View Full Version : News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq
spuriousmonkey
08-09-06, 08:54 AM
Is that gun in your pocket Mister, or are you just happy to see me?
http://www.evolutionquebec.com/site/images/irak/irakid56.jpg
The Devil Inside
08-16-06, 06:13 PM
Yeah, maybe it was a Kodak moment.
or maybe it was staged in an empty lot in nyc by a college student trying to generate sympathy.
or it may be genuine.
the point is that we shouldnt just assume that a child that looks sad or suffering on a television or picture isnt being manipulated.
Do you believe the children in Iraq are having a good time?
The Devil Inside
08-19-06, 06:42 PM
Do you believe the children in Iraq are having a good time?
uh....no.
i was pointing out that people need to think with their brains, and not with their emotions, or they will be manipulated toward ends that they necessarily dont agree with.
i have as much, if not more sympathy for the iraqi plight than the average american (as i have family that was affected by the conflict).....but getting emotional about the topic wont save lives....thinking rationally will.
be skeptical of anything you see in the media...even the bits you agree with. it is a talent not many people utilize, but they all possess.
a shame, really.
the rationality of the issue is very simple The Devil inside; remember what Dwight eisenhower warned Americans of? oh well let me remind you that he warn the states against the formation of a permanent military industrial complex, which is the case today. In my opinion U.S.'s rationale to kill the enemy by uprooting it is correct, but the approach to do so? i dont think so. and in the meantime more civillians and more soldiers must die. You must understand that tactics have to be changed here. one must understand that jihadis and terrorists never fight like an army, so there is army or any other form of military going to be effective? i dont think so. the only effective means of curbing those insurgents is training locals in U.S. or training U.S. military officials (only a handful) to take charge and help curb the insurgency by counter insurgency rather than going like an army;
An analogy : when a sniper exists in a building does the company CO charges his men straight into the building or strategically organizes his men to their positions and sends one of the men to look for the position of this sniper and then attack him relevantly? that is what is needed right now, not bombing civillians unecessarily. Israel tried the same with hezbollah and ended up killing civillians more than anything and allowed animosity to develop within the locals...
In a war there are moments when you have to take ruthless actions, but if your tactics are wrong, ruthlessness is often described as heinious.
Rick
The Devil Inside
08-27-06, 08:52 PM
i was talking about the DUTY of citizens that have the right, to exercise the right to criticize "authority".
i agree fully with your above statement...even if it was wildly off topic. :)
haha, sorry for detouring; i have a tendency especially in political matters to do that...
Rick
LARRYTHECABLEGUYJR
08-31-06, 09:22 AM
Do you believe the children in Iraq are having a good time?
man is that a reel pikture of you you are fine wantu go out sumtime.
thedevilsreject
08-31-06, 10:11 AM
man is that a reel pikture of you you are fine wantu go out sumtime.
thats not her
The Devil Inside
08-31-06, 11:55 AM
thats not her
it is me.
thedevilsreject
08-31-06, 04:04 PM
it is me.
:eek:
man is that a reel pikture of you you are fine wantu go out sumtime.
Only in the opposite direction from wherever you are, thanks.
Redefine91
09-02-06, 07:01 PM
Ha
Romance on SciForums
The Devil Inside
09-06-06, 05:43 AM
it has happened before.
it has happened before.
Do tell.
The Devil Inside
09-08-06, 07:33 AM
ask ronnie.
some roads are better not taken.
The Devil Inside
09-08-06, 07:42 AM
some roads are better not taken.
most of them have the "ronnie" sign on them.
spuriousmonkey
09-08-06, 07:46 AM
It seems the other colony (afghanistan) is not doing so well. Jaap de hoop scheffer is assuring us we will win this war.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39701000/jpg/_39701565_scheffer203bodyap.jpg
Although the war was already claimed to have been won a few years back.
The Devil Inside
09-08-06, 07:53 AM
doublethink is not permitted, monkeyman.
who the fuck is the guy in the picture?
spuriousmonkey
09-08-06, 08:02 AM
Jaap de hoop (the hope) Scheffer.
He was kicked out of Dutch politics and send to the Nato to be quiet. And now we can hear him talk again.
tsk tsk
The Devil Inside
09-08-06, 08:09 AM
i just read an article about him.
haha!!
spuriousmonkey
09-09-06, 01:54 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm
There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.
Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception.
They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq.
It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.
olala!
Saddam was a anti-terrorist. And then Iraq got invaded by dumb americans.
And now it is a breeding place and training site for terrorist.
Well done!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5326790.stm
Baghdad violence 'not declining'
Sectarian and insurgent killings in Baghdad are undiminished
The Iraqi ministry of health says more than 1,500 people were killed in attacks in Baghdad last month.
The figure is far higher than previously thought, and only slightly lower than July's figure.
US military and Iraqi officials had previously said a major new security operation in Baghdad had dramatically reduced the number of killings.
Not that this will stop the americans from sticking their heads in the sand of course.
Afghanistan is acting up. Iraq can't be controlled. Saddam was a force in the ME that actually opposed the extremist.
What a major fuckup.
A parallelsource: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060909/ap_on_go_co/iraq_report)
It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."
It seems the best strategy would have been to stay & finish the job in Afghanistan while making an alliance with Saddam. Also Saddam Hussein and the Sunnis would continue to keep an eye on Iran and balance the Shia. Iran Is much stronger today because of shia uprising in Iraq.
Baron Max
09-09-06, 07:45 AM
Spurious, it's always interesting to me that you'll believe one government report, but not some other one! Surely you have some magic method of determining which is "correct" and which isn't, right? Or ...ooooh, ...is it just your own bias picking the ones that match your opinions? :)
And of all things, you pick a report that comes out ...ooooh, just prior to the elections??? ....LOL!
Baron Max
The Devil Inside
09-09-06, 10:01 AM
1. he has you on ignore.
2. your post had no actual content.
spuriousmonkey
09-09-06, 10:17 AM
More news from the other colony (afghanistan):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5329670.stm
Afghan clashes 'kill 40 Taleban'
British soldiers are in the forefront of the fight against the Taleban
Nato-led forces in Afghanistan say they have killed 40 more Taleban rebels in an ongoing offensive in the south.
Now wait a sec. Offensive? I thought the war had ended there.
Nato says more than 40 Taleban were killed by air strikes and artillery barrages overnight. One Nato soldier also died in combat.
Airstrikes and artillery barrages? Are they sure they meant 'killed 40 taliban' and not 'killed 40 civilians'?
There has been a series of suicide bombings across Afghanistan, but such a large explosion in the centre of Kabul was unusual.
Nothing stops a suicide bomber better than an airstrike or an artillery barrage!
Baron Max
09-09-06, 07:23 PM
Are they sure they meant 'killed 40 taliban' and not 'killed 40 civilians'?
How can one tell the difference? Please advise. (The question also applies to such forces as those in Iraq or Hezbollah or the PLO (and similar Palestinian groups)
Nothing stops a suicide bomber better than an airstrike or an artillery barrage!
Oh, that's very, very true ....if the bombs or artillery shells land right on the suicide bombers head!
Baron Max
hypewaders
09-09-06, 07:27 PM
On the contrary, such a barrage would be to assist in a hypothetical suicide bomber's sick mission. The monkey's irony went over your head yet again.
Baron Max
09-09-06, 07:34 PM
On the contrary, such a barrage would be to assist in a hypothetical suicide bomber's sick mission.
No, it wouldn't ....if they caught him outside in the open and not close to his target.
The monkey's irony went over your head yet again.
No, I didn't. But then I'm also not so sure it would be called "irony", either.
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-15-06, 06:34 AM
From Dutch newspaper on Afghanistan.
The highest ranking military leader (Colonel Arie Vermei) of the Dutch forces in South afghanistan is very pessimistic on teh chances of a successful mission to 'rebuild' afghanistan. A mission the dutch military was send to accomplish there.
He called it a mop-up operation with the tap wide open.
From pakistan there is a continuous influx of new Taliban rebels.
The pakistani government is incapable of keeping the border with afghanistan closed. Approximately 40% of the Taliban, especially those who are in charge, form the core of taliban resistance. These men arrive well-trained directly from Pakistan. They are accompagnied by local similar-minded people.
In pakistan they are armed and supplied with communication equipment and transport. "as long as pakistan does not close the border we can't do our job". "We capture a lot of taliban or disable them, but new warriors keep coming."
This story confirms the notion that the Dutch mission in afghanistan is not there to rebuild the nation as was intended but are strictly on a war mission currently, which is confirmed by the military Union.
Link in Dutch:
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/49998881/_Missie_is_dweilen_met_de_kraan_open_.html?p=9,1
Baron Max
09-15-06, 08:35 AM
From Dutch newspaper on Afghanistan.
The highest ranking military leader (Colonel Arie Vermei) of the Dutch forces in South afghanistan.....
That's just one man's opinion ...nothing more, nothing less. Why would you immediately believe his opinion over and above some others' opinions?
Could it be that his opinion says what you want to believe? His opinion speaks to your own biased opinion ....even though you don't know jack-shit about what's really happening in Afghanistan (other than the opinions that you read from others who probably don't know jack-shit!)?
Tell me, Spurious, and please tell me honestly .....why do you believe this report versus any of the other, more optimistic reports? Please ....I'm trying to learn how to sort through all of the bullshit myself.
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-15-06, 09:11 AM
That's just one man's opinion ...nothing more, nothing less. Why would you immediately believe his opinion over and above some others' opinions?
Could it be that his opinion says what you want to believe? His opinion speaks to your own biased opinion ....even though you don't know jack-shit about what's really happening in Afghanistan (other than the opinions that you read from others who probably don't know jack-shit!)?
Tell me, Spurious, and please tell me honestly .....why do you believe this report versus any of the other, more optimistic reports? Please ....I'm trying to learn how to sort through all of the bullshit myself.
Baron Max
Because he is in charge there? Because the military leadership has been reluctant to admit to this, despite there being reports earlier already from other sources. And now the man who actually leads the Dutch forces there confirms these notions.
Why would he lie?
In fact why do you question everything that goes against your narrowminded views? Even if there is nothing to question.
Please show us the optimistic reports. I demand them. You said they exist. we want to see them.
Baron Max
09-15-06, 09:23 AM
All of that might be true, Spurious, but it's still one man's opinion ...nothing more, nothing less. That you believe his opinion above and beyond the opinion of others is more tell of you and your own bias than of his.
Think about it. Why do you believe anything about anything?
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-15-06, 09:45 AM
Show that the report is wrong.
Baron Max
09-15-06, 09:49 AM
Show that the report is wrong.
I didn't say it was wrong, Spurious, I just said it, like most reports, is just one man's opinion. You can believe it if you want to, but in doing so, all it shows is your own gullibility, not anything about the truth or dishonesty of the report.
Baron Max
didn't say it was wrong, Spurious, I just said it, like most reports, is just one man's opinion. You can believe it if you want to, but in doing so, all it shows is your own gullibility, not anything about the truth or dishonesty of the report.
Unless you show otherwise, or provide evidence otherwise, we have no reason to distrust the report.
Baron Max
09-17-06, 07:37 PM
..., we have no reason to distrust the report.
Then by that logic, you don't have any reason to distrust any other reports, either. Yet you always seem to distrust reports that favor the USA, don't you!
People, you included, believe only what you want to believe ....regardless of the evidence or substantiation.
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-18-06, 04:06 AM
Roman is an american.
This report was done by one of the favourite allies of the USA. Why are you so skeptical of a report done by the highest official in afghanistan by the favourite ally of the USA. What is so anti-USA of this report that you distrust it?
It reports a problem. Is it that problems in foreign policy do not exist if the American government denies problems?
Why are you so biased?
Destroyer
09-18-06, 05:30 AM
I didn't say it was wrong, Spurious, I just said it, like most reports, is just one man's opinion. You can believe it if you want to, but in doing so, all it shows is your own gullibility, not anything about the truth or dishonesty of the report.
Thats all well and good. But do you apply that logic to what Bush and his administration says? When Georgie boy told you Iraq had WMD did you believe him? Or did it just show up your own gullibility,?
Baron Max
09-18-06, 07:53 AM
But do you apply that logic to what Bush and his administration says?
Not to what they SAY ..because I can hear that coming from their mouths!
But I apply the same skepticism to newscast REPORTS of what the administration officials said or did.
When Georgie boy told you Iraq had WMD did you believe him? Or did it just show up your own gullibility?
I was skeptical at the time ...but our duly elected government decided to go to war with Iraq ...and most of the congress saw/read the intelligence reports and approved going to war.
Even if I'd been fully against it, there was nothing that I could do ....that's how our system works, and how it should work. Personally, I'd hate it if each citizen had the right to tell our government what and how to do anything.
Baron Max
hypewaders
09-23-06, 09:56 AM
"Personally, I'd hate it if each citizen had the right to tell our government what and how to do anything."
Then it must really rankle you to be admonished to consider informed dissent a duty.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.-Theodore Roosevelt
spuriousmonkey
09-24-06, 03:40 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm
US report says Iraq fuels terror
The document reportedly blames the conflict for increasing the threat of terrorism and helping fuel Islamic radicalism worldwide.
Such a conclusion is at odds with the White House's persistent claim that going to war was the right thing to do.
If what they say is true, our correspondent says, the document appears to undermine US President George W Bush's insistence that for all the flaws of the Iraq war, the world is now a safer place.
Well well. Didn't we say that all along.
Baron Max
09-24-06, 08:11 AM
One person's claim or opinion is just that, Spurious, and nothing more.
Instead of believing and posting the pessimistic reports, why not believe and post some of the optimistic reports? Why believe one over the other? Oh, wait ....it must be your own agenda, huh?
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-24-06, 08:18 AM
One person's claim or opinion is just that, Spurious, and nothing more.
Instead of believing and posting the pessimistic reports, why not believe and post some of the optimistic reports? Why believe one over the other? Oh, wait ....it must be your own agenda, huh?
Baron Max
Is this your argument? You lacked a proper response and attack the messenger. again.
Baron Max
09-24-06, 08:31 AM
Is this your argument? You lacked a proper response and attack the messenger. again.
Well, no, it's not an argument. I don't want to argue with you or with the article. It's just one more person's opinion and shouldn't mean any more to us than any other person's opinion. Too often we grab at what we want to read or hear, thus solidifying our own stance on an issue.
My problem with it all is .....I keep wondering why we think that we MUST make a decision on many of these issues? I mean, most often it has virtually no meaning to our small, insignificant lives, so why are we so quick to decide some issue that has no bearing on our lives? Why not wait a few thousand years and read about it in the history books? Books that might be written by professionals who actually have gather ALL of the facts and conditions and put forth their theories?
Why are we so quick to make up our minds? Especially when we know for sure that we don't have all of the information about it?
Baron Max
Nikelodeon
09-24-06, 09:46 AM
http://uncyclopedia.org/images/8/83/2ndvietnam.jpg
spuriousmonkey
09-24-06, 10:11 AM
Why are we so quick to make up our minds? Especially when we know for sure that we don't have all of the information about it?
Because it is obvious Iraq was not invaded to fight terrorism. and it is also obvious invading a muslim country would fuel terrorism.
Baron Max
09-24-06, 10:20 AM
Because it is obvious Iraq was not invaded to fight terrorism.
Must not be too obvious, because many people feel that it was!
and it is also obvious invading a muslim country would fuel terrorism.
Must not be too obvious, because many people feel that it reduced the terrorism against the USA.
Again, why do you have to decide on these things? Would make any difference, ANY difference, in your life if you waited a while to decide? Why rush to judgement, especially when you don't have all the info or the expertise of world politics?
Baron Max
Nikelodeon
09-24-06, 10:22 AM
Must not be too obvious, because many people feel that it reduced the terrorism against the USA.
Many felt Saddam had something to do with 9/11 too.
spuriousmonkey
09-24-06, 10:22 AM
Must not be too obvious, because many people feel that it was!
Must not be too obvious, because many people feel that it reduced the terrorism against the USA.
Again, why do you have to decide on these things? Would make any difference, ANY difference, in your life if you waited a while to decide? Why rush to judgement, especially when you don't have all the info or the expertise of world politics?
Baron Max
You are wrong. Only rightwing american dumbasses felt that way. They are a tiny minority in the world.
I know they think a lot of themselves of course.
Baron Max
09-24-06, 10:30 AM
You are wrong. Only rightwing american dumbasses felt that way.
Well, I'm certainly glad that you're not biased, and that you still can keep an open mind about it all. :)
But you still didn't answer my question: Why must you make up you mind about thing so quickly? Why not wait until you have all of the info from all of the possible sources? Why jump to quick judgements?
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-24-06, 01:15 PM
Well, I'm certainly glad that you're not biased, and that you still can keep an open mind about it all. :)
But you still didn't answer my question: Why must you make up you mind about thing so quickly? Why not wait until you have all of the info from all of the possible sources? Why jump to quick judgements?
Baron Max
Prove that i jumped.
heh
the idiot max and his ridiculous strawmen
Buffalo Roam
09-25-06, 08:23 AM
spuriousmonkey, your so jumpy you could win the Calaveras County Frog Jumping Contest.
spuriousmonkey
09-25-06, 08:36 AM
spuriousmonkey, your so jumpy you could win the Calaveras County Frog Jumping Contest.
Not if you are competing.
Zakariya04
09-29-06, 04:59 AM
Dear Posters
Rather than started a new thread i thought i'd just lump this in here:::
but i found this rather disturbing (albeit rather predictable)if indeed true
taken from "the Times UK"
Iraq al Qaida chief's holy war call
The new leader of al Qaida in Iraq urged Muslims to make the holy month of Ramadan a "month of holy war," in an audiotape posted on Islamic website. The man on the tape identified himself as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir -- also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri -- the leader of al Qaida in Iraq, though the voice could not be independently identified. He is believed to have succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who died in a US airstrike north of Baghdad in June.
##################
these guys are really pricks.... using ramadan to incite more violence and the hatred of non muslims.. when muslims are meant to be more chairtable, spiritual and tolerant and patient....
Baron Max
09-29-06, 11:57 AM
these guys are really pricks.... using ramadan to incite more violence and the hatred of non muslims.. when muslims are meant to be more chairtable, spiritual and tolerant and patient....
Zak, I have to agree that they're pricks ...or worse murderers! But why does it seem that there are more Muslims doing that in the world than any other race/religion/culture/or whatever?
That's not being anti-Muslim, JamesR, it's asking a good question about the seeming overwhelming numbers of Muslim terrorists versus any other type or kind of terrorist. Why so many Muslim terrorists than, say, Mexican terrorists? Or American terrorists? Or....?
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-29-06, 12:02 PM
Zak, I have to agree that they're pricks ...or worse murderers! But why does it seem that there are more Muslims doing that in the world than any other race/religion/culture/or whatever?
Because you are blinded by hatred?
Baron Max
09-29-06, 12:05 PM
Because you are blinded by hatred?
Oh, could be ...but I doubt it.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the same level of terrorism exhibited by other religions/cultures?
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-29-06, 12:08 PM
Oh, could be ...but I doubt it.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the same level of terrorism exhibited by other religions/cultures?
Baron Max
USA -christians
PLO -communists/christians/muslims
IRA -christians
Tamil tigers -240+ suicide bombings since 80s.
Zakariya04
09-29-06, 12:10 PM
Zak, I have to agree that they're pricks ...or worse murderers! But why does it seem that there are more Muslims doing that in the world than any other race/religion/culture/or whatever?
That's not being anti-Muslim, JamesR, it's asking a good question about the seeming overwhelming numbers of Muslim terrorists versus any other type or kind of terrorist. Why so many Muslim terrorists than, say, Mexican terrorists? Or American terrorists? Or....?
Baron Max
hi baron
pricks was just used cos i did not want to say something to rude, eventhough it does merit it.
Muslims (or people claiming to be muslim - thats not non muslims claiming to be muslims but muslims who treat their religion with no respect) do seem to be in the news a lot and are commiting some terrible sins..... this all stems from whabbism... ijust hope its influence is not as far reaching as it sounds!!!
i dont know whether "muslims" are the largest bunch of dicks around at the moment as there are quite a few other terrorist groups around. but yes with shame i admit this, and it really pains me to see the violence.
Yes we could say that bush/blair have murdered lots of innocent people too along with Sharon/oplmert but fuck it whats the point.... Killing is killing.
power crazed fuckwits out to destroy the guy just wanting to get on with his life.
i dunno baron... i am in such dispair at the moment... the news which i posted above was really a disgusting perversion of Islam
I may just retreat to a small islamnd somewhere with my pc and championship manager and say fuckit to all of this.. i just dont like hearing it any more...
All the shit like no its there fault, no its you fault..
The politics of blame and hate are dominant nowadays...
just look at any leaders speach... all blame and hate
Baron Max
09-29-06, 12:20 PM
All the shit like no its there fault, no its you fault..
The politics of blame and hate are dominant nowadays...
just look at any leaders speach... all blame and hate
You don't even have to go that far, Zak, look at this very forum ....almost every post is someone blaming someone else for something that they don't like or want.
It's not Muslims, Zak, it's fuckin' humans! Humans should be wiped off the face of the Earth ...then all would be peaceful and happy.
Baron Max
Baron Max
09-29-06, 12:20 PM
USA -christians
PLO -communists/christians/muslims
IRA -christians
Tamil tigers -240+ suicide bombings since 80s.
Got any numbers of killings/death so that we can keep proper score?
Baron Max
Zakariya04
09-29-06, 12:44 PM
You don't even have to go that far, Zak, look at this very forum ....almost every post is someone blaming someone else for something that they don't like or want.
It's not Muslims, Zak, it's fuckin' humans! Humans should be wiped off the face of the Earth ...then all would be peaceful and happy.
Baron Max
yeah baron your right fuckem all!!!!!!!!!!!!
spuriousmonkey
09-29-06, 12:50 PM
Got any numbers of killings/death so that we can keep proper score?
Baron Max
Yes. The USA is leading by far. Well done my friend.
spuriousmonkey
09-30-06, 02:26 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm
Veteran US journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration.
"Now, there's public and then there's private, but what do they do with the private - they stamp it secret. No-one's supposed to know," Mr Woodward said.
He added that the insurgents knew how effective they were - but the US public did not.
How can he possibly know this?
allegedly ... Mr Woodward has had better access to policymakers in the Bush White House than any other writer.
who's back in town?
Mr Woodward says he was stunned to be told by the Vice-President Dick Cheney that the veteran former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, -who served Presidents Nixon and Ford during the Vietnam war - was also serving President Bush
"So fascinating. Kissinger's fighting the Vietnam war again," Mr Woodward added.
There is indeed the feeling that things are not going terribly well in the colonies. Then again, maybe he is just promoting his book.
Baron Max
09-30-06, 07:44 AM
Yep, if Bob Woodward said it, then it must be true! He wouldn't lie or make up things just to sell more copies of his book ...no, of course not.
Seemingly, in this day and time, anyone can say anything that they want without reprecussion ...and worse, some people will believe it! We've become a people who've lost any sense of personal honor, and lies spew forth without thought or consideration of the consequences. We've become a people who just don't give a fuck about anything but ourselves and our own selfish interests.
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-30-06, 08:56 AM
Yep, if Bob Woodward said it, then it must be true! He wouldn't lie or make up things just to sell more copies of his book ...no, of course not.
That's what I said mr. parrot.
Nikelodeon
09-30-06, 08:58 AM
Seemingly, in this day and time, anyone can say anything that they want without reprecussion ...and worse, some people will believe it!
I know! The number of people who believe Bush is astonishing!
Zakariya04
09-30-06, 10:16 AM
“ Originally Posted by Zakariya04
Ok what i am saying is that the US did not have a good post-saddam strategy...
the basis for the post hitler and the japanese emperor was based on about 2 years of planning....they had a plan..... ”
The only fucking strategy that the US had against Japan and Germany was to beat the livin' shit outta' them and win the war!! We didn't have a "post-war strategy" at all .....and if you think so, please show me some evidence of it, not just your own ideas or thoughts.
“ Originally Posted by Zakariya04
what was their plan for Iraq??? why did they not have a contingency plan??? ”
You don't have to have post-war plans to go to war! Why? Where is it written that a nation must have plans for after the war?
And as to contingency plans ....we didn't need those either, because we went into the war to win the fuckin' thing, not to play "what-if" games about losing!! There was not and shouldn't have been any plans other than to win.
Baron Max
hey baron i'm coming back to this post now i almost forgot.
so what was bush's reason to invade iraq???
I thought it was regime change!!!
So therefore with a reason like that you need a post war strategy
Baron Max
09-30-06, 10:36 AM
So therefore with a reason like that you need a post war strategy
Why?
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-30-06, 10:41 AM
Why?
Baron Max
You want the war to continue forever?
Baron Max
09-30-06, 10:46 AM
You want the war to continue forever?
No, of course not .....but I want it to continue until it's won!
Baron Max
when is it won???
when evreybody is death
Zakariya04
09-30-06, 10:48 AM
Why?
Baron Max
because you have chaos in raq today. and US soliders are dying as a result along with loads of iraqis
Now dont say in ww2 we wanted regime change but that was different as it was forced on us by the enemy.. Iraq did not attack us in 2003
Nikelodeon
09-30-06, 10:50 AM
when is it won???
When McDonalds finally opens in Baghdad.
When McDonalds finally opens in Baghdad.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/1/V/iraq_mcdonalds.jpg
http://rockoutmedia.com/flisp/content/pictures/mcdonalds.iraq.124.flisp.com.jpg
Baron Max
09-30-06, 10:57 AM
when is it won??? when evreybody is death
Yeah, that would be one way to tell. But there are also other ways.
Baron Max
Baron Max
09-30-06, 11:00 AM
Now dont say in ww2 we wanted regime change but that was different as it was forced on us by the enemy.. Iraq did not attack us in 2003
No, Zak, the was with Japan was forced on us, the war in Europe was undertaken to rid the world of Hitler. No, Zak, it was not different militarily, it was different, however, due to the lily-livered liberal politicians and the weak-willed American people.
If World War II were to have been fought under the same conditions, we'd have been forced by the liberals to have let Hitler and the Nazis remain in power!
Baron Max
You know the main reason we invaded iraq,. They didn't have a mcdonalds!
Soon there will be many.... infidel burgers!!!..there is no escape..mwhahahaha!
Zakariya04
09-30-06, 11:03 AM
No, Zak, the was with Japan was forced on us, the war in Europe was undertaken to rid the world of Hitler. No, Zak, it was not different militarily, it was different, however, due to the lily-livered liberal politicians and the weak-willed American people.
Baron Max
Hi abron thank you for your post
thats what bi said baron it was forced on us.. so it wewas different
iraq 2003 was not forced on us...
Zakariya04
09-30-06, 11:04 AM
Hi baron
i said ww2 was different as it was forced on us by ouir enemies
Nikelodeon
09-30-06, 11:05 AM
You know the main reason we invaded iraq,. They didn't have a mcdonalds!
Soon there will be many.... infidel burgers!!!..there is no escape..mwhahahaha!
Yes, the real aim was to spread obesity into the ME.
Baron Max
09-30-06, 11:06 AM
You can't read, can you, Zak?? Read my post again .....
I ain't talkin' to you no-fuckin'-more ....you're just like most of the fanatical Muslim terrorists you claim not to support. Fuck you ...and I hope you die a horrible, painful death .....very fuckin' soon!
Baron Max
You can't read, can you, Zak?? Read my post again .....
I ain't talkin' to you no-fuckin'-more ....you're just like most of the fanatical Muslim terrorists you claim not to support. Fuck you ...and I hope you die a horrible, painful death .....very fuckin' soon!
Baron Max
Do you really mean that? :confused:
Yes, the real aim was to spread obesity into the ME.
No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still baloney.
Baron Max
09-30-06, 11:16 AM
Do you really mean that? :confused:
During my frustration and anger ....yes! Do I still mean it? Hmm, give me some more time to think about that, okay?
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
09-30-06, 01:43 PM
You can't read, can you, Zak?? Read my post again .....
I ain't talkin' to you no-fuckin'-more ....you're just like most of the fanatical Muslim terrorists you claim not to support. Fuck you ...and I hope you die a horrible, painful death .....very fuckin' soon!
Baron Max
I'm sure that is how the terrorist think about americans.
I'm sure that is how the terrorist think about americans.
American hater
Zakariya04
09-30-06, 03:45 PM
You can't read, can you, Zak?? Read my post again .....
I ain't talkin' to you no-fuckin'-more ....
Baron Max
Phew a double negative so you are still talking to me
thats ok then for aminute i thought you were not going to talk to me anymore
nice one baron...
Wow!!! After 30 pages there is finally bloodshed!!
terryoh
10-17-06, 02:37 AM
Yep, if Bob Woodward said it, then it must be true! He wouldn't lie or make up things just to sell more copies of his book ...no, of course not.
Seemingly, in this day and time, anyone can say anything that they want without reprecussion ...and worse, some people will believe it! We've become a people who've lost any sense of personal honor, and lies spew forth without thought or consideration of the consequences. We've become a people who just don't give a fuck about anything but ourselves and our own selfish interests.
Baron Max
The same can be said about the Government, right? Unless you feel that this current administration should be free from criticism.
spuriousmonkey
10-18-06, 07:12 AM
All his well in the colonies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6061488.stm
Nine US soldiers killed in Iraq
The deaths come as US-led forces in Iraq experience a surge in casualties in insurgency attacks; more than 60 US troops have been killed this month.
The BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad says that, with an average of three Americans dying every day, this is one of the highest casualty rates sustained by US troops since January 2005.
Everything is under control.
Interior Ministry officials played down the significance of the changes in public, but privately said they were the result of US and Sunni pressure.
The new Iraq regime is not a puppet of the US. Or is it?
Dk soruces say 10 death and to top it of yesterday or was it monday marked the day when the koalision hit 3000 deaths mark
vincent
10-18-06, 12:38 PM
All his well in the colonies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6061488.stm
Nine US soldiers killed in Iraq
Everything is under control.
The new Iraq regime is not a puppet of the US. Or is it?
The government is made up of shia's so they are a puppet of iran, the americans would like the sunnis in charge, so i dont know how you make that assumption, once again you seem to show a lack of knowledge of the situation.
terryoh
10-18-06, 12:46 PM
The government is made up of shia's so they are a puppet of iran, the americans would like the sunnis in charge, so i dont know how you make that assumption, once again you seem to show a lack of knowledge of the situation.
WHAT? The Coalition ousted the Sunnis from power. The Ba'ath Party, under Saddam Hussein, represented the interests of the minority Sunnis. The Coalition thought that a moderate, majority Shiite government would do wonders for Iraq.
Unfortunately, they didn't calculate the strength of the Sunni insurgency and the Iranians ties to the Shiites.
spuriousmonkey
10-22-06, 02:56 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6074182.stm
Alberto Fernandez told al-Jazeera TV the US was now willing to talk to any insurgent group apart from al-Qaeda in Iraq, to reduce sectarian bloodshed.
His remarks came after President George W Bush discussed changing tactics with top military commanders.
Well, that wasn't really a secret.
But White House spokeswoman Nicole Guillemard denied the report. "The story is not accurate, but we are constantly developing new tactics to achieve our goal," she said.
Meanwhile, British Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells, in an interview with the BBC, has suggested that the Iraqi security forces could take over much of the work of US-led forces within a year.
yeah right!? The figthing is getting worse and suddenly the US can hand down the increasing problem within a year???
"Our goal in Iraq is clear and unchanging," he said. "Our goal is victory. What is changing are the tactics we use to achieve that goal."
What kind of a moron do you have to be to believe in a victory by a foreign invasion force over a country in civil war?
spuriousmonkey
10-23-06, 08:44 AM
From a Dutch newspaper based on a television broadcast this week on Dutch TV, since this will never appear in US media:
(translated by spuriousmonkey with no attention to detail)
Taliban are more and more taking over afghan province
The Taliban have increased their sphere of influence in the southern afghan province of Oeroezgan, where the Dutch military contingent is stationed. At the same time the understanding of the local population for the presence of foreign soldiers has decreased, because a fair amount of afghan citizens have been the victim in bombing campaigns according to the dutch journalist Arnold Karskens who is the only Dutch reporter that didn’t work under the protection and influence of the dutch military in Afghanistan.
The rebuilding, the original mission of the Dutch, hasn’t really occurred yet. The dutch soldiers are mainly busy with their own safety. He bases his conclusions on interviews with local people, local government and afghan police.
The afghan police have little and low quality weapons and are basically helpless against extremists muslim fighters. These gather in several locations and no outsiders including foreign military dares to venture there, the local people report.
The road between Kandahar and the provincial capital of Tarin Kowt was this summer much more dangerous than at the beginning of the year. The Dutch journalist undertook this route with some 200 Afghans that protected the convoy. The reporter estimates that about 80 percent of the province is in Taliban control. The civilians have little hope that the dutch military can do anything in this situation, since they only care about their own safery.
A spokesperson of the ministery of defense doesn’t recognize the situation as conveyed by the Dutch reporter: ‘Of course his opinion matters but his opinion doesn’t justify the work that 1400 dutchmen are doing there’ Part of the work is to train and support the Afghan police so that they can solve their own problems.
The spokesperson also pointed out that the Dutch only took command of this province on the first of august. Most of the actions the people referred to were done by the American forces stationed there in Operation Enduring Freedom. The dutch journalist came back on september 22nd and according to the spokesperson 1.5 months is rather a short time to notice anything from a ‘rebuilding’ mission. In the mean time 170 projects have started in the two areas where the two dutch bases are.
spuriousmonkey
10-26-06, 07:42 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6086064.stm
Scores of civilians have been killed during Nato operations against Taleban fighters in southern Afghanistan, local officials and civilians say.
In September Nato said it had routed the Taleban in the area.
Reports from Panjwayi district say the Nato raids began on Tuesday and continued into the night in Kandahar province.
They said that several houses were hit, and civilians killed.
Villagers told the BBC Pashto service that the bodies of many locals had been pulled from the rubble of their homes after the raids and buried.
Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman Zmarai Bashiry told the BBC that local police and officials had confirmed more than 40 villagers killed in the Nato raids.
Other officials put the death toll higher.
"The government and the coalition told the families that there are no Taleban in the area any more," he told the Associated Press news agency.
"If there are no Taleban, then why are they bombing the area?
President Hamid Karzai has been under mounting pressure over the civilian death in the south and east, and has urged foreign forces to exercise more caution.
Last week, up to 21 civilians were killed in two Nato operations in Kandahar and neighbouring Helmand province.
Is all well in Afghanistan? The rift between the population and the foreign forces is steadily growing. The taliban has been beaten, but for some reason they are where they are not supposed to be. And the targetting of civilians doesn't do much good for the reputation of the foreign forces putting extra pressure on the afghan government.
Johnny Bravo
12-13-06, 11:01 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Bush_belfast.jpg/800px-Bush_belfast.jpg
Wow..where is that located?
Sci-Phenomena
12-24-06, 12:15 AM
Fellow humans, this is the best piece of art I've seen in a looooooong time!
:)
Nikelodeon
12-26-06, 01:14 PM
Wow..where is that located?
Belfast it seems.
spuriousmonkey
01-05-07, 04:21 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6232889.stm
President George W Bush is to make a number of key changes in the US military leadership as part of his fresh strategy for Iraq, officials say.
There will be a new head of US Central Command and a new ground commander.
Mr Bush is expected to deliver a speech next week unveiling a strategy that could include thousands more US troops.
Were the previous people so inflexible that they cannot cope with a change of strategy?
hypewaders
01-05-07, 05:54 AM
It seems that they were not sufficiently enthusiastic about an amplification of failed strategy.
spuriousmonkey
01-10-07, 01:33 PM
Apparently the new strategy consists of sending 20,000 extra troops (82nd airborne division, some of which are already in Kuwait) and changing the rules of engagement.
(source: dutch news site).
Apparently he still hasn't realized that this is not a war. And he is just sending more of the same. I wonder how this is going to change anything.
The parallels with Vietnam are interesting:
First there is the realisation in Washington that it is not winning. Mr Bush has admitted this himself
Second, there is a policy of trying to hand over responsibility to the local government in the midst of battle, not after it - this happened in Vietnam with the policy of Vietnamisation
Third, there is the belief by the US administration that more troops are an important part of the answer
Fourth, there is an opposite belief by others that the enterprise cannot work and that disengagement must be sought - US public doubt is a theme common to both conflicts
Fifth, in Vietnam too the president consulted an outside group - they were called the Wise Men and, like the Iraq Study group, they too urged a policy designed to lead to withdrawal
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6245851.stm
Nikelodeon
01-12-07, 03:11 PM
It seems they were warned about the lack of troop levels, and the mess.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm
spuriousmonkey
01-17-07, 10:54 AM
All is well in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6270957.stm
One of Iraq's most powerful Shia politicians has condemned the arrest of Iranians by US forces in Iraq as an attack on the country's sovereignty.
"Regardless of the Iranian position we consider these actions as incorrect," Mr Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, told the BBC.
"They represent a kind of attack on Iraq's sovereignty and we hope such things are not repeated."
On Sunday, Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that Iraq needed a constructive relationship with Iran.
"We can't change the geographical reality that Iran is our neighbour. This is a delicate balance and we are treading a very thin line."
We fully respect the views, policies and strategy of the United States, which is the strongest ally to Iraq, but the Iraqi government has national interests of its own," Mr Zebari said.
well well...aren't the Iraqis ungrateful! Or are they just getting a bit worried about being the sockpuppet of the US?
Nikelodeon
01-17-07, 11:02 AM
The Iraqi government "has national interests of its own"? Holy Fuck!!!! Who would have thought??
Sci-Phenomena
01-17-07, 08:54 PM
You say that Iraq is a "sockpuppet." And yet the world is a large and, obviously complecated, we can't sum up this situation as big as these social entanglements are in the middle east with a single phrase such as "sockpuppet."
The whole land in the Middle East is filled with conflict and has been for a long time, I'd assume that you might have to learn Arabic if you really wanted to look into the substance of the Middle East and but you cant just start calling this or that a sockpuppet...
I'm not saying anyone is right, or that anyone is wrong, but we western minded people have quite a different way of thinking, thats why we have leaders, translators, diplomats, these are the people that are the "sex-organs" of international communication. Perhaps we should invite such people into sci-forums? (out of pure curiousity)
That reminds me, do we have any "sci-forums people" who have credentials such as a PhD or any Doctorate degrees, more especially, in the social science fields... I'm just curious.
terryoh
01-21-07, 03:04 PM
I guess no one is updating this thread.
Fine then, I will.
25 US military personnel dead on January 20th.
Just when January seemed like it was only going to average 1.6 or less US deaths daily, it just jumps up to 2.57.
25 US military personnel dead on January 20th.
it seems bleak in comparison to the casualties and wounded sufferd by the local pop
Killed and wounder 22 of jan:
Killed .: 60
Wounded .: 100
spuriousmonkey
02-16-07, 03:31 AM
Blackmail:
Recently, a quote from bush in which he tries to force a political issue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6367335.stm
"Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission,"
The men and women in uniform in Iraq are not on a mission of their own devices. They are not there to accomplish THEIR mission. They are there to accomplish Bush' mission. By diverting the ownership of the mission he is clearly blackmailing the politicians that need to vote on the matter. I don't really care about that. But who is dumb enough to believe that kind of rhetoric?
spuriousmonkey
02-16-07, 03:02 PM
Iraq invasion plan 'delusional'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6364507.stm
The US invasion plan for Iraq envisaged that only 5,000 US troops would remain in Iraq by December 2006, declassified Central Command documents show.
The US currently has some 132,000 troops in the violence-torn state.
The commanders predicted that after the fighting was over there would be a two- to three-month "stabilisation" phase, followed by an 18- to 24-month "recovery" stage.
They projected that the US forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq at the end of the "transition" phase - within 45 months of invasion.
Disconnected: As I catch up on the news ....
... Really?
Just a note to fellow liberal-minded folks that things are not as hopeless as they seem:
The military's effort to punish Lt. Ehren Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq fell apart in dramatic fashion on Wednesday, with the judge for the court-martial declaring a mistrial and Watada's attorney calling the case a "hopeless mess" that could not legally be restarted ....
.... The relevant fact, prosecutors argued, was that Watada had missed the deployment and signed a stipulation saying as much.
The judge saw things differently. After halting the court-martial to question Watada himself, he said that what Watada had signed was in fact a "confessional stipulation"—a stipulation sufficient for conviction on the charge of not deploying—while Watada apparently believed he had signed only a "stipulation of fact" and still retained a legitimate defense against the charge of failing to deploy.
With military prosecutor Capt. Scott Van Sweringen looking frustrated and defeated, Judge Head then declared the stipulation inoperative, announced that he would be telling the jury to disregard it, and asked the prosecutors if they would like to ask for a mistrial. The prosecutors, who had rested their case the previous day and would have faced a daunting task in opening it back up and trying to rescue the proceedings, immediately took him up on the offer. (The Stranger (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=154916))
Well, if I'm not just a bit internally embarrassed. I had written Watada off as a sacrificial lamb, and here comes the apparatus to breathe life into his case.
Of course, I don't seem to be as embarrassed as the Army's prosecutors. An Army spokesman called the dramatic turn "further evidence" that the process is fair. Who knows, maybe Watada is their sacrificial lamb, the one who will get away so that we can all feel in some small way better about our own selves and what we've let our nation get into "over there".
____________________
Notes:
Sanders, Eli. "Tactical Failure". TheStranger.com, February 8, 2007. See http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=154916
I'll bet you that on any given day more Americans die in America than die in Iraq. Even proportionally based on fatalities per 100,000.
Okay. Everyone out of America. Run, run away. Save yourself from the dangers of American life.
Go to Iraq where it's safer!
Or we could send the elderly and infirm to fight the war. It would be a great health coverage plan, too. Doctors to take care of shrapnel wounds and third-degree burns. Do you know how much one of those amputations costs a civilian stateside?
spuriousmonkey
02-18-07, 05:12 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6370847.stm
The US Senate has decided not to debate a resolution criticising President George W Bush's troop surge in Iraq.
Democrats needed the support of 60 of the 100 senators to advance the same motion in the Senate, but they only managed to gain 56 votes in favour.
Needless to say the democratic process is safeguarded by the attitude of the whitehouse.
The White House has dismissed the vote, and warned Congress against trying to cut off funding.
Nikelodeon
02-21-07, 12:47 PM
Blair announces troop cut:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6380933.stm
Prime Minister Tony Blair has told MPs that 1,600 British troops will return from Iraq within the next few months.
He said the 7,100 serving troops would be cut to 5,500 soon, with hopes that 500 more will leave by late summer.
Of course this MUST be good news according to:
U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. Bush views Britain’s troop cutbacks as “a sign of success” in Iraq, he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17246357/from/RS.2/
Surge = good. Withdrawal = good. Win-win situation kids!
jumpercable
03-26-07, 10:02 AM
Never fear, impeachment is near.
hypewaders
04-15-07, 12:17 AM
Sci-Phenomena (Post 612): "...we western minded people have quite a different way of thinking".
Jeezus, will you please lay the White Man's Burden down, already. We have different circumstances in the "West", but standard-issue Human minds, hopes, and dreams.
"The whole land in the Middle East is filled with conflict and has been for a long time"
Europe's been far more violent throughout history. Even in the more distant and horrific eras of Mideast history... guess where the megadeath was imported from? Guess who drew these fucked-up borders? Guess who blurted out the Balfour Declaration?
Residents of the Mideast are no more savage than the disoriented, armed, and dangerous American teenagers now terrorizing the residents of Baghdad- The latest installment of disastrous Western meddlers.
monadnock
04-15-07, 10:19 AM
Many Americans and even some former military such as myself are equally appalled at the events in Iraq and Afghanistan. This administration as the same disregard for human rights at home.
Many Americans and even some former military such as myself are equally appalled at the events in Iraq and Afghanistan. This administration as the same disregard for human rights at home.
I think people who actually fight in a war (ie the soldiers) are more aware of what it entails than those who sit at home and send others to fight for them.
This is clear from the rejection of the war tsar role (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2055122,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1), as well as the declaration of quitting (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece) in case of an attack on Iran.
spuriousmonkey
04-21-07, 01:36 PM
Oh dear...they are now building walls everywhere in Iraq turning it into one big prison.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6579335.stm
Nikelodeon
04-21-07, 01:38 PM
Maybe we could all pay 5 Euros to have our name splattered in blood on it.
terryoh
04-21-07, 04:01 PM
Oh dear...they are now building walls everywhere in Iraq turning it into one big prison.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6579335.stm
One of the most important quotes from that article:
"Other residents also expressed alarm and said they had not been consulted before construction began."
Hey, let's just randomly build walls that go through neighborhoods. Who cares what the people think?
The great American logic: If you build a wall big enough around a problem, you won't see it and thus it will disappear.
Americans didn't understand Iraqis when they invaded Iraq, and they seem not to be a cm smarter now.
The Devil Inside
04-22-07, 07:51 AM
The great American logic: If you build a wall big enough around a problem, you won't see it and thus it will disappear.
Americans didn't understand Iraqis when they invaded Iraq, and they seem not to be a cm smarter now.
americans dont use the metric system.
:p
You see then, I am right! :D
terryoh
04-22-07, 08:35 PM
Hmmm...interesting.
Al-Maliki: No wall in Baghdad community (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4737952.html)
Do we let the democratically-elected President of Iraq decide what goes on in his country or should the US military/government do what it wants and continue on with the building, irregardless of the DEMOCRATICALLLY-ELECTED IRAQI GOVERNMENT?
Baron Max
04-23-07, 08:28 AM
Hmmm...interesting. "Al-Maliki: No wall in Baghdad community" Do we let the democratically-elected President of Iraq decide what goes on in his country or ...?
He agree with the wall earlier ....then apparently changed his mind. Or worse, someone "changed" his mind through coercion or threat???
And please don't forget .....Iraqis are killing Iraqis. The US is trying to stop that, yet y'all seem to be complaining about that. Do you want Iraqis to continue killing Iraqis??
Baron Max
spuriousmonkey
04-23-07, 09:07 AM
He agree with the wall earlier ....then apparently changed his mind. Or worse, someone "changed" his mind through coercion or threat???
And please don't forget .....Iraqis are killing Iraqis. The US is trying to stop that, yet y'all seem to be complaining about that. Do you want Iraqis to continue killing Iraqis??
Baron Max
Maybe you shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
Buffalo Roam
04-23-07, 09:27 AM
spuriousmonkey
Maybe you shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
That doesn't answer the Barons question, we went to Iraq and we removed Saddam, it was done, so now, as the Baron has ask:
Iraqis are killing Iraqis. The US is trying to stop that, yet y'all seem to be complaining about that. Do you want Iraqis to continue killing Iraqis??
Nikelodeon
04-23-07, 10:01 AM
We went to Iraq and we removed Saddam, it was done.
So if the job is done, why are you still there?
spuriousmonkey
04-23-07, 10:02 AM
spuriousmonkey
That doesn't answer the Barons question, we went to Iraq and we removed Saddam, it was done, so now, as the Baron has ask:
What about getting the fuck out of there?
Baron Max
04-23-07, 12:30 PM
Maybe you shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
But regrets about past actions don't solve any of the present problems, does it. One can condemn the actions of the past from now 'til the cows come home, but it does no good in solving the present.
Baron Max
Baron Max
04-23-07, 12:31 PM
What about getting the fuck out of there?
And let the Iraqis kill the other Iraqis until one or the other dominates? Or kills all of the other group? Is that what you want to see happen?
Baron Max
terryoh
04-23-07, 12:42 PM
He agree with the wall earlier ....then apparently changed his mind. Or worse, someone "changed" his mind through coercion or threat???
And please don't forget .....Iraqis are killing Iraqis. The US is trying to stop that, yet y'all seem to be complaining about that. Do you want Iraqis to continue killing Iraqis??
Baron Max
Segregation isn't the way to stop the violence. At least before the invasion, although there was deep mistrust between Sunnis and Shiites, they weren't openly battling it out and ethnically cleansing each other.
Baron Max
04-23-07, 12:58 PM
Segregation isn't the way to stop the violence.
Well, it's certainly one way! If no Sunni ever came in contact with a Shiite, then he could kill him, could he? See? Segregation works quite well.
At least before the invasion, although there was deep mistrust between Sunnis and Shiites, they weren't openly battling it out and ethnically cleansing each other.
Oh, sure ...that's because Sadman's government oppressed them both to the point of not being able to do anything. And if they did, they were tortured and killed. Is that what you'd like to see there again???
Baron Max
Nikelodeon
04-23-07, 01:09 PM
And let the Iraqis kill the other Iraqis until one or the other dominates? Or kills all of the other group? Is that what you want to see happen?
Baron Max
Thats gonna happen even while you're there, and there 'aint a damn thing y'all can do about it.
But regrets about past actions don't solve any of the present problems, does it.
It's relevant if you keep repeating the same moronic mistakes over and over agian. Why do you think the retards that got you into this mess are the ones who can get you out of it?
iceaura
04-23-07, 03:57 PM
But regrets about past actions don't solve any of the present problems, does it. One can condemn the actions of the past from now 'til the cows come home, but it does no good in solving the present. On the other hand, if the mistake was digging yourself into a hole, you should probably stop digging.
If we had just had enough sense to put a timeline on this invasion four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, or last year, we could leave now with less dishonor. Let's make sure we don't have this regret next year.
Meanwhile, the US is building a wall around a Sunni ghetto - a place into which the US-backed Shia militia and death squads have been herding the Sunni of Baghdad. The entrances to the ghetto will be controlled by Shia military. Why are the Americans doing this?
Was the tactic borrowed, as so many have been in Iraq, from the Israelis with their greater experience in dealing with Palestinians etc ?
Is it intended to bring the Saudis more openly into Iraq against the Iranians, by threatening their fellow Sunni ?
Is it simple incompetence on the part of strategists who regard the Israeli, South African, Russian, and Nazi German implementations of such strategies as successes ?
Is it farsighted and subtle gamesmanship on the part of domestic US political strategists, intended to create a horror after the US is forced to withdraw that will rehabilitate the Republican Party's image in electoral politics?
The current nominal head of the Iraqi "government", Maliki, has registered a protest against this wall. That may, or may not, prevent the Americans from completing the project. It did not help against the American strategy of detainment and murder of Iranian guests and diplomats in Iraq, or the American adoption of various "surge" strategies without notice or consultation, but Maliki is not completely powerless.
paucorumhominum
05-04-07, 01:05 PM
"Hey you liberals out there, how's this for left-wing "intellectualism":
Hypewaders, I don't understand why [SIC] you are so upset about? US position is clear. US will give Iraq democracy if Iraq does not select any religious leader or instill any islamic [SIC] laws and agree to whatever leader and rules the US and Israel will recommend....Untill [SIC] all those detailed are worked out, all dead are to be considered collateral damage.....It's clear as mud, comeon [SIC] now...
hey you conservatives out there, preferabally [SIC] Jerrek, what [SIC] the latest detail on enduring freedom operation in Afghanistan....Has [SIC] the Afghani people started experiencing some enduring freedom yet....?
What Hypewaders' Kool Aid Drinkers' Diatribe makes abundantly clear is that the Left's claim of intellectual superiority is terribly misplaced.
1. The US doesn't "give Iraq democracy." We've already done that, and Israel wasn't involved in it.
2. Liberals love to side with the terrorists. Why does the Left despise democracy and support terrorism all the time? Democrats adore Fidel Castro, and crap on Israel. Why aren't more liberals moving to Habana? ole!
3. Operation Enduring Freedom is the name of the military effort. Get a clue.
4. Since Hypewaders thinks the Afghan people, and to be sure, even the Iraqi people, were better off under the terrorists, he has to explain Hussein's murder of "five to seven million Iraqis, the majority of them Shiites." (National Geographic Magazine, June 2004, page 28)
How about those Taliban beating women and treating them like cattle, huh!
That was much more like it, to hear Democrats talk. Hell, the Taliban treated their women about like Bill Clinton does. And those feminists (sic) sure aren't complaining. After all, Bubba is an "alpha male."
Via Reuters and Yahoo! comes the story of our latest attempt to restore dignity to Iraq:
Angered that a beloved member of his squad had been killed in an explosion, a U.S. Marine urinated on one of the 24 dead Iraqi civilians killed by his unit in Haditha, the Marine testified on Wednesday.
Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, who has immunity from prosecution after murder charges against him were dismissed, also said he watched his squad leader shoot down five Iraqi civilians who were trying to surrender.
In dramatic testimony in a pretrial hearing for one of the seven Marines charged in the November 2005 Haditha killings and alleged cover-up, Dela Cruz described his bitterness after a roadside bomb ripped Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, known as T.J., into two bloody pieces.
"I know it was a bad thing what I've done, but I done it because I was angry T.J. was dead and I pissed on one Iraqi's head," said an unemotional Dela Cruz in a military courtroom in Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego, California. (Graham (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070510/ts_nm/iraq_haditha_dc_5))
One of the strange assertions of the 1980s came from psychologists, who had somehow determined that people's emotional responses resulted in a ratio wherein 10 positive compliments equaled one insult or hard criticism.
I cannot speak for the 10:1 ratio specifically, but it is observationally valid that people require greater reinforcement for each proportional blow against them. Considering that we don't have ten pieces of good news to come from the Iraqi Bush War for each piece of bad news, is it any wonder people are so pissed off at the whole thing?
iceaura
05-10-07, 04:33 AM
In less dramatic news, but with no better implications, Maliki's protest has not stopped the wall: The US has returned to construction, and completion is due within a couple of weeks.
We will then have a walled-in Sunni ghetto in Baghdad, with all exits controlled by the Shia military. This, coupled with ethnic cleansing of Sunni outside the ghetto, is intended to reduce Sunni violence in Baghdad. It may work, for that purpose. And others.
Courtesy of the United States.
So when we get good news about the "surge", we can temper it with knowledge.
terryoh
05-13-07, 03:52 PM
No one hasn't posted the 3 captured US soldiers from a couple of days ago? OK, I will then.
Terror Group: U.S. Soldiers Are Captives (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/13/iraq/main2795495.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2795495)
An al Qaeda front group said Sunday that it had captured three U.S. soldiers in the attack a day earlier south of Baghdad that killed five and left three missing.
In a statement posted on an Islamic Web site, the Islamic State in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack in Mahmoudiya on Saturday and said it held an unspecified number of U.S. soldiers. The group offered no proof to back up its claim.
The U.S. said 4,000 troops were searching for the three American soldiers who were missing after their patrol came under attack in an explosion that killed four other U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi army translator.
On Sunday, U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell confirmed that the Iraqi interpreter was among the dead — and that all the missing were Americans.
Last week, the top U.S. commander in the north, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, said the U.S. didn't have enough troops to restore order in Diyala but more had been promised.
Man, I hope those soldiers are OK.
Serious question here, folks. Remember how people were saying (and still say) that the terrorists don't fall under the Geneva Conventions and are allowed to be tortured? Does that case still hold now?
Now that the roles have been reversed, do the terrorists, who don't fall under Geneva Conventions, have to adhere to the Geneva Conventions in terms of torture? I'm asking this sincerely to spur on some debate.
If the terrorists were smart, they wouldn't do anything to harm the soldiers.
Considering that we don't have ten pieces of good news to come from the Iraqi Bush War for each piece of bad news, is it any wonder people are so pissed off at the whole thing?
Your own selection bias is showing.
Not that that fact surprises either one of us.
But you do do the play-the-numbers whoring quite nicely.
You have talent.
Minor as it is.
Yes, G. My bias is showing. I confess without reservation that I find this war a strategic and conceptual disaster.
In the meantime, have you any contribution other than the Insult Crusade?
Yes, G. My bias is showing. I confess without reservation that I find this war a strategic and conceptual disaster.
In the meantime, have you any contribution other than the Insult Crusade?
Yes. I sell idiocy off-sets.
You do know that Neuronic Cooling is disasterously rampant on Planet SciFor?
And I also do humor. Some people need more humor in their lives. Especially self-deprecating humor.
You know, laughing at yourself--just like everyone else is. ;)
And I also do humor.
Keep working on it. Some day you might do it well. ;)
Keep working on it. Some day you might do it well. ;)
Thank you. I will.
Practice, practice, practice. :)
Getting back to the point at your interruption, Mr. G, I'm sure you can provide good news from Iraq at a 10:1 ratio?
What? Of course not? Well, I can't say I'm surprised. In addition to your meager posting style, there is the fact that it is really hard to construe even a majority representation in the news, speak nothing of a 10:1 supermajority.
Getting back to the point at your interruption, Mr. G, I'm sure you can provide good news from Iraq at a 10:1 ratio?
I'm not a news aggregator.
And you're not as informed as you want us to believe.
Two facts. No homework.
...I can't say I'm surprised. In addition to your meager posting style,..
I've never found verbosity necessary to the making of self-evident points.
I'm not a news aggregator.
It's not so much that as the notion that you don't appear to be paying attention at all. One need not be a news aggregator to have some idea of what is in the news.
I've never found verbosity necessary to the making of self-evident points.
When your only point is being rude and irrelevant, G, it's no wonder you don't see the necessity of reasonable communication.
iceaura
06-07-07, 08:48 PM
I've never found verbosity necessary to the making of self-evident points. "Self-evident" : adj Evident to oneself, and to nobody else.
It's not so much that as the notion that you don't appear to be paying attention at all. One need not be a news aggregator to have some idea of what is in the news.
News is for people who drink reality through a straw.
Some folks like the twisty straws, others the straight ones.
You never seem to wonder exactly why the universe brings forth into existence folks who don't see reality your (news') way.
When your only point is being rude and irrelevant, G, it's no wonder you don't see the necessity of reasonable communication.
So, to reason is to agree. To be reasonable is to agree with tiassa. No other point can exist if it isn't rude, irrelevant or agrees with tiasssa.
The symmetry of serendipitous synonyms.
Reflections in a mud puddle.
"Self-evident" : adj Evident to oneself, and to nobody else.
Self-evident points: axiomatic points
Points evident to all without need for further proof or argument.
.:shrug:
New White House plan: Keep US troops in Iraq permanently. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070608/cm_csm/yschorr08)
.:shrug:
New White House plan: Keep US troops in Iraq permanently. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070608/cm_csm/yschorr08)
Old Samcdkey plan: Permanent deployment to SciForums.
Funny how outsiders impose themselves on others for their own good. Eh?
Nikelodeon
06-12-07, 03:14 AM
.:shrug:
New White House plan: Keep US troops in Iraq permanently. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070608/cm_csm/yschorr08)
This isnt a new plan.....is it.
spidergoat
06-15-07, 10:59 AM
Hey you liberals out there, how's this for left-wing "intellectualism":Not very intellectual in my opinion. Iraq is technically already under Islamic law, it's in the constitution. Although they are trying for a western style Democracy, the fact that all laws are subject to Islam leaves too big an opening for Theocracy. This kind of Democracy is doomed to fail. Thank the Lard the US has constitutional protections against such a thing.
What Hypewaders' Kool Aid Drinkers' Diatribe makes abundantly clear is that the Left's claim of intellectual superiority is terribly misplaced.
Partisanship doesn't automatically confer intelligence. Intelligence doesn't automatically translate into laws that favor the average person.
1. The US doesn't "give Iraq democracy." We've already done that, and Israel wasn't involved in it.
This is what we attempted. What will result will certainly be something different. What the Cons don't understand is the conditions that favor a working Democratic state. That means an educated middle class. Con economic policies lead to the same conditions that caused the early American colonists to rebel against the British Empire. I too am skeptical of any direct control of the Iraq policy by Israel. Rather there are US Cons sympathetic to the most despicable right-wingers in Israel.
2. Liberals love to side with the terrorists. Why does the Left despise democracy and support terrorism all the time? Democrats adore Fidel Castro, and crap on Israel. Why aren't more liberals moving to Habana? ole!
I guess you aren't one of those intellectual types, huh? No matter. It has always been US policy to support Democracy. What we are against is Corporatocracy, war profiteering, redistribution of wealth, and distraction by unreasonable fear while Democracy is being eroded at home.
3. Operation Enduring Freedom is the name of the military effort. Get a clue.Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) was the original title wasn't it? Does that count as a clue?
4. Since Hypewaders thinks the Afghan people, and to be sure, even the Iraqi people, were better off under the terrorists, he has to explain Hussein's murder of "five to seven million Iraqis, the majority of them Shiites." (National Geographic Magazine, June 2004, page 28)
Who are they under now if not their own native terrorists? Besides, all wars are not created equal. You are offering a false choice, a simplistic black and white model that can satisfy only those who wish the world were so.
How about those Taliban beating women and treating them like cattle, huh!
That was much more like it, to hear Democrats talk. Hell, the Taliban treated their women about like Bill Clinton does. And those feminists (sic) sure aren't complaining. After all, Bubba is an "alpha male."
"to hear the Democrats talk"
Can you give an example of an elected Democrat saying that Aghanistan would be better off under the Taliban? While you're working on that, consider that Afghani society is just as brutally patriarchal as it was before we invaded. My man Bill may be a lady's man, but somehow I think Amsterdam would be little more to his liking than Kabul. Aslo, the Taliban have regrouped and retaken much of their former territory, preventing girls from going to school under threat of murder. I guess we are fighting them over there (Iraq), so we don't have to bother fighting them over here (Afghanistan).
The current Get Your War On (http://www.thestranger.com/binary/4d73/GYWO-comic.jpg).
What do you do, indeed?
The current Get Your War On (http://www.thestranger.com/binary/4d73/GYWO-comic.jpg).
What do you do, indeed?
The mind boggles.:eek:
hypewaders
07-04-07, 05:31 PM
The thing (http://www.thestranger.com/binary/4d73/GYWO-comic.jpg) that makes my head hurt is more Americans think Saddam caused 9/11 than approve of Bush's job performance. I mean, what the fuck do you do with a piece of data like that?
You get the truth out as much as you can, while there is still time, and before the next crisis provides perfect conditions for more functional fascists to take power.
Fugu-dono
07-04-07, 09:41 PM
Expect another Vietnam-like result sooner or later IMO. Just leave the damn place to themselves. If the various groups in Iraq want to wipe each other out who cares... Scared the oil will be forever out of US grasp or something hence having to maintain presence there?
Seriously the only interest I can see the US remaining is to establish a stable US friendly government for their own benefit. Secondly to continues presence in the middle east area with the excuse of war on terror. Next they're throw some consipiracy that Iran and/or some other nations with important resources in that area are plotting against them (which somehow gets interpreted that the threat to US is against every damn first-world nation by the media). Ah I see a trend here. First it's Afghanistan to have backdoor presence to China as well as another vantage on Russia and now this crap.
I hate terrorists as much as the next man but seriously any excuse to have military presence. Then again I remember that moron Bush slipped out the word crusade awhile back. Hmmm!?... Perhaps they are more sly than we take them to be and are continuing their presence for another purpose of pissing the Islamic nations off to provoke a full-scale war on the whole area.
hypewaders
07-24-07, 06:02 PM
Although I thought the Tom&Jerry twist superfluous, I found this article by Kathy Kelly (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/24/2729/) unusually informative. If one cannot get down to this level of personal detail, one cannot begin to understand the implications of current events.
I don't think the T&J twist is superfluous; it portrays a connection 'twixt diverse peoples: we like mindless violence as long as it isn't real. (Insert appropriate commentary as needed.)
One thing that did strike me, though, from the article:
“Sometimes Tom wins and sometimes Jerry, and sometimes they both win, especially if they team up against an enemy,” a young Iraqi woman told me. “You love them both. It’s a bit like fights between brothers and sisters.” (Kelly (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/24/2729/))
Did Tom ever win exclusively? I don't think I've ever seen that episode.
how do you start a thread? HELP!!
Let's say you want to start one in World Events. Go to the forum. Now, start from the top of the screen. First, there is the banner with the Sciforums logo. Then there is a gray bar with site links: Encyclopedia, User CP, FAQ, &c. Immediately below this, on the left, is a button that says "New Thread". Click that.
Not to be too cynical, but I wonder how much the emerging market crisis has to do with it. Americans are going to need international goodwill to get through this one.
hypewaders
08-25-07, 07:08 PM
oops. Were you responding to this up here ^ when I yanked it Sam? Here it is again:
Watching Real Time with Bill Maher (http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/) illustrates how the Iraq debate in the USA has evolved. Americans really are getting increasingly fed up with this war and its associated lies, and Tim Robbins well articulates that anger.
Video Link (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#60714)
hypewaders
08-25-07, 08:31 PM
:eek: :fright: :bawl:
Americans really are getting increasingly fed up with this war and its associated lies, and Tim Robbins well articulates that anger.
No, they're not. Really.
Timmy only presumes to speak for his fellow children.
It's adults who're getting it done -- sans tantrums.
Children don't enlist, they do little league -- maybe.
No, they're not. Really.
Timmy only presumes to speak for his fellow children.
It's adults who're getting it done.
Perhaps a reality check is in order
http://nataliedee.com/012405/ribbon-based-economy.jpg
Perhaps a reality check is in order
Your's came back NSF.
Your's came back NSF.
Was it in dollars?:p
Was it in dollars?:p
No. Crayons.
Source: WSWS.org (http://www.wsws.org/)
Link: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/iraq-n07.shtml
Title: "US troop deaths in Iraq set yearly record", by Shannon Jones
Date: November 7, 2007
Not exactly shocking. Not unexpected, in fact. But let's at least hope we're getting our ... uh ... investment's worth°:
The toll of US soldiers killed in Iraq reached 853 this week, making 2007 the deadliest year for US forces since the 2003 invasion. A total of 3,856 US troops have died during the occupation of the Persian Gulf state. Forces of US coalition allies have suffered another 297 deaths.
(Jones (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/iraq-n07.shtml))
It's a vain hope, I realize. Especially since nobody's really sure what, exactly, we're pouring such resources° into.
____________________
Notes:
° our investment's worth - I could probably care less about the money, but I'm sick of wasting human beings on this imperial crusade.
° resources - Again, human resources. Governments are apt to waste money, no matter what better uses I might think of. But this wasting of human life, respect, and dignity must stop. Admittedly, this cannot happen overnight. It would be nice, however, if Bushdick, inc. could put some effort into at least giving the mere appearance that our investment of resources is going toward something more than perpetual futility and imperial wet dreams.
Terrorists continue defamation campaign against U.S.
Latest incident sees Algerian slash throat ... with fingernail
An inmate at the US detention centre in Guantanamo Bay slashed his throat with a sharpened fingernail, US officials have confirmed.
The prisoner, described by his lawyer as an Algerian held for six years, required several stitches and spent a week under psychiatric observation.
US officials characterised the incident as an act of "self-harm" rather than a suicide attempt.
(BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7128591.stm))
You know, the thought of some Algerian goth cutter is almost enough to make this war humorous.
US Navy Cmdr Andrew Haynes said there was "an impressive effusion of blood" but the prisoner was treated by guards and taken to the prison clinic.
Officials would give no details of the man but lawyer Zachary Katznelson said the inmate had been held without charge for nearly six years.
Cmdr Haynes said "self-harm" incidents were a tactic to discredit US forces.
(ibid)
I wonder if Commander Haynes is a God-fearing man? He is going to Hell for his role in this evil farce.
hypewaders
12-05-07, 08:54 AM
Crazy, disgusting, blood-squirting terrorist. What is the actual identity of this wreck of a human? What was his story before captivity? No comment.
Source: ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/)
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1
Title: "Victim: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR", by Brian Ross, Maddy Sauer, and Justin Rood
Date: December 10, 2007
Tough accusations come from a Houston, Texas woman who claims she was raped by several men at a Green Zone camp and then imprisoned in a shipping container by her employer, Kellogg Brown Root.
Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.
"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave ....
.... Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.
"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.
"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.
Poe says his office contacted the State Department, which quickly dispatched agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to Jones' camp, where they rescued her from the container.
According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by "several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally."
(Ross et al (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702))
Ms. Jones also accuses KBR of either destroying or concealing evidence, claiming that Army doctors determined that she had been raped vaginally and anally, and that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR.
Early commentary by legal pundits suggests that loopholes in the existing laws suggest that nobody will be charged with any crimes.
Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law.
"It's very troubling," said Dean John Hutson of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. "The way the law presently stands, I would say that they don't have, at least in the criminal system, the opportunity for justice."
Congressman Poe says neither the departments of State nor Justice will give him answers on the status of the Jones investigation.
(ibid)
Right now, Ms. Jones faces the daunting prospect that her only route is company-sponsored arbitration. According to KBR, her contract requires it. Halliburton, KBR's parent company, reportedly wins more than 80% of the arbitration proceedings brought against it.
• • •
I think anyone should think twice before signing a contract for employment that demands the employer be exempt from answering for their actions in a court of law. It seems to me that if they need that protection, one might wish to consider why. Frankly, I don't think such a contract stipulation should be upheld. As Rep. Poe expressed, "Air things out in a public forum of a courtroom ... That's why we have courts in the United States."
Seriously, if we can prosecute someone under U.S. law for crimes committed on foreign soil against foreign citizens, it seems to me there ought to be some recourse for an American treated in this manner under the auspices of agents authorized by the U.S. government.
hypewaders
12-11-07, 12:10 AM
Whatever the truth of the matter, it is vital to America's system of laws that Ms. Jones get her corpus habied in a lawful and dignified way. We got a thing- Goin' on. I know I'm writing in poor taste, but I'm too tired to ed it.
Seriously,...
Surely, you jest.
Facts not yet in evidence.
Anecdotes are cheap propellant.
Earth orbit not yet achieved.
What a surprise.
hypewaders
12-11-07, 12:18 AM
G Mister, thanks for making me look more comparitively reasonable. I can slep easy now. G'nite everbuddy.
Surely, you jest.
Not in the least.
Facts not yet in evidence.
Convenient, since they may never be allowed into evidence.
Anecdotes are cheap propellant
Tell that to the distinguished gentleman from Texas.
Earth orbit not yet achieved.
Well, you're asking too much. An earthbound, American courtroom would suffice.
What a surprise.
No, G. I don't think anyone is surprised that you would advocate rape if you thought you could score a cheap line off it.
("Facts not in evidence"? Good one, G.)
I'm saying that the complainant shouldn't automatically be believed just because a complaint may sound plausible.
You're going off the logical deep end with no actual facts to back up your prejudices.
I'm saying that the complainant shouldn't automatically be believed just because a complaint may sound plausible.
You're going off the logical deep end with no actual facts to back up your prejudices.
The problem with your argument is that whatever facts there are, they may never see a courtroom. It seems I can agree with a Texas Republican on something.
With an accusation like this, would you say that the chief investigating body should be one with a vested interest in the outcome (e.g., the accused)?
I think they should send more American women to work with contractors in Iraq.
Perhaps Mr G could suggest volunteers.
Anyone you know need a 'nice' job?
Mixed Signals on Iraq Violence
Violence down, decline slowing; Basra, Fallujah reeling
First, the good news. Sort of.
Violence in Iraq is at its lowest levels since the first year of the American invasion, finally opening a window for reconciliation among rival sects, the second-ranking U.S. general said Sunday as Iraqi forces formally took control of security across half the country.
Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the man responsible for the ground campaign in Iraq, said that the first six months of 2007 were probably the most violent period since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The past six months, however, had seen some of the lowest levels of violence since the conflict began, Odierno said, attributing the change to an increase in both American troops and better-trained Iraqi forces.
"I feel we are back in '03 and early '04. Frankly I was here then, and the environment is about the same in terms of security in my opinion," he said. "What is different from then is that the Iraqi security forces are significantly more mature."
(Quinn (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8TIU33G0))
I'm presuming this is not intended to suggest that violence has thankfully reduced to to the days of chaos and looting following the fall of the Hussein regime. It would seem that this is good news. But Lt. Gen. Odierno also said, "We have a window, I don't know how long that window is, but there is a window because of the security to move forward ... We need to get policies in place by the central government to do this."
What, then, is the flip-side? Violence is decreasing, but only for so long? Then the news isn't quite as good, then, is it? The violence can fluctuate all it wants as long as the Iraqi government fails to make significant progress. In theory, we can't leave until the government stabilizes. Then again, in theory, we're not leaving even if the government does stabilize.
Meanwhile, Karen DeYoung reports for the Washington Post:
Overall violence continues to decline in Iraq, although the rate of decrease has slowed since September and a few indicators have actually gone up in recent weeks, according to U.S. military figures released yesterday by the White House.
The number of bomb, small-arms, mortar and sniper attacks, as well as attacks against Iraqi infrastructure, remained virtually unchanged over six weeks, at just below 600 a week through the first week of December. The figure stood at about 900 a week at the end of September, compared with an all-time high of nearly 1,600 attacks per week in June.
Significantly, the data show a continuation of the precipitous decline in blasts caused by improvised explosive devices that began early last summer. Those explosions now occur about 20 times a day throughout Iraq, down from about 60 in June and lower than at any point since September 2004.
(DeYoung (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121701915.html))
What any of this news means in practice still seems a question:
The U.S.-led coalition has been gradually transferring control of security to the Iraqi government and Britain's handover of southern Basra was the latest in a series that began in July 2006. The coalition retains control over half of Iraq's 18 provinces, including Anbar and central areas where violence has waned but not stopped.
"This is a step toward resuming security responsibilities in all of Iraq's provinces that is due in the middle of next year," Iraqi National Security adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said in Basra. He represented Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at the handover ceremony in the capital of the oil-rich region.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, en route to Paris for a gathering of world donors to the Palestinians, said she was "heartened" by Britain's handover of Basra.
"We obviously recognize and the British recognize that there's still a lot of work to do in terms of building a stable foundation in the south and there continue to be problems there," Rice told reporters on the flight to Paris. "We're very heartened that there's a sense that security can be turned over. But it doesn't mean that there aren't continuing problems in the south."
(Quinn (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8TIU33G0))
The key phrase in there is that there's still a lot of work to do. While Americans see a window of opportunity for reconciliation, the British perspective does not seem so rosy. Thomas Harding notes, for the Telegraph:
Iraq is still beset by "violence and instability", according