Politics Foreign MiddleEast Iraq - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Iraq:
Results 601 - 750 of 1605   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2004/10/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33977 Activity:very high
10/7    A lot of people say how bad Castro is, but how come Cuba does
        so well at sports and also things like infant mortality, in spite
        of decades of US sanctions?  :
        \_ Well, universal healthcare has its benefits as well as universal
           education and state-sponsored atheletics. I don't know, do you
           prefer a communist dictarship where people have to wait in line
           all day to buy stuff and any opposition is brutaly squashed
           and everyone is equally poor to get a lower infant mortality
           rate and a better international baseball team over an oligarchy
           run by a couple of rich industrialists and plantation owners which
           also brutally squashed opposition to its rule? I guess it depends
           on your perspective.
           \_ It is true that Cuba is poor, but a lot of it has to do with
              our economic sanctions.  Without it, there is a big chance that
              Cuba might follow China's step.
              \_ I'm glad you believe this. Why don't you go over there
                 and do business then?
                        \_ because it's ILLEGAL.  Weren't you paying attention?
                           \_ So you must be outraged about Halliburton
                              doing business in Iraq during the US sanctions
                              \_ I'm outraged we wasted more than 10 years
                                 "sanctioning" Iraq while every corrupt piece
                                 of shit at the UN, in France, Germany, Russia,
                                 and other places was making billions in bribes
                                 at our expense while the Iraqi people suffered
                                 and the Hussein regime grew stronger.
                                 \_ This is an excellent reason for filing a
                                    grievance with the WTO and then punishing
                                    those nations with crippling tarriffs and
                                    sanctions.  If the US would follow through
                                    with its convictions, the world would have
                                    no recourse but toe the line.
              \_ Economic sanctions don't do shit.  The entire rest of the
                 world freely trades with Cuba.  In fact, our Cuba sanctions
                 policy going on for decades now should be proof enough that
                 sanctions are a mindless and useless tactic to use against
                 any country.
                 \_ Against Cuba I tend to agree.  In general, though, I do
                    not.  Sanctions prevented Saddam Hussein from building
                        \_ Sanctions also made Libya give up WMD programs.
                           It's harder to control a country when the people
                           are miserable.
                           \_ Lie.  Libya gave up their WMD a few days after
                              SH was pulled out of a hole by US troops.
                              \_ Maybe the guy is just WRONG.  You need to
                                 get a little perspective here, guy.
                              \_ Uhhh, Libya giving up their WMD and coming
                                 back into the world community was a diplomatic
                                 effort going on well back into the Clinton
                                 administration.  Gaddafi didn't just watch
                                 Saddam Hussein be captured on TV and suddenly
                                 decide to give up WMD.
                 \_ None of you can tell the difference between coordinated
                    multilateral sanctions and unilateral pigheadedness?
                    Yes, you have to "corner the market" for sanctions to
                    be effective. No, this is not a surprise.
                    \_ And universal sanctions are a joke.  Look how Saddam
                       made *billions* (with a B) corrupting the 'global'
                       sanctions put on his country.  It hurt the people to
                       no end while further empowering his evil government.
                 \_ Economic sanctions does a lot of damage to small countries,
                    the reason it does not work on China is because China can
                    self sustain and be on their own. The same is definitely
                    not true for small countries. Take Korea for example, if
                    the US sanctions them, they will starve and die, it's as
                    simple as that. Cube is poor partly because of our economic
                    \_ No.  If the US sanctions Korea, other countries will
                       simply cash in as they have in Cuba and anywhere else
                       the US has tried to impose sanctions while our EU
                       "allies" ignore them for the bucks.  Sanctions do not
                       work.  I'd like to see a place where they have.
        \_ Because the numbers are faked?
        \_ oh yea, where a majority of the people shower with buckets.
           One would think that after Communists killed 60+ million
           in the 20th century people would learn.
           \_ You are a moron.
              \_ Comrade, the united peoples of our great state thank you
                 for your heroic efforts against the propaganda of the
                 western capitalist pigdogs!  You shall be rewarded by being
                 moved up the People's Moscow Apartment Waiting List by
                 15,000 spots!  You have served the Motherland nobly!
           \_ Careful with that broad brush, it paints both ways.
              \_ Like I said, you would think people would learn.
                 \_ You think people would learn to not support imperialism
                    too, after the hundreds of millions of people the
                    imperialists killed in the 19th and 20th century.
                    But they never do, do they?
                    \_ Oh the horror of an improved standard of living,
                       a longer life expectancy, and a technologically
                       based society.  What hath we wrought!
                       \_ At the expense of a psychological scar on the
                          American psyche (see: Slavery and Race Relations),
                          the wholesale slaughter of indigenous people
                          (see: Indians, American), and the continued
                          exploitation of and dependence on underprivileged
                          workers and illegal labor in the agrarian sector
                          (see: Migrant Labor and Illegal Immigrants).
                          \_ Victory of the proletariat, comrade!
                       \_ What improved standard of living?  Improved
                          standard of living only happened after the
                          Imperialists got kicked out.
        \_ Cuba spends a huge amount of government money on athletics
           (compared to zero in the US). Also, I note that I see athletes
           defecting from Cuba to the US frequently, but I can't recall anyone
           defecting the other way.
           \_ They don't defect to Cuba because the US government has
              effectively imprisoned our atheletes and does not allow them
              the opportunity to travel to the Golden Land of Cuba.
2004/10/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33961 Activity:high
10/6    Something I don't understand.  Why are Dubya's people saying that the
        Duelfer report doesn't deal with WMDs or WMD-program components being
        moved to Syria, when the report seems to say Iraq didn't have any WMDs
        to move to Syria in the first place?
        Is Dubya misleading again on WMDs, even today, or is he telling the
        Granted it is accurate to say Saddam had full intent to build WMDs
        after inspectors left.
        \_ Saddam Hussein was dreaming about starting weapons-related program
2004/10/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33957 Activity:high
10/6    Key findings on Iraq WMDs released today:
        Summary:  No WMDs, no real WMD programs, no mention of Syria,
        but all the intent in the world to make WMDs after inspectors left to
        protect it from Iran based on interviews w/ Saddam while in the pokey.
        No irrefutable written evidence of this intent.
        I.e., if Dubya did not attack, Blix would have found nothing,
        inspectors would leave, Iraq would have sanctions lifted, Saddam would
                                \_ inspections would have continued, nice try
        be a happy camper and *maybe* actually do restart WMD programs.
        The U.S. would get real evidence that Iraq had WMDs, inspectors would
        be requested, Saddam says no, we get a resolution to attack based on a
        *real* WMD / WMD-program presentation to the UN, and if the CIA did
        its job we go in when the capability is in its infant stages.
        Instead ... Iran and North Korea are having a ball doing whatever the
        hell they want with nuclear while the U.S. is overstretched -- while
        the U.S. holds no credible threat to mounting an preemptive military
        campaign on these two countries.  Iran and North Korea view the U.S.
        as their principal threat, and having nukes deter this threat very
        Here, I even have text Kerry could use:
        "But didn't your vice president say that the number one threat today
        was nuclear?  First, let's grant that the U.S. has had important
        successes in Libya and Pakistan, which were resolved with diplomacy
        by the way.  But a more important question is:  Aren't we so
        overstretched -- of the 10 Army divisions that the United States
        has, nine are in Iraq or preparing to transfer there -- that Iran
        and North Korea can now wave the nuclear card at us with impunity?
        That is, the U.S. is so *overstretched* that it does not have a
        credible threat for a military campaign against either of these two
        countries, that they have been able to proceed with their nuclear
        programs without fear of consequences?  That the invasion of Iraq for
        WMDs and WMD programs that weren't there, and the loss of important
        allies from this decision -- and the lack of effective military
        planning that has led us to be bogged down there now for a year and
        counting -- has left the U.S. *more* in danger from nuclear attack?"
        (Wow, do I sound like kinney now?)
                              \_ No -- you're actually kind of coherent.
        \_ post it to dailykos.
           \_ "The requested method POST is not allowed for the URL /."
              (when trying to create a new account)
        \_ I think this is what "payback" from the CIA looks like.
           \_ Not really.  David Kay and Duelfer just wanted to get it right
              this time.  No lack of connecting the dots like for 9/11.
              No conclusions not supported by the intelligence like for Iraq.
        \_ there is no risk of iran developing nuclear plants of any kind.
           as soon as it does, israel will bomb the crap out of the plan,
           just like it did before.
           \_ I think Iran doesn't need a nuclear plant to develop the bomb.
              All they need is weapons-grade uranium.  They know how to make
              uranium hexafluoride gas; they have the centrifuges to make
              weapons-grade uranium.  Israel would need to bomb enough
              centrifuges, and know where they were.  If I were Iran, and of
              course I would want the bomb if I could, I would construct
              multiple centrifuge systems, building each system underneath a
              large city center to guarantee great loss of innocent life if
              Israel bombed.  This is just a technical/tactical post, not
              really political.
2004/10/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33955 Activity:nil
10/6    A nice summary at the end of the article about what was expected in
        Iraq and what WMD were found:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720
        \_ Bush: history of using WMD makes Iraq dangerous.  Err... I am
           confused. I thought we were the one who nuked defenseless cities.
           We were the one who gave Japan "get out of jail free" card, and
           Japanese still hold record on the scale of using chemical/
           biological weapon.
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2004/10/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33949 Activity:moderate
10/6    If you look in the transcript of last night's debate, Cheney said
        the following:  (from http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html
        "...They know that if you go, for example, to http://factcheck.com (sic),
        an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania,
        you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton."
        Try it.  go wo http://www.factcheck.com  oops.
        I wonder exactly how this happened.
        \_ Here's the story:
        \_ whois http://factcheck.com:
        Registrant:       (I bet it's an offshore Halliburton subsidiary)
         Name Administration Inc. (BVI)
         Box 10518 A.P.O.
         Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
        \_ this is already all over the blogs
        \_ It now redirects to Location: http://www.georgesoros.com
           "George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, is
            beginning a nationwide tour this week to talk about how the war
            in Iraq is making America less safe -- and why President Bush
            should not be re-elected." How wierd..
            should not be re-elected." How weird..
        \_ slate claims Soros took advantage of Cheney's blunder and bought
           up http://factcheck.com.
           Is this even possible? Could the domain name propagation even
           happen that fast?
           \_ It's more likely someone already owned the domain and put in
              a redirect.
                \_ slate has corrected the article to state this.
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33932 Activity:high
10/5    "Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field. That is
        his right, but the president has always said that he will listen to his
        commanders on the ground and give them the support they need for
        victory." -Bush spokesman, today
        \_ adding, "Any commander wishing to go into early retirement should
        feel free to request more troops"
        \_ bremer was too busy implementing free market fantasy land
           laws too do a good job in iraq. - danh
           \_ [I will fill in his unspoken thoughts in parentheses.]
              Bremer says we should have had more troops early on to prevent
              looting (to stabilize Iraq and to crush the insurgents).
              He says currently we have the appropriate troop levels (because
              Iraqis would be pissed to see more U.S. troops flying in to
              occupy them). -liberal
              [BTW, Lt. Gen. Sanchez was the lead "commander on the ground"
              prior to the Allawi handover, and we know all about what was
              going on with him.  Today, I can't think of any lead
              "commander on the ground" to request additional troops.
              Is there one?]
        \_ Dubya, some commander in chief.  Why didn't he give the troops
           a good plan to begin with?
           \_ We're making progress.  It's hard.  You can't have a
              Commander-in-Chief who says that it's the wrong war at the
              wrong place at the wrong time.  You can't have a
              Commander-in-Chief that gives mixed messages.  We're making
              progress. It's hard.  You can't have a Commander-in-Chief who
              says that it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong
              time.  You can't have a Commander-in-Chief that gives mixed
              messages.  We're making progress.
              \_ Don't forget Poland!
                 \_ Like Kerry did?
                    \_ Tell us how much great Poland has contributed.
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33926 Activity:moderate
10/5    Truth:  "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence
        that links the two [al Qaeda and Saddam] ... I have seen the answer to
        that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a
        year in the most amazing way ... Second, there are differences in the
        intelligence community as to what the relationship was"
                - Rumsfeld, Monday afternoon
        Dubya's truth:  "A question I answered today ... regrettably was
        misunderstood ... I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there
        were ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq"
                - Rumsfeld, Monday night, via web site
        \_ Yoo-hoo, hello?  Bush defenders, where are you now?  Neo-cons?
           \_ There are no "neo-cons" on the motd.  It's a mde up term of the
              left to make a word that sounds like "neo-nazi".  Get over it.
              No one is eating that bait.
2004/10/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33915 Activity:very high
10/4    A clarification:  Army chief of staff Shinseki was not fired; no one
        listened to him and he retired after his four-year term.
        Bush-appointed Secretary of the Army Thomas White was fired.
        They both advocated 250K+ troops for the occupation, and actually
        Tommy Franks did too, but Franks didn't do it as publically.
        It is said that Dubya values "loyalty" above all else.
        \_ Shinseki deserved to be fired to the Stryker and the black
           \_ Dubya deserves to be fired for attacking Iraq when it had no
              WMD stockpiles and saying "Bring 'em on" when he's not personally
              in Iraq holding an M-16.
              \_ Have you ever held a M-16? Or served?
                 \_ Please see reply under "why aren't you in afghanistan ..."
                    and lengthier explanation written to ilyas
              \_ why aren't you in aghanistan w/ an M-16?
                 \_ I didn't say "Bring 'em on"
                    Notice the slope of the graph:  link:csua.org/u/9bp
                    (Iraq casualties)
              \_ I don't really understand this criticism.  Do you not like:
                 (a) that Bush is commander in chief without 'proper'
                     military experience (he did serve, though not active
                     duty).  More importantly though, we have this concept
                     in the US of the military being controlled by civilians.
                     It prevents 'excesses.'
                 (b) that Bush uses 'bravado language.'  That's a narrower
                     complaint, but I wonder if it offends an average soldier
                     on the ground as much as it offends you.  I bet it
                     doesn't.  -- ilyas
                     \_ It's a simple matter: if you were too chickenshit to
                        fight back then, you'd damn well better be sure about
                        the wars you're having other men die for now.
                 \_ ilyas, you overwrote me AGAIN
                    \_ That's because I hate you. -- ilyas
                       \_ Stop overwriting dude.  You lose respect when you
                          do and come off flippant.
                          \_ You know, we keep having this conversation, and I
                             keep saying the same thing -- when a thread is
                             this active, what makes you say it was me?
                             Is this because I am the only one who signs my
                             name?  Sheesh.  I probably overwrite posts
                             every now and again, but you d think with the
                             number of times I ve been accused of it I do it
                             24/7 out of spite. -- ilyas
                             \_ I have never said it was out of spite.
                                I just think you accidentally do a :w! or
                                the equivalent or it's a problem with some
                                merge script.  Nevertheless, it happens a lot,
                                which is why I complain.
                 \_ Bush "served" in the National Guard so he wouldn't jump
                    off a helo into a hot LZ and get shot to shit in Vietnam.
                    He was too important to die there, like many other children
                    of powerful families.  Sorry, I just need to talk about
                    "intent" when anyone tries to pass off his Guard service
                    as sufficient.
                    To address your primary point, your confusion is well
                    founded.  Basically, you need to perceive Dubya as someone
                    not qualified to lead a war to begin with -- this is easy
                    to believe when we didn't find WMD stockpiles and with his
                    escaping into the Guard.  Of course, if you believe Dubya
                    is a strong leader (as the average soldier does), then
                    you won't have problems with his saying "Bring 'em on".
                    not qualified to lead a country during wartime to begin
                    with -- this is easy to believe when we didn't find WMD
                    stockpiles and with his escaping into the Guard.  Of
                    course, if you believe Dubya is a strong leader (as the
                    average soldier does), then you won't have problems with
                    his saying "Bring 'em on". [I didn't delete your reply
                    ilyas, but I changed the wording in my post to reflect
                    your criticism]
                        \_ I don't think you understand Kerry's wartime
                           service either.  He did everything possible
                           to avoid service and combat.  Only because
                           of an unlucky fluke did Kerry actually see combat.
                           \_ I don't fault Kerry, or Bush, or anyone else
                              from wanting to avoid combat.  Wanting to avoid
                              combat is the only rational human reaction.
                              I would scared of a president who sought out
                              combat, that would be indicative of mental
                              illness or terminal stupidity.  Have you ever
                              talked to a veteran of any war?  NOBODY wants
                              to be on the front lines. -- ilyas
                              \_ But you CAN fault someone for using family
                                 connections to get into the Guard during
                                 the Vietnam War where you would see a nearly
                                 zero chance of being shipped to Vietnam with
                                 your other well-connected classmates. ;-)
                           \_ Between getting into the Texas Air National
                              Guard and staying in the U.S., and captaining
                              a patrol boat on the coast of Vietnam -- there
                              lies a sizeable gap.
                              \_ Not when those were originally acting as
                                 an equivalent to the Coast Guard.  They never
                                 saw combat.  Their role was redefined
                                 shortly after Kerry transferred.  Flying
                                 F104 fighter jets is not a cake walk,
                                 mortality rates with mechanical
                                 malfunction were high.
                                 \_ While your points have merit, they are
                                    still not enough.  Kerry's real chance
                                    of getting into combat (which came to be
                                    realized as you described) were measurably
                                    higher than dying in an F-104 malfunction.
                                    "However, in retrospect, the [F-104] was
                                    not intrinsically any more dangerous to
                                    fly than lots of other military aircraft
                                    of the day, and the high accident rate can
                                    be blamed more on inadequate and
                                    insufficient crew training rather than
                                    on any flaw with the basic design."
                    \_ Personally, I think previous service record has little
                       to do with 'wartime leadership.'  An argument could be
                       made that Bush's questionable showing would impact
                       soldier morale -- except it obviously does not.
                       The lack of WMDs is certainly a point against the war.
                       Personally, I believe humanitarian (and utilitarian,
                       in that civilian casualties WILL happen)
                       reasons are enough for exercising US military power,
                       but I know not everyone agrees.  Btw, I differ from
                       classic libertarians in this way.  I also strongly
                       suspect Saddam had a program and the pieces are in Syria
                       now, just like the scientists are.  -- ilyas
                       \_ I am not making an argument on soldier morale.
                          I am not making an argument that you need to have
                          been a soldier to be a successful wartime president.
                          I am explaining how rational people can feel that
                          Bush's comment has problems.  The average soldier,
                          as I have noted, does not have a problem with what
                          Bush said.
                          I should also clarify "wartime leadership" once
                          more.  It was Bush's call, ultimately, to take the
                          U.S. into war in Iraq, so he is accountable for
                          the good and the bad.
                          As for your strong suspicion that "a program and
                          the pieces are in Syria", are you also including
                          WMD stockpiles -- because we went to war because
                          they had WMD stockpiles, not because they had a
                          You also need to consider David Kay's comments on
                          \_ Yes, I am considering the stockpiles also, and
                             I think Saddam did have chemical stockpiles.
                             I think criticisms of the situation in Iraq needs
                             to be grounded far more in realities on the ground,
                             and less on what Bush did or did not do 30 years
                             ago, or what his PR team had him say.  Speaking
                             more generally, criticism of the policy is much
                             more effective than criticism of the man.
                             Bush should certainly get all the flak for fuckups
                             in Iraq, but I at least give him some bonus
                             points for acting and getting an obviously bad man
                             'off the streets.'  Certainly 'rational people'
                             who think he shouldn't be POTUS will have
                             problems with all sorts of things he says and
                             does. -- ilyas
                             \_ It's not only what he did 30 years ago; it's
                                also that Dubya is likely the most inarticulate
                                president we've had this century, and this does
                                contribute towards people's negative opinions.
                                (Is he a strong leader who just has trouble
                                expressing himself; or is his verbal clumsiness
                                and 11-minute paralysis during the 9/11 attack
                                indicative of a man with more serious problems?
                                You can find reasonable people believing both.)
                                Anyways, here are Kay's comments.
                                He was in charge of finding weapons, and he did
                                have the full faith of the Bush people to find
                                them, and you better believe he knew he was
                                ending his career by testifying as he did:
                                A more detailed transcript:
                                "My belief that they did not move large
                                stockpiles of WMD to Syria is based on my
                                conclusion that there were not large stockpiles
                                to move.  ... I don't know."
                                \_ As we are progressing in this argument the
                                   defended claim becomes weaker and weaker,
                                   now it has to do with 'large' stockpiles.
                                   Here is what I think.  I know very little
                                   of what happened in Iraq before and during
                                   the invasion.  I do know this, however:
                                   Saddam used chemical weapons before, and
                                   so had to have the trained units, the
                                   equipment, and the stockpiles at one point.
                                   I don't believe he is the kind of man who
                                   would let it all go even with the UN
                                   inspectors around.  Can I prove this?  Of
                                   course I can't.  But to me, Saddam having
                                   chemical weapons and finding some common
                                   ground with Syria prior and during the war
                                   seems more likely than him just giving them
                                   up.  Another thing worth mentioning is that
                                   not one country except the US had any
                                   stake in the US finding WMDs in Iraq.
                                   Everyone wanted the US to fail.  So
                                   while I don't accuse any of them of
                                   collaborating with Iraq, a black ops along
                                   these lines, if it did happen, would not
                                   surprise me in the least.  At any rate,
                                   no country would try very hard to catch
                                   Saddam moving the stuff.
                                   Bush is inarticulate, and that's a minus.
                                   No argument there.  -- ilyas
                                   \_ So what was Kay referring to in saying
                                      "We were all wrong"?  I'm pretty sure
                                      he would have loved to have provided
                                      "better news" for Bush.
                                      \_ Kay had no proof.  I have no proof
                                         either.  I am telling you what I
                                         believe, and why.  -- ilyas
                                         \_ So what was Kay referring to in
                                            saying "We were all wrong?"
                                            I don't believe you've tried to
                                            answer this question.
                                            \_ Well, if Kay believes
                                               Saddam didn't have WMDs, I
                                               disagree with him.  I don't
                                               think the US truly has the
                                               capability to hunt them down.
                                               This would involve omniscience
                                               and the capability to make the
                                               rest of the world bend over,
                                               including most of the Middle
                                               East.  A bunch of sensitive
                                               scientists ended up in Syria,
                                               I don't see why the same
                                               couldn't happen to barrels of
                                               poison.  We didn't search in
                                               Syria, heck, we didn't even
                                               search Iraq properly (because
                                               we can't dig up the entire
                                               desert).  Again, I am
                                               articulating a belief which
                                               I cannot prove to you, based
                                               on my understanding of
                                               Middle East politics, the game
                                               'other Powers' are playing, and
                                               Saddam's psychology.  I am not
                                               making any kind of 'case,' (it
                                               would be very weak if I did) I
                                               am just going with my intuition.
                                                 -- ilyas
                 \_ There are some that feel like that if they attack us, that
                    we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand
                    what they're talking about if that's the case. Let me
                    finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are
                    such that they can attack us there.
                    My answer is: please don't.
        \_ On August 1, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld replaced General Shinseki
           (who consequently retired) as Army Chief of Staff with General
           Peter J. Schoomaker after Shineski "questioned the cakewalk
           scenario, and told Congress (that February) that we would
           need several hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq to put an end
           to the violence against our troops and against each other."
           In other words, Rumsfeld fired him/forced him out.
           \_ Did you take this off http://disinfopedia.org?  If so, the above
              text has a URL footnote.  The URL does not support the text.
              There is no doubt that Shinseki was isolated, not taken
              seriously, and left out of the loop after what he said broke
              on CNN.  But to say he was fired is technically not correct. -op
2004/10/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33877 Activity:nil
10/1    Dear democrats, please don't delete this. I want stimulating
        intellectual exchanges, not personal shout matches. I want to
        point a few things out and hear from you guys on each and every
        point. In the format of "if A is bad, how come B isn't bad?",
        I ask you:

        A:Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq
        B:Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia

        A:Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq
        B:Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia

        A:Bush killed a lot of innocent Afghan/Iraqi civilians
        B:Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian

        A:Bush bombs terrorist camps
        B:Clinton bombs Chinese embassy

        A:Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit
        B:Clinton commits felonies while in office

        A:No WMD found Iraq
        B:No mass graves found in Serbia

        A:Economy on upswing under Bush
        B:Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton

        A:Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden
        B:World Trade Centers fall under Bush

        A:Clinton says Saddam has nukes
        B:Bush says Saddam has nukes

        A:Bush imposes regime change in Iraq
        B:Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq

        A:Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan
        B:Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton

        A:Saddam turned over for trial
        B:Milosevic not yet convicted
2004/9/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33815 Activity:nil
9/28    There is no other choice against terrorism but war, and more war!
        \_ Actually getting ourselves off of foreign oil so that we no
           longer have to prop up corrupt & hated Muslim dictatorships
           would be foolish!
           \_ Hey!  I can get off the oil anytime I want man!  I just like
              it.  That's all.  In fact, I could use some right now...  Oh
              yeah... that SUV really hits the spot...
2004/9/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33805 Activity:high
9/28    A concise summary of why the Iraq war is an illegal war, how "serious
        consequences" clearly did not include an invasion of Iraq:
        (The U.S. proclaimed the UN had made itself irrelevant by not voting
        to make the invasion legal.)
        \_ There is no such thing as an "illegal war"
           \_ Did you read the URL before you posted this?  Let me give you
              an example.  Iraq taking over Kuwait was an illegal invasion.
              If you applied the UN Charter to WW2, the U.S. declaring war
              against the Axis was legal; but Japan and Germany's preemptive
              invasions / wars were illegal.
              \_ "Legal" is a definition between a unit and their gov't
                 - wars are engagements between gov'ts.
                 \_ See definition of "international law" below.
        \_ Was Bosnia an illegal war?
        \_ What about the French-American War of 1798?  Or the war of 1812?
           \_ Both of these "diversionary" responses totally miss the point.
              \_ Formed by your head?
                 \_ Are you the Dumb Jock?
        \_ To all threads above:
           Main Entry: international law
           Function: noun
           : a body of rules that control or affect the rights of nations in
           their relations with each other
           (e.g., the UN Charter embodies some international law, particularly
           if you are a member of the UN.  E.g. 2, being a signatory of the
           Non-Proliferation Treaty and building nukes is a violation of
           international law - however, if you are not a signatory, or withdraw
           and build nukes you didn't violate any laws)
           \_ Dear Motd Reader:
              Yes, a dictionary always defines foreign policy.  Thanks for
              \_ The PP is correct in that there can be such a thing as an
                 illegal war.  Whether or not that is signifigant in the grand
                 scheme of things is another debate.
              \_ Since I thought you would have trouble with a dictionary
                 definition, I also provided some hand-dandy examples for the
                 skeptical ... "international law?  I thought there was no
                 'body of law' between nations!  That's some funky idea!"
                 PP is correct in that the debate should not be over whether
                 it's an "illegal war", because it is, but whether it matters
                 in the grand scheme of things.
                 \- hello, you may wish to read the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
                    BTW, something like the USA enforced "no fly zones" are
                    also probably "illegal". --psb
                    \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg-Briand_Pact
                       I am psb's motd google engine!
                       \- you have done well.
                \_ Also mention the EU, WTO and World Bank. Even Republicans
                   seem to acknowledge the existence of those international
                   legal entitites.
2004/9/24-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33753 Activity:nil 76%like:33750
9/24    If America wuz Iraq, whut would it be likes?
        http://csua.org/u/97d (juancole.com)
2004/9/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33750 Activity:nil 76%like:33753
9/24    If America were Iraq, what would it be like?
        http://csua.org/u/97d (juancole.com)
2004/9/24-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33744 Activity:kinda low
9/24    Turkmenbashi greatest poet!  All hail Turkmenbashi!
        \_ Just in case if someone doesn't know who Turkmenbashi is, check
           out wikipedia article,
           \_ Thank you, it's much richer with the context.
           \_ Holy crap.  Shades of Saddam.
              \_ Way, way more insane
2004/9/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33720 Activity:very high
9/23    Ladies and Gentleman, Irony is officially Alive.  Apparently,
        "60 Minutes II" ran the Bush TANG memo story by preempting a story
        about the forged Niger Uranium documents. [why was the last line of
        this description deleted?]
        \_ I apologize for brutally hijacking a motd thread, but gwbush
           is the original master of irony.  An example:

     James Harding (Financial Times): Mr. President, I want to return to
     the question of torture. What we've learned from these memos this
     week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon
     lawyers have essentially worked out a way that US officials can
     torture detainees without running afoul of the law. So when you say
     you want the US to adhere to international and US laws, that's not
     very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever

     President Bush: Look, I'm going to say it one more time. ...Maybe I
     can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to
     adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We
     adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at these laws,
     and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the
     instructions...from me to the government. - danh
     \_ Yeah, and? The law also allows for people to kill others given the
        right political circumstances.
        By your logic:
        Soldiers, they kill people, that's bad.
        But they were following law, so people who make the law are bad.
        Therefore The US Government is bad.
        But wait a minute, all governments allow people to be killed for
        political reasons.
        Therefore government is bad in general.
        We should do away with government because killing people should never
        be justified.
        \_ wow.  this is too stupid even for ilyas.  -tom
           \_ If the alternative is to be smart like you, tom, I d rather
              stay an idiot forever. -- ilyas
              \_ you're doing a good job.  -tom
                 \_ I think we should pass a law that basically sanctions
                    torture solely for tom, either that or ship him off
                    to Afghanistan. I'd think that would get unanimous
                    consent from both the House and the Senate.
                    \_ I think we should pass a law not only allowing
                       tom and ilyas to get married, but forcing them to.
                       Then we could have a whole reality TV show around
                       the happy couple.
                       \_ I think tom's peculiar brand of bulldog yapping
                          is exclusive to the safety of the Internet.  I
                          would be very surprised if he was like this face to
                          face.  -- ilyas
                          \_ I'm not sure what you mean by "like this." tom
                             is just as opinionated in real life, but it
                             doesn't come off quite the same way. Do you talk
                             so much about your weapons and about punching
                             people in the face so much in real life? If so,
                             I bet you get laughed at. A lot.
                             \_ I don't remember ever mentioning 'my
                                weapons' on the motd.  I think I mentioned
                                punches to the face once, maybe twice.  I have
                                never threatened anyone with violence.  By
                                'like this,' I mean that tom comes across as
                                stuck in ad hominem mode about 90% of the time.
                                I mean I have to wonder about his mental
                                health sometimes, he seems really angry, all
                                the time.  -- ilyas
        \_ Way to miss the point.
        \_ i am aware that torture happens in all wars, it's just a fact
           of war.  the bush administratoin is doing a spectacularly
           bad job of lying about it and pretending they had absolutely
           no idea this was happening.  we're suppoesd to be the
           good guys.  if you want to turn into aaron, go read
           http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17430 - danh
2004/9/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33713 Activity:high
9/23    "And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there
        is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named
        after President Bush." -Richard Perle 9/22/2003
        \_ Are you suggesting that the architect of NeoConservatism is not
           prophetic?  This is heresy, sir!  I wish we lived in an age where I
           could challenge you to a duel.
           \_ I accept!!! Wooden swords and panda costumes at high noon
              on upper sproul.  Be sure to stand where the sproul webcam
              can see you.
              \_ (You do realize that this is not sufficient to get someone
                  arrested on Sproul Plaza, yes?)
                  \_ you do realize that it would be entertaining to watch
                     someone in a panda suit running around with a wooden
                     sword, yes?
                     \_ I dunno, I've seen some pretty freaky stuff on Sproul.
                        Thanks for the link!
                     \_ Does this not work under Safari, or is it just me?
                        \_ It may just be down.  It worked for me at
                           first (Under Mozilla) but now the image won't
                           load.  Addendum:  Works now.
2004/9/21 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33666 Activity:kinda low
9/21    Missing signature mars launch of war on hunger
        U.N. Global Tax
        \_ login?
           \_ csuamotd csuamotd (newly made)
        \_ UN: We want more of your money to pour into our pockets.
                \_ Kofi Annan's son's friends pockets, actually. -John
                   \_ And you think Kofi Annan and son did not receive any
                      kick backs?  How naive you are then.
                        \_ For god's sake, "subtlety" for you must be
                           a fucking sledge hammer.  Ever heard of
                           "implying something"?  -John
2004/9/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33654 Activity:moderate
9/21    One day after I post about how Dubya is going to send more troops
        to Iraq to crush the insurgents, Paul Krugman of the NY Times expresses
        his opinion on this:
        \_ csuamotd/csuamotd doesn't work any more.
           What happen?
           \_try csuacsua/csuacsua
           \_ Some one set us up the password change.
                \_ use mine! dykewhore / dykewhore - danh
                   \_ danh must have changed the password in an attempt to
                      monopolize the free password market with his popular
                      dykewhore brand name!
                \_ I am just trying to prevent your brain be polluted with
                   liberal biased media.
2004/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33651 Activity:nil
9/20    http://news.google.com shows "What is Bush Hiding?" and "Finally, Kerry Takes
        a Stand" as the lead topics.  Hmm...
2004/9/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33647 Activity:very high
9/20    Novak suggests Bush may withdraw almost immediately from Iraq if
        reelected, regardless of consequences:
        \_ How about Bush sending 100K more troops there with the aim of
           crushing all insurgent havens while still training up the Iraqi
           national guard / police / Army and hoping it gets down in four
           national guard / police / Army and hoping it gets done in four
           years?  If he's going to do a job, he's going to try to do it
           right as soon as the election is over.  Otherwise he'll just
           look like a flip-flopper by abandoning democracy in Iraq.
           And, this also puts a lot of people ready to go into Iran.
           If you ask me, this is what Bush will do.  Heck, we might send
           200K more troops there by that logic.
           \_ Only if people like you join up to make up the 100k
              troop deficit. Time to put your mon-, lives where your
              mouth is.... Thought so.
              \_ Don't you think this is what Dubya was pulling back all
                 the troops from Europe / S Korea for?
        \_ Bob Novak, mouthpiece of the regime and supreme douchebag.
2004/9/18 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33612 Activity:nil 62%like:33608
9/17    PJ O'ROURKE: Why Americans hate foreign policy
        http://csua.org/u/93j (Daily Telegraph)
        \_ Cf. Orson Scott Card's conversion post-9/11.
2004/9/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33611 Activity:nil
9/17    "The Truth About Iraq". A non-partisan org:
        \_ A few minutes of effort led to one of the Advisors:
           Ann Wright resigned her post as deputy chief of mission in Mongolia
           on March 19, 2003, "the day before the United States launched air
           strikes on Baghdad" because "Wright decided she could no longer
           represent a government whose foreign policy she found indefensible."
        \_ Meh.  We don't need no http://optruth.org.
           It's all in the NIE -- Iraq looks bleak.
2004/9/17 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33608 Activity:nil 62%like:33612
9/17    PJ O'ROURKE: Why Americans hate foreign policy
2004/9/17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33597 Activity:high
9/17    2^10 dead soldiers in Iraq .. GO BUSH! FOUR MORE YEARS!
        I know he can make it 2^20 with a just a bit more time
        \_ You are inferring nukular detonation in a city center of a Western
           nation, right?
           \_ No, I was thinking more battlefield nukes on the plains
              of Iran. Not to mention a good exchange in Korea.
           \_ I think he was implying, not inferring.
2004/9/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33586 Activity:nil
9/16    Soldiers who refuse to reenlist being threatened with Iraq duty.
2004/9/16 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33563 Activity:very high
9/16    http://csua.org/u/92m (SF Chronicle)
        Police escorted Sue Niederer of Hopewell, N.J., from a rally ... after
        she demanded to know why her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was
        killed in Iraq. Dvorin died in February while trying to disarm a bomb.
        As shouts of "Four More Years" subsided, Niederer, standing in the
        middle of a crowd of some 700, continued to shout about the killing of
        her son. Secret Service and local police escorted her out of the
        event, handcuffed her and placed her in the back of a police van. The
        first lady continued speaking, touting her husband's record on the
        economy, health care and the war on terror ...
        [Cue "Two Americas" footage]
        \_ Posted by someone who never served. Never understands why good
           people die. And most of all, looks very short-term.
           \_ you only read news written and posted by veterans?
              how many vets are there on soda?  like 5?  - danh
           \_ Please justify why 1024 Americans have died and between 7000
              and 17,000 (not including civilians) have been wounded in Iraq.
              Also please justify Iraqi deaths.  Thanks.
           \_ Also caused by someone who never served.  Never understands how
              needless war can be.  And most of all, is the president of
              \_ war is needless? That's like saying humans don't need to eat.
                 \_ "CAN BE".  Retard.
                 \_ Some wars are needless. Are you trying to say that
                    all wars are a good idea?
                    \_ I am saying war is as inevitable as you are alive.
           \_ He died for our oil and for war profiteers. Bless him. He
              certainly didn't die defending anything. (aside: Soda seems
              really damn slow lately. It's interfering with my trolling.)
           \_ Would you die for your country during WW2, or in Iraq?
              I think everyone agrees dying in WW2 would be worth it.
              Apparently this mother feels Iraq wasn't worth it.
              Maybe she should shut the hell up and salute the flag, since
              dying in Iraq is worth it, too.
                \_ if the Axis had won then this world would be full of
                   hot blonde women and hot azn women           -troll
                   \- and dubya would be the center of attention in a
                      bukkake circle! -liberal troll
                   \_ My history fu is weak.  Why was Nazi against Jews but not
                      Japanese?  I thought back then Europeans considered all
                      Asians inferior.
                      \_ Simple answer: strategy.  Hitler tried to rationalize
                         it to the public by saying that the Japanese were the
                         most 'Aryan' of the Asians.
                         \_ who would have won between Japan and Germany
                            if they fought each other one-on-one?
                            \_ Everyone else, really, but the real answer is
                               more complex.  At what point? With what
                               \_ Not to meantion, where?  Japan and
                                  Germany aren't all that close to each
                                  other you know.  And their militaries
                                  were specialized in different areas.
                                  If it was a fight in the middle of
                                  Russia (which seems the most likely
                                  place) I think Germany would probably
                                  trounce Japan.  In SE Asia, well...
                      \_ Nazis featured racist ideology, but it wasn't the
                         basis for their actions except with regard to fighting
                         a) Bolsheviks and b) Jews, perceived as having an
                         inferior, polluting culture and controlling business
                         and politics, and importantly being seen as communist
                         allies. It was also a rationalization for conquering
                         Slavic lands for lebensraum. The book "The
                         International Jew" was published in the 20's by
                         Henry Ford's publishing company. The inferiority or
                         not of Asians was pretty much irrelevant (except as
                         it brings into question the other racist ideas).
                         Ironically, Hitler's paranoia about communists had
                         basis in reality as Stalin spelled out a plan of
                         making all of Europe into Soviet states.
        \_ With all due respect what are they supposed to do?  Let her
           scream, yell and disrupt the rally?
2004/9/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:33562 Activity:very high
9/16    http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no1/article06.html
        From cryptogram, ex-CIA on interrogation
        \_ Cool article, thanks for sharing.  -John
        \_ Excellent, well written, makes some very good points. Thank you.
           \_ Jeez, I'm beaming like I wrote it myself. -op
        \_ good article.  I think this article, as well as the September 1st
           school incident in Russia brought a bigger issue:  What is a
           "terrorist?"  Terrorist are defined by the tactic they use, not
           ideology they believe in.  While this is relatively clear to most
           people in case of Vietnamese nationalist and Chechen rebel, I
           don't think USA has learn that our "terrorist enemy" are the result
           of our past 40 years of foreign policy in the middle east, from
           religious support of creation of Israel at the expense of Palestine,
           to overthrown of popular government in Iran.  Without drastic
           change in our foreign policy, we will not able to end the reluntless
           attack from Islamic extremist.       kngharv
           \_ Terrorists will attack us regardless of our foreign policy.
              They don't like the US for what it is -- a free and prosperous
              place not following Sharia law.  If you want to make an
              argument for a change in US foreign policy, using islamic
              terrorists is not a good way to go. -- ilyas
              \_ You're saying they hate us because they hate our freedom?
                 Utter nonsense.  Our freedom and prosperity might get some
                 two-bit mullah worked up, maybe he'll convince some young,
                 impressionable losers to do a minor attack; but convincing
                 a man to orphan his children, a normal young guy to give up
                 his chance with that pretty girl at the market takes a lot
                 more than "this old book says that freedom is bad".  Even the
                 WTC bombers were normal men once.  You can't just call them
                 crazy without wondering what got them there.
                 \_ ob40Virgins
                    \_ there was an interesting Kristof column recently which
                       said  that some modern scholars think this is a mis-
                       translation, and that they really get white grapes,
                       not virgins.
                    \_ http://www.angelfire.com/folk/patriotscorner/72Virginians.html
                 \_ They hate the products of our freedom.  They are envious
                    of our obvious prosperity, they are made insecure by the
                    inroads our "culture" makes into theirs (viz. blue jeans
                    and rock & roll helping bring down the Soviet Union), they
                    (in the case of the islamists) have issues with our lack
                    of restrictions on women, music, clothing, whatever, and
                    to some degree they feel left behind by economic
                    development.  Consider that the "Arab world" has never
                    undergone a sweeping renaissance or an enlightenment or
                    an industrial revolution, combined with the fact that many
                    countries spawning "terror" have a tremendous percentage
                    of unemployed youth, susceptible to demagoguery.  So yes,
                    they hate our freedom.  -John
                    \_ If it wasn't for GWB, they would love our blue jeans and
                       music and McDonald's and our freedom for women!  GWB has
                       ruined American credibility around the world for
                 \_ Well, they don't say 'freedom is bad.'  To them following
                    Sharia is freedom, while our kind of freedom is demonic
                    depravity and corruption.  We call this 'extremism,' but
                    this was a normal train of thought a couple of hundred
                    years ago in Europe.  They are not exactly crazy in a sense
                    of being mentally ill, they are just experiencing an
                    'outside context problem' (Ian Banks term), and are living
                    in a world we can't understand very well.  I am not
                    excusing what they do -- they are of course wrong, and
                    are doing evil.  -- ilyas
                    \_ (Responding to John and ilyas)
                       Who are "they"?  If "blue jeans and rock & roll"
                       brought down the Soviet Union, why don't we send
                       these instead of an invasion force?  And if it's
                       Islamic fundamentalism we are fighting, why did
                       we invade Iraq, one of the more secular middle
                       eastern states.  And why are we sending billions
                       of dollars to some of the most fundamentalist
                       countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?  Perhaps
                       nationalism and belief in self determination
                       have more to do with the resistance we faced in
                       Vietnam and are facing in Iraq than you would like
                       to believe?  Did the Vietnamese conduct any
                       terrorist act on us after kicking us out?
                       \_ Because Soviet Union wasn't stuck in a feudal
                          mentality.  You can't expect 'blue jeans' to work
                          if it's unclear to someone that jeans are a good
                          thing.  A typical russian wasn't fooled by the
                          propaganda.  -- ilyas
                          propaganda.  As for the Vietnamese, they have no
                          fundamental ideological problem with the West,
                          whereas the muslims do. -- ilyas
                       \_ Nice try to transition to Vietnam=Iraq but no dice.
                          Please provide a URL for us *sending billions of
                          dollars* to Suadi Arabia and Kuwait.  We won
                          militarily in Vietnam, despite being the most
                          stupidly fought war in history.  We lost Vietnam
                          at home with people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry
                          telling the American soldiers and people lies about
                          our troops and the war.  If self determination is
                          the cause of resistence in Iraq then why are there
                          foreign fighters there?  Why didn't these self-
                          determined people do anything at all for themselves
                          during Hussein's reign of death?
                          \_ Lies?  Are you denying that soldiers didn't kill
                             civilians and didn't commit atrocities?
                          \_ They tried after the '91 war after Bush I promised
                             support but then basically helped Saddam crush
                             the insurgents. Have you ever led a military
                             revolt? I'm sure if they had you around Saddam
                             would have been toast. Moron.
                          \_ The Vietnamese had been fighting against foreign
                             colonizers for over 100 years, 400 if you count
                             periodic Chinese incursions. We would never have
                             "won" Vietnam, though we could still have troops
                             fighting and dying there, if we really had the
                             will. It might even be down to 1000/yr by now.
                             Why would we possibly want to do that???
                 \_ ob40Virgins
                    \_ there was an interesting Kristof column recently which
                       said  that some modern scholars think this is a mis-
                       translation, and that they really get white grapes,
                       not virgins.
                    \_ http://www.angelfire.com/folk/patriotscorner/72Virginians.html
           \_ Terrorists kill civilians (on purpose).
              \_ But I thought that's why we went to iraq.  So they could kill
                 our soldiers instead of our civilians...
                 \_ Yeah, Iraq is a big honeypot. People complain about the
                    dead soldiers but if we hadn't gone there we'd have
                    HUNDREDS of thousands of civilian deaths! If the stream
                    of terrorists starts to trickle out, we should bomb some
                    villages in Syria and other likely places to flush out
                    more terrorists, like fleas from beating a rug. Eventually
                    the terrorists will run out and we can go home!
                    \_ You forgot to capitalize "thousands"
                       Please tell me you're continuing the sarcasm and don't
                       actually believe this...
              \_ So the Commander of The Allied bombing campaign in Europe
                 during WWII was a terrorist? Dresden was known to be full
                 of civilians.
                 of civilians and had no legitimate military value. The
                 firebombing was undertaken to break the "will" of the
                 Germans to fight. Is that terrorism in your book?
                 \_ If you kill civilians on purpose as a military leader
                    and with a strategic purpose in mind, people start saying
                    you are a war criminal.  But it sticks less if you're on
                    the winning side and the winning side is a democracy.
                    Terrorists do it from a position of little power.
                    War criminals do it from a position of great power.
                    It's similar to "why is it racist when white people make
                    fun of black people, but not so in reverse?"
                 \_ Terrorism performed by national militaries isn't
                    called terrorism. It is terrorism in fact though, and
                    so was Hiroshima. There's no getting around it.
                    (the key is deliberate vs. accidental civilian killing).
                    \_ The U.S. dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, killing
                       80,000 civilians outright, to end the war early.
                       This is a war crime under the current accepted
                       Because it ended the war early, and may have saved
                       hundreds of thousands of American lives, and because
                       Japan had attacked first -- many would argue it wasn't
                       a war crime, or at least the definition should be
                       refined so it excludes the 80,000 dead innocents in
                       Hiroshima being a war crime.
                       \_ Victor writes the history. Duh!
2004/9/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33544 Activity:nil
9/15    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1302718,00.html
        The confused Iraqi resitence.
        I don't know man, if you've got problems with the security and
        economy of Iraq, I think maybe you could try NOT blowing things
        up.  How does this logic work? "Too many things are blowing up!
        I know, let's blow some things up!"
        \_ Maybe it's similar to the "logic" of ghetto riots.
        \_ they're trying to make iraq a total hellhole to embarress
           the US and make us leave, duh!
2004/9/14 [Health/Women, Health/Men, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33512 Activity:kinda low
9/13    Police in Najaf have found the bodies of 200
        men, women and children in a mass grave.
2004/9/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33508 Activity:nil
9/13    Amazing.  Iraq is completely gone to shit and all we can talk
        about is Swift Boat and fake memos.  This country deserves its shit
        media and its shit government.
        http://csua.org/u/90u (time.com)
        \_ This is Karl Rove desperately trying to change the subject.
           \_ Yeah, Karl Rove made Mr. Rather stick his own foot into his
              mouth (next to Satan's dick)...
              \_ Lovely debate tactic, but this isn't http://freerepublic.com.  Come
                 back when you're ready to act like an adult.
                  \_ If that was a requirement for a soda account this would
                     be a lonely place.
        \_ Dubya actually said that Iraq being a shithole for U.S. troops
           is a good thing, since the enemy is preoccupied with us there and
           not busy blowing up the U.S.
           As for Swift Boat, a whole bunch of veterans who say Kerry is a liar
           is going to do something.
        \_ Why doesn't the media disclose the civilian body count in Iraq?
           Or in Afghanistan? If "freedom" means being bombed into the
           stone age, maybe living under the Saddam regime wasn't so bad
           after all.
2004/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33504 Activity:high
9/13    Won't a terrorist attack backfire?  It may unite the country
        behind the current administration
        \_ i'd rather vote Kerry and let the United Nations take care of us
           \_ Poster is incredibly stupid.
        \_ but it will make Osama look /<-rad!
        \_ If Osama and co had an opinion, they would WANT 4 more years
           of Bush.  "The one indespensible ally for Osama bin Laden is
           US Foreign policy."  From _Imperial Hubris_.
           \_ Yes. Things have gone so well for Al Qaeda since 9/11.
              \_ Have you been asleep?  Sure, they lost an ally in the Taliban,
                 but they now have unrivalled support in Iraq, they're making
                 headway back into Afghanistan, and they're swamped with new
                 recruits. Oh, and the US pulled out of Saudi Arabia. Things
                 are looking pretty sweet for AQ these days.
              \_ Read the 9/11 report.  AQ is no longer an organization as
                 such, but a philosophy and an inspiration.  We are
                 k-screwed, even if we do kill Bin Ladin.
2004/9/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33486 Activity:very high
9/12    I watched this Asian movie and it was fun and exciting (name
        of the movie deleted because of spoiler-ness). But seriously,
        is it really based on a real story? How many defeated nations in
        the history of mankind involve children trained by bitter
        adults for the rest of their lives just to assassinate the
        ruler? Would YOU train 20 years for a special skill for a one
        way death mission? I wouldn't.
        \_ sheesh, look at the middle east, it's all they do
        \_ I don't think it's a question of if YOU would train for 20
           years, I think it's more of if you would have someone else
           train for 20 years.  After all, when they start training they
           have no free will (too young) and when they're old enough they
           are thoughly indoctrinated.
        \_ Some of us train for 20 years in esoteric skills that we
           often come to despise just for a meaningless diploma and
           (sometimes) the opportunity to work in a mind-numbingly
           dull profession.
            \_ 20 years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift...-BD
        \_ prediction for the next 20 years. Thousands of fatherless
           children of the Afghan/Iraqi war are now trained for one
           thing-- revenge. Expect a lot of shit to happen from now.
        \_ bitter adults? Let's see how bitter you will be when you get
           \_ doubtful. The homeless/fatherless Iraqi childern will be so
              hooked on McD, Burger King, Bay Watch, NBA, football, and
              beer that they'll have no motivation for revenge.
              \_ I am unaware of a foreign business doing business
                 in Iraq not directly related to the cleanup effort.
                 are you?
              \_ They already have Baywatch.  It's really popular there.
                 \_ "Hey Mom, those women can bounce two balls with no hands!"
                 \_ Son of the Beach > Baywatch
              \_ If you believe this, then you deserve to be nuked/bombed.
              \_ Why don't I go shoot your father and see if you have any
                 motivations. oh wait, you want him dead, never mind...
2004/9/12-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33482 Activity:high
9/12    Iranian Republican Guard Official in Tehran University
        Lecture (Part II): We Plan To Target US Nuclear Warheads
        on US Soil; Will Take Over England Itself Not Embassy
        \_ When spice flow stops, all eyes will turn to Arrakis.  The Baron
           and the Emperor himself will be forced to deal with us!
        \_ Oh no! The horror! Hide the women and children!
           To those of you who have not served, Iran had to convert HAWK
           for their F-14s because they do not have any working
           Phoenixes. So yeah, I am worried about them coming over here.
           \_ Remind me again, how many "volunteers" did they lose 1980-88
              walking across Iraqi minefields to clear paths for their army?
              Right, loads.  And pretty convenient for us that Islamic
              Jihad and Hizbullah (who love us, incididentally, and who're not
              directly funded by Iran) are not currently recruiting "martyrs"
              who'd, btw, be real sad to take a few thousand infidels with
              them for their share of doe-eyed virgins?  And equally nice
              to know that they _haven't_ gotten the Shahab-3 up to 1300km
              in range (and it's _not_ based on the No Dong -- great choice
              of names there, Dear Leader -- so we can be sure they're _not_
              talking to the North Koreans, who've _not_ gotten the Taepodong2
              to 3700 miles in range.)  So yeah, great for us that those dang
              F-14s aren't working right.  On the other hand, as long as
              they're busy pounding tables and spewing macho bullshit ("We
              *thump* will *thump* bury *thump* you!") instead of actually
              doing something about it, I don't think hot air ever won a
              war. -John
              \_ Seoul will be leveled by arty in a matter of hours.
                 \_ And when the iron boot comes down in response, nobody's
                    going to come across the Yalu to bail out the KPLA this
                    time.  -John
                    \_ Koguryo shall rise again!
                       \_ But China claims that Koguryo was part of Ancient
        \_ #251 (Part 1 of this speech) is pretty amusing too.  "Islam and
           human rights have nothing in common."  w00t!  Couldn't have
           said it better myself.
           \_ it's just as true as christianity and human rights have
              nothing in common.
              \_ Huh?  Either I don't understand what you mean, or you
                 have no understanding of history.  I'm not sure which.

              \_ huh? God-given rights?
                 \_ i think pp is saying that the statements are equally
                    true because they are both false.
           \_ The article says "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" which
              isn't necessarily the same thing as human rights.
2004/9/9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33428 Activity:very high
9/8     So after the happy siege, the russians are now saying they will
        launch preemptive strikes against terrorist bases anywhere in the
        world.  Interesting, that. -- ilyas
        \_ Their big terrorist problem is right there and always has been:
           Chechnya.  Putin said he would solve Chechnya five years ago.
           All he is doing now is trying to look like he's in control; there's
           no new policy as far as I can tell.
           \_ Well, I ll give them a year or five.  If the russians are serious,
              I look forward to the world's reaction to russian 'unilateralism'
              with great amusement. -- ilyas
              I'll look forward to the world's reaction to russian
              'unilateralism' with great amusement. -- ilyas
              \_ The UN has already washed its hands of the Chechnya problem,
                 so don't expect any 'unilateralism' comments on activities
                 in Chechnya.  The Iraq problem, OTOH, was being handled by
                 an international coalition.  The US decided to break with
                 that coalition and the policy of containment. Hence the
                 term 'unilateral.'  Ilya, you're smarter than this. Are
                 you just bored?
                 \_ I am sorry, did you miss what russia actually said?
                    Preemptive strikes against bases _anywhere on earth_.
                    Not strikes in Chechnya which is old news, and no one
                    cares.  At this point, the rhetoric itself is amusing me
                    to no end, since it's, you know, American rhetoric.
                    On a slightly unrelated note, comments like 'Ilya, you're
                    smarter than this' are the flip side of the coin with
                    'You are an idiot' printed on the front.  It's a bland
                    tom holubesque insult slightly sugar coated.  You need to
                    work on your habit of going after the man reflexively as a
                    conclusion to anything.  I mean this is the motd so it's
                    ok, but in real life people will sort of stare at you.
                      -- ilyas
                    \_ Putin == Strong Soviet Leader!
                       Americans are with the Chechen terrorists, just like
                       supporting the Afghanistan insurgents!
                 \_ Containment?  In what way was the Oil For Stuff program
                    containing anything?  Who was doing this containment?
                    France, Germany, and Russia all had multi-billion dollar
                    deals with Hussein.  They sure as hell weren't helping
                    to contain anything.  Are you talking about Guam or
                    \_ Containing Saddam from being a threat to his neighbors,
                       and to us from the possibility of his giving WMDs to
                       terrorists.  Bush incorrectly concluded he had WMDs
                       because the CIA is supposed to be smarter than him and
                       he thought that was fine.  The world was still looking
                       at a highly circumstantial American case.  And Saddam
                       was not a threat to his neighbors.  Are you a total
                    \_ http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold06272003.html
                       Both the CIA and The State Dept said we had him
                       contained just fine.
                       \_ Apparently the CIA's opinion changed after 9/11.
                          They didn't want Saddam on TV saying, "Take that
                          stupid Americans" and the CIA not having said
                    \_ "And frankly [the sanctions] have worked. He has not
                        developed any significant capability with respect to
                        weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
                        conventional power against his neighbors. So in
                        effect, our policies have strengthened the security
                        of the neighbors of Iraq..." -- Secretary Powell,
                        24 Feb 2001 ... So containment was working until 9/11
                        at which point Bush had an excuse to invade Iraq.
                        \_ Dubya wasn't listening to Powell after 9/11.
                           He was listening to the CIA, "no doubt" Cheney,
                           and "slam-dunk" Tenet.
           \_ And you expected dramatic action a week later?  A week later the
              US was still looking for a target and making speeches.
              \_ Listen, dufus:  The U.S. had an obvious enemy in Afghanistan,
                 and had not done anything yet.  Russia has been stomping all
                 over Chechnya for the last five years and more.
        \_ It is quite understandable that Russians would use this siege
           as an excuse to go after Chechens with links to sesessionalists in
           as an excuse to go after Chechen sesessionalist leaders living in
           other countries. A number of Chechen leaders have received political
           assylum in Europe and Middle east. They might or might not be linked
           to Chechen terrorism. They all deny charges of terrorism but Russia
           claims they all have links to terrorists and demands their
           extradictions. No credible evidence of terrorist links has been
           extraditions. No credible evidence of terrorist links has been
           presented so far and the Russian requests have been frowned upon.  A
           few months ago, a Chechen ex-president who was living in Qatar was
           assassinated. Qatari intelligence services with the help of CIA
           quickly traced the assassination to the Russian special services.
           Two russian agents have been convicted and sentensed to life in
           prison in Qatar. Russians tried denying any involvment but the
           evidence was overwhelming. What Russians are now saying is that what
           happened in Beslan gives them a moral right to go after Chechen
           leaders living in other countries.  Europeans aren't buying this
           \_ Will the Europeans bring it to the UN when their people start
              getting blown up on a regular basis?  Or just knuckle under and
              elect socialists like Spain who will turtle them up until it's
              too late?  The Islamic world has been fighting against the west
              for a thousand years.  They still are.  It is only now that some
              Western nations have come to realise this.
              \_ Which I guess goes to show how bad the Islamic World is
                 at warfare these days.
                 \_ http://strange.timetrip.net/?entry=throwrocks  -John
                    \_ Would you mind giving a summary of this?  I
                       don't like to watch videos at work.
                       \_ It's about 20 seconds long.  Sight-gag, largely.
              \_ A thousand years?  The Islamic world?  Using the same
                 broad generalizations that fuel statements like those, the
                 Poles are part of an economic powerhouse and empire that
                 has been enslaving and exploiting the third world for 500
                 years, and Laos is part of a technological revolution.
                 \_ The Poles don't make speeches to this day about how they
                    will be retaking Spain.
              \_ When the Europeans start being blown up, then the right
                 thing to do would be to go after the terrorists and I am
                 sure they well. But my point was that it generally appears
                 that Russia is pursuing its own political goals by going
                 after the Chechen leadership in exile. For example,
                 when Russia presented the "evidence" that Aslan Maskhadov's
                 representative, Ahmed Zakaev, is a terrorist, the British
                 laughed so hard that they gave him a political assylum.
                 \_ So it is ok for EU to sit back until they're getting blown
                    up, too?  Then going after terrorists will be ok?  The
                    British have opened the doors and provided legal
                    protection to all sorts of vicious evil human garbage.
                    The Brits giving asylum to someone means little.
              \_ That's the whole point. The Europeans are not getting
                 blown up, nor will they be, because they are no longer
                 imperialists nor do they support Isreal unblinkingly.
                 America still cannot admit to itself that these attacks
                 are the inevitable results of imperial policies.
2004/9/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33418 Activity:high
9/8     I didn't delete the escaping from Iraq troll, but 63% of Americans
        say the war in Iraq was worth fighting.  Like I wrote, you don't need
        other countries to help, but we don't have enough troops ...
        \_ I'm confused. CNN shows that 60% thinks that the war made the world
           less safe while 60% supported the war. I just don't get it.
           \_ I wish people would stop treating polls like they're scientific
              evidence.  Polls are as biased as anything else - its all in
              how you phrase the question.
              \_ Which do you support, inaccurate polls or eating babies?
        \_ OOPS, my bad, that 63% figure is from August *2003*!
           The current figure is 49% worth it, not a mistake 57%. -op
        \_ I wonder what the poll will say when we reach 2000 casualties.
2004/9/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33412 Activity:high
9/7     Hmmm apparently the Japanese word for Poop needle is Kancho!
        (Guy #2)
        This one's about organ donataion.  The first and third ladies are
        pretty funny.
        Best one yet!  First lady wants to be Bush's "Monica Lewinsky!"
2004/9/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33394 Activity:nil
9/7     Heheh, such a strange coincidence...
        'US Death toll in Iraq passes 1000 mark'...4:27PM, Sept. 7th 2004.
        'Ridge: Terrorists hope to disrupt election.' ... 4:40PM, Sept. 7th
        \_ Dang. I was hoping to hit 1000 on 9/11.
           \_ don't worry, you can rent Fahrenheit 9/11 in October.
2004/9/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33367 Activity:low
9/6     In line with the thread below about evil.  Here is evil:
        If you think it is important to understand this bastards point of view
        and attempt to reason with him instead of picking up his ass for
        incitement and investigating him for terrorism links then I just don't
        know what to say.  Nothing would convince you.
        \_ "As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women
            and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be
            okay."  Methinks he misunderstands the concept of "hostage"  Woohoo!
            We've got hostages we've promised not to harm... under any
            circumstances except by accident!
2004/9/4 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33355 Activity:nil 50%like:33350
9/4     BushCo's response to terrorism v. Putin's.  Compare and Contrast.
        \_ I see, a more "sensible" war.
2004/9/4 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33350 Activity:high 50%like:33355
9/4     http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/04/in
        BushCo's response to terrorism to Putin's.  Compare and Contrast.
        \_ http://csua.org/u/8x8
        \_ I see, a more "sensible" war.
2004/9/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33328 Activity:very high
9/3     The Russian siege did not end well.
        Please, let's have a moment of silence.
        \_ This shit sucks.  How can we be winning the war on terror with
           simultaneous horrors in Israel, Russia, and Iraq?  Poor out a
           40oz for these kids, and the people on those planes as well.
           \_ You're a fool.  Israel and Russias problems are not our
              problems.  The 'horrors' in Iraq are an active issue, troll,
              which is why we call it the "war on terror", not the "we already
              won it war on terror".  Go away, troll.  You're a sick fuck for
              trying to turn this event into an anti-Bush diatribe.
              \_ Israel's problems are not our problems? But the biggest
                 reason given for invading Iraq was that he "supported
                 terrorists" by which Bush meant Hamas vs. Israel. Have
                 you forgotten that already?
                 \_ No, the reason given was WMD.  Have you forgotten that
                    already?  And the terrorists he was talking about which was
                    a secondary reason was Al Qaeda.  I think it's weird that
                    Al Qaeda has been found in Germany, Britain, France, Spain,
                    Florida, Texas, New York, and a few other places, but no,
                    no Al Qaeda in Iraq, no sirree!
                    \_ Go back and reread his SOTU address just before the
                       war. The big two were: 1) Iraq has WMD 2) Iraq is
                       allied with terrorists. This lead to his conclusion
                       that Iraq was a threat to the United States.
                       \_ Uh?  You just confirmed what I said.  Thanks!  I
                          wonder if you even read what I said before you
                          \_ Not exactly. But you can claim that if you
                             want. One is not two, at least not in my
                             math book.
        \_ They weren't even giving the kids water. Ugh.
           \_ One more reason to justify the raid (even though the govt didn't
              plan to do it.)  Even if the hostage-takers didn't plan to blow
              up everyone no matter what, the kids would soon start to die of
              dehydration anyway.
        \_ i was expecting over 1000 would die.  what's the running total?
           \_ Read the article.  Currently up to 150.
              \_ In Soviet Russia, you divide the number of hostages by 3.
        \_ The Russians are just reaping what they sowed.
           \_ You're a real cocksucker.  Those kids didn't sow anything.
              Nor did that Italian journalist, nor did the people in the WTC.
              It sickens me that the governments of the most advanced,
              richest nations of the world cannot summon the wherewithal
              to find a few individual animals and send their intestines to
              their families in tupperware buckets, which is exactly what
              ought to be done with every fucking ogre who does something
              like this.  Not go to war, not declare a crusade, just
              find someone guilty (there's enough broken fanatics) and set
              an example or two.  -John
              \_ Amen, John. --erikred
              \_ the kids didn't sow anything but Putin and the Russian
                 army did.  Once they get their butts out of other people's
                 land, this will stop happening.
                 \_ No it won't.  Viz. two French journalists kidnapped
                    despite craven & opportunistic French diplomacy regarding
                    "muslim" world.  Your argument does not hold.  These
                    fucks will not stop.  And there is _no_ justification
                    for kidnapping children and other innocents, even if
                    "their" army is committing injustice.  Hey, even the
                    fucking koran says so, go figure.  -John
                    \_ It's stupid to think that conciliatory acts will prevent
                       all terrorist attacks, but it's also stupid to think
                       that it has no effect on the frequency of said attacks.
                       \_ no, it is stupid to think that bowing down to terror
                          will yield less instead of more.  dead terrorists
                          don't kill children, genius.
                    \_ nah, chechen's terrorism is a direct result of
                       russian occupation.  russian butchered hundreds of
                       thousands of chechens over the decades.  There
                       wasn't any terrorist acts until the russian sent
                       in their army to crush chechen's legitimate
                       aspiration for having their own nation.
                       \_ Man, I can't wait for that that Native American
                          justice to start. Ask Me Why I Hate America!
                          \_ They already tried it 30 years ago.  Go read a
                             book some time.
                          \_ are you saying it's right for US to kill
                             indians and take their land?
                       \_ You forget about the terrorists coming over the
                          Chechen border into Southern Russia. Russian
                          occupation falls under the same "preemptive war"
                          banner as the US in Iraq and Israel in Lebanon.
                          \_ No, it doesn't.  Each situation is unique.  It is
                             naive to say X == Y in all these very complicated
                             and often decades or hundreds of years old
                             conflicts.  Go read a book.
                       \_ Well, the Chechens already basically won their
                          independence back in 1996. In 1999 Chechens invaded
                          the neighboring Russian state of Dagestan. This led
                          to Russia re-invading Chechnya.
                          \_ no, russia claimed victory in 1996 and still
                             says chechnya is part of russia.  they have
                             never given up that claim, and then they used
                             a minor skirmish with some extremist chechen
                             group as an excuse to invade chechnya.  note that
                             the extremist chechens were fighting the russian
                             army and not committing terrorist acts against
        \_ Hey look, the Russians took the advice given on the motd!
           \_ No, a bomb accidentally went off in the gym, like I speculated
              last night as the cause of the roof caving in.
           \_ No, a bomb went off in the gym, like I speculated last night as
              the cause of the roof caving in.
              The roof did not cave because the CTs blew a hole in the wall.
              The Ts started it; the CTs responded.
        \_ The world is a safer place! -dubya
           \_ I love when the socialists get cute and snarky!  You always make
              me laugh when you post your little one liners in a poor attempt
              to make yourself feel smart.  Keep them coming!
              \_ It would seem that the primitive one liner scored.
2004/9/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33322 Activity:very high
9/3     http://csua.org/u/8wt
        "Because He Says So" (6.2 mb Daily Show quicktime link)
        \_ How about some context before we download 6 megs of quicktime crap?
        \_ "Weapons of mass destruction related program activities"
           Did Bush really say that? He is a funnier guy than I realized...
           \_ How is that funny?
              \_ As time went on:
                 WMDs -> WMD programs -> WMD related program activities
                 \_ Yes, and how is that funny?
                 \_ Actually, it was more like
                    Eye witness accounts of chemical, biological, and nuclear
                    weapons in mobile weapons labs--wheels and rails-- look,
                    -> WMDs, we're going in, we'll be celebrated
                    -> Mission Accomplished ("Major Combat Operations Concluded")
                       now we'll find those WMDs
                    -> OMGWMDBBQ!  It's a 20 year old mustard gas shell!
                    -> WMD Programs
                    -> WMD related program activities, and we got Osama bin
                       Hussein like I told you we would back in 2001.  Remember
                       September 11th?
        \_ The link doesn't work, but just google daily show and it's the
           first video on the upper-right.
        \_ 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm!!!1!
2004/9/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33310 Activity:nil
9/2     Op-ed from March 2004, but posted to contrast with Cheney's claim
        that Bush's pursuit of the Iraq war forced Libya to disarm on nuclear.
         - The Iraq War did not Force Gadaffi's Hand
        "However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan
        initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit.
        Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because
        Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows,
        Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq."
        \_ So Bush was just a pawn in Clinton's on going game of power
           politics?  Yes, this all makes sense.  Black is white.  War is
           peace.  Two is one.  It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is
           since I voted for forcing Kadaffi's hand before voting against it.
           Or something inane like that.  I'm definitely going to invest in
           the tin and hat industries.
           \_ You're really a moron, you know that?  You undercut any
              sensible counter-argument Cheney and friends *could* have.
              \_ I don't think he is a moron so much as schizophrenic.
2004/9/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33285 Activity:moderate
9/1     Three Killed in Rush for IKEA Vouchers:
        \_ Stampedes are fun.
           \_ http://members.chello.at/h3llbring0r/mediamarkt  -John

>>>>>>> Your Changes Above
2004/8/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33257 Activity:high
8/31    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/08/31/iraq.funeral.reut/index.html
        Vietnam vet buries 20-year-old only son who died in Iraq.  Last para:
        "I shouldn't be burying him, he should be burying me," he said in a
        sometimes tearful interview. "The war is not worth it now. We need to
        get the hell out of there."
        \_ Someone's son got killed in the Revolutionary War also. I guess
                 \_ Correct?  Heh.  Why don't we conflate the Iraq misadventure
                    with WWII and WWI while we're at it?  Why not the Civil War
                    as well?  Or how about Vietnam?  Oops, we can't compare it
                    to that, that wasn't glorious enough.
           that should never have been fought either.
           \_ You're not as intelligent or as funny as you think you are.
              Please die now, compassionless fool.
              \_ Don't get angry just because I'm correct.
                 \_ No, but I'll be annoyed by your paranoia and your willful
                    lack of reading comprehension.
           \_ "God Bless Our Gracious Queen ......"
           \_ You're comparing the Iraq war to the Revolutionary War?
              \_ Uh, no.
                 \_ Uh, yes.
                    \_ Uh, no.
                       \_ Uh, yes.
                          \_ Stop having sex in the public, guys!
                       \_ You guys are brilliant.
                       \_ Tastes Great!
                          \_ Less Filling!
           \_ This is where he trots out some old history book where there
              is a father with a son who died for the Americans, and the
              father says, "We should never have fought against the Brits!
              It's not worth it!"
              \_ Halliburton shareholders think the war was worth it
                 \_ really?
                    \_ Halliburton shareholders don't like investigations.
        \_ Okay, I'll spell it out for you idiots. OP posts a quote where some
           guy said we should pull out because his son got killed. I am merely
           pointing out that one person's personal tragedy isn't a valid
           reason to make a decision like that. To illustrate why, I apply the
           exact same reasoning to a different war- one that is generally
           regarded as being one that should have been fought. Nowhere am I
           even hinting that Iraq == Revolutionary War. I'm not even implying
           that I even support the Iraq War. I could have instead said
           something like, "someone's son died in a car accident yesterday
           also, I guess we should ban cars." How the fuck did you people even
           get into Cal? Are the admissions standards that low now?
           \_ Awww, nobody takes you seriously so naturally we're all dummies.
              Poor baby.  Are you gonna cry now?
              \_ No, only liberals are crybabies.
                 \_ That's right -- cry, baby, cry.
                    \_ crying with laughter...
           \_ Your presence here would seem to imply a resounding, "yes!"
           \_ Right, except that 30,000 americans die per year from cars.
              I'll take Bush's infinite war on whatever over the present
              war on pedestrians any day.  Right now our war with detroit
              is more costly in american lives than the Vietnam war was at
              its peak.
              \_ US out of Detroit! Why do they hate America so much?
              \_ actually it's closer to 50K.  -tom
           \_ Don't forget the part about Iraq not having WMDs.
              (It wasn't part of the quote, but it was assumed you knew that
              Iraq didn't have WMDs, and it was our main reason for going,
              and is probably what the father was thinking when he said
              the war isn't worth it.)
              Let's have some hypotheticals.
              Father:  My son died to protect America.  Saddam had chemical/bio
              weapons and is working with al Qaeda, and he was close to having
              Father:  My son died to remove Saddam, to prevent him from
              torturing his people and thumbing his nose at the world, and to
              build a democracy in Iraq.  We got Saddam, but I have no idea
              when we can get out of Iraq, and most other countries aren't
              helping us because we never had the smoking gun on WMDs.  I don't
              think this is worth my son's life.
              Many were annoyed at your post because you ignore obvious
              realities to bolster your own conclusion.
              \_ And my conclusion was what?
                 \_ "Someone's son got killed in the Revolutionary War also.
                     I guess that should never have been fought either."
2004/8/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33249 Activity:nil
8/31    GOP Convention summary:
        9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
        9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
        9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
        9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
        \_ you forgot "Michael Moore is fat"
        \_ don't forget "THANK GOD FOR GEORGE BUSH".  i puke.
        \_ They are reveling in our enemy's victory.  Why do they hate
           \_ "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
              They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and
              our people, and neither do we."
              \_ To those who would attack America, I say Bring It On!
        \_ "I don't think you can win it (war on terror)." -- GWB
           \_ "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war (i.e.,
              the war on terror) we did not start yet one that we will win."
              First quote is from Aug. 28th.  Second quote is from Aug 31st.
              Talk about a FLIP-FLOP!
                \_ He did not flip flop.  The Iraq war was a war for oil.
                   So, he's still right.
                   \_ Um, what?
2004/8/30 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33222 Activity:very high
8/30    Bush on terror war: "I don't think you can win it."
        Perpetual war!  Yay!
        http://csua.org/u/8tl (AP via New York Daily News)
        \_ Much like the War on Drugs and the currently unfashionable War on
           \_ Ah yes, the War on Drugs.  And what a successful war it has been,
        \_ Unfortunately Bush is doing as well on the war on terror as I am
           doing on the war on stupidity...
        \_ How about The War on Phonics?
           \_ They've misunderestimated me.
2004/8/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33176 Activity:nil 75%like:33174
8/26    Iraqi police kidnapping journalists
2004/8/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33174 Activity:nil 75%like:33176
8/26    Iraqi police kidnapping journalists
        Meet the old boss, same as the...oh never mind.
2004/8/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:33149 Activity:very high
8/25    To the guy who keeps saying US is an empire in decline.  Consider
        the very vigor of political conversation in this country.  There is
        competition of ideas here, more so than in any other place on Earth.
        No empire in decline in history would have such vigor and such
        competition.  On a somewhat related note, Foucalt once remarked that
        americans go on pilgrimages to France the same way the
        french used to go to Italy in the 18th Century -- to see _a dying
        civilization_.  -- ilyas
        \_ I've never seen anyone write that statement, but I'd point to the
           "why do you hate america / if you're not with us you're with the
           terrorists" types to refute your political vigor comment.  That
           stuff (used non-ironically) really does make me worry.
           \_ Erm, America has lots of people, and America (due to its unique
              position in the world) is perhaps more loudly heard than some
              other places.  I don't think the percentage of idiots here is
              greater than anywhere else, but the above 2 things perhaps makes
              it seem so.  There are smart people who genuinely care about
              doing the right thing arguing with each other, in heated earnest
              here.  We take it for granted, but it's almost a unique feature
              of our culture -- other places seem a lot more homogenous to
              me. -- ilyas
                \_ The perception of being full of stupid people probably
                   partially stems from US media being fairly homogenous in
                   any given place compared to elsewhere--which leads to
                   some pretty undifferentiated opinions.  For a country
                   where a comparatively large %age of the population is
                   college educated, you do hear some fairly shocking views
                   expressed.  The metropolitan/university crowd that you and
                   I hang out with is no measure--the bulk of the population
                   lives in places like bumfuck Idaho and isn't quite as
                   cosmopolitan.  That, and American tourists have whiny nasal
                   voices.  -John
                   \_ That you would put forth the "we're smart and the other
                      guys are stupid bumfucks" steroetype as a serious point
                      is, at best, disappointing.  The bay area has just as
                      many closed minded stupid people who believe what
                      they're told without thought as anywhere else.  The
                      so-called metropolitan/university crowd is nothing
                      special.  Just how much of the rest of this country
                      have you visited and how deeply have you engaged in
                      conversation with those unwashed, uneducated, rural,
                      gap tooth hicks you think occupy the rest of the
                      non-Bay Area parts of the country?  I do agree with you
                      that our media is pathetic.
                        \_ I am not merely referring to the BA.  I hate to
                           say it, but rural populations tend to have less
                           access to differentiated media and education than
                           urban types.  It's the same in Europe, except that
                           most rural communities are far closer to some
                           metropolitan center, and hence have better access
                           to information (not always right.)  -John
                           \_ Rural areas have the same access to newspaper
                              deliver, TV, cable, the net, satellites, and
                              everything else a city dweller has.  This isn't
                              the 1850s.  You're also still stuck on the
                              "cities are full of smart people, rural people
                              are stupid bumfucks" stereotype.  I've met more
                              than enough closed minded morons here to assure
                              me that stupidity is evenly spread out.
        \_ Ilya, whether it is one or not, the US certainly exhibits a lot
           of symptoms of "empire in decline".  Losing grip on alliances it
           once dominated, military overextension, rise of both economically
           and militarily viable competition, brain drain (think stem cell
           research moving to the UK), currency no longer used as a peg of
           absolute value due to several factors including overspending
           domestically--I could go on.  I'm not doing a chicken little here;
           empires nowadays no longer collapse and get overrun by visigoth
           hordes, but the US certainly shows signs of moving towards a way
           more conservative pattern of international prominence in a lot of
           aspects.  -John
           \_ Diplomatically this is certainly true -- Europe is not fond of
              the current administration.  Of course, Europe doesn't need the
              alliance with the US, i don't think it's reasonable to expect
              a tight, Cold War style huddling for warmth.  To draw a comparison
              to 19th century, none of the great powers felt obliged to be
              particularly cozy with Britain -- they had their own interests
              to worry about.  Military overextension is also true, but only
              because we aren't on a war footing.  I think the fact that we
              fought two wars recently without any real impact on consumers
              (compare WWII) is actually kind of amazing.  There are some
              structural problems with the way americans borrow, but I am not
              an economist, and don't undestand the implications of that.
              It could be problematic a la the Spanish gold collapse.  To
              summarize, things are not entirely peachy in the US, but it's hard
              to separate short term issues of policy from long term trends.
              At any rate, long term negative trends to me seem like symptoms
              of a disease, and I don't feel a disease here. -- ilyas
                \_ Fallacy of equation.  These were not "wars", but rather
                   what was referred to as "police actions" in the 1950s.  And
                   remember, it's not just Europe--a lot of the world has
                   reached a level of political and economic maturity unheared
                   of during the cold war.  The imperial presence is
                   increasingly no longer needed.  As for the disease, as an
                   "outsider", I see a definite fraying of the healthy
                   relationship between "the government" and "the people".  As
                   for your parallel with Great Britain, they had two
                   imperial foci--the "great powers" game, and the rest of
                   the underdeveloped world.  We do not have this to anything
                   near such a degree.  As it stands, the US is making the
                   tragic mistake of pursuing a foreign policy which seems
                   almost calculated to piss off the unwashed masses around
                   the world, while not being seen as consistent and moral
                   enough to get away with it.  In any case, you bring up too
                   many points to address thoroughly, sorry.  -John
        \_ I am empire in decline guy, but John says most of what I would
           say, but better. Didn't England have a pretty vigorous
           political culture from 1890-1950, during its similar period?
           \_ England at the height of their power was weaker than the US
              is today.  An empire does not collapse because of 4 to 8
              years of short term policy the Europeans don't like.  The idea
              that the rest of the third world once loved us and doesn't
              now because of the current administration is just silly.  The
              third world never loved us.  We only sent them money because
              the Soviets did and vice versa.  When was this magical period
              in time when our allies were super close to us and did all we
              wanted?  When the Soviets were knocking on their door.  Without
              the ultimate military threat on their eastern boarder, of course
              they don't want to do what we say anymore.  They don't have to
              so why should they?  Countries don't have friends and allies,
              they only have self interests.  Without the Soviets, it is no
              longer in their self interests to go along with any of our
              policies unless it directly benefits them.  Iraq is a great
              example.  They made lots of money off Hussein and the Russians
              were still owed billions of dollars which they badly needed.
              What did we offer in return to replace that money for our allies
              if they joined us?  Feeling good about toppling a butcher?  We
              offered nothing and they did the logical thing in their own
              self interest.  The US may not last forever but it sure as
              hell isn't an empire in decline.  Even the word 'empire' is
              wrongly applied.  If this is an empire, then the world has
              never seen an empire like this.  We have tremendous economic,
              political, and cultural power.  So much so that anytime we
              sneeze the rest of the world quivers due to the great imbalance
              of power.  But we very rarely actively go out of our way to do
              anything with that power.  Compare to Rome, the British Empire,
              ancient Sparta, the Ottomans, the rise and fall of Islam, the
              communist Russians, China right now, and many others.
        \_ You error in finding public US political conversation vigorous.
           Americans have become more shrill as both sides rush to extremes
           and found sin in moderation. America is not an empire in decline,
           but one without vision. It's a land torn with selfrighteousness,
           selfassurance, and false humility, barely able to trust it's own
           council much less that of others, and blindly following a mutant
           dogma of "pure" Capitalism and psuedo-Christian ethics to justify
           it's lack of humanity and vision. The mistake of empires is not
           caused by it's own power, be political, economic, social or
           military, but by it's own inability to find the strength to change.
           In that, America has the advantage. It has redirected and rebuilt
           itself several times. The question lies in will it be able to do
           it again when the time comes.
           \_ The time is always now.  It is always changing.  You're looking
              too closely at the trees, ignoring the forest.  (Heh, I always
              wanted to jam that cliche into some conversation, thanks!)
2004/8/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33108 Activity:nil
8/24    Nope, there's no media bias here.  Bush and the election pops up in
        the middle of a story about the Iraqi Olympic soccer team.
2004/8/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33097 Activity:very high
8/24    Here is the coverage on how we overthrew Iran's democratic government
        for oil and installed Shah:
        Please stop whining about how Shah was a legit leader.  And freepers,
        the radio segment highlight the reason why 9/11 happened.  Honestly,
        I see our war with Iraq is actually quite similiar to our involvement
        with Iran in 1953
        \_ he may have been a ruthless dictator, but he was OUR ruthless
           dictator. until carter betrayed him.
           \_ Betrayed? HAHAHAHAHA! Oh you young scamps today!
        \_ 9/11 happened for the same reason as other acts of terrorism going
           back for decades: it's a conflict of cultures.  Western culture
           surpassed Islam hundreds of years ago and never looked back.  They
           still want Spain back!
        \_ It wasn't oil, at least not only.  There was a lot of concern
           that Mossadegh was about to cut a deal with the Soviets for a
           gulf port, however mistaken that turned out to be.  And it's not
           whining, the Shah had a lot of good points compared to the lunatics
           currently in power.  -John
           \_ Dictators on your side are always better than those against.
           \_ Red herring, John.  The point is not the Shah's good points
              in comparison to the Revolution he helped provoke, it's the
              Shah's bad points in comparison to the democratically elected
              government that was overthrown in order to install him.
                \_ Fair enough, I was just trying to elaborate on on the
                   reasons for the overthrow in the first place.  I don't
                   claim that it was legit, but there was agitation on the
                   part of the Iranian communist party in the early 1950s to
                   increase contacts with the USSR at the time.  -John
2004/8/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33087 Activity:insanely high
8/23    Besieged Al-Sadr keeps grip on shrine
        "Iraqi government claims that police had arrested hundreds of the
        radical cleric's fighters and taken over his headquarters in Najaf
        could have come from Saddam's Comical Ali ..."
        \_ Hey!  Have some respect for other cultures.  They didn't really
           mean they had arrested hundreds of Al-Sadr's men and taken over
           his HQ's.
        \_ I predict that if the Sadr militia isn't exterminated, it was
           because of "politics".  U.S. military forces won every battle but
           lost the war because of "politics".  Dang, that's how we lost
           the Vietnam War!  Hmm, who to blame ... I blame the Iraqi people
           the Vietnam War!  Hmm, whom to blame ... I blame the Iraqi people
           who don't want to take firm control of their own country!  And if
           France/Germany/Russia had fessed up to their financial motives and
           had joined our coalition before the war, we would have had the
           international consensus to build a free Iraq!
           \_ Funny me..  I thought we were at war against Saddam.  Or was
              it Al Qaeda?  Or terrah?
           \_ Your logic is so tortured that I can only assume it was
              meant as satire.
              \_ ... and if Kerry becomes President, then we'll definitely
                 have someone to blame!!!!1!
                 If the economy slows down, it's because he withdrew the tax
                 cuts.  If the economy picks up, it's because the tax cuts
                 are finally taking effect!!1!!!
                 If there's a terror attack, it's because he's not protecting
                 the homeland, like Bush would.  If there isn't one, that's
                 because of the strong homeland security dept Bush set up!
                 I could be the next Karl Rove!!!!%1!!%$15
                 \_ I personally think that if we could convince some national
                    level whackjob to join the csua and post to the motd it
                    would rule.
                 \_ stop frothing.  it isn't becoming.
        \_ Dignity gentlemen.  Unless you want your grandkids speaking Arabic,
           Chinese, or Spanish.
           \_ you are saying that Chinese, Arabic or Spanish are somehow
           \_ I'd rather that my kids speak Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, _and_
              English.  Why do you want to limit my grandchildren?  Why do
              you hate children?
        \_ Of all the threads the censors choose to delete or save, why in the
           Hell did you leave this useless multi-trolled PoS?  Is there any
           reasaon at all for these useless bits to waste more precious
           bandwidth?  Seeing this crap stay but real political discussion
           and debate backed by URLs, etc, get purged instantly makes me
           think the censoring is not anti-politics, but anti-I-just-got-
           crushed-in-a-debate censorship.
           \_ An article that suggests the media is, once again, not reporting
              reality, versus an endless series of lies about what happened
              3 decades ago, and you call the latter "real political discussion".
              \_ We know the media reports what they want not what is.  The
                 rest of the posts that follow add nothing.  It's 2+ pages of
                 snarky I-feel-so-clever comments and uhm, yeah.
                 \_ Uh, but the URL was the _media_ reporting what really seems
                    to be going on - it was more the Iraqi interim government
                    that is doing the "sky green, sea pink" reporting.  I agree
                    with you that in general the coverage of the Sadr army
                    revolt has been abysmal, but the Observer tends to do a
                    pretty good job. --op [restored]
        \_ His entire force is reduced to holding 1 building and the court
           yard around it?  He's doing well.
           \_ You're being sarcastic, but it's exactly what he wants.  The best
              thing that could happen, as far as Al-Sadr is concerned, is for
              the US forces to destroy the shrine and kill him.  The
              destruction of the shrine will create tens of thousands of
              Shiite jihadis overnight, and Al-Sadr's death will elevate him
              from a mediocre cleric with a revered father to the status of
              a revered martyr.
              \_ It's too late for that. He's gotten a huge following just
                 for resisting the US and keeping them from the Shrine. The US
                 has been too obsessed by this guy. I'm waiting for a marine
                 to go nuts and blast the shrine with something big.
                 \_ "Something big" - obviously you have no military training
2004/8/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33061 Activity:very high
8/21    I asked earlier about John McCain's face, and I meant no disrespect.
        Was he wounded in the jaw or neck area?
        \_ I think I heard that he was wounded in Vietnam when he
           either went down in his plane or when he was at the POW
           camp. I believe the damage was to his vertebrea resulting
           in neurological damage of the spine. The direct result is
           that he doesn't have full movement of his arms and probably
           other areas of his body. I believe that it was similar to
           Bob Dole's damage from WWII.
           \_ Bob Dole: war hero, injured in combat for his country in a just
              Bill Clinton: self proclaimed draft dodger.
              Election winner:  Bill Clinton.
              Given that history shows the voters don't care about war heroes,
              why is Kerry spending so much time talking about his war hero
              status?  It didn't help Dole at all.
              \_ Eh, Dole had several things going against him: he had even
                 less charisma than kerry, clinton had enormous charisma,
                 and was a VERY popular incumbent.  Also keep in mind that
                 we're a nation at war, and the merit badge of heroic military
                 service at this time is seen as a necessary trait.  I don't
                 think this was true of the clinton era.
                 \_ What country are we at war with? --aaron
                    \_ Uh, Evildoer... uh... onia.
                    \_ None.  It is peace time.  In times of peace we don't
                       need war heroes.  So vote for Bush with us Aaron and
                       let's focus on the economy and other peace time issues
                       instead of 30+ year old war records.
                       \_ I think the soliders dying overseas would disagree
                          with your flip, off-the-cuff analysis.  The idea that
                          we're a nation at peace with soldiers enagaged in
                          daily battles with opponents shooting rpg's at them
                          is pretty stupid, actually.
              \_ You may not remember Bob Dole's "war on drugs?"  how about
                 his 17% tax cut across the board?  Not that he had any chance
                 but he, among other things, choose wrong platforms.  and
                 honestly, I would choose a 90 yr old Dole over current Bush
                 any day simply because Dole's character.       -liberal
                 \_ Are you equating the war on drugs with a military conflict?
                    I don't understand why you mention it.  And what's wrong
                    with a tax cut for everyone that pays taxes?
                    \_ Who's going to pay for it if you give everyone a tax
                       cut?  Cut spending?  Hahahahaha.
        \_ Shortly before it came out that his nurse wife was abusing
           prescription skills at work, McCain had surgery for cancer in
           in his face.  I think that is what you're wondering about.
           And I am talking about in the 1996 race.  -maxmcc
2004/8/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33021 Activity:nil
8/20    Why the hell was the Mary Carey/military breast implant thread
        deleted?  Grow a sense of humor lately?
        \_ This the best thing on the motd in weeks!
           \_ So it was deleted because the motd is supposed to be 100% total
              shite now?  God the CSUA is lame.
              \_ You got that right.
        \_ In response to some post in the deleted thread, why do Army surgeons
           need peace time plastic surgery training via free breast implants?
           There's a huge demand for breast implant surgery during war time?
           Shouldn't they instead be getting training via fixing up car
           accident victims for free, for example?
           \_ Reconstructive surgery (war and peacetime) and no malpractice
2004/8/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:33012 Activity:kinda low
8/19    Did someone hate Douglas J. Feith?  Column he submitted to Post ystrdy:
        \- wow, he's the clarence thomas of the defense dept. --psb
2004/8/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32998 Activity:very high
8/18    Play if you want.  (Hurry, Bush's people will have a response tomorrow
        13-term House representative Bereuter will be discredited in what way?
        [blah blah]
        \_ Eh, forget it.  I noticed http://cnn.com has some responses already.
           They are:  political vendetta, entitled to his opinion.  I also
           missed one, which is:  Dismissing him as small fry.  There's also
           another approach, which is to attack one or more weaker elements
           of his letter, which is probably what they'll do tomorrow morning
           (something like "we are achieving peace, just as with the
           disbandment of the Sadr militia") -op
        \_ Why does he need to be discredited?  All he's saying is that with
           20/20 hindsight, the world was better with Hussein in power than
           with him out of power.  I think Bereuter says loud and clear all
           on his own what he believes.  No need to discredit him.
           \_ there have been other consequences to that war besides
                (in_power? hussein iraq)
           \_ The big deal is, with hindsight, Dubya still says going
              to war against Iraq was the right thing to do.  This Republican
              (also vice-chair of the House Intelligence Committee between
              2001-2004) has said in hindsight after reviewing all the
              data, it was a mistake.
2004/8/18-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32990 Activity:very high
8/18    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/18/congressman.iraq/index.html
        GOP lawmaker: Iraq war a 'mistake'
        ... Rep. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, who until earlier this month was
        the vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee -- a panel that
        reviewed much of the evidence the administration cited before going to
        war: ... "I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the
        inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that
        all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military
        action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition
        ... Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally
        misconstrued to justify military action"
        \_ Hey, what's in the "..." sections?  I hate when partial quotes are
           posted.  Now I've got to go read the whole thing to find out what
           he really said.  Motd bits aren't that expensive.  Just post it
           next time.
        \_ Oh gee.. Another politician who doesn't march lock-and-step!
           \_ Well, he was vice-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
              from 2001-2004.
              He's going to catch a lot of hell, even though he's retiring.
              What I'm really curious about is how Dubya's people will do it.
              <SARCASM>He really needs to be made an example of.</SARCASM>
              \_ Are you serious?  He needs to be make an example of for stating
                 an obvious truth?
              \_ Are you serious?  He needs to be make an example of for
                 stating an obvious truth?  [formatd]
                 \_ For breaking party ranks:
                    Loyalty > "making the right decision" > "truth"
                    If it was such an obvious truth that it was a mistake, Bush
                    wouldn't still be saying it was the right decision anyway.
                    \_ Independent thought!  Horrors!
        \_ Another entry for the "No shit sherlock" file.
        \_ Why isn't this on http://freerepublic.com yet?  They're usually pretty
           \_ it is.
              \_ Wow, you're right.  I see the freeper responses are:  he's
                 Kerry's toady; disunity shows weakness, encouraging
                 terrorists; France/Germany/Russia had financial incentives
                 for not joining a coalition; just what is this Asian
                 Foundation he's joining; he lives in a city of liberals.
2004/8/16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Finance/Investment] UID:32934 Activity:nil
8/16    Yermom: discuss
        \_ Yo mama so dumb she thinks posting the same troll every day for
           weeks on end will actually change someones vote.
        \_ Yo mama smells so bad, Saddam tried to drop her on the Kurds!
2004/8/10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32815 Activity:nil
8/10    Lessig makes a good point about weakening fair use rights.
        \_ FASCIST!  The fair use rights want to be free!
2004/8/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32801 Activity:high
8/10    Bush:  "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether knowing
        what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."
        Kerry:  "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the
        authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to
        have but I would have used that authority effectively."
        \_  Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own --
            why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used
            faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would
            go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table.
            "There are four not hypothetical questions like the president's,
            real questions that matter to Americans and I hope you'll get
            the answers to those questions, because the American people
            deserve them," he told reporters.
            \_ Have you stopped beating your wife?  The American people
               deserve to know the answer to this real question.
            \_ The charge that Bush had no plan to win the peace is legitimate
               but the charge that Bush relied on intelligence agencies
               implies that Bush should have become fluent in Arabic, Farsi,
               and Pashto, handed the presidency to Cheney, and went off and
               gathered his own intelligence.
               \_ No, it just requires that he was willing to search out and
                  listen to people who disagreed with the *false* phoney
                  consensus presented by Wolfowitz and Tenant. He could
                  have found them with Google, or by talking to the numerous
                  CIA career agents who quit in protest to the hyping of
                  the intel. The fact that he either does not have people
                  in his inner circle willing to tell him what he doesn't
                  want to hear or that he ignores them speaks volumes about
                  his competence and ability to lead the nation.
                  \_ So when the President, who already suffers information
                     bombardment, gets info from the guys he is supposed to
                     rely on to give him info, he should dismiss them and
                     read blogs he found from google to create our foreign
                     policy?  This is a joke, right?  IHBT?
                     \_ He has surrounded himself with yesmen and ideologues
                        and doesn't even read a newspaper. Even after they
                        failed him, he has not shaken up his cabinet. He
                        demonstrates a fundamental inability to think
                        critically. Stop deleting this. If you can't reply,
                        just nuke the thread.
                        \_ What newspaper?  According to the wall, the mass
                           media is all dog food and we should get our news
                           from blogs.  If he shook up his cabinet like Tenet
                           getting the axe, you'd just be here saying like you
                           have before that he was blaming his subordinates for
                           what he is resonsible for and he should resign, not
                           leave the buck at his subordinate's desks.  There is
                           just no making some people happy.  You hate the guy
                           and that's ok but don't try to hide it behind that
                           sort of noise.  Just be upfront about it.  It's ok.
                           [and no i didn't delete anything, get over it. my
                            reply is there.  you havent posted anything that
                            isnt trivial to reply to.]
                           \_ Nope, if he shook up his cabinet, I would have
                              some respect for him. At least he would have
                              admitted to himself that there was a problem.
                              As it is, he claims that he makes no mistakes.
                              He is an arrogant boob and should be trusted
                              with the kind of power he has. As for what
                              newspaper, how about the Christian Science
                              Monitor? How about the WSJ? How about
                              anything at all??? And what *I* said was that
                              Bush should fire Cheney, Wolfowitz and the
                              neocon cabal, apologize to the nation, apologize
                              to the UN and apologize to France and Germany.
                              Hell, if he did all that, I would probably
                              vote for him. But since I post anonymously,
                              you are to be forgiven for confusing me with
                              some other "Bush hater."
                              \_ So you think the WSJ, CSM, etc, have better
                                 access to information than the FBI, CIA, and
                                 other multi billion dollar funded intelligence
                                 agencies?!  Ooookeeey....  Why should anyone
                                 apologise to anyone?  For what exactly?
                                 \_ For leading the nation to war under
                                    false pretenses. It is okay to make
                                    mistakes. It is not okay to make mistakes,
                                    pretend like you never did it, and not
                                    fix the problem that led to the mistake.
                                    At least the CSM isn't a bubble filled
                                    with people who all agree with each other.
                                    Perhaps you didn't notice that a bunch
                                    of CIA analysts quit in protest over the
                                    poor handling of the intel, as well as
                                    half the British cabinet. I suspect Bush
                                    didn't notice. Here is a bunch of great
                                    stuff from conservative commentators
                                    agreeing with me, that Bush will never
                                    see, because, sadly, he doesn't read
                                    anything except from his bubble world:

                                    \_ Which false pretenses?  WMD was not the
                                       only reason to go in.  And has been
                                       posted and censored many times before,
                                       the intelligence agencies in this and
                                       many other countries all believed Iraq
                                       had large stock piles of WMD.  Clinton,
                                       Gore, Kerry, Albright, and many others
                                       are on record as saying they believed
                                       he has had WMD for years.  Why did none
                                       of them fire all their people and go
                                       read a blog or the CSM?  Robert Novak,
                                       1 elected official and 1 random paper
                                       is hardly "a bunch of great stuff from
                                       conservative commentators".  It's some
                                       stuff from 3 sources.  I don't consider
                                       Novak a conservative, btw.
                                       \_ "Iraq has ties to al Qaeda"
                                          "Iraq can mobilize chemical and
                                          biological weapons within 45 minutes"
                                          "Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors"
                                          And could this be considered a flip
                                          flop?  Then: " It costs a lot to
                                          fight this war.  We have spent more
                                          than a billion dollars a month
                                          -- over $30 million a day -- and
                                          we must be prepared for future
                                          operations."  Now: they plan on
                                          putting off their funding requests
                                          until after the election, then have
                                          to ask for $50B emergency
                                       \_ WMD was certainly one of the major,
                                          if not the major justification given
                                          to the American people. And they are
                                          not there. No, your one 10 year old
                                          sarin shell does not count. It does
                                          not really matter that much who else
                                          made the same error, since the
                                          decision to go to war was with Mr.
                                          Bush, but it mitigates it somewhat
                                          He still needs to say mea culpa
                                          somehow. Which he has not.
                                          \_ But they had Weapons of Mass
                                             Destruction-related program
        \_ By "I would have voted for the authority", did Kerry mean he would
           have voted for going into Iraq today knowing that there is no WMD
           \_ I believe he has said that he looked at voting for war powers
              as giving the president a new tool for handling the situation,
              but that he thought it would be used as a credible threat and
              possibly a banner to rally allies behind rather than us diving
              in with a pitiable coalition.
              \_ Nuance!  So really he meant to show the world (again) that the
                 US is a paper tiger that makes threats but never backs them up
                 in modern times.  Good plan.  That'll scare em!  That and his
                 fighting a more 'sensitive war against terrorism' (his words)
                 will keep the world safe!  I'm voting for Kerry this fall for
                 sure!  --Osama
                 \_ That's not how I read it. I read it as: I would have fought
                    a war againt Iraq, but I would have listended to Shinsheki
                    and gotten 300k troops like he requested, not taunted him,
                    called him a coward and a traitor and run him out of
                    \_ That's not what he said.  Anyway, even if that *is* what
                       he said or meant, 300k troops would do what exactly for
                       us in Iraq right now and the last year?  Make more
                       targets?  Make the Iraqi people even more upset about
                       the even larger force sitting on their territory?  We
                       have more than enough fire power to genocide the entire
                       country.  Lack of troops is not the problem.
                       \_ Tell that to the generals who have said otherwise.
                          The big problem is our military is trained to go
                          in, destroy quickly, and leave.  We are not trained
                          for peacekeeping missions, let alone nation building.
                          Bush's biggest failure in Iraq was not taking this
                          into account and alienating our allies who have a
                          better track record in this area.
                       \_ Shinseki was canned for saying we didn't have enough
                          troops.  Now Bush says, "If the military asks for
                          more, I'll give it to them".  The military doesn't
                          ask.  Get it now?  (just google for shinseki fired)
2004/8/9 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32785 Activity:high
8/9     In my opinion, the President retains the final authority, and ultimate
        responsibility, of taking the country to war.  Congress is just there
        to provide him the money, and legal authorization in case he wants to.
        (Let's exclude the short < 90-day engagements the President can
        send off without authorization.)
        On the opposing side, one can say that Congress shares significant
        responsibility for authorizing a war.
        What do you think?
        \_ Your opinion is stupid. Apparently you were napping in US Gov't
           101. It's called "checks and balances." Perhaps you should readup
           on the Federalist Papers.
           \_ 50 years ago you might have been right.  The War Powers Act
              has allowed Congress to adbicate its obligation to declare
              war.  They've kept their funding authorization responsibility,
              but there are no watchdogs left on the matter..
              \_ A) The War Powers Act (enacted in 1973, so you're confused)
                 sought to limit the Executive branch from so-called "police"
                 actions such as Vietnam and Korea.
                 B) The War Powers Act was an attempt to clearly dilineate
                    what the Executive could or could not do in times of
                    crisis in committing US Military (either abroad or
                 C) The War Powers Act puts a specific time limit of 60 days
                    which can only be extended by Congress on any military
                 D) It requires the executive to report to Congress any
                    military action taken by US Forces.
                 Before you go off spouting nonsense again, try to actually
                 read the War Powers Act.
           \_ What's the right answer?
              \_ The right answer is that there is no "right answer"
                 because the dynamic between the executive and the
                 legislative is constantly changing. Also, the executive
                 and the legislative are obviously incestious, so the only
                 "real" right answer is that responsibility falls upon
                 government. Since we are supposed to be a representative
                 government the ultimate responsibility falls upon the
                 people as a whole. Obviously reality is a bit more complex
                 than this.
        \_ I think yer contradicting yourself. And yer dumb.
        \_ War Powers Act
           \_ I can spend the 15 minutes to google for stuff I thought I knew
              in high school and college -- can you summarize your
              interpretation anyway?  Thanks.
        \_ Opinion?  It's simple law you can find a copy of on the net.  Your
           opinion, nor anyone else's here, has anything to do with it.  In
           my opinion the penalty for shooting stupid people should be a free
           dinner at a nice restaurant.  The law says I go to jail for a long
           time.  I prefer my opinion but we follow the law.
           \_ Can you summarize your interpretation of the law for me?  Thanks.
              \_ My summary: I'm not on the United States Supreme Court, so my
                 interpretation is academic at best.  Why do you care about
                 my or any layman's useless interpretation or opinion?
                 \_ You seemed to have a good grasp of what the law meant
                    ("It's [a] simple law ...").  Then you implied that you
                    needed to be on the Supreme Court to understand it ("I'm
                    not on the United States Supreme Court ...")
                    It sounds like you're flip-flopping to me.
2004/8/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32688 Activity:nil
8/4     Did you know, Powell says Bush was correct to assume Iraq had WMDs:
        (sorry, Powell didn't actually say Bush "did the right thing"
        - that's lame.  As described in Bush-blessed _Plan of Attack_ by Bob
        Woodward, Bush never asked Powell his opinion on whether or not the
        U.S. should go to war.)
2004/8/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32679 Activity:nil
8/4     Did you know, Powell re-confirms Bush did the right thing?
        \_  Everyone thinks  Bush did the right thing, unless you
        are a commie scum bastard
        \_ then, Bush must has done the right thing!
2004/8/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32629 Activity:high
8/3     And here's a big up yours to all the Sandinistas-lovin'-commie-ass
        liberals from the 80's.  http://csua.org/u/8ey
        \_ Nicaraguans reflect upon history of their country and the long
           running Reagan-sponsored civil war.
           \_ 1. stop editing my posts.  post your own.
              2. nicaraguans didn't do the reflecting in the article.  a
                 sandinistas-lovin'-commie-ass liberal did.
           \_ Yeah, the US is way responsible for the Nicaraguan disaster
              in the 90's.  I just love how all these communist paradises
              happen to fail.
2004/7/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32599 Activity:high
7/30    Coverup of Iraqi Bridge tossing admitted
        http://csua.org/u/8e9 (yahoo news)
        \_ You don't seriously think we should let terrorists use the bridges,
           do you?
2004/7/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32590 Activity:high
7/30    All those stories about US soldiers stealing from Iraqis can't possibly
        be true!!! Oh wait...
        http://csua.org/u/8e0 (yahoo news)
        \_ GODDAMITT
        \_ Best line in this article: 'In his mind there was nothing wrong with
           doing it,' Williams' civilian defense attorney, Bernard Casey,
        \_ At least Saddam could buy his own SUVs.
2004/7/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32580 Activity:low
7/29    Old news, but, this is where Tenet says it's a "slam dunk" case,
        as excerpted from the Bush-blessed book _Plan of Attack_:
        By the way, I strongly recommend you go read this as your primary
        source.  All the other books, the newspapers, the magazines, the
2004/7/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32577 Activity:high
7/29    I get it now ... If you sided with the President by voting for the
        war in Iraq, and complain about it now, you are said to be using
        revisionist history.  If you didn't side with the President on the
        vote, then you are French.  If you sided with the President and
        don't complain, you are not a patriot, but a responsible adult.
        \_ If you got the same info as Bush as a 19 year Senator serving on
           the Senate's intel committe and made numerous public statements
           that Iraq had WMD and had to be invaded now, you are a sack of shit
           when a year later you turn around and bash the President for doing
           exactly what you said he should do when given the same intel.
        \_ No.  If you don't complain about the lies you were given, then
           you're an ignorant pig.
           \_ what is the lie and who gave it?
              \_ I think this is the part where someone says Bush and the UK
                 claimed WMD evidence was conclusive, but the UN and other
                 intelligence agencies said it wasn't.
                 Blix on U.S. and UK spin on WMD:  http://csua.org/u/8ci
                 \_ SHIT! he played on our fears!!! mommy!
2004/7/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32539 Activity:high
7/28    100+ Iraqis all blowed up - Washington Post
        "Before the explosion we told the volunteers not to stand in the
        street until we called them because we had a car bomb six months ago.
        ... But there were 500 to 600 all standing in line," he said, and they
        did not want to lose their places by moving to a side street. Mohammed
        Saleh, another bystander, confirmed that account. ...  "They did not
        listen. They were standing around buying cigarettes and eating
        sandwiches when it happened."
        \_ since everyone has already seen this in the news...can anyone here
           comment on the quality of Iraqi sandwiches?
           \_ The camel toe sandwich tasted kinda fishy.
2004/7/27 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32515 Activity:very high
7/27    So was the home-buying thread intentionally to hijack the motd?
        \_ housing prices as a topic are currently the #1 most reliable
           troll topic, where reliable means "guaranteed to produce maximum
           verbiage, maximum flameage, and minimum knowledge."  Politics
           have become too obvious.
           \_ hey, fuck off.  that doesn't make it a troll.  housing is an
              extremely important issue to absolutely everyone.
           \_ I got trolled  :(
           \_ You missed the Bush lied/did not lie flame war.
              \_ Well, he didn't lie, nor did the CIA "trick" him -- I don't
                 know who came up with that one. -liberal
2004/7/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32510 Activity:nil
7/27    Heh, http://drudgereport.com has a URL on Michael Moore on the O'Reilly show.
        Moore has been saying that Bush is a liar.  O'Reilly says Bush never
        lied, but he may have been mistaken.  Moore can't admit the difference.
        Now this is what I've been saying all along -- as a liberal.
        \_ hey, let's hear from the guy who said he spent 20 hours a week for
           a month researching bush's wmd claims because of a motd thread.
           what's your take on this?
        \_ OK, we can probably both agree that Bush said things that were shown
           to be false.  The difference in opinion is conservatives think he
           was simply mistaken while liberals think he knew it was wrong.
           In the run-up to the war, conservatives said "Trust that the
           president has access to the best intelligence that shows that
           Saddam has WMDs"  Now some are trying to say "He was tricked by the
           CIA".  Which is it?  Did he know there were no WMDs (and is a liar)
           or was he tricked, and is being led not leading.
           \_ He did have access to the best intel.  Going back years,
              everyone in the previous administration, Senators on the
              intelligence committee, foreign leaders, etc, all stated their
              belief that Saddam had WMD or was soon to develop working WMD.
              The intel was wrong.  Everyone's intel was wrong.  Who is
              saying that Bush claims he was "tricked"?  Whatever on that.
              If it had gone the other way and the exact same intel said the
              exact same thing in the exact same way and he did nothing and
              Saddam nuked something you'd be screaming that Bush is a moron
              and the worst leader ever.  Let's just grant that you hate Bush,
              Bush can do nothing right for you, and that's that.  By taking
              Bush out of context and making him be the only one to ever say
              or believe that Saddam had WMD is intellectually dishonest,
              verging on weak trolling.
              \_ You are lying and badly at that. Why do you continue to
                 lie about this, even though you have been proven wrong
                 repeatedly? You just make yourself and Bush supporters
                 in generally look deluded and out of touch with reality.
                 Some people believed there were WMD in Iraq and some did
                 not. This has been proven to you repeatedly, yet you
                 still claim otherwise.
           \_ Bush is responsible for what he says.  Harry Truman had a sign
              on his desk, "The Buck Stops Here"--meaning that he claimed
              responsibility for his own decisions, rather than pointing
              fingers.  Whereas Bush claims responsibility for things he
              has nothing to do with, like the economy, and refuses
              responsibility for decisions he personally made, like unilateral
              war with Iraq.  -tom
              \_ I don't think that word "unilateral" means what you think it
                 \_ A lot of things don't mean what tom thinks they mean.  Be
                    kind.  He only has a high school diploma.
           \_ Okay, let me be absolutely clear:
              In my opinion, Bush did not lie.  Moore says Bush is a liar;
              Moore is wrong.  I have been saying this all along.
              -a liberal, and op
              \_ Glad to hear your opinion.  My opinion is that Bush is a
                 liar and a manipulator. I have been saying this all along.
                 - liberal who knew that Clinton was lying, too, but didn't
                   think a blowjob and perjury under duress constituted an
                   impeachable crime
           \_ How can you call him a liar if every intelligence agency in the
              world (and the UN!) said that Iraq had WMD's?  If intelligence
              said Iraq *didn't* have WMD's and Bush said they did, that would
              be lying.
              \_ First of all, every intelligence agency in the world did
               not say that. I have proven that this is false many times
               on the motd. The UN and everyone else said that the
               evidence was inconclusive. Bush claimed it was conclusive.
               That makes him a liar in my book, or at the very least
               he acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
                  \_ You're full of crap.  British, French, Russian, UN.  If
                     the Guatamalan intel agency didn't keep close tabs on
                     Iraq then I'm sorry, you're right, it isn't *every* intel
                     agency on the planet.
                     \_ You have been proven wrong on this so many times
                        it is embarrassing you. Hans Blix, in his own words:
              \_ "Imminent threat", "yellowcake", putting Iraq and Al-Qaida in
                 the same sentance constantly.  "I'm a uniter, not a divider",
                 "Healthy Forest" as Bush-speak for clear-cutting.
                 \_ Never said imminent threat.  England and FRANCE still stand
                    by the yellowkcake.  Iraq has Al-Qaida ties.  And tell
                    SoCal how the "hands-off-the-trees" approach helped the
                    fires down there.
                    \_ Calling it "healthy forests" is blatantly deceptive, and
                       SoCal was mostly chaparall.  Selective cutting of the
                       large trees is good forest managment, but it's less
                       profitable.  Clear-cutting is very bad for the health of
                       the forest.
              \_ Because he is a stupid chimp, that's why! -- ilyas
                 \_ what you wrote has proven to be not far from the truth, IMO
              \_ I don't think the previous poster disagrees with you.
                 \_ But the liar/tricked is a false dichotomy.  To be tricked,
                    the CIA, MI6 etc. would have to be lying.
2004/7/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32495 Activity:high
7/26    Ambush alley in Iraq
        \_ What is this?  My firewall blocked it.
2004/7/24-26 [Computer/Networking, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32461 Activity:nil
7/24    I'm thinking about getting a PocketPC w/802.11b to use as remote for
        my xbox (I'm interested in the web browser to view the media center
        html gui). Any recommendations for a cheap PocketPC (or even Palm)
        with 802.11b?  tia.
        \_ Dell Outlet has Axim X3i's for $235.  http://csua.org/u/8b2
           Otherwise, look for a used device with compact flash and get a CF
           wireless card.
2004/7/21-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32413 Activity:very high
7/21    If Bush could apologize -- and he won't of course -- he would say:
        Hey, look, my intelligence agencies told me that Iraq didn't destroy
        all their chemical (sarin, VX) and biological (anthrax) weapons, and
        Saddam could have given them to al Qaeda whenever he wanted.  The UN
        wanted to wait while Saddam stonewalled, and in this post-9/11 world,
        I wasn't going to wait any longer.  If al Qaeda got chemical weapons,
        or by god, a nuclear bomb, they would use them in a second to kill
        hundreds of thousands of Americans -- and by then, it would be too
        late to argue about what-ifs.  As for the battle in Iraq, Rummy told
        me we could roll them up, just like in Afghanistan and with my dad,
        and that part was true; his pal Wolfowitz said we could have in Iraq a
        beacon for democracy that would spread throughout and moderate the Arab
        world, and it sounded great -- well, we tried, and we're still trying.
        Finally, it turned out that Saddam didn't have any viable WMD
        programs, but I'm sure he wanted them, and the world is a safer place
        today without him in Iraq.  Why is it a safer place even though he
        didn't have WMDs?  Because we demonstrated how serious the U.S. would
        be when it came to playing games with chemical, biological, or nuclear
        weapons.  We showed that we would go it alone, to take a country down
        if we thought they threatened our way of life.  And we also learned
        our own limitations about postwar reconstruction.  Better now, than
        later, to have gone through all these things.
        [As for me, I'm voting against Bush, because (1) he pulled the war
        card too early, (2) he didn't have what it took to build a coalition,
        as much as Powell wanted to give him one, (3) I don't want a
        President who doesn't apologize over the first two points, because to
        me, that means he hasn't taken responsibility, and (4) I believe a
        smarter individual as President would have better understood just what
        intelligence we had, or would have better articulated this to the
        public -- that he wanted to take the country to war even when we
        weren't sure he had WMDs.  I really think Bush isn't smart enough to
        write his own speeches, or if he wanted to write and use one, his
        people wouldn't let him.]
        \_ Too bad he won't say it.
        \_ If you're going to troll you need to keep it shorter and on message.
           Try, try, try again padawan.
           \_ I'm serious.  Tell me which part doesn't sound like it matches
              Bush's thinking.  Note how I never said he lied or did it for
              the bin Laden oil connections or to make rich people richer.
              Excluding my opinion, I believe this is also exactly how
              Clinton saw it, too -- he supports Bush's call on Iraq, except he
              would have waited for Blix to finish.
        \_ what does phuqm have to say about htis? he's been long absent.
        \_ 1) Saddam was half a year away from a nuclear weapon in 1992, best
              intelligence suggested several years.  Exactly how many more
              resolutions beyond 21 (over 10 years) do you want?? Honestly,
              when would the UN security council say enough?  Never, because of
              the ties between  Russia, France, Germany, and Iraq, and the
              UN oil for food program.
           2) A coalition was unobtainable.  France, with economic and historical
           2) A coalition was unobtainable.France, with economic and historical
              ties, viewed Iraq as a client state.  Russia was owed billions
              by Saddam.  China was arming Iraq with state of (their) art
              weapons systems.  All three of them had ignored UN rulings and
              negotiated oil contracts provided the sanctions were lifted.
              Couple that with pay offs it is any wonder why these countries
              voted as they did???
           4) Bush articulated his vision lucidly, you just must not have been
              listening.  It is the presidents preeminent responsibility to
              protect the country.  It was a judgement call, one history
              will almost certainly vindicate.
           Lastly your interpretation of history and international politics is
           naive.  We have been at war with Islam since the fall of the Shah.
           Each time the attacks have increased in scale and sophistication.
           Ignoring the problem would likely have resulted in a few nuclear
           weapons detonated in American cities.
           \_ No one suggested the problem should be ignored.  The issue is
              that Bush's approach to problem is fundamentally wrong and is
              making things worse, not better.
2004/7/21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32406 Activity:nil
7/21    Oh look. Another WMD "find" debunked. Think Fox News will report it?
        http://csua.org/u/8a6 (yahoo news)
        \_ Think anyone will report it?  LOOK!  SANDY BERGER!  EVILLLLLL
           CLINTON GUY!!!!11!!
        \_ In May a sarin shell was found.  Anyway, Bush says America and the
           world is a safer place now that Saddam is gone.
           \_ and if Bush says it, it must be true!  After all, he said the WMDs
              were there!  Oh wait...
2004/7/21 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32396 Activity:very high
7/21    Uhm, ok... this is scary.  Assuming this story is true but noting
        that it isn't yet confirmed:  3 nuclear armed missiles were found
        buried in a trench near Baghdad under six meters of concrete.  What
        are the odds that something like this could self detonate in the coming
        years (or do some other really bad thing like leak into nearby wells
        or I dunno) if it was left unmaintained and forgotten?
        \_ Moonie owned newspaper.  Moonie owned wire service.  Why don't
           you start posting links from the Final Call?
           you start posting links from The Final Call? -danh
           \_ Mexican Air Force documents UFOs
           \_ I'm not going to respond to your Moonie trolling anymore.  If
              you ever come up with something more than "It's a Moonie paper!"
              then we can chat.  Go away Moonie Troll.
                \_ calling you out on relying on Moonie owned news services
                    is perfectly valid.  Moonie Moonie Moonie Moonie! - danh
        \_ So Iraq had "WMD" all along?  Or were these just nuclear materials,
           not fissionables?  Has any other news org picked up this story?
           \_ I only know what this link says.  It's in the "breaking news"
              section.  It says they're real nuclear tipped missiles.  --op
              \_ Funny how no other news outlet is carrying this story.
                 \_ Let's try again: It's in the "breaking news" section.
        \_ zero.  The story is almost certainly false.
           \_ Good motd answer.  True, yet doesn't actually answer the
              op's question.
              \_ Chance of exploding?  Almost nill.  For a nuke to go off, all
                 the conventional explosive charges surrounding the uranium or
                 plutonium must explode at exactly the right time.  If the
                 different charges go off at the wrong time, you just spread
                 nuclear material over a small area.  During the cold war,
                 when we were keeping nuclear bombers airborn 24/7 (think
                 Dr. Strangelove) one of our bombers crashed in Spain.  No
                 nukes went off and the only ocnsequence was some radioactive
                 contamination of the crash site.  -!PP
                 \_ True, but he also asked about nuclear materials
                    \_ He asked about detonation and leakage.  To answer the
                       leakage question:  It would depend on the casing of the
                       bomb (can water corrode or penetrate it?) and on whether
                       the particulars of its burial allow it to seep into the
                       groundwater.  If it gets into the groundwater if would
                       be bad, but at that point you don't have a bomb, you
                       have a pile of rusty radioactive waste.
        \_ Asked by Reuters about the report, a spokesman at the Interior
           Ministry said: "It's stupid."
           http://tinyurl.com/56kje (reuters.co.uk)
           So the gist of it is that Iraq's 'National Inquirer' claims to have
           found weapons and the Moonie Times picked up the story.
           \_ Yep. "Al-Sabah opened last year with backing from the former
              U.S.-led administration in Iraq." --aaron
           \_ Possibly it's stupid.  Possibly it's true.  It is unconfirmed
              and the odds that some newly hired flunky of the provisional
              government knows everything going on in the country instantly
              are zero.  I was asking about the danger involved in the
              situation assuming it was true.  I don't care at all what you
              think of the sources.  That isn't important to my question and
              like I said above, this is the last time I respond to your
              Moonie Trolling in a serious way.  I've tried many many many
              times over the last year or two to get a reason out of you
              other than "it's the moonies!  gasp!" and got zippo.  Go away
              Moonie Troll.
              \_ I love how you think the only person who has this opinion
                 is some lone motd nut.  Ask any ten people about the
                 washington times, and eight of them will say "times? don't
                 you mean post? never heard of it."  And the other two
                 will say "oh, yeah.  that rightwing nut rag by the moonies."
                 Believe me.  I've done this experiment.  In fact, the *only*
                 place I've ever "met" *anyone* who's heard of washtimes
                 and doesn't think it's crazy rightwing propoganda by
                 a dangerous cult is here on the motd, in other words:you.
2004/7/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32392 Activity:very high
7/20    Wilson finally shows on the News Hour: Senator Kit Bond
        directly calls him a liar.
        \_ Bond calls him a liar. Wilson refutes with reports. Bond resorts
           to semantics and long-windedness to try to out-time Wilson.
           Wilson continues to refute with documents and facts.  Bond demands
           that Wilson make an apology to the Pres. Wilson again refers to
           documents and facts.  Bell rings. Winner, Wilson, with dignity.
           \_ Except he is wrong and a liar:
              A scam and a sham
              But you are right... maybe Wilson knows more than the Senate
              and MI6.
              \_ "[A]n inquiring Iraqi official had visited Niger in 1999"
                 and had a meeting where the subject of Uranium was never
                 discussed.  How do you go from a trade meeting that never
                 talked about uranium to the assertion that the Iraqis were
                 trying to buy it from Niger?  Hey, check this out: several
                 Japanese diplomats met with North Korean diplomats recently.
                 The North Koreans then allowed abducted Japanese to return
                 to Japan. How did that happen? According to your logic,
                 it must have been because Japan agreed to give nuke-tek to
                 North Korea.
              \_ Wilson is assuredly more trustworthy than a bunch of
                 career politicians. As for MI6, didn't these guys invent
                 the term "disinformation?"
        \_ http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4885826.html
           The funniest thing is that Wilson was right all along and Bush
           was wrong. Why are you guys trying to drag this out? Iraq never
           bought uranium from Niger.
           \_ LOL talk about tautological.  You cite the liar in order
              to defend his earlier statements??? Are you on crack?
              From his letter even... 'I never claimed to have
              "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was
              seeking uranium from Africa.'
              \_ Tautological is saying he's a liar because he's been called
                 a liar.
2004/7/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32387 Activity:very high
7/20    Are Filipinos embarassed over your country being cowards?
        \_ they should be. They should of stand tall and so *NO* to
           American at first place.
           \_ Chicom troll!  U Rock!      -Chicom Troll #1 fan
              \_ Just want to inform you guys that USA is bullying
                 just about everyone to contribute troops in Iraq hence
                 caused a lot of resentment toward USA.  An interesting
                 case is the Korean one.  I was talking to a Korea national
                 (not Korean-American),  he told me that Koreans are generally
                 bitter toward USA for the beheading of one of the translator,
                 eventhough it is Iraqi who was doing the killing, resentment
                 toward USA is far exceed resentment toward Iraq
        \_ the filipino president just barely won her election and
           there were lots of charges of voter fraud, she decided
           having the US mad at her was less important than no political
           support at home, AT ALL, at this time.
        \_ They were scheduled to withdraw in August.  Troops home 10 days
           early, 1 truck driver alive.  Definite cowardice.
        \_ Have you stopped beating your wife?  And why do you hate America?
           \_ http://csua.org/u/89q (Filipino gets hammered, then hammers wife)
        \_ I am troubled by the fact that they gave into terrorists but I
           fail to see how not withdrawing is an act of bravery.  It's
           not like an soldiers or government officials would have had their
           heads cut off.   They could have just decided to let the guy
           get fucked to save face.  Would that be considered brave?
        \_ The thing about Filipines is that it has like a million  OFW
           (overseas filipino workers) working in muslim countries.  It has
           take their interest and safety into consideration.
           \_ Well in the long run they have just painted a huge target on
               those poor OFW's.   Now any small-time kidnapper with a beef
               against the Phillipines just has to grab a filipino and
               threaten to behead them and they'll have the phillipine Gov't
               at their knees.   Way to reward the terrorists, guys.
               \_ Umm... don't you think you might be exagerating a little?
                  All they got was the withdrawal of a mere 50 troops just 10
                  days ahead of schedule.  I'd hardly call that
                  'at their knees'.
               \_ but maybe this Iraq business isn't where they should make
                  a stand, and unnecessarily threaten the lives of the OFWs.
                  Do the Islamic terrorists just kidnap people from random
                  countries and make random demands on those countries?
                  \_ They're planning on kidnapping some Finns so they can
                     demand more cell phones.
                     \_ Do Filipinos have an inferiority complex?
                        \_ As Paolo points out, their country is named after
                           a Spanish king.  What do you think?  -- ilyas
                           \_ oh yea, whatever. at least they don't change
                                their name to barnstone just to cover up
                                their heritage.
                  \_ at first, it seems like randomn.  But now the pattern is
                     quite clear: kidnapping the not-so-willing allies, and
                     put the final straw which break the camel.
           \_ Forget OFWs, I bet the Philippines are more worried about the
              Muslims in their own country (the embattled southern islands have
              lots of Muslim extremists, and reportedly a few of Osama's
              illegitimate children).
           \_ Last time I check, we dumped over 10 billions in 10 years helping
              these "freedom fighters" to do the fighting in Afghanstan.  Now,
              please tell me who is rewarding the terrorist again?
              \_ You have been Trolled. -OP
2004/7/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32383 Activity:moderate
7/20    National Review column amazing study in Straw Men and False Dichotomy!
        \_ Yeah... Who ever called W a "manipulative genius"?
           \_ Wasn't Bush behind 9/11? Didn't he convince the CIA to fabricate
              Iraq-AlQuiada connections? Isn't the whole purpose of the war in
              Afghanistan to get an oil pipeline built? Isn't the whole Iraq
              War just a big profiteering scheme for BushCo? Didn't Bush
              *steal* the election?
              \_ Bush Vs. BushCo.
              \_ The logical error made over and over again in the above
                 column is to assume that all people that you disagree with
                 must hold the same opinions.
        \_ Oh poor widdle widdle Bush and his poor whiney widdle supporters.
           How can you stand to be hated by the whole world so?
2004/7/19-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32358 Activity:very high
7/19    Well, just as predicted, here's the Right spin on the Allawi summary
        executions as provided by Rushbo:
        LIMBAUGH: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is reporting that
        the new Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi has executed six insurgents in
        front of witnesses, wanting to send a clear message to these people.
        Good. Hubba-hubba.

        Now that's right. Now, you're going to have -- you're going to have
        -- you're going to have some of the powerless fearful Left in this
        country saying see, this is what Bush has done. Bush did this, no due
        process, they just kill them when you find them. We can't -- America's
        going to be hated in the world, blah blah blah blah. Well, the Iraqis
        are handling their own affairs.
        \_ It was just a fraternity hazing!
        \_ from the motd archive
          <begin>\_ You know, even if it were true, Republicans would say they
                    got what they deserved, Iraqis are finally learning how to
                    take care of their own country, etc.  In fact, I bet that's
                    what's being posted in the freeper boards right now.
                    \_ you bet?  you can't either bother to check?  you're just
                       going to make it up and pretend its true?<end>
           \_ So where's the prediction part?
              \_ The "prediction" part is about the right-wing spin/
                 interpretation, not a prediction of the actual act of Allawi
                 executing insurgents.
                 \_ So you predicted that the right wing would say what we
                    always say?  That it's none of our damned business?  Wow,
                    who put you on the RNC fax list?  Golly.
        \_ As predicted?  Uhm, I guess.  And if we had moved in to arrest the
           guy and put him on trial you'd say what?  That it's an internal
           Iraqi affair and we should let them deal with it instead of imposing
           our culture on theirs?  Whatever.
           \_ He's been on our payroll long enough that we could claim him as
              our own...  Iraqis would likely love to see Allawi on trial.
              It might actually show us standing by our principles for once..
              \_ You have your Iraqis confused.  The INC guy got discredited
                 for making too much noise about the corrupt UN Stuff For Oil
                 \_ Do a little homework.  Allawi is long tied to the CIA.
                    \_ Everyone is tied to the CIA.  Half of the Soviet Union
                       was on the CIA payroll.  So what?  You're probably on
                       their payroll and don't even know it.  Your Professors
                       certainly were.  If being on the CIA payroll, which you
                       haven't proven but I'll accept because it doesn't
                       matter, was such a big deal then you'd really have to
                       start at the UN if you wanted to clean house.  He's an
                       Iraqi dealing with things in the Iraqi way.
                       \_ But...I thought we were bringing democracy to
                          Iraq?  BTW, as previously discussed with supporting
                          URLs, Allawi was also one of Saddam's killers up
                          until the late '70s.
                          \_ We brought democracy to Iraq.  Now it's their
                             problem.  What's your point?
2004/7/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32345 Activity:very high
7/19    So we lied about the size of the mass graves...
        But we've set our goals high and hope to turn those lies true!
        \_ Are we supposed to infer that you support Al-Qaida from this?
           I.e. "Well, Saddam Hussein/Al-Qaida didn't kill THAT many people,
           and we have been killing a lot of Al-Qaida insurgents, so therefore
           BushCo/America is bad." Boy, we sure need more people like you
           \_ The inferences made on the motd never cease to amaze me.  What
              about the more rational "I don't like that we decry the mass
              graves in Iraq only to find that 1) we turned a blind eye when
              they had happened and 2) we are again turning a blind eye to
              the same actions in another place."  If you're going to condemn
              an action, and especially if you use it as a causus belli, you
              need to condemn it across the board.
              \_ Which is not how the original was posited. The original
                 was constructed to say that A was not as terrible as
                 we had initially intended and that we are doing B so
                 that means that the enemy isn't really that evil and
                 we are evil because we have allowed the same to happen
                 to our enemy. Also, you are painting too broad a stroke
                 here. The causes belli was not mass killings, but mass
                 killings of supposed innocents. The U.S. has always been
                 engaged in mass killings, whether it be Germans, Japanese,
                 or North Koreans. Sanctioning mass killings in the name of
                 security is what War is all about. If you don't like it
                 feel free to be a pacifist. However, idealism does not
                 get you far in the realm of the realpolitik.
                 \_ First off, the humanitarian reason for invading was well
                    down the list, but has since emerged as the only reason
                    left standing.  Second, in our history you can count on
                    one hand the number of times we have actually used our
                    military for humanitarian reasons.  This is not to say we
                    shouldn't (I personally think we don't do it enough, nor
                    do we have any division with the proper training to do so),
                    but it is an historical anomoly nonetheless, and one that
                    we're taking a nosedive on.  Third, the premise that this
                    was done in the name of security, or that it has done
                    anything to improve security, is well in doubt.
                    \_ On one hand?  I don't think you can count *any* events
                       where we used our military for humanitarian reasons.  By
                       its very nature, the military inflicted death upon
                       another people is not a humanitarian act.  I want you to
                       name that handful of so-called humanitarian uses of US
                       military power.  You can't.  There are none.
                       \_ Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia (supposedly).
                          \_ Bosnia: indiscriminate bombing from 30,000 feet.
                             \_ The Bosnians were grateful for the assistance.
                                We probably saved them from being wiped out.
                             Haiti: we installed or reinstalled dictators at
                                    the point of a gun 2 or 3 times in the last
                                    few years.
                             \_ Wrong. Go reread your history of Haiti. Unless
                                you mean 40 years when you say "few." The
                                only person installed in the last decade
                                by the US military was Aristide, who was
                                the democratically elected leader of Haiti.
                             Somalia: we got 18 dead Americans, no people fed,
                                    a huge PR mess, and showed the world, once
                                    again, that the US is a paper tiger.
                             There are no peaceful uses for military power.
                             \_ How about the numerous times US Marines
                                have rescued Americans in trouble overseas?
           \_ No, we are supposed to infer that op hates America.
        \_ The mass graves weren't big enough for you?
        \_ So we're going to ship the bodies from Afganistan to Iraq?
        \_ So Mazar-e-Sharif, a location of a prison uprising that took 2-3
           days to stop and killed a CIA agent would not expect to have
           resulted in prisoner deaths?
2004/7/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32336 Activity:nil
7/18    Afghanistan to Iraq - combat mission photos
2004/7/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:32335 Activity:very high
7/16    Iran Accused of Complicity in World Trade Center Attack!
        \_ Does Iran have any oil?  And why aren't we just shipping the oil
           out of Iraq straight to America for free?
        \_ Good thing to know we have another war to look forward to after
           Bush gets re-elected. Don't you think one will require the draft
           \_ I think Bush is sick and tire of pick on easy target.  Look at
              that "routine" military exercise involved 7 out of 12 air
              aircraft carriers.  I think Bush want to nuke China out of
              existance after he get elected.
              \_ At least it's easy to recognize chicom troll from his
                 hideous engrish.  Thanks for weighing in.
                 \_ a Jew who uses racial slur.
              \_ You went to all the trouble of getting a degree from
                 an American university.  Why not go the extra mile, and
                 actually learn our language?
                 \_ blame on Berkeley.
              \_ I'm getting a headache just trying to read this post.
              \_ Is a Taiwan educaton that good?  YT Lee should speed up his
        \_ How does this make them more complicitous than, say, Saudi Arabia?
2004/7/17 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32330 Activity:nil
7/16    blowkay [bloh'-kay] adj. of an attitude, typically exhibited by the
        electorate, that elected officials who have sexual relations outside
        of marriage while in office are less deserving of impeachment than
        officials whose decisions lead to the loss of human life. Folks say
        the new senator from Rhode Island is a skirt chaser, but as long as
        he doesn't send thousands of Americans off to die in a war on false
        pretenses, he's blowkay with me.
        \_ fuck that.  I don't think it's too much to ask to have leaders
           who don't screw around with interns or lie to american people,
           or give government contracts to their buddies without bids
           or make deals with terrorists to fund secret wars to support
           dictators in latin america or run a secret gang of thugs from
           the whitehouse to perpetrate illegal "dirty tricks" on opponents
           or let a unwinnable war drag on forever while lying about it
           to the american people...goddamn all of them all to hell.
           \_ Moron, without corruption there would be no government.
              "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
              The founding fathers of this country weren't stupid, and they
              knew this, which is why our government is designed to be
              a balancing act. You can never eliminate graft or nepotism,
              it's the grease that keeps government working. You can't
              codify human behavior into simple law. The law is simply
              a framework which we work from.
2004/7/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32320 Activity:insanely high
7/16    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1156008.htm
        God, what are we doing.
        \_ Meet the new Saddam, same as the old Saddam.
           \_ Oh please, call us back when he's lowering political enemies into
              \_ Now who's the moral relativist?
           \_ Woohoo!  More back seat driving by people who nothing about
              the situation, people, or cutures involved!  w00t!
              \_ So was the invasion back seat driving?
                 \_ Well, Bush is a backseat driver, but it's hard to call
                    an invasion "Back Seat Driving."  It's even worse when
                    it's a bunch of jerkoff's on the motd who have no clue
                    outside of what they read on the internet though.
                    \_ I guess I should have said the "current justification
                       for the invasion," which seems to be "bringing democracy
                       and freedom to Iraq."  Seems to fall into your backseat
                       driving definition fairly well.  In general I agree with
                       you about motd jerkoffs.
                    \_ Worse? Bush appears to know nothing other than what his
                       advisors tell him.
                       \_ Oh?  You're better informed than the CIA, FBI,
                          and military on the ground in Iraq?  Do tell!
                          \_ pp is not President, and probably never has and
                             never will have anything to do with actual policy
                             making.  maybe he's a bad guy because he's sloppy
                             in his coding or doesn't back up his data often
                             enough...who knows?  but i expect a lot more from
                             a president than from some random sysadmin on the
                             motd, and so far I haven't seen it from this
                             \_ Fine, I appreciate your right to not like
                                the president, but it has nothing to do
                                with what you're responding to.  I was
                                making fun of the poster because what
                                they said was DUMB.  Regaurless of what
                                they or I may think about the president.
                          \_ My.  Pet.  Goat.
                             \_ What. The. Heck?
                                \_ You know, the "My Pet Goat" conspiracy
                                   about the President knowing beforehand of
                                   the attack on the WTC? He plotted it with
                                   the Bin Ladins in order to boost his ratings
                                   and allow him to invade Iraq thus
                                   consolidating the Saudi and Carlyle Group's
                                   power grip over OPEC and oil reserves?
                                   Russia bought into it after finding proof
                                   of it but kept it quiet so Putin could
                                   crack down on the Russian oil "oligarchs?"
                                   It's based on why there is no such book
                                   called "My Pet Goat" anywhere. You see, the
                                   WTC crash happened earlier than was
                                   expected. When Bush is sitting in the
                                   classroom, he's waiting for the signal to
                                   act "presidential." The aide that walked in
                                   was actually whispering for Bush to "act
                                   naturally." So as an ad-lib he grabs a book
                                   and starts glancing through it. But it was
                                   just a prop put there by Presidential site
                                   stagers. So it's a fake, with a fake name.
                                   The title is an insider's joke reference to
                                   minding the "Goat," an allusion to Satan.
                                   See, GW Bush, is really the true Antichrist
                                   in his mortal form. <Ominous music here>
                                   in his mortal form.
                                   \_ You are truly deranged.  You need to untie
                                      your panties.
                                   \_ Umm... YMWTS
                                      But far be it from me to throw cold water
                                      on your little rant.
                                      \_ Oops. Nevermind...
                    \_ Well, you know, that is what a democracy is. A bunch
                       of no nothing voters getting together and trying to
                       decide what our foreign policy should be. I trust
                       the average dude who gets his info from reading the
                       internet way more than I trust your average American
                       voter. And I trust both of them more than you, who
                       seems to have an autocratic streak a mile wide. Let me
                       guess, you are still bitter that a couple of jerkoffs
                       on the motd, using nothing more than Google and their
                       critical thinking, were proven right about their
                       suspicions on Bush's WMD claims about Iraq. It just
                       goes to show you, critical thinking and intelligence
                       are a lot rarer at places like the CIA and the White
                       House than you believe.
                       \_ don't worry, the CIA will get it right by learning
                          from the fucking geniuses at mossad who got busted
                          for trying to infiltrate new zealand (see below.)
                          military intelligence=oxymoron
                       \_ nicely put, but you didn't indent right.
        \_ Reintroducing the concept of a swift trial?
        \_ Did anyone actually bother to check if this was true before mouthing
           off? -- ilyas
           \_ Here's more information:
              I give it a 50/50 shot (pun!) that it's true from all available
              information currently.
              It's true:  He got tired of innocent Iraqis getting blown up.
              It's fake:  Rumor-mongering by ex-Baathists to discredit him.
              \_ Its hard to say.  I'm sure most of you will dismiss this out
                 of hand, but the jury is still out.  Remember rumors and
                 unconfirmed reports of Abu Ghraib were circulating for almost
                 a year in Iraq before the story ever really "broke."
                 \_ You know, even if it were true, Republicans would say they
                    got what they deserved, Iraqis are finally learning how to
                    take care of their own country, etc.  In fact, I bet that's
                    what's being posted in the freeper boards right now.
              \_  Looks like there'll be no way to find out:
                  MAXINE McKEW: Your sources of course will be sought out by
                  other news agencies after tonight.
                  Will they stand up to scrutiny?
                  PAUL McGEOUGH: Well I don't know whether others will find
                  them or not.
                  I won't be making them available to anyone.
                  \_ Gee, I am convinced. -- ilyas
                     \_ Um, you don't think he might want to protect the lives
                        of his sources?  Come on ilya, you're smarter than that
                        \_ Sure, it's reasonable.  Just not very convincing.
                             -- ilyas
                           \_ FWIW, here's a transcript that the quote above was
                              pulled from:
                              http://csua.org/u/87j (abc.net.au)
                              There are some other links regarding Allawi's
                              former ties to the CIA and as an operative for
                              Saddam and the Baath party in the late '70s.
2004/7/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Science/Space] UID:32315 Activity:very high
7/16    Outfoxed showing at 7pm tonight in San Francisco, Victoria Theater
        at 16th and Mission.  Q and A with director afterwards.
        \_ Q#1: Why do you hate America?
           \_ Why do you hate informative posts? [why do you keep deleting
              this response?]
              \_ He hates criticism, too.
        \_ Q#2: So it would be better if Saddam was still in power?
           \_ Because the ends justify anything else right? You know, I think
              the world would be better off if all the Jews disappeared.

           \_ A: What makes you think this movie is about Iraq?  Watch that
        \_ More information here:
2004/7/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32306 Activity:insanely high
7/15    I'm not the same poster as below.  Today must be "Telling the Truth
        about Michael Moore" Day.
        \_ Damn you, right wing zealot, damn you all to hell!! Michael
           Moore is the messiah and he is going to lead us to the
           promised land! How dare you prove us wrong!
           \_ this type of 100% sarcastic post is... retarded.
              \_ it isn't any worse than "Why do you hate America?"
        \_ Gawd, Condi is stupid.  I'd almost think Moore expected people
           to find the full quote, and discover for themselves how much
           crack Condi was smoking.
           \_ How did you get "Condi is stupid" from Michael Moore
              misquoting the hell out of her?  This is what we call
              "blaming the victim".
              \_ he got "Condi is stupid" from her full quote.
        \_ I don't get Rice's full quote.  So we attacked Iraq because it
           was a cesspool of Islamic fundamentalism?  Sounds like BS to me.
        \_ Bush repeatedly linked the 9/11 attacks in Iraq. It is not
           deceptive to imply that, even though that one quote is
           perhaps a bit deceptive on its face. The Bush Administration
           really tried to convince America that Iraq had something
           to do with the 9/11 attacks and they were so successful
           that many people still believe that, in spite of
           overwhelming evidence to the contrary and a public
           disavowal from Bush recently.
           \_ Uhm, the point is that Moore is being deceptive with his
              use of editing, like what he did in his previous movie.
              I don't know about you, but Moore is the Leni Reifenstahl
              of the modern era. It's propoganda, and I think we can do
              better than propoganda. The film does nothing to convince
              us of its merits. I don't see how it really helps the left.
              \_ You're comparing a guy who doesn't like Bush to a woman
                 that helped justify a regime that murdered millions of
                 people?  Hyperbole anyone?
                 \_ He is comparing the means, not the ends.  You are right,
                    though, Moore is not in a particularly reassuing
                    company. -- ilyas
                    \_ Moore is attacking those in power, Leni is
                       glorifying those in power and their ideology.
                       That, to me, is a fundamental difference.
                    \_ Moore is attacking those in power in a country
                       with freedom of speech, Leni is glorifying those
                       in power and their ideology in a country where
                       there is no freedom of speech.  These, to me,
                       are fundamental differences.
                       \_ Feh.  Both used propaganda to achieve a political
                          goal.  No highground for Moore.
                          \_ If by propaganda, you mean Moore is promoting
                             a cause, sure.  Bush's State of the Union
                             address is also propaganda then.  shrug.
                             \_ I understand 'propaganda' to be the kind of
                                message which appeals to the same part of
                                the brain which likes the 'circuses' (from
                                'bread and circuses').  There is this element
                                to propaganda where you are only really
                                deceived if you want to be deceived (or you
                                are really really dumb).  Someone who thinks
                                he is being a friend to the cause by using
                                these kinds of techniques to 'promote' it is
                                not a real good friend. -- ilyas
                                \_ I can say the same for bush's state of the
                                   union address, and all the propaganda
                                   about Iraq's link with 911.  Lots of
                                   people got deceived nevertheless.
                                   shrug.  If one wants to equate Moore
                                   with Leni, one might as well equate
                                   bush with hitler.  Also, by your
                                   reasoning, I guess the Germans of WWII
                                   just naturally really want to kill Jews,
                                   or they are just really really dumb.
                                   \_ So you defend Michael Moore's blatant
                                      misquote by saying it's ok because the
                                      President gives a speech every year?
                                   \_ I call Godwin.  You apparently don't
                                      comprehend 'means vs ends' at all.
                                      Best to stop this. -- ilyas
                                      \_ I understand it perfectly.
                                         Both Bush and Hitler uses
                                         propaganda.  That doesn't mean
                                         I would associate the two.  To
                                         call Moore the "Leni Reifenstahl
                                         of the modern era" is stupid.
                                         Besides, the quote of
                                         Condi was fair enough.  She is
                                         deceptively trying to associate
                                         Iraq with 911 using BS like
                                         "ideologies of hatred".
                                         \_ then why not use the full quote
                                            if it means the same thing?  why
                                            chop it up to make her look even
                                            more stupid if the full quote does
                                            that and Moore doesn't end up
                                            looking like a scumbag?
                                            \_ why make her look stupid?
                                               the quote Moore gave is
                                               exactly what she said.
                                               Moore is under no obligation
                                               to elaborate on everything
                                               everyone said.  That will
                                               make a 5 hour movie.
                             \_ I don't recall Bush using dubious editing
                                techniques on other people to make it look
                                like they said something they didn't in
                                the State of the Union address.  Could you
                                post a link? Thx.
                                \_ presenting information that is biased
                                   and deceptive for a political cause =>
                                   propaganda.  shrug.  Like I said, the
                                   context is very important.  Besides,
                                   as presented in the link above, Moore's
                                   quote of Rice wasn't unfair.  She
                                   has herself to blame for trying to
                                   deceptively link Iraq and 911 with such
                                   wishy washy BS like "ideologies of
                                   hatred". Bah!
                                   \_ perhaps you missed the numerous reports
                                      from both the US Senate oversight
                                      committee and various foreign intel
                                      agencies that have all recently agreed
                                      that there was a link and that Iraq
                                      really was seeking nukes?  Moore is
                                      being smashed for misquoting someone.
                                      He should have given the full quote and
                                      allowed the audience to decide if it
                                      was deceptive or not.  He made her say
                                      something she didn't by eliminating the
                                      \_ he quoted her fairly.  she is the
                                         one who is trying to be deceptive.
                                         If she doesn't know any link, she
                                         should say so, and not give bS
                                         like "ideologies of hatred".
                                         \_ If I was kchang, I would file
                                            all this guy's responses under
                                            "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
                                            LA LA LA LA!" (On the Kais
                                            motd, of course)
                        kchang doesn't file manually -kchang -/
            \_ Nah, Lee Atwater is the "Leni Reifenstahl of the modern era."
               How soon we forget.
2004/7/15 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32295 Activity:very high 60%like:32292
        \_ Uhm, this is one of the more bizarre edits I've seen.  I...don't
           know what to say....
           \_ You mean you've never heard of Commander Bunnypants?!?!!!!11!
              http://csua.org/u/875 (kbtoys.com)
        \_ Nice OPINION & EDITORIAL link, CAPITAL LETTERS boy.
           \_ Trouble reading?  The URL is clearly from the op/ed page.
              As if this is the first time an op/ed piece has been
              posted to the motd, genius.  Some of you knuckleheads are
              posting links from blogs as 'proof' of your points!  -!op
                \_ the NYPOST editorial pages are even more retarded
                   than most blogs.
                   \_ In your opinion.  And that's what this is all about:
                      opinion.  Since the NYP has greater readership than
                        \_ i read the nyp every day, you are a moron.
                           you obviously are not familiar with the history
                           of the NYPOST, or who owns and runs it,
                           or that they have been an even bigger journalistic
                           laughingstock than normal recently.
                           \_ Which still puts them well above your blogs and
                              your rude interruption of my post.
                                \_ oh are you going to cry?  i hope so.
                                   useless unthinking republican drone troll.
                                   \_ hahhaha got nothing to say so you resort
                                      to the lowest form of attack.  would you
                                      \_ I'm not sure what's more pathetic --
                                         that fact that you got trolled by a
                                         childishly simple ploy, or that you
                                         need it pointed out to you.
                                      like to try again or just give up and
                                      go home?
                \_ ok i'm trying to understand the NYPOST's spin on
                   lord higgins' report, i don't fully understand it yet.
                      any blog and people actually *pay* to read it and
                      other people get paid to write it, I'll take that over
                      some random blog spew anyday.  Are you really truly
                      seriously trying to claim that blogs are anything more
                      than raw unedited spewage?
                        \_ It's still dumb.  And OP's caps lock was stuck.
                           \_ It can be dumb.  Lots of things are dumb but
                              to bash someone for posting from the NYP when
                              others here don't get bashed the same for trying
                              to use friggin' blogs as a source of proof for
                              anything is idiotic.  Caps don't bother me enough
                              to make a whole thread about them.  If they
                              bother you that much I'd like to trade my
                              problems for yours.
                              \_ The bloggers pull directly from news outlets
                                 across the board, have no financial stake in
                                 diseminating the information, and some are
                                 remarkably intelligent.  Your ranting against
                                 them is ill-founded.
                                 \_ They pull directly from news outlets of
                                    their choice no different from Drudge. What
                                    do you think Drudge is?  He's the ultimate
                                    news puller but you don't ever have to read
                                    his personal drivel mixed in.  Just the
                       \_ wonkette, the blogger you love to hate, is paid
                          and has an editor. Many bloggers make a living
                          on their blogs by selling ads. Does this make
                          them more respectable in your eyes, or less?
                          \_ Hey, wait, the above said they don't have a
                             financial stake in blogging?  Which is it?  And
                             how does making a living off it make them any
                             better than Drudge?
                \_ ok i'm trying to understand the NYPOST's spin on
                   lord higgins' report, i don't fully understand it yet.
        \_ So... they weren't lying... they just don't like to read?
        \_ I bet you the guy who posted this likes to slam Michael Moore, too.
           Compared to the post, he's fucking Truth.
           \_ Wow, a poor editorial compared to a different poor
              editorial, and you can pick which one is THE TRUTH?  Oh, I
              see.  It's the one that agrees with your poor opinions.
              \_ So what, in your opinion, constitutes a great Opinion?  Heh.
                 \_ MY OWN!
                    \_ Your precious?
                    \_ You know what they say about opinions and assholes...
                       \_ Nothing is more important than your own?
2004/7/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32292 Activity:very high 60%like:32295
        \_ Nice OPINION & EDITORIAL link, CAPITAL LETTERS boy.
           \_ Trouble reading?  The URL is clearly from the op/ed page.
              As if this is the first time an op/ed piece has been
              posted to the motd, genius.  Some of you knuckleheads are
              posting links from blogs as 'proof' of your points!  -!op
                \_ the NYPOST editorial pages are even more retarded
                   than most blogs.
                   \_ In your opinion.  And that's what this is all about:
                      opinion.  Since the NYP has greater readership than
                        \_ i read the nyp every day, you are a moron.
                           you obviously are not familiar with the history
                           of the NYPOST, or who owns and runs it,
                           or that they have been an even bigger journalistic
                           laughingstock than normal recently.
                \_ ok i'm trying to understand the NYPOST's spin on
                   lord higgins' report, i don't fully understand it yet.
                      any blog and people actually *pay* to read it and
                      other people get paid to write it, I'll take that over
                      some random blog spew anyday.  Are you really truly
                      seriously trying to claim that blogs are anything more
                      than raw unedited spewage?
                        \_ It's still dumb.  And OP's caps lock was stuck.
        \_ So... they weren't lying... they just don't like to read?
        \_ I bet you the guy who posted this likes to slam Michael Moore, too.
           Compared to the post he's fucking gospel.
           \_ FWIW, 'gospel' means "good news".
              \_ How about scripture?  I'm having thesaurus issues today,
                 \_ writings
2004/7/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32276 Activity:low
7/14    Saddam Iraqi court finds him not quilty (due to improper
        evidence by US and British intelligence)
        \_ Is this your prediction? Or maybe DrudgeReality?
          \_ it's my prediction based on the fact that Johnny Cockrun will
             be defending. If the WMD don't fit, you must acquit!
             be defending.
2004/7/14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32267 Activity:insanely high
7/12    Malpractice maelstrom
        Vote Kerry-Edwards!
        \_ what is your point...that it should be OK for neurosurgeons to
           remove as many cervical disks as they want?
           \_ my point is if you think channeling children born with CP to
              win malpractice settlements is good for the US medical industry
              vote Kerry-Edwards.  Is that so hard to understand?
              \_ Penalties for malpractice are good for the medical profession
                 (not the same as medical industry) as it provides an incentive
                 to not screw up.  Manipulating the emotions of a jury is
                 standard good lawyering.  If Edwards has been a robo-lawyer
                 you could have complained that he was failing his clients.
                 \_ And if I close my eyes, all the bad things go away!
                    Penalties for malpractice is one thing, manipulating
                    jurys to punish the innocent is completely different.
                    In this link, one guy destroyed a doctor's life, and
                    killed hundrends by forceing all the neurosurgeons out
                    of the state.  Woohoo!  Go Lawyers!
              \_ compare with a guy who lied to go to war to settle old score?
              \_ Wow, this is the only criterion allowed? Bush has driven
                 this country into a fucking ditch, asshole.
                 \_ How so?  Funny since I consider all of the problems the
                    result of leftist policy.
                    \_ yes all bad things come from clinton, all good things
                       from bush.
                        \_ While conservatives have made mistakes, they
                           have also manage to do things right from time
                           to time. The leftists have *never* done anything
                           right. Some of us vote for the lesser to two evils.
                           \_ nah, clinton got everything right. bush got
                              everything wrong.  compared to bush, everything
                              is a lesser evil.
                 \_ Which ditch is that?  The economy is fine, there were
                    a hundred reasons to invade Iraq, he picked a big one
                    to push with, but there were plenty more.  Since prety
                    much everyone thought Saddam had WMD, it's hardly a
                    lie.  Maybe he was wrong, but so was everyone else.
                    I keep hearing how Bush has destroyed the country, and
                    I don't agree with everything he does, but I see
                    little base for your accusations.
                    \_ nah, everyone knows bush says iraq has wmd.
                       everyone gives what he says a some measure of
                       credibility because he is the US president and
                       has the cia, the supposedly most technologically
                       advanced intelligence agency in the world.  now,
                       he and his subordinates have been shown to be
                       liars.  neither the US presidency nor the cia
                       has any credibility in the world anymore.
                       economy is at best sputtering even with the
                       historically low interest rate and huge fiscal
                       stimulus, with record budget deficit and
                       trade deficit, rising oil prices, threat of
                       inflation looming, threat of housing bubble
                       bursting, it's much better not to have the huge
                       drain of money into the Iraq sinkhole, which
                       is likely to continue for a few more years.
                        \_ Who gives a damn about what the world
                           thinks? Most of the world is living on
                           handouts from the US taxypayer, the rest
                           is a festering socialist mess. And when
                           the world gets into trouble, guess who
                           gets to pick up the pieces, US.
                           As far as Iraq is concerned, I guess you
                           are one of those guys who would have
                           prefered that Saddam got a NK nuke and
                           gave it to Bin Laden to drop of @ JFK
                           or something before we took the threat
                           seriously and started negotitating with
                           \_ Uh... because they provide us intelligence
                              and help us catch terrorists...
                           \_ "Most of the world is living on handouts from the
                               US taxypayer."  Are they?  Last I chacked, aid
                               to foreign governments was a tiny part of the
                               Federal budget.  I seem to recall most of the
                               world works for a living.  But your theory is
                               good too.
                                \_ Maybe we should do like Pat B. say and
                                   complete isolate ourselves from the world
                                   for a few yrs and see how the world gets
                                   along w/o the us market to export things
                                   to. The fact that most of the world has
                                   free access to our market is a huge
                                   subsidy by the taxpayer (we are passing
                                   up all the money from tariffs, &c.)
                                   Don't forget all the "loans" we made
                                   and forgiven over the years. Most of
                                   the world would in shambles if we didn't
                                   keep it solvent by forgiving loans and
                                   such over the years.
                                   \_ go ahead, try it.  If the US isolates
                                      itself economically from the world,
                                      the country that will be in economic
                                      shambles would be the US itself.
                                   \_ Don't forget we depend on other parts
                                      of the world for oil.  That has been
                                      main reason we have all these conflicts
                                      in the Middle East.
                           \_ Actually, we are in a shitload of debt from
                              loaning from the rest of the world, mostly
                              through selling treasuries.  1.4 trillion,
                              IIRC.  Just go to economist and add up the
                              foreign reserves of countries like China,
                              Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, India, Spore and HK,
                              and you will get a rough idea.  As for
                              Saddam, much better to neutralize him the
                              way we neutralized Gaddafi of Libya.
                              It takes a little patience and a little
                              diplomacy, but hey, that's what adults are
                              good at.
                                \_ We neutralized Gaddafi only after we
                                   invaded Iraq and scared him shitless.
                                   \_ that's a stupid theory the bush
                                      admin put out.
                                        \_ Its what happened. We invade,
                                           he rolls over.
                                           \_ we haven't seen N. Korea roll
                                              over.  What about Iran and Syria?
                                              In fact, some these are more
                                              hostile than before.
                                                \_ Desperation. They know
                                                   better than to try
                                                   *anything* though, because
                                                   the result will not be some
                                                   stupid protest in the UN,
                                                   it will be total destruction.
                                                   \_ Iran is always been
                                                      relatively benign.  But
                                                      in case of NK, they could
                                                      do some SERIOUS damage
                                                      to Asian economy before
                                                      you and your 7 carriers
                                                      arrive.  That is assuming
                                                      they don't have nukes
                                           \_ I am amazed how many people
                                              bought the stupid theory.
                                              Gaddafi didn't roll over when
                                              we bombed his home and almost
                                              killed him (got his infant
                                              daughter instead).  why would
                                              he suddenly roll over because of
              \_ zzzzzz
                 \_ Sounds like a deviated septrum. Let's operate!
                    \_ yea, even deviated septrum makes a more interesting topic
                        than the above.
                        \_ Septum.
                           \_ septrum. search google.
2004/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32246 Activity:insanely high
7/12    Joe Wilson's allegations were plastered over paper's front pages
        for days and received extensive TV coverage.  Wilson was identified
        by NPR and the media as Kerry's de facto campaign spokesman.  Now
        that he's been proven a liar by the Senate and MI6 where is coverage?
        \_ Proven a liar...  You're pushing it a bit.  Pat Robertson
        \_ Proven a liar...  You're pushing it a bit.  Pat Roberts
           opines in an appendix of the Senate Intelligence report,
           and suddenly Wilson is a shameless liar.  Never mind that
           he was right.
           \_ Ok you are right and MI6 and the senate are wrong.  Any
              other pontifications?
                \_ MI6 is often wrong.  Note that they just withdrew their
                   Iraqi WMD report because it was wrong.
                   As for the Senate...  -John
        \_ News flash!  Anonymous motd crank doesn't like Kerry!
           \_ Attack the man, not the message.  Good way to prove your
              point and disprove any allegations.  How'd you do in
              Rhetoric 1A?
              \_ As opposed to the hatchet job on wilson?
                 \_ It isn't a hatchet job if it's true.  The seriousness of
                    the charge can not be so easily dismissed.
                    \_ Sure it can.
        \_ what did he allege, i am not paying attention.
            \_ this is the guy who went to nigeria to investigate iraqi
               attempts to acquire uranium ore and the same guy with the cia
               wife that got her ID exposed.  he then lied about his work in
               nigeria, his wife's role in getting him, a partisan democrat,
               the job in nigeria, and a whole bunch of other things.
               \_ Niger, not nigeria. The rest of your charges are all
                  unsubstantiated Right Wing smears.
                   \_ Ok you are right and MI6 and the senate are wrong.
                      Any other pontifications?
              \_ I don't know his politics, but previous to this mess, he
                 gave (unapologetically, like most people playing the system)
                 to both parties.  (e.g. he have $1000 to both bush and gore
                 in 2000) -phuqm
        \_ Don't forget the press crucifying Novak for stating his wife's name.
           Now that we know she suggested him for the job and all the denials
           were partisan, where are the apologies to Novak?
           \_ Not for stating his wife's name, but for identifying her as a
              CIA agent.  federal offences deserve a little crucifixion.
2004/7/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32237 Activity:insanely high
7/12    Why is it that even W is conceding that WMD hasn't been found, while
        motd conservatives has been telling that us it has?  Is W also
        a lying liberal?
        \_ Why is it that liberals keep on beating a dead horse that nobody
           cares about anymore?
           \_ Nobody cares?  Tell that to all the families of soldiers that
              have died.
              \_ Yup, nobody cares, especially the GIs in Iraq, who are more
                 concerned about getting the hell out rather than finding
                 WMD. Again, liberals == dead horse + whip.
                 \_ Obviously everyone cares. It was the premise of the war.
                    Everyone including Bush still talks about it. U = dumb.
              \_ And to all of us that are footing the bill...
                 \_ If the general public actually cared the left wouldn't need
                    Mike Moore to browbeat G.W.
                    \_ If you weren't an idiot then zebras would conquer Zaire.
           \_ Hahahaha. You wish that nobody cared about it. We told you at
              the time that he was a lying scumbag and you and your kind
              shouted us down. Now you will pay for leading America into
              an illegal and unnecessary war.
              54 percent of Americans now say Iraq war a mistake.
        \_ Why does he hate America?
              \_ Yeah, and 90% said capturing Saddam was a good thing. You can
                 find a poll at any given point of time to support anything.
                 Anyway, if you were to take a poll today I'm sure you'll find
                 less than 40% of the population really cares about finding WMD.
           \_ That's exactly what I've been wondering for the last four years.
        \_ Dubya concedes that "WMD stockpiles" have not been found.  So,
           which motd conservatives are saying that WMD stockpiles have been
           found?  Anyway, Bush's main point is that Saddam could have given
           it to al Qaeda *at some point*, which is why we went pre-emptive.
        \_ cyclosarin shells, mustard gas shells, sarin shells, very large
           chemical attack averted in jordan, missile technology, buried
           nuclear components, uranium sought from Africa...
           Why do you not question the statements of DOZENS of leading
           Dems in WJC's administration and Congress?  Iraq, along
           with Iran and Syria, was the largest state sponsor of terror.
           \_ Uranium sought from Africa?  Where have you been, man? That
              was completely made up.
              \_ He still thinks Iraq had WMD.  He's deluded and in need of
                 meds.  His belief in the Uranium story is the least of his
                 \_ Woops I guess you are wrong yet again:
                    A new British inquiry is showing that Saddam did
                    seek uranium in Africa
                    Furthermore, the Senate's report undermines
                    Wilson's lies.
                 \_ From the Congressional Record... let's see what
                    Kerry, Daschle, and Clinton had to say during the
                    1990's about Iraq's WMD programs:
                    \_ I'm sorry, which of these men invaded Iraq on the
                       pretext of WMD? None. They called for inspections.
                       W picked the wrong horse and now he's covered in
                       manure. Deal with it.
           \_ Hmm... rusty old leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war, unrelated
              event in another country, missiles that flew slightly farther
              than allowed if you remove the guidance system, and some
              buried aluminum pipes.
              \_ Wrong, it was a gas centrifuge bearing housing.  A
                 massive chemical attack en route from Syria to Jordan
                 is an 'unrelated event'.  Do you know where these
                 countries are on a map and their respective political
                 \_ oh, so they're next to Iraq, so we should invade Iraq;
                    great logic!
                    \_ Assad is Baathist.  If the connection is not
                       self-evident I don't think its worth continuing
                       this.  You would approve of invading Syria?
                       I would - and I think the Europeans should do it.
                \_ Baathist party in Syria and baathist party in Iraq
                   have nothing to do with each other.  politics in Iraq
                   over the last 30 years have been dominated by
                   one guy, saddam, and only saddam, it's not like a party
                   system in america at all.
2004/7/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32201 Activity:nil
7/9     U.S. NEWS obtains all classified annexes to report on Abu Ghraib
        The second half is where it gets good.
2004/7/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32195 Activity:moderate
7/8     Yet more proof that BUSH LIED!
        \_ You know before the war I remember reading about how the CIA
           was dragging its feet and refusing to admit that Iraq
           had WMDs which everyone else knew to be true.  Funny how now
           the CIA is now being blamed for the exact opposite.
           \_ Slam Dunk Tenet!
           \_ Yeah, but it seems we are among the very few who had that long
              a memory span.  But it says even more about the media, who
              have access to their own archives.  They are quite audacious.
2004/7/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31198 Activity:insanely high
7/7     For all those that still think we're bringing democracy to Iraq:
        http://csua.org/u/82s (yahoo news)
        \_ Patriot Act?
        \_ I've heard that being stupid is kind of like being drunk all
           the time.  Is that true for you too?
           \_ Ah, I love the smell of content-free ad hominem in the morning.
              \_ Just responding in kind.
                 \_ You didn't read the URL at all, did you?  Gotta love
                    the motd freepers.
        \_ Given the amount of unrest in the country, a period of curfews and
           martial law may be exactly what is needed to clean things up. Of
           \_ More like a fleet of C-130s loaded with Daisy Cutters... -John
           course, it wouldn't have worked if the US had tried it; it would
           have been seen as more American oppression, and the insurgents
           would have had a field day.  If done humanely, however, this could
           could go a long way toward a safe and secure Iraq. Big if, of
           course. - motd practicalist
           course. - motd pragmaticalist
           \_ It might work... But given Iraq's history, there's a good chance
              that these temporary measures could become permanent.  We shall
              \_ Yeah, that worries me, too. - motd practicalist
              \_ Yeah, that worries me, too. - motd pragmaticalist
                                ??? This edit is funny how? _/
              \_ Without a period of forced stability there is no chance for
                 long term voluntary stability.  Without a bigtime crackdown
                 on the bad guys how do you think the rest of the country can
                 just sort of magically recover and move on?  At any time the
                 car or bus you're in could blow up, you can get shot, kid-
                 napped, etc.  Safety is a prerequisite for long term freedom.
                 Freedom without safety is anarchy which Iraq has seen enough
                 of recently.
                 \_ Spoken like a true fascist. Should we station soldiers
                    on American street corners as well? People are getting
                    shot here, too you know.
                    \_ Red herring.  People get shot everywhere but not in
                       sufficient numbers nor blown up on buses, cars, and just
                       walking down the street that the other places could
                       fairly be described as anarchy.  I ask again, how do
                       you expect peaceful democracy to magically emerge from
                       a place in chaos without a period of martial law?  The
                       happy goodness feeling vibes coming from your sending
                       love notes to the wannabe warlords stomping around and
                       killing people?  Get real.  If I was a true fascist, I'd
                       have dumb people such as yourself shot.  I wouldn't try
                       to educate you.
                    \_ You know, you should read up on the post WWII Europe
                       situation.  For instance, material on the bloody revenge
                       against the 'nazi sympathizers' (which by some
                       definitions was half of the population) in liberated
                       France is an informative read.  The situation there is
                       interesting to compare to the situation in Iraq today.
                       Also, the word fascist is overused.  These days it has
                       the effect opposite of what you want.  -- ilyas
2004/7/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31180 Activity:moderate
7/6     Bush lied!  (NYT) http://csua.org/u/822
        \_ I think this says that the CIA lied, or at least did not
           do their job properly.
           \_ shit rolls downhill.
              \_ I think Bush is responsible for what most of the Executive
                 Branch does, but the CIA is a peculiar institution.
                 Especially since Tenant was a Clinton appointee, I am
                 willing to give Bush a pass on this one. -Bush basher
                 \_ Bush is toast anyway, so it doesn't matter.  Maybe we
                    should all start speculating on who we want in the
                    kerry cabinet.
                    \_ Madeleine Albright as Sec. of State and Colin Powell
                       as Sec. of Defense.  Possibly John McCain as Energy.
                       Maybe Ralph Nader.  Howard Dean's Net monkeys as the
                       FCC.  Hilary as Attorney General! Ok, I'm getting silly
2004/7/3-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31150 Activity:very high
7/2     So, those sarin and mustard shells...  They dated from the 80s.
        2 of the 18 contained cylosarin.  The rest contained nothing.

          Rumsfeld said the Polish defense minister told him this
          week "that his troops in Iraq had recently come across
          -- I've forgotten the number, but something like 16 or
          17 -- warheads that contained sarin and mustard gas."

          Rumsfeld added: "I have not seen them and I have not
          tested them, but they believe that they are correct that
          these, in fact, were undeclared chemical weapons."

        Watch that spin!
        \_ So the cumulative total that we know about is: 2 cyclosarin,
           2 sarin IED, 1 mustard gas, various nuclear reactor
           components, missile technology.
           \_ Two sarin IED? Mustard? Didn't the lab tests come up
              negative on those? "Various nuclear reactor components"
              you are kidding, right? You mean the parts buried in some
              guys garden back in 1991 and forgotten about? You are
              really reaching here. Just as I thought, googling indicated
              that the mustard had decayed over time and was inert.
              \_ Googling?  You found an anti-Bush blog?  I didn't need
                 Google to find that.
                 \_ Where are the references to your mustard, then? All
                    the stuff I can find was tested as inert.
           \_ Let's not forget the timestamps on each.  All are from 1980-
              1988.  How's that reprocessing coming along in NK?
                \_ Pretty good I imagine considering they started in
                   the early '90s.
                   \_ Oh look, it's a liberal masturbation session on the
                      \_ what are you going to do with North Korea and
                         Pakistein, then?  *NOTHING*
                         \_ Well, we're not going to turn a blind eye through
                            the entire 1990's while NK built up their nukes.
              \_ What does the date matter?
                 \_ date matters because we knew about Saddam's chemical
                    and biological weapon back in the 1980s, and we gave
                    the blessing to use them against Iranians.  Our
                    original excuse to invade Iraq was that he made more
                    WMD and capable of use them in 45 minutes.
                    \_ Capable of use them?  Are you for real?
                    \_ Um, no.  Saddam had to declare or show proof that he
                       disposed of the weapons.  No age was specified.
                       \_ Purpose of the weapons inspections was to determine
                          if he had developed WMD since containment began.
                          If the shells date pre-containment, then we have
                          reason to believe that containment was working,
                          and therefore WMD was not a legit reason to invade.
                          \_ Um, no.   He was supposed to declare everything he
                             had, not everything he was making.
                             \_ Read between the lines.  Look at the purpose,
                                not the letter.  Look up from the trees some
                                time and see the forest.
                                \_ So it was ok if he had a few thousand tons
                                   of old WMD hanging out as long as we knew
                                   about them?  You need to *find* the forest
                                   before you start worrying about the trees.
                                   \_ Intel directly after the first war
                                      said that he had been more advanced than
                                      they thought, but that the bombing
                                      campaign had returned him to insigni-
                                      ficant threat level for R&D and
                                      production.  Pre-2nd war inspections
                                      were looking for evidence of further
                                      developments.  None were found. Also,
                                      if he has/had 1k+ tons of WMD, that
                                      would be significant; David Kay and
                                      crew told us they did not.
                                      \_ Intel?  The same intel told us from
                                         multiple countries that he had lots
                                         this time around.
2004/7/2 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31128 Activity:insanely high
7/2     http://csua.org/u/80x
        U.S. sending 7 of its 12 carrier strike groups to glower at China this
        summer. -- ulysses
        \_ Their flower-power is no match for my glower-power.
        \_ nice.  sugar daddy comes to our rescue again.  teach those idiotic
           nationalistic gung-ho commie bastards some manners ....
           most likely, they will do something like US trade sanction against
           cuba instead ... and see whose economy collapses first.
           \_ It's based on unfound rumors.  Sending 7 CSG to one spot is not
              only an overkill for a message but also very stupid.
                \_ yea, but there isn't much to do these days anyway ...
        \_ It's foolishness. It simulates a war footing against China. And
           even worse, it's deploying 10 out of 12 CSG at a single time, which
           means naval scheduling will be a mess for the year afterwards. The
           perfect time for China to invade is a month or two after the
           exercise while the US is recovering.
           \_ This is consistent. Foresight, planning and contingency
              preparation have not been BushCo's strong points.
              \_ Ah yes.  The foresight to anticipate an Iraqi insurgency,
                 the planning to award no-bid reconstruction contracts to
                 Halliburton, and preparing for the contingency that we might
                 not be showered with flowers.
                 \_ Who exactly else in the whole world could have rebuilt an
                    entire country like Halliburton is doing now?  No one.
                    There is no one else on the planet that could have bid.
                    Some things just need to get done without bullshit and
                    24 month bid reviews.
           \_ well, it's an exercise. it seems reasonable to want to run though
              it for training purposes. it's politically incorrect but then so
              is communism.
              \_ When did communism become non-pc?
                 \_ Communism has always been cool with the politcally correct
                    crowd.  They idolise it and its confused followers.
           \_ come on guys, an url from a 2nd hand ?news? site that is based on
              a speculation from another totally unreliable site (sina.cn)
              isn't really a solid starting point for a sound discourse.
              Oh, never mind.  Neither is the motd.
              \_ But it would be cool if true since only 3 or 4 battle groups
                 carries more than enough fire power to obliterate all signs
                 of civilisation in China.
        \_ Yes it is true and fairly old news.
           Seven Carrier Strike Groups Underway for Exercise 'Summer
           Pulse 04'
           \_ Which is quite different from the op.
2004/7/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31118 Activity:high
7/1     Polish troops find wmd:
        http://tinyurl.com/2fakx (story.news.yahoo.com)
        \_ Oooh.  16 warheads filled with mustard and sarin gas...Definitely
           one step away from a mushroom cloud.
           \_ This is the funniest thing about the "Bush lied" crowd.
              "Sure he was breaking his treaties and UN laws, but he
              wasn't breaking them ENOUGH."  As if there was some sort of
              objective measure of how much you can break a law before
              you're considered a criminal.
              \_ Nobody disputes that he was a bad man and a criminal.  What we
                 on the left dispute is whether it was worthwhile to invade,
                 and if it was, we question the motives behind the invasion in
                 light of the fact that there were lots of other bad men to
                 go after.  One of them was named Osama something...
                 \_ Which country is this Osama guy in charge of?
                 \_ Another false premise: that we can only go after one guy
                    at a time.
                    \_ No, it's not a false premise.  We don't even have enough
                       troops to properly secure Iraq, so we're leaving the
                       new government of Afghanistan to fend for themselves.
                       As a result, they control only the capitol and the
                       Taliban is regrouping in the countryside.
                       \_ so you want another 130,000 troops in Afghanistan
                          so we can piss off people in two islamic countries
                          at the same time and surround iran with large forces
                          on both sides so we really would look like we're
                          ready to militarily take over the rest of the middle
                          east.  please say you don't work in PR.
                          \_ That's not what I said.  I said we don't have the
                             resources to take on two countries at once.  We
                             shouldn't have invaded Iraq while we were still
                             busy with Afghanistan.  There was not any
                             urgent need to invade Iraq.  Except for political
                             reasons, it could have waited indefinitely.
           \_ 16 here, 5 there, 7 over there and a few others everyday and
              suddenly you've got a WMD program.  What surprises me about
              the Bush lied crowd is it makes no sense.  If there were none,
              and Bush knew it, why would he use that for the reason to
              attack?  They had several options, WMD wasn't the only reason
              we could have attacked.  So why choose something if you know
              it isn't true?
              \_ Because he arrogantly believed that it wouldn't matter after
                 the Iraqi people welcomed us with open arms and united to
                 create a perfect democracy in the Middle East.  They didn't,
                 so it ended up mattering. As for the WMD program, wait for
                 the analysis of the warheads before making any judgements--
                 if they turn out to be relics of the Desert Storm age, you're
                 going to look very silly.
              \_ As a "Bush lied" person, this is my take on it:  He used WMD
                 as a casus beli because it garnered much more popular
                 support than removing Saddam and doing the "nation building"
                 Bush disavowed in the persidential debates.  Bush knew there
                 would be leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war.  He suspected there
                 were nastier weapons but didn't have any proof, but he
                 figured proof would turn up after the invasion.  So he said
                 they had WMD based on a false hunch.  That makes him a liar.
                 If he said "We think they might have WMD." that would have
                 made him not a liar, but it makes for a lousy speach.
2004/6/28-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31052 Activity:moderate
6/28    "Things were better under Saddam" - "Only criminals could say such a
        thing. The victims deserve better than this," Idrissi concludes.
        \_ Watch "Control Room."  Even Al Jazeera was saying that Saddam was
           no good.
        \_ only the UN says this cuz they are losing millions of dollars
        in the Oil for Food program
        \_ Heh, we shall see.  Allawi is going to institute martial law.  I
           expect he will eventually be setting himself up as dictator.
           \_ Not a chance.  He doesn't have the power base for that.  He'll
              either get elected properly in January or get shot.
2004/6/28-30 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31050 Activity:moderate
6/28    I read this today: "the gov. may try...hold terror suspects somewhere
        other than its military base in Cuba, where the court said legal rights
        apply." What determines where legal rights don't apply... war zones?
        \_ I'd speculate that the court would rule that prisoner's have access
           to the court anywhere under American control where providing that
           access would not put an undue burden on the military.  So a brig on
           the front line, no, but a brig at a secure base, yes.
        \_ Well, given that a US court could indict Manuel Noriega in
           Panama guilty of drug offenses, and the US military could invade
           Panama (and kill lots of innocent people in the process). Seems
           like a court's jurisdiction has the whole world to play with, if
           it chooses, since a precedent has already been set.
        \_ Now at least we know why Bush wants to go to Mars.
           \_ You prefer what?  Sitting on this little rock forever or until
              the sun grows cold?  Leaving it to the future, take care of
              yourself now?  We stand on the shoulders of giants and have a
              responsibility to the future to continue progress.
2004/6/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31048 Activity:moderate
6/28    Pop Quiz!  A CBS News poll today (http://csua.org/u/7yz shows the
        following results.  Q - The Bush administration's policies have
        made the U.S.:  Safer from terrorism (53%), Less safe (28%), No
        effect (15%) among registered voters.  A CNN poll from last week
        seemed to show the opposite result.  Why the discrepancy?
        \- did the previous poll ask about "bush co policies" or "invading
           iraq" ... yes, erasing the taliban hurt al quedas training
           infrastructure, but i think bushco also has also given al queda
           their latest recruiptment poster in the hooded fellow --psb
           \_ Correct.  The CNN poll question was:  Do you think the war
              with Iraq has made the US safer -- or less safe -- from
              terrorism?  Safer (37%), Less safe (55%), No change (6%).
              People appreciate that Southwest or United Airlines flights
              aren't blowing up, but they're irritated that there were no WMDs,
              with the prisoner abuse, dead Iraqis and GIs, and with the
              corresponding effect on America's credibility.
              \_ goes to show that the American people are smarter
                 than your average motd troll?
                 \_ All polls are push polls.  Polling shows nothing but it
                    does keep us amused until the real thing.
        \_ Using sub-sampling and not giving the MoE for that subsample,
           or even the sample size?  Also, the Q is quite different.
           the CBS poll asked about "the bush admin's policies."  The
           CNN poll asked about "the war in iraq."
2004/6/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31034 Activity:insanely high
6/28    New Iraqi leadership demonstrates intelligence -- arrange for transfer
        of sovereignty two days early, catching enemies off guard.
        State Department (Powell et al.) takes over from Pentagon.
        Say hello to four more years of Dubya!
        \_ Sounds like a total lack of confidence to me.  I am not against
           the war, but this is defeatism at its best.  Are we going to
           suddenly withdraw all the troops unilaterally to catch the enemy
           off guard too?
           \_ Transfering early shows a lack of confidence?  It's defeatist?
              What are you smoking?  Would you like to explain how this is
              anything even remotely negative for the US and new Iraqi
              \_ Chickening out on keeping it on the scheduled date is lack of
                 confidence on one's ability to defend against the insurgence,
                 especially when they're trying to make people believe that
                 they can defeat the insurgence.
                 \_ Handing over power early was a brilliant move to circumvent
                    violence planned for the day of takeover and avoid the
                    nastiness that might have ensued if they'd tried to delay.
                    HOWEVER, troops are going to remain for quite a while,
                    and they're going to continue to be targeted and killed.
                    No love for the Bush reelection campaign. -!op
              \_ It sure looks like they're trying to cut-and-run early.
                 \_ I would say the U.S. gave up on trying to do it all by
        \_ Why? So the new government can be blamed for attacks instead of the
           provisional one? Why would W profit from this?
           \_ Because people don't follow these things so closely, despite
              saying they're interested when polled.  Easily spunnable.
           \_ This is what Iraqis have said they wanted all along, and they're
              getting it.  Who knows what happens now.
        \_ "Mr. Khafaji's circle of friends, most in ankle-length
            dishdasha shirts, said their principal criticism of the US
            occupation was that the US hasn't been brutal enough with
            insurgents and criminals. They predicted that Allawi will get
            tough. "These murders are supposed to have their throats slit
            and be thrown into the river,'' says Kassem Fadel Hassan, the
            cafe owner. "Hopefully, we'll start to see that."" w00t!
2004/6/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:31020 Activity:high
6/26    Why do we have sanctions on Cuba?
        \_ Because when Castro ousted Batista, he made ouvertures to the
           Kennedy government, who didn't like his leftist leanings.  There
           followed a spiral of tit-for-tat, at some point the Cubans
           nationalized most corporate possessions, which the Americans didn't
           like, we organized and fucked-up an invasion, the Cubans got cozy
           with the Soviets, who put missiles there, which we risked a
           nuclear war to (successfully) get out.  The sanctions came
           about in the early '60s to try and force Castro out of office, and
           have been propagated for a number of reasons, including not liking
           commies in our back yard, Cuban human rights violations, and
           obstinate right-wing Cuban expats in Florida.  Look up the Helms-
           Burton act and the history of the United Fruit Company for
           starters.  -John
           \_ I wouldn't call the Florida Cubans right wing.  I would call
              them ardently anti-Castro.  They're a one-platform political
        \_ To drive up the cost of Cuban cigars.
        \_ because we got pissed off by Cuba's decision to become an
           independent country than a colony of United States.
           \_Wow, time to get your head out of your ass and read up on
             basic 20th Century American history. How's the smell down there?
           \_ w00t!
             \_ how about next time you actually try to respond intelligently
        \_ hard to say,.  I think we're just waiting for castro to die now.
           the cuba sanctions are pretty pointless
           \_ Again, it amazes one how clueless supposedly intelligent people
              are. We have sanctions against cuba because of the expatriot
              cuban vote in Florida. C'mon, guys, you can't be that behind
              politics in America, can you?
              \_ so the entire country has sanctions against cuba because
                 of how a subset of floridians feel? i don't follow...
                 \_ Cuba has been the Soviets client state throughout
                    Castro's reign.  On behalf of the Soviets Cubans trained
                    many of the Arab terrorists we fight today and sent
                        \_ judging by how much money we sent to pakistan
                           and afghanistan, i bet we trained way more
                           arab terrorists than the cubans.  plus
                           the soviets aren't a threat anymore, they all
                           move to UCLA to be armchair historians.
                           \_ That's what we want you to think. -- ilyas
                           \_  You don't know what you are talking about.
                    troops to Nicaraugua, Zaire, Angola, and Algeria, among
                    others.  The axis today between Castro, De Silva, and
                    Chavez is destroying South America.
                    \_ Chavez is in a lot of trouble.  There's no doubt in
                       my mind the US has a lot to do with it.  US foreign
                       policy successes (by their very nature) never get
                       publicized until much much later. -- ilyas
                       \_ you make laugh
                          \_ He has something to say.  You're a low grade
        \_ Because we can, the best of all reasons.
           \- The US mania over cuba has consequences beyond bilateral
              relations and domestic politics. It's gone beyond "mere"
              mutual neglect. e.g. Helms-Burton. --psb
           \_ stupid.  we *can* destroy the whole fucking world.  but we
              don't.  we *can* invade and take over all the annoying
              EU countries that needle us constantly.  but we don't.  we
              can do a lot of things that would be emotionally satisfying,
              but we don't.  you're an idiot.
2004/6/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Recreation/Music] UID:31005 Activity:nil
6/24    http://www.onefinalnote.com/reviews/v/various-artists/no-w-now.asp
2004/6/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:31003 Activity:nil
6/24    Interesting background column on Iraq's interim prime minister:
2004/6/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30993 Activity:very high
6/24    Ron Reagan speaks! First telling Bush & Co, Inc. That real men
        don't invoke Ronald Reagan's name to get their agenda pushed thru.
        And now he tells Bush & Co. off about Iraq war. It's about time:
        \_ wow, nice way to misquote Ron.  He never said the first thing
           although it was falsely reported that way.  Must be the busines
           elite controlled media that wants Kerry in office.
        \_ Reagan in 2012!!!!
        \_ Why do liberals keep saying Bush lied our way into an Iraq war?
           Obviously he made his decisions based on the best available
           information at the time -- so you should say it was a CIA failure.
           Iraq had WMDs, and the head of CIA said it was a slam dunk.  What
           President would question that?
           \_ I'll assume you're trolling, so I'll keep it short: there were
              many complaints from the CIA rank and file about being forced
              to produce evidence to support a predetermined conclusion.
              \_ I can produce an equal or greater number of URLs with
                 CIA rank and file saying they felt no pressure at all.
                 Do you have a URL for the bi-partisan 9/11 commission
                 Besides, who says Bush came down on CIA rank-and-file to
                 force conclusions?  Even Clinton supports Bush going to war;
                 nowhere does Bill say Bush lied about it.
                 \_ In the end, it always comes down to a matter of trust.
                    There will always be missing information from what
                    either side can learn.  It comes down to this: do you
                    believe Bush to be trustworthy, and do you believe that
                    he generally acts in the best interests of the country?
                    I believe the answer is no, and that his actions should
                    be judged in that context.
                    \_ So you already didn't like the guy so he must be lying
                       but if you previously did like the guy then it was ok
                       to invade Iraq.  So your feelings about the man then
                       make him into a liar and justify your feelings about
                       the man in a circular pattern that makes it nearly
                       impossible for him to earn your trust.
                    \_ I believe the total picture provided by TV media, print
                       media, and VIPs shows that Bush always acted to defend
                       the U.S. against terrorism, and was provided poor
                       intelligence on Iraq.  Like I said, even Clinton
                       supported Bush going to war.
                       Thesis:  "Bush didn't lie."
                   \_ I disagree.  It's not about trust.  It's about the
                      inability to see good policy through to the end.  The
                      UN Weapons Inspectors were doing a good job.  The
                      sanctions and containment were working. Bush wanted to
                      invade Iraq so badly that he was willing and eager to
                      accept any intelligence, no matter how dodgy, that
                      supported his desire to invade preemptively. He pushed
                      his vision when he should have weighed the evidence more
                      carefully.  He made speeches based on evidence that
                      should have been examined more than once.  He let his
                      eagerness goad him into believeing something that the
                      facts did not support, and then he sold that belief to
                      the American people.  That he was careful to let
                      innuendo do the job for him rather than blatantly lying
                      is no excuse; that's standard CYA.
                      \_ It isn't his job to question the evidence presented.
                         By the time the information gets to him it *better*
                         already be the best possible information available.
                         If the President of the United States Of America has
                         to question the intelligence briefs he gets every day
                         then we're much more fucked than having what some of
                         you consider a liar in office.
                         \_ It is the job of the CoC to understand that an
                            argument based on one sketchy source is not
                            a viable argument for going to war.  Yes, I want
                            the President to be able to discern between
                            reasonable intel and fairy tales based on fluff.
                            \_ Do you really think the intel is presented as,
                               "And yeah boss this one questionable character
                               we paid to say some stuff said this stuff but
                               it's kinda sketchy.  Should we invade now?"
                               Oftentimes intel has one and only one source
                               and you're lucky to get that.  This isn't
                               journalism school.
                               \_ Intel that comes from one source, unless
                                  that one source is the Baby Jesus, is
                                  highly suspect.  If you run with it, you
                                  must know that you're running a huge risk
                                  of it turning out bad.  When it turns out
                                  bad and results in the needless deaths of
                                  hundreds of US soldiers, it's your duty
                                  to cop to and resign.
                \_ Tennet was obsessed with Al Qaeda.  Clinton told Bush
                   that Al Qaeda, North Korea, and Pakistein is probably a
                   greater security threat than Iraq in terms of priority.
                   and in case you don't remember, Bush said that Iraq
                   supported 9/11 attack, and Iraq had tons of WMD, and
                   Iraq was actively buying Uranium from Africa.
                   \_ Clinton told Bush what?  You know this because?  Clinton
                      said so on 9/12/2001?  Clinton said and continues to
                      say a lot of things.  Some are even true.
                   \_ Bush said there were Iraq/al-Qaeda links, he never said
                      Iraq supported 9/11.  Tenet said Iraq had WMD.  Tenet
                      approved the speech that said Iraq was buying uranium
                      from Africa.
                      Thesis:  "Bush didn't lie."
                      \_ where is that Iraq/al-Qaeda link, then?  and
                         in case you don't know.  Bush is the commander in
                         chief.  he is ultimately responsible for everything,
                         eventhough he tend to blame everythign to his
                         inferiors when things go wrong.
                         \_ Holy cow!  Are you really denying a link between
                            Iraq and middle eastern islamic terrorism?
                         \_ So you think we should hang our officials anytime
                            they make an error?  Decision makers must always
                            be perfect?  Anything less and we should do what?
                            Vote in some idiot just because he isn't the first
                         \_ The bi-partisan 9/11 commission said there were
                            Bush is ultimately responsible, but the point
                            I am making is that he didn't lie about Iraq.
           \_ Bush didn't lie.  He is just misled.  He is not the brightest,
              you know.
                            \_ Bush drew very explicit links between Iraq
                               and terrorism; terrorism, in the minds of
                               Americans, means al Qaeda; so, many people
                               took his comments to mean that there were
                               explicit links between Iraq and 9/11. Cf.
                               To say that he did not mean to say that Iraq
                               was directly linked to 9/11 is a lot like
                               saying, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome
                               priest?" and then wondering aloud why your
                               most loyal men have murdered the Archbishop of
                               \_ Ok, so now you're saying he didn't lie and
                                  it is his fault that the media through the
                                  op/ed pages misrepresented what he said and
                                  the American people believed the media.  Your
                                  line of reasoning is broken and twisted.
                                  Just let it go.
                                  \_ You're kidding, right?  The man is not
                                     the brightest bulb, but he and his
                                     minders (Rove, Cheney) are masters at
                                     putting out the image.  Lying by
                                     innuendo is a basic trick in the GOP
                                     \_ Ok so now it's just a big VRWC.  Ok,
                                        thanks for playing.  We went from
                                        "BUSH LIED!" to "Bush is a dim bulb
                                        guy who didn't understand that he was
                                        being manipulated by the evil NeoCon
                                        VRWC".  You could at least try to be
                                        consistent instead of allowing yourself
                                        to get pushed further and further away
                                        from your original point, which you
                                        clearly lost, you are better off,
                                        rhetorically speaking, granting the
                                        point and starting a new thread on
                                        your fall back position.  So now we
                                        can agree that Bush didn't lie but
                                        possible the evil NeoCons manipulated
                                        the poor dumb drunken coked out Texan.
                                        But that's for a different thread, eh?
                                        \_ 1) There's more than one person
                                              responding to you, so I guess
                                              you win.
                                           2) It's not a conspiracy. It's very
                                              savvy message manipulation and
                                              PR. Why does that disturb you?
           \_ Bush didn't lie.  He was just misled.  He is not the brightest,
              you know.  Of course, next time US try to tell other countries
              about something the CIA found out, they will just rofl, and
              ask, "Did your mama told you so this time? Bwahahaha!"
              \_ Ok, so we made a mistake. We invaded a country. Who's gonna
                 pay for this? We, we are gonna pay for this with our blood
                 and lives when the suicide bomber hit us. Someone needs to
                 be held accountable for this, as this is not the kind shit that
                 can be dismissed with a simple, ooops.
                 \_ Hint: the suicide bombers were hitting us long before we
                    invaded Iraq.  Buy a calendar.
              \_ Except for the fact that the intelligence agencies from all
                 these other countries were saying the same things which you
                 should know if you're not a complete ignoramous but you ignore
                 because you have an axe to grind and an agenda to push.
                 \_ really?  what were they saying?
                    \_ damn, buy a newspaper.  the whole western world agreed
                       back in 1998 that saddam had wmd.  there is no reason
                       to believe that the stock piles everyone believed
                       existed back then suddenly disintegrated since the
                       1998 inspectors left because of a blue stained dress.
           \_ It is undeniable that Iraq, along with Iran, was the largest
              state sponsor of terror.  In 1993 after WTCI the Ney York FBI
              believed Iraq was responsible for the bombing.  Where did Abu
              Abbas and Abu Nidal live?  Where did the only fugitive of WTCI
              live?  Saddam had repeated contacts with Al Qaeda.  What about
              the planned chemical attack in Jordan?  Dozens of sarin shells?
              WMD components in scrapyards....  [formatd]
              \_ Yikes!  Facts!  Stop!
              \_ We should nuke the country that has the most WMD on earth.
                 \_ Wow!  You are soooo smart!  Go away, you drooling troll.
                    This isn't High School.
2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30989 Activity:very high
6/24    The UN declined to extend the US's immunity from the International
        Criminal Court.  That immunity expires June 30th, the same day Iraq is
        supposed to be turned over to a provisional government.  Although Iraq
        is not a signatory to the ICC, what would happen if the new "soverign"
        government immediatly ratified the ICC treaty?  Supposedly US soldiers
        could be prosecuted in cases where the US is unwilling to prosecute.
        \_ putting sudan on the UN human rights panel even
           strays my liberal thought shield
           \_ What's wrong with Sudan?  Did Sudan invade another country
              with no cause other than a desire to control that country's
              oil?  Did Sudan illegally imprison and torture thousands of
              foreign citizens whose only desire is freedom from foreign
              rule?  Did Sudan betray their own citizens and constitution
              by imprisoning them in gulags with no legal recourse?  Sudan
              is much better qualified to sit on the UN panel than America.
              \_ Sudan is in the middle of their own little genocide.
                 \_ And America is in the middle of a Crusade fueled by a
                    lust for oil.  I still ask you why is America better
                    than Sudan.  I wish our hands were as clean as Sudans'.
                        \_ what planet do you live on and how much pot
                           and marx did it take you to get there?
        \_ I like the cut of your jib! --aaron
        \_ Those soldiers should be prosecuted for raping all those Japanese
           \_ Which soldiers?  The American ones who got prosecuted for
              raping all tose Japanese women?
              \_ all of them got a slap on a wrisk for abduct and rape
                 14 years old "japanese" women.
        \_ No real country would bring an American up on charges.  Anyway,
           that can only happen in this (bogus) legal context if the country
           the person is a citizen of doesn't have a real legal system and
           doesn't do anything about their own war crimes.  Aaron and similar
           echo-chamber leftists may drool at the possibility of 3 judges from
           the Sudan, Cuba, and North Korea putting an American soldier or
           some high ranking political official on a UN sponsored show trial
           but it'll never happen in the real world.
           \_ Could we hear from the ehco-chamber motd brownshirts one more time
              about how "why do you hate america" is a straw man?  I need
              a good laugh today.
2004/6/22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30959 Activity:high
6/22    Bush says he is above the law in wartime:
        http://csua.org/u/7vs (yahoo news)
        \_ Should I even read this obvious troll from an unnamed site?
           \_ Basically, Bush said the Justice Department said that Al Qaeda/
              Taliban don't legally qualify for Geneva Conventions protections,
              but he doesn't want to use this loophole.  He also says that
              treatment should be "consistent with the principles of Geneva".
        \_ This "war on terror" is the most comfortable war the US has
           ever fought. We out gun the enemy and we out number the
           enemy. We kill 100 of them for every one of us that died.
           Yet, we think we need to bypass the Geneva Conventions to
           use torture. It makes me wonder what we will do when we
           have a real war. Yeah, we are always great at telling
           others to do things that we can't follow, BECAUSE WE GOT
           BIGGER GUNS, HAHA.
           \_ You know, if you listen to the constant whining of the press,
              it really doesn't seem like it's the most comfortable war.
2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30936 Activity:very high
6/21    So much for the Reagan bounce.
        \_ No one ever said there was one.  I want to see Kerry's poll numbers
           \_ patently false
              \_ it's nice that you both interrupted my statements and failed
                 to back yours up in any way.  score 2 points.
                 \_ patently means obviously, and he's right. -!op
           after a debate.  So far, the more news coverage he gets the lower
           his poll numbers go right after a press event.  His advisors should
           be shitting in their pants thinking about that one.
           \_ Yeah, just look up on http://news.google.com for "reagan bounce".
              Pew poll.  Do at least a tiny bit of research before posting.
              \_ Like research has anything to do with the motd.  Or hyperbole
                 is unheard of here.
                 \_ It does, actually.  And, you can exaggerate, but at least
                    don't be totally wrong.
              \_ Ok, so you went to google and found some op/eds from stupid
                 people.  You can always find stupid people in op/eds.  No
                 one from either campaign or any responsible person in
                 government said it would happen.
                 \_ That's a lot better than "No one ever said there was one."
        \_ I disagree. Go to http://www.pollingreport.com and look at the
           the polls done in the last week. The three most recent listed
           there all show a modest recovery in Bush's numbers. -Kerry supporter
        \_ "Seventy-six percent now say the war has damaged the United
           States' image in the rest of the world; that's 13 points more
           than last summer. Sixty-three percent say it's caused long-term
           harm to U.S. relations with countries that opposed the war, up
           12 points..." Where's the bozo who always calls this claim
           The Big Lie?
2004/6/18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30891 Activity:insanely high
6/18    Russian intel on Iraq, Bush polling data re: Reagan, Iraq, 9/11.
        The polling data (yahoo link) shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone.
        This is the first I've heard of the Russian intel (first link, myway):
        http://tinyurl.com/2zrg8 (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ It seems grudgingly given.  "Hey Putin, my man, back the ol'
           Dubya up, will ya'?"
           \_ Putin has to be the most cynical and venal of all politicians.
              You can practically hear the greenbacks changing hands.
              \_ Would either of you like to quote Putin being grudging or
                 cynical in this article?
                 \_ On the "grudingly given" front, dewd, do you really need
                    to be told?
                    \_ Why do you ask?  Yes.  I need to be told.  It would
                       have been easier for you just to answer instead of
                       pretending to be smart.  My father always said no one
                       likes a smartass.  He was right.
                       \_ The issue here, is that IMO, it would have been
                          easier for you to think.  I don't think you need
                          your father to tell you that.  And I don't feel
                          like answering to you, and that's my prerogative.
                          \_ Jesus Christ, just answer the guy's question or
                             shut the fuck up.  It's not that hard if you
                             actually have anything to say.
                          \_ Ok, so it wasn't grudingly given.  Thanks for
                    \_ Yes, you really do need to back up your assertions if
                       you want to be taken seriously.
              \_ I'm really curious where you guys are getting your feel
                 for Putin.  Are there some websites I can check out?
                 \_ Cue Ilya, re: Russian politicians.
                    \_ I meant aside from the fact the Russian
                       politicians are always venal.  Russia would have
                       been the greatest power in the world from 300 years
                       ago, if they could ever figure out how to govern
                       \_ What's this have to do with Putin and his alleged
                          grudging statements in the URL?  What you say is
                          probably true but not on topic.
                    \_ I meant aside from the fact the Russian politicians
                       are always venal.  Russia would have been the
                       greatest power in the world from 300 years ago, if
                       they could ever figure out how to govern themselves.
                       \_ What does this have to do with Putin or the URL?
                       \_ It also might help if the Russian men came out
                          of the bars now and then.
                          \_ Bars?  You confused man.  'Bars' are a western
                             europe thing. -- ilyas
                             \_ In Soviet Russia, party comes to YOU!
                                \_ In Soviet Russia, vodka consumes YOU!
                                     -- ilyas
                \_ As the majority of Russians would attest, Putin is probably
                   the best President/Ruler Russia ever had after a centuries
                   long succession of drunkards, incompetents, and tyrants.
                   Back to the topic, it is a well known fact that Bush and
                   Putin have become good friends and like each other a lot.
                   Have you noticed they have been seeing each other about
                   every two months in the recent times?
2004/6/18 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30887 Activity:moderate 72%like:30797
6/18    New army combat uniform:
2004/6/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30879 Activity:high
6/17    Dubya:  "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship
        between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship
        between Iraq and Al Qaeda"
        Bubba:  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"
        \_ I did not take millions in campaign contributions from PRC in
           exchange for missile and nuclear weapons technology. WJC
           \_ Nonono, we're looking for REAL quotes, especially ones with
              "relations" involved.
2004/6/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30870 Activity:insanely high
6/17    I like that.  SUV bomb kills at least 35 and wounds over 138 Iraqis
        waiting to sign up for the Iraqi army, and it's covered by LA Times,
        NY Times, and Washington Post prominently, but buried on http://cnn.com.
        \_ It's on the front page.
           \_ Before you post, why don't you go to at least one of the other
              web sites, and contrast it with the presentation on http://cnn.com.
              I said "buried on http://cnn.com", and that's exactly what I meant.
              \_ It's on the front page in 2 places, with one of those links
                 in the top 3 stories.  Your definition of 'buried' is fucked.
        \_ You like that there are a lot of dead people, or you like that an
           SUV helped kill people?
           \_ Bombs don't kill people.  SUVs kill people!
           \_ troll.  If you were Rush, people would still listen to you.
              \_ You're being obtuse.  The PP was probably pointing out that
                 the OP's conscious choice of words completely obscures the
                 original point.  That doesn't seem trollish at all.
                 \_ Let's put it this way:  Were you "confused" by the time
                    you finished reading the second sentence?  If you were,
                    then I won't argue with you anymore.  Yes, I'm talking
                    to you, obtuse-boy.
                    \_ *sigh*  You're still being obtuse, but I guess that's
                       your prerogative.  Carry on.
        \_ I still don't see the point. Are you saying http://cnn.com is conservative
           or white-washing? Unless you're talking about FoxNews, such a
           conclusion is non-obvious and should be stated explicitly. Thanks.
           \_ If you don't know what's wrong, I'm certainly not going to
              tell you!
2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30821 Activity:very high
6/12    Since when did aaron become bitter about US, foreign policy, and
        everything associated with politics?            -aaron #1 fan
        \_ why isnt everyone? too busy playing everquest? --psb
           \_ Progressquest >>> everquest!  -- ilyas
           \_ why should they be?  is it a big shock that not everyone shares
              your political philosophy and agenda?  i guess its because we're
              all just stupid since you have so clearly articulated the loss
              of american credibility around the world for generations to come.
              stalin would be proud.
              \- just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to not
                 supprt bush? i mean say he got a law passed saying all
                 income above $1m year was not to be taxed? or say he decided
                 to try disallow anybody from any muslim majority country
                 to visit/immigrate to the US? or how about if he req'd
                 a loyalty oath for any govt employee or said he would apply
                 a juducal limits test on abortion for all fed jud appointtees.
                 of how about if in the next 4 months 5000k us service people
                 get killed in iraq. i dont think any of these will happen,
                 but if any of these did happen, would you still support
                 bush? btw, is there a single bush suppert who will sign
                 his name? i'm not saying this invalidates you point, but
                 it does seem odd. --psb
                 \_ Sure, I ll sign my name.  Obviously, I am not a Republican.
                    I am not the guy you are replying to.  -- ilyas
        \_ I've never seen him *not* bitter.  Who cares anyway?
        \_ When Bush was (s)elected.
           \_ Bwahahaha!  You are *still* bitter you got crushed in the
              recounts?   All of them?  Get over it.
2004/6/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Recreation/Sports] UID:30820 Activity:insanely high
6/12    My old HS history teacher used to tell us that the Roman Colliseums
        were built to detract citizens from real issues so that they will
        be content and not overthrow the emperor. Now that I'm grown up and
        know better, I think that is really stupid. I mean, we have football
        and basketball today but people are still pretty pissed about Bush
        and his policies. What do you guys think?
        \_ You are lacking one vital component in your reasoning, the
           shows at the Coliseum were free. Football and basketball are
           not free, and even TV broadcasts are increasingly not free
           (i.e. advent of PPV). Also, the shows at the coliseum were
           state sponsored, the NBA and NFL are privately sponsored.
           \_  The stadiums are usually locally sponsored.
        \_ you are a minority.  Majority of people still think Iraq has
           helped the September 11th attack, and invading Iraq has everything
           to do with WMD and terrorism.
               \- hello, roman entertainment for the masses was motivated
                  by expedient reasons and took the form of public games,
                  subsidies drama, mime [mime was big] etc. while officially
                  run by the aediles who were public officials, the $ was
                  augmented by wealthy individuals [as opposed to now, when
                  the public subsidizes the stadiums for the wealthy].
                  however after the fall of the republic, there was less
                  reason for individuals to pretend to be public spirited.
                                         \- actually looking at some material
                                            this appears more complicated.
                                            i wont bore the "senate and the
                                            people of soda" but i wanted to
                                            leave a note for full disclosure
                                            and can discuss via email if anyone
                                            is interested. --psb
                  it wouldnt get you elelcted consul and more power in the
                  senate was not worth much. so later on, some of the
                  events in the colosium did have a ticket system and women
                  had to sit in the nosebleed seats. so you cannot generize
                  between 2nd century b.c. and say the spectacles of the
                  Neronic age. also outside rome, differnet parts of the
                  empire were "into" different events ... like i think
                  gladitorial games were more popular in the west than the
                  eastern parts of the empire. it is sort of interesting that
                  individuals figures in costests did develop reputations and
                  the sort of had non-georgraphic teams and fans ... like
                  these celebrities would appear on "sports merchandise". --psb
        \_ Your history teacher was pretty much correct.
           \_ you have never heard the expression "bread and circuses"
              [panem et circenses]? this is a troll, clearly. --psb
              \_ And Mr. Latin phrase arrives on schedule.
                 \_ i resisted a discussion of the tribune of the people
                    and roman land reform law with you plebians. --psb
                    \_ your little roman era sports speech above was lengthy
                       but lacked any serious detail that might show you have
                       done more than watch a history channel episode.  would
                       you do a better job with roman land reform?
                       \- One is speaking to a History Channel Audience here.
                          It's reasonable to say something here is wrong.
                          To say it is incomplete is silly. The large topic
                          of the relations between the govt, the patrician
                          class, and the urban underclass, the rural population
                          etc is obviously something that changes over time
                          as rome grows from a "city on the tiber" to
                          "the ruler of the known world" and then changes
                          form into an empire from a republic and cant possible
                          addressed in depth here. if you want citations
                          they can be provided via email. if anything is
                          incomplete, it is your criticism which is largely
                          content-free. --psb
        \_ TROOOOOOLLLLL!!!!!
        \_ Yeah, I built a cathedral in all my major cities and I have the
           Colosseum, but my cities are still all in disorder.
           \_ Build the "war on terrorism" minor wonder. People will be
           \_ Build the "war on terror" minor wonder. People will be
              forced to support the government no matter what.
              \_ I changed the government type to "Shadow" and it all worked
                 itself out. If I get a riot, that population disappears.
                 \_ Iain Banks' thriller _Complicity_ features a Civ-like
                    game where you can "discover" the drug trade and get your
                    counsellors hooked so they stop bugging you for reforms.
                 \_ If you changed it to communist, it would have the same
                    \_ Kinda:  all of the dissidents would be rounded up and
                       then shipped out in equal numbers to all of your
                       cities.  It's kind of like congressional redistricting.
            \_ Stop using your Mech. Inf. to fight partisans and put them back
               in your cities where they can suppress unrest.
2004/6/14 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30797 Activity:nil 72%like:30887
6/14    Look, The Army goes gay!
2004/6/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30789 Activity:very high
6/14    if Osama gets caught, give him a sex change operation, big
        boobs and release him naked through the streets of saudi arabia
        \_ first, give him a queer makeover
           \_ Queer Eye For The Fear Guy?!
        \_ if osama gets caught, we're not gonna find out till at least
           a year later, if at all.
           \_ Smart money says he's already dead.  How do you get bi weekly
              kidney dialysis in a cave?!
              \_ By the grace of Allah!  Duh!
              \_ Smart money says that BushCo has him locked up overseas
                 somewhere and will unveil him in time for the election.
                 \_ No, that would be the long odds.  I give you 35:1.
                 \_ Nah, there won't be that big an october surprise.  It'll
                    be Al Zarakawi (sp?) the #2 guy that's been given us some
                    problems recently or maybe Al Sadr.
              \_ Nah, he was always a hypocondriac.  He isn't nearly as ill
                 as he always seemed to think he was or he would've been dead
                 years ago.
2004/6/12-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30770 Activity:nil 52%like:30761
6/11    Iraqi WMD shipped to the Netherlands:
        [restored a few times now.  why do you erase facts?  doesn't fit your
         hate-bushco agenda?  censorship sucks.  you can't hide truth.]
2004/6/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30761 Activity:nil 52%like:30770
6/11    Iraqi WMD shipped to the Netherlands:
2004/6/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30716 Activity:nil
6/9     When will it end?  More documented accounts of brutal and inhumane
        treatment of prisons the likes of which the world has never seen
        before!  This makes me so ashamed to be an American!
        \_ Come on, this is nothing new. To give a few examples:
           Manifest Destiny, 1800s, "give pox to Injun savages so that our
           settlers will be safe"
           Spanish War of 1812, "let's create a war for our story"
           1940s, "let's lock up all Japs because they're all spies"
           1700, "let's import niggers for the farmland"
           You still think that the Civil War was about freeing slaves?
           Think again.
2004/6/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30654 Activity:insanely high
6/7     Was Starship Troopers 2 even in the theatres?
        \_ No, and it had a budget of roughly $6 million compared to the
           original's $100 mil.
           \_ Can't make it any worse.
           \_ Wow, it says the original oly made $65 mil.  (So it lost
              about $35 mil)  There IS some justice in the world.
              \_ enough justice to warrant a sequel.
              \_ Was that just theater tickets, or overall?
                 \_ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starshiptroopers.htm
              \_ If the original had tried to be anything like the book it
                 might have made money.  They stole the title and the
                 character names.  The rest was bullshit.
                 \_ Best review of original ever:
                 \_ it took a somewhat interesting book that had something
                    interesting to say for its time, discarded the stuff
                    which is no longer relevant for its shock value and filled
                    it in with other stuff which is actually relevant to our
                    current political climate.  What is bullshit about that?
                    \_ They took Heinlein's politics, turned it upside down
                       and made a bad joke of it, and then fucked up the only
                       other cool thing by ruining combat by turing the super
                       nuke and flame thrower wielding heavy infantry into sub
                       machine gun toting light infantry bug food who
                       shouldn't have stood a hope in hell of surviving 2
                       minutes on any bug planet much less actually winning
                       against them.  Bullshit.  Shall I go on?  I'd have to
                       dig up my copy to give you specific details but it's
                       more of the same.  Oh yeah, they also completely
                       skipped the Skinnies.  How long ago did you read the
                       book?  I re-read it a few months ago.
                       \_ Best review of movie ever:
                          http://csua.org/u/7n2 (independent review, humorous)
                       \_ Heinlein's politics ARE a joke. His stories are
                          1950's sci-fi fanboy fantasies. They're fun if you
                          are in your teens, but hardly great shakes. The only
                          real disappointment of Starship Troopers was that
                          Denise Richards didn't go topless. Now THAT is
                          something Heinlien would have pushed for.
                          \_ Hmm, service to one's country is a good thing...
                             joke... with rights come resposibilities... joke
                             earn voting rights by serving country... ok, yeah
                             you're right, it's just a joke, we're doing so
                             much better today with people selling their votes
                             and corrupt money burdened politics.  You should
                             go re-read your Heinlein.  It sounds like you read
                             him in your teens and missed out on what he was
                             really saying.  You also completely ignored my
                             point about the movie's silly version of combat
                             and the complete loss of the Skinnies.  Or maybe
                             you're just a troll and never read his stuff at
                             all and you're just taking the silly movie as
                             what Heinlein really had to say and what his
                             stories were like.
                             \_ That goverment model has a name, fascism. The
                                Italians tried this when WWI vets felt that
                                only they deserved to run the government. In
                                Heinlein, everyone puts out, women doubly so.
                                Pure fanboy. Tossing mini-nukes around makes
                                friendly fire so much more interesting. And
                                irradiating planets where you hope to inhabit?
                                Just a bad idea. The movie was tripe, feeding
                                off Heinlien's good name and an entertaining
                                read. But never confuse Heinlien with reality.
2004/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30640 Activity:high 55%like:30630
6/5     Live free or die: how many more Carl Dregas?
        \_ Damn that article has a lot of hero worship for a man who murdered
           serveral people.
           \_ I don't think you're quite reading the author right.  I think
              there's a lot of hero worship _because_ he murdered several
              people (but they were all The Man).
              \_ Oh I am reading it right, I just find it scary how much
                 hero worship someone can have for a man who shot down
                 several people in cold blood.
        \_ What is this?  A radical libertarian site?
        \_ Yeah, how many more loonies are we going to get before we make a
           psych eval necessary to own a gun?
           \_ From my COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!
              \_ I want a t-shirt of this and an Iraqi grabbing an M-16 from
                 a dead soldier. Does this mean I hate America?
                 \_ No, but even a libuhral like me can see that you
                    just wrong.
                 \_ US soldier in foreign country != US civilian in US.  Does
                    this really have to be explained?  Why don't you make a
                    business out of printing up your t-shirt and selling it?
                    You'll probably sell a dozen or so.
2004/6/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30614 Activity:nil
6/4     CNN:  "Thousands march in Rome against Iraq war"
        Actually that's "hundreds of thousands".
2004/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30587 Activity:very high
6/3     http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2606171
        Yet another Democrat beltway insider voting for Bush.
        \_ This guy is a shill not a Democrat.  At the bottom of the
           article there is a note saying the author is a member of the
           American Enterprise Institute (AEI).  Take a look at the AEI
           mission statement (http://www.aei.org/about/filter.all/default.asp
        \_ Some of my friends who are otherwise Democrats found themselves
           sitting there on September 12 thinking pretty much the same thing.
           They deplore what Bush has done to the environment, the economy,
           and to our credibility, but they're firmly behind him when it
           comes to striking a strong blow against the perceived source of
           terror.  Some of them were sated after Bush took out the Taliban,
           but some of them remained staunch supporters of the invasion of
           Iraq.  I think they were swayed because it felt good to be active,
           to strike a blow, to be on the offensive rather than on the
           defensive.  Most of them have since come to the conclusion that
           the whole thing has been mishandled, but there's still a nagging
           feeling in the back of their heads that that a policy of
           pre-emption against baddies is all right.  I'm not a Dem, a
           Repub, or a Green.  I'm a social progressive, and there is no
           party that represents my viewpoint. I supported the campaign
           against the Taliban, I support the effort to root out and destroy
           Al Qaeda, and I still opposed the invasion of Iraq on the basis
           of WMDs, and I think the handling of the aftermath of the invasion
           is a black eye on America. Where am I going with this? I don't
           know, but I'm tired of the labels.  They don't mean anything. It's
           the issues you care about that make up your mind when the election
           \_ Look you dimwit, how many times does this have to be pounded
              home before you get it?   Iraq wasn't a threat to us.
              Afghanistan was justified, and the world was behind us.
              Iraq was and is a huge mistake and a terrible mess.  Just
              because striking a blow makes you feel better, doesn't mean
              it was the right blow to strike OR that it helped in any way.
              \_ Hello, asshole, I agree with your second, third, and fourth
                 sentences, and I think the general principle of your fifth
                 sentence is spot on.  What I'm pointing out is that quite
                 a few people who would normally be called Dems were
                 prepared (before Abu Graib and thee mounting US losses) to
                 keep W in office just to feel safe.  You need to understand
                 that this phenomenom exists, despite your (and my)
                 understanding that the root reasoning behind it is flawed.
                 Well, that, and you really need to stop being a knee-jerk
                 \_ To deny Iraq, along with Iran, was the largest state
                    sponsor of terror is patently absurd.  Where did
                    the fugitive bomber of WTC 1 live?  Where did Abu Abbas
                    live?  Where did Abu Nidal live?  Saddam DID have
                    contacts with Al Qaeda.  On and on...
                    \- Do you support "taking out" Syria, Iran, Libya and
                       Pakistan? Can you explain why they are different?
                       Also, can you explain why the US is investing in
                       Iraqi reconstruction and lobbying to have some of
                       their loans forgiven, if "they had it coming"?
                       Do you think Spain should attack Morocco? Any thoughts
                       on North Korea?
                        \_ sicko, the saddam regime had it coming, not the
                        iraqi people. ditto for n koreans
2004/6/3 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30577 Activity:high
6/3     Ok, now that various US leaders are blaming the CIA for mis-information,
        next time someone like Powell goes to the UN to announce, "Hey! our CIA
        found this out ...", will the leaders of other nations just roll on the
        floor laughing, "Are you sure it wasn't yomama who told you about it?"?
        huh huh.
        \_ Fuck this, we invaded Iraq based on false information the BushCo
           wanted from the CIA, and now he steps down, everything is going to
           be ok?  Fuck BushCo.
        \_ I love this blame game!  So who is next?
           \_ Rummy!  Let's make Powell into both the Secretary of State
              AND Defense.
              \_ I've got a better idea.  Let's just dissolve all three branches
                 of government and declare Bush to be Divine King descended
                 from Jesus Christ himself.  Cheney and Rummy can hold court
                 and be the real power behind the throne, and Rove can be
                 the court jester to distract everyone.  Everything will
                 be so much simpler that way.
        \_ Have you frothers got it out of your system yet?
2004/6/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30575 Activity:high
6/3     Awesome.
        link:csua.org/u/7kx (Toles cartoon from WaPo)
        \_ Saddam's Iraq was easy to defeat with fewer casualties than Gulf
           War I, and the Americans were greeted as liberators.  Chalabi says
           that the U.S. should have transitioned power faster.  But apparently
           the Americans wore out their welcome.
        \_ That was hilarious.  Thank you.
2004/6/3 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30566 Activity:nil
6/3     Powell: Iraq Will Have No Veto on U.S.-Led Force
        In other words, do what we want you to do, or we will remove you
        by force.
        \_ The US has never granted another power control over our military.
           That would be... stupid.  What's new?  Our men rape Japanese women
           every other years and what happens?  Nothing.  Why aren't you here
           bitching about that and blaming BushCo?
2004/6/1 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30525 Activity:high
6/1     Christopher Hitchens on CSPAN - ardent defender of Iraq
        war.  Admits he's no longer a socialist.
        \_ What do you get when you combine the world saving idiocy
           of the left with violent tendencies of the right?
           \_ the biggest killers of the 20th century were all
              \_ Hitler is leftist?  Uh, yeah.
                 \_ NAZI = Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
                    Nationl Social German Workers Party.  His political
                    platform was socialist.  He was considered 'rightist'
                    by other Communists because he did not believe a
                    Communist Revolution was necessary to implement
                    socialism / communism.
                    \_ Oh BS. You are going to tell us next Robespierre was
                       a modern progenitor of the Republican Party
                       because he called himself a Republican.
                       Did Hitler believe in giving ownership of the
                       means of production to the workers? No.
                       Doh! I have just been trolled...
                       \_ Then please dispute this:
                          A Little Secret About the Nazis
                          \_ How can I hope to dispute with a man who brings up
                             universal free education as proof of evil?
                             \_ The article addresses the Nazi's political
                                ideology - factually refute it or don't
                                waste my time.
              \_ The capitalists have starved to death far
                 more people than the communists, but since
                 no one person is in charge, the blame is
                 diffuse. How many have died because there
                 no profit to be made in keeping them alive?
                             \_ this is your reply - capitalism is
                                evil?  Spoken like a true red-diaper
                                baby.  Move to North Korea twit.
                                \_ I notice you didn't answer the question.
                                   \_ Because it is a stupid question.
                                      Where/ who are you talking about?
                                      \_ I answered this already, but you
                                         wrote over my changes. See below
                                         for most of it.
                 \_ What is this supposed to mean?  This seems to be all
                    accusation and no substance.  Are you claiming African
                    famine is all the fault of capitalists, or what?
                    \_ Since the European colonialists set the conditions
                       in place for the famines and then did nothing once
                       they occurred, even though they clearly had the
                       power to stop them, yes, I believe they are the
                       ones primarily responsible. If you are going to
                       (quite rightly, I feel) pin 1920s famine on Stalins
                       collectivization of the Kulaks, you should lay blame
                       on the head of the Western European colonialists
                       where it properly lies as well.
              \_ When you get into real extremes, the difference between
                 "right" and "left" is pretty much academic.  Tyranny is
                 \- it is commonly claimed that what is important is structure
                    [in this case extremeism] and ideology more or less dis-
                    solves. in other words fascism and communism end up looking
                    pretty similar as totalitaian systems. while this is partly
                    true, it's not true across the board. see e.g. "anatomy
                    of fascism" by r. paxton. you can seach motd archive for
                    more on this well trop topic. --psb
2004/5/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30490 Activity:nil
5/30    This should open up some really high paying jobs:
2004/5/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30474 Activity:very high
        9/11 attacks.  He starts off slowly with all the Al Qaeda/Hussein
        fluff and then brilliantly wraps it up by then end.  The Jews really
        are out to get us all!  And yes, Haliburton paid them to do it so they
        could get their hands on the Iraqi oil and the Afghan pipeline routes
        later.  It is all so clear to me now.
        ... Non-shortened long URL delelted...
                                   \_ BALEETED?
        \_ censorship at its worst.  you dont even have the balls to admit
           you simply didnt like the message so you killed it, you prick, even
           though it fits just fine.  restored.
        \_ If it was about censoring, why was the text and a reason left?
           \_ Because without the URL, there's no message.  What good is an
              answer if you don't know the question?  It's censorship and
              it's ugly.
        \_ I always believe articles from two weeks in the future.  I mean,
           they're from the future!  They must know more than we do now!
           \_ You don't understand how magazines work?  C'mon, get real.
2004/5/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30471 Activity:very high
5/27    NYPress report asks editorial writer to go to Iraq to look for all the
        good things that are happening there. http://csua.org/u/7ho
        \_ Summary: smart ass 'journalist' offers to send John Q. Reader to
           Iraq to report on all the good things going on as long as he goes
           unarmed, unescorted and wears tshirt with a target on it.  Yeah,
           this convinced me that there isn't anything good going on in the
           entire country.  Well, ok, he admits that maybe one day some Iraqi
           woman might have learned to bake that day.  So instead of answering
           the reader's question about why only bad things get reported from
           Iraq, he wastes 2 pages fluffing his own ego trying to look clever.
           \_ Why do you hate the flag?
              \_ Why do you hate white people?
           \_ It is clever, and funny, and a little sadistic.
              \_ No, it isn't.  It is condescending and stupid.  For instance,
                 this journalist isn't treating this Justin fellow as a
                 customer (which is really what he is).
              \_ Yeah, I would've thought that was clever in 8th grade
                 too.  -jrleek
                 \_ It's still clever.
                    \_ If you're a moron or a partisan child, yeah -- it's top
                    \_ Not even in 8th grade.  "You made a valid point so I'm
                       going to blow you off and mock you and ask you to do
                       something dangerous which isn't necessary to do to
                       prove your point but it makes me look clever when I
                       preach to the choir".  If you hate Bush no matter what
                       he says or does and you think the media is part of some
                       vast right wing business controlled conspiracy then
                       you'll find it clever.
                       \_ If you love Bush no matter what he says or does and
                          you think the media is part of some vast left-wing
                          conspiracy then you'll think "the media isn't being
                          positive enough about what's happening in Iraq" is
                          a "valid point."
                          \_ The complaint that the media never reports
                             anything positive (if they can avoid it) is
                             hardly new, or exclusive to the Bush
                             supporters.  The correct answer in this case
                             is, "It bleeds it leads."  It has almost
                             nothing to do with politics.  But this silly
                             little piece of infantile sludge certainly
                             made it that way. -jrleek
                             \_ what positive stuff is being hidden from us?
                                did someone cure cancer and get ignored?
                                did israelis and palestinians stop killing
                                each other? did india and pakistan stop
                                the kashmir bs? good stuff gets reported.
                                fact is, there aren't a lot of positive
                                events on the same level of interest that
                                dramatic violence causes. "neutral" stuff
                                like politics gets reported a lot.
                                \_ good duck.  they reported months ago that
                                   there were electricity, food, water, crime,
                                   and a zillion other problems *in Iraq* (you
                                   know, the topic of this thread?) yet we
                                   don't hear squat about any of these problems
                                   after they're solved which leaves us to
                                   falsely believe that these are still
                                   problems and nothing good is happening in
                                   Iraq.  Next time try to stay with us on
                                   topic, ok?
                                   \_ You can find out about electricity, etc,
                                      if you look enough.  What you find won't
                                      be good because, again, there isn't much
                                      good to be found.  Most of Baghdad
                                      considers itself lucky if it gets 3 hours
                                      of electricity at a time
                                   \_ jrleek brought up "it bleeds it leads".
                                      And I'm not believing anything one way
                                      or another about electricity etc. just
                                      because genuine issues were reported
                                      months ago, as a result of our invasion,
                                      and the restoration of which isn't
                                      positive but a net neutrality. The
                                      democracy stuff is reported, but it's
                                      inherently boring (blah blah council
                                      did this or that). To do a happy fun
                                      story about fundamental needs not
                                      being a big problem in Iraq, amidst
                                      battles and bombings etc... which one
                                      is more newsworthy? duh. and you know
                                      it's premature to talk about democracy
                                      since it remains to be seen how that
                                      will turn out.
                       \_ No one hates Bush "no matter what he says or
                          does." Stop inventing strawmen. Everyone who
                          hates, or even dislikes Bush, hates him
                          precisely for what he says and does.
                          \_ No one, eh?  This reminds me of the guy who
                             remarked, on a newsgroup, that he would hate
                             Bush even if he invented a cure for cancer.
                             You overestimate people's rationality.
                               -- ilyas
                             \_ The best you can come up with is some crank
                                on a newsgroup? *laugh*
                                \_ And the wall, and the motd.  Either you
                                   wall cranks should be dismissed as the
                                   partisan cranks you are or you're hate
                                   filled vicious partisans (but oh so
                                   edjumikated and superior to the rest of us).
                                   You can't have it both ways.  You still
                                   blindly hate for its own sake.
2004/5/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30466 Activity:nil
5/27    Dubai, modeled after HK and Spore, is thriving.  Model for the
        Arab world?
2004/5/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30453 Activity:very high
5/27    Track Kerry's Position on Iraq
        \_ They really need something like this for Bush:
           Mission Accomplished!  Mission not accomplished!
           Baathists out.  Baathists in.
           Will significantly reduce troops in a year.  More troops longer.
           WMD.  WMD program.  No WMD or WMD program.
           Chalabi's the next president.  Chalabi is a crook.
           Eliminate all militias.  Negotiate with Sadr militia.
           Gitmoize Iraq.  Iraq is not Gitmo.
           There is an al Qaeda link (Dick).
           - There is no al Qaeda link (George).
           - Well, now they're all here anyway.
              \_ Shut the fuck up you piece of shit!
                 \_ With debate skills like yours, Bush will win California
                    in a landslide!
                    \_ Why do you hate America?
                       \_ Why do you hate white people?
           \_ w00t!
        \_ I find it humorous that with all of Bush's faults, the best dirt
           that they can come up with is that he *gasp* flip-flops!
           \_ I find it humorous that with all of ______'s faults, the best
              dirt that they come up with is that he *gasp* flip-flops!
              \_ If ____ were Kerry his faults would be more than mere flip
                 floppery but that's the easiest and most amusing charge to
                 level.  I voted for flip flopping before I voted against
                 flip flopping!
                 \_ Right, why argue policy or substantive issues when you
                    can just make up easy shit?
                    \_ "I HATE BUSHCO BECUZ DEYRE EEEVVVIILL!!"  When you're
                       ready to keep your personal hatred to yourself and
                       argue those substantive issues I'm here. -real consrvtv
                       \_ Nice strawman.  The only one frothing here is you.
                          [restored, censors and smashers can go fuck off]
                          \_ I never froth.  I'm just voting for things before
                             I vote against them.  You have *never* seen the
                             word "hate" come out of my keyboard unless it was
                             referring to someone else's use or state of
                             emotion.  There are very few things in the world
                             worthy of true hatred.  Politicians aren't worth
                             the energy it would take to hate them especially
                             since all you can really do about them in the end
                             is vote against them and that's not enough to
                             satisfy the deep hatred I've seen others express.
                             Have a nice day!  :-)
                             \_ You have a limited understanding of politics
                                if you believe that all you can do is vote.
                                I have helped put laws on the ballot that
                                were then passed, raised thousands of dollars
                                for my favored candidates, lobbied my
                                legislators and changed at least a few other
                                voters minds on the way. Don't diminish
                                your own power like that.
2004/5/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30452 Activity:insanely high
5/27    New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
        \_ Mommy, why does the WSJ want me to reigister?
           \_ csuamotd@csua.berkeley.edu
        \_ As if the WSJ editorial page had any fucking credibility.
           \_ Thank you.
           \_ Funny, I find that nothing that disagrees with me has any
              credibility either.
              \_ The WSJ has really gone downhill since Jan or so. Remember
                 the whole Kerry intern disinformation campaign? WSJ was
                 part of it. In general, they have become very partisan.
                 Read The Economist if you want pro Free Market opinions
                 without the Republican Party slant.
                 \_ Yeah.  Anyone remember Vince Foster's suicide note?
                 \_ Kerry was fucking some hot chick.  Nothing wrong with that.
                    He has a life long history of womanizing.  It didn't hurt
                    Clinton any.  Women voted for him in droves.  Kerry should
                    revel in it.  It makes him much more human than his endless
                    drumbeat about his very short Vietnam stay and his endless
                    speachifying.  It isn't disinformation if it's true.  I
                    think it can only help his campaign.
                 \_ Is there any way to get the LA or NY Times w/o the
                    democaratic party slant?
                    \_ Easy: Don't just read the LA/NY Times.  Try BBC, CBC,
                       and some of the east Asian online mags.
                       \_ East asian magizines?  The Korean newspapers I
                          read have plenty of party slant... -jrleek
                    \_ Not really.  Read lots of stuff, read between lines.
                       Apply brain.  Most importantly look for what they
                       *don't* say because that's where they hide their a lot
                       of their bias.  For example, are we still losing 2-5
                       soldiers per day in Iraq?  Is the power and water
                       situation stable?  Are kids going to school?  Are people
                       eating?  How many people there are looking forward to
                       their first real vote in their entire lives?  How many
                       of Sadr's men were killed by anti-Sadr Iraqis?  If
                       Sadr and friends have 10,000 people total, doesn't that
                       mean there are still ~26 million others who haven't
                       taken up arms against us?  Why hasn't the Shia/Sunni
                       war broken out?  Why haven't the Kurds broken away from
                       Turkey?  Why does nothing good ever seem to get reported
                       about anything going on in Iraq?  Is it true that there
                       is nothing at all good happening there?  If it bleeds,
                       it leads.  Welcome to American 'journalism'.
                       \_ Americans want news about how we'll be leaving
                          a nice democracy in Iraq, and no more American
                          deaths.  Americans also want to hear any news about
                          why this won't be coming soon.
                    \_ Christian Science Monitor is a great source, without
                       any discernable partisanship. There is probably no
                       replacement for the Washington Post, alas. The Week
                       is good if you only have time to spend two hrs/week
                       on news. Yeah, if you have time, read everything and
                       make up your own mind, but I don't have time for that.
                       \_ The CSM?  It's run by evil Xtians!  And the WAPO is
                          run by the Moonies!
                          \_ No, the washington post is a decent paper. The
                             washington times is run by the moonies, and it's
                             a total rag.
        \_ If Bush or Condi say something about it, maybe I'll start paying
           attention.  In the mean time, it's just Republican catnip.
           \_ Catnip?  Yes, all registered (R)'s get a free subscription to
              the WSJ.  It's a better written paper than the NYT which has a
              rather poor track record for clean reporting these last few
              years and those are just the ones we know about.
              \_ (1) "The New York Times publicly took itself to task for its
                 pre-Iraq war coverage, admitting it was taken in by spurious
                 information from Iraqi exiles with their own agenda to oust
                 Saddam Hussein." - May 26
                 (2) The WSJ published the name of a juror in the trial
                 against the Tyco exec.  I've read about WSJ's excuse.
                 (3) Republican catnip.  Circumstantial evidence is what
                 circumstantial does.  Look what it did to Bush.  The
                 weight of credibility lies on him now.  I'm going to wait
                 for him to support the next claim, since everyone is now
                 watching him carefully, since he has no one left to blame
                 (already blamed the CIA, already blamed Chalabi, who's left?).
                 \_ Is this that whole thing from the wall about repeating the
                    "American credibility is destroyed for generations!" until
                    it becomes 'truth' Soviet style?  You need to be more
                    consistent if you're going to put over the Big Lie on
                    everyone.  You don't post that crap nearly enough to get
                    the rest of your audience repeating it.
                    \_ Do you have any idea how bad the image of America is
                       overseas right now? Do you ever leave the country?
                       Read polls? I dunno about the generations bit, but
                       Bush has destroyed American credibility overseas.
                       \_ Given that America is as powerful as the next 20
                          countries put together, perhaps a better question is,
                          what credibility do the overseas have with us?
                          \_ Wow, talk about missing the point.
                       \_ Nuke the rest of the world and we won't have any
                          credibility problems.  Fuck the foreigners!
                    \_ Alas, no, I am not the person who posted about
                       credibility earlier.  I am still waiting for you to
                       dispute my points.
2004/5/26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30430 Activity:insanely high
5/26    Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights
        \_ This whole thing is very academic to me.  All I really care about
           is did the various abuses the prisoners underwent result in new
           intelligence that saved lives or did it not?  If it saved lives
           then whatever if some dude was naked in front of some chick or
           had to wear panties on his head.
           \_ saved whose lives?  every darn torturer would claim that their
              torturing is for some greater cause.
              \_ Saved American lives.  I don't care about any others if it
                 means a dead American.  And no, some torture is pure sadism.
                 Some is to get information.
                 \_ If you don't care about Iraqi lives, why are you in Iraq?
                    For the oil?
                    \_ American lives >> Iraqi lives >> terrorist rights not
                       to wear panties on head.  Oil is a dead energy source.
                       The amount being pumped from major sources around the
                       world has been shrinking the last few years and it's
                       getting harder and harder to get what's left.  They're
                       pushing the fields too hard and damaging some of them
                       as we speak and going back 3-5 years in some places.
                       Fighting for oil is stupid.  If that was all it was
                       about, the money was better spent doing fusion research
                       and building nuclear power plants.  If enriching GWB's
                       friends was the point, the money was better spent on
                       research and nuke plants and it would've made for better
                       polling numbers, too.  When I'm elected, that's the way
                       it'll be.  And yes, we'll continue spending money on
                       space exploration in a big way, too.  Lack of progress
                       in science = death.
        \_ Also on this site: Democrats cause cancer.
           \_ Is that why they hate America?
              \_ Why do you hate white people?
        \_ There are so many deceptions, errors of reason and outright
           falsehoods in this article that it is hard to decide where to
           begin, but I will start by saying the Geneva Convention applies
           to the signers no matter what the "other" side does. There is
           no provision for being released from it if the other side
           violates some provision of it, for reasons that should be
           violates some part of it, for reasons that should be
           obvious if you think about it for half a second.
           \_ Wrong! Have you even read the Convention, or are you
              paraphrasing a http://commondreams.org article?
              \_ Is it so hard for you to just post the relevant sections or
                 a link?
                 "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in
                  peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases
                  of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may
                  arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties,
                  even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

                  The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or
                  total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting
                  Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed

                  Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party
                  to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties
                  thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
                  They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in
                  relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and
                  applies the provisions thereof."
                 The second-to-the-last sentence is ambiguous and sets in
                 motion the debate as to whether a signer is obliged to abide
                 by the conventions when not in conflict with another signer.
                 \_ And if you bothered to continue to article 4 you
                    would instantly recognize you are a complete moron.
                    Why do I bother arguing with someone who hasn't
                    even read the thing????
                    \_ Show me what part of article 4 applies. Quote
                       the specific passage. Article 4 just defines
                       what a Prisoner Of War is. It does not deal
                       with being released from the provisions of
                       the GC. I think you are reaching.
                       \_ You haven't figured out that this was whole
                          point of Yoo's article?  Let me spell it out
                          very simply: the Geneva Convention applies
                          to POWs, classification as a POW requires
                          that the individual satisfy several
                          preconditions articulated in article 4.  Why
                          do you think every subsequent part and section
                          begins with some reference to "prisoner of
                          war"?  The title of the the document is
                          "Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the
                          Treatment of PRISONERS OF WAR"
                          Is this a troll - are you feigning
                          \_ Doesn't GC cover non-combatants as well?
                             When did we declare the entire population
                             enemy combatants?  How does a democracy of
                             combatants work?
                             \_ GCIV covers non-combatants.  Resume Fight!
                             \_ GCIV covers non-combatants.
                                GCIII covers POWs.  Resume fight! *ding*
                                \_ So when the red cross reports that 70-90%
                                   of those held were not combatants, did
                                   nothing requiring detainment, how the hell
                                   does that jive wth the GCs?  Also, see
                             \_ Most of the world doesn't even accept the
                                whole "enemy combatant" designation as
                                a valid category:
                    \_ Motd. It's like Usenet, but more so.
              \_ I have obviously read and understood more of it than you.
        \_ John Yoo, Boalt professor, sponsor of both the Patriot Act
           and non-GC treatment in Afghanistan.  Clerked under Thomas.
           Descriptions of what counts as "torture" under federal law.  Yay!
           "It's fair to say that Berkeley is liberal and Boalt Hall is a very
           liberal law school. I wouldn't say I've ever had any problems with
           my colleagues. Almost all of them disagree with me, but are
           respectful of my ideas. They're more interested in debating rather
           than disregarding my beliefs."
           \_ impressive pedigree but unfortunately he is a statist.
              \_ Just goes to show that no matter how much of a right-wing
                 extremist you are, there is always someone worse.
                 \_ Right wing, bad!  Left wing, center!  Good!  Yes!  W00t!
                    AARRRRARRRARRRARAAARRRRGGHGHHHG!!!!  -- your guy last fall
                    \_ Again, when the right reaches for stuff this weak, you
                       know they know their boy's in trouble this November.
2004/5/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30422 Activity:very high
5/25    US soldiers are thieves:
        \_ Yes.  All American soldiers and by extension all Americans are
        \_ I don't think US soldiers are thieves, however what they are
           doing seems a lot like what happens here where suspected drug
           dealers have all of their property confiscated, guilty until
           proven innocent ... I'm sure the constitution has something to
           say about that.
           \_ What constitution?  Paul Bremer's diary?
           \_ no, you're looking for the military code of conduct.
        \_ duh? It's a war, and a tradition that goes back to Valley Forge.
           \_ VF?  Goes way to the dawn of time.
2004/5/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30382 Activity:high
5/23    http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/23/wedding/index.html
        Video of wedding celebration uncovered. Turns out the Pentagon
        was lying to us. Again.
        \_ Wow this is so lame.  And you know this is the same party and
           these aren't terrorists?  You still never explain all the pre-
           packaged clothing and room for *300* in a barracks.  Whatever.
           Yes, it's a conspiracy to kill all Iraqi partiers because BushCo
           and the evil NeoCons are out to destroy all party life and fun
           in Iraq so Haliburton can sell them American made party trinkets
           to make all of Bush's friends rich.  Yep.
           \_ From the UAV, I'm sure it looked like a high-level insurgents'
              "The wedding videotape shows a dozen white pickup trucks
              speeding through the desert escorting the bridal car -
              decorated with colorful ribbons. The bride wears a
              Western-style white bridal dress and veil. The camera captures
              her stepping out of the car but does not show a close-up."

              I'm not op, but it's possible that the prepackaged clothing was
              stuff these tribal folks were trying to sell, and it was stocked
              in a small warehouse, which was conveniently interpreted to be
              a barracks with room for 300.  Finally, why would insurgents
              drive out in the open in a 12 white-pickup convoy when they knew
              the Americans were always watching?  If you ask me, it was just
              Iraqi civilians who wanted to hold their wedding far from the
              violence, and one of the relatives knew the perfect place to hold
              one.  On the other hand, it could just be really stupid
              insurgents, which is possible.
              \_ Of course there was a wedding *somewhere* in Iraq.  What does
                 this video prove?  That there was a wedding *somewhere* at
                 *sometime*.  You have no idea where or when it happened or
                 if this video has anything to do with it or who the people
                 were in it.  It could easily be wedding by day, terrorism
                 by night.
        \_ article says party ended at night, but attack was around 3am
           \_ They went to sleep after the party.  The first bomb fell while
              they were sleeping.
        \_ AP news from Yahoo!  This is going to be all over CNN soon ...
           just in time for Bush's speech on Monday night!
           Story:      http://csua.org/u/7f7
           Story 2:    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5045772
           Slideshow:  http://csua.org/u/7f8
        [Below restored from yesterday]
        \_ FYI, Kimmit said U.S. soldiers had seen no dead children at the
           site.  That's because they were all driven to Ramadi.  Kimmit
           notes that is where they filmed the dead children's bodies.
           Now before you go on with a theory about insurgents digging up
           children's bodies and splashing pig's blood on them or asking
           them to sacrifice their lives for Allah, please think before you
           write.  Children were very likely killed in the attack.  Kimmit's
           strongest argument, if it really was a high-level meeting of
           anti-coalition forces, is "Bad people have parties too" at which
           there were women and children.
           \_ How the hell do you know?  This is exactly how Jenin played
              out - remember that one?  The military does not willy nilly
              attack with Cobra gun ships and AC-130s in the middle of
              the night.  Sites are scoped for several days if not weeks
              and targetting has to be approved up the chain of command.
              An official has said as much about this incident as well.
              Why the 2 million dinar, sat com equipment, foreign
              passports and weapons caches at a wedding?
              \_ Note I never said it wasn't an insurgents' party.  All I am
                 claiming is that children very likely died in the attack.
                 Do you know how much "2 million dinar" is?  Do you know that
                 "sat com equipment" is one satellite cell phone?  Do you know
                 if Kimmit ever said weapons "cache"?
           \_ "were very likely" "were driven to Ramadi" is speculative
              noise, at best.  How do you explain the barracks for 300, the
              hundreds of pre-bundled Iraqi clothing piles so foreigners can
              blend in with local styles, and all the rest?  Hey, maybe there
              were dead children.  Maybe it really was a wedding.  It was
              still a terrorist site for moving in foreign terrorists and it
              was appropriate to blow it up and kill whoever was there.  If it
              was Osama's wedding and women and children got killed would you
              cry over that?  And frankly I don't understand the problem with
              killing women and children since we've seen plenty of both who
              are doing their best to kill just like the men.  When you pick
              up a gun, wear a bomb belt or fire from a holy site you, the
              place you're standing and everyone around you become legit
              targets.  This isn't a video game or a mother goose story.
              \_ Note I never said it wasn't an insurgents' party.  All I am
                 claiming is that children very likely died in the attack.
                 I urge you to think about where all the children's bodies
                 came from -- don't you think some Iraqi would have said
                 something by now if they were like fake children, old footage,
                 or something?  Many people, including reporters, saw the dead
                 bodies at Ramadi.  This is not "speculative noise".  My
                 "problem" is that Kimmit is being disingenuous when he says
                 dead children were never observed at the site.
                 \_ No I dont think some Iraqi would have said a thing and if
                    they did say anything that backed the Bush admin, you
                    wouldn't hear about it from CNN/Reuters/AP, etc.
                    \_ Anyway, the AP news article I posted should show
                       more concretely that this wasn't faked.  It's a three-
                       hour wedding video, for chrissakes.
                       \_ Which means nothing.  When was it taken and where?
                          There's nothing more than a wedding video which
                          proves what?  Iraqis get married.
        \_ He never lied.  Like I wrote a while ago on motd:
           "\_ Couldn't it have been anti-coalition forces holding a wedding
               party at a foreign fighters' safe house?"
           He did say that it could have been a party thrown by bad guys, and
           now the video's out, that's probably going to be his primary line
           \_ Video?  Damn you're so gullible it hurts.
              \_ troll or moron
                 \_ idiot.  the video proves nothing.  neither troll nor
2004/5/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30374 Activity:kinda low
5/23    Rumsfeld bans digital cameras, camcorders, and cell phones with cameras
        in military compounds in Iraq.  Yay!
        \_ Yeah, learn from the right-wing motd censors.
2004/5/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30369 Activity:insanely high
5/23    MOTD Censor fucks bush in ass with his tiny url:
        \_ Don't worry!  Bush is going to give six major speeches in the next
           six weeks.  The first one is tomorrow, Sunday!
        \_ Here's the key quote.  It's always about money, isn't it?
                "Also Saturday, Lugar blamed the Bush and Clinton
                 administrations for not adequately funding the foreign
                 affairs budget, noting that the military's budget is more
                 than 13 times what the nation spends for diplomacy."
           \_ Is that quote a joke?  Why would we spend the same amount
              on a bunch of diplomats as we do on an entire army?  Huh?
              \_ I'm not sure, but I think he's including foreign aid and
                 other such diplomatic ventures.
2004/5/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30366 Activity:insanely high
 5/22    It wasn't a wedding and no dead children.  Better luck next time.
        \_ OK, if the coalition says so.
           \_ You prefer Al Jazeera's word on it?  Okey dokey!
        \_ I am sorry, but reporters from NPR said that plenty of women and
           children were among the dead.  the reporter visited the nearlest
           hospital got the number from the doctors and nurses.
           \_ Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt:  "Bad people have parties too."
           \_ NPR?  Got his info from the local yokels?  People who live on
              the border who see hundreds of foreign terrorists coming through
              and are more likely to be executed as collaborators for telling
              the truth than for telling some NPR flunky a lie?  People who
              are probably in the same tribe as the terrorists who ran the
              terrorist station that got blown up?  Get serious.  He was in
              the hosipital and didn't even count bodies, just asked someone.
              This is incredibly weak.
        \_ Even if it's true, lots of people believed it, because Bush
           has destroyed American credibility for a generation. How many
           will die because of his disregard for human dignity?
           \_ Actually completely the opposite. Bush has restored
              American credibility.  If anyone thinks about standing in
              America's way, he'd better postpone his wedding indefinitely.
           \_ Nonsense.  That's the same crap you were spouting on the wall
              the other day as if repetition = truth, Stalinist style.  How
              much credibility did GWB have with you at *any* point in his
              life?  None.  So it doesn't matter what he has said and done,
              you have always thought of him as "BushCO" and his actions and
              words in any direction make no difference to you regarding his
              credibility, now, in the past or the future.  Your bit at the
              end about human dignity is really funny.  Is that how you got
              so many #1 fans?
              \- er, i didnt write the above. while i do read the NYker,
                 i would not use a comma before "because". anyway, part
                 of the reason i am so angry about this, is i accepted
                 much of the WMD analysis and spent some time defending
                 the "eventual aquisition of nuclear weapons" analysis
                 based on the ladder of escalation. See e.g. my wall of:
                 Boredcast Message from 'psb': Fri Jan 17 17:10:51 2003
                 \-which i have moved to:
                  \_ It's really disturbing that partha gave it more thought
                     than bushco.
                     \_ Wow, you were there when the admin was meeting with
                        partha about this stuff?  You rock!
                     \_ Yeah... partha for president.  w00t!
                        \- when i am president, saying "woot" wont be covered
                           by the 1st amd. --psb
                     \- i accidentally mailed it to http://whitehouse.com instead
                        of .gov --psb
                        \_ Get any quality porn in response?
        \_ FYI, Kimmit said U.S. soldiers had seen no dead children at the
           site.  That's because they were all driven to Ramadi.  Kimmit
           notes that is where they filmed the dead children's bodies.
           Now before you go on with a theory about insurgents digging up
           children's bodies and splashing pig's blood on them or asking
           them to sacrifice their lives for Allah, please think before you
           write.  Children were very likely killed in the attack.  Kimmit's
           strongest argument, if it really was a high-level meeting of
           anti-coaliation forces, is "Bad people have parties too" at which
           there were women and children.
           \_ How the hell do you know?  This is exactly how Jenin played
              out - remember that one?  The military does not willy nilly
              attack with Cobra gun ships and AC-130s in the middle of
              the night.  Sites are scoped for several days if not weeks
              and targetting has to be approved up the chain of command.
              An official has said as much about this incident as well.
              Why the 2 million dinar, sat com equipment, foreign
              passports and weapons caches at a wedding?
           \_ "were very likely" "were driven to Ramadi" is speculative
              noise, at best.  How do you explain the barracks for 300, the
              hundreds of pre-bundled Iraqi clothing piles so foreigners can
              blend in with local styles, and all the rest?  Hey, maybe there
              were dead children.  Maybe it really was a wedding.  It was
              still a terrorist site for moving in foreign terrorists and it
              was appropriate to blow it up and kill whoever was there.  If it
              was Osama's wedding and women and children got killed would you
              cry over that?  And frankly I don't understand the problem with
              killing women and children since we've seen plenty of both who
              are doing their best to kill just like the men.  When you pick
              up a gun, wear a bomb belt or fire from a holy site you, the
              place you're standing and everyone around you become legit
              targets.  This isn't a video game or a mother goose story.
2004/5/22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30363 Activity:high
5/22    Explain to me again why Dubya is reliable and trustworth, while
        this man is not:
        \_ To save the rest of you the bother, "this man" is the infamous
           Scott Ritter, taker of Saddam's bribes and molester of children.
           When Dubya starts taking cash from Hussein and raping children,
           he'll have as little credibility as Ritter.  Why were you afraid
           to say "Scott Ritter" instead of "this man" as if we wouldn't all
           know who SR was?  You think we'll all click and read and be mind
           controlled into your conspiracy of the week?
           \_ I thought it was Paul O'Neil that took money from Hussein.  And
              wasn't Richard Clarke the one who raped children?  No one has
              enough credibility or reputation to stand up to the perfection
              of morals that is Bush/Cheney, huh?
              \_ Ritter took $300k from Hussein.  The rest of your post is just
                 silly.  "Your guy is just as bad as our guy so our guy must be
                 good" makes no sense.
                 \_ Wow.  You've got those blinders on firm, huh.  Don't you
                    find it in the least disturbing that there is a stream of
                    people from both sides of the aisle that have decades of
                    experience that are taken to the shredder as soon as they
                    say a disparaging word against the pres on the range?
                    \_ If he hadn't taken $300k from Hussein he wouldn't get
                       shredded for it.  There are plenty of people who speak
                       out very loudly everyday against the current admin and
                       nothing happens to them.  Take off the tinfoil hat
                       before I go dig up that list of all the people
                       associated with Bill Clinton who died under 'mysterious
                       circumstances'.  It was over 100 at last count.  I don't
                       buy the conspiracy theory crap in either direction.  To
                       be intellectually honest requires dismisses all the tin
                       foil hat noise or swallowing all of it.  I choose to
                       dismiss it.  Which do you choose?
           \_ So you're happier with GWB taking cash from the bin Laden family.
              \_ Ritter took $300k from Hussein.  How much did GWB take from
                 the bin Laden family and what's your source?
2004/5/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30326 Activity:high
5/20    Why I don't have much faith in the oil-for-food scandal.
        \_ Except that Chalabi wasn't the only one making the accusations.
        \_ Uh yeah.  Our guys have recovered tens of thousands of pages from
           \_ Chalabi deserve it.
        \_ Uh yeah.  Our guys havne recovered tens of thousands of pages from
           Iraqi files about it.  It must have never happened.  Kofi is a hero!
           \_ mind you that USA literally installed Kofi at UN.  Go read
              about USA's coup to oust UN's previous secretary general.
        \_ don't you get it?  we just want an excuse to crush our political
           enemy.  Remember that young Shiite Clerk which we are trying so
           hard to arrest?  He was being accused of kill someone during the
           Saddam's regime.
2004/5/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30325 Activity:high
5/20    Chalabi, what's going to happen to Chalabi?
        http://csua.org/u/7dr (nytimes link)
        \_ We need to appoint him as head of the Iraqi governing council.
           \_ After or before he is arrested?
              \_ That job has a high enough turnover rate that it won't matter.
           \_ got you point.  let the 'enemy' disposes of him.
        \_ Media today is saying State Dept didn't trust him, but Pentagon
           loved him.
           \_ obOldNews
        \_ "My message to the CPA is <dramatic pause>: Let my people go.
            Let my people be free.... it is time for the Iraqi people to run
            their own affairs."
           Mr. Chalabi, if the Iraqi people were allowed to run their own
           affairs, you'd be hanging from a lamppost.
2004/5/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30323 Activity:very high
5/20    On the Nick Berg video - some of their points seem valid, but I
        find it hard to believe the whole thing was a conspiracy.  What
        gives? http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/22827/0477
        Is this a known wacko site?
        \_ I agree with you.  I can refute nearly every one of the first 14
           "suspicious circumstances", and then I got tired.  And I'm a
           \_ The low 30s are the only things that sounded somewhat plausible.
              Fat arabs?  White guys?  Left hand to mouth?  Why the jumpsuit?
              Why would the FBI step in and say to the family "you can't see
              the body"?  I'm not saying his mother would want to, but it's
              the family's call.  The rest was too far out there.
              \_ Nobody's going to refute this?
2004/5/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30321 Activity:high
5/20    Some ignorant yokel jarhead opens his stupid mouth about Iraq:
        \_ Heh.  This url caption reminds me of the ever tactful Daily Bruin
           article the other day: "Open your eyes, America: the Iraq war is
           a disaster!", which basically was wondering aloud how stupid the
           American people must be to have been buying Bush's story on Iraq
           for so long.  Really makes me see things from their point of view.
             -- ilyas
        \_ "We can and will achieve our goals in Iraq."
           Soldier, when you figure out what those specific goals are (rather
           than the vague "liberation of Iraq"), you let the rest of us know.
           We have faith in your abilities; we do not have faith in those
           who lead you.
           \_ You're just another talking head!
           \_ Maybe the people there have a better idea about whats going on
              than arm chair generals such as yourself?  Probably not.  What
              does an in-field active duty marine veteran know that a brilliant
              young man such as yourself doesn't know better?  You attended Cal
              and ate from the palms of your communist professors.  You know
              how the world works.  Where's that 'vodka glasses into the fire
              with BH' thing when you need it?
              \_ INFIDEL!!! HERETIC!!1! I fondly remember taking 162 from bh.
                 Especially those nights when we'd all gather around the big,
                 silent bulk of the PDP-10 in the machine room, heads bowed to
                 its greatness . . . and bh would pour the vodka, and we'd
                 munch on potstickers and talk for _hours_ about the imminent
                 coming of the Glorious People's GNU-LISP Revolution that
                 would sweep like a cleansing wave!  Some nights we'd watch
                 Animaniacs and listen to the Beatles until dawn.  Then we'd
                 shatter our vodka glasses against the wall and weave our way
                 home, staggering up the middle of Hearst singing Russian
                 peasant drinking songs . . . I didn't learn much about
                 operating systems that year, but damn, I learned about _life_.
                   -- I think this is what you want, hope it helps (original
                      anti-BH poster)
              \_ Actually, I'm a military brat.  I grew up around Marines my
                 entire life.  When a Marine tells you he's going to finish
                 his mission, you'd better believe it-- and you'd better find
                 out what mission he thinks he's supposed to complete before
                 his can-do attitude turns the whole thing into SNAFU.
2004/5/20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30319 Activity:moderate
5/20    http://tinyurl.com/2g3gu (news.yahoo.com)
        And you thought Lindy England was bad.
        \_ Is she related to Libby Hoeler? Does that name ring a bell to
           anyone? She was famous during the .com boom.
        \_ It's definitely not as bad as you're saying.  The guy is already
           dead, and she had nothing to do with his death.
           \_ and how exactly do you know she had nothing to do with his
              \_ always assume the worst of people.  screw that innocent
                 before proven guilty bullshit.
           \_ The guys who were descerated in Fallujah were dead and the
              folks dancing around like idjits had nothing to do with their
              deaths. Their punishment was a hundred or so dead, many more
              wounded, and a month-long siege. It's all relative.
        \_ Seems like the little fish that are being fried are fighting
           back. Hopefully, the bigger fish will get their due.
                            \- random observation: are all the low level
                               people involved so far in the pictures
                               white people? --psb
                               \_ No. There is one black dude involved.
2004/5/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30299 Activity:very high
5/19    I notice there is a purge/restore war going on in the latest topic.
        Perhaps if the URL description were less sarcastic, it wouldn't be
                       \_ As long as the PD shoots straight, it's ok by me.
                          Why are people in LA or PA shooting into the air?
                          why are people anywhere shooting into the air?  This
                          is a Darwin issue.  And here's one of those distorted
                          half-truths, at best, where you stick in RR and Waco
                          where people who weren't doing anything to anyone get
                          murdered compared falsely to people who are in a war
                          zone firing hundreds of rounds into the air.
               \_ Yes, two years ago.  However, the CENTCOM report says that
                  AAA fire did come from the area (and had been since two days
                  before), and the responsibility lies with those who operated
                  the AAA guns while there were civilians in the area.
                  Although ground forces didn't find evidence of AAA guns or
                  spent shells, the report says they were probably removed
                  before they could get there.
        \_ Terrorists beget terrorists.  Iraqi beget Iraqis.  What's wrong
           with preventing future terorists from coming to this world?
        \_ These kind of stuff will not happen in the US because we
           have laws. It happened in Iraq because there are no laws
           governing what the US military can do. So what if we bombed
           your wedding? Tough luck. The worst that can happen is we
           offer an apology after a year long investigation. The truth
           is, there are no justice when your country is occupied by
           someone else. The only justice you'll get is when you drive
           out the invading forces one way or the other. But we don't
           care, by then we would've gotten all the oil we wanted. The
           moral of the story? Don't be the weak guy. The bully is
           always right. Although I do wish sometimes the police would
           take the same attitude toward those fuckers in Oakland and
           East Palo Alto. Just nuke their fucking house and the city
           will be a better place.
        \_ hmm a wedding party with 2 million dinars, sat com equipment,
           and foreign passports in a safehouse.  Yea...
           Was the same reporter in Jenin?
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 601 - 750 of 1605   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Iraq: