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 Match all Match any Histogram Relevance Most current Least current

 WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ http://csua.com/feed/
2021/10/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
 10/24

 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?" \_ wayback.org. 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?" \_ wayback.org. 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 www.un.com -> 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
2021/10/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
 10/24

 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
 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/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] 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/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California] 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/Domestic/President, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] 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 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Reference/Military] 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.
2021/10/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
 10/24
 Results 301 - 450 of 1605   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Iraq:
.