Politics Foreign MiddleEast Iraq - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Iraq:
Results 301 - 450 of 1605   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/10/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/19   

2004/1/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12022 Activity:nil
1/29    US Troop suicides mounting in Iraq war.
        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/eveningnews/main596755.shtml
        \_ not surprising... when you sign up for the military, you essentially
           become their slave.  if you disobey or refuse to fight, you get
           the dishonor of being courtmartialed.
           \_ Yeah, it would be better if we had an all volunteer force.
2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12026 Activity:very high
1/29    BTW, front page in the SF Chronicle today has David Kay saying that
        he talked to all the CIA intel guys and *not one of them* said
        they felt pressured although they admitted failure.  They honestly
        believed it as did the French and German intel they worked with.
        \_ I'm sure none of the underlings at Enron felt pressure, either.
           They thought there was just a lot of oil in the Cayman islands.
           \_ Totally different situation.  Get your oranges out of the
              apple cart and we'll talk.  No one at Enron in a decision
              making role ever claimed to know nothing about what was going
              on.  They all hired lawyers.
        \_ http://csua.org/u/5rq
           Washington Post article says otherwise.
           If someone did tell Kay they felt pressured, don't you think
           that would be the end of their carreer with the CIA?
           \_ Stop bringing common sense into the discussion!  You are
              just a Bush hater!
           \_ no, I don't.  the failure up front is enough to destroy their
              careers already.  common sense.
        \_ France and Russia did *not* agree with the Bush Administration:
           http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html
           \_ No one said Russia did.  French intel is another story.
        \_ Here is a very good (and long) article that indicates that
           pressure was applied. It also states that *everyone* thought
           that Hussein had WMD:
           http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/media-preview/pollack.htm
           Start with "The Politics of Persuasion"
           \_ Uh, he says so, but there's not much to tell me he's right.
              Also, the guy wrote the book "The Threatening Storm: The Case
              for Invading Iraq" in 2002, which a lot of neocons were
              waving around prior to the war.  In any case, I know what
              Powell presented to the UN, and it was total crap, and that
              was enough for me.
              \_ The fact that he sees both sides of the issue makes him
                 more credible to me, not less.
                 \_ So if I told you a big fat lie from one side and at least
                    a partial truth from the other, you'd swallow that lie?
        \_ if you know anything about Bush, he is the type who has repeatly
           make decision, find out it wrong, and blame his subordinate so he
           is free of all the responsibilities (George Tenet).  This entire
           David Kay drama is just a way to defuse pressure for Bush.  And
           yes, I am a Bush hater, and I hate him more for the fact that he
           is a such soft shoulder than his undisguised political agenda to
           enrich his friends and the wealthy.
           \_ Oh really?  Tell us about Bush.  What is your secret source of
              information about his "type" that you claim to know so well?
              Your undying hatred?  Good thinking.  I feel your pain!
           \_ Bush is a dumbass.  This is how a smart dumbass runs the
              country.  By delegating responsibility and trying to look
              like you know what you're doing.  The interesting part is it's
              arguable that this might be better than liberals running the
              country.
              \_ Vote Green!  Seriously, though, no President has run this
                 country in that sense for a long time.  There's a zillion
                 things going on that he might get a 5 second briefing on once
                 a month, if that.  Without delegation you get a G.Davis style
                 micromanagement idiot who never gets anything done because one
                 person doesn't have the time or brain power to cope with it.
                 Pick any Fortune 1000 company.  Do you think the CEO is
                 intimately aware of every product plan for the next 12 months?
                 Or even what might be happening next week or happened last
                 week?  Not a chance in hell.  The Federal Government dwarfs
                 any Fortune list company and always will.
2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12011 Activity:nil
1/29    Condi attacks WMD critics, spouts usual line:
        "The president's judgment to go to war was based on the fact that
         Saddam Hussein had for 12 years defied the international community."
        C'mon, Condi, we defied the international community because they
        defied the international community?
        http://csua.org/u/5rh
          \_ You're right.  We should have just ignored it and drove another
             nail into the UN Credibility Coffin.
             \_ Hmm...  Inspectors were in, looking around, reporting that
                it looked like any weapons had been destroyed, but that they
                needed more time.  Looks like their policy was working PRETTY
                FUCKING WELL.  I'd call that a crowbar for your coffin.
                \_ I agree with this.  Hans Blix wanted more time, and
                   I think the other member nations felt that Saddam had
                   been contained, and was coughing up more documentation.
                   \_ Hans Blix?  Idiot.  In 1998 when Clinton pulled them
                      they said they were 90-95% done and needed more time,
                      but did they get it?  No.  They didn't because Clinton
                      was wagging the dog so hard the dog flew off into the
                      gutter.  Clinton lobbed a few useless missiles in,
                      "Mission Accomplished!" and we could all forget about
                      his penis problems.  You think?  Not really.  Try some
                      history, then you'll have something to think about.  The
                      story predates your entry to college and political
                      awakening as a freshman at the feet of some leftist
                      Berkeley prof.
2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12007 Activity:very high 50%like:12375
1/29    Go go gadget http://rotten.com (work safe)
        http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam
        \_ Excellent roundup.  Not that it will change a single mind here or
           anywhere else.  Welcome to the United States of Clueless Nobodies
           And Polarized Axe Grinders!
        \_ Hey too bad you missed all the Clintonistas from 98 when the
           inspectors left to the day GWB took office saying Iraq had WMD and
           we were sure of it.  Some of us know our history further back than
           selective quotes from a handful of people we're trying to discredit.
2004/1/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12003 Activity:high
1/29    "I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.'
        Those were not words we used."
        - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 1/27/04
        "This is about an imminent threat."
        - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
        (I can give you whitehouse.gov urls if you like)
          \_ Actually, yes please.  URLp.
          \_ Older quote:
             http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html
             Newer quote:
             http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html
             \_ There's also plenty of other juicy quotes from McClellan and
                Rumsfeld like "mortal threat," "serious and mounting threat,"
                "immediate threat," "unique threat" etc. etc. etc.
          \_ until they retroactively change the press releases.  -tom
             \_ Do the internet archives track the white house?
                \_ Where/what are the "internet archives?"
                   \_ <DEAD>wayback.org<DEAD>. obGoogle
                    \_ whitehouse.gov set their pages to request no-archive,
                       after they were caught modifying press releases to
                       say "the end of major combat operations" instead of
                       "the end of combat operations."  -tom
                       \_ url ??
                          \_ http://csua.org/u/5ro (Washington Post)
          \_ Speaking of which, is there an official document I can examine
             which lists the reasons for war (i.e. causus belli)?  I just
             want to check that, in fact, the american people were mislead
             by being told that the primary reason for going to war were WMD.
           \_ The resolution to grant Bush authority to deal with Iraq:
              http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00023.htm
              This is as close to a statement of causus belli you will find.
              I have yet to find any transcripts of hearings/debate leading
              to it.  Any help on finding that would be appreciated. --scotsman
             \_ I think the best reference would be Powell's speech to the UN,
                which was really the only time the entire case for war was
                laid out comprehensively.  Of course, technically that wasn't
                addressed directly to the American people.
                \_ Right... hence my problem with the whole line of attack
                   against Bush.  I mean it might work politically, but the line
                   of reasoning seems, shall we say, a little suspect.
                   \_ Not really, its simply a technicality.  The imminent
                      threat of WMDs was always clearly the justification,
                      from the State of the Union address to numerous
                      discussions in the media (particularly from Cheney) to
                      press conferences etc. etc.  To argue that the President
                      is immune from attack simply because the case wasn't
                      presented formally is specious.  Also, the case WAS
                      presented formally to Congress, who (presumably)
                      represents the people.
                      \_ Not _the_ justification.  _A_ justification.  That's
                         the whole point!  What I keep hearing over, and over,
                         and over again is 'the president said WMD were the
                         primary reason for war.  There are no WMD.  Therefore
                         the war had no reason, and the president lied.'
                         This argument, as presented is simply false, because
                         there were multiple reasons presented in all cases,
                         and all of them, except possibly (but not necessarily)
                         the WMD one are valid still.
                         \_ It was the only justification that mattered.
                            "We're the good guys, they're evil, let's go
                            get em" might play in the Bible Belt but it wasn't
                            what got massive support behind the war.  What
                            got the support was Bush saying "mushroom cloud."
                            \_ It was?  Do you think even a large minority agrees
                               with you?  At any rate, there is a difference
                               between a 'primary' reason, which presumably is
                               the first reason listed in some official casus
                               belli document (maybe), and 'the only reason that
                               mattered', which, to put it mildly, is subject
                               to interpretation.
                               \_ Americans have never been shown to support
                                  wars for purely humanitarian reasons, and
                                  as Human Rights Watch has pointed out the
                                  Iraq war doesn't qualify as justified on those
                                  grounds alone.  So what other justification
                                  are you proposing?  The only one that I heard
                                  was that we were stopping an imminent threat
                                  to OUR country.  Anything else is just spin
                                  after the fact.
                                  \_ So let me get this straight.  The human
                                     shredders, the rape rooms, the mass gassings,
                                     the prisons for children, etc. etc. are not
                                     enough for the Human Rights Watch?  Or for
                                     you?  That's good to know...  Let's not
                                     forget Iraq's supposed connection to
                                     terrorists, which is certainly playing out
                                     prominently now.
                                   \_ What links to terrorists? Osama hated
                                      Hussein, and the foreign terrorists in
                                      Iraq now aren't blowing things up to
                                      bring back the Baathists.
                                      \_ Glad you have the inside terrorist
                                         scoop.  Our guys don't know that.  Can
                                         you please let them in on it and your
                                         information sources?
                                     \_ You can blather all you want about
                                        human rights violations, but much
                                        worse is perpetrated every day by
                                        Mobuto Sese Seku and we're doing
                                        absolutely nothing.  Fact is,
                                        humanitarian reasons don't convince
                                        the American public and they don't
                                        convince me.
                                        \_ You are using present tense, but
                                           Mobuto died in 1997.  Anyways, do you
                                           have a catalogue of his abuses so we
                                           can compare?  I am starting to think
                                           you are just trolling.  Bush was not
                                           even President then.
                                  \_ I wasn't aware Human Rights Watch speaks for
                                     this country or people.  I think we not only
                                     should have gone into Iraq but many other
                                     countries for HRVs over the years but I
                                     understand that real politik prevents that.
                                     When it doesn't we should do it.  BTW, did
                                     HRW 'point that out' before or after the
                                     war?  I'll bet it was before when they were
                                     generating fake estimates of 600,000 Iraqi
                                     civilian deaths from war and millions more
                                     from post-war starvation, disease, etc.
                           \_ The primary justification was that Hussein was an
                              imminent threat to the US. To bolster that argument,
                              the administration said that Iraq had WMD. It also
                              said that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda. The sum
                              total of this image that the Pres. sold to the
                              American people was that Hussein had planned the
                              WTC attack and was now about to hand nukes to the
                              same group that carried that attack out. The
                              evidence before and after did not support this
                              view. Did the Pres. out-and-out lie? I don't know.
                              Did he play on the fears of the American people to
                              force them to support his plan to invade Iraq? Yes.
                              Is the world (and Iraq) better off without Hussein
                              in power? Yes. Does that fringe benefit justify,
                              in retrospect, the Pres.'s decision to act
                              unilaterally? No. The same result could have been
                              \_ I don't think you have enough of a retrospect
                                 to speculate.  Wait 20 years or so.  Consider
                                 Lybia, for instance.
                              achieved through working with our former Coalition
                              partners. Would Coalition support have resulted in
                              a better handling of post-war Iraq? Yes.
                              \_ Please explain in what way we could have "worked
                                 with our former Coalition partners" such that
                                 SH would be tossed out of power and those mass
                                 graves would be unearthed.  The rest of your
                                 post is your unbacked and very biased opinion.
                                 I'm glad you have the motd to express your
                                 opinion but it's just your opinion at this
                                 point.
                                 \_ It goes like this: instead of rushing to
                                    invade, the Pres. keeps pursuing his case
                                    against Hussein in the Security Council. At
                                    the same time, he intros resolutions calling
                                    for greater monitoring of the human rights
                                    violations occurring in Iraq. He makes
                                    demands that the Security Council will see
                                    as reasonable but that Hussein will see as
                                    infuriating. Hussein refuses to cooperate
                                    with HRV inspectors, and the US turns this
                                    into a crusade to free the Iraqi people
                                    from a tyrant and mass-murderer. With the
                                    moral issue on our side _before_ the
                                    invasion, our former Coalition allies would
                                    either have to jump on board or risk
                                    appearing utterly callous. Within six
                                    months, we either have our invasion (and a
                                    damn good reason for it), or we have
                                    Hussein weakening his own position. The
                                    invasion of Iraq and the subsequent over-
                                    throw of its dictator is not the issue; how
                                    it was achieved and what the Pres. did to
                                    bully us into it is.
                                  \_ The problem with this is most of the SC
                                     doesn't give a flying fuck about HRVs and
                                     in at least one case, Russia, they were
                                     owed billions of dollars they needed very
                                     badly and weren't going to do anything
                                     to fuck that up.  I admire your idealism
                                     but the real world doesn't work like that.
                                     None of them gives a shit about appearing
                                     callous or anything else when there's big
                                     bucks and oil contracts on the line.
                                     \_ Why did Russia just agree to forgive
                                        the Iraqi debts then?
          \_ I'm glad we are all so shortsighted and quick to judge the Prez
             now, unlike b4 with Clinton. Pluz! If he said, he's a tyrant,
             and a magnet for terrorist, do you think that'd be enough reason
             to attack? No. Any answer you hear from him you won't accept, even
             though it was Clinton's policy for regime change.
             \_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles and kept up the sanctions.
                His policy was prudent.  He didn't send 150,000 troops into
                harms way and invade another country unilaterally when virtually
                all of our traditional allies disagreed with his justifications.
                By the way, you overwrote my post, dickhead.
                \_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles which let Bin Laden know
                   we could hear his phone calls and he immediately stopped
                   using easily tracked electronic communications after that.
                   Clinton, big dummyhead, threw away our best source of info on
                   Bin Laden to cover up his penis problems.
          \_ The problem with using this as a political attack on the President
             is the average voter will accept that the CIA fucked up.  It sure as
             hell wouldn't be the first time.  For example, the CIA was totally
             and completely taken off guard when the Berlin Wall fell and that
             sort of thing was their primary reason for existing.  Also, the UN
             agreed that Iraq had WMD and many foreign intelligence agencies also
             agreed so it isn't as if Bush & Cheney sat in a room and concocted
             some story.  It was accepted around the world as fact that Iraq had
             WMD.  The only dispute was what to do about it.  You can hang your
             political hopes on this one if you like but you'd be in the tiny
             minority that hates Bush so much that no matter what he says or does
             you'll find a reason to hate him.  The rest of the country just
             isn't like that.  Iraq just isn't the issue you think it is or want
             it to be and even if it was it still isn't a candidate killer.
             \_ The UN did not think that Iraq had WMD. Neither did the French
                or Germans. You are just repeating the same tired old lie.
              \_ Prove it.  URL.  The French were bought off.  What's your
                 excuse?  They didn't even pay you.
                 \_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm
      http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918spin.htm
                    Go ahead and try and prove that the "UN agreed that
                    Iraq had WMD." You will not be able to do it, because
                    they never said that. What is your excuse for continuing
                    to defend Bush's lies? Did they pay you off?
             \_ UN INSPECTORS WERE IN THE COUNTRY!  WE KICKED THEM OUT TO BOMB!
                Clearly, the containment policies the UN were pushing had been
                effective enough to decimate the programs they had.  The CIA
                should have known this.  The inspection teams were all but
                screaming it.  This is our fuckup, top down.  Now Bushco is
                trying to absolve itself, and doing a pretty poor job of it.
              \_ Bushco?  Who exactly kicked out the inspectors, genius?  I
                 don't recall Bush being in office at the time.  If you do,
                 then I want some of what you've been smoking.
                 \_ They came back in before the war, remember?  No, of course
                    not, just like you don't 'remember' the justifications
                    for invasion.
             \_ Its been clearly documented that there was heavy pressure on
                the CIA from the administration to produce intelligence that
                fit their preconceived notions.  Whether or not this pressure
                came directly from the President remains to be seen.  Its
                kind of amazing to me that people can be so blase about such
                a massive failure of government on every level to do the right
                thing.  Unfortunately, I highly doubt we will ever see an inquiry
                into this with our current Congress.
                \_Clearly documented?  Ok.  Where's the documents?  URL, please.
                   \_ Oh please.  This is so commonly known, you're just being
                      pedantic.  But if you must, here's a reprint of a relavant
                      WaPo article from 04 June 2003.  This should get you
                      started.  You're welcome.  And we all know how "liberal"
                      the WaPo is, ha ha.
                      http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603A.shtml
                      \_ I read your article.  It only says that Cheney visited
                         to ask about the info he was being given.  Some people
                         said they felt pressured by those visits, others said
                         they didn't and none of them claimed the pressure was
                         direct.  It's just what a few people felt.  You need to
                         read your own sources with a less biased eye.  Thanks.
                         \_ Bias?  You mean, common sense.  If you're a lowly
                            engineer at gigantic XYZ company, how would YOU
                            feel if the CEO of the company came into your office
                            and wanted to know exactly how each line of your
                            code was going to help him make money?  You might
                            feel some PRESSURE to produce RESULTS, wouldn't
                            you?  Don't be a dumbass.  There are plenty of
                            other sources that demonstrate the kind of pressure
                            that was applied, but digging them out again for
                            you will never convince you anyway so it doesn't
                            matter.  Even a transcript and full confession signed
                            in Cheney's blood would no doubt be ignored.
                          \_ So now we go from proof and clearly documented to
                             common sense?  I note you ignore the others who
                             said they felt zero pressure.  It would be better
                             if a major decision was taken without anyone ever
                             going back to ask the guys that produced the data
                             anything about it or for more details.  You're
                             real rocket scientist material.  Remember, we do
                             rockets in metric now.
                             \_ No, you accused me of bias, shitheel.  I was
                                explaining to your little rat-brain how
                                executive pressure works.  The article was
                                an example of something that is COMMON
                                KNOWLEDGE to everyone, right and left, except
                                for Pedantic Libertario-Nerds such as yourself.
                     \_ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
                        Great New Yorker article about how Cheney pressured
                        the intelligence community by Sy Hersh.
                      \_ The newyorker?  A source of info on the inside
                         working of the federal government?  Oh, please....
                         \_ Sy Hersh has more integrity in his little
                            fingernail than the entire Neocon cabal combined.
                     \_ Kennedy on the Office of Special Projects:
                        http://csua.org/u/5rn
                     \_ Amazon link to Weapons_Of_Mass_Distraction:
                        http://csua.org/u/5rp
        \_ Actually, yes please.  URLp.
        \_ Older quote:
           which lists the reasons for war (i.e. casus belli)?  I just
           http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html
           Newer quote:
           http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html
           \_ There's also plenty of other juicy quotes from McClellan and
              Rumsfeld like "mortal threat," "serious and mounting threat,"
              "immediate threat," "unique threat" etc. etc. etc.
        \_ until they retroactively change the press releases.  -tom
           \_ Do the internet archives track the white house?
              \_ Where/what are the "internet archives?"
                 \_ <DEAD>wayback.org<DEAD>. obGoogle
                    \_ whitehouse.gov set their pages to request no-archive,
                       after they were caught modifying press releases to
                       say "the end of major combat operations" instead of
                       "the end of combat operations."  -tom
        \_ Speaking of which, is there an official document I can examine
           which lists the reasons for war (i.e. causus belli)?  I just
           want to check that, in fact, the american people were mislead
           by being told that the primary reason for going to war were WMD.
           \_ The resolution to grant Bush authority to deal with Iraq:
              http://http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00023.htm
              This is as close to a statement of causus belli you will find.
              I have yet to find any transcripts of hearings/debate leading
              to it.  Any help on finding that would be appreciated. --scotsman
           \_ I think the best reference would be Powell's speech to the UN,
              which was really the only time the entire case for war was
              laid out comprehensively.  Of course, technically that wasn't
              addressed directly to the American people.
              \_ Right... hence my problem with the whole line of attack
                 against Bush.  I mean it might work politically, but the line
                 of reasoning seems, shall we say, a little suspect.
                 \_ Not really, its simply a technicality.  The imminent
                    threat of WMDs was always clearly the justification,
                    from the State of the Union address to numerous
                    discussions in the media (particularly from Cheney) to
                    press conferences etc. etc.  To argue that the President
                    is immune from attack simply because the case wasn't
                    presented formally is specious.  Also, the case WAS
                    presented formally to Congress, who (presumably)
                    represents the people.
                    \_ Not _the_ justification.  _A_ justification.  That's
                       the whole point!  What I keep hearing over, and over,
                       and over again is 'the president said WMD were the
                       primary reason for war.  There are no WMD.  Therefore
                       the war had no reason, and the president lied.'
                       This argument, as presented is simply false, because
                       there were multiple reasons presented in all cases,
                       and all of them, except possibly (but not necessarily)
                       the WMD one are valid still.
                       \_ It was the only justification that mattered.
                          "We're the good guys, they're evil, let's go
                          get em" might play in the Bible Belt but it wasn't
                          what got massive support behind the war.  What
                          got the support was Bush saying "mushroom cloud."
                          \_ It was?  Do you think even a large minority agrees
                             with you?  At any rate, there is a difference
                             between a 'primary' reason, which presumably is
                             the first reason listed in some official casus
                             belli document (maybe), and 'the only reason that
                             mattered', which, to put it mildly, is subject
                             to interpretation.
                             \_ Americans have never been shown to support
                                wars for purely humanitarian reasons, and
                                as Human Rights Watch has pointed out the
                                Iraq war doesn't qualify as justified on those
                                grounds alone.  So what other justification
                                are you proposing?  The only one that I heard
                                was that we were stopping an imminent threat
                                to OUR country.  Anything else is just spin
                                after the fact.
                                \_ So let me get this straight.  The human
                                   shredders, the rape rooms, the mass gassings,
                                   the prisons for children, etc. etc. are not
                                   enough for the Human Rights Watch?  Or for
                                   you?  That's good to know...  Let's not
                                   forget Iraq's supposed connection to
                                   terrorists, which is certainly playing out
                                   prominently now.
                                   \_ What links to terrorists? Osama hated
                                      Hussein, and the foreign terrorists in
                                      Iraq now aren't blowing things up to
                                      bring back the Baathists.
                                      \_ Glad you have the inside terrorist
                                         scoop.  Our guys don't know that.  Can
                                         you please let them in on it and your
                                         information sources?
                                   \_ You can blather all you want about
                                      human rights violations, but much
                                      worse is perpetrated every day by
                                      Mobuto Sese Seku and we're doing
                                      absolutely nothing.  Fact is,
                                      humanitarian reasons don't convince
                                      the American public and they don't
                                      convince me.
                                      \_ You are using present tense, but
                                         Mobuto died in 1997.  Anyways, do you
                                         have a catalogue of his abuses so we
                                         can compare?  I am starting to think
                                         you are just trolling.  Bush was not
                                         even President then.
                                \_ I wasn't aware Human Rights Watch speaks for
                                   this country or people.  I think we not only
                                   should have gone into Iraq but many other
                                   countries for HRVs over the years but I
                                   understand that real politik prevents that.
                                   When it doesn't we should do it.  BTW, did
                                   HRW 'point that out' before or after the
                                   war?  I'll bet it was before when they were
                                   generating fake estimates of 600,000 Iraqi
                                   civilian deaths from war and millions more
                                   from post-war starvation, disease, etc.
                         \_ The primary justification was that Hussein was an
                            imminent threat to the US. To bolster that argument,
                            the administration said that Iraq had WMD. It also
                            said that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda. The sum
                            total of this image that the Pres. sold to the
                            American people was that Hussein had planned the
                            WTC attack and was now about to hand nukes to the
                            same group that carried that attack out. The
                            evidence before and after did not support this
                            view. Did the Pres. out-and-out lie? I don't know.
                            Did he play on the fears of the American people to
                            force them to support his plan to invade Iraq? Yes.
                            Is the world (and Iraq) better off without Hussein
                            in power? Yes. Does that fringe benefit justify,
                            in retrospect, the Pres.'s decision to act
                            unilaterally? No. The same result could have been
                            \_ I don't think you have enough of a retrospect
                               to speculate.  Wait 20 years or so.  Consider
                               Lybia, for instance.
                            achieved through working with our former Coalition
                            partners. Would Coalition support have resulted in
                            a better handling of post-war Iraq? Yes.
                            \_ Please explain in what way we could have "worked
                               with our former Coalition partners" such that
                               SH would be tossed out of power and those mass
                               graves would be unearthed.  The rest of your
                               post is your unbacked and very biased opinion.
                               I'm glad you have the motd to express your
                               opinion but it's just your opinion at this
                               point.
                               \_ It goes like this: instead of rushing to
                                  invade, the Pres. keeps pursuing his case
                                  against Hussein in the Security Council. At
                                  the same time, he intros resolutions calling
                                  for greater monitoring of the human rights
                                  violations occurring in Iraq. He makes
                                  demands that the Security Council will see
                                  as reasonable but that Hussein will see as
                                  infuriating. Hussein refuses to cooperate
                                  with HRV inspectors, and the US turns this
                                  into a crusade to free the Iraqi people
                                  from a tyrant and mass-murderer. With the
                                  moral issue on our side _before_ the
                                  invasion, our former Coalition allies would
                                  either have to jump on board or risk
                                  appearing utterly callous. Within six
                                  months, we either have our invasion (and a
                                  damn good reason for it), or we have
                                  Hussein weakening his own position. The
                                  invasion of Iraq and the subsequent over-
                                  throw of its dictator is not the issue; how
                                  it was achieved and what the Pres. did to
                                  bully us into it is.
                                  \_ The problem with this is most of the SC
                                     doesn't give a flying fuck about HRVs and
                                     in at least one case, Russia, they were
                                     owed billions of dollars they needed very
                                     badly and weren't going to do anything
                                     to fuck that up.  I admire your idealism
                                     but the real world doesn't work like that.
                                     None of them gives a shit about appearing
                                     callous or anything else when there's big
                                     bucks and oil contracts on the line.
        \_ I'm glad we are all so shortsighted and quick to judge the Prez
           now, unlike b4 with Clinton. Pluz! If he said, he's a tyrant,
           and a magnet for terrorist, do you think that'd be enough reason
           to attack? No. Any answer you hear from him you won't accept, even
           though it was Clinton's policy for regime change.
           \_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles and kept up the sanctions.
              His policy was prudent.  He didn't send 150,000 troops into
              harms way and invade another country unilaterally when virtually
              all of our traditional allies disagreed with his justifications.
              By the way, you overwrote my post, dickhead.
              \_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles which let Bin Laden know
                 we could hear his phone calls and he immediately stopped
                 using easily tracked electronic communications after that.
                 Clinton, big dummyhead, threw away our best source of info on
                 Bin Laden to cover up his penis problems.
        \_ The problem with using this as a political attack on the President
           is the average voter will accept that the CIA fucked up.  It sure as
           hell wouldn't be the first time.  For example, the CIA was totally
           and completely taken off guard when the Berlin Wall fell and that
           sort of thing was their primary reason for existing.  Also, the UN
           agreed that Iraq had WMD and many foreign intelligence agencies also
           agreed so it isn't as if Bush & Cheney sat in a room and concocted
           some story.  It was accepted around the world as fact that Iraq had
           WMD.  The only dispute was what to do about it.  You can hang your
           political hopes on this one if you like but you'd be in the tiny
           minority that hates Bush so much that no matter what he says or does
           you'll find a reason to hate him.  The rest of the country just
           isn't like that.  Iraq just isn't the issue you think it is or want
           it to be and even if it was it still isn't a candidate killer.
           \_ The UN did not think that Iraq had WMD. Neither did the French
              or Germans. You are just repeating the same tired old lie.
              \_ Prove it.  URL.  The French were bought off.  What's your
                 excuse?  They didn't even pay you.
           \_ UN INSPECTORS WERE IN THE COUNTRY!  WE KICKED THEM OUT TO BOMB!
              Clearly, the containment policies the UN were pushing had been
              effective enough to decimate the programs they had.  The CIA
              should have known this.  The inspection teams were all but
              screaming it.  This is our fuckup, top down.  Now Bushco is
              trying to absolve itself, and doing a pretty poor job of it.
              \_ Bushco?  Who exactly kicked out the inspectors, genius?  I
                 don't recall Bush being in office at the time.  If you do,
                 then I want some of what you've been smoking.
                 \_ They came back in before the war, remember?  No, of course
                    not, just like you don't 'remember' the justifications
                    for invasion.
           \_ Its been clearly documented that there was heavy pressure on
              the CIA from the administration to produce intelligence that
              fit their preconceived notions.  Whether or not this pressure
              came directly from the President remains to be seen.  Its
              kind of amazing to me that people can be so blase about such
              a massive failure of government on every level to do the right
              thing.  Unfortunately, I highly doubt we will ever see an inquiry
              into this with our current Congress.
              \_ Clearly documented?  Ok.  Where's the documents?  URL, please.
                 \_ Oh please.  This is so commonly known, you're just being
                    pedantic.  But if you must, here's a reprint of a relavant
                    WaPo article from 04 June 2003.  This should get you
                    started.  You're welcome.  And we all know how "liberal"
                    the WaPo is, ha ha.
                    http://http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603A.shtml
                    \_ I read your article.  It only says that Cheney visited
                       to ask about the info he was being given.  Some people
                       said they felt pressured by those visits, others said
                       they didn't and none of them claimed the pressure was
                       direct.  It's just what a few people felt.  You need to
                       read your own sources with a less biased eye.  Thanks.
                       \_ Bias?  You mean, common sense.  If you're a lowly
                          engineer at gigantic XYZ company, how would YOU
                          feel if the CEO of the company came into your office
                          and wanted to know exactly how each line of your
                          code was going to help him make money?  You might
                          feel some PRESSURE to produce RESULTS, wouldn't
                          you?  Don't be a dumbass.  There are plenty of
                          other sources that demonstrate the kind of pressure
                          that was applied, but digging them out again for
                          you will never convince you anyway so it doesn't
                          matter.  Even a transcript and full confession signed
                          in Cheney's blood would no doubt be ignored.
                          \_ So now we go from proof and clearly documented to
                             common sense?  I note you ignore the others who
                             said they felt zero pressure.  It would be better
                             if a major decision was taken without anyone ever
                             going back to ask the guys that produced the data
                             anything about it or for more details.  You're
                             real rocket scientist material.  Remember, we do
                             rockets in metric now.
                             \_ No, you accused me of bias, shitheel.  I was
                                explaining to your little rat-brain how
                                executive pressure works.  The article was
                                an example of something that is COMMON
                                KNOWLEDGE to everyone, right and left, except
                                for Pedantic Libertario-Nerds such as yourself.
                   \_ http://http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
                      Great New Yorker article about how Cheney pressured
                      the intelligence community by Sy Hersh.
                      \_ The newyorker?  A source of info on the inside
                         working of the federal government?  Oh, please....
2004/1/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11930 Activity:nil
1/25    DK says WMD stuff went to Syria:
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
2004/1/23-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11911 Activity:nil
1/23    Kay gives up the search for the mythical WMD,
        admits that they probably never existed:
        http://csua.org/u/5oa
        \_ Yeah, I am sure that's the end of it.
        \_ Already, the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass
           destruction-related program activities and significant amounts
           of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.
           - Dubya 2004 State of the Union
           \_ Yay, SOTU!  It's like campaigning, only no one calls you on
              your lies!
              \_ Yeah, after last year I was expecting some real whoppers.
                 I didn't hear any obvious lies this year, though. Did you?
              \_ well, I wouldn't say the statement was a lie.  look at
                 the words he uses.
                 \_ I love how it went from WMD, to WMD programs, to
                    WMD related program activities. Orwell would be proud.
                    \_ A WMD Program-Related Activity would be writing a memo
                       saying "Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have some WMDs?"
        \_ Read unspinned statements direct from David Kay
           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1063926/posts?page=21#21
           \_ "unspinned" [sic]?  On Fox News?  Look at the intro and the
              first question--the whole interview is slanted.
                \_ how do you slant an interview - he either said the
                   words or didn't.  Are you implying the
                   transcript is false?
                   \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
                      \_ "I have never beat my wife" is a fair answer in an
                         interview.  You think D.K. is an idiot and was some
                         how entrapped by the Evil Fox News interviewer?  This
                         isn't grade school and he's no grade schooler.  He
                         said what he said.
                         \_ He's a Republican lap dog given leading questions
                            by a right-wing propaganda machine posing as
                            a news program.  It's all spin.
                            \_ That's ok.  CNN will rescue us from the clutches
                               of spin and bias.
                            \_ Then it wasn't at all "beating your wife"
                               questions?  Then why say it was?  Why do you
                               care at all what is in any of his reports or
                               anything he does?  If he's a (R) lapdog then
                               he should be out there planting evidence so you
                               tin-foil hat types can continue salivating.
                               \_ I'll use small words, so you have some chance
                                  of understanding.  I was responding to the
                                  question, "how do you slant an interview?"
                                  with a typical example of a leading question
                                  designed to slant an interview.  The
                                  questions given by Snow were not attempts to
                                  put Kay on the defensive; rather, they're
                                  attempts to get him to defend the
                                  administration's position.
                                  As for your last sentence, there's a big
                                  difference between going on TV because the
                                  party machine told you to toe the line, and
                                  falsifying evidence.
                                  \_ I'll use small words, so you have some
                                     very small chance to understand.  It
                                     doesn't matter what the interviewer asks.
                                     It doesn't matter how.  It never does. Tv
                                     interviews exist so the subject has the
                                     opportunity to spew forth whatever their
                                     views are on whatever the subject wants to
                                     talk about, not the interviewer.  This is
                                     true for political, entertainment, sports
                                     and all other standard Tv interviews.  In
                                     the next class, we'll be discussing how
                                     you can post to the motd without looking
                                     like the ignorant tinfoil hat wearing slut
                                     you are.
                                     \_ right...that's why the Michael Moore
                                        interview of Charleton Heston had the
                                        same message as Fox News interviews
                                        do.
                                        \_ MM isn't an interviewer.  He's a
                                           political figure with an axe to
                                           grind.  I shouldn't have to explain
                                           that MM doesn't make any bones about
                                           being a leftist or pretend to be
                                           neutral in any way.  Why do you even
                                           bother mentioning MM as if he was
                                           anything else?  Do you really
                                           seriously see him as a journalist??
2004/1/23-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11908 Activity:high
1/23    US fought the first Gulf War to help Kuwait defend its sovereignty.
        So how come US can continue to violate Iraq's sovereignty given that
        it has found no evidence of WMD or terrorist activities?
        \_ It's never about sovereignty, son.  The first golf war was to
           prevent Iraq control 36% of world's total oil output.  We never
           cared about Kuwaiti people, nor does the Kuwaiti Royal Family
           for that matter.
           \_ That is just one factor.  The first gulf war is when
              international law, people of Kuwait's interest, and US's
              interest are in alignment.  Unfortunately, in the second
              gulf war, international law is not our our side, and
              whether it's in the US's interest and whether it's in the
              people of Iraq's interest are highly debatable.  It is in
              the Bush admin's interest though.  You have much to learn, boy.
              \_ "international law was not on our side".  since there is no
                 such thing, it is hard to say if it was or not.  there are
                 competing views on this point from reliable people on both
                 sides of this.  The 2nd GW was certainly in the Iraqi people's
                 interests as long as you're not one of the Sunnis who was
                 getting along just fine at the expense of the Shiites and
                 Kurds.  You mave much to learn, son.
                 \_ Why don't you ask Pentagon hawk, Richard Perle, who said:
                    "I think in this case international law stood in the
                    way of doing the right thing."  As for the existence
                    of international laws, try <DEAD>www.un.com<DEAD> -> english ->
                    international laws.  Even Perle understood that there
                    are international laws and the US invasion of Iraq is
                    illegal.  As for whether it is "doing the right
                    thing", it's highly debatable.  You have much to
                    learn, boy.
                    \_ I thought I'd replied to this, but I guess not since it
                       was the same as the rest.  1) Richard Perle doesn't
                       speak for me or anyone else important.  2) As I said
                       every other time you bring up this nonsense, if there
                       is no enforcement there is no law.  And slapping "boy"
                       at the end of your posts doesn't add anything to your
                       case.  You're still naive and ignorant even though you
                       pretend otherwise.  After a dozen times we've gone over
                       this you are still incapable of telling me how those
                       "international laws" get enforced.  Because they don't
                       and can't be.  No enforcement = no law.  I should just
                       save this to a file and paste it back in everytime your
                       silly little ass comes on here with worthless URLs to
                       the UN website.  You never have anything new to say
                       because there's nothing more you can say.  There's no
                       international law.  There are a *lot* of international
                       suggestions, hints, and advice.
                       \_ Well you did reply to it, at least you tried.
                          No, law is law.  Enforcement is enforcement.
                          If say commie China invaded some small country
                          on its border today, it broke international law
                          irregardless of whether anyone dared to send an
                          army to chase it out.  Your silly ass no perfect
                          enforcement means no law argument is bogus.
                          As for slapping "boy", it's just to counter the
                          use of "son". Your protest against my use of
                          "boy" without also mentioning the use of "son"
                          thus exposes you again as the hypocritical
                          silly ass that you are.
                          \_ Nice try at a back handed compliment on line one.
                             I only used 'son' to show you how stupid you look
                             putting "boy" on the end of every one of your
                             cut'n'paste posts.  As far as the actual topic
                             goes: China would not be in violation of anything
                             if they were to invade a neighbor.  Law without
                             any enforcement mechanism is silly.  It's the
                             same idea as when Bush gets attacked for making
                             the "No Child Left Behind" act but not putting
                             any funding into it.  There's no reason to respect
                             a "law" which has no enforcement mechanism.  If
                             you'd like to say "oh boo hoo! the law was broken,
                             woe unto the the earth and all peace loving good
                             peoples!" go right ahead, it doesn't matter what
                             you whine about who 'broke' what pseudo-law when
                             there's nothing anyone can or will do about it,
                             especially when your 'laws' are, at best, just a
                             list of rules countries are supposed to more or
                             less follow BY AGREEMENT, and there's nothing in
                             any of your 'laws' which says what the punishment
                             shall be for a violation.  There's no internatn'l
                             legal system, no police, no judges, no cops, no
                             nothing anyone can or would do to even a second
                             rate nation, such as France, much less to a Hyper
                             Super Power like the U.S.  It's silly and naive to
                             talk about violations like that.  The obvious
                             response is always, "So what?  Go do something
                             about it".  And the fact that no one can, would,
                             or even wants to is what makes International Law
                             and the violation of said myth the farce that it
                             is.
                 \_ the only "competing view" is GW supporters in the US.
                    Everone else in the world knows US broke international
                    law.
        \_ You're right.  We should just walk away and let it fall to total
           anarchy.  Then assholes like you would be here saying "why did
           we leave the poor Iraqis to their fate?  We should have stayed
           and helped them!"  Have a cookie, troll.
           \_ the sad thing is I don't think the poster intended it as a troll
              \_ It is not a troll but a lead to raise additional questions.
                 And yes, you need to think more before feeling sad.
                 \_ okay, so your post was written to raise additional
           \_ [ expression of sadness noted ]
                    questions.  I've thought about it more, and I still think
                    it's sad.  To each their own, I guess.
                    \_ um, whatever
           \_ Assholes like you should learn to stop putting words into
              other people's mouth.
              \_ blah blah blah, heard it all before.  when you hate the man
                 so much it doesn't matter what he does or says you can still
                 put them there.
                 find fault and make him into hitler if you like and feel good
                 about yourself doing so.  the words were there.  no one else
                 put them there.
                 \_ I know you have an irrational hatred for Clinton, so you
                    project that onto others.  You need to grow up.
                       \_ Just tell me one thing: what makes you spill
                          the drivel about hating "the man" when the
                          original poster mentioned nothing about it?  Where
                          did you get the juvenile belief that anyone who
                          questions the Iraq war has to be a hater of
                          Bush?
                          \_ What about those of us who support the Iraq war,
                             but hate Bush for other reasons?
                             \_ It can't be.  If you support the war then
                                you're a fascist (R) and love Bush.  If you
                                hate Bush and the evil fascist (R)s then you
                                are opposed to the war to your core.  There
                                is no middle ground in leftist politics.
                          \_ From reading the motd everyday.  Where'd you get
                             the opposite idea?
                             \_ all the more reason for you to be less
                                presumptuous instead of contributing to
                                the idiocy.
                                \_ Uhm, what?  We're on the motd, so I'm
                                   perfectly in context.
              other people's mouth.
                 put them there.
                 \_ I know you have an irrational hate for Clinton, so you
                 \_ I know you have an irrational hatred for Clinton, so you
                    project that onto others.  You need to grow up.
                    \_ You don't know any such thing.  I have no hatred for
                       Clinton or anyone else.  He's just another scumbag
                       politician no different than the rest.  My original
                       point remains: the poster is a hypocrite and a troll
                       and you've done nothing to refute that in any way.
           \_ So you are saying that any country can invade any other
              country by first making false accusations, then invading,
              and then saying that they have to stay because if they leave,
              since they already destroyed the former regime and its
                 \_ That's the point.  Us broke international law, and
                    the reason for the war turned out to be based on a lie
                    and has to be changed to "regime change".  If WMD or
                    terrorists were found, even if democracy and peace
                    failed, the war would still be justified.  Now, we have
                    20000 Iraqis dead, 500 US soldier killed, thousands of
                    US soldiers injured, hundreds of bilions of dollars
                    spent, thousands of Iraqis homes and property destroyed,
                    and still no WMD.  If we can find WMD or at the very
                    least have a UN mandate, these losses would be
                    justified, but without them, now it boils down to
                    the only justification left - whether we can build a
                    peaceful and democratic Iraq.  All the more reason to
                    put pressure on the administration to do the right
                    thing instead of throwing Iraqi people's money to
                    the admin's business and defense cronies.  Take this
                    Ayatollah Sistani problem.  If WMD has been found, t
                    his would be a much smaller problem, but now that
                    the whole basis of the invasion rests on regime
                    change, and helping the oppressed Shiites, and now
                    you have this Sistani mullah whom all the Shiites
                    seem to adore, and he's ignoring Bremer and
                    calling for direct elections, there is
                    very little one can do except try to placate him.
                    I hope things turned out well, not because of, but
                    in spite of.
                    \_ Not finding WMD doesn't make it any harder to clean
                       up after.  It's still a very difficult thing.  And as
                       far as "justifying" all those deaths, lost homes, and
                       general mayhem in Iraq goes, I don't think the average
                       Iraqi gives a flying fuck about your "justifications".
                       That's Western White Boy think.  If we rolled in and
                       found a ton of anthrax on every street corner those
                       Iraqis would still be dead, injured, homeless, etc, and
                       not at all agree with your "justification" theory and
                       be just as pissed off that we're there.  Sistani would
                       still be there as before and we'd still have the same
                       mess to clean up.  It would just be harder, not easier,
                       because of the resources we'd have to divert to WMD
                       clean up.  You can't justify the loss of family and
                       home to anyone on the receiving end of that loss.
                       You're so fucking colonial it makes me ill.
                       \_ Your fucking underestimation of the people of
                          Iraq makes me sick.  Iraqis can think and they
                          watch and read the news, and they see the Bush
                          admin caught in lies about WMD, constantly
                          change its justification for the war, and
                          inability to find any WMD.  They also read news
                          about how Bush admin gives fat contracts to
                          its cronies led companies using Iraqi money and
                          oil to pay for these.  You think all these make
                          no difference to the Iraqis?  Are you that
                          naive or are you just plain dumb?
                          \_ Who said the Iraqis aren't smart?  I never said
                             any such thing.  Go back and *READ* what I said,
                             not what you wish I'd said.  I'll repeat: the
                             average Iraqi who lost a family member or home or
                             whatever doesn't give a flying fuck if there were
                             WMD or not.  They don't give a flying fuck that
                             Bush is handing contracts to his buddies or not.
                             They don't give a flying fuck about the whether
                             the war was "just" or not.  Those are your
                             Western White Boy concerns.  They only care that
                             their family member is dead, their house blown up,
                             or their business destroyed and no amount of
                             Western justification for the invasion will change
                             that.  If it was your house that got blown up and
                             2 tons of anthrax was found next door the day
                             after you'd still be pissed off your house was
                             blown up no matter how "justified" some white boy
                             in the US thinks it was.
           \_ So you are saying that any country can invade any other
              country by first making false accusations, then invading,
              and then saying that they have to stay because if they leave,
              since they already destroyed the former regime and its
              institutions, there will be chaos?
                    \_ Bush says:  That's a CIA failure.
              institutions, there will be chaos?
              \_ Whatever the quality of the reason for invading, walking out
                 now would be a case of two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right.  If
                 you broke the cookie jar you should at least help buy new
                 cookies and some elmer's glue.  There's no relationship
                 between whether or not invading was right and what we should
                 do now that we have.  The fact is we did invade and now have
                 a moral responsibility to clean up the mess we made.  You
                 seem to think that we only owe the Iraqi people something if
                 we had found tons of WMD.  That makes no sense to me.
              \_ 10 years of Resolutions are false accussations?
                 \_ Where is the WMD then?
                    \_ Bush says:  That's a CIA failure.
                       \_ Are you trying to make him look bad?
                          \_ No, that's the genuine administration position.
                 \_ And if you want to talk about UN resolutions, no, US
                    did not obtain a UN resolution to invade
                    Iraq.  There are many UN resolutions condemning
                    Israel.  That doesn't mean other countries have
                    the right to invade Israel.
                    \_ Bush says:  An earlier resolution made the war legal.
                       \_ Only problem was Bush tried to obtain a UN mandate
                          for war but had to withdraw.  That shows that the
                          earlier resolution doesn't stand.
                          \_ Bush says:  The earlier resolution still made
                             it legal; the new resolution was a chance to
                             show Saddam that the world was united in
                             opposition.
                            \_ earlier resolution says "severe consequences".
                               analogy would be a law that says it is
                               illegal to possess marijuana and anyone
                               found in possession of marijuana would face
                               "legal consequences".  this doesn't give
                               john doe off the street the right to kill
                               someone found in possession of marijuana.
                               To determine what the consequences should be
                               one should go back to the institution issuing
                               the law (UN in this case).
                               \_ the US isn't john doe off the street and
                                  'legal' is not the same as 'severe'.  did
                                  you think the original un resolution that
                                  said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
                                        \_ Try http://www.un.org -> English ->
                                           International Laws.  Who enforces
                                           it?  Member nations through UN
                                           mandate of course.  You prefer
                                           throwing away international laws
                                           and going back to genghis khan era?
                                           \_ "member nations through UN
                                               mandate".  bullshit.  So you
                                              claim the US is in violation of
                                              UN/international law.  Why is
                                              there no enforcement?  Why aren't
                                              all the member states enforcing
                                              their will upon the US?  The law
                                              is the law and must be applied
                                              equally to all.  If any are
                                              above the law or there is no
                                              enforcement the law doesn't exist
                                              as such and becomes a mild
                                              suggestion at best.  We're still
                                              in the Khan era.  We never left
                                              it.  When did World Peace
                                              suddenly strike the planet?  What
                                              year did the Age of Enlightenment
                                              begin?
                                              \_ [I knew this one would go
                                                  unanswered.  Score one for
                                                  the "international law is
                                                  bullshit" side]
                                                  \_ No actually I just
                                                     feel that it's so
                                                     stupid it doesn't
                                                     deserve to be answered.
                                                     This guy can't even
                                                     distinguish between
                                                     law and its enforcement.
                                                     See above example
                                                     about scenario where
                                                     commie China invades
                                                     a small country.
                                                     \_ Been there, done that
                                                        and answered it a
                                                        number of times.  You
                                                        just prefer to change
                                                        the words around and
                                                        reply to your own words
                                                        that you put in my
                                                        mouth instead of what
                                                        was there on screen.
                    \_ Bush says:  An earlier resolution made the war legal.
                               one should go back to the institution issuing
                               the law (UN in this case).
                                  you think the original un resolution that
                                  said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
                                  said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
                                  on you in the international courts!"?
                                  on you in the international courts!"?
                                  \_ it's an UN resolution, so go back to
                                     UN to decide what it means.  otherwise,
                                  on you in the international courts!"?
                                  \_ it's an UN resolution, so go back to
                                     admit that you are breaking international
                                     law.
                                     UN to decide what it means.  otherwise,
                                     admit that you are breaking international
                                     law.
                                     \_ if there was a real thing called
                                        international law then maybe it could
                                        be broken.  if you have to go back and
                                        'ask' 10 years later what was really
                                        meant by something then the whole
                                        process is a farce anyway and it really
                                        doesn't matter.  tell me, who exactly
                                        enforces this 'international law' you
                                        speak so highly of?  where can i go
                                        and read the laws and the consequences
                                        for breaking them?
           \_ Just to stick up for those opposed to the war: not all of us are
              saying get out of Iraq; we merely don't trust the current
              administration to do the right thing while there.  We never
              should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
              \_ A fair position.  Question: if Gore was in office, what do
                 you think he would have done post 9/11 with Al Qaeda, Iraq,
                 Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc?
                 Were you also opposed to what happened in Afghanistan?
                 \_ [ Bad idea. ]
                 \_ I am not the first guy, but I agree with him. We need
                    to clean up what we broke in Iraq. I was in favor of the
                             \_ Either way will do.  The Jews need more
                                living space.
                           the nasty selfperpetuating evil it's mired in now.
                       Now, realistically, how likely are one of these two to
                    invasion of Afghanistan. I think Gore would have invaded
                    Afgahnistan and then called it a day. He probably
                    would have tried to continue the Clinton peace process
                             \_ Nah, despite all the wars and killings,
                                Israel is the peace loving nation, once it
                                has attained its rightful King Solomon era
                                Greater Israel size and thrown all the
                                Palestinians out.  Jews need more living
                                space than present day Israel.
                                \_ not really.  we should just let the arabs
                                   kill them all and then we wouldnt have to
                                   worry about it.
                    in Palestine and Israel, which was making some progress
                    unlike "The Roadmap." -Motd Liberal
                    \_ There is no realistic chance of peace in the Middle
                       East.  Here is how it could happen:
                       (1) Israel is nuked, or otherwise destroyed, and never
                           rises up again.
                       (2) The palestinian society/culture/infrastructure
                           is irrevocably broken and rebuilt again without
                           the nasty selfperpetuating evil it's mired in now.
                       Now, realistically, how likely are one of these two to
                       happen?  What will probably happen is, Israel will wall
                       itself off and try to live as a besieged state.
                       Palestinians will continue to blow themselves up and
                       train their children to do the same, and everyone will
                       go on their merry (?) way.
                       \_ nah, the likely outcome is Israel will bring
                          in more and more settlers, and expand with
                          more and more settlements until it reaches its
                          size during King Solomon's times, and all
                          Palestinians are thrown out of Greater Israel.
                          \_ Possibly but I think it won't happen due to the
                             increase in settlements but yet another Arab
                             inspired war and this time the Israelis will just
                             push them all out and be done with it like they
                             started but wimped out on doing 50+ years ago.
                       \_ Genocide.  The Palestinians want genocide, and
                          eventually they are going to get it.
                          \_ The palestinian nation is a peace loving nation
                             and if only the Jews would just jump in the ocean
                             and all die we could finally have peace in the ME.
                        \_ People once thought the same thing about
                           Ireland.  While things are still somewhat bad
                           there, they do credit Clinton with bringing
                           people closer to compromise.  There can be
                           peace in Israel/Palestine; it just takes the
                           right time, the right man, and the right
                           motivation.  Bush's policies have set back that
                           possibility a great deal.
                           \_ The Ireland situation was different.  You had a
                              different kind of rebel there and it didn't
                              infect the entire Irish culture.  Irish mothers
                              \_ What do you mean it can't be fixed?  If
                                 we can fix Kurds, Shiite and Sunnis in
                                 Iraq, we can fix Jews and Palestinians in
                                 Palestine/Israel.  Just send in the marines,
                                 and force these quarrelsome shemites to learn
                                 to live together peacefully or be shot.
                                 \_ Start shooting arabs then.
                              didn't blow themselves up and leave tapes behind
                              saying they did it because they loved their
                              children.  Nor did they send their children off
                              to blow themselves up in discos and pizza parlors
                              \_ oh boo hoo!  if only we understood and
                                 accepted their differences as a people then
                                 we could all just get along!  The willful
                                 blindness and naivete of some is TRULY
                                 astounding.
                              \_ Eh.  In some sense I don't _care_ what
                                 exactly goes on in their heads.  Do I care why
                                 a serial killer kills?  Why should I care why
                                 a serial killer nation kills?  I just want to
                                 put the serial killer away to pay back his
                                 debt to his victims.  There is no excuse to
                                 be found in palestinians' heads for what they
                                 are doing.  It's simply wrong and evil.
                                 \_ SOrry, guess my statement was unclear.
                                    I was trying to say, the Palestinians
                                    (and most arabs) will simply ignore
                                    overwhelming evidence that contradicts
                                    what they wish to believe.  It's in
                                    the religion.  I should tell the story
                                    about the guy who refused to believe
                                    California is bigger than Azerbaijan.
                                    Basically, people who belive peace is
                                    possiable with those people don't have
                                    any idea what they're talking about.
                                 \_ Yeah those people are inscrutable.
                                    They cannot be understood.  Their thinking
                                    process is alien to us.  They are like
                                    serial killers.  Their culture is evil.
                                    They are not normal humans.  In fact,
                                    they can't even be called humans.  They
                                    are more like rats.  They should be
                                    exterminated.  We should burn
                                    them so normal humans like us Jews can
                                    have more living space.  long live
                                    Greater Israel!
                                    \_ They may very well be understandable.
                                       But they don't deserve to be understood,
                                       much like any serial killer.  The
                                       palestinians have a serial killer
                                       culture.
                                    \_ Pick up an English language arab
                                       newspaper or read them on the net.  Then
                                       come back here and tell us how peaceful
                                       and loving and understanding and how
                                       if only the Jews would just give up a
                                       few more square miles here, and there,
                                       and everywhere, peace would be at hand.
                                       Your ignorance is almost painful but
                                       you do the Berkeley hippy long haired
                                       PC leftist thing really well.  Give
                                       peace a chance!  Think locally, act
                                       globally!  Everyone just wants love!
                                       \_ Well, Israel has never stopped the
                                          continuation of the process. With
                                          settlers and ongoing miserable
                                          conditions in the territories, it's
                                          not credible to say they would always
                                          have been the same way. The ones that
                                          went to Jordan seemed to be able to
                                          lead normal lives. Leaving those
                                          camps there for all those years was
                                          a mistake either way.
                                          \_ Jordan?  Yeah the ones who went to
                                             Jordan lived nice normal lives
                                             after tens of thousands got
                                             butchered on that side of the
                                             border by their fellow Arabs.  If
                                             you don't know the history of the
                                             area you really should take 5-10
                                             minutes to read a summary online
                                             before sharing your opinions here.
                                             The mistake Israel made is they
                                             started to kick out the Arabs 50
                                             years ago but chickened out and
                                             didn't finish the process.  That
                                             left them with a few million
                                             really pissed off Arabs inside
                                             their borders which is the worst
                                             situation possible for all sides.
                                             Israel will eventually either lose
                                             a war or be overwhelmed by it's
                                             internal Arab population and then
                                             be no more.  The only other option
                                             that exists for Israel to survive
                                             beyond the next 20 years is a war
                                             that they win which has to be
                                             started by the Arabs so the
                                             international community types are
                                             appeased which then leads to
                                             them kicking out the 5th column
                                             Arabs inside the borders now.  I
                                             don't see any other paths that
                                             lead to anything other than the
                                             complete destruction of Israel
                                             and genocide inflicted upon the
                                             Jews by the Arabs.  At least maybe
                                             someone will pass a UN resolution
                                             asking them to please stop or
                                             something.  See the Tutsis for
                                             how that turned out.
                                             \_ Why do you believe that the
                                                Israelis have the right to
                                                kick the Arabs out 50 years
                                                ago?  The Arabs didn't kick
                                                the Jews out during the
                                                hundreds years during which
                                                they ruled the region.
                           I never said they had the right.  I said what   _/
                           should have done and that what they did was a huge
                           mistake.  The Arabs are on that land all the way
                           through North Africa and elsewhere because they
                           waged a bloody war of conquest to take it from the
                           previous owners.  I don't see you crying about
                           them.  And yes, the Arabs *did* kick out Jews from
                           all over the ME and took their property as well,
                           but there's a long history of that through the
                           ages, so it must be ok.  They're just Jews.
                           You said they left "a few million really pissed _/
                           off Arabs inside their borders". Well, the only
                           real problems have been from the ones who have
                           have been under occupation in fenced camps, while
                           over time a lot of land grabs and other injustices
                           have been inflicted on them. I say again, it's just
                           not credible to wilfully ignore that and pretend
                           there was no other way to deal with the territories.
                           It was done out of militarily strategic concerns,
                           with an eye to the other Arab states. But that does
                           not mean it was the only option.
                           \_ Fenced camps?  You've never seen the "camps"
                              which btw are supposed to be weapons free as
                              guaranteed by the UN which is supposed to be
                              running them until such time as the people can
                              be found living space in other Arab nations but
                              we know none of that ever happened, including
                              your illusionary fences.  I do agree and said so
                              before that the push was for military/strategic
                              reasons.  There's no crime there.
              saying get out of Iraq; we merely don't trust the current
              administration to do the right thing while there.  We never
              should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
              administration to do the right thing while there.  We never
              should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
              \_ A fair position.  Question: if Gore was in office, what do
                 you think he would have done post 9/11 with Al Qaeda, Iraq,
                 Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc?
                 Were you also opposed to what happened in Afghanistan?
                       happen?  What will probably happen is, Israel will wall
                       itself off and try to live as a besieged state.
                       Palestinians will continue to blow themselves up and
                       train their children to do the same, and everyone will
                       go on their merry (?) way.
                       \_ nah, the likely outcome is Israel will bring
                          in more and more settlers, and expand with
                          more and more settlements until it reaches its
                          size during King Solomon's times, and all
                          Palestinians are thrown out of Greater Israel.
                       \_ Genocide.  The Palestinians want genocide, and
                          eventually they are going to get it.
                              in the name of anything and say on TV how proud
                              they are afterwards.  Golda said there won't be
                              peace until palestinian mothers love their
                              children more than they hate jews.  She was
                              right 40 years ago and it's still true today
                              and for the future.  The palestinian 'culture'
                              is just broken.  The few people that were in
                              favor of peace were executed by Arafat as
                              'collaborators' when he came back from exile in
                              Tunis.  Never bargain with terrorists.  Letting
                              Arafat back in and giving him some form of
                              credibility was the worst possible mistake for
                              both Israel and the Palestinians who wanted a
                              nation and a real life and peace.  Not until
                              Afarat is dead and forgotten can anything
                              positive happen.  Bush, Clinton, etc, don't
                              stand a chance.  I find it shocking that you'd
                              say Clinton was making progress when in fact he
                              had already given up long before his term was
                              over.  Bush only got involved because he was
                              pressured into it and wasn't all that serious
                              about it.  This is one of those things we should
                              not bother with until there's a local change of
                              some sort.  It can't be fixed from the outside
                              and it is sheer American ignorance and arrogance
                              in the best colonial sense that says otherwise.
                           \_ It's amazing how so many people claim to
                              "understand" the minds of the palestinians,
                              when the really have no idea.  The willful
                              ignorance ALONE is astounding.
                              \_ oh boo hoo!  if only we understood and
                                 accepted their differences as a people then
                                 we could all just get along!  The willful
                                 blindness and naivete of some is TRULY
                                 astounding.
                              \_ Eh.  In some sense I don't _care_ what
                                 exactly goes on in their heads.  Do I care why
                                 a serial killer kills?  Why should I care why
                                 a serial killer nation kills?  I just want to
                                 put the serial killer away to pay back his
                                 debt to his victims.  There is no excuse to
                                 be found in palestinians' heads for what they
                                 are doing.  It's simply wrong and evil.
                                 \_ SOrry, guess my statement was unclear.
                                    I was trying to say, the Palestinians
                                    (and most arabs) will simply ignore
                                    overwhelming evidence that contradicts
                                    what they wish to believe.  It's in
                                    the religion.  I should tell the story
                                    about the guy who refused to believe
                                    California is bigger than Azerbaijan.
                                    Basically, people who belive peace is
                                    possiable with those people don't have
                                    any idea what they're talking about.
2004/1/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:11864 Activity:nil
1/21    Here's some funny shit.  Various peacenik lawyers seek revenge on
        Tony Blair for supporting the US in Iraq.
        http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=442590§ion=news
        \_ see what the UK gets for trying to remain international and not
           giving itself whole-heartedly to Bush's unilateral campaign?
           "The U.S. cannot be tried before the court because it refuses to
            sign up to it. The UK did."
           \_ What does it mean to be "international", exactly?  Striving to
              surrender your nation to others who don't have your interests
              at heart?  Good plan.  Don't run a country.
        \_ learn to shorten your urls: http://csua.org/u/5mw
           \_ Shortening urls is great, as long as the poster specifies
              what they're sending you to.  This simple courtesy is rare,
              however.
           \_ I prefer the real raw deal.  I do not like being sent to unsafe
              links.  I'm willing to cut n paste.
2004/1/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11801 Activity:nil
1/15    Iraq war, looking at Saddam capture photo, we went to war
        against a homeless person.
        \_ dude, don't be a dumbass. he lived in several palaces.
        \_ we turned a dictator into a homeless person.
                \_ heh that is such a cool concept. I hope we do the same
                   in N Korea, Libya, Iran, Cuba, and all the countries
                   that oppose our superior Western views.
                   \_ Oh, I forgot, the people of Iraq value living
                      under a leader like Sadam. They'll elect
                      somebody just like him in the upcoming elections.
                   \_ khadafi is our bitch now.  hopefully the rest will
                      follow his lead.
2004/1/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11746 Activity:nil
1/9     WMD Found!
        http://csua.org/u/5ij
        \_ "Initial tests show could have..."  As I recall they said the same
           thing about those "chemical weapons vans."
        \_ "The Danish army said they had been buried for at least 10 years."
           I know, I know, why do I hate America?
        \_ 36 motar shells is a far cry from mutiple tons of stockpiles that
           could be launched in 45 minutes.
           \_ "Where the debate is, is why haven't we found huge stockpiles
              and why haven't we found large caches of these weapons? Let's
              let the Iraqi Survey Group complete its work." -Colin Powell
              \_ Yes, exactly.  36 mortar shells buried for 10 years doesn't
                 comprise a "huge stockpile" or a "large cache".  You need
                 ALOT more than that to corroborate allegations of an active
                 WMD program.
2004/1/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11739 Activity:nil
1/9     An Iraqi Family's tragedy:
        http://csua.org/u/5id
        \_ Even the guy posting the letters admits they may not be truthful
           and that there are numerous flaws in the story and you'll not find
           anyone more sympathetic than this guy.  He says there's an
           investigation going on and we should wait before going off any
           further.  I agree.
           \_ Hey, I didn't say you think should think anything else.  But
              its an interesting story, especially since Healing Iraq is the
              most vocally pro-US Iraqi blog.  Let's see where it goes.  --op
2004/1/7-8 [Reference/Celebration, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11706 Activity:nil
1/7     Christmas in Iraq:
        http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2516497.php
2004/1/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:11652 Activity:nil
1/2     The US planned an invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
        back in 1973 to seize their oil fields. Good thing
        we are above that sort of thing now:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3333995.stm
        \_ Dur, this is at the end:
           "It is made clear that the invasion would probably only be
           contemplated if the situation in the region deteriorated to such
           an extent that the oil embargo went on for a long time, threatening
           western economies."
        \_ Oh the horror.. Why that is the last straw-- I hate the U.S. so much
           I want to learn German and move to Germany get taxed >50%!
           \_ Get a grip man, it was 30 years ago!
           \_ what is wrong with getting taxed 50% by a country that actually
              does something useful with that money?
              \_ Heh.  I see you neither lived, nor visited Germany, nor have
                 any friends who live there.
        \_ under Nixon, what a surprise.
2003/12/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29736 Activity:nil
12/28   They don't even know who to lie to anymore...
        http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1113227,00.html
2003/12/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11603 Activity:nil
12/29   Saddam getting chatty.
        http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4052441
2017/10/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/19   

2003/12/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11594 Activity:low
12/26   Where is that guy who guaranteed we would find WMD in Iraq?
        http://csua.org/u/5dk
        Kay is quitting, the search team is disbanding, ready to
        admit that you were conned yet?
        \_ wmd moved to Syria and Iran.. vials of stuff
        \_ Kay is quitting?  So he's a quitter?  And?  When they send someone
           who is willing to do the job and not looking for a quickie career
           boost, let us know.  And why are you such a hater?  Why do you
           enjoy the apparent failure of others?  Would you be upset if we
           had found tons of the stuff on day 1 and Bush looked like a genius
           to the whole world?  I'll bet you would.  No one likes a hater.
           \_ Why don't you just admit you were wrong and move on? No one
              likes someone who refuses to admit their mistakes.
              \_ Exactly right.
              \_ Because you can't prove a negative.  They hid entire air
                 bases full of air craft.  We've found mobile labs that had
                 no use other than making germs.  Connect the dots.
           \_ I am a hater because Bush lied us into war, costed us 150
              billion in tax dollars, and distracted us from the real national
              security issues.  Then again, I should of known better when
              GWB conned into the office at first place.
              \_ Every intelligence agency in the world and the UN believed
                 Saddam had WMDs.  If it was a lie, everyone agreed on it.
                 Only after it was clear 1441 was ignored by Iraq (and people
                 started to believe Bush would begin the war) did people start
                 claiming there were no WMDs.
                 \_ You keep claiming that, but it is no more true today
                    than it was a year ago. France and Russia, particularly
                    disagreed with the Wolfowitz led assessment:
                http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html
                http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/1054177726543.html
                    \_ Well for some reason these people disagree with
                       you: Clinton, Tom Daschle, Bob Kerry, Byron Dorgan
                       Jesse Helms, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Carl Levin,
                       Trent Lott ... from the Congressional Record:
                        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts
                       Then again you probably have better sources than
                       Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
                       \_ You know those resolutions are from 1998, right?
                          Do you know what the shelf life of nerve agent is?
                          And they do not have anything to do with the idea
                          that "every intelligence agency in the world" agreed
                          with Bush.
                          \_ Tell us.  What is the shelf life of nerve agent?
                             So they had them in 1998 but *after* the UN/US
                             inspectors left they suddenly stopped making
                             them?  That's just plain stupid.  Get out of here
                             with that noise.
                          \_ Oh yes, our friends the French... who built
                             Khomeini a nuclear reactor until Isreal blew it
                             up and provided the Exocet missile and mirage
                             fighter to attack the USS Stark.  And now the
                             left is relying on intelligence from what is
                             effectively the KGB?  Never mind the billions
                             in oil contracts these countries had negotiated
                             despite UN sanctions or the oil-for-aid
                             kickbacks.
                             \_ What's wrong with the left relying on the KGB?
                                It's not like the KGB hasn't been funding them
                                since the 50's if not earlier.  It makes sense.
                    \_ From resolution 1441:
                       Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council
                       resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass
                       destruction and long-range missiles poses to
                       international peace and security,
              http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf
                       Yeah, the one that passed uninimously through the
                       Security Council.
                       Yeah, the one that pssed uninimously through the Security
                       Council.
2003/12/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:11575 Activity:nil
12/23   Boring MOTD, so I will spice it up:
        http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=1789
        Details Isreali PR campaign to get more US tax dollars.
2003/12/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11559 Activity:high
12/21   Hah!  Clinton managed to 'connect the dots' between Iraq and Al Qaeda,
        why couldn't your little bush leaguer do it?    Muahahahaha!
        http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
        \_ Post the printer-friendly link if you're going to post a story:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3527&R=79F61E497
        \_ Okay, so now you are agreeing with the Iraqi war because we caught
           Saddam? Now it's cool to be Pro-War you're digging up articles
           showing that the dems are agreeing that there is an Al Qaida and
           Saddam connection? Boy, you commie left wing liberals sure are
           standing on your last leg... You were wrong about Afghanistan, you
           were wrong about Reagan, you were wrong about Iran, and you were
           wrong about Iraq. The only thing you dems are good for is dragging
           us into lost causes like Vietnam and Korea. Way to go.
           \_ Whoa, whoa, whoa there.  Since when was Korea a lost cause?
              Yeah, we failed to unite the whole country, but the part we
              saved sure turned out well.  You should have said Solmolia.
              (BTW the difference between Korean and Vietnam or Somolia,
              that while the S. Korean's didn't love our soldiers all the
              time, the did generally want us there.)
              \_ Apparently you don't read enough history. Korea was a lost
                 cause and it cost Truman the election. The only reason the reds
                 stopped attacking was that relations were breaking down between
                 the USSR and Red China. They would've whipped them off of the
                 peninsula if the USSR had kept on supporting the war (it was,
                 after all, their jetfighters and their pilots). And I didn't
                 say Somolia because that's small potatos compared to Cuba (yep,
                 you dems lost Cuba too, and you also technically lost China to
              after all, their jetfighters and their pilots). And I didn't say
              Somolia because that's small potatos compared to Cuba (yep, you
              dems lost Cuba too, and you also technically lost China to
                 the Reds, but then the Chang-Kai-Shek gov't was way too corrupt
                 to keep things under control).
                 \_ I pine for the days when they taught history in our
                    country's schools.  Do the phrases "third UN offensive",
                    1951, and "north of the 38th parallel" mean anything to you?
                    Note that this was previous to any serious Sino- Soviet
                    breakup.  -John
                 \_ While true that it cost Truman the election, that just means
                    it looked like a lost cause at the time.  Also, Truman was
                    running the war like an idiot, so just as well he lost.
                 \_ Appearently, you guys have forgotten how Korean was divided
                    at first place. It is you arrogant American decided to allow
                    USSR to occupy Northeastern China and north of 38 parallel
                    of the Korean peninsula (instead of Chinese Nationalist
                    Army) after Japanese surroundered in the Yalta Conference,
                    in exchange for USSR declare war on Japan.  Later, you
                    Americans decided that allowing USSR to declare war on Japan
                    and occupy Japanese islands was a bad idea after all, thus,
                    used nuclear bomb (read: WMD) on 300,000 civilians to end
                    the war quickly.

                    In all, USSR declared war on Japan for one day before
                    Japanese surroundered.  Number of shots fired upon Japanese
                    by the Russians:  ZERO.
                    \_ Except for the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 where Japan
                       kicked Russia out of Korea/Manchuria, started by a
                       Japanese suprise attack on Port Arthur.

                    If you guys had any respect of sovereignty of a non-
                    European nation at first place (i.e. China) , none of this
                    nuclear holocaust and Korean War would ever happen.
                    \_ So China would never have invaded South Korea and force
                       reunification as was done in Vietnam? Neato!

                    Then again, you guys at the time were still in that White
                    Supremist mode... not just Americans, but French and English
                    turned around continue to occupies Algeria and Indo China.
                    Democracy?  Human Rights?  give me a fucking break.
                    -kngharv
                    as well.  French, after crying foul for Nazi's occupation,
                    turned around continue to occupies Algeria and Indo China.
                    Democracy?  Human Rights?  give me a fucking break.
                    -kngharv
                    \_ Dude, EVERYONE has problems with Human Rights.
                 \_ Korea wasn't supposed to "defended" the US. It was a
                    mistaken statement by the US Secretary of War that included
                    Korea as a protectorate. After that it became a pissing
                    match once MacArthur decided to draw China into the war.
        \_ So now you are trying to pass off Clinton's bombing of the
              to keep things under control).
                \_ I pine for the days when they taught history in our
                   country's schools.  Do the phrases "third UN offensive",
                   1951, and "north of the 38th parallel" mean anything to
                   you?  Note that this was previous to any serious Sino-
                   Soviet breakup.  -John
                \_ While true that it cost Truman the election, that just
                   means it looked list a lost cause at the time.  Also,
                   Truman was running the war like an idiot, so just as
                   well he lost.
           asprin factory in Sudan as some kind of intelligence success?
           I guess it is about as real as Bush's WMD. At least Clinton
           didn't lose 500 brave Americans over his goof.
                       \_ That many died a week in Vietnam because of
                          LBJ's "goof"
           \_ No, I'm saying Clinton was able to successfully make the clear
              connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq but that little
              bush leaguer couldn't even when he had access to Clinton's
              intelligence work.  Unable to come up with anything new he went
              in on the hope we'd find WMD because it was too embarassing to
              use the good intel from the previous admin on the Iraq/Al Qaeda
              connection.  Bill Clinton: connecting the Iraq/Al Qaeda dots!
              \_ Read the story. There is no "clear" connection, that is why
                 they call it connecting the dots. More like seeing things
                 that aren't there, if you ask me.
2003/12/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11556 Activity:nil
12/21   Bet you won't see this story in the American press:
        http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1014319.htm
        \_ Total Drivel (tm). the only source is
           "former Iraqi intelligence officer"... need I type more?
        \_ I believe this article stems from the Sunday Express, a
           conservative UK tabloid--its political leanings would probably
           lead it to want to try and discredit Blair and his friends, get
           the picture?  Also, have a look at a cover:
           http://www.express.co.uk  Hardly what I'd describe as a source
           of "serious" journalism.  -John
2003/12/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11551 Activity:low
12/20   We said that it was ok to use WMD to Saddam:
        http://csua.org/u/5c9
        \_ That's not what your link says.  Why do you feel the need to lie
           and make things up to support your beliefs?  That says a lot about
           your beliefs out here in the real world.
           \_ read the article for once.  We essentially said it was ok
              to use chemical weapon as long as Iraq win the war of aggression
              against Iran.
              \_ the 'article' was 1 paragraph long and did not in any way
                 say what you say it says.
                 \_ It is a link to an interview. Did you listen to the
                    interview?
                    \_ Of course not, duh.  Link to text and it'll get read.
                       No one here has the time to listen to some random
                       interview hoping for some tiny tidbit.  If it was really
                       all that special, it'd be in print somewhere.
                    \_ Doh!  Sorry for being an idiot.
                       \_ http://csua.org/u/5cj [washingtonpost.com]
                          Not quite "it's okay", more of "we don't care."
2003/12/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11544 Activity:nil
12/19   Connecting the dots in 1998, but not in 2003.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1043839/posts
        \_ hard facts would help.
2003/12/18-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11515 Activity:nil
12/18   David Kay to leave WMD-search group, for "personal/family reasons":
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9823-2003Dec17.html
        \_ Yeah, he's got "FuckThisBullshitThere'sNothingThereAnywayitis"
           \_ Is it "Bullshit" or is it "Bushit"? :-)
        \_ It took this long for him to realize WMD is just an excuse to
           going to war.  Rather Iraq has WMD or not was never an important
           issue.  This partly explains why the administration kept stripping
           his resources to do his job.  I feel sorry for him.
        \_ He was always a patsy.
        \_ DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons
           of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could
           move to acquire those weapons still--
           PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

           If my boss were this blase about lying to the American people,
           I think I would leave for "personal/family reasons" too.
           \_ Due to blindness or paranoia or not listening well enough to
              the CIA, the Bush administration believed in the WMD theory
              enough that the military was outfitted with all the protective
              gear for the Iraq assault.  It's just that everyone has been
              telling Dubya recently, "Um, they probably don't have WMD."
              \_ Right.  He was lied to.  Sure.
2003/12/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11508 Activity:nil
12/18   Prime model of respect of human right which all middle eastern
        nation shall follow:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3329631.stm
        \_ yeah he really wants to go home .. by way of being a merc
2003/12/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11507 Activity:moderate
12/18   are we going to go along to pay Iran for Saddam's deed?
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3329671.stm
        \_ ``She must be satisfied.'' Persian girls are too high maintenance...
           \_ that's a hilarious quote.  Are all nations feminine?
              \_ Common practice yes.
              \_ Common practice yes.  For nations and ships.  However:
                 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/63240_tblist.shtml
                 --scotsman
              \_ No.
           \_ Germany was masculine- the Fatherland
                \_ "Das Vaterland".  Also La France, Rodnaya/Mother Russia,
                   etc etc.  I can't think of any proper masculine references
                   to countries.  -John
                   \_ Uncle Sam.  Also it's Rodina-Mat'.  -- ilyas
                        \_ Sorry, misunderstood "narodnaya" in the Soviet
                           national anthem--my Russian is non-existent. And we
                           were discussing national identities, not
                           personifications (e.g. John Bull)  -John
2003/12/17 [Reference/Celebration, Recreation/Food, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29724 Activity:nil
12/16   Since mass grave and killing of kurds are considered one of the reason
        why we invade Iraq, we might as well to invade Turkey for what they've
        done, which put Saddam's oppression looks like a child play:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3325247.stm
        \_ So you would advocate turning the entire middle east into one
           glass-paved nuclear wasteland, punctuated only by oil wells  to
           feed the weestern industrial machine?
           \_ Not western, just American.
              \_ Sounds good to me.
2003/12/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29723 Activity:nil
12/16   I supported the Afghan War (cause Taliban is hopeless and Osama
        is there) but opposed the Iraq War.  I am glad there is some
        progress on the Afghan front:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/16/international/asia/16CND-AFGH.html
        \_ The what?  Ohhh, that thing.
           \_ Not all of us only think about whatever CNN feeds us that hour.
        \_ this is one of my MANY reasons why I oppose war in Iraq.  Taliban
           is bad, but anarchy would only allow extremist and drug trafficing
           florish.  Despite all the progress, there are a lot of things
           needs to be done before Afghan again became a hotbed of trouble.
2003/12/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11501 Activity:nil
12/17   Wow, Saddam really was involved in 9/11
        http://csua.org/u/5ax
        \_ We shall see. The Iraqi Nationalists have fed us a lot of
           phoney intel before, this looks like more of the same to me.
           \_ Can you say "Ahmed Chalabi"?
              \_ No, actually.  I can't.
2003/12/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11491 Activity:nil
12/16   Follow-up on the Orson Scott Card thing.  If you want to know why
        he's a loony, read this old interview with him:
        http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html?pn=1
        \_ Ok I have got to be one of the most liberal posters on MOTD and
           Card does NOT sound like an asshole to me.  He calmly states the
           standard Mormon reason for "protecting marriage" only when pressed,
           and never states any kind of "affection for communism," so I can
           only imagine what you think you are talking about.  If anything
           the lesbian author of the article editorializes far beyond the
           limits of responsible journalism and comes off as shrill and
           intolerant.  I don't know what her problem is, and she wouldn't
           last two seconds outside of her safe little lefty bubble.  As for
           Card... writing off all Mormons as "loonies" is basically what you'd
           be doing, which is of course your choice.
        \_ But actually, his repugnant views on just about everything are
           right in line with typical motd thinking, besides the weird
           affection for communism that he displays...so never mind.  Don't
           bother. --op
           \_ what "repugnant views" would you be talking about?
              \_ " I believe government has a strong role to protect us
                   from capitalism." C'mon, don't you find that repugnant!?
                 \_ No.  I'm a full on right wing conservative and I do *not*
                    believe in full on fuck-you-all capitalism.  That sort of
                    thing leads directly to slavery.  No thanks.
                 \_ Child labor laws, the EPA, and the weekend are all things
                    the government has instituted to protect us from
                    capitalism.
           \_ jeez, he's just a sci fi writer.  the amazing thing is that
              it would appear that the motd wants to hold its novelists
              to higher standards than its political pundits.
              Card never really claims to be an authority on modern politics,
              just a science fiction writer.
        \_Was this somekind of wierd troll?  The woman interviewing him
          is obviously an idiot.  Card sounds very reasonable, and has
          some interesting points.
          \_ Oh, like that gay rights are "ridiculous," communism is
             something that hasn't even been properly tried yet, and the
             Vietnam war was a heroic and selfless sacrifice?  Its amazing
             how predictable the soda motd can be.  We should just change
             the name of the file to /etc/motd.public.fundies
                \_ the gay rights thing is a little much, but he doesn't say
                   gay rights are ridiculous... he is parroting the same
                   Mormon notion that "marriage" means a particular thing.
                   He also doesn't say the Vietnam war was a selfless
                   sacrifice... he says FIGHTING in it was.  And no, communism
                   was NOT tried in the USSR.  Communism can work on a small
                   scale- go get pizza at Cheeseboard.
2003/12/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11488 Activity:nil
12/16   from the nytimes:
        "In a swirl of reports that some police officers joined the
        protest, Captain Challoub made it clear where his sympathies
        lay. "Why did they show Mr. President Saddam Hussein on
        television and humiliate him?" he asked. "He is our president.
        There must be some kind of immunity.""
        Even people risking their lives working for us didn't like
        their former president humiliated.
        \_ Clearly Captain Challoub is living in the past and needs a new
           job.  He wasn't their president.  He was a brutal dictator, not
           an elected president.  The only thing more stupid than this quote
           or your posting it is that I bothered to feed a troll.  Do us all
           a favor and delete your own post.
           \_ It's not necessary to tell us how stupid you are.  It is
              quite obvious that, elected or not, many Sunnis still liked
              Saddam, so why fan the flames?  "Bring it on!"
              \_ Of course the Sunnis liked being a minority group that got
                 to oppress the rest of the country.  I'm sure the South
                 African whites felt the same way.  Did you have a point?
                 \_ Oops, the Sunnis like Saddam.  We can't use the
                    "Liberate Iraqis from Saddam" as the reason for our
                    invasion anymore.  Let's change the reason to "liberate
                    the Shiites from the Sunnis" then.  Oh, wait, the
                    Shiites may not like us there very much either.  Maybe
                    we should change the reason to "help the oppressed Kurds
                    gain independence".  Or maybe we should dig up some
                    WMD, or maybe find Osama's mother in Iraq.
                    \_ Wow, nice way to go off topic and duck my question. I'll
                       take that as a win.  To answer your dodge, we invaded
                       because Saddam was a bastard and Bush Sr. screwed the
                       people over the first time and setting right his mistake
                       was the moral thing to do.  You understand what it means
                       to "do the right thing"?
                       \_ By itself Bush Sr. not going into Iraq is a valid
                          option.  Instigating a Shiite rebellion and then
                          not going in to help is wrong.  There are many
                          ways to effect change in Iraq.  10 years of
                          dibilitating sanctions followed by an invasion
                          and then a clumsily handled occupation is not the
                          "right thing" to do. ---- (*)
              \_ and many Germans loved Hitler.  Your point?
                 \_ Last I checked, Iraq wasn't occupying any foreign
                    country in the last 10 years.  Your analogy is
                    bogus.  In one case we are liberating the Iraqis
                    (only reason we have left), in the other we were
                    liberating others FROM the Germans.  Because of
                    that, the opinion of the Iraqis is critical to
                    the whole endeavor.
                    \_ By your 'logic' we should have stopped at the German
                       borders and left Hitler in power.
                       \_ I don't know where you learned your faulty logic.
                          When your reason for the invasion is to liberate
                          the Iraqis, you better be concerned about what
                          their opinion is.  If you say you are doing some-
                          thing to help someone, you should ask them
                          whether they wanted it, and whether your action
                          is actually helping them, or just for you own
                          selfish interest.
                          \_ Saddam invaded Kuwait. Part of liberating Kuwait
                             should have been removing him. Now it has been
                             done. The analogy to freeing Europe but stopping
                             at the German border is a good one.
                             \_ Your analogy is bogus (see (*) above).  Give
                                it up.
                                \_ I think it was the right thing to do and
                                   the only reason it took 10 years is because
                                   Clinton preferred to take no action.
                                   \_ And I don't think it was the right thing
                                      to do.  Thanks for playing.
                                      \_ Way to reduce your point to a matter
                                         of opinion.
                                         \_ The point has been made already.
                                            You only offered an opinion, but
                                            expect something more in return?
                          \_ The minority ethnic group in Iraq was in favor of
                             continued slaughter and oppression of the majority
                             of the population.  I'm sure you're aware of that,
                             little troll.  I'll bet you were in favor of
                             a political change in SA where the situation was
                             exactly the same.  The only difference is that in
                             SA the minority oppressors were white people and
                             we know white people are automatically wrong and
                             evil at all times, right?
                             \_ Ah, playing the race card again.
                                First, except for the Kurds, Iraqis are
                                ethnically the same.  The Sunnis / Shiite
                                distinction is religious, not ethnic.  The
                                Kurds are ethnically different but they
                                are Sunnis too.  Thus your "minority
                                ethnic group [slaughtering and oppressing]
                                others" is bogus.  There are many Shiites
                                and also Christians in positions of power
                                under the Saddam regime.  While religious
                                and tribal affliations do play a role,
                                it is not in the black and white terms you
                                portray, and your attempt to castigate
                                all Sunnis as oppressors is wrong headed
                                and naive.  If you disregard their opinion
                                and interest, democracy in Iraq is bound to
                                fail.
        \_ You need to realize GW Bush cares more about PR at home than PR
           in Iraq.  So what if Iraqis don't like us.  That just means we
           need to kill a few more insurgents.  Piece of cake.  But hey,
           got to win that election first.
2003/12/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29722 Activity:very high
12/16   http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82
        Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands and talking arms.  He was our
        bastard back then.  What happened?
        \_ He turned on us.
           \_ Wait...so bad guys are okay as long as they're on our side?
              I thought WMDs didn't matter, and we were there to wipe out
              a bad guy?  Can't... handle... hypocrisy... head... exploding...
                \_ Are you really this naive and stupid?  Sometimes you have
                   bargain with the devil.  Iran was (and remains)
                   clearly the more dangerous threat.
                   \_ Nah, the most dangerous threat is GW Bush and his
                      free-spending administration.  Oh, and our lovely
                      ally Saudi Arabia, from whence most of the 911
                      bombers and Osama himself hail from.
                   \_ No, *YOU* are stupid.  Iran is the *ONLY* muslim nation
                      in the middle east
                      which has a true democratic government, eventhough their
                      power is not seperated in the same manner as ours is.
                      If we didn't support the invasion of Iran by Iraq,
                      we wouldn't have to deal with Saddam right now, after
                      166 billion dollars and still don't see real way out of
                      this mass.
                      \_ Iran?  Democracy? You've got a really twisted idea
                         of what deomcracy is or you know nothin about how
                         their country is run.  Sigh.  I have been trolled.
              \_ We didn't think he'd use WMDs.  Up until then, Saddam was
                 our secular ally against the more worrisome Islamic
                 revolution.
                 \_ Which, incidentally, we precipitated by sending the CIA
                    to install the Shah in the 1950s.  But never mind about
                    that now.
                        \_ No, you are completely wrong.
                           The Shahs father acended to power in the 1920s.
                           Mossadeq was making overtures to the Soviets.
                    \_ I don't know about the "you are completely wrong"
                       poster, but overthrowing Iran's government was really
                       for the oil (at the same time guarding against
                       Communist expansion) that time. ;-)
           \_ No, Dubya wanted a ratings boost.  Saddam's still our bastard.
2003/12/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11486 Activity:high
12/16   Why do some people still try to claim that the US did not sell
        Iraq chemical weapons? The evidence is overwhelming:
        http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
        \_ The author's evidence is tautological.  He says, "There were
        \_ The only evidence the author provides is "There were
           chemical weapons sold..." so it must be so, no citations
           no references, nothing.
           As for cyanide it is ubiquitous in industrial manufacturing.
           For example, there are liters of cyanide compounds in Cory
           Hall.
           Here is what was provided:
           The Corporations That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program
           http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm
           \_ No references? How about the reference to this PBS program:
          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html
           http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm
                \_ It is good you mention Alcatal, as that is the one compnay
                   listed on the other link.  What is described is illicit
                   clandestine purchase of a chemical weapon precurssor,
                   which was shut down when discovered by Customs.  This
                   completely different from the assertion that the US govt
                   (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) armed Iraq.  As for visiting in
                   1967, well the US military hosts delegates from virtually
                   every other military in the world, including enemies (eg.
                   Soviets during the Cold War).
        \_ What do you think are the chances that Saddam will be able to call
           Rumsfeld and Cheney as defense witnesses?  And if he's denied, how
           much will that help him?
           \_ You people are bizarre.  Here you have one of the crulest most
              sadistic tyrants in the 20th century and all you can think
              about is indicting Rumseld, who was a civilian throughout
              the period in question, and Cheney who was House Minority
              Whip and Secretary of Defense, for concocted conspiracies
              they were not involved in.
              \_ Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense when Saddam attacked Iran.
                 We sent him weapons to help kill the 'evil' Iranians.  When
                 Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he lobbied to be allowed to
                 do contracting in Iraq and said the sanctions hurt
                 Halliburton more than Iraq and should be lifted.
                 \_ Rumsfeld was Fords Sec of Defense.  So did every
                    CEO of every international corporation.  Cheney has
                    been on the record opposed to sanctions for most of
                    his career.
                 \_ Lobbying is now a criminal offense?  Golly....
2003/12/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11485 Activity:nil
12/16   Sadam Hussein is an actor and the US government is planning to
        plant WMD in Iraq: http://www.theonion.com
        \_ Nothing on the onion says anything like that.  What in Sam Hill
           are you talkin' about, boy?
2003/12/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11483 Activity:nil
12/16   Why the capture of Saddam, although making the world a better place,
        is ultimately a "diversion". -sfgate article on what liberals think
        http://csua.org/u/5ae
2003/12/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11480 Activity:very high
12/16   http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&u=/nm/20031216/wl_nm/iraq_saddam_vatican_dc_2&printer=1
                \- gee i guess the bush administration will only be
                   inviting in protestant deminiations to convert
                   the godless heathens --psb
        I agree with the Vatican on this one.  There was no need to humiliate
        the man.  He's a former head of state and prisoner of war and should
        be treated with the respect due to such a man.  I feel bad for the guy.
        \_ Me, too! I mean he lost his sons to those evil Americans!
           I mean what's a few thousand dead worth a few moments of standard
           doctor checkup after living underground for so long without a shave!
        \_ Let's be clear:  I opposed the premature invasion of Iraq, but
           I am not at all displeased to see Saddam Hussein toppled and his
           regime destroyed.  Given what he did to his own people, the
           Mussolini treatment would not have been too severe for him. Now,
           does showing embarassing videos of the man being inspected for
           lice and disease help the coalition maintain peace and bring about
           a swifter transition to a real Iraqi government? Not in the least.
           Yet another PR blunder for the Bush team.
           \_ PR Blunder? Obviously you haven't seen the polls. I'm glad
              aren't in charge. I bet you think the Bay of Pigs was a bad
              idea also?
              \_ Ah, dear simpleton, let me lay it out for you in lyrics
                 your little brain might comprehend easier:
                 "For every thing (turn, turn, turn)
                  there is a season (turn, turn, turn)."
                 The Prez' invasion was, like many sexual acts perpetrated
                 by semifunctional adolescents, premature.
                 \_ yeah we should have waited until he started offering
                    $100K for every suicide bomber's family
                          \- we should have invaded iraq on behalf of
                             israel?
                    \_ No, we should have waited until we had proof of his
                       WMDs, -OR- we should have declared our mission to
                       rid the world of oppressive regimes, sacked Saudi
                       Arabia, Burma, and Uzbekistan, and then, with that
                       moral justification firmly established, gone into
                       Iraq.
                       \_ One at a time..
                          \_ Yeah? Then why not this one?
                             http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3324871.stm
              \_ After all, polls are the only thing that matters.  Who cares
                 about morality, I'm in the majority!
        \_ I have to ask.  Is it really all that humiliating to have
           medical examination?  I fail to see why this footage is all
           that humiliating.  It's probably all they had on hand for the
           press that wasn't either secret or REALLY humiliating.
           \_ They probably had footage of him showered and shaved, wearing a
              jumpsuit and glowering at the camera.
2003/12/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11475 Activity:nil
12/15   How about a break from Saddam?  This is something you geeks would
        find entertaining:
        http://csua.org/u/5a0
        \_ This is similar to what was found when someone did neural-net
           robots for netrek as a project--they just learned to butt-torp. -tom
        \_ What a cruddy article.  Long introduction, then four sentences
           that said what they wanted to say.
        \_ This is becoming a modern urban legend.  Watch the Two Towers
           documentaries for the truth: the soldiers were programmed to run if
           they couldn't see an enemy (to close the distance more quickly).
           With many soldiers, they couldn't see the enemy or were facing the
           wrong way.  Hence they ran away.
           \_ No facts!  No facts on the motd!
2003/12/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11473 Activity:moderate
12/15   Saddam almost blown to bits!: (cnn.com)
        They heard noises from below. They were about to execute a "clearing
        procedure" -- firing into the hole or dropping a grenade into it --
        when someone saw upraised hands belonging to a bearded, bedraggled
        man. The man had a pistol but did not fire it. When the soldiers
        assisted the man from the hole, he said, in English: "I am Saddam
        Hussein. I am the president of Iraq. I want to negotiate."
        - jctwu
        \_ so he's back working for the CIA then?
        \_ weak!  his sons fought like heros, and he himself is willing to
           be captured alive and face trial which is nothing but unjust
           humiliation.
           \_ Humiliation?  That's a bizarre arab concept that didn't appear
              in our press until the palestinians whined constantly about
              humiliation since they had no other real beef with the jews in
              comparison to how other arabs treated and still treat them.
           \_ Unjust humiliation?  You know, I have a real hard time feeling
              much sympathy.
              \_ of course.  You would have real hard time to see why this
                is a war of pure aggression, as we are still trying to
                find excuse to justify our invasion.
                \_ He will face justice on Earth and in heaven,
                   says acid bath victim
                   http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1041100/posts
                   \_ So shall we (ok, only in heaven), who provided him
                      the chemical agents, and kept quiet when he was
                      acid bathing the kurds.
                        \_ If Reagan/Bush had wanted to interfere
                           your parents and their associates would have
                           been screaming bloody murder about all of the
                           people killed and state sovereignty, just as
                           you do today; sorry you're argument is inane.
                           It was politically inexpedient at the time.
                           The difference is Bush was willing to
                           expend the political capital.
                           And please stop propagating lies: there
                           was a university transfer
                           of two biological agents for research.
                           Again, apart from the strains, in terms of
                           equipment for chemical weapons
                           it was supplied by Europe, (France, Germany)
                           Russia and China.  How do you reconcile
                           this with their position today?
                           \_ Ah,  "politically inexpedient".  What an
                              excuse.  Saddam could also say that if
                              he didn't keep the Kurds and Shiites under
                              control those two groups would butcher the
                              Sunnis the moment they have the chance, or
                              at the very least, fragment his country.
                              He could argue that he invaded Iran to
                              stop the Shiite brand of Islamic militancy
                              and its threat to Iraq.  He could argue that
                              he invaded Kuwait because Kuwait is stealing
                              his country's oil, its lifeblood.  The person
                              above is talking about justice and heaven, and
                              last I check (be it the Koran or the Bible),
                              God says to do the right thing, not to do
                              the politically expedient thing.
                              \_ Saddam could argue anything he likes but it
                                 wouldn't be true.  All you've done is create
                                 a short list of Saddam's crimes.
                                 \_ Crimes?  Nah, they ain't crimes.  They
                                    are all politically necessary, or should
                                    I say, expedient ... snicker.
                                    \_ If you're not interested in discussing
                                       anything don't bother scribbling on the
                                       motd.  Oh ho, you're so clever, snicker,
                                       yadda whatever.
                                       \_ Thanks for admitting that your
                                          "politically inexpedient" excuse has
                                          been debunked.
                           \_ The deadliest weapon in the world is a
                              Marine and his rifle.  It is your killer
                              instinct which must be harnessed if you expect
                              to survive in combat.  Your rifle is only a tool.
                              It is the hard heart that kills.  If your killer
                              instincts are not clean and strong, you will
                              hesitate at the moment of truth.  You will not
                              kill.  You will become dead Marines.  And then
                              you will be in a world of shit, because Marines
                              are not allowed to die without permission!
                              Do you maggots understand?
                              \_ SIR! YESIR!
                   \_ So shall we, who provided him the chemical agents.
2003/12/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11465 Activity:insanely high 66%like:12871
12/15   liberal media:
        http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,561468,00.html
           \_ p.s. - the "liberal" thing was intended ironically. oh well. -op
              \_ excellent troll.  2 cookies for you.
        \_ Time is a piece of crap, but that article doesn't appear
           biased one way or the other.  -tom
           \_ "We can measure the meaning of his capture by the measures we
              have taken -- old alliances and long traditions discarded to
              go to war to take him out and, in the name of democracy, a war
              that was opposed by vast majorities in most democracies on earth."
              Now, is this really true?  Vast majorities opposed the war?
              Or is it vocal minorities?
              \_ Polls in many european countries rode anywhere from 70-90%
                 against US actions. How 'bout this one: "by far the vast
                 majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum"
                 --scotsman
                 \_ You're deeply confused about what democracy is all about.
                    Just because other democratic countries may disagree with
                    our democratic country does not lead to the conclusion
                    that our actions were wrong.  It only follows that the
                    people in those countries have a different culture and
                    belief system from our country.  There is nothing that
                    says all democracies have to agree with each other.  It
                    a simply a form of government, not a rating of good vs.
                    evil or which team you belong to in the world.  If 100%
                    of people in other 100% of other democratic countries were
                    opposed to our country's actions that carries no more
           \_ not biased? c'mon. 3rd paragraph? Nothing but agrandizing
                    weight, value or meaning than if 100% of the people of
                    100% of totalitarian states disagree with our actions.
                 \_ Even if this is true (how many countries?)...  There are
                    other democracies besides those in europe.  Was the vast
                    majority opposed to the war in some sort of non-changing
                    sense?  Do the polls show consistent 70-90% opposition,
                    and still do?
                    \_ You can look for the answers yourself.  This is another
                       thing that gets me about the o'reilly effect.  They
                       bring up questions like this that are relatively
              news-magazine-murdered-cheerleader special reports. please.
                       answerable if you have the time, but people who don't
                       have the time simply base their outrage on them..
                       \_ Well, the thing is ... if you don't know the answers
                          to these questions you can't really say Time isn't
                          full of shit.  Which is the point.
                          \_ The answer is that the vast majority of countries
                             opposed the US war and still do. You are just too
                             lazy to do the research yourself.
                             \_ Look, in France, the very bastion of
                                anti-(american unilateralism/english speaking
                                hegemony), only 59% oppose the war.  Where
                                are the vast majorities in _most_ democracies
                                of the world?  Show me.
                                Time is full of shit.
                                \_ http://csua.org/u/59w
                                   http://csua.org/u/59y
                                   \_ Uh... the best this says is that
                                      majorities (far from vast) in _several_
                                      european countries (far from most
                                      democracies in the world) opposed the
                                      war at one point.  But poetic hyperbole
                                      is ok, because it's Time, right?
                                      \_ Give it up. You are just making
                                         yourself look bad. They polled 45
                                         countries and a majority opposed the
                                         war in 2/3 of them.
                                         \_ Sure.  Now let's compare what the
                                            facts say and what Time says.
                                            Facts: Simple majorities in 2/3rd
                                            of 45 nations in the world opposed
                                            the war in iraq at one point in
                                            time.
                                            Time: Vast majorities in most
                                            democracies of the world oppose
                                            the war in iraq.
                                            Time is full of shit.
                                \_ 59%? Show me.
                        _/
http://www.iraqcrisisbulletin.com/archives/041603/html/french_doubts_over_war_opposit.html
This is from april.
                          \_ Honestly, come on now. It's common knowledge that
                             the war was opposed by everyone except a couple of
                             eastern europeans desperate to suck up to the USA.
                             As if anyone in Poland gives a shit about Iraq.
           \_ not biased? c'mon. 3rd paragraph? Nothing but aggrandizing
              and romanticizing sensationalist language. the thing of
              news-magazine-murdered-cheerleader special reports. please.
              \_ What in that paragraph do you think was aggrandizing
                 \_ besides the whole thing? how about:
                    "It was an antidote to the contempt expressed by Arab
                     and European commentators who poked the American
                     tiger: See, you can't even catch Saddam."
                     \_ One man's "bias" is another's "perspective."  Go away,
                        dittohead.
           \_ I like Time.  I read all the major newspapers as well.
              Each source has its own problems.
           \_ I don't like any media, yet I read them all the time.  Each
              source has its own bits of useful information.
2003/12/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11464 Activity:nil
12/15   DNA Testing used to confirm Saddam's Identity:
        http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994481
2003/12/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11456 Activity:kinda low
12/14   We wage war under the ground of WMD.  What happened if Iraq really
        didn't have WMD?  Under what ground we should try Saddam?  defending
        his homeland?
        \_ "we" aren't, the Iraqis are.
           http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/15/politics/15PRIS.html
        \_ I think we can ask the relatives of the 300K dead in mass graves
           \_ guess what, not all of the mass grave were produced in reigm
              of Saddam.  Some of these mass grave were dated back to the
              fall of Ottoman Empire.
              \_ oh well that makes it ok then. might as well forget about
                 the attempted invasions of iran and kuwait also, and let this
                 swell fellow go.
                 \_ Didn't we support the invasion of Iran?
                    \_ The coldwar was about the lesser of two evils.
                       \_ Bwahahahahahahahaha!  I damn near peed myself
                          laughing at this.  Nice.
                           \_ 100+ million killed
                              20TH CENTURY DEMOCIDE
                              http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
                              Long live MARX!!!
                              \_ If you study these figures, you realize that
                                 this guy comes up with some truly absurd
                                 numbers. He claims that the US killed 6000
                                 civilians during our entire 11 year war in
                                 Vietnam, including all civilians killed by
                                 bombings. This is just not believable. He
                                 plays all sorts of other tricks with numbers
                                 too, like claiming that all the Russians and
                                 Ukranians who died of starvation during WWII
                                 are the responsibility of Stalin.
                                  \_ Most of Stalin's purges occurred before
                                     WWII.  He gives a detailed explanation
                                     of the numbers in Vietnam.
                       \_ Is it really about the cold war?  If so, how
                          come Iraq's tanks were all Soviet?  I think
                          it's more about US supporting the despotic
                          Shah to control oil in Iran, only to see him
                          overthrown by mullahs, so US use Saddam and
                          his chemical weapons against Iran.
                            \_ Iran has been a monarchy for 2000 years; the
                               Shah was the royal successor.  His deposal,
                               thanks in a large part to Carter and Congr.
                               Dems was the inaguaration of militant Islam.
                               Neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pack wanted a
                               clear victor Iran-Iraq war; better to let the
                               Muslim fanatics kill themselves off.  In
                               restrospect the only mistake was that
                               they didn't kill enough of eachother.
                               \_ The fact remains. Iraq invaded Iran,
                                  (just like Iraq invaded Kuwait) not
                                  the other way around, and US
                                  supported Iraq, helping Saddam in
                                  multiple ways, including chemical
                                  weapons.
                                    \_ The justification of tacit Western
                                       support was militant Islam.  Based
                                       on what has transpired since it
                                       was completely justified.  The
                                       US did not give Iraq chemical
                                       weapons, although transfers of
                                       chemical and biological agents
                                       were made from US universities.
                                       Furthermore, the US did not
                                       provide military hardware to
                                       Iraq.  Even today Iraqs military
                                       orignates from France, Russia,
                                       China, etc... there is no US
                                       hardware whatsoever.  Iran
                                       also used chemical weapons, BTW.
                                       \_ Besides assistance with chemical
                                          weapons, US provided military
                                          intelligence, logistics, food
                                          credits (which Saddam easily turned
                                          into money to buy weapons), and
                                          encouraged allies to sell
                                          weapons to Iraq.  Iraq is the
                                          one who started using chemical
                                          weapons.  US itself also left
                                          all options open if attacked by
                                          WMD, so Iran's response is
                                          consistent with US policy.
                                          US also impose sanctions (all
                                          forms) against Iran during the
                                          Iran-Iraq war, which is started
                                          by Saddam, leading to 1 million
                                          dead.  US also sold Iraq 1
                                          billion $US worth of trucks,
                                          and changed the description on
                                          the export licenses from
                                          'vehicles designed for military
                                          use' to 'commercial utility
                                          cargo trucks'.  US also allowed
                                          Indonesia to sell attack
                                          helicopters to Iraq (made by
                                          US of course), cluster bombs
                                          from South Africa and howitzers
                                          from Austria.
                                           \_ And what is your point?
                                              This is common knowledge..
                                              I think we should have let
                                              them overrun the Iranian
                                              mullahs.
                                              \_ We tried, but failed,
                                                 and then it blew up in
                                                 our face.
                                                \_ Hindsight is 20/20, there
                                                   was insufficient political
                                                   capital to do much else.
                                                   In the end the Soviets
                                                   were defeated.
                                                  \_ Like I said, it has
                                                     very little to do with
                                                     the Soviets.  It's
                                                     about our control of
                                                     oil in the region.
                                                     That's why we are
                                                     still there long after
                                                     the demise of the SU.
                                                     \_ Oh my god you
                                                        think its about
                                                        oil NO WAY not
                                                        not in a million
                                                        years.  LOL it
                                                        doesn't take a
                                                        genius to realize
                                                        we would have
                                                        extricated ourselves
                                                        long ago if not for
                                                        the oil.  Guess what,
                                                        every country on the
                                                        face of the earth
                                                        wants to use oil,
                                                        including China,
                                                        Russia and France.
                          come Iraq's tanks were all Soviet?
        \_ Look, I am about as anti-war as they come, and even I can see that
           this is a pathetic attempt at a troll. I think we should just hand
           him over to the Kurds and them do what they will.
2003/12/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11454 Activity:nil
12/14   Some folks like to re-write history; I call them "revisionist
        historians."
        http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.saddam.profile.ap/index.html
        just when you think cnn can sink no lower.
        \_ um, it's nothing new and has been going on for a while.
        \_ What is "low" about that article?
                \_ seconded.
2003/12/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11451 Activity:nil
12/13   Saddam Captured!!!
        France sends plane full of defense lawyers to Iraq for Saddam!
        \_ ``It's a major event that should strongly contribute to democracy
            and stability in Iraq and allow the Iraqis to master their
            destiny,'' French President Jacques Chirac said in a statement.
            I don't like Chirac either, but he's not completley
            retarded.
        \_ Which is shot down in the no-fly zone.  France commences operation
           cheese and whine.
        \_ Doesn't it remind you of the brain bug scene at the end of Starship
           Troopers?  You know they held this news since 10am Saturday PST.
           Also, why do they obscure the red flags in the http://cnn.com photo
           held by celebrating Iraqis?
        \_ It's funny that I get my news first on motd
        \_ If we put Saddam on trial, will he reveal all the sordid
           history of our many years of cooperation with him?
        \_ Maybe he can tell us where the WMD Bush warned us about are.
2003/12/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11426 Activity:high
12/11   Responding to a reporter's statement today that German Chancellor
        Gerhard Schroeder had said that international law should be applied
        in the awarding of contracts, Bush responded:  "International law? I
        better call my lawyer.  He didn't bring that up to me.... I don't
        know what you're talking about, about international law."
        \_ Something tells me this is Bush trying to make a funny.
           \_ I think it's more like a sodan trying to make a funny
              (but I'd believe it if there were a URL)
              \_ Its a real quote, I saw it somewhere today...can't be
                 bothered to find it though.
                 \_ obgoogle
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-121103contracts_lat,1,7987667.story
              \_ It's the front-page story on http://latimes.com.  I would've posted
                 the URL, but someone would have complained about having
                 to register as a user on the site.  The exact quote isn't
                 on yahoo news either.
                 \_ Is there a csua registration for latimes?
        \_ What I don't understand is that isn't the US paying for the
           contracts?  If so, why should any non-US-taxpayers have a say on
           who get to bid for the contracts?
           \_ This is about sharing the spoil of the war.  Yes, they
                oppose the war and gave US a hard time.  At the same time,
                we are asking them to write down debt owed to these nations.
                We are also asking them to contribute money and troops.
                In other word, it's stupid on Bush's part to be an ass
                at this moment when we have so many favor need to ask them.
                \_ When is he not an ass? He always has this weird swaggering
                   attitude about everything. He talks like he's a tough guy
                   even though he is really a billionaire mama's boy.
                \_ Sorry.  Germany, France and Russia OWE the U.S., not the
                   other way around.  What is with you liberal sissies
                   cowering before big bad Europe.  They are
                   venal aristocrats - fuck em.  THey need us, not the other
                   way around.  This is called Real politik, they would
                   (and have) stab the U.S. in the back in an instant.
        \_ Interestingly, the http://latimes.com article disappeared off the front
           page and is not linked anywhere (but the article is still linked
           in as earlier in the motd, and on http://news.google.com).
           Anyway, here's the authoritative source:
           http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031211-1.html

           Q Sir, Chancellor Schroeder says international law must apply in
           this case. What's you're understanding of the law?

           THE PRESIDENT: International law? I better call my lawyer; he
           didn't bring that up to me. I asked President Chirac and
           Chancellor Schroeder and President Putin to see Jim Baker, to
           talk about debt restructuring. If these countries want to
           participate in helping the world become more secure by enabling
           Iraq to emerge as a free and peaceful country, one way to
           contribute is through debt restructuring. And so Jim Baker, with
           the consent of the Secretary of State, is going to go over and
           talk to these leaders about that. But I don't know what you're
           talking about, about international law. I've got to consult my
           lawyer.

           [Even I agree that there was some creative ellipsing of the quote,
           which may have had something to do with the link getting taken down]
2003/12/11 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29704 Activity:nil
12/10   http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war28.html
2003/12/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11415 Activity:nil
12/11   Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit, aka Instahack) gets the smackdown:
        http://shock-awe.info/archive/001213.php
2003/12/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11390 Activity:nil
12/9    Are we invading Uzbekistan next?
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html
        \_ This is exactly why the humanitarian excuse for the war is total
           bullshit.  We do NOT use our military for humanitarian reasons
           until someone determines that an exorbitant economic or political
           cost requires it.  This is why we were not in Rwanda in '94, and
           why we settled on sanctions rather than a military ouster in Iraq
           in '91.
           \_ Why were we in Somalia?
              \_ Shell.
2003/12/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29699 Activity:high
12/8    45 minute claim proven true!
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3297771.stm
        \_ And by proven, you mean... alleged?
        \_ Your description of the URL is way, way misleading.
2003/12/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29698 Activity:nil
12/7    Seriously why can't we consider plundering the Iraqi wealth (banking,
        oil, etc) for war reparation? In WW2, after the U.S. and the Soviets
        took over Berlin, each side plundered as much gold/silver/art as
        possible. The winner gets all. Why can't we do the same in Iraq?
        \_ Bad PR.
        \_ well in most warfare, the winner gets all. Look at the Roman
           empire. It's based on conquering nations, plundering wealth, and
           using the new wealth to fund more expansions. It's stupid to
           conquer and not plunder wealth. So I agree with you. We should
           plunder their oil and fund our deficit and expand our great Reich.
        \_ Are you a troll or a very just dumb sodan?
           \_ I vote for 'very dumb sodan troll.'
2003/12/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11354 Activity:moderate
12/7    $20,000 per Household: The Highest Level of Federal
        Spending Since World War II
        Have you received your 20,000$ worth?
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036016/posts
        \_ Absolutely.
        \_ Bad freeper troll. The original statement of USGOV spending $20K
           per household differs from implying that everyone gets $20K.
           \_ Well no SHIT...  Humour is so fucking lost on you people.
        \_ Liberating Iraq from the horrors of Saddam Hussein is worth
           $20,000 to me.
           \_ What about the horrors of George W. Bush?  So far we've killed
              about 10,000 Iraqis in this little war alone, and we've only
              been there since March...
        \_ What he do that was any different from any number of oppressive
           fuckers out there in the world right now? Also: did he threaten
           you personally or something, or do you just not like his 'stache?
           \_ Fine, you let them go spend your $20,000.  I want mine back!
        \_ What did Saddam do that was any different from any number of
           oppressive fuckers out there in the world right now? Also:
           did he threaten you personally or something, or do you just
           not like his 'stache?
2003/12/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11351 Activity:nil
12/7    When the US and Soviets took over Berlin towards the end of the war
        both sides took much of the gold and monetary reserves hidden in
        Munich as reparation for WW2. Why can't we do the same for Iraq?
        \_ Because we invaded them under false pretenses and without cause?
           \_ 'False pretenses' is arguable.  'Without cause' is simply false.
              \_ Find a copy of "Uncovered:"
              Getting rid of Hussein is a moral enough cause for me.
              \_ I actually agree with you on the moral cause- but I meant
                 political cause, which for the US (for most of the last
                 century) has always been to counter aggression on another's
                 part.
                 Bringing morals into the equation requires that we then
                 prioritize the list of evil henchman to destroy-- and
                 Hussein, while definitely near the front of the list,
                 doesn't top it.
                 \_ out of curiosity, who does top the list?
                    personally, i think toppling hussein was more of a moral
                    imperative than some random Evil Guy because of the
                    harm we were doing there with sanctions all those years.
                    we had to either get rid of hussein or the sanctions.
                    \_ Osama would be #1 (*), Kim Jong Il (though he's too
                       nutty to attack, something should be done about him),
                       and whoever's driving the slaughters in Africa-- it's
                       not on the media radar (so much so that I can't even
                       name the country) but the number of murders there is
                       approaching Holocaust proportions.  Your point about
                       sanctions is well-taken.
                       (*) Part of the reason I'm upset about Iraq is that
                           it seems like blame shifting-- "Since Osama is too
                           hard to find [or who knows, maybe he was crushed
                           in a cave somewhere], let's attack a guy we know
                           we can find... all those Arabs look alike anyway."
                           \_ except for the part about how apparently we
                              can't find that guy either.
                              \_ ... the best-laid plans of vice and vermin
                    \_ There are a lot of evil guys in the world.  For one,
                        Royal Families in Saudi Arabia. Unlike Iraq, nor Iran
                        for that matter, Saudis are *KNOWN* for their link to
                        al Qaeda.
                        Further, the war was sold based upon weapon of mass
                        destruction.  If anything, North Koreans are the one
                        who is closest of getting the nuke and multi-stage
                        missile.  Why didn't we invade N.Korea instead?
                        Most war of aggression are waged under the moral
                        \_ Why didn't we invade NK instead?  Man, do I
                           wish we could.  But the fact is, even w/o
                           nukes NK has enough artillery on the border
                           to reduce Seoul to rubble within 24 hours.
                           THAT'S why we didn't invade.
                        \_ Ok, name one such war.
                           \_ Opium War, in the name of white man's burden.
                        ground in the history of man kind.  This is not an
                        exception neter.
2003/12/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11345 Activity:nil
12/7    Best.  Iraq War Quote.  Ever.
        "With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for
        projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to
        help them," Colonel Sassaman said.
        http://csua.org/u/568
      \_ You obviously don't understand the Arab mind.
         \_ You obviously have no sense of irony.
         \_ Oh then tell me please, Mr. Authority on Everything, how it is
            that we need to destroy the village in order to save it?
            \_ Actually, I was quoting the Second. Best. Iraq Quote. Ever.
               "You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a
               company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said
               as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only
               thing they understand is force-- force, pride and saving
               face."
      \_ The villager photos are being taken with a digital camera, a
         Sony one it looks like.
      \_ "Kill them.  Kill them ALL!"  Cue Dark Empire music.
          \_ laissez Dieu assortir les morts
2003/12/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29693 Activity:nil
12/5    Why does everybody care about Finland?  What happened to Africa,
        Israel, Sunni/Shiite/Kurd debates?
        \_ motd darwinism: who's going to delete a finland thread?
           it's all the censors have left us with.
        \_ Too troolish.
2003/12/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11315 Activity:nil
12/4    US State Department to censor Wesley Clark's testimony in Milosevic
        trial:
        http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/03/3fcd71b815e8e
        \_ My question is why Wesley Clark would testify at a court which
           USA never recognized at first place?  Wouldn't it makes a mockery
           of our own policy?
           \_ You're thinking of the ICC, the International Criminal Court.
              Clark is testifying before the International War Crimes
              Tribunal in the Hague, about his command of NATO during the
              Kosovo action.  These are totally different entities.  It's
              fairly obvious that the State Department is trying to
              suppress positive news coverage of a Democratic candidate,
              as there isn't much to protect in the way of national security
              here.
2003/12/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11301 Activity:nil
12/2    Laruie Mylroie: The Neocons' favorite conspiracy theorist:
        http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html
        \_ Can someone please define "neocon" for me?  It appeared a while back
           criticizing conservatives, but I have yet to see a definition other
           than "sounds scary".
2003/12/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29684 Activity:moderate
12/1    The liberal case for war in Iraq:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/opinion/30FRIE.html?8hpib
        \_ more like the case for reconstruction in Iraq
           \_ correct.  And he's wrong in saying that there's nothing coming
              from the left other than anti-Bushism.  But people are frustrated,
              and the protests are more about that than "making lemonade".
2003/11/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:11224 Activity:kinda low
11/25   Farmer's house to be destroyed in a matter of hours.
        Just remember you never really own property in this country.
        If the government wants it, too bad.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1028759/posts
        \_ what does it mean in the comments section when freepers say
           "bump?"  Is that like "Heil Bush?"
           \_ if it means the same thing as on various other boards, then
              it means to bump the thread back up to the top in the thread
              index. it works because posts that show activity get moved up.
        \_ Bzzt. As with so many freeper links, this does not contain enough
           info to make an informed judgement.  Does this building constitute
           an asbestos hazard?  Is this a living unit?  What were Farmer
           Avery's responses to the letters sent by the Supervisor?  Does the
           county intend to claim the land under eminent domain?  Give us
           more info and less sloganeering.  --erikred
        \_ Read the constitution. it's called immenient domain.
                                              \_ eminent
           \_ Not only do you not know how to spell, you don't know your
              Constitution.  The Fifth Amendment ends, "nor shall private
              property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
              That's a right for the people, not the government.  In this
              case, the property is not being taken, it is not being used
              for the public, and the property that is being destroyed is
              not being compensated for.  The government contends this guy's
              home was being used improperly and is destroying it.  Unless
              due process didn't occur, this is Constitutionally okay.  Sucks
              for him, but sometimes due process doesn't get nice results.
              Further, saying "you never really own property in this country"
              is fallacious.  It's like saying "you never really own your own
              body" because there are limits on abortion and the death penalty
              exists.  Or because you can be jailed.  In this country,
              property rights are far greater than in most.
        \_ I think it is funny that the same yahoos that celebrate when
           Iraqi or Palastinian homes are demolished get all up in arms
           when it happens to one of them.
           \_ Yeah, because inhabiting your own property because you're
              tired is just as bad a crime as killing innocents for political
              advantage.
           \_ I didn't see in the article where Farmer Bob blew anyone up,
              shot down any planes, set off any bombs, or sent his brainwashed
              children off to a pizza parlor to kill himself and some kids.
              \_ Neither did most of those people in Palestine either. They
                 just happened to live in the same village.
        \_ It's a communist plot from America-hating democrats!
           \_ Fascist, actually.
2003/11/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11201 Activity:nil
11/23   "We will in fact, be greeted as liberators." -Dick Cheney
        http://csua.org/u/52o
        Is this what Dick meant?
        \_ absolutely.  what's the problem?
           \_ I don't know.  When US GI liberated France half century
                     pluralize this _/                   \_ missing article.
                       \_ you                                 \_ are
              ago.  Soldiers don't get killed on daily basis.
          comma _/            \_ didn't          \_ missing article
             \_ a                 \_ pedantic        \_ twit.
                                                        \_ This might be a
                                                           fair assessment if
                                                           the guy had made one
                                                           error, then got
                                                           yelled at for
                                                           posting ESL crap.
              \_ Holy cow, how many errors can you make in a 2 line post???
        \_ I like how you pro-war neocons are pretty quiet about stuff
           like this.  Is it because you now know everyone thinks you're
           full of shit?
           \_ If your boys hadn't proved to be such wimps in Iran and
              Somalia then the rest of the world wouldn't think they can
              chase us off with a few bodies dragged through the street on
              camera and a hostage or two.  As far as "quiet about stuff like
              this" goes, I didn't even bother to read the link.  What's the
              point?  If 24.999 million Iraqis came out with flowers and the
              last guy moped in his room that day, you'd flash the headline,
              "Iraqi hates Americans!  Wants Saddam back!  Film at 11".
              There's no point in responding because nothing we can say would
              satisfy you in any way.  If your boy had said and done the same
              things, you'd be the first out there saying how important it is
              to free the Iraqi people and too fucking bad if a few jarheads
              get wasted because, hey, that's what they're for, right?  That's
              paraphrasing your girl Albright, btw.
              \_ This is a great example of neocon ignorance and rage. "I don't
                 even need to read what you have to say, since I believe
                 everything BushCo and Faux News tells me." GO TEAM!
           \_ Stuff like what?  We WERE greeted like liberators.  Sure,
              there are some people in Iraq who don't like americans.
              There are plenty of people here in the US of A with that
              property too.  There are quite a few places here in the US
              where the locals would be more than happy to drag around the
              bloodied corpses of police officers.  What's your point?
              \_ We were greeted as liberators by about 15 people.  Have you
                 looked closely at the images of the Saddam statue falling?
                 The media outnumbered the participants 1.5:1.
                 \_ I have seen home videos shot by soldiers.  They were
                    greeted by a fair bit more than 15 people as they were
                    driving around Baghdad.  People of all ages.
              \_ [ non-sequitur deleted again ]
2003/11/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11181 Activity:nil
11/21   Paul Wolfowitz flashback, 1991, in regards to the Kurdish and Shi'ite
        uprising:
        "No one can read about what's going on there without feeling a great
        sense of sympathy for what's going on. But that doesn't mean it is in
        our power to straighten it out. It's a mess that, to be a little harsh
        about it, is to some extent of their creation, and they are going to
        have to come up with a solution."
        \_ If they did anything effective "world opinion" would have declared
           their actions illegal and restore Hussein to power.
           \_ Your head must stink from being up your ass so much of the
              time.
              \_ wow, with a brilliantly written reply like that, what more
                 need be said?  you've certainly shown yourself to be the
                 most intelligent and educated person on this thread.  got
                 any other little bits of your 'special olympics' quality
                 wisdom you'd like to share with the class?
                 \_ hi, motd wowboy! who are you?
2003/11/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11162 Activity:high
11/20   Keep deleting, and I'll keep restoring, fuckwit.  What are you afraid
        of, anyway?
        Richard Perle admits invasion of Iraq was illegal:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
        \_ Our wonderful Anonymous MOTD Censor is terrified that there might
           actually be non-technical conversation that would highlight his
           complete lack of real world savvy.  Poor, twisted, socially inept
           thing.
        \_ No.  There is no such thing as international law.  We've been over
           this before.  Laws with no enforcement mechanism are not laws.  They
           are suggestions.  Get over it.  Not interested in your or GW Sr's
           New World Order, thanks.
           \_ I'm curious - why is this rigid debating style of immediate
              dismissal, moral absolutes, and snap judgement so popular?
              It makes you look like an idiot, and makes everyone listening
              or reading just tune out.  The hard right and hard left are
              equally guilty of it.
              \_ It isn't a debating style.  It's a fact.  A law with no
                 enforcement mechanism isn't a law.  If there is no statuatory
                 punshiment associated with a violation of an alleged law,
                 then how can be there a law?  Using my brain and knowing what
                 a law is will only make me look like an idiot to the ignorant.
                 \_ Regardless of the fact that you completely ignored my
                    question, I'll take your bait.  Of course there's a law.
                    The WTO and UN, for instance, both have systems to
                    enforce their rules.  These rules worked pretty well in
                    both the first Gulf War and the US action in Afghanistan.
                    We decided to flagrantly violate them in Iraq because
                    we weren't getting our way.  We can't just pick and choose
                    which laws we choose to follow based on whether we are
                    getting our way in a given situation.  How can we ever
                    expect any other country to take international law
                    seriously if we don't?  International law has got some
                    really important aspects, chief among them the Nuclear
                    Non Proliferation Treaty.  For an even more recent
                    example, look up Bush's decisions on steel and textile
                    tariffs, which are the antithesis of good trade policy
                    and only serve his immediate political gain.
        \_ Bush took an oath to uphold the law of the U.S., not to placate the
           rest of the world.  I didn't agree with the way the Iraq war was
           carried out, but I agree strongly that doing the right thing
           should take precedence over following a European interpretation of
           "law."  [formatd]
            \_ I just find this extremely interesting because in the whole
               build up to the war, they kept saying that the war _was_
               justified under international war via the original UN
               resolution.  No one bought this argument, and now Perle is
               simply admitting that the war was illegal under generally
               accepted terms of international law, not a "European
               interpretation" as you put it.  If the "war on terror" is
               ever to be successful, we need to work with and through
               international bodies, not against them.  Unilateralism and
               projection of military power isn't enough, and probably
               just works against us in the long run.
               \_ I agree that unilateralsim is a bad idea in general
                  and i agree that it was a bad idea in this case.  I just
                  think that there are circumstances in which it would
                  be justified, regardless of international law.
               \_ Richard Perle is not a decision maker.  He is an advisor.
                  Also, do you believe in following any law just because it is
                  a law or do you believe it is ok to violate an unjust law?
                  If you believe the latter, you can't cherry pick which laws
                  are ok to violate and which are not.
2003/11/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11123 Activity:high
11/18   Westly Clark on Fox News...
        http://tinyurl.com/vf9k
        \_ Wow.  That was really painful to watch.
        \_ thank you for confirming every stereotype about how dishonest
           and willfully ignorant Fox "News" is.  That's not an interview,
           it's a verbal attack.
           \_ Thankfully, Wes recognized this and attacked the question.  Go
              Wes!
           \_ hahahhahaha, now you know how conservatives feel about the
              liberal media.  take that, crackerjack!
              \_ liberal media?  proof it?  Last time I checked, the media
                 has been puppet of Bush's policy.
                 \_ last time I posted about the NYT with examples it got
                    deleted so fucking fast the bits flew off the hard drive.
                    I could repost but why don't you just search the archive
                    for NYT instead?  the last time you checked you were so
                    left wing you think the SF chronicle is a bastion of
                    right wing conservatism.
        \_ Isn't it Wesley?
           \_ yes.
        \_ Holy Smokes!  Fox News is SLIMY!
           \_ Hot damn!  Clark put that putz in his place!
              \_ I agree.
              \_ Well, he did ok but I think the question caught him off
                 guard. It was a calculated smear attempt. Any criticism
                 of the war or its purpose is twisted into an attack on the
                 armed forces. Fucking disgusting.
        \_ The guy does not appreciate the significance of Posse
           Comitatus.
           He has a very poor choice of words and demeanor.
           If a Fox news anchor can rattle him...
           \_ Maybe, but have you heard Bush speak?  A kindergartner could
              beat him in a fair debate...
                \_ Including calling the largest land war since
                   Vietnam a 'side-show'.  He predicted a sixth
                   month war on CNN.
                   \_ Uh, hello?  Russia/Afghanistan?  Iran/Iraq?  Hutsi/Tutsi?
                      Gulf War I?  How stupid can you be?
                        \_ I did not realize the U.S. committed troops
                           to the first three you mentioned. Source?
                           \_ No one said "only US wars".  Anyway, we were
                              involved in the first two and smart enough to
                              let the europeans really seriously fuck up the
                              third one without us.
                   \_ I thought our troop commitment in Gulf War I was much
                      larger than GWII.  Hmm.  Must do research.
                        \_ You guys aren't making much sense.  Sixth month war?
                           I thought out troop commitment?  You make the
                           ESL guys look like Shakespeare.
                           \_ Chill out, guy.  1 typo != ESL.  You might want
                              to reread the preceding comment a little less
                              selectively;
                              "...the largest land war since Vietnam..."
                                \_ Obviously he was talking only about ones
                                   that the US was a primary player in, bc who
                                   gives a damn about others, right?
                                   \_ Uhm, the US *was* the primary player in
                                      Gulf War I.  Are you really this obtuse
                                      and stupid or are you merely trolling?
                                   \_ Obviously?  No.  You're adding that
                                      after the fact.  "US" is two letters.
                                      If he meant US, he could've easily said
                                      US.  And a lot of us give a whole lot of
                                         sound urbane unmolested, Logicboy!
                                      damn about the others.
                                      \_ No!  NOOO!  Do not you be logical!
                                         Let us rant about Shakespeare to
                                         sound urbane and avoid demonstrating
                                         our vapid stupidity unmolested,
                                         Logicboy!
2003/11/17-18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29638 Activity:high
11/17   Top US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, dismissed the
        new Saddam message as "a voice from the wilderness".  Doesn't
        Paul Bremer realize that the phrase is usually used to refer
        to John the Baptist and prophesies of the coming of Jesus
        the Messiah?  Are Neocons all fake Christians?
        (restored, unfortunately the followups were lost)
        \_ hi troll!
        \_ Ok, I'll bite--JtB got his head cut off, his boss got nailed to a
           telephone pole, their followers got fed to giant cats by effeminate
           Italians in dresses.  Case in point, we did a Bonnie & Clyde on
           Uday and Qusay, the little thugs, so now there's only dad left to
           go.  What exactly is your point?  -John
           \_ Come to think of it, Bush Jr. is about as cartoonish as
              Nero the Roman Emperor.
           \_ Come to think of it, Bush Jr. is as cartoonish as Nero the
              Christian killing Roman Emperor.  And that's about where
              your silly analogy ends.
           \_ Open the eyes of Christians to the true colors of the neocon
              ideologues.
2003/11/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11106 Activity:kinda low
11/16   Why Are We Losing The Peace In Iraq?
        http://www.military.com/NewContent?file=Defensewatch_111303_Peace
        \_ thanks for the link.  It's very informative.
        \_ because we're not killing enough people?
                \_ no, because the Muslims are not killing enough of us.
              \_ so if they killed more Americans you believe there would be
                 peace in Iraq?  Uhm, wow, you've exceeded all bounds of
                 trolldom.  there's no way to respond and keep your troll
                 going, sorry.
2003/11/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:11104 Activity:high
11/16   Seven million died in the 'forgotten' holocaust
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022860/posts?page=1,50
        \_ It's a free republic link, it must be nonsense!
           \_ It's a reprint of an article from a real paper. of course, this
              is almost certainly illegal.  not that i would care normally, but
                                  \_ Unless of course they have permission.
              there's a certain irony to all these law and order conservative
              motherfuckers building a site on routine violation of
              copyright law.  kind of like rush limbaugh being a drug fiend
              copywrite law.  kind of like rush limbaugh being a drug fiend
              who for some reason doesn't have to be locked up for ten years
              like a typical War on Drugs victim.
              \_ how many people have been locked up for ten years for
                 abusing prescription drugs?  none?  thought so.  come back
                 when you're less bitter about being in the minority and
                 want to discuss facts instead of your bitter delusions.
        \_ It's not forgotten as are killings of millions of other peoples
           during the Stalin's era. The brutal past is probably the reason
           why the people in the Baltic states and Ukraine (specially Western
           \_ Not just "these days".  They've always been.  1955 for a good
              example of modern but not too recent events.
              like a typical War on Drugs victim.
           Ukraine) are so anti-russian these days.
2003/11/16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11092 Activity:nil
11/15   Iraq's al Qaeda links:
        http://tinyurl.com/v2r5 (weeklystandard.com)
        \_ you may find this site useful:
           http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
           it's a news site roughly as objective and mainstream
           as the Weekly Standard.
        \_ of course there was a link.  it's called "enemies."
        \_ so why isn't this on CNN instead of just a conservative web site?
           also, "top secret" memos usually don't get leaked
           the author of the memo is also a dyed in the wool neocon
           http://middleeastinfo.org/article701.html
           \_ Doh! DOD STATEMENT ON NEWS REPORTS OF AL-QAIDA AND IRAQ
              CONNECTIONS
              http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
              So the memo is real but it is raw data and draws
              no conclusions.
              \_ "News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed
                 new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida
                 and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are
                 inaccurate."
                 \_ But everyone knows that the DoD is full of Godless
                    Commuinists that just want to run down GWB, while
                    the Weekly Standard is an objective newspaper
                    that only prints The Truth and is Fair and Balanced.
2003/11/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29634 Activity:nil
11/13   CNN: "An AC-130 Spectre gunship was called in to destroy a warehouse
        in southern Baghdad used by Iraqi insurgents to meet and plan attacks
        against U.S. forces around the Iraqi capital, the officials said.
        There were no known casualties in the incident."
        Great, so we shoot up an empty building (so we won't accidentally kill
        civilians) with a plane with a big cannon, and this is the war on
        the insurgency?
        \_ Hey! It helps to build morale.
           \_ According to _Jarhead_ by Swocroft, this is true.  Blowing
              things up will most certainly raise GI morale.
              \_ that's Swofford. and I wouldn't exactly describe his state
                 at the end of the book as one of "high morale" after
                 blowing shit up.
        \_ They destroyed an abandoned building instead of wasting troops
           sitting there to patrol and guard it.  What's your beef?
           \_ my troll is bigger than yours!
              \_ uh?  yermom!
           \_ That's great. But why stop at "abandoned" buildings? Just
              get rid of Baghdad altogether, and go home.
2003/11/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11067 Activity:kinda low
11/13   The other day on the motd, I said that there are only like 200
        guerillas in Iraq.  Now, the Bush administration is saying that it's
        like 5000.  Guess I am wrong.  Sorry for being a moron.
        \_ Bastard piece of shit.  *I* said it was 200-300 and the Bush admin
           today said it's more like 3000.  Do you have to lie while being an
           asshole?  I'd rather be wrong than a liar like you.  And I didn't
           get my 200-300 from the Bush admin.  It was my own guess for the
           number in the Sunni triangle area, not the entire country.
        \_ I am sorry you believe what Bush tells you, too. But thanks for
           the apology.
           \_ Who do you think you are to not believe what our president
              tells us?  He is a most honest man.  Besides, he got the
              data from the most seniorest American commander in the middle
              east.  Even Christian lass Condoleeza Rice agreed.  She never
              lies.  Have you even been to Iraq?
              tells us?  He is a most honest man.  Besides, he got it from
              the most seniorest American commander in the middle east.
              Even Christian Condoleeza Rice agreed.  She never lies.
              Have you even been to Iraq?
2003/11/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11065 Activity:nil
11/13   http://tinyurl.com/uya4
        "Abandoned" building has owner and textile machinery which
        got wrecked by US plane strafing it.  Or is that a different
        building?
        \_ Same building.  Is Bush personally directing the strikes?
           \_ Yes, it's just like Johnson in Vietnam.  He's actually on the
              radio counting down to tell the pilot when to drop each set of
              bombs.  War is so cool when you're the king!
2003/11/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11060 Activity:nil
11/13   link:famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters11-12-212426.asp?reg=MIDEAST
        Iraq insurgency was planned by Saddam
        \_ Your article says that "some U.S. Commanders" believe this.  I bet
           "some U.S. Commanders" also believe in the tooth fairy, that doesn't
           necessarily make it so.
2003/11/12-13 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11048 Activity:nil
11/12   We like to accuse other countries of war crimes, but won't own up to
        our own:
        http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE
        Interestingly, Donald Rumsfeld was ALSO the Secretary of Defense when
        the investigation was simply filed away and covered up.
        \_ America, love it or leave it.
           \_ Or fix it.
           \_ I like to memorize bumper stickers instead of thinking for myself,
              too!
           \_ this comment is beyond stupid
              \_ has it crossed into the realm of dubya?
           \_ Is this what you would have said to Patrick Henry? Could you
              stare George Washington in the face and say this? "Stupid
              Revolutionaries, if you don't like the colonies being ruled
              by England, just leave!". Do me a favor and fuck yourself.
              \_ I think he was trolling. He got 4, 3 were small though.
                 Anyway it's better than "My country, right or wrong!"
        \_ Heh, I was going to say there hasn't been anything even remotely
           like a war crime since Vietnam and then, hey, what did you dig up
           but stuff about Vietnam?  What next?  Some of the founders owned
           slaves!  Whatever.
           \_ Those who don't learn from the past...
              \_ Yawn.  Which war crimes are being committed today by US
                 soldiers?
                 \_ I would think whatever is happening in guantanamo bay
                    would considered as war crime.  The administration
                    repeatly state that fight against Terror is a different
                    kind of war, thus, international rule doesn't apply.  This
                    arguement is errily similiar to what Hitler has told his
                    staff regards to war against the USSR.
                    \_ You think holding some dudes against their will is a
                       war crime?  Are you one of those people who thinks in
                       black'n'white on every subject?  A war crime is being
                       resposible for the deaths of hundreds, thousands or in
                       WW2, millions of civilians.  A war crime is the scum at
                       the UN engaged in the sex slave trade who are the same
                       people responsible for ending it.  A war crime is one
                       group of people genociding another.  Getting put on a
                       plane to gitmo, given 3 squares and a Koran, a compass
                       and access to Muslim clerics is not a war crime, son.
                       \_ Dude, it's the ESL Conspiracy Theorist Guy.  He's so
                          mired in his Anti-US Utopia, that he's invented his
                          own english-like vocabulary and a unique sort of
                          logic to support his POV.
                       \_ Alright, who let the John Bircher out of his cage
                          again?
           \_ Last time I checked, we were still trying Nazi Criminals couple
              years ago.  If the statue of limitation is more than 50 years
              (as how we treats the Nazis), I think a lot of people deserve
              to be hung.
              \_ They were convicted in 1945.  There's no place in the world
                 where running away for long enough after a conviction gets
                 you off the hook.  But, yes, I agree with you that a lot of
                 people deserve to be hung, statute of limitations or not.
2003/11/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11034 Activity:nil
11/11   http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1443869,00.html
        Check out your "President"'s latest lie.  Now they're 'finding' a
        huge bomb just kind of driving around the streets.  Uh huh, riiight!
        \_ I bet it was planted personally by Bush to make it look like things
           we're going well in Iraq!  Lying scum!
2003/11/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11020 Activity:nil
11/10   While ousting Sadam Hussein is a good thing, wouldn't killing Iraqis
        and making a lot of fatherless children create a anti-AMerica
        sentiments which will create even more Jihad/suicidal bombers?
        \_ No.
        \_ Why would you believe this?  Is there any example in history of this
           happening?  Nice troll.
2003/11/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11014 Activity:high
11/10   Retired CIA analyst take on the WMD controversy:
        http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1109-02.htm
        \_ Yoo-hoo, Neo Cons?  Care to comment?
           \_ I am a socialist myself.  Having said that, I don't see
              anyone, conservatives, liberals alike, should tolerate leaders
              lies in order to drag us into war.
        \_ one of the interesting trait of George Bush is that while he has
           gutts to make bold moves, he doesn't seems to have the shoulder to
           bear the responsibility when things are not going his way.
           Deny the fact that he linked Iraq with al Qeda is one example,
           scapgoating George Tenent and the entire CIA community is another.
           While I disagree with 99% of his political agenda, it is this
           particular trait which I've completely lost any respect for
           him, as a person.
        \_ This guy was an intelligence officer during the Nixon
           administration - he has no knowledge of current WMD intelligence
           beyond you and me.  Let's recall what Democrats in the House
           and Senate had to say, from the Congressional Record:
           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/949198/posts
           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947873/posts
           For some reason I trust the Senate Foreign Relations
           committee more than this guy.
           Did you read the Kay report - even the abstract?
           \_ Actually he served as a CIA analyst from 1964 to 1990.
              Here he exposes more lies from the Bush administration:
                http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06232003.html
                http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06272003.html
              \_ Useless.  That was before the FIRST war.  We're now 6 months
                 after the SECOND war _and_ 12 YEARS of sanctions.  You might
                 as well quote me in a book.  My opinion is just as valid as
                 this guy's.
                 \_ I am just pointing out the weak attempt (by you,
                    presumably) to discredit McGovern by saying that he
                    is from the "Nixon administration" when he worked
                    way beyond that time period right into the senior
                    Bush's administration.  Besides, his revelations were
                    not based on some supposed classified piece of
                    information, but information released to the public
                    combined with his understanding on how the intelligence
                    community works and how they interact with the
                    politicians.  In that regard, given his intelligence
                    background and experience, yes, his opinion is more
                    valuable than yours.
                    \_ That was my first comment in this thread.  His info
                 \_ So it is your contention McGovern has more classified
                       and understanding is ancient.  I'm here to discuss my
                       opinions and he's not.  There's no way to question him.
                       The article is like a hit n run driver.  You don't know
                       that he's done anything more than sit on a beach for
                       13 years while I've read everything available.  My
                       opinion carries more weight than his until he shows up
                       and demonstrates post-1990 knowledge.
                       \_ Interesting.  Maybe that's why Donald Rumsfeld
                          is so horrible as the Secretary of Defense.
                          Must be because his experience under the Nixon
                          administration, etc. was totally useless, and
                          because he went into business for quite a few
                          years before coming back, his "ancient"
                          experience had become totally outdated.  Maybe,
                          instead of calling him a senior statesman, we
                          should call him a rookie statesman.
                 \_ So it is your contention McGovern has more classified
                    sources than Senators Joe Biden, Carl Levin, and former
                    Majority leader Tom Daschle?
                    sources than Senators Joe Biden and Carl Levin?
           \_ I read the NYT and CNN summary which said GWB is eeevvvviill so
              I don't need to read anything more!  Those pure and neutral
              bodies of journalistic integrity and highest principles tell me
              all I need to think about any topic!  The 300,000 dead Iraqis
              that Hussein put in their graves wasn't above the fold of the
              NYT so it isn't important!  Nyah!
              \_ So now we're taking out every regime that kills more than
                 \_ Don't forget Indonesia ... oh wait, we have a big
                    gold mine and oil projects there .... sorry, next
                    country.
                 \_ If we could I think we should.  You think we should pull
                    back and hide behind our borders in Fortress America?  If
                    the rest of the world is lucky we one day will be able to.
                    \_ Afghanistan, good war.  Iraq, bad war.  No one
                       here except you is talking about a Fortress America.
                       Your strawman argument doesn't work.
                       \_ Afghanistan pretty much sucks as a war too if you're
                          going to include aftermath. Only Kabul is under
                          control, and that is only by the will of the warlords
                          who are willing to give the UN their "victory."
                          \_ yea, but at least the goal is clear right
                             from the start - disrupting bin laden and al
                             queda.  taking out taliban is a side benefit.
                             taliban is as hopeless as it get already,
                             comparable to the khmer rouge.  anything is
                             better that the taliban.  as bad as saddam
                             was, an aftermath worse than what it was
                             before is quite possible for iraq.
                 300K?  The Africans will be so happy!
2003/11/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10997 Activity:nil
11/8    Estimated 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves courtesy Saddam Hussein.
        http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-iraq-mass-graves,0,2467876,print.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
2003/11/8 [Health/Dental, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10991 Activity:nil
11/7    Regarding Lynch, the iraqi doctor who treated her first maintains that
        she arrived fully clothed, buttoned, and zipped up.  While treating her
        injuries, including a broken femur, he noticed no evidence of rape.
        \_ Is this the same Iraqi doctor who was complaining how "rude" the
           rescue team was during the rescue?  Who's to say that one of
           the Iraqi guards at the hospital wasn't a "My name is Buck, and
           I'm here to f*ck" type guy?
                        \_ just type fuck. FUCK. sheesh.
        \_ Oh?  So he did a medical inspection for rape, did he?  No.  He
           did no such thing.  Even if this guy isn't lying through his teeth,
           if I was the soldier who raped her ass I'd want to avoid any
           questions and take the 5 seconds to redo her clothing after.  The
           last I checked, looking at a broken femur does not reveal evidence
           of any sort of rape.  Why are you posting this garbage?
           \_ If she had a broken femur, you can bet your ass they cut her
              out of her uniform post-haste to examine the wound.  Any
              reasonable examination of her would immediately reveal anal
              bleeding, leading in turn to further investigation and at
              least suspicion of rape.  The Army reports on PFC Lynch and
              her "rescue" have been shown to have serious factual errors,
              and it does not surprise me that they'd fabricate reports of
              her sodomizing rape in order to stir up the red-blooded
              American sons and soldiers.
              \_ So you know there'd be anal bleeding?  You know they took good
                 care of her?  You know they cut away her uniform and did a
                 proper and full medical inspection?  What are these factual
                 errors in the rescue reports and what is the source of
                 the alleged corrections?  You're just making shit up based on
                 nothing in particular and presenting it as fact.  You don't
                 and *can't* know any of these things.
                 \_ Neither can you, but we can make educated guesses.
                    The only people who know are unfortunately shown
                    to be often untruthful.
                    \_ I believe the random medical reports from the US Army
                       hospital in Germany before I'd believe the Iraqi doctor
                       who has to worry about his life and his family's.
                       \_ Random?  There is nothing random about it right
                          from when they decided to treat the whole
                          incident as a carefully chereographed PR
                          campaign.

                          \_ So you think she hasn't been to a private doctor
                             since then and had it confirmed?  Given her other
                             statements she'd deny the rape if she didn't have
                             her own proof.  So, yes, random.
           \_ "[Lynch] also told Sawyer that she believes the U.S. military
               overdramatized the story of her rescue in Iraq."
        \_ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/07/sprj.irq.jessica.lynch.doctors.ap
2003/11/7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29625 Activity:nil
11/7    Turkey is not sending trops to Iraq. A blow to President Bush,
        perhaps, but Turkey troop would of caused more problem than it
        would resolve if they are actually being send ti Iraq anyway.
        \_ What is going on at the White House??
        \_ "would of"?
        \_ The Iraqi Governing Council was screaming bloody murder about the
           possibility so we didn't push it.
2003/11/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29624 Activity:high
11/7    Another chopper is down in Iraq...
        \_ Duh, it's post-war partisan cleanup.  It happens.  Only children
           and the naive think war is like G.I.Joe vs Cobra.  Say a prayer
           for the families of the soldiers.
           \_ And blame the men who put them in harm's way needlessly while
              lying to the world and destroying your nation's moral authority.
              \_ needless is a matter of opinion.  what's the exchange rate
                 between moral authority and something of value?
                 \_ I don't know but I do know that we
                    should have a damn good reason (instead of
                    constantly changing reasons for the war)
                    for sacrificing American lives.
           \_ I prefer to pray for the deaths of Iraqi guerillas and
              all anti-American Iraqis.  I wish they all die and rot
              in hell.
              \_ troll
                 \_ like the first one wasn't?
                 \_ what makes it a troll?  it isn't. --not praying for anything
        \_ "Bring 'em on!" -GWB
        \_ Bush just created six new job openings in Iraq!
2003/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10986 Activity:high
11/7    Pvt. Lynch upset about the filming and portrayal of her rescue.
        http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/11/07/lynch_portrayal/index.html
        \_ this is controversial because??
         \_ Aren't you a little upset that the government fabricated
            a nice media story about a dangerous midnight special forces
            rescue while tacitly admitting that the situation was safe
            enough to have a CAMERAMAN there?
            \_ The camera was held by a special forces guy, not someone from
               the NYT.  Feel better now?  Or just less ignorant?
               \_ Obviously it was a special forces guy.  Why did he have it?
                  Was it to protect his squad, or just to get American hearts
                  pumping proud patriotic blood?  It reminded me of Wag the
                  Dog-- 8 macho americans storm a dangerous terrorist hospital
                  and rescue the pretty blonde princess from the axis of evil...
                  and we've got VIDEO!
                  \_ because they film a lot of stuff for both training and
                     how-can-we-improve purposes.  if you weren't so anti-
                     military you might understand how it works.
                     \_ Which is of course why we see so much footage of bombed
                        out schools and dead soldiers on the evening news.  I'm
                        not anti-military, I'm against the spin efforts the
                        government is pushing.  It's not fair to the american
                        public and the soldiers themselves to release footage of
                        a quasi-staged rescue but forbid releasing footage of
                        military failures.
           \_ if you have to ask...
              \_ you're useless
           \_ 1. She didn't fight until the bitter end.  Her gun was jammed.
              2. Contrary to US media, she was not mistreated after her
                 capture.
                 \_ interestingly, in today's chron they're reporting there
                    is evidence of sexual assault in her capture.  Article
                    Titled "POW Lynch was raped by Iraqi Captors, biography says"
                    \_ [Graphic detail censored to keep motd work-safe.]
                       \_ one of the few news worthy items got censored?  for
                          work safeness?  so its ok for your boss to see the
                          junk on the motd on your screen wasting company time
                          and resources but not if it refers to a soldier's
                          anal rape at the hands of her barbaric captors?
                    \_ They lied about WMD.  They lied about her going
                       down fighting.  They lied about circumstances of
                       her rescue.  Could they be lying about her having
                       been raped?
                 \_ not mistreated?  so get anally raped by one or more Iraqis
                    doesn't count as mistreatment?  there's a human rights
                    violation investigation going on since shortly after the
                    government fell.  The WP misreported.  Bush nor any other
                    admin figure said she went down fighting.
                    \_ Yea, some military doctors says some of her
                       wounds are unlikely to be caused by the Humvee crash.
                       She herself remembers nothing except that she was
                       treated well throughout her captivity.
                       \_ They're lying about her not being raped, too!
                          Those bastards!
2003/11/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10975 Activity:nil
11/6    Newbie C qutions:  how do you pass a variable to a system call.
        I think you have to define an array with sprintf and then pass it
        like so...
        //start
        // stuff include stdio, argv and argc def and main, etc...
        char *cmd;
        // lots of stuff here
        cmd = sprintf("echo echoing %s is arg1 ", argv[1]);
        system(cmd);
        //end

        It compiles but seg faults.  What am i doing wrong? (tnx)
        \_ See sprintf(3) man page.
        \_ Your bug is about sprintf().  It has nothing to do with system call.
        \_ More explicitly (and you'd better be C newbie), you need to allocate
           memory for cmd, not just define a pointer to it:
           char cmd[128]; // cmd now points to the first of 128 chars on the stack
           snprintf(cmd, 128, "echo echoing %s is arg1 ", argv[1]);
                         \_ better: sizeof cmd
           system(cmd);
           \_ snprintf() is not ANSI C
              \_ yeah yeah yeah, but "good habits" and some other fucker
                 dinged me for not checking strlen(argv[1]).
              \_ snprintf is standardized in C99.

  11/6  Day 241 since the Invasion of Iraq.
        Still no WMD.
        \_ Bush never said it was about WMD
                \_ sure he did.  several times.  I still don't think
                   that's why we went there in the first place, it makes
                   me sad our president is so dishonest.
                   \_ I take a president who lies about blowjob than
                      a president who lies about going to war any day.
                      \_ Yeah the lesser of two evils is always good.
             \_ COUGH COUGH!
           \_ It amazes me that you would try to make this claim:
              http://csua.org/u/4x5
        \_ "The American people know that Saddam Hussein was a gathering
           danger, as I said.  And the world is safer as a result for us
           removing him from power. ... Saddam Hussein is a man who hid
           programs and weapons for years.  He was a master at hiding things."
           -dubya
           \_ That's actually true.
               \_ no it's not.  Yes, Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man,
                  but we had no problem with that in the past.  He is
                  ambitious, yet RATIONAL.  By removing him, we have
                  open up all sort of possiblility in Iraq.  It is
                  unlikely that pro-western democracy will prevail, nor
                  is likely that a relatively non-religious dictator will
                  again rule Iraq.  At best, there will be some sort of
                  Fundamental Islamic Revolution similiar to Iran 30 yr ago,
                  worse, it will be a land of anarchy that is heaven for all
                  the mulism fanatics world wide.
                  \_ Excuse me?  Iraq has *never* been ruled by religious
                     fundamentalists in anything even remotely like modern
                     times.  And you may have noted the religious government
                     in Iran is cracking and won't be with us soon.  You have
                     no basis what so ever for any of your predictions.
                  \_ Uh...  What's not true?  That Saddam hid programs and
                     weapons for years?  That's clearly and demonstrably true.
                     That he is a master of hiding things?  Also true.
                       I think you are reading more into this quote than it
                     actually says.
                     \_ The world is far more dangerous as a result of the
                        invasion.
                        \_ Why?  The spacemonkeys are going to blow themselves
                           up in Iraq, not on US soil.  More dangerous for
                           soldiers, less dangerous for civilians.  As it
                           should be.  War is war, after all.
                           \_ for once, step outside of United States,
                              you will see anti-US setiment is at the highest
                              level EVER among citizens of other nations.
                              This includes Germany, France, as well as
                              non-Middle-Eastern, non-Muslim nations.
                              Like it or not, *EVERYONE* think USA is the
                              aggressor.  And Everyone is nerveous about
                              they are the next target in Bush's crosshair.
                              \_ Ok, let's accept your claim for a moment.  So
                                 what?  Are you aware they invented a new term
                                 for the US?  We're no longer a mere Super
                                 Power, but a Hyper Power.  An entity of such
                                 incredible military, cultural, and economic
                                 super might the likes of which the world has
                                 has never seen before.  The United States has
                                 the ability to 100% impose it's will upon the
                                 rest of the world.  *That* is what the EU and
                                 everyone is afraid of.  The reason they hate
                                 us is because we *dont* impose our will in
                                 the same way they would or have in the past
                                 when they got the chance.  They know there's
                                 nothing they can do to prevent American
                                 culture from taking over the world and we're
                                 not even trying!
                     \_ Do you honestly still believe that Saddam Hussein was
                        "a gathering danger"?
                        \_ Yes I do.  The man was a nutcase in power.  Those
                           need to be removed.

  11/6    Why vote for Dean?  Why donate to Dean?  Convince me.
          \_ for me it comes down to one issue: health care.  I've worked full
           time and had no health care and i know how much that sucks.
           40 million americans have no health insurance, which effectively
           means that they can't get health care.  I don't think any of the
           other candicates care about this, can get elected, and will
           have the will to make a national healthcare plan work.
           I believe Dean does.  Also, don't believe the hype about
           Dean being an ultra-leftist.  go read his positions on issues
           on his website and blog, and listen to the debates on cspan.
           he's a moderate who might just change one of the biggest
           injustices in our society.
                \_ Ever hear of Kaiser Permenante? Just buy it, how
                   stupid can you be?  Instead you want freebies that other
                   people pay for. Leech.
                   \_ Let them eat cake!
           \_ please use motdedit, you overwrote my response.
              \_ Fuck motdedit.  In the ear.
              \_ sorry.  could someone post where the documentation for
                 motdedit is for the thousanth time please?  -evil vi user
                 \_ motdedit -h?
                   \_ I don't know about documentation, but reading the source
                      it seems it invokes what is set as your $EDITOR variable
                      The file is /csua/bin/motdedit and is written in Perl.
                    \_ you can also use the shortcut "me" which is the same
                       file.  Less typing!  More locking!  All is good.
          \_ Because Kuninich could never get elected in a million years.
        \_ Because he is !Bush.
          \_ http://deanforamerica.com click "On The Issues" in the sidebar.
             Start with Economy, then Foreign Policy, Health, Campaign Finance,
             ... well, anything you're interested in.  He's got real plans
             that can work in the real world.  Is he going to be everything
             you ever hoped for in a candidate?  No.  But he has good
           compromises.
           \_ I like Dean's straight talk. You won't always agree with
              him on every issue, but you will know his reasons and he
              is the kind of guy who listens to FACTS, unlike the
              ideologues who have the RNC in a headlock. This next
              election is crucial and Dean is the one to restore real
              ethics and our government and real security to our country
              with an effective, multilateral foreign policy. You can't
              fight terrorism without winning hearts and minds. --aaron
              \_ At least we know *you* don't have any biases or an axe
                 to grind.  Now I know I can safely vote for anyone but
                 Dean and not feel bad for not checking him out.
        \_ His site runs FreeBSD
           \_ See!  Ties to Satan!  (Daemon-worship)
        \_ OK.  So I'm convinced that Dean is the best candidate
           in terms of health care.  But I'm concerned about other
           issues, such as foreign policy.  Tell me why Dean is better
           for foreign policy than Lieberman or any of the other strong
           Democratic candidates.
           \_ Presuming you also read the FP link on deanforamerica: I'm
              impressed by his attitude toward fighting terrorism, which seems
              to be that, yes, we need to destroy the terrorist orgs, but we
              we also need to avoid turning more young men into terrorists.
              It seems like he understands that men in their 20s, with a wife
              and 2 kids at home, don't strap bombs to their torsos because
              Allah told them to-- in most cases, it's because they've lost all
              hope of ever resolving the issue peacefully.
              \_ Oh My gosh, you are saying that Muslim are human too?
                 Did i just sense sanity in Motd?
          \_ I was convinced just watching him. Find some video of his speeches.
             I watched him talk in Iowa on CSPAN and it was clear. The other
             candidates with a chance don't have a strong message. They do
             nothing but attack Dean now. They simply can't win vs. Bush. Kerry
             "looks" presidential but that's about it. They act like typical
             politicians, criticizing while trying to avoid saying anything too
             specific that would open themselves to criticism.
2003/11/7 [Transportation/Car, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10972 Activity:kinda low
11/6    Doubts about the profiteering motives of the Iraq action?
        http://www.hillnews.com/news/110503/profiteering.aspx
        \_ And they say there's no looting:
           "At a Democratic Policy Committee hearing, Melanie Sloan,
           executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for
           Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, testified that
           "Halliburton [formerly headed by Vice President Dick
           Cheney] has charged an average price of $2.65 a gallon
           of gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait, despite experts'
           conclusions that the total price should be less than $1 a
           gallon."  Sloan added that Iraq's state oil company is
           importing "the exact same gas" for 97 cents.
           \_ Experts?  Which experts?  Gas in a war torn country still
              suffering partisan attacks should pay half of what I do in
              the most stable country on the planet?  I think not.  Also,
              that's not called looting.  The word you're looking for is
              'gouging'.  The real gouging is going on right here in the
              Bay Area.  I'd bet a buck you're one of the RIDE BIKE! folks
              who think high gas prices here are a good thing while at the
              same time you're bitching about the high price somewhere else.
              \_ personally, i believe gas prices, like other prices,
                 shoule be determined by the free market.  Maybe the
                 market would set prices in iraq at 4 bucks per gallon,
                 and at one dollar per gallon in the bay area, but
                 we won't know until we try will we?  It's ironic
                 that the profiteers who have taken control of our
                 federal gonvernment claim to be pro-free market
                 and then appear to be socialists when it makes their
                 business associates rich.
              \_ (1) Iraq is in an area where people are swimming in oil,
                     and they don't have to ship it half way around the
                     world, yet they are paying $2.65 which is much higher
                     than what most of this country is paying.
                 (2) There is a big difference between higher gasoline
                     prices due to taxes (that goes to pay infrastructure
                     improvements and pollution control, etc.) and
                     higher gasoline prices due to price gouging that
                     goes straight to pockets of fat cats like Dick Cheney.
                  \_ If location is so important please explain to me why I
                     pay 25 cents more per gallon living near a few refineries
                     than I do when I drive to the more remote parts of the
                     Bay Area which is getting their gas from the same
                     refineries?  It's called price gouging.  As for your
                     second point, you have absolutely no idea what the price
                     breakdown is for taxes,fuel costs, transport, security or
                     anything on Iraqi gas (or US gas either I'd guess).  The
                     real price gouging is going on right here in the Bay Area.
                     Tell me, you out there RIDING BIKE!?
                     \_ Since you insist on being a moron, I will explain
                        it to you.  Difference in transportation cost is
                        insignificant between where you live and other areas
                        of the Bay Area compared to the other costs of
                        the gasoline.  However, difference in tranportation
                        cost becomes significant when it is half way around
                        the world compared to right at the doorstep (i.e.
                        Kuwait to Iraq).  As for the breakdown of price,
                        the Iraqi state oil company is selling at $1 per
                        gallon, so can you tell us which of the factors
                        you mentioned (tax, fuel, transport, security) is
                        the cause of the additional $1.65 Halliburton is
                        charging?
                        \_ You completely ignored my question about why I pay
                           more living next to a refinery than I do when I
                           drive 200 miles in land where gas comes from the
                           same refinery.  If you're going to call someone a
                           moron and then explain why they're a moron, at least
                           put some effort into your proof.  This is the point
                           where I'm supposed to call you a moron in return but
                           I won't.  Your intellectual dishonesty speaks for
                           itself.
                        \_ BC raised taxes throughout his administration and
                           you're worried about a measly $1.65?  Grow up.
                           \_ Non-sequitor post of the day.
                              \_ free Kevin!!
                           \_ That totally follows...
                              OP: Something bad has happened in the Bush
                                  Administration.
                              Rep: It's Bill Clinton's fault!!
2003/11/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10962 Activity:kinda low
11/5    Total amount of lend lease for Russia from US: 11 billion.
        That is significant but it's still a small sum compared to
        what Russia produced.  Granted it's in 1940s dollars (I
        presume), but just a few months of a small war against a
        minor power like Iraq already cost us like 200 billion.
        \_ According to the bottom of the page
           http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html most of the stuff
           was sent afterthey had announced that they intended to take over
           the world and fight a war against the US?  WTF?  And we sent them
           2.2lb of uranium metal and 1000+ pounds of uranium compound?
           \_ Well the US did invade the Soviet Union. You can see them being
              upset about it.
        \_ 200 billion is nothing.  You need to compare the $$$ spent vs the
           GNP or GDP during each conflict to see what fraction of the economy
           went towards war.  The figures in WWII are astounding.  The numbers
           today are so miniscule it's barely a line item in the budget by
           comparison.
           \_ I would welcome figures for:
                * The equivalent of 11 billion in today's dollars.
                * GDP of Soviet Union in the 1940s in 1940s dollars.
                \_ no, you need figures for the US since it was all done in
                   US currency, then and now.  obgoogle.
                   \_ No, what we need is SU's GDP in US dollars so we
                      can compare that to the "11 billion" of lend lease.
                      I think everyone except you understood that's what
                      is needed and that's what I was asking for.
        \_ What exactly does "lend lease" mean?  Is Russia supposed to pay us
           back?
           \_ The UK, USSR, China, and British Commonwealth were "lent" money
              for war material. At some point, they provided material for US
              troops there (reverse lend lease). After the war, arrangements
              were made to pay off the loans. A good percentage was dismissed.
              The Soviets stopped payment some time in the late 50's but then
              a deal was made with Russia who made a final payment in 2001.
        \_ In terms of finished military hardware produced (e.g tanks) it was
           not as significant but the raw materials were very significant.
           Throughout the 30's we were giving the Soviets pieces
           of our nuclear weapons program and nuclear supplies.  FDR and
           Stalin were in love.
           \_ Trucks.  Truck were useful.  Trucks >> anything else, as far as
              supplies were concerned.
           \_ We didn't even have a nuclear weapons program in the 30's.
              Take your pathetic lies elsewhere.
2003/11/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10949 Activity:nil
11/4    Washington Post:
        "Only one in seven Americans agrees with President Bush's assertion
        that the conflict in Iraq is the most important fight in the war on
        terrorism, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll."
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A857-2003Nov4.html
2003/11/5-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10940 Activity:high
11/4    http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp
        \_ dubya is a dumbass.  I still can't believe he went through with it
           (Gulf War II)
        \_ This is what I don't understand.  Bush Sr. never intended to
           invade Iraq. I presume that was not just his lone opinion,
           but rather, consensus among his staff.  Consider that a good
           number of Bush Jr's staff are inherit from his father, wouldn't
           you expect there is at least SOME degree of consistancy in opinion
           regards to this Iraq business?
           \_ Yeah because 12 years didn't change the world at all.  Everything
              in the world remains exactly the same over time and the same
              response is always appropriate in all situations.
        \_ Look.. oh ignorant of histoy one.. you always need someone outside
           to blame.. in this he was a despot that took a little longer to
           remove.
        \_ Do any of you so called geeks engage in strategy / role playing
           games?  Do you fight defensively
           on your own territory or take the offensive and attack.
           In virtually every game the attacker wins.  War is no
           different, the aggressor has a huge advantage.  Hence,
           fight the Islamicist's on their territory - not in the
           West.
           \_ But, but, that would be racist and mean!
           \_ Nice troll try. Your use of games vs. reality tempted me.
           \_ I heard Russia won every war that it's the defense in history,
              but lost every war that it's the offense.
                \_ Russia lost over 20 million in WWII, St. Petersburg
                   and Moscow were destroyed completely.  All of their
                   war material was supplied by the U.S. through lend
                   lease.  Napoleon was driven back by the winter.
                   Russia 'won' neither of these conflicts, only
                   harsh, early winters and inept planning by their
                   enemies saved them.
                   \_ Nah, US supplied a little material, but most of
                      it was made by Russians.  The number of tanks
                      and planes the Russians made is about the
                      same level as what the US made in WWII.  They
                      moved many factories to the Urals.  Zhukov is
                      probably better than any of the US or British
                      generals.
                        \_ Are you sure?
                           http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html
                           You are right I exagerated by saying all but a
                           significant contribution.
                                1100 locomotives
                                440,000 trucks
                                12,000 aircraft
                                28000 jeeps
                                nuclear material
                                1,200,000 tons of steel.
                           You are right I exagerated by saying all but a
                           significant contribution.
                           \_ WTF?
                              Pianos, new                              2 $530
                              Phonograpbs, except coin-operated        4 $ 67.
                        \_ Zhukov?  Yeah right, the guy's got how many Russian
                           soldier's deaths on his hands?  If any American
                           general lost 300,000 American lives in a single
                           battle, he'd be executed if he was lucky.
                                \_  800,000 died in the battle for Stalingrad.
                \_ I've seen a map of Russia's size over the last 1000 years.
                   They've grown and shrunk dramatically several times which
                   can't happen unless they attacked and won something.
                \_ Genghis Khan (or should that be Ogotai?) kicked their
                   arse but that's about it.
           \_ I play Age of Empires, and yes a good defense can win the
              game.
                \_ Bull, none of the expert players play defensively
                   you will always lose.
2003/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29609 Activity:nil
11/4    Ok, so how many of you think that the attacks are carried out by
        the so called "Saddam Loyalist"? think about it, if some
        country over runs the US, do you think only the Bush Loyalist
        would be in the resistance? I think not. No matter how corrupt
        Bush is, I will surely be the one to resist any foreign
        invasion forces. I hope the idiots at Washington has a good
        understanding of the problem and deal with it accordingly. Oh
        wait, we are only there for the oil, fuck everything else. We
        are out of there once we get the oil... never mind.
        \_ By "Bush" you mean "Hu Jintao," right?
        \_ No cookie, troll.  You can do better than that.
2003/11/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:10915 Activity:nil
11/3    Iraq: Another Vietnam?
        http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB106782123961984600,00.html
        \_ Yes, everything is Vietnam.  I can't wait until the hippie/yuppie
           generation retires and we can put their drug induced buggaboos
           to rest.  Don't trust anyone over 30.
           \_ Gulf War I, I don't think anyone disagrees about that not
              being a Vietnam
              \_ Actually before the war, there was alot of Vietnam talk when
                 people weren't sure if the UN was going to occupy Iraq.
        \_ Groan. The Tet offensive misinterpreted again. It was a big
           victory for the US forces, but came on the heels of LBJ declaring
           the war nearly over and talking possible troop pullback. Instead,
           more troops were deployed and the US was stuck for another five
           years. Iraq is NOT Vietnam. Somalia is NOT Vietnam. Bosnia is NOT
           Vietnam. Grenada, Haiti, Panama ... NOT Vietnam. Damn Boomers.
           \_ yea, but it's looking like the type of urban warfare we have
              stated right from the start that we would try to avoid at all
              cost.
              \_ True, but the article refers to telling the "truth" about
                 Iraq and compares it to "Tet" as if to say "if only the
                 American public knew the TRUTH, we would have won Vietnam."
                 Correspondingly, if America knows the TRUTH about Iraq, we
                 would win. This at a time where the Administration is
                 refusing to release info on everything from energy policy to
                 threat memos concerning 9/11. TRUTH is so subjective.
                 \_ If Americans knew the truth about Iraq we wouldn't be
                    there.
                    \_ If Americans knew the truth, we would've done it right
                       in '91 instead of playing global politic.
                 \_ The TRUTH is out there.
                   \_ so's yermom
                      \_ IFILE!
                         \_ It does my taxes?
                            \_ IRS!
        \_ Where are they going to put the monument to all the dead American
           soldiers? Isn't The Mall getting kind of full???
           \_ Maybe they'll stick some Post-It notes with the names on them
              on the Vietnam Memorial.
           \_ Why should there be?  You do know that the KIAs from WWII don't
              have a monument of any sort, right?
2003/11/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10908 Activity:moderate
11/2    What are liberals and conservatives thinking is the best approach in
        Iraq right now? If we get out, we admit defeat but save billions,
        but also leave Iraq w/ no security...
        \_ Hand over power to an Iraqi governing council, withdraw; when
           "resistance fighters" start attacking again (and this time it
           will be Iraq and not the US they're attacking), back Iraqi
           plea for International Peacekeepers, re-enter country as such,
           with full UN/World support.  A more moral plan would include the
           liberation of Kurdistan, but hey, one step at a time.
        \_ Fence.  Nukes.  Pave.  Hand over massive smoldering parking lot
           to Iranians as gesture of goodwill.  Make nasty faces at
           Syrians and Palestinians.  -John
           \_ Nah, just send them all to Switzerland.
                \_ No room;  the Yugoslavs and Tamils (don't ask) are all
                   here already
                   \_ nuke it first then.
        \_ "Admit defeat"? To whom? Bush claims he is planning to hand Iraq
           back over to the Iraqis in any case. How would doing this
           quickly mean admitting defeat?
           \_ Because it is obvious we'd be retreating.  The country is not
              ready to run itself yet and everyone on the planet except you
              knows that.
              \_ 38 percent of Americans say it is time to get out of Iraq.
                 I am all by myself, 38% of Americans? Wow, wish I had
                 known that earlier. Let me guess: you are the same moron
                 that said "everyone knows Saddam Hussein has WMD" right?
                 \_ Cool, let's do math wars!  62 percent of Americans do not
                    say it is time to get out of Iraq.  38 percent huh?  That's
                    remarkably close to the percent of BC voters.  Odd, that?
                    It couldn't possibly be that these same people who are
                    opposed to our current policy are simply opposed to
                    *anything* this administration does, could it?  As far as
                    the _appointed by Americans_ council running Iraq, the
                    council members themselves say they're not ready so it
                    would definitely look like we're fleeing and you'd hear
                    the phrase "paper tiger" a lot just like when Carter was
                    in office.  You *do* remember Carter being in office?  That
                    nasty little hostage crisis bit?  Us doing nothing?
        \_ Lock down entire cities, search every building, check point at
           every block.  Open it up section by section as it's cleaned out.
           And give the Kurds their own land for God's sake.  They're
           treated almost as badly as the Jews, the Irish, or Tibetans
           have been.
2003/11/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10906 Activity:very high
11/2  So you all read this right?
      http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
      and here Seymore Hersh gives an interview on it:
      http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?031027on_onlineonly01 - danh
        \_ Read what?  Maybe you'd like to give a short summary before we
           all rush off to read the link?  Your name on the URL is not enough.
        \_ Look, deleting a post because your response was overwritten by
           some jackass not using motdedit is not helpful.
2003/11/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10903 Activity:nil
11/2    My question is, who else, aside from USA, Russia, and China that
        makes shoulder-launch missile?
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3234543.stm
2003/11/2 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10901 Activity:moderate
11/1    http://tinyurl.com/taph
        "US Considering Recaling Units of Old Iraq Army"
        Like I said, it's a huge mistake to disband the Iraqi army.
        Our brilliant leaders are finally realizing it.  Disbanding the
        army unnecessarily creates many enemies from those who can cause
        the most problems.
        \_ That's very doubtful.  It creates problems by leaving a huge pool
           of unemployed people, though I suspect that very few of those are
           are actually being recruited by terrorists in the way you seem to
           be implying.
           \_ You don't need many.  Just 10% will give you a 50000 strong
              guerilla army.
              \_ But in context, even 1% is an obscenely unrealistic number.
                 \_ why?  is it that hard to believe that some iraqis
                    don't think we should be occupying their country?
                    \_ I'm sure many more than that don't want us there.
                       However, that dislike is not going to 100% translate
                       into the desire to drive a truck bomb into the Red Cross
                       HQ.  If there was a 50000 or even 5000 strong guerilla
                       army running around there'd be a lot more killing going
                       on.  Nothing that's happened so far requires more than
                       100-200 people around the entire country.
                       \_ There are 25-35 attacks A DAY on our troops in Iraq.
                          \_ Yes.  Everytime a soldier stubs his toe it's
                             counted as an attack.  Do you really want a
                             Vietnam style body count?
                             \_ You're being ridiculous and in the process
                       \_ I think most of the attacks are non-suicidal,
                                belittling the real attacks that are taking
                                place.
                                \_ There are plenty of real attacks.  However,
                                   I don't think every toe stubbing counts.
                       \_ Most of the attacks are non-suicidal,
                          just road side bombs that can be triggered,
                          rocket propelled grenades and a few mortars,
                          precisely the things people with military
                          training would be good at, and most are targetted
                          directly at the occupational forces.  The
                          rest are targetted at "collaborators".
                          \_ Few militaries are trained to set road side bombs,
                          rest are targetted at "collaborators".
                             and if they were ex-army and using army weapons
                             such as mortars they weren't trained very well
                             because their success rate with standard military
                             weapons is hovering just above the "got lucky"
                             level.  These are random fucks, not ex-army.
                       \_ If there were only 100-200 people, they would've
                          been wiped out by now from attrition, or we
                          can just capture one or two and get them to
                          lead us to the rest.  The reason we have not
                          been able to do that shows that the "100-200"
                          is just the tip of a huge iceberg from which
                          acitve ones can be drawn from.
                          \_ Maybe.  Maybe not.  How many of these attackers
                             have been caught?  Zero according to US media.
        \_ WTF why haven't you been appointed Supreme Allied Commander
           a long time ago!!!
                         next bath house 'date'.
                         \_ It is almost impossible to be more arrogant than Bush
           \_ This is basic common sense.  Arrogance makes our leaders out
              of touch with reality until it splatters all over their face.
                \_ I nominate you for Secretary of Defense and five
                   star general!!!
                   \_ I don't know about five star general, but yea, I
                      will take Secretary of Defense, or better yet,
                      Commander in Chief.
                      \_ Those are positions that must be earned.  You're more
                         arrogant than anyone in the administration.  We'd all
                         be seriously fucked for years to come if some ninny
                         like you had any say in anything more than which of
                         last week's dirty underwear you'll be wearing on your
                         next bath house 'date'.
                         \_ It is almost impossible to be more arrogant than
                            Bush
                            \_ So do you think Bush is more arrogant or more
                               eeevveeeillll!!!!?
                         \_ Yea, we all should learn from you and prostrate
                            in front of our supreme leaders Donald and Bush
                            and say everything they did were wonderful.
                            I think you will do well as a court jester
                            or eunuch.
                            \_ *laugh*  Nice attempt but no dice.  *I* was not
                               the topic here.  Idiot head above saying he
                               could do better was.  I merely observe facts.
                                \_ The media is biaaaaasssed against the right!
        \_ Yeah and if they had left it in place and the people revolted
           because this very same army was directly responsible for murdering
           tens of thousands of Iraqis then you'd be here screaming how the
           arrogant American leadership didn't listen to you when you said to
           disband the evil marauders.  It must be great to always be right,
           at least on the motd, eh?  [restored]
           \_ Wrong, I said it was a mistake right after they announced
              they are disbanding the Iraqi army wholesale.  The view that
              that there is a murderous Iraqi army distinct and seperate
              from the Iraqi people who were its victims is a naive view.
              The Iraqi army is a huge conscript army of 500000 which Saddam
              himself doesn't fully trust.  That means almost everyone (all
              the Sunnis at least) should have a family member, relative, good
              friend in the army.
              \_ WTF does have a family member have to do with anything?!?
                 How exactly do you figure that the average post-Saddam citizen
                 is going to be thrilled to see the Iraqi army stomping around
                 again?
2003/10/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10883 Activity:nil
10/31   New Iraq 'well on way to becoming Islamic state'
        Interview with the man advising the white house on the new Iraqi
        constitution:
        http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5099.htm
        'Any democratically elected Iraqi government is unlikely to be
        secular, and unlikely to be pro-Israel. And frankly, moderately
        unlikely to be pro-American.'
        \_ You are starting to sound suspiciously like a terrorist supporter
           there boy.
        \_ That's why we will install another dictator there and call him
           "president".
        \_ Who said any of those things was the point of the invasion?  Did
           you know that Iraq's new government is also quite unlikely to be
           made of cheese, and frankly moderately unlikely to be in favor
           of finer French wines for all it's citizenry?
2003/10/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10868 Activity:moderate
10/30   I'm not sure when this was published, but this compares
        current events with Athens trying to conquer Sicily:
        http://www.csua.org/u/4ui - danh
        \_ I still contend that oil slicks keep seals young and supple.
        \_ why not just assume that people who want to listen to NPR already
           do?
           \_ look, even people who listen to NPR / read harpers don't do it
              ALL the time.  One of the great things about the motd is that
              there are a bunch of opiniated half-bright individuals out there
              going through lots of media so i don't have to.  Now, they
              don't always get it right.  But i am happy to have the freepers
              post when they find something they think is particularly
              interesting, as i am glad to have had this posted. -phuqm
        \_ i thought the article was interestiing, and i admit
           the tone of harper'ss magazine can be a lilttle obnoxious iis
        \_ Re: the quote:  isn't folly the result of incompentence and
           perversity the result of decadence?  (not always but often) -phuqm
        \_ [s/Sparta/Sicily/ completed, you're welcome]
        \_ Nice article, thanks.
2003/10/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29593 Activity:nil
10/28   "The spread of democracy in Latin America, Asia and parts of Africa
        suggests that this form of government is not unique to Western
        culture or to advanced industrial economies."
                -- US diplomat James Dobbins
        \_ Hahahaha, that is almost as good as the "It would be nice if
           foreign countries would stay out of Iraq" remark by Wolfowitz.
           Where do they find these guys? Don't they at least make them
           take a history test before giving them a job???
           \_ Are you sure he's not just being intentionally ironic?  What's
              the context?
              \_ Decide for yourself:
                 http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/gjuly/21_wolfowitz.html
2003/10/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10827 Activity:high
10/28   http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=457620
        67% of Iraqis (Sunni & Shiite) see the U.S. as an occupying force.
        15% view the U.S. as a liberating force.
        \_ I see us there as an occupying force.  It's because we are, duh!
           We're not there as traditional conquerers though.
        \_ i am wondering how many people in the States actually think
           that we are there for altrustic reason such as human rights,
           democracy, or well-being of iraqi people in general.
           \_ Hi Troll!
              \_ok, that is one.
           \_ If you don't want to look like a troll then please suggest
              why we are there.  Here I'll help you get started: we're there
              because the eveeeiilll bushco and his haliburton cronies
              needed a war to raise their stock prices after their dotcom
              scam was panned out.  Please continue.
              \_ We are there because oil is a critical resource for our
                 nation, and we need a military presence and influence
                 in the Middle East beyond Israel.
        \_ Why don't we make a poll. Here:
           US Is Evil: .
           US Liberator:
           Yermom Liberator: ..
           \_ Blame America First!  It's the only way to go!
2003/10/27 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29588 Activity:nil
10/25   I guess we've dropped 150 billions to Iraq for the wrong reason:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3216397.stm
2003/10/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10792 Activity:nil
10/25   Iraqi bloggers.  These are great, regardless of your opinion on
        weblogs or the war in Iraq and the occupation.  Different perspectives
        from different people that are a great substitute for so called
        "objective" reporting.
        Healing Iraq: http://healingiraq.blogspot.com
        This guy is very much in support of the war and the new administration.
        He has a lot of great stuff, particularly on the new right-wing Shiite
        movements.
        Baghdad Burning: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
        This woman is not a supporter of the Americans, although she's no
        hardcore Islamist.  Good stuff on where all that reconstruction money
        is really going.
        Where is Raed: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com
        This the original Baghdad Blogger that everyone knows.  He's still very
        coy about his actual position and seems very torn...so I guess you
        could put him somewhere in the middle.
        Supposedly there are two more, but I haven't been able to find them.
        Anyone?  There will probably be even more in the future as the access
        and electricity situation changes.
        (note to motd cranks right and left: this post is balanced and
        there is no reason to censor it, unless you're a pud.)
        \_ Wait... how can iraqi bloggers be great if your opinion of weblogs
           is that they suck...
           \_ I was really hoping there wouldn't be a pile-on with this post,
              but... I would say that your opinion is perfectly valid, but so
              are the bloggers' opinions.  None of them claim to be news
              reporters - they are simply people saying what they think.
              This is not a perspective you can find elsewhere at the moment,
              at least about Iraq.
        \_ Right wing?  You mean Shiite branded Islamic movement?
        Baghdad Burning: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
        This woman is not a supporter of the Americans, although she's no
        hardcore Islamist.  Good stuff on where all that reconstruction money
        is really going.
        Where is Raed: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com
        This the original Baghdad Blogger that everyone knows.  He's still very
        coy about his actual position and seems very torn...so I guess you
        could put him somewhere in the middle.
        Supposedly there are two more, but I haven't been able to find them.
        Anyone?  There will probably be even more in the future as the access
        and electricity situation changes.
        (note to motd cranks right and left: this post is balanced and
        there is no reason to censor it, unless you're a pud.)
        \_ too bad there are so many fucking puds around here.
        \_ it'll get censored for simply not being about linux and riding bike.
           anyway, just keep in mind when reading this stuff that no matter
           what opinion is expressed, it is from someone in the upper classes
           of iraqi society.  the typical cab driver not only doesn't have
           net access, but probably doesnt own his cab either.
           \_ Agreed 100%, though I would argue that this is mostly true of
              bloggers in the West as well.
2003/10/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10783 Activity:moderate
10/24   Hail Bush and his citizens, the ruler of Earth, the Occupier of
        Terror, Fourth Reich of this planet!!!
        http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html
        \_ Oklahoma City was done by Iraqis and the Government is
           covering it up!!!  There is a giant conspiracy to trick
           Americans into believing that Iraq has nothing to do with
           terrorism!!!!!
           http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/021022a.asp
           \_ s/Oklahoma\ City/USS\ Liberty
           \_ s/Oklahoma\ City/Liberty
        \_ Bush is Nazi, blah, blah.
           Actually, the funny is, I just watched Raiders of the Lost Ark,
           and one of the Nazi's in the truck scene looks a WHOLE lot like
           Bush...
           \_ Gee if we went by who we all looked like, then I think all
              Asians look like Mao, therefore they are potential dictators
              \_ You take yourself way too seriously, man.  Look up 'joke' and
                 'facetious'.
              s/Iraq/Isarel
2003/10/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10686 Activity:nil
10/18   "The group studying defense policy and institutions expected
        problems if the Iraqi Army was disbanded quickly  a step L. Paul
        Bremer III, the chief American civil administrator in Iraq, took.
        The working group recommended that jobs be found for demobilized
        troops to avoid having them turn against allied forces as some
        are believed to have done."
        http://tinyurl.com/rfyw
        \_ I'm sure.  Did you know that we've attempted to pre-plan for
           literally ten of thousands of scenarios for various world events
           over the years?  For just about *any* event there's some government
           wonk in a small shared cube that wrote a document saying that
           whatever happened would have happened.  And five others who said
           some other thing would happen.  Your tax dollars at work.  -U.Sam.
           \_ Yea but this seems to be a major State Department study
              involving a wide spectrum of Iraqi experts:
              "Beginning in April 2002, the State Department project assembled
               more than200 Iraqi lawyers, engineers, business people and
               other experts into 17 working groups to study topics ranging
               from creating a new justice system to reorganizing the
               military to revamping the economy."
        \_ In China during the imperial times, civilians' revolt per se usually
           doesn't pose a serious treat to the political establishment.
           It's usually the civilians' revolt mixed with disbanded army /
           deserted military units which would seriously threaten the
           ruling regime.  It's unforunated that those who in charge of
           Iraq naive enough to think they could disband the old regime's
           Army without serious consequences.  Now, these disgruntal boys, with
           military training, armed with unguarded military-grade weapons,
           are going to make US troops' life as difficult as possible.
2003/10/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10678 Activity:kinda low
10/17   http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=US_Armed_Forces
        Ah yes, the General says his God is bigger than the Muslim God.
        \_ He said his God was bigger than the Somalian warlord's "God" - that
           the warlord's god was an idol.  Of course he is not speaking
           about good, freedom-loving Muslims and their God.
           [There was my try at being right-wing.  How was I?]
           \_ He was exercising his freedom of speech rights.  Are you trying
              to take away what makes this country great?  Why do you democrats
              hate America so much?
              \_ Much better imitation of a conservative.
2003/10/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10677 Activity:nil
10/16   " campaign that sent hundreds of identical letters to hometown
        newspapers promoting soldiers' rebuilding efforts in Iraq."
        http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031015/frontpage/124463.shtml
        \_ Old news, son.  Increase your refresh rates.
        \_ where've you been?  this is last week's news.
2003/10/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10642 Activity:high
10/15   Powell mislead Americans/UN in speech on Iraqi WMDs
        "... I think my conclusion about [Powell's speech] now is that it's
        probably one of the low points in his long distinguished service to
        the nation" -Person responsible for analyzing WMD threat for Powell
        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
        \_ Neo-cons: your response, please?
           \_ I had to give up being a neo-con when i realized we were
              being systematically being misled by the neocon cabal.
              Clark in 2004!
              \_ DEAN!!!!!
           \_ I doubt I qualify as a "neocon" but i was not against the war.
              I did not ever believe they had weapons of mass destruction
              Nor did anyone I know.
              I will be glad to "respond", if you link to the Actual
              speech.  It amazes me that someone can put up an article on
              website criticising a speach and not include (links to) even
           \_ Seriously, the only difference between a politician and liar
              portions of the speach in question -phuqm
              \_ how did dubya get a csua account?
        \_ Well hooray for CBS for having the balls to run this.
        \_ "The main problem was that the senior administration officials
           have what I call faith-based intelligence," says Thielmann. "They
           knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really
           blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the
              is one is in office. It's really only a matter of who lies
              less, and for what purpose. The ends - no Saddam - justify
              the means.
        \_ Well hooray for CBS for having the balls to run this.
           intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame
           to the intelligence community and most of the blame to the senior
           administration officials."
2003/10/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10630 Activity:high
10/14   I have been saying this for years, but it is nice to see it
        finally getting reported in the media. -ausman
        http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0342/schanberg.php
        \_ 224 lines and counting. Damn you're good.
        \_ Heh, the village voice.  The media.  Heh.  And the freeper guy gets
           beat on by all sides around here.  At least the freepers don't
           pretend they're real media.  Why don't you just post links from The
           People's Daily World or hey! straight from Pravda!  They have an
           English language version on the net!
           \_ You misspelled "Xinhua."
              \_ Hey, thanks!  Now I can find out the People's Truth about
                 the advancements and prosperity occuring with each new Five
                 Year Plan in Greater China!
                 \_ Hehe, when I was in Shanghai (oh so many years ago), I
                    had the pleasure of reading that every province in PRC
                    was on course to meet its Five Year Plan objectives.
                    I'm reminded of the Italian airforce disassembling,
                    transporting, and reassembling airplanes just ahead of
                    Mussolini's tour of the facilities.
           \_ The Voice has a readership of over 1/4 M and often breaks
              stories that are then covered in the mainstream media. You
              may not like their slant, but they are considered serious
              media by most of the rest of the world. -ausman
              \_ Heh.  Let's compare to the number of people who listen
                 to Limbaugh.
              \_ Head count does not a real journalist make as the above
                 makes clear.  At least you admit they are slanted which was
                 my point.
                 \_ So is the National Review, but it doesn't mean that there
                    aren't good ideas in there. Why not discuss the ideas
                    instead of shooting the messenger? -ausman
        \_ The hundreth version of puerile liberal blathering.  If
           you're going to criticize the Iraq policy don't turn it
           into a political grievance free for all.   Stay focused.
           It is incumbent upon the author, or any liberal
           author for that matter, to propose a plausible alternative
           strategy for dealing with militant Islam besides
           group hug, bring the troops home, close my eyes
           the problem will go away.
           I'm not holding my breath.
           \_ doesn't this entire statement depend on what you subjectively
              term 'plausible'?
              \_ you think 'group hug, close eyes' is a plausible anti-terror
                 strategy?  -!the above
           \_ Waitasec.  Are you saying that the neocon method of security
              through force of arms is the only reasonable foreign/domestic
              policy that's been put out on the table?  Take off the
              blinders and read, son!
              \_ I've yet to see an alternative beyond the standard list of
                 "we shouldn't do the thing we're doing now" whining.  How
                 about you post a summary in the same way you've reduced the
                 current policy to a dozen words?   -!the above
                   \_ How about I give you a few buzzwords, and you nitpick
                      the hell out them as per usual?
                      -- enforce Economic Sanctions against countries that
                         delay democratically held elections
                        \_ Been there, done that, you leftists whine about
                           how we're only hurting the people and not the
                           corrupt leaders.  It was only this last year
                           right up to the moment we invaded Iraq that you
                           were bitching about wanting to end sanctions.
                           \_ Straw man. Only a very small minority was
                              for ending sanctions.
                              \_ Bullshit alert!  It was the theme of the day
                                 in your media, plus the motd and wall were
                                 covered with that as well for the local
                                 perspective.
                                   \_ Let's take a poll.  I'm liberal. I never
                                      supported this.  sig's preferred. -nivra
                                      wanted to end sanctions:
                                      did not want to end sanctions:
                                          nivra,
                                      wanted to switch to "smart sanctions":
                                          ausman
                                 \_ Do you have any evidence that a majority
                                    of "leftists" were in favor of removing
                                    sanctions? Post sources, please.
                           \_ well apparently, the sanctions worked in
                              Iraq, as Saddam didn't develop WMD.
                              \_ With 60,000 tons of material to look through
                                 you don't know that.
                                 \_ The evidence, thus far, points to that.
                      -- enforce arms embargoes against countries that deal
                         in nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons
                        \_ Been there, done that.  Talk to China, Germany,
                           France, and the Russians.  I don't see an embargo
                           of any sort against any of these countries anytime
                           soon.  BTW, history lesson: the Japanese saw our
                           oil embargo of their country as an act of war which
                           is part of the reason for Pearl Harbor.
                           \_ How about the arms embargo against Iraq? Did it
                              fail?
                              \_ Yes, actually, it did.  They still had plenty
                                 enough to fire at our jets enforcing the no
                                 fly zone and keep 20+ million people outside
                                 the sunni triangle area in terror.
                                 \_ hello? read the original sentence:
                                    "nuclear, chemical, or biological"
                                    see above. evidence thus far ...
                                    Also, who caused dismantling of medium
                                    range missiles shortly before invasion?
                                    oh, that's right, a toothless org
                                    called the UN -nivra
                      -- pay our dues to the UN, throw our muscle behind the
                         UN's health and peacekeeping operations
                        \_ Group hug!  This is going to stop middle class
                           Saudi terrorists how exactly?
                           \_ the question is, why are middle class
                              Saudi terrorists attacking the US?  Could it
                              have something to do with our military
                              operations in the middle east?  Oh, just
                              forget it.
                              \_ I won't forget it.  You're now changing the
                                 topic.  I will address.  You implied that the
                                 problem is poverty.  You know it isn't.  The
                                 real problem is we're now engaged in a war of
                                 cultures and different values.  Terrorism is
                                 only the tool the enemy uses.  They'd use
                                 tanks and bombers if they could.  The Arab
                                 world is still bitter about having lost their
                                 once great empire and seen their culture
                                 stagnate.  It's easy to argue that Islamic
                                 extremism and the tightly interwoven control
                                 of state religion has held them back and the
                                 anti-democratic Arab nations now need a scape
                                 goat for their own government's failings.  The
                                 obvious goat is the West and the US in
                                 particular who were either barbarians or
                                 didn't even exist during the height of their
                                 cultural period but now rule the world.
                                 They're pissed off and until they decouple
                                 their religion from the government affairs and
                                 give their people a voice and their economies
                                 modernise they're doomed and we're doomed to
                                 fight them as well.
                                 \_ The first eight crusades ended in failure.
                                    What makes you think this one will be
                                    any different?
                                 \_ Stop buying the lies.  This is not a war
                                    of cultures and different values: they
                                    all want coca cola, self-determination,
                                    and the freedom to practice their wacky
                                    religious practices just as much as we
                                    do.  The difference is that their
                                    governments oppress the hell out of them,
                                    deny them education, real jobs, health
                                    care, and freedom of speech.  We prop
                                    up their governments and throw our weight
                                    around, so they naturally see us as
                                    targets.  They're not at war with USA--
                                    they really just want us to leave them
                                    the hell alone.
                           \_ This, at minimum, would have given the UN more
                              strength and enable it to find the truth about
                              WMD in Iraq, thereby avoiding a costly war/
                              nation-building process that has drained
                              US resources from fruitful hunt for Al-Qaeda
                              terrorists in Afghanistan.
                              \_ You're assuming the UN wanted to find out the
                                 truth about anything.  The UN is an org that
                                 is focused on smoothing things over, not on
                                 catching and punishing anyone.  It's a
                                 diplomatic org and was always intended to be.
                                 Trying to give the UN police powers is a huge
                                 mistake.  It'll never work and never has.
                                   \_ first sentence, UN charter:
                                      "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
                                       DETERMINED to save succeeding generations
                                       from the scourge of war, which twice in
                                       our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to
                                       mankind,"  Is the US more interested in
                                      "catching and punishing" than it is in
                                      preventing, halting, and winning the war
                                      against terror?  Oh, certainly the UN
                                      resolutions and UN mandate failed in 1991.
                      -- stop making payola foreign aid payments to countries
                         where the money gets sucked into the pockets of the
                         ruling class
                        \_ That would be every non-Western country on the
                           planet.  But in general I agree with you.  We
                           should stop wasting money on third world welfare.
                      -- avoid armed conflict where possible, but be prepared
                         with an exit strategy for those places where we must
                         act
                        \_ I agree with you here.
                           \_ Then apparently you disagree with what Bush
                              has done in Iraq. Armed conflict was not
                              necessarily called for at that juncture in
                              time, and he had no coherent exit strategy
                              at all.
                              \_ I disagree in part with what Bush has done in
                                 Iraq.  I'm disappointed and unhappy that they
                                 weren't prepared to deal with the aftermath of
                                 a successful military campaign.  I suspect
                                 they thought fighting would last a few months
                                 and they had time to plan for it.  No one
                                 expected the Iraqi military to crumble in a
                                 few days but we should have been prepared for
                                 that anyway.
                                 \_ 6 months out, this excuse holds no water.
                                 \_ you failed to address the first half. You
                                    say you agree that the US should avoid
                                    armed conflict where possible, but Bush
                                    clearly didn't.  Re: the 2nd half, the
                                    Bush admin. was clearly predicting and
                                    hoping for a clear, decisive victory,
                                    complete with surrendered Iraqi batallions,
                                    etc.  Yet you say they didn't expect the
                                    Iraqi military to crumble?  PS. it took
                                    more than a few days...   -nivra
                      -- share intelligence with our allies and justify our
                         actions with actual evidence
                        \_ Who are our allies?  Is France?  Germany?  Russia?
                        \_ 1) we do.  2) justify to?  I don't think making you
                           happy fuzzy feel good at the expense of foreigners
                           exposing their country's corrupt regimes is the way
                           to go.  After the first few get exposed and executed
                           the intelligence is going to dry up.  Although we
                           know that American media won't expose the crimes of
                           foreign dictators because they might lose access to
                           the country.  For 2 points, name that bastion of
                           left wing thought that knew about Saddam's mass
                           murdering ways and covered it up! Mea Culpa!
                      Let the nitpicking begin!
                        \_ No nitpicking.  You posted the standard group hug
                           stuff and these are the standard responses to which
                           I've never seen a real counter point.
                           \_ So you agree with 2 group hug points? Awww.
                              A little more empathy, and you'll pass the
                              the V-K.
                              \_ I agree with 2 points and partially agree with
                                 a third.  When I see the left start
                                 complaining about third world welfare to
                                 corrupt regimes I'll take the left seriously.
                        \_ "Every time anyone says that Israel is our
                            only friend in the Middle East, I can't help
                            but think that before Israel, we had no enemies
                            in the Middle East." -Jesuit Priest John Sheehan
                            \_ Yeah, the Societas Jesu always were on best of
                               terms with the Jews since its founding.
                            \_ Yes, quoting a priest from another religion to
                               support your anti-Israeli bias is interesting.
                               Should anyone bother pointing out that the
                               middle east was a British controlled super sized
                               colony (plus the french got syria) for the
                               entire modern era before Israel was created? No,
                               it sounds cooler and more witty to snap off one
                               liners which ignore historical reality.  You
                               know we didn't have an energy problem in CA
                               before all you white people showed up!  There
                               were enough acorns for everyone!
        \_ He's nuts, more nutty than Dubya.
           \_ Ask anyone outside of CA what they think of people from
              Berkeley vs. W. 9 out of 10 will call you the nut.
              \_ The Red states maybe. Probably not in the Blue states.
                 \_ Rush Limbaugh had a map of votes by county.  It was a very
                    funny map because the US landmass was basically red, except
                            \_ Well Societas Jesu were good friends of the
                               Jews since their founding.
                    a few narrow strips near the oceans.
                 \_ I assume you are refering to the electoral college.
                    You forget the popular vote was very close.
2003/10/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29573 Activity:nil
10/13   Democrats say Iraq has WMD
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1000604/posts
        \_ Have you even read the quotes?? Try harder, if you're going
           to troll.  At least come up with something substantial.
2003/10/13-14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10605 Activity:nil
10/11   Interesting Smithsonian article about the history of Iraq:
        http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues03/may03/iraq.html
        \_ does it cover the stuff about being kicked out of the garden and
           settling there and thus the modern day iraqis are the direct
           line from adam and as people who walked the earth before jesus
           should be granted deference and respect due the children of god?
           just curious.
           \_ We are all the children of God, and every sperm is sacred.
              \_ Sorry children, but I have to sell you all for medical
                 experiments
              \_ Amen, brother!  Amen!
2003/10/13 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10603 Activity:low
10/11   Drugs, Russia and Terrorism, Part 1
        http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/7/212349.shtml
        Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America and the West
        http://csua.org/u/4p1
        \_ This shouldn't be news to anyone that can read and isn't naive.
           \_ "who can read"
2003/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10602 Activity:nil
10/11   Many soldiers, same letter:
        http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031011/frontpage/121390.shtml
        \_ Yeah and they all vote the same, too!  We should make sure they
           can't vote and corrupt our democracy anymore.
2003/10/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10599 Activity:nil
10/11   Dick Cheney Was Right
        http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/238dkpee.asp
        \_ I can smell the troll from here!
           \_ doesn't fit your world view so it must be a troll.  typical.
              we know that when you've got nothing to say you always resort
              to the thoughtless "it's a troll!" response.  why bother even
              posting anymore?  we already know you've got no response and
              nothing to add.  RTFA and you'll see real facts.  Hurts, huh? !op
        \_ "We don't know," said Cheney today.
           On March 16, just before the war started, Vice President Cheney
           said, "We know that [Saddam Hussein] has a long-standing
           relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al
           Qaeda organization."
           To bad he didn't tell the truth back in March, eh?
                \_ Did you read the article?  It addresses your concern.
                   They were two different questions.  The question in the
                   article was about Sept. 11.  What was the question
                   for your quote.  You're being intellectually dishonest.
                                    \_ tjb?  what are you doing here?!?
                                       \_ standard motd leftist: if you can't
                                          dispute the facts, insult the speaker
                                          \_ Typical motd child: Doesn't know
                                             jack doodly about the poster, so
                                             he must be on the Other team
                                             (since ALL politics can be
                                             trivially divided into two teams).
                                             \_ Good try.  Take another shot?
                                                \_ Do you even know who tjb
                                                   is?
                                                   \_ yup.  and?
                                                      \_ You're way too serious
                                                         or take yourself way
                                                         too seriously.
                                                         Lighten up, chum.
                                          \_ leftists like Bill O'Reilly?
                                             \_ BO'R is an entertainer, not a
                                                politcal figure.
                                          \_ Standard motd rightist: post
                                             uninteresting opinion peice
                                             from right wing magazine, then
                                             claim that it is indisputable
                                             "facts," and get all huffy and
                                             pious when people insult you.
                                             \_ Better to post something than
                                                just rant about the evil BushCo
                                                conspiracy and blindly write
                                                off the opposition without so
                                                much as a link, good or bad.
                                                I'm not the op but still no one
                                                has disproved anything in that
                                                URL at all.  Just fired up the
                                                old "its a troll!" gun and
                                                ripped off a few shots into
                                                the dark.
2003/10/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10566 Activity:nil
10/9    What does 87 billion look like?
        http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion
        \_ $166B total.  Why does fixing up Iraq need $6385 per Iraqi?  That's
           way overpriced!  We're not building everything from scratch.
           \_ But Halliburton does *quality* work.
           \_ That is just the down payment.
        \_ Why are they using $1 bills? There exist $1000 and possibly $10000
           bills
2003/10/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10501 Activity:nil
10/7    http://www.newbridgestrategies.com/index.asp
        \_ >_< Blaaaaaaaargh.  How much more obvious can you get?
2003/10/3-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10453 Activity:nil
10/3    Kay's Report, minus the ranting:
        http://csua.org/u/4m3 (CIA page)
        (Many thanks to the first person who posted this.)
        \_ I'm loving Richard Boucher hyping the vial of botulinum found.
           There's probably more in a cubic foot of dirt in the backyard
           than in a single vial of bacteria.
           \_ Isn't botulism toxin the stuff Ann Coulter injects into
              her face to give it that rictus like quality?
              \_ You're thinking of the lawyer chick from OJ, then cnn, now
                 on Fox.  Greta something?  Coulter is simply hot.
           \_ Look, you can buy it on the internet:
              link:csua.org/u/4m7
              \_ I can buy anything on the internet.  yermom was cheap and
                 no shipping!
        \_ So to summarize, they were at least two years from being able
           to produce Sarin, had stopped research on nuclear weapons and
           had some sort of fragmentary dual use bioweapons research
           program. And an intent to purchase or develop some longer range
           missles than allowed by UN 1441. But no WMD, right?
           But they still might show up in the 600,000 tons of unsearched
           munitions, admittedly.
        \_ So to summarize, there's some hints of stuff but with 600,000 tons
           more shit to go through no one can be sure what's there or not and
           they need more time.  It's only a preliminary report as stated on
           the first page, not a final report.
2003/10/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10440 Activity:kinda low
10/2    http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
        \_ Good that someone is doing this, but I don't like the fact that the
        \_ Good that someone is doing this, but I don't like the fac that the
           government isn't doing it directly.
2003/10/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10434 Activity:nil
10/2    Andrew Sullivan: READ THE (WMD) REPORT
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/994199/posts
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10429 Activity:nil
10/2    Wow, David Kay just reported that there aren't any WMDs, and now Bush
        asks for another $600 million to keep looking (on top of the $300
        million already spent).  Almost a billion to look for something that
        isn't there!  Go team!
        \_ I'll bet you were one of the people who wanted to give the UN a few
           more years to look only this spring.
           \_ Oh right, the reason they're not finding them right now is
              because Saddam won't give them access to the palaces. Wake
              the fuck up.
              \_ No, because either a) they've been moved, b) they're well
                 hidden, c) they were destroyed, or d) they never existed.
                 (d) no one thinks this.  (c) is possible but can't be
                 documented.  (b) can only be proved if they're found, can
                 never be disproved.  (a) same as (b).  Unlike you I've put
                 real thought into it and understand that whether or not any
                 are ever found has nothing to do with whether or not they
                 existed or when.
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10417 Activity:kinda low
10/1    Iraq: What Went Wrong
        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16650
        \_ need help here. don't speak english.  What are the units,
           or number of men in a:
           regiment ~4000
           brigade ~6000
           division ~20000
           \_ These are all for the US Army. Each military has a different
              structure.
           \_ thanks.  this means, according to Clark, we didn't have
              that many people fighting in Iraq when the war started.
        \_ WOW. that was a good article. If he wrote even half of that, rather
           than being all written by speechwriters/assistants, he's one
           heckuva candidate
           \_ his opinion on Iraq war is highly regarded.  although personally
              i can't make a good connection between a good general and a
              good president.
              \_ general and president are both administrative jobs.
                 sure beats failed oil company executive, AWOL texas
                 air national guardsman/draft dodger, and playboy
                 millionaire.
                 \_ sorry, but no.  they're bother leadership roles.  if we
                    needed administrative types we would've voted Gore in.
                    \_ we DID vote gore in.  GWB somehow stole the election!
                       \_ OMG!  WTF!  LOL!
        \_ Coming from the guy who lobbed 100+s millions in tomahawks and
           destroye, apart from bridges, hospitals, water plants etc.
           a few tanks.  This against the Christian Serbs who rescued downed
           allied pilots in WWII. What a joke.
2003/10/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10398 Activity:low
10/1    Joseph C. Wilson:"The issue is really transfer of WMD to
        terrorist groups which had never occurred before in
        Saddam's regime but now that he is toast don't be surprised
        if as his last act of defiance he does precisely that."
        http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_iraq_wilson040303.htm
        \_ No wonder Bush went after his wife...
        \_ He's an interesting mix of brilliant policy analysis and standard
           State Department globalism and anti-American cynicism.  He'd
           probably have been a really good guy to have in office if the
           State Department hadn't destroyed his ability to see clearly.
           \_ Nazi's also believed their country could do no wrong..
              \_ Bing!  We have a Hitler reference on reply #2, could we
                 get a clean-up crew in here?  Thanks.
                 \_ Did I win?  I wrote the thing the Nazi posted replied to.
2003/9/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10376 Activity:kinda low
9/29    WMD destroyed long before the war, just like we told you neocons:
        http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101031006/wwmd.html
        \_ And just how did you know that when the inspectors left in 1998?
           \_ Simple enough. I listened to what the people who had actually
              been there, like Colonel Ritter, had to say, not the lying
              politicians (of both stripes) in Washington.
              \_ Ritter?  Child-loving Ritter?  Who took money from an Iraqi to
                 do a documentary about Iraq?
                 \_ Credibility never counts with the Left, as long as they're
                    hearing what they want to hear.
                    \_ Who has the credibility now?
                       \_ It remains to be seen.
                 \_ So, are you going to present actual evidence of this
                    slanderous charge, or are you just going to keep
                    repeating the party line, ditto-head?
                    \_ Duh, idiot.  He was charged and indicted for the sex
                       offense and has never denied the Iraqis paid him $300k
                       to make a 'documentary'.  Google.
                       \_ Then post a URL.  The only ones i see are on dittohead
                          sites.
                          \_ Is MSNBC good enough you idiot?
                             http://tinyurl.com/p444
           \_ And how about the CIA people who were complaining about intel
              being cooked to support the WH? Remember Ray McGovern? There
              were others.
              \_ How about them?
        \_ Doesn't matter - time to rid the world of dictators one at a time
           \_ start by voting democrat in 2004
              \_ Then the entire US can be just like CA!  Oh wait...
              \_ Ooooooh, SNAP!
                 \_ Uh, yeah.  Like I said, the Left only hears what it wants
                    to hear.  When we stop having elections here let us know
                    which Democrat started the coup.
                    \_ Wow, you are really deluded.
                       \_ Yeah you sure put me in my place.  Here's my really
                          brilliant counter point, "Wow, you are really
                          deluded".  Hah!  I sure put you in your place!
2003/9/26-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10343 Activity:moderate
9/26    Neocon "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle creamed in open
        debate with local gal:
        http://www.dailykos.com/archives/004301.html#004301
        \_ Creamed?  Ok, nice way for the URL to cut off his reaponse which
           unfairly takes the whole thing completely out of context,
           makes unfairly takes the whole thing completely out of context,
           but "fair and balanced" wasn't what you were going for so I applaud
           your clever editing hatchet job.
        \_ and how is an idle threat creaming someone? anyone
           american not a soldier walking around Iraq is an idiot IMHO
           \_ Way to miss the fucking point.
           \_ or possibly they give a damn and are doing something about
              the BS coming out of the White House.
           \_ idle threat? wtf are you talking about.
              \_ Let me ask you, just how long it took the Marshall plan
                 to work? Or the rebuilding of Japan? Only those who have no
                 grasp of history think things are "going badly". It's not
                 just the WH that in most parts of the new Iraq they are
                 well received. Read the blogs from soldiers in south/north
                 Iraq. It is just sad all you impatient dolts think every is
                 about money (shocker!) so therefore it must be bad. Ex-
                 Clintonites have equally used their connections to benefit
                 themselves.
                 \_ Take a deep breath, sit back, and re-write this when
                    you're calm and more likely to make sense.
                    \_ ad hominem.  Troll score: 7.65 points, 5.0 required.
                       \_ non sequitur.  Troll score: 4.9 points, no cookie.
                    \_ ad hominem.  Troll score: 7.65 points, 5.0 required.
                       \_ non sequitur.  Troll score: 4.9 points, no cookie.
                          \_ dictionary alert!  Troll score: 6.2, 5.0 required.
                 \_ In both examples you cite we were NOT trying to rebuild
                    after a war which we started preemptively under false
                    pretenses and false secondary pretenses.
                    \_ who started what has exactly nothing to do with how
                       long it will or should take to rebuild a post-war
                       country.  also the japanese and some germans might
                       disagree about the causes of WWII and who started what
                       with what economic acts of war.  get a history book and
                       take rhetoric 1a.
                    \_ might makes right. actually plenty of contracts were
                       given out in Bosnia and Kosovo. i supported that act
                       even if it was purely "humanitarian"
                       \_ I supported those too, but not Iraq.  What's your
                          point?
                          \_ So did I.  What's *your* point?
                 \_ The Iraqi bloggers I have read seem to think otherwise.
                    Check out salam_pax. I have a friend who got back
                    recently after a three month assignment as a reporter
                    and he says that 400 people a month are being murdered
                    in greater Baghdad and that things are not really going
                    "well."
                    \_ Of course _your_ bloggers write what you like to read.
                       If they wrote how well and peachy everything was you'd
                       stop reading because obviously they're just agents of
                       the eveil BushCo and should be DDOS'd off the net.
                       \_ I think you missed the point, perhaps deliberately.
                          Can you point to any Iraqis who think things are
                          going well? Sure, the soldiers think things are great.
                          If you had ever served, you would know why that is
                          not surprising, or worth much.
                          \_ Who cares what the average Iraqi thinks?  How many
                             average Iraqis have blogs anyway?  Where did your
                             Iraqi bloggers get the experience as to exactly
                             how long it should take to rebuild a country?
                             Their country was never really built up that much
                             in the first place.  Most of the south never has
                             had potable water and you're going by what some
                       the eveil BushCo and should be DDOS'd off the net.
                          If you had ever served, you would know why that is
                          not surprising, or worth much.
                             internet using elite have to say?  What's wrong?
                             The Iraqi net backbone is too slow?  Can't play
                             netrek without getting dooshed?
                             \_ Bile: it's what's for breakfast.
                                \_ BushCo serves bile to the Iraqi people!  I
                                   read it on a blog kept by an average Iraqi
                                   citizen!
                 \_ Bad examples. The Marshall Plan took place two years after
                    WWII when Europe was "pacified" and used American money to
                    help European business rebuild Europe. Japan was also
                    "pacified" but united as a people and even under those
                    conditions, took many years of American funding to help
                    the Japanese to rebuild Japan. Iraq is not pacified, is
                    not united, and American money supports American companies
                    rebuilding Iraq, not Iraqi. Try again.
                    \_ Duh, it took 2 years to 'pacify' those regions?  well,
                       wait 2 year in Iraq then come back and whine if it
                       isn't going well.  What did Europe and Japan do during
                       the two year we didn't help?  If we did nothing but
                       'pacify' Iraq for 2 years you'd be screaming that we're
                       not doing enough.  You'd be unhappy no matter what
                       because you're an idealogue and blindly hate the admin.
                       \_ Unlike post-war Japan and Germany, there are plenty
                          of Iraqis who were happy to see the former regime go.
                          There's no need to wait 2 years to "pacify" Iraq.
                          Hand over control of Iraq to the Iraqis we supposedly
                          invaded to free.  Otherwise, we just swapped the
                          Bathist regime for the Haliburton regime.  No points
                          for good intentions, folks.
                       not doing enough.  You'd be unhappy no matter what
                       because you're an idealogue and blindly hate the admin.
                          invaded to free.  Otherwise, we just swapped the
                          Bathist regime for the Haliburton regime.  No points
                          for good intentions, folks.
                          \_ There are plenty of prior government Iraqis who
                             have a lot invested in the way it used to be and
                             need to be found and imprisoned or executed.  If
                             we left now you'd be the first one screaming on
                             the motd how we abandoned the average net using
                             blogging Iraqi to Afghanistan style chaos and how
                             it's terrible how slow their net has become after
                             the eveil Amerikkkans left!  boo hoo.  It's going
                             to take time, more deaths, and more money.  If it
                             was easy to do, Clinton would've done it.
                             \_ And if Bush started making Muslims wear little
                                crescent badges and detained them in
                                "relocation camps," you'd still be up here on
                                the motd trying to defend him.
                                \_ Nice try but you completely avoided all my
                                   points.  Since you're the first to scream
                                   "NAZI!" I win, right?
                                   \_ Nah, I just alluded to nazis.  You
                                      invoked them.  You win, but it's a
                                      phyrric victory.
                             \_ wait, so we're in Iraq to imprison and execute
                                collaborators?  the pres. says we're there to
                                rebuild Iraq and hand over power to the Iraqis.
                                so which are we: liberators or vigilantes?
2003/9/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10329 Activity:moderate
9/25    Hans Blix gets book deal.  It was always about the money.  It always
        is.  $500k to say, "We didn't find anything".
        http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/6859265.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
        \_ C.R.E.A.M.  baby.
        \_ But he's been saying that all along.  If someone wants to pay him,
           why not?  Besides, is he wrong?  May I remind you:
           STILL NO WMDS.
           \_ What was found or not has zippo to do with this guy going on the
              world stage solely to get a name for himself to sell his book
              which is going to say what?  What we already know?
              \_ Solely to get a name for himself?  Are you insane?  He was
                 trying to stop a war.  And at least one very powerful idiot
                 didn't listen to him, so now he's writing something that
                 history will be able to review.
                 \_ is this the point where I whine bc my response got deleted
                    and instead go "blah blah blah"?
        \_ I see, so it's "free market! free market!" all the way, until
           a non neo-conservative gets a small-time book deal?  Just trying
           to get the rules down, thanks.
           \_ The free market has nothing to do with Blix camera hogging while
              he was supposed to be working for the world's safety while he
              was really just writing a book.
              \_ There'd be nothing to write if Bush has listened to him.
2003/9/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10304 Activity:high
9/23    Bush and Annan's speeches to the UN:
        http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/sprj.irq.bush.transcript
        http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/58/statements/sg2eng030923.htm
        \_ I can't believe he said that!  What a POS!
           \_ Yep, the era of the UN is past.
              \_ "History is a harsh judge: it will not forgive us if
                  we let this moment pass."
              \_ How far up is that stick up your fat ass?
2003/9/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10296 Activity:nil
9/23    Bringing democracy to Iraq!
        link:csua.org/u/4ge
        \_ I strongly encourage you to do a smidgen of research on George
           Galloway, and on his "interesting" past.  Anything like that coming
           from him is pretty rich.  -John
           \_ Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that the governing
              council just muzzled the press.
                \_ The right way to change a country is like so: after
                   crushing the former government, you tell everyone it's
                   over with and to report to work the next day, then you
                   shoot everyone that's stirring trouble, muzzle the press,
                   appoint a new government, let everything get stable, then
                   have an election a few years later and yield control.  The
                   problem with the current plan is they're trying to build
                   a new government without fully stomping out the old one.
                   it's a bloody and ugly process and requires everyone stfu
                   for a while until the partisan activity is crushed.
                \_ Nuke the shithole & get it over with.  War.  Victory.
                   Army.  Military.  Own the place.  Get the picture?  -John
                   \_ What a heartwarming sentiment, John.
                        \_ I've given up on trying to reason with the world.
                           I've joined the mighty troll army.  -John
                           \_ Real Trolls don't sign their posts. -AMC
                              \_ That's so cool!  Someone took my anonymous
                                 nick.  I'm now immortal!  That rocks!  Thank
                                 you!
                              \_ The Troll King signs whatever he wants. -John
                   \_ But Ahnuld's Hummer doesn't run on radioactive gas.
2003/9/22 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10275 Activity:very high
9/21    US Army caught red handed using racist, anti African-American
        recruiting methods.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/national/22RECR.html?ex=1064808000&en=221b26ead28a15a5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
        And a big FU! to whatever racist deleted this!
        \_ troll
        \_ "The drop in black recruits may be tied to the Army's increased
            focus on the college market, military officials say." Wtf? Perhaps
            it's because black college students are less likely to want to
            fight for Uncle Whitey's Army.
        \_ how sad, a long ass trolling url non shortened url
           i am far too lazy to click on.
           \_ http://csua.org/u/4fc
        \_ What's racist?  The fact that they "focus on the college market"?
           Are you implying black people don't go to college?  What?  Man,
           some people on soda are weird.  -John [restored by erikred]
        \_ you're all weird, especiall those who call "troll" but haven't
           read the link from the NYT of all places.  Exactly what is the
           right place one is allowed to post a link without being a troll?
           Maybe from your favorite politician's personal website? -!OP
                \_ I'm not weird.  I think OP is crying 'racist' (meaningless
                   word, that) without giving a reason why.  And I read
                   the article, is there a problem?  Weirdo.  -John
        And a big FU! to whatever racist deleted this!
        \_ Hm I just replied to this asking what is racist about it, and got
           deleted.  Are you a racist?  You *are* weird.  -John
2003/9/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:10268 Activity:nil
9/20    These Are Historic Times - Is it to be Lincoln or Sisyphus?
        http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson091903.asp
2003/9/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10264 Activity:nil
9/20    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030919-105619-9614r.htm
        Poor bastard.  BushCo wouldn't have nailed him if he wasn't Muslim.
2003/9/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10247 Activity:high
9/18    Hans Blix gets in his parting shot:
        http://csua.org/u/4dl
        Too bad America didn't listen to him, instead of that boob in the
        White House.
        \_ Yeah, there'd still be hundreds of people getting summarily
           executed, tortured, and disappeared off the Iraqi streets
           everyday by Hussein's thugs if we had listened to Blix.  Your
           moral strength is overwhelming.
           \_ How do you feel about the US propping up tyrants all over
              the world? If you really believe in the Jimmy Carter school
              of foreign policy, I respect you, even if I think you are
              a bit naive. But I suspect you are just a Bush apologist
              who has suddenly found civil rights as a causis belli.
              \_ Well said. --scotsman
              \_ U.S. can't depose every cruel dictator on earth, but the
                 only guy worse than Hussein is someone who can reach
                 S.F. and/or destroy Seoul with nukes.  Granted, that
                 Hussein was bad to his own wasn't the reason U.S. went
                 after him, but why are so many people wringing their hands
                 about what a mistake it was to get rid of him?  Why are so
                 many people hoping Iraq descends into anarchy so that U.S.
                 can be "taught a lesson"?  Why do so many people want U.S.
                 out so that this can happen, paving the way for Iraq to
                 become the next Yugoslavia or Sudan?  And how can these
                 same people claim to be on the side of "civil rights"?  I
                 personally would be wrong than have millions suffer.  Why
                 is this not so with so many of the self-anointed "civil
                 rights" activists?
                 \_ It wasn't a mistake to remove Hussein. The error was the
                    method. Anarchy already exists in Iraq, and since the US
                    is unwilling to relent or give up power, few are interested
                    helping promote a failing policy. And the term you are
                    misusing should be human rights. Plus the US isn't allowing
                    others into Iraq unless they bend their knee to Washington.
           \_ The reason many liberals opposed the war was not because we think
              the U.S. should ignore brutal tyrants, but because the war was
              sold to the public based on half-truths and lies.  Also invading
              another country without U.N. approval and pissing off other
              countries...
              \_ So you would have supported it if they said it was to free
                 the Iraqi people?  I think not.  What does the UN have to do
                 with it?  Since when did the UN become the ruling world body?
                 I don't recall voting to allow a bunch of third world
                    actually Fox News, lies. Almost all (all?) of them have
                 unelected dictators, tyrants, and enemies of the US decide
                 what my country is "allowed" to do.
                 \_ If they'd said it was to free Iraq, I'd've suggested
                    that they consider freeing Burma, Angola, and Syria
                    first.  I'd've also suggested that they lean more
                    heavily on Saudi Arabia and Egypt before they start
                    invading Iraq.  And finally, I would have suggested
                    that they demonstrate that they can actually "free"
                    a country from oppression and install democracy by
                    first finishing up the process in Afghanistan.  Show
                    me you can do this, and I'll march in your army.
           \_ So I'm assuming you can prove it. Ooops. Proof left to reader
              since it's obvious to BushCo!
              \_ I've seen the Eiffel tower.  I've stood at the observation
                 platform and looked out over Paris.  I can not prove I have
                 done so, nor can I prove the Eiffel tower exists.  However,
                 to say that the Eiffel tower does not exist because I can not
                 prove it to your level of comfort does *not* make the Eiffel
                 tower *not* exist.  You're probably right.  All those mass
                 graves reports are just BushCo lies.
                 \_ Most of those "mass graves" reports really are BushCo
                    or Fox News, lies. Almost all (all?) of them have
                    turned out to be regular graveyards. You know, like the
                    kind every country has, even the US. The US killed 10k
                    civilians in this war at least. How long would it take
                    Saddam Hussein to kill this many?
           \_ Saddom would look fairly moderate on the large list of tyranical
              regimes that the US has not only tolerated but also supported
              in the past.
              \_ And the racism of today would look downright tame
                 compared to that of the past.  Is that your only
                 way of evaluating right and wrong - precident?  The
                 sins of Ike should be upon Bush?
        \_ "I find your lack of faith disturbing.."
2003/9/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10240 Activity:high
9/17    Should the 30 million dollar reward for Saddam be offered and
        eligible to the soldier who bags Saddam?
        \_ The 30 mil is for information leading us to him.  If the soldiers
           have found him, we don't need the info.
           \_ yeah but if we get him without info, that would be more incentive
              for a soldier to capture him or kill him.
              \_ I bet the soldiers have plenty of incentive already.
              \_ our soliders aren't bounty hunters.  they don't need extra
                 incentive to follow orders.  if they do we're really fucked.
        \_ Has Saddam Hussein put a reward on Bush's head yet?
           \- isnt this like offereing your company headhunter a referral
              bonus? i thinkt eh real question is do you shoot him down like
              a dog, or take him alive. --psb
              dog, or take him alive. --psb
              \_ I bet this was moved to a different point on the thread.
              dog, or take him alive. --psb
                 Yay idiot humor.
        \_ Saddam's in my basement.  How do I get my $30 mil?  -John
2003/9/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10193 Activity:kinda low
9/14    What is the size of US armed forces anyway?  I thought US has
        more than 300k troops.  Aside from cost, why people say US forces
        are strech thin?
        \_ the more funding you give to the armed forces, the more it'll
           spend on war. the more it spends on war, the more money it'll
           need. 300K troop is not enough. Neither is 1 million. It's
           never enough.
           \_ It's the purpose of the armed forces to be prepared for war.
              The more they have, they better prepared they can be.  This
              is common sense to most people.  Let's just scrap the entire
              military and save a buck.  Would that make you happy, comrade?
        \_ Political gain.
        \_ around 150k forces depolyed in Iraq alone, probably more in Kuwait
           to support them, that's a pretty sizeable chunk of that 300k.  When
           you consider that you need local troops, troops at premenent bases
           like in Europe and Japan, well gee, that seems pretty stretched
           to me.  Add to that the fact that it is an all volenteer army that
           has been seeing recruitment and reenlistment rates plumet... see
           the problem yet?
           \_ There are more than 300k troops.  That's a ridiculously small
              number so the rest of what you're saying is silly.  Also, all
              4 branches easily met and exceeded quota since 9/11.
           \_ Where do you get your figures for recruitment rates?  My
              understanding is the army had no problems filling their quotas
              after 9/11 (and the very successful baghdad blitz helped).
              The army's main problem is money, not men.
                \_ I thought they had cash a-plenty, but that a lot of it
                   was wasted on pork-barrel projects, like the V-22 and
                   strategically pointless bases, rather than on boring things
                   like training and spare parts.  -John
                   \_ Different budgets.  Lack of spare parts in the US Army
                      means they can't strip and replace every part on every
                      M1-A2 active in the field while on the front at the same
                      time.  You'll note the lack of any reports of soldiers
                      unable to complete missions due to lack of spares.
           \_ can they mobilize all the national guards for Iraq,
              leaving just skeleton personel for bases in USA, and
              throw everyone at Iraq so the situation there could get
              stablized more quickly?
                \_ They've done that to some degree.  All our gate guards
                   are National Guardspeople at Kirtland AFB, NM.  --PeterM
                \_ more people won't help in Iraq.  They're doing ok in most
                   of the country.  The reports of trouble from Iraq are *all*
                   from a small section of the country that was always hard
                   core pro-saddam.  Go check a map every time they report an
                   event.  It's always something just north or north west of
                   baghdad. That's prime we-love-the-president-day real estate.
                   \_ yea, the rest are all peace loving shiite mullahs, just
                      like their brothers in Iran.
        \_ ~ 2 million for all branches.
2003/9/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10180 Activity:nil
9/12    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1041212,00.html
        This is pretty messed up.  Do you think the US soldiers
        were duped into firing at the police?
        \_ What we need to do is require that every Iraqi citizen
           carry a loaded firearm.  That's the magic way to end all
           violence!
           \_ Pretty much, yes, it is.
              \_ Yes, because everyone who has a gun would act responsibly,
                 and people with issues would never escalate them to "hey,
                 I'll just shoot the ho, just to let her know" since they'd
                 be required to always carry a gun.
2003/9/12 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10169 Activity:nil
9/12    Someone quoted The Economist, but didn't provide a reference. I just
        came across it, so here it is: The Economist, September 6th-12th, 2003
        On Pg. 28, "Would you like your class war shaken or stirred, sir?"
                Interestingly, Americans are usually over-optimistic
        about their chances of promotion. An opinion poll a couple
        of years ago found that 19% of American taxpayers believed
        themselves to be in the top 1% of earners. A further 20%
        thought they would end up there within their lifetimes.

        Also interesting stuff like:
                Take wealth rather than income, and America's
        disparity is even more startling. The wealthiest 1% of all
        households controls 38% of national wealth, while the bottom
        80% of households holds only 17%, according to the Economic
        Policy Institute (EPI). Around 85% of stockmarket wealth
        is held by a lucky 20%.
        \_ So you'd rather live in a country where people think there's no
           hope of ever advancing and just suck off the public teat?  I think
           that was tried.  We called it communism.  We called it socialism.
           \_ Holy shit, look at that knee jerk!
2003/9/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:29524 Activity:insanely high
9/8     http://asia.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3408521
        Sigh... once again world leaders were unprepared for the obvious and
        easily foreseen.  Only a week ago Japan announced they're going to
        _start_ spending $2b/year for the next 5+ years.  SK has no plans for
        defense at all.  And in the next year we have a good chance of seeing
        a few million people anywhere in the region go up in smoke.  Literally.
        \_ According to the 2003 CIA world factbook the military budgets
           for these countries in 2002 were (roughly):
           S. Korea:  $13B
           Japan: $40B
           \_ Percentage for missile defense?  near zero.
        \_ Kim Jong-Il isn't going to do anything. Why not?  Because he'll
           lose if he tries.  Kim Jong-Il's most important goal is survival.
           He merely wants to give off the appearance of being crazy so he
           can blackmail donor countries.  If he did anything, we would
           invade and he would lose. for sure.
                  \- it's probably actually the case that NKorea is
                     willing to "bid" to higher risk levels. going with
                     the poker analogy, bluffing might be just that when
                     it comes to a single round of poker, but the willingness
                     to run higher risks has implications across repeated
                     interactions. in a MAD world you dont directly threaten
                     the other side, but you threten the other side with
                     your willingness to risk things going out of control.
                     this model applies in a certain modified way in the
                     north korean case. lit. references skipped. BTW,
                     pico iyer has an interesting travel essay on NK
                     from a few yrs back in "tropical classical" i think.
                     there is also an interesting frontline on NK. --psb
           \_ You know, that's very similar to what people said about Saddam
              Hussein: he'd either use/have WMD's or allow the inspectors in.
              1) we haven't found WMD's (which of course brings up nasty
              questions of either intelligence failure or someone else getting
              the weapons.
              2) he didn't let inspectors in
                 \_ uhh, revisionist history here?
                    \_ Thanks for the correction--I must be hanging out with the
                       wrong crowd.  His obstruction in 1994 led the inspectors
                       to believe that they couldn't accomplish anything (and
                       hence the left).  The UN resolutions in 2002-2003 were
                       for Hussein to lead the inspectors to WMD's or produce
                       evidence that the weapons had been destroyed.  No one
                       expected him to let his country be invaded rather than
                       comply.
                        \_ the inspectors left in 1998.  Not 1994.  Also
                           he did start producing serious evidence there were
                           no WMDs, but the adminstration went to the
                           the rest of the world and said he was lieing and
                           they had evidence to prove it.  Funny how now they
                           are backing away from that and hoping most people
                           wont notice or care.  Which is working in the US
                           but isn't working too well outside of the country.
                           And as has been proven recently the US CAN'T go
                           it alone unless they are willing to make sacrafices
                           and pay through the nose.
                           \_ His evidence was late and weak thus leading to
                              the reasonable assumption + intelligence that
                              there were easily found WMD.  Hussein's actions
                              still make no sense.  We had a large force at
                              his southern border and were making preparations
                              to invade that were so obvious CNN was showing
                              the work being done on international TV and he
                              still wouldn't blink.
                              \_ Perhaps he was not willing to fully
                                 cooperate because US is bombing his
                                 military capabilities even beyond the no
                                 fly zone, and has pretty much stated that
                                 we would try to assasinate Saddam if we
                                 find the chance?
                                 \_ No, your timeline is way off.  We were
                                    *way* beyond no fly zones and other
                                    sanctions era garbage at this point.  If
                                    he didn't blink it was clear he'd get
                                    invaded and crushed, party over.  No blink.
                                    You can't judge foreign leaders based on
                                    your local concept of common sense.
                                    \_ It was clear to him he would
                                       get invaded no matter whether he
                                       blinked or not.  US special forces
                                       is all over Iraq by that point, and
                                       condition for no invasion is for
                                       Saddam to step down and go into exile.
                                       Exile means US can assasinate him
                                       anytime it wants.  The voluminous
                                       evidence (several thousand pages) is
           \_ So how much of your half-eaten Cheetos did you spew all over
              your screen while typing that?
                                       not weak but as much as he can provide
                                       given that, as we now know, he really
                                       doesn't have any WMD.
                           \_ Obviously I need to stop posting late at night.
              There is no sane explanation for Hussein's actions.  Why do you
              expect Kim Jong-Il to be different?
           \_ There's a really interesting long ass article about
              Kim Jong-Il in last week's new yorker, I guess I could
              post it somewhere if you're interested.   now I feel
              like psb, this sucks. - danh
              \- evolutionary ameliorism
           \_ So you work for the State Department and have access to the
              psych profiles of foreign leaders?  What security clearance
              does that require?  Is there any other secret shit you can
                 maneuvering to prevent a war at all costs.  Keeping US
              share with us?  --super spy #1 fan
              \_ One doesn't need all that "secret shit".  It's common
                        \_ Umm, China constitutes > 70% of N Korean imports.
                           Since N. Korea has no natural resources or
                           domestic industry, this means in effect N.
                           Korea survives only through China.  PRC
                           military wants military parity with the US
                           ~ 2025, their generals and military reports
                           are very specific that they view the US as
                           adversary.  Sorry you are wrong (unless of
                           course you know more thant the entire US
                           defense establishment).
                 sense.  The problem with US intelligence services is
                 too much technology and too little common sense.  Kim
                 wants to hold on to power for the long term, and to do
                 that his best model is the PRC.  Unfortunately, US
                 sanctions is preventing him from following in the PRC's
                 footsteps.  He also faces much more serious military
                 pressures and burden as compared to the PRC.  South
                 Korea poses much more of a threat as the better
                 model than Taiwan vis-a-vis the PRC, since
                 Taiwan is so small compared to PRC.  Yes, Kim might
                 strike if he is cornered.  If you let him have a way
                 out, he would take the way out.  I think US wants to
                 take him out whereas S. Korea prefers a more moderate,
                 slower, but less risky way.  Maybe if PRC continues to
                 prosper economically, it can pull N. Korea out of
                 economic disaster even with US sanctions.  Either take
                 Kim out ASAP or help him with economic liberalization
                 are both better than the current impasse.
                 \_ No, it isn't common sense to threaten your neighbors and
                    the US with nuclear weapons if you expect to survive long
                    term.  If staying alive and in power was his goal, he's
                    chosen a suicidal and foolish path that only a mad man
                    would take.  How do you see 10+ years of nuclear weapons
                    and missile development in a starving nation as a means
                    of survival as common sense?
                    \_ If S. Korea, Japan, US feels threatened by N. Korea,
                       how do you think N. Korea feels about the might of
                       the US?  If N. Korea's military is weak, US and
                       S. Korea would likely have taken it out a long time
                       ago, given that USSR is no more and PRC is more and more
                       unwilling to support the liability that is N. Korea.
                       \_ Sigh... if the US wanted to take out NK we could do
                          so right now.  NK can *never* be so strong that we
                          can't take them out.  You have it all backwards.  The
                          *only* reason to take them out is they're getting too
                          strong and building WMD and the means to use them
                          *and* are suicidally threatening to do so.  Otherwise
                          no one would care what a backwater starving nation
                          run by yet another psycho is doing to it's people.
                          \_ not "no one." South Korea would care.  Most
                             south Koreans still have family over there.
                          \_ Sure and USSR could have taken out Afghanistan.
                             Just throw a few nukular bombs and then send
                             in the whole damn Red Army.  3rd grade arguments
                             aside, the question is always, "At what cost?".
                             And no, the reason N. Korea is more and more a
                             concern is not that they are getting too strong
                             but that they are getting too weak and unstable,
                             and of course, the above stated desires of S.
                             Koreans to have a united nation.  As for caring
                             about "backwater starving nations", it's all
                             about projecting power and securing interests,
                             like in Iraq, or Philippines in the last
                             century.
                 \_ don't forget that the current PRC model all started
                    with Mao being *dead*.  all through the idiocy of the
                    great leap forward and the cultural revolution
                    there were moderate leaders ready to turn China into
                    a real country, and without the maniac dying all this
                    was totaly impossible.  Kim is NK's maniac.
                    \_ Mao is a brutal dictator but not a maniac.  Yes,
                       GLF is sheer stupidity but I think Mao really
                       believed it would work, at least initially.  As for
                       the GPCR, it is Mao's calculated bid to return to power.
                       The PRC model (a more basic version) has been
                       experimented upon off and on since the commie
                       takeover, by the likes of Zhou, Liu and Deng.
                       Mao did not like it too much not because of its
                       merits/problems but because it gives too much
                       power to Liu and others, sidelining Mao.
           \_ [troll purged]
           \_ In Washington the 'common sense' prevailing intelligence is
              that North Korea is China's client state.  They are
              maneuvering to force the US off of the Korean peninsula
              so China can expand its sphere of influence. DUH.
              \_ PRC's main concern is much more than whether US troops is
                 on the Korean peninsula.   It's biggest fear is war on
                 the Korean peninsula.  Politically, helping N. Korea would be
                 disastrous since PRC has good relations with S. Korea, and
                 need trade with Japan and US.  Not helping would be
                 disastrous since its people and military leaders would be
                 questioning why it is giving up what the previous generation
                 gave life and blood for.  Economically, it would be
                 disastrous for the whole region either way.  Militarily, it
                 would have a hard time matching US / S. Korea.  PRC is
                 maneuvering to prevent a war at all costs.  Forcing US
                 off the Korean peninsula is way down on the bottom of the
                 list.  This is all common sense, and very basic.
2003/9/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10092 Activity:high
9/5     $90 billion this year, $60 billion next year.  How much is the
        regime change Iraq war going to cost your typical family of 4 in
        total eventually?  $4000?
        \_ Ask the typical family of 3 that was a typical family of 4 before
           9/11 how much it's worth.
           \_ NO Iraq-9/11 connection! Never was never will be.
           \_ Not much, if it's determined Iraq never did pose an imminent
              threat, the WMD never existed, and the U.S. loses further
              credibility internationally.
           \_ now this is a good troll.
           \_ yeah, every single nukular family of 4 lost a member due to
              the attacks of 9/11.  thanks for reminding us.
        \_ $4000?  That's like 10 times the tax cut I am going to get next
           year.
        \_ Chump change. US has supported many initiatives like this in
           other countries that keep going on and on.
2003/9/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10091 Activity:high
9/5     In the end, with regard to WMD, it's not the two-bit dictator Saddam
        who lied, but the Bush and Blair administrations.  Poor Saddam.  He
        had no WMD and had been telling the truth all along, hoping and trying
        hard to appease the US, while Bush and Blair lied to their
        citizens and to the world, patronizing and full of self righteousness.
        \_ you gotta learn to at least guise your troll. the post below is
                much better.
           \_ not really.  it only got 1 pathetic bite.  both are too
              obviously trying to pull heart strings and push hot buttons.
              \_ I think you just overwrote the second bite.
           \_ It's not a troll, but a irrefutable declaration of fact, and
              thus, no followup is expected.
2003/9/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:10088 Activity:nil
9/4     I love this shit.  This is legalization of pirates in the high seas,
        and USA is leading charge:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3082548.stm
        \_ pirates?  am i missing something here? it sounds like it's all
           the activity of various nations' navies.  when the US decides
           to let commercial fishermen with grappling hooks and hunting
           rifles board ships, then you can call it piracy.
           \_ Both of you should read up on maritime law before resorting
              to statements you can't back up.
              \_ it's not a question of maritime law, it's a question of
                 what the word "pirate" means.  If a warship attacks or boards
                 another vessel, that's not piracy.
                 Pirate:
                 "An armed ship or vessel which sails without a legal
                 commission, for the purpose of plundering other vessels on
                 the high seas."
              \_ in the good old days, you can't just goahead and board
                 other nation's ship in the internation water.  Am I
                 missing something here?        --OP
                 \_ you probably side with China in saying to stop WMD
                    you need to talk. Imagine if this program were in place
                    back in Oct 1962 - no Cuban Missile Crisis! Might makes
                    right - get over it!
                    \_ Don't you have any pride in our nation as a beacon
                       of hope for democracy and its ability to bring the
                       world together? Soft power and our ability to set
                       the world agenda towards human rights have earned us
                       much leverage and the admiration of the world. You
                       should reevaluate the nuance of soft power. --aaron
                 \_ when were these "good old days" exactly?  the good old
                    days are *right now*.  in _your_ good old days ships got
                    boarded all the time.  we called it piracy.  it still
                    happens in some back water parts of the world but is very
                    rare, that's why ships no longer carry canons, eh?
                    \_ that is my point at first place.  In name of
                       stopping WMD, we are acting like pirate of
                        caribean sea.  What happened if we are trying
                        board a North Korean ship boun to Syria in
                        middle of Indian Ocean, and North Korean in self
                        defense open fire upon US navy vessel?   -OP
                        \_ A military vessel stopping and searching a civ.
                           vessel on the high seas to search for contradband
                           is not piracy.  That should be your "point at the
                           first place".  Seriously, you're misapplying the
                           word.  You don't know what it means.  When a
                           US Navy destroyer or Coast Guard vessel stops a
                           ship, tosses the men overboard, sells the women into
                           slavery and keeps the cargo for later sale, please
                           post the URL on the motd and you can talk about
                           piracy on the high seas.  I think you're a troll.
                \_ The north korean ship is probably carrying nukes
                   or missiles or something nastier since that's about the
                   only thing north korea can export these days, so
                   I highly support boarding the bastards.  What do YOU
                   think the US should do?  Ignore it?
                        \_ "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men
                            stand ready in the night to visit violence
                            on those who would do us harm" - Orwell
                            \_ It's a nice quote and always true for any
                               society that has a substantial civilian
                               population going back to Rome and earlier.
2003/9/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10051 Activity:nil
9/4     SUPREMACY BY STEALTH
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/974871/posts
        \_ Ugh.  These people WANT a Pax Americana?  I particularly like
           the dictum to "Emulate Second-Century Rome."  Don't these guys
           remember what happened to Rome in the 4th century?
           \- R. Kagan isnt a dumb guy, but he's either sort of blinded
              by some of what he believes or uses a lot of stuff
              disingenuously. I havent had time to process the full
              article but his example where he talks about the
              Scililian Fiasco [search for Glyllipus] is totally
              ridiculous. Obvious, if you have any passing familiarity
              with Thucydides [which of course 90% of the readers wont].
              [in a strage coincidence the real modern expert on this
              is Donald Kagan, who is another crazy right wing nut. note
              also the historian "Erich S. Gruen" R. Kagan refers to
              has an office in Dwinelle. one of berkeley's best lecturers.
                                                           --psb
           \_ What's wrong with Pax Americana? Or Pax of any sort.
            \_ Cause there ain't no Pax in Pax Americana. -aspo
               \_ Pax Romana was somewhat mislabelled too.  There always will
                  be unhappy fringe elements in any empire.  This does not mean
                  the alternatives (i.e. bloody covert or overt conflicts
                  between major rival powers) are better. -- ilyas
           \- 2nd century AD or BC? take your pick ... --psb
              BC:
              Cary \& Schullard describe the aftermath as follows:
              ``In other Greek towns they restored the rule of the
              wealthier classes, and they made Corinth safe against
              social revolution by razing it to the ground and selling
              its inhabitants into slavery.''  This was the hard edge
              to the vaunted {\it Pax Romana\/}.
                        --National Identity Myths and the Roman People
              AD: [actually a little earlier, but written ~100]
              ... they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the
              west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they
              covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To
              robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of
              empire; they make a solitude and call it peace.
                               --The Agricola, Speech of [CG]algacus
                The imperial destiny drives hard,
                and fortune has no longer any gift for us
                other than the disunion of our foes.
                               --The Germania
        \_ White Man's burden... I heard that one  before.
           \_ You prefer what?  That muslim fanatics run the world?  Someone
              is going to run the world whether you like it or not.  I prefer
              America run it.
2003/8/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29497 Activity:high
8/28    Required reading:
        http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
        \_ this is great, thanks. - rory
        \_ no "blog" is required reading.
2003/8/24-25 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29453 Activity:high
8/23    what's really at stake in iraq:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/opinion/24FRIE.html
        \_ NYTimes?  With their track record the last few years, you might as
           well post something from the National Enquirer.  (I didn't read the
           link because it doesn't matter what the NYT publishes anymore)
           \_ So you're sticking to reputable, unbiased sources like
              Washington Times and Fox News then, I'm assuming.  Fair
              and balanced!
              \_ Actually with people like Thomas Friedman and Judith Miller
                 writing for them the NYTimescan feel like Fox or the
                 Moonie Times sometimes.  Just that no one ever calls the
                 NYTimes on their bullshit.
                 \_ That's a decently written editorial with some interesting
                    points, which, whether you agree with him or not, are
                    well-argued and well-presented.  Regarding the Fox news
                    comparison, do you rate news sources for the opinions they
                    present, or for how they present them?  I don't know about
                    you, but I'm more interested in a persuasive, eloquent
                    argument that I disagree with, than a rah-rah piece of
                    demagoguery that meshes with my own opinions... -John
                    \_ Fox TV sounds *exactly* like the NYT to me.  It's just
                       from the opposing view and they don't take themselves
                       so gravely seriously like the NYT does for some
                       mysterious reason.  Oh yeah, Fox hasn't yet been busted
                       with multiple flat out ficticious "news reports" unlike
                       the NYT.  I can read opinion on the net without the NYT
                       filter tainting it.
                        \_ Well ain't it just peachy then that you have the god-
                           given right to choose your own news sources.  In any
                           case, that's not a news article, it is an op-ed
                           piece.  And good luck finding something completely
                           unbiased--if you're not consuming news with a grain
                           of salt, you've losing out regardless.  -John
        \_ Summary: Iraq is about culture, but we can't say that because it
           doesn't play well on TV.  It's an important war to win, on human
           rights grounds alone.  But Bush has handled this so idiotically--
           alienating our allies, trying bear the cost alone while cutting
                           accelerated production of nuclear weapons, there
           taxes domestically, and lying outright about the immediate need
           for war-- that we may lose it anyway.
                \_ Exactly which allies are those? France, who considers
                   Iraq their client state?  Germany, who sold
                   Iran their gas centrifuge technology and continually
                   insulted the President for domestic political gain?
                   Russia and China which remain Communist states?  Please
                   do explain yourself.
                   \_ I was going to explain how stupid this person was and
                      then I saw the he claims Russia is still a Communist
                      state and realized he has already done my work for me.
                           \_ All of the same apparitchik remain in power,
                           the KGB still exists, Putin is KGB, Russia has
                           accelerated R&D of nuclear weapons, there
                           is no free press, etc. etc.  To repeat, the same
                           elite holds power but they call themselves something
                           else.  I'd trust the judgement of leaders of
                           former eastern bloc countries than yours.
                  \_ How about China? It is a mirror opposite of Russia.
                     Same party, same people in power, but they've moved to
                     market economy since mid 1980's.  and you call China a
                     Communist state?
                     \_ I think China is going for a kind of nationalist
                        unification of big business and government, which
                        is what people call fascism.
                     \_ China's 'aspirations' for political and economic
                        freedom are transparent in its client state
                        North Korea.
                     \_ They haven't moved to a market economy.  They have
                        some of the highest barriers to entry in the world.
                        The whole thing is a giant state owned business.  Can
                        I get some of that shit you're smoking?
2003/8/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29442 Activity:high
8/22    Interesting Irving Kristol essay on neoconservatism:
        http://csua.org/u/40g
        And a very interesting analysis of it:
        http://csua.org/u/40h
        \_ I thought Leo Strauss was supposed to be the "godfather of
           neoconservatism", however inadverdently, or am I completely
           mixing things up?  Regardless, people who make generalizations
           are all idiots.  -John
        And a very interesting analysis of it:
        http://csua.org/u/40h
        \_ "People have always preferred bigger government."  *sigh*
           \_ The analysis is definitely worth checking out.  They get a real
              kick out of pointing out his intellectual dishonesty.
              \_ Well, I don't think he is intellectually dishonest, but he
                 isn't really a consevative in any meaningful sense.  No one
                 who considers FDR a hero is a conservative.  At any rate,
                 the larger agenda is to discredit the movement as a whole
                 by pointing to one man, the converse of trying to discredit
                 Nietzsche by pointing to fascism.
                 \_ If not intellectually dishonest, then intellectually
                    lazy.  He's very fond of making sweeping generalizations
                    that cry out for justifcation (such as the one quoted
                    above) and then moving on without any further
                    explanation.
                    \_ I think the neoconservative position probably needs
                       a larger medium for proper expression than a little
                       essay, lest people cry 'generalization'.
2003/8/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29433 Activity:very high
8/21    Amazing how fast "old Europe" and the "irrelevant UN"
        are being asked to help shoulder the Bush Admin mistakes:
        http://csua.org/u/3zs
        \_ ?? What's this have to do with the Jews murdering babies in
           Palestine and drinking their blood in their Jew rituals??
        \_ UN is dying to get back in the game, become relevent again.
        \_ how about, "it's damned expensive to do it alone, I'll get these
           UN doofuses to send troops, and we'll still retain ultimate
           authority"
           \_ Yes. That's why I think that the UN and all those countries
              that were opposed to US actions in Iraq should not involved.
              Let the US and Bush's admininistration pay the price of
              their unilaterality.
              \_ The UN is there.  Or *was* there until they got blown up.  Now
                 they'll leave and not come back and teach the killers that
                 they've got no spin and can get anything they want with a few
                 bombs and a score of dead.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.
        \_ "Mommy, what's the EU?"  "Honey, it's sorta like the USA except
            they're more stuck up about it." --1d93d050106585ca20a36ff620fb02e1
            \_ "Daddy, what does 'regret' mean?"  "Well son, its better to
               regret something you have done, than to regret something you
               haven't done.  And by the way, if you see your mom this
               morning, would be sure and tell her...SATAN! SATAN! SATAN!"
               \_ you are my hero.
               \_ What's that from?
                  \_ if you cant find it on google, one answer is: Orbital.
                     \_ Orbital sampled it from one of the more strange
                        Butthole Surfers albums.
         \_ it's like the USA except they believe in godless darwinist
            evolution
        \_ I don't have any problem with the UN being there proving a nice
           soft fat easy distracting target so real Americans are less likely
           to get killed.  Are you one of the morons that thinks the Iraqi
           people were better off with Saddam?
           \_ Are you one of those nitwits that believes Saddam posed an
              imminent danger?
              \_ Are you one of the morons that thinks the Iraqi people were
                 better off with Saddam?  I said nothing about imminent danger.
                 You refuse to answer a simple qustion because it doesn't jive
                 with your dogma.  The answer is obviously, "No, the Iraqi
                 people were not better off with Saddam".  Thank you for not
                 playing.
                 \_ So we went to this war for this reason? Are you joking?
                    Half of the world probably thinks they're worse off under
                    their current rulers and Saddam's regime in the 80s was
                    just one of the many tiranical regimes that US supported
                    around the world. This would not stand as a legimate
                    reason for a war from the point of view of most Americans.
                    It's only now being used as a lame excuse to distract
                    people's attention from the fact that the Iraq's WMD
                    threat still hasn't been proven.
              \_ Who's calling me a nitwit?  Saddam was an EVIL man, and
                 history will show we made the right decion. -Dubya
              \_ And do you know no history that might always make right
                 and history is written by the victors?
                 \_ This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq.
                    Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history;
                    "revisionist historians" is what I like to call them.
                    -Dubya
                    \_ this is one of my alltime favorite W quotes.
                    \_ isn't California used to be Mexican?
           \_ Are you one of the dipshits that pretend they actually give a
              shit about the Iraqi people?
              \_ Unlike you, I actually do.  I assumed there was no real threat
                 from Iraq but was perfectly happy to see the US invade because
                 I firmly believe a tragic error was made in 1991 by *not*
                 going in and finishing them off when the people were with us.
                 \_ The person above, I believe, was referring to this
                    administration, not to mention others before it.  Do you
                    honestly believe that this country would ever use its
                    military force for humanitarian reasons?  Have we ever?
                    Mind you, this is totally separate from the question of
                    "should we?".
                 \_ Bush Sr.'s assertion is that the coalition in 1991 would
                    not accept pushing to Baghdad.  The mission the Arab
                    countries signed up for was to liberate Kuwait, not to
                    depose Iraq.  I suspect this is why Bush Jr. is easy
                    to rile up when it comes to "revisionist historians".
           \_ um, do you think the Iraqi's are better off right now? At least
              before, there was an infrastructure and security. people had
              jobs. now they get theird foods from trucks. do you really think
              the iraqi's are better off right now? if your goal is the long
              term welfare of the iraqi's, there were MUCH better solutions
              for the kind of money the US is pouring into Iraq. With that kind
              of money, you could easily finance a revolution, for example.-ali
           \_ who cares about the Iraqi people!   The Iraqi oil is MUCH better
              off without Saddam.
              \_ Get it off your chest.  I'm sure ranting is more fun for you
                 than actually debating anything.  When you've calmed down and
                 grown up, please come back.  Some of us would like to talk
                 with you in a mature way about adult topics.
                 \_ I love this.  This is the Standard Motd Chestnut!  Its
                    always phrased in exactly the same way, with a slight
                    change of words each time...which leads me to believe
                    its the same person every time.  !op
2003/8/20 [Reference/History/WW2/Japan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29408 Activity:high
8/20    We've been talking about al Qaeda as if it were one single entity.
        Is there a possibility that the entire Muslim community resents
        US occupation of Iraq and just want to kill US landmarks and its
        people rather than that they want to join al Qaeda?
        \_ Americans don't understand the terrorist cells are not like
           "Cobra" from GI Joe.
           \_ They're not?
        \_ Salon had a "portrait of a guerilla" story awhile back--
           ordinary guy, working on a degree in English lit in Baghdad,
           hated Saddam... wants the US out of Iraq, tried to ambush a
           convoy with an RPG (it failed).  The spectrum of feelings and
           politics is wider than "if you're not with us, you're with the
           terrorists" style thinking.
           \_ He was a nice killer.
        \_ nah, muslims just want non-muslims converted or dead,
           the terrorists wanted us out of the Holy Land of Saudi
           Arabia, and we left, but they still continue to terrorize us.
           Everyplace becomes a holy land to them, everyplace in the world
           becomes an occupation.
           \_ we left?  When did that happen?
           \_ Bub, you can score Prozac real easy. Think about it.
              \_ Is this where I say "blah blah blah"?  The poster made valid
                 and accurate points in a calm manner.  You however are an
                 idiot.  Thank you for joining us this morning.
                 \_ I notice you are not replying to any of the critiques.
           \_ How many terrorist attacks on American happened after we
              left Saudi Arabia?
           \_ Nah, only 10% of muslims want that.  Of course, that's about
              100,000,000 people, but hey, who's counting.
        \_ excuse me nitwit, didn't 9/11 happen way before occupation of
           Iraq?
           \_ Dude, how did you get to Cal with your terrible English
              comprehension scores? Was it affirmative-action? Alumni
              pull? Tell us.
              \_ alumni pull at Cal?  sheeyah!
                 \_ You've obviously never met Matt Belizzi.
        \_ Like I said before, US is dumb in denying all the Baath
           party members their old jobs and livelihood.  In doing so,
           they just created tens of thousands of enemies from the most
           well trained well organized pool of Iraqis.  Too cocky.
           It is also the direct opposite of what the US did in
           post-WWII Japan.
           \_ Please show how Saddam-ruled Iraq == WWII-era Japan, and maybe
              I won't think your idea is nuts.
              \_ I already gave you the explanation why it is a bad idea.
                 As to Iraq and WWII-era Japan comparison, go read some
                 history yourself.  There are other examples besides Japan.
                 \_ No, I don't want to read the history myself.  That's why
                    I asked you.  Let's start with something simple.
                    Baathists:Iraq :: ? : Japan.  Then tell me how the
                    Baathists are similar to that group in Japan.
              \_ It was the big argument FOR liberation. It would be just like
                 Japan. Cut off head, replace, wipe up blood, go home.
                 Easy-peasy Japanesey.
2003/8/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29370 Activity:moderate
8/16    Scratch one more fuckin bastard.
        http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/08/16/saudi.amin/index.html
        \_ Jesus, and Saudi Arabia gave this guy exile?  WTF is wrong
           with them?!
           \_ Islam is all about forgiveness!
              \_ I did yermom. forgive me!
                \_ Islam is all about Intolerance, except for muslims
2003/8/14 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29344 Activity:very high
8/13    I just found out that the US Military shifted from using lead bullets
        to depleated uranium so that they can penetrate better. While lead
        is pretty bad environmentally, how about depleated uranium?
        \_ you're kidding about the how bad part, right?
           \_ DU is bad, mmmkay http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
        \_ DEPLEATED!  I mean BALEETED!
           \_ DELTEATED!  ...Del taco?
        \_ URL?  And no lead is not an environmental catastrophy.  There were
           200 bullets fired for every soldier killed in WWII yet I've never
           seen a report about mass lead poisoning in France, Russia, or
           Germany.  Troll?
        \_ DU decays into lead eventually, so you've got the worst of both.
           \_ If it decays into lead then there's no uranium, so...?
              \_ uh, the fact that it decays means it's giving off radation,
                 yes?
                  \_ Yes, it radioactively decays off its energy until each
           diameter or more. Such as the out of the GAU-8 or CIWS or the
                     uranium atom changes to lead which is stable.
                  \_ And you're surrounded by all sorts of radiation from
                     womb to grave and somehow you survive, yes?
        \_ That's not true. DU is generally used for rounds 20 mm in
           diameter or more. Such as the out of the CIWS or GAU-8 or the
           the main gun on a M1 tank. As for small arms, like the M-16,
           there are plans to replace that with a tungsten or other non-lead
           core sometime in 2008. But the standard M855 currently has
           steel tip with a lead core.
           http://aec.army.mil/usaec/publicaffairs/update/fall99/fall9901.htm
        \_ Also, DU, having a multi-billion-year half-life, is radioactive
           only in the mildest sense.  Most lead used is as/more radioactive
           than DU.
            \_ Yes DU is mild, but surely more radioactive than lead.
                \_ It's not the radioactivity that is harmful.  The dust
                   can get into the water supply, or be inhaled, and it's
                   toxic-- more toxic than lead.
                   \_ But it's in other countries, so what?
                      \_ It's in other countries that our lying president and
                         his family can't seem to keep our military away from.
                         This means soldiers die, which is bad.
        \_ maybe the radiation is what gave the soldiers the weird Gulf
           War syndrome?
           \_ It is thought to be one of many contributing factors.
              \_ Good use of the passive.  "It is thought".  That's good.
        \_ This is a very very old news. DU bullets were used even during
           the Desert Storm I. I'd like also to point out that they're used
           only in certain types of armor piercing weapons that are used to
           destroy tanks and other armored vehicles (including the the 30mm
           gun in the A-10 attack plane)
           \_ nearly all munitions for M1 Abrams are DU, as well as the armor.
              tomahawks are DU tipped.
              \_ The Bradley fighting vehicle uses DU ammo for its autocannons.
                 I recently learned, much to my surprise, that a Bradley blew
                 up a few T-72s in the recent Iraq war, using it's guns, which
                 didn't seem large enough for the task...
                 I guess DU really is better. -- ilyas
        \_ Did you know the fuel the airforce uses is incredibly toxic yet
           they fly those things all over the planet?  How can we let that
           go on?
           \_ you sound like a wife of an auto mechanic who complains
              that his clothes get dirty when he is working
              \_ More like coalworkers' wife and black lung.
2003/8/12 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29320 Activity:high
8/11    Here is a pretty lame question but after watching a few Civil War
        documentaries, I wonder why neither the confederate and union soldiers
        dig protective barriers (trenches) to minimize loss. Also given that
        the guns they used were pretty weak why they didn't hide behind
        light barriers (wooden or copper, etc). Also they could have mounted
        canons behind a movable protective shell (primitive tanks). They
        could have done a lot, but instead they fought like stoneage
        primates with guns. WTF?
        \_ Because you forget that tactics always lag behind technology in
           every war. I mean, haven't you ever heard of the expression that
           we are always fighting the last war? It means that tacticians
           are using old techniques in a changing battlefield.
           Technically speaking, you could say that the Civil War could've
           just been postponed for 80 years until we had the bomb, then it
           would've been a on day war by just nuking Richmond.
        \_ Don't forget the Revolutionary war, where they marched in tightly
           packed formations, the better to be picked off by inaccurate musket
           fire, or the First World War, with cavalry charging the machine guns.
           Future generations would probably find our approach to war
           equally insane (what, they flew around in steel coffins which would
           explode on their own more often than from enemy fire?  WTF?).
           Maybe the problem is more essential than technology or military
           doctrine...  -- ilyas
           \- well there are lots of norms that in one sense seem irrational.
              it's "legal" to spray the other side with automatic weapon
              fire, but i believe it is not legal to use a powerful laser to
              blind the enemy. does the CA law on speed traps make sense?
              it seems like a cop gets in more trouble if they scientifically
              measure your speed. --psb
              \_ there is rational behind soldier marched in tighly packed
                 formation, as muskets are so inaccurate that they need a
                 packed firepower to do decent damage.  What was changed
                 in Civil War was the wide spread use of RIFLES.  Neither
                 the south nor the north was prepared for this.   If you look
                 at the photos taken on siege of Richmond, you will see that
                 both North and South started to dig trenches for their cover.
                 Too bad Europeans didn't learn anything from it, thus, they
                 repeated the same mistakes 40-50 years later.
                                                -kngharv
                 \_ I agree with you regarding muskets being inaccurate,
                    and that accurate rifling was unexpected.
2003/8/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29229 Activity:very high
8/3     Do you guys that besides Uday and Qusay Hussein, amoung the dead was
        one of Saddam's grandson?  What make us different, if we doesn't
        seems to care about killing children who is relate to Saddam?
        \_ I speak english - try again.
        \_ Good grief, you can't be serious.  Surely you can tell the difference
           between our assault on an armed house (when our troops told them to
           come out, they answered with small arms fire) and the Husseins'
           methodical torture, murder, and rape of Iraqi citizens.
           \_ obviously, it's not just his english skills that are lacking.
        \_ Me no Uday and Qusay Grandssons and killing Iraqi children is as
           caring seems differnt but, ah!  Yes?
           \_ The student becomes the master!
        \_ The grandson was busy firing his AK-47 from underneath the bed
           before he got shot.
        \_ a lot of people won't think that way.  They will think that
           USA on in its vengeance, trying to kill all Saddam's male
           heirs just because Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991.
2003/8/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:29223 Activity:nil
8/3     Edward Said rocks:
        http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1010417,00.html
2003/8/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29200 Activity:insanely high
7/31    Even the American lackies are deserting us as allies now:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1007288,00.html
        \_ You're right, let's track down saddam and reinstate him as leader,
           everyone would be better off.  You impudent twit.
           \_ Heh, reinstating Saddam would be really funny because then it
              would be yet another 1950's style "American installed brutal
              dictator" situation.  He's a bastard but at least he'd be our
              bastard!  Great plan!
           \_ Why don't we just leave? Since when is it an American issue what
              kind of government some Arabs halfway around the world have?
                \_ Having already intervened and taken down their gov't,
                   how would you morally justify allowing a descent into
                   chaos?
                \_ Because stability around the world is in our interest
                   economically and security wise and militarily in too many
                   ways to even count.
                   \_ Saddam was well contained and has been under control
                      since the end of the first gulf war.  Nothing
                      unstable there.  No WMD, no Al Queda, just oil.
           \_ learn your history, son.  We've been fucking around with
              Arab's government for half century (hint: Iran).
              \_ Arab's government??? nice grammer.
              For politicians, loosing on average one man a day for an
              Army of 100k plus is an acceptable price to pay.  I just feel
              damn sorry for the soldiers on the ground, who has to put up
              with 130 degree heat in full-gear, on constant alert, and
              risk being hit.
                \_ Boo hoo.  They signed up.  It's an all-volunteer force and
                   has been since Vietnam.  Imagine that?  They'd asked to go
                   out and do what soldiers do?  Shocking!
                \_ Please let me be there to watch when you insist to an
                   Iranian that he's an Arab.  -John
                   \_ C'mon, it's the motd.  Ignorance is strength!  Ask him
                      about lose vs. loose as he's fleeing Bongo Burger.
                      \_ woah! are you saying they have 802.11b at bongo
                         burger now?! -alum
                         \_ Not unless there's a health code violation with that
                            number now.  -John
                            \_ It wasn't a very big cockroach.  Just a wee one!
                \_ You Enlish always conflate the ethnicities in the middle
                   east. Turks, Israelis, Iranians, Pakis and afghans aren't
                   arabs. Don't let my name fool you into thinking otherwise.
                    -ali
                   \_ Middle-easterners are all arabs, US-er's are all WASPS,
                      out to crush Muslims, and Frenchmen are all cheese-eating
                      surrender monkeys.
                      \_ At least the last part is true.
2003/7/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29125 Activity:nil
7/24    To the germans are idiots dude, look what americans thing:
        30% say the Bible is the "actual word of God" to be taken literally
        26% thought various disasters in 1999 might "foreshadow the
            wrath of God"
        28% say the government should have the right to control news reports
        20% believe that the killing of civilians in Vietnam was
            "relatively rare"
        Among others.  http://www.pollingreport.com/random.htm for more
        The thing is 20-30 percent of people anywhere hold ideas that to
        you are total whack and could be used against them in an insanity
        trial.
        \_ 20-30% percent of Americans think only Germans believe stupid things
        \_ Is that the same 20-30%?  Then  perhaps it's the stupid 30%.
           I mean, average is pretty dumb, and if these people are the bottom
           30%, then they're really dumb.
        \_ 8% fear they are "very likely" to be shot or badly hurt by a
              stranger
           \_ You know how many live in a place 'less nice' than you do?  They
              have a very reasonable fear that it is very likely they will be
              shot or badly hurt by a stranger.  We didn't all grow up behind
              tall pearly white gates with guards.
                \_ funny neither did I
        \_ 34% think the US has found WMD in Iraq (55% of Fox viewers)
           22% think WMD were used against US soldiers in Iraq
           people decieve themselves to believe all kinds of crap all the time
        \_ 30% maybe it is? 26% maybe they do? 28% of course it does.  start
           writing false reports and a paper can be sued for all sorts of
           things. 20% it's a meaningless term.
2003/7/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:29110 Activity:nil
7/22    Am I the only one, or does http://cnn.com's coverage of Uday/Qusay
        resemble the Starship Troopers patriotism commercials, especially
        when the soldiers find the Brain Bug, except this time it's U.S.
        troops surrounding the Hussein brothers and celebrating?
        \_ a lot of the propaganda for that film was inspired by
           nazi and italian fascist propaganda.  -sax
           \_ Of course, that all really misses the point of Heinlein's vision
              of the United States in the book...but since I haven't seen my
              copy in months or years, what would I know?
           \_ yeah, patriotism is a bad thing, down with gov't! if u hate
              it so much, leave. I hear Canada is looking for people
              \_ You go first, take your menorah with you.  We don't like
                 dying for your kind in the desert.
              \_ Dude...nationalism != patriotism.  Confusing the two is
                 stupid and often destructive to the values this country was
                 supposed to have been built upon.
                 \_ What exactly is nationalism?
              \_ yes, mindless patriotism is a bad thing.  every nation
                 in the world has patriotism and nationalism.  if being
                 and American just means blind faith in the stars and
                 stripes to you, it is you who should go move somewhere else.
        \_ "Remember:  Service Guarantees Citizenship"
2003/7/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29084 Activity:insanely high
7/20    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/weekinreview/20KIFN.html?8hpib
        Oh no!  We are screwed!
        \_ couple points. 1.  Thanks for the article.  2.How come NY Times
           didn't publish this article *BEFORE* the damn war started?
           It might just persuade public opinion to some degree.
           3.  Does any of the Sodans actually believe that democracy
           and the well-being of the Iraqis are USA and UK's objective?
                                -kngharv
           \_ 1. nothing new here.  2. it has nothing to do with anything and
              the NYT published far more biased anti-war nonsense before the
              war.  3. In part.  4. The NYT has a really shitty track record
              for reporting and editing in the last few years, maybe you should
              find another source for your news and information.  5. Why does
              the NYT *not* tell you about the 90+ mass graves that have been
              found to date?  Why does the NYT *not* tell you about how well
              the vast majority of the population is doing now than under the
              mass murdering butcher Hussein in terms of everything from basic
              service improvements such as power and water all the way to the
              right to *not* get dragged away and executed just because?  No
              matter what happens now, the people are better off than they were
              before and we had a moral obligation to help them as much as
              we could.  Freedom is a messy business and it will take time for
              life to settle down there but it *is* improving and is already
              better than they had under the Baathists.
              \_ we had to kill them to save them.  They are happy now.
              \_ If the mass majority of the people are doing so well, why
                 are they dancing in the streets celebrating around destroyed
                 humvees?
              \_ Don't kid yourself.  US always puts its own self-interest
                 first.  That's why Donald Duck approved all 50 cases where
                 bombing may likely kill 30 or more civilians.  Every single
                 case.
              \_ 90+ mass graves?  Is that from the same source that told
                 us about Iraq buying African Uranium?  Or that Iraq has lots
                 of chemical/biological weapons?  Haven't you learned by now
                 to take the words of these liars and blindly-following media
                 with a grain of salt?
                 to take the words of these liars and blindly-following-afraid-
                 to-appear-unpatriotic media with a grain of salt?

              \_ "The very first report, as I recall, was of mass graves that
                 turned out to be cemeteries. But because the news accounts on
                 CNN repeated incessantly that they were "mass graves," it
                 simply confirmed the public's predisposition to believe that
                 Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac. Ever since, the Times
                 has been reporting on bodies being turned up by the hundreds
                 or thousands in one place or another, and in each instance the
                 dispatch suggests that these were the result of Saddam's
                 brutality.

                 My caution is the result of having consulted experts in the
                 history of Iraq, who tell me there are most certainly mass
                 graves all over the country, because it has been at war since
                 1958. That is, "Nineteen Fifty Eight," when the monarchy fell.
                 I'm advised that most of the slaughter that occurred over this
                 period was in these early years of civil war, when there really
                 were men and families lined up along ditches, machine-gunned
                 or in other ways executed. There are also stories of "mass
                 graves" that followed the 1991 Gulf War, when the USA urged the
                 Shi'ites in the South and Kurds in the North of Iraq to take
                 up arms against the Baghdad regime. I think even Human Rights
                 Watch would have to say that "rebels" who are trying to kill
                 "loyal" should expect to either succeed or pay the consequences,
                 as they did when the USA was nowhere around to back them up."
                 http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2674
              \_ Remember the truck they said was used for making chemical /
                 biologial weapons?  Experts have come out and said that that's
                 nonsense.  Guess that's why you no longer hear about it.
2003/7/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29061 Activity:moderate
7/16    So, neocons, do you still think the Iraq war was a good idea?
        \_ death is always good
        \_ Give it up. We still think Vietnam was all good.
        \_ C'mon, the neocons want to provoke N. Korea into a war so the
           U.S. can be morally justified in taking them out.  That would
           then leave Iran to deal with.  They'd get three wars in one
           administration! :D
           \_ then they could wrap themselves in the flag again and accuse
              anyone who complains about deficits and lack of money for
              domestic stuff and dumbass tax cuts of being commies.
              wars are darn good and so are deficits. bring it on.
2003/7/11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:29000 Activity:very high
7/10    "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False"
        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/eveningnews/main560449.shtml
        \_ What baffled me was that I think there was a good
           case for invading Iraq.  Bush just failed to make it for some
           reason, and choese to bullshit his way through instead.
           \_ Powell wanted UN support, if not a UN coalition.  The only
              way to get UN support was to show Saddam still had WMD in
              violation of previous UN resolutions.  They couldn't find WMD,
              hence the problem.
        \_ this liberal media bias is getting out of hand. it doesn't
           matter. the U.S. needs to kick every hostile states' ass.
           \_ So its okay to lie about the reasons for war and the killing
              of soldiers, but lying about a blowjob is an impeachable
           Bush did the same thing a month ago, but no one said anything.
              offense?  I donut geddit.
              \_ lying under oath is impeachable offense. lying to
                 the public is expected.
              \_ The problem is that the headline doesn't match the story.  The
                 headline vastly overstates the article.  A better headline
                 would be:  "CIA officials warned members of the President's
                 National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good
                 enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium
                 from Africa."  (to cut and paste from the article)  The
                 headline is pure spin.
                 \_ I believe the implication is that if the NSC staff
                    was warned, Bush would have heard about it, unless you
                    want to blame Rice.
                    \_ Implication is different than fact.
        \_ It also bothers me that Blair is taking all this flak for
           switching from "finding [actual] WMD" to "finding WMD programmes";
           Bush did the same thing a month ago, but the U.S. press didn't
           note the change in wording at all.
           \_ Yeah poor Tony.  The British press are so vicious.  I agree with
              you.  They should've left Blair alone.
              \_ At least our media knows how to be patriotic.
2003/7/10 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28987 Activity:high
7/9     Today's quote:
        "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the
         night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell
        \_ Yes, and the same could be said if you were a Nazi under Hitler.
           \_ It could?  No, not really.  BTW, you lose.  You're not only the
              first to mention Hitler or the Nazis but went straight to it.
              \_ Yes, it applies.  No, you lose.  Try again.
        \_ In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics."
           All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of
           lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.  -George Orwell
        \_ Who is harming who?  It's only now that we are admiting our leader
           lied to get popular support for the war, we essentially destroyed
           all the infrastructures.  We are "rebuilding" Iraq financed by
           bonds backed up by next 10 years of oil produced by Iraq, which
           only US Firm and its allies are benefiting.  Frankly, this is
           imperialism at work, almost as blatent as Britian's Opium War
           150 years ago.  And you are saying that they are harming us?
                \_ Stupid or naive - you decide:
                \_ they're screwing us anyway with terrorism, we'll screw
                   them with imperialism
                   \_ you really think that they were the one who fired
                      the first shot?
2003/7/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28931 Activity:high
7/5     http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Battles-Past.html
        ``Some countries learn from their military history,'' said Capt. Mark
        Miller, commanding officer of A Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry
        Regiment. ``This one (Iraq) obviously didn't.''
        Kind of arrogant, isn't it?  What is the lesson Iraq is supposed to
        have learned?
        \_ They should have known: AIR POWER. Even obsolete or training jets
           esp. when compared to overwhelming odds of mere ground forces.
           Then again, the frigging British like to exaggerate their
           considerable military prowess. Air power defeated the Iraqi
           govt back then and it happened again...and again.
           What's even worse is they had rusted MiG-21 jets. They actually
           had jets but has Iraq ever really developed their air power?
           They built a few buildings on the base and that's it.
           Naw, instead they develop WMD to use on Iraqis and Iranians. dumb
           Look at the Israelies, the old soviets, imperial japan...all
           great powers have a strong, developed air force and
           2nd-rate or small countries can become strong when they
           have air power.
2003/7/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:28926 Activity:moderate
7/4     Iraq policy critics now want U.S. in Liberia
        No Blood for Rubber
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/939348/posts
        \_ Nonono, this is a *good* war because GWB doesn't want to go there.
           Iraq was a *bad* war because he did.  That clear now?
        \_ This is another perfect example of why Democrats should
           not lead troops. Remember the last civil war the U.S.
           forced its way into?
           \_ Definitely.  The world thinks we're the greatest threat
              to peace, according to polls, yet they urge us to get
              into another war.  wtf?!?
              \_ Getting into a war is very different from starting one.  Isn't
                 it?
                 \_ Maybe, but by this logic we would get into every
                    ongoing war and there are supposedly thousands going on
                    daily.
2017/10/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
10/19   
Results 301 - 450 of 1605   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Iraq:
.