|
12/24 |
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" |
12/24 |
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 |
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 ... |
12/24 |