doubt on Vietnam War Claims:
<DEAD>csua.org/u/e5h<DEAD> (yahoo! news)
\_ WDYHA?
\_ 35 years from now, analysis on early intelligence claims might
cast doubt on whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs!
\_ Where are you libs defending LBJ over this?
\_ no one is defending LBJ. If you ever read anything, you might
want to pick up writings by McNamara on this subject. If you
can't read, at least watch "The Fog of War." You will see
interesting parallel between what we are doing to day, our
'exit criteria,' etc and what they've being arguing 40 years
ago. |
| 2005/12/2-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40812 Activity:nil |
12/2 Alabama National Guard finds cornstarch in Iraq:
http://csua.org/u/e5e
\_ Decoy.
\_ If I were in Iraq, I'd give the ISG Cornstarch for $$$! |
| 2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40794 Activity:kinda low |
11/30 NYT on Bush speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/opinion/01thur1.html?hp
"But after watching the president, we couldn't resist reading Richard
Nixon's 1969 Vietnamization speech. Substitute the Iraqi constitutional
process for the Paris peace talks, and Mr. Bush's ideas about the Iraqi
Army are not much different from Nixon's plans - except Nixon admitted
the war was going very badly (which was easier for him to do because
he didn't start it), and he was very clear about the risks and huge
sacrifices ahead.
A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon
needs to get out more."
\_ yeah, but our military commander (pace), iraq ambassador (khalilzad)
and our troops (non-draft) are all better than nixon's analogs,
so we might actually win despite the dumbass at the top (dubya)
and his lying cronies (rove, dick)
\_ what exactly are we winning? where is osama bin laden?
\_ winning means iraq not destabilizing the region and restoring
it back to its non-terrorist-training state
\_ huh? what happened to this 'beacon of democracy in the
middle east?' If we are shooting for non-terrorist-
training state, why we topple Saddam at first place?
\_ what happened to "beacon of democracy in the middle east"
again? and if victor == non-terrorist training state,
why we topple Saddam at first place?
\_ democracy is dubya's defn of "winning", not mine
anyways, like I said, it didn't train terrorists before
we invaded, unlike now, but returning it to that state
is part of my defn of "winning"
the best realistic outcome in my view is a buncha shiite
militias running the place with periodic sunni suicide
bombings and regular intervention of the shiite death
squads, token U.S. withdrawal in 2005, near-complete
U.S. withdrawal by end-2006, and the U.S. retaining
squads, token U.S. withdrawal in 2006, near-complete
U.S. withdrawal by end-2007, and the U.S. retaining
overflight and bombing permissions
U.S. withdrawal by end-2006, and the U.S. having full
permission to bomb the heck out of anything we verify as
a concentrated terrorist training camp
of course, none of this precludes the fact that dubya is
and will always remain a dumbass
\_ oops, I understated by one year. anyways, another
thing to keep in mind is that these dates satisfy
the military and the political overseers. |
| 2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40790 Activity:low |
11/30 U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers:
http://csua.org/u/e4t
\_ it's only illegal for the military to plant articles in U.S. papers!
go Dubya!
\_ besides bombing Al-Jazeera offices, this is perhaps the best
example of "freedom of speech" which we've been taunting the Iraqis.
Torture chambers, control of press... is it me or USA is not that
much different than the tyran which USA replaced?
\_ hey, fight them there so we dont have to fight them here. but
seriously, whats the big deal? long as we're already in this war,
if the army wants to use some propaganda to try and win it, go
ahead right?
\_ another fine example of "freedom of speech" besides bombing of
Al-Jazeera offices. Torture chambers, control of press, is it me
or USA has become a tryan which it tried to replace?
\_ *yawn*
\_ This is different from bombing of Al-Jazeera offices. One is
limiting others' freedom of speech which is not good. The other
is exercing our freedom of speech which is good. |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40772 Activity:nil |
11/29 Freedom of speech at best: you are allow to say anything you want,
as long as the stuff you say is something we like:
http://tinyurl.com/7men3
\_ I don't see how what you put connects to the article. AJ reported
things, the US claims they're lying. How is that not free speech?
\_ I think op is talking about the UK Official Secrets Act, in
which Section 5 has been invoked to threaten newspapers for the
first time with legal action if they publish more details on
the memo recording the conversation between Dubya and Blair ...
\_ Just like on the Berkeley campus! |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40764 Activity:nil |
11/29 I guess that whole opposing the war isn't helping much:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/29/D8E69AT81.html
\_ I think it's more the "American Christian" thing that isn't
helping them much.
\_ "The pictures of Susanne Osthoff were taken from a video in which
her captors demanded that Germany stop any dealings with Iraq's
government, according to Germany's ARD television. Germany has
ruled out sending troops to Iraq and opposed the U.S.-led war."
\_ obviously, the proper german response is for them to send in the
troops.
\_ Go Dubya!
\_ Awww. I wanted to post this story with the caption
"Independent group finds human rights abuses in Iraq!" |
| 2005/11/29-12/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40763 Activity:very high |
11/29 Prominent military historian calls Iraq war most foolish war in 2,014
years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html
There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the American
Jewish weekly, Forward. It calls for President Bush to be impeached
and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching
the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions
into Germany and lost them".
\_ I still think WWI is the most foolish war.
\_ There are plenty to choose from (including the Crusades),
but I'm not a military historian ...
\_ Stupider than the Soccer War of 1969?
\_ Yeah, and Vietnam was...? How many dead comparatively?
You people have no sense of perspective or history.
\_ Communism was a genuine threat that had conquered half the
world and looked to be on a roll. Millions were killed by
communist tyrants. "Terrorism" isn't even a definable
opponent, it is a tactic. It would make just as much
sense to declare war on cavalry charges or hand grenades.
All the extremist Islamic enemies of America, lined up
together, could have been beaten by a moderately large
cities police force, at least before the Fiasco in Iraq
increased their numbers 10X.
\_ They call it "The War on Terror" because they can't call it
"The War on Islamic Extremists". That wouldn't be PC. But,
you knew that. BTW, do you have a reference for the pre/post
Iraq terrorist head count? Didn't think so. Thanks.
\_ Calling it the "War on Terror" isn't a matter of PC so much
as it's a matter of PR; there really is a huge difference.
The PP makes a good point, though, that Vietnam was not
a stupid war -- there was a coherent strategy behind the
US's involvement. The problem was that the conflict was
run without total commitment, and the forces that were
engaged were insufficient to actually achieve the stated
military objectives. And this all on top of a very vocal
social backlash of the 50's conservatism adding fuel to
the fire of the (misguided) antiwar effort. -mice
the fire of the (misguided) antiwar effort. If you were
the "perspective or history" guy, then I suggest you should
take your own advice before weighing in about Vietnam
again. -mice
\_ I'm no fan of the Iraq war, but so far this just looks like
good old Bush blindness.
\_ With a solid dose of incompetence and dishonesty. -John
\_ Nonsense. There are shitloads of wars and battles in the last 2014
years that any reasonable person would say were far more stupid
than anything going on today. Open a history book instead of
seeking out articles that support your politics.
\_ There was a Germany 2014 years ago?
\_ Agreed, in principle. Where the Iraq War enters into folly is
the Administration's lack of planning, reliance on utterly
unreliable intel, and no viable exit strategy. Also, the sheer
size and resources of the invading country, i.e., us, makes
the folly look even more unreasonable.
\_ Seriously, this is nothing next to history. Militarily
speaking, no country has ever taken over another in so short
a period with so few casualities. To claim this is utter
failure is not ratioanl. It is political.
\_ agreed. eg,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
\_ Agreed, militarily speaking, especially when the vast
majority of the invading country's people still live their
normal lives instead of engaging in the war effort.
(Morally or politically, it's another story.)
\_ Our brave PLA soldiers took over Tibet much more easily.
The only resistance encountered was lots of whining
from imperialist pigs and their running dogs. The
Tibetan people welcomed us with open arms. Tibetan
girls gave us lots of flowers and kisses.
- chicom troll
normal lives physically. (Morally or politically, it's
another story.)
\_ What are you talking about? Are you a troll? Yes
we are ultra awesome at stomping in and defeating
any official army in the history of the universe,
but right now the US is bogged down in a massive
guerrilla war we have no idea how to fight properly
and we have no viable plan to leave. This has absolutely
nothing to do with how was fast we invaded Iraq
and how few casualties we took in the initial invastion.
I guess i've been trolled, oh well.
\_ Screaming "IHBT!!!" in response to factual points is
\_ i hate bit torrent?
\_ no, but I don't use it much, ;-)
not scoring you any points. The reason there is some
minimal resistence is we're fighting an egg shell
walking politically correct BS fight. In post WWII
Germany mop up operations, they shot the resistence
on the street on the spot, no trial. You want it like
that in Iraq? No. You'd scream "HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATION!!! WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL!!! ABU GRI'AB". So
in order to appease people like you we're doing this
stupid little dance around people's misguided
sensisibilities instead of just killing them all.
\_ Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to drop neutron
bombs on Iraq and wipe everyone out?
\_ It depends on how many we need for that country
size.
\_ You're right, we shouldn't worry about killing
innocent people.
\_ It's a war. The sooner it is over, for real
over, the sooner innocent people stop dying and
everyone can get on with their lives. You
would prefer it drag out for years like in some
places in Africa they don't even bother reporting
anymore? Once you start a war, you (your country
and leaders) have a responsibility to get it over
ASAP, short of silly things like neutron bombs or
nuking the place. If you want to toss in a few
more flip comments, go ahead, I won't be
responding to any more freshman quality attempts
at being clever.
\_ It was a good war for a good reason (the
"getting rid of a pigfucker" reason, not the
"imagined la-la land magic elf WMDs" reason.)
That said, we didn't plan, fucked it up, and
now that we broke it, we bought it and have
to fix it. I don't understand the problem
that people have with acknowledging that very
simple bit of mea culpa. -John
\_ I'm with you on all this, except that the
entire world has believed very publicly
that Hussein had WMD until after the
invasion. If there was some credible
source saying otherwise, pre-invasion,
they haven't had any press time.
\_ I thought it was rather obvious
before the war that Hussein didn't
have any nukular weapons and wasn't
close to getting any. He might at
best have some chemical weapons, but
that was also questionable, and
everyone knew "WMD" was just a
pretext to go to war cause US wanted
to get rid of Saddam.
to get rid of Saddam. The above was
obvious to the whole world except for
the brain-dead FOX news watching part
of Pax Americana.
of Pax Americana. That's why there
were all those spontaneous mass
protest all over the world, remember?
\_ "Getting rid of the pigfucker" cannot be
considered seperately from "What could we
realistically replace it with, and at what
risks and cost?" It also cannot be seperated
from "Can we trust Bush and gang with attaining
the above given their level of competency,
arrogance, and ideology driven agenda?"
Isn't it quite obvious from the start
that they didn't have a plan beyond getting
rid of Saddam?
considered seperately from "What could
we realistically replace it with, and at
what risks and cost?" It also cannot be
seperated from "Can we trust Bush and
gang with attaining the above given
their level of competency, arrogance,
and ideology driven agenda?" Isn't it
quite obvious from the start that they
didn't have a plan beyond getting rid of
Saddam?
\_ Obviously they didn't, which does not
remove the validity of this goal. -John
\_ I am very clever, mr Grim Historian Realist Dude. Please point
out a modern conflict where a large army defeated an entrenched
guerrilla insurgency. I think the US really fucked up letting
one develop by having no reasonable post invasion plan. I just
don't see a reasonable way for the US to "win". We don't even
have a set goal for "winning".
\_ exactly, they had no plan, and it's
obvious before the war started.
the goal of the exercise also
kept changing - first the focus was
all on WMD, then it's because Saddam
was harboring terrorists, then they
started saying how bad and evil Saddam
was to the people of Iraq, finally
they decided they want to democratize
Iraq and then all Middle East. If
I am an Iraqi, the question remains,
"why are US troops doing in my
country, they fucked up the whole
place and turned it into a war zone,
they tortured people. some of their
leaders even have the audacity to
say that invading my country draws
the terrorists to my country instead
of US. WTF?! And they say they are
invading us to help us?!!! why is it
not my patriotic duty to shoot at
them?"
\_ Because then they'll leave instead
of giving your country the first
realistic, if inefficient and
horribly mismanaged, stab at not
being goverened by a murderous
gang of thugs. According to the
CIA World Factbook there are ca.
26 million Iraqis--why are there
not 26 million of them shooting at
US troops? Anyway, "we broke it,
we bought it". Mind that it was
broken even more, but setting
aside that the whole thing was
initiated on bogus premises, we
sort of have a moral duty to try
and fix things now. -John
\_ there ain't 50 million
Vietnamese shooting at US
troops either. What's your
point? realistic chance?
Yes, US gave Iraq a very
realistic chance of
descending into murderous
chaos, disintegration,
total anarchy, and genocidal
sectarian and ethnic warfare.
while "broke it, bought
it" and "moral duty" are
nice gestures, we also know
that, in all your decisions,
US interests trump Iraqi
interests.
So you'd bail? Like right now, leave it _/
as it is? We fucked it up. If we go, "they"
won't just say "oh, righty-ho, jolly good old
chaps, we'll get on with beating on each other
then, thanks for the memories." -John
\_ I am very clever, mr Grim Historian Realist Dude.
Please point out a modern conflict where a large
army defeated an entrenched guerrilla insurgency.
I think the US really fucked up letting one
develop by having no reasonable post invasion
plan. I just don't see a reasonable way for the
US to "win". We don't even have a set goal for
"winning".
\_ Go ahead. Start shooting. You will get the
same result. There isn't that much difference
from what we are already doing - putting them
into torture prisons without trial.
\_ Arguably the administration did a good job in Afghanistan.
\_ Arguably Afghanistan
\_ Philapines. Columbia.
\_ Philippines. Columbia.
\_ eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
\_ I presume you mean the Argentine side was stupid.
\_ Malaysia, Kenya, Vietnam (yes, Tet broke the back of the
Viet Cong), and arguably Colombia is going in that direction.
Need more? -John
\_ There are two things working against the Malayan (pre
Malaysia and Singapore) insurgency. First, it was a
communist insurgency in a country that is predominantly
Islamic. Second, it was mainly an ethnic Chinese
insurgency in a country that is predominantly Malay.
Even then, it took several decades (end of WWII till
sometime in the 80s?) to defeat it. And the main
reason for its defeat is not military operations, though
that had helped contain it. The reason for its defeat
is the successful economic development of Malaysia and
Singapore.
\_ Nonetheless, they were well-funded and organized, and
presented a considerable threat to the British military
presence in E. Asia, which was significantly weakened by
WWII. -John
\_ yea, the one good thing about the insurgency was
that it caused the british to turn tails and run,
thus gaining independence for Malaya. After
independence, the movement began to subside.
thus, you can see that the movement wasn't defeated
by an outside power with military means.
\_ It did nothing of the sort. It was roundly
trounced; Malaysian independence went over fairly
smoothly in 1957. Or are you now saying that the
Malay insurgency wasn't actually mainly ethnic
Chinese and externally funded and organized? -John
\_ http://tinyurl.com/78rgr
"The British began to negotiate with various
political and ethnic leaders, promising
independence from the British Empire. Once
the Malay Federation became an independent
state in 1957 the terrorist movement began
to subside."
Even then the movement continued on until
1989.
\_ So, what's your point? The insurrection had
no decisive effect on the British decision to
go; they certainly didn't "turn tails and run".
It may have been a factor, but as you yourself
point out it wasn't just directed at the
British. Independence negotiations were
primarily with UMNO. If you want a better
example, use Indonesia. -John
\_ Good news! They are no longer "insurgents." The US now has a
chance. http://csua.org/u/e4d [sfgate.com]
\_ Germany existed 2014 years ago?
\_ Like "Germanic tribes occupying what is now considered Germany"
rolls off of the toungue.
\_ Germania?
\_ I'm sure there were many more foolish wars in China since the Han
Dynasty.
\_ ok, I hate gwb as much as the next guy and think this war is
really really stupid ... but how bout this for foolish wars ...
and this is just the first that comes to mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
\_ totally agree, but those white imperialist don't care about
China
\_ ok, 2000 years may be a bit overboard, but this is one of the
stupidist war American fought in the past 100 years, fair enough?
remember, the casualty rate is relatively high (~10%) and there
\_ Last I checked
there were over
120,000 US tro-
ops in Iraq and
about 1200 dead.
\_ You haven't
checked in a
LONG time.
We were over
1200 dead at
this time last
year.
--scotsman
_/
When I say 10% casualties, I counted the
wounded as well as the dead, as causalties
is defined through out the modern warfare.
I have been told the casualties is upward
of 15,000! -kngharv
That the total death went ~+900 _/
in a "LONG TIME" is probably a
point in favor of his argument.
\_ You check in with the status of our
current war once a year, yet feel capable
of commenting on it?
of commenting on it? --scotsman
\_ I'm not the 1200 dead guy. But the
point remains that the number US
dead only went up +900 or so in
a year, which backs up the guy's
claim that this is a relatively
non-lethal war. -pp
\_ There have been 2110 "causalties"
since the war began (2%):
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties
2% isn't nearly 10%, however if
wounded are included then there
have been ~ 16% casualties.
\_ casualties == dead *AND*
wounded. your figure is number
of the dead. and let me repeat,
the casualties (including
dead and wounded) is about
10%, and I am being very
conservative.
\_ [ I believe we are
in violent agreement
but anyway... ]
Actually no. I took
your advice and looked
up the definition for
what qualifies as a
military casualty. It
is dead + wounded who
are no longer able to
perform their duties;
wounded but able to
return to active duty
is not a casualty.
Assuming that the
wounded count on the
page above does not
include any wounded
but able to return
to duty, then we
find that the rate
is 16%. I agree that
10% is conservative.
My original comment
re 1% was based on
a misunderstanding.
If you look at the url
above they give the
number of "casualties"
as 2110, which I'm
assuming is ONLY dead
hence the 2% number.
To this I'm adding
the official injured
count (not limited
to those who cannot
return to duty) to
arrive at the 16%
number.
\_ So are 2%/16% high or low in a
historical context? We were
told this (16%) is "relatively
high". Data and URL please.
Or is the "relatively high"
guy just blowing smoke and has
no comparative data? For all
we know, this war may have the
*lowest* casualty rate in modern
times. It already quite likely
has the lowest mortality rate.
The best numbers I could find are from: _/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM
Here is the summary (my math might be a bit off, check for
yourself):
War % Dead % Dead+Injured
WWI 2.5% 6.8%
WWII 2.5% 6.7%
Korea 0.6% 2.5%
Vietnam 0.6% 2.4%
I agree that as a percentage 2%/16% is *relatively* high,
but the percentages are deceptive - the sheer numbers
of people serving and dying is almost unimaginable in
comparison to Iraq II. In Vietnam, more people were
injured than are currently deployed. [ I am not vietnam
war guy ]
\_ Thanks. Good data set, reasonable analysis on your
part. [Thanks for the clarification. I thought the tone
was quite different than the death in 1965 Vietnam guy.]
\_ By the end of 1965, we had
~184k troops in vietnam.
There were 1863 fatalities
that year.
http://thewall-usa.com/stats/
http://http://www.vietnamwar.com/timeline65-68.htm
I leave other years as an
exercise to the reader.
--scotsman
\_ Gee, isn't that comparison
just a tiny bit
disingenuous? The Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution was
passed in 1964, and the
war wasn't in full swing
in '65. Now is that a
fair comparison against
the state of affairs in
Iraq today? I am sure
you can obfuscate better
than that.
The best numbers I could find are from: _/
http://http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM
Here is the summary (my math might be a bit off, check for
yourself):
War % Dead % Dead/Injured
WWI 2.5% 6.8%
WWII 2.5% 6.7%
Korea 0.6% 2.5%
Vietnam 0.6% 2.4%
I agree that as a percentage 2%/16% is *relatively* high,
but the percentages are deceptive - the sheer numbers
of people serving and dying is almost unimaginable in
comparison to Iraq II. In Vietnam, more people were
injured than are currently deployed. [ I am not pp ]
\_ Did you bother looking
at the other years?
And, by the way, I put
that up as a data point.
You seem to be
complaining about some
non-existent
editorializing. Also,
I wasn't obfuscating
anything there. I
said "by the end of".
The levels increased
over the course of that
year, and more
precipitously in the
following years.
--scotsman
\_ Yes I did. Total
death 58178 out to
1995. Unfortunately,
when you quoted 1863
fatalities, you
conveniently left out
the major Vietnam
combat years. Hardly
a reasonable
comparison against
comparable against
the current situation
in Iraq. Like I said,
not even a good
in Iraq. Like I
said, not even a good
obfuscation attempt.
Ergo, "excercise for the reader". In the rest of your _/
discussion here, people are conflating rates, totals, and
calculating percentages that mean nothing. How many individuals
do you think have served in OIF thus far? How would you suggest
we calculate and compare casualty figures? total casualties / total
individuals? casualties / current troop levels by month? I'm
not obfuscating anything. You're just not thinking. --scotsman
\_ The casualty level isn't the really bad part. The fact that the
some of US's voluntary forces are going to be serving fourth and
fifth tours of duty in Iraq in the next few years. The question is
can the US keep an effective professional military force while
remaining in Iraq for the next five years or so?
\_ Yeah, ok. So in addition to trying to pull a fast one ("exercise
for the reader" indeed), you're saying your original claim that
casualty rate is "relatively high" is unprovable. Do you have
any credibility left? Being an advocate is one thing, and being
dishonest is another. Thanks for playing.
\_ Ah, you're confusing me with someone else. I'll attribute
my statements. -scotsman
\_ So you quoted the fatality number for up to the end of 1965.
In what way do you think 1965 in Vietnam is comparable to
the current state in Iraq?
\_ Like I said, I was offering a data point on the mortality
rates during Vietnam. I wasn't comparing it to anything.
--scotsman
\_ But why pick 1965? Why not any other year afterwards,
which would lend lie to the claim that the number of
fatalities in Vietnam is low? It was just "random"?
\_ Look, grow the fuck up and get off my ass. Your
argument is not with me. --scotsman
\_ Oh, ok, so it was "random". I'm ok with that.
\_ Whatever. The point is, you can compare
these troop level numbers with casualty totals
and get "rates" as high as 5% or probably more
if you broke it down by month. In the end,
8.7 million troops had been deployed in Vietnam.
~47k were killed. I haven't found any numbers
yet to answer my above query "how many have
served in OIF thus far". Setting all this
aside, you're a belligerent little troll.
--scotsman
these troop level numbers with casualty
totals and get "rates" as high as 5% or
probably more if you broke it down by
month. In the end, 8.7 million troops
had been deployed in Vietnam [and] ~47k
were killed. I haven't found any numbers
yet to answer my above query "how many
have served in OIF thus far". Setting
all this aside, you're a belligerent
little troll. --scotsman
That is 1% not
10%. Are you
including inju-
red as well?
\_ You may want
to look up
the defn of
the word
'casualty'.
I didn't know it included _/
inability to fulfill ones
duties due to death "or
injury." thanks.
What were the casualty rates for other major _/
wars last century? What is the breakdown of
serious injury versus twisted ankles and such?
Hard to say if the casualty rate is high without
other data in comparison. URL?
\_ One thing we do know is that lots of serious
injuries that would have meant death in the
past, are now survivable due to medical
advances.
\_ But that's no justification for a claim that the
casualty rate is "relatively high". Also, it's
*good* to trade a high casualty rate for a low
mortality rate. Do you have data to compare
this war's casualty rate to previous wars' to
back up your claim it is "relatively high"?
\_ Does this mean there's *no* data to back up
the "relatively high" claim?
\_ Please see above.
\_ Are you referring to the bullshit
1965 Vietnam comparison? Or the good
globalsecurity data? Like the global-
security poster said, the percentages
are deceptive as the absolute numbers
dwarf Iraq 2 and defy comparison.
\_ The inability to let go even after
you've been smacked down. This has
got to be ecchang. Am I right?
--scotsman
\_ Global Security data. Personally,
anytime someone says "exercise
left to the reader" my BS alarm
\_ My initials are, literally,
BS. --scotsman
goes off.
\_ The formatting in this thread
is truly amazing.
are no clear military objective to achieve. And, what makes you
think people in Iraq are living in a normal live?
\_ Bay of Pigs? Vietnam?
\_ RTFA
\_ Korea, WWI, letting Pearl Harbor happen, Lebanon, & Somalia come
to mind without doing any research. Where do you get the idea
there's a high casualty rate? Compared to what? The objectives
are "kill the anti-government forces and train the locals to
take care of themselves in the future". And no, duh, they are
not living a normal life. Normal life is Iraq until very
recently has consisted of living in mortal fear of the government
putting your family in a wood chipper.
\_ Now it's living in mortal fear of your neighbor, your local
rebels, etc., putting your family in a wood chipper.
\_ Yes, there are mass graves of wood chipper victims all
over the country from their neighbors tossing them in.
Riiiiiiight.
\_ Yup the Sunnis and Shiites just spend all day
singing "Kum-bay-ya" (sp?) around the campfire!
\_ If you'd kept up with the situation instead of
reading propaganda, you'd know the Sunnis are
spending their time campaigning for the upcoming
election. The Shiites already had that down
from the first interum election. Don't let the
facts get you down, though, keep tossing out
the one liners. They seem to make you feel
better even if they're not reality based.
\_ It's interesting to hear an anti-Bush Jewish voice.
\_ Why? Most Jews are left wing.
\_ But I thought Bush is pro-Israel.
\_ Not really. He's just not as anti-Israel/pro-arab as
the previous admin. Anyway, that has zero bearing on
how the majority of Jews vote in this country.
\_ I can't imagine a country more stupid than the US. They have
Vietnam as a precedent, and they still made the exact same
mistake with Iraq. They didn't even get the tactical details
right. What's with disbanding the Iraqi army and taking away
these people's livelihood. That's the most stoopid thing evar.
And it's not just the Bush admin either. Most Americans
supported him at the time.
those people's livelihood. That's the most stoopid thing evar.
That's literally like telling these trained dudes, "Go home
and become guerillas so we can fight you." And it's not just
the Bush admin either. Most Americans supported him at the time.
\_ I can't imagine a country more stupid than Germany. They have
WWI as a precedent, and they still made the exact same mistake
with WWII. They didn't even get the tactical details right.
What's with invading the heart of Russia right before the
start of the Russian winter? That's the most stoopid thing
evar. That's literally like telling your soliders, "Have a
nice time freezing to death." And its not just the Bush,
er Hitler, admin either. Most Germans supported him at the
time. [ Many apologies for violating Goodwin's law ]
\_ Russia was defeated by Germany in WWI.
\_ yeah, what's your point? Germany lost! We're doomed.
\_ Okay, US is the second most stoopid country.
\- hello, the reference to the "Clades Variana" in 9bc is
really better characterized as a "military disaster"
rather than a foolish war. i think it is pretty hard
to beat the "War of Triple Alliance" for crazy war.
rather than a foolish war (same for say Agincourt from
the french perspective). i think it is pretty hard
to beat the "War of Triple Alliance" for a crazy war.
From a random WEEB page: "The war left Paraguay utterly
prostrate; its prewar population of approximately
525,000 was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which
only about 28,000 were men." ok tnx. --psb
\_ Those sound like good dating odds for sodans
\_ Pretty optimistic, don't you think?
\_ the war was only part of a grand plan to legitimize
polygamy by the survivors. |
| 2005/11/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:40745 Activity:nil |
11/26 The New Pentagon Papers
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/3853
\_ uh, this is from march 2004 |
| 2005/11/24-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40729 Activity:nil |
11/24 Abu Musab Zarqawi == Winston Smith?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007098.php |
| 2005/11/24-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40725 Activity:moderate |
11/23 Willie Pee classified at Chemical Weapon when Saddam Hussein
used it, as convential weapon when we used it:
http://csua.org/u/e2u (the Independent)
\_ Rev up the Mormon Spin Machine!
\_ ??? -emarkp
\_ ??? -emarkp [why did this get deleted? The article has no
reference to Mormons at all.]
\_ conservatives have no problem twisting the definition of
'chemical weapons' for our 'national interest' at the moment.
and remember, Hussein used chemical weapon with USA's blessing
during the Iraq-Iran War...
\_ Liberals had no problem twisting the definition of 'sex' for
*their* 'national interest' at the moment.
\_ Clinton lied, under oath, about getting a blowjob -- what
definition twisting is that? I just don't really care
about prying into a President's sex life unless it directly
affects his ability to run the county, and unlike Bush who
can barely concentrate long enough to say a single coherent
sentence, Clinton literally ran the country while his dick
was being sucked -- go President! |
| 2005/11/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40711 Activity:nil |
11/23 I remember I read on the motd that Cindy Sheehan was crazy
and her family all hated her. How come her sister just
got arrested protesting outside the Bush Ranch? Is she
crazy, too?
http://csua.org/u/e2m
\_ Have a cookie, troll. This one is chocolate.
\_ You don't seem to understand what troll means
\_ Can one be guilty of trolling if intent-to-troll cannot be
shown?
\_ You may wish to read up on the legal doctrine of
'mens trolla'
\_ She is crazy, and it was "many in her family" not all of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan#Sheehan.27s_sister-in-law |
| 2005/11/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40694 Activity:moderate |
11/22 Yay, Fox News takes an AP story and does the global search and replace
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176345,00.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_051122190101
\_ They forgot to replace 'insurgent' with 'homosexual America-hater.'
\_ Fox also removed the name of the AP Reporter.
\_ Aren't all bombs "homicide bombs" by definition? Suicide bomber
conveys more information than homicide bomber.
\_ I think "homicide bomb" may fail to suggest that the bomber
is also sacrificing his own life. "suicide bomber" is fine
for me. Why don't we just call them "murder bomber" if we're
propagandizing?
\_ Doesn't "suicide bomber" fail to suggest that the bomber is
also sacrificing (and intends to sacrifice) other people's
lives? (I do think it's stupid propaganda.)
\_ "Sacrifice"? That almost denotes something halfway noble.
And why is calling it "murder" propaganda? -John
\_ I guess my only real point is that "homicide bomb"
and "homicide bomber" just sound stupid. We get it,
they're murderers. They're bastards. Yes, we get it.
But they also committed suicide. They're... suicide
bombers.
\_ because murder signifies that we are in the right;
realize that a lot of the insurgents do it out of
revenge for lost loved ones in the war, and feel as
righteous and justified as we are in this war.
leaving it as suicide bomber is a more neutral term.
\_ Um, this is one of the stupider things I've read in
a long time. WTF? Who gives a shit "why"?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder - looks
like a pretty clear case to me. There is no fucking
justification for it. None. At. All. And don't
give me shit about "he was aiming for combatants" or
"yes but xyz is also murder." I don't want "neutral."
It's brutish, malicious, primitive and criminal.
Ergo, "murder", QED. -John
\_ same thing US troops just did/have been doing.
death = death, eye for an eye
\_ This is the same kind of idiotic, cowardly
equivocation I hear from a lot of pseudo-intel-
lectual types here. (a) US troops don't target
civilians and (b) if they do it's a crime and
should be punished. Go away. -John
\_ My revenge against the Americans is to blow up a
Jordan wedding party! (Or a bunch of school kids,
Jordian wedding party! (Or a bunch of school kids,
take your pick)
\_ sure, soon as you lose a son, brother, close
friend, etc, you may feel differently
\_ No, I can say with pretty much 100% certainty
that losing any number of friends and/or
relatives will not result in me wanting to
blow up completely unrelated innocent people.
\_ Whoever you are, when you lose a relative or close
friend for whatever reason and decide that mowing
down a pile of civilians with your car is the
right answer, please make sure to do this far far
away from here. You're a nutter. Thanks.
\_ I'm just exploring the muslim psyche. It's
not what I'd do personally - I've got too
much to lose. Your average Iraqi/
Palestinian probably doesn't.
\_ Why not? They're not human? They don't
love? They don't have parents and children
and wives and husbands? Are their lives
truly so empty because they can't get an
XBox360 on the first day at Walmart? What
exactly is so valuable about your life that
isn't about theirs?
\_ Their family might have been wiped out,
their home destroyed, no job prospects,
no hope for the future.
\_ So that would inspire one to strap on
a bomb and blow up a wedding in a
different country full of people who
were most likely sympathetic to your
cause and loss. Good plan.
\_ The Jordan bombing was stupid.
Suicide bombers have been
brainwashed and/or weren't that
clever to begin with
\_ You understand that these were
higher ups in the Iraqi branch
of the Al-Q organisation, right?
These were not teenagers pulled
from some West Bank slum. These
were leaders, not the brain-
washed masses.
\_ So what? Even if they are, they
are committing a conscious act,
and are almost always driven to
do so by someone else (the
"higher-ups" mentioned above.)
Trying to "understand" is fine,
but a lot of this sounds much
closer to justification. -John
\_ The English usage of "murder" denotes something more
personal. While both "murder" and "homicide" are
technically correct, homicide is much drier, less
emotionally connected.
\_ s/denotes/has the connotation of/ |
| 2005/11/21-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40677 Activity:nil |
11/21 http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/11/20/12242/343 Former DIA officer, Westpoint professor, and Valor-decorated Army Special Forces and MI officer Patrick Lang quoting recent L.A. Times article: "Curveball was last in his engineering class, not first ... He was a low-level trainee engineer, not a project chief or site manager, as the CIA had insisted. Most important, records showed Curveball had been fired in 1995, at the very time he said he had begun working on bio-warfare trucks. ... also apparently was jailed for a sex crime and then drove a Baghdad taxi. ..." \_ He sounds like he has the right background to be the next governor of Texas. \_ Or Arkansas for that matter. \_ Go fuck yourself. \_ Does Dick Cheney have a soda account? \_ He would have responded to the TX comment. I think this is one of those guys who heckled Cheney. |
| 2005/11/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40658 Activity:high |
11/20 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475588009&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull If this is true, then who shall lead the heroic anti-BushCo forces now? [good idea: censoring important news because you don't like it] [funny that you keep deleting it because it's >80 columns but if it was anything else you'd leave it, hypocrite. why do you hate potentially good news? if you're truly upset at the line length, you'd tinyurl it instead of censoring it. you cant kill truth] |
| 2005/11/18-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40647 Activity:nil |
11/18 So anyone of you think we can get out of Iraq without leaving too
much of a mess? Realistically, what's the best possible outcome?
\_ Civil war. Shiites, backed by Iran, win and establish a theocracy
more moderate than Iran's. Sporadic unrest by Sunnis and Baathists
for the a long time.
\_ I think more than sporatic. And if Iraq looks like its going
split, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all become major players
in game.
\_ We should take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way
to be sure.
\_ Better yet, we can ingratiate ourselves with the Iranians by
giving them enough parking space. -John
\_ The best (now very implausible but still) possible outcome hasn't
changed. The worst plausible outcome, on the other hand, has gotten
much worse.
\_ Who knows? We're staying there until the mission is complete!
\_ Isn't this just baiting the lions? What sort of answers did you
really expect from the motd? Duh. Nothing has changed. History
will look back long after the current politics of the situation
are forgotten and decide how well or poorly things went, as always.
\_ Best possible outcome? Cheney and Rummy are indicted for War Crimes
and hung at The Hague. Bush resigns in disgrace. Howard Dean is
\- that's why Congress under DELAY and HELMS passed the
HAGUE INVASION ACT a couple of yrs ago.
appointed President and asks for forgiveness from The Iraqis and
promises reparations if they can come up with a working government.
There is a World Summit in Baghdad where the rest of the world
agrees to helping rebuild Iraq. The Arab countries supply peace-
keepers and Iraq is rebuilt as a Democracy.
keepers and Iraq is rebuilt as a Democracy. Probably too much
to reasonably hope for. |
| 2005/11/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40631 Activity:low |
11/17 "I know what it's like to operate in a highly charged political
environment ... people sometimes lose their cool, and yet ... you can
ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith
... the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the
President of the United States or any member of this administration
purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of
the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
-VP Cheney (Nov 16, 2005)
"Well, look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to
disagree, and I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say
that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's
irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did ...
patriotic as heck to disagree with the President. It doesn't bother
me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their
positions and playing politics."
-President Bush (Nov 17, 2005)
\_ I'm looking for the interest here.
\_ ok ok, I took out Dubya. shorter now.
\_ He added "I am not a crook"
\_ Dude, isn't the like "how can we use this to hit iraq" post-9/11
meeting like on record?
\_ I don't know, can you produce it?
\_ "But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on
September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that
the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those
planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after
al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would
be done ... Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to
say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of
terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different
kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have
imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein
still in power." -Sec State Rice (Oct 16, 2005)
\_ How is this the "'how can we use this to hit iraq'
post-9/11 meeting"?
\_ Okay, what's the meaning of "this" in "how can we
use this"?
\_ We hit the trifecta! -GWB
\ |
| 2005/11/16-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40623 Activity:nil |
11/16 "This is even worse than what was happening under Saddam"
http://csua.org/u/e0y
(Yahoo News) |
| 2005/11/16-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40618 Activity:nil |
11/16 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/16/EDGODFOD6Q1.DTL The truth about Bush. \_ fyi, as noted at the end of the article, Scheer got fired from the L.A. Times as a regular columnist and is now one for the SF Chronicle. |
| 2005/11/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40610 Activity:nil 90%like:40601 |
11/15 Pentagon used white phosphorous in Iraq:
http://tinyurl.com/8phfo (news.yahoo.com)
\_ yeah, we know. the u.s. didn't sign any treaties prohibiting WP use
as an anti-personnel weapon against combatants, so it's "legal" ...
even though it fucks up your lungs (in enclosed spaces) and also
acts as napalm-lite (if it gets on you). Your jaw only falls off
with long-term exposure (months/years). fyi, it's "legal" to use
napalm against military targets too, although the military says it
decommissioned its napalm stores (they had better napalm-like stuff
to use in 2003 Baghdad, no need for Original Napalm(TM)).
\_ The very concept of legal or illegal weapons is just stupid.
If you're willing to kill people, you're willing to kill people.
Civilians get killed by bullets, bombs, fire, cold, disease,
starvation, land minds, etc, etc in war. War kills civilians.
Now if you wanted to declare genocidal race destroying bio
weapons or nukes or whatever 'illegal' sure, that makes sense
in a twisted sort of way but not that it matters if someone
manages to wipe out the entire race anyway. The M16 has killed
more people than WP or napalm. Let's declare the M16 an illegal
weapon. Whatever. This is all bullshit to keep food on the
table of diplomats, lawyers, politicians, and other scum.
\_ Is the previous poster an Asian?
\_ We could flatten the entire country with nukes and we'd be
almost 100% sure we would have "won" the war.
\_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4442156.stm
http://chris-floyd.com/fallujah
Remember when Saddam Hussein was the bad guy for using Chemical
weapons on civilians? Turns out we are doing the same thing.
\_ "but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical
weapon"
\_ We should fight with big fluffy pillows instead.
Hypoallergenic, of course. Otherwise that could be
construed as biological warfare. Did we ever not sign
a treaty to not use fluffy hypoallergenic pillows in a
way we did not use?
\_ We should use the neutron bomb. It's the most moral
weapon ever devised.
http://boingboing.net/profits_of_fear.html
\_ Is that what you got from reading those two articles?
\_ The story from the government keeps changing ...
1) We didn't use WP
2) We used it, but only to "light up" the battlefield
3) We used it, but not in neighborhoods full of civilians
\_ Yeah, but what do you expect? I wouldn't be surprised if
the official rules said "don't use WP to flush out targets"
but give some marines underfire WP, what do you think
they're going to do with it? |
| 2005/11/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40601 Activity:kinda low 90%like:40610 |
11/15 Pentagon used white phosphorous in Iraq:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_white_phosphorous
\_ yeah, we know. the u.s. didn't sign any treaties prohibiting WP use
as an anti-personnel weapon against combatants, so it's "legal" ...
even though it fucks up your lungs (in enclosed spaces) and also
acts as napalm-lite (if it gets on you). Your jaw only falls off
with long-term exposure (months/years).
with long-term exposure (months/years). fyi, it's "legal" to use
napalm against military targets too, although the military says it
decommissioned its napalm stores (they had better napalm-like stuff
to use in 2003 Baghdad, no need for Original Napalm(TM)).
\_ The very concept of legal or illegal weapons is just stupid.
If you're willing to kill people, you're willing to kill people.
Civilians get killed by bullets, bombs, fire, cold, disease,
starvation, land minds, etc, etc in war. War kills civilians.
Now if you wanted to declare genocidal race destroying bio
weapons or nukes or whatever 'illegal' sure, that makes sense
in a twisted sort of way but not that it matters if someone
manages to wipe out the entire race anyway. The M16 has killed
more people than WP or napalm. Let's declare the M16 an illegal
weapon. Whatever. This is all bullshit to keep food on the
table of diplomats, lawyers, politicians, and other scum.
\_ Is the previous poster an Asian? |
| 2005/11/15-17 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40598 Activity:nil |
11/15 Amusing reviews of the weapons used in Iraq. (Later it turns into
go-america type stuff. You can skip that if you like)
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/133585.php
\_ Interesting stuff, mostly new information for me.
But scroll to near the bottom for a post that challenges it. |
| 2005/11/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40584 Activity:moderate |
11/14 http://tinyurl.com/b4rql The woman suicide bomber did it becuase 3 of her brothers died in Iraq fighting Americans. Hahaha! We killed all their manfolks already, and now only women are left. We are winning! \_ Well, that's like cutting off her nose to spite her face. She should have bred children. |
| 2005/11/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40572 Activity:high |
11/14 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/opinion/14blochemarks.html?hp US using torture techniques learned from the North Vietnamese and North Koreans. w00t!! \_ http://tinypic.com/fneaza.jpg \- the world is flat! globalization! \_ How very kind of the US to legitimize the torture of US citizens by NV and NK. I mean, if it's OK for the US to torture, it must be OK to torture US citizens. \_ How very kind of the US to legitimize the torture of US citizens by NV and NK. I mean, if it's OK for the US to torture, it must be OK to torture US citizens. \_ I don't believe in torture but this is not the reason why. Whether or not we torture others has no bearing on what others will do to Americans overseas. No thug has ever said to himself, "Gee, I'd really like to rip this guy's teeth out and cut off some fingers but his country would never do that to me so I'll just give him a holy book of his choice, 3 squares, and hold him indefinitely instead". \_ It doesn't work directly like that. However, the fewer countries do it, the easier it is for the non-torturing countries to exert influence on the torturing countries c countries to exert influence on the torturing countries in a variety of ways. There are lots of other benefits to being a non-torturing country, for example making it easier to get support from moderates in your fight against the extremists. \_ Moderate countries or moderate citizens in your own? Internal support is required to a _limited_ extent in a democracy. In a heavy handed dictatorship, support from the militarty and secret services are the only necessary groups. There are no 'moderate' countries. Countries exist to benefit their population. They are naturally self-interested and will do what is necessary to further their own ends. \_ This is not really how the real world works. I know it works that way in Civ II, but in a dictatorship it is probably even more important to keep the general populace either on your side or in fear of you. \_ I don't play Civ II so I don't know what you're talking about. In a dictatorship, you can isolate and brainwash the people as seen in NK but that sort of isolation is economy crushing, as seen in NK, or you can beat them down with the military and secret service as seen in most dictatorships around the world through out time. Since getting beat down = fear, I think we're in agreement. \- "we've replaced the political science dept with a Civilization lab ..." \_ In other countries. Most moderate Muslims, before 9/11 and subsequent invasions, thought highly of the United States, especially of our freedoms, freedoms they would love to have in their countries. But when you rain down bombs on them and start up torture facilities why would they continue to help us against the fruitcakes in their countries who wish us harm? \_ Exactly who are these moderate Muslims who loved us so? And you have the second part backwards. If they got rid of the fruit cakes in their countries, there'd be no interest in bombing them. \_ http://tinyurl.com/dzngj "In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, three quarters of the people said they were attracted to the United States. After the Iraq War, that had dropped to 15 percent." \_ The United States WAS very popular in Muslim countries before 9/11 -- and so was President Clinton. The fruitcakes can't do much without moderate support. \_ You're nuts. What countries? Are you aware, for example, how often Muslim countries vote with us in the GA at the UN? Last I checked a few years ago it was averaging around 22% (during the Clinton years). The fruitcakes are doing a-OK without moderate support. Pick a year and get a history book and see how many acts of terror were committed around the world that year. You can do it for almost any year from 1960-now and find something. Not every year has a 9/11 but there's some real doosies going all the way back. You're living in a bubble. I think I've been trolled. \_ I even provided a link. And the "fruitcakes" are going to have to work overtime for decades to come even remotely close to the # of civilians the USA has killed in the last 40 years, indirectly or directly. \_ Indonesia was never the source of Muslim terrorists and isn't part of the middle east and although it is the single largest Muslim populated country it is not a majority of Muslims. As far as body count goes, how about 1 nuke? 1 germ? Are terrorists morally justified killing Western civ's until the body counts are equal? Madness. Also, you completely ignored my comments on UN votes and the fact that terrorism pre-dates anything related to the current or previous several administrations. IHBT. \_ Ok, you've convinced me lets torture everyone as payback for the nukes and bio-weapons they've used against us. \_ i'm sure that'll happen right after we stop bombing indonesia. oh wait. we never did that. maybe next time, troll. \- well the US draws lines where it wants like "we feel it is ok to torture irregular fighters who are not in uniform, not serving in a national army" etc. if some fellows in cambodia said "we believe it is ok to torture downed pilots engaging in secret bombings to find out when and where the next bombing run is" i am not sure that is appreciably crazier. oh but BUSHCO will claim it is completely difference because they wrote MEMOS. it is completely difference because we wrote MEMOS. \_ uhm, say what? i'd like to respond but i'm not really clear on exactly what point you're making so i'll leave it until you clarify. \- the source of a lot of resentment against the US is their double standards over many things and their ability to set agendas. e.g. free trade, ip pretection, standards of PoW treatment, what weapons are reasonable etc. \_ All countries are like that. \- all country may wish to be like that but they are not in fact all like that. look up the term "terms of trade". not all countries have sec council vetos. not all countries can dictate IMF policies etc. term "terms of trade" (i mean the vaguer usage). not all countries have sec council vetos. not all countries can dictate IMF policies etc. \_ they are all like that to the extent they are able. double standards are what countries are all about. that is inevitable when you acknowledge the natural "us vs. them" nature of their very existence and reason for being. \- you have defeated me. \_ Not true. Sweden is not like that, nor is The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. \_ Those aren't countries. They're counties. They also all live under the military umbrella of larger nations and have homogenous populations and no foreign policy of note since they lack a military or any real political or economic clout. However, I believe Belgium had their share of colonies in the past and had no problem with all that entails. Feel free to correct me on that if I have my history wrong. \- the congo was actually personally owned by king leopold, rather than being owned by the belgian state. he then left it to belgium in his will. that was a really nasty flavor of imperialism, even compared to other european powers in africa. you may wish to see King Leopolds Ghost etc. The author's sister teached at UCB. \_ You're wrong about Sweden not having a military. For its size its military spending has been rather high in recent decades as a policy of armed neutrality. Of course they must have benefited from NATO's opposition to Soviet aggression. Also it no longer has a homogeneous population as they too have taken on an immigrant population of Turks etc. I think that is true of Belgium and .nl also. They are countries in the traditional sense of the term; they just are not empires like the USA and Russia. \- i think the term you are looking for is "nation state". sweeden also has quite a militaristic past. \_ key phrase: "for its size". This is a very small country. If Ogo Pogo has 2 people and one of them is "the army" that doesn't mean Ogo Pogo has a real military even though they're spending 50% of their man power on the military. You get to the right idea at the end, though. Sweden is too small to be of any real consequence on the world stage of power politics where things like torturing people matters. Sweden is too small to be in a position to ever have captured anyone to torture or be really involved in anything important outside their immediate region. This is a game for world powers and their lackeys. \_ But President Bush told me Sweden had no military! I also rely on Dan Quayle for spelling advice ... \_ It's interesting how this article was written: "General Hill had sent this list - which included prolonged isolation and sleep deprivation, stress positions, physical assault and the exploitation of detainees' phobias - to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who approved most of the tactics in December 2002." Rumsfeld approved /most/ of them. Tell us, which ones were rejected? -emarkp \_ [Updated with better links] Here's Rummy describing what happened: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20040713-secdef1001.html This was the request from GTMO to Rummy, upon which he accepted most and rejected a few, and six weeks later, rejected more: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc3.pdf So which ones did Rumsfeld initially reject? They're listed at the end: the end. Which ones were rejected six weeks later? Those are listed second to last: http://csua.org/u/e0g (usatoday.com) \_ According to this transcript, probably all of them (I *infer*) [that the author listed - sorry, wasn't clear about this], but Rummy said it was only for the 20th hijacker: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20040713-secdef1001.html Also, "physical assault" probably meant the legal definition of assault, not punching or slapping them, which in this case just meant poking them among other things. I like this part: I like this part ... Rummy: "The techniques that you described were not used, I'm told, on anyone one other than Katani. We may find out that's not correct at some point in the future, but at least my information thus far is that that's the case." This was the request to Rummy, upon which he accepted/rejected some, and six weeks later, rejected more: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc3.pdf \_ So the reporter was a liar? He said the list "/included/" x y z and that Rumsfeld approved /most of them/. So we have a lists supposedly developed from SERE, some of which Rumsfeld didn't approve. So the entire claim of using methods we learned because they were done to our soldiers which "include abuse rising to the level of torture" is unfounded. -emarkp \_ Huh, what exactly are you saying the reporter is lying about? Please suggest an easy one first, please be clear, and please be concise. \_ The reporter said "most" were approved. The poster said "probably all of them". -emarkp \_ "all of them" that the author listed. The last sentence in my post was pretty clear that Rummy rejected/accepted some. |
| 2005/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40531 Activity:insanely high |
11/10 Pat Buchanan, who was always against the invasion of Iraq, rubs it in
"Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder
in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did
not want war with us, and did not threaten us--to strip it of weapons
we now know it did not have. Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated
from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new
base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been
radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida
have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East:
Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2055 Americans
are dead and Walter Reed is filling up."
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10210
\_ Uhm, Pat was never on the Dubya bandwagon. Pat has always been an
isolationist. He is opposed to US membership in the UN and most
other forms of non-trade involvement with the rest of the world.
\_ uh, yerright about his being anti-neocon the whole time
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html
\_ Yeah, weird how some people on the motd actually know wtf
they're talking about and are beyond the black/white "h8t
u awl!!1" political 'philosophy' espoused by too many here.
Pat has been consistent in his isolationist views going back
to GWB's pre-politics days. Too many people around here find
some random tidbit and post it thinking they're making some
big point or there's some giant earth shaking change going on,
but who have essentially zero real knowledge of history.
It's mostly the silly "gotcha!" and "we're winning!" stuff
which is no better than dailykos or freepers.
\_ shrug, it was random enough to be first on http://drudgereport.com
\_ exactly. I read drudge for the "man bitten by >insert
name of dangerous animal<" links. He also posts some
oddball stuff you won't find else where which is fun.
The rest is pre-posts of NYT editorials, political
sniping, various forms of rabble rousing to keep his
hit rates up, and the inevitable cross links to other
sites in what looks like an ad/link swap deal, mostly
recently with breitbart(sp?) news. I don't read drudge
for in depth and meaningful political commentary.
I honestly was completely oblivious to the notion that
there was a real conservative group (other than the
Scowcroft, etc. old-hands assoc w/ Bush Sr.) that opposed
the invasion pre-invasion -op
\_ That's why they're called "neo" cons. There are still
plenty (I'd guess a majority) of conservatives who are
in favor of not invading other countries, lower taxes,
less spending, smaller government, and all the other
traditional conservative agenda items. Thus it makes
me laugh and sad at the same time to see the various
motd personalities posting as if the freepers are the
sole representatives of the conservative movement.
Laughter from how ignorant a belief that is and sadness
at how closely otherwise intelligent people hold such
a belief.
\_ Okay, I'll update the link to reflect that. |
| 2005/11/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40521 Activity:nil |
11/9 NBC - Wall Street Journal poll
"Fifty-seven percent believe [Bush] deliberately misled people to make
the case for war, compared with 35 percent who say he gave the most
accurate information he had."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9981177
\_ Did the poll ask if people thought misleading the American public
on going to war is worse than misleading the American public about
a blowjob?
\_ That was the poll about Libby's indictment vs. Clinton's lies.
Duh!
\_ Why should going to war be decided by the uninformed masses based on
what sounds good to them? -not tom
\_ We should decide going/not going based on polls and what the
NYT editorial page says.
\_ Perhaps they should consider:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html |
| 2005/11/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:40512 Activity:moderate |
11/9 Terrorists simultaneously bomb Grand Hyatt, Radisson, and Days Inn
hotels in Amman Jordan, targeting Westerners / Israelis - 18+ dead,
120+ injured.
(yes, they come up with ever more inventive ways to select dates for
attacks)
\_ the scary thing is, this is no longer interesting news.
\_ fyi, Jordanians are at the top when polling on whether bombings
against Westerners in Iraq, and against Israelis by Palestinians,
are justifiable -op
\_ Completely different issue. Bombing in Iraq is not much
different than Frensh Resistance in WW2.
\_ It isn't? This is another CSUA History Book Fund item.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206
\_ Every time I read crap like that I have the very brief urge to
go join the Israeli army.
\_ Do it. It is one of few organization which can perform
torture and genocide without being prosecuted.
\_ Hi troll! And liar too.
\_ No, no. That's the PLO. (Or Hamas, etc.) Other side.
\_ I am surprised that Isreali Jews dare to venture into places like
Jordan or Egypt. My understanding was that despite normal
diplomatic relations between those countries and Israel, the Arab
population of Jordan and Egypt still harbors hostile feelings
towards Jews (specially in Jordan, where something like 40% of
population are descendants of Palestinean refugees).
\_ Look up "Black September". They have reason to hate the
Jordanians even more. But then again, I guess "rational"
doesn't really apply here. -John
\_ I thought King Hussein got broke his back during one of
PLO's attack...
\_ KH gave up Jordanian claims on the West Bank because
he was rightfully afraid that the palestinians were
going to take over his country. It was the easy way
out for him and prevented a civil war he couldn't
afford and likely would have lost.
\_ sorry if this is a morbid detail, but in Jordan the date today is
written as "9/11" (day before month)
\_ Ah, they thought today is the "Nine Eleven" anniversay.
\_ Damned dyslexic terrorists.
\_ On what date did the Iraq invasion begin? |
| 2005/11/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40494 Activity:nil |
11/8 7-minute segment on the marketing of the Iraq war
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Runuptothewar.wmv
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Runupto.mov
See Condi, Dick, Powell, and Dubya report what would turn out to be
false claims. |
| 2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40480 Activity:nil |
11/7 Watch your back while you're e-mailing at the cyber cafe!
http://csua.org/u/dyg (Washington Post)
"In another attack, three armed men entered an Internet cafe in the
northern city of Mosul on Monday and assassinated Ahmed Hussein Maliki,
the number two editor of Tall Afar Today newspaper, according to an
employee of the paper, who asked not to be named because of security
concerns. He said the paper recently moved its offices from Tall Afar
to Mosul, 35 miles to the east, because of threats against the staff." |
| 2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40470 Activity:low |
11/7 "We do not torture." -GW Bush (Nov 7 2005)
It depends on what the meaning of "torture" is.
\_ It depends more on what the meaning of "we" is. Much of
the torture has been outsourced to private corporations or
foreign governments.
\_ But the foreign governments promised us they wouldn't torture!
\_ http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
Bush says we do not torture, yet he opposes a law banning torture.
Does this make sense to anyone?
\_ Of course, this is bush we're talking about, remember?
\_ It helps if you visualize a lying sack of shit.
\_ It depends on what the meaning of "torture" is.
\_ If you have the freedom to do something, you then have
the choice to not do that something. If that something
is banned, you can never do it legally. Surely this
makes sense to you pro-choice ppl.
\_ Gee, why have any laws at all?
\_ "We do not torture, and the video evidence hates America." |
| 2005/11/3-8 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40429 Activity:moderate |
11/3 In the good old days, we count 'casuaties,' not 'death' in a conflict.
I am just wondering do we even keep track of 'casuaties' in Golf War 2?
Where can we get them?
\_ http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
19,219
\_ http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf -- ~15k casualties
\_ Disappointed that the American death toll is too low?
\_ Just want to make sure I am comparing apple to apple when I
am making comprison... I am just wondering what is the
'casualty rate' of our little Iraqi Advanture here. My guess
is that the 'casualty rate' is bit more than 1/20, which is
pretty high.
\_ About 14000 casualties. I don't know how you calculate
the rate.
\_ 14k out of 250k forces in Iraq?
\_ But how many have cycled through?
\_ What were the casualties rates in other wars like WWII or
Vietnam War?
\_ The problem with casualties is that they run the gamut from
a bump on the head received during combat to blinding and
maiming. The number of amputees, as compared to the number
of deaths, is far higher for this war than for any other.
\_ Bump on the head? I thought casualty only counts wounds serious
enough to take a person out of action.
\_ I am pretty sure "casualty" is a guy (or gal) that you have
to evacuate. A RTD (return to duty) kind of scratch or bump
does not count. -ausman (former Army medic)
does not count. -ausman (former Army colonel)
\_ this is what concerns me. I have been told repeately that
many of these 'wounded' would of died even 10 years ago.
this translates that these guys are not dead, which is good
politically. But what kind of disabilities would they
suffer as result? That is the big cost of our little
Iraq war that most people don't think about. |
| 2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40424 Activity:moderate |
11/3 Anyone wonder why NYTimes circulation is down?
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2005/11/02/173917.html
\_ because Michelle Malkin is an idiot?
\_ wow, that was pithy and useful commentary! thanks!
\_ don't confuse "idiot" with "evil"
\_ Malkin is right in this case. The NY Times reporter should have
included more of the letter. I also do not disagree with the
general assessment that Malkin is an idiot. -moderate/liberal
\_ except this is status quo for the NYT. go see 'manufacturing
consent'.
\_ You think so, and I think George HW Bush thinks so, too, and
Bush Sr. is a very smart man. I think both of you are wrong
though.
\_ Come back when you have some idea what you're talking
about. This has zippo to do with Bush. WTF did that
come from? You have no clue what I was even talking
about. Go look up what 'manufacturing consent' even is
and then go see it.
\_ Come back after you've re-read my post and think about
what exactly I wrote. Okay, now tell me what exactly
my position is. (fyi, I happen to agree that the
mechanisms described in that book you mentioned are
accurately described)
mechanisms in that book you mentioned are accurately
described)
\_ Obviously I'm too dumb to get whatever your clearly
made point was. I still don't think you have one.
You agree that the mechanisms are described
accruately but you duck the point of who uses them.
Since he was specifically talking about the NYT,
how about we agree this sort of thing is status quo
for the NYT and this has nothing to do with Malkin,
Bush or wtf.
\_ you agree with the author of "In Defense of Internment:
The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II" but you are
a "moderate/liberal"? I think not! We had a word for people
like Malkin in the 1930s- it's "fascist." Look it up kiddo.
\_ Wow, what a poorly thought out troll.
\_ It sounds like the reporter got a little heated in his reply to
the reader, but even Malkin admits:
"Dao apologized to Valois for the tone of his snippy e-mail,"
Of course, she can't pass up the opportunity to flame him
anyway:
"but apparently feels no shame or sorrow for distorting a dead
Marine's thoughts and feelings about war, sacrifice and freedom."
Scumbaggery will out. |
| 2005/11/1-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40378 Activity:low |
11/1 "America's badly damaged image in the Muslim world could take
more than a generation to set right."
http://csua.org/u/dw3
I remember being roundly mocked two years ago on the motd for
suggesting that this would be the result of the Iraq War.
\_ right, and this has nothing to do with partisan grandstanding...
\- lots of people said so immediately after AbuG. search wall
archive for "for a generation"
\_ The media storm over it almost certainly made it worse.
\_ That damn liberal media. Especially the liberal state
run media in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
\_ nice red herring. of course the state run media in
places like that blames the west, israel and everyone
but the dictators in charge on their countries. duh.
\_ How is it a red herring? The place where it was
"made worse" don't read American newspapers. Do
you honestly think the Iraqi insurgency cares
about what the NYT prints? Get over yourself.
They care what Iraqis think.
\_ Only a generation? The Turks and Greeks are still fighting. So
are the Serbs, Croats, and Albanians.
\_ Apples and oranges. Turks conquered, annexed, and then ruled
Greece for centuries. After attaining independence, large chunks
of historically Greek territories still remained in the hands of
Turks who later ethnically cleansed most of their Greek
population during WWI. Later Turkey illegally occupied about 30%
of Cyprus, a conflict that hadn't been resolved up to this date.
\_ I don't remember your saying that in those words at that point in
time ... what did you write about specifically that would damage
the U.S.'s image in the Muslim world for generations?
\_ KAIS motd is broken and I don't know how else to search
old posts.
\_ hint: America never had a good image in the Muslim world. this is
all status quo. here's mine: I predict that if you continue to not
give me all the money I want, the sky will still be blue some where
in the world 2 years from now and will stay that way for
generations!
\_ The "not good image" goes back to the time when the Muslims
invaded and conquered the eastern Roman/Byzantine provinces.
Followed by the Crusades and such and WW I.
\_ If Bush had just understood their culture better, the Romans
and Byzantines would have stood aside while the Muslims just
went about their business and just doing their own thing and
wouldn't have attacked us on 9/11. HALIBURTON!
\_ Well Britain did fuck with them quite a bit in the 20th
century in Iraq and stuff. Britain and US have done some
evil shit in the middle east and this is the most recent
stuff to look back on for them.
\_ Far more in the way of bad shit has happened in
history than good. The thing that alot of people
don't seem to realise is that they are not the
only one's being fucked with. Almost everyone has
been. Time for some people just to cut the damn
cord and get on with your life and stop pointing
fingers. [formatd]
\_ I found it interesting in a horrible sort of
way that one of bin laden's gripes is losing
muslim control of spain and he wants it back.
\_ Why Spain and not the Balkans?
\_ Maybe because Arabs were in Spain, but
it was I think mostly Turks in the
Balkans? The Turks are trying to become
European anyway. Maybe bin Laden has
written them off.
\_ Turkey is on a slow slide away from
a secular government. The bin laden
types are patient people. |
| 2005/10/31-11/1 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40363 Activity:nil |
10/31 Some tuna and sharks are partially warm blooded:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104543&org=NSF&from=news
\_ must be work of Saddam Hussin |
| 2005/10/31-11/2 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40360 Activity:low |
10/31 Mass graves uncovered in San Francisco:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3589212
\_ dead people don't deserve rights! taking up valuable real estate
anyway.
\_ must be work of Saddam Hussin
\_ nice design, God!
\_ must be work of Saddam Hussin
\_ News Flash: UN Inspectors ordered in to investigate mass graves in
SF. Bush administration denounces Newsom's stuuborn refusal to
produce evidence of destruction of chemical weapons. |
| 2005/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40350 Activity:nil |
10/31 Some stories you may have missed last week in the media's masturbatory
speculation on Rove:
UN Oil-for-Food scandal report released:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1602171,00.html
Iran President calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/international/middleeast/31iran.html
of Iraq is way more than the money funneled to Saddam Hussin
during UN Oil-for-Food program, right? What is the big deal
about this? Are you looking for a justification for the war?
\_ Only two American companies made money during the FFO scandal.
The Provisional Government gave money to mostly American
companies. You Es Eh! You, ese!
\_ I'm not looking for "a justification". The UN is a corrupt
organization, and this is an important report.
\_ The Bush administration is a corrupt organization.
\_ Really? The official investigation has produced a single
indictment. The UN investigation shows corruption
everywhere.
\_ Why hasn't the Senate investigation into the use of
WMD intelligence (which was promised to occur after
the 2004 election) been started yet?
\_ Yes, really. The foxes are guarding the henhouse:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html
\_ you know that the money squantered by the provisional government
of Iraq is way more than the money funneled to Saddam Hussin
during UN Oil-for-Food program, right? What is the big deal
about this? Are you looking for a justification for the war?
\_ Only two American companies made money during the FFO scandal.
The Provisional Government gave money to mostly American
companies. You Es Eh! You, ese!
\_ I'm not looking for "a justification". The UN is a corrupt
organization, and this is an important report.
\_ The Bush administration is a corrupt organization.
\_ Really? The official investigation has produced a single
indictment. The UN investigation shows corruption
everywhere.
\_ Why hasn't the Senate investigation into the use of
WMD intelligence (which was promised to occur after
the 2004 election) been started yet?
\_ Yes, really. The foxes are guarding the henhouse:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html |
| 2005/10/30-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40342 Activity:moderate |
10/30 Remember when they told you Valerie Plame was not really undercover?
http://csua.org/u/dvj
\_ http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Plame-Profile.html
"She was 22 and very young coming into the CIA, but she was very
mature, very professional." Other fellow trainees remember her as a
head-turning blonde who did well wielding an AK-47.
http://csua.org/u/dvl (Wash Post)
In 2006, she will have 20 years with the agency. As such she
qualifies for retirement but would not receive full benefits unless
she stays with the agency until age 50. ...
After she was named in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, Plame
had no chance of working again in her chosen field ...
"There are a variety of things she could have done at the agency.
She could have become a station chief overseas and run espionage
operations. It has destroyed her life on that front."
operations. It has desroyed her life on that front."
\_ typical Bush Administration's tactic. Destroy those who oppose
his political view. Another fine example of 'conservative'
virtue who cares more about 'personal behavior' eventhough his
policies may be completely out of whack.
\_ Naive question: what are CIA trainees doing wielding AKs?
Shouldn't they be handling non-commie firearms?
\_ dumbass
\_ they should wear all Made-in-USA clothes and only knows
how to operate American-made equipment. Toyota? that is
equipment for Japanese Spys.
\_ Valerie and Joe Wilson are partisan hacks who, at the behest of
their party, tried to fabricate a scandal, national security
be damned, in order to sway a presidential election. They were
caught and now both have been exposed as frauds and liars.
Valeria Plame was outed by Aldrich Ames in 1997. The notion that
once comprimised she would subsequently continue as a covert agent
is stupid.
That said, Fitzgerald has spent 2 years and 70+ million dollars to
find out who first released Plame's name. Why is no one asking the
answer to this question? It is clear Libby didn't do it.
Rove is not Novak's source. So who was it? -jblack
Rove is not Novak's source. So who was it?
\_ Aldrich Ames? To whom? To the public? When? Show, don't tell!
Bad troll, no cookie.
\_ What Libby did do was lie, over and over, under oath. Coverups
and perjury are illegal. Conspiracy and all that. But hey
feel free to ignore that all. Oh and as to the first paragraph
you are totally insane yes. Fabricating a scandal? Did they
LIE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC about WMDs in Iraq and
convince America to go to a WAR OF CHOICE under known false
pretenses. Did they burn a covert operative and her cover
company when some of those lies came out? Did they participate
in a coverup to hide this fact? If it was a made up scanal why
did Bush come out and say anyone involved woudl be fired (a
promise he rescinded later when it became clear that many people
in his administration were involved, imagine that. Why did
Libby tell Miller that hey, that thing he signed saying she
was released from confidentiality wasn't really a realease
cause see it was made under duress (ha! does that mean he was
lieing to his president as well? Or was Bush lieing to the
public once again...) Why the lies and coverup if it was
just something madeup? Why keep your head in the sand about
an administration that lies over and over again? That lied
its way into a war and will keep on lieing as long as it can
get away with it.
\_ you really expect someone to read or reply to your
jibberish? Based on your 1st sentence (as far as
I got) Libby has yet to be convicted, the US
does not have Napoleonic law. The accusations in the indictment
relate ONLY to inconsistencies between the memory of
Libby and two reporters, Miller and Russert, while testifying
to FBI agents.
\_ you really expect someone to read or reply to your jibberish?
Based on your 1st sentence (as far as I got) Libby has yet to
be convicted, the US does not have Napoleonic law. The
accusations in the indictment relate ONLY to inconsistencies
between the memory of Libby and two reporters, Miller and
Russert, while testifying to FBI agents.
\- "Now listen. Did you ever hear of the Napoleonic
code, Stella?...Now just let me enlighten you on a
point or two...Now we got here in the state of
Louisiana what's known as the Napoleonic code. You
see, now according to that, what belongs to the wife
belongs to the husband also, and vice versa...It
looks to me like you've been swindled baby. And when
you get swindled under Napoleonic code, I get
swindled too and I don't like to get swindled..."
oh, BTW, the ACT CoaHTR is NOT BAD. yes, i know they
dont really have the NC.
\_ You have been successfully trolled. -John
\_ "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" --
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary15.html
\_ urlP
\_ #f
\_ There's a difference between exposing the truth, and being a
traitor to your country.
\_ But but but but the washington post said that she would tell all
her neighbors every morning she was an undercover agent for the
CIA ... I'm so confused! |
| 2005/10/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40327 Activity:nil |
10/28 President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat (reasons MSM should read again)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510728/posts -jblack |
| 2005/10/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40257 Activity:nil |
10/25 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051025/ts_nm/britain_mideast_bbc_dc_1 "Chapman said the new Arabic channel would take advantage of the BBC's reputation for fairness and independence in the region." Is BBC really fair and unbiased? I don't usually watch BBC news. Thx. \- Yet did I never breathe its pure serene Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold: Then felt I like some watcher of the skies When a new planet swims into his ken; \_ All news has bias. News reports are written and reported on by people. Which stories become news and how big is decided upon by people. People are biased. "Fair" is not the same as "unbiased" and might be achievable in some cases because "fair" is determined by the audience and is not an absolute. The quote above bothers me when they say, "... would take advantage of ... reputation for fairness and independence ... ", which makes me think, "We're not fair or independent so we need cover", but that's just my take. \_ BBC is fairly consistently high quality. It's not unbiased, and if you perceive the bias as being against you, you won't think it's fair. YMMV. -John \_ If BBC is unbiased, then, Al Jazeera would never existed! Al Jazeera was founded because the staff *REFUSED* to follow BBC's directive of self-censoring reports that annoys Saudi Royal Family. It is funny that Al Jazeera is probably the most unbiased news channel (even more so than USA's main stream media), yet USA resort to use methods such as shutting down its website and even missile to silence them... \_ From the article: "Al Jazeera ...... has often shown video of hostages pleading at gunpoint for their respective governments to withdraw troops. It does not however broadcast footage of killings, which are posted on the Internet by militants." |
| 2005/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40252 Activity:nil |
10/25 Iraqi election officials announce Iraq constitution has passed
link:tinyurl.com/cqk34 link:tinyurl.com/cdcq2 (nytimes.com)
"The Iraqi electoral officials, at the suggestion of United Nations
advisers, had also audited a random sampling of provinces in which more
than 90 percent of voters had approved the constitution. The officials
said today that they had found no evidence of voter fraud in those
provinces, which were Basra and Babil, dominated by Shiites, and Erbil,
a Kurdish province in the north."
[From the LA Times:]
"Carina Perelli, the U.N. elections chief, praised the election audit
and said, 'Iraq should be proud of the commission.'"
[From the Washington Post:]
"But while there is still anecdotal evidence of vote tampering, no
credible evidence of widespread fraud has yet emerged."
\_ mission accomplished. we can go home now. |
| 2005/10/24-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40250 Activity:low |
10/24 Brent Scowcroft interview with The New Yorker magazine
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001024.html
Scowcroft supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a "direct response"
to terrorism. ... The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said,
because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. "I'm
not a pacifist," he said. "I believe in the use of force. ..."
[Rice and Scowcroft] also argued about Iraq. "She says we're going to
democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize
Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and
she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle
East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. Then a barely
perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, "But
we've had fifty years of peace." ...
"The reason I part with the neocons is that I don't think in any
reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East
can be successful. ... I'm a realist in the sense that I'm a cynic
about human nature."
\_ 50 years of peace?
\_ I suppose everything looks rosy when compared to Iraq
\_ 50 yrs of conflict without American blood... more or less.
and I agree with Scowcroft's 50 yr of peace in the sense that
Americans never really care about brown/yellow/black casualties
\_ Umm... Vietnam? I presume he means "in the region."
\_ I do remember us losing soldiers in lebenon in the last 50
years.
\_ 'Ere me now! Dis my MAIN MAN, Bent Scocroff! -alig
\_ "Lebanon". And I guess all those Canadians we bombed
and the 150 or so guys we lost in Gulf War I don't
count. As for Americans never really caring, that
would sure explain My Lai, I guess. -John |
| 2005/10/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40203 Activity:low |
10/20 Corruption in Iraq
http://amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html
\_ feel the schadenfreude!
\_ Erm, you've got a substantial part of the population who's been
watching in horror as a more substantial part of the population
condones crooks and morons ruining the country, lying cheating
and stealing and getting away with it, and fucking up things
so badly it's hard to believe it's not being done on purpose,
all the while being ignored by said more substantial part when
yelling at them to engage their fucking brains. Now the barrel
of shit created by aforementioned crooks and morons starts to
run over, spattering aforementioned shit all over everyone, and
you are surprised about "schadenfreude"? -John
\_ bad word choice on my part. I should have said, "sucks
to be an American in the private sector" -op
\_ If even half of what was said in that article was true we should
ignite Chaney today. -mrauser
indite Chaney today. -mrauser
\_ I wish we could indict him for fleecing America
\_ Is that even illegal when 1 party controls 2 branches of
government?
\_ MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! |
| 2005/10/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40198 Activity:nil |
10/20 Partial transcript of Powell's number one while Powell was Sec State
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-40f4-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html
"Under Secretary of Defense Douglas [inaudible], whom most of you
probably know Tommy Franks said was the stupidest blankety blank man in
the world. He was. Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life
have I met a dumber man."
\_ This guy? http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/feith_bio.html |
| 2005/10/19-21 [Recreation/Food, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40178 Activity:nil |
10/19 My sister's music is featured at http://NPR.org under 'all songs considered' and can be listened to. The name of the song is 'Take a minute' from her previous CD 'I kid you not'. Her name is Diane Marie Kloba. I hope you enjoy it. -ikiru \_ Congrats! Is she as hot as yermom? \_ See http://www.dianemariekloba.com ... ikiru's mom is currently about to go medieval on Florida. |
| 2005/10/19-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40176 Activity:nil |
10/19 A new high (low) in war profiteering:
http://amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40138 Activity:high |
10/17 http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Condi-Iraq-war-9-11.wmv http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Condi-Iraq-war-9-11.mov http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9684807 What I got from Condi's interview: (1) al Qaeda attacked us (2) Don't get al Qaeda; Saddam is the bigger priority (3) Get Saddam while he's small (4) Build a democracy in Iraq to weaken dictator-led countries (and especially to enable a democratic-revolution in Iran) -- since democracies are more predictable / easier to deal with on WMDs (5) Don't tell the American people this is the strategy. Instead, focus on Iraqi WMDs to win required political support. This may or may not be the smoking gun, but it sure as hell tells me what Condi thought. \_ Don't forget (6) PROFIT!!!!! \_ nah, I don't believe that -op \_ Erm, we've seen the military-industrial complex at work before our eyes, and you just "don't believe it"? You think this was all just international dick waving? \_ I believe the administration did what it thought would protect America, even though both the overall strategy and \_ So did Joe McCarthy. You've read 7 Days in May? So does General Scott. That's no excuse. -John \_ It /is/ no excuse, and I'm in complete agreement with you. I was just answering the guy who was saying that profit was a big motive. -op \_ Why else give extended no-bid contracts? Why short change on things like armor? Non-rotted food? Why avoid at all costs anything resembling the Truman commission? Or are these things just afterthoughts in your opinion? The people in this administration have been in the _business_ of war for generations. \_ I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't good, expensive food and armor have brought even more profits to the military suppliers, especially in light of the no-bid contracts? It seems to me that whether this war was for preventing terrorism, spreading democracy, bringing peace to the middle east, maximizing American corporate profits, or spreading some kind of American Empire, it ends up looking like a clusterfuck run by morons. \_ No because if the contracts weren't no-bid the people fullfilling them would have to actually deliver decent services for their money, which would leave more money for things like armor and edible food. \_ Indeed. look up Bunnatine Greenhouse, \_ Indeed. look up Bunnington Greenhouse, formerly in charge of army (?) procurement. The no-bid contracts that came across her desk were for 5 year terms. no-bids are rarely for more than 1 year, because they're meant to be stop- gaps. she also says that the pentagon stopped asking for cost-justification reports, which are the only teeth the government has to keep an eye on cost-plus contracts \_ The desire to protect America came first. The clusterfuck and the war-profiteering came after we invaded. Sure there were people calculating how to make big bux prior to the invasion, but I think protecting America came first before big bux when Dubya decided to invade. -op we invaded. -op how to make big bux to capitalize on the coming war, but I think protecting America came first before big bux when Dubya decided to invade. -op \_ I think you're naive. I think if that was their first thought, the military would have had an actual war plan. They were pie-eyed. They had planned how they would restructure the economy, but not how they would keep the peace. These are crooks. \_ Don't forget that the miltary DID have very detailed plans of what would happen in various cases, and those who spoke out about insufficient forces were sacked by Donald Rumsfeld. We KNEW we getting into a mess and did it anyway. Future generations will ask \_ Exactly my point. In chaos it's easy to "lose" money (read "steal). They haven't changed their approach because they're perfectly happy with the situation. So a few soldiers die... big whup. So a few civilians die... Dude, they're, like, brown. why we didn't do anything about the neocons in the same naive tones that schoolchildren today ask about the Nazi party rise to power. \_ If you took a poll of informed observers, I think the majority would agree with me, and the majority would also say that while you have a noble interest in finding out the truth, you're overstating. I agree with the pie-eyed characterization though, and I think the lack of a realistic post-war rebuilding plan was Rummy's mistake, since there were plenty of generals who questioned why we didn't have more troops for that phase. -op \_ CNN already took this poll, and a plurailty of Americans believe you are wrong. \_ You fail on two points: (1) CNN did not ask Americans "Was the war to protect America or 'for profit'?", which is what we're arguing about. \_ You're setting up a false dichotomy. The question "is this war making us safer" has been polled for the duration. the yes side has steadily gone down as people have realized it will drag on forever, and is against the wrong "enemy". \_ Apparently you forgot the original topic. The original topic was "for profit" vs. "protecting America". You - forgot - the - original - topic. Follow the precise thread of conversation. I'll show you: CNN already took this poll .. If you took a poll ... I think you're naive ... The desire to protect ... [all the way to:] ... (6) PROFIT!!!!! -- And there you have it. Trust me: I am completely aware that more Americans than not feel that the war may not have been worth it, nor made us safer. \_ Seriously, discussing this with you is like discussing ID with a true believer. I'll dub this the "incompetent intent" theory on the Bush presidency. (2) I said "informed observers". \_ Then why haven't they made any moves to FIX their mistakes. I can only conclude that they're happy with the situation. Stay the course, beeyotch \_ We're not sending (a lot) more troops because the generals are saying sending (a lot) more troops would make things worse. \_ sourceP overstating. -op \_ #t \_ just google for "send more troops iraq worse" \_ Fuck off. \_ what's the problem? most informed observers already know this, and the search works. \_ It's hard sometimes to figure out where Bush admin desire for "crusades" in the middle east to install compliant, pro-Western "democracies" ends and where the desire to shovel as much $$$ to Halliburton, et al begins. It's all a dangerous mix of corruption & incompetence. execution were bungled. Jury's still out on whether "Bush lied" or not, but at least I now know what Condi thinks about the reason for toppling Saddam. \_ We toppled Iran in 1950s and it didn't get us anywhere. Don't you see the pattern now? all the "enemy" of the middle east *HAPPENS* to be those country whose oil is not in few monarch's hand. Get real. \_ We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait because Kuwait had oil. We haven't done much about Rwanda and Darfur. I'm keeping this discussion very real. Is it oil "for profit" as point 6, or is it oil for "protecting America", like I've said? -op \_ The oil "for profit" explanation doesn't make much sense to me, at least to the extent that it's just oil company profits that they're concerned about. Tightening oil supply leads to high prices, which puts money in the pockets of oilmen. I.e., I agree with you. -!pp \_ Actually the ultimate goal is to control this area of the world so that when oil is no longer a fungible commodity, the US economy still has a supply. It's unlikely to work since people in the region hate us with a passion. \_ You have the right idea, but not quite. The ultimate goal is to protect America. Re oil, the target is to have a predictable and significant share of oil supplies, in such a way that oil- producing countries can't easily blackmail us or turn off the spigot in times of war, and we know how much is left. If this target can be maintained (and it has been for a couple decades), then the availability of oil should then the availabitily of oil should decrease gradually and predictably. Market forces will encourage the steady development of alternative and more energy-efficient technologies. Key words efficient-energy technologies. Key words are "gradual" and "predictable". -liberal/moderate \_ posting 3 url's is reason enough to change the motd into a bbs forum. cutting and pasting these links... gawd!! - napoleon |
| 2005/10/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40100 Activity:moderate |
10/14 Margaret Thatcher on Iraq WMDs (according to an associate):
"I /was/ a scientist before I was a politician. And as a scientist I
know you need facts, evidence and proof - and then you check, recheck
and check again. The fact was that there /were/ no facts, there was no
evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious
decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from
which they may not return."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article319542.ece
\_ Obviously she's less senile at 80 than Dubya is now.
\_ Lessons learned? "Oh well, Daddy will fix it."
\_ The brain cells you killed with alcohol will grow back?
Or not ... |
| 5/27 |