Politics Foreign MiddleEast Iraq - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Iraq:
Results 751 - 900 of 1605   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2019/11/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2005/5/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37674 Activity:high
5/13    Halfway to Vietnam:
        The funny thing is, this doesn't even include the $50B being
        asked for right now.
        \_ Good figures and decent arguments, but the thing is no matter
           what you say, pro-Iraq war people (such as emarkp) will
           always counter claim that the invasion made the world safer,
           which is an argument that you can't prove them wrong. And people
           like that will argue that because we are brave and have
           principles, the new Iraq will be much better in the long run,
           with Democracy, and Freedom, and Western ideas spread around
           Middle East, hence we did the right thing, blah blah blah. And
           once people like that reason in such logic alone, they
           have no choice but to consider every other argument as heresy.
           These are the same people who even if they gained insights
           from your perspective, they'll still not admit mistakes because
           they're brought up with the idea that it's better to be
           firm and to stand up for your belief than to be wrong [from
           other people's perspective]. So to make my point short,
           I don't think this article contributes to anything.
           I for one am tired of seeing all these articles that point out
           why the war is good/bad. I'd rather see articles that make
           proposals and extensive academic studies (based on history,
           economics, and things like that) on how to make Iraq better,
           cheaper, safer, and faster.
           \_ What good are extensive studies when those in power don't read?
              \_ Good point. That's why it's important for voters to vote for
                 someone who is somewhat intelligent, open minded, and did
                 well in school without having to make academic donations.
                 \_ Personally I'd trust someone w/ common sense rather
                    than an over-educated joker.  Now a under-educated
                    joker w/o common sense is a whole other matter.
           \_ Are you sure that's what emarkp really thinks?
        \_ Obviously Korea and WWII were horrible ideas as well, thank God
           you appeasers were not around then.
           you cowards were not around then.
           \_ They were.  They were just vastly outweighed by the clear
              political and moral imperative of fighting those wars.  Can you
              say the same about Iraq?  Oh, and nice bit of sophistry,
              labelling those who question the legitimacy and wisdom of
              invading Iraq "appeasers."  I guess they're all traitors.  -John
           \_ Actually there were many people in this country who thought
              that America should stay out of WWII, b/c the Nazi's were
              correct in what they were doing (Lindberg comes to mind).
              There were still others who believed that America should
              not interfere in Europe's internal conflicts.  FDR wanted
              to go to war much earlier, but didn't have public support
              till Pearl Harbor (the invasion of Poland wasn't enough
              for many people).
           The Globe, ie. Jew York Times, was I'm sure the same rag
           whining about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.  As always with
           leftists, its better to appease tyrants then take action.
           \_ ok, when are we going to take out Saudi Arabia?  most
              of sucide bombers are Saudi nationals, most of 9/11 hijackers
              are Saudis... I am waiting for your action to take on
              such tyrants.
              \_ We are taking on the Saudi's to some extent. At this
                 point it is probably better to push them to fix their
                 problems rather than go in there with guns blazing.
                 \_ why not?  what make you think we can fix their problem?
                 \_ why not?  what make you think we can fix their
                    \_ The way I see it the main thing that leads to
                       terrorism and despotism is poverty and a lack of
                       education.  Both are present in SA.  The best way to
                       combat poverty and lack of education is with
                       liberalization of social and economic policies. While
                       this can be achieved by military force, the
                       preferable method is achieve it by peaceful internal
                       The Saudi power structure includes some people who
                       see the need to liberalize (even if they don't like
                       the religious import of that decision).  These people
                       will likely take control of the nation in the
                       foreseeable future. A military intervention at this
                       point will mean that these people won't be able to
                       institute liberalized policies in the future, so
                       whatever would be gained in short term would be
                       offest in the long term.
                       foreseeable future (via succession). A military
                       intervention at this point will mean that these
                       people won't be able to institute liberalized
                       policies in the future, so whatever would be gained
                       in short term would be offest in the long term.
                       The difference I see in Iraq (and NK) is that there
                       is no equivalent within the power structure.
                 As I see it the main problem w/ Iraq was that there
                 no way to fix the problem w/o going in guns blazing.
                 This is perhaps why NK is the next place we are going
                 rather than Iran.
                 Historically NK is similar to Iraq as well. We had
                 to go in to Iraq a 2d time b/c the first time the
                 civilian leadership didn't finish the job. Same w/
                 NK, Truman should have let MacArthur finish the job.
                 \_ MacArther also promoted using 3-5 nukes on China. That's
                    one of the reasons for his early retirement.
                 \_ MacArther also promoted using 3-5 nukes on China.
                    That's one of the reasons for his early retirement.
                    \_ MacArthur's threat was an intimidation tactic,
                       not even Truman believed that MacArthur would
                       really use nukes against China.
                       The real problem was that Truman wanted a
                       "limited" engagement and MacArthur wanted to
                       win.  Given the amount of progress MacArthur
                       had made before he was relieved, and the fact
                       that the remaining 2 yrs of the war were a
                       managed retreat, Truman's decision to avoid
                       winning was a bad one, just like Bush I's
                       decision to not go to Baghdad and depose
                       Saddam was a bad one.
                       Saddam was a bad one. -jblack
                       Saddam was a bad one. [incorrect attribution
                       \_ Ah yes, the world is good or evil, and you either
                          win or lose. Narrow minded NEOCON TROLL ALERT!!!
                          \_ So you disagree w/ me? What are the
                             factual basis for your claims?
                          \_ So you disagree w/ me? What is the
                             factual basis for your claim?
                       \_ Why was Bush I's decision not to go to Baghdad
                          a bad one? His reasons for not going were to avoid
                          all the shitty problems we have in that country
                          today.  We now know that the UN inspectors WERE
                          doing their job, there was no Al-Queda-Saddam
                          connection except in Cheney's imagination, and
                          we would be $300B and 1500+ soldiers lives richer.
                          \_ Several groups within Iraq rose up against
                             Saddam after we invaded Kuwait.  Saddam's
                             army was on the run and the people were
                             opposed to him, it was a good opportunity
                             to rid the middle east of a useless dicator
                             and to ensure long term stability in the
                             region.  The "problems" we are having now
                             may have been avoided.  Even if they could
                             not be avoided, we had the advantage of
                             world opinion and internal resistance on
                             our side which would have made the whole
                             cleanup job MUCH easier.
                             Whether or not Saddam was building WMD or
                             the UN inspectors were doing their job is
                             largely irrelevant.  There would have been
                             no need for UN inspectors w/o Saddam. We
                             could also have avoided years of military
                             expense involved in enforcing the no-fly
                                \_ We haven't even gotten to the thing
                                   that Bush I truly feared: A civil
                                   war between the sects.
                             I personally prefer resolution of issues
                             rather than uneasy compromises.
                             rather than uneasy compromises which is
                             why I view Bush I's decision as a mistake.
                             I do not mean to imply that I believe that
                             Bush II's decision to invade Iraq was
                             appropriate (at that point in time).
                                \_ We haven't even gotten to the thing
                                   that Bush I truly feared: A civil
                                   war between the sects.  And of course
                                   you can say all this stuff, you are
                                   just projecting the best-case scenario
                                   to something that didn't happen, just
                                   like administration officials before
                                   the invasion: That we would be greeted
                                   as liberators and that the war would
                                   pay for itself because of Iraq's oil
                                   \_ I agree that it could have been
                                      much harder than I make it out
                                      be.  However, it seems evident
                                      that the cleanup would have been
                                      much better because the whole
                                      world was behind us at that point.
                                      Perhaps some would have dropped
                                      out during the extended cleanup
                                      effort, but many (far more than
                                      are part of the current "coalition")
                                      would have remained to help out.
                                      Re Civil War: While this remains
                                      a possiblity, given the elections,
                                      &c. I do not believe that it will
            \_ Didn't you get the memo? Anti-semitism is no longer hip for
               Conservatives. In any case, the fantasy of unlimited wealth
               and unlimited power has brought down most of the world's
               great empires. There are always more dictators to fight, more
               heathens to convert, more French to taunt, etc, than there is
               time and money to do it all. When governments (and citizens)
               throw out the idea of costs vs. benefits, then they are
               surely on the road to ruin.
               \_ Ok so NY Jews are 99% leftists so what am I supposed
                  to refer to them as?  How do you know I'm not Jewish?
            \_ Didn't you get the memo? Anti-semitism is no longer
               hip for Conservatives. In any case, the fantasy of unlimited
               wealth and unlimited power has brought down most of the
               world's great empires. There are always more dictators
               to fight, more heathens to convert, more French to taunt,
               etc, than there is time and money to do it all. When governments
               (and citizens) throw out the idea of costs vs. benefits,
               then they are surely on the road to ruin.
2005/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37651 Activity:high
5/11    "A photographer witnesses the devastating aftermath of six Iraqi
        children whose parents [who were mistakenly identified as
        insurgents] were shot before their eyes by U.S. troops" Pretty
        awsome gory graphics, here:
        \_ God.  That child's terrified face.  Thanks.  Now I won't be able
           to sleep.
        \_ if only they can make first person shooter games as graphical as
           this... that'd pretty AWSOME. Blood splat, children crying, head
           blood gushing out. It'd be a great seller.
        \_ Stupid left-wing propaganda. Regardless of the violence, lack of
           infrastructures, and shortage of necessities of life for the
           Iraqi civilians, we're bringing freedom to their country!
           FREEDOM!!!                           -conservative
        \_ Is the URL outdated?  I see a picture with caption "Bomb victims:
           Bodies lie outside a hospital in Hawija, the northern Iraqi town
           where a suicide bomber killed dozens of job applicants waiting
           outside a police and army recruitment center on Wednesday"
           \_ Bottom right, "Photo gallery with audio".
        \_ The article at that URL--is that news or opinion?  And people say
           Fox News is biased....
           \_ It's a columnist.  Information and analysis from an author.
              God, you people are fucking clueless.
              \_ So..just like Fox News?
                 \_ If you want "just the facts, maam," follow AP articles.
                    If you want the facts placed in a context, be it social,
                    historical, political, etc., follow columnists.  If you
                    want to see the context that Bush wants it in, watch Fox
                    \_ So the bias of this article is okay, but that of Fox
                       News isn't?
                       \_ I have no problem with "bias".  Bias is inevitable.
                          I have a problem with people who limit their
                          curiousity to the point of myopia.  I also have
                          a problem when the "just the facts, maam" reporting
                          isn't just the facts.  Fox's bias in their analysis
                          is not a problem in and of itself.  Their penchant
                          for flat out lying and failing at fact checking is.
                          \_ You asserted that FN is a puppet of the Bush
                             admin.  Now you're complaining about its facts
                             beging wrong.  Can you substantiate the claim
                             either that FN is a pawn of Bush or that FN has a
                             higher rate of error than other news
                             \_ Here's a collection of John Moody memos showing
                                a disturbing trend of ... shaping the news to
                                flatter the current administration:
                                \_ A blogger quoting "Outfoxed"?!
                                   \_ Do you question the validity of the
                                      \_ Yes.  Prove that they aren't simply
                                         pulled out of someone's ass.
                                         \_ I've wasted enough time on your
                                            stupid shit.  Wake the fuck up.
                                            \_ Got it.  When confronted for
                                               facts, you have none.  Got it
                                               loud and clear.
                                               \_ How do you go through life
                                                  rejecting any piece of
                                                  information that doesn't fit
                                                  into what you've decided is
                                                  "right"?  Do you have no
                                                  intellectual curiousity at
                                                  all?  I'm curious as to what
                                                  else in this crazy mixed up
                                                  world you believe in against
                                                  all empirical evidence?  I
                                                  gave you facts, and you said
                                                  someone pulled them out of
                                                  their ass.  Believe whatever
                                                  the fuck you want.
                                                  \_ Why do you reject FN as a
                                                     news outlet based on a
                                                     single source?
                                                     \_ 1) I didn't reject FN.
                                                        I said, effectively,
                                                        that they editorialize
                                                        in their news, and give
                                                        you a perspective that
                                                        lines up with the
                                                        current admin's
                                                        desired context.
                                                        \_No, you didn't say
                                                          \_ Go back and read
                                                             what I wrote.
                                                             \_ I did. You
                                                                didn't say
        "If you want to see the context that Bush wants it in, watch Fox
        \_ Which you have yet to prove.
           \_ Tell me how that statement "rejects FN as a news outlet"
              \_ Non sequitur.  I didn't say that statement means what you say
                 I said it means.
                                                        2) It's not based on a
                                                        single source.  It's
                                                        from personal
                                                        observation, and from
                                                        commentary in numerous
                                                        locations from people
                                                        who follow these things
                                                        more closely than you
                                                        or I ever could.
                                                        You're asking me for
                                                        a dissertation on the
                                                        motd.  Fuck off.
                                                        \_ Numnerous people who
                                                           say "everyone knows
                                                           FN is biased".
                                                           \_ You're utterly
                                                              hopeless.  Facts
                                                              are not untrue
                                                              just because you
                                                              don't like them.
                                                              \_ Then why do
                                                                 people reject
                                                                 FN as a news
                                                                 source when FN
                                                                 has its facts
                                                                 \_ Now who's
                                                                    them up?
                                And here's a link to Media Matters' backlog
                                of Fox missteps, misstatements, etc.
                                \_ A left organization.
                                   \_ Yes, so?
                                      \_ So how much does Media Matters watch
                                         \_ Look for yourself, dumbfuck.
                                            \_ Thanks for clarifying that
                                               you're an idiot.
                                Take them with as much salt as you like.
                                David Brock was once a Scaife-funded
                                journalistic hitman, but apparently decided
                                he wanted to be able to sleep at night.
                                And I won't post it again, because it's been
                                posted too often, but the PIPA study that
                                showed those who got their news primarily
                                from FN were far more likely to be misinformed.
                                \_ A lefty group that doesn't understand cause
                                   and effect.  None of these compare FN with
                                   (say) CNN or CBS.
                                   \_ I never said anything about CNN or CBS.
                                      \_ Examples.  I asked you to prove that
                                         FN was worse than any other news
                                         \_ Prove to me that they're up to par.
                                            \_ Hey dumbass, you made the claim
                                               that FN has problems, you
                                               provide the proof or shut up.
        \_ So they drove towards a checkpoint after dark.  When they were
           ordered to stop as is customary done after dark, they didn't slow
           down even after warning shots were fired.  What do they expect?
           I think they deserve a Darwin Award.
           \_ But the Arab media won't report any of these.  They'll only say
              American GIs shot at innocent unarmed Iraqi civilian family and
              killed the parents.
              \_ It means the checkpoints are set up in a way such that it's
                 acceptable to have some collateral damage as long as the
                 American soldier is okay.  Nothing wrong with that, right?
                 \_ No.  It means the checkpoints are set up in a way such that
                    it's acceptable to have some collateral damage, when
                    someone doesn't follow orders, as long as the American
                    soldier is okay.
                    \_ "orders" in this case refers to bullets flying over
                       your car?
                       \_ well stuff like this is bound to happen unless
                          it's very clear there's a checkpoint ahead. if some
                          Iraqi dad driving his little car with fucking 6 kids
                          packed in the back like some clownmobile in the
                          evening and suddenly there's gunshots, maybe he's
                          not the brightest bulb but maybe you don't think
                          that calmly or well in such a situation either...
                          \_ So, was it very clear there's a (U.S.) checkpoint
           \_ What! The foreigners are imposing rules on the natives and would
              shoot them if they don't comply???
2005/5/11-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37638 Activity:moderate
5/11    Told you it was the smoking gun:
        http://csua.org/u/c0p (yahoo news)
        \_ Well, the people decide if it's a smoking gun or not, but it did
           appear on http://CNN.com's front page today:
           If you ask me, Dubya et al. will just say they had two bi-partisan
           committees (9/11 Commission and WMDs in Iraq Commission) say that
           political pressure did not change analysts' intelligence judgments.
           Sorry to be trite, but, Paula's getting away with it, why can't
        \_ Where is the full text of the memo so I can decide for myself?
           \_ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
              Blair's people have not disavowed authenticity of the memo, and
              have instead said it's "nothing new", and that the UK tried
              hardest to go the diplomatic route.
              Unfortunately, Saddam accepted the UN inspectors when asked,
              and the U.S. kicked them out this time instead of Saddam kicking
              out the inspectors.
              and the U.S. kicked them out this time instead of Saddam.
              Dubya's people told Dubya that Saddam definitely had WMDs and
              that Blix wasn't going to find anything because Blix's people
              were inept.
              Dubya's people == The Stupid.  Dubya == (no words are necessary)
              \_ Check your history. Saddam Hussein never kicked out any
                 inspectors. Last time, they left of their own in advance of
                 Clinton's bombing campaign. It's interesting that otherwise
                 well-informed people seem to not know this. That's not meant
                 to be disrespect, BTW. I just think it's interesting.
                 -- ulysses
                 \_ "kicked them out" is a simple way of saying that in 1994
                    (or was it 1998?) Saddam simply made it impossible for them
                    to do their jobs and so they left.
                 \_ It is a bit more complicated than that. First, they left
                    in a huff because SH was not co-operating, then the UN
                    condemned SH, then SH let them back in, then he kicked them
                    out and Clinton threated SH, then SH let them back in
                    but did not co-operate, then Clinton pulled them out
                    and bombed Iraq in Desert Fox. IIRC. Shit, it turns out
                    to be even more convoluted than that:
                    But in any case, at least once, SH kicked the inspectors
              \_ See, this is exactly what I thought it was.  It wasn't that
                 Bush had decided to go into Iraq.  It was that Bush didn't
                 think anything other than military action would get Saddam to
                 disarm so given the ultimatum, he expected Saddam to reject
                 anything other than armed conflict.  Smoking gun my ass.
                 \_ "C reported on his recent talks in Washington.
                    There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military
                    action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to
                    remove Saddam, through military action, justified
                    by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the
                    intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
                    policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route,
                    and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the
                    Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion
                    in Washington of the aftermath after military
                    The inspectors were on the ground.  Saddam posed no
                    threat to us or his neighbors.  Bush wanted this war
                    and he got it.
                 \_ You're a sick fuck.  I wish there were ghosts so the 100k+
                    people who have died because of this man could twist your
                    soul in every last pit of hell.
                    \_ What 100k+?  The number dead depends on your political
                       bias.  http://csua.org/u/c10
                       \_ It wouldn't have to if we actually bothered to COUNT
                          THEM.  Sick fucker.
                          \_ If the US kept count, then we'd be arguing over
                             the accuracy of the count.  Whether you'd argue
                             for over- or under- counting depends on your
                             political bias, of course.
                             \_ How 'bout we just say "LOTS."  I hope LOTS
                                of ghosts twist your soul in hell.
                                \_ How do you know it's "LOTS"?  When is it
                                   "LOTS" anyway?  Isn't that subject to
                                   interpretation depending on one's political
                                   \_ How many would not be "LOTS"?  You really
                                      are an obnoxious little bastard.
                                      \_ Exactly.  It all depends on your
                                         personal bias.
                                         \_ No, I think you're an obnoxious
                                            little bastard regardless of
                                            personal bias.
                       \_ The Lancet is a medical journal, it does not have
                          a political bias. It is just reporting inconvenient
                            \_ HA HA HA HA HA!!
                               \_ Let me guess, you are one of those guys
                                  who thinks evolution is an evil plan
                                  to turn our children away from Christianity?
                          facts so the Neocons try and politicize them.
        \_ Oh look, more oil-for-food scandal news!
2005/5/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37624 Activity:high
5/11    When I was really young, I used to think that suicide bombers were
        stupid because after they blow themselves up, there would no longer
        be any more bombers. I thought that if I had to bomb, I'd just place
        bombs around so that I can live the next day to bomb more people.
        Anyways, as silly as my childish idea may seem, what baffles
        me today is how bombers keep coming and coming, as if they're
        resurrected or something. Where are they getting these people?
        \_ theres lots of desperate poor /expendable people in the third
           world.  The _real_ bombers are the ones that are arming the suicide
           bombers and giving them the orders.
                \_ Yes, there is an unending supply of people willing to kill
                   themselves.  The only limitation is on the planning and
                   \_ Because the population is infinite!
                      \_ No, the population just has to reproduce more quickly
                         than it explodes.
        \_ You don't undertand tribal societies very well. When you kill
           one member of a family, the rest of the family is honor bound
           to avenge the death. That is why our campaing to bomb the
           to avenge the death. That is why our campaign to bomb the
           Iraqis into submission is doomed to failure.  We think of
           the self first. They think of the family honor first.
           \_ how is blowing up yourself outside of a line of dudes
              applying for a job avenging your family honor? - danh
              \_ Like I said, you just don't understand it.
           \_ Wasn't it Sun-Tzu or some famous general who once said that
              war cannot be won without psychology? I think this is a perfect
              example where we have superior fighting force that doesn't
              understand anything about psychology. Superior force != winning.
              \_ Li Zi said that if one is
                 willing to give a way his life, he would trigger fear
                 down to thousands of people.
        \_ When Bush decided to invade Iraq 2 years ago, I told everyone that
           it's going to be very similar to how Israelis and Palestians
           fight, that we (and civilians) would be on the receiving end of
           waves of suicide bombings. No one said anything, and some even
           shrugged it off because they're hot blooded and want nothing but
           revenge for 9/11. We have a lot to learn about ourselves.
           \_ I haven't seen the waves of suicide bombings in the US.
        \_ From my what my Syrian and other friends have told me most
           of the bombers either have mental problems or are borderline
           mentally retarded, and thus are vulnerable to brainwashing.
           \_ yes, and your point being...?
              \_ That it isn't cultural.
           \_ From interview given by NPR, most sucide bombers are Saudis,
              Syrian comes in second.
                 \_ How come most armies don't use suicide bombers then?
                    \_ I am not aware of any armies that do.
                       \_ Early on in Vietnam War, NVAs would kill round eyes
                          or S Vietnamese generals, take their clothes, then
                          dress up as S Vietnamese soldiers. They got into the
                          U.S. compound and at the right time, get close to
                          American generals and... KABOOM! In addition, they
                          used a lot of orphaned children (with backpacks) as
                          bombs because they knew that Americans didn't shoot
                          at children. They also wired up dead Americans with
                          bombs so that when they're found, the rescuers
                          would get blown up as well. While these things
                          didn't diminish the US military power, it had
                          detrimental effects on the morale of our troops.
                          Needless to say, I think the NVAs were much better
                          at psychological warfare than Americans.
                          \_ Meh -- I don't think it was so much a matter of
                             the NVA being good at psychological warfare, as
                             it was a matter of the US being so bad at keeping
                             up troops morale (not to mention being crippled
                             by politics from the counter culture back home).
                             There were just so many things wrong with the
                             way the US was prosecuting the Vietnam War in
                             terms of goals, strategy, philosophy, recruitment
                             practices, etc.  Relating the morale of US
                             troops late in that conflict to ANY nation's
                             efforts at psych warfare would be speciously
                       \_ The Kamikaze was on suicidal missions, although they
                          used planes instead of bombs.
                          used planes instead of bombs.  I think the US
                          military cannot give orders to go on suicidal
                          missions.  It can only ask for volunteers.  Don't
                          know about other militaries.
                          \_ Japanese had a ton of different ways to
                             commit suicide.  Kamikaze planes are just the
                             most famous.
                             There is at least an oral history of Koreans
                             and Russians suicide bombing tanks in WWII.
                             \_ Luftwaffe pilots did suicide missions
                                when the Red Army was closing in on
                                Berlin.  They fly their planes into
                                bridges taken by the Russians to blow
                                the bridges up.
                             \_ A story that resonates w/ Poles is that
                                Polish prisoners in German camps actually
                                did suicide dives out upper-floor windows
                                to land on top of and kill individual
                                German guards
2005/5/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:37598 Activity:kinda low
5/9     Can this be happening? Fox News reports gay/straight men's brain
        responses differ. "It is one more piece of evidence ... that is
        showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said an expert
        on brain anatomy. I'd expect this to be on CBS news, but it is coming
        from a source that is suppose to assert that there is no global
        warming, that there is WMD, and most importantly that gayness is a
        choice (totally curable via religion).  What's happening to Fox News?
        \_ Maybe if you watched Fox News sometime instead of just hearing
           about it from your moonbat friends, you wouldn't be so
           \_ How is this moonbat?  I thought one of the main arguments
              against fundie nutcase "keep the homos away from our children"
              frothing was that "you don't become gay, you are gay."  That
              would imply a difference, no?  -John
              \_ Huh?  I was just saying that, for the most part, Fox just
                 reports news.  So it's not really a surprise when they...
                 report news.  The editorial shows are where things get
                 \_ Yes. However Fox blurs the line between editorial and news.
                    They advertise their editorial aggressively during prime
                    time or whenever there's plain news. Then they make a
                    smooth transition from news to editorial, and do it so
                    well that average Joe's don't even realize they've stopped
                    watching news. Unlike other news they don't even
                    call their  editorial "opinion" or "editorial." They call
                    it Talking Points, The Asman Observer, etc, and then
                    tag the word "The most watched news, fair and balanced."
                    Lastly, even when they present news from regular sources
                    like AP, they re-word it in ways that fit in their model.
                    For example, whereas CNN/NBC/ABC would say "Bush Visits
                    Iraq", Fox would say "Bush Spread The Word of Freedom in
                    the Middle East." It's subtle and hard to detect when you
                    only read one news source, but you can definitely see
                    it when you start reading a diverse source of news.
                    Lastly, during editorial, they stick in good looking men
                    like Brit Humes to represent one side, and then a small
                    weakly Colmes boy to represent the other, and call their
                    entire network "Fair and Balanced." This is fine because
                    other broadcasters do it as well, but at least they don't
                    advertise it as Fair and Balanced, because that's BS. No
                    news source is ever fair and balanced.
                    \_ Are you kidding?  Is there any news source that doesn't
                       claim it's fair and balanced regardless of reality?
                       \_ I haven't seen CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN advertise that
                          they are fair and balanced.  Please provide a
                          link.  -tom
                          \_ I don't recall having seen CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN
                             admit that they are biased.  Please provide a
                             link. -jrleek
                             \_ Read it again; pp said they all "claim to be
                                fair and balanced."  That's a positive
                                assertion for which proof should be available.
                                (If true.)  -tom
                       \_ Plenty of news sources wear their bias on their
                          sleves. La Repubblica is the official Communist
                          Party organ in Italy, for example. It is much
                          less common in the US, granted.
2005/5/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37574 Activity:low
5/8     If the US spends millions on border patrol and can't even stop
        walking illegal immigrants from crossing, how are they going to
        stop sophisticated operations on moving illegal contrabands and
        new Islamic insurgents (thousands of America haters + growing)
        crossing Iraq borders from all sides?
        \_ On their own, they might find it dificult to secure the border.
           That's why they're calling on all Iraqi patriots with pickup
           trucks and lawnchairs to come out and monitor the border.
        \_ Because they all have weird names and talk funny, and TSA will
           be able to confiscate all the rocket launchers they hide in their
           shoes, and finally, all the kebab-grease they leave on the INS
           finger print readers is sure to give them away!  -John
2005/5/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37572 Activity:nil
5/8     Here's another link for the dimwit who thought Blair got "re-elected":
        http://csua.org/u/bz7 (cnn.com)
        \_ Still can't get over the fact that WAR is good thing.
           \_ War ... war never changes
              \_ I come in search of the holy G.E.C.K.
2005/5/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37536 Activity:moderate
5/5     John Howard, George W. Bush, and now Tony Blair. All sent
        troops, all had protestors to deal with, who swore to bring
        them down "for the people." All now re-elected.
        Muwhahahawa.... War is man's greatest legacy. Forever here.
        \_ You dipshit.  Labour just lost a significant number of seats.
           Blair was not "elected" to anything.  Labour still holds parliament
           but by a slim margin.  It is entirely likely that they may sack
           Blair in favor of a party leader seen as less radioactive.
           Also, Labour's new majority is so slim that they will likely no
           longer be able to prosecute a war that is supported by only
           20% of the British public.
           \_ you lost get over it.
              \_ Hi freeper!  Your stupidity is revealed by your continuing
                 insistence that a prime minister is "elected."  Here's a
                 Yahoo! news article that explains pretty clearly what
                 might happen.  I think that they even use mostly two
                 syllable words, so you're in luck.
                 http://csua.org/u/byy (yahoo! news)
                 \_ Oh do teach me something about a parliamentary
                    government wise one. Tell me about the hostage
                    while you are at it.
        \_ The PM in Spain (Aznar?) didn't get re-elected.  But maybe it's
           because of the explosion days before.
           \_ yeah they tried to blame the communists.
              \_ Basques, actually.  -John
        \_ Whoever wins gets to rewrite history, how things came about and
           how they made the world better. I have no doubt that 50 years from
           now, Blair and Bush will be revered like Gods, for saving earth
           from the tyranny and threat of Al Qaeda and Sadam Hussein
2005/5/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37488 Activity:nil
5/3     See, I am not the only one who thought it was a "smoking gun."
        Will Bunch is the senior political writer for the Philadelphia
        Daily News.
        \_ You can never trust a Philadelphian.  Goddamn "brotherly love".
        \_ Perhaps the mainstream media felt stung by CBS/Rather memo-gate
           and thought a new memo with text like this was definitely forged
           and/or easily dismissed by right-wing commentators as the biased
           perspective of a Labour Party staffer.
           "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a
           perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as
           inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action,
           justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
           But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
           policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no
           enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.
           There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after
           military action."
2019/11/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2005/5/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37463 Activity:moderate
5/3     The difference between Tony Blair and Dubya's town hall meetings:
        Late last week, at one of his ritual grillings - this time at the BBC
        television program "Question Time" - the audience booed when he
        appeared and then became even more hostile. "That is a lie! You lied
        to this country, and that is why we can't support you!" shouted one
        young man, accusing Blair of exaggerating the intelligence about
        Saddam Hussein's threat to the world. "What new stealth taxes do you
        intend to introduce first?" asked another. "Mr. Blair, I think you're
        very lucky that we have a weak opposition at the moment," said a
        third, in possibly the kindest remark of the half-hour session.
        "Right, I take [it] that's not a compliment," a perspiring Blair
        answered meekly. In his pour-your-heart-out style, Blair readily
        admits that the wear and tear on him has been "relentless."
        \_ I think this is less of a Bush/Blair contrast than a US/UK contrast.
           \_ You're wrong.  Blair doesn't screen his "town hall" audiences.
              Try getting in to a Bush town-hall when you drive up with a
              "Bring the troops home" bumper sticker.  We the people may be
              partly to blame, with our star-struck attitude toward people
              on the TV, but I think the change came from the top.  Our
              politicians have come to think they don't have to answer to us.
              That's why we have packaged "debates" where the candidates can't
              TALK TO EACH OTHER.  That's why you're not allowed in to a
              "public" meeting with YOUR OWN PRESIDENT if they don't like your
              t-shirt.  This is not in US tradition, though it does feel like
              it's slowly becoming US character.  And that's really depressing
              and sad.
              \_ Labour town hall meetings like that are very likely planned
                 to let Tony take some abuse.  It makes him look better if he
                 sits there looking contrite and sheepish for a bit while
                 people lay into him.  E'ist had a good point--they called
                 them "cathartic".  -John
                 \_ The point is you'll never see someone on national TV
                    telling Dubya "That is a lie!  You lied to this country,
                    and that is why we can't support you.  You dumb monkey!"
                    \_ That's because the election rules are so way different,
                       as is parliamentary seat allocation and third-party
                       presence.  Not saying it's better of worse, but yeah,
                       I'd like to see that on national TV.  -John
        \_ Yeah, but in the United States we get to have guns, so who cares?
          \_ but you can't have bullets..
        \_ Well, we've become a lot more meek since the 70s. People are less
           vocal and are less likely to question the government. We no longer
           show caskets of soldiers, soldiers getting shot in the head,
           and soldiers committing war crimes. We no longer take weeds
           in quantities close to the 70s, and we no longer light up incents
           and peppers. We no longer draw peace sign and instead prefer
           putting on SUPPORT OUR TROOPS stickers that you can buy from
           supermarkets. We no longer have Woodstock, with public figures
           and children's idols singing how they hate the war. 911 has turned
           people to be mindless lemmings, the way Neo Republicans want them to.
           \_ I take it you've only studied late war/post war history in
           \_ The Vietnam War was pretty popular only two years after
              we started committing troops, too. Just wait till the
              Iraq War drags on as long....
           \_ That's nice how you tie rampant drug use as a good thing
              with 9/11 making us slaves. I guess you served with honor.
              \_ BUD DAY thinks your troll fu is weak.
2005/5/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37441 Activity:high
5/2     Can someone please tell me this memo is fake before the freepers do?
        \_ My UK minions assure me that it's real.  Quote: "Death's too good
           for him.  They need to invent the Pit of Sysiphus for him.." -John
           \_ Doesn't the Conservative Party practically run the Times? - danh
           \_ Who's quote is that and who is it referring to?  Blair's in
              reference to Saddam?  Your friend in reference to Blair? -dans
              \_ I believe John is quoting his UK minion, who feels that
                 Blair should be in the Pit of Sisyphus.
                 \_ Okay, that was pretty much the only reading that made
                    sense to me.  That said, my memory of the Myth of Sisyphus
                    is hazy... I know he was condemned to roll a boulder up a
                    hill in Hades for eternity, and every time he rolled it to
                    the hilltop it would roll back down and crush him.
                    Where's the pit come into the picture?
                    \_ Maybe he's wishing Blair an eternity of answering
                       silly, pedantic questions :-) -John
        \_ This is it: the smoking gun. Proof that Bush lied. Good work.
           \_ WTF are you talking about?  You don't score too well on reading
              comprehension tests, do you?  This is proof that Tony Blair
              lied, but it's quite a stretch to try to pin internal minutes
              from an UK government meeting on the US president.  Don't get me
              wrong, I loathe Bush at least as much as you do, it's just that
              you don't improve our collective credibility much by crying,
              ``smoking gun, smoking gun!'' every time some marginally
              incriminating document pops up.  Unless of course you're a
              troll, in which case, way to go, Mission Accomplished! -dans
              \_ You a dullard. Here, in the simplest possible terms for
                 "AS a civil service briefing paper specifically prepared
                  for the July meeting reveals, Blair had made his
                  fundamental decision on Saddam when he met President
                  George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.

                  When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President
                  Bush at Crawford in April, states the paper, he said
                  that the UK would support military action to bring
                  about regime change."

                  I will find the quote from after that were Bush
                  contradicts that in a second. Are you sure you aren't
                  really a Republican pretending to be a Democrat?
                 " Straw warned that, though Bush had made up his mind
                   on military action..." -Aug 2002
                 " THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I have told the
                   Prime Minister that my hope is, is that we could
                   achieve a disarmament of the Iraqi regime peacefully.
                   I haven't given up on the fact that we can achieve
                   it peacefully. We have no plans to use our military
                   until -- unless we need to. I explained to the
                   Prime Minister, just like I explain to every citizen
                   who is interested in this, the military is my last
                   choice, not my first choice." -Oct 2002
                 Do you see how Bush claims that no decision to use
                 military force has been made, even though the decision
                 was made months before?
                 \_ And you are the bloody boy who cried wolf.  I see how you
                    can make a case for your point, but what you're so-called
                    smoking gun lacks (aside from the smoke and the gun) is a
                    bullet-proof piece of evidence that the decision was,
                    indeed, made months before.  Keep in mind that I *believe*
                    this to be the case, but it's one thing to believe that
                    events happened a certain way, and an entirely different
                    matter to have unassailable evidence (cf. The Pentagon
                    Papers) of what took place. -dans
                 \_ Did Straw meet with Bush or did just Blair?  If Straw
                    didn't hear it from Bush directly, then it's all just
                    hearsay and not admissible.
              \_ you've been trolled. that sentence is dripping w/sarcasm.
                 \_ you're stupid.
        \_ I think there maybe an error. Jack Straw was not the foreign
           minister at the time. Robin Cook was - he resigned in protest
           over the invasion.
           \_ From Wikipedia:
              "After the 2001 general election he was moved from the
              Foreign Office to be Leader of the House of Commons.
              This was widely seen as a demotion, but Cook welcomed
              the chance to spend more time on his favourite stage.
              As Leader of the House he was responsible for reforming
              the hours and practices of the House."
              Jack Straw was indeed Foreign secretary from 2001 on.
2005/4/28-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37416 Activity:nil
4/28    Can you sue people in another country? I didn't think you could,
        but I just read about some texan men who are suing Pope Benedict
        over some sex abuse cover-up.
        \_ you can sue anyone for anything. Whether it actually gets rejected
           is a whole different story. Like, I'd love to sue Sadam Hussein and
           GWB for making me sleepless at night, and I can in fact file suit
           but the chance of it going through is nil.
        \_ Assuming that this is a civil action and they are not suing the Pope
           under a Fed statute (such as a human rights statute), 28 USC Sec 1332
           (a)(2) allows fed cts to hear a dispute between US citizens and
           citizens of a foreign state (provided that the damages alleged are
           more than $75K). The practical problem here will be enforcement. While
           some foreign cts are willing to enforce US judgments, most are not.
2005/4/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37390 Activity:high
4/28    http://csua.org/u/bw0
        Dubya asks networks and cable to show prime-time 8:30 EDT news
        conference, the first prime-time conference since last year.
        The topic last year:  Iraq.
        The topic this year:  Social Security.
        Yes, reporters will probably ask about the Duelfer report, and I
        predict Dubya will say "Removing Saddam was the right thing to do.
        The world is safer without Saddam Hussein.  The people of Iraq no
        longer suffer under the rule of a ruthless dictator."  If reporters
        persist, Dubya will say, "By removing Saddam, we have given the people
        of Iraq a taste of freedom.  Freedom is on the march.  Freedom has
        spread to the Ukraine ... to the people of Lebanon ... and Libya saw
        the example we made out of Saddam and gave up their nukular program."
        If asked specifically about the lack of WMDs, Dubya will say,
        "I always supported reforms to our intelligence services, and I have
        informed members of Congress to take the recommendations of the 9/11
        Commission seriously, so that the events of that day will never replay
        "Was it worth it?  Sure it was worth it.  Ask the person who got his
        hands cut off because he opposed Saddam.  Ask the Kurds who were gassed
        to death because they wanted freedom.  Of course it was worth it, and
        if I had to do it all over again, I would."
        I'm sure you can think of more.
        \_ What is your fucking point. Yes he'll say things that you predicted.
           And that is the appeal to an average American-- a President who
           sticks to his guns, a President who is repetitive, a President
           with whom he can relate more to [than an intellect]. The fact
           of the matter is, most academics think he sucks, but the average
           Joe doesn't think so. The average Joe selects the President, and
           the average Joe prefers George W Bush, not some uncharming
           intellectual dweeb.
           \_ You haven't seen any polls in the last three months.  This
              president being popular is a myth.
                 \_ So where are the Vietnam-like protestors? Where are the
                    tomato throwers? Bush may not be popular but he is a lot
                    more popular than say, Nixon.
                    \_ There have been tons of protestors.  If you haven't
                       seen them, you're watching too much tv news and not
                       enough newspapers.  Also, the protestors in vietnam-era
                       were probably a similar proportion of the population.
                       Minds are changing.  Majorities don't build in protest.
                       They build alongside them.
                    \_ whoah there, nellie.   Here comes the "at least we're
                       not as bad as Saddam" argument again.
                       \_ The whole reason we have Dubya is "at least he's
                          not as bad as Kerry" although a lot of people are
                          having second thoughts
           \_ The average Joe still thinks there were WMDs in Iraq.
              \_ The average Joe probably couldn't point to Iraq on a fucking
                 map or tell you what the difference between Iran and Iraq is
                 aside from a letter of the alphabet.
                 \_ Wait, there's a difference?
        \_ Keep laughing. The Average Joe selects our Idiot In Chief, and will
           continue to do so until you stop making fun of his low intelligence
           and until you DO something about it, like education and awareness.
           \_ You think I'm laughing?
              Once again, the Average Joe still thinks there were WMDs in
              Iraq.  That Dubya hasn't been loud and clear on the facts of
              the primary reason we went to Iraq is the greatest tragedy of
              his presidency.
        \_ None of the reporters asked about the lack of WMDs.  Why didn't
           some brave reporter ask:
           "Mr. President, you are known as a plainspoken man, who prides
           directness and honesty over long-winded explanations.
           From what your intelligence people are telling you now, did Saddam
           have weapons of mass destruction or not?  Please don't give me a
           long-winded explanation:  Please answer with a Yes or No.  If the
           intelligence folks are not sure, please tell me which they think is
           more likely.
           In a Washington Post / ABC News poll take March 13 this year, 56% of
           Americans say they think Saddam did have WMDs." -op
           \_ According to Tenet it was a "slam dunk" so there you go.
2005/4/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37379 Activity:moderate
4/26    Is CNN reading the motd?  Sometimes, occasionally, the facts of the
        matter are spelled out cleanly to the people.
        It is unlikely Iraq shipped banned weapons material into Syria before
        the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to a report released by the Iraq
        Survey Group, a CIA/Pentagon team searching for Iraqi weapons
        programs. In October, the group said that the 1991 Persian Gulf War
        likely destroyed Iraq's capabilities of producing weapons of mass
        destruction and that Iraq had none when the United States invaded.
        After the October report, Vice President Dick Cheney and other U.S.
        officials said they believed Iraq possessed such material before the
        war and had moved it across the border into Syria, where the weapons
        may have been transferred to terrorists. The group's final report --
        released Monday on the U.S. Government Printing Office's Web site --
        threw doubt on that possibility. The group also said it had been
        unable to complete its investigation because of security concerns and
        couldn't rule out an "unofficial" transfer of material. The report
        said that 12 years of international sanctions against Baghdad after
        the Gulf War had damaged Iraq's scientific community and these
        experts' skills were in a state of "natural decay." The group added it
        was unlikely that scientists were capable of recreating the destroyed
        weapons programs, meaning Iraq would have possessed little, if
        anything, to transfer.
        \_ How does all that add up to CNN reading the motd?  When I see a
           headline that someone in the Senate "illyased" a debate, I'll
           believe they're reading the motd.
           \_ What does it mean to "illyas" a debate?  Are the Dem's
              currently illyasing the judge debate in the Senate?  I know
              the Republicans are thinking of nuking it...
        \_ WTF??  I went to the link just now and http://CNN.com removed all of this
           stuff from the URL.  Oh well, at least it's here: -op
2005/4/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37370 Activity:kinda low
4/26    Islamic scholar convicted his political activity.  url not shorteded
        because it is kind of interesting.
        \_ I am skeptical of their use of the term "islamic scholar".  This
           guy just finished a phd in computational biology.  They cite no
           evidence that this guy is any kind of actual religious scholar
           or leader of any kind beyond his circle of freinds from paintball
           and the internet.  I'm guessing the word "kingpin" is from some
           dipshit prosecutor who wants to be a star.
        \_ Yeah, that "political activity" is called treason.  And not
           just the Ann Coulter version, that's the real deal.
           \_ Yes, this is treason. The word has almost lost its real
              meaning because it is constantly being abused by Bush
              war supporters that claim anyone that disagrees with
              them, like that jackass LTC whose blog was posted in the
              motd yesterday. Reporting accurate, but unhappy, news about
              events in Iraq is not "treason."
              \_ Yeah, everyone who who misused the word treason are
              \_ Yeah, everyone who who misuses the word treason are
        \_ I'm not suggesting letting this guy go free, but how is this
           different from the militia groups that seem to get a free pass?
           \_ According to the Michigan Militia group, they exist to protect
              Americans in case our government/military becomes corrupted.
           \_ Since when do militias get a free pass?
2005/4/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37359 Activity:high
4/26    emarkp, I have a present for you. Per your request I've made motd
        tracker to eliminate your name as a possible motd write suspect:
        Sense of humor required to view the site                     -kchang
                  \_ You are soooo cute.  And to think that you were up at 2:30
                     working on this (according to your script--which appears
                     to work better for times than it does for people).  You
                     /definitely/ have a life. -emarkp
                        \_ You obviously never experienced tech grad school
                           as a single dude, no kids, with weird sleep hours.
                           And BTW is that an insult above?
                           \_ Who's asking? -emarkp
        \_ I'm so happy.  I've never had my own stalker before. -emarkp
           \_ You should compare notes with lila.  She was in the same
              position before.
           \_ aaron doesn't qualify?
              \_ He's more of an equal-opportunity stalker. -emarkp
2005/4/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37355 Activity:moderate
4/25    Duelfer's WMD report is now officially complete.
        The only new stuff was addenda, the first one titled:
        "Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq"
        ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the
        evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war.
        ... The declining security situation limited and finally halted this
        investigation. ...
        ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out
        the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It
        should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in
        custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program,
        or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such
        movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of
        residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
        Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime,
        ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further
        investigation. It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to
        fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that
        conclusive information would have been found. ...
        Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was
        unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria
        took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of
        limited WMD-related materials.
        \_ Uhhhh... do I know you in person? If so, please call me. If not,
           can we meet and talk in person? You have my email. Let's sit down
           in a coffee shop or something, we can discuss this calmly  -kchang
        custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program,
        or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such
        movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of
        residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
        Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime,
        ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further
        investigation. It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to
        fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that
        conclusive information would have been found. ...
        Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was
        unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria
        took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of
        limited WMD-related materials.
        \_ still trying to justify Iraq War?
           \_ no. -op
        \_ So, now we're up to possible weapon related programs by proxies?
           \_ well, if anything changed, the Intelligence Community is much
              more confident saying "we're not sure, or probably not on WMDs"
              rather than "NO DOUBT they got 'em!$!#52".
              \_ I don't recall the intelligence community EVER saying that
                 Sadam had WMDs.  I do remember Bush and a lot of politicians
                 acccusing Sadam without any reports to back them up, and with
                 several to contradict them.
                 \_ National Intelligence Estimate 2002
                    We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass
                    destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions
                    and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological
                    weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN
                    restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a
                    nuclear weapon during this decade. ...
                    Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its
                    chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program,
                    and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the
                    view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its
                    nuclear weapons program. ...
                    Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This
                    High Confidence:
                    - We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.
                    - Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological
                      weapons and missiles.
                    Moderate Confidence:
                    - Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient
                      material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by
                      2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84)
                    Low Confidence:
                    "We were almost all wrong" - David Kay, Jan 2004 to Senate
                    \_ As I have said before, the only way that David Kay's
                       statement makes sense is if you redefine "we" in such
                       a way as to only include war supporters. Since most of
                       the planet opposed the war, it is not a very useful
                       statement. Remember, at least two CIA analysts quit
                       over what they saw as the politicizing of intelligence
                       information. We also now know that Wolfowitz and
                       Rumsfeld set up the Office of Special Projects to
                       do an end around the CIA.
                       \_ Yes, I agree that saying
                          "The 2002 NIE on Iraq's WMDs was almost all wrong.
                          The NIE contained the official collective judgment of
                          the Intelligence Community."
                          would have been much more accurate.
                          As for your remaining points, the bi-partisan
                          Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
                          the U.S. Regarding WMDs wrote:
                          "After a thorough review, the Commission found no
                          indication that the Intelligence Community distorted
                          the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass
                          destruction.  What the intelligence professionals
                          told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what
                          they believed.  They were simply wrong."
                          -- Now, it could be that the bi-partisan Commission
                          is wrong, too.  But why would I want to waste my time
                          arguing "Dubya LIED to us!" (which may be true, but
                          who's got the audio tapes?) with the 2002 NIE text
                          and Commission report as they are, when I can much
                          more easily argue incompetence at all levels of
                          government and lay down some facts:
                          56% of people polled mid-March this year STILL
                          thought Saddam had WMDs.
                          \_ Go ahead and believe the Washington whitewash
                             if you like. Read Sy Hersh's take on the whole
                             thing. He has more integrity than all eight of
                             thing. He has more integrity than all ten of
                             those politicians who signed that bogus report:
                             \_ Please note that I made no comment about
                                my confidence in various elements of the
                                bi-partisan Commission report.
                                My point is how you slam home the undeniables
                                to the average Joe's.
                                My point is that your approach is not very
                                persuasive to those who can be persuaded.
                          \_ No, you are misreading the PIPA report. Only
                             56% of Bush supporters believed that. Not
                             56% of all Americans. Unless are reading
                             the results of a different poll perhaps?
                             \_ http://csua.org/u/bv7 (CBS News)
                             \_ http://csua.org/u/bv7 (CBS News Jan 2005)
                             \_ http://csua.org/u/bdm (Post/ABC Mar 13 2005)
                                56% of ALL Americans.  The greatest tragedy
                                of Dubya's presidency is he has NOT been
                                loud and clear about what happened to the
                                primary reason he took the U.S. to war.
                                Dubya continues to let this misperception
                                linger among the majority of Americans, and
                                his people DAMN WELL KNOW ABOUT IT.
                                \_ If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance,
                                   baffle 'em with bullshit.
2005/4/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37344 Activity:high
4/25    There are Cal students today who don't remember the Cold War.
        I'm old.
        \_ Do you remember viet nam?
           \_ you are ancient.
              \_ *I* don't remember viet nam.  I was asking OP.  I claim that
                 as the boundary of "old".
                 \_ As far as I know, Vietnam still exists.
           \_ Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?
              \_ You mean how she said that we would meet again some sunny
                 day?  Wonder what ever became of her.
                 \_ She's a bit busy watching blue birds over the white cliffs
                    of Dover.  And "We'll Meet Again" is a bit older than the
                    Cold War.  Bonus points if you know the tune at the
                    beginning of Dr. Strangelove.  -John
                    \_ When I hear does anybody here remember Vera Lynn, I
                       think Pink Floyd 1980, an album my Neil Diamond
                       listening dad bought on advice of my cool uncle
                       think Pink Floyd The Wall (1980), an album my Neil
                       Diamond listening dad bought on advice of my cool uncle
                       and which I would blast all the time when I was a kid.
                       No "turn that crap down" could be claimed since he
                       owned it ...
                       \_ Vera! Vera! What has become of you?
                          Does anybody else in here, feel the way I do???
                          Thank God at least some of the new students know
                          what I am talking about when I make Pink Floyd
                          references. I think The Wall saved my life. You
                          think I am exaggerating, but I am not.
        \_ wow. so am I.
        \_ With all the interest last week in the viagra/cialis/levitra link,
           don't tell me you're surprised.
        \_ I know how you feel, my intern was only 3 yrs old when the Berlin
           Wall fell. He thinks that the USSR and Communism, &c. were all part
           of ancient history.
2005/4/23-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37334 Activity:kinda low
4/23    Awesome series of essays written by a foreigner living in Saudi Arabia.
        Not unbiased commentary of course, but very well written.  This country
        is one of our allies, apparently.
        \_ "R. F. Burton" doesn't sound like a native Arab to me.
           \_ 1) It's an alias.  2) He's a foreigner.  That's the whole point.
              \- FYI: richard burton is the name of one of those victorian
                 adventurers who went into remote africa, central asia and
                 probably most famously into the middle east, infiltrating
                 various muslim-only facilities in disguise. --psb
                 \_ Not to mention making the famous translation of The
                    Thousand and One Nights.
                 \_ Including Mecca during Hajj.
        \_ "apparently"? did you forget they have a lot of oil?
        \_ Nothing much in the article surprises me.  Man, is that country
           going to be messed up if their oil production ever peaks.  That
           article reinforces what I believe is the ONLY punishment that
           might deter terrorists: Give them sex change operations and dump
           them in a country like Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
        \_ we would have not have won the Cold War without the Saudis.  The
           inner Royal Family is firmly aligned with the West.  Unfortunately,
           since the Royal Family numbers in the tens of thousands, there are
           quite a few who do not share their sympathies.
           \_ Not necessarily true about the Cold War, although possible.
              That said, we made a great many deals with evil people and
              corrupt, broken systems during that episode.  The letters are
              excellent--reminds me a bit of Graham Greene.  However, the fact
              that he's still living there is kind of sad.  -John
              \_ outside of a few Western style democracies scattered around the
                 world, governments are completely corrupt.  You either dealt
                 with them or they fell into the Soviet sphere of influence.
                 \_ Yes, and to a substantial degree we had ourselves to
                    thank for supporting or even establishing them.  The
                    concept of aiding a neutral bloc went entirely counter to
                    US foreign policy throughout the Cold War.  It was "with
                    us or against us" in many but not most situations.  -John
                 \_ Don't tell that to a Singaporean.
          \_ Gorbachev won the cold war for you.
             \_ Yeah, russia was in perfect shape before Gorby!
                \_ It was in its usual shape. That still doesn't change
                   the fact that the cold war could go on indefinitely.
        \_ Anybody who claims that people doing honest reporting from Iraq
           are "aiding and abetting the enemy" is automatically someone
           that I am not going to waste my time with.
           that I am not going to waste my time with. You should not tolerate
           this kind of crap either.
           \_ I read most of the links on that page, I think the articles about
              life in Saudi Arabia, and "we are not getting the full story in Iraq
              about how wonderful life is after elections" articles are by 2 different
              people. - danh
              life in Saudi Arabia, and "we are not getting the full story in
              Iraq about how wonderful life is after elections" articles are by
              2 different people. - danh
           \_ I think he's pointing out that the reporting is not honest.
              \_ So you think that the reporters are lying about what
                 they see? See that is why he is not worth bothering with.
                 Because the people reporting are not omniscient, he calls
                 them traitors. This is what has happened to the once proud
                 tradition of conservatism in this country. A simple
                 difference of opinion is considerd grounds for executing those
                 who disagree with the party line.
                 them traitors (which implies they should be killed).
                 \_ whatever happened to the berkeley I used to know?
                    where "traitor" was a word of praise...
2005/4/18-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37248 Activity:high
4/18    Here's a fun one.  If you could pick any historical era to have lived
        during, what would it be?  I would choose Enlightenment era Europe.
        \_ If you mean other than the current era, I would choose Ancient
           Greece, around the time of Socrates.
           \- you mean during the peloponnesian war and plague of athens
              which kills +25% of the population? what are your second and
              3rd choices? the black death and london 1666? --psb
              \_ To see Socrates deliver the Apology would be
                 worth it. The only thing that even comes close
                 would be to see Lincoln at Gettysburg.
                 \- Socrates was ugly and smelled bad. --fwn
                    \_ Yeah, but he was honest about it. -socrates #1 fan
                       \- i think it is pretty tough to pick an "old time"
                          to actually live in [no antibiotics,anesthetics etc],
                          but if i had to pick single day, I would rather go
                          hear Homer the singer of songs tell of the Wrath of
                          Achilleus. Not only would it be an amazing and
                          unique performance, but you could answer the great
                          "Homer Question". If I had to pick from from 5th
                          Century Athens, tough call between Apology and
                          something like the Pericles Funeral Oration. However,
                          speading the day with Socrates in Pireaus beats
                          both of those [and certainly beats Symposium] ...
                          "I went down yesterday to Pireaus with Glaucon
                          some of Ariston and PSB son of NGB ... Polemarchus
                          some of Cephalus, noticed us in the distance and
                          son of Ariston and PSB son of NGB ... Polemarchus
                          son of Cephalus, noticed us in the distance and
                          sent his slave to tell us to wait for him ...".
                          If I had to spend 5 min somewhere, it's temping
                          to be a "fly on the wall" at the meeting of Attila
                          Hun and Leo I [one of the two "Great" Popes] to
                          figure out what the hell he said to get Attila that
                          figure out what the hell he said to Attila that
                          got him to turn around and go home. There is also a
                          story about Scipio and Hannibal meeting [in Plutarch,
                          I believe] but I am not sure that really happened.
                          \_ Ah but would you understand anything these people
                             were saying?
                             \- It would be greek to me.
                                --pater andron te theon te
       \_ If I get to keep all the knowledge that I know now then take me
          back to 1995.
       \_ Only the modern era has the three most important inventions:
          Hot running water, air conditioning, and dentistry.
        \_ Just a few years back so I could take advantage of well known
           stock price fluctuations.
           \_ Sheesh, don't you guys understand the term "era"?
        \_ Early 1930s or late 1940s if I got a boatload of cash.  -John
        \_ This really depends on WHAT I'm going to be. Do I get to choose
           to be a peasant or a war lord?
           \_ Let's say you keep your current relative level of wealth and
              power.  So, if you're in the 80th percentile for wealth now,
              you'd be in the 80th percentile then.  Bush would get to be a
              warlord; maybe you can be a successful merchant. -!op
              \_ So how do I find out what percentile I'm in? Am I above 80%
                 by the simple virtue of having a degree from Cal?
                 \_ In 2003, the 80th percentile U.S. household made $86,860.
        \_ If I can keep prior knowledge, I would pick the 40s. In fact,
           I'd pick 1945. I'd study to be a nurse, and then work at New Haven
           Hospital in Connecticut. I'd wait for a new born, Georgy, on
           7/6/1946. And then I'd "take care of him". By doing so, I will
           have saved a lot of innocent blood and revived our Great Nation.
           \_ Such a deep sense of patriotism, and you served when?
              List other government offices you've served in:
           \_ oh, I dunno, offing stalin might have done us better.
              \_ Stalin affected Russians, and I don't really care about
                 them. I care about how US economy and US policy is fucked
                 up, because I'm an American, and I'm here. Now. 21st century.
                 \_ you are reason #1 why we should go back and start offing.
        \_ unless it is a holiday you experience relative to your real life,
           only a romantic fool would prefer to live in the past. born there,
           you will miss the context within which it seems so nice to
           modern daydreamers... i'd consider the future but not without
           some reasonable travel guides so i can pick the utopian or livable
           parts and avoid some b-movie post-apocalyptic cannibal feast.
           \_ Soylent green is PEOPLE!!!
2005/4/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:37240 Activity:low
4/18    Just curious, who (what country, where) has reminants of Hitler?
        Is it Russia? Or is it still in Germany?
        \- Brazil
        \_ There are rumors that Russian soldiers removed his charred body
           to Russia after his adjudant burned him & Eva Braun in front of
           their bunker on 30.04.1945.  Other eyewitnesses say that he was
           thrown into an unmarked hole & buried.  As far as I can tell, the
           NSA is keeping his brain alive inside a jar next to Kennedy at the
           Smithsonian.  -John
           \_ I heard a story second hand from a Russian soldier who was there
              that he saw a whole room full of dead hitler lookalikes at one
              point.  So if that's true, who knows what body was what?
              \_ Lord knows I'm not one to let a straight line go to waste,
                 but this one's just too easy.  :-)  -John
              \_ I'm trying to remember this joke correctly ... During the
                 US invasion, one of Saddam Hussein's generals meets with
                 Saddam's 20 body doubles.  He tells them "I've got good news
                 and bad news.  The good news is, even though American bombs
                 hit the palace Saddam was hiding in, he's still alive so you
                 still have your jobs.  The bad news is, he lost an arm in
                 the attack."
2005/4/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37201 Activity:high
4/15    This is Bush's idea of a diplomat:
        \_ Why dont you just put a link to the DUmmies while you are at it?
           \_ Do you actually think sending a guy like this as UN ambassador
              is good?
              \_ "let alone such a critical posting to the UN". What?
           \_ eh?
              \_ Those DemocRATS, at it again!
                 [freerepublic.com channeling is now complete]
        \_ So what? Personally I think that Bolton chasing a bunch of
           UN losers around and hounding them b/c they are complete
           jackasses would be a good thing. The UN is a complete sham
           even being involved in it is a waste of US time and resources.
           \_ Didn't the UN help us get a coalition together for Gulf War 1?
              \_ Yeah, but they tried to stop us once, so now we must
                 all hate them forever.
              \_ So what? Once in nearly 50 yrs they were remotely
                 useful for America. Our involvement in the UN is
                 a complete and utter waste of time and money.
                 \_ Didn't the UN have inspectors in Iraq before Gulf War 2?
                    Didn't the inspectors say they haven't found anything yet,
                    and we went ahead and attacked anyway -- asking the
                    inspectors to leave because we didn't think they were doing
                    a good job?
                    Didn't we already know there was a big oil-for-food scandal
                    before we attacked, but cited "no doubt" of Saddam having
                    WMDs as the #1 reason for attacking?
                    Didn't the U.S. inspectors sent after the invasion say that
                    it was their judgment that Saddam destroyed his existing
                    WMDs and put to sleep all his arms programs?
                    WMDs and put to sleep all his WMD programs?
                    Didn't we spend MUCH LESS on Gulf War 1 than on Gulf War 2
                    because of direct contributions of cash, equipment, and
                    personnel from our partners, both Arab and Western?
                    \_ So what? Yes, there were UN inspectors in Iraq before
                       we invaded. Big Deal. They were doing a lousy job and
                       wasting US time and money.
                       Yes we knew about the oil-for-food scandal, but w/o
                       the UN diplo-nuts there would never have been a stupid
                       oil-for-food program in the first place.
                       Yes OUR investigators think that Saddam destroyed his
                       WMDs prior to the invasion, but if we had waited for
                       the UN to get its act together who knows what might
                       have happened? Clearly OUR investigators wouldn't be
                       there and the UN inspectors would have kept up their
                       keystone cops routine.
                       So what if we spent less for Gulf War 1? We didn't
                       finish the job. The UN was part of the problem, Bush
                       I was the other part. Bush I should have sacked
                       Saddam back then and not left it for his son to
                       complete the job.
                       BTW, how come pretty much ever UN operation is a
                       unmitigated failure (Sudan, Sierra Leone, Rwanda,
                       E. Timor, Angola, Bosnia, &c.)? The reason is
                       simple, the UN is filled w/ a bunch of jackassess
                       who are all about lining their own pockets and
                       don't give a damn about what actually happens.
                       \_ The UN does a great job all the time all over
                          the world. I am not going to bother trying to
                          explain it to you because your mind is already
                          made up. Just google for UNICEF and World Food
                          Program for dozens of hits and you will see
                          what I mean. Just because they don't grind
                          your ideological axe doesn't mean they don't keep
                          millions from starving every year. Most people
                          think this is useful. I guess you would rather
                          see these people starve.
                          \_ Even these so called "successful" programs
                             are so grossly mismanaged that hardly any
                             of the money actually reaches the people
                             who need it. When UN money reaches a 3d
                             world country it goes straight into the
                             pockets the local politicians and their
                             families and not into the hands of the
                             poor starving people who need it. Don't
                             tell me this is red-state non-sense.
                             My family is from one of those poor 3d
                             world countries and I've seen how the
                             programs are implemented first hand.
                             If the goal was to keep millions of ppl
                             from starving, then the UN would have
                             worked w/ local gov to implement self
                             sufficiency programs decades ago. The
                             UN bureaucrats don't give a damn about
                             ppl, they just care about themselves
                             and the nice new benzs they can buy w/
                             the money.
                       \_ We went into Iraq because we had "no doubt" Saddam
                          had WMDs.  I don't remember Dubya saying on the eve
                          of the invasion that we attacked because we weren't
                          If you really think Bush Sr. should have went into
                          Iraq, well, it's a nice thought, but the conversation
                          would have gone like this:
                          "Help us, we'll only do Kuwait."  [half a year later]
                          "Oh, y'know, we did so well, fuck you all, I'm going
                          in for the kill.  BTW, thanks for the dough, Bush1
                          p0wnZ U 4ll!1!"
                                \_ The conversation would have gone like this:
                                   Saddamn is out of Kuwait. He is on the
                                   run. The Iraqi ppl are rising against
                                   him. There will never be a better time
                                   to deal with him. Either we go in now,
                                   or you fools let him regroup, rearm and
                                   attack on a larger scale.
                          As for the other UN missions, I don't think you've
                          thought through these either, which is clear after
                          your Bush Sr. comment.
                          Whether you like it or not, and as much as you see
                          it as a failure and I do not -- the UN is here to
                          stay, especially now that the U.S. is overstretched
                          militarily and financially.  Bush Sr. knew HOW to
                          use the UN, and Bush Jr., not knowing how to use the
                          UN and seeing it in the same way you did, fucked it
                          up.  Thank God Condi is there now to resume Powell's
                          goal of international cooperation -- except this
                          time, Dubya really trusts Condi (to Dubya, Powell was
                          just daddy's good friend there to make sure Dubya
                          didn't fuck things up too bad).  We need
                          international cooperation for Iran and North Korea,
                          because we don't have the guns, the money, the proof,
                          or the people to do it ourselves.
                          \_ Not to mention the fact that Bush I didn't go into
                             Iraq because he didn't want to deal with all the
                             shit we're dealing with now.
                             \_ Saddam also actually HAD the WMDs at that
                                point, too.
        \_ Just FYI, there are much more sane and reasonable liberal blogs out
           there than the mixed nuts at Kos.  Try Josh Marshall or something.
           The Kossacks are just as bad as the Powerline nutjobs, but less
           influential.  --lib
           \_ Uh, Marshall will refer to Kos all the time.  If they're putting
              out verifiable, factual information, what's the problem?  Is it
              because they allow comments and Marshall doesn't?
              \_ They don't just allow comments.  They promote rabid comment
                 nuts into full time contributors to the blog.
           \_ Is anyone else coving this specific story from this woman?
              Kos was breaking this one this morning when I posted it, so
              they had the best info. I would post (have posted in fact)
              Drudge when they were breaking news. Let the Right Wing Nutjobs
              blow it off because they don't like the source. They will just
              be that much more surprised when it blindsides them.
2005/4/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37116 Activity:moderate
4/8     http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.main/index.html
        Coming soon to a conservative blog / radio show near you!
        ... at least four videos in the man's camera show roadside bomb
        attacks on U.S. troops. All had been shot in a manner that suggested
        the cameraman had prior knowledge of the attacks and had scouted a
        shooting location in sight of the target.  "The individual in question
        was carrying press credentials from CBS News. ... " a U.S. military
        statement said Friday.
        \_ Blogs are the new yellow journalism.
        \_ Journalists are not military intelligence.  They never will be.
           You can't expect them to be your spies.
        \_ this is old news to those on conservative forums
           \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1379990/posts
2005/4/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37081 Activity:moderate
4/5     Watch total moron write about how "we were ALL wrong!" on WMDs:
        (Yes, you can be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and be an idiot.)
        \- Richard Posner has been called a lot of things for sure, but
           nobody ever calls him an idiot. The same is said for Scalia, but
           Posner >> Scalia. --psb
           \_ OK, he has a lot of poorly founded assumptions in there, and
              neglects a lot of very compelling arguments that counter his
              article's points.  -John (!op)
              \- He's writing in the WaPo. He writes more substantially
                 but still to the general informed reader at:
                 You can also follow Poser via "Article iii groupie". --psb
                 \- This is a good article about Posner, by Alan Ryan, who
                    is well-regarded philosopher. --psb
                 \_ OK, I wasn't commenting on Posner per se, as I know he
                    can be a smart guy, but even smart guys write shit
                    articles occasionally.  And this one is not worthy.  -John
                    \-  Posner does "skip steps" a lot. You have to have some
                        insight into the Giant Hedgehog World View to follow
                        what he is saying often. Also, sometimes he is
                        making a narrow technical point and should do a little
                        more to circumscribe his comments and clearly indicate
                        certain generalizations should not be drawn. He really
                        is somebody who weighs in on everything (see google).
                        One reason he probably wont be nominated to USSC. --psb
                        \_ If there is an opening, many feel that Posner
                           will be nominated b/c he is universally recognized
                           as one of the finest minds in the judiciary, the
                           Cardozo or Holmes of our generation if you will.
                           \- you mean you dont think BUSH I was correct when
                              he said THOMAS was the best man for the job?
                              while i think he'd be a good chief [would be
                              respected by current justices, is a machine
                              when it comes to productivity] i would be
                              surprise to see ROVECO nominate him, --psb
                              \- You know if by some miracle posner became
                                 chief justice, he might bag on THOMAS some,
                                 which would be really awesome. here is the
                                 hatchet job on DOUGLAS. --psb
                              \_ I think Posner is better than Thomas,
                                    \- gee, really?
                                 (which does not imply that Thomas is
                                 a bad justice, I would be overjoyed
                                 to be as "bad" as Thomas.)
           \_ Is Posner being a devious asshole, by ignoring his higher
              intellectual faculties?  Is Posner helping his good friends /
              associates while consciously ignoring the obvious truth of the
              Perhaps.  Until then, he's an idiot.
              His reputation for non-idiocy may have gotten him on the Post
              opinions page for this article, but his non-idiot cachet just
              took a big hit.
        \_ He's not an idiot. He is a very smart and clever propagandist.
           Note his use of "nearly every competent observer." Anyone who
           disagrees with the Establishment line, is by definition,
           incompetent and not worth listening to. It is this kind of
           self-sustaining insular world view that has put Washington DC
           on such a collision course with the rest of the world. These
           people are like Michael Jackson: they are nuts, but so wealthy
           and powerful that they can just fire anyone who tells them
           anything they don't want to hear.
           \_ Competent observer means those who have invested sufficient
              time and resources into investigating and observing the
              situation. This does not mean anyone who disagrees w/ the
              establishment's line is incompetent. In this case there were
              no parties who had invested as much time and effort as MI-6,
              CIA, &c. into investigating the situation and had reached a
              dissenting opinion.
              When it comes down to it, who are you going to trust, the
              spooks or a bunch of loony tie-dye pot smoking kooks w/
              purple hair and body piercings shouting free mumia, free pot
              and no blood for oil? I'd go w/ the spooks everytime, they
              have a much better track record than the kooks.
              \_ The kooks knew about COINTELPRO before anyone else.
2005/4/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37025 Activity:kinda low
4/1     U.S. Soldier Convicted of Killing Iraqi Walks Free
        \_ your url is long and tax free
        \_ I'm amazed he was convicted of anything.  I don't know how we have a
           military that can accomplish anything when this kind of thing goes
           \_ Yep, it's GOOD to be the invader isn't it?
              \_ FOAD.  It's a question of ethics on the battlefield.
                 \_ It's a sad case.  If you were in Infantry, it
                    would have been drummed into you that if there is
                    a mortally wounded enemy lying down in front of
                    you, defenseless, and probably suffering terribly
                    (this happens a lot when you're a U.S. soldier),
                    you JUST CAN'T PUT THEM OUT OF THEIR MISERY --
                    even if you personally think it's morally
                    justified.  However, the guy was trained as a tank
                    commander, so he probably didn't know.  He's a
                    poor guy, since he did what he thought was right
                    and probably spent a lot of time securing the role
                    of company commander.  His Army career is over, he
                    can't even be a desk jockey.
        \_ It doesn't say what kind of discharge he got. If it was a
           dishonorable discharge, that will be a huge burden on him
           for the rest of his life.
           \_ http://basic.armystudyguide.com/benefits/after_the_army.htm
              6. Including Commissioned and Warrant Officers who have been
              convicted and sentenced to dismissal as a result of General
              Court-Martial. [included with Dishonorable Discharge]
2005/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36994 Activity:high
3/31    "We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost
        all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction"
        -Bi-partisan Commision on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
         U.S. Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, in letter to Pres. Bush
        \_ What fucking difference does it make? "The world is better
           without Saddam", no shit!
        \_ I wonder if this will significantly change the 56% of those polled
           in mid-March that still think Saddam had WMDs.
           \_ That would require people actually paying attention.
                \_ you misspelled "with brains".
                   \_ You don't need brains.  All you need are conservative
                      talk show hosts talking about how "EVERYBODY was wrong"
                      how Dubya ain't a liar, EVERYBODY thought Saddam had
                      them.  Instead, they're all talking about a vegetable,
                      but that's life, uh, the culture of life.
        \_ "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
           doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of
           the most lethal weapons ever devised. ... The United States and
           other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we
           will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward
           tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of
           horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be
           removed. ... Recognizing the threat to our country, the United
           States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use
           of force against Iraq." Pres. Bush, 3/17/03
        \_ "The commission said it was ``not authorized to investigate
           how policy makers used the intelligence assessments.''"
           I thought that's what this one was supposed to be...
           \_ Nonono ... they were authorized to investigate whether policy
              makers PRESSURED the intelligence analysts / agencies while the
              intelligence was being analyzed.
              If you were right, then Condi "centrifugue tube" Rice would be
              out as the moronic Stanford Provost that she was.
              \_ Listening to NPR's freshair made me really depressed
              to hear how  many morons are in the State Department and how
              good they are at squashing people who actually come up with
              good ideas. Damn depressing.
        \_ I told you so. -motd thought leader
        \_ So it was for oil right? Yeah prices are at record lows.
           So it was a distraction right? Yeah Iran is going to nuke Israel
           A narrow vision
           \_ It was to assert America's military strength, and change US
              policy to one of aggressive intervention, per PNAC.  -tom
              \_ which is yet more proof that republican men have bad
                 sex lifes  and take it out elsewhere just like the famous
                 quote from Good Morning Vietnam  ... The world would be a
                 safer place if there was alot more sex (and the condoms to go
                 with it)
                 \_ say WHAT? tom holub is a hard core left wing socialistic
                    dweeb and he's not getting any.
                    \_ wrong, kchang.  -tom
                       \_ Tom does seem to take the MotD awfully seriously.
                          Tom, do insults here keep you up at night?
                          \_ No, but yermom does.
        \_ It is not George's fault he trusted the most important decision
           of his life to a guy code named "Curveball."
2005/3/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36947 Activity:very high
3/29    Like I said long time ago, we should've kept Saddam in Iraq the same
        way we kept Hirohito after WW2. Then we could use Saddam as a powerful
        puppet to rule their own people:
        \_ That's just plain stupid. Keeping Saddam around isn't akin to
           keeping Hirohito around after WW2, it would be more akin to
           keeping around Hitler or Tojo. What they should've done was keep
           a popular 2nd or 3rd in command person around. You definitely
           couldn't keep Saddam in place, and you definitely couldn't keep
           his sons in place.
           \_ Equally impossible. Iraq was and is divided into three
              groups. There was and is no popular face man. Elections are
              easy, governing is hard.
        \_ FYI, the BBC article is talking about how the Sunnis are
           holding up formation of the govt by pulling out at the last second.
           The Kurds and Shias need to include Sunnis in the govt.
        \_ There are three top spots in the govt.  The Shias are taking spot 1,
           the Kurds spot 2, and they say the Sunnis can take spot 3.  The
           Sunnis all of a sudden are saying:  We don't want spot 3 no more,
           have fun with your non-inclusive government.
           \_ Freedom is on the march!
2005/3/25-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36890 Activity:nil
3/25    Insurgents looking for a way out:
        \_ Amnesty!
           \_ Stella!
        \_ Isn't that basically what the whole election thing was about?  Give
           them a way to save face without strengthening them (the way Israel
           inadverdently did with Hizbollah when it pulled out of Lebanon--
           wise move, maybe the execution could have been better)?  I guess
           the goal right now is to alienate the real hardcore ones from the
           casual "oh-look-it's-an-rpg-7-in-my-closet-now-how-did-that-get-
           there?" types...  -John
2005/3/22-24 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36818 Activity:low
3/22    "We've found Jewish Nazis, gay Nazis, blacks who wanted to be white
        supremacists. The reason it isn't so unusual -- these are powerless
        people to whom images of powerful people are appealing."
        \_ The boy killed his 60 year old grandpa and his **30** year old gf.
           \_ Native Americans have big equipment.
        \_ Wears bullet proof vest during the killing spree before shooting
           himself to death. I mean, what's the point of wearing bullet proof
           \_ Presumably to increase the odds that all but one bullet gets
              used on victims.
        \_ you know, we spend billions on the Iraq war to protect ourselves
           from terrorists, yet our own people terrorize ourselves. 86
           billion dollars spent on war is a lot of money that could have
           been spent on civic and social programs that might have prevented
           this tragedy. FUCK YOU GEORGE BUSH AND BUSH SUPPORTERS. I hope
           you guys go to hell and experience eternal sodomization by satan
           \_ Yeah, and had we spent that money on places like Afghanistan
              Syria and Iraq BEFORE 9/11 we could've prevented around 3000
              deaths. C'mon, people, are you forgetting the people who lost
              their lives because of terrorism?
                 \_ uh, yeah williamc, war in Iraq and Homeland Security
                    have made US much safer than before, I can just feel it
                    \_ To Canada with you!
                       \_ To Iraq with you, and you fight with the Army you
                          have, not with the Army you want!
           \_ But...what if they like it?
        \_ From http://www.nazi.org/nazi/national_socialism/judaism
           "thus we are supporters of the Zionist state, Israel, insofar as it
           confines its influence to its own activities."
2005/3/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36726 Activity:nil
3/16    Maybe there were WMD in Iraq:
        \_ That troll is so two days ago.
        \_ "looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery
           from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations"
           != "Saddam's Iraq was a fairly highly-evolved WMD state, with a
              contingency plan for further concealment and distribution of
              the weaponry in case of attack or discovery"
           We thought they had WMD stockpiles and active programs --
           instead, they had no WMD stockpiles, and no active programs --
           just dual-use equipment and dormant programs -- which we did NOT
           go to war for.
           And anyone still calling Dubya a liar isn't doing themselves any
           favors -- you need hard evidence (audiotape) for that.  From what
           you've got, you can only say he laid it all on "Slam Dunk" Tenet,
           Director of the CIA who would be the expert on the topic.
           Such an audiotape would need to have Dubya saying:
           "Yeah, Tenet's 'proof' is all circumstantial, but I'm going to go
           with saying 'no doubt' anyway, because, if America shows uncertainty
           or weakness, the world will drift toward tragedy.  Besides, this is
           the guy who tried to kill my Dad."
           It's almost like you had a tape of Kerry saying:
           "Yeah, that intern I had gave really great head!"
2005/3/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36705 Activity:moderate
3/15    http://csua.org/u/bdm (Washington Post poll)
        Question 24:  56% of Americans still think Saddam had WMDs.
        Question 9:  56% of Americans support private accounts, 56% of
        Americans also support taxing all income for Social Security instead of
        the first $90K.
        What does this tell me?  Americans want to be able to invest part of
        their Social Security payments into the stock market and reap
        increased yields.  Americans also want the gubmint to cover their
        asses if the stock market goes south.  Yay!
        \_ Heh (pro/against), Korea (47/34), Vietnam (24/69), Gulf (82/15),
           Afghanistan (93/6), Iraq (48/51). You know, in every major
           conflict known to mankind, soldiers bring back beautiful local
           hotties back to their vatherlands. I wonder how long before US
           soldiers bring Viet^D^D^D^DIraqi hotties back to the States.
           \_ iraqis not so hotties as iranian
              \_ Apparently you like the female mustache?
2005/3/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36689 Activity:low
3/14    Maybe Iraq did have WMD related program activities
        http://tinyurl.com/5olzn (nytimes)

Thanks to kchang's kais motd:

                   /f=r/~_-~ _-_ --_.^-~--\=b\
                 4fF / */  .o  ._-__.__/~-. \*R\
                /fF./  . /- /' /|/|  \_  * *\ *\R\
               (iC.I+ '| - *-/00  |-  \  )  ) )|RB
               (I| (  [  / -|/^^\ |   )  /_/ | *)B
               (I(. \ `` \   \m_m_|~__/ )_ .-~ F/
                \b\\=_.\_b`-+-~x-_/ .. ,._/ , F/
                 ~\_\= =  =-*###%#x==-#  *=- =/
                    ~\**U/~  | i i | ~~~\===~          You know, we totoro
                            | I I \\                   do not appreciate this.
                           / // i\ \\
                      (   [ (( I@) )))  )                   /
                             || * |                   |\|\
                            /* /I\ *~~\               |  OO\
                          /~-/*  / \ \ ~~M~\          | /^^\|
                ____----=~ // /WVW\* \|\ ***===--___  |_m_m/
        \_ WMD related program activities
           != "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
              doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
              some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - Dubya, 3/17/03
2005/3/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36667 Activity:nil
3/13    Iraq will likely not be an Islamic state:
        (relevant bit is about 1/2 way down the page)
        \_ The Iraqis will tell us anything at this point, if they think
           it will make us go away faster.
2005/3/8-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36585 Activity:nil 66%like:35387
3/8     Bush announces exit strategy from Iraq: http://csua.org/u/bb2
2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36572 Activity:moderate
3/7     I've heard that armed forces in other countries (Switzerland,
        France, and even UK) are REQUIRED to take extracurricular classes like
        military history, Western Civilization, foreign languages, etc. How
        about our armed forces in Iraq, how well educated are they? And what
        about the liberal motd guy who has a brother that loves Bill OReiley,
        how is he doing in Iraq right now? Is he still worshipping OReiley?
        \_ No they're not.  The officer candiates must take some additional
           theoretical training, as well as some "how to be a gentleman" type
           classes (as a bunch of their guys will essentially be farmboys.)
           Basic training?  All the guys I knew in the Swiss, French, German
           and British armies spent basic training running around, screaming
           a lot, doing pushups (as one does) and smoking dope and drinking
           loads whenever they had the chance to get out.  This is the big
           argument against draft armies--not only do you get the usual
           losers, but you also get the losers who'd much rather be
           anywhere else.  -John
        \_ I had another big argument with him, but this time handed him some
           articles penned by O'Reilly saying how the U.S. was very wrong about
           WMD intelligence, and also gave him the CIA key conclusions on this.
           He was so convinced about WMDs, but now he sees the other side, he
           is much less angry.
           After that, he read a whole bunch of books on what military life was
           like, and will be starting boot camp at Ft. Benning March 11.
           I also think he got my basic message that Dubya really needs to
           unite the country and the world.
           \_ Marines? Navy? Army?
              \_ Army National Guard, Infantry
        \_ Most of the guys on the ground in Iraq are not well-educated
           and would be unemployed if not for the military. My
           acquaintance in Iraq (who is still here on leave for another
           week) said that lots of guys have nothing to go home to and
           when their enlistment ends they work as private contractors.
           He brought back lots of interesting photos and videos in
           addition to telling stories. He's been there 6 months and in
           the Army for almost 13 years. BTW, he's in NW Baghdad, an area
           not particularly friendly to the US unlike some areas. If you
           really want to know what the heck is going on over there then
           e-mail me. --dim
           \_ It's alright dim, I have a pretty good idea what's going on.
              I watch Fox News every day to keep up with current affairs.
              Everyday, our troops are spreading freedom. They are building
              infrastructures that provide food, water, shelter, and
              teaching Western ideologies to the Iraqi savages. The world is
              safer today thanks to George W. Bush. God Bless America  !mormon
              \_ The more you watch Fox News, the more inaccurate your
                 view of the world becomes:
                 http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
                 \_ LIBERAL LIES! Everything but Fox is full of liberal lies.
                    Truth is in Fox and truth in God.       -real conservative
2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36568 Activity:high
3/7     Ilyas, you really don't see the difference between lying about sex
                 Don't you think the people in the same car with her could
                 easily, so easily refute this?
        vs lying about a war? Do you consider shop lifting and murder
        to be the same as well? What would you think if Bush lied
        about sex and Clinton lied about war? Just think for a second.
        \_ Reading comprehension is your friend. -- ilyas
           \_ Reading comprehension is Ilyas Insult #4.
        \_ Lying about sex is much worse than lying about war. Everybody
           knows that.
        \_ Your whole statement is based on the "fact" that Bush
           lied. Some of us don't agree w/ that for various reasons.
           In contrast, everyone agrees that Clinton lied.
           In a legal theory, a shop lifter is considered less culpable
           that a murderer. On one moral level there is no difference
           btwn the two, both are willing to do something which is
                 \- Your brain has been classified as: small.
                    \_ Why? While one can say that shop lifiting
                       is in some ways just a property crime and
                       no one is really hurt, it is still a crime.
                       It is a violation of someone elses rights,
                       and in an absolute sense all such violations
                       are equally wrong.
           generally viewed as wrong (it is like Shaw haggling for
           price). On an even deeper moral level, it doesn't really
           matter what they do b/c the universe doesn't give a damn
           about the activities of a bunch of apes on a minor world.
           \_ This boggles the mind. If he didn't lie, he made a concerted
              effort to avoid knowing information that would have contra-
              dicted what he was saying, which is worse than lying.
              \_ He either saw the reports with the massively qualified
                 language regarding Iraq's weapons and knowingly stated
                 qualified intelligence as fact (lie), or he didn't even
                 read it and just read what was on the prompter (incompetence).
                 I'm not sure which is more frightening.
              \_ You do not know what intelligence he saw and whether
                 he willfully avoided seeing intelligence that would
                 not support the invasion plans. You are assuming
                 this. It is plausible that he was not presented w/
                 such evidence or that those presenting pro-war
                 evidence strongly discounted it. As I stated below,
                 I think that he was subjectively honest in his
                 belief that we needed to attack Iraq. In order
                 to "lie" he would have to have known your version
                 of the "truth" and then chosen to state otherwise.
           \_ So do you think that Dubya told the truth about WMD in Iraq
              in the leadup to the war?
              \_ I believe he was being subjectively honest. Whether or
                 not this subjective belief reasonably corresponds to
                 the actual state of affairs in Iraq is debatable. Many
                 times one has to make decisions based on limited,
                 partially incorrect, qualified, &c. info. You do the
                 best you can. I think that he did the best he could.
                 Would I have made the same choice? Maybe not. I can't
                 say for sure. I wasn't sitting in the Oval Office.
        \_ There is insufficient evidence (audio tape) to say that Dubya lied.
           There is sufficient evidence that he laid it all on Tenet, Director
           of Central Intelligence, who said WMDs in Iraq was a "slam dunk".
           As for Bubba, the sentence "I did not have sexual relations with
           that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" is not a lie.  Bubba has huge brain, and
           in his huge brain, believes oral sex != "sexual relations".
           Nevertheless, Bubba probably lied about the Lewinsky affair in a
           previous court appearance -- someone send me a URL, please.
           As for lies to Hillary, of course he lied.
2005/3/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36565 Activity:very high
3/7     Isn't it weird that 33 people got killed in Iraq today and it's no
        longer on headline news? Instead, Michael Jackson's trial is
        on it. It's like we no longer care about deaths in Iraq. Weird.
        \_ But those are brown people.
           \_ good point, thanks. I guess they'll be on headline news when
              they're white, or when they're brown people with special
              Vitilgo skin whitening disease and noses that change frequently
           \_ MJ is white though
              \_ and female.
                 \_ And he *loves* children.
        \_ It's not on the Conservative Media Cartel's list of stuff the public
           should be informed about.  Kind of like Gannongate, which, if it
           had happened under President Clinton, would be broadcast 24/7 like
           Monica Lewinsky was.
           \_ Oh come, ON.  You don't think there's a difference between a
              reporter getting 1-day passes to press conferences, and a
              president commiting perjury?
              \_ Do you think there's a difference between lying a personal
                 matter and lying about the need for war?
              \_ Do you think there's a difference between lying about a
                 personal matter and lying about the need for war?  Or how
                 'bout marital infidelity vs. outing a CIA agent working on
                 WMD proliferation (to bring the argument closer to Guckie).
                 I'm sickened that Clinton would cheat on his wife.  I'm
                 sickened that he lied under oath.  But it was a personal
                 matter and a civil suit and it was thrown out as meritless.
                 Also, no one fucking died.
                 \_ it was not thrown out. He was disbarred in Ark. and
                    before the USSC.  The suit was settled for money.
                    How is Iraq and different than Kosovo, at least we
                    are fighting on the right side this tims.
                    \_ Are you pro-Serb?  I am not quite energetic right now
                       enough to tell you why Iraq is not Serbia. - danh
                       \_ It smelled of "Christian: good.  Muslim: bad."
                          bullshit.  I'm guessing emarkp.
                    \_ The settlement was on appeal.  The case was dismissed
                       in a summary judgement: "There are no genuine issues
                       for trial in this case." - Judge Susan Webber Wright
                 \_ 'Also, no one fucking died.'  I think it's a little trickier
                    than that.  People can die because of indirect action
                    (sanctions, etc), and inaction.  If you want to pin
                    unintended casualties on Bush, I will pin people Saddam
                    killed during Clinton's term on Clinton. -- ilyas
                    \_ Don't forget Vince Foster. He died.
                       \_ I think we should execute Bush for killing Iraqi
                          children.  With his texan, oil-stained hands. -- ilyas
                    \_ How many millions starve to death each year just
                       because there is no profit in feeding them???
                    \_ We are talking about American lives here.
                 \_ Wow, I'm impressed.  That was a very successful
                    subject change.  "Dang, he caught me in a stupid
                    statement!  Change the subject!  Bush Bad!"
                    \_ Conservatives prefer a bumbling but honest fool to an
                       intelligent prevaricator.
               \_ A political hack, with no journalistic experience but
                  working as a prostitute, somehow gets a press pass
                  in order to lob softballs week after week. Yes, this
                  is a scandal. Not on the order of Monicagate though.
2005/3/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36549 Activity:moderate
3/6     What have the Americans ever done for us?
        \_ This kind of sums up the fundamental problem with most "pro-" or
           "anti-American" arguments--it's either "you're a bunch of fascist
           pigs", without paying attention to the good aspects of fascist
           piggery, or "love it or leave it, they saved us from Hitler", which
           flies in the face of the idea of being able to criticize a nation
           on its bad aspects, no matter how good the overall picture (yes,
           Ilya, I know, total war and all, don't start pleeease.)  -John
           \_ Even a Bald Eagle will poop on your windshield wussy
        \_ Well, there's the aquaducts...
        \_ Taleban: great move, kudoes! Oh, wait, the Taleban are coming back?
                    Um, wtf?
                    \_ Most likely the Taliban are not coming back:
                       http://tinyurl.com/4cso7 (yahoo news)
           Iraq: Yay, no more Saddam Hussein! Oh, wait, what's with this
                 insane surge in suicide bombings, stil no steady electricity,
                 and a religious-dominated new slate of parliamentatians?
           Libya: Yay, the negotiations we've been working on since 199x have
                  finally borne fruit.
           Syria: ??? What did the US do in Syria? Oh, you mean the popular
                  uprising against Syria in the wake of the bombing of a
                  popular Lebanese politician? Hm, did the Americans bomb his
           Egypt: Yay, elections! Wait, did the Egyptians say they're going to
                  abide by them?
           Saudi Arabia: See Egypt, with more oppression of women.
           Israel/Palestine: Um, the US killed Arafat?
                                     \_ You seriously believe this?
                                        \_ Of course not. After all, he's
                                           dead, isn't he?
                                        \_ Of course not, because the CIA is
                                           not that competent.
        \_ "It was always the express goal of the Bush Administration to
            change the regime in Baghdad, precisely because of the
            opportunities for democracy it would open up in the rest of the
            Arab world."
           Really? 'Cos they sold it to us as him being an imminent threat,
           what with those weapons of mass destruction and all.
           \_ "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
              doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some
              of the most lethal weapons ever devised. ...
              The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day,
              nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists
              could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or
              hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any
              other. ...
              Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to
              act, this danger will be removed." -Dubya, 3/17/03
              \_  "Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history --
                   revisionist historians is what I like to call them." -GWB
2005/3/6-7 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36547 Activity:kinda low
3/4     "Screwdriver had to be taken away suddenly"?  Is this one of those
        PATRIOT act things where you can't tell us what the hell is going
        \_ Since I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, I decided
           to put the word "screwdriver" into http://news.google.com.  It turns out
           there's actually a hell of a lot of mayhem caused by
           screwdriver-wielding thugs worldwide.  So what *are* you talking
           \_ I assume "screwdriver" is a CSUA machine.  It's mentioned in
              \_ Ok, I figured that out now... I'm still glad I googled
                 "screwdriver", though.  Very amusing.
                 \_ did it have a link to a story on the kid who died outside
                    an internet cafe a few years ago after he was stabbed in
                    the head with a screwdriver?
                 \_ You should google "skrewdriver."  This will lead you to
                    some of the best of the web.
                    \_ Is "best of web" poorly done irony?  Or are you some
                       post-post-modern bemused intellectual?  I didn't
                       think UCB admitted white supremecy nutjobs.
        \_ Taken down, not away.  Our volunteer sysadmins are doing some
           work on the machine, and on various other CSUA machines.
           How many types of emergencies d'you think might cause this?
           Think for a minute.....   --PeterM
        \_ I was lead to understand it got hacked.
2005/3/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36530 Activity:kinda low
3/4     http://csua.org/u/b9i
        "Well," the insurgence says to the hostages, "Are you really sure you
        want us to release you?"
        \_ That's Ironic.  I bet there was poor communication between the
           convoy and the US troops.  So some soldier sees a car rolling
           up fast with a bunch of guys with guns in it and...
           \_ Yes, because people in cars with guns in Iraq is such a odd
              \_ Oh, tell us of all your adventures in Iraq!
                 \_ US Soldier: It's coming right for us!
2005/2/28-3/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36460 Activity:high
2/28    Hey, where's "GOOG is way overpriced at 100, they will tank when
        shares are unlocked in February" guy?  -tom
        \_ Brilliant troll.  Welcome to the dark side. -troll
        \_ GOOG is below it's November high.  Hasn't done much lately.
           Check out stocks like BHP, RIO, PBR.
           \_ "Hasn't done much lately"?  It is up 80% in less than a year.
              \_ yea, but the last time there's a big debate about it
                 was when it's around 200.  Now it's 187.
        \_ Wrong about the timing. Correct in the end. You will see.
           \_ Well gee, then, Mr. Prognosticator, when should we start
              shorting Google to make back the enormous sums we would have
              lost if we'd listened to your advice in the first place?  -tom
              \_ If you had shorted when I said (after February) there's
                 a good chance you are actually ahead at the moment.
                 Addendum: Buy LEAPs now for 2006, especially on a run-up.
                 \_ The puts or the calls?
           \_ The WMDs were destroyed just before the invasion, buried in the
              desert, or shipped to Iran or Syria.  You will see.
              \_ Yes, ilya.
                 \_ That wasn't me, but yeah, I agree.  Did you also think
                    insurgency wasn't funded and operated from Syria? -- ilyas
                    \_ Hey have you seen this:
                       "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical
                       munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq
                       unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons
                       stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications
                       that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions
                       thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's
                       desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered
                       ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD
                       be discovered."
                       "From the evidence available through the actions and
                       statements of a range of Iraqis, it seems clear that the
                       guiding theme for WMD was to sustain the intellectual
                       capacity achieved over so many years at such a great
                       cost and to be in a position to produce again with as
                       short a lead time as possible - within the vital
                       constraint that no action should threaten the prime
                       objective of ending international sanctions and
                       \_ I responded to this, but some idiot deleted it and
                          I don't care enough to write another reply. -- ilyas
                          \_ You had written "Hussein would have nothing to
                             gain by doing so".  Obviously, you think the
                             ISG-provided reason for destroying WMDs is BS.
                             \_ Yeah, I do. -- ilyas
                                \_ You should read these:
                       \_ The CIA is trying to make GWB look foolish.
                          \_ "We were almost all wrong, and I certainly include
                             myself here." -David Kay, first ISG head
                             \_ Yeah, that is the Administration line. It
                                conveniently forgets the 15M who protested
                                the war worldwide.
         \_ Trying to predict the stock market is stupid. Nobody does this
            consistently, which means at the end of the day a few people
            get lucky. I think the statistic was that 90% of day traders lost
            money over the long haul. It is especially stupid to try to
            predict how one particular stock will perform a short period
            of time. So, Tom, it's not time for you to gloat, but perhaps
            time for you to dump.
            \_ I'm not gloating; I don't own GOOG and I never have.  From the
               start, I was just pointing out the fallacies of the dweebs
               predicting it would crash and burn.  -tom
               \_ Well, the problem with your post is that you can't predict
                  whether a single company will crash and burn or not,
                  especially so close on the heals of Enron and WorldCom.
                  So if a person were to predict that a company will crash
                  and burn they are no more or less right than if you
                  predicted that it would NOT crash and burn. The fallacy
                  here isn't that people predicted that the company will
                  crash and burn, the fallacy here is that anyone attempted
                  to predict anything at all.
                  The correct method of "prediction" would be to assign it
                  percentages, but under the terms of probability just because
                  you have a higher probability of being right or wrong
                  doesn't mean that you are actually right or wrong. Therefore
                  your belief that GOOG wouldn't crash and burn is no more or
                  less valid than other people's belief that it will. The
                  only thing that really is valid is that your belief probably
                  has a higher chance of being right than others, at least in
                  my opinion.

                  \_ The fallacies were in logic, not in conclusion.  I
                     happen to disagree with the conclusion also, but that
                     was not my point.  -tom
               \_ If you think they are fallacies, then why not?
                  \_ This sentence makes no sense.
                     \_ Dubya-speak universal translator engaged:
                        "If you think GOOG won't crash, why not buy some?"
                        \_ GOOG is too young a company to realistically
                           value; comparing its value with YHOO (which people
                           were doing at the time) makes no sense at all.
                           I prefer to buy more mature companies, so I didn't
                           buy GOOG.  It's on my watch list, and I will buy
                           some if the valuation is established enough to
                           be clear.  -tom
        \_ Google is at what people think it will be worth. Yahoo is
           at what it is actually worth. The two companies are about
           the same. Google is not worth that much more than Yahoo,
           but their stock prices says otherwise. We'll see. -none of
           the above poster.
           \_ Their stock price says they are worth about the same: GOOG $51B,
              YHOO $44B.  -tom
        \_ YHOO has PE 56, GOOG has PE 130.  Any reasons why I should buy
           GOOG instead of YHOO?
           \_ Google has a much higher growth rate.
           \_ Google maps is completely awesome.
              \_ Yup.  Or try searching for movie: anything, then playing
              \_ Are you saying this sarcastically? I didn't know they had
                 a map and I just tried it with firefox and it sucked shit,
                 the image won't even come up. Come on.
                 \_ Works for me.  Sounds like you're blaming them for your
                 \_ You couldn't get <DEAD>maps.google.com<DEAD> to work?  Under
                    Firefox?  Not only does it work for me under firefox,
                    it works on Mozilla 1.6 on Linux.  And no, I wasn't be
                    sarcastic, Google maps is seriously a great product.
                 \_ IE works, java on my firefox is broken. damn.
                    \_ Wow, it is nice! -pp
                    \_ I had too much security on my firefox java script, after
                       I enabled all the checkboxes, it works.
                       \_ Wow!  Now I know why I also have this problem.  After
                          I enabled only the "Change images" box, it works.
                          Thanks!  -- !pp
              \_ It looks similar to microsoft street and trips, is it the same?
           \_ I just tried it.  It looks cool, but it doesn't have the turn-
              by-turn map like in Yahoo which is sometimes useful.
              \_ Yes it does.  Try clicking on the numbers next to each
                 direction step.
                 \_ I see.  Is there an easy way to print out the turns?
        \_ When all is said and done, there are more than a few people who
           shorted GOOG. But for the stock to fall, there needs to be a real
           reason. The key is Google ads. As spiffy as GOOG is, you need to
           follow the money. As far as they can pull in the cash, they're
           gonna do fine. The shorters are going to have to wait for a while.
2005/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36433 Activity:high
2/25    Best... Freeper... Post... Ever....
        \_ What...the...fuck...? I don't even understand the intent of the post
           or of any of the replies enough to even make fun of them.
        \_ wow wtf is that? tangent: kids with flags and uniforms make me sick.
        \_ I feel a great swelling of pride... in not being one of those
           \_ On the other hand, you post here.
              \_ Touche'.
        \_ The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Mom in the upper right corner is just
           too perfect.
        \_ Since you all seemed unable to figure this out, the thread is for
           the morale of troops who visit the site, of which there are
           a significant number.  So, my reply is you all are pricks.
           Do you mock the USO as well?
           \_ Posting morale boosters for the troops to freep is akin to having
              your anti-war rally blessed by UBL. I mean, sure, the sentiment
              is there, but it's still ick.
              \_ Bad analogy.  There are probably quite a few soldiers who
                 read and enjoy freerepublic, and appreciate the support.
                 The idiocy in the freeper post isn't idiotic because it's
                 a freeper post or because it is intended to support or
                 entertain the troops, it's idiotic because it's idiotic.
2005/2/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36412 Activity:very high
2/25    Ever wondered what it's like to be a soldier in Iraq? What it's like
        to roam around the Iraqi street, to interact with the Iraqi people,
        and to be ambushed by enemies that you can't even see? Ever wondered
        how our soldiers retaliate? And ever wondered if the Iraqi people are
        really pro-USA or secretly pro-insurgents? I recommend "PSB Frontline-
        A Company of Soldiers." Watch it on PBS. If you can't then get it on
        torrent:   http://www.mininova.org/get/10752/frontline022205.torrent
        This is neither pro-war or anti-war, it just shows you the way it is.
        \_ Some of us don't have to wonder.  Some of us keep in touch with
           people in Iraq and Afghanistan. -- ilyas
           \_ Note you can know exactly what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan
              and be either pro- or anti-Dubya.
              Bush is a moron, but he's a good guy.  This tends to lead
              to mostly defendable intentions in foreign policy, but
              incredible mis-steps in execution occasionally.
              \_ Occasionally?  name a non-misstep. intention is shit when one
                 is so royally imcompetent.
              \_ He's not a "good guy". Who's not a good guy anyway? Who has
                 mostly indefensible intentions in foreign policy? Idiotic.
        \_ I have an acquaintance coming back from Iraq this weekend for
           leave (US Army). He has told me before that the Iraqis are
           overwhemingly pro-USA. It only takes a few dufuses (Saddam's
           ex-dufuses) to create trouble. I'm sure he'll have more to say
           than fits in his usual letters.
           \_ I think it entirely depends on where you are stationed. The
              Kurds love us, the Sunnis hate us, in Baghdad it depends on
              the neighborhood.
           \_ Please tell him thanks and that he's appreciated.
                \_ poor guy, he's a victim of Bush's incompetence
                   \_ 1. He is career military and it beats paperwork.
                      2. He find values in doing things like handing out
                         books to kids who never had them.
              \_ Seconded. There are lots of us back home who really
                 value his service.
        \_ Thanks for sharing this info. In the video an Iraqi civilian
           gets killed and one of the soldier said "Shit, I got a ...
           collateral damage. God damnit, someone call civilian
           ambulence." Then they quickly run away as to not get ambushed.
           Later on there was some intelligence that indicate that the
           family of the killed civilian is pretty mad at US soldiers
           and is planning to do something for revenge. So let me ask
           you this, is there really a fine line between the good guys
           and the bad guys? I mean, couldn't it be possible that
           regular civilians get mad and join the insurgents, or the
           other way around?
           \_ You're a few wars behind..  Welcome to the reality based
                \_ No. In the Crusades you had the good guys and the
                   bad guys and it's easy to distinguish between the two.
                   In WW1 WW2 you had the Axis vs. the Allies, and it's
                   easy to distinguish between the two.
                   \_ Were the Crusaders the good guys or the bad guys?
                      \_ The answer is in Indiana Jones.
           \_ Uh, oh, you're going to overload ilyas' binary reasoning circuit.
                \_ what reasoning is that? That he's right and you're wrong
                   that I'm hollier than thou Bush-like reasoning?
           \_ Sure, it happens but not in large numbers. Most of the people
              there are like people here. They just want to be left alone
              to live their lives. They don't want to be a part of anyone's
              revolution, but they certainly hated Saddam.
              \_ 100,000 is not a large number???
                 \_ Try >200k.
                 \_ 25 million people live in Iraq, and I doubt the number
                    of peaceful civilians who suddenly took up arms is
                    100,000. They are ex-military, foreigners, and others
                    with an agenda.
                    \_ Hint: the insurgency has grown steadily.  The longer we
                       are there, the more we're seen as occupiers, the more
                       people will take up arms.  Yes, there are outsiders, but
                       the majority are iraqis.  They gave us a year of
                       relative calm.  When the electricty and water didn't
                       come back on, they came at us harder.
                       \_ What makes you think it has grown in numbers? Links?
2005/2/22-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36371 Activity:moderate
2/22    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/22/casualty.hoax.ap
        Does the suspect look Asian or black? I mean, this guy looks just like
        Mr. Mackey in South Park, with a big ass balloon head or something.
        \_ http://www.southparkstudios.com/img/content/characters/49a.gif
        \_ Black.  The sketch artist sucks donkey dick, but he drew crinkly
2005/2/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36245 Activity:nil
2/18    Great blog on strategies in current global war. I particularly like the
        section on large scale attacks vs. system disruption.
2005/2/18-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:36243 Activity:nil 76%like:36239
2/18    Winning Their Hearts And Minds:
        http://csua.org/u/b46 (Christian Science Monitor)
        \_ That dude needs to get a talk radio show.
        \_ Interesting article, thanks.  (Note: link not BS from pundits)
        \_ Dear kchang, it would be nice if your motd archive can translate
           shortened url (csua.org or tinyurl) into actual url since the latter
           tends to remain valid longer.  Many ppl read links from the archive
           when they have time rather tha following the motd live.
           \_ dear anonymous person, if you move your mouse over the URL,
              you'll see a summary and the actual url. And if you go to the
              entry, you'll see the entire cache up to 8K. Try the following
              url. This feature has been around since May of last year:
              Is this feature good enough for you?
2005/2/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:36239 Activity:high 76%like:36243
2/18    Winning Their Hearts And Minds:
        \_ That dude needs to get a talk radio show.
        \_ Interesting article, thanks.  (Note: link not BS from pundits)
        \_ Dear kchang, it would be nice if your motd archive can translate
           shortened url (csua.org or tinyurl) into actual url since the latter
           tends to remain valid longer.  Many ppl read links from the archive
           when they have time rather tha following the motd live.
           \_ dear anonymous person, if you move your mouse over the URL,
              you'll see a summary and the actual url. And if you go to the
              entry, you'll see the entire cache up to 8K. Try the following
              url. This feature has been around since May of last year:
2005/2/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:36202 Activity:very high
2/16    "Iran Threatens to Shoot Down U.S. Drones" Why don't they just
        shoot it down? I take it they don't have the capability? If
        anyone's flying drones over the US airspace, you bet we would
        shoot it down on the first opportunity.
        \_ what is the international law on sovereignty of airspace? And how
           high do the drones fly? Just curious...
           \_ Bush breaks International Law again. What do you think?
              \_ WRONG. Bush IS the law, international law.
                 \_ Prepare to be JUDGED!
                    \_ 15 years in the academy
                       He was like no cadet they'd ever seen
                       A man so hard his veins bleed ice
                       and when he speaks he never says it twice
                       they call him judge, his last name is Dredd,
                       so break the law and you'll wind up deeeeeeeeaaaaad!
                       Truth and justice is what he's fighting for
                       judge Dredd the man: he is the laaaaaaaawwwwwwww!!!!
                       Respect the badge!!!
                       he earned it with his blood.
                       fear the gun!!
                       your sentence may be death because
                       I am the laaaaaaawwwwwwwww!!!!
        \_ Where's chicom troll to lecture us on the inherent hypocrisy of the
           US and how China is so much more logical and humanitarian....
           \_ you are stupid.  dumb US just destroyed Iran's arch-enemy
              Saddam for them, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars,
              and 1500 lives and counting, and are still battling the Iraqi
              Sunnis while Shiite religious fundamentalist parties just
              dominated the election in Iraq.  why would they want to
              shoot down US planes?  chicom troll is not stupid like you.
              even if iran wants to shoot down US plane, they will warn
              first like above, otherwise, US will lie and say they got
              shot down in iraq, blah blah.  now, after the warning,
              when US plane got shot down, the whole world will know
              it's because they violated Iran's airspace and has only
              themselves to blame.  no point getting into unnecessary
              fight with US when it is serving as your running dog.
              the past few years, all the mad iranian mullahs have been
              laughing hysterically at US idiocy and for their regime's good
           \_ Do you have a problem with the above statement? Are you
              suggesting the US will simply protest someone flying
              drones over its airspace? What about the time one CIA
              drone fired a missile at a target on the ground in
              another country? Oh I get it, they are all terrorists,
              and as such they don't have any rights that you so
              proudly claim and try to enforce upon others, but choose
              to abandon at the first sign of trouble for yourself.
              Better yet, call all your enemies terrorists. (Oh wait,
              I take it back, you are already doing that)
              \_ yay! chicom troll's young padawan speaks! -chicom troll #1 fan
                 \_ Wow, nice merging.  This response belongs with the stupid
                    guy, not the problem guy.
           \_ China has been intruding Japanese marine territory with subs for
        \_ Iran claims to have already shot some down. They are going
           public with the info now.
           \_ link?
2005/2/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36195 Activity:low
2/16    Sunnis admit poll boycott blunder
        \_ they learned faster than our minorities
2005/2/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36188 Activity:very high
2/15    Freedom Is On The March!
        http://csua.org/u/b2s (msnbc)
        \_ If they're gonna come out, they should have damn solid proof. Now
           it's going to be a muddy I say you say he says type of deal.
        \_ I seem to remember that Custer Battles employees once got into
           a shoot out with *each other* in the lobby of their hotel.
2005/2/11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36146 Activity:moderate
2/11    Shock and Awe. Saudi candidate says that women should
        be allowed to drive:
        \_ Only in a religion as nutty as wahabism could this persist,
           and only because they've got oil. At least it keeps the muslims
           backwards and prevents them from developing their own tech.
           \_ It was less than 100 years ago that we didn't allow women to
              \_ True, but 85 years is a pretty long time on the human
                 time scale.
                 \_ No... no it isn't.  In the past 20 years or so things
                    have changed enough so that 85 years is a long time
                    on the human time scale, but we haven't had those 85 years
                    \_ Whatever.  Since the industrial revolution 85 years
                       has become a long time.
           \_ We've got plenty of fruitcakes here in the US too, it's just
              that not enough of them are in positions of power (yet?).  They
              just run the show over there.
              \_ Aren't the Mormons opposed to women driving?
2005/2/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:36064 Activity:high
2/4     "The United States would dispatch 690,000 troops and 2,000
        warplanes if war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, according
        to a South Korean defense policy paper released Friday"
        \_ That seems like a lot. Anyone know how many troops we have?
           \_ I think if you count everyone in training, on leave, resupply,
              and doing 'back end' work it's about that many.  We have 125k
              active duty in Iraq and that's a stretch.
           \_ We won't need troops soon.  We'll have armored death robots
              within a few years.  -John
              \_ I think we should make Imperial Walkers.  Why not? Unlike
                 missile defence I'm pretty sure they would actually work.
              \_ I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.
        \_ Link?
        \_ doubtful. Marines fall short of recruitment, and is in trouble:
           \_ Did you actually read your own link?  It doesn't say they're
              in trouble.  It says they were 84 recuits short of their
               3270 recruit goal in January, but they were 184 over
               the goal for that quarter.
        \_ There are only 450k active duty soldiers in the entire Army,
           so that seems like a bit of a stretch. I am sure we would
           activate the Reserves and pull in the IRR though and they
           number at least another 1/2M.
2005/2/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36031 Activity:high
2/2     The top entry on Iraq the Model tells some interesting stories
        from the elections
        \_ Great link -- thanks for sharing it.          -mice
        \_ shucks I thought I was going to see Iraq models in swim suits
           \-If I think "We're from the Mujahideen and we're not going to
             hurt you" is the funniest thing I have read in weeks, does
             that make be a bad person?
2005/2/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36007 Activity:kinda low
2/1     An interesting (as a point of view of a military guy) essay on
        the modern war of attrition:
          -- ilyas
        \_ If one takes that long to say something, the author probably isn't
           saying anything at all.
        \_ Why do you find it so interesting?
2005/1/31 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35993 Activity:very high
1/31    Is Al Qaeda ineffective? I ask this because despite spouting so
        much bile and hatred they haven't really done much of anything.
        As the train accident in LA showed, it's easy to stage simple
        attacks and yet all they have to show are a train bombing in Spain
        and the WTC. I am starting to think the WTC was more lucky than
        good. Is Al Qaeda as large of a threat as most of us thought on 9/11?
        \_ Oh.  It's only 1300+ and counting.
           \_ 1411 to be exact.
              \_ Your number is old.  1435.
        \_ Al Qaeda is effective in the Russian guerilla warfare sense -- they
           are using very limited resources to tie up a LOT of resources of
           the enemy. -- ilyas
           \_ Understood, but I guess the surprise is how limited their
              resources really seem to be. Even Hamas seems to be a
              stronger, better-backed, and better-funded organization. They
              make the most of what they have, but what they have seems to
              be 'not much'.
              \_ Al Qaeda may well be smaller and less funded than Hamas.
                 Their only claim to fame is pulling off an attack on US soil.
                   -- ilyas
                 \_ And on US embassies.  And on US warships.  Not to mention
                    MASSIVE loss of US civillian life.  And the first WTC
                    \_ All of this was on or before 9/11, no?
                       \_ Mostly, yeah -- I was responding to the notion that
                          WTC II was their only claim to fame.
                       \_ Bali nightclub bombing was after.  weren't there
                          refinery explosions in germany or something claimed
                          by al qaeda?  American compound in riyadh in may 03.
                          daniel pearl
        \_ This is almost stupid enough to call troll on it, but it's dim,
           so i think it's sincere.  Coordinated embassy bomings in africa,
           uss cole, etc.  now have expanded their presence to over 60
           countries.  they're dispersed, and growing, and bush hasn't done
           a thing to actually work on it.
           \_ Wow, now THIS is a troll. Since 9/11 there hasn't been one
              successful attack on U.S. soil. If your Al-Qaida was so
              powerful why haven't they done even one suicide bombing in
              America? Oh, I guess you're going to blame the LA train wreck
              last week on some sort of government cover-up. Tinfoil hat
              \_ As ilyas points out above, they've done an incredible job
                 costing the US billions of dollars, thousands of lives,
                 and tying up a HUGE portion of the US's military power with a
                 trickle of resources.  What should be obvious is that if we
                 didn't tie up those resources, then it's far more likely that
                 rather than military personnel lost in combat it would
                 probably be as many civillian lives somewhere else.  Your
                 observations are accurate, but your standards of evaluation
                 are all wrong.
                 \_ You seem to be suggesting that if we had not invaded Iraq,
                    the US would have suffered around 14,000 civilian terrorist
                    casualties in the past 2-3 years.
                    \_ [This is now incoherent because PP backed off of his
                        absurd assertion]
                        \_ [PP was too busy trying to beat the motd spinlock
                            and didn't think all the details through.]
                            \_ Motd spinlock never happens!  Someone who posts
                               way more than me says so! -- ilyas
                               \_ That claim was never made.  Reread the
                                  archive, dude.   -4 hp for poor reading
                                  \_ Ilya was being sarcastic.  Now who's got
                                     poor reading comprehension?
                                     \_ Sarcastic...you keep using this word..
                                        perhaps it doesn't mean what you think
                                        it means.
                                     \_ You can be sarcastic AND wrong.
                                        Sarcasm is fun; being misquoted is
                                        irritating.  Crap.  Ilyas trolled me,
                                        didn't he?  DAMN YOU ILYAS!  -4 hp to
                                        me for being gullible.
              \_ Before 9/11 there hadn't been a us attack for many years.
                 And now there are all those nice soldiers in Iraq to blow
                 up instead.
                 \_ Attacking military targets isn't a particularly good
                    way to terrorize the US populace at large.
                    \_ You know the goal isn't terror.  Terror is just one
                       of many tools.  The goal is to further an agenda.
                       This isn't a Bond movie.
                    \_ No, but it terrorizes the Iraqi population, which makes
                       our job there harder, more expensive, and with higher
                       casualties to boot.  If they hurt the populace enough,
                       the US may even be forced to withdraw which would be a
                       PR disaster (not to mention a massive ideological
                       failure).  Also, if it gets bloody enough for our
                       troops, the government may even lose popular support,
                       which gives further validation to the effectiveness of
                       terrorism overseas impacting domestic policy (ie, the
                       US populace at large).
                        \_ so Saddamn didnt terrorize the iraqi populace?
                           \_ ???  Are you responding to the correct thread?
                    \_ But it is a good way to 1) drain our resources and
                       2) solidify and "train" their people.
           \_ On the other hand, if all of the attacks happen in the Middle
              East (e.g. Cole) then they fade into irrelevance. Same thing
              if the attacks come decades apart. You'd think there would be
              more attacks in the US, Japan, or Europe and yet nothing. To
              me this indicates they have a severe lack of resources and
              thus spend a lot of time planning to use them efficiently.
        \_ I get the impression that they have a few smart people at the top
           who move very slowly, and a lot of low level poor ignorant angry
           men.  Rember that 9/11 was years in planning and only then it was
           the second try to destroy the WTC.  I don't think they have
           the resources to make chem or bio weapons, but given enough time an
           a state-sponsor they could put them into use.
        \_ Yeah, I'd have to agree. That's why I was and continue to be
           surprised that people believe that that 9/11 has changed the world.
           Staging an attack on U.S. soil is *very* hard, but anyone can
           get lucky once in a while. There will not, however, be another
           attack on U.S. soil of any substantial magnitude (over 50
           casualties) masterminded by Islamic fundementalists in the next
           15 years (you heard it hear first).
           \_ I guess the idea is that they shouldn't have gotten lucky --
              US had gotten too lax in its handling of terrorism.  The
              World Trade Center was a wake up call.  It was the wake up call
              that serves as the 'changed the world' part.  That's just a
              guess on my part though.  You're probably right about the 15
              years part.
        \_ If Dubya didn't start the practice of scanning checked-in luggage
           for bombs, you can bet there would be a synchronized commuter
           plane event.
        \_ Yes, but how many unsuccessful attempts at terrorism has there
           been since 9/11?
        \_ why make a move when the great satan imperialist is sending
           its running dogs all over the place.  let them run around raging
           mad doing stupid things and waste money and get tired, making
           their friends turn away, and making new enemies, then when they
           are broke and exhausted and got kicked out of iraq with tail
           between their legs, then add insult to injury and start
           bombing and terrorizing them at their home again.  by then their
           will would be totally broken, and they will cry like girl.
           \_ Wow!  This r3wl5!!1!
           \_ You WIN!
           \_ I would suggest that the 'kicked out of Iraq' part isn't
              going according to plan.
2005/1/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35991 Activity:nil
1/31    I thought it was interesting how NYT in earlier reports painted a very
        rosy picture on Sunni turnout, and LAT later came out with numbers
        which didn't fit the picture:
        Quoth NYT: "The figure [55 to 60 percent] was based on national
        returns, Mr. Ayar said, and included the provinces of Anbar and
        Nineveh, which have large Sunni populations.  The predicted low
        turnout in Anbar, a hotspot of Sunni resistance to the American
        occupation, was exceeded to such an extent that extra voting
        materials had to be rushed to outlying villages, where long
        lines were formed at polling stations, Mr. Ayar said...
        Even in the so-called Sunni Triangle people voted, too.  In
        Baquba, 60 miles north of Baghdad, all the polling stations that
        reported indicated a huge turnout.  In Mosul, the restive city
        to the north, large turnouts were reported, even in the Sunni
        Muslim areas, and despite threats and scattered attacks with
        bombs, mortars and small arms fire."
        \_ Updated news --
           The fact that polling stations indicated a "huge turnout" in
           Baqubah, "large turnouts" in Mosul, and other Sunni areas
           most likely came from there being few polling centers there:
           "Voting was almost nonexistent in the largely Sunni provinces
           of Al Anbar, Salahuddin, Nineveh and Diyala, Western
           officials said. For instance, in Baqubah, a city of 300,000
           north of Baghdad that has a substantial Sunni population,
           just 17,000 people voted." [~ 12% turnout, Baqubah]
           http://csua.org/u/awu (LA Times, 1/31 Monday)
           "But some U.S. officials estimated that 175,000 had come out
           in Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital. About
           54,000 voters were said to have turned out in the city of 1.8
           million." [~ 6% turnout, Mosul]
           http://csua.org/u/awv (LA Times, 1/31 Monday)
           (If you say half the people in each city are kids, then you'd
           have 12% and 6% turnout among Sunnis.)
2005/1/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:35982 Activity:nil
1/30    Not surprisingly, the following headlines appear:
        Fox: Bush Calls Iraqi Vote 'Resounding Success'
        CNN: Bush praises historic vote
        ABC: Iraq Voters Defy Threats, Boycott Calls
        MSNBC: History Vote
        \_ eh?
        CBS: Iraqi Voters Defy Insurgents
2005/1/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35980 Activity:very high
1/30    Preliminary reports say that Iraq vote is a success.  Fuck.
        \_ If less than 50% of eligible voters vote, massive idiocy
           causes votes to get miscounted all accross the country,
           the two dominant parties engage in blatant voter fraud while
           banding together to shut out any other party, and most politicans
           run for office with essentially no chance of losing, what do you
           call it?  The United States of America.
        \_ I call bullshit on you.  No one on the motd actually opposses
           democracy for Iraq.  You're a republican troll trying to make
           liberals look bad in the eyes of the gullible (like ilyas).
           \_ You are new here, right?  Is this honestly the first atrocious
              thing you've seen from motd liberals?  -- ilyas
              \_ Fuck you, ilyas.  Find me one post from the archives where
                 anyone is actually hoping that the Iraq election will fail.
                 Why is there no follow up by the supposed op?  Or by the
                 theoretical hordes of evil liberals who want Iraq to fail.
                 \_ Oh, just watch the liberals try to spin it into a failure.
                    In fact, it's started already, as evidenced below.
                    \_ *shrug*  And if the positions were reveresed, the
                       conservatives would be doing the same.  Are you new to
                       \_ Whatever.  It's still the Democrats who will be
                          doing the spin this time.
                          doing the spin this time.$a
                          \_ So?  You're a tool for the soulless political
                             machine.  It's sad.
                             \_ *shrug* And if the positions were reversed,
                                some conservative would be saying the same
                                thing as you are now.  Are you new to politics?
                                [It's called satire, son.]
                                \_ The irony is that I'm not liberal, but
                                   I'd still be deploring the two-party
                                   polar all-or-nothing foolishness that the
                                   system encourages...and you'd still be a
                                   partisan tool without independant thought
                                   or an original thought in your head.  Poor
                                   guy.  Perhaps this whole subthread ought to
                                   be nuked....   [brain cramp corrected]
                 \_ [ Dumb-asses removed.  FOAD, the both of you.]
                    \_ Uh oh.  Out or order deletion.  Shouldn't this thread
                       be ilyased now in the name of equal treatment?
        \_ This makes me laugh. -- ilyas
           \_ Makes me ill.. -scotsman
           \_ I'm so sick and tired of hearing you liberals moaning and
              bitching about the current administration. Perhaps the
              decision to go to war was not a good one, but what
              alternatives do you liberals have? You keep criticizing
              that Bush has no exit plan, blah blah blah. Did Kerry tell
              us what he would do differently? No. Do you guys have
              better alternatives? No.
              \_ Yes, we did.  The alternative was NOT to go to war.  Duh.
                 \_ War is bad.  Elections are good.  Reasonably functioning
                    elections are better.  Calling those responsible for war
                    on false premises to account is good.  Getting on with
                    things and trying to help make the world a bit sunnier
                    despite initial false premises is good.  I don't
                    understand the black-and-white attitudes about
                    conservative/war/election vs. liberal/no war/no elections-
                    a slightly differentiated approach would be nice.  -John
        \_ Um, dude.  You'd rather it was a total failure?  I'm glad the
           death toll so far has been low, and i hope the 72% turnout is
           not a staggering overestimation, but the failure to pull in the
           sunnis is a BIG problem.  I have the feeling that our being there
           is the only thing preventing a civil war, and this election is not
           going to change that, or get us closer to an exit. -scotsman
           \_ The election being successful makes it harder for us to justify
              bringing our troops home.
              \_ OK, we're there for false reasons.  However, we are there,
                 and the chaos, while it may not be our fault directly, is
                 certainly a result of our actions.  I don't know about you,
                 but I consider it the moral duty of my country to clean up
                 messes it helps create, and to call to account our elected
                 (legitimately or not) officials afterwards.  To
                 cut and run and to leave those poor bastards (yes, some of
                 them actually _want_ and believe all that freedom and
                 democracy and mom's apple pie crap) in the lurch would be the
                 most craven and unworthy action I could imagine.  -John
        \_ It went like everyone predicted.  Lots of turnout in Shiite areas,
           little or no turnout in Sunni areas.
           The 72% number is a preliminary number from the Iraqi election;
           they have backpedaled to 57% now.
           The "success" comes from the Shiites being able to vote and
           preventing the Sunnis from crashing the party, since the U.S.
           didn't invest too much in Sunni participation, anyway.
           The tactical success comes from a military standpoint comes from
           restrictions on vehicle traffic and the ringed security system
           (U.S. on outside, Iraqi police on inside), which limited attacks
           to mortar fire and suicide belts, and encouraged Shiites who
           got to the inside of the ring to see only Iraqi folks working.
           \_ Quoth NYT: "The figure [55 to 60 percent] was based on national
              returns, Mr. Ayar said, and included the provinces of Anbar and
              Nineveh, which have large Sunni populations.  The predicted low
              turnout in Anbar, a hotspot of Sunni resistance to the American
              occupation, was exceeded to such an extent that extra voting
              materials had to be rushed to outlying villages, where long
              lines were formed at polling stations, Mr. Ayar said...
              Even in the so-called Sunni Triangle people voted, too.  In
              Baquba, 60 miles north of Baghdad, all the polling stations that
              reported indicated a huge turnout.  In Mosul, the restive city
              to the north, large turnouts were reported, even in the Sunni
              Muslim areas, and despite threats and scattered attacks with
              bombs, mortars and small arms fire."
              \_ Updated news --
                 The fact that polling stations indicated a "huge turnout" in
                 Baqubah, "large turnouts" in Mosul, and other Sunni areas
                 most likely came from there being few polling centers there:
                 "Voting was almost nonexistent in the largely Sunni provinces
                 of Al Anbar, Salahuddin, Nineveh and Diyala, Western
                 officials said. For instance, in Baqubah, a city of 300,000
                 north of Baghdad that has a substantial Sunni population,
                 just 17,000 people voted." [5.7% turnout, Baqubah]
                 http://csua.org/u/awu (LA Times, 1/31 Monday)
                 "But some U.S. officials estimated that 175,000 had come out
                 in Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital. About
                 54,000 voters were said to have turned out in the city of 1.8
                 million." [3% turnout, Mosul]
                 http://csua.org/u/awv (LA Times, 1/31 Monday)
        \_ I'm heartened to hear that so many people voted. I hope there's no
           election fraud, and I hope this means we can now begin withdrawing
           our troops. I still disagree with BushCo's lying to get us in in
           the first place, and I still think Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld should
           be pilloried for the cock-up they made of the initial security
           situation. Looking forward, this will mean nothing is Allawi
           continues to allow torture and ignores the desire of the Kurds to
           break away and form their own independent Kurdistan. For now, an
           excellent turn-out is a great step forward. --erikred
           \_ Dubya didn't lie.  He honestly believed there was "no doubt"
              Saddam had weapons, as he realized his own intellectual
              limitations and trusted CIA Director Tenet, who said it
              was a "slam dunk" and in a recent speech was still confused
              as to how wrong both he and his agency were.
              As for WMDs, the final Duelfer report will be released in
              Feb, and Dubya might finally say something about the lack
              of WMDs in Iraq.
              \_ he already said something about the lack of WMD, jctwu:
              \_ I don't believe it. The administration decided to do the war
                 and then went all out seeking whatever justification it could.
                 Not the other way around. I believe Dubya knowingly
                 misrepresented both the case for the war and the projected
                 aftermath. I believe he thought it would all turn out ok
                 and that they probably would find something to justify it
                 and in any case Saddam was bad etc. I'll laugh if Iraqis
                 end up voting themselves back into a monarchy or something.
        \_ Even though I was against the war, this is great news.  People in
           Iraq were threatened, yet went to the polls in great numbers, even
           Sunnis.  And the death toll was pretty mild compared to previous
           death tolls, probably due to the insane security precautions.
           Unfortunately, given past performance, there is a good chance BushCo
           will fuck up something else over there.  There's definitely a
           lesson there for us -- those of us who don't vote because it's too
           much effort or they don't care ... Wanting the Iraq vote NOT to go
           much effort or too much apathy ... Wanting the Iraq vote NOT to go
           well because it makes Bush look good is pretty pathetic. -eric
           \_ Sunnis did not go to the polls in great numbers, as polling
              centers were reported as suggesting.  See LA Times links above.
2005/1/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35973 Activity:high
1/29    Any Saturday night trolls want to predict what will happen on Iraq
        election day?
        \_ Lots of people will vote, some will be killed, and Iraq will
           continue to be violent and occuppied by the U.S. with very little
           real change.
        \_ Probably a coup.
        \_ we'll invade iran as a distraction
        \_ Kurdish independence.
        \_ Lots of motd wankery.
                \_ We have a winner!
        \_ There will be lots of polling booths and security in Shiite areas
           (where ~ 80% want to vote), and not very many or no polling booths
           at all in Sunni areas (where seemingly > 50% have said they will
           definitely NOT vote).  Why have polling booths somewhere where
           people won't vote, security will be an even more incredible bitch,
           and they'll probably mortar you to death anyway? -op
        \_ some will vote, some will not, but it'll be run democratically
           and people will slowly understand that democracy > dictatorship.
           In time the terrorists will understand as well and begin to
           accept democracy and appreciate what we've done for them. God Bless
           \_ basically, if all the shiites vote and the sunnis do not, it's
              like saying the sunnis don't want yer stinking election
              and will wage war / continue the insurgency with the shiites
        \_ Iraq is made up of a lot of different ethnic groups who hate each
           other. My guess is that the ethnic majority Shia will win the
           election, take over the assembly/congress/whatever and pass laws
           that will be favourable for them while screwing everyone else
           (since they got really screwed under Sadam's rule). It'll be like
           the Republicans taking over the country and passing anti-abortion,
           anti-gay marriage, and faith-based initiative laws and piss off
2005/1/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35968 Activity:nil
1/28    Just a few dead enders left fighting us in Iraq:
2005/1/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35953 Activity:high
1/28    From that Yahoo! News (AP) article on Guantanamo Bay events:
        In another case, Saar describes a female military interrogator
        questioning an uncooperative 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly
        had taken flying lessons in Arizona before the Sept. 11 terror
        attacks. ... The female interrogator wanted to "break him," ...
        she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and
        began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them
        against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection.
        The detainee looked up and spat in her face, the manuscript recounts.
        \_ I guess he didn't know a good thing when he saw it. They
           decapitate people. We send women to fuck them. This is why
           America is so great!!!
           AMURICA 1Z SO RAD!!!
2005/1/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35937 Activity:nil
1/27    MANIFEST DESTINY!!! Just as we freed the American continent
        with our generosity (free small pox laden blankets for
        American Indians), we should free the Iraq country for
        better use for Americans. MANIFEST DESTINY!!!
        \_ We missed you aaron.
2005/1/27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35934 Activity:high
1/27    We haven't had a major foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
        Are the policies working then?
        \_ terrorist are waiting for hillary
        \_ Perhaps. How many major foreign terrorist attacks have we
           ever had? The incidence is a little too rare to evaluate.
        \_ We didn't have one until Bush took office. Obviously Bush is the
           weak link here.
           \_ First WTC bombing was under Clinton.
              \_ GAAAAAH!  FACTS!!!! IT BUUUUURRRRNNS!!!!
                 \_ ZE GOGGLES DO NUHZING!!!
              \_ That wasn't a "major" attack now was it? Was it? Huh?
                 Yeah that's what I thought. Bitch.
                 \_ RTF911CR.  The *intent* was to kill about a quarter of
                    a million people.
                    \_ NOOOOOOOOOO!  THE FACTS!!!!!  STOOOOOP ITTTTT!!!!!
                 \_ Uh, detonating a large truck full of boom fuel underneath
                    the WTC is not a major attack?  Just because it wasn't
                    as bad as it coulda been... -John
                    \_ 1000 people were injured. Luckily the buildings
                       did not fall.
                    \_ I need some fuel to go boom boom.
        \_ People do think increased airport security is protecting America,
           but the majority also think invading Iraq when they had no WMDs
           and without allies nor enough of our own people made the world
           more dangerous.
           Dubya's people would like to tell you that we're fighting the
           terrorists in Iraq instead of in der Fatherland, I mean Homeland.
                                                \_ Der Vaterland
        \_ Not to sound like a nutjob, but there's a credible Iraqi link in the
           OK city bombing. http://csua.org/u/avr
           \_ If you do some research and still think the Iraqi link is
              credible you ARE a nut job.
              \_ The ok. city bombing iraq connection is my favorite conspiracy
                 theory ever.  Yeah.  The government had TOP SECRET information
                 tying Iraq to the bombing, but hatch a BIG CONSPIRACY to
                 cover it up, while simultaneously making asses of themselves
                 in front of the world trying unsuccessfully to tie Iraq to
                 terrorism.  The illuminati stole my tinfoil hat to give it to
                 the skull and bones so they could play frisbee with the
                 trilateral comission.
              \_ So are you dismissing Jayna Davis' research?  Do you have a
                 refutation of the direct evidence she has?
                 \_ You may find this link helpful:
                 \_ Swift boat guy!  We missed you!
2005/1/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35893 Activity:very high
1/25    $1.5 billion for a new embassy in Iraq.  What the FUCK?
        \_ Holtzmann's shields are expensive.
           \_ And the "defensive" lasguns
              \_ Shields are suicide in Irakkis anyway.  They'll just end up
                 bringing a worm.
                 \_ Then we can use the family atomics.
                    \_ So...has Dune been translated into Arabic? I somehow
                       hope not.
                       \_ Frank Herbert is Muslim, so probably.
                        \_ frank herbert is a was now, he died
                           20 years ago, and was not muslim.
                          \_ ??? Where did you find this? And according to
                             the most recent Dune FAQ, no, Dune has not been
                             translated into Arabic (at least not officially),
                             but is has been translated into Turkish.
                       \_ The last catfight here over Herbert and Islam was
                          about a year ago so I guess we're due.
        \_ I supported the action in Iraq, but this is beyond ridiculous.
        \_ It's going to contructed by Haliburton, right?  $1.5B might not
           be enough.
           \_ no it is not ridiculous. The embassey will be 1/2 the size of
              Texas and it'll have enough space for an airport and
              everything else, like McD and Walmart.
                \_ When Iraqis can start being blown up at Home Depots and
                   Burger Kings, then they will truly be free.
2005/1/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35882 Activity:nil
1/24    Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss:
        \_ MASS GRAVES!
2005/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35834 Activity:very high
1/20    NY Times opinion        username/pw:  nty42322
        "In January 1945, with World War II still raging, Franklin Roosevelt
        insisted on a low-key inauguration. Already gravely ill, he began his
        address by saying, "Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends,
        you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form
        of this inauguration be simple and its words brief." Times have
        changed. President Bush and his equally tone-deaf supporters spent the
        past few days partying hard while Americans, Iraqis and others
        continued to suffer and die in the Iraq conflagration. Nothing was too
        good for the princes and princesses of the new American plutocracy.
        ... As the well-heeled Bush crowd was laughing and dancing in tuxedos
        and designer gowns, the situation in Iraq was deteriorating to new
        levels of horror. The Black Tie and Boots Ball was held on the same
        day that 26 people were killed in five powerful car and truck bombs in
        \_ I don't know if I agree with your point, but I think it's pretty
           darn cool and considerate that you posted a user/pass.  -John
        \_ As if you cared when sanctions were killing Iraqis. C'mon
           you won't admit it but if Kerry won, there'd be just as many
           balls, just as big of a parade, and with Kerry's tone - even
           longer speeches.
        \_ It's obvious that the NYT and you, the poster, obviously know
           nothing about history. May I remind you that William Henry Harrison
           died from pneumonia due to giving out a 2 hour speech in bad
           weather and having attended no less than half a dozen balls
           commencing that night? This kind of commentary is the usual
           leftist drivel is the sort of crap that just plain undermines
           the Democrats. Before you believe in something, or before you
           post, try actually doing some research on the history of
           inaugration. And lest you be too ignorant to forget, LBJ's
           inaugration was hardly a small affair. The point, for the denser
           of the crowd, is that there is nothing different about
           this inaugral that is different from those performed since
           the beginning of this country. Attempting to dredge up
           one which actually IS and attempting to discredit the current
           one, however, is just really bad journalism. (William Henry Harrison,
           for the clueless on the MOTD, was our 9th president and served
           for some 30 odd days before dying).
           \_ So your point is that it's OK for Bush to have an extravagant
              inauguration while Americans and Iraqis are dying in his
              mistaken war because most other presidents are just as bad?
              Or is your point that Harrison was stupid and so its OK for
              Bush to be stupid too?  Why shouldn't people who have
              loved ones in Iraq be upset with the president for celebrating
              while people are dying?  -!op
              \_ I don't think that's his point.  Not that I particularly like
                 the idea of any Bush inauguration, low key or not, I think
                 his point is that you're being hysterical.  -John
           \_ You're right.  They do have the right to party it up while
              Iraq is turning to shit.
        \_ FDR was Stalin's best friend.  In fact FDR was jealous
           of Stalin because he was a more effective collectivist.
           So perhaps if FDR spent more time reflecting on his
           objectives rather than worrying about appearances,
           Eastern Europe would have not been subject to 50 years
           of Soviet rule, who were equivalent if not worse
           than the Nazis, and the Cold War may have been averted.
           Let's not forget the NYTimes glorified, almost deified,
           Uncle Joe during the '30s and '40s.
           \_ And the Republicans used to be for the little guys, and the
              Dems were the party of choice for crypto-Klansmen. So what?
              You think the same guys who were writing those glowing reviews
              of Uncle Joe are still writing the OpEd page for the NYTimes?
              \_ In spirit yes... except they are secular Jews and
                 \_ +5 self troll!
                    \_ have you ever seen any of the board of NYTimes
                       editors?  It is not a troll just a simple
                       fact of life.
                       \_ Is William Safire a gay Jewish man?
                          \_ you leftists are fed this propaganda from
                             the NYTimes and you don't even know who
                             ths source is.  Yes Safire
                             is Jewish.
                             \_ This thread has really diverged.  If you
                                wish, you may start another thread about
                                your argument, since it's hard to tell how
                                serious you're even taking yourself.
                                \_ Does anyone know when the motd anti-semite
                                   came on board?  I don't remember all these
                                   weird tinfoil hat-ish rants about Jews
                                   starting until very recently...
                                   \_ How do you know I'm not Jewish?
                                      I am moderately pro-Isreal...
                                      But I am not going to ignore
                                      obvious constructs of our society.
                                      Do you really think AIPAC is
                                      larger than any other lobby
                                      except AARP for fun?
2005/1/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:35760 Activity:moderate
1/17    Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the
        Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct.
        The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their
        enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so
        carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not
        realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological
        and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the
        image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of
        violence and militarism. -MLK
        \_When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village
          and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able
          to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and
          white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will
          be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro
          spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty,
          we are free at last!"
          And yes, they are free at last.
        \_ No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.  He won it
           by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.  -GPJ
        \_ MLK was a marxist.. you didn't know this?  I wonder if he ever
           talked to any of the Cambodians or Viet boat people?
           \_ Cambodians?  Luckily the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and
              unseated the US and China supported Khmer Rouge from
              power.  Otherwise, the killing fields would be even
              power.  Otherwise, the killing fields would've been even
              \_ Yeah, luckily Cambodia was invaded by a rival communist
                 power to stop an oppressive government... Hmmm, doesn't
                 this somehow sound vaguely familiar?
                 \_ doesn't sound familiar at all.  do elaborate.
           \_ MLK was on FBI's top 10 most wanted list as well.  From
              US government's track record (black panther), i am still
              wondering who killed MLK.
           \_ MLK was on FBI's top 10 most wanted list as well.  From
              US government's track record (black panther), i am still
              wondering who killed MLK.
2005/1/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35702 Activity:high
1/13    I don't want to talk about Iraq anymore, it makes me feel bad
        so I just delete any mention of it on the motd.
        \_ Would you please just stop reading the motd instead?
          \_ Would you please stop posting about Iraq. I think OP has
             a point. The Iraq thing always devolves into some stupid
             postings about how many people think we should be there,
             how many people don't, how everyone who's a liberal hates
             America and how everyone who's a conservative is a red-neck.
             It's just boring, we don't need the same posts over and over
             again, that's what the motd archives are for. And if you can't
             talk about anything else other than Iraq, you need to broaden
             your horizons. Talking about Iraq on the motd doesn't help anyone,
             it doesn't chagne anyone's minds, it doesn't do anything. If you
             really care about Iraq go out and do something and stop wasting
             bits on the motd.
             \_ Hey, asshole. We're at war. I'll say it again.  We are at
                war.  If you think the same shit is just getting re-hashed,
                try adding something new. Saying it doesn't matter makes
                you a bad person.
             \_ Don't contribute and skip over it then. Censoring it again
                and again is just going to make me more determined than
                ever to post about it. And yeah, I talk about plenty of
                other stuff too, but ignoring problems usually does not
                make them go away. And I know at least one person whose
                mind was changed because of what he read her, so you can
                mind was changed because of what he read here, so you can
                take your stupid idea that talking to people never changes
                their minds to someone who might buy it.
                \_ Neither does harping about it constantly. you're a moron.
                   If you really want to do something about Iraq either:
                   A) Go serve your country and join up.
                   B) Get involved in politics. The motd isn't the place
                      to harp about Iraq. It's been done, it does nothing.
                      I suppose you're one of those people who insists on
                      pounding a screw with a hammer even though people
                      keep telling you to get a screwdriver.
                   \_ I am involved in politics. This is part of what
                      politics is all about, using your soapbox to
                      try and influence opinions. As far as "A" is
                      concerned, I have friends in family in Iraq
                      concerned, I have friends and family in Iraq
                      right now, both civilians and military. I would
                      go myself, but my wife would leave me.
           \_ No, everyone should talk about what I want to talk about
              to the exclusion of everything else.
        \_ Write a filter instead and read the filter.  Then you can avoid all
           the topics you want.
           \_ But that will make aaron angry, and he'll spend all his time
              thinking up alternate spellings of "Iraq."
              \_ Aaron is always angry, it's just a chemical thing with some
                 people.  Nothing causes it except his own body.
              \_ Hasn't aaron been squished yet?
2005/1/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35695 Activity:nil
1/13    I like how http://CNN.com suddenly pulled the No WMDs in Iraq online poll
        and replaced it with Prince Harry w/Swastika.
        The poll was running 69% mistake 31% not a mistake.
2005/1/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35692 Activity:very high
1/13     "Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing
         in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S.
         have stayed out?"
        Did Right Thing 46%
        Should Have Stayed Out 48%
        \_ "Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong
           decision in using military force against Iraq?"
           Right 49%  Wrong 44%
         \_ "Is the OP an idiot who has nothing better to do with his life
             other than to re-ask the same stupid question over and over again
             about something that nobody cares about?"
             Yes 100% No 0%
             \_ Oh boo hoo hoo, no one but me cares about the most
                important political issue of our time. Right.
                Were you one of those morons who helped beat the
                drums for war 2 years ago and now wants to forget
                about the whole thing and pretend like it never
                \_ In a word, yes.
                   \_ As long as American soldiers and Iraqi civilians
                      are being killed as a result of this choice, I refuse
                      to shut up about it. Help me bring the troops home
                      and you will never hear one word about it (from me
                      at least) again.
2005/1/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35685 Activity:insanely high
2/27    Editorial defending Washinton Post's pro-war stance:
        [Resuscitated from 2003:]
        \_ The huge problem with this editorial is "[Saddam] unquestionably
           possessing and pursuing biological and chemical weapons".  It's
           still a question.  If a group of smart people can't get this
           right, what can you say?
           \_ What smart people?  The French?  Or the Germans who sold them
              all of it between '91 and now?
              \_ The Washington Post editorial staff, of course.
                 If you can do a good job convincing people of your assertions
                 please contact Colin Powell.
           \_ hmm... theory of evolution...
           \_ It is not a question to anyone with half a brain. Bush lied
              to you, get over it, stop trying to rationalize it.
              \_ So how do you know there are no WMDs? -- randomly curious
                 \_ I'm not the guy you're asking, but:
                    "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions
                    have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally
                    destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in
                    1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad
                    resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a
                    policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions
                    lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force
                    against it should WMD be discovered."
                    Duelfer report, Key Findings
                    \_ So basically you take the word of Duelfer (and later
                       Kay).  That's fair, just keep in mind findings !=
                       truth, and people may reasonably disagree.  I mean
                       there's only so much inspectors can do in a hostile
                       \_ They've had access to everyone in the old government
                          and all sites for >18 months.  They've talked to
                          everyone.  There were no weapons.
                       \_ Duelfer was second.  Kay was first.  They both
                          Remember, these guys were handpicked by Dubya.
                          Kay went in KNOWING he'd find weapons.  He came out
                          saying, "We were almost all wrong."
                          Don't you think he could have said, "We still think
                          he had them, they could be in Syria or buried
                          somewhere, or Saddam blew them all up just before
                          we attacked."  I'm sure Dubya would have loved that,
                          and Kay would have loved to tell him that -- so
                          why didn't Duelfer or Kay say those things?
                          Instead, Kay threw away his career, and Duelfer
                          finished the job.
                          \_ Because an inspector has to announce what he has
                             to given the evidence.  No evidence = can't
                             credibly say weapons are there.  No evidence
                             != no weapons are there.  Do you see the
                             \_ I'm going to agree with the guy who said
                                "beyond a reasonable doubt".
                       \_ Duelfer also reported that Saddam's generals thought
                          there were WMD's.  See:
                          \_ "Senior military officers and former Regime
                             officials were uncertain about the existence of
                             WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up
                             to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent
                             mixed messages."
                             This doesn't translate to "no doubt" and
                             "slam dunk" exactly.
                             \_ From the same link:
                                "Saddam surprised his generals when he informed
                                them he had no WMD in December 2002 because his
                                boasting had led many to believe Iraq had some
                                hidden capability, according to Tariq .Aziz.
                                Saddam had never suggested to them that Iraq
                                lacked WMD. Military morale dropped rapidly
                                when he told senior officers they would have to
                                fight the United States without WMD."
                                Sounds like his generals were expecting it.  If
                                Saddam's own generals were uncertain, how could
                                we ever have had intelligence showing now WMD's?
                                \_ That is why Dubya's demand that Saddam
                                   prove something that was not falsifiable
                                   was such a dumbass thing for him to do.
                                   Not as dumb as you for going along with it
                                   though, since you are a Cal student and
                                   should understand logic better than that.
                                   \_ Not dumbass. Clever like a fox.
                                \_ If Saddam had no WMDs, how could we ever
                                   have intelligence showing there was
                                   "no doubt" Saddam had WMDs?
                                   \_ It was definitely beyond a reasonable
                                      doubt.  Statements like "no doubt" and
                                      "slam dunk" were mistakes.
                                      \_ Are you saying that it was beyond a
                                         reasonable doubt that WMD stockpiles
                                         would be found?
                                      \_ Bullshit. The people who knew the
                                         most and had no axe to grind all said
                                         that SH probably did not have any
                                         WMD. You were conned.
                                         that it was uncertain whether SH
                                         had WMD or not. You were conned.
                 \_ I don't know as in am 100% certain, but lets say that
                    it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
              \_ The post you are responding to was from Feb 27, 2003,
                 \_ Oh, I see. My bad. DAMN THAT LIBERAL MEDIA!!!
        \_ Why is this resucitated? Just some random thing or is this relevant
           to anything?
           \_ [wall is talking about aaron in 2003, so I revived this]
              The point is that the Post editorial staff, for some reason,
              knew unequivocally that Saddam had WMDs and active WMD
              programs.  Dubya reaffirmed this certainty on the eve of
              the war.
              When the Post claimed this, poster said, "What?"
              When Powell showed the Security Council, China, Russia, and
              France said, "What?"
              When Tenet said it was a slam dunk, Dubya said, "What?"
              When Tenet showed him how it was a slam dunk, Dubya said, "What?"
              -- but still took the country to war
              "No doubt", "slam dunk", "unquestionably" indeed.
               \_ CAC will delete this in five minutes, because it makes
                  Bush look bad.
               \_ The time order was more like Bush told us that it
                  was certain that SH has WMD, then the press started
                  partoting him.
                  parroting him. Read _Manufacturing_Consent_ by Chomsky.
                  This is how it always happens.
                  \_ To be precise, Dubya himself never really stated it
                     clearly until his speech on the eve of the attack.
                     It was mainly Cheney and other minions saying this.
                     Dubya stated it somewhat in State of the Union 2003, but
                     not too clearly.
2005/1/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35676 Activity:high
1/12    CNN (today)
        "The search ended almost two years after President Bush ordered the
        invasion of Iraq, citing concerns that Saddam Hussein was building
        weapons of mass destruction and may have hidden weapons stockpiles."
        Dubya (two years ago):
        "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
        that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the
        most lethal weapons ever devised."

        Why can't CNN just be accurate?  They can write:
        "The search ended almost two years after President Bush ordered the
        invasion of Iraq, citing intelligence that Saddam Hussein was building
        weapons of mass destruction and concealing weapons stockpiles."
        ... isn't that much better?
        \_ why the liberals are always wrong-- if the WMDs are found,
           then Bush is right. If they're not, they've gone to Syria
           or have been destroyed, and that means Bush is still right.
           See how pointless it is to argue on this topic?
           \_ This is where you tell them about David Kay.  He was hand-picked
              and blessed by Dubya, went in almost certain to find something,
              and came back saying, "We were almost all wrong."
              Then you tell them about Duelfer--Kay's replacement and also
              hand-picked and blessed by Dubya--and his same conclusion that
              Saddam had destroyed all his stockpiles and did not have any
              active WMD programs and strove to keep them dismantled so he
              could get UN sanctions lifted.
              So, if there weren't any stockpiles, how could Saddam give them
              to Syria?
              It was only after the UN stopped monitoring at which he would
              rebuild his WMD programs.
        \_ um, MOST (more than 50%) of the Americans don't care about WMD
           and even some liberals don't care anymore. The pretext for the war
           was not important, the important thing is that MOST of the
           Americans think the war's a good thing and has made the world
           safer. Time to shut up my liberal mouth and just agree with MOST
           of the Americans.
           \_ You can try asking some of your Dubya-voting friends
              whether they think Iraq had WMDs.  My guess is the majority will
              say they're now in Syria, buried in the sand somewhere in Iraq
              perhaps never to be found, or Saddam just destroyed them right
              before the invasion.
               \_ I think that's what Safire says.  As I recall, as of a few
                  weeks ago, he's still convinced they'll turn up. If they're
                  right, I just hope they don't "turn up" when some construction
                  worker's backhoe busts through a drum of nerve gas.
              \_ yes exactly I have 2 Reddie friends and that's what they say
                 the problem arguing with them is that you can't prove them
                 \_ One wonders why you are so sure yourself.
                    \_ I am not sure of myself, but I know that asking
                       someone to disprove something that is not falsifiable
                       is the sure mark of an idiot.
            \_ No, most Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake and
               not worth the cost in lives and treasure:
               At best, you can claim 50% for your case, at worst only
               At best, you can claim 50% for your case, but the truth
               is, when asked the critical question "Was the war worth
               fighting" only 42% say yes. So you are losing the hearts
               and minds in the US as well as Iraq.
               \_ If the question were, "Was it the right thing to do to
                  send troops into Iraq", I bet your results would flip.
                  Choice of words is important in polling questions.
                  \_ I bet it wouldn't. Do you have any evidence of this
                     claim, or are you just wishing that it is so?
                     Read the results for the question "Do you think the
                     Iraq war has [made America safer]" Only 51%.
2005/1/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35628 Activity:nil
1/10    http://www.columbian.com/01072005/clark_co/230560.html
2005/1/9 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35625 Activity:nil
1/9     Can some of these Fox News idiots be sued in British court
        for calling just about anyone who disagrees with them traitors?
2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:35592 Activity:nil
1/7     http://csua.org/u/ama
        "Also, in an apparent sign that American relief agencies want to keep a
        lower profile, several trucks delivering supplies from U.S. AID removed
        large banners marking the source of the shipments."
        \_ Use you brain. They're in a muslim part of the world, they're also
           in a low security part of the world, especially with the
           disaster. Easy targets for extremists with twisted agendas.
2005/1/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35590 Activity:moderate
1/7     Yahoo! News - AP: Sri Lankan Teenager Raped by Rescuer:
        Hope the rapist's genitals be bitten off by dogs.
        \_ so? in Vietnam there were a bunch of things going on...
           thousands of villages were burned down and thousands of
           kids were raped. There are also thousands of Viet/White and
           Viet/Black children born in the 70s. God knows how many
           women and children are being raped in Iraq. That's the
           nature of war. Here is a pretty good article
           on psychological/biological reasons for rape behaviors
           in ALL wars:          http://tinyurl.com/n1us
           \_ This article borders on pop psychology, with little meaningful
              analysis aside from vague hand-wavy references to other
              researcher's works.  I don't think this goes very far toward
              making or reinforcing your point.  Perhaps you should STFW for
              something a little less sensational and a little more analytical.
           \_ Tsunami = War.  Ok, I got it.
             \_ the scale is just so off. One rape in the rescue mission vs.
                hundreds of rape in wars. Totally off scale. Personally I'd
                trade in 1 rape to get rid of 1 unnecessary war.
                \_ I don't see anything in the article that says the guy
                   was actually part of any rescue operation.  It sounds
                   like it was just some dude who also happened to be
                   washed out or something.
                   \_ No, he wasn't part of a rescue operation -- he rescued
                      the girl, then subsequently forced himself on her.  In
                      that context, he's 'a rescuer'.  That's how I read it,
                      \_ Yes that's what the article says.  However, the
                         headline itself is very misleading, although true.
                         -- OP
                      \_ Sorry, I'm just trying to make sense of the 2nd
                         poster's connection between the tsunami and the
                         vietnam war.
        My point is that there are even more rapes in wars, why doesn't -/
        anyone care about that? Hundreds of rape vs. 1 rape in the
        disaster. Your sense of scale is warped.
        \_ Uhm, his sense of scale is fine; it's your sense of compassion
           that's fucked in the ass.
        \_ Somewhere there's a bridge missing its troll.
           \_ Well, tell that troll to learn how to formal his posts.
           \_ Well, tell that troll to learn how to format his posts.
              \_ How the hell do you "formal" a post troll?
                 \_ Well, presumably, one starts by spelling format with a
                    't' instead of an 'l' -- otherwise especially obtuse motd
                    denizens get confused.
                 \_ Put it in a Tux!
2005/1/5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35559 Activity:nil
1/5     Message from Iraq: link:tinyurl.com/48lpn
2005/1/5-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35557 Activity:high
1/6     I'm trying to compile an album of famous anti-war songs
        (the ones that have actually made it to the top 100 in the last
        50 years) and I have the followings. Please add to the list,
        thanks for your help:
        Eve of Destruction - Barry McGuire
        Fortunate Son - Creedence Clearwater
        Incense and Peppermints - Strawberry Alarm Clock
        Universal Soldier - Donovan
        War - Edwin Starr
        We Got to Get Out of This Place - Animals
        What's Going On - Marvin Gaye
        Where Have All the Flowers Gone - Kingston Trio
        I Ain't Marching Anymore - Phil Ochs
        \_ I don't think "We Gotta Get Out of This Place" was an antiwar song.
           Bob Dylan's most explicit anti-war songs ("Masters of War" and
           "Blowin' in the Wind") don't seem to have charted, but are famous.
           "Knockin' on Heavens Door" might qualify, as could Les McCann's
           "Compared to What."
        \_ Black Eyed Peas - Where is the Love?
        \_ Kinky Sex makes the World Go Round - Dead Kennedys
        \_ Born in the USA - Bruce Springsteen
        \_ Imagine - Beatles
                     \_ John Lennon
        \_ Puff the magic dragon.
        \_ Puff the magic dragon. -lewis
        \_ http://www.zmag.org/songs/songarchive.htm
2005/1/4 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35541 Activity:high
1/4     emarkp, jrleek, and other conservatives who think the war on
        Iraq is a good thing and has made the world safer, please
        read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6786899/site/newsweek
        \_ Funny, I never remember saying the Iraq war is a good thing or
           has made the world safer.  Why do you continue to mix me and
           emarkp up?  Are the names that similar, or are you just stupid?
           \_ you're a conservative.
              \_ Wow, good thing you can use that word to extrapolate
                 _all_ of my political opinions.  I take it you're
                 'liberal?' because, you know you can only be one or the
                 other. Oh, and don't forget, liberal = democrat and
                 conservative = republican. -jrleek
                 \_ Personally, I pride myself on being a raving, wingut
                    \_ I pride myself on being a radical apathetic.
        \_ Why would anyone read this drivel?  And what does this have to do
           with the war in Iraq being a good thing and/or making the world
           \_ I envy you.  -poor dumb bastard suckered into reading drivel
        \_ OP is an idiot. 'Nuff said.
           \_ Man, I wished he had signed his post.
2004/12/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35494 Activity:high
12/30   Slate article on modern casualy rates vs. 1966:
        \_ The math kicks ass!  "Let's just multiply the figure by this
           ratio here..." -- ilyas
        \_ This is a non-article. The bottom line is, it wil take 72 years
           to reach the same casualty level that we had in Nam, and in Nam
           we didn't even take the whole country, we were only dealing
           with the South. You can spin the numbers anyway you want, the
           casaulty rate is about 1%. The only war where the rate was lower
           was the Spanish-American war.
2004/12/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35446 Activity:low
12/26   Blast From The Past:
        \_ Reason why we invaded Iraq: Because Bush doesn't like Saddam
           Hussein. Duh.
        \_ Here is a better one:
2004/12/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35442 Activity:nil
12/26   Well, look who's a proponent of affirmative action for religious
        minorities all of a sudden:
2004/12/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35423 Activity:high
12/23   emarkp, thanks for your answer (and bravery). Here's my new set of
        questions. Do you think the war in Iraq has made the world safer,
        and why? What do you think about the worldly perception of the
        US, from Western European nations, Asia, Africa, and others?
        Also, what do you think about Darfur, and do you think it is a good
        idea to install democracy there the same way we're doing in Iraq?
        How about Iran and Syria, don't they deserve democracy as well?
        Thanks, just trying to get more insight         -moderate
        \_ - Yes, I think the war in Iraq has made the world safer, because:
             - Saddam was personally financing Palestinian suicide bombers
             - Saddam's regime had state-sponsored rape, etc.
             - Saddam's control of huge oil reserves allowed him tremendous
               influence over the world
             - Saddam was willing and able to pursue nuclear and biological
               weapons, and ties were being establishing with Al Qaida.
             - A side effect was Libya's disbanding their WMD program.
             - Iraq was the most viable target after Afghanistan, and creates
               pressure on its neighbors to either eliminate terrorism or face
               similar consequences.
             - An Iraqi democracy can increase its oil output and hence
               decrease the worlds dependence on other terrorist-supporting
               regimes like Saudi Arabia.
           - I don't care much about world perception of the US.  The right
             thing to do is sometimes unpopular.  Frankly I find the UN
             obsolete and unwilling to act.  I think if the UN is to be useful
             it should expel all non-democracies.
           - Darfur pretty much proves the UN as useless and that the world in
             general doesn't give a rip about humanitarian aid.  I don't see
             any good guys there that we could support to sustain a democracy.
           - Iran and Syria are definitely next on the hit list.  Hopefully
             with a democracy on their borders, the people of Iran can bring
             about change.  Syria will most likely have to be changed by force.
             \_ THANK YOU emarkp, thanks for sharing your thoughts in a
                well-mannered, non-typical-liberal-cursing style. I now
                understand the psychology of Conservatives better, and
                hopefully I can use those ideas for my agendas    -moderate
2004/12/22 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35394 Activity:nil
12/22   Just realize Bush's big political gamble.  His State of Union address
        is about a week after Iraqi election...
        \_ What political gamble? It's his second and final term. He can
           basically do whatever he wants without worrying about
           repercussions. It's not like anyone can even recall him.
2004/12/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35387 Activity:nil 66%like:36585
12/21   Bush Supporters:  I am just curious.  What is our exit strategy
        on Iraq?
        \_ troll
        \_ huh? what is an "exit strategy?"  -Bush Supporter
        \_ You mean "cut and run"? That would be dishonorable and
           cowardly. We're going to fight as long as it takes.
           We have always been at war with Eurasia.
2004/12/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:35385 Activity:high
12/21   http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/12/21/sudan.darfur.dead
        If the US wants to bring Democracy to the world, why isn't it
        helping Darfur? 70,000 dead is... more than we killed the Iraqis.
        \_ If those 70,000 dead bodies could be converted into 200 Billion
           barrels of oil, we'd be there in a flash!
        \_ USA never cared about democracy.  We talked about it, but it's
           always our imperial interest that comes first.
           We are also racist in heart.  It's unfortunate, because Darfur
           would be a perfect opportunities to wage propaganda war countering
           Osama Bin Ladin's rhetroic, casting doubt on Osama's claim that
           Arabs are under siege.
2004/12/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35382 Activity:high
12/21   Funny how my mind works.  NYTimes headline "Blast Kills at Least 24 at
        U.S. Base in Iraq" I read as "Bush Kills at Least 24..."
        \_ omgwtfw00t!
        \_ Yeah!!
        \_ Bush killed over 1000+ servicement, 15000 Iraqis, and the world
           credibility and trust of US.
2004/12/21 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35379 Activity:very high
12/21   Hey, chicom troll: is it just me, or was "Hero" a huge propaganda
        push for the reunification of China?
        \_ John, stop using racist slur.  we all know what that "chi" in
           chicom stands for.
        \_ "reunification" imply china ever not unify.  This is lie of
           USA diplomacy.
           \_ Oh christ. My granny could spoof chicom troll better than you.
              \_ typical arogant USA troll. I like to see you spoff chicom
                 trol better!
        \_ whta's chicom?
           \_ Not sure. I once posted a quote from the Simpsons and some
              anon. motd coward accused me of being chicom.
           \_ Chinese communism? *shrug*
              \_no, OP meant "Chink Communist"
           \_ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chicom
        \_ Isn't that what the fuck we are doing to Iraq? You fuckhead?
        \_ China's propaganda machine pales in comparison to what
           BushCo tells to the Iraqi people. You want to hear what real
           propaganda is like? Go to Iraq and see what the US is
           capable of. And shut the fuck up.
        \_ I don't know who to believe, chicom troll or capitalist
           scumbag...  neither is better than the other. China has
           Mao, US has Cheney/Rumsfeld. Evil is what evil does. At
           least Mao led China to independence from western aggression
           and tells the world don't fuck with us. What the fuck has
           Cheney and Romsfeld done other than pocketing billions from
           the Iraq war and fucked California during the energy
           crisis? The US has sunk to a new low and all the while you
           are still chewing out chicom troll jokes? You are hopeless.
           \_ Haha, you are my hero! -- ilyas
           \_ Mao told the world don't fuck with the Chinese because he's
              fucking them himself.
              \_ Yeah, just like how the US fucked millions of
                 native americans, but its ok when WE do it because
                 we got bigger guns!!
                 \_ What's the casualty during the Cultural Revolution?  How
                    did Cheney and Rumsfeld fucked millions of native
                    Americans?  (Not that I like Cheney or Rumsfeld, but they
                    were compared to Mao above.)
                    \_ http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/marerror.htm
                        Mao: Great Leap Forward   1959  25.6M
                        Mao: Cultural Revolution  1965  1.1M
                        Gulf War                  1991  .08M
                        \_ This is as accurate as some site claiming US killed
                           billions of native americans.
                    \_ Iraq war casualty is about 1K U.S. + 15K Iraqi = .02M
                \_ Mao: Let's kill our own people for our future
                   Bush: Let's kill everyone else for our future
                   Seriously, I don't know what is worse...
                   \_ Both are bad, but I think the former is worse.  A
                      country's leader is supposed to put his/her countrymen's
                      interest before people of other countries.
                        \_ you are, of course, speaking from the perspective
                           of a narrowminded American. Switch Bush/Mao and
                           see if your statement is still valid in the
                           perspective of the mass.
                \_ how many chinese would there be (given birthrates)
                   if mao hadn't eliminated 30 million?
        \_ You must be Taiwanese and believe all the lies the
           Taiwanese media says about China.
2004/12/21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35374 Activity:high
12/21   So, uh, what's to prevent all the polling places in Iraq from getting
        all blowed up?
        \_ For one thing, there are 7000 of them, so it will be hard
           to hit them all. For another thing, most of the Sunnis are
           looking forward to winning the election and being in power,
           so the vast majority of the population in most of the country
           are going to be interested in protecting them.
           \_ You do realize the Sunnis are a minority population in Iraq,
           \_ ^Sunnis^Shiites
              \_ Thank you.
           \_ The Kurds all appear to be ok with it too.  The Sunni are
              the ones who have a problem with it.
              \_ that is because we pratically redraw the border and allow
                 Kurds to have virtual independence.
2004/12/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35342 Activity:high
12/17   For the person who didn't believe me on the armor production,
        do a google news search for "Armor Holdings", the company that
        supplies the armoring for those vehicles.  After Rummy said his
        "It's a matter of physics", they came out and said "We can boost
        production by 22% with no extra investment, but we haven't heard
        anything from the military about doing so."  Fuck you. You're
        apologizing for people who truly do not support our troups.
        \_ Uhm, if you knew anything armor you'd realize that you typically
           don't get something for nothing. Sure, you can put more armor
           on a vehicle, but the vehicle gets heavier, uses more gas,
           and is less manueverable. Anyway, the world isn't perfect,
           neither is the U.S. Army. There are tradeoffs. Deal with it.
                \_ Um, are you Rumsfeld? That was the biggest non-answer
                   on this thread.
        \_ 1000 fatalities isn't enough to make the American public
           care.  How many people on here actually know someone
           who died in Iraq?
           \_ Again, fuck you.  --scotsman (i know two.)
                \_ with how many degrees of separation?
                   \_ Seriously.  Fuck you.
                     \_ why do you hate America?
           \_ I don't actually know any black people who have been
              lynched either.  Or Jews killed by the Nazis.
              \_ I know people who have lost family members to the Nazis.
                 I would have to be pretty freakin old to actually know
                 someone who was killed before 1945.
                 \_ So you get the point then?
                    \_ That in 60 years no one will be left to remember
                       what a dumbass Bush was? We will have history books
                       to remind us. And oh, look! Their children will
                       still be around to remind people of the stupidity
                       of starting a war for no good reason:
                       \_ That's the point!  You don't have to personally
                          know someone that was effected to care about it.
        \_ I didn't believe YOUR ASSERTION dumbass.  I still haven't seen any
           sourcing for your claim.  Do you believe everything everyone tells
           you without question?
           \_ What claim?  Isn't it enough that Rumsfeld was pretty directly
              grilled by a bunch of combat troops about why they're not
              getting enough armor?  With 1,000+ fatalities, you'd think the
              military-industrial complex would go into overdrive.  I don't
              care if the war is right or wrong, it's being run by a bunch of
              sad amateurs.  -John
              \_ John, don't be a fucking moron. ~1100 fatalities in 1.5 years
                 of combat is nothing. In order to achieve the same numbers
                 that we lost in 'Nam we'd have to fight for 50 years, five
                 times longer than 'Nam. 1100 fatalities equals about 1% of
                 our ground forces in Iraq. That's like a fucking unheard of
                 fatality rate for a war. If it WERE run by morons like JFK
                 and LBJ in 'Nam, we'd have 10000+ casualties by now.
                 \_ I wrote a long rant in response to this, but deleted it,
                    as it's pointless to clog the motd with basic historical
                    concepts.  You can look it up in the archive if you want.
                    Upshot:  You are completely off, your premises are wrong,
                    your Vietnam comparison is a straw man, and I encourage
                    you to go to the Cal ROTC office and ask any of their
                    (generally) very friendly military history instructors to
                    explain why you are wrong--they'll probably lay out more
                    eloquently and succinctly your fallacies.  You're at Cal,
                    dialectical process and all that.  And kindly have the
                    courtesy to sign your name if you insult me.  -John
              \_ 'sad amateurs'?  I think you mean 'politicians'
                 \_ Wolfowitz has never been elected, and Rumsfeld was last in
                    office in '69.  They're the NeoCon version of Ivory Tower
                    professors, and their experiment has resulted in the
                    the current Mess-O'Potamia.
                    \_ But that's kind of my point-o-potamia, isn't it?
                       \_ If you're making some comparison between the two,
                          I'd agree.  If you're saying they're not sad
                          amateurs, I'd have to ask you to step outside for
                          reeducation by fisticuffs.
           \_ What part of SEARCH ON FUCKING GOOGLE do you NOT UNDERSTAND. It's
              been reported by the entire media.  Fuck you.
              \_ I did a search, first few links I clicked on didn't have any
                 info.  Do you understand the difference between  SEARCH ON
                 GOOGLE and a fucking source you dumbfuck?!?
                 \_ Boy, you're angry.  Read below.  -John
                    \_ I'm irritated when someone makes an inflammatory claim
                       and backs it up with "stfw".  My answer is a big fat
                       FUCK YOU.  If you don't think it's worth your time to
                       source your claims, it's not worth mine to take them
                       \_ Sourced below.  Put up or shut up.
                       \_ I'm annoyed with both of you.  Yeah, he should've
                          put up a link, but you should have looked harder.
                          Two wrongs don't make a right, even on the motd.
           \_ God, you're both lazy pricks.  Here's a recent Bloomberg article:
              http://csua.org/u/ael  Here's a Google Cache of the original
              article: http://csua.org/u/aen
        \_ You know, I'm having a hard time actually finding the full text for
           Rumsfeld's response.  I wonder why that is?  You do know that the
           vehicle supplier is only part of the chain, right?
           \_ http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html
           \_ Yes, the supplier is part of the chain.  I would argue they
              are the start of the chain.  They were never asked to increase
              production, even when they had told the pentagon they could.
              That's a military leadership failure.
              \_ No, that may mean that the rest of the chain can't handle
                 faster production.
                 \_ They are _the single provider_ of up-armored humvees
                    according to the article.  They say they could increase
                    production immediately with no new investment.  You're
                    being unreasonably apologistic.
                    \_ So you're saying there's no limit on transport and
                       deployment?  Apparently the rest of the supply chain is
                       handled by Santa Claus.
                       \_ This is before transport.  They didn't set anything
                          in motion.  They failed.
                          \_ If the rest of the chain couldn't handle that
                             supply it would be pointless to "set anything
                             in motion" you moron.  They'd just be humvees
                             sitting in a warehouse in the states.
                       \_ "It's a matter of production and capability of doing
                           it." SecDef apparently disagrees with you, soldier.
              \_ This is called 'passing the buck'. It's like when your
                 boss asks you why something isn't done that should've
                 been done by now and you blame someone else, even though
                 you could've done your part of the job without that
                 person having done theirs. This company is trying to
                 avoid taking blame by saying 'We weren't specifically
                 asked!'. I am sure they were not going out of their way
                 to tell the military they could produce more for free.
                 \_ Uhh, why wouldn't they want to produce more?  They
                    get paid by the piece sold you know.
                    \_ I guess you've never worked in/for government.
                 \_ "I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that."
                    This is just not your day for reading, is it?
                    \_ What do you expect them to say? Don't take
                       everything at face value. I am not saying the
                       company should produce more when it is not asked
                       to, but they are painting it to make themselves
                       look better.
                       \_ To look better to whom? Apart from you, who's calling
                          them liars?  Not the military, and they're the ones
                          who would gain most from being able to pin this
                          on the company. Face it, SecDef dropped the ball.
                          No amount of signed letters is going to fix that.
              Also of note, Rumsfeld was asked basically the same question
              8 months ago at a similar town-hall meeting.  He bullshat on
              them then, and did so again.
              (Oops.  It was general meyers who took the question.)
              \_ Huh? Wha?  meyers is in this thread?  Uh oh -- time to ilyas
                 \_ No, it was General Myers.  -meyers, no relation
                    \_ Hi, you are both dipshits.  Have a good weekend.
                         -- ilyas
2004/12/17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35337 Activity:nil
12/17   Pretty cool story from Iraq.
2004/12/14 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35282 Activity:nil
12/13   is there a website that keeps track of where all
        the blogs of soldiers in afghanistan/iraq are?
        \_ obGWB censored blogs
2004/12/13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35256 Activity:high
12/13   You probably won't see this on Fox News.
        The thing that really caught my eye was the 5,000 deserters:
        \_ Their source .. _C_BS News. About as reliable as the female condom
           \_ Source = Pentagon
              \_ "Dan Felushko, a 24-year-old marine, told the CBS program 60
                 Minutes this week that he left Camp Pendleton, Calif., and
                 came to Canada rather than Kuwait, because he felt it would
                 have been wrong to fight.

                 "I didn't want, you know, `died deluded in Iraq' over my
                 gravestone," he said.

                 According to the CBS program, some 5,000 American men and
                 women have deserted the military since the war began. They are
                 largely accused of cowardice back home, but they say they are
                 acting out of conscience."

                 Source looks like 60 minutes to me.  Not exactly reliable or
                 \_ Do you think "agenda-free" news even exists anymore?  Just
                    \_  Hello.  I think pp is probably a typical republican
                        jive ass motherfucker, but this is the agenda free
                        \_ CSPAN IS COMMUNIST PINKO GARBAGE!!!1!!1 YOU CAN
                           TELL BECAUSE IT'S NON-PROFIT AND RUNS ON
                           GOVERNMENT MONEY!!!!!11!!
                    \_ The only talking head I've seen that I believe is
                       unbiased is Tim Russert.  No one else.
                       \_ You've got your blinders on firm.  If you had said
                          Aaron Brown, you might have had something here.
                       \_ Is that why he was so easy on GWB?
        \_ why are they unhappy? Would they be happier with MP-40 or MP-44?
2004/12/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35233 Activity:very high
12/9    "...troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing
        centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their
        identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would
        receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at
        all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the
        deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned."
        http://csua.org/u/a9s (boston.com)
        Hmm...required to wear badges.  Remind anybody of anything?
        \_ at least they pay a flat tax
        \_ Well, it's not like the Fallujans are missing anything.
           It was much worse under Saddam. Anyway, Mr. Liberal Troll,
           do you actually have a point? See, the problem with you is
           that you say "blah blah blah, U.S. is acting very badly
           in Iraq." But the problem is that Iraq was much worse
           during Saddam, so your argument doesn't hold. It's like
           like saying "Oh, the Americans are evil because they
           interred the Japanese." Well, the Japanese killed over 8
           million Chinese, so out goes your argument.
           I mean, seriously, are you brain damaged?
           \_ damn. There's that argument again.  At least we're not as
              bad as Saddam.
              \_ I think it's the same guy.  His knee likes to jerk.
                 \_ He also doesn't seem to understand that people of a non-
                    liberal bent can disgree with him, too.  Poor fellow.
           \_ let me explain why you might be brain damaged instead, ok?
              suppose you're a civilized human being, which implies that
              you must not exude offensive smell.  if you go around saying
              "i don't smell like shit. i smell a little bit better than
              shit," you're not going to get people to say "oh yeah, you do
              smell good." now, here's the tricky part. think of this, except
              replace smelling like shit with "acting like a nazzi". And see
              if the little lightbulb in your head lights up. ok?
              \_ Let's imagine this situation.  Say a bunch of people in
                 Compton, CA, decided to stop killing each other, organize,
                 and start regularly setting off bombs in major metropolitan
                 areas in the US.
                 Now what do you suppose the appropriate course of action is,
                 for the US gvt?  (No acting like Nazis now!)
2004/12/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35216 Activity:high
12/8    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/12/08/coverup
        Sgt. Frank "Greg" Ford, ... told his commanding officer ... that he
        had witnessed five incidents of torture and abuse of Iraqi detainees
        at his base, and requested a formal investigation. ... Thirty-six
        hours later, Ford ... was then strapped down, loaded onto a military
        plane and medevac'd to a military medical center outside the country.
        Artiga immediately said Ford was "delusional" and ordered a
        psychiatric examination ...
        \_ So how many of you motherfuckers who voted for Bush still think
           Abu Gharib was some kind of independent action by a few grunts
           with no knowledge of superiors?  Shit rolls downhill.  When the
           guy at the top has no respect for human dignity, international
           law, or even the regulations of the US armed forces (do you bastards
           seriously still believe he wasn't awol?) that attitude has a way
           of percolating down.
           \_ I thought you no longer gave a fuck, aaron.
           \_ Tin foil hat time I see. My, aren't we bitter liberals today.
              You're absolutely right, though. Saddam's methods of prison
              torture was much more humane than the U.S. sponsored prison
              torture. I for one say that we were better off with Saddam.
              Oh, btw, didn't Kerry vote FOR the war?
              \_ Wow. you make such a convincing argument.  At least we're
                 not as bad as Saddam.  Shouldn't we as a nation be so proud
                 of ourselves?
                 \_ Hell yeah! That's why we live in the U.S of Fucking A.
                    Our policies are much better than Saddam's policies,
                    our method of government hands down has beaten
                    dictatorships like Hitler's Germany, Mussolinni's Italy,
                    and Tojo's Japan. We're better than the Brits, and
                    a hell of a lot better than French. To top it off,
                    our society is better than the former Communist hegemony.
                    If you don't fucking like it, get a plane ticket, get out.
                    We don't need your tired sorry ass ivory tower defeatist
                    attitude anymore. It's tiring. You lost the election, you
                    lost the vision of what America is, you've lost touch
                    with the common people. Face it, your dogma is just plain
                    wrong. Seriously, give up your citizenship for someone who
                    acutally WANTS to be here and isn't going to bemoan the
                    state of affairs on the fucking MOTD every fucking day
                    while sitting on your panzy ass doing nothing about it.
                    \_ hey, shithead.  i also think the the US is the best
                       country in the world.  You know why?  not because of
                       flagwaving shitheads like you.  every country has
                       mindless fucks like you, including the enemies you
                       name above.  What makes the US as good as it is, for
                       all its problems is the poeple who have fought to make
                       it better by criticizing it over the centuries.  oh
                       yeah, and it was the "ivory tower elitists" who were
                       thrown out of nazi germany and came over here to win
                       the war.  the nazi enemy had far more flagwaving fucks
                       like you than we did.  we won in spite of fucks like
                       , and we will continue to be the best nation on earth
                       in spite of fucks like you.
                    \_ gung ho, today, aren't we?  Why don't you do something
                       about it and sign up to go over to iraq?
                       \_ because he's a fucking pussy like his commander in
                    \_ No fucking shit we're better than Hitler's Germany,
                       asswipe. Some of us aspire to a lot more than that.
                       Maybe YOU should give up your citizenship to someone
                       who cares about the constitution, civil rights, and
                       the things that once made America a great country.
                    \_ If US policies are so much better than Saddam's, why
                       did you just juxtapose the two side by side?  Your
                       comparison implies US policies are similar to, but
                       slightly better than those of a dictator. Now I see
                       why you're so proud.
                    \_ -2 flame.
                    \_ AMERICA!  FUCK YEAH!
                    \_ Good Red Herring, but not good enough. -Vet
        \_ Didn't Stalin do that to dissidents too?
           \_ Yeah, but we are not quite as bad as Saddam Hussein. At least
              not yet.
              \_ http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17001
        \_ About time the people who really pushed this policy start
           paying for it. I knew it wasn't two Spec 4s and a Staff Seargant.
           This kind of approval of torture had to come from pretty far up
           in the chain of command. I hope the officers involved fry. -Vet
           \_ In your personal opinion, what is the highest point in the
              chain of command where people are at least complicit?
              And which chain of command would that be--army or CIA?
              \_ God knows. The Battalion Commander at the very least
                 had to be aware of what was going on and was obviously
                 trying to cover it up. I dunno about anything higher
                 than that. The Guantanamo torture memos by Gonzalez
                 have set the conditions for all this to happen, but
                 that is guy is getting a raise due to rah rah boy and
                 his buddies. When I say Battalion Commander above
                 that guy is getting a raise to AG due to rah rah boy
                 and his buddies. When I say Battalion Commander above
                 I mean the Army MI BC. I don't know anything about
                 the CIA or how they do things.
        \_ I wouldn't neccessarily trust a single sourced Salon story.
           I am a liberal, but I know sensationalist reporting when I
           see it. I would like to see a second source for this story.
2004/12/7-8 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35206 Activity:high
12/7   Whatever happened to all the artists that are suppose to sing anti-war
       songs like the 70s?
       \_ Anti war songs question Our President's authority, and who would
          want to do that?
       \_ Last March, Joan Baez played at the march in the city.  We have a
          generation gap where music has fallen to something you listen to
          in the background.  If you troll for non-marketplace music, you
          will find PLENTY of anti-war songs.
       \_ Wait till we have been fighting in Iraq for five years. They
          are coming.
       \_ http://www.lacarte.org/songs/anti-war/updates.html#summary
       \_ Eminem's Mosh
         \_ http://protest-records.com/mp3
       \_ http://www.countryjoe.com/warsongs.htm
2004/12/6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35180 Activity:high
12/5    http://fallujahinpictures.com
        About as graphic as you imagine, and very depressing.
        \_ Hmm.  The pictures are graphic and very disturbing, but the strict
           focus on mutilated bodies and wounded people seems to slant the
           'photo-essay' into a potentially distasteful political message while
           neglecting to capture any real sense of the iraqis as a people.
           I mean, if even *one* picture other than blood and gore (in the
           two weeks of grisly images I scrolled through) had been included,
           I wouldn't have formed this opinion.
           \_ What do you want?  People in a refugee camp?  Someone parallel
              parking?  Or walking their dog?  They're addressing the failure
              of the media of showing NONE of this gore, not the lives of
              Iraqis..  If they were trying to show that, they would go there
              with cameras themselves.
           \_ Well, whatever it is, it isn't journalism.  It's kind of
              a mirror image of foxnews.  What I want to see is real
              reporting on the *overall* situation in Iraq, not just
              what brave marines fighting(fox) or dead people(this blog)
              look like.  These pictures could have been from any war.
              \_ Which is a point in itself.  They could be from any war,
                 but they're from this one, and you haven't seen them
                 anywhere else.  Finding some modicum of real reporting
                 isn't hard.  You just have to look outside this country.
                 \_ I think these pictures are counter-productive. The
                    public didn't see stuff like this during WW II. I have
                    a relative in Iraq and he send back a lot of cool
                    pictures of him with Iraqi kids and stuff, but that's
                    not 'news' either because it doesn't fit anyone's
                    \_ USA Today and Fox have have images like this (US soldier
                       with Iraqui chidren) on a regular basis. It's not news
                       but its great propaganda. I would guess there's a new
                       one of these each week in USA Today, for instance. This
                       does not belittle your relative's experience. The
                       implication such pictures have not been showing up in
                       the mainstream media is simply false, though.
                       \_ I haven't seen very many positive stories. It's
                          not that they don't exist, but that the negative
                          and sensationalist stories are far more common.
                    \_ No pictures like this from WW2?  Are you sure that you
                       know what you're talking about?  Pictures of Auschwitz
                       and other concentration camps were critical in raising
                       awareness of what the Nazis had done.  Just because
                       the pictures don't support the US agenda doesn't mean
                       that they should be censored, as they essentially are
                       in the US media.
                       \_ WW II was all but over by then. I have old
                          newspapers and they were not full of pictures of
                          all the people that died on D-Day, for instance.
                          This 'journalism' really began with Vietnam.
                          \_ How is it journalism to deliberately not
                             report something?  Keep in mind that there are
                             huge technological leaps between WWII and Vietnam
                             (satellite communication, etc.) and between
                             Vietnam and now (too many to list).  As has been
                             discussed in many other places, Gulf War 2 is
                             probably the most heavily covered war zone ever.
                             And the journalists covering it have technologies
                             at their disposal to increase frequency and detail
                             of stories that previous generations could only
                             dream about.  The availability of a technology
                             that increases information means that it is likely
                             to be used, regardless of how much you wring
                             your hands about it.  Moralizing will not turn
                             back the clock.  Digital cameras and the Internet
                             are a Pandora's box that we cannot close.
                             \_ The media has an obligation to present a
                                story, not to become 'reality television'
                                like showing car chases. The media
                                obviously doesn't show scenes like the
                                beheadings. Heck, they won't even show the
                                inside of a slaughterhouse (for animals).
                                We know certain things happen in war and
                                to focus on those few hideous things is to
                                ignore the big picture. There's a good
                                reason the media doesn't show graphic
                                images and they shouldn't. Let people seek
                                them out if they want them, but not in the
                                \_ The only obligation the corporate media
                                   has is to generate revenue for their
                                   shareholders.  That's it.  Fuck the
                                   corporate media.
2004/12/4 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35172 Activity:nil
12/4    The War Effort, a new kind of comedy about a new kind of war:
        \_  Say, Hank.  You got any more pudding?
2004/12/1-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35152 Activity:high
12/1    Required reading for anyone that thinks we are winning the war on
        terror.  And before any of you jerk your knees, note the .mil address.
        "Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic
        \_ One can infer that you are trying to say that we are not winning
           the war on terror based on this single report. If that presumption
           is correct then you are merely fact-finding for your own case
           instead of attempting to really understand the situation at hand.
           This paper is merely one of thousands of proposals that go in
           front of government bodies and the opinions stated in it are
           policy strategies that are suggested. They may or may not
           be correct. Merely drawing up one study group paper and saying
           that it proves your point that we are not winning the war
           against terror is fallacious at best. Politics, unlike
           computer science, does not have one definitive answer. It is
           a complex interplay of socio-economic dynamics. One should
           never presume to know definitively whether one is "winning"
           or "losing" something based on one opinion or one report.
           Take, for example, the Cold War. There are pundits who claim
           that we won the cold war and there are those who claim that
           we did not but instead the Soviets merely imploded due to their
           own internal conflicts. You can argue either way based on which
           papers you select and which facts you wish to draw up. That
           doesn't mean you are more correct than any other pundit. It merely
           means you found what you are looking for in a myriad of facts.
           Anyway, the document is some 100+ pages. If you actually did an
           in depth study of the paper I doubt that you would find that
           it conclusive can tell you whether the war on terror is won or
           lost. It is also beyond the scope of the motd and probably
           the majority of the CSUA members to determine this on their
           own without a true context. It would be as silly as trying to
           give a CS major a case book and tell him/her to defend
           Scott Peterson in trial. -williamc
           \_ you win the award for longest post that doesn't say anything.
              \_ pshah!  Maybe second place.  read this:
           \_ Easy with the axe-grinder there, dude. Did you read what
             the PP wrote? It is clear
             s/he thinks we are not winning the "war
             on terror", but he never claims that he came
             to this conclusion because of this one report. -nop
        \_ And who exactly would benefit from a report saying we're not
           winning the war on terror?
                \_ anyone in the "reality based community"
           \_ Are you really this mired in partisan stupidity?  It would be
              of benefit to anyone that wants to see terrorism stamped out
              of existance.  If our tactics aren't working then we need to
              change them, but this sort of presumes that the policy makers
              REALIZE they're not working.  It also helps to understand WHY
              they're failing or why they're not working as well as they're
              supposed to. I hope I've missed your point(and I'm sorry if I
              did), but if not, then I find myself wondering how someone as
              stupid as yourself even manages to dress himself in the
              morning....this all ought to be kind of self evident.
              \_ You're a moron if you think terrorism can be "stamped out
                 of existence." So who dresses *you* in the morning?
                 \_ I didn't say it could be.  -4hp for poor reading
                    \_ And I never said anything partisan. -9hp for poor
                       reading comprehension for you, dumbass
                       \_ I think I already covered this.  Feeling a little
                          defensive, are we?  If you'd actually read what I
                          said instead of hysterically knee-jerking, you'd have
                          realized that.
                          \_ Okay, let me spell it out for you, dumbfuck.
                             A sales consultant for a network security services
                             company gives you a report telling you that your
                             network isn't secure. Who exactly would benefit
                             from such a report? How is this knee-jerk? Because
                             I'm not as gullible as you are? Idiot.
                             \_ Uhm, so you're saying that you just assume
                                he's obviously biased and is therefore full of
                                shit?  So, on that basis, you do no
                                due-diligence, but sit back and tell yourself
                                how clever and world-wise you are for avoiding
                                *that* pitfall?  That's just stupid.
                                \_ No. No.
                 \_ I bet you also scoffed at Kerry's "nuisance" comment..
              \_ His thinking may be partisan, but he's not necessarily
                 stupid.  A classic political tactic for poo-pooing opposition
                 to your plans is to point to threats ("we have always been
                 at war with Eurasia!")  I agree with you, objectively
                 speaking it is best to pragmatically go about analyzing
                 your mistakes and weaknesses so you can do a better job, but
                 let's face it, recent US politics has, more than at any time
                 I can recall, relied on "terrorism" as a threat to grant a
                 blank check for "the government" to commit questionable
                 actions.  It's easy to take a cynical view.  -John
                 \_ Hmm.  I think it's much less depressing to just assume that
                    the guy is a partisan moron.
                    \_ And that would be the incorrect assumption. FYI- the
                       election ended a month ago.
                       \_ FYI, partisanism exists and causes issue with or
                          without an election going on.
        \_ how does this report say we are not winning the war on terror?
           \_ You really should just read it.  Essentially it says we are
              making a collosal "strategic mistake."
        \_ Thank you for pointing me to this report. I have been saying
           more or less these exact things for at least a year now and
           had decided that the US was hopelessly going to screw things up,
           at least for the next four years. At least somebody in
           government is starting to think about these issues in the
           right way. -ausman
2004/12/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35145 Activity:nil
12/1    Very interesting interview with Chalmers Johnson, author of
        "The Sorrows of Empire."
2004/11/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35111 Activity:high
11/29   The hunt for weapons of mass destruction related program activities in
        Iraq continues. 619 days and counting.
        \_ The flogging of a dead horse continues, 619 days and counting.
           \_ Well I still have not heard Republican spokesmen admit that the
              rationale for the war was a complete sham.
              \_ "everyone thought they were there" "we know he had them,
                 we sold it to him" "he intended to get them" blah blah
                 \_ But you don't hear "We were wrong.  We distorted the
                    \_ Um, haven't you read the Duelfer report?  We were wrong,
                       without distorting evidence.
                       \_ Not to disagree with you, but the Senate report on
                          pre-war intelligence on Iraq blamed it all on the
                          "Intelligence Community" (CIA, NSA, DoE, FBI, etc.).
                          Conclusion 2.  The IC did not accurately or
                          adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties
                          behind the judgments in the Oct 2002 National
                          Intelligence Estimate.
           \_ Why is it a dead horse? Aren't we still in Iraq, killing
              civilians, losing troops and wasting American lives and
              money? Must suck to have the blood of 100,000 innocent
              civilians on your hands. I did everything I could to stop
              Bush, but because of idiots like you, America went to war.
              \_ This is patently absurd.  If you did everything you could to
                 stop Bush, why is he alive and you unincarcerated?
                 \_ Okay, I did everything I could within the law.
                    Pedantic bitch.
                    \_ I find your lack of resolve... disappointing.
        \_ "I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've
           got an intelligence group together to figure out why.  But Saddam
           Hussein was a unique threat. And the world is better off without
           him in power. And my opponent's plans lead me to conclude that
           Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be more
           dangerous." -Dubya
                \_ The founding fathers would be happy to know that eventually
                   such a proficient orator is running the country they
                   \_ Oh please.  Jefferson was terrible in public.
                      I think there's too much hero worship of the FFs
                      going on in the US.  They were intelligent men,
                      some were even great men, but not without rather
                      distasteful personal or functional flaws (like, you
                      know, everybody else). -- ilyas
                      \_ If you want to know why there is ilyas bashing,
                         this is a sample of what elicits it.
                         \_ ilyas bashing happens for the same reason
                            flamewars happen on the internet.  Lots of
                            bored people physically insulated from the
                            people they are spittling at.  Try to start
                            a flamewar, or 'bash' someone at a bar sometime,
                            tough guy.  -- ilyas
                            \_ the context of the original question was lost.
                               it is, paraphrased:  "Why ilyas-bashing more
                               than tom-bashing?"
2004/11/28 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Kinney] UID:35094 Activity:nil
11/28   Kinney, if it wasn't for your girlfriend, would you still be working
        in Iraq?
2004/11/23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35033 Activity:nil
11/23   What's the point of voting in Iraq when the ethnic minority
        Iraqis will never get a chance to win in the first place?
        \_ What was the point of voting in the US even though the minorities
           never had a chance to elect a non-white candidate?
        \_ The up coming election is for the Iraqi version of congressmen.
2004/11/19-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:34986 Activity:very high
11/19   How I Began to Teach About the Vietnam War
        \_ I love free republic guy.  Do you have a family?
           would you like to come over for Thanksgiving? - danh
           \_ what do you think of the article?
                \_ It is well-written, balanced, historically accurate, and
                   insightful.  It does not do the author justice to have
                   his article reproduced among the steaming ill-informed
                   monkey-shitpile that is http://freerepublic.com  -John
                   \_ So what kind of monkey-shitpile is soda wall, John?
                \_ article was fine.  I do not agree that the US had
                   any clear way of "winning".  losing over 1/10 of their
                   population to US explosives didn't phase the Vietnamese
                   at all while they were defending their home turf. - danh
                   \_ No, no, no! You are wrong. The Nixon bombings were
                      effective and broke the stalemate at the Paris
                      Peace talks. If Watergate had not happened we may
                      still have had an effective cease fire. In addition,
                      the Tet offense was a disaster for the North, and they
                      didn't try an invasion like that again for many years.
                      It's a common myth that the VC were invincible. They
                      were not. We were constantly beating them, it's just
                      that we should've invaded the north. We couldn't because
                      of China. The U.S. didn't lose Vietnam, they abandoned it.
                \_ The article was fundamentally flawed, in that it glossed
                   over the fact that the United States *did* support
                   illegitimate and unpopular regimes after the overthrow
                   of Diem.
                   \_ All of you are missing his fundumental thesis.  ie "It
                      was a good idea, but we &*%)ed it up."  All of you saying
                      "Yeah, but we did this wrong" should be agreeing with
                      him.  Also, by extension, we shouldn't not help anyone
                      else just because we boned it up once.
                      \_ It was a bad idea, AND we $*%)ed it up.
                         See post below for why.
                         \_ I assume you mean the domino theory one?  True, the
                            domino theory turned out to be incorrect, but I
                            don't think that made Vietnam a bad idea.  Korea
                            didn't turn out perfect either, but I'm dang glad
                            we protected SK.
                            \_ Bad idea, good idea.  Let's call it a mistake.
                               Also, Vietnam != Korea.
                               U.S. participation in Korea, Gulf War 1, WW2
                               were not mistakes.
                       \_ No, his fundamental thesis was that he had been
                          taught three incorrect things by the anti-war
                          movement: 1) that the gov't of SV was illegitimate,
                          2) that we had no legitimate reason for being in
                          Vietnam and 3) that we couldn't have won anyway.
                          "These are that there was never a legitimate
                          non-communist government in Saigon, that the
                          U.S. had no legitimate reason to be involved in
                          Vietnamese affairs, and that the U.S. could
                          not have won the war under any circumstances."
                          The article is bad because 1 and 3 are correct, imo,
                          and no serious person held #2. I am sure you can
                          find a few Communists and the like who believed
                          #2, but most Americans, even anti-war Americans,
                          believed that the US had a commitment to fight
                          Communism. They just didn't think Vietnam was
                          the right place to do it and they didn't like
                          the way we fought it. The whole line of argument
                          of his that Dinh was legitimate is a red herring,
                          since most of our support came after he was
                          deposed and we supported the coup that deposed
                          since most of our support for the wary came after he
                          was deposed and we supported the coup that deposed
                          him to boot!
                          \_ Ever hear of SEATO?  Yea but you are right
                             NATO was a stupid idea too.
        \_ The three "axioms" he mentioned I don't think are that important.
           The key issue is the dominoes did not fall after we lost the
           Vietnam War and expended significant national resources in doing so.
           \_ Wrong, one significant domino did fall. Ever heard of Cambodia?
        \_ American ideals and beliefs are one thing, but how many times
           have US allowed its selfish self-interest to take precedence over
           these.  People around the world like democracy, freedom, rule of
           law, etc., but they don't like US trying to bully other countries
           for its selfish goals and interests.  Just because US, as a
           country, is one of the better representatives of these ideas, does
           not mean its use of power abroad is just or in support of these
           ideals.  To assume so is the biggest hole in the argument the
           author put forth.
           \_ Apparently you need to get yourself a copy of "Weatlh of Nations"
              and read it from cover to cover. It's amazing what a little
              education can do for even the weakest of minds... But I doubt
              you will so here's the capsule. A) All countries are after
              their own self interest, that's just how it works. B) Having
              a country like America look after its own self interest in the
              world is not merely justified, it's necessary for not only
              the continuation of America but life as we know it. C) If
              it wasn't America it would be China or Russia. I know a
              LOT of people who are MUCH happier with America at the reigns
              rather than China or Russia. D) If people REALLY dislike
              America so much why is everyone always trying to get in, yet
              hardly anyone ever leaves? And if you think that American policy
              is bad, just take a look at how other colonial powers treated
              their subordinates. The Americans, by contrast, have been
              exceedingly gracious. Yes, we are the Romans of our era, and
              being as such we will need to recognize that we are indeed an
              august nation and have certain responsibilities that others
              do not have.
              \_ "We are better than China and Russia.  Hence you should
                  support us in all that we do!"  What a stupid logic.
                 \_ America is not perfect, but it sure beats any and
                    all alternatives thus far conceived by mankind.
2004/11/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:34970 Activity:insanely high
11/18   The Vietnam War Crimes You Never Heard Of:
        http://www.vietnamwar.com/MyLai.htm (The Charlie Company)
        \_ I can only assume you mean "I'm so out of touch, I've never
           heard of all these Vietnam War crimes."  Since I'm pretty sure
           the rest of the civilized world has heard of them before. Pver
           and over, in fact.
2004/11/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34963 Activity:high
11/18   Sowell on the killing of the wounded insurgent.  I was wondering
        the same things.
        \_ "Terrorists are not enemy soldiers covered by the rules of
           war. Nor should they be. They observe no rules." I stopped
           reading after this. By the same token, the Genova convention
           is obsolete, because anyone can say the enemy is not covered.
           \_ i'm not losing sleep over it.
           \_ Hello.  I do not condone the murder of the wounded man, but
              people who do not act like an organized military are not
              afforded Geneva Convention protections.  End of story.
                -- ilyas
              \_ Ilya, war is no longer declared between nations and fought
                 by cavalry regiments adhering to strict rules of combat.
                 It's a dirty, filthy brutal mess, and you're going to see
                 more and more irregular forces fighting wars.  The Geneva
                 Conventions were not designed to strictly protect "soldiers"
                 based on some static definition of who wears what; the
                 brutality committed against civilians and irregulars in wars
                 since they were signed has been despite them, not as a
                 result.  The Conventions seek to limit the damage done by
                 wars as a natural result of the kind of barbarism unleashed
                 in a war of any kind.  If you were to capture OBL himself, if
                 he is defeated and can no longer defend himself, it is your
                 responsibility as a combatant to treat him according to a
                 basic set of standards.  You may _not_ sodomize, shoot, or
                 torture him.  Period.  Legalese aside, the US must follow a
                 higher standard of conduct than terrorists, undemocratic
                 states, irregulars, tyrants, etc.  There is no argument that
                 can justify anything that goes against this imperative.
                 None.  The only justification that the USA have for engaging
                 the rest of the world, unless it is against some body that
                 has directly attacked us, is moral authority.  When that
                 fails, the whole basis for being the (necessary) world
                 policeman is destroyed as well.  -John
                 \_ The only 'moral' argument I can offer is of a utilitarian
                    nature, and that is if you must wage war, wage it as
                    quickly and brutally as possible, so it is over as
                    quickly as possible.  I simply disagree with your morals.
                    A captured, ununiformed man who tried to kill soldiers
                    forfeits his life, in much the same way a civilian who tries
                    (or does!) kill a cop.  There is no way to wage moral war,
                    by the way.  War is inherently immoral. -- ilyas
                    \_ Quickly, yes.  Brutally?  That is counterproductive.
                       A democracy should not wage unprovoked offensive war,
                       which is essentially what we have done, but even if you
                       disagree with the {morals,ethics} of this, being
                       purposely nasty to people _after the fact_ has never
                       in any war, ever accomplished anything.  Furthermore,
                       it is not in the authority of an individual soldier to
                       mete out summary justice or punishment, ever.  It is
                       his duty to win, and it is the duty and authority of
                       a military chain of command to deal with uninformed
                       soldier-whackers and their ilk.  This is a simple,
                       black and white issue; if a captive is killed in self-
                       defense while trying to harm a soldier, it is (as with
                       your cop example) regrettable but probably unavoidable.
                       If it is a captive killed after the fact of trying to
                       harm a soldier, it is a crime.  Period.  -John
                       \_ I also disagree that a democracy should not wage
                          offensive war, I simply don't see why offensive war
                                  \_ You've obviously never played Civilization
                                     \_ EU or Victoria >> Civ. -- ilyas
                          is always unjustified.  Similarly, I don't see why
                          executions of ununiformed people, if properly
                          authorized, are wrong (they certainly were not in
                          this case, and the soldier will be dealt with).
                          I think given that a certain portion of the population
                          (or, in the case of Iraq, mostly foreigners)
                          is actively soldier hunting with guns and bombs, I
                          think the situation has moved past pleasant
                          discussions, and basically such people need to be
                          killed.  If captured, they can possibly be killed
                          after a trial or some such, but a short military
                          trial is not unreasonable in my eyes.  These people
                          are not conscripts of a state, they are not taking
                          orders.  They can leave at any time, yet they fight.
                          There is a reason GC is applied to uniformed
                          soldiers, it's not just a quaint 19th century
                          cavalry thing.  Btw, brutality and quickness are not
                          tied together just as a turn of phrase.  Brutality
                          really is the most efficient way.  Not moral, of
                          course. -- ilyas
                          \_ I'd love to prove you wrong, but some baboon
                             keeps overwriting my reply.  Screw it.  -John
                             \_ Ironically, it's probably ilyas, esp
                                considering how active he is in this thread.
              \_ this is total bullshit. I never understood how people
                 get away w/ calling our enemies in this Iraq war
                 "terrorists" instead of soldiers or whatever other
                 military jargon people use.
                 Isnt this what the british said about the US in the
                 Revolutionary War? (I mean, not literally about the
                 Geneva convention per se, but this mentality)
                 \_ Because they _aren't_
                    soldiers.  Soldier = in a chain of command, wears
                    uniform, etc.  Certainly, armies employ 'spies'
                    and other unconventionals.  But if they are caught,
                    they are not afforded the GC protections, are
                    tortured, etc.  This has been done in every war, by
                    all sides.  This is a distasteful business, etc.
                    but why is this new to anyone?  People can't seem
                    to separate 'distasteful', 'reprehensible', etc.
                    from 'unlawful.'  US is not being unlawful. -- ilyas
                    \_ Thank you John Yoo Jr.  Sodomizing and torturing
                       innocent people or executing guerilla fighters are both
                       against the Geneva convention, and both these groups of
                       people ARE covered, as much as the administration would
                       like to argue otherwise.
                       \_ Sodomizing innocent people is against the rules of
                          war.  Is there a link detailing protections
                          ununiformed people (guerillas, random fuckers with bombs,
                          etc.) are granted?  My impressions are such folks
                          are shot on the spot if they are lucky, or 'questioned'
                          if not.  Methinks you be full of shit.  You can't expect
                          the military to gingerly handle folks who are out to
                          kill them. -- ilyas
                          \_ I'm not asking them to shake hands and be polite,
                             merely refrain from torture and executions.  Is
                             that too much to ask of the US Army?
                             \_ I dislike torture.  I think executions are morally
                                justified.  YMMV.  I have yet to see a document the
                                US signed which forbids either being applied to
                                ununiformed folks with guns/bombs.  -- ilyas
                 \_ It's called 'framing the debate'.  This way it's about how
                    you treat terrorists.  If you call them rebels or
                    insurgents or, god forbid, freedom fighters that opens up
                    all sorts of unpleasant questions about what they're
                    fighting for.
                    \- i agree with your sentiment but i dont think you have
                       picked a good example. i think a better example [i have
                       not giventhis huge thought, so there may be even better
                       cases] is agent orange. i bet in the NVA were spraying
                       american troops with agent O, "we" would have called
                       that chemical warfare. i dont like the writing
                       especially but you may wish to see waltzer: just and
                       unjust wars. --psb
                    \_ Why would calling them rebels or insurgents open up
                       unpleasant questions? I don't think you can call them
                       freedom fighters. I don't think they're calling
                       themseves that. I suppose Bush would say they're
                       freedom fighters -- they're fighting freedom!
                       \_ Hahahahaha!!!
              \_ Just to add more facts:
                 Dubya says Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists are not
                 afforded GC protections.  Former Baathists and other Iraqi
                 nationals fighting aginst Americans probably are covered
                 as long as they are easily distinguishible from civilians.
                 \_ Ummm.. yeah.  If they were wearing uniforms and acting
                    like soldiers, then sure.
                    \_ This whole 'uniforms and be in an army' thing just seems
                       like trying to justify raping people with glowsticks.
                       Uniforms don't matter because you should not be
                       commiting war crimes on civilians either, and if someone
                       is pointing a gun at you you know they're a combatant.
                       The 'act like soldiers' thing is meaningless.  Do they
                       not deserve protection because they did not surrender
                       when the invaders disbanded their army?  Guerilla
                       warfare is a perfectly valid battle tactic, just not one
                       the the US army handles well.
                       \_ Guerilla Warfare != Terrorism.  Car bombing
                          civilians and beheading hostages is not
                          "Guerilla Warfare"
                          \_ Of course not everything they do is guerilla
                             warfare, and I never defended terrorism or
                             brutality.  It is a perfectly legitimate tactic to
                             take sniper shots at an occupying foreign army.
                             Denying these people the GC protections is a bad
                             thing.  Realize that the Iraqi insurgency is not
                             some unified force for evil, but many people
                             fighting for different reasons and using different
                             \_ That's true.  So far I haven't seen a lot
                                of evidence that the army is lumping them
                                into one group.  But sometimes it's
                                better to be safe than sorry.
                          \_ Like pp said, al-Zarqawi != The Insurgency
                    \_ Unlike previous battles in Iraq, the Fallujah
                       insurgents have been easily distinguishable from
                       If you say:  "That isn't enough, you need to wear the
                       uniform of the Iraqi armed forces", well, then who cares
                       about the occasional GI who got hit in the face the
                       previous day and doesn't want to take any chances?  He
                       could have nuked all five guys in the mosque, in which
                       case, he would only need to show he didn't violate the
                       rules of engagement.
        \_ I just don't think we can condemn the soldier out of hand.  We don't
           know the circumstances, and "insurgents" have been booby trapping
           dead bodies and running suicide missions.  We kill Japanese just
           fine in the same situations.
           \_ "He's fucking faking he's dead!  He's fucking faking he's dead!"
              "Well he's dead now."
              == He's going to unload a wad of C4 on you!
              In the mean time, the entire video is replayed over and over
              again in Iraq and across the Arab world while U.S. citizens
              are trolling http://freerepublic.com and /etc/motd about hidden
              grenades and uniforms.  U.S. broadcast and cable networks
              cover nekkid Desperate Housewives character jumping into the
              arms of a uniformed NFL football player.
2004/11/18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34960 Activity:moderate
11/18   Can someone give me a link on a survey of the public perception
        of different wars (ww2, vietnam, iraq) and why people feel that
        way? For example, why the average folks back in 1967 didn't
        care about bringing freedom to the S Vietnamese, but that
        we (at least 53% of the voters) think that the war on Iraq
        is a good thing?
        \_ Helloooo, I didn't know if you noticed, but in Iraq we
           actually conquered the whole country? Vietnam was like Korea,
           the U.S. didn't fight to win, they fought for a stalemate.
           The insurgency in Iraq is definitely troubling, but unlike
           Iraq you don't have a North Vietnam to deal with. The casualty
           rate is also much lower for U.S. troops this go around. In order
           to reach the casualty numbers of Nam we'd have to go at it for
           another 40 years.
           \_ It took Vietnam 15 years to rack up all those casualties, and
              we've only been in Iraw for about 1.5 years.  We're averaging
              maybe 3 deaths a day and I think about 4 times as many injuries,
              many of which are permanant and disabling.
           \_ We never conquered the whole country.  We deposed the government
              and disbanded their army, but roving bands of insurgents have had
              free reign in areas ever since.  We may be able to retake areas
              controlled by the insurgents, but we don't have enough men to
              control the whole country at once.
              \_ We can't even keep Afghanistan under control, but the
                 "liberal media" doesn't like to report what goes on over
                 there.  Do you have any idea the effect of the surging
                 opium growth in Afghanistan
                 \_ Oh man how I wish I was a heroin junkie right now.
        \_ WW2:  Pearl Harbor.
           Vietnam:  Draft.
           Iraq:  9/11.
           You don't need a survey.
           \_ WW2 had a draft also. But it also had a huge propaganda
              machine supporting it. If you think the US news media
              did too much to promote the Iraq war, that's nothing compared
              to how WW2 was promoted.
              \_ Pearl Harbor trumps Draft.
           \_ The draft was less important than the key question of "why are
              we fighting?" Plus the constant reassurance of victory by
              political leaders ("light at the end of the tunnel") was given
              a severe blow by the Tet Offensive and constant television
              imagery. Quiz time! Compare and contrast the impact the images
              of the RVN general executing a captured VC vs the US Marine
              killing the injured insurgent.
              \_ Tet was a major disaster for the NVA and VC.
                 \_ Nope, major success for the PVN, as it essentially won
                    them a huge PR victory (a) and wiped out most VC cadres
                    in the RVN which might have caused trouble after an
                    eventually PVN victory.  -John
                 \_ But it was a larger disaster for US political opinion.
                    At the time the US was talking about the end of the war
                    by Christmas. The month-long battle to take Hue back was
                    a huge slap in the face of the public.
              \_ Quiz response:
                 For Vietnam, the U.S. did not have Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
        \_ What about Korea? That's almost a forgotten war. Other than MASH
           nobody ever talks about it.
           \_ Korea was a war of great expectations. The US and most of the
              others who eventually joined were fighting against communism.
              The US and the rest of the world became war weary after the
              battleline stagnated. The question of "Why are we fighting?"
              came up again and US opinion were more than happy to settle
              for a tie.
2004/11/17-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics] UID:34945 Activity:high 75%like:34910
11/17   Platoon >>> Full Metal Jacket
        \_ I think that if you want to see what viet nam was like in a movie
           made by an actual vet, you should see platoon, but fmj is still
           a classic film for other reasons.
        \_ Apples to oranges, dude.  While both are about the Vietnam War,
           they're very different stories that don't sensibly compare.
        \_ in Vietnam war the US soldiers raped a lot of village
           women and even children. How about Iraq? How many children
           are we raping right now?
                \_ "Easy, just don't lead 'em so much.  Hahaha"  -John
           \_ Nice try for a troll. You get -1 points.
            \_ No, seriously, why is this a troll? Let's ask a few
               fundamental questions. In Platoon the US Army seems very
               unorganized and when you're out in the field you're
               pretty much your own boss and you can do whatever you
               want (rape 10 year old girls, kill their parents, etc).
               Is the US Army still like that nowadays?
               \_ Because you're stupid if you think that the U.S. Army
                  goes around raping children. Nice try at trolling.
                  Better luck nexttime. Don't let the door hit your ass
                  on the way out.
               \_ Are you Chinese?  Do you understand the effect your trolls
                  had on China?
                  \_ the US Army doesn't allow it but it also gives each
                     soldier so much power that he can do whatever he wants
                     when he's on the mission, without anyone watching over
                     him. Now it's pretty damn hard to guarantee that every
                     single soldier knows a thing about ethics isn't it?
                     \_ I wish you'd sign your post. If you really do or did
                        go to Berkeley you must be one of the dumbest sons
                        of bitches ever to attend. One would think that the
                        minimal standards for SAT scores would enforce some
                        sort of common logic within all entering freshman.
                        \_ Dude, he's so clearly got an agenda he's trying to
                           push.  The sorry thing is that he's so fucking
                           transparent about pushing it, and that it's such
                           a lame duck agenda to begin with that no one is even
                           going try to answer is stupidly phrased, poorly
                           researched, clearly biased "thought-provoking"
                           questions.   Christ, this guy is a moron.  And
                           you know what's truly pathetic?  He's probably
                           congratulating himself about 'once again hitting the
                           Americans in the face with their own hypocrisy' when
                           no one bothers to answer his lame provocations. -POC
                           \_ Well, maybe over time he'll learn somethin'.
                              College kids can be pretty unwise. At least he's
                              apparently making some sort of attempt to discuss
                              his lame issues.
                              \_ Yeah, I guess.  I'm not as optimistic, but
                                 hey, I sincerely hope I'm wrong here.   -POC
                     \_ Replace "soldier" with "cop" and you will see why your
                        argument, while making valid assumptions, is basically
                        flawed.  -John
           foreigners can't or usually don't file a complaint against   _/
           soldiers, but citizens do file complaints and they go to
           civil courts. Civil court vs. military court, hmmmm. Oh, and
           thank you for not resorting to name calling like the other
           posters.   -op
           \_ Obviously it is an order of magnitude worth of difference, but
              the similarity lies in the fact that a cop has a lot of de
              facto control over you in a given situation.  Sheriff Cletus can
              seriously cause you problems if he feels like it, even if there
              is eventual recourse.  -John
           \_ John is often cool like that.  I still don't understand why that
              german-john guy gives him such issue.  Oh, and I'll stop
              'resorting' to name calling if you'll actually do some research
              before rudely dissing the service-men and -women who have
              _volunteered_ to put their lives at risk for some abstract
              notion of duty, honor, or just plain pursuit of betterment.
              They've shown more courage than your ill-informed, agenda-driven
              attacks.  -POC
                \_ maybe John should ask what actions he made several
                   years ago that caused someone to hate him/resent him
                   and is now harrasing him. Introspection may help.
                   \_ OK I have engaged in introspection and inspected my
                      navel and I'M SORRY I KILLED YOUR DAD, OK?!? -John
                \_ that homeless guy John threw a rice cooker at got
                   a Soda account - danh
                   \_ Learn how to post to motd.
                   \_ I never threw a rice cooker at anyone.  I dropped a
                      wok off the 4th floor of CZ, and a bunch of the nasty
                      Berkeley ex-hippies who lived across from us got mad.
                      \_ I threw a full sack of potatoes off the top of
                         CZ, because I suspected there was a mouse in it.
                         No one said anything, you unlucky bastard.
                         \_ Heh, I knew a guy that hurled a couch (with help)
                            from the 10th floor of Unit 1 into the RA's little
                            backyard.      -POC
                         \_ Well, nobody said anything about the watermelons,
                            the old PC, Dave Menache's electric guitar, or
                            the several dozen pounds of tomatoes we launched
                            with the 3-man slingshot.  Just the wok.  -John
2004/11/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Finance/Investment] UID:34900 Activity:nil
11/15   The administration continues it war on poor people:
        \_ Huh?
           \_ Can't get a job?  Need to pay the rent?  Just poison your
              kids and get a thousand bucks and a camera to document your
              child's suffering!
              \_ Did you read the article?  That's why they're delaying
                 the study.
2004/11/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34897 Activity:nil
11/15   Slavery in the North
        \_ I'm curious what point you were trying to make by posting this.
           I thought it was common knowledge.
2004/11/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34892 Activity:moderate
11/14   Mass civilian death in Fallujah?  Sadly, there is not a single US
        media outlet that I can find covering this story.
        http://csua.org/u/9z2 (reuters.co.uk)
        \_ If we fought WWI or WWII like this we might as well let
           the enemy win.
           \_ What are you blathering about?  WWI and WWII weren't entered
              on false pretenses and without a plan to win.
        \_ Not to be unsympathetic, but what the heck are they still doing
           there?  We warned them for months ahead of time.
           \_ Fallujah is a city of 200 to 300,000 people.  Apparently most
              of them got out, but there were about 30,000 that were still
              there when the attack began.  The biggest problem seems to be
              that these people have no food or clean water, and the army
              is still not allowing the red cross to go in and supply
              food and water.
              \_ I can see the reality of the situation, but that doesn't
                 answer my question.
                 \_ It's tough to say.  Human beings are funny creatures.  If
                    a big army invaded your country and then told you to leave
                    the home you grew up in because they were going to blow it
                    up, would you leave?  I don't think it's such an easy
                    question to answer.  Humans are very good at denial.
                    \_ Then they will die.  Psychological illness is very bad
                       in a warzone. -- darwinist
                       \_ No need to use an alternate sig, ilya.
                       \_ Many Floridians stayed at home because they could no
                          longer afford to stay in a motel.  What if the people
                          can't afford to leave, are too frail to leave, have
                          no where they can stay, etc.?
                          \_ Are you familiar with the concept of a refugee?
                             If folks with big ass guns tell you to leave for
                             a couple of weeks, you should probably leave.
                             If you honestly have no better choice than to stay
                             at a place that's about to get bombed into
                             the stoneage, you are in deep trouble.  I am not
                             sure what you expected from a military
                             operation.  Would you rather the torture/kidnapping
                             rigs operating in Fallujah kept going?
            \_ Imagine a city the size of Oakland, with higher crime.  Now some
               foreigners are telling you to leave.  If you do leave, anything
               you don't bring will get looted, and violent gangs will use your
               house to take pot-shots at men with 155mm cannons.
               \_ Put like this, I have a hard time believing the US is going
                  to get out of this without a bloody nose.
                  \_ BUD DAY doesn't like your tone, son.
                     \_ Heh, it's always Bud Day in East Oaktown.
2004/11/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34886 Activity:nil 75%like:34882
11/14   AP Pictures from Fallujah
2004/11/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34883 Activity:nil
11/14   Body of Caucasian woman with blonde hair found in Fallujah:
2004/11/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34882 Activity:high 75%like:34886
11/14   AP Pictures from Fallujah
        \_ just mark it as a freeper link, ok?
2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34843 Activity:low
11/11   Things falling apart in Holland.  http://www.slate.com/id/2109523
        \_ Motd poster uses misleading headline.  <DEAD><DEAD>
           \_ cf Yeats, The Second Coming
        \_ things falling apart in the world after Iraq, what's your point
           \_ Well, the article claims that the prime suspect Mohammed Bouyeri
              became radical post 9/11, and the murder of Theo van Gogh was
              the trigger point of the violence, but I'm sure we can squeeze
              Iraq in there somehow.
           \_ There was no intention in winning points in some kind of my
              side/your side motd battle with the post.  I would hope that
              all of us, no matter which side we belong to in the great motd
              war, can view with sadness the murder of van Gogh, the violence
              that followed, and the worsening attitude in Holland. -op
           \_ Hey, can we blame Ayatollah Khomeini issuing a death sentence
              on Salman Rushdie on the Iraq invasion too?
        \_ Ought to check out the film, guys.  Lots of body.
        \_ At least van Gogh wasn't buried alive too.
2004/11/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34841 Activity:low
11/11   http://tinyurl.com/5sude
        hahaha, insurgents are getting desperate as we tighten the noose
        around Fallja.
        \_ Your post is eerily similar to Bush calling the whole insurgency
           the "last desperate gasps of resistance" last year.
        \_ As much as it would be good for us to 'win the peace' in Iraq, I
           know that won't happen.  So I wish we could just hurry up and lose
           as fast as possible to minimize our casualties.
2004/11/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34821 Activity:very high
11/10   So, er, can anyone explain why we gave the Fallujah rebels so much
        advance warning about what we were going to do?
        \_ To prevent civilian casualties. The goal was not to destroy the
           rebels/terrorists, but to control the city. It makes it possible
           to conduct the vote in January. Rebs/terrs in the urban areas are
           the cause to most of the Coalition's headaches. The civies will
           return and the US will pump in money and fix up the city. Hearts
           and minds.
        \_ look at Grozny
        \_ Come out or I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down.
        \_ US lacks stealth anyway.  We can't even do a small raid without
           the insurgents getting tipped off, let alone a massive operation
           like Falluja.
        \_ That's the cowboy style, seriously.  Wasn't that how we fought the
           war in Vietnam?
2004/11/10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:34817 Activity:nil
11/10   When Vietnam vets came home (Soldiers being spit on is
        just an urban myth)
2004/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34803 Activity:moderate
11/10   This is kinda funny: Protest Warrior vs Gael Murphy
        \_ Wow, imagine what good the fine folks of Protest Warrior could
           accomplish if they'd just grow up.
2004/11/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34796 Activity:nil
11/9    The Sunnis tell us that they're not yet ready for Democracy
        at this moment so we resort to killing them, so that all living
        Iraqis will have a chance at democracy. Bush allah akbar!
2004/11/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34781 Activity:high
11/9    I've been wondering about this. During the campaign, why doesn't
        Kerry just openly say that the war on Iraq is based on a lie,
        a lie the Bush administration knew from the beginning. The WMD
        was just something that would play nice with the general
        public, but they would've went in anyway, and because of their
        action, the united states is not any safer than it was before.
        Does this just not work with the general public? Were they
        afraid most Americans just don't want to hear the truth? Like
        when any company loses a court battle, they always deny any
        wrong doings, etc, but will pay?
        \_ Because he voted for it and later said he'd do the exact same
           thing even knowing that Saddam didn't have WMD.
           \_ When asked how she would have handled the war if she'd known then
              what she knows now, Senator Hillary Clinton retorted, "Well, we
              never would have had the war!"
        \_ Because the WHOLE WOLRD thought we'd find stockpiles! -Dubya
           \_ Except of course for Sean Penn.
           \_ Look up the countries who opposed the war, but who's
              intelligence agencies said there were stockpiles.
        \_ Because, even knowing everything we know today, it was still the
           right thing to do! -Dubya
           \_ Is it?
              \_ The majority of Americans think so!
                 \_ An uninformed majority is a mob.
           \_ The US under Bush is the biggest threat to world pace since
              Hitler. I think we should invade and take preemptive actions
              against ourselves!!
           \_ You've obviously never served.
              \_ Dubya served with honor in the Texas Air National Guard!
        \_ What about all the shit they teach you at school, you are
           innocent until proven guilty, that you can't punish someone
           for something they haven't done. Which is the foundation of
           our law enforcement system. Why don't we start arresting
           anyone who 'might' commit a crime? "Knowing what I know
           today, it was the right thing to do", fuck off.
           \_ The "innocent until proven guilty" premise does not translate to
              Presidents and heads of state who, because of the enormous effect
              of their mistakes, obsessions, and biases, are expected to be
              more circumspect in the employment of the destructive forces at
              their disposal.  The President *must* be willing to take
              responsibility for the errors he has made, especially when those
              errors result in the full deployment of our military; this is
              why Bush was very careful to shift the focus of the reason for
              war from the unproveable charge of WMD to the more popular goal
              of deposing Saddam Hussein.  If Bush had made this case prior
              to going to war, he would have simulataneously had a harder time
              getting support for the war and had a much more stable rationale
              for the war.  He erred.
              \_ they got Capone on tax evasion, we got Saddam on wmd usage
                 against the kurds..
              \_ And Dubya probably thinks the 2004 results were a stamp of
              \_ One of the things that people forget, or fail to
                 meantion, is that Bush CAN'T admit it was a mistake, even
                 if he thinks so himself.  Admitting the war was a mistake
                 would be such a morale shock to the troops, and the
                 country, it would be the equivalent of overtly saying,
                 "We're going to let another 10,000 or so troops die, and
                 then pull out leaving Iraq in a state of civil war and
                 disaster."  He touched on this in the debate when he said
                 he didn't think a president who thinks the war is a
                 mistake should be put in charge.  Morale is VERY
                 \_ If Bush were truly concerned about morale, he should
                    apologize for not greeting the coffins of the fallen
                    soldiers who have died for their country.
                    \_ Dubya was visiting the wounded in Walter Reed yesterday!
                       [GOP]Karl_Rove p0wnz u!
                       \_ Yawn.  wounded != died.  Cf. "dictionary."
                          \_ Visiting wounded soldiers >> Greeting coffins
                             [GOP]Karl_Rove STILL p0wnz u!
                             \_ Obviously, you never served.
                \_ THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT CARL ROVE BETTED ON. Once we are
                   in war, there's only one option. You don't question why
                   until after the war, long after Bush is dead. FUCK BUSH
                   AND CARL ROVE.
           \_ Dubya took out Saddam -- someone who has used chemical weapons
              during war -- while he was small, before he could get big again.
              Dubya didn't even want to ask the UN, but Powell convinced him
              to try.
              Dubya also showed that the U.S. will do whatever it takes to
              anyone it deems a threat to the U.S.
              \_ Someone explain to be where the term 'Dubya' came from?
                 What does it mean?
                 \_ It's his middle initial, to distinguish him, George W.
                    Bush, from his father, George H.W. Bush.
              \_ Wow, that's almost straight from Andrew Card's mouth. Let's
                 review:  post-combat weapons inspections have revealed that
                 the sanctions were preventing Saddam Hussein from "getting
                 big again"; the campaign in *Afghanistan* showed that the
                 US will do whatever it takes to defuse those it deems a
                 threat; the debacle in Iraq has shown the world that anyone
                 can tie down the US military nearly indefinitely by prodding
                 the President's pride.  US military might is at its lowest
                 perceived competency level in decades.
                 \_ Wow, if only Kerry put it as convincingly in the debates...
                    But, Saddam was gaming the oil-for-food program, and
                    Dubya's people would say that he WOULD get big again
                    after sanctions were lifted since no WMDs would have been
                    found, Saddam would still be in power today, and we would
                    never have found out if he had them or not.
                    IMO, the U.S. should have been gaming Saddam, not the other
                    way around.  Instead, the U.S. broke all the rules and put
                    the hammer down on him when it found it was losing the
                    \_ You're right, Kerry should have hammered him more than
                       he did.  Ah, well.  Anyway, sanctions would not have
                       been lifted because Bush would have had any attempt to
                       lift sanctions vetoed in the UNSC.  Furthermore, Bush
                       should have had the balls to call France and Russia on
                       their violations of the sanctions; robbed of his two
                       semi-allies, Hussein might have self-destructed faster.
2004/11/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34778 Activity:insanely high
11/9    What's the difference between Sadam killing thousands of uncooperative
        Iraqis because they don't accept his ruling, and Bush killing
        thousands of ethnic Iraqis because they don't accept democracy?
        \_ We are killing in the name of democracy which is a more noble goal.
              \_ someone has been playing too muh GTA:SA
                 \_ Is RATM on the soundtrack? -no ps2
                  \_ yup
        \_ Moral relativism.  You = teh ghey.
        \_ cuz the people we kill don't want other iraqis to be free
           \_ Oxymorons for the day: military intelligence, smart weapon,
              friendly fire, compassionate conservative.
              \_ unbiased mainstream media, kerry electable, youth voter,
                 hollywood/heart of america, voted for it before....
                 \_ intelligent motd conservative attempting variation on
                    theme to drive home stupid point but falling flat
        \_ There are no difference, period.
           \_ Are you Chinese?  Do you understand the effect the opium trade
              had on China?
                \_ Why do you hate China?
           \_ Are you Yiddish?  Do you understand the effect the holocaust
              had on Yehudah?
                \_ Why do you hate Yehudah?
              \_ A foreigner can see this with less bias than you do.
                 \_ I bet BUD DAY has no bias at all!
                        \_ BUD DAY vs. Ditka?  (No Bears' bus)
              \_ ?? Care to elaborate?
        \_ Ummm... one opresses all other Iraqis for a self-centered
           ideology, and the other makes all Iraqis equal?
           \_ oppresses via kidnappings, head chopping, car bombs in busy
              markets, suicide bombers, etc.  You know, the people that he'd
              be howling to see put down like rabid dogs in the street if they
              made an appearance in HIS neighborhood.
        \_ According to Economist, number of Iraqis killed since invasion
           is not 15000 as per US's figures, but 40000 or more.
           \_ You've obviously never served.
              \_ What does that comment have to do with The Economist article
                 \_ Why doesn't the Economist just sign Form 180 and get it
                    over with?
                    \_ I'll sign form 180!
                        \_ No, I'll sign form 180!  --spartacus
           \_ Whatever the number, it is still going to be lower over the long
              term than what Saddam was doing to his own people on a daily
              basis.  It is a horrible and terrible thing that innocent people
              die during war but they were also during under Saddam.  His
              killing was a permanent situation.  The war is a temporary
              condition required to remove his bloody paws from the people.
              \_ How long did Saddam ruled Iraq and how many people died
                 as a result of his misrule?
              \_ Americans love to kill people in the name of freedom
                 and democracy.  They killed 4 million Vietnamese to
                 save the Vietnamese.  That's comparable to the number
                 of Jews incinerated by the Germans.
                 \_ You're an idiot.  4 million is an estimate of Vietnamese
                    civilians killed, 1955-1973.  Add to that ca. 1 million
                    combatants.  A majority of those were done in by other
                    Vietnamese, including North & Viet Cong.  -John
                    \_ http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Vietnam
                       \_ Exactly.  And aside from a fair number of RVN
                          civilians done in by US napalm, most of it points
                          to casualties from NVA/VC.  Point?  -John
                          \_ why do you say most of the civilian casualties
                             are due to NVA/VC?
                             \_ Because they're a bunch of murdering fucking
                                commies, and they're coming for you AND your
                                dog, that's why.  -John
                                \_ Didn't you know?  The US Military has
                                   declared a Free Fire Zone in your bathroom.
                                   If you have any business there, you'd better
                                   do it quick.
                    \_ nah, majority killed by Americans and their corrupt
                       S. Vietnam lackeys.
        \_ One is a murdering turd and the other murders Kurds?
        \_ Where is the evidence?  The Constitution demands an actual head
           count for the purposes of the census, but the "100,000 dead Iraqis"
           figure is tossed willy-nilly without a list of names.  Besides,
           we don't target Iraqi citizens, and Saddam did.
           \_ 100,000 people was a bogus figure generated by some guys who
              came up with a range of ~8000 to just over 200,000 dead so they
              split the difference.  Once the lie started spreading, the
              origin was lost and now this 100k number has become a pseudo-
              factoid tossed around like reality.
              \_ The 100K number is not bogus, but it has a high uncertainty.
                 They used the 'cluster' statistical methodology, which is
                 "THE STANDARD" in epidemiological studies, and gives very
                 good results if your sample size is large enough.  Basically
                 you randomly pick a bunch of small neighborhoods spread out
                 over the whole country and interview every person in those
                 neighborhoods about their family members who died and what was
                 the cause of death.  Then extrapolate those results to the
                 whole country.  Because they got only 33 neighborhoods, their
                 estimate was 98K dead, but the margin of error was 8-190K
                 people dead.  The best estimate is 98K, but there is 90%
                 certainty that over 40K have died.  Also, they deliberately
                 threw out a neighborhood in Fallujah because the death rate
                 was much higher there and they didn't want to skew the sample.
                 The 8-200K dead figure is the 95% confidence interval, I think
                 \_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA???
              \_ The 100k number came from a survey using the same
                 methodology as used in kosovo and other conflicts,
                 and has been generally accepted in the past.  But,
                 as Firesign Theatre would say, everything you know
                 is wrong.
              \_ Nobody knows how many Iraqis are dying because frankly,
                 nobody cares.  The only thing that is important is
                 to reduce American casualties to a minimum.
                 \_ You dickwad, I hope a terriorist hit you soon, motherfucker!
2004/11/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34772 Activity:high
11/8    Someone please explain how the Fallujah fight works. The US
        army goes in, the civilians and insurgents flee, and victory
        is claimed. But eventually when the civilians and insurgents
        come back, they'll just do more sniping and suicide bombing.
        So what's the point of attacking Fallujah in the first place?
        \_ we will hunt down and fight and kill the evil-doers.
        \_ Same mistake we made in Vietnam:  we think that grabbing land will
           somehow equal victory, but Zarqawi (sp?) and the rest of the heads
           of Team Fallujah have already left.  Watch out for the next
           Fallujah sometime soon.
           \_ Some people always escape.  You don't need to kill 100% of the
              enemy to render them ineffective as a fighting force.  A few
              kill leaders and lots of dead bodies is usually enough.  Watch
              out for the next Fallujah?  This isn't the first city that's
              been stomped on like this.  How come we don't hear about all
              those other cities still being terrorist havens?
                    \_ Wow, you're really dumb. You have no idea what
                    guerilla warfare entails. Get ready for your object
                       \_ Yes, I do know.  What exactly are your gueillas
                          going to eat and shoot with and hide once the world
                          passes them by?  Do you read the Arab press?  Since
                          they started killing Iraqi children and cops, their
                          support has plumeted.  This is mop up.  It'll go on
                          beyond their elections but there won't be any more
                          Fallujas.  The political situation has changed.  You
                          put way too much faith in a bunch of random angry
                          dudes with no training.  I'll take the U.S. Marines
                          on this one.
                          \_ Even the marines are admitting that the bigwigs
                             are no longer in the city.  They'll take their
                             support elsewhere and set up shop, and the Sunnis
                             will boycott the election.
                             \_ "Che Guevara".  You can't have a revolution
                                without goons.  -John
        \_ It's a matter of whether they can permantly secure and bring
           order to Fallujah and other cities with Iraqi forces.  If not,
           it's a lost cause.
        \_ It'll be difficult to snipe while wearing bags and leashes, and
           with LYNDIE keeping an eye on them.
        \_ Fallujah is the symbol and HQ of the insurgents.
           Naturally, if the U.S. pacifies the city and it re-erupts in
           violence, that's bad!
        \_ It has their FLAG, dumbass. -geordan
2004/11/9 [Recreation/Computer/Games, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34771 Activity:high
11/8    Why do these guys look like the terrorists in Counter-Strike?
        \_ Because they killed all the sodomizing homosexuals who could tell
           them that lumberjack shirts and checkered kaffiyehs simply do
           not match.  -John
        \_ On a side note, does it ever get cold enough in Iraq or the rest
           of the Middle East to justify owning a balaclava?
           \_ Yes.  Ever  been in a desert at night?  It gets cold.
              \_ Damn, good point.  Bang goes another theory.
2004/11/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34765 Activity:nil
11/8    http://csua.org/u/9vg (New York Times)
        American-led large-scale assault on Falluja has begun
        "They'll win if it's bloody; we'll win if we minimize civilian
        casualties." -Marine
        A Falluja resident who tried entering the city on Monday said he had
        found no way through the seal. The resident said the situation was
        much different from the situation in April, when Americans battled the
        Falluja insurgents before withdrawing and when there were many gaps
        that gun runners could exploit to keep the insurgents supplied.
2004/11/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34758 Activity:very high
11/7    Isn't it funny that all the multi-billion dollar eye-in-the-sky
        surveillance program that you and I paid for... the SR-71, the
        U2, and the spy satellites... can't tell you with certainty
        that Sadam has WMD or not? So much for our smart, all electronic
        \_ we have the tech to see someone give us the finger from 60k ft
        \_ you can go underground.  You still need human intelligence.
        \_ You obviously never served.
                \_ and you have?
           \_ Are you Chinese?
           \_ Are you Yiddish?
        \_ You can directly blame Jimmy Carter for starting this all-tech,
           no-people nonsense.  Yet another legacy of his utter failure.
           And yes, he was also the first President to say nukular, so you
           grammarians can add that to your list, as well as the need to
           invent terms like "double-digit inflation" and "stagflation" and
           showing Islamic psychos that the US can be cowed with terrorism.
           \_ First "nukular" president was Eisenhower.
           \_ Not to mention being responsible for the oil shock, the Yom
              Kippur war, Leonid Brezhnev and the Iran hostage crisis.  He
              is also directly accountable for the unraveling of the Bretton
              Woods dollar/gold exchange system, the Vietnamese invasion of
              Cambodia, and the Polish military crackdown on Solidarnosc.  In
              fact, the evil bastard wimp is probably the reason why the
              middle east will be destabilized for generations to come.  And
              did you know that he also started the China opium trade?  -John
              did you know that he also started the Yiddish holocaust?  -John
              \_ You're right, John.  Carter was a great President.
                 \_ No, I'm just trying to provide a counterpoint to my stated
                    conviction that he was THE ANTICHRIST who is single-
                    handedly responsible for all the world's ills.  -John
              \_ You forgot disco and the death of Jon Bonham.
                 \_ And John Lennon.
              \_ Yeah, but I hear he swings an awful lot of pipe.
                 \_ Must be all those peanuts.
2004/11/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34756 Activity:very high
11/7    So does anyone really believe anymore that Bush lied about WMD?  The
        Duelfer report proved 2 things:
        1) Iraq didn't have WMD's
        2) Had we infiltrated Saddam's top level of generals, we still would
           have though he had WMD's.
        \_ He sure as hell didn't tell the truth. Look up the word "lie"
           in the dictionary and I think it is obvious that he lied according
           to definition number 2. It is what is called in linguistics as a
           "contested case" though, so I don't really expect you to admit
v          "contested case" though, so I don't really expect you to admit
           that the word has multiple definitions.
           \_ Everyone knows what "lie" means.  We don't need you to help us
              parse what the definition of "is" is.  Thanks.
              \_ Au contraire. I have posted the definition of it and
                 had people insist that it was wrong or inapplicable
                 in this case. The op is trying to do this right now.
                 Do you admit that Bush lied?
                 2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
                 \_ In other words you're upset that Bush was 'wrong'.  All
                    the claims about lying did not use this definition but the
                    one where the lie is to intentionally deceive.  Are you now
                    saying Bush didn't intentionally deceive anyone?
                    \_ No, all the claims did not say that Bush intentionally
                       decieved. You just decided to read it that way.
                       I have no idea if Bush deliberatly decieved. I know
                       that he spoke with reckless disregard for the truth,
                       in that he claimed certaintly when he had no business
                       doing so, but I doubt that he knew he was uttering
                       a falsehood when he did so.
                       \_ Um, his claims about WMD's would have been verified
                          by Saddam's own generals.  They were confirmed by
                          every intelligence organization in the world.  If you
                          define this as lying, you're a fucking moron.
                          \_ Except for all those intelligence organizations
                             that said they didn't have them, oh and the
                             WEAPONS INSPECTORS.  You know, the guys who
                             were responsible for KNOWING THIS STUFF.  But
                             hey history is hard, lets make up facts later.
                             The fact is Bush and his administration gave
                             solid data about where and how many WMDs were
                             in Iraq and it was ALL WRONG.  But rather than
                             let weapons inspectors do their jobs they
                             insisted we go to war right now, and look
                             where that got us.
                             \_ If you read "Plan of Attack", you'd find that
                                Dubya's people were telling him that Blix was
                                pooching the WMD hunt.  Dubya's people were
                                convinced Saddam had WMDs -- and Dubya wasn't
                                going to take the chance of Blix reporting
                                Saddam didn't have anything, especially when
                                Tenet said he had them for sure.
                          \_ No they were not confirmed by every intelligence
                             agency in the world. Either you are badly
                             misinformed or simply lying, it is hard to say
                             which. Every intelligence agency in the world,
                             including the CIA, said that they did not have
                             enough information to tell one way or another.
                             And I see no evidence that Saddam's own generals
                             believed that he had WMD. Is this another one
                             of your fantasies? Here is the relavent quote
                             from your own source: "ISG found no credible
                             evidence that any field elements knew about
                             plans for CW use during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
                             It is amazing to me that in your twisted
                             view of reality Bush telling an untruth
                             is actully him telling the truth. You are truly
                             a brainwashed sheeple. War is Peace?
                             \_ "The whold world thought we'd find stockpiles"
                                - GW Bush
                                Dubya could be lying right here, but I don't
                                remember Kerry ever having challenged him on
                                this sentence.
                                this sentence. -Depressed Liberal
                                \_ Yeah, hence his downfall. But then again,
                                   the only politician I remember being
                                   outspoken in oppositiion to this was
                                   Barbara Lee and look what happened to her.
                                   \_ Yeah, and you wonder why Edwards didn't
                                      take "no doubt" Cheney quotes and roast
                                      him on those during the VP debate.
                                   \_ She got re-elected?
        \_ Bush was responsible for knowing more about the Iraqi military
           capabilities than the Iraqi generals before invading.  No more blood
           for big oil!  And no more posting quots from Clinton, Gore,
           Albright, various UN officials, or any other foreign leaders who
           said the same things Bush said about Iraqi WMD.  Bush lied!  Men
           died!  No more war for oil!  Down with the moronic bible thumping
           pig fucking red neck Republicans! AAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
           \_ Another trash talking anonymous Republican troll.
              You are pathetic. -ausman
              You are pathetic. You can't even shut up for a minute,
              as even President Bush has asked us to do, to try and
              help bring the country back together. -ausman
           \_ Wow an anonymous taunting Republican coward on the motd.
              What a novelty. Both Bush and Kerry have asked people to
              try and bring this country together, but you just can't
              help yourself, can you? -ausman
           \_ A salute Bush for not caring what his critics in the
              reality based community say. - danh
        \_ Please.  The man wanted to invade Iraq so much that he pressured
           the CIA to provide intel to support his plans.  All contradicting
           evidence was ignored.  He lied.
           \_ But the bi-partisan reports said that the "pressure" did not
              alter any of the CIA's opinions.
              Summary:  The CIA thought Saddam had WMDs -- they even thought
              the aluminum tubes were dual-use at least (though clearly wrong
              in hindsight).  The State and Energy departments were the ones
              who didn't think the aluminum tubes were nuke related.  But,
              for Dubya at least, CIA trumps State Department where
              intelligence is concerned.
              \_ With Rumsfeld breathing heavily in his ear, Dubya was bound to
                 discount anything Powell had to say; why do you think the
                 invasion was executed with blatant disregard for the Powell
                 doctrine?  The Pres. wanted what he got, and he got what he
                 wanted.  It's hardly a leap of logic to see that Henry II was
                 responsible for the death of Sir Thomas a Beckett even though
                 Henry never actually told anyone to kill him.
                 \- What if he actually said "Who will rid me of this
                    troublesome yeast?" ? --psb
                    \_ Then they killed the wrong prelates; Chimay is on the
                       other side of the Channel.
                 \_ If the topic is:  "Post-war Iraq, why didn't Dubya follow
                    the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force?", well, Rumsfeld
                    was right about Afghanistan even when all the generals were
                    telling him he was wrong.  The same generals were saying
                    the "same" thing about Iraq.  You're Dubya.  Who do you
                    believe?  (Yeah, it's a specious argument, but this at
                    least provides "plausible deniability" -- which is PLENTY
                    for the True Believers.)
                    \_ The True Believers don't even need that.  They still
                       believe that Saddam had WMD, and they still believe that
                       Saddamn was directly responsible for 9/11.  See, they
                       believe these things because the President said as
                       much, and they will continue to believe him until he
                       tells them otherwise.  You don't need a conspiracy
                       theory to understand the immense charisma and its
                       deletorious effects on the ability of his followers to
                       to see the truth.
                    \_ Rumsfeld was not right about Afghanistan.  The US
                       lucked out pretty heavily on that one, for one, by
                       having Germans and Poles ready to pick up some of the
                       slack while we went on an (unsuccessful) Osama-hunt
                       through the south.  The country has barely managed to
                       hold together, the central government has little
                       authority beyond Kabul, opium production is up due to
                       lack of central control, and people seem to be putting
                       up with the status quo simply because there's at least
                       a smidgeon of hope that things will get better.  You
                       simply can't have an invasion with the minimum amount
                       of force required to win the military victory without
                       planning for the aftermath, which, in Afghanistan, can
                       best be described as "amateurish".  -John
        \_ I think it doesn't do much to condemn Dubya as knowingly (1) having
           lied or (2) misled the American people -- without smoking gun
           evidence (tapes) of deceit from him.  I do think Dubya should be
           held accountable for losing world respect from there not being
           weapons, Abu Ghraib, and the post-war quagmire.
           "The Buck Stops Here".
           Of course, everyone who voted for Dubya in 2004 would rather have
           Dubya as President than Kerry -- and that's 59 million and counting
           -- but that's how democracy works. -liberal
           \_ So who was responsible for Omaha beach?  And where did that buck
              \_ I am stupid.  I compare everything to WW2.  Kill me now.
        \_ As if infiltrating Saddam's generals is as easy as flipping a
           light switch, or putting on a hat. Saddam fed living people into
           *plastic* *shredder* *machines*.  Sometimes head first, sometimes
           feet first.  Most who slam Bush for removing Saddam don't mind
           abortion either, so I guess torture and mass murder are O.K.
           \_ The American people wouldn't have supported Saddam sending
              our boys to take out Saddam if he had no WMDs.
              Anyways, we're there now, and Dubya supporters want to look
              forward, not back.
           \_ And the US has already killled 100,000+ civilians. Do you
              think the grieving widows care if their husband died in
              a shredder or in an air raid?
              \_ If it means a safer America, 59+ million Americans think it's
                 worth it!  Anyway, it's probably only 10-40,000 civilians.
                 Ask Iraqis - they still think it's worth it!
                 \_ No, probably 100,000+
                    And do the Iraqis still think it was worth it?
                    I know the latest poll has 97% of them wanting
                    us to leave. And most Americans no longer
                    believe the fable that the Iraq war has made
                    us safer.
                    \_ "These numbers seem to be inflated" - Human Rights Watch
                       in the URL you posted.
                       Yeah, Iraqis want us to leave, but the question was
                       whether the war was worth it.
                       You're right about most Americans thinking it didn't
                       make us safer, but most Americans also think going into
                       Iraq was the right thing to do.
2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34678 Activity:nil
11/4    http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2522316
        BUSH: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going
        to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions.
        BUSH: Yes. Again, you violated the one-question rule right off the
        bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people.
        -- Was Dubya kidding or not?  I take this as some light-hearted joking,
        or did he look irritated and say it seriously?
2004/11/3 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34622 Activity:high
11/3    I know indeed what evil I intend to do,
        but stronger than all my afterthoughts is my fury,
        fury that brings upon mortals the greatest evils.
        -Euripides, _Medea_
        \_ It is a dark time for the Rebellion. Although the Death Star has
           been destroyed, Imperial troops have driven the Rebel forces from
           their hidden base and pursued them across the galaxy.
           Evading the dreaded Imperial Starfleet, a group of freedom fighters
           led by Luke Skywalker has established a new secret base on the
           remote ice world of Hoth.
           The evil lord Darth Vader, obsessed with finding young Skywalker,
           has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of
           \_ we destroyed the death star? i don't think so. we don't even
              have a skywalker.
              \_ Maybe it's from Bin Laden's perspective.  He might fancy
                 himself a Skywalker.
                 \_ We are down 2 death stars in NY.
                 \_ Return of the Caliph!
        \_ I am the one, Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
           My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
           Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
           Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
           Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
           My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.

           I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit
           I am the emperor of lies, you grovel at my feet
           I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain
           And still you play the sycophant and revel in my pain
           And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate
           I am the politician, and I decide your fate

           I march before a martyred world, an army for the fight
           I speak of great heroic days, of victory and might
           I hold a banner drenched in blood, I urge you to be brave
           I lead you to your destiny, I lead you to your grave
           Your bones will build my palaces, your eyes will stud my crown
           For I am Mars, the god of war, and I will cut you down
           \_ I think I saw this in the opening to an episode of Andromeda
        \_ Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
           Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
           The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
           The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
           The best lack all conviction, while the worst
           Are full of passionate intensity.
           \_ Right, exactly.  Now who were the more passionate here?
           Surely some revelation is at hand;
           Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
           ... And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
           Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
        \_ "The issue is not a mean one.  It is whether you will be content
           to be a comfortable England, modeled and moulded upon Continental
           principles and meeting in due course an inevitable fate, or whether
           you will be a great country, an imperial country, a country where
           your sons, when they rise, rise to paramount positions, and obtain
           not merely the esteem of their countrymen, but command the respect
           of the world." - Benjamin Disraeli
           \_ I liked my Euripides the most.  Short and to the point.  --op
              \_ I think we're making different points here.
                 \_ i was referring more to the big spew above than your
                    Disraeli quote.
                    \_ I rate the probability that Lemmy Killmeister rips
                       off your head and shits down your neck as: high.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34615 Activity:nil
11/3    So I was talking to my O'Reilly-watching younger brother last night
        about how Dick Cheney was wrong about there being "no doubt" about
        Saddam having WMDs or even WMD programs.  My brother replied, kind
        of emotionally, that Saddam definitely had them, and maybe they were
        moved to Iran or Syria or they were still hidden.  He said he "knows
        how the world works".
        I told him about David Kay, who Dubya appointed, who said "We were
        almost all wrong"; and the Duelfer report, which concluded there were
        no WMDs or WMD programs.  I told him Saddam wanted to play by the
        rules to lift sanctions, but pretend that he had WMDs to deter other
        countries, and that he thought the CIA knew he didn't have them.
        I told him as soon as the UN looked away, Saddam would restart his
        WMD programs.  I told him that Cheney said "We just don't know" about
        WMDs being moved to Syria or Iran, since there were trucks spotted
        moving across the border with contents unknown.  My younger brother
        insisted Saddam had weapons.  Why?  He said again, rather strenuously,
        because he "knows how the world works".  He sugested that David Kay
        is a politician.  I said "What motive does he have?"  "Maybe to write
        a book!"  "He's been ostracized.  He went in almost certain there were
        WMDs.  He was hand-picked by Bush.  What motive does he have?"
        "He's being political."  My younger brother "knows how the world
        works", and probably voted for Dubya.
        \_ My cousin also believes this, because he says be have taped
           conversations that Saddam himself believed this.  Supposedly there
           might have been people in his own government who may have mislead
           Saddam, and by extension, the intelligence we gathered.
           \_ The problem is that, the Duelfer report notes that the U.S.
              has been interrogating Saddam, and he has been forthcoming in
              appeals to his vanity.  Saddam didn't have them, he wanted
              Iran to think he had them, he would rebuild them as soon as
              sanctions were lifted and do what he could get away with.
        \_ the problem is not your brother, but Fox News that mixes opinions
           and facts and distorts views for the right wing agenda.
2004/11/3 [Politics/Foreign/Canada, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34596 Activity:nil
11/03   The last/next thing to elect:
2004/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34471 Activity:low
10/30   So, there's this buffoon who actually believes that chauvinist
        actually has a good point in committing barbarism on the
        motd. Too bad he didn't sign his post. I think it's pretty
        sickening that someone who supposedly went to Berkeley would
        think like this. Of course, we have John Yoo here on
        campus too. Perhaps you didn't know anyone who died in the towers
        in Lebanon. Perhaps you don't know anyone who died in the wake of a B2
        under a cluster bomb. Perhaps you didn't know anybody who was killed in
        Iraq. Unfortunately not all of us are as lucky as you are, and the
        loss of life and pain that many of us have suffered due to barbarism
        is not something which is fun to speculate about. You might sit
        in your ivory tower speculating about how moral and supreme your master
        civilization is, and how the supposedly free people are justified
        in barbarism, both of which are patently false statements because a
        chauvinist is neither rational nor is he free. There are self-
        righteous apologists who attempt to blame everyone but themselves,
        and unfortunately to the victims of barbarism and to those
        who knew them that answer is simply not acceptable. In
        response I can only offer you that I did know someone who was
        a victim, and it is close to home... I do not condone the
        retribution which others like OBL seek, but I cannot sit idly by while
        someone actually supposedly supports these monsters.
        \_ So, there's this buffoon who actually cannot seem to read, but
           does like to run his mouth. Too bad he signed his post. I think
           it's pretty sad that someone who supposedly went to Berkeley can't
           seem to read. Of course, we have other morons here on campus
           too. Perhaps he doesn't know any Iraqis who died in Iraq. Perhaps
           he doesn't know anyone who died elsewhere in the Middle
           East. Fortunately, most of us are probably as lucky as he is, and
           the loss of life and pain that many of those towel head foreigners
           have suffered due to US foreign policy is not something we should
           worry our pretty little heads about.  We might sometimes sit in
           our ivory towers speculating about how rational Bin Laden is, and
           how the supposed poor people might in fact believe they are
           somehow, someway justified in terrorism, both of which might
           conceivably be possible. There are Islamic apologists who attempt
           to blame everyone but themselves (and we all know they're
           personally responsible for all of this), and unfortunately to the
           victims of terrorism and to those who knew them that answer
           [whatever that means] is simply not acceptable. In response he can
           only offer us that he did know someone who was a victim, and it
           was close to home... he does not condone the retribution which
           others seek [again, whatever that even means], but he cannot sit
           idly by while someone actually supposedly supports these monsters
           [way to villify them -- someone's been playing a little too much
           Black & White].
        \_ Did this person actually condone the terrorist acts or merely
           agree that U.S. foreign policy tends to breed terrorists?
        \_ TROLL ALERT.
        \_ are you a Republican? Are you religious?
           \_ Heh, lookup "williamc" in the archives and ask that again.
        \_ when things went bad in Mogadishu many years ago, the Americans
           showed up thinking they were welcomed because they were going
           to bring peace, properity, freedom, women's rights, and
           everything that us westerners value dearly. Guess what? Every
           villager pretty much hated the Americans and killed them when
           they had the chance.
              The idea that western value is the best thing in
           the world and that everyone else should feel the same way, is
           Bush-minded. If the US is truely tolerant, it should just
           leave the world alone.
           \_ Nice try, no cigar.  The US in Somalia were hated by members
              of the various tribes/clans that had the most to lose.  It's not
              a question of "western values", my good friend.  It's the
              problem of how the US has sought to communicate/transmit/impose
              those values.  There are certain things going on in the world
              today that are just plain Wrong (tm) by anyone's cultural
              understanding, and you won't get away with the cheap trick of
              trying to hide them under local cultural quirks that must be
              tolerated by the evil imperialist West.  There's an interesting
              editorial by Youssef M. Ibrahim touching on this in this
              weekend's IHT; I strongly suggest having a read.  -John
        \_ I don't know what started this thread but if someone was saying
           the ~3000 dead people on 9/11 somehow deserved it due to some
           sort of 'collective guilt of the people' they need to pull their
           head out of the sand.  That's the polite version.  I'll leave it
           at that.
2004/10/30 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34458 Activity:high
10/29   More BushCo incompetence.  Enough other unsecured high explosives
        left sitting around to be looted to make 10s of thousands of roadside
        bombs.  How many more smoking guns will it take to get this chimp out
        of office?  4 more days!
        \_ Oh yeah, it was far more important to get these french,
           russian explosives than it was to look for WMDs.
           \_ This is what I don't get.  HDX/RMX can be used as the compressor
              in a nuclear device.  The IAEA told us those stocks were still
              there under their seal.  Why wouldn't al qa qaa be one of the
              first locations secured?  This really seems like the highest of
              incompetencies.  How can you excuse it away?
2004/10/30 [ERROR, uid:34454, category id '18005#1.625' has no name! , , Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34454 Activity:nil
10/29   I fully expect this to make the front page of the NYtimes
        for the next few days
        \_ If you watched CNN between 9-11pm tonight, you would find that
           CNN emphasized the part where both the Army guy and the Pentagon
           spokesperson said "I don't know" to whether any of what he exploded
           were the IAEA-secured explosives in question.  Aaron Brown and Paula
           Zahn both kept pounding this point.
2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34415 Activity:nil
10/28   Did anyone else notice the constant cutaways to an unnamed US barracks
        in baghdad, with US soldiers watching the game, during the World Series?
        With the caption "Multi-National Force" underneath what were clearly
        only US soldiers?  Interesting how the FOX News tilt has made its way
        into their SPORTS coverage!  And after the game, the first question
        they asked one of the Red Sox was something along the lines of "What do
        you have to say to the soldiers over in Baghdad?"
2004/10/28 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34401 Activity:high
10/28   Smoking gun on the explosives issue:
        \_ Liberal media consipracy.  Jason Blair.  CBS.  NANANANANA
        \_ This isn't anything like a smoking gun for anyone seeking a real
           answer.  Your link says that they don't know what they were
           looking at.  It says the place was looted but it would have been
           "unlikely" anyone could haul 380 tons of anything away while the
           streets were "jammed with American armor".  This is a very serious
           issue and you're making a big fucking joke of it.  If the stuff was
           gone before we got there, we need to know that.  If it was somehow
           looted (all 380 tons) by the guys with the pickup truck mentioned
           in your link, then we need to know that.  If it was moved to Syria
           or just other places inside the country which had 1 *million tons
           of other crap all over the place, we need to know that.  Your link
           is speculation, not fact and certainly not a smoking gun.  No one
           needs to cry out "liberal bias!" to see your link doesn't say what
           you say it says.  Your link isn't biased.  It reports facts.  You
           are spinning the facts presented by the media into biased and
           unsubstantiated conclusions.
           \_ see first comment
           \_ http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1
              Couldn't be clearer.
              Yahoo News on the analysis:
              \_ The second URL doesn't go anywhere.
        \_ There has been no smoking gun.  It's STILL not clear what happened
           to the 380 tons of RDX/HMX between March and May 2003.  Securing
           this facility was not a priority for Dubya -- finding bio,
           chemical, and more significant nuclear components was his priority.
                 \_ No it wasn't.  This was one of the biggest friggin
                    NUCLEAR sites in Iraq!
                    \_ What else besides RDX/HMX was nuclear-related at
                       Al-Qaqaa in March, 2003?
                       \_ A huge amount of dual use manufacturing and
                          research equipment.  Also all looted.
                          \_ Are you sure this was at Al-Qaqaa?
           What is clear?  The general problem of not having enough troops,
           widespread looting of explosives from arms sites and from every
           public institution that began immediately after Baghdad fell (if
           not earlier), and the post-war plan being botched in general.
        \_ What are "proximity fuses" made out of? This is a serious
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34373 Activity:high
10/26   Woops
        \_ I read it... didn't get it.  What's noteworthy here?
           \_ Meaning that someone who stockpiles large amounts of nerve
              agent antidote and documents on how to "engage in chemical
              warfare" is likely to possess large amounts of actual nerve
              agent, which is likely to be floating around somewhere, and
              is probably a whole lot easier to thieve or hide than 380 tons
              of conventional explosives, meaning it's likely to be a Bad
              Thing (tm).  -John
              \_ Sorry, are you suggesting that the 380 tons of conventional
                 explosives reportedly stolen may have actually been nerve
                 agent and that no one wants that out in public?  That's scary.
                 \_ No, I think he's saying that there are stockpiles of Iraqi
                    WMD floating around somewhere that Bush never found.
                    \_ Sorry, the WMD that EVERY SINGLE REPORT says do not
                        \_ Look, the reports just say they never found any,
                           nor did they locate evidence to the contrary.
                           Relax, nobody is saying GWB & co. knew something
                           you didn't.  But c'mon, we (or at least the Kurds
                           and Iranians) know that the Iraqis had poison gas
                           at some point, and this sort of thing sure makes
                           me wonder whether there still isn't a bunch of it
                           around somewhere.  Plus, weren't the WMD inspectors
                           looking for some grand nukular bomb building
                           scheme?  -John
                           \_ I thought you were on our side, John!  WTF?!
        \_ This was posted as evidence of NYTimes fraud on the missing
           explosives as an exposition of the timeline. -op
2004/10/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34371 Activity:moderate
10/26   Majority of Bush supporters believe things that simply
        are not true:
        \_ http://Pipa.org?
        \_ Being a Bush supported would have to mean you at least partially
           believe that "Bush is a good President", so you're already in a
           world of make-believe!
2004/10/26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34359 Activity:nil
10/26   Media Watchdog: 'October Surprise' Blows Up in Faces of
        NY Times
        NyTimes pulls a CBS
        \_ "Cybercast News Service"? Whoizzat?
           \_ right-wing news outlet.  Media Research Center is a right-wing
              source as well.  You better believe the right-wing is spinning
              this as much as they can:  Dubya lost 380 tons of HMX and RDX
              (not just artillery shells and general-use explosives) at a site
              we knew about and that the IAEA explicitly warned the U.S. about
              before the invasion ("hey dumbshits, don't forget about the
              Al-Qaqaa site with the stuff that can start a fissile reaction").
        \_ Uhh, it is becoming increasingly clear that the NBC story
           was wrong.  The troops were jsut there for a resting stop
           and no inspections were done.  If there were 380 TONS of high
           explosives taken from the facility in the month leading up to
           the start of the war don't you think people would have known?
           I mean shit you don't think we had every single satalite we could
           looking at places like MAJOR AMMO DUMPS.  you can spin away but
           it might be better if you jsut faced facts for once.  There was
           NO postwar planning.  Bush and co really thought that the iraqis
           would rush to love us and everythin would be wonderful.  The fact
           that they are still refusing to admit their mistakes is leading
           to disaster after disaster in Iraq.
           \_ Like the Bush ANG memos eh?  I should just believe the 'facts',
              as in whatever the Jayson Blair says is a fact.
              \_ NBC pulled the story.  Get a grip.
        \_ Uh, hardly any of the oil refineries were affected during the same
           time period, unlike Al-Qaqaa; the "it was gone before we got there"
           excuse is incredibly stupid.
        \_ Of course it was gone before we got there.  If you take your sweet
           ass time guarding sites other than the oil ministry it gives the
           bad guys plenty of time to steal explosives.  The only alternative
           "It was stolen right under our noses" makes no sense because if you
           actually assigned people to guard the stuff nobody could have simply
           waltzed off for it.  Saying "It was gone before we got there" is a
           bit like saying "Things are always in the last place you look".
           \_ Uh, it was last seen before the war, like 5 years before.  Do you
              have any clue about this story at all?  Let's blame Bush for
              the missing gas Saddam used on the Kurds.  After all, it could
              have been there JUST before the Americans got there...
              \_ What was last seen before the war, like 5 years before?
                 Are you talking about the RDX and HMX at Al-Qaqaa?
              \_ No it was last seen shortly before gulf war 2.  There were
                 inspectors in iraq shortly before the US told them to bug
                 out because war was coming.  This was one of the sites they
                 had under inspection.
2004/10/26 [ERROR, uid:34358, category id '18005#8.67931' has no name! , , Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34358 Activity:nil
10/26   <DEAD>www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933<DEAD> (NBC News, dated today)
        "At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said
        U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate
        aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the
        explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact.
        The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking
        on condition of anonymity. ... Mohammed J. Abbas, a senior official at
        Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology, reporting the theft of the
        explosives. The materials were lost through 'the theft and looting of
        the governmental installations due to lack of security,' the letter
        said. The letter informed the IAEA that since Sept. 4, 2003, looting
        at Al-Qaqaa had resulted in the loss of 214.67 tons of HMX, 155.68 tons
        of RDX and 6.39 tons of PETN explosives. It was not clear how Iraqi
        authorities arrived at that date."
        "Reporter Lai Ling Jew ... embedded ... 'There wasn't a search ...
        The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more
        of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean
        certainly some of the soldiers headed off on their own, looked through
        the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around.
        But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons
        nothing to keep looters away.'"
        \_ Woops, once again NYtimes and CBS are exposed as frauds
           \_ I can't tell if you are being ironic or not, please
              help me. - danh
           \_ "Cliff May over at the Corner writes ... Sent to me by a
              source in the government: 'The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud.
              These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in
              2003. ...'"  Uh, I think "government source" just saw the first
              NBC News article (incorrectly reporting HMX/RDX as already
              missing) and echoed that.
2004/10/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34343 Activity:high
10/25   How come no liberal magazine can put this so well?
        Maybe I really am a Buchananite Conservative:
        \_ Buchanan has valid points about WWII.  That said,
           one can not project power in the Middle East from aircraft
           carriers and repeated threats of enforcement become
           ineffectual if they aren't backed up with force.  Assymetrical
           warfare necessitated a new strategy.
           \_ Yes, it's preemptively invade Iraq before the UN inspectors
              can assess Iraq had no WMDs or WMD programs, without enough
              troops to win the peace, and then still say that we should have
              still invaded even knowing what we know today!  In the meantime,
              because of our bungling in Iraq, we possess no credible military
              threat to Iran or N. Korea as they continue building their nuke
              capability.  Yay!
                \_ Iraq was a military fuckup based on political
                   considerations, just like Vietnam was; fucking up a
                   military action like that is as reprehensible as lying
                   about your reasons for doing so (or, if you choose, going
                   about it in an incompetent manner--they're both
                   unforgivable.)  Getting rid of evil dictators, for whatever
                   reason, is not.  -John
2004/10/21 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34274 Activity:high
10/21   E.L. Doctorow, author, on The Unfeeling President:
        \_  http://www.lyricmania.com/l24994
2004/10/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:34213 Activity:nil
10/19   Australian reporter captured by insurgents near embassy.  They threaten
        to kill him, accuse him of working for CIA or being a contractor.
        Proves to insurgents he's just a reporter via google search.
        \_ More on this here.  Read the last two entries.  Everything here is
           great stuff, though.
2004/10/14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34129 Activity:very high
10/14   Did anyone catch Bush saying "You know, it's pointless/unreliable/
        whatever to quote outside... oh, never mind. Let me quote blablabla".
        That was so funny. His notes have to be prepared by someone else.

[contentless wind removed]
        \_ BUSH: In all due respect, I'm not so sure it's credible to quote
           leading news organizations about -- oh, never mind. Anyway, let me
           quote the Lewin report.  [http://csua.org/u/9he]
           \_ They repeated my claims that Saddam had WMD, so you can see how
              unreliable the mainstream press is.
                \_ i do find it amusing that bush keeps critisizing kerry
                   for believing his iraq lies
                   \_ He believed me, now he doesn't.  He's a flip-flopper.
                      We need a president who has the courage to believe his
                      own lies in the face of overwhelming evidence.
                      \_ Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself!
              \_ They were not lies.  Every Senator, Congressman, President
                 Clinton, his staff, Dems, Reps, everyone, repeated the
                 exact accusations at one time or another.  That you have
                 a selective memory on this issue indicates self-delusion.
                 \_ Wow, you know what everyone in the world said. You must
                    have a super big brain. Funny, I remember posting in
                    the motd that SH probably did not have any WMD. My
                    memory must be faulty. As for the self-delusional
                    charge, please look up the psychological term
                    "projection." Here is what Barbara Lee really had
                    to say about SH and WMD:
                    I defy you to find one quote where she claimed that
                    he had them.
        \_ Yes, I laughed out loud.  "not so sure it's credible to quote
           leading news organizations about -- oh, never mind".

[contentless wind removed]
\_ i'm sorry, but 'wc -l /etc/motd.public' still shows more than 0
   \_ Yah, sorry -- it tends to grow and repopulate at a rate which is hard
      to keep up with.
2004/10/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34125 Activity:high
10/14   This is getting down right irritating.  Doonesbury link shortened
        for motd readers *again.*
        \_ Doonesbury's not been funny, witty, informative or thought-
           provoking in about 20 years.  Why do you bother?
        \_ This has nothing to do with Doonesbury.
2004/10/14 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34121 Activity:nil
10/14   Where's Saddam?
        http://tinyurl.com/livc -John
2004/10/13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34098 Activity:very high
10/13   Insurgent Alliance Fraying in Fallujah
        The proposal the [insurgent] delegation took back to Fallujah calls
        for surrendering control of the city to the Iraqi National Guard. U.S.
        forces would remain outside the city unless the lightly armed
        government forces were attacked. But first, all foreign fighters must
        leave the city, and the foreigners are adamantly and publicly opposing
        the plan. Their representative voted against it in a meeting last week
        of [Falluja]'s ruling mujaheddin shura, or council of holy warriors,
        which supported the peace proposal, 10 to 2.  The local insurgent who
        cast the other negative vote was later persuaded to change his mind,
        residents say. ... substantial support remains for the foreigners,
        especially given the number of civilian casualties caused by U.S.
        [Yes, a way out.  Local insurgents can say they're working with Allawi
        to kick out the foreigners, saving face, while U.S. soldiers continue
        to kick ass and Iraqi National Guard troops finally stop running away.
        By "continue to kick ass" I mean suffering a small number of casualties
        per month from IEDs, while still decimating any enemy who doesn't run
        away.  This doesn't kill insurgents, though -- the Iraqi National Guard
        is the ONLY way out.  We tried this before, and it was called
        Vietnamization.  But, unlike the peasantdom of Vietnam, Iraqis know a
        secular government and would like to have one again, not an al Qaeda
        proving ground. -liberal]
        \_ I'm always up for more articles on U.S. soldiers kicking @$$.
           More links please.
           \_ go pick up the atlantic monthly and read
              "5 days in fallujah"
              http://marinecorpsmoms.com/archives/000096.html - danh
           \_ I couldn't find the article I was looking for.  Basically
              it's about how the U.S. went all out in Samarra and the
              insurgents lost since the U.S. didn't leave time for
              them to regroup.  Also, the Iraqi National Guard didn't run
              away this time.
        \_ I don't give these type of articles much credence, whether they
           express opinions either way.  I doubt very much that reporters
           have a handle on what is going on there.
           \_ You know, I did a http://news.google.com search on Karl Vick (reporter
              who wrote the article), and I see a lot of pieces that make
              America look good.  Could be a coincidence - maybe not. -op
2004/10/12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34050 Activity:moderate
10/12   Doonesbury's _this_ close to reading the motd:
        \_ and, since typing in url's from comic strips is annoying...
           here it is:
           \_ thanks!
        \_ Garry Trudeau on Charlie Rose last night... great interview.
           \_ now for once i wish i had watched the charlie rose show - danh
              \_ order the tape
2004/10/12 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34045 Activity:insanely high
10/12   Bud Day is the most decorated soldier since MacArthur in WWII
        A True War Hero Speaks on Kerry
        \_ I would like to point out the incumbent has involved us in
           a long messy guerilla war we have no hope of winning ever,
           just to promote the 100 percent free market ideals
           of his masters.  thanks. - danh
           \_ I really wonder what people like yourself did during the
              first years of WWII or Korea.  I imagine some committed
              suicide because of the impending doom.
              \_ You, sir, are no FDR!
           \_ Hey, it's hard work.  No one said it wasn't going to be hard
              work. -Dubya
        \_ Er, didn't this already get posted, discussed, flamebaited,
           and run into the ground?  Swift Boat Guy, are you back?
           \_ Yes.  The thread has been restored in its entirety.
              Gawd Bless AmeriKKKa.
        \_ So Bud Day, a POW, does not think kindly of the anti-war movement.
           What's new?  It was a very ethically challenging time.
        \_ To sum: John Kerry, WDYHA?
        \_ Attaboy... don't ever think about your mistakes.  It's just a
           sign of a poor leader.
        \_ All the medals in the world can't change the fact that Vietnam
           was arguably America's dirtiest war.  I love the smell of napalm
           in the morning.  That soldier needs to read The Best and The
           \_ Why, because Kerry and Fonda said so?
              \_ Open your eyes.  Four million civilians died in this war.
                 As for you, you can watch Fog of War, in which the Secretary
                 of Defense at the time gives his personal views of the war.
                 \_ i think a larger ratio of the population in Vietnam died
                    than the russian korean french and german population excuses
                    you give
                 \_ 4 million is exaggerated. McNammara is responsible for
                    the outcome, he is an asshole of grandest kind - why
                    should I listen to anything he says?  He completely
                    botches the war effort and then expects people to listen
                    to his contrite exculpation - he was part of the problem.
                    800,000 died in the battle of Stalingrad, more at Kursk,
                    300,000+ at Okinawa, 2+  million in the Korean War.
                    Was Korea a bad idea too?
                    \_ *YES*  If USA didn't cross the 38th parallel line,
                       Chinese would not of being involved.  You would have
                    \_ *YES*  If USA didn't cross the 38th parallel, PRC
                       would not have being involved.  You would have
                       a lot less casualty then.  Unfortunately, USA's
                       mentality was blinded by their ideology, completely
                       miscalculate the rational behind China's involvement.
                       mentality was blinded by its ideology, completely
                       miscalculating the rationale behind China's involvement.
                       Then again, we are waging this "war on terror" and
                       "war on iraq" without clear understanding of why our
                       enemy was fighting against us neither.
                       "war on Iraq" without a clear understanding of why our
                       enemy is fighting against us.
                       \_ above has been processed by volunteer english
                          correcting daemon
                          \_ thank you
                       \_ "You ... we"  Make up your mind.
                       \_ Nothing wrong with crossing the 38th parallel
                          to destroy a regime that believed in the evil
                          communist cult, and invaded first.  US probably
                          should have started a dialogue with PRC though.
                       \_ Crossing the 38th parallel was fine.  We should
                          have talked to the PRC about it, but there's
                          nothing wrong with crushing an expansionist
                          oppressive communist regime that attacked first.
                          Furthermore, there were plenty of reasons to
                          reunite Korea at the time, and it has only
                          become more desireable in hindsight. -jrleek
                    \_ WW2:  America and its allies were attacked first.
                       Korea:  South Korea was attacked first.
                       Vietnam:  ... duh.
                       Are you really this stupid?
                       The 4 million figure has generally not been challenged,
                       with notable exception to your "4 million is
                       exaggerated" brilliant expository.
                       Why should you view McNamara's interview?  He was
                       Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War.  If you
                       don't want to hear this viewpoint, it's certainly
                       your right to block out this essential primary source.
                           \_ Your history is completely wrong.  Ho
                              Chi Minh attacked the South, not the other way
                              around.  Vietnam was a defensive war honoring
                              SEATO treaties.
                        \_ The reason for a war, while important, does not
                           excuse bad conduct.  You could argue either side,
                           from "we continued a French colonialist spat" to
                           "we were safeguarding an independent country."  The
                           problem is that there was never a clear mandate,
                           the RVN was a corrupt and doomed system (for
                           whatever reason), US leadership treated the war
                           as sort of a playground for new ideas, and many
                           US troops acted wrongly.  In a situation like that
                           of the US in Vietnam, having the clear moral high
                           ground is tremendously important, no matter what
                           you do.  We lost it, so even if the war was fought
                           on good reasons (as I think) both strategically and
                           philosophically, we fucked it up royally.  -John
                           \_ Just little fact.  When WW2 ended, USA actually
                              recognized N.Vietnam government for a split
                              second, then reversed its decision once USA found
                              N.Vietnamese government's Communist nature.
                              It is unfortunate that until TODAY, most people
                              in USA still don't understand people's desire
                              of self-determination over all other things
                              which USA treasures: Christianity, human right,
                              democracy.  For many, USA is just an continuation
                              of European's imperial conquest, driven by
                              doctrine of White Man's Burden written centries
                              \_ Yup, let's stop paying all those third world
                                 countries.  Fuck White Man's Burden, let em
                              \_ Yes, we should support self determination for
                                 \_ Chicom troll = pwned.
                                 \_ And Tibet.
        \_ I would like to point out the incumbent has involved us in
           a long messy guerilla war we have no hope of winning ever,
           just to promote the 100 percent free market ideals
           of his masters.  thanks. - danh
           \_ I really wonder what people like yourself did during the
              first years of WWII or Korea.  I imagine some committed
              suicide because of the impending doom.
        \_ Er, didn't this already get posted, discussed, flamebaited,
           and run into the ground?  Swift Boat Guy, are you back?
                              \_ Your Vietnamese history is wrong.  The three
                                 regions of Vietnam voted, two chose to stay
                                 aligned with France.  The third, the North,
                                 split.  This was not good enough for Ho Chi
                                 Minh, so he attacked the South.
                                 \_ huh? what have you been smoking?
        \_ Do you think that posting this again day after day is going to
           convert more voters to your crusade?
        \_ Only what I want to talk about matters and I will keep posting it
           and reposting it ad initium forever. Get used to it.
2004/10/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33997 Activity:high
10/8    I'm looking for all the war video footages, like the F16
        Fallujah and the Apache Helicoptor killing. Is there a
        depot for these kinds of things? ok thx.
        \_ kazaa lite resurrection. get the entire Apache footage -
           not the edited ABC News version.
        \_ would you like video footage of terrorists blowing up children
           in Iraq for your home made propaganda film, too?
2019/11/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 751 - 900 of 1605   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Iraq: