Politics Foreign MiddleEast Iraq - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Iraq:
Results 1051 - 1200 of 1605   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2017/12/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/16   

2006/4/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42642 Activity:high
4/3     has anyone pay attention to Moussaoui trial?  don't you guys find it
        troublesome for US goverment seeking death penalty for someone who is
        already in jail for entire month prior to 9/11 attack?  how about
        classifying jet-fuel-filled airliner as "weapon of mass destruction"
        when it is clearly not?
        \_ A death trial will mean a lot of people in Texas and Virginia
           shooting bullets into the air and party all night. Yeehaw!
        \_ hi troll. 'i fob motd guy' thing is really done.  you can
           post your questions with no pretending to be ESL.  if you like,
           trying later again with no fake thing, i sure a bunch a people
           be happy chatting about it.
                \_ It's all fun and games until the Iraqi airforce bombs your
                   party cuz you were shooting bullets into the air!
        \_ hi troll. the 'im fob motd guy' thing is really done.  you can
           post your questions without pretending to be esl.  if you'd like
           to try again later without the fake thing im sure a bunch of people
           would be happy to chat about it.
           \_ it's not troll.  In my eye, we are seeking death sentence
              because Moussaoui committed "thought crime."  Further, I think
              US department of justice change the definition of "WMD" for
              seeking death sentence.  In that case, gosh, the search of
              "WMD" is over in Iraq, as Iraq has PLENTY of jet liners
              when we invade it.
              \_ A "thought crime"?  You do realize that it's possible to be
                 an accomplice to a crime without being present when the
                 actual deed is done, right?  If he knows a crime is going to
                 take place with a high degree of certainty (especially
                 such a heinous one) and chooses to do nothing (and in
                 Moussaoui's case, had originally intended to participate)...
              \_ you're a troll.  i told you: try again in english in a few
                 weeks and im sure people will be happy to discuss it.  the
                 fob troll thing just isn't that funny.
2006/4/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42634 Activity:nil 75%like:42632
4/3     Any idea why soda's SSH has been flaky the past few days?
        http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html    -jblack     http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html    -jblack
2006/4/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42608 Activity:nil 80%like:42603
4/1     Freepers react to kidnapped reporter saying her statements were made
        at gunpoint.  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607576/posts
2006/4/1-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42605 Activity:high
4/1     The fellow who as been the editor of the e'ist for the entire adult
        lives for most of you is stepping down. Interesting farewell
        restrospection at:
          http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6744590
        Main topics: 1. globalization 2. poverty 3.iraq
        --psb
        \_ Synopsis: fact #1 fact #2 ... fact #n ... that's why
           the Iraq War is a good thing and we should redouble our effort."
           Economist's view is that "Conservative think tanks are the
           answer to liberal academia." Go figure.
        \_ thanks for the article.  his big cop out was arguing that
           his support for the Iraq war was right, but that George Bush
           let us down.  Please ... you cannot decide whether to support
           a war without taking into consideration the capabilities of
           the leadership taking charge of the war and its aftermath.
           Even a really good leadership would have a very difficult
           time in the case of Iraq, and would likely make things worse
           instead of better, and also tie us up for a long time.
           That's why the war is a bad idea.  He
           should just say, "we're wrong", and I will have more
           respect for him.  I like Economist better before him
           Economist also become more pro-American from a
           politics standpoint instead of representing a more multi-
           faceted worldview.  I don't necessarily disagree with that,
           but alternate viewpoints tend to be fresher and more
           interesting, as opposed to feeling like just another
           US based rag.
           \_ He should have been more skeptical, but many thinking people,
              myself included, had no inkling of a clue that this would be
              so horribly mismanaged.  Afghanistan was pulled off fairly
              handily, and despite it being pretty obvious from the get-go
              that the whole WMD thing was a sham, I am still in favor of the
              invasion of Iraq, for reasons I've stated repeatedly.  There
              is no inconsistency in that article whatsoever.  -John
              \_ Actually many thinking people, myself included, know that
                 the aftermath would be terribly difficult to manage.
                 That he didn't have a clue, doesn't mean he was dumb,
                 but it does mean he was wrong.  Afghanistan was a country
                 that was totally exhausted from years of war, and anything
                 was better than the Taliban, and there was international
                 support, and Osama bin Laden was there, so our goal and
                 aim was clear.  OBL was our target.  Nation building was
                 a secondary goal.  If it worked out, great, if it didn't,
                 it was okay.
           \- I wish he had used stronger words of condemnation too
              but he does say: 1. maybe we should have been more skeptical
              of governments, as we are inclined to be 2. recall they did
              run a cover story called RUMSFELD RESIGN ... did any other
              not-obviously left papers say anything comparable?
              not-obviously-left papers say anything comparable?
                  I supported an Administration I didnt
                  trust believing that the consequences
                  would repay the gamble. Now I realize
                  that intentions do shape consequences.
                    --Michael Ignatieff, NYT Magazine
              --psb
              \_ I wrote the above before reading the last
                 paragraph, so yes, it's a little bit better,
                 but I think my above comments stand.
                 The other change for the worse, at least from
                 my standpoint, is a shift in weight towards
                 an Atlantic centric coverage.  There also seems to
                 my standpoint, is a slight shift in weight towards
                 a Atlantic centric coverage.  There also seems to
                 my standpoint, was a shift in weight towards
                 an Atlantic centric coverage.  There also seemed to
                 be a change in the people covering asia, or at
                 least east asia.  I find the analysis and
                 insights not as astute as before.  One example
                 was the coverage of Taiwan politics, for
                 instance.  The Economist was all enamoured
                 was the coverage of Taiwan politics.
                 The Economist was all enamoured
                 with the "upstart" DPP and Chen Shui Bian,
                 Taiwan's current president.  I haven't read
                 Taiwan's current president.  I haven't read a
                 single article even slightly negative about
                 him since his first election 6 years ago.
                 Such one-sided coverage is more akin to
                 Newsweek as opposed to the old Economist.
                 Newsweek than to the old Economist.
                 Economist is still good, but my favourite
                 these days is WSJ.  And I agree with the
                 poster below about the jab at China.  China
                 pretty much laid out its bottomline pretty
                 laid out its bottomline pretty
                 clearly.  And the likeliest miscalculation
                 would be from the Taiwan side, at least for
                 the coming few years. 15 years from now, it's
                 the coming few years. 10 years from now, it's
                 harder to say.  What do you think of the
                 Economist's coverage of South Asia?  I don't
                 know enough about the region to judge.
                 Economist's coverage of India?  I don't know
                 enough about India to judge.
        \_ I think he completely down-played China's role on reducing
           proverty.  Instead, he emphasis on China might 'mis-calculate"
           over issue of Taiwan.  If he actually pays attention to the issue
           of two Chinas, he will know it's Taiwan that has been provoking
           the mainland for past 10-13 years.
           \_ There is only one China.
              \_ Agree, and it is called Taiwan.        -FreeTai Troll
                 \_ you mean Chinese Republic :p
           \- the e'ist takes jabs at lots of people. like the "greetings
              earthlings" cover, the man-mountain kohl cover, poking at the
              french, the notorious "chink in their armor" comment etc.
        \_ I second the thanks for the link and the frustration with
           his analysis of the Iraq war. Most galling is his comment that
           given the information at the time, invasion was the right decision.
           Regardless of whether or not Saddam was trying to develop WMD,
           it was clear that he was not a threat to anyone in the region,
           much less the Europe or the US. Unfortunately, at the time, it was
           made to seem that the opposition to the war came mainly from
           intelligent, though admitedly lunitic fringe types like Chomsky and
           Said, but many respectable people who concede that force is
           occasionaly necessary were also against it. Here's Ken Waltz's take
           on it at the time:
                http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con6.html
           (I'm not sure who this is aimed at, as psb probably knew that, and
           the ecst doesn't read the motd...) Bill Emmott did win points in
           my book when he wrote that letter to Dan Savage, though.
           \_ What about all those blank missiles Chine fired towards
              Taiwan? What do you call that? Fuck you ChiCom.  -Free Taiwan
           \_ It's very simple:  Taiwan will never willingly join the PRC
              until the PRC gets its shit together and creates
              until the government gets its shit together and creates
              a predictable, fair and democratic form of government.
              \_ It's not so simple.  TW's government is so fucked up and
                 current government is not even legit in many people's eye
                 due to election fraud back in 2004.
             \_ Which govt?  Taiwan, PRC, or US?
                \_ All three. When all of them function with integrity
                   and honesty like Denmark, we'll all live in harmony.
                \_ ^government^PRC
             \_ I was under the impression Taiwan was basically an oligarchy
                these days anyway.
                \_ And what in the world gives you that impression?  They
                   have more parties that could legitimate win the election
                   each year than we have here in the US with our two party
                   system.
                   \_ you have no idea.  The comment on oligarchy is actually
                      a more accurate description of TW's politics today.
                      \_ Feel free to qualify your statements at any time.
2006/4/1-2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42603 Activity:nil 80%like:42608
4/1     Freepers react to kidnapped reporter saying her statements were
        coerced.  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607576/posts
2006/3/31-4/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:42597 Activity:kinda low
3/31    Nice try but I have MORE time than you.
        \_ Shut up and eat your Freedom Fries:
           http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/11/politics/main543555.shtml
        \_ you don't. see above.  you'll get a few things here and there
           but in the long run there's absolutely nothing you can do of
           any consequence.
2006/3/31-4/3 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42586 Activity:moderate
3/31    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_re_us/attacks911_calls
        This is a pretty depressing article. Makes me proud to attack
        terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.
        \_ I don't think anyone was ever ashamed to attack terrorists.  It's the
           innocent people caught in the middle that many can't stomach.
        \_ Iraq?  Are you still believe Iraq has anything to do with this?
           \_ At the time of the attack we thought Iraq had something to
              do with it and even some of the Democrats supported it. At
              any rate the attack was done out of good intentions and our
              brave Commander in Chief actually did something. Had Frenchy
              Kerry been our president he'd already given up and surrender
              to Iraq and Iran.
              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607156/posts
              \_ First of all, if he is brave, he would actually *GO* to
                 Vietnam like John Karry.  Secondly, there are evidents
                 suggesting that Bush decided to attack Iraq only weeks
                 after 9/11, when there are no evident suggesting there is
                 any link between Iraq and 9/11.  Thirdly, have you realize
                 Bush has bankrupted both our Treasury *AND* our credibility
                 around the world because of this?
                 \_ Let me just say one word. 911!
                                -libUral thinking like a conservative
              \_ he should of invade Saudi Arabia instead.  Majority of
                 hijackers are Saudis... no?
                 \_ There is no need to invade the Saudis since high ranking
                    officials are already "bought"
        \_ I don't think anyone was ever ashamed to attack terrorists.  It's
           the innocent people caught in the middle that many can't stomach.
           Is what happened to those 9/11 victims worse than men being
           mistakenly identified, hauled out of their homes to the screams of
           crying women, thrown in prison with no trial, tortured to death,
           and later found to be innocent?  9/11 was horrible.  So is what's
           happened since.
           \_ Our will to defend our way of life will never flag.
              At times there is collateral damage, but that is the price we are
              willing to have others pay for our Freedom.
              \_ Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius?
              \_ Just replace "Freedom" with "quest for the revival of the
                 Muslim Caliphate" and it works for bin Laden too!
           \_ So which innocent guys have been tortured to death? That's
              a pretty bold claim. What's the evidence?
        \_ We care why?
              \_ Welcome Time Traveller/Recent Cryogenic revivee! Google
                                                  \_ cryonic
                 "Abu Ghraib"
2006/3/31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42578 Activity:high
3/31    "Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them ... I
        believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision, that Saddam
        had been a threat to the international community long enough."
        - Sec State Rice (Mar 31, 2006)
        \_ "But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on
           September 11, we had a choice to make.  We could decide that the
           proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes
           into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and
           perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done ... Or we
           could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go
           after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced
           there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is
           no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with
           Saddam Hussein still in power." -Sec State Rice (Oct 16, 2005)
           \_ It's a different kind of middle east these days for sure.
2006/3/31-4/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42576 Activity:low 50%like:42573
3/31    Questions About Carroll's Captivity:
        http://csua.org/u/fdv  (Washington Post column)
        (From Washington Post, with citations from NY Times)
        \_ Not to mention from LGF and NRO.  Fuck Howie.
           \_ The LGF quote is not exactly flattering.  I'm not sure what
              your problem is.
              \_ He's giving them a voice they don't deserve.  Yes, there are
                 questions.  It just happened.  How 'bout we find answers rather
                 than cloud the discussion with vague and stupid speculations,
                 especially from those who have decided that she's an enemy
                 of the state.  Another example of "X says world is flat.
                 Opponents disagree."  Fuck Howie.
        \_ Update: family claims video was made under duress.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_carroll_2
           http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_carroll_2
2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42552 Activity:nil 93%like:42546
3/30    http://tinyurl.com/p3fpg (news.yahoo.com)
        Carroll freed in Iraq!!! HAPPY NEWS finally.
        \_ I bet the Freepers think this is bad news.
           \_ Pretty much:
              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1606219/posts
              My favorite is "does she look Arab to you?"
              \_ Considering the Italian journalist was later found with
                 some of the ransom money, some degree of doubt is
                 appropriate.
                 Here is the real victim of this story:
                 Remembering Allan: a tribute to Jill Carroll's interpreter
                 http://csmonitor.com/2006/0306/p01s03-woiq.html?s=t5
2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42549 Activity:nil
3/30    what do people think about the British memos supposedly
        saying Bush/Blair were thinking of ways to fake cause
        for invading Iraq in case we didn't find WMD quickly?
        Excuse my poor English.  I'm talking about these:
        http://tinyurl.com/eabyg
        I don't know where the original NY Times story is.
        Just for laughs I looked around on Fox News . com for the story
        but I can't find it.
        \_ What?!  Are you saying the NYT and Foxnews are the same since
           neither has the story?
           \_ No, not at all.  I doubt it was ever on Fox News.  Please
              prove me wrong!   The NY Times article is now behind
              their paywall.
              \_ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183689,00.html
                 I typed "blair memo" into their search engine.  It was the
                 first link.  You sure tried really hard, huh?
                 \_ I guess your brain uses different buckets for the
                    hashes, i didn't think of that since there seems to be
                    secret BLAIR memos coming out every other month.
                    anyway I don't want to imply Fox News is a bunch of
                    scum sucking administration sycophants.  I am surprised
                    at the lack of public outcry.  I know we've been
                    debating whether Bush made up shit when invading
                    Iraq but the memo seems pretty damning.
                    \_ Hey that is a DIFFERENT blair memo.  See, a new
                       shocking one comes out all the time!  Please read
                       the above urls again.  My BLAIR memo has Bush
                       suggesting we paint a plane in UN colors so Saddam
                       would shoot at it and then we can invade in
                       retaliation.
                       \_ As I said before it was overwritten: it should be
                          no surprise that there are multiple memos on the
                          same topic between the leadership of two close
                          allies on an important issue.
        \_ Well, Dubya doubted Blix would find the WMDs, but he was sure that
           Saddam had them, so he attacked in March '03 to prevent Blix from
           not finding them longer.
2006/3/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42546 Activity:nil 93%like:42552
3/30    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_carroll_released
        Carroll freed in Iraq!!! HAPPY NEWS finally.
        \_ I bet the Freepers think this is bad news.
           \_ Pretty much:
              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1606219/posts
              My favorite is "does she look Arab to you?"
2006/3/29-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42513 Activity:kinda low
3/29    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq
        Bush blames Saddam for the ongoing civil war.
        \_   "I want the Iraqi people to hear I've got great confidence
             in their capacity to self govern," Bush said. "I also want
             the Iraqi people to hear -- it's about time you get a unity
             government going. In other words, Americans understand
             you're newcomers to the political arena. But pretty soon
             its time to shut her down and get governing."
           What the fuck is he talking about?
           "I want the Iraqi people to hear I've got great confidence
           in their capacity to self govern," Bush said. "I also
           want the Iraqi people to hear -- it's about time you get
           a unity government going. In other words, Americans
           understand you're newcomers to the political arena. But
           pretty soon its time to shut her down and get governing."
             Bush said Iraq's instability "is the legacy of Saddam
             a tyrant who exacerbated ethnic divisions to keep himself
             in power."
           Yeah, see, this is the whole "opening the gates of hell"
           thing people tried to WARN YOU ABOUT...  Fuckhole.
           (failed on second cut and paste.  fixed.)
           \_ Why didn't he listen to his Daddy? Especially when he knows his
              daddy is about 10 times as smart as he is!
              \_ being smart doesn't win ya elections post-9/11 for you and
                 your party.  being ruthless against the Tewwowists does!
                 Even Hillary gets that.
                 \_ I love this "9/11 has changed law of physics" arguement.
                    It is almost comical.
                    And by the way, we are talking about IRAQ here... why
                    makes you think 9/11 and Iraq has anything to do with
                    each other?
                    \_ The president told us that the Iraqis were harboring
                       Al Qaeda, and if you can't believe your CINC, whom
                       can you trust?  -John
                       \_ Bob.
2006/3/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42488 Activity:low
3/28    Hey all you armchair intelligence analysts! Here's your chance to be a
        star if you can read Arabic and have a lot of free time:
        http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm
        \_ "Another administration official described the political logic: 'If
           anyone in the intelligence community thought there was valid
           information in those documents that supported either of those
           questions--W.M.D. or Al Qaeda--they would have shouted them from the
           rooftops.' ...
        \_ "Under pressure from Congressional Republicans ... posting on the
           Web 48,000 boxes of Arabic-language Iraqi documents ....
           Public doubts about the war have driven Mr. Bush's approval rating
           to new lows. A renewed debate over Saddam Hussein's weapons and
           terrorist ties could raise the president's standing."
           http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/politics/28intel.html
2017/12/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/16   

2006/3/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42478 Activity:nil
3/27    Poll. The small scaled Iraq Civil War will: .
        get better:
        get worse: .
        stay the same:
        split up into three pieces
        split up into three pieces and Iran and Turkey is redrawing their
          borders:.
2006/3/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42470 Activity:low
3/27    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060327/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
        U.S. and Iraqi army units (headed by a Sunni) kill ~ 20 Shiite
        insurgents in or just outside a Shiite mosque in Baghdad.
        Baghdad governor cuts military/political ties to U.S., Baghdad council
        suspends cooperation with U.S. on reconstruction projects.
        Iraq president calls for investigation.
        \_ so, should mosques be a place of sanctuary, or a safe base of
           operations from which to launch insurgent attacks with impunity?
           \_ they should be a place of sancturary, unless they are used as a
              base of operation for insurgents
              \_ which sure looks like what was going on from the quoted
                 news story.  And yet, protest from Baghdad governor.
                 \_ "And yet, protest from <political official doing what's
                     popular with his constituency>"
                 \_ what do Shiite insurgents do?  I know Sunni insurgents
                    attack Americans, Iraqi police, and blow up Shiite civvies.
                    \_ Probably they attack Americans, Iraqi police, and blow
                       up Sunni civvies.
                       \_ Aren't nearly all Iraqi police Shiites?
                          Can you give me a URL of Sunni civvies getting blown
                          up as an intentional target by Shiites?
                          When's the last time Shiites attacked Americans?
      http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/2006-03/27/article05.shtml _/
                          \_ http://csua.org/u/fcn (islamonline.org)
                             \_ So which is it?
                       \_ Not quite.  They attack Americans, and with the
                          acquiescence of the Iraqi Police, execute Sunni
                          civilians.
        \_ "Police and representatives of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada
           al-Sadr, who holds great sway among poor Shiites in eastern Baghdad,
           said all those killed were in the complex for evening prayers and
           none was a gunmen."  So believe al-Sadr now?
           \_ Bush vs Al-Sadr.  Who has more credibilty?
        \_ FYI, my take on this:  Iraqi army (headed by a Sunni) told U.S. Army
           that a Sunni dentist was taken hostage by al-Sadr Shiite militia 12
           hours ago.
           Americans, wanting to send a message to Shiite militia (who have
           been on a death squad spree on Sunnis since Feb 22), went on a joint
           op with Iraqi army.  Iraqi army entered the mosque and shot everyone
           up, including the 80-year-old imam; Americans stayed on the outside
           and shot up all the Shiite militia running out. -op
           \_ Mission Accomplished!
2006/3/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42459 Activity:low
3/27    Right, things are SOOOOO stable in Iraq right now -- it's so obviously
        *all* the media's fault:
        http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/27/iraq.main/index.html
        \_ The first thing you need to understand is why this is not civil war.
           The helpful editors at exile.ru have spelled out exactly why this
           is not civil war.  Please take note.
           http://www.exile.ru/2006-March-24/the_civil_war_debate.html
        \_ Unbelieveable! He's setting up the strawman and attacking it again!
           \_ Riiiight, 30 dead in a suicide bomb, 16 dead execution style,
              (in one weekend!) and that's just a strawman...  Uh huh.  Your
              worldview is tweaked, man.
              \_ He was refering to the comment, not the article, moron.
                 \_ Uhm, yes -- I thought that was pretty obvious, but thanks
                    for sharing Ad Hominem Troll!
        \_ The levels of violence are the same pre-Shiite mosque attack and
           post.  Iraqi politicians have looked into the abyss and didn't like
           what they saw.  Nothing to see.  Move along now.
           \_ Wow.  Unfounded claims abound!
              \_ It must be true if Gen. Casey, Rummy, and Dubya say so, duh!
                 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/07/rumsfeld.iraq
                 \_ So look at the rhetoric.  This is getting scary.  Rummy's
                    clearly saying that the free press is providing aid to the
                    terrorists.  How long before we start getting laws that
                    restrict _all_ actions that "further the cause of terror"?
                    Of course no one will think that applies to the press... at
                    first.  All it'll take is one more large attack.
           \_ A thousand points of light! Not at this junct-ure ... Not gonna
              do it! A thousand points of light!

              \_ break up with her, man.   she won't worth it.
2006/3/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42455 Activity:nil
3/27    Bush was determined to go to war, WMD or not:
        http://csua.org/u/fc8 (NYT)
        \_ OMG!  This is totally smoking gun material!  Spread the word!
        \_ Well, Dubya doubted Blix would find the WMDs, but he was sure that
           Saddam had them, so he attacked in March '03 to prevent Blix from
           not finding them longer.
2006/3/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42438 Activity:nil
3/25    One mans story of torture:
        http://csua.org/u/fc3
        \_ Last I checked "Olga" was not a man's name.  Anyway, what would
           you say the line is between torture and interrogation?  Is any
           form of aggressiveness questioning beyond bounds with prisoners of
           war?
           \_ The electric shocks probably count as torture.
              \_ Probably.  What about other things?  Where is the line?
2006/3/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics] UID:42423 Activity:low
3/24    http://dribbleglass.com/interview
        An Interview With God
        \_ <DEAD>www.godhatesamputees.com<DEAD> is more fun
        \_ Hey Mormons, what do you guys think about this?
        \- While the creator [of the WEEB site, not The Creator] seems to be
           having fun with most of the answers, he seems to think the 3 words
           advice at the end is a serious bit of moral philosophy. But it's
           not so simple, otherwise one of the large brains since Plato would
           have figured this out. In fact that bit of advice is "less powerful"
           than the Golden Rule ... the negative prescription doesnt address
           what are your affimative obligations to others, the fact that human
           evil is not the only source of harm [natural catastrophe, disease],
           or the problem of what do about those who will not follow that
           dictum [just war, law], nor how to allocate resource, a large
           problem in the area of ethics in public policy.
           \_ Power Schmouer, I prefer my moral platitudes to be *right* rather
           \_ Power Shmouer, I prefer my moral platitudes to be *right* rather
              than powerful.  Just because some weak willed tool WANTS someone
              to keep him from falling off the wagon (by rule of law or
              whatever other means), or keep the dangerous ideas of communists
              or Satans out of his head, does not mean I want him doing that
              unto me.  Some of us prefer the Confucian version of the golden
              rule, and see it's lack of "power" as a plus.   -phuqm (!top)
              \- i am not sure what your interpretation of "power" here
                 is but i mean it in the sense of "theoretical power",
                 meaning it covers a lot of cases, as opposed to being
                 narrow or situational.
                  \_ My intent, was to use *your* definition, which, tnx, I
                     didn't really need you to define.  1) because i got it.
                     2) because it doesn't matter, almost regardelss, my point
                     is going to stand.  "breadth", or any other characteristic
                     of the western golden rule you want to hold out as a
                     positive characteristic is less important to me than the
                     fact that I *don't want* people doing unto me just becuse
                     they would have me do unto them.  Get it?
              rule, and see it's lack of "power" as a plus.  Anyway, the vast
              majority of world problems would in fact be taken care of if
              people managed (they could not) to "do no harm." As for resources,
              The majority of famines in this day and age can be linked to
              political causes as opposed to natural scarcity. -phuqm (!top)
                     they would have me do unto them.  Get it?  Those cases
                     where it applies but "do no harm" doesn't, I often don't
                     like it's implications. -phuqm
2006/3/24-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42415 Activity:nil
3/24    Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command in Iraq
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060324/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_war
        \_ Luckily, the intelligence was wrong?
        \_ OMG!  Our Beloved Ally spied on us!  Eeep!  What is the world
           coming to!  Isn't this against International Law?!
2006/3/23-25 [Recreation/Pets, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42396 Activity:nil
3/23    http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/22/doghandler.sentenced/index.html
        Abu Ghraib dog handler conviction
        "He also was convicted of allowing the dog to participate in the lewd
        acts of licking peanut butter off of a woman's chest and a man's
        genitalia." (Not off prisoners, but fellow soldiers, for entertainment)
        \_ Dog's razor sharp teeth + genitalia == Worst jackass episode evar!
           \_ A dog's not going to _accidentally_ bite you while licking
              peanut butter.
              \_ Uhm, either way, why would anyone want a dog doing that to
                 them?  Yech!
              \_ I beg to differ.  I think the dog would try to take a bite
                 out of what it's licking.  For instance, I've never seen
                 a dog satisfied with just licking a piece of meat - it
                 usually tries to bite a chunk off of it. -!pp
                 \_ dogs are experts at licking balls..
                 \_ Dogs know the difference between a hunk of meat and a
                    person.
                    \_ That's true in general...but once a dog gets excited,
                       the line often gets a little blurry, then Bad Things
                       are (much) more likely to happen -- especially when
                       you've mixed dog+genitals+food.      -!PP
                    \_ I don't think peanut-buttered dangling penises are
                       things a dog normally knows much about.
                    \_ How drunk would you have get to test that theory?
                    \_ That would be a great darwin award.
         \_ So this joker just magically got it in his head one day
            to "release the hounds"?  What about his superiors?
            \_ I think the way it worked was: there was a lot of bad stuff that
               happened that produced some sort of results.  The superiors
               didn't order or condone it, but probably rewarded the results.
               The people we're seeing are the failures who got caught.
            \_ Umm... "let slip the dogs of war"...
            \_ So all the underlings had spontaneous outbreaks of
               uncontrollable urges to torture inmates?  I still don't know
               how anyone prosecuting the absolutely lowest people on the
               totem pole do not break out laughing uncontrollably.
                \_ Maybe they used to be Wal-Mart executives.  "Here's
                   your payroll.  You can't actually run your store with it
                   legally, but that's your problem.  Be creative!"
2006/3/21-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42359 Activity:kinda low
3/21    So it turns out that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth and
        Bush was the bullshitter. This must really be a bitter
        pill for Bush voters to have to swallow:
        http://csua.org/u/fbb
        \_ Poor Saddam!  It was so unfair that he was deposed by the evil
           George Bush!  We should reinstate him right away so he can bring
           peace and freedom back to his Peoples!
           \_ You're missing the point.  The point is that GW is actually no
              better than Saddam.  He launched this war declaring that he had
              proof that there were WMD.  Instead he has been proven a liar
              numerous times over and is as much of a terrorist as Osama bin
              Ladin.  So stop pretending that you are "holier than thou" and
              are doing the Iraqi ppl a favor, because you clearly are not.
              \_ Bush said there were WMD and there aren't, true.  Where's the
                 proof that this was a lie and not a mistake?  Quite a few
                 people with no vested interest in an Iraq invasion also
                 said they were there.  I realize you're already convinced, but
                 just as an exercise imagine you're the prosecuter in the
                 impeachment trial.  What evidence are you going to bring
                 out to support the lying claim?
                 \_ Look up "Downing Street Memo".  Was huge in the news all
                    around the world (except here).  But seriously, some
                    things are just plain obvious.  Are you going to say that
                    Barry Bonds never took steroids just because we can't
                    convict him for it? - pp
                    \_ I had heard about it, but I only just read it now after
                       you posted that.  Ok, impeach the son of a bitch.
                       I'm convinced.
                    \_ I'm saying that OJ got acquited because the gloves
                       don't fit.               -not the pp and not the op
                 \_ I think Bush has plausible deniability on this one.
                    "Plausible deniability" is code for "you know I did it,
                    but you can't prove it."  It's obvious that Bush and
                    the rest of the PNAC crew were planning to go to war
                    with Iraq from the outset of his presidency (and even
                    before), and were looking for an excuse that would fly
                    with the public.  -tom
                    \_ Fine.  There's a clear public record that indicates
                       that they were going to invade Iraq regardless, I
                       agree.  But how does that prove Bush was *lying*
                       about WMD's?  Where all the other people who said
                       about WMD's?  Were all the other people who said
                       publicly that there were WMD's who had no affiliation
                       with PNAC or the administration lying also?  I think
                       Bush is despicable, and should be run out of office
                       for a variety of reasons, but I find the lying label
                       to be tiresome since there does not appear to be any
                       proof, and I think sticking to that particular line
                       discredits Bush's critics.  Our country desperately
                       needs Bush's critics to not be discrecited in any way
                       needs Bush's critics to not be discredited in any way
                       right now.
                       \_ Yes I agree.  Saying that someone lied probably
                          seems pretty petty.  People lie all the time, but
                          usually for a lot smaller causes.  But I can see
                          your point.  In regards to proof, look at comment
                          above regarding Downing Street Memo.  Even without
                          the memo, it was pretty obvious tho.  When we first
                          went into Afghanistan, poeple were already making
                          predictions that Bush would try to fabricate reasons
                          to go to war with Iraq.  When that actually happened,
                          ...well guess what?  Now, the Muslim world is having
                          a field day in how Americans are taking over their
                          lands and trying to pretend that they are spreading
                          freedom. What we do will only exacerbate the
                          terrorism.  If you look at it, we are really the
                          authors of our own distress. (i.e. we are the
                          problem, not the solution)
              \_ Yes Bother!  I hear you!  Restore Saddam!  Let Freedom Ring!
                 Kick out the American Occupiers, the Great Oppressors of
                 Our Once Free Peoples and give us Our Great Leader back to
                 restore us to the greatness that was once Greater Iraq's 19
                 states!  Only Saddam can give us the Freedom and Peace we the
                 Iraqi Peoples have earned!  Praise Allah!  Alahu Akbar!
                 \_ See, here's the problem.  We did a Good Thing, but did
                    it badly and incompetently, and under super-dishonest,
                    illegal premises.  Like going down to the rail yards and
                    shooting the guy pushing drugs to little kids because the
                    cops won't deal with him.  Which doesn't change the fact
                    that it's a Good Thing.  Which doesn't change the fact
                    that it was stupid, incompetent and illegal.  No, I don't
                    have a point.  -John
                    \_ We took out the guy pushing drugs, along with most of
                       the kids, and now are in the process of installing
                       another guy to push different drugs.  Oh, and now
                       there's a turf war among other pushers competing
                       for the neighberhood, and lots of innocent people
                       are being killed in drive-bys.  -tom
                       \_ Except for the "installing another guy to push
                          different drugs" part, which is silly, isn't that
                          sort of what I said?  -John
                          \_ Why is that silly?  We basically have a history
                             of doing that.  Didn't we basically install
                             Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq?  Didn't we
                             basically arm Osama bin Ladin with advanced
                             military equipment when he was fighting
                             the Russians in Afghanistan?  We have created our
                             own worst enemies time and time again.
                             And seriously, if we have this policy of
                             installing puppets around the world, at least
                             get it right.  --!tom
                             \_ Yes, we have done this.  I am not referring
                                to historical events.  I am referring to now.
                                And I see a reasonably good-faith, albeit
                                incompetent and probably doomed effort to
                                get the Iraqis and Afghans to vote for a
                                democratic representative govt., even if it's
                                a disingenuous ploy to get them off our
                                backs.  -John
                          \_ You are begging the question; it's not clear
                             that removing the pusher was a Good Thing.  -tom
                             \_ He was a murderous, totalitarian thug.  Getting
                                rid of these is always a good thing if you
                                don't fuck it up and don't do it on dishonest
                                premises.  The fact that we have installed and
                                supported similar thugs in the past, or that
                                a lot of the world is prepared to tolerate
                                such thugs in the interest of geopolitics
                                should not be an obstacle to removing them.  My
                                point is that if you're going to do it, do it
                                right--how is this begging the question?  -John
                                \_ What would be sad is if the Iraq debacle
                                   ended up discrediting idealistic ventures
                                   to secure freedom around the world in the
                                   future.
                                \_ "Getting rid of murderous, totalitarian
                                   thugs is always a good thing" is an
                                   unfounded statement.  It's only a good
                                   thing if the result is something better
                                   in the end.  I said before the invasion
                                   that the most likely result of a power
                                   vacuum in Iraq was an Islamic fundamentalist
                                   government, elected or not; that was
                                   completely predictable, and as such,
                                   the benefit of removing Saddam has to
                                   be weighed against the likely result.
                                   I still think it would be hilarious if
                                   the Iraqis elected Osama bin Laden.  -tom
                                   \_ OK, maybe I'm nitpicking semantically,
                                      but I don't consider getting rid of one
                                      thug to have him replaced by another to
                                      be "getting rid of a thug".  I consider
                                      that to be an amateurish fuckup.  In
                                      which case, yes, you're right.  But it
                                      occurs to me in Iraq that the danger is
                                      not us putting in another thug, but
                                      bloody civil war.  -John
                    \_ Oh... I dunno.  Did the guy at the rail yard end up
                       dead?  Ok, so the first shot took out a window and the
                       second hit a stray dog.  The third killed him so the
                       kids stand a chance now.  Actually the initial take down
                       was beautifully executed.  It was afterwards that things
                       could have been better, mostly I think because we're now
                       afraid to deal with chaos with the giant hammer required
                       because then people start screaming about human rights
                       for terrorists so we go half assed and drag it out
                       which is much worse than just dealing with it up front
                       and going home.  As far as illegal, sorry but pft.  In
                       the international realm, might makes right.  There is
                       no higher authority.  Without effective enforcement,
                       you don't have laws, just suggestions from your
                       neighbors and handshake agreements.
        \_ More reason to actually have WMD so Bush will think twice
           about an invasion. Go North Korea!
        \_ Nah.  The Bush voters don't care.
        \_ Except the same documents also show continued deceit and that
           Saddam's generals were honestly surprised when Saddam didn't have
           any WMD at the start of the war.
           http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2006/03/17/1493281-ap.html
           \_ Hey we invaded, the burden of proof is on us to find
              the stuff.
           \_ We invaded Iraq because Dubya, I mean Saddam, I mean, Saddam's
              generals, had no doubt he had WMDs!
              They are obviously buried in the desert ... probably in Syria ...
              \_ We have always been at war with Eastasia.
                 \_ let's go start a land war!
                    \_ Let's have a War
                       So you can all Die.
                       Let's Have a War
                       We can all use our Brains.
                       Let's Have a War
                       Redeem this space.
                       Let's have a War
                       We have this place.
                       Let's have a War
                       Jack up the Dow Jones
                       Let's have a War
                       We can save New Jersey
                       Let's have a War
                       Blame it on the Middle Class
                       Let's have a War
                       Like rats in a cage.
                       Let's have a War
                       Sell the rights to the networks
                       Let's have a War
                       Nevermind about that last time.
                       Let's have a War
                       Give life a little twist.
                       Let's have a War
                       The Enemy's Within..
                       \_ You just made my fucking day.  Thanks.
                        \_ No wonder we couldn't find the WMDs, Saddam used
                           iocaine powder!
2006/3/21-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42356 Activity:nil
3/21    Not a Civil War:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
        \_ Has Bush been "on the ground" there since he served up the
           plastic turkey?
2006/3/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42341 Activity:high
3/20    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060320/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_joe_johnson
        Are most American Christians as stupid as this guy?
        \_ The frightening part of this whole thing is that we "screened",
           armed, and sent this guy into action.
           \_ I used to work with a super-redneck guy from rural Idaho.  When
              he signed up for the Navy during the Vietnam war, he told them
              "I want to go kill some fuckin' commie gooks in vietnam right
               NOW!"  He was totally serious, and he spent the war working
               in a mine factory in Hawaii.  Presumably the recruiters didn't
               want his crazy ass anywhere near the warzone.  So, even in 'nam
               the system worked from time to time.
               want his crazy ass anywhere near the warzone.
        \_ Joe, Jan, Josh, and Justin Johnson?  Yeeeesh.
           \_ lol. funny observation
        \_ Don't generalize Christians like that.  They come in all shapes
           and sizes.  Yes, some are like Joe.  What makes you think he's
           a bad choice for a volunteer army that needs recruits?
           \_ His motives and mental health?
              \_ You don't think most army recruits join to kick some ass?
                 Fire their rifles in battle?  Ever seen Jarhead?
                 \_ Er, I don't think Jarhead is a documentary. -!motives
                 \_ Er, I don't think Jarhead is a documentary.
                    \_ the reference is merely intended to show "typical"
                       recruit mindset.
                       \_ When I was at the Moffet MEPS, the people that I
                          met were pretty diverse.  I don't think I'd be
                          comfortable with your generalization at all.  About
                          the only thing I'd agree with was they were typically
                          very young.      -!motives
                          very young.
                \_ Kick some ass != take revenge for the death of a family
                   member and convert the heathens.
           \_ Does this guy realize that majority of Iraqi casuaties came from
              American bombs during the invasion phase?
        \_ Tell me, mr. Simpson, why do you want to join big Brothers of America?
2006/3/20-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42337 Activity:very high
3/20    Why protest the Iraq war?  Why not protest the insurgents who
        are preventing Iraq from being independent and free?
        \_ One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.  By starting the
           war in an illegitimate way, we make it even more obvious who
           are the real terrorists and who are the real freedom fighters.
           \_ People who target children are terrorists.
              \_ There ya go.  Bush is a terrorist then.  Add bombing
                 news organization (a la "Control Room") and bombing
                 weddings, and trying to legitimize torture as crimes
                 against him.  Countless others, no doubt.  Bush is really
                 no different than Osama bin Ladin.  In fact bin Ladin could
                 even be considered the "holier" of the two.
        \_ it's not "insurgent."  it's domestic violence caused by
           foreign al Qaeda operatives.  Iraqis greets us with all the
           flowers they can find in the desert.
        \_ Why don't you get off your ass and organize that protest yourself?
        \_ presumably we have control over our government.  we don't
           have control over the insurgents.
           \_ in a way we do.  We can let the insurgents win.  Or we
              can prevent them from winning.
              \_ Which is why we need to protest the Iraq war. The current
                 methodology there is turning normally law-abiding citizens
                 into insurgents.
                 \_ do you have evidence for it?  I haven't heard of this
                    (law abiding citizens into insurgents).
                    If Iraq is peaceful, US goes away, and everyone should
                    be happy.
                    \_ !pp: If not doing the fighting, supporting it.
                       An insurgency cannot continue without community
                       support.
                    \_ You don't think kicking in their doors and killing
                       their relatives creates more insurgents? I guess you
                       must have your head buried in the sand or something.
                    \_ You are really fucking stupid and naive.
                       \_ please tell me that Iraqis don't kill innocent
                          Iraqis.
                    \_ That is really stupid and naive.
                        \_ make your case why it is stupid and naive.
        \_ I know you're trolling, but maybe you just got the newest
           RNC talking points email.  It does upset me that the only
           people who have it together enough to organize large
           anti war demonstrations are the Marxist Israel hating
           dumbasses ANSWER.
        \_ Because they may not have started the war, but they seem intent on
           finishing it.
        \_ Iraq *was* independent.  -tom
           \_ so is Cuba.
           \_ Was it also 'free'?
              \_ Define the term.  Iraq's government was very much able to
                 make its own decisions and policies; it was not beholden
                 to outside interests.  People in Iraq probably had more
                 personal freedom than in most Middle Eastern countries;
                 certainly not as much as we enjoy in the U.S., but that's
                 probably not a reasonable metric.  -tom
                 \_ In nuclear chemistry, a piece of a nucleus becomes "free"
                    after significant energy has been "liberated" from the
                    system.  Once we've "liberated" all the energy from the
                    Middle East, it will be free.
                 \_ Personal freedom if the death squads weren't coming
                    after you. You have some weird ideas about freedom.
                    If you mean that they left you alone as long as you
                    were a good worker bee, then sure. I think everyone
                    else impressed by the the scope of their personal freedoms
                    had already been killed or left the country.
                    \_ Heat and noise, but no light.
                       I was comparing to other countries in the Middle
                       East.  They're all bad by our standards.  -tom
                       \_ So? You say yourself that 'our standards' are
                          not a reasonable metric. I'm not sure I'd agree
                          that life under Saddam was better than in most
                          other Middle Eastern countries. He led his
                          country into bloody wars, killed his own people,
                          and filled the government with his cronies. That's
                          not better than, say, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, or
                          most Gulf states. It may be better than Afghanistan
                          and Pakistan, sure.
                    \_ As opposed to the current death squads who will just
                       kill you for being on the other team..  As tom said
                       "not a reasonable metric"...  Seriously, the "we got
                       rid of saddam" rhetoric doesn't fly when we can't do
                       any better.
                       \_ Saddam had decades to make things better. I
                          think 'we' will do a lot better.
                          \_ you ignore two major pieces of evidence:
                             one, we're oh-fer in improving countries
                             by installing U.S.-friendly governments, and
                             two, Iraq is a major clusterfuck.  -tom
                             \_ Would also discount South Korea and
                             \_ Would you also discount South Korea and
                                Japan?  In general, I'd agree with you, but
                                then, many of those governments we
                                installed were reflective of the general
                                dogma of 'containment' in the Cold War.  -mice
                                \_ Japan's situation was not really
                                   analagous.  You might argue Korea.  Yes,
                                   many of the governments we installed were
                                   due to the containment policy, but the fact
                                   is, for the people actually living in those
                                   countries, things tended to stay bad or
                                   get worse once the Red Menace had been
                                   eliminated.  We now have a new containment
                                   policy, explicitly expressed by PNAC,
                                   and it's gonna pretty much suck for anyone
                                   unfortunate enough to get in our way.  -tom
                                \_ I thought for Korea, we just installed
                                   our strong man and let him rule, kind
                                   of like Saddam, and then the Koreans
                                   slowly and peacefuly transformed their
                                   country into the democracy of today.
                                   Perhaps that's what we should have done
                                   with Iraq too?
                                   \_ Germany? Italy? I don't really know what
                                      you would call analagous if not Japan.
                                      We've removed 'bad people' from power
                                      before and made things better.
                                      \_ How are Japan and Korea analogous?
                                         These are MOSTLY passive people in
                                         resource barren lands.  Plus there
                                         was very little history of Western
                                         "corruption" in those lands before
                                         they installed governments.  America
                                         and Europe has colonized / "fucked\
                                         over" the Middle East since the 1900s,
                                         and we wonder why Muslims hate us.
                                         Lastly, we didn't lie to start a war
                                         against another country.  Lying to
                                         start ANY war is despicable in my
                                         opinion, because it pretty much means
                                         that you knew you would never had
                                         gotten support by telling the truth.
                                         People only lie if they have something
                                         to hide, no?  It's pretty obvious
                                         Bush had a lot to hide.  -- !tom
              \_ Is Egypt? How about Pakistan?
                 \_ Compared to Iraq, yes. If you are advocating an
                    invasion, though, you might be able to persuade me.
2006/3/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42335 Activity:nil
3/20    "Americans have never retreated in the face of thugs and assassins
        and we will not begin now."   -GWB
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4826754.stm
        Uh, what about Vietnam? Bay of Pigs?
2006/3/19-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42315 Activity:high
3/19    Supporter of Bush and Iraq War:  I would like to hear your opinion
        on this one.  Thanks  http://csua.org/u/fam  (ny times)
        \_ Look, this is a war. I guess you never studied history about
           how you never play fair. No one ever does. That's how you win.
           You should get back to drinking your latte and your naive world
           where everyone "can just get along" Life is not that way.
           \_ If you think you know how to win this war, I suggest you let
              the white house know right away.  'Cause in case you hadn't
              noticed, they're not winning it.  But don't let that stop you
              from supporting the invasion of Iran. Dumb redneck fuck.
              \_ It's also naive to think that the purpose of the invasion
                 was ever really about WMD, it's about fighting terrorist on
                 their lands, not in the streets of America.
                 \_ Too bad Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.  -tom
                 \_ If Terrorism is a real concern, then, Bush, Co. will
                    use terrorism to justify for the War.  Instead, Bush & Co.
                    knew terrorism won't sell in general public... except
                    few dumb ass such as you.
              \_ Actually, they seem to be doing fine, liberal moron.
                 \_ Aren't you supposed to be in church all day today, asshole?
                    It's Sunday, after all.
                    \_ Why are you wasting do much of your mother earth's
                       resources to spew your drivel on this evil
                       military-funded computer network?  Shouldn't you be
                       out protesting for better state-funded meantal
                       out protesting for better state-funded mental
                       hospitals for you and your moonbat friends?
                       \_ You're still here?  Isn't it time for you to
                          molest your sister?
           \_ This is *EXACTLY* how Japanese justifies slaughter of 20-30
              million Chinese as well.
                          \_ You should really take your meds more
                             regularly.
                             \_ You guys are hilarious!  Thanks MOTD!
                \_ I am actually curious how you come about the assessment
                   that "they seem to be doing fine." Do you have any evidence
                   to back up this position? Because you know that it is in
                   the extreme minority now. You do know that, right?
                   Without resorting to insults, please explain to me
                   how you have come to believe that the US is doing well
                   in Iraq.
                   \_ This about covers it: http://csua.org/u/faw (CBS)
                      Basically, people who are actually on the ground
                      and have a clue do not say the same things as the
                      journalists hiding in the green zone searching
                      through military dispatches for bad news.  I was
                      being a little trollish when I said, "doing well",
                      but I think they are currently doing about as well
                      as can be expected.
                      \_ I really wouldn't call Ralph Peters unbiased in any
                         circumstance.  He was in the Army for a while and
                         probably has more knowledge of military strategy
                         than a lot of reporters, but I think most of Iraq's
                         firefights are guerilla battles that the Army he
                         was in has a hard time finding.  Also, just go read
                         some of his other columns, there are gems like
                  http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14321
                      \_ uh, so why do you think Ralph Peters, New York Post
                         reporter, who is an ardent supporter of Bush and the
                         war in Iraq, "has a clue"?  I think the answer is
                         in the question.  -tom
                      \_ In this case, "about as well as can be expected"
                         seems to translate to "haven't been forced out in
                         helicopters a la Saigon."
                      \_ Thank you for the link. I am not sure a war supporter
                         should be bringing up colonialism but there he did.
                         Do you ever look at the Iraq Index, buy the Brookings
                         Institute? It is the closest thing to an unbiased
                         set of observable facts that I have run across. I
                         did notice that electricity production is up, which
                         is a good sign.
           \_ why we tried people for war crime, then?  I am talking about
              those who uses gas chambers?  are you admiting that we also
              uses torture chambers and not that different from Saddam?
              And in case you forgot, we STARTED the war.
           \_ Don't forget about "get back to driving your Volvo" and other
              cliches.
           \_ So in other words, any cost is worth it when we're talking about
              saving <a measureable number of> American lives.  Think about
              that
2006/3/17-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42287 Activity:nil
3/17    Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of
        Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. He says
        pre-emptive strike is a good thing, and so is Iraq War. Is he
        considered a "neo-conservative"?
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060317/cm_usatoday/inactionfailed
        \_ There is no definition of "neo-conservative".  Stop trying to nail
           it down--you can't.
           \_ you prefer to be referred to as "idiot"?
           \_ Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true.  There are many
              places that define it, and the definitions in general are as
              close to each other as definitions from different dictionaries
              of the same word.  Just because it isn't in the dictionary yet
              doesn't mean there's no definition.
        \_ i would say he is a "neo-con disciple"
2006/3/16-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42276 Activity:nil
3/16    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_air_assault
        We're launching major assaults and killing all the insurgents! We're
        winning the war on terror! Yee haw!!!                   -neo con troll
        \_ http://www.blackanthem.com/World/military_2006031411.html
           \_ "The Arab genious for failure could still spoil everything..."
              This sounds like "White man's Burden" again!
2006/3/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42272 Activity:nil 66%like:42264
3/15    Bush Will Be Judged On The Iraq War:
        http://csua.org/u/f9n (Yahoo News, opinion piece from AFP)
        \_ you didn't read news didn't you?  Mission Accomplished!
2006/3/16-18 [Industry/Jobs, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Health/Women] UID:42271 Activity:nil
3/16    Is this Vivagel stuff available for purchase in Australia?
        http://tinyurl.com/n77h2
2006/3/16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42264 Activity:moderate 66%like:42272
3/15    Bush Will Be Judged On The Iraq War:
        http://csua.org/u/f9n
        \_ you didn't read news didn't you?  Mission Accomplished!
2006/3/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42259 Activity:low
3/15    http://csua.org/u/f9h (latimes.com)
        If there were a board game called "Iraq Post-War Reconstruction" and
        you could play as the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds, the Iraqi
        nationalists, the Iranians, al Qaeda in Iraq, or the U.S., who would
        you play and what would you do?
        \_ "What a strange game.  The only way to win is not to play".
        \_ Never fight a land war in Asia.
        \_ I'd prefer to play as Halliburton or Bechtel and I'd be laughing
           all the way to the bank.
        \_ This would be one of those games where the winning conditions
           vary according to faction; the easiest (from a simple strategy
           POV) would be to play the insurgents (goal: prevent the other
           groups from achieving their goals by turn 100).
        \_ I'd play the U.S. and leave, thus winning by being the most powerful
           faction.
        \_ It depends.  What are the rules and winning conditions for each
           side?  In the current game, IMO, the Shiites and Kurds have already
           won.  Everyone else is struggling to avoid last place.
           \_ I'd say the Kurds are arguably in the best place, insofar as
              they have the option of taking their toys and going home to an
              an independent Kurdistan.
2006/3/14-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42236 Activity:low
3/14    "BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi authorities discovered at least 87 corpses
        men shot to death execution-style as Iraq edged closer to open civil
        warfare."
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq
        THANK YOU Mr. George W. Bush!
        \_ yawn. just another day in Iraq.
        \_ Beacon of Democracy in the Middle East.  And we are going to
           duplicate our success in Iran!
        \_ what does this have to do with global warming?
           \_  My ass is getting warm.
        \_ Mission Accomplished!
        \_ Job well done!
        \_ Major (American) combat operations are over.
2006/3/14-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42232 Activity:nil
3/14    Retired General William Odom, former head of the National Security
        Agency and security adviser to Ronald Reagan, wrote that the Iraq war
        "is serving the interests of Osama bin Laden, the Iranians, and is
        fomenting civil war in Iraq." He describes the Iraq war as "the most
        strategic foreign policy disaster in U.S. history."
        \_ That's sort of an odd way to phrase it.
           \_ Maybe he means as opposed to a tactical disaster, like the Bay
              of Pigs invasion/Iranian hostage botched rescue? The whole
              invasion was run from the start by crackpipe sucking neocons.
2006/3/9-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42165 Activity:nil
3/9     http://www.csua.com/?entry=36278
        Read bullet #2 on Iraq. Pretty lame considering our failure in Iraq now
2006/3/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:42152 Activity:kinda low
3/8     Unlike most Berkeley geeks I have a blonde gal fetish, esp those
        that have nice boobs and nice butts. From time to time I dream
        of having sex with a hot blonde dressed as a nurse. I think
        I got the cravings after getting bombarded by images of
        Hello Nurse in Animaniacs. Or maybe it was Lisa Hayes in Robotech.
        Then again I didn't even reach puberty when those cartoons came out.
        I don't know. Do you have a weird fetish or fetishes and do you
        know where you got it from?                     -soda geek
        \_ Lisa Hayes is a brunette.  You're probably thinking of Dana
           Sterling from the Robotech Masters. -dans
           \_ I thought Miriya was hot. I guess I have a thing for chicks
              with green hair. Maybe he's thinking of Rook.
           \_ I thought Miriya was hot. I guess I have a thing for giant
              chicks with green hair. Maybe he's thinking of Rook.
              \_ I think this guy can help you out:
                 http://www.free-webspace.biz/KlnkingArchive/klnking.html
              \_ Tananda!
                 \_ heh, yeahhh.  Did she and Gleep ever work out their issues?
        \_ You went to the wrong school.  You really wanted to go to a second
           tier school in SoCal for that.  And if you were serious about your
           fetish, any place in Florida.
           \_ Is this a backhanded way of expressing your racist view that
              blondes are dumber so they don't go to 1st tier schools like
              Cal? Fucking racist chink, go back to your country.
              \_ Not dumber, but apparenty an evolutionary mistake that's
                 about to be corrected:
                 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2284783.stm
                 \_ A hoax: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/blondes.asp
              \_ Racist?  Not at all.  It is a cultural statement.  I do find
                 it amusing you accuse me of racism in the same sentence you
                 call me a "chink".  In fact, calling me a "Fucking racist
                 chink" is the finest bit of stupidity I've seen on the motd
                 all week and that's saying a lot for this last week.  I'm
                 curious though: how did you decide I was a "chink" as you say?
              \_ No, just an observation by someone who obviously visited
                 both Cal and USC. We can argue the "whys" later.
            \_ Texas (or really anywhere in the South), too.
2006/3/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:42138 Activity:high
3/8     Any motd commentary on the ranting geography teacher?
        http://csua.org/u/f63  (article)
        link:csua.org/u/f64  (mp3 of rant)
        \_ You posted it.  What do *you* think about it?
           \_ Fair enough.  I don't have all the facts, but I understand
              he's been complained about before, which I would assume
              means he's been warned.  I was originally somewhat
              ambivalent about it.  I've had ranting teachers before, no
              biggie, but that rant is really over the top.  Assuming he's
              been warned before, I think, in a perfect world, he would be
              fired for incompetence.  However, this being the public
              school system, he'll probably just be punished in some
              vaugely passive-aggressive manner, like making him teach
              math or something. -op
              \_ Addendum: It seems he may have been complained about
                 before, but was never explicitly warned or diciplined, so
                 I'm downgrading my recommendation to "warning and a
                 slap-on-the-wrist." -jrleek
              \_ There are a few moments that are over the top, but, overall,
                 not that ridiculous a rant.  I don't quite follow your claim
                 that, because he rants, he is incompetent.  Frankly, if he
                 did the same thing, and used it to foster an interactive
                 discussion with his students, he'd be a really great
                 teacher.  Even as a rant, what he's saying is more thought
                 provoking and challenging than most of the pablum served up
                 in high school.  This is a good thing, assuming you want high
                 school to teach kids solid critical analysis skills that are
                 a key tool needed to synthesize raw information into well
                 thought out and informed opinions.  Contrariwise, this is
                 terrible if you want high school to pump out cogs suitable
                 for working dull 9-5 jobs in an industrial economy where
                 obedience is more important than ideas.  BTW, why don't
                 most so-called conservatives on the motd sign their posts?
                 -dans
                 \_ Most people that post here, conservative or otherwise,
                    do so anonymously.         -mice
                    \_ Good point.  I suspect I've got some unfair selection
                       bias. -dans
                 \_ He's incompetent because he's not teaching anything,
                    he's just ranting.  He is not using it foster any
                    discussion.  How are they supposed to discuss it
                    while they're supposed to taking notes?  What he's
                    saying is not even really "thought provoking" because
                    he gives no context or evidence for any of it.  Some
                    of the questions he asks the students aren't even
                    really defineable.  "What is the most violent country
                    in the world?"  The kids dejectedly mutter "us,"
                    knowing the answer he wants. Assuming you could even
                    figure out what that question is supposed to mean,
                    don't you think Sudan, for example, might be a better
                    choice?
                    Anyway, he just jumps from subject to subject in a
                    disjointed rant that has nothing to do with the topic
                    of the class or teaching the kids anything but
                    "America is bad."  He offers no evidence, and expects
                    no discussion becuase he mostly references topics that
                    no high school student can reasonably be expected to
                    know enough about to call him on his BS. Some of his
                    facts are even flat out wrong.
                    BTW: didn't think it was important, but, if you
                    prefer. -jrleek
                    \_ Who gives a shit?  His rant isn't about geography, which
                       is what he's supposed to be teaching.  I think the
                       content of an off-topic rant is less important than
                       the length.  It seems to me that crazy digressions are
                       not relevant to the teacher's qualities as a teacher.
                       My highschool physics teacher went off on some pretty
                       crazy stuff about conspiracies and all the people he
                       thought should be executed and so on, but he was still
                       a great physics teacher because he was *usually*
                       talking about physics, and we all learned the material
                       (as proven by superior AP exam scores).  If anything, I'd
                       say my highschool physics teacher's rants helped us pay
                       attention to the physics because you never knew when
                       something whacky was coming.  Of course in today's
                       neo-fascist school environment, he'd probably end up
                       fired for the stuff he said about politics and we'd
                       end up with the moron creationist chem teacher teaching
                       us instead.
                       \_ Reasonable point, although I was responding
                          specifically dans' statement.  In this case, the
                          rant seems to have been about 20 minutes, at my
                          high school that would be approx. 1/2 a class
                          period.  The kid claimed he does this
                          frequently.
                          "Neo-fascist school environment?"  You haven't
                          been around a high school in a while, huh?  I
                          can pretty much guarantee you, nothing has
                          changed.  (At least since I was in school)
                          -jrleek
                          \_ What year did you graduate high school?
                             \_ You first, anonymous man. -jrleek
                                \_ 1994.
                                   \_ 1998.
                                      \_  Uh...ok, so both pre-Columbine and
                                          pre-911.  I call bullshit that
                                          nothing's changed.  Do you have
                                          a younger sibling in high school
                                          or something?  Where's your
                                          circumstantial evidence that
                                          nothing's changed?
                                          \_ Yes, my little sister just
                                             graduated from the same
                                             school I did.  That's pretty
                                             much all the evidence though.
                                             Many of my firends were still
                                             there for when Columbine
                                             happened too.  Admittedly,
                                             you're now more likely to get
                                             in trouble for threatening to
                                             shoot people at school, but I
                                             wouldn't exactly call that
                                             "fascist."
                    \_ WRT the ``what is the most violent country in the world
                       question,'' I agree that it could be phrased better.
                       If you want to talk internally violent, then yes,
                       Sudan definitely is up there, though the US' homicide
                       rate is, to my knowledge, the highest among developed
                       countries.  If you want to talk about externally
                       violent, then you can make a strong argument for the
                       US.  Is Sudan on the warpath?  Is it attacking its
                       neighbors?  To my knowledge, no.  If Sudan got angry
                       at, say, France, would it be a threat?  Probably not.
                       The US is one of the few countries in the world with
                       global reach, and, in light of Russia's decline,
                       possibly the only country with an arsenal capable of
                       literally wiping countries off the map or destroying
                       the world with the push of a button (MAD was a real
                       part of political policy making in the cold war).
                       \_ Wow...just...wow.
                                On a technical note about the `dejected'
                       response, I think that's a reasonable interpretation of
                       the response, but not the only one.  This was likely
                       recorded with an inexpensive omni microphone, thus when
                       one speaker projects from the front of the room, it is
                       much clearer than when many speakers talk from all
                       directions at once.  In my experience, getting *any*
                       response from a class room of high school experience is
                       hard to do.  Then again, maybe I just suck as a
                       teacher. :)  One also must realize that not all
                       learning or discussion happens in the classroom.  Push
                       students buttons enough in the classroom, and they'll
                       argue and discuss material outside of the classroom.
                       If this is the teacher's strategy, he's executing it
                       poorly, but, in the right hands, it can be a very
                       powerful technique.
                                On the evidence side of things, I agree
                       that his discussision of capitalism was one of the
                       over the top moments where he doesn't justify his
                       statements.  On the other hand, most of his statements
                       about US dealings in Latin America are factual and, to
                       my knowledge, accurate (cf economics of coca).  I don't
                       like the idea that high school students are too dumb or
                       too ignorant to go toe to toe with a teacher that
                       raises obscure facts.  When my teachers did this, I
                       took it as a challenge and I learned from it.  IMO,
                       when you raise the bar for the brightest students, it
                       lifts everyone up, and when you cater to the lowest
                       common denominator students, it pushes everyone down.
                       BTW, thanks for signing.  Nice to know who
                       I'm arguing with.  FYI, I gradugated in '97 -dans
                       Thanks for signing your name, it's good to know who I'm
                       arguing with. -dans (graduated highschool in 1997)

                       \_ Sudan is also supporting militias attacking
                          Chad. And, your point is that he's
                          incompetent?  agreed. -jrleek
                          \_ US: EVIL, ANTI-US: GOOD!
                             \_ If American public schools don't teach
                                students that dissent and critical
                                questioning of our leaders is a patriotic duty
                                and a key ingredient in a healthy democratic
                                society, who will?  Maybe your joking, but if
                                you're serious, your vast oversimplification
                                suggests that your school did a poor job of
                                teaching you those vital critical analysis
                                skills. -dans
                                \_ Um, maybe PARENTS should teach their
                                   kids this sort of thing?
                                   Maybe schools should concentrate on
                                   teaching kids the basics of things
                                   like math, science, grammar, &c.
                                   \_ Schools need to teach students things
                                      like critical reasoning; furthermore,
                                      a high school teaches civics, which is
                                      supposed to be sort of an "owner's
                                      manual" for a democratic republic.
                                      This does include "dissent".  But
                                      not in geography class.  -John
                                      \_ Well, that depends whether you think
                                         geography is just map reading
                                         skills and memorizing place names.
                                         That's a reasonable approach to the
                                         field if you're teaching
                                         kindergarteners.  The actual field is
                                         more interesting, complex, and
                                         subtle.  It encompasses geopolitics,
                                         and is a reasonable venue for
                                         discussion of the how the US
                                         interacts with the word.  It's not
                                         really a leap from that discussion to
                                         civics and decent. -dans
                                         \_ In the context of the subject.  If
                                            the guy's gonna rant about
                                            politics, whatever they are (which
                                            he is) it belongs in a civics
                                            class.  -John
                                      \_ I disagree. I think the main
                                         problem w/ US education is that
                                         it focuses too much on what the
                                         student feels, &c. instead of
                                         devoting time to the essentials
                                         like math, science, languages,
                                         &c. While dissent and discussion
                                         can be useful, the place for
                                         this is HS debate team.
                          \_ Okay, so are Sudan's incursions into Chad
                             equivalent to the US invasion of Iraq?  I could
                             see how one might argue that, morally, the answer
                             is yes.  But I think once you bring the question
                             of degree and scope into it, I don't think the
                             comparison holds water.  The US toppled the
                             government of Iraq in, literally, weeks.  How
                             long have Sudanese incursions into Chad been
                             taking place?  Are they having a substantial
                             impact on the nation of Chad as a whole?  Could
                             Sudan wage an effective war on another country on
                             the other side of the globe?  Does Sudan have
                             chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons that
                             could literally obliterate a country?  I am in
                             no way asserting that the US' actions are
                             equivalent to Sudan's, but I do think that the US
                             is orders of magnitude more powerful than Sudan,
                             and thus, we must hold it to a significantly
                             higher standard.  Most of the time US citizens do
                             hold our nation to a higher standard, and our
                             government behaves accordingly.  There are,
                             however, exceptions, such as our incursions into
                             Latin America.  Many actions by the current
                             administration also fall below the necessary
                             standard.  And no, my point is not that he's
                             incompetent.  I think some of the points you
                             raised are valid, and are areas for improvement.
                             I think it's a pretty considerable leap from the
                             points you raised to the assertion that he's
                             incompetent.  You seem to view this as a very
                             binary matter.  -dans
        \_ I had avoided listening to this rant for a few days now, but
           I listened to parts of it just for you. The way I understand
           it, it sounds like he was talking during class rather than
           during lunch or after-school or something.
           If he said this during lunchtime or after-school (ie when
           the students were free to come and go from class), I think
           that his spiel was perfectly okay.
           But, during class I think this isn't okay for at least
           the following two reasons:
           1. His job is teaching Geography not Geo-politics. His
              blathering doesn't teach kids anything useful about
              geography, such as how to read things like elevation,
              distance, water currents, &c. on maps.
              Arguably he doesn't even teach students reasonable
              geo-politics. Many of these problems have no sol'n
              that all sides can reasonably agree on.
              \_ Um, have you ever taken a college level Geography class?
                 Geography *is* geopolitics.  See:
                 http://geography.berkeley.edu/ProgramCourses/OpenLetter.html
                 -dans
                 \_ No I have not taken a college level geography
                    class. I was too busy taking real classes to
                    waste my time/money on nonsense classes like
                    geography, history, &c. This fluff stuff is
                    \_ In the words of some old, dead English guy, ``There
                       are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than
                       are dreamt of in your philosophy.''  Eh.  It's all just
                       fluff stuff to you.  You sir, are an idiot. -dans
                       \_ The fluff stuff, my friend, is "a tale told
                          by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
                          nothing."
                    something one can learn on the side if one
                    has nothing more productive to do. I didn't
                    want to waste the precious time in school
                    on that type of drivel.
                    Regardless of this, whether or not I have
                    taken college level geography is irrelevant
                    to a discussion of High School geography.
                    Its like asking if I've taken o-chem, when
                    the conversation is about 9th grade bio.
                    HS geography is about trying to get 9th and
                    10th graders to locate different countries
                    on a map and hoping that they figure out
                    that Africa and Asia a different continents.
                    It is not about trying to give them the low
                    down on every regional war, &c.
                    \_ Were you actually that stupid in high school?  How the
                       hell did you get into Cal?  As far as I know, Cal
                       doesn't have legacy admits like Harvard. -dans
                       \_ Cal only considers GPA, SAT and SAT2
                          for admissions. If you study hard in
                          HS, it is pretty easy to get nearly
                          perfect scores on each of these and
                          have your pick of engineering majors.
                    There is no point talking about the complex
                    stuff if, say, the students can't figure out
                    that Georgia is a country and a state.
                    \_ Americans don't need to waste time learning geography.
                       They just need to do what they're good at doing and
                       their good 'ol government led by the greatest
                       president in the world, GWB, will take
                       care of everything. Ok?
                       \_ Learning geography doesn't help you
                          build a better transistor, write
                          better code, sequence DNA, &c.
                          If the choice is between wasting
                          time on geography or taking more
                          math and science, the choice to
                          me is OBVIOUS. But, if you want
                          to take the bs classes to pad your
                          GPA and feel good about your place
                          in the world, don't complain when
                          Asian engineers and scientists
                          take over all the major US industries.
                          \_ Yes, because understanding the world around you
                             and applying that understanding in the ballot
                             booth is much less important than the newest
                             language feature or most recent BSD kernel
                             release.  Philosophy is for those *other* people
                             that run the country, and therefore clearly is
                             beneath the lofty study of us engineers!!!1!one
                             \_ Philosophy is mostly for people
                                who can't get into a real major
                                (or are driven insane b/c they
                                 majored in math).
           2. His job is to ensure that the maximum number of students
              learn the maximum amt of geography w/in the school year.
              His actions may run counter to this.
              \_ That's got to be the most ridiculously bad, oversimplifying
                 misuse of mathematical/economic jargon I've ever seen used to
                 describe what a teacher's job is.  Plus you don't even know
                 what Geography is. -dans
                 \_ Geography is map reading: the study of the earth and
                    \_ Err, you might want to look at the course descriptions
                       in the berkeley course catalog.  I suspect you'll
                       be unpleasantly surprised.
                       \_ I'm talking about HS geography, not college
                          level geography where they can teach all sorts
                          of stuff and label it whatever they want.
                    its features and of the distribution of life on earth.
                    This guy's performance should be measured on based on
                    how well his kids can read a map and figure out where
                    different flora and fauna occur, &c.
              After listening to a dozen or so of these talks, some
              students may conclude that their time during his class
              is better spent doing AP Chem homework or playing GBA
              rather than learning geography.
              This attitude can lead to many students tuning out the
              parts of the lecture that are objective. Given the
              difficulty of teaching kids, teachers ought not take
              affirmative steps that can make learning even harder.
              \_ Ok, I also finally gave in and listened.  Geez.  The problem
                 here isn't the guy's political positions, it's that his lecture
                 is stream of consiousness.  CIGARETTES!! GUNS! WMDs!
                 CAPITALISM!  BUSH!!! VIOLENCE!!! I've taken science classes
                 that were stream of consiousness by profs who didn't bother
                 to prepare, and it's retarded no matter what the content
                 is.  "Here's a picture of me with a nobel laureate! One time,
                 I was taking a piss, and I invented a new transistor!  Fermi
                 functions!!!"
                 \_ Alright buddy, how about less exclamations and more vacations?
              \_ #DEFINE LEARNING_GEOGRAPHY ROTE_MEMORIZATION_AND_LEARNING_BASIC\
_MAP_READING_SKILLS_A_KINDERGARTENER_COULD_PICK_UP_IN_A_WEEK
                 -dans
                 \_ Well if a kindergartener could pick it up in
                    a week, why is it that only 25% of graduating
                    seniors are considered proficient in geography?
   http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/geography/results/natachieve-g12.asp
                    \_ Maybe because we don't teach it to kids in
                       kindergarten when it might actually present a
                       an exciting challenge? -dans
                       \_ Okay, we don't teach it in kindergarten,
                          and we don't teach it in HS. So kids never
                          learn it. Teaching geopolitics when you
                          don't know geography is like trying to
                          teach calc to someone who can't even do
                          algebra.
                          \_ Geography encompasses both map reading and
                             geopolitics.  The two go hand in hand.  You must
                             be a robot if you believe typical high school
                             students will learn anything from a semester long
                             class where all they do is read maps and memorize
                             the names of places. -dans
                             \_ Personally I would rather have spent
                                a semester learning things like how
                                to read navigation charts, elevation
                                charts, the historical development
                                of major cities, biodiversity, &c.
                                rather than some self-godwin'ed
                                drivel about US BAD, WHITE MAN KILLS!
                                \_ I prefer to read about how us
                                   British conquered and ruled the
                                   world, and how we administered
                                   150 million Indians through the
                                   Indian Civil Service, much more
                                   effectively than the incompetent
                                   Americans did with their conquests.
                                   If geography doesn't help you rule
                                   the world more effectively, what good
                                   is it?
2006/3/7-9 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42130 Activity:high
3/7     http://csua.org/u/f5w (telegraph.co.uk)
        "The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out
        in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with
        Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic
        programme."
        \_ All options are on the table and we will be greeted as liberators.
           Oh, the country is oil rich so they can pay for their own
           reconstruction, the American taxpayer is off the hook again!
           \_ We are sort of greeted as liberators.  Most of the fighting
              is fuckhead Sunnis who can't handle only getting 20 percent
              of the political power since they are only 20 percent
              of the population, vs the dominant Shiite population
              who are viewed as infidels by the Saudis, Al-Queda,
              and that Zaqardi Jordanian fellow.  I think the only
              solution is to wall the entire area in and let them
              kill each other over which of Mohammeds cronies should
              have led Islam 2000 years ago.  What a bunch of
              retards.
                \- it's a little tough to take you as a serious commentator
                   when you write about islam 2000yrs ago. --that indian fellow
              \_ to use a forest fire term, we need a "controlled burn"
                 \_ Think of it as evolution in action.  Of cource, CSUAers
                    not breeding is also evolution in action.
           \_ So it will cost only 500 billion dollars in 3 years, just
           like Iraq. Hehehehe.
                \_ It makes sense.  We can combine Iraq, Iran and the Kurds
                   into one giant OhFuckIstan.
                   \_ Why the Kurds?  They're doing pretty OK on their own.
                      It's a Sunni/Shiite thing.  Haven't the Kurds had it
                      bad enough already?
                      \_ that is because they are pratically independent from
                         Iraq right now.  I can totally see couple years
                         down the road USA will invade Kurd-controlled
                         territory along with Turkish troops.
           \_ I can't wait to see US invade Iran.  It would be a lot of
              run to watch. Too bad it won't happen, cause with Iraq,
              US is already like a girl with jeans and panties bundled
              around the ankle, butt naked and hobbled.
              fun to watch. Too bad it won't happen, cause with Iraq,
              US is already like a sissy with jeans and panties bundled
              around the ankles, butt naked and hobbled.
              \_ And you made this determination of American military
                 capacity based on your vast wealth of military knowledge
                 and deep understanding of history, logistics and military
                 psychology?  I don't think there will be an invasion, but
                 not because the US military couldn't flatten the Iranians.
                 \_ I think it has more to do with American forces being
                    stretched really thin, continuous inability to
                    suppress resistance in Iraq, and Iran being several times
                    larger in size and population (several times larger
                    than the entire population of Iraq, not the Sunnis
                    population of Iraq).  Also, an invasion would likely
                    turn the Shiites in Iraq against US.  Then there is
                    the difficulty for the US military to recruit new
                    soldiers, soldiers complaining about length of stays
                    in Iraq, a weak US economy with huge budget and trade
                    deficits, lack of international support, etc., etc.
                    Iran also doesn't have internal religious and
                    ethnic divisions like in Iraq, and hasn't been under
                    a decade of sanctions.  Note: pop of Iraq 26 million.
                    pop of Sunnis in Iraq ~5 million.  pop of Iran
                    68 million.
                    \_ Also don't forget, the Iranians have this fun tendency,
                       all the wanting to hold hands and listen to rock & roll
                       aside, to strap on bomb vests and send hordes of
                       fanatical 8 year olds to do things like clear mine
                       fields and gnaw off invaders' feet while they sleep
                       when you attack their country.  So unless you're really
                       when you attack their country, so unless you're really
                       really sure of what you're doing, don't have any, oh I
                       dunno, "other current engagements that may be requiring
                       some of your attention and military resources", and
                       have a whole buttload of allies in the area who're
                       actually willing and able to send in their own brute
                       squads (or even publicly prepared to say that they
                       support what you're doing), not to mention not having
                       any several big, mean countries that are sort of
                       counting on Iranian gas and oil and money for nuclear
                       reactor bits expressing "doubts" about what you're up
                       to, I don't really know if it's such a fantastic idea to
                       go invade them.  -John
                       \_ When your trigger happy President is also a
                          fanatic, it's not such a crazy idea to attack
                          others fanatically.
                          \_ Nobody's attacking anyone fanatically, just
                             dishonestly and incompetently.  If we can't even
                             run a war/occupation/counterinsurgency right,
                             then given all the above crap, I think starting
                             another war is knid of silly.  -John
                             another war is kind of silly.  -John
                       \_ John, you just won the longest sentence
                          of the year award.
2006/3/3-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42087 Activity:nil
3/3     "Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad now as they were under Saddam
        Hussein, as lawlessness and sectarian violence sweep the country, the
        former U.N. human rights chief in Iraq said Thursday...the level of
        extra-judicial executions and torture is soaring, and morgue workers
        are being threatened by both government-backed militia and insurgents
        not to properly investigate deaths."
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_human_rights
        \_ Sure, but the American People Are Safer (TM)
        \_ Shiites have the FREEDOM to form their own death squads
2006/3/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42072 Activity:nil
3/2     poll. Iraq Civil War will be:
        prevented:
        break out soon:
        going on right now:
2006/2/28-3/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42025 Activity:low
2/28    http://csua.org/u/f3r (Wash Post)
        Over 1,300 Iraqis dead in last weak.  It's okay, because they're
        probably mostly Sunnis / Baathist hold-outs.
        \_ Over 1,300 Americans dead in the last we*e*k as well.  And?
           \_ Bad troll.  No cookie.
              \_ It isn't a troll.  It is making a point about the op's post.
                 People die.  It happens.  More than 1300 Americans died in
                 this country just last week.  And?  What is the point of
                 the op post?  Thus, "And?"  If op had a point, they should
                 have made one.  OP is the troll here.
                 \_ You're either stupid or trolling.  That 1300 is because of
                    violent protests/clashes after the bombing of the mosque
                    in Samarrah.  OP is either sarcastic or stupid, which is
                    a step above you.
                    \_ Calm down and read the post again.  Note that the
                       poster does not mention *where* the Americans in question
                       died.   Most of them died of old age in their beds in the
                       U.S., presumably. -!pp
                       \_ That's exactly the fucking point, and exactly why that
                          poster is either a troll or stupid..  God, who's
                          putting lithium in the berkeley water supply?
                       \_ OMG, good point!  We're all going to die someday
                          so it doesn't matter if someone kills me!  You
                          just blew my mind!
                 \_ 1300 certainly did not die because of violent crime.
                    The point is that the Bush Administration is lying to
                    us (again) by minimizing the violence.
        \_ Ethnic cleansing - it's okay!
           \_ Darfur is ethnic cleansing.  You're clueless and knee jerk.
              \_ No, I'm making fun of the asshat that thinks 1300 deaths is
                 "okay."
                 \_ I think he was being sarcastic.  No deaths are "ok" but
                    people die.  How/why they died is more important than the
                    number.
                    \_ Okay, how's this?  Imagine if 16,000 Americans had died
                       in the last two days because the Italians and the Irish
                       in New York had decided to start killing each other.
                       Would that be "ok?"  I think the thrust of the article
                       is that far more people died over the weekend than
                       most media had been reporting.  Sadly it takes a certain
                       death "threshold" to get media attention these days,
                       as we seem to have gotten used to Iraq being a total
                       clusterfuck (along with most other things our
                       government is doing these days).
                       \_ If it bleeds, it leads.  You won't find me defending
                          the media but frankly what's going on in Iraq is
                          actually pretty minor compared to many situation in
                          both the distant and very recent past as well as
                          *right now* in several parts of the world.  I'm much
                          more disgusted at all the other things the media
                          ignores than their Iraq coverage.  Most people can't
                          even tell you that Darfur isn't a new brand of beer
                          or an ice cream flavor.
                             \- Darfur is trivial compared to the toll of
                                malaria. So was the tsunami. There is more
                                to it than "if it bleeds it leads" and
                                the 1300 is just a small chapter of the
                                overall iraq story.
                                \_ What?  You think the tsunami wasn't
                                   covered or we're not pumping enough
                                   cash into malaria/insect control?  And
                                   you think an act of god is worse than
                                   one people enslaving and wiping out
                                   another race with intent and malice?
                                   No.  You're just a lame troll.  D-
                                   \- i'm not trolling. my point is the that
                                      significant of a story isnt just a
                                      matter of the casualty numbers. darfur
                                      is being convered a fair amount. not
                                      much is being done about it but the
                                      coverage is there. there are a lot of
                                      aspects to the malaria story ... how
                                      foreign aid dollars for public health
                                      are spent, the stupidity of DDT usage
                                      policy etc. it is interesting to note
                                      the difference in casaulaty counts in
                                      ex-yugoslavia where the US led sig
                                     intervention and conflicts in africa
                                     with much higher casualty counts where
                                     nothing was done.
                          \_ Good point -- we'd better just sit back and let
                             them kill each other until the butcher's bill is
                             at least as bad as some of those other places.
                             Right.  Thanks for the insight, there, Tex.
                             \_ Good way to completely and intentionally miss
                                the point.
                                \_ Thanks.
2006/2/25-27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42008 Activity:nil
2/25    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32829
        Bush To Iraqi Militants: "Please Stop Bringing It On"
        \_ you're only 22 months late with that link
2006/2/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41965 Activity:nil
2/22    Iraqi civil war, here we come? :(
        http://csua.org/u/f21 (juancole.com)
        \_ Sadly, Mr. Cole is quite well-informed and knowledgeable about
           this situation. I say "sadly" because I would prefer to think that
           will not come to pass. but I know that he's right.
2006/2/18-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41920 Activity:low
2/18    http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13880387.htm
        "It's apocalyptic out there. Life has definitely gotten worse for"
        Iraqis, said Maj. Curtis Strange, 36, of Mobile, Ala.
        Mission Accomplished!
        \_ Curtis Strange, huh?  http://Realcities.com?  Ok, I'll bite: What is
           Major Strange comparing to and was he around during the Hussein
           era to compare?  I suspect he was in Alabama at the time not
           studying the socioeconomic situation across the Iraqi demographic
           spectrum.  Then again, maybe he's entirely right and we should
           pull out, and reinstate Hussein.  Things should get better right
           away.  He's a man who knows how to put down an insurgency.
           \_ THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS ARE TO STAY THE COURSE OR INSTALL HUSSEIN!!
              ALL LIFE IS BINARY!! YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS!
              \_ Okey dokey!  Propose a different solution and we'll discuss
                 it.  Thanks for contribution nothing.
                 \_ And what exactly have you contributed, bitch?
                    \_ A list of still unanswered questions that directly
                       pertains to the OP and a clean mouth.  You?  Nada.
                 \_ I already told you my plan. It starts with impeaching
                    Bush and turning him and his whole war cabinat over to
                    the Wolrd Court to be tried for War Crimes. You didn't
                    the World Court to be tried for War Crimes. You didn't
                    seem to interested.
           \_ Realcities is where Knight Ridder puts their wire stories.
              Didn't you see that this from KR newspapers, from the byline?
              \_ Shrug, ok its KR.  What about my other questions?
                 \_ Maybe he's assuming that the Iraqis had a better life
                    when their town wasn't all blown up and "apocalyptic".
                    when their towns weren't all blown up and "apocalyptic".
                    Just a guess, though.
                    \_ Wow, Iraq is just one town?
                       \_ You do realize you're an idiot, right?
                          \_ Hard to face your own incompetence, huh?
                             \_ No, you're still the idiot. Just briefly,
                                it is within the realm of possibility that
                                Maj. Strange knows a bit more about the Iraqi
                                situation and the extent of it than you do,
                                but a news article can only be so long, and
                                the major has no real input on which of his
                                sound bites make it into the article. BTW, it
                                makes you sound real intelligent to suggest
                                the only two options are pulling out or
                                reinstating Saddam.
                                \_ Umm.. Can't you read?  I never
                                   suggested that, you're freakin' out on
                                   the wrong guy.  I just snarked about
                                   the town thing.  Sheesh.  If you wanted
                                   to respond to the binary post, you need
                                   to correctly format your post so
                                   everyone knows who you're responding
                                   to.
                       \_ there.  fixed.  the grammar police strike and ignore
                          all contextual content.  yay! -!pp
2006/2/17-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41909 Activity:nil
2/17    BETTER OFF WITHOUT SADDAM!  LALALALALLAL!!!!!11!!
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060217165312
        \_ Weird... you didn't even read your own link.  Whatever.
           \_ Wow.  Sarcasm detectors are in full on failure today...
           \_ Weird... Mormons don't get sarcasm. Whatever.
              \_ Uh, whatever.  1) not mormon, 2) your headline has nothing
                 to do with the link.  It's non sequiter, not sarcasm.
                 \_ So... You're saying you're just stupid?
                    \_ Obviously, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying since
                       the way I read the English language is nothing like the
                       much better way you invented.  I just read it like most
                       other people.  The way you read things that aren't
                       there is truly an innovation worthy of a Bill Gates
                       company.  Have you IPO'd yet?
                       \_ I'm glad your grasp of English is better than your
                          Latin.  You're still an idiot.
                          \_ Coming from you that makes me an uber genius.  If
                             I was a Mormon would you love me more or less
                             than you do now?  I still want to invest in your
                             English language reinterpretation company.  What
                             is your stock ticker?
                             \_ I didn't make the "mormon" comment.  You still
                                seem to have a broken sarcasm detector.  I hear
                                they have pills for that.
                                \_ U R TEH KEWL D00DE!  KAN EYE B U?
             \_ I love it when idiots try to "out" people on the motd.-jrleek
                \_ Even better when they're wrong.
2006/2/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41879 Activity:nil
2/15    Bill Tierney, former UN weapons inspector and CENTCOM intelligence
        analyst, releases tapes of Saddam talking about the inevitability of a
        WMD attack on the U.S., even though Iraq would have no part of it, and
        the effort to hide an Iraqi biological WMD program from inspectors:
        http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996
        Mr. Tierney was also convinced Saddam had a nuclear capability, and
        obtained the location of Saddam's uranium enrichment plant by talking
        with God:
        http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/02/14.html
        Mr. Tierney passionate about standing vigil for Terri Schiavo:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/national/28scene.html
2006/2/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41860 Activity:nil 80%like:41856
2/15    Was 9/11 an Osama miscalculation?  AlQ losing the hearts and minds?
        http://tinyurl.com/9o9v6 (baltimoresun.com)
        \_ How delightfully hubristic
2006/2/15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41856 Activity:nil 80%like:41860
2/15    Was 9/11 an Osama miscalculation?  AlQ losing the hearts and minds?
        http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.terrorism12feb12,0,5943431.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
2006/2/14-15 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41835 Activity:moderate
2/14    Laser guns to be deployed in Iraq:
        http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002170.html
        \_ "But 10 months later . and after a prototype destroyed about 90% of
           the IEDs laid in its path during a battery of tests . not a single
           JIN has been shipped to Iraq," the Times notes.
           So, uh, I assume it doesn't magically find IEDs on its own (which
           seems like the actual problem).  Couldn't an M-16 barrage destroy
           90% of known IEDs in one's path?
           \_ We don't like to litter M-16 shells
           \_ It would drive in front of convoys and detonate any IEDs
              in the way, rather like a minesweeper of sorts. It "finds"
              them by blowing them up if they exist.
              \_ ?  How does that work?  Is it just shooting lightning all
                 over the place?
                 \_ "JIN would sweep dangerous areas clear of bombs before
                    U.S. troops entered."
                 \_ Reading more about it (in other articles) I think my
                    characterization is wrong. I wonder if they have
                    multiple products?
              \_ Kind of. The idea is to saturate a volume of space with
                 very short bursts of lightning. That should be sufficient to
                 detonate or render useless any IEDs in the area.
              \_ Watch this video: http://www.ionatron.net/default.aspx?id=105
                 Essentially, it has an extended arm that sweeps over an area.
                 The arm is shooting, straight down, the aforementioned
                 femto-second laser pulses. The end result is an explosion or
                 a shorting out of the IED. Yes, this could damage the unit.
                 a shorting out of the IED. Yes, this could damage the g-unit.
                 \_ In WW2, they had tanks with large horizontal rollers/bars
                    that had numerous heavy chains attached that spun around
                    the roller setting off mines.  How is this any different
                    except that it requires hi-tek, a lot of cleaning and will
                    break more easily?
                    \_ Some IEDs are cell-phone operated. Beating the ground
                       with chains might set off mines, but it wouldn't
                       necessarily set off an IED or disable it.
2006/2/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41813 Activity:nil
2/13    http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml
        This is the problem with going to war with allies and coalitions.
        No imagination.  There's bad apples in every army, but at least ours
        had the imagination to do panty-heads and human pyramids.  The Brits
        are giving all rogue soldiers a bad name.
        \_ "A DIY grenade lands and explodes inside the compoundblasting out
        \_ "A DIY grenade lands and explodes inside the compound - blasting out
           shrapnel and a cloud of grey-white smoke."  Yeah, they are just
           kids, yeah.
           \_ If you think that your example somehow justifies the abuse,
              please do us all a favor and go hunting with Dick Cheney.
              \_ I'm only suggesting something that counters what the article
                 said about those people being just kids.
                 \_ Well, given the source (News of the World), I'd say you're
                    rarely going to go wrong accusing them of sensationalizing
                    a story.
2006/2/11-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41802 Activity:nil
2/10    Recently retired CIA Senior Analyst says Bush Administration
        politicized and distorted the intel to make their
        case for the war in Iraq:
        http://csua.org/u/eyc (Foreign Affairs)
        \_ Pillar coordinated intelligence on Iraq from all 15 agencies of
           the intelligence community, and he was "the" senior analyst for
           the Middle East.  He says "politicized", but not "distorted".  He
           does say "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify decisions already
           made.
           the Middle East.  He also says there was "cherry-picking" of
           intelligence to justify decisions already made.
           \_ So the war is this guy's fault?
              \_ Hah! +1 funny!
2006/2/10-13 [Recreation/Humor, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41791 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto
2/10    Rave Party!  (No clue, don't ask)
        http://www.glumbert.com/media/rave.html  -John
        \_ http://www.exile.ru/2004-September-04/war_nerd.html
2006/2/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41772 Activity:very high
2/8     Does anyone else feel that these stupid demonstrations by Muslims
        (including the Paris riots) are actually working against Al Qaeda?
        I mean, it seems they are uniting the US and Europe against them.
        \_ Muslims that used to fight each other have lately been solidified
           by the cartoon and are uniting with each other in protest to
           what they perceive as the big white oppressive dickheads that
           keep interfering with the Middle East. So, you're the stupid one.
           \_ Isn't it more important to stay on good terms with Europe
              than with some extremist faction(s)?
        \_ Al Qaeda are insane.  Not in the deprecating "we just don't
           understand their 'otherness'" sort of way... literally certifiably
           insane. There isn't some master group that's planning all activities
           of all groups that claim to be Al Qaeda (another problem) for some
           grand, achieveable, sensible goal.  They're batshit.
           \_ We should give Al Quaida more credit.  They are kicking the
              shit out of us in Iraq.  They're a lot smarter than you think
              they are.
              \_ You're an idiot.  No such thing is happening in Iraq.  Stop
                 using KOS as your primary news source.  AlQ is a bunch of
                 psychotics whose primary 'tactic' is sending other people's
                 children into crowds of civilians to blow themselves up which
                 pisses off all the locals.  The local insurgents will whither
                 away and stop blowing shit up as we reduce troop levels and
                 the new central government gains its footing.  We can and
                 are reducing troop levels because AlQ has been getting
                 butchered.
                 \_ Death rate up? Check.
                    Electricity production down? Check.
                    Oil production down? Check.
                    Are we losing the war in Iraq? Yes.
                    It doesn't take Kos to see that, just a sober and
                    honest assessment of quantifiable statistics.
                    \_ Death rate up from what?  When Saddam was killing 5k
                       a month of his own people?
                       Electricity down from what?  When Saddam was cutting
                       off the south from power to punish and keep them in
                       line?
                       Oil production down?  From foreign terrorists killing
                       local oil engineers and sabotaging pipelines here and
                       there, but less often than before?
                       Losing?  Absolutely not.  Complete and utter crap.
                       Your 'sober and honest assessment' needs some serious
                       reassessing.  Adding something called "context" wouldn't
                       hurt either.  While we're at it, let's not mention the
                       nation wide votes they've had that went off with no
                       serious events and that the Sunni's didn't boycott the
                       most recent one.  Join us out here in the real world
                       where both good and bad things happen but where over
                       time the good things increase while the bad things
                       decrease.  KosWorld is a dark, ugly, depressing place
                       and not reality based.
                       \_ And Bushworld is a happy, pretty place with flowers
                          and candy.  Yeah, life may suck in Iraq, but it
                          doesn't suck because of Saddam any more!  Yay!
                          And it only took $430 billion to do it!  Yay!
                          And it only took $430 billion (so far) to do it! Yay!
                          \_ That's a weak rhetorical ploy.  If you can't
                             respond to the charge, bang your shoe on the
                             table and get sarcastic and bitter.  Maybe
                             next time you'll bring some facts along to help
                             you out.  Too bad the facts aren't on your side.
                             \_ "less than before" "complete and utter crap"
                                "saddam did it worse".  You call these strong
                                arguments?  You've offered no facts, and by
                                all accounts, you're full of shit.  Granted,
                                those accounts are hard to come by because
                                JOURNALISTS CAN'T DO THEIR FUCKING JOB BECAUSE
                                IRAQ IS A SHITHOLE BECAUSE OF OUR FAILURE.
                                \_ I gave a summary for the simple/closed
                                   minded of facts that should be known.  That
                                   you're unaware the Saddam used the
                                   electric system as a political control or
                                   killed thousands of his own peoeple every
                                   month is not entirely your fault.  As you
                                   say, the journalists aren't doing their
                                   jobs and only give us the bad side so people
                                   like you who are unable or unwilling to dig
                                   deeper to find the truth are left believing
                                   in the "quagmire" and "vietnam" DNC fax
                                   points idiocy.  Stop reading KOS.
                                   \_ #1:  wtf is KOS?  I obviously don't
                                           read it.
                                           \_ "Obviously"?  You claim not to
                                              but sure sound like a daily
                                              reader.  "obviously" is not the
                                              word I would have chosen esp.
                                              for someone on the motd with
                                              your political bias.  The motd
                                              has had numerous Kos links on
                                              it for a long time.  Unless
                                              you're brand new here, I find it
                                              extremely unlikely you're not
                                              only never read it but don't even
                                              know the name.  Whatever.  Make
                                              any BS claim you'd like in that
                                              regard.  I don't care what you
                                              read.  It won't help you since
                                              your mind is already made up.
                                              YOU SMART!  THEM DUMB!
                                      #2:  If you believe that we've won the
                                           war in Iraq, why don't you prove
                                           your confidence by moving over
                                           there and living there for a
                                           couple years.  Obviously, living
                                           in the United States, you have never
                                           ever experienced living in a
                                           war-zone, let alone a war that
                                           is illegitimate.
                                           \_ Don't misquote me.  I never said
                                              we won Iraq.  We're still there,
                                              duh.  So there's some magical
                                              difference for civilians in a
                                              "ligitimate war" vs an
                                              "illigitmate war"?  Riiiight.
                                              You're way too into your own
                                              politics to think clearly.  War
                                              is bad, k?
                                      #3:  I think you should be happy that
                                           you will never have a smart bomb
                                           drop on your wedding.  Now stop
                                           trying to make it seem like the
                                           Iraqis have it good.
                                           \_ We carpet bombed German cities
                                              and fire bombed Dresden.  I
                                              feel bad for the civilians of
                                              all wars, but as these things
                                              go, Iraq was pretty easy on
                                              the civilian population.  Are
                                              you opposed to all war for any
                                              reason?  What is your answer to
                                              Darfur?  Should we ignore it as
                                              we have?  How many civilians
                                              continue to die there and many
                                              other places throughout history
                                              while "good men stood by and
                                              did nothing"?
                                      #4:  Better yet, if one day we have
                                           higher taxes because of all the
                                           money we've spent on this war
                                           (and hence one of the reasons
                                           for our all-time high federal
                                           deficit), I want YOU to personally
                                           volunteer to pay more taxes
                                           because you are in support of our
                                           government wasting money out there.
                                           Obviously supporting the war and
                                           not wanting to back it up with
                                           your wallet is hypocritical.
                                           \_ Sure, do I get to *not* pay
                                              the share that goes to other
                                              things I disagree with?  I'll
                                              make out really well.  I'd be
                                              quite happy if I only had to
                                              pay for the things government
                                              does that I like.  Since I like
                                              so few of them my taxes would
                                              drop to near zero.  What would
                                              your tax burden look like?  You
                                              call me a hypocrite before you
                                              got an answer.  I'm sorry, but
                                              you're flat out dead wrong.  I'd
                                              be very very happy to be taxed
                                              under your "only pay for what
                                              you like" plan.  Right now our
                                              taxes are the lowest they've
                                              been in decades and are due to
                                              automagically rise again at the
                                              end of the 10 year tax cut deal.
                                              I'd be surprised if they did
                                              anything but go up given where
                                              they are now and the history of
                                              taxation in this country and
                                              others but it won't have a damned
                                              thing to do with Iraq.
        \_ Oh, I think you'll see more appeasement and self-censorship from
           Europe.  "Islam is protected by an invisible blasphemy law.  It
           is called fear."
           http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2025314,00.html
        \_ While I agree that the Muslim riots are really hurting thier cause
           in the long run, your claiming that Muslim = Al Quaeda
           (even radical muslim = Al Quaeda) is either a major troll or
           racist bullshit, and probably both.
           \_ Where did I claim that all Muslims = Al Qaeda? However, Al Qaeda
              certainly seems to support these activities and yet it works
              against them. IOW, I don't see bin Laden issuing a video
              telling the rioters to stay calm. I'm sure he also sees,
              say, this cartoon, as blasphemy.
              \_ you are an idiot.  alqueda sees all westerners as agents
                 of satan.  it doesn't care what satan say or not say.  it
                 just want to destroy them.
        \_ If you use "Al Qaeda" in the greater sense, meaning something like
           "the body of people in the muslim world who actively or tacitly
           support cutting the heads off infidels and things like honor
           killings and sharia", I hope that the recent collective temper
           tantrum may cause at least a few people who use their brains to
           re-evaluate their position.  I also assume there are a fair
           number of educated and decent muslims who're aghast at this.  That
           said, I believe this will western societies to think much more
           critically about islam, and to tolerate less of the whingeing,
           bullying snits you tend to see when someone feels offended by the
           evil crusaders.  -John
           \_ moderate muslims are losing the war against fundamentalists
              because western imperialists keep helping the fundamentalists
              by doing stupid things like invading Iraq.
              \_ there are no "moderate muslims".  it's a myth.  who exactly
                 are these mythical "moderate muslims"?  Can you name any?
                 I believe your so-called "moderate muslims" are the normal
                 people who just want to live their lives and be left alone.
                 The average "muslim in the street" is not going to take up
                 arms or in any other meaningful way stand up to AlQ, Hamas,
                 Fatah, etc.  Quite the contrary, Hamas just got *elected*
                 if you'll recall.  You have no friends among the "moderate
                 muslims" for there are none.
                 \_ er .... the muslim world is bigger than you realize.
                 \_ the average Iraqi is pretty much a moderate, until
                    your stupid president and his lackeys decided to
                    invade the country illegally.  I came from a country
                    with 20% muslims and my work group of 7 has two muslims,
                    so give me the bullshit about no moderate muslims.
                    your stupid president and his gang decided to
                    invade the country illegally.
                    invade the country illegally.  even now, most
                    Iraqis are still moderates, including many of those
                    who just want to kick you out of Iraq.  there are
                    some bad terrorists, but most of those are
                    foreigners.  there is also a general shift
                    toward fundamentalism especially among the
                    toward fundamentalism among the
                    shiites cause they are falling under the
                    influence of the iranian mullahs again thanks
                    to your stupid war.
                    \_ The stupid war makes a pretty convenient scapegoat.
                       Anti-Americanism (and anti-Westernism, anti-secularism,
                       and anti-not-killing-your-daughter-for-being-rapederism)
                       are widespread in large portions of the muslim world
                       that haven't been invaded by the US (or anyone.)  You'll
                       note the popularity of Bin Laden #1 Fan Club t-shirts
                       on the streets of Pakistan and Jakarta and wherever
                       after 9/11--well before the stupid war.  The Iraq war,
                       while fought on dishonest premises, is just a
                       convenient excuse and outlet for thugs.  Think again,
                       young padawan, cosmic truths may be revealed.  -John
                       \_ killing your daughter for being raped is more
                          tribal than islamic.  indonesians were mostly
                          pro-US before the Iraq war, and last I check both
                          it and its neighbour malaysia have become more
                          and more democratic moving away from one party
                          rule.  many surveys have shown that there is
                          considerable goodwill towards America and what
                          it represents among the common people in
                          many muslim countries, but that it had evaporated
                          since the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of
                          iraq.
                                \_ BZZZT!!!  Sorry.  They're both one 'party'
                                   dictatorships.  Name the 'other party'
                                   that ran in the last election in either
                                   country.  Oh wait.  There wasn't an
                                   election in either place.  Why do you
                                   insist on coming here and saying such
                                   trivially destroyed lies?  Do you really
                                   think you're fooling anyone?  If you're
                                   going to troll, you need to base your
                                   garbage on half-truths at least.  Trolling
                                   from a position of truth is always the
                                   best way to get under people's skin.  The
                                   Young Troll Advisory Board has rated this
                                   troll as: WEAK!
                                   \_ Really?  How come this economist
                                      article says you are talking out
                                      of your arse?:
                                      http://tinyurl.com/cb4m6
                          rule.  many surveys have shown that there is
                          considerable goodwill towards America and what
                          it represents among the common people in
                          many muslim countries, but that it evaporated
                          after the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of
                          many muslim countries, but that it had evaporated
                          since the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of
                          iraq.
                                   \_ The Economist says you are
                                      talking out of your arse:
                                      http://tinyurl.com/cb4m6
                          \_ It's not unjustifiable. Illegal? Why don't you
                             report it to the police?
                             \_ Illegal as in without the expressed
                                authorization of the United Nations.  But
                                not even that... we didn't even have the
                                consensus agreement of the world to invade
                                Iraq.  We just unilaterally invaded the
                                country.  Complete bull-shit.  Why do you
                                think so many people are rooting for our
                                downfall?  Obviously, by abusing our superpower
                                status, we aren't earning any friends.
                             \_ don't tell me, tell your friends in Europe,
                                Canda, Asia who were predominantly against
                                Canada, Asia who were predominantly against
                                the war.
                          \_ Undoubtedly the war hasn't helped, but claiming
                             that these muslim countries were hotbed of happy
                             pro-American sentiment before it is sort of
                             silly.  -John
                             \_ Nobody is claiming that.  Also don't confuse
                                being moderate with being pro-American.
                                \_ Read pp's post.  He said "Indonesians were
                                   mostly pro-US before the Iraq war."  Cosmic
                                   truths may be revealed to you.  -John
                                   \_ "These muslim countries" >> "Indonesia".
                                      "considerable goodwill" != "hotbed of
                                      happy pro-American sentiment".
                                      Learn to read.
                                      \_ "These muslim countries" in reference
                                         to Indonesia and Malaysia.  As you
                                         say, learn to read.  Supreme cosmic
                                         truths may be revealed.  -John
                                         \_ In Indonesia, US popularity
                                            was 61% in early 2002,
                                            plummeted to 15% in 2004,
                                            rebounding to 30+ percent
                                            after Tsunami efforts.
                                         \_ oh wow, you win.
2006/2/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41768 Activity:nil
2/8     America hearts Saudi Arabia
        http://csua.org/u/exl (Reuters)
        http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/08/cartoon.protests/index.html
        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/13149/60748
        "The 350 pilgrims were killed on January 12 and soon after [Hajj
        fatalities], Saudi newspapers (which are all controlled by the state)
        began running up to 4 articles per day condemning the Danish cartoons.
        The Saudi government asked for a formal apology from Denmark.  When
        that was not forthcoming, they began calling for world-wide protests."
        \_ Juan Cole's take:
           http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/fact-file-on-reaction-to-danish.html
           \_ shit, I need a blogger account to reply to his entry.
              but basically, what I want to say is, "Can't they both be true?"
              That is, Juan Cole's chronology may be entirely accurate, but
              this does not preclude Saudi Arabia from suddenly turning up
              the heat 10 notches.
              \_ I think Juan is saying even if SA turned up the heat, it
                 doesn't diminish the authenticity of the outrage.
                 \_ that is one of the things he says, but he also says,
                    "the allegation that this thing was fanned by Saudi Arabia
                    does not seem to be substantiated by the FBIS"
2006/2/7-9 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41746 Activity:nil 90%like:41744
2/7     http://csua.org/u/ex5 (http://www.editorandpublisher.com
        Them libruls just hates the troops... mmmhmm....
2006/2/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41745 Activity:nil
2/7     http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
        "She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She
        deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar.
        We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there,"
        Lowery said.
        The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in
        a two-minute-long standing ovation.
        A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed
        the president smiling uncomfortably. ...
        \_ fyi, for posterity, according to the CNN video, the applause lasted
           for ~ 15 seconds, and the reverend didn't appear to expect it.
           also, it appears the applause was much greater for Bill Clinton. -op
           \_ This is precisely why Drudge is useless.  Did he "nod his head
              toward the row of presidents..." on the "misdirection" line in
              your viewing?
2006/2/7 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41744 Activity:nil 90%like:41746
2/7     http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001958360
        Them libruls just hates the troops... mmmhmm....
2006/2/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41716 Activity:moderate
2/6     The cartoon controversy: the Saudi factor
        http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748
        \_ too bad he based this entire thing on bad dates from a single
           source.  but it isn't a bad theory overall.
        \_ cool article.  I've been saying all along that Saudi is problematic.
           if we are serious about curbing Islamic Extremist, we need to deal
           with them.   FYI, Aljazeera did a survey, something like 66,000
           out of 78,000 muslims said that official apology from the original
           Dannish newspaper is good enough.
           \_ This presumes two things:  (a) that there is something wrong
              with what the Danish paper did (maybe it was in questionable
              with what the Danish paper did (it was in very questionable
              taste and judgment, but that is different) and (b) that "islam"
              and the umma as such have some inherent right for their
              sensitivities to trump some of the core values and rights that
              lie at the heart of what we so cavalierly call "Western culture."
              Neither (a) nor (b) is the case.  As for Islamic extremism, one
              can only hope that pictures of people threatening to bomb
              embassies and kill paper editors over cartoons will bring what
              we keep being told is the "moderate majority" of muslims to
              their senses, and make them realize how truculent, thuggish and
              frankly, prone to infantile outbursts their co-religionists are.
              To be honest, I don't see anyone asking for an apology from
              anyone in the "islamic world" over the sort of acceptance you
              get towards pictures of people having their heads cut off because
              they are infidels, or over really vile anti-semitic shit that
              you get on a lot of islamic web pages.  Regarding what I see as
              western kow-towing to this sort of horseshit collective temper-
              tantrum, I've written a number of retailers that have removed
              Danish products from their shelves in many countries, explaining
              that they don't deserve my custom, for what little it's worth,
              and I hope others will do the same.  -John
              \_ What if some CEO of company, President of a country, or
                 university made some anti-semitic remarks, or remarks
                 offensive to feminists, and some members of said groups
                 decide to boycott products of the company, not visit the
                 country, etc., will you be against that?
              \_ The point of the article was that the Saudis deliberately
                 inflamed the issue, in order to distract attention from the
                 fuckup of the Hajj stampede.
                 \_ Yes, I know, I like the article.  I was mainly venting,
                    the whole thing is pretty disgusting.  As for boycotts,
                    go ahead; however, I find knuckling under to a fairly
                    barbaric condemnation of a society's fundamental values
                    (have you read what some of these signs say?) to be pretty
                    sad.  I think this is not one of those cases where you
                    can even claim there is a gray area.  -John
                    \_ a) It is not up to *YOU* to judge rather the cartoon
                        is offensive or not.  b) don't you get it?  they
                        are not attacking our value.  They are attacking our
                        100 years of imperial foreign policies of supporting
                        repressive regime, overthrown democratic governments,
                        carve out their homelands to server other Western
                        interest, etc.
                        \_ Are you saying there would be no outrage if the
                           cartoons were published by a newspaper from a
                           non-imperialist, non-supporting repressive regime,
                           etc., nation?
                        \_ I don't give a shit if the cartoon was offensive
                           or not.  They are not attacking "our" anything,
                           this is DENMARK we are talking about.  HELLOO?  It
                           is your and my right to even consider arguing about
                           this on a public (or any) forum.  And it's "serve
                           other interests".  -John
                        \_ Re-read and meditate, young padawan.  Cosmic truths
                           may suddenly become clear.  -John
                        \_ so Islam is a Religion Of Peace and we made them
                           beat their wives?  if only their wives had just
                           listened and done what they were told they wouldn't
                           have had to beat them.
2006/2/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41702 Activity:very high
2/3     Muslims are psychos..
        \_ None of the muslims I've met were psychos.  I've worked very closely
           with a guy who's a devout muslim for the last five years, and
           "reasonable" is one of the first words I would probably use
           to describe his personality.  Along with "brilliant", "hard-working",
           and "funny."
        \_ My guess is that you've prob just never really met the truly
           great ones nor even normal ones in every day life.  What is
           portrayed in the news will always be a biased in one way or
           another.
           \_ My guess is that you've prob just never really met the truly
              average ones who make up the bulk of the ignorant and stupid
              who are currently rioting and attacking people over a friggin
              cartoon.
                 \_ See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm
                    re rioting and attacking over a cartoon.
                    \_ I think you're truly missing the bigger picture.
                       There's a reason why the majority of Arabs/Muslims
                       are anti-American.  Although I agree that they have
                       a very extreme culture, they are people too and
                       their anger with the West is justified.  How
                       would you like it if you're family was killed by
                       Americans?  We just roll in there and say we're
                       "liberating" them, while we're bombing the crap
                       out of them and taking their oil.  There are
                       just so many easy ways to see why Arabs
                       would hate America.  But not just the Arabs. We're
                       making it way too easy for the rest of the world
                       to hate us too.
                       \_ Re the BBC link. I posted this to provide a
                          reference re 'currently rioting and attacking
                          people over a friggin cartoon.' I was not trying
                          to make a substantive point.
                          That said, I completely disagree that the anger
                          toward the West is justified. If anything, the
                          West (and primarily America) is the greatest
                          source of peace and prosperity that has every
                          been known in the history of mankind. Even at
                          its worst moments, this nation and its people
                          have a kind of benevolence that no other people
                          exhibit.
                          If anything the anger that motivates some in
                          the Islamic world is based on a historical
                          distrust of non-Muslim societies. The Islamic
                          world has has been in conflict w/ the "West"
                          and parts of Asia (notably India) for several
                          hundred yrs. The primary src of conflict is a
                          refusal by some Islamic sects to accept the
                          possibility that there are various alt. belief
                          systems exist by which people can live.
                          In the absence of such acceptance, the conflict
                          cannot be resolved, save by the defeat of one
                          side or the other. I for one pray that the West
                          is victorious; for all its faults, the West is
                          infinitely superior to Islamic rule.
                          \_ I agree with you about Islam vs. the West in
                             general, but I take issue with your claim of
                             America's unique benevolence.  There are a lot
                             of benevolent peoples out there in the world.
                             What makes America unique is that it is a
                             benevolent(or at least benevolent-intending)
                             _world_power_.
                             \_ (I'm someone else).  Yes, and being the world's
                                first benevolent world power make us even
                                'better' then if we were some friendly third
                                world nice country.  It is exactly that which
                                makes us better.  Imagine how the world would
                                look if Hamas had the power the West has now.
              \_ this makes them different from the truly average christians
                 who blockade women's clinics and blame our nation's problems
                 on gay people how?
                 \_ A few thousand nut heads != a few million nut heads.
                    How long since you were in a math or logic class?
                    \_ Maybe you should ask if America is part of the
                       problem.  Every time you bomb the crap out of an
                       Iraqi wedding and bomb a Arab news organization,
                       you create 10x more extremists.  So perhaps we might
                        \_ This is an oft repeated but unproven statement.
                           Lot of bad things happen to people in lots of
                           countries but you don't see the victim's families
                           blowing themselves and other people up over it.
                           There is something fatally flawed in Muslim
                           'culture' that leads to this response and as the
                           weaker party in this exchange they can't hope to
                           ever get anything from violence except even greater
                           violence in return on the Shock and Awe scale.
                       be fueling the extremism??? HMMMMMM....
                       Now how about this... we go to war against them and
                       then make up "evidence" to try to get people to
                       support our war against them?  Where are the WMD
                       that we so infamously proclaimed?
                        \_ Where?  In Syria.  I thought that was commonly
                           understood.  Shrug.  Sky?  Still blue.  Check.
                       Ask yourself this question:  Why did we go into
                       Iraq when we did?  Why did we have to go in there
                       \_ Out of curiosity, what is your answer to this
                          question?
                       right there and then?  Did Saddam do anything crazy
                       to provoke this war?  NO, we brought this war to
                       Iraq, which means we INVADED Iraq.  If I were
                        \_ Uhm, yes, we invaded Iraq.  Who called it anything
                           else?  When a foreign army crosses a national
                           boundary against the government's wishes, we usually
                           refer to that act as an invasion, especially if it
                           involves thousands of aircraft and missiles dropping
                           bombs in concert with tanks and infantry smashing
                           your army.  What was your point?  You come across
                           as frantic.
                       Arab, I would have MANY good reasons to hate
                       America.
                    \_ LOL.  A few thousand nut-heads?  So I suppose that when
                       Bush put his gay bashing bit in the state of the union
                       speech right before the election, that was so he could
                       win a few *thousand* votes?  And the massive GOP efforts
                       to get anti-gay resolutions on ballots accros the
                       country during the presidential election year were
                       carried out by a few "thousand" lone nut Christians
                       way outside the mainstream, to a appeal to a few
                       thousand of their fellow nuts?  And the "Left Behind"
                       series of books about how all us non-christians will
                       burn in hell in the soon-to-come apocalypse, those are
                       all best sellers because a few "thousand" Christians
                       read them?  Or, since you seem interested in math
                       and statistics, maybe the over 50% of the approximately
                       290 million people in the U.S. who believe the Earth
                       was created 6000 years ago exactly as described in the
                       Old Testament, maybe that number is a few thousand as
                       well.
                       \_ When all those "evul xtians"(tm) start blowing shit
                          up and killing people over cartoons or maybe a jar
                          of piss with a holy symbol in it, you can come back
                          here and tell us about it and get taken seriously.
                          Until such time, your comparison of wide scale
                          culturally encouraged terrorism to some nutters
                          outside abortion clinics once a month & their odd yet
                          harmless non-scientific origin beliefs is simply
                          stupid.  I understand your find "evul xtians"(tm)
                          scarier than a billion people "Far Far Away"(c) who
                          want you dead but some of us see the larger picture
                          outside the confines of the ivory ring around
                          Berkeley.
                          \_  Umm, I think the reason why they are terrorizing
                              us is because they don't want to see us
                              \_ We already have succeeded.
                              succeed.  They want to make sure that we don't
                              profit from their oil.  Obviously they don't
                              \_ Profit?  They profit, we lose, everytime I
                                 fill my tank or turn on a light.
                                 \_ Real American patriots RIDE BIKE!
                              have a resources to launch a full-scale invasion
                              against us, so they do what they can to cause
                              chaos in our areas of interest.  If we never
                              went into Iraq, I doubt Al-Quaida would be there.
                              \_ AQ was already there.  They're an inter-
                                 national terrorist organisation with members
                                 in every country on the planet.  Iraq is the
                                 only place they didn't have anyone?  Ok....
                          \_  Did I say anything remotely positive about the
                              Evil Muslim Hordes out there who want to
                              destroy America?  No, I didn't.  I agree
                              that they are a far far greater danger to our
                              civilization than the drooling fucks in Red
                              State America, but that doesn't mean they can't
                              both be threats to our civilization.
                              \_ When you're comparing the puppy across the
                                 street who ate your lollipop to the pillaging
                                 hordes setting fire to everything just past
                                 the stop sign it is hard to take you
                                 seriously.  Whines about evul xtians don't
                                 belong in a discussion about which of our
                                 neighbors may or may not be card carrying
                                 Evil Horde members, blazing pitch torches
                                 and all.  Your dismissing of half the country
                                 as "drolling fucks in Red State America"
                                 doesn't lend any weight to anything you have
                                 to say either.  Here's a quote for you to
                                 think about for a while, "If we love our
                                 country, we should also love our countrymen".
                                 I think you're close minded, ignorant,
                                 mildly retarded, and terribly confused, but
                                 I don't think you're completely hopeless yet.
                                 Drop the hatred thing and stop worrying your
                                 self about silly shit like what the reasonably
                                 harmless xtians are doing and you'll see more
                                 clearly where the real threats to your future
                                 are.
                 \_ Even if one accepts you premise that the ave. Christian
                    blockades abortion clinics and blames nat'l problems on
                    gays, it is fairly tame behavior compared to rioting,
                    car-bombings, suicide bombings, &c. Even the loonies who
                    listen to Pat Robertson, et. al. don't go around actually
                    blowing up abortions clinics on a DAILY basis. Other than
                    the IRA I can't actually think of a group w/ predominantly
                    Christian membership that actively uses terrorism.
                    NOTE: I have worked w/ numerous muslims over the years,
                          and they were all uniformly nice, decent people.
                    \_ Ditto about the nice, decent thing.  The muslims I
                       know almost uniformly were resigned and frustrated
                       about muslim nutjobs.  That said, there is such an
                       amazing number of individuals in the umma preaching
                       or apologizing for violence for a number of reasons
                       that it's hard to ignore.  That, and I find it
                       absolutely fucking repugnant that the US state dept.
                       issues a statement condemning a bunch of cartoons, no
                       matter how offensive they may be to someone.  They
                       should be screaming bloody murder about freedom of
                       the press--have we no pride left?  Guess not.  -John
                       \_ Didn't the whitehouse make an official statement
                          against Team America?
                          \_ Touche.  -John
                          \_ What'd they say?
2006/2/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41701 Activity:moderate
2/3     http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/20060203/cm_ucrr/iraqscivilwarhascost3000perusfamilysofar
        Iraq's war has cost every family only $3000 so far. That's actually
        not too bad...
        \_ Yes it is too bad.
        \_ Counting for inflation the Iraq war has cost more than the
           13 years the United States was in Vietnam.
        \_ If this were an ideal world, we should have a democracy where
           all the pro-war advocates should have to foot the bill for the
           Iraq war, and the anti-war people don't have to pay a single
           cent.  I find it absurd that I will be paying extra taxes over
           the next XYZ years to help fund this illegitimate war and get
           us out of our federal deficit.  It's been an absolute waste
           of money, not to mention immoral.
           \_ You don't understand what democracy is.  I find a lot of the
              things my tax dollars are wasted on absurd but in our democratic
              republic we don't get to vote ourselves goodies directly.  We
              have to bribe public officials to direct other people's money
              to us indirectly.  In direct democracy people would soon be
              voting themselves other people's money without the middle man
              who at least makes some pretense of trying to run the government
              properly.  Mob rule/democracy is nothing like ideal.
2006/2/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41700 Activity:low
2/4     Iraq war I-- 1/100 security officers were private contractors.
        Iraq war II-- 1/4 security officers are private contractors.
        A reduction of troops next year means more growth for private
        corporations next year. Invest wisely!!!        -smart investor
        \_ I don't think the various merc companies are issuing public stock.
2006/2/4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41698 Activity:nil
2/3     http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/ap/world/mainD8FHM1580.shtml
        "The president is said to have told Blair the U.S. "was
        thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter
        cover over Iraq. The aircraft would be painted in U.N. colors,
        so that if Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach of
        U.N. resolutions, the book said.
2006/2/3-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41687 Activity:nil
2/3     Titanic-size shipwreck, casualty-wise:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_ship_sinks
        \- hello you may wish to read: http://csua.org/u/evv
           somewhat interesting discussion of estonia sinking.
2006/2/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41663 Activity:low
2/1     Why can't we use the Army to stop these border incursions?
        http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060117-121930-3169r.htm
        Oh that's right, someone sent it all to Iraq. My bad.
        \_ Obviously you don't know the law very well. And you don't know
           anything about the military troop strengths either. Put down
           that latte and consider being selfless for once.
           \_ I don't know much about military troop strengths.  But as far
              as the law is concerned, isn't it okay to use US military to
              defend the US border against foreign military?  Is law even an
              issue here?  --- !OP
              \_ I agree with you.  that is why I have always proposed build
                 a Berlin Wall across Mexicon/US border, equipped with
                 land mines, search lights and machine gun towers.  A side
                 effect of this wall would be that it will *FORCE* American
                 to think about how much of our economy is actually depend
                 upon those illegal immigrants... after the fact that our
                 agriculture, hotel, and other industry start to feel the
                 effect of such wall!!
                 \_ The issue here is about incursions by Mexicans in military
                    uniforms and Humvees with guns, not the average illegal
                    immigrants.
                    uniforms and armed Humvees, not the average illegal
                    immigrants.  (Unless you're saying since the Mexican
                    military support our economy by buying Humvees, we have to
                    let them intrude our border.)
                    \_ Please find a non-Moonie reference to the Mexican
                       army being inside our borders.  -tom
                       \_ http://csua.org/u/evj (Yahoo! News)
                          'EL PASO, Texas - It wasn't just Mexican military-
                          style uniforms that suspected drug runners were
                          wearing when they were confronted by Texas lawmen,
                          the Hudspeth County sheriff says.

                          The men carried Mexican military-issue weapons and
                          drove a military Humvee, said Arvin West, whose
                          officers who were involved in the standoff.

                          "It was military," he said Friday. "Due to the
                          pending congressional hearings I can't comment
                          further."'

                          Of course this claim is up for verification, but it
                          shows what the issue is.
                          \_ Heh.  You'd never see this if all you read is
                             the NYT.
                             \_ http://tinyurl.com/7ho7g (NYTimes)
                       \_ Here's something a little more solid than the AP
                          article:
                          http://csua.org/u/evk (latimes.com)
                          Heavily armed personnel in a military-style Humvee
                          from Mexico helped drug smugglers fleeing police to
                          escape back across the border, according to
                          authorities. An internal Border Patrol summary of
                          the incident said the Humvee was equipped with a
                          .50-caliber machine gun. ...
                          "'It's clear you're dealing with a large number of
                          incursions by bona-fide Mexican military units,
                          based on the tactics and the equipment being used,'
                          said T.J. Bonner, a Border Patrol veteran and
                          president of the agents union.
                          Corrupt police or military?  The lead to the article
                          says "Mexican government personnel".
        \_ Because they occasionally kill shepherds and make the US look dumb.
           http://www.dpft.org/hernandez/gallery
        \_ Why don't we use the army to take out the Moonies?
           \_ I am pretty sure that would be a violation of the Posse
              Comitatus act.
              \_ That's crap!  Moonies are wild, untamed!
2006/2/1-3 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41654 Activity:nil
2/1     The 12 Muhammad pictures the religion of peace is declaring war on
        Denmark for:
        http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm
        \_ I'm sure Pat Robertson wouldn't mind declaring war on Islam.
           \_ Pat Robertson isn't actually attacking people right now.
        \_ Wow, those are pretty tame.
        \_ Cool, other newspapers have reprinted them out of principle.
           http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1700224,00.html
2006/2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41635 Activity:low
2/1     http://csua.org/u/ev6 (LA Times)
        "experts point out that the U.S. gets ... about 10% -- of its oil
        imports from the Middle East. In fact, the majority now comes from
        Canada and Mexico -- and Bush said nothing on Tuesday about them."
        http://csua.org/u/ep1 (doe.gov)
        Nov 2005 crude oil imports (barrels/day) published Jan 23, 2006
        - Percentage of total crude oil imports into U.S. -
        Middle East             ~ 22% (Saudi Arabia + Iraq + Kuwait)
        Canada+Mexico           ~ 35%
        Nigeria+Venezuela       ~ 22%
        Other countries contribute a maximum of ~ 7% each.
        These are ~ approximations because only the top 15 countries are
        listed (imports from other countries are assumed negligible).
        \_ Do you seriously think.... that if the Middle East stopped exporting
           oil....  that our prices would not increase?
        \_ it's a global market anyway.
        \_ So which one is correct?  10% or 22%?
           \_ Maybe it's 22% of the imports, 10% of all oil.
              \_ Then the article should read "about 10% -- of its oil from the
                 Middle East" instead of "about 10% -- of its oil imports from
                 the Middle East".
                 \_ I think you're expecting too much from the newspapers.
                    You're lucky if you get information that's correct to
                    the first order, and there's almost no chance they will
                    get anything subtle right.
                    \_ Agreed.  Newspapers are ok at the "what," not so great
                       at "how," and absolutely dismal at "why."  I imagine
                       historians have to pretty much discount any newspaper
                       account of an event as misinformation.  The only thing
                       you can say is that they're a damn sight better than
                       television news, which is dismal at pretty much
                       everything.
                       \_ I remind myself that these journalists probably
                          couldn't even handle high school calculus.  Then
                          I am not so annoyed or surprised by the quality
                          of their analysis.
2006/1/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41574 Activity:kinda low
1/27    Army admits to kidnapping family members as tactic:
        http://csua.org/u/et0 (yahoo news)
        \_ I didn't think that was a big deal for the Army.
           \_ Hostage taking is a very big deal.
        \_ So what?
           \_ You probably approve of the rape, wiretapping and torture, too.
2006/1/27-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41570 Activity:nil
1/27    http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/economy/gdp/index.htm
        "Far less growth than forecasts in the fourth quarter, as economy
        manages only 1.1% annual rate gain."
        U.S. GDP growth (from preceding period)
                Q1      Q2      Q3      Q4
        2002    2.7     2.2     2.4     0.2
        2003    1.7     3.7     7.2     3.6
        2004    4.3     3.5     4.0     3.3
        2005    3.8     3.3     4.1     1.1
        "The preliminary estimate of fourth quarter 2005 GDP is inconsistent
        with the underlying strength of the U.S. economy ... I would not read
        too much into today's numbers.  They are somewhat anomalous, reflecting
        some special factors." -Treas Sec John Snow (Jan 27, 2006)
        (durable goods +9.3% Q3, -17.5% Q4 -- summer auto incentives)
        "However, investors seemed to welcome the seemingly negative report ...
        Investors may be betting that slower economic growth will mean the Fed
        can stop raising interest rates soon."
2006/1/26-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41543 Activity:nil 67%like:41539
1/26    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/26/115712.shtml?s=ic
        Former #2 Iraq air force general Georges Sada (also thrown in jail by
        Saddam for his refusal to execute 40 American POWs during the Gulf War)
        says two pilots ("know them very well", "very good friends of mine")
        told him that Saddam flew (chemical) WMDs to Syria in the months
        preceding and in anticipation of the 2003 Iraq invasion.  Sada, in an
        interview with Hannity & Combes last night, also says Iraq's nuclear
        capability has long since been destroyed.  Sada also pushed his new
        book:  "Saddam's Secrets".
        \_ The name reminds me of the Conan skits. My question is will Sada
           have to apologize to Oprah later?
2006/1/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41539 Activity:nil 67%like:41543
1/26    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/26/115712.shtml?s=ic
        Former #2 Iraq air force official Georges Sada (also thrown in jail by
        Saddam for his refusal to execute 40 American POWs during the Gulf War)
        says two pilots told him that Saddam flew (chemical) WMDs to Syria
        in the months preceding and in anticipation of the 2003 Iraq invasion.
        Note Dubya has only said "much of the intelligence turned out to be
        wrong", not that Saddam never had WMDs.
2006/1/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41526 Activity:nil
1/25    http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060125/3/2emvs.html
        Hey, regarding the above Reuters article, do you think it makes a
        gross mischaracterization of the L.A. Times column?
        It seems to me that Reuters person is saying Joel Stein said that
        /everyone/ who supports the troops is a wuss (Stein only said this
        about those who are against the war AND support the troops), and that
        Stein said that U.S. troops are "ignoring their morality".
        What do you think?
        I wrote to the Reuters reporter, and after two e-mails, he still thinks
        I'm smoking crack.
2006/1/25 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41523 Activity:low
1/25    Remember the L.A. Times columnist who wrote that he didn't support the
        troops, and how the freeper reaction was pretty tame?  Well, apparently
        all the wackos are on http://littlegreenfootballs.com:
        http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060125/3/2emvs.html
        "Michelle Malkin quickly nominated Stein as 'one of the most loathsome
        people in America.'"
        http://tinyurl.com/8nmhl http://tinyurl.com/7ns9o (lgf)
        "If I ever run into the a**hole, I'm going to knock his frickin' block
        off."
        "If Al-Reuters thinks theres only 1 guy who'd punch this jerk upon
        viewing him on the street, they are WAAAAY off."
        "#13 krazykounselor: And you are a stupid, chickenshit, worthless pile
        of shit. It would be worth the jail time to get my hands around your
        scrawny neck."
        \_ I'm glad you are able to express your freedom of opinion
           by holding troops in subjective respect. I'm sure you can do
           that in a theocracy/socialist paradise as well.
           \_ I'm glad you are able to express your freedom of opinion by
              holding troops with unqualified respect. I'm sure you can do
                                  \_ There's a diff. between fear and respect
              that in a theocracy/socialist paradise as well.

        \_ http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz
           Little Green Footballs or Late German Fascists?
           The funniest thing is that registration for LGF is closed.
           They are against free speech, even in practice.
           \_ 77%.  It's possible to get 100%.  There are no trick questions.
              Yes, there are Late German Fascist answers in there.
           \_ 85%  too many hints
2006/1/25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41519 Activity:very high
1/25    Transcript of radio interview with that L.A. Times columnist
        Note that probably all right-wing sites are saying this shows how
        pathetic he is
        http://radioblogger.com/#001332
        \_ Hell, many left wing sites think he's pathetic.
           He's making a meaningless distinction to stir the publicity
           pot.  And he's falling on his face cuz he's, well, a schmuck.
           \_ "Shmuck"?  Yeah.  To be fair, the shmuck factor is in taking the
              subject way too light-heartedly when he does have at least one
              valid, very important point.
              \_ Which is?  He feels like a hypocrite because he thinks
                 soldiers have a choice about what wars they're told to
                 fight in?
                 \_ That when you sign on as a soldier, you need to take
                    responsibility for putting yourself in a position where
                    you are expected to follow orders, for good or for worse.
                    Reporter:  "And I think you're saying the average guy
                    out there who's considering recruitment is justified in
                    saying 'I don't want to serve'?"
                    Murtha:  "Exactly right."
                    \_ Stein's is a different argument from Murtha's.  Murtha
                       makes sense.  Murtha is talking about people that aren't
                       already in.  If you're already in and you try to make
                       this distinction, you are arrested.  The problem is
                       not with the men.  It's with the commanders.  Murtha
                       knows this.  Stein apparently doesn't.
                       \_ Stein knows that once you're in, you're in until
                          your term is up, and you are expected to follow
                          orders until then.
                          \_ And how long does Stein think that term is?  Does
                             Stein know that people are being stoplossed?
                             Called up on IRR?
                             \_ He would say he "sympathizes" with those
                                people.  Anyway ... I'd like to emphasize I
                                agree that his treating this in such a
                                light-hearted way was schmuck-worthy if not
                                insulting.
        \_ Up next, transcripts of O'Reilley beating some schmuck up on TV.
           \_ This transcript isn't quite like that.  The guy is actually
              honest throughout the entire interview, and the interviewer
              calls him on everything but doesn't shoutfest him down like
              O'Reilly.
              \_ The guy doesn't really address the column at all.
                 \_ What do you mean?
                    \_ The interviewer spends all of his time trying to paint
                       the guy as a pure pacifist.
                       \_ That may be true, but Stein had plenty of opportunity
                          to defend his position, IMO ...
        \_ Stein may be a schmuck but there's a point there, that he's not
           making very well however. And I'm not sure how to talk about it
           either. But basically assume you don't support the Iraq war. What
           should the mindset be regarding a parade in honor of the troops
           there? Assuming you "support the troops" like any proper American.
           I mean, are you celebrating only their service to country? Such
           a parade would necessarily also honor the goals for which they
           fought. Many might disagree with the actions and goals of the
           troops, even though they were just being good troops. It may
           be argued that besides questions of needless costs and deaths etc.,
           the whole Iraq war additionally hasn't helped matters. Or was
           immoral. That the casualties were in vain. In that case instead
           of a parade one would be sorry for them etc. But furthermore,
           not supporting the goals of the troops is not supporting the
           troops themselves. How does that affect their morale, or
           the will of the country to fully commit to their cause, as
           in Vietnam? Anyway I think everyone can agree that Stein's
           tone in the article was unwise and he makes a fool of himself.
           \_ The "goal of the troops" is to survive and complete their
              missions.  The military is a tool of the state.  This is
              by design and necessity.  To lay the blame of military use
              upon the soldiers is misplaced and wrong.
              \_ Completing their missions, exactly. So what if you disagree
                 with those missions? I'm not saying anyone should
                 blame the soldiers (except those who signed up afterwards,
                 perhaps) but it gets to the point of "supporting the troops".
                 Should someone who disagrees with a military action
                 /celebrate/ the soldiers who carried it out? He would be
                 celebrating the accomplishment of that mission.
                 \_ I would celebrate the safe return of our troops and
                    their risking their lives without having any say in
                    defining the overall mission, and take the assumption that
                    they joined up out of a selfless, genuine desire to defend
                    freedom(TM). -someone else
2006/1/25-26 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41512 Activity:nil
1/24    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_breaking_point
        Something the Iranian president would be happy to hear.
        \_ didn't our Great Leader say something about not giving comfort
           to the enemy?  Go Dubya!
2006/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41502 Activity:kinda low
1/24    If a crime boss/gangster outsourced the killing to a hit-man,
        will the crime boss be held liable?
        \_ The man most recently executed in California outsourced
           all his killings.
        \_ Of course.  Criminal conspiracy.
        \_ Typically, this is the wife who wants her husband dead for some
           reason and hires someone or convinces some boy to do it for "love".
        \_ Didn't someone just get executed for ordering the killing of his
           son's gf because she knew about his robbery?
           \_ So if the US 'outsourced' torture, should it be held...
                \_ Only if it wasn't done to "protect the American people"
              \_ This is not entirely clear. If a non-US citizen is captured
                 in a theater of war and turned over to a country that does
                 not forbid the use of torture, it is not clear that any
                 const. provision has been violated (though a geneva conv-
                 ention provision may be violated, if geneva is applicable).
                 But, if a US citizen is turned over to a foreign power, then
                 the use of torture by the foreign power under the color of
                 US authority would be a violation of the 8th amend.
2006/1/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41499 Activity:high
1/24    L.A. Times columnist does not support the troops
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1564056/posts
        \_ Why post the freeper link?  The real article is way funnier.
           (And not in the ways he intended) http://csua.org/u/er5
        \_ What exactly is wrong with his position?  At least it's rational.
           The idea that people who pull triggers are somehow not morally
           culpable is not just stupid, but dangerous.
           \_ yeah, there are a surprising number of genuine "at least he's
              honest" freeper posts ... but there was also one:
              "Hey- at least he's honest. Now get the rope."
           \_ As a person who didn't support the war but who does support the
              troops, my big problem with his position is that it proposes
              a binary viewpoint: you're either against the war because you're
              a pacifist, or you're not against the war. Baloney. I believe
              that a disciplined and actively used military force is necessary
              not only to our own national defense but also to the deterrence
              of tyranny and genocide. I just don't think Iraq was an
              appropriate target, and I think the administration made an
              utter cock-up out of something that could have been done much
              more smoothly. I think we need to withdraw our troops, not
              because I think it will make everything better, but because I
              think that's the only way we can salvage any real regard for
              our military might.
              \_ Indeed.  You don't blame the hammer when you smash your thumb.
              \_ I don't see that it proposes that binary viewpoint. It
                 proposes that the guys pulling triggers are in some way
                 morally responsible. I suppose the author is neglecting
                 those who don't see it as immoral, but simply unwise.
        \_ "So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American
           imperialism ..."
           ^American imperialism^whoever is President at the time
2006/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41491 Activity:nil
1/23    Really, people...
        Is it incompetence or embezzlement?
        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/international/middleeast/24reconstruct.html
2006/1/21-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41464 Activity:nil
1/21    Naive lad or wanna-be terrorist?
        http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=38
        \_ Can't he be both?
           \_ So you mean he didn't know it was a 'bad thing' when he went
              off to Iraq to kill Americans and made up some BS story about
              his "immersion journalism class" which no reporters bothered
              to check up on?  The worst part of this isn't that some kid
              went off to kill Americans in Iraq from Florida.  It is that
              we knew in 1996 his dad was a criminal and didn't do anything
              about it and then in 2006 our news media failed us by feeding
              us unfiltered lies without doing the most trivial checking on
              the story and no follow-up either and these people still live
              here enjoying the freedoms and wealth this country provides
              while looking for other ways to betray our country.
              \_ Your assertions, while fascinating, are actually speculative
                 and not wholly supported by anything printed in the article.
                 As for the part about his dad being a criminal (in _1985_),
                 his crimes were actually against then-dictator Saddam
                 Hussein; you know, the guy we toppled? If anything, it sounds
                 like we should have been calling Dr. Hassan instead of
                 Chalabi when we planned this boondoggle.
2006/1/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41401 Activity:kinda low
1/17    Iraq, the petrodollar, and the upcoming Iranian oil bourse ... This
        article ties it all together neatly:
        http://energybulletin.net/12125.html
        \_ Not to diminish the article's theses, but when I watch anime
           with an apocalyptic backstory, they always seem to invoke this
           style of storytelling.  Art - life - art?
                \_ We're running out of reasons for the Iraq invasion.  Since
                   "bringing democracy" to the Middle East means Hamas and
                   other pro-terror hardline Islamic being to run the show,
                   which is way worse (for the USA) than the repressive
                   regimes we currently support -- and every other reason
                   was just a lie or BS -- supporting the petrodollar seems
                   like a reasonable theory.
                   \_ Coherent yes, reasonable maybe, likely no, a contributing
                      factor, yes.
                      IMO the most likely explanation is, Part One, that 9/11
                      changed everything:  We now knew terrorists would blow up
                      a nuke in a U.S. city if they had one.
                      \_ See, 9/11 didn't _change_ that.  It might have changed
                         it for Bushco (i.e. woke them up), but we've known that
                         for decades.
                         \_ It is either disingenuous or ignorant to claim
                            that 9/11 caused the Bush administration to care
                            about invading Iraq.  See:
                    http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
                            (letter to the Clinton administration, dated
                            1/26/1998, signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz,
                            Perle, on why we should invade Iraq).
                            After the election, the administration was clearly
                            building up for an invasion of Iraq; 9/11 actually
                            delayed their plans.
                            Their statement of principles:
                            "As the 20th century draws to a close, the
                            United States stands as the world's
                            preeminent power. Having led the West to
                            victory in the Cold War, America faces an
                            opportunity and a challenge: Does the
                            United States have the vision to build
                            upon the achievements of past decades?
                            Does the United States have the resolve to
                            shape a new century favorable to American
                            principles and interests?"
                            Invading Iraq is about showing the world that we
                            can do pretty much whatever we want, pretty much
                            whenever we want to.
                             -tom
                            \_ I agree completely.  Above, I was addressing the
                               distinct point of "terrorists would blow up..."
                         \_ Of course you knew, but how about for most
                            Americans?  How about, let's say:  a possibility
                            became a real concern after 9/11.
                            \_ I posit that it shouldn't need to be a "real
                               concern" for "most Americans".  It's something
                               that we pay the government to do for us.  That
                               whole "provide for the common defense" thing.
                               It's only a "real concern" because Bush
                               propogandized it after he FAILED his first
                               time around.
                               \_ ob blame Clinton for 9/11, but then we
                                  start getting off topic ...
                                  \_ ob read the 9/11 commission report, and
                                     look up project bojinka
                      Part Two, Dubya, boy genius, did not question the reports
                      that Saddam had WMDs.  That, combined with Saddam's
                      previous "misbehavior" -- deploying chemical weapons in
                      the Iran-Iraq war, invading Kuwait, trying to kill
                      Dubya's dad and other potential unsettled scores with the
                      U.S., killing/torturing Kurds like nobody's business, and
                      having two sons who would continue the tradition -- all
                      combined, led Dubya to make the call to invade Iraq.
                      That's the most likely theory, IMO.
                      (Then again, Dubya, master diplomat, didn't exactly get
                      the entire world on the same page, since he based his war
                      on "no doubt" Saddam had WMDs, and never showed damning
                      evidence to this effect.  You know he has them, you know
                      he does -- so why doesn't the evidence you provided show
                      this?) -moderate/liberal
2006/1/10-12 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41315 Activity:moderate
1/9     Total Iraq war costs estimated to be $2 Trillion
        I hope you warmongers feel like you got your money worth:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060110/ts_nm/iraq_cost_dc
        \_ I'd delete this post not because I don't agree with you,
           but because you're going to cause jblack to retaliate by
           polluting motd with massive freep drivels
        \_ That comes out to ~$77k per Iraqi.  Not too bad in my "The Price
           of Freedom According to Warmongers" guide book.  What price do
           *you* put on the freedom of a single person?
           \_ how many civilians killed by US bombing again?
           \_ You can pay it then. Don't make me do it...
           \_ Umm, you call civil war freedom?
              \_ Let us know when there's a civil war and we'll talk.  I
                 certainly call the present situation a vast improvement over
                 the Saddam years by any measure, unless you were a Baathist
                 thug during that time period.
                 \_ What does it matter what you think?  You don't live there.
                    I find it amazing that Americans feel they can say whether Iraqis
                    are better off or not.
                 \_ If you didn't notice 190 people were blown up last
                    weekend.  It is a civil war.  Civil wars aren't always
                    two armies shooting tanks at each other.
                    \_ Wow, a tank shooting cannon?  Are the tanks crewed when
                       they get fired?  Kind of gives a whole new meaning to
                       the notion of "terminally guided munitions".
                       \_ Think really large trebuchet.
                    \_ Insurgency, not civil war.  Very distinct concepts here.
                       \_ it's like northern ireland except with a lot more
                          bombs plus beheadings and suicide bombings
                          \_ Right.  An insurgency.
                          \_ Right.  An insurgency.  Use a dictionary, kid.
                    \_ That's not a civil war.  Nothing like it.  Back to
                       KOS for you.
                    \_ Definition of "civil war": http://csua.org/u/ekk
                       Definition of "war": http://csua.org/u/ekl
                       So, how exactly is this not a civil war?
                       \_ "civil war" cf.'s "war"
                          "war - 1 a (1) a state of usually open and declared
                          armed hostile conflict between states or nations"
                          (yes, I know defn 2 is much more general, but you
                          often use that sense in, "my sister and I are having
                          a war!")
                          So, are the Sunnis+terrorists:  open (half/half),
                          declared conflict (yes on the terrorists, half/half
                          on the Sunnis), and between states/nations
                          (not really in a strict sense).
                          On the other side, I think http://m-w.com defn 1a(1) of
                          "war" is faulty -- the American Heritage dictionary
                          also includes "between ... parties", and I think
                          that's correct.
                          Also, it is 100% correct to say that the
                          insurgency has strong elements of a civil war --
                          it is an armed conflict between mostly Sunnis
                          and mostly Shiites/Kurds, and they're all Iraqi
                          citizens. -someone else
              \_ huh?  it's not a civil war.  stupid.  it's a war of
                 liberation to kick out American Big Oil imperialists.
                 I mean WTF are these people who live thousands of miles
                 away doing in my country, setting up torture camps,
                 shooting civilians, destroying cities, etc.?  They
                 have proven to be totally incompetent in running the
                 country.  In any case, nobody asked them to come.
                 yea, Saddam is a bad dude, but this is much worse.
                 These foreign invaders have no clue how to run the
                 country.
           \_ Let's see, unemployment still running at 35%+, Iraqi murder
              rate 4X what it was under Saddam Hussein, still no electricity
              for over half the day in most of the country, oil production
              actually *down* from what it was before the war, women forced back
              into wearing scarves and the veil... how is this all an
              improvement?
              \_ Under Saddam, the south got water and electricity or not
                 when Saddam felt like it using basic resources as a stick
                 to keep the Shia in line.  Under Saddam, ~5000 people/month
                 were killed by the government.  Under Saddam, the oil money
                 \_ that is due to UN saction, not Saddam's fault per se.
                 went straight into Saddam's pockets.  Under Saddam, women (of
                 the wrong tribe or political affiliation) were sent to rape
                 camps.  Yeah, those were the days!  Really, this whole Saddam
                 \_ Women enjoys much more rights and freedom under Saddam's
                    Iraq than most of the Arab nations... and it is getting
                    worse as Shiit dominate the politics
                    \_ Not to mention that we have brought back the torture
                       chambers and rape rooms. Or perhaps it is more accurate
                       to say they never went away, just the names of the
                       people running them changed.
                 trial thing is such a huge mistake.  We should not only let
                 him go, but reinstate him because he ran the country so much
                 better.  Truly you have found the answer to the ongoing
                 problems across the entire Middle East: install a strong man
                 bastard, call him "our bastard" and ignore everything as
                 long as the oil keeps flowing.  I love you cold war warrior
                 types who are willing to sacrifice any number of people in
                 the name of "stability".  Go form a political group and call
                 yourselves "Stability By Any Means Necessary".  It fits.
                 \_ I will blame the gwbush administration for incredibly weak planning
                    and thinking that they would be able to control a tribal society
                    that has been fighting for hundreds of years, with a few
                    Marines and KBR contractors.
                 \_ "you cold warrior types"?  It's the same damn guys, at
                    least at the leadership level.  I never thought the
                    "our bastard" doctrine was acceptable, which is part
                    of why I don't trust a guy like Rumsfeld to have supposedly
                    suddenly had a change of heart.  I actually supported the
                    idea of invading Iraq, but I don't trust anyone in this
                    administration to do it, now that Powell's gone, and
                    my mistrust is being shown to be well-placed by events
                    on the ground.
                 \_ wow!  you've been brainwashed pretty well by the
                    Bush propaganda machine.
                    \_ thank you for adding absolutely nothing and disputing
                       nothing posted above.  personal attack is not a good
                       way to make a point, not even on the motd, despite a
                       few people's opinion to the contrary.
                       \_ *yawn* Right, and a long unsubstantiated, vitriolic
                          rant contributes soooo much more.  Puh-leaze.
              \_ Sounds like France.
                 \_ Well, no.  In France, it is illegal to wear the hijab.
           \_ We're running a sale on Iraqis this week.  So that would be
              $3.95 + tax.
              \_ Whoa! Really?  You mean we could've done the whole thing for
                 only $100MM if we'd waited a few years?  I feel really
                 stupid now.  --former blood thirsty oil drenched warmonger
                 \_ Man, you should have been a Necromonger -- then you'd get
                    to keep what you kill.
2006/1/5-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41251 Activity:nil
1/5     Wow, this is the first time in a long time (years?) I've seen the U.S.
        admit to a bombing error.  Previously it was always, "known safe house"
        "insurgents making false statements about civilian deaths" etc.
        http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/05/iraq.target/index.html
        \_ So what?  USA never get punished for it.  US military can do
           everything they want, and call it "mistake." and continue to
           do what they are doing.
        \_ Ever consider the possibility that this is the first bombing error
           in years?  I'm sure not.
2005/12/29-2006/1/4 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41164 Activity:nil
12/28   Former Iraq Hostage Makes Bizzare TV Appearance
        If nothing else, the picture is worth checking out
        http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392690,00.html
2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41123 Activity:nil
12/22   Remember Murtha's "80% of Iraqis want US to leave"?  Here's where it
        came from (and other useful info): http://factcheck.org/article366.html
        \_ why those cheeky http://moveon.org people.
        \_ http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228
           Look at the bottom-most table.
           Confidence in Public Institutions: Percent Confident
           Police               68%
           Iraqi Army           67%
           Religious Leaders    67%
           [...]
           U.N.                 31%
           U.S./U.K. Forces     18%
           To address the specific question of "when to leave":
           Leave now            26%
           Post-election        19%
           Security restored    31%
           Security restored and only Iraqi forces      16%
           Longer               5%
           Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq:
           Support              32%
           Oppose               65%
           To be accurate, I would say most Iraqis don't like us there,
           but a little more than half want us to make sure things are stable
           before we go ...
2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41115 Activity:kinda low
12/22   Can't get any Americans to volunteer for your illegal war? No
        problem, just hire mercenaries, 100,000 and counting...
        http://csua.org/u/eev
        \_ everyone has a price.
           \- you know i dont really feel that sorry for the
              highly paid mercenaries who take jobs in the
              security sector. i'd spend your sympathy points
              on people like the poor [financially] nepalis
              duped into jobs in iraq and then killed or
              people serving in the military/reserves in
              iraq who are under ORDERS to do things like
              this for shit pay and no option to walk away.
              you can (not love) cigarette and gun mfgrs and
              still believe they should not be sued for
              lung cancer/gun deaths. you seem to be an
              incoherent liberal. i say that dispassionately.
              \_ All the poster mentioned was about hiring
                 mercenaries.  Where the hell did you come
                 up with that other stuff?
              \_ Interesting, mr. or mrs. dispassionate. I don't find any
                 implication about sympathy for the mercenaries in either the
                 above post or the article. So far, between the two, I'd
                 choose yourself if I had to pick who is "incoherent". Which is
                 a shame, since all your other points are good - if applied to
                 a different discussion perhaps.
                 \-hello you may wish to see:
        http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/01/content_370757.htm
                        and
        http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1018/p01s04-usmi.html
                    the incoherent liberal comment comes from using expressions
                    like "illegal war" and the general tone of the comment.
                    it's the article which raises the issue of whether
                    the killed mercenaries were "wronged" and the OP appears
                    to be in sympathy with that position. cigarette companies
                    have fave funded bogus science and engaged in sleazy
                    advertizing but i have little sympathy for people suing
                    them.
        \_ FTA: "Addicott, a retired Special Forces officer, estimates that the
           number of civilian contractors in Iraq surpassed 100,000 this year.
           'That takes into account not only people specifically hired to
           provide armed security, but also those in transportation,
           construction, food services, housing, laundry etc. Americans and
           non-Americans.'"
           Your claim of 100,000 "mercenaries" is exaggerated.  Or do you call
           people doing laundry "mercenaries"?
           \_ Not the original poster, but "war" is not supposed to be a
              business opportunity.  It is the weight of the state brought
              to bear to protect itself or its interests.  Privatizing war
              takes actions outside the sphere of influence of the state,
              meaning the state responsible for war and all its fallout
              cannot control the actors.  This is dangerous for stability,
              not to mention morality.  This is EXACTLY what Eisenhower
              warned us about.  "100k mercenaries" is an exaggeration in
              terms, not in numbers.  Private interests fighting our wars
              for profit is reprehensible.
              \_ You're an idiot.  Everything is a business opportunity.  And
                 yes, it is an exaggeration of numbers if you're calling landry
                 workers part of 100,000 "mercenaries".
                 \_ You're an amoral fool who's blind to history and social
                    responsibility.  Nice to know you.
                    \_ So I'm the one blind to history even though every war in
                       the past shows people moving in to make money AND help
                       people?  You're quite a piece of work.
                       \_ I didn't say it doesn't and hasn't happened.  I'm
                          saying it's wrong.  Read up on Truman.
                          \_ Okay, so I'm *not* blind to history?  Good.  Now,
                             you need to understand that economic opportunity
                             != bad.
                             \_ When it's based upon war, I posit that it is.
                                I posit that death is not a commodity that we
                                as a people should be proud to traffick in.
                                \_ So arms manufacturers shouldn't make any
                                   money?  Laundary soap shouldn't be sold at a
                                   profit?  Hell, first aid kits should be
                                   free?  What planet do you live on again?
                                   \_ How the fuck do you imbeciles make the
                                      leap from what I said to "should be free"
                                      You're not worth bothering with.
                                      \_ You missed the questions about selling
                                         things for profit.  Answer those if
                                         you object to "for free".
                                      \_ good luck with your crusade!
                    \_ People don't do things for free.  Many American soldiers
                       especially those from low income or low education or
                       low opportunity - are in the army to improve their
                       lot in life.  They're as mercenary as the contractors.
                       They're just willing to work for less.
                       \_ Do you really want to let this comment stay posted?
                          Do you know how stupid you sound?
                       \_ No wonder American GIs commit crimes like raping
                          schoolgirls in Japan.  They are just low people at
                          their jobs.
                                \- you may wish to read the chalmers johnson
                                   book sorrow of empire and blowback he is
                                   a fmr ucb prof who went a little nuts.
                                   see wall archive etc ok tnx --psb
                          \_ I guess you saw Jarhead
2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41083 Activity:kinda low
12/19 "The round-table with the vice president came after hundreds of troops
      had gathered in an aircraft hangar to hear from a mystery guest. When
      Cheney emerged at the podium, he drew laughs when he deadpanned, 'I'm
      not Jessica Simpson.' Shouts of 'hooah!' from the audience interrupted
      Cheney a few times, but mostly the service members listened intently.
      When he delivered the applause line, 'We're in this fight to win. These
      colors don't run,' the only sound was a lone whistle."
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543165/posts
        \_ Uh, hello jblack?
        \_ Is there a reason why you are posting this as a link through
         freerepublic when in fact the actual story itself is from
         SFGate? Seems like a rather convoluted way to post a story.
         BTW, the part you excerpted is not part of the freeper excerpt,
         but is part of the main article.
           freerepublic when in fact the actual story itself is from SFGate?
           Seems like a rather convoluted way to post a story. BTW, the part
           you excerpted is not part of the freeper excerpt, but is part of
           the main article.
           \_ You get two links for the price of one!
              And you desensitize the freeper-link-deleter.
              As for your BTW statement, you get info that people may not
              notice unless they click through twice.
              \_ Plus, you get your daily dose of Freeper rants!
2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41078 Activity:moderate
12/19   Bush approval rating at 47%
        http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1421748
        \_ Bush approval rating unchanged at 41%
           http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html
           \_ I guess the +/- of these polls sucks.
        \_ Bush approval rating unchanged at 41%
           http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html
           \_ I guess the +/- of these polls sucks.
        \_ So when is the impeachment?  Where is Motd Poll Guy?  We haven't
           had an official update in weeks.
           \_ He's been a lot more contrite lately and in fact the Iraq
              election was pretty calm. The number of suicide bombing
              have gone done drastically in the past few months and
              things are in fact improving. I don't like Bush but I'm
              glad to see things starting to improve. Who knows, maybe
              we'll have a lot of troop reduction by next year. One can
              only hope so.
              \_ "The number of suicide bombing have gone down drastically"?
                 I thought it was:  More attacks, less areas.
                 \_ Only limited data points, but 23 suicide bombings in
                    11/05, 50+ in 10/05, ~35 in 8/05, 70 in 5/05.  So it is
                    true that the number dropped drastically in 11/05, and
                    that drop may be part of a trend.  But the article doesn't
                    provide enough information to be certain.  The number of
                    car bombings are also lower (from 130 in 2/05 to 68 in
                    car bombings is also lower (from 130 in 2/05 to 68 in
                    11/05), but again the article doesn't provide enough
                    information to know if that's a trend or an aberration.
                    In general, I again find it discouraging how *little*
                    useful information is provided by news sources.
                    http://csua.org/u/edg
                    \_ Isn't there supposed to be a quarterly report to
                       Congress measuring progress?
                       Oh goodie, I answered my own question, it's the first
                       google hit for "congressional report iraq progress".
                       I see, the report is only up to October.
2005/12/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41024 Activity:moderate
12/14   I'm a Republican but switched to I after the Iraq War. However,
        Bush has since then grown up and admitted mistakes and took all
        responsibilities, and in doing so he gained my faith in the
        party again.  It's good to be back.             -Republican 2008
        \_ After watching a recent interview with Bush, I have to admit that
           he seems like less of a complete retard.  He is actually admitting
           that he has made mistakes.  Of course, this still doesn't alliviate
           the fact that he IS still a retard.
        \_ So the unprecedented expansion of the size and power of the
           government doesn't bother you?  Endless deficits and total
           fiscal irresponsibility doesn't bother you?  The lack of any
           realistic longterm plan to deal with America's energy problems
           doesn't bother you?  And I suppose you're probably proud to have
           a president who is either so fucking stupid he actually believes
           there is a real scientific controversy over "intelligent design"
           or so craven that he's willing to lie about it to score points
           with the theocratic wing of your party.  Yep.  You sound like a
           typical republican to me.  I'm sure your fellow bible thumping
           pigfuckers are glad to have you back.
           \_ They have a great plan:
                1 - Get control of the white house
                2 - Manipulate the "free" market
                3 - PROFIT!!
        \_ Is this a troll?
           \_ Eh... could be. Why not be safe and throw rhetoric back?
        \_ Dubya is channelling hillary, who "took responsibility" for her vote
           for the war a few weeks earlier.
           But don't worry, there's still three more years of the country
           being run by a frat house president.
           \_ Reagan showed the way to "accept" responsibility without having
              to worry about consequences.  It also worked for Rumsfeld.
           \_ So you voted for his distant cousin in the last election who,
              oh nevermind, don't let facts bother you.
              \_ why so angry at a fellow sodan?
                 \_ Disappointed.  Not angry.
        \_ "When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence
            agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of
            mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence
            agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove
            Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out
            to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go
            into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong
            by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just
            that." -GWB, 12/14/05
           In other words, like Tookie, he did no wrong, and anyway it wasn't
           his fault if he did.
        \_ I bet you are much less tolerant to those who lied about his sex
           life.  15,000 US casuaties,  30,000+ Iraqi casualties, versus
           a blow job... hmm...
           \_ Don't forget the cigar stuff. That has to be worth maybe a
              squad of Marines and a small Iraqi village.
        \_ Interesting.  I was an R, I supported (and still support) the Iraq
           War, but switched to I because of Bush + congress' ineptitude at the
           border and at spending.  I have no interest in returning to the R
           party anytime soon. -emarkp
2005/12/13-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41007 Activity:nil
12/13   Military spying on anti-war protesters.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051214/ts_nm/security_pentagon_spying_dc
2005/12/12-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40980 Activity:nil
12/12   U.S. Soldiers bring wheels to Iraqi man without legs
        http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=8328
        \_ Yes jblack, the US Army is great, GWB is great, and whining
           liberals should shut their mouths. I gotcha.
        \_ "We killed 30,000 Iraqis but by giving wheels to one Iraqi man
            without legs, we sure feel heck a lot better!"    !gwb
        \_ Hmmm... I wonder about how practical that is.  Is it better for
           him than a wheelchair?
           \_ Obviously no, but a real customized American wheelchair costs
              well over $5000, and the US government can't afford to pay
              such an exorbitant price especially when it needs to
              finance the War on Terror.
                \_ ^War on Terror^tax cuts
                   \_ I'm glad you think we're paying for the tax cuts
                      for the rich. I bet you even thought Clinton was
                      right to intervene in Serbia.
              \_ So, don't get a "real customized American wheelchair."
                 There are much cheaper/easier designs.  Since the army
                 guy build it from scratch, he may have investigated other
                 designs.
                 \_ And now this guy has no incentive to better his life!
                    -libertarian
2005/12/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40946 Activity:nil
12/9    Larry Elder column that basically amounts to a fisking, but it's
        kinda funny:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2005/12/08/178212.html
2005/12/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40945 Activity:nil
12/9    Krauthammer manages to make a lot of sense on the Saddam trial
        http://csua.org/u/e8t (Washington Post)
        \_ Yeah, I've been wondering about this myself.
2005/12/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40944 Activity:nil
12/9    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12005029_1
        Norman Podhoretz on Iraq.  Posted mostly because I like the part where
        he bashes the "stability at any cost" types about half way down.
2005/12/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40935 Activity:nil
12/9    Someone posted this below.  I read it for school but had forgotten it
        until now.  I think it's worth a repost on its own:
        http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm
        \- "if you liked the melian dialog" ...
           you may also wish to read 1. the agricola [short]
           2. the germania [short] 3. all of thucydides history of the pel
           war [long] especially say the declaration against megara.
           if you are really interested in the pel war, you can read
           the D. Kagan series, but that is pretty tough going.
           it begins with http://csua.org/u/e8j btw, D KAGAN is sort
           of a crazy right wing loose canon. BTW, i'm not a normative
           believer in might makes right. i list  the mel dialog for aesthetic
           reasons. for a framework about how to think about power and
           the international system, see "theory of international politics"
           by k.n. waltz. however "man the state and war" is really a
           prerequisite to TIP ... both are very very good, but TIP is a little
           hard to follow ... it is denser than you might think.
           btw, the melian dialog has come up many times over the years
           here. see /csua/lib/wall archive. --danh
           \- "It was the business of a diplomat to cloak the interests of
              this country in the language of universal justice."
              --Minister Walewski to OBISMARCK
2005/12/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40921 Activity:very high
12/7    Yesterday on the radio I heard a lady say (paraphrased)
        "Palestinians have the right to participate in the armed
        resistance."  What does this mean?  The only meanings  I can think
        of are either meaningless or ludicrous.
        \_ That's why I like to call NPR "National Palestinian Radio".
           Sympathy with terrorists, pretentious boring shows and shitty music,
            now that's a winning combination.
        \_ Without the context of the discussion, it means even less to us.
           Was she talking about Israel?  Iraq?  The US?  Mars?
           \_ I only caught a snipit, but she was talking about how evil
              Israel is.  The real quote went more like, "The wall
              continues, and the Isreali soldiers beat or arrest any
              protesters in the way.  And those are the ones engaged in
              non-violent resistence.  You know what happens to those in
              the armed resitence.  The Palestinians have a right to do
              participate in armed resistence, you know."
              \_ Consider two questions: Did the colonies have the right
                 to declare independence and take up arms against the
                 British?  And, did the Confederacy have the right to secede
                 and take up arms against the Union?  I think most
                 Americans would say yes to the first and no to the second,
                 but that's because history is written by the winners.  -tom
                 \_ Because the concept of "rights" is illusionary.  As you
                 \_ Because the concept of "rights" is very ephemeral.  As you
                    say, history is written by the winners which is just
                    another way of saying Might Makes Right.
                    \_ The concept of rights is the basis of civilization. -tom
                       \_ Not sure I agree. Individual rights (or lack
                          thereof) have little to do with the rise of
                          civilizations and there are probably savages who
                          afford many rights to their tribe members.
                          \_ But how much is that predicated upon relative
                             isolation and plenty?
                          \_ I'm with tom on this one.  Without some form of
                             encoded rights (Hammurabi comes to mind), you
                             don't have much of a civilization.  I differ
                             from tom in that I see them as something that
                             can be granted or taken away by the stronger,
                             whereas I believe he sees them as a natural
                             right and a part of being human.  If I have
                             stated his position incorrectly, I hope he'll
                             step in and clarify.
                             \_ More important to civilization:
                                agriculture
                                  \_ hunter/gatherers dont have civil.?
                                government (does not equate to rights)
                                  \_ tribal chief?
                                religion
                                  \_ atheist societies cant have a civil.?
                                education
                                  \_ plenty of non-western societies without
                                     school systems.
                                currency
                                  \_ or cash.
                                arts and writing
                                  \_ or writing, but yes they all have art
                                Hammurabi was the king of an already powerful
                                civilization.
                                \_ There are implicit rights inherent in
                                   most of what you list.  Currency and
                                   agriculture both require property rights.
                                   Education, religion, and the arts
                                   require the right of expression.
                                   The existence of a government requires
                                   a right of government.  -tom
                                   \_ Yes, but these "rights" can be limited
                                      to a small subset of individuals,
                                      perhaps the ones with weapons. I
                                      wouldn't really call those rights.
                                      If someone with a gun tells me to
                                      dig a hole then what rights are
                                      encoded there? His right to threaten
                                      me?
                                      \_ Your right to dig a hole.  ;-)
                       \_ Yes.  However, they only exist if everyone agrees
                          they do and enforces them.  A stronger entity who
                          chose to violate a weaker entity's "rights" would
                          find little to no impediment leaving the weaker
                          with limited recourse.  "Rights" are a noble concept
                          and a good theory but they don't exist without both
                          the strength and will/desire to enforce them.
                          \_ Your commentary is fairly circular, here.
                             Anyone can have the strength and will/desire
                             to take up arms against a nation; that doesn't
                             mean they all have the right.  I would argue
                             that Osama bin Laden had very little right to
                             organize the 9/11 attacks against US civilians,
                             despite the fact that he had the strength and
                             will to do so.  On the other hand, Eritrea
                             had a strong right to defend itself against
                             Ethiopia (and Kuwait against Iraq).  The
                             question is where Palestinians fall on that
                             spectrum.  -tom
                             \_ Circular?  Not at all.  Might -> Right.  Very
                                direct.  It just so happens that reasonably
                                good people run most of the planet right now
                                so we have "rights".  If the Nazis had won WWII
                                or the Soviets had won the Cold War, there
                                wouldn't be a whole lot of talk about human
                                rights violations around the world.  As was
                                already said a zillion times, the winners write
                                the history.  They also declare what rights,
                                if any, everyone has afterwards until the next
                                time.
                                \_ "might->right" is a thought-ending cliche.
                                   Does a murderer have a right to shoot
                                   someone else, just because he has a gun?
                                     -tom
                                   \_ No, of course not.  Society has more
                                      might than the murderer and says they
                                      don't.  There have been societies where
                                      the answer would be "yes" if, for
                                      example, the killer was a noble and the
                                      victim a peasant.  Fortunately, we don't
                                      live in a society like that.  Although
                                      you're mixing personal interaction with
                                      international affairs, the same M->R
                                      concept still applies quite readily.
                                      \_ No, it doesn't apply in either case.
                                         Taiwan may not have the *ability*
                                         to resist a Chinese takeover, but
                                         they certainly have the right to.
                                           -tom
                                         \_ The Chinese would say otherwise.
                                            And that's the point: rights are
                                            not absolutes.  They do not exist
                                            as laws of nature, physics, etc.
                                            They are an issue of ethics or
                                            possibly morals which is the realm
                                            of Man where the only rights you
                                            have are those you can keep by
                                            force or those a stronger entity
                                            chooses to allow you to have.  In
                                            either case they are not "rights"
                                            as you seem to be defining them in
                                            the Natural or Physics sense.
                                            \_ There's this thing called
                                               'Philosophy' which allows people
                                               to deal with abstracts that
                                               aren't necessarily quantifiable.
                                               \_ Yes, we've been discussing
                                                  it in those terms for about
                                                  2 hours now.  Join us if
                                                  you'd like.
                                                  \_ No, I've been discussing
                                                     philosophy, and you've
                                                     been spouting cliches.
                                                       -tom
                                                     \_ Too bad you chose to
                                                        end it like that.  Oh
                                                        well.  And here I was
                                                        beginning to think
                                                        you could actually
                                                        engage in an honest
                                                        intellectual discussion
                                                        without resorting to
                                                        that.  My mistake.
                                                        I'm done here.
                          \_ "[R]ight, as the world goes, is only in question
                             between equals in power, while the strong do what
                             they can and the weak suffer what they must."
                          \_ "But God chose the foolish things of the world to
                             shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the
                             world to shame the strong."
        \_ They have a right to be homocide bombers!
           \_ Oh, I didn't know those Palestinians are fighting against gay
              rights.
              \_ They're more like flaming.
        \_ It means someone has an opinion that you don't understand. Congrats.
           Your next step will be reading books without pictures in them.
           \_ Wow, what an amazingly moronic troll.
        \_ The main difference is that their side has used suicide bombers on
           civilians, and people are kind of pissed about that.
           \_ suicide bombing is a highly evolved method of resistance
              twisted, but ingenious
              \_ On civilians?
                 \_ Yes.  It's cheap, and among a demographic that's fucked
                    up enough to go for it, every bombing makes you even more
                    admired.  Now if, as in the case of Iraq, you're actually
                    hurting (directly or indirectly) the people you depend
                    on to some degree for support, well, then that's not very
                    ingenious.  -John
                    \_ Unless say you want to start a civil war and you're
                       only blowing up Shiites.
                    \_ Unless say you're a Sunni and your buddies are only
                       blowing up Shiites, and you want a civil war.
                       \- always an enjoyable read:
                          http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm
                       \_ Which they're not.  -John
2005/12/7-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40915 Activity:moderate
12/7    The Third Geneva Convention clearly states that it applies
        in all cases (see Article 2) even if the other side does
        not follow it. And that the signatories are prohibited
        from engaging in "outrages upon personal dignity, in
        particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" (Article 3)
        upon any POW (Article 4) including anyone from the former armed
        forces who has laid down their arms. If there is *any*doubt*
        about the persons status, they are assumed to be POWs until
        a "Competent Military Tribunal" has determined their
        status (Article 5). This was clearly not followed by the
        Bush Administration.
        \_ You sure about Article 2?  My read is that if there are three
           warring Powers and two Powers are signatories and one is not,
           the one Power is the exception.
           \_ No, not sure. But Iraq said it would follow the Geneva
              Convention.
              \_ Yeah, even Dubya said Geneva applies in Iraq ... however,
                 the Dubya legal team have often pointed to Article 4, Section
                 A.2 to indicate that some detainees aren't covered.  As to
                 whether they check people against this rule formally, well ...
                 yeah, if they didn't do that, we would be violating Article 5,
                 wouldn't we?
        \_ Furthermore, the Fourth Geneva Convention is intended to
           apply to all not covered by the Third.
           \_ No cigar.  Article 5, "[w]here in the territory of a Party to
              the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual
              protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in
              activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual
              person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges
              under the present Convention..."  In other words, armed
              insurgents, and in a later paragraph spies and saboteurs, are
              not covered by Fourth Convention.  Fortunately, "such persons
              shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of
              trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular
              trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be
              granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person
              under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent
              with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case
              may be."  You can certainly argue the lack of humanity.  When
              there is a trial, they will have to be treated according to
              terms laid out in the treaty.  Unfortunately, we probably get
              to decide when the trail takes place or whether better treatment
              is consistent with our security.
        \_ Yes, everyone agrees that the Geneva Convention (via Article 2)
           applies in Iraq.  Unfortunately, all that article says is that the
           Geneva Convention applies.  Article 4 defines to whom the treaty
           applies.  Unfortunately, according to Article 4, it's unlikely
           the Iraqi insurgents are covered.  Fortunately, Article 4 also
           clearly lays out what the insurgents ("organized resistance
           movements" in the language of the treaty) have to do to be covered
           (having a commander, fixed visible sign, open carry, following
           laws and customs of war).  Now why the insurgents would not
           follow these simple rules is beyond me.
           \_ Don't forget Article 5, which says if there's "any doubt" that
              someone can be covered by Geneva, they get protection until
              a "competent tribunal" judges otherwise.
              \_ And the administration would say that it approaches mathe-
                 matical certainty that the Iraqi insurgents do not meet the
                 requirements in Article 4 for an "organized resistance
                 movement" (i.e. command structure, fixed visible sign, open
                 carry, following laws and customs of war).  Therefore they
                 are not bound by the "any doubt" provision in Article 5.
                 OTOH, I am sure the adminstration and members of the US
                 armed forces would be *thrilled* if the insurgents decided
                 to act in ways consistent with the requirements of Article 4.
                 The insurgents may choose to come under the protection of the
                 Geneva Convention any time by altering their tactics and
                 behavior.
                 \_ 4.6 is probably a better bet for the insurgents than
                    4.2 b/c 4.6 only requires them to adhere to the customs
                    of war.
                    Re competent tribunal - this can be almost anything
                    including a summary procedure by a jag officer. I
                    think it will be exceedingly difficult to find a
                    single instance where someone hasn't looked over the
                    case and made an Art 4 determination.
        \_ OBTW, your claim that Article 4 covers "anyone form the former
           armed forces who has laid down their arms" is clearly misleading.
           If you read Article 4, those people are only covered by the
           treaty "if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason
           of such allegiance [of belonging or having belonged to the armed
           forces of the occupied country] to intern them".  IOW, if a former
           member of the armed forces were arrested for being a former member
           of the armed forces, then they are protected by the Convention.
           If the former member of the armed forces were arrested for (say)
           shoplifting, then that person is *not* protected.
2005/12/7-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40905 Activity:nil
12/7    Need a job? Are you tech saavy and have a passion for politics?
        The WHIG is hiring people to market ideas that retroactively
        justify the Iraq War, and ultimately sell the Iraq War to the
        public.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051207/od_nm/bush_spin_dc
        \_ The war doesn't need retroactive justification, and can be
           fully vetted today.
           \_ Someone needs to reread their Orwell.
              \_ Are you kidding? He's hired!
2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40883 Activity:high
12/6    Condi is the next Dick Cheney
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534543/posts
        "Torture is a term that is defined by law. We rely on our law to
         govern our operations. The United States does not permit, tolerate
         or condone torture under any circumstances."
        "The United States has not transported anyone and will not transport
         anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where
         appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred
         persons will not be tortured."
        \_ Translation: Torture is what we say it is; if we do it, then it
           isn't torture. What happens in Saudi Arabia, stays in Saudi Arabia.
           \_ What is torture depends oon what your definition of is is.
           \_ It all depends on what your definition of is is.
        \_ Actually this is interesting b/c it implies that the protections
           of convention 3 will be applied regardless of the person's art 4
           status. If this is the administrations official policy, it seems
           like a big change.
           \_ This how every other Geneva Convention signatory interprets it.
              Only the GWB Whitehouse claims this "enemy combatant" exemption.
              \_ Go read convention 3 and you will see that Art 4 status is
                 (1) not applicable to non-state actors and (2) only provided
                 until a competent tribunal makes a determination re Art 4
                 status if such status is in dispute. That other signatories
                 interpret it in a particular way is irrelevant b/c the admin.
                 is not obligated to follow an interpretation which is not
                 supported by the text. If the admininstration has chosen to
                 extend Art 4 protections I applaud it.
                 \_ I'm sorry, but many of these "terrorist" are state actors.
                    \_ Which state?  My understanding is that if found out of
                       uniform (no, bomb belts are not a uniform), they are
                       EC until said tribunal determines otherwise.  That is
                       the point of the tribunal, no?
                    \_ Go read Convention 3 and then tell me which part of
                       Art 4.1 applies to the terrorists. Here is a link to
                       the text:
            http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention#Article_4
                       \_ "armed forces"?  You mean like Army, Navy, Air
                          Force, and Marines?  (Yes, terms and words do have
                          specific meaning.)  Insurgents are not considered
                          specified meaning.)  Insurgents are not considered
                          part of the "armed forces of a Party", nor are they
                          volunteers or militias "forming part of such armed
                          forces".  Usually 4.2 is considered to apply to
                          Iraqi insurgents, especially since the Article 4.2
                          specifically mention "militias and members of other
                          volunteer corps, *including those of organized
                          resistance movements*" [emphasis added].  Problem
                          there is that Iraqi insurgents may not meet defitions
                          2 and 4 of an "organized resistance movement".
                          \_ I did not mean to imply that the insurgents
                             could be considered armed forces of a party
                             or milita (esp. since I do not think that
                             any state is directly opposed to the US).
                             I agree that only organized resistance or
                             possibly spontaneous resistance can apply
                             to the insurgents.
                             Assuming arguendo that only one of the four
                             requirments of 4.2 need to be met (in reality
                             all four are required), the insurgents can't
                             possibly qualify b/c (1) there is no identif-
                             iable chain of command, (2) they do not carry
                             insignia identifying themselves, (3) they do
                             not carry arms openly and (4) they do not
                             adhere to the customs/laws of war (ex. suicide
                             bombings are not customs of war).
                             The best bet is probably 4.6, but the problem
                             is that the insurgents don't adhere to the
                             customs/laws of war.
2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40882 Activity:kinda low
12/6    Giving this its own thread:
        I'm curious about other people's thoughts on this.  How strongly
        ingrained do you think the current government/military in Iraq will
        be?  I.e., when we leave, how resistant will it be to neighboring
        influences?  How incorporated are the national vs. local governing
        systems going to be?  The reason I ask is that I suspect our
        attempts at instituting a government from the top down are going
        to result in a papier-mache veneer while the religious leaders, who
        have strong, direct, authorititative local ties, gather control.
        --scotsman
        \_ once we leave, its' kurds. vs. shia vs. sunni.  ROUUND 1, FIGHT!
           \_ I wonder if anyone's considered the strategic benefits of letting
              middle eastern states develop all the nukes they want, just not
              long-range delivery systems.
                \_ who needs a delivery system? just use a barge.  manned
                   delivery systems (ala suicide bombing) is their specialty.
                        \_ Hell, all they have to do is stick it in an oil
                           tanker.
                \_ Neutron bombs would be better than nukes. It would be
                   to hard to get at the oil if they nuked each other.
                   Seriously, there is enough incentive to avoid control
                   by Iran or another Saddam that things in Iraq might
                   work out.  It might not be as nice as Turkey, but it
                   could be okay.  Just focusing on Iraq, I think, misses
                   the big picture and that is the democratic squeeze on
                   Iran and Pakistan.
                \_ We should give them Neutron Bombs. Regular nukes might
                   make it hard to work the oil fields.
                   Seriously though, I think that the Iraqis might make
                   this thing work b/c the alternative is oppression at
                   the hands of Iran or another Saddam. Maybe it won't
                   be as nice as Turkey, but it could still work out ok.
                   Just focusing on Iraq, I think, misses the bigger
                   picture and that is the squeeze on Iran and Pakistan.
        \_ traditionally, there is a sort of proxy ideology war between
           Shia vs. Sunni.  Traditionally, Iran is a strong Shia backer,
           but most successful of all, it's Saudi's backing of Sunni.
           Saudi used to fund Sunni dominated regime, and fund all sort of
           islamic school which teaches Sunni sect.  The problem with this
           Iraq thing is that Saudi is kind of in trouble on its own and
           can't really provide support for the Sunni in Iraq.  So, we are
           looking at Sunni will be eventually get squashed.
           \_ Nononononono!  The Saudi position remains unchanged.  They
              still fund militant wahabiism both inside and outside Saudi
              Arabia with both private and public funds from the royal family.
              Where'd you get the idea anything at all has changed in that
              regard, they're "in trouble" (whatever that means) in their
              own country or they can't support anything outside their own
              country?  If that were true, a lot of people would stop pointing
              at Saudi Arabia as a prime source of terrorist funding that
              needed a good ass kicking.  The Shia are campaigning hard for
              the elections on the 15th.  Why should they have to squash
              anyone when they're the majority population?  That makes no
              sense.  The Kurds only issue is how much oil falls under their
              regional control.  The Sunnis are the only ones with something
              to lose because they had too much before and there aren't enough
              of them insane enough to form anything more than small terrorist
              groups blowing up markets and election lines.  A country of 26MM
              people can survive with a few suicide bombers every week forever,
              however that doesn't seem to be an effective long term method if
              the government and people can hold out as Israel has shown.
              \_ In the end, it will be who controls the oil will control the
                 country. The question is will there be an actual country to
                 control or will it be nominally diced into a federation of
                 states of Kuridstan, Iraq, and Poor-Assed-Sunni-stan. There
                 is a question of how much factionalism exists. Will Iraq be
                 akin to Afghanistan?
2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Computer/Companies/Google, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40877 Activity:nil
12/6    GOOG is with the terrorists:
        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/al_qaeda_google
2005/12/5-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40866 Activity:moderate
12/5    Why Iraq Has No Army:
        http://csua.org/u/e6u (article from Atlantic Monthly)
        \_ I'm curious about other people's thoughts on this.  How strongly
           ingrained do you think the current government/military in Iraq will
           be?  I.e., when we leave, how resistant will it be to neighboring
           influences?  How incorporated are the national vs. local governing
           systems going to be?  The reason I ask is that I suspect our
           attempts at instituting a government from the top down are going
           to result in a papier-mache veneer while the religious leaders, who
           have strong, direct, authorititative local ties, gather control.
           --scotsman
        \_ Good article.
        \_ Summary:  Yeah, training Iraqis is better than before, but it's
           still way too slow, we need to increase it 500% RIGHT NOW, plan
           to stay in Iraq for a long time, grow deep roots with political
           allies on all sides of the conflict, and cut some $$$ weapons
           programs to fund all of this.
        \_ The article doesn't really address _how_ the training is occurring
           or should be occurring. What I mean is this: The Iraqi army knows
           (1) how to fight, and (2) how to keep the populace in line.  It's
           been doing that for decades under Saddam's rule.  So why can't it
           keep the populace in line, or deal with insurgents?  Is it lack
           of motivation from troops? lack of belief in political
           legitimacy of the government that translates into no one wanting
           to put their lives on the line?  What is the problem?  Why is only
           1-3 battallions of over 100 classified as Level 1?  What
           distinguishes that batallion from the 100 others, and how can
           we replicate it?  I don't think teaching Iraqis how to shoot
           guns will cut it.
           \_ Actually, there are entire pages that address just that point.
              Look for the bit about the differences between a "soldier"
              and a "gunman," and the bit about "death blossom" marksmanship.
           \_ Actually, I thought the Iraqi secret police and informants
              kept the populace in line.
           \_ my worry is that Iraqi army, which made from various militia
              from various sect, may end up fighting each other.  It is hard
              for me to imagine any incentive for any of them loyal to
              the central government.
              \_ Or even better the iraqi army comes to fight the US.
                 Just like in Afghanistan we arm the radicals who will come
                 to hate and eventually fight us.  I agree with whoever said
                 that like Germany and Japan we should develope Iraq's economy
                 but not thier military (not this post).  Training Iraqi troops
                 is just going to end up screwing us.
           \_ Those 1-3 Level 1 battalions were probably Kurdish peshmerga,
              already battle-hardened.
                 \_ Yes, US should spend more effort and resources on
                    developing Iraq's economy.  They should at least have
                    good plans and proposals so Iraqi can have something
                    to look forward to. Of course, economic development
                    is only possible when safety can be assured.  These
                    things need to go hand in hand.  People keep bringing
                    up Japan and Germany.  The difference is that when
                    Japan and Germany were defeated, their populace were
                    ready to cooperate with the US.  In Japan's case,
                    they listen to their emperor.  In Germany's case,
                    you have Soviet Union serving as a big stick on the
                    other side, and Nazism is a defeated ideology by then.
                    other side, and Nazism was a defeated ideology.
                    \_ Japan and Germany had no large scale insurgency fighting
                       against us.  The truth is that the Iraqis can never
                       hope to rebuild their economy and infrastructure
                       without an effective army and a police force.  If
                       we ever want to leave Iraq (nevermind bring "democracy")
                       we'll have to build this for them.  As the article
                       makes clear, if we don't do this our only other choice
                       is to cut and run - leaving Iraq to a likely very
                       awful(-istan) fate.
                       \_ The post WWII German insurgency was no smaller than
                          what's going on in Iraq right now.  They used to
                          call it "mop up operations" but that's not a very
                          polite term, is it?
2005/12/5-6 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40849 Activity:nil
12/5    Excellent segment from CSPAN.
        Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War
        on Terror
        You can listen here:
        http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev110105b.cfm
        \_ This isn't "from CSPAN", it's from a Heritage Foundation
           neocon, author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's
           Failures Unleashed Global Terror".  Other upcoming events:
           "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred
            Christian Holiday is Worse Than You Thought."  Get a clue.  -tom
2005/12/2-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40822 Activity:moderate
12/2    What a shock.  Liberman's comments about Iraq were ignored after Murtha
        made front page everywhere.  http://newsbusters.org/node/3038
        \_ it's hard to say what happened.  lieberman goes over
           there and thinks everything is rosy.  murtha goes over
           there and thinks iraq is about to dissolve into civil war.
           i read the paper today and see more news of suicide bombings.
           i think of how much the iraqi people must be in on it for
           insurgents to attack our troops with such impunity.  who is
           right?  and let me amend this, I cannot think of any reasonable
           way for america to 'win'.  I think gwbush wants to create
           a democratic magic land where the kurds, sunnis and shiites all live
           together in harmony and provide the US with cheap oil for
           the next 50 years.  he must not have noticed the sunnis and
           shiites hate each other over an event that happened almost
           2000 years ago, they're not going to start being nice to
           each other after we throw several cluster bombs at them.
           we fucked up, the sooner we're out of iraq, the sooner it
           can split into three countries.
           \_ Well, that's debatable, but not if one side of the debate is
              refused media time.  Let me amend this:  I think you're wrong.
              It's a shame those who try to voice the evidence they see of
              things getting beter are being silenced.
              \_ So if I kill someone with my barehands on national TV I
                 get equal time to "debate" my innocence?  If I am a neo-nazi
                 I should get equal time to "debate" my side of the issue?
                 What the hell.
                 \_ How's it been for you under that bridge?
                 \_ 1) yes, absolutely you are entitled to a speedy trial by
                    a jury of your peers.  uhm, duh?  and 2) you have the
                    right to say what you want, but you don't have the right
                    to force others to listen.  In this case, we're talking
                    about national issues of foreign policy as debated by
                    federal level elected officials and it is absolutely
                    necessary and critically important to hear all the facts
                    from all sides, not just the ones you want us to hear.
                    welcome to america.
           \_ Umm.. splitting into 3 countries is pretty dang unlikely.
              In case you haven't noticed, that leaves the Sunnis with no
              oil.  And it's not like the shia or sunni are cleanly
              seperated or something.
              \_ there are many examples in recent history where the only
                 way for ethnic groups that hate each to get along with
                 each other is if they are ruled by a fascist dictator
                 like tito or saddam.  notice how the egyptians
                 sort of allowed democratic elections and the muslim
                 brotherhood, a bunch of terrorist islamic fucks, are
                 winning representation.
                 \_ I don't disagree with either point, but I don't see
                    how B follows from A.
                 \_ so you think we should have left Saddam in power to keep
                    order in Iraq and prevent ethnic violence?
                    \_ since apparently the administration in charge
                       is a big believer in faith based power ("If I
                       believe in something really hard it will come true")
                       yeah, we should have left Iraq alone.
                       \_ so you're in favor of brutal dictatorships?  i was
                          \_ Are you chinese?  Do you understand the effect
                             the opium trade had on China?
                          being sarcastic and it was a rhetorical question.
                          i didnt expect anyone to actually agree with the
                          idea that saddam was doing a good job keeping the
                          majority ethnic groups in line.
                          \_ You're trolling, right?  You have to be.  I just
                             can't accept that anyone can so badly misinterpret
                             what "faith guy" was saying.
                             \_ Not at all.  He's being a twit.  I'm saying
                                what the obvious conclusions of his points
                                are.  In fact, I think he's either terribly
                                stupid or just trolling.
                       \_ So you're saying that Bush is equivalent to Saddam
                          Hussein? -not pp
                          \_ Wow, that's....that's quite a leap of logic there.
        \_ Murtha >> Lieberman
           \_ apples >> oranges
              \_ yermom >> yergf
           \_ Why?  Lieberman was the VP candidate.
              \_ http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Murtha_360_Nov302005.wmv
                 \_ Were you planning on summarizing the video?
                    \_ No.
                 \_ What a retard.  Oil was never "supposed to pay for this
                    deployment".  Some people were saying that should be the
                    case, but it was never policy.
                    Murtha's on crack or something.  His reasoning for "Iraq
                    can take care of itself" is that the administration has
                    been wrong on other stuff.  WTF?
                    \_ "Some people"?  You mean like DoD officials TESTIFYING
                       BEFORE FUCKING CONGRESS?
                       \_ DoD people don't decide how things are funded.
                          "FUCKING CONGRESS" does that.  Those DoD people
                          were giving their opinion.  They are not financial
                          policy makers for the country in any way, shape or
                          form.
                          \_ "giving their opinion", huh? They weren't
                             writing motd entries.  They were testifying
                             to congress in their official capacity, under
                             oath, before the policy makers made their
                             decision.  Your above statement "it was never
                             policy" means nothing.  It was a lie, and part
                             of the tactics employed to loosen the purse
                             strings.
                             \_ I shall try again: Congress decides how to
                                spend money, not the DoD.  Congress decides
                                how to fund a war, not the DoD.  Congress
                                controls the purse strings, not the DoD.
                                The brass can testify to anything they like
                                and if Congress chose to, they could follow
                                that advice and slap an oil tax on Iraq to
                                pay for the war, but Congress chose not to.
                                Who exactly lied?  Who exactly said Iraqi
                                oil dollars would be used to pay for the war?
        \_ Because someone changed their minds about the war. Lieberman has
           always supported it.
        \_ Lieberman got an OpEd in the WSJ. That hardly qualifies as being
           ignored.
           \_ That hardly qualifies as the MSM paying any attention especially
              compared to the incredible press Murtha got.  BTW, who was
              Murtha before they dug him up and put words in his mouth?  I've
              never heard of him before.  Have you?
              \_ Are you going to try and pretend that the pro-war position
                 does not get any press? Bush alone got more lines of newsprint
                 than Murtha did. Lieberman is just another shill for the
                 pro-war, pro-torture crowd, so naturally he has to compete
                 with the rest of you. And no, I had not heard of Murtha
                 before. But I had not heard of Wolfowitz before he started
                 a war for no good reason whatsoever either.
                 \_ I'm stating flat out that a (D) Senator with along record
                    in office who has been to Iraq 4 times in the last 1.5
                    years gets ignored by the MSM when a no name like Murtha
                    gets mega air time every day after 1 visit.  I leave it to
                    the reader to figure out why this is so.  I'm going to
                    ignore the trollish parts of your commentary that you
                    stuck in to amuse yourself.
2005/12/2-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40819 Activity:low
12/2    So much for the Gulf of Tonkin incident:
        Analysis Casts Doubt on Vietnam War Claims:
        <DEAD>csua.org/u/e5h<DEAD> (yahoo! news)
        \_ WDYHA?
        \_ 35 years from now, analysis on early intelligence claims might
           cast doubt on whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs!
        \_ Where are you libs defending LBJ over this?
           \_ no one is defending LBJ.  If you ever read anything, you might
              want to pick up writings by McNamara on this subject.  If you
              can't read, at least watch "The Fog of War."  You will see
              interesting parallel between what we are doing to day, our
              'exit criteria,' etc and what they've being arguing 40 years
              ago.
2005/12/2-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40812 Activity:nil
12/2    Alabama National Guard finds cornstarch in Iraq:
        http://csua.org/u/e5e
        \_ Decoy.
           \_ If I were in Iraq, I'd give the ISG Cornstarch for $$$!
2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40794 Activity:kinda low
11/30   NYT on Bush speech:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/opinion/01thur1.html?hp
        "But after watching the president, we couldn't resist reading Richard
        Nixon's 1969 Vietnamization speech. Substitute the Iraqi constitutional
        process for the Paris peace talks, and Mr. Bush's ideas about the Iraqi
        Army are not much different from Nixon's plans - except Nixon admitted
        the war was going very badly (which was easier for him to do because
        he didn't start it), and he was very clear about the risks and huge
        sacrifices ahead.
        A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon
        needs to get out more."
        \_ yeah, but our military commander (pace), iraq ambassador (khalilzad)
           and our troops (non-draft) are all better than nixon's analogs,
           so we might actually win despite the dumbass at the top (dubya)
           and his lying cronies (rove, dick)
           \_ what exactly are we winning? where is osama bin laden?
              \_ winning means iraq not destabilizing the region and restoring
                 it back to its non-terrorist-training state
                 \_ huh?  what happened to this 'beacon of democracy in the
                    middle east?'   If we are shooting for non-terrorist-
                    training state, why we topple Saddam at first place?
                 \_ what happened to "beacon of democracy in the middle east"
                    again?  and if victor == non-terrorist training state,
                    why we topple Saddam at first place?
                    \_ democracy is dubya's defn of "winning", not mine
                       anyways, like I said, it didn't train terrorists before
                       we invaded, unlike now, but returning it to that state
                       is part of my defn of "winning"
                       the best realistic outcome in my view is a buncha shiite
                       militias running the place with periodic sunni suicide
                       bombings and regular intervention of the shiite death
                       squads, token U.S. withdrawal in 2005, near-complete
                       U.S. withdrawal by end-2006, and the U.S. retaining
                       squads, token U.S. withdrawal in 2006, near-complete
                       U.S. withdrawal by end-2007, and the U.S. retaining
                       overflight and bombing permissions
                       U.S. withdrawal by end-2006, and the U.S. having full
                       permission to bomb the heck out of anything we verify as
                       a concentrated terrorist training camp
                       of course, none of this precludes the fact that dubya is
                       and will always remain a dumbass
                       \_ oops, I understated by one year.  anyways, another
                          thing to keep in mind is that these dates satisfy
                          the military and the political overseers.
2005/11/30-12/3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40790 Activity:low
11/30    U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers:
        http://csua.org/u/e4t
        \_ it's only illegal for the military to plant articles in U.S. papers!
           go Dubya!
        \_ besides bombing Al-Jazeera offices, this is perhaps the best
           example of "freedom of speech" which we've been taunting the Iraqis.
           Torture chambers, control of press... is it me or USA is not that
           much different than the tyran which USA replaced?
        \_ hey, fight them there so we dont have to fight them here. but
           seriously, whats the big deal? long as we're already in this war,
           if the army wants to use some propaganda to try and win it, go
           ahead right?
        \_ another fine example of "freedom of speech" besides bombing of
           Al-Jazeera offices.  Torture chambers, control of press, is it me
           or USA has become a tryan which it tried to replace?
           \_ *yawn*
           \_ This is different from bombing of Al-Jazeera offices.  One is
              limiting others' freedom of speech which is not good.  The other
              is exercing our freedom of speech which is good.
2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40772 Activity:nil
11/29   Freedom of speech at best:  you are allow to say anything you want,
        as long as the stuff you say is something we like:
        http://tinyurl.com/7men3
        \_ I don't see how what you put connects to the article.  AJ reported
           things, the US claims they're lying.  How is that not free speech?
           \_ I think op is talking about the UK Official Secrets Act, in
              which Section 5 has been invoked to threaten newspapers for the
              first time with legal action if they publish more details on
              the memo recording the conversation between Dubya and Blair ...
        \_ Just like on the Berkeley campus!
2005/11/29-12/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40764 Activity:nil
11/29   I guess that whole opposing the war isn't helping much:
        http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/29/D8E69AT81.html
        \_ I think it's more the "American Christian" thing that isn't
           helping them much.
           \_ "The pictures of Susanne Osthoff were taken from a video in which
              her captors demanded that Germany stop any dealings with Iraq's
              government, according to Germany's ARD television. Germany has
              ruled out sending troops to Iraq and opposed the U.S.-led war."
           \_ obviously, the proper german response is for them to send in the
              troops.
        \_ Go Dubya!
        \_ Awww.  I wanted to post this story with the caption
           "Independent group finds human rights abuses in Iraq!"
2005/11/29-12/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40763 Activity:very high
11/29   Prominent military historian calls Iraq war most foolish war in 2,014
        years:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html
        There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the American
        Jewish weekly, Forward. It calls for President Bush to be impeached
        and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching
        the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions
        into Germany and lost them".
        \_ I still think WWI is the most foolish war.
                \_ There are plenty to choose from (including the Crusades),
                   but I'm not a military historian ...
           \_ Stupider than the Soccer War of 1969?
        \_ Yeah, and Vietnam was...? How many dead comparatively?
           You people have no sense of perspective or history.
           \_ Communism was a genuine threat that had conquered half the
              world and looked to be on a roll. Millions were killed by
              communist tyrants. "Terrorism" isn't even a definable
              opponent, it is a tactic. It would make just as much
              sense to declare war on cavalry charges or hand grenades.
              All the extremist Islamic enemies of America, lined up
              together, could have been beaten by a moderately large
              cities police force, at least before the Fiasco in Iraq
              increased their numbers 10X.
              \_ They call it "The War on Terror" because they can't call it
                 "The War on Islamic Extremists".  That wouldn't be PC.  But,
                 you knew that.  BTW, do you have a reference for the pre/post
                 Iraq terrorist head count?  Didn't think so.  Thanks.
                 \_ Calling it the "War on Terror" isn't a matter of PC so much
                    as it's a matter of PR; there really is a huge difference.
                    The PP makes a good point, though, that Vietnam was not
                    a stupid war -- there was a coherent strategy behind the
                    US's involvement.  The problem was that the conflict was
                    run without total commitment, and the forces that were
                    engaged were insufficient to actually achieve the stated
                    military objectives.  And this all on top of a very vocal
                    social backlash of the 50's conservatism adding fuel to
                    the fire of the (misguided) antiwar effort.  -mice
                    the fire of the (misguided) antiwar effort.  If you were
                    the "perspective or history" guy, then I suggest you should
                    take your own advice before weighing in about Vietnam
                    again.                               -mice
        \_ I'm no fan of the Iraq war, but so far this just looks like
           good old Bush blindness.
           \_ With a solid dose of incompetence and dishonesty.  -John
        \_ Nonsense. There are shitloads of wars and battles in the last 2014
           years that any reasonable person would say were far more stupid
           than anything going on today.  Open a history book instead of
           seeking out articles that support your politics.
        \_ There was a Germany 2014 years ago?
           \_ Agreed, in principle. Where the Iraq War enters into folly is
              the Administration's lack of planning, reliance on utterly
              unreliable intel, and no viable exit strategy. Also, the sheer
              size and resources of the invading country, i.e., us, makes
              the folly look even more unreasonable.
              \_ Seriously, this is nothing next to history.  Militarily
                 speaking, no country has ever taken over another in so short
                 a period with so few casualities.  To claim this is utter
                 failure is not ratioanl.  It is political.
                 \_ agreed. eg,
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
                 \_ Agreed, militarily speaking, especially when the vast
                    majority of the invading country's people still live their
                    normal lives instead of engaging in the war effort.
                    (Morally or politically, it's another story.)
                 \_ Our brave PLA soldiers took over Tibet much more easily.
                    The only resistance encountered was lots of whining
                    from imperialist pigs and their running dogs.  The
                    Tibetan people welcomed us with open arms.  Tibetan
                    girls gave us lots of flowers and kisses.
                                                        - chicom troll
                    normal lives physically.  (Morally or politically, it's
                    another story.)
                 \_ What are you talking about?  Are you a troll?  Yes
                    we are ultra awesome at stomping in and defeating
                    any official army in the history of the universe,
                    but right now the US is bogged down in a massive
                    guerrilla war we have no idea how to fight properly
                    and we have no viable plan to leave.  This has absolutely
                    nothing to do with how was fast we invaded Iraq
                    and how few casualties we took in the initial invastion.
                    I guess i've been trolled, oh well.
                    \_ Screaming "IHBT!!!" in response to factual points is
                                  \_ i hate bit torrent?
                                     \_ no, but I don't use it much, ;-)
                       not scoring you any points.  The reason there is some
                       minimal resistence is we're fighting an egg shell
                       walking politically correct BS fight.  In post WWII
                       Germany mop up operations, they shot the resistence
                       on the street on the spot, no trial.  You want it like
                       that in Iraq?  No.  You'd scream "HUMAN RIGHTS
                       VIOLATION!!! WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL!!!  ABU GRI'AB".  So
                       in order to appease people like you we're doing this
                       stupid little dance around people's misguided
                       sensisibilities instead of just killing them all.
                        \_ Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to drop neutron
                           bombs on Iraq and wipe everyone out?
                           \_ It depends on how many we need for that country
                              size.
                        \_ You're right, we shouldn't worry about killing
                           innocent people.
                           \_ It's a war.  The sooner it is over, for real
                              over, the sooner innocent people stop dying and
                              everyone can get on with their lives.  You
                              would prefer it drag out for years like in some
                              places in Africa they don't even bother reporting
                              anymore?  Once you start a war, you (your country
                              and leaders) have a responsibility to get it over
                              ASAP, short of silly things like neutron bombs or
                              nuking the place.  If you want to toss in a few
                              more flip comments, go ahead, I won't be
                              responding to any more freshman quality attempts
                              at being clever.
                              \_ It was a good war for a good reason (the
                                 "getting rid of a pigfucker" reason, not the
                                 "imagined la-la land magic elf WMDs" reason.)
                                 That said, we didn't plan, fucked it up, and
                                 now that we broke it, we bought it and have
                                 to fix it.  I don't understand the problem
                                 that people have with acknowledging that very
                                 simple bit of mea culpa.  -John
                                 \_ I'm with you on all this, except that the
                                    entire world has believed very publicly
                                    that Hussein had WMD until after the
                                    invasion.  If there was some credible
                                    source saying otherwise, pre-invasion,
                                    they haven't had any press time.
                                    \_ I thought it was rather obvious
                                       before the war that Hussein didn't
                                       have any nukular weapons and wasn't
                                       close to getting any.  He might at
                                       best have some chemical weapons, but
                                       that was also questionable, and
                                       everyone knew "WMD" was just a
                                       pretext to go to war cause US wanted
                                       to get rid of Saddam.
                                       to get rid of Saddam.  The above was
                                       obvious to the whole world except for
                                       the brain-dead FOX news watching part
                                       of Pax Americana.
                                       of Pax Americana.  That's why there
                                       were all those spontaneous mass
                                       protest all over the world, remember?
                                 \_ "Getting rid of the pigfucker" cannot be
                                    considered seperately from "What could we
                                    realistically replace it with, and at what
                                    risks and cost?"  It also cannot be seperated
                                    from "Can we trust Bush and gang with attaining
                                    the above given their level of competency,
                                    arrogance, and ideology driven agenda?"
                                    Isn't it quite obvious from the start
                                    that they didn't have a plan beyond getting
                                    rid of Saddam?
                                    considered seperately from "What could
                                    we realistically replace it with, and at
                                    what risks and cost?"  It also cannot be
                                    seperated from "Can we trust Bush and
                                    gang with attaining the above given
                                    their level of competency, arrogance,
                                    and ideology driven agenda?" Isn't it
                                    quite obvious from the start that they
                                    didn't have a plan beyond getting rid of
                                    Saddam?
                                    \_ Obviously they didn't, which does not
                                       remove the validity of this goal. -John
                        \_ I am very clever, mr Grim Historian Realist Dude.  Please point
           out a modern conflict where a large army defeated an entrenched
           guerrilla insurgency.  I think the US really fucked up letting
           one develop by having no reasonable post invasion plan.   I just
           don't see a reasonable way for the US to "win".  We don't even
           have a set goal for "winning".
                                       \_ exactly, they had no plan, and it's
                                          obvious before the war started.
                                          the goal of the exercise also
                                          kept changing - first the focus was
                                          all on WMD, then it's because Saddam
                                          was harboring terrorists, then they
                                          started saying  how bad and evil Saddam
                                          was to the people of Iraq, finally
                                          they decided they want to democratize
                                          Iraq and then all Middle East.  If
                                          I am an Iraqi, the question remains,
                                          "why are US troops doing in my
                                          country, they fucked up the whole
                                          place and turned it into a war zone,
                                          they tortured people.  some of their
                                          leaders even have the audacity to
                                          say that invading my country draws
                                          the terrorists to my country instead
                                          of US.  WTF?!  And they say they are
                                          invading us to help us?!!!  why is it
                                          not my patriotic duty to shoot at
                                          them?"
                                          \_ Because then they'll leave instead
                                             of giving your country the first
                                             realistic, if inefficient and
                                             horribly mismanaged, stab at not
                                             being goverened by a murderous
                                             gang of thugs.  According to the
                                             CIA World Factbook there are ca.
                                             26 million Iraqis--why are there
                                             not 26 million of them shooting at
                                             US troops?  Anyway, "we broke it,
                                             we bought it".  Mind that it was
                                             broken even more, but setting
                                             aside that the whole thing was
                                             initiated on bogus premises, we
                                             sort of have a moral duty to try
                                             and fix things now.  -John
                                             \_ there ain't 50 million
                                                Vietnamese shooting at US
                                                troops either. What's your
                                                point?   realistic chance?
                                                Yes, US gave Iraq a very
                                                realistic chance of
                                                descending into murderous
                                                chaos, disintegration,
                                                total anarchy, and genocidal
                                                sectarian and ethnic warfare.
                                                while "broke it, bought
                                                it" and "moral duty" are
                                                nice gestures, we also know
                                                that, in all your decisions,
                                                US interests trump Iraqi
                                                interests.
                                So you'd bail?  Like right now, leave it _/
                                as it is?  We fucked it up.  If we go, "they"
                                won't just say "oh, righty-ho, jolly good old
                                chaps, we'll get on with beating on each other
                                then, thanks for the memories."  -John
                        \_ I am very clever, mr Grim Historian Realist Dude.
                           Please point out a modern conflict where a large
                           army defeated an entrenched guerrilla insurgency.
                           I think the US really fucked up letting one
                           develop by having no reasonable post invasion
                           plan.  I just don't see a reasonable way for the
                           US to "win".  We don't even have a set goal for
                           "winning".
                              \_ Go ahead.  Start shooting.  You will get the
                                 same result.  There isn't that much difference
                                 from what we are already doing - putting them
                                 into torture prisons without trial.
                \_ Arguably the administration did a good job in Afghanistan.
                           \_ Arguably Afghanistan
                \_ Philapines.  Columbia.
                           \_ Philippines. Columbia.
           \_ eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
              \_ I presume you mean the Argentine side was stupid.
           \_ Malaysia, Kenya, Vietnam (yes, Tet broke the back of the
              Viet Cong), and arguably Colombia is going in that direction.
              Need more?  -John
              \_ There are two things working against the Malayan (pre
                 Malaysia and Singapore) insurgency.  First, it was a
                 communist insurgency in a country that is predominantly
                 Islamic. Second, it was mainly an ethnic Chinese
                 insurgency in a country that is predominantly Malay.
                 Even then, it took several decades (end of WWII till
                 sometime in the 80s?) to defeat it.  And the main
                 reason for its defeat is not military operations, though
                 that had helped contain it.  The reason for its defeat
                 is the successful economic development of Malaysia and
                 Singapore.
                 \_ Nonetheless, they were well-funded and organized, and
                    presented a considerable threat to the British military
                    presence in E. Asia, which was significantly weakened by
                    WWII.  -John
                    \_ yea, the one good thing about the insurgency was
                       that it caused the british to turn tails and run,
                       thus gaining independence for Malaya.  After
                       independence, the movement began to subside.
                       thus, you can see that the movement wasn't defeated
                       by an outside power with military means.
                       \_ It did nothing of the sort.  It was roundly
                          trounced; Malaysian independence went over fairly
                          smoothly in 1957.  Or are you now saying that the
                          Malay insurgency wasn't actually mainly ethnic
                          Chinese and externally funded and organized?  -John
                          \_ http://tinyurl.com/78rgr
                             "The British began to negotiate with various
                             political and ethnic leaders, promising
                             independence from the British Empire. Once
                             the Malay Federation became an independent
                             state in 1957 the terrorist movement began
                             to subside."
                             Even then the movement continued on until
                             1989.
                             \_ So, what's your point?  The insurrection had
                                no decisive effect on the British decision to
                                go; they certainly didn't "turn tails and run".
                                It may have been a factor, but as you yourself
                                point out it wasn't just directed at the
                                British.  Independence negotiations were
                                primarily with UMNO.  If you want a better
                                example, use Indonesia.  -John
           \_ Good news! They are no longer "insurgents." The US now has a
              chance. http://csua.org/u/e4d [sfgate.com]
        \_ Germany existed 2014 years ago?
           \_ Like "Germanic tribes occupying what is now considered Germany"
              rolls off of the toungue.
              \_ Germania?
        \_ I'm sure there were many more foolish wars in China since the Han
           Dynasty.
        \_ ok, I hate gwb as much as the next guy and think this war is
           really really stupid ... but how bout this for foolish wars ...
           and this is just the first that comes to mind
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
           \_ totally agree, but those white imperialist don't care about
              China
        \_ ok, 2000 years may be a bit overboard, but this is one of the
           stupidist war American fought in the past 100 years, fair enough?
           remember, the casualty rate is relatively high (~10%) and there
                                                          \_ Last I checked
                                                             there were over
                                                             120,000 US tro-
                                                             ops in Iraq and
                                                             about 1200 dead.
                                                             \_ You haven't
                                                                checked in a
                                                                LONG time.
                                                                We were over
                                                                1200 dead at
                                                                this time last
                                                                year.
                                                                --scotsman
                                                                _/
                                  When I say 10% casualties, I counted the
                                  wounded as well as the dead, as causalties
                                  is defined through out the modern warfare.
                                  I have been told the casualties is upward
                                  of 15,000!            -kngharv
                                  That the total death went ~+900 _/
                                  in a "LONG TIME" is probably a
                                  point in favor of his argument.
                                  \_ You check in with the status of our
                                     current war once a year, yet feel capable
                                     of commenting on it?
                                     of commenting on it? --scotsman
                                     \_ I'm not the 1200 dead guy.  But the
                                        point remains that the number US
                                        dead only went up +900 or so in
                                        a year, which backs up the guy's
                                        claim that this is a relatively
                                        non-lethal war. -pp
                                        \_ There have been 2110 "causalties"
                                           since the war began (2%):
                                           http://www.antiwar.com/casualties
                                           2% isn't nearly 10%, however if
                                           wounded are included then there
                                           have been ~ 16% casualties.
                                           \_ casualties == dead  *AND*
                                              wounded.  your figure is number
                                              of the dead.  and let me repeat,
                                              the casualties (including
                                              dead and wounded) is about
                                              10%, and I am being very
                                              conservative.
                                              \_ [ I believe we are
                                                   in violent agreement
                                                   but anyway... ]
                                                 Actually no. I took
                                                 your advice and looked
                                                 up the definition for
                                                 what qualifies as a
                                                 military casualty. It
                                                 is dead + wounded who
                                                 are no longer able to
                                                 perform their duties;
                                                 wounded but able to
                                                 return to active duty
                                                 is not a casualty.
                                                 Assuming that the
                                                 wounded count on the
                                                 page above does not
                                                 include any wounded
                                                 but able to return
                                                 to duty, then we
                                                 find that the rate
                                                 is 16%. I agree that
                                                 10% is conservative.
                                                 My original comment
                                                 re 1% was based on
                                                 a misunderstanding.
                                                 If you look at the url
                                                 above they give the
                                                 number of "casualties"
                                                 as 2110, which I'm
                                                 assuming is ONLY dead
                                                 hence the 2% number.
                                                 To this I'm adding
                                                 the official injured
                                                 count (not limited
                                                 to those who cannot
                                                 return to duty) to
                                                 arrive at the 16%
                                                 number.
                                           \_ So are 2%/16% high or low in a
                                              historical context?  We were
                                              told this (16%) is "relatively
                                              high".  Data and URL please.
                                              Or is the "relatively high"
                                              guy just blowing smoke and has
                                              no comparative data?  For all
                                              we know, this war may have the
                                              *lowest* casualty rate in modern
                                              times.  It already quite likely
                                              has the lowest mortality rate.
                The best numbers I could find are from: _/
                http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm
                http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM
                Here is the summary (my math might be a bit off, check for
                yourself):
                        War     % Dead  % Dead+Injured
                        WWI      2.5%     6.8%
                        WWII     2.5%     6.7%
                        Korea    0.6%     2.5%
                        Vietnam  0.6%     2.4%
                I agree that as a percentage 2%/16% is *relatively* high,
                but the percentages are deceptive - the sheer numbers
                of people serving and dying is almost unimaginable in
                comparison to Iraq II. In Vietnam, more people were
                injured than are currently deployed. [ I am not vietnam
                war guy ]
                \_ Thanks.  Good data set, reasonable analysis on your
                   part.  [Thanks for the clarification.  I thought the tone
                   was quite different than the death in 1965 Vietnam guy.]
                                              \_ By the end of 1965, we had
                                                 ~184k troops in vietnam.
                                                 There were 1863 fatalities
                                                 that year.
                                                 http://thewall-usa.com/stats/
                                   http://http://www.vietnamwar.com/timeline65-68.htm
                                                 I leave other years as an
                                                 exercise to the reader.
                                                 --scotsman
                                                 \_ Gee, isn't that comparison
                                                    just a tiny bit
                                                    disingenuous?  The Gulf of
                                                    Tonkin Resolution was
                                                    passed in 1964, and the
                                                    war wasn't in full swing
                                                    in '65.  Now is that a
                                                    fair comparison against
                                                    the state of affairs in
                                                    Iraq today?  I am sure
                                                    you can obfuscate better
                                                    than that.
                The best numbers I could find are from: _/
                http://http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm
                http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM
                Here is the summary (my math might be a bit off, check for
                yourself):
                        War     % Dead  % Dead/Injured
                        WWI      2.5%     6.8%
                        WWII     2.5%     6.7%
                        Korea    0.6%     2.5%
                        Vietnam  0.6%     2.4%
                I agree that as a percentage 2%/16% is *relatively* high,
                but the percentages are deceptive - the sheer numbers
                of people serving and dying is almost unimaginable in
                comparison to Iraq II. In Vietnam, more people were
                injured than are currently deployed. [ I am not pp ]
                                                    \_ Did you bother looking
                                                       at the other years?
                                                       And, by the way, I put
                                                       that up as a data point.
                                                       You seem to be
                                                       complaining about some
                                                       non-existent
                                                       editorializing.  Also,
                                                       I wasn't obfuscating
                                                       anything there.  I
                                                       said "by the end of".
                                                       The levels increased
                                                       over the course of that
                                                       year, and more
                                                       precipitously in the
                                                       following years.
                                                       --scotsman
                                                       \_ Yes I did.  Total
                                                          death 58178 out to
                                                          1995.  Unfortunately,
                                                          when you quoted 1863
                                                          fatalities, you
                                                          conveniently left out
                                                          the major Vietnam
                                                          combat years.  Hardly
                                                          a reasonable
                                                          comparison against
                                                          comparable against
                                                          the current situation
                                                          in Iraq.  Like I said,
                                                          not even a good
                                                          in Iraq.  Like I
                                                          said, not even a good
                                                          obfuscation attempt.
        Ergo, "excercise for the reader".  In the rest of your _/
        discussion here, people are conflating rates, totals, and
        calculating percentages that mean nothing.  How many individuals
        do you think have served in OIF thus far?  How would you suggest
        we calculate and compare casualty figures?  total casualties / total
        individuals?  casualties / current troop levels by month?  I'm
        not obfuscating anything.  You're just not thinking. --scotsman
        \_ The casualty level isn't the really bad part. The fact that the
           some of US's voluntary forces are going to be serving fourth and
           fifth tours of duty in Iraq in the next few years. The question is
           can the US keep an effective professional military force while
           remaining in Iraq for the next five years or so?
        \_ Yeah, ok.  So in addition to trying to pull a fast one ("exercise
           for the reader" indeed), you're saying your original claim that
           casualty rate is "relatively high" is unprovable.  Do you have
           any credibility left?  Being an advocate is one thing, and being
           dishonest is another.  Thanks for playing.
           \_ Ah, you're confusing me with someone else.  I'll attribute
              my statements.  -scotsman
              \_ So you quoted the fatality number for up to the end of 1965.
                 In what way do you think 1965 in Vietnam is comparable to
                 the current state in Iraq?
                 \_ Like I said, I was offering a data point on the mortality
                    rates during Vietnam.  I wasn't comparing it to anything.
                    --scotsman
                    \_ But why pick 1965?  Why not any other year afterwards,
                       which would lend lie to the claim that the number of
                       fatalities in Vietnam is low?  It was just "random"?
                       \_ Look, grow the fuck up and get off my ass.  Your
                          argument is not with me. --scotsman
                          \_ Oh, ok, so it was "random".  I'm ok with that.
                             \_ Whatever. The point is, you can compare
                                these troop level numbers with casualty totals
                                and get "rates" as high as 5% or probably more
                                if you broke it down by month.  In the end,
                                8.7 million troops had been deployed in Vietnam.
                                ~47k were killed.  I haven't found any numbers
                                yet to answer my above query "how many have
                                served in OIF thus far".  Setting all this
                                aside, you're a belligerent little troll.
                                --scotsman
                                these troop level numbers with casualty
                                totals and get "rates" as high as 5% or
                                probably more if you broke it down by
                                month.  In the end, 8.7 million troops
                                had been deployed in Vietnam [and] ~47k
                                were killed.  I haven't found any numbers
                                yet to answer my above query "how many
                                have served in OIF thus far".  Setting
                                all this aside, you're a belligerent
                                little troll. --scotsman
                                                             That is 1% not
                                                             10%. Are you
                                                             including inju-
                                                             red as well?
                                                             \_ You may want
                                                                to look up
                                                                the defn of
                                                                the word
                                                                'casualty'.
                                          I didn't know it included _/
                                          inability to fulfill ones
                                          duties due to death "or
                                          injury." thanks.
                        What were the casualty rates for other major _/
                        wars last century?  What is the breakdown of
                        serious injury versus twisted ankles and such?
                        Hard to say if the casualty rate is high without
                        other data in comparison.  URL?
                        \_ One thing we do know is that lots of serious
                           injuries that would have meant death in the
                           past, are now survivable due to medical
                           advances.
                           \_ But that's no justification for a claim that the
                              casualty rate is "relatively high".  Also, it's
                              *good* to trade a high casualty rate for a low
                              mortality rate.  Do you have data to compare
                              this war's casualty rate to previous wars' to
                              back up your claim it is "relatively high"?
                              \_ Does this mean there's *no* data to back up
                                 the "relatively high" claim?
                                 \_ Please see above.
                                    \_ Are you referring to the bullshit
                                       1965 Vietnam comparison?  Or the good
                                       globalsecurity data?  Like the global-
                                       security poster said, the percentages
                                       are deceptive as the absolute numbers
                                       dwarf Iraq 2 and defy comparison.
                                       \_ The inability to let go even after
                                          you've been smacked down.  This has
                                          got to be ecchang.  Am I right?
                                          --scotsman
                                       \_ Global Security data. Personally,
                                          anytime someone says "exercise
                                          left to the reader" my BS alarm
                                          \_ My initials are, literally,
                                             BS.  --scotsman
                                          goes off.
                                          \_ The formatting in this thread
                                             is truly amazing.
           are no clear military objective to achieve.  And, what makes you
           think people in Iraq are living in a normal live?
           \_ Bay of Pigs?  Vietnam?
                            \_ RTFA
           \_ Korea, WWI, letting Pearl Harbor happen, Lebanon, & Somalia come
              to mind without doing any research.  Where do you get the idea
              there's a high casualty rate?  Compared to what?  The objectives
              are "kill the anti-government forces and train the locals to
              take care of themselves in the future".  And no, duh, they are
              not living a normal life.  Normal life is Iraq until very
              recently has consisted of living in mortal fear of the government
              putting your family in a wood chipper.
                \_ Now it's living in mortal fear of your neighbor, your local
                   rebels, etc., putting your family in a wood chipper.
                   \_ Yes, there are mass graves of wood chipper victims all
                      over the country from their neighbors tossing them in.
                      Riiiiiiight.
                        \_ Yup the Sunnis and Shiites just spend all day
                           singing "Kum-bay-ya" (sp?) around the campfire!
                           \_ If you'd kept up with the situation instead of
                              reading propaganda, you'd know the Sunnis are
                              spending their time campaigning for the upcoming
                              election.  The Shiites already had that down
                              from the first interum election.  Don't let the
                              facts get you down, though, keep tossing out
                              the one liners.  They seem to make you feel
                              better even if they're not reality based.
        \_ It's interesting to hear an anti-Bush Jewish voice.
           \_ Why?  Most Jews are left wing.
              \_ But I thought Bush is pro-Israel.
                 \_ Not really.  He's just not as anti-Israel/pro-arab as
                    the previous admin.  Anyway, that has zero bearing on
                    how the majority of Jews vote in this country.
        \_ I can't imagine a country more stupid than the US.  They have
           Vietnam as a precedent, and they still made the exact same
           mistake with Iraq.  They didn't even get the tactical details
           right.  What's with disbanding the Iraqi army and taking away
           these people's livelihood.  That's the most stoopid thing evar.
           And it's not just the Bush admin either.  Most Americans
           supported him at the time.
           those people's livelihood.  That's the most stoopid thing evar.
           That's literally like telling these trained dudes, "Go home
           and become guerillas so we can fight you."  And it's not just
           the Bush admin either.  Most Americans supported him at the time.
           \_ I can't imagine a country more stupid than Germany. They have
              WWI as a precedent, and they still made the exact same mistake
              with WWII. They didn't even get the tactical details right.
              What's with invading the heart of Russia right before the
              start of the Russian winter? That's the most stoopid thing
              evar. That's literally like telling your soliders, "Have a
              nice time freezing to death." And its not just the Bush,
              er Hitler, admin either. Most Germans supported him at the
              time. [ Many apologies for violating Goodwin's law ]
              \_ Russia was defeated by Germany in WWI.
                 \_ yeah, what's your point?  Germany lost!  We're doomed.
              \_ Okay, US is the second most stoopid country.
                    \- hello, the reference to the "Clades Variana" in 9bc is
                       really better characterized as a "military disaster"
                       rather than a foolish war. i think it is pretty hard
                       to beat the "War of Triple Alliance" for crazy war.
                       rather than a foolish war (same for say Agincourt from
                       the french perspective). i think it is pretty hard
                       to beat the "War of Triple Alliance" for a crazy war.
                       From a random WEEB page: "The war left Paraguay utterly
                       prostrate; its prewar population of approximately
                       525,000 was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which
                       only about 28,000 were men." ok tnx. --psb
                       \_ Those sound like good dating odds for sodans
                           \_ Pretty optimistic, don't you think?
                       \_ the war was only part of a grand plan to legitimize
                          polygamy by the survivors.
2005/11/28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:40745 Activity:nil
11/26   The New Pentagon Papers
        http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/3853
        \_ uh, this is from march 2004
2005/11/24-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40729 Activity:nil
11/24   Abu Musab Zarqawi == Winston Smith?
        http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007098.php
2005/11/24-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40725 Activity:moderate
11/23   Willie Pee classified at Chemical Weapon when Saddam Hussein
        used it, as convential weapon when we used it:
        http://csua.org/u/e2u (the Independent)
        \_ Rev up the Mormon Spin Machine!
           \_ ??? -emarkp
           \_ ??? -emarkp [why did this get deleted?  The article has no
              reference to Mormons at all.]
        \_ conservatives have no problem twisting the definition of
           'chemical weapons' for our 'national interest' at the moment.
           and remember, Hussein used chemical weapon with USA's blessing
           during the Iraq-Iran War...
           \_ Liberals had no problem twisting the definition of 'sex' for
              *their* 'national interest' at the moment.
                \_ Clinton lied, under oath, about getting a blowjob -- what
                   definition twisting is that? I just don't really care
                   about prying into a President's sex life unless it directly
                   affects his ability to run the county, and unlike Bush who
                   can barely concentrate long enough to say a single coherent
                   sentence, Clinton literally ran the country while his dick
                   was being sucked -- go President!
2005/11/23-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40711 Activity:nil
11/23   I remember I read on the motd that Cindy Sheehan was crazy
        and her family all hated her. How come her sister just
        got arrested protesting outside the Bush Ranch? Is she
        crazy, too?
        http://csua.org/u/e2m
        \_ Have a cookie, troll.  This one is chocolate.
           \_ You don't seem to understand what troll means
              \_ Can one be guilty of trolling if intent-to-troll cannot be
                 shown?
                 \_ You may wish to read up on the legal doctrine of
                    'mens trolla'
        \_ She is crazy, and it was "many in her family" not all of them.
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan#Sheehan.27s_sister-in-law
2005/11/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40694 Activity:moderate
11/22   Yay, Fox News takes an AP story and does the global search and replace
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176345,00.html
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_051122190101
        \_ They forgot to replace 'insurgent' with 'homosexual America-hater.'
        \_ Fox also removed the name of the AP Reporter.
        \_ Aren't all bombs "homicide bombs" by definition?  Suicide bomber
           conveys more information than homicide bomber.
           \_ I think "homicide bomb" may fail to suggest that the bomber
              is also sacrificing his own life.  "suicide bomber" is fine
              for me.  Why don't we just call them "murder bomber" if we're
              propagandizing?
              \_ Doesn't "suicide bomber" fail to suggest that the bomber is
                 also sacrificing (and intends to sacrifice) other people's
                 lives? (I do think it's stupid propaganda.)
              \_ "Sacrifice"?  That almost denotes something halfway noble.
                 And why is calling it "murder" propaganda?  -John
                 \_ I guess my only real point is that "homicide bomb"
                    and "homicide bomber" just sound stupid.  We get it,
                    they're murderers.  They're bastards.  Yes, we get it.
                    But they also committed suicide.  They're... suicide
                    bombers.
                 \_ because murder signifies that we are in the right;
                    realize that a lot of the insurgents do it out of
                    revenge for lost loved ones in the war, and feel as
                    righteous and justified as we are in this war.
                    leaving it as suicide bomber is a more neutral term.
                    \_ Um, this is one of the stupider things I've read in
                       a long time.  WTF?  Who gives a shit "why"?
                       http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder - looks
                       like a pretty clear case to me.  There is no fucking
                       justification for it.  None.  At.  All.  And don't
                       give me shit about "he was aiming for combatants" or
                       "yes but xyz is also murder."  I don't want "neutral."
                       It's brutish, malicious, primitive and criminal.
                       Ergo, "murder", QED.  -John
                       \_ same thing US troops just did/have been doing.
                          death = death, eye for an eye
                          \_ This is the same kind of idiotic, cowardly
                             equivocation I hear from a lot of pseudo-intel-
                             lectual types here.  (a) US troops don't target
                             civilians and (b) if they do it's a crime and
                             should be punished.  Go away.  -John
                    \_ My revenge against the Americans is to blow up a
                       Jordan wedding party!  (Or a bunch of school kids,
                       Jordian wedding party!  (Or a bunch of school kids,
                       take your pick)
                       \_ sure, soon as you lose a son, brother, close
                          friend, etc, you may feel differently
                          \_ No, I can say with pretty much 100% certainty
                             that losing any number of friends and/or
                             relatives will not result in me wanting to
                             blow up completely unrelated innocent people.
                          \_ Whoever you are, when you lose a relative or close
                             friend for whatever reason and decide that mowing
                             down a pile of civilians with your car is the
                             right answer, please make sure to do this far far
                             away from here.  You're a nutter.  Thanks.
                             \_ I'm just exploring the muslim psyche.  It's
                                not what I'd do personally - I've got too
                                much to lose.  Your average Iraqi/
                                Palestinian probably doesn't.
                                \_ Why not?  They're not human?  They don't
                                   love?  They don't have parents and children
                                   and wives and husbands?  Are their lives
                                   truly so empty because they can't get an
                                   XBox360 on the first day at Walmart?  What
                                   exactly is so valuable about your life that
                                   isn't about theirs?
                                   \_ Their family might have been wiped out,
                                      their home destroyed, no job prospects,
                                      no hope for the future.
                                      \_ So that would inspire one to strap on
                                         a bomb and blow up a wedding in a
                                         different country full of people who
                                         were most likely sympathetic to your
                                         cause and loss.  Good plan.
                                         \_ The Jordan bombing was stupid.
                                            Suicide bombers have been
                                            brainwashed and/or weren't that
                                            clever to begin with
                                            \_ You understand that these were
                                               higher ups in the Iraqi branch
                                               of the Al-Q organisation, right?
                                               These were not teenagers pulled
                                               from some West Bank slum.  These
                                               were leaders, not the brain-
                                               washed masses.
                                            \_ So what?  Even if they are, they
                                               are committing a conscious act,
                                               and are almost always driven to
                                               do so by someone else (the
                                               "higher-ups" mentioned above.)
                                               Trying to "understand" is fine,
                                               but a lot of this sounds much
                                               closer to justification.  -John
                  \_ The English usage of "murder" denotes something more
                     personal. While both "murder" and "homicide" are
                     technically correct, homicide is much drier, less
                     emotionally connected.
                     \_ s/denotes/has the connotation of/
2005/11/21-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40677 Activity:nil
11/21   http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2005/11/20/12242/343
        Former DIA officer, Westpoint professor, and Valor-decorated Army
        Special Forces and MI officer Patrick Lang quoting recent L.A. Times
        article:
        "Curveball was last in his engineering class, not first ... He was a
        low-level trainee engineer, not a project chief or site manager, as the
        CIA had insisted. Most important, records showed Curveball had been
        fired in 1995, at the very time he said he had begun working on
        bio-warfare trucks. ... also apparently was jailed for a sex crime and
        then drove a Baghdad taxi. ..."
        \_ He sounds like he has the right background to be the next governor
           of Texas.
           \_ Or Arkansas for that matter.
              \_ Go fuck yourself.
                 \_ Does Dick Cheney have a soda account?
                    \_ He would have responded to the TX comment.  I think this
                       is one of those guys who heckled Cheney.
2005/11/20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40658 Activity:high
11/20   http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475588009&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
        If this is true, then who shall lead the heroic anti-BushCo forces now?
        [good idea: censoring important news because you don't like it]
        [funny that you keep deleting it because it's >80 columns but if it
        was anything else you'd leave it, hypocrite.  why do you hate
        potentially good news?  if you're truly upset at the line length,
        you'd tinyurl it instead of censoring it.  you cant kill truth]
2005/11/18-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40647 Activity:nil
11/18   So anyone of you think we can get out of Iraq without leaving too
        much of a mess?  Realistically, what's the best possible outcome?
        \_ Civil war.  Shiites, backed by Iran, win and establish a theocracy
           more moderate than Iran's.  Sporadic unrest by Sunnis and Baathists
           for the a long time.
           \_ I think more than sporatic. And if Iraq looks like its going
              split, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all become major players
              in game.
        \_ We should take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way
           to  be sure.
           \_ Better yet, we can ingratiate ourselves with the Iranians by
              giving them enough parking space.  -John
        \_ The best (now very implausible but still) possible outcome hasn't
           changed.  The worst plausible outcome, on the other hand, has gotten
           much worse.
        \_ Who knows?  We're staying there until the mission is complete!
        \_ Isn't this just baiting the lions?  What sort of answers did you
           really expect from the motd?  Duh.  Nothing has changed.  History
           will look back long after the current politics of the situation
           are forgotten and decide how well or poorly things went, as always.
        \_ Best possible outcome? Cheney and Rummy are indicted for War Crimes
           and hung at The Hague. Bush resigns in disgrace. Howard Dean is
                       \- that's why Congress under DELAY and HELMS passed the
                          HAGUE INVASION ACT a couple of yrs ago.
           appointed President and asks for forgiveness from The Iraqis and
           promises reparations if they can come up with a working government.
           There is a World Summit in Baghdad where the rest of the world
           agrees to helping rebuild Iraq. The Arab countries supply peace-
           keepers and Iraq is rebuilt as a Democracy.
           keepers and Iraq is rebuilt as a Democracy. Probably too much
           to reasonably hope for.
2005/11/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40631 Activity:low
11/17   "I know what it's like to operate in a highly charged political
        environment ... people sometimes lose their cool, and yet ... you can
        ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith
        ... the suggestion that's been made by some U.S. senators that the
        President of the United States or any member of this administration
        purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of
        the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
        -VP Cheney (Nov 16, 2005)
        "Well, look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to
        disagree, and I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say
        that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's
        irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did ...
        patriotic as heck to disagree with the President. It doesn't bother
        me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their
        positions and playing politics."
        -President Bush (Nov 17, 2005)
        \_ I'm looking for the interest here.
           \_ ok ok, I took out Dubya.  shorter now.
        \_ He added "I am not a crook"
        \_ Dude, isn't the like "how can we use this to hit iraq" post-9/11
           meeting like on record?
           \_ I don't know, can you produce it?
              \_ "But the fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on
                 September 11, we had a choice to make.  We could decide that
                 the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those
                 planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after
                 al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would
                 be done ... Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to
                 say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of
                 terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different
                 kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have
                 imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein
                 still in power." -Sec State Rice (Oct 16, 2005)
                 \_ How is this the "'how can we use this to hit iraq'
                    post-9/11 meeting"?
                    \_ Okay, what's the meaning of "this" in "how can we
                       use this"?
                 \_ We hit the trifecta! -GWB
\
2005/11/16-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40623 Activity:nil
11/16   "This is even worse than what was happening under Saddam"
        http://csua.org/u/e0y
        (Yahoo News)
2005/11/16-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40618 Activity:nil
11/16   http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/16/EDGODFOD6Q1.DTL
        The truth about Bush.
        \_ fyi, as noted at the end of the article, Scheer got fired from the
           L.A. Times as a regular columnist and is now one for the
           SF Chronicle.
2005/11/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40610 Activity:nil 90%like:40601
11/15   Pentagon used white phosphorous in Iraq:
        http://tinyurl.com/8phfo (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ yeah, we know.  the u.s. didn't sign any treaties prohibiting WP use
           as an anti-personnel weapon against combatants, so it's "legal" ...
           even though it fucks up your lungs (in enclosed spaces) and also
           acts as napalm-lite (if it gets on you).  Your jaw only falls off
           with long-term exposure (months/years).  fyi, it's "legal" to use
           napalm against military targets too, although the military says it
           decommissioned its napalm stores (they had better napalm-like stuff
           to use in 2003 Baghdad, no need for Original Napalm(TM)).
           \_ The very concept of legal or illegal weapons is just stupid.
              If you're willing to kill people, you're willing to kill people.
              Civilians get killed by bullets, bombs, fire, cold, disease,
              starvation, land minds, etc, etc in war.  War kills civilians.
              Now if you wanted to declare genocidal race destroying bio
              weapons or nukes or whatever 'illegal' sure, that makes sense
              in a twisted sort of way but not that it matters if someone
              manages to wipe out the entire race anyway.  The M16 has killed
              more people than WP or napalm.  Let's declare the M16 an illegal
              weapon.  Whatever.  This is all bullshit to keep food on the
              table of diplomats, lawyers, politicians, and other scum.
              \_ Is the previous poster an Asian?
              \_ We could flatten the entire country with nukes and we'd be
                 almost 100% sure we would have "won" the war.
        \_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4442156.stm
           http://chris-floyd.com/fallujah
           Remember when Saddam Hussein was the bad guy for using Chemical
           weapons on civilians? Turns out we are doing the same thing.
           \_ "but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical
              weapon"
              \_ We should fight with big fluffy pillows instead.
                 Hypoallergenic, of course.  Otherwise that could be
                 construed as biological warfare.  Did we ever not sign
                 a treaty to not use fluffy hypoallergenic pillows in a
                 way we did not use?
                 \_ We should use the neutron bomb.  It's the most moral
                    weapon ever devised.
                    http://boingboing.net/profits_of_fear.html
              \_ Is that what you got from reading those two articles?
        \_ The story from the government keeps changing ...
           1) We didn't use WP
           2) We used it, but only to "light up" the battlefield
           3) We used it, but not in neighborhoods full of civilians
           \_ Yeah, but what do you expect?  I wouldn't be surprised if
              the official rules said "don't use WP to flush out targets"
              but give some marines underfire WP, what do you think
              they're going to do with it?
2005/11/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40601 Activity:kinda low 90%like:40610
11/15   Pentagon used white phosphorous in Iraq:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_white_phosphorous
        \_ yeah, we know.  the u.s. didn't sign any treaties prohibiting WP use
           as an anti-personnel weapon against combatants, so it's "legal" ...
           even though it fucks up your lungs (in enclosed spaces) and also
           acts as napalm-lite (if it gets on you).  Your jaw only falls off
           with long-term exposure (months/years).
           with long-term exposure (months/years).  fyi, it's "legal" to use
           napalm against military targets too, although the military says it
           decommissioned its napalm stores (they had better napalm-like stuff
           to use in 2003 Baghdad, no need for Original Napalm(TM)).
           \_ The very concept of legal or illegal weapons is just stupid.
              If you're willing to kill people, you're willing to kill people.
              Civilians get killed by bullets, bombs, fire, cold, disease,
              starvation, land minds, etc, etc in war.  War kills civilians.
              Now if you wanted to declare genocidal race destroying bio
              weapons or nukes or whatever 'illegal' sure, that makes sense
              in a twisted sort of way but not that it matters if someone
              manages to wipe out the entire race anyway.  The M16 has killed
              more people than WP or napalm.  Let's declare the M16 an illegal
              weapon.  Whatever.  This is all bullshit to keep food on the
              table of diplomats, lawyers, politicians, and other scum.
              \_ Is the previous poster an Asian?
2005/11/15-17 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40598 Activity:nil
11/15   Amusing reviews of the weapons used in Iraq.  (Later it turns into
        go-america type stuff.  You can skip that if you like)
        http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/133585.php
        \_ Interesting stuff, mostly new information for me.
           But scroll to near the bottom for a post that challenges it.
2005/11/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40584 Activity:moderate
11/14   http://tinyurl.com/b4rql
        The woman suicide bomber did it becuase 3 of her brothers died in
        Iraq fighting Americans.  Hahaha!  We killed all their
        manfolks already, and now only women are left.  We are
        winning!
        \_ Well, that's like cutting off her nose to spite her face.
           She should have bred children.
2005/11/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40572 Activity:high
11/14   http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/opinion/14blochemarks.html?hp
        US using torture techniques learned from the North Vietnamese and
        North Koreans.  w00t!!
        \_ http://tinypic.com/fneaza.jpg
        \- the world is flat! globalization!
        \_ How very kind of the US to legitimize the torture of US
           citizens by NV and NK.  I mean, if it's OK for the US to torture,
           it must be OK to torture US citizens.
        \_ How very kind of the US to legitimize the torture of US citizens
           by NV and NK.  I mean, if it's OK for the US to torture, it must
           be OK to torture US citizens.
           \_ I don't believe in torture but this is not the reason why.
              Whether or not we torture others has no bearing on what others
              will do to Americans overseas.  No thug has ever said to himself,
              "Gee, I'd really like to rip this guy's teeth out and cut off
               some fingers but his country would never do that to me so I'll
               just give him a holy book of his choice, 3 squares, and hold
               him indefinitely instead".
                \_ It doesn't work directly like that.  However, the fewer
                   countries do it, the easier it is for the non-torturing
                   countries to exert influence on the torturing countries
c                  countries to exert influence on the torturing countries
                   in a variety of ways.  There are lots of other benefits
                   to being a non-torturing country, for example making it
                   easier to get support from moderates in your fight against
                   the extremists.
                   \_ Moderate countries or moderate citizens in your own?
                      Internal support is required to a _limited_ extent in
                      a democracy.  In a heavy handed dictatorship, support
                      from the militarty and secret services are the only
                      necessary groups.  There are no 'moderate' countries.
                      Countries exist to benefit their population.  They are
                      naturally self-interested and will do what is necessary
                      to further their own ends.
                      \_ This is not really how the real world works. I know
                         it works that way in Civ II, but in a dictatorship
                         it is probably even more important to keep the
                         general populace either on your side or in fear
                         of you.
                         \_ I don't play Civ II so I don't know what you're
                            talking about.  In a dictatorship, you can isolate
                            and brainwash the people as seen in NK but that
                            sort of isolation is economy crushing, as seen in
                            NK, or you can beat them down with the military
                            and secret service as seen in most dictatorships
                            around the world through out time.  Since getting
                            beat down = fear, I think we're in agreement.
                            \- "we've replaced the political science dept
                               with a Civilization lab ..."
                       \_ In other countries.  Most moderate Muslims, before
                          9/11 and subsequent invasions, thought highly of
                          the United States, especially of our freedoms,
                          freedoms they would love to have in their countries.
                          But when you rain down bombs on them and start up
                          torture facilities why would they continue to help
                          us against the fruitcakes in their countries who
                          wish us harm?
                          \_ Exactly who are these moderate Muslims who
                             loved us so?  And you have the second part
                             backwards.  If they got rid of the fruit cakes
                             in their countries, there'd be no interest in
                             bombing them.
                                \_ http://tinyurl.com/dzngj
                                   "In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim
                                    country, three quarters of the people
                                    said they were attracted to the United
                                    States. After the Iraq War, that had
                                    dropped to 15 percent."
                                \_ The United States WAS very popular in
                                   Muslim countries before 9/11 -- and so
                                   was President Clinton.  The fruitcakes
                                   can't do much without moderate support.
                                   \_ You're nuts.  What countries?  Are you
                                      aware, for example, how often Muslim
                                      countries vote with us in the GA at the
                                      UN?  Last I checked a few years ago it
                                      was averaging around 22% (during the
                                      Clinton years).  The fruitcakes are doing
                                      a-OK without moderate support.  Pick a
                                      year and get a history book and see how
                                      many acts of terror were committed around
                                      the world that year.  You can do it for
                                      almost any year from 1960-now and find
                                      something.  Not every year has a 9/11
                                      but there's some real doosies going all
                                      the way back.  You're living in a bubble.
                                      I think I've been trolled.
                                        \_ I even provided a link.  And the
                                           "fruitcakes" are going to have to
                                           work overtime for decades to come
                                           even remotely close to the # of
                                           civilians the USA has killed in
                                           the last 40 years, indirectly
                                           or directly.
                                           \_ Indonesia was never the source
                                              of Muslim terrorists and isn't
                                              part of the middle east and
                                              although it is the single
                                              largest Muslim populated
                                              country it is not a majority
                                              of Muslims.  As far as body
                                              count goes, how about 1 nuke?
                                              1 germ?  Are terrorists morally
                                              justified killing Western civ's
                                              until the body counts are equal?
                                              Madness.  Also, you completely
                                              ignored my comments on UN votes
                                              and the fact that terrorism
                                              pre-dates anything related to
                                              the current or previous several
                                              administrations.  IHBT.
                                                \_ Ok, you've convinced me
                                                   lets torture everyone as
                                                   payback for the nukes and
                                                   bio-weapons they've used
                                                   against us.
                                                   \_ i'm sure that'll happen
                                                      right after we stop
                                                      bombing indonesia.  oh
                                                      wait.  we never did that.
                                                      maybe next time, troll.
               \- well the US draws lines where it wants like "we feel it
                  is ok to torture irregular fighters who are not in
                  uniform, not serving in a national army" etc. if some
                  fellows in cambodia said "we believe it is ok to torture
                  downed pilots engaging in secret bombings to find out
                  when and where the next bombing run is" i am not sure
                  that is appreciably crazier. oh but BUSHCO will claim
                  it is completely difference because they wrote MEMOS.
                  it is completely difference because we wrote MEMOS.
                  \_ uhm, say what?  i'd like to respond but i'm not really
                     clear on exactly what point you're making so i'll leave
                     it until you clarify.
                     \- the source of a lot of resentment against the US
                        is their double standards over many things and their
                        ability to set agendas. e.g. free trade, ip pretection,
                        standards of PoW treatment, what weapons are reasonable
                        etc.
                        \_ All countries are like that.
                           \- all country may wish to be like that but they
                              are not in fact all like that. look up the
                              term "terms of trade". not all countries have
                              sec council vetos. not all countries can
                              dictate IMF policies etc.
                              term "terms of trade" (i mean the vaguer usage).
                              not all countries have sec council vetos. not
                              all countries can dictate IMF policies etc.
                              \_ they are all like that to the extent they
                                 are able.  double standards are what countries
                                 are all about.  that is inevitable when you
                                 acknowledge the natural "us vs. them" nature
                                 of their very existence and reason for being.
                                 \- you have defeated me.
                           \_ Not true. Sweden is not like that, nor is
                              The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, etc.
                              \_ Those aren't countries.  They're counties.
                                 They also all live under the military umbrella
                                 of larger nations and have homogenous
                                 populations and no foreign policy of note
                                 since they lack a military or any real
                                 political or economic clout.  However, I
                                 believe Belgium had their share of colonies
                                 in the past and had no problem with all that
                                 entails.  Feel free to correct me on that if
                                 I have my history wrong.
                                 \- the congo was actually personally owned
                                    by king leopold, rather than being owned
                                    by the belgian state. he then left it to
                                    belgium in his will. that was a really
                                    nasty flavor of imperialism, even compared
                                    to other european powers in africa.
                                    you may wish to see King Leopolds Ghost
                                    etc. The author's sister teached at UCB.
                                 \_ You're wrong about Sweden not having a
                                    military. For its size its military
                                    spending has been rather high in recent
                                    decades as a policy of armed neutrality.
                                    Of course they must have benefited from
                                    NATO's opposition to Soviet aggression.
                                    Also it no longer has a homogeneous
                                    population as they too have taken on an
                                    immigrant population of Turks etc. I think
                                    that is true of Belgium and .nl also.
                                    They are countries in the traditional sense
                                    of the term; they just are not empires like
                                    the USA and Russia.
                                        \- i think the term you are looking
                                           for is "nation state". sweeden also
                                           has quite a militaristic past.
                                    \_ key phrase: "for its size".  This is a
                                       very small country.  If Ogo Pogo has 2
                                       people and one of them is "the army"
                                       that doesn't mean Ogo Pogo has a real
                                       military even though they're spending
                                       50% of their man power on the military.
                                       You get to the right idea at the end,
                                       though.  Sweden is too small to be of
                                       any real consequence on the world stage
                                       of power politics where things like
                                       torturing people matters.  Sweden is too
                                       small to be in a position to ever have
                                       captured anyone to torture or be really
                                       involved in anything important outside
                                       their immediate region.  This is a game
                                       for world powers and their lackeys.
                                    \_ But President Bush told me Sweden had
                                       no military! I also rely on Dan Quayle
                                       for spelling advice ...
        \_ It's interesting how this article was written:
           "General Hill had sent this list - which included prolonged
           isolation and sleep deprivation, stress positions, physical assault
           and the exploitation of detainees' phobias - to Secretary of Defense
           Donald Rumsfeld, who approved most of the tactics in December 2002."
           Rumsfeld approved /most/ of them.  Tell us, which ones were
           rejected? -emarkp
           \_ [Updated with better links]
              Here's Rummy describing what happened:
              http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20040713-secdef1001.html
              This was the request from GTMO to Rummy, upon which he accepted
              most and rejected a few, and six weeks later, rejected more:
              http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc3.pdf
              So which ones did Rumsfeld initially reject?  They're listed at
              the end:
              the end.  Which ones were rejected six weeks later?  Those are
              listed second to last:
              http://csua.org/u/e0g (usatoday.com)
           \_ According to this transcript, probably all of them (I *infer*)
              [that the author listed - sorry, wasn't clear about this],
              but Rummy said it was only for the 20th hijacker:
             http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2004/tr20040713-secdef1001.html
              Also, "physical assault" probably meant the legal definition of
              assault, not punching or slapping them, which in this case just
              meant poking them among other things.  I like this part:
              I like this part ...
              Rummy:  "The techniques that you described were not used, I'm
              told, on anyone one other than Katani.  We may find out that's
              not correct at some point in the future, but at least my
              information thus far is that that's the case."
              This was the request to Rummy, upon which he accepted/rejected
              some, and six weeks later, rejected more:
              http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2004/d20040622doc3.pdf
              \_ So the reporter was a liar?  He said the list "/included/" x y
                 z and that Rumsfeld approved /most of them/.  So we have a
                 lists supposedly developed from SERE, some of which Rumsfeld
                 didn't approve.  So the entire claim of using methods we
                 learned because they were done to our soldiers which "include
                 abuse rising to the level of torture" is unfounded. -emarkp
                 \_ Huh, what exactly are you saying the reporter is lying
                    about?  Please suggest an easy one first, please be clear,
                    and please be concise.
                    \_ The reporter said "most" were approved.  The poster said
                       "probably all of them". -emarkp
                       \_ "all of them" that the author listed.
                          The last sentence in my post was pretty clear that
                          Rummy rejected/accepted some.
2005/11/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40531 Activity:insanely high
11/10   Pat Buchanan, who was always against the invasion of Iraq, rubs it in
        "Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder
        in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did
        not want war with us, and did not threaten us--to strip it of weapons
        we now know it did not have. Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated
        from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new
        base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been
        radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida
        have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East:
        Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2055 Americans
        are dead and Walter Reed is filling up."
        http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10210
        \_ Uhm, Pat was never on the Dubya bandwagon.  Pat has always been an
           isolationist.  He is opposed to US membership in the UN and most
           other forms of non-trade involvement with the rest of the world.
           \_ uh, yerright about his being anti-neocon the whole time
              http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html
              \_ Yeah, weird how some people on the motd actually know wtf
                 they're talking about and are beyond the black/white "h8t
                 u awl!!1" political 'philosophy' espoused by too many here.
                 Pat has been consistent in his isolationist views going back
                 to GWB's pre-politics days.  Too many people around here find
                 some random tidbit and post it thinking they're making some
                 big point or there's some giant earth shaking change going on,
                 but who have essentially zero real knowledge of history.
                 It's mostly the silly "gotcha!" and "we're winning!" stuff
                 which is no better than dailykos or freepers.
                 \_ shrug, it was random enough to be first on http://drudgereport.com
                    \_ exactly.  I read drudge for the "man bitten by >insert
                       name of dangerous animal<" links.  He also posts some
                       oddball stuff you won't find else where which is fun.
                       The rest is pre-posts of NYT editorials, political
                       sniping, various forms of rabble rousing to keep his
                       hit rates up, and the inevitable cross links to other
                       sites in what looks like an ad/link swap deal, mostly
                       recently with breitbart(sp?) news.  I don't read drudge
                       for in depth and meaningful political commentary.
                    I honestly was completely oblivious to the notion that
                    there was a real conservative group (other than the
                    Scowcroft, etc. old-hands assoc w/ Bush Sr.) that opposed
                    the invasion pre-invasion -op
                    \_ That's why they're called "neo" cons.  There are still
                       plenty (I'd guess a majority) of conservatives who are
                       in favor of not invading other countries, lower taxes,
                       less spending, smaller government, and all the other
                       traditional conservative agenda items.  Thus it makes
                       me laugh and sad at the same time to see the various
                       motd personalities posting as if the freepers are the
                       sole representatives of the conservative movement.
                       Laughter from how ignorant a belief that is and sadness
                       at how closely otherwise intelligent people hold such
                       a belief.
                       \_ Okay, I'll update the link to reflect that.
2005/11/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40521 Activity:nil
11/9    NBC - Wall Street Journal poll
        "Fifty-seven percent believe [Bush] deliberately misled people to make
        the case for war, compared with 35 percent who say he gave the most
        accurate information he had."
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9981177
        \_ Did the poll ask if people thought misleading the American public
           on going to war is worse than misleading the American public about
           a blowjob?
           \_ That was the poll about Libby's indictment vs. Clinton's lies.
              Duh!
        \_ Why should going to war be decided by the uninformed masses based on
           what sounds good to them? -not tom
           \_ We should decide going/not going based on polls and what the
              NYT editorial page says.
        \_ Perhaps they should consider:
        http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html
2005/11/9-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:40512 Activity:moderate
11/9    Terrorists simultaneously bomb Grand Hyatt, Radisson, and Days Inn
        hotels in Amman Jordan, targeting Westerners / Israelis - 18+ dead,
        120+ injured.
        (yes, they come up with ever more inventive ways to select dates for
        attacks)
        \_ the scary thing is, this is no longer interesting news.
        \_ fyi, Jordanians are at the top when polling on whether bombings
           against Westerners in Iraq, and against Israelis by Palestinians,
           are justifiable -op
           \_ Completely different issue.  Bombing in Iraq is not much
              different than Frensh Resistance in WW2.
              \_ It isn't?  This is another CSUA History Book Fund item.
           http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206
           \_ Every time I read crap like that I have the very brief urge to
              go join the Israeli army.
              \_ Do it.  It is one of few organization which can perform
                 torture and genocide without being prosecuted.
                 \_ Hi troll!  And liar too.
                 \_ No, no.  That's the PLO.  (Or Hamas, etc.) Other side.
           \_ I am surprised that Isreali Jews dare to venture into places like
              Jordan or Egypt. My understanding was that despite normal
              diplomatic relations between those countries and Israel, the Arab
              population of Jordan and Egypt still harbors hostile feelings
              towards Jews (specially in Jordan, where something like 40% of
              population are descendants of Palestinean refugees).
              \_ Look up "Black September".  They have reason to hate the
                 Jordanians even more.  But then again, I guess "rational"
                 doesn't really apply here.  -John
                 \_ I thought King Hussein got broke his back during one of
                    PLO's attack...
                    \_ KH gave up Jordanian claims on the West Bank because
                       he was rightfully afraid that the palestinians were
                       going to take over his country.  It was the easy way
                       out for him and prevented a civil war he couldn't
                       afford and likely would have lost.
        \_ sorry if this is a morbid detail, but in Jordan the date today is
           written as "9/11" (day before month)
           \_ Ah, they thought today is the "Nine Eleven" anniversay.
              \_ Damned dyslexic terrorists.
                 \_ On what date did the Iraq invasion begin?
2005/11/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40494 Activity:nil
11/8    7-minute segment on the marketing of the Iraq war
        http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Runuptothewar.wmv
        http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Runupto.mov
        See Condi, Dick, Powell, and Dubya report what would turn out to be
        false claims.
2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40480 Activity:nil
11/7    Watch your back while you're e-mailing at the cyber cafe!
        http://csua.org/u/dyg (Washington Post)
        "In another attack, three armed men entered an Internet cafe in the
        northern city of Mosul on Monday and assassinated Ahmed Hussein Maliki,
        the number two editor of Tall Afar Today newspaper, according to an
        employee of the paper, who asked not to be named because of security
        concerns. He said the paper recently moved its offices from Tall Afar
        to Mosul, 35 miles to the east, because of threats against the staff."
2005/11/7-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40470 Activity:low
11/7    "We do not torture." -GW Bush (Nov 7 2005)
        It depends on what the meaning of "torture" is.
        \_ It depends more on what the meaning of "we" is. Much of
           the torture has been outsourced to private corporations or
           foreign governments.
           \_ But the foreign governments promised us they wouldn't torture!
        \_ http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
           Bush says we do not torture, yet he opposes a law banning torture.
           Does this make sense to anyone?
           \_ Of course, this is bush we're talking about, remember?
           \_ It helps if you visualize a lying sack of shit.
           \_ It depends on what the meaning of "torture" is.
           \_ If you have the freedom to do something, you then have
              the choice to not do that something. If that something
              is banned, you can never do it legally. Surely this
              makes sense to you pro-choice ppl.
              \_ Gee, why have any laws at all?
        \_ "We do not torture, and the video evidence hates America."
2005/11/3-8 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40429 Activity:moderate
11/3    In the good old days, we count 'casuaties,' not 'death' in a conflict.
        I am just wondering do we even keep track of 'casuaties' in Golf War 2?
        Where can we get them?
        \_ http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
           19,219
        \_ http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf  -- ~15k casualties
        \_ Disappointed that the American death toll is too low?
           \_ Just want to make sure I am comparing apple to apple when I
              am making comprison... I am just wondering what is the
              'casualty rate' of our little Iraqi Advanture here.  My guess
              is that the 'casualty rate' is bit more than 1/20, which is
              pretty high.
              \_ About 14000 casualties. I don't know how you calculate
                 the rate.
                 \_ 14k out of 250k forces in Iraq?
                    \_ But how many have cycled through?
              \_ What were the casualties rates in other wars like WWII or
                 Vietnam War?
        \_ The problem with casualties is that they run the gamut from
           a bump on the head received during combat to blinding and
           maiming.  The number of amputees, as compared to the number
           of deaths, is far higher for this war than for any other.
           \_ Bump on the head?  I thought casualty only counts wounds serious
              enough to take a person out of action.
           \_ I am pretty sure "casualty" is a guy (or gal) that you have
              to evacuate. A RTD (return to duty) kind of scratch or bump
              does not count. -ausman (former Army medic)
              does not count. -ausman (former Army colonel)
              \_ this is what concerns me.  I have been told repeately that
                 many of these 'wounded' would of died even 10 years ago.
                 this translates that these guys are not dead, which is good
                 politically.  But what kind of disabilities would they
                 suffer as result? That is the big cost of our little
                 Iraq war that most people don't think about.
2005/11/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40424 Activity:moderate
11/3    Anyone wonder why NYTimes circulation is down?
        http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2005/11/02/173917.html
        \_ because Michelle Malkin is an idiot?
           \_ wow, that was pithy and useful commentary!  thanks!
           \_ don't confuse "idiot" with "evil"
        \_ Malkin is right in this case.  The NY Times reporter should have
           included more of the letter.  I also do not disagree with the
           general assessment that Malkin is an idiot. -moderate/liberal
           \_ except this is status quo for the NYT.  go see 'manufacturing
              consent'.
              \_ You think so, and I think George HW Bush thinks so, too, and
                 Bush Sr. is a very smart man.  I think both of you are wrong
                 though.
                 \_ Come back when you have some idea what you're talking
                    about.  This has zippo to do with Bush.  WTF did that
                    come from?  You have no clue what I was even talking
                    about.  Go look up what 'manufacturing consent' even is
                    and then go see it.
                    \_ Come back after you've re-read my post and think about
                       what exactly I wrote.  Okay, now tell me what exactly
                       my position is.  (fyi, I happen to agree that the
                       mechanisms described in that book you mentioned are
                       accurately described)
                       mechanisms in that book you mentioned are accurately
                       described)
                       \_ Obviously I'm too dumb to get whatever your clearly
                          made point was.  I still don't think you have one.
                          You agree that the mechanisms are described
                          accruately but you duck the point of who uses them.
                          Since he was specifically talking about the NYT,
                          how about we agree this sort of thing is status quo
                          for the NYT and this has nothing to do with Malkin,
                          Bush or wtf.
           \_ you agree with the author of "In Defense of Internment:
               The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II" but you are
               a "moderate/liberal"?  I think not!  We had a word for people
               like Malkin in the 1930s- it's "fascist."  Look it up kiddo.
               \_ Wow, what a poorly thought out troll.
        \_ It sounds like the reporter got a little heated in his reply to
           the reader, but even Malkin admits:
           "Dao apologized to Valois for the tone of his snippy e-mail,"
           Of course, she can't pass up the opportunity to flame him
           anyway:
           "but apparently feels no shame or sorrow for distorting a dead
            Marine's thoughts and feelings about war, sacrifice and freedom."
           Scumbaggery will out.
2005/11/1-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40378 Activity:low
11/1    "America's badly damaged image in the Muslim world could take
         more than a generation to set right."
        http://csua.org/u/dw3
        I remember being roundly mocked two years ago on the motd for
        suggesting that this would be the result of the Iraq War.
        \_ right, and this has nothing to do with partisan grandstanding...
           \- lots of people said so immediately after AbuG. search wall
              archive for "for a generation"
              \_ The media storm over it almost certainly made it worse.
                 \_ That damn liberal media. Especially the liberal state
                    run media in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
                    \_ nice red herring.  of course the state run media in
                       places like that blames the west, israel and everyone
                       but the dictators in charge on their countries.  duh.
                       \_ How is it a red herring? The place where it was
                          "made worse" don't read American newspapers. Do
                          you honestly think the Iraqi insurgency cares
                          about what the NYT prints? Get over yourself.
                          They care what Iraqis think.
        \_ Only a generation? The Turks and Greeks are still fighting. So
           are the Serbs, Croats, and Albanians.
           \_ Apples and oranges. Turks conquered, annexed, and then ruled
              Greece for centuries. After attaining independence, large chunks
              of historically Greek territories still remained in the hands of
              Turks who later ethnically cleansed most of their Greek
              population during WWI. Later Turkey illegally occupied about 30%
              of Cyprus, a conflict that hadn't been resolved up to this date.
        \_ I don't remember your saying that in those words at that point in
           time ... what did you write about specifically that would damage
           the U.S.'s image in the Muslim world for generations?
           \_ KAIS motd is broken and I don't know how else to search
              old posts.
        \_ hint: America never had a good image in the Muslim world. this is
           all status quo.  here's mine: I predict that if you continue to not
           give me all the money I want, the sky will still be blue some where
           in the world 2 years from now and will stay that way for
           generations!
           \_ The "not good image" goes back to the time when the Muslims
              invaded and conquered the eastern Roman/Byzantine provinces.
              Followed by the Crusades and such and WW I.
              \_ If Bush had just understood their culture better, the Romans
                 and Byzantines would have stood aside while the Muslims just
                 went about their business and just doing their own thing and
                 wouldn't have attacked us on 9/11.  HALIBURTON!
                 \_ Well Britain did fuck with them quite a bit in the 20th
                    century in Iraq and stuff. Britain and US have done some
                    evil shit in the middle east and this is the most recent
                    stuff to look back on for them.
                          \_ Far more in the way of bad shit has happened in
                             history than good. The thing that alot of people
                             don't seem to realise is that they are not the
                             only one's being fucked with. Almost everyone has
                             been. Time for some people just to cut the damn
                             cord and get on with your life and stop pointing
                             fingers. [formatd]
                             \_ I found it interesting in a horrible sort of
                                way that one of bin laden's gripes is losing
                                muslim control of spain and he wants it back.
                                \_ Why Spain and not the Balkans?
                                   \_ Maybe because Arabs were in Spain, but
                                      it was I think mostly Turks in the
                                      Balkans? The Turks are trying to become
                                      European anyway. Maybe bin Laden has
                                      written them off.
                                      \_ Turkey is on a slow slide away from
                                         a secular government.  The bin laden
                                         types are patient people.
2005/10/31-11/1 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40363 Activity:nil
10/31   Some tuna and sharks are partially warm blooded:
        http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104543&org=NSF&from=news
        \_ must be work of Saddam Hussin
2005/10/31-11/2 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40360 Activity:low
10/31   Mass graves uncovered in San Francisco:
        http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3589212
        \_ dead people don't deserve rights!  taking up valuable real estate
           anyway.
        \_ must be work of Saddam Hussin
        \_ nice design, God!
        \_ must be work of Saddam Hussin
        \_ News Flash: UN Inspectors ordered in to investigate mass graves in
           SF. Bush administration denounces Newsom's stuuborn refusal to
           produce evidence of destruction of chemical weapons.
2005/10/31-11/1 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40350 Activity:nil
10/31   Some stories you may have missed last week in the media's masturbatory
        speculation on Rove:
        UN Oil-for-Food scandal report released:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1602171,00.html
        Iran President calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map"
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/international/middleeast/31iran.html
           of Iraq is way more than the money funneled to Saddam Hussin
           during UN Oil-for-Food program, right?  What is the big deal
           about this?  Are you looking for a justification for the war?
           \_ Only two American companies made money during the FFO scandal.
              The Provisional Government gave money to mostly American
              companies. You Es Eh! You, ese!
           \_ I'm not looking for "a justification".  The UN is a corrupt
              organization, and this is an important report.
              \_ The Bush administration is a corrupt organization.
                 \_ Really?  The official investigation has produced a single
                    indictment.  The UN investigation shows corruption
                    everywhere.
                    \_ Why hasn't the Senate investigation into the use of
                       WMD intelligence (which was promised to occur after
                       the 2004 election) been started yet?
                    \_ Yes, really. The foxes are guarding the henhouse:
                       http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html
        \_ you know that the money squantered by the provisional government
           of Iraq is way more than the money funneled to Saddam Hussin
           during UN Oil-for-Food program, right?  What is the big deal
           about this?  Are you looking for a justification for the war?
           \_ Only two American companies made money during the FFO scandal.
              The Provisional Government gave money to mostly American
              companies. You Es Eh! You, ese!
           \_ I'm not looking for "a justification".  The UN is a corrupt
              organization, and this is an important report.
              \_ The Bush administration is a corrupt organization.
                 \_ Really?  The official investigation has produced a single
                    indictment.  The UN investigation shows corruption
                    everywhere.
                    \_ Why hasn't the Senate investigation into the use of
                       WMD intelligence (which was promised to occur after
                       the 2004 election) been started yet?
                    \_ Yes, really. The foxes are guarding the henhouse:
                       http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html
2005/10/30-11/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40342 Activity:moderate
10/30   Remember when they told you Valerie Plame was not really undercover?
        http://csua.org/u/dvj
        \_ http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Plame-Profile.html
           "She was 22 and very young coming into the CIA, but she was very
           mature, very professional." Other fellow trainees remember her as a
           head-turning blonde who did well wielding an AK-47.
           http://csua.org/u/dvl (Wash Post)
           In 2006, she will have 20 years with the agency. As such she
           qualifies for retirement but would not receive full benefits unless
           she stays with the agency until age 50. ...
           After she was named in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, Plame
           had no chance of working again in her chosen field ...
           "There are a variety of things she could have done at the agency.
           She could have become a station chief overseas and run espionage
           operations. It has destroyed her life on that front."
           operations. It has desroyed her life on that front."
           \_ typical Bush Administration's tactic.  Destroy those who oppose
              his political view.  Another fine example of 'conservative'
              virtue who cares more about 'personal behavior' eventhough his
              policies may be completely out of whack.
           \_ Naive question: what are CIA trainees doing wielding AKs?
              Shouldn't they be handling non-commie firearms?
              \_ dumbass
              \_ they should wear all Made-in-USA clothes and only knows
                 how to operate American-made equipment. Toyota? that is
                 equipment for Japanese Spys.
        \_ Valerie and Joe Wilson are partisan hacks who, at the behest of
           their party, tried to fabricate a scandal, national security
           be damned, in order to sway a presidential election.  They were
           caught and now both have been exposed as frauds and liars.
           Valeria Plame was outed by Aldrich Ames in 1997.  The notion that
           once comprimised she would subsequently continue as a covert agent
           is stupid.
           That said, Fitzgerald has spent 2 years and 70+ million dollars to
           find out who first released Plame's name.  Why is no one asking the
           answer to this question?  It is clear Libby didn't do it.
           Rove is not Novak's source.  So who was it?                 -jblack
           Rove is not Novak's source.  So who was it?
           \_ Aldrich Ames? To whom? To the public? When? Show, don't tell!
              Bad troll, no cookie.
           \_ What Libby did do was lie, over and over, under oath.  Coverups
              and perjury are illegal.  Conspiracy and all that.  But hey
              feel free to ignore that all.  Oh and as to the first paragraph
              you are totally insane yes.  Fabricating a scandal?  Did they
              LIE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC about WMDs in Iraq and
              convince America to go to a WAR OF CHOICE under known false
              pretenses.  Did they burn a covert operative and her cover
              company when some of those lies came out?  Did they participate
              in a coverup to hide this fact?  If it was a made up scanal why
              did Bush come out and say anyone involved woudl be fired (a
              promise he rescinded later when it became clear that many people
              in his administration were involved, imagine that.  Why did
              Libby tell Miller that hey, that thing he signed saying she
              was released from confidentiality wasn't really a realease
              cause see it was made under duress (ha!  does that mean he was
              lieing to his president as well?  Or was Bush lieing to the
              public once again...)  Why the lies and coverup if it was
              just something madeup?  Why keep your head in the sand about
              an administration that lies over and over again?  That lied
              its way into a war and will keep on lieing as long as it can
              get away with it.
              \_ you really expect someone to read or reply to your
                 jibberish?  Based on your 1st sentence (as far as
                 I got) Libby has yet to be convicted, the US
                 does not have Napoleonic law.  The accusations in the indictment
                 relate ONLY to inconsistencies between the memory of
                 Libby and two reporters, Miller and Russert, while testifying
                 to FBI agents.
              \_ you really expect someone to read or reply to your jibberish?
                 Based on your 1st sentence (as far as I got) Libby has yet to
                 be convicted, the US does not have Napoleonic law.  The
                 accusations in the indictment relate ONLY to inconsistencies
                 between the memory of Libby and two reporters, Miller and
                 Russert, while testifying to FBI agents.
                 \- "Now listen. Did you ever hear of the Napoleonic
                    code, Stella?...Now just let me enlighten you on a
                    point or two...Now we got here in the state of
                    Louisiana what's known as the Napoleonic code. You
                    see, now according to that, what belongs to the wife
                    belongs to the husband also, and vice versa...It
                    looks to me like you've been swindled baby. And when
                    you get swindled under Napoleonic code, I get
                    swindled too and I don't like to get swindled..."
                    oh, BTW, the ACT CoaHTR is NOT BAD. yes, i know they
                    dont really have the NC.
              \_ You have been successfully trolled.  -John
              \_ "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" --
                 http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary15.html
           \_ urlP
              \_ #f
           \_ There's a difference between exposing the truth, and being a
              traitor to your country.
        \_ But but but but the washington post said that she would tell all
           her neighbors every morning she was an undercover agent for the
           CIA ... I'm so confused!
2005/10/28-29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40327 Activity:nil
10/28   President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat (reasons MSM should read again)
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510728/posts        -jblack
2005/10/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40257 Activity:nil
10/25   http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051025/ts_nm/britain_mideast_bbc_dc_1
        "Chapman said the new Arabic channel would take advantage of the BBC's
        reputation for fairness and independence in the region."
        Is BBC really fair and unbiased?  I don't usually watch BBC news.  Thx.
           \- Yet did I never breathe its pure serene
              Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold:
              Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
              When a new planet swims into his ken;
        \_ All news has bias.  News reports are written and reported on by
           people.  Which stories become news and how big is decided upon
           by people.  People are biased.  "Fair" is not the same as "unbiased"
           and might be achievable in some cases because "fair" is determined
           by the audience and is not an absolute.  The quote above bothers
           me when they say, "... would take advantage of ...  reputation for
           fairness and independence ... ", which makes me think, "We're not
           fair or independent so we need cover", but that's just my take.
        \_ BBC is fairly consistently high quality.  It's not unbiased, and
           if you perceive the bias as being against you, you won't think it's
           fair.  YMMV.  -John
        \_ If BBC is unbiased, then, Al Jazeera would never existed!
           Al Jazeera was founded because the staff *REFUSED* to follow
           BBC's directive of self-censoring reports that annoys Saudi
           Royal Family.  It is funny that Al Jazeera is probably the most
           unbiased news channel (even more so than USA's main stream media),
           yet USA resort to use methods such as shutting down its website and
           even missile to silence them...
           \_ From the article: "Al Jazeera ...... has often shown video of
              hostages pleading at gunpoint for their respective governments to
              withdraw troops. It does not however broadcast footage of
              killings, which are posted on the Internet by militants."
2005/10/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40252 Activity:nil
10/25   Iraqi election officials announce Iraq constitution has passed
        link:tinyurl.com/cqk34  link:tinyurl.com/cdcq2  (nytimes.com)
        "The Iraqi electoral officials, at the suggestion of United Nations
        advisers, had also audited a random sampling of provinces in which more
        than 90 percent of voters had approved the constitution. The officials
        said today that they had found no evidence of voter fraud in those
        provinces, which were Basra and Babil, dominated by Shiites, and Erbil,
        a Kurdish province in the north."
        [From the LA Times:]
        "Carina Perelli, the U.N. elections chief, praised the election audit
        and said, 'Iraq should be proud of the commission.'"
        [From the Washington Post:]
        "But while there is still anecdotal evidence of vote tampering, no
        credible evidence of widespread fraud has yet emerged."
        \_ mission accomplished.  we can go home now.
2005/10/24-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40250 Activity:low
10/24   Brent Scowcroft interview with The New Yorker magazine
        http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001024.html
        Scowcroft supported the invasion of Afghanistan as a "direct response"
        to terrorism. ... The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said,
        because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. "I'm
        not a pacifist," he said. "I believe in the use of force. ..."
        [Rice and Scowcroft] also argued about Iraq. "She says we're going to
        democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize
        Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and
        she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle
        East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. Then a barely
        perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, "But
        we've had fifty years of peace." ...
        "The reason I part with the neocons is that I don't think in any
        reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East
        can be successful. ... I'm a realist in the sense that I'm a cynic
        about human nature."
        \_ 50 years of peace?
           \_ I suppose everything looks rosy when compared to Iraq
           \_ 50 yrs of conflict without American blood... more or less.
              and I agree with Scowcroft's 50 yr of peace in the sense that
              Americans never really care about brown/yellow/black casualties
              \_ Umm... Vietnam? I presume he means "in the region."
                 \_ I do remember us losing soldiers in lebenon in the last 50
                    years.
        \_ 'Ere me now!  Dis my MAIN MAN, Bent Scocroff!  -alig
                    \_ "Lebanon".  And I guess all those Canadians we bombed
                       and the 150 or so guys we lost in Gulf War I don't
                       count.  As for Americans never really caring, that
                       would sure explain My Lai, I guess.  -John
2005/10/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40203 Activity:low
10/20   Corruption in Iraq
        http://amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html
        \_ feel the schadenfreude!
           \_ Erm, you've got a substantial part of the population who's been
              watching in horror as a more substantial part of the population
              condones crooks and morons ruining the country, lying cheating
              and stealing and getting away with it, and fucking up things
              so badly it's hard to believe it's not being done on purpose,
              all the while being ignored by said more substantial part when
              yelling at them to engage their fucking brains.  Now the barrel
              of shit created by aforementioned crooks and morons starts to
              run over, spattering aforementioned shit all over everyone, and
              you are surprised about "schadenfreude"?  -John
              \_ bad word choice on my part. I should have said, "sucks
                 to be an American in the private sector" -op
        \_ If even half of what was said in that article was true we should
           ignite Chaney today. -mrauser
           indite Chaney today. -mrauser
           \_ I wish we could indict him for fleecing America
                \_ Is that even illegal when 1 party controls 2 branches of
                   government?
        \_ MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
2005/10/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40198 Activity:nil
10/20   Partial transcript of Powell's number one while Powell was Sec State
        http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-40f4-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html
        "Under Secretary of Defense Douglas [inaudible], whom most of you
        probably know Tommy Franks said was the stupidest blankety blank man in
        the world. He was. Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life
        have I met a dumber man."
        \_ This guy? http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/feith_bio.html
2005/10/19-21 [Recreation/Food, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40178 Activity:nil
10/19   My sister's music is featured at http://NPR.org under 'all songs
        considered' and can be listened to.  The name of the song is
        'Take a minute' from her previous CD 'I kid you not'.  Her name
        is Diane Marie Kloba.  I hope you enjoy it.  -ikiru
        \_ Congrats! Is she as hot as yermom?
        \_ See http://www.dianemariekloba.com ... ikiru's mom is currently about to
           go medieval on Florida.
2005/10/19-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40176 Activity:nil
10/19   A new high (low) in war profiteering:
        http://amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html
2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40138 Activity:high
10/17   http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Condi-Iraq-war-9-11.wmv
        http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Condi-Iraq-war-9-11.mov
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9684807
        What I got from Condi's interview:
        (1) al Qaeda attacked us
        (2) Don't get al Qaeda; Saddam is the bigger priority
        (3) Get Saddam while he's small
        (4) Build a democracy in Iraq to weaken dictator-led countries (and
            especially to enable a democratic-revolution in Iran) -- since
            democracies are more predictable / easier to deal with on WMDs
        (5) Don't tell the American people this is the strategy.  Instead,
            focus on Iraqi WMDs to win required political support.
        This may or may not be the smoking gun, but it sure as hell tells me
        what Condi thought.
        \_ Don't forget (6) PROFIT!!!!!
           \_ nah, I don't believe that -op
              \_ Erm, we've seen the military-industrial complex at work
                 before our eyes, and you just "don't believe it"?  You
                 think this was all just international dick waving?
                 \_ I believe the administration did what it thought would
                    protect America, even though both the overall strategy and
                    \_ So did Joe McCarthy.  You've read 7 Days in May?  So
                       does General Scott.  That's no excuse.  -John
                       \_ It /is/ no excuse, and I'm in complete agreement with
                          you.  I was just answering the guy who was saying
                          that profit was a big motive. -op
                          \_ Why else give extended no-bid contracts?  Why
                             short change on things like armor?  Non-rotted
                             food?  Why avoid at all costs anything resembling
                             the Truman commission?  Or are these things just
                             afterthoughts in your opinion?  The people in this
                             administration have been in the _business_ of war
                             for generations.
                             \_ I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here,
                                but wouldn't good, expensive food and armor
                                have brought even more profits to the
                                military suppliers, especially in light
                                of the no-bid contracts?  It seems to me that
                                whether this war was for preventing terrorism,
                                spreading democracy, bringing peace to the
                                middle east, maximizing American corporate
                                profits, or spreading some kind of American
                                Empire, it ends up looking like a clusterfuck
                                run by morons.
                                \_ No because if the contracts weren't no-bid
                                   the people fullfilling them would have to
                                   actually deliver decent services for their
                                   money, which would leave more money for
                                   things like armor and edible food.
                                   \_ Indeed.  look up Bunnatine Greenhouse,
                                   \_ Indeed.  look up Bunnington Greenhouse,
                                      formerly in charge of army (?)
                                      procurement.  The no-bid contracts that
                                      came across her desk were for 5 year
                                      terms.  no-bids are rarely for more than
                                      1 year, because they're meant to be stop-
                                      gaps.  she also says that the pentagon
                                      stopped asking for cost-justification
                                      reports, which are the only teeth the
                                      government has to keep an eye on
                                      cost-plus contracts
                             \_ The desire to protect America came first.  The
                                clusterfuck and the war-profiteering came after
                                we invaded.  Sure there were people calculating
                                how to make big bux prior to the invasion,
                                but I think protecting America came first
                                before big bux when Dubya decided to invade.
                                -op
                                we invaded. -op
                                how to make big bux to capitalize on the
                                coming war, but I think protecting America
                                came first before big bux when Dubya decided
                                to invade. -op
                                \_ I think you're naive.  I think if that was
                                   their first thought, the military would have
                                   had an actual war plan.  They were pie-eyed.
                                   They had planned how they would restructure
                                   the economy, but not how they would keep
                                   the peace.  These are crooks.
                                   \_ Don't forget that the miltary DID have
                                      very detailed plans of what would happen
                                      in various cases, and those who spoke
                                      out about insufficient forces were
                                      sacked by Donald Rumsfeld.  We KNEW
                                      we getting into a mess and did it
                                      anyway.  Future generations will ask
                                      \_ Exactly my point.  In chaos it's
                                         easy to "lose" money (read "steal).
                                         They haven't changed their approach
                                         because they're perfectly happy with
                                         the situation.  So a few soldiers
                                         die... big whup.  So a few civilians
                                         die... Dude, they're, like, brown.
                                      why we didn't do anything about the
                                      neocons in the same naive tones that
                                      schoolchildren today ask about the
                                      Nazi party rise to power.
                                   \_ If you took a poll of informed observers,
                                      I think the majority would agree with me,
                                      and the majority would also say that
                                      while you have a noble interest in
                                      finding out the truth, you're
                                      overstating.  I agree with the pie-eyed
                                      characterization though, and I think the
                                      lack of a realistic post-war rebuilding
                                      plan was Rummy's mistake, since there
                                      were plenty of generals who questioned
                                      why we didn't have more troops for that
                                      phase. -op
                                      \_ CNN already took this poll, and
                                         a plurailty of Americans believe
                                         you are wrong.
                                         \_ You fail on two points:
                                            (1) CNN did not ask Americans
                                                "Was the war to protect America
                                                or 'for profit'?", which is
                                                what we're arguing about.
                                            \_ You're setting up a false
                                               dichotomy.  The question
                                               "is this war making us safer"
                                               has been polled for the duration.
                                               the yes side has steadily gone
                                               down as people have realized it
                                               will drag on forever, and is
                                               against the wrong "enemy".
                                               \_ Apparently you forgot the
                                                  original topic.  The original
                                                  topic was "for profit" vs.
                                                  "protecting America".
                                                  You - forgot - the -
                                                  original - topic.  Follow
                                                  the precise thread of
                                                  conversation.  I'll show you:
                                                  CNN already took this poll ..
                                                  If you took a poll ...
                                                  I think you're naive ...
                                                  The desire to protect ...
                                                  [all the way to:]
                                                  ... (6) PROFIT!!!!!
                                                  -- And there you have it.
                                                  Trust me:  I am completely
                                                  aware that more Americans
                                                  than not feel that the war
                                                  may not have been worth it,
                                                  nor made us safer.
                                                  \_ Seriously, discussing
                                                     this with you is like
                                                     discussing ID with a
                                                     true believer.  I'll
                                                     dub this the "incompetent
                                                     intent" theory on the
                                                     Bush presidency.
                                            (2) I said "informed observers".
                                      \_ Then why haven't they made any moves
                                         to FIX their mistakes.  I can only
                                         conclude that they're happy with the
                                         situation.  Stay the course, beeyotch
                                         \_ We're not sending (a lot) more
                                            troops because the generals are
                                            saying sending (a lot) more troops
                                            would make things worse.
                                            \_ sourceP
                                      overstating. -op
                                               \_ #t
                                               \_ just google for
                                                  "send more troops iraq worse"
                                                  \_ Fuck off.
                                                     \_ what's the problem?
                                                        most informed observers
                                                        already know this, and
                                                        the search works.
                                      \_ It's hard sometimes to figure out
                                         where Bush admin desire for
                                         "crusades" in the middle east to
                                         install compliant, pro-Western
                                         "democracies" ends and where the
                                         desire to shovel as much $$$ to
                                         Halliburton, et al begins.  It's all
                                         a dangerous mix of corruption &
                                         incompetence.
                    execution were bungled.  Jury's still out on whether "Bush
                    lied" or not, but at least I now know what Condi thinks
                    about the reason for toppling Saddam.
                    \_ We toppled Iran in 1950s and it didn't get us anywhere.
                       Don't you see the pattern now?  all the "enemy" of the
                       middle east *HAPPENS* to be those country whose oil
                       is not in few monarch's hand.  Get real.
                       \_ We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait because Kuwait had
                          oil.  We haven't done much about Rwanda and Darfur.
                          I'm keeping this discussion very real.
                          Is it oil "for profit" as point 6, or is it oil
                          for "protecting America", like I've said? -op
                          \_ The oil "for profit" explanation doesn't make
                             much sense to me, at least to the extent
                             that it's just oil company profits that they're
                             concerned about.  Tightening oil supply leads
                             to high prices, which puts money in the pockets
                             of oilmen.  I.e., I agree with you. -!pp
                                \_ Actually the ultimate goal is to control
                                   this area of the world so that when oil
                                   is no longer a fungible commodity, the
                                   US economy still has a supply.  It's
                                   unlikely to work since people in the region
                                   hate us with a passion.
                                   \_ You have the right idea, but not quite.
                                      The ultimate goal is to protect America.
                                      Re oil, the target is to have a
                                      predictable and significant share of oil
                                      supplies, in such a way that oil-
                                      producing countries can't easily
                                      blackmail us or turn off the spigot in
                                      times of war, and we know how much is
                                      left.  If this target can be maintained
                                      (and it has been for a couple decades),
                                      then the availability of oil should
                                      then the availabitily of oil should
                                      decrease gradually and predictably.
                                      Market forces will encourage the steady
                                      development of alternative and more
                                      energy-efficient technologies.  Key words
                                      efficient-energy technologies.  Key words
                                      are "gradual" and "predictable".
                                      -liberal/moderate
        \_ posting 3 url's is reason enough to change the motd into a
           bbs forum.  cutting and pasting these links... gawd!! - napoleon
2005/10/14-15 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40100 Activity:moderate
10/14   Margaret Thatcher on Iraq WMDs (according to an associate):
        "I /was/ a scientist before I was a politician. And as a scientist I
        know you need facts, evidence and proof - and then you check, recheck
        and check again. The fact was that there /were/ no facts, there was no
        evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious
        decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from
        which they may not return."
        http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article319542.ece
        \_ Obviously she's less senile at 80 than Dubya is now.
           \_ Lessons learned? "Oh well, Daddy will fix it."
                \_ The brain cells you killed with alcohol will grow back?
                   Or not ...
2017/12/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
12/16   
Results 1051 - 1200 of 1605   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Politics:Foreign:MiddleEast:Iraq:
.