REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Why terrorists will ultimately fail...

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Saturday, April 29, 2006 13:35
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4848
PAGE 1 of 3

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:15 AM

CHRISISALL


This is a must-see clip. This woman is brave.
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1050#
Here's the link to the NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.ht
ml?ex=1143003600&en=f61aaa1551878dd9&ei=5070&emc=eta1


Their time is past, and the tail is still thashing about.


Chrisisall in the 21st

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:58 AM

HERO


This is why terrorists will ultimately fail...

< http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/>

Quote:


I knew right after September the 11th, though, that the attacks would begin to fade in people's memory. I mean, who wants to constantly go through life thinking that you're going to get hit again? Who wants to kind of re-live those days in your memory? As a matter of fact, I asked the American people to go on about your life. But given the fact that it's human nature to forget, or try to put in the past, put the pain in the past, I want to assure you and our fellow Americans I'm not going to put it in the past. The threat to the United States is forefront in my mind. I knew that at times people would say, you know, it may be an isolated incident, let's just don't worry about it. Well, for me it's not an isolated incident. I understand there is still an enemy which lurks out there.

And so part of my decision-making process, part of it as you see when I begin to protect you, to do my number one priority, rests upon this fact: that there is an enemy which is relentless and desirous to bring harm to the American people, because of what we believe in. See, we're in an ideological struggle. It's very important for the students here to understand that there is an enemy which has an ideology, and they're driven by an ideology. They make decisions based upon their view of the world, which is the exact opposite of our view of the world.

Perhaps the best way to describe their political vision is to remind you what life was like for people living in Afghanistan when the Taliban was running that country with al Qaeda as the parasite. If you were a young girl in that society, you had no chance to get educated. If you spoke out against the view of these folks, their religious view, you could be taken to the public square and whipped. In other words, there was not freedom. There wasn't freedom to worship the way you want to, just like we believe here in the United States of America. You can worship, you can not worship in our country, and you're equally American. You can be a Christian, Jew or Muslim, and you're equally American. It's the greatness of the United States of America which -- (applause) -- which stands in stark contrast to what these ideologues believe.

Their vision of the world is dark and dim. They have got desires to spread a totalitarian empire. How do we know? Because they told us. Mr. Zawahiri, the number two in the al Qaeda network, told the world such. He might not have wanted us to read that particular thing he was sending, but nevertheless we did. And he said that, here's our designs and our desires. In other words, these people have got an ideology, and strategy to implement the ideology. They've got a -- they have no heart, no conscience. They kill innocent men, women and children to achieve their objective. These folks cannot be appeased. We can't hope that nice words will change their point of view.

And so the decision I made right off the bat is we will find them, and we will hunt them down, and we will bring them to justice before they hurt America again.



Its really the last line that sums it all up.


H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:19 AM

CARTOON


Hey, Chris. I clicked on that link and... well, I have dial-up (need I say more?)...

Could you pity a poor guy who has to go back to work (and hasn't the patience to wait a few weeks for the video to load), and give me the gist of what the lady said?

Thanks.

BTW, great seeing you again, Mr. Prosecutor (that's for Hero, Chris, not you)(although, sometimes you act like a prosecutor)(that second parenthetical statement was for Chris, not Hero)(these parenthetical statements get confusing after a while)...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:52 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:


And so the decision I made right off the bat is we will find them, and we will hunt them down, and we will bring them to justice before they hurt America again.



I understand George W has a new plan to kill Osama Bin Laden. It's called Operation Natural Causes.

He's been scouring his ranch in Crawford looking for any sign of OBL.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:05 AM

SIGMANUNKI


@Cartoon:

The transcript:

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1050


EDIT: Is she still alive?

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:23 AM

CARTOON


Much obliged, SigmaNunki. Much, much, much obliged. (Did I tell you I had dial-up?) Much, much, much, much, much, obliged.

Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
EDIT: Is she still alive?



Indeed. The woman is lot braver than I am.

This was aired on Al-Jazeera? Oh dear. She's practically painted a target on her face, saying, "Come on, right here!!"

I have to disagree with her one comment, however -- the one about one culture treating women like "beasts" and the other culture treating them like "human beings".

I agree with the "beasts" part of the comment for the one culture, but apparently she hasn't seen much western advertising if she thinks we treat women like "human beings". I'd say more like "sex objects". Or perhaps a cross between "human being" one moment and "sex object" the next. I guess it depends on which advertising (or which literature, tv, or movies) you view.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:44 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by cartoon:

I guess it depends on which advertising (or which literature, tv, or movies) you view.




Indeed. Because that exact same thing could be said about men as well.

I'd say that advertisers use sex whenever possible regardless of who they are advertising for, kids included.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:09 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


While fundamentally agreeing with her premise, I disagree with just about everything else she says.

First of all, there is no assurance that Western society will survive. Having read "Collapse" I no longer believe that knowledge will always be salavaged from collective experience. It is possible for an entire society to go off the rails and die- especially very highly developed, interdependent societies that can't possibly take a step backwards and still survive.

Furthermore, while I don't see Jews blowing themselves up in German cafes, I do see Israel bulldozing, strafing, and bombing entire communities. I do see the USA killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq. Just because it's government-sponsored, large-scale- and impersonal doesn't make it "not terrorism", which was decided in a previous thread to be creating a state of terror in civilian population for political ends.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:30 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
While fundamentally agreeing with her premise, I disagree with just about everything else she says.

First of all, there is no assurance that Western society will survive. Having read "Collapse" I no longer believe that knowledge will always be salavaged from collective experience. It is possible for an entire society to go off the rails and die- especially very highly developed, interdependent societies that can't possibly take a step backwards and still survive.

Furthermore, while I don't see Jews blowing themselves up in German cafes, I do see Israel bulldozing, strafing, and bombing entire communities. I do see the USA killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq. Just because it's government-sponsored, large-scale- and impersonal doesn't make it "not terrorism", which was decided in a previous thread to be creating a state of terror in civilian population for political ends.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.




I so want to start a " Why terrorists will ultimately win... " thread.... but instead I'll sit back and watch it happen. Reminds me of that speech Adama gave at Galacticas retirement ceremony, something about that nobody ever asked if humans deserved to survive.

All empires eventually fall, and I think in my lifetime we will see the Americans follow the Russians and the Brits who came before them. To be truthful, I think the world will be better for it.





" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:34 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I do see the USA killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq


I'm sure you don't. The total figure for civilian deaths caused by military action of the US and its allies is a number just under ten thousand I believe, and is pretty much stationary so I don't like your use of the present tense.

If you're talking about the ongoing killing of civilians after the war's end you are highlighting (for the most part) the violence of certain radical elements of iraqi/arab society (causing many more deaths than coalition forces). Whatever blame you might attach to the US forces in Iraq for failing to prevent this, raising the issue of muslims killing other muslims in the first place is surely only reinforcing the arab-american lady's view...?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:47 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

The total figure for civilian deaths caused by military action of the US and its allies is a number just under ten thousand I believe


And you are free to do so. Of course that means that you are not on the same page as reality. Pirate News is much closer with his 1.6 million figure. I've done a lot of figureing, and I keep coming up about 1/2 of PN's number 800,000 or 900,000. In Bush's defense, most of those are not his, but he will be very lucky is his own total is only tens of thousands. I strongly suspect it will be hundreds of thousands. Of course, all of this is potentially dwarfed by the pending civil war, which could claim a toll in millions.

Part of why those of us who oppose the war do so is that we are in touch with reality, which, to put it in other words, means: We're pessimists.




The only problem with cynics is that they're right nine times our of ten.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:04 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

The total figure for civilian deaths caused by military action of the US and its allies is a number just under ten thousand I believe


And you are free to do so. Of course that means that you are not on the same page as reality. Pirate News is much closer with his 1.6 million figure. I've done a lot of figureing, and I keep coming up about 1/2 of PN's number 800,000 or 900,000. In Bush's defense, most of those are not his, but he will be very lucky is his own total is only tens of thousands. I strongly suspect it will be hundreds of thousands. Of course, all of this is potentially dwarfed by the pending civil war, which could claim a toll in millions.

Part of why those of us who oppose the war do so is that we are in touch with reality, which, to put it in other words, means: We're pessimists.




The only problem with cynics is that they're right nine times our of ten.



You could also include the death toll caused by the sanctions against Iraq for the WMD that they didn't have.....

I'd have to go looking for a figure, but I seem to remember a UN stat from 1998 saying over 750,000 kids under 16...

And as the US and Britain were the only ones who wanted to keep the sanctions.... I'd say they own that.



" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:20 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is a must-see clip. This woman is brave.
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1050#

Their time is past, and the tail is stil thashing about.


Chrisisall in the 21st

It was argued by some before the war that a war in Iraq would force a rethinking of Arab values. I didn't believe them at the time, but lately I’ve been coming around to this idea. Although personally, I never thought and still don’t think that terrorists could ever ultimately succeed without the consent of the West. But this is good news and it suggests that the Arab world may be slowly opening the gates they closed in the 14th century.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:25 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

You could also include the death toll caused by the sanctions against Iraq for the WMD that they didn't have.....


Oh, I did. I don't think it's that high, it's between 500 and 600K. Clinton is an evil bastard. I'm not sure yet that Bush is an evil bastard, he might just be an incompetent moron. Also, the first Gulf war. But it's not just us, I think Saddam gets some credit, but still, you can't blame the wolf for being a wolf, at some point you have to take responsiblity for the fact that you locked it in the hen house.

For this war, I think honestly, the 30K figure is low, and while I think the 150K figure is high, it's likely to be somewhere in between the two.

I guess, objectively, not as bad as Clinton or Kerry is really damning with faith praise. To the extent Bush is Clinton, he's as bad, to the extent he's a republican, he's nto as bad, and on the budget, for whatever reason, he's clearly worse, as in - look at the budget - but even and average of 'better than Clinton' is not enough - I'm not grading on a curve.

Clearly there are many things worse than having Bush as president. For instance, we could have Osama Bin Laden as president, or even school building contractor. Or Al Zarqawi roaming about telling the democrats and republicans to bomb each others houses and places of work. Or we could have any of a number of presidents of other countries such as Kim Jong Il, Thabo Mbeki, Vladimir Putin or Robert Mugabe. Or anyone from Hamas. We could be the new Bolivarian Socialist Republican of America.

But again, this isn't the contest at hand. My objections to Bush come from "he's not better than any random republican senator" I think even someone from Bush's corner of the political spectrum, there are a number of people who do be far better. I'd be completely up for putting all 55 names in a hat and drawing a new Prez and VP.

What I'm really dreading is the new Hillary admin. This is a woman who has essentially already promised us a war to conquer Iran and install a new govt. This will be potentially harder than Vietnam, because Iran will have not just China backing it up, but also Russia. It'll be pretty easy for the Hillster to spend a trillion dollars killing a million people and failing to take Iran.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:54 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


IDENTIFY FRIEND OR FOE (IFF)

Quote:

Quote:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Jewish Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

-60 Minutes, 5/12/96, Extra! "We Think the Price Is Worth It," by Rahul Mahajan, November/December 2001
www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

Jewish "President Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III."
www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html


USA nuked Iraq with dose-equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima A-bombs. "Depleted" uranium is radioactive for 35-billion years and emits gamma rays, x-rays, beta particles and killer alpha particles:
www.traprockpeace.org/depleteduranium.html

Pentagon has already nuked USA with 1,050 A-bombs:
www.HistoryChannel.com

50,000 US troops killed in 15-year Iraq War
500,000 US troops are paid disablity from Gulf War
www.GulfWarVets.com

7,000 Americans genocided EVERY DAY in Death Camps in USA today:
www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_01.htm

Commander In Chief Radio #17
"POWs from 45 nations incarcerated in Gitmo"
by Skidmark Bob
Pirate Radio Santa Cruz
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8939.php
www.freakradio.org

Free Peace MP3s
www.benfrank.net/nuke/Free_Peace_mp3s.html


www.police-state.net

"The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
-USAma Bin Laden (CIA code name Jew Tim OSSman when in California buying SAMS from CIA), business partner with Bush family since 1947, brother Salem Bin Laden was George Bush Jr's first business partner in Arbusto Oil in Texas, his other brother Shafig Bin Laden was dining with Sir George Bush Sr Knight of the British Empire and Carlyle Group (owner of Serenity) on 9/11/2001 in Washinton DC, CNN, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

"I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people."
-Usama Bin Laden, Ummat magazine, September 28, 2001

"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information. It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."
—US Solicitor-General Theodore "Ted" Olson, in Jennifer K. Harbury vs. United States, at the US Supreme Court, on 17 March 2002 (his wife Barabara Olson, attoney at law and CNN talkinghead disappeared on September 11, 2001, allegedly on American Airlines Flight 77 that never hit the Pentagon)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
-William Colby, Director CIA, assassinated 60,000 people via CIA Death Squads in Vietnam Wars with Phoenix Project ("drowned" in a suspicious "canoe crash" while cooking dinner in Washington DC)

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: Bush Sued by RICO Act - 9/11 victims sue Bush Gang under RICO Act for perping domestic terrorism and mass murder on 9/11/2001. Stanley Hilton vs traitorous media whores Shaun Hannity and Alan Colmes for Jewish Australian porno king pimp daddy Rupert Murdock on Faux News.
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/7209.php

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: Operation Northwoods - James Banford from ABC News reported on Pentagon's Operation Northwoods plot to perp domestic terrorism in USA to blame a foreign nation and "justify" invasion, declassified in 2000
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/7209.php
http://BodyOfSecrets.com

"Towers that fell 'like a controlled demolition'. Planes that vanished then mysteriously reappeared, and crucial evidence that has been lost for ever. In the Pentagon, a top secret team drew up a plan to simultaneously send up two airliners painted and numbered exactly the same, one from a civil airport in America, the other from a secret military airbase nearby. The one from the airport would have military personnel on board who had checked in as ordinary passengers under false names. The one from the airbase would be an empty drone, a remote-controlled unmanned aircraft. Somewhere along their joint flight paths, the passenger-carrying plane would drop below radar height, and disappear, landing back at the airbase and unloading its occupants in secret. Meanwhile, the drone would have taken up the other plane's designated course. High over the island of Cuba, it would be exploded in mid-air after broadcasting an international distress call that it was under attack from enemy fighters. The world would be told that a plane load of blameless American holidaymakers had been deliberately shot down by Fidel Castro's Communists - and that the US had no choice but to declare war and topple his regime. This Top Secret 'agent provocateur' plan - code named Operation Northwoods and revealed in official archives - dates from 1962 when the Cold War was at its height and was declassified in 2000."
-Tony Rennell, London Daily Mail, "9/11 ON TRIAL -Towers that fell 'like a controlled demolition'. Planes that vanished then mysteriously reappeared, And crucial evidence that has been lost for ever. A new book raises bizarre yet deeply unsettling questions about the world's worst terror atrocity…" August 6, 2005
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm

"Operation NORTHWOODS may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods had called for nothing less than the launch of a secret campaign of terrorism within the United States in order to blame Castro and provoke a war with Cuba."
—James Bamford, ABC News, "Friendly Fire - U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," May 1, 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

"In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation NORTHWOODS, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years. The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military. Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job. Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy. "The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford."
—David Ruppe, ABC News, "Friendly Fire - U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," May 1, 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

"We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. The presense of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The US could follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation. We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. Use of MIG-type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping, and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type palnes would be useful. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce that fact. Hijacking attampts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged. It is possible to create an incident which would demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civilian airliner from the United States. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and the passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rondevous. From the rondevous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly to an auxiliary airfield at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. Meanwhile the drone aircraft will continue to fly the filed flight plan. The drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency "MAY DAY" message stating it is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident. It is possible to create an incident that will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly Tail-end Charlie. While near the Cuban island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. This pilot would then fly at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who performed the mission under an alias would resume his proper identity. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared. A submarine or small craft would distribute F-101 parts, parachute, etc. The pilots retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found."
—Jewish Zionist General L.L. Lemnitzer, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon, Memo to Secretary of War Robert McNamara - Subject: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba - Operation NORTHWOODS, March 13, 1962 (declassifed 2000)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

VIDEO DOWNLOAD: Jewish Fox TV's Lone Gunmen pilot episode - Broadcast in March 2001, re Jewish General LL Limnitzer's Operation Northwoods plot by Pentagon, CIA and Jewish Ike/LBJ White House to hijack a US airliner by remote control and crash it into the Jewish Rockefeller's World Trade Center, declassified in 2000
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6758.php

"I don't trust government. And neither should our citizens."
—US Senator Larry Craig, United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, "DOJ Oversight: Terrorism and Other Topics", testimony by US Attorney General John Ashcroft re President George Bush Jr.'s Executive Orders to "legalize torture" of US citizens and refusal to release that memo (felony Contempt of Congress), C-SPAN2, June 8, 2004

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be."
—President Thomas Jefferson

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator. I don't know where Usama is, and I don't care. The Constitution is just a gorram piece of paper. My daddy owns Serenity The Big Dang Movie - it's FABULOUS!!!"
-George Bush Jr, accused copkiller, convicted of DUI, cocaine, AWOL and desertion, arrested for theft and vandalism, sued for rape, currently sued for perping the domestic terrorist massacres on 9/11/2001, son of narco kingpin Sir George Bush Sr Knight of the British Empire sued for narcoterrorist bombings in Iran-Contra with his partner Pablo Escobar, grandson of Prescott Bush arrested 3 times under Trading With The Enemy Act during World War 2 and paid $750,000 forfeiture


www.whatreallyhappened.com/Aug02articles.html




ARREST GEORGE WALKER BUSH NOW!!!

Jewish V For Vendetta movie glorifies terrorism by Bush Crime Family. Gunpowder Plot to bomb British Parliament was exactly 400 years ago, perped by Constable Thomas Percy, ancester of Barbara Pierce Bush, mother of George Bush Jr. Includes Hangman game to test your knowledge of history of totalitarian dictatorships, and full history of Gunpowder Plot of 1605. By the transvestite transexual writers of The Matrix.
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com

"Larry Wachowski is a super freak. Unfortunately with all his money he can afford to buy himself a vagina. I'm thinking his choice to take the other pill may have put him into a matrix of his own....."
http://keepcoolmybabies.blogspot.com/2006/01/larry-wachowski-is-freak.
html


Wash: That sounds like something out of science fiction.
Zoe: My other husband was in The Matrix, Dear.

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO - VERSION 2
(Mal shoots Fed in the head - as seen on PNTV)
Dobson: You're gonna kill a lawman in cold blood?
Joss, what the fuck were you THINKING?!
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
September 911 Surprise
The shockumentary miniseries - 9 hours
FREE VIDEO DOWNLOAD:
http://september911surprise.com
www.piratenews.org/video-archive.html

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 16, 2006 7:26 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Of course that means that you are not on the same page as reality. Pirate News is much closer with his 1.6 million figure. I've done a lot of figureing, and I keep coming up about 1/2 of PN's number 800,000 or 900,000.


I got my figures from Iraq body count - an anti war movement not some official US governmental source. Are you sure you are not quoting overall death figures, including those from natural causes? Some reports cite these to show that the overall death rate has gone up - ie. iraq is less stable now and people are suffering for lack of basic ammenities.

True enough, unfortunate circumstance will lead to high death rates. But my point remains; who do you blame for the civilian deaths from the current instability, the radical elements of arab/iraqi society who are causing it or the americans who are failing to prevent it? I'm not trying to plead the innocence of the US I just think people should give blame where it's due.

Quote:

Part of why those of us who oppose the war do so is that we are in touch with reality


You're assuming that I support the war in Iraq. Huh.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 16, 2006 7:38 AM

CARTOON


Well, regardless of what people in here may say and think about America, it's still the one place in the world that everyone else is trying to get into so they can live the best life imaginable on earth.

How many people do you see wanting to go live in Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia because it affords them the best chance to make something of themselves and live their lives freely?

Ask the women of Saudi Arabia (if you can get them to talk to you at all, much less on the record) if they can live more freely there or here in the U.S.?

And there's no amount of political rhetoric or insane conspiratorial theories which can speak as loudly (or as profoundly) as the vast numbers of people trying to get into the U.S. on a daily basis.

We don't have to build walls to keep our citizens in. People are fighting to get in, not out. So there must be something here they want, which they can't find elsewhere.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 16, 2006 7:51 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD


PirateNews, are you male or female? Cause I think I'm in love with you.

While I may not agree totally with the Bush bashing, it seems in your case it's directed at the current major evil and the position he occupies, and not just at the man himself. That's a good thing. We need more people like you constantly questioning any and everything they can. Governments of all types commit absolutely heinous crimes that the average person doesn't have the resources to commit and it is imperative that people draw attention to it, no matter what political party, no matter what great causes they support, we must NEVER stop questioning.

God bless you, patriot.

Have you ever:
Used your teeth as wire strippers?
Given yourself stitches?
Made improvised munitions with no base supplies?
Pissed in a canteen?
Gone a month without bathing?

If so, you MIGHT just be a !HOOAH MOTHERF*CKER!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 16, 2006 7:04 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

I got my figures from Iraq body count - an anti war movement not some official US governmental source.


I'm not off in paranoia city, but I'm not sure this is true. I think that the Iraq Body Count, though it started as an anti-war group, is not an official US govt. source. The govt uses it, Bush himself has used their figures. I think their estimates are seriously low by any serious attempt at a realistic projection.

Quote:

Are you sure you are not quoting overall death figures, including those from natural causes? Some reports cite these to show that the overall death rate has gone up - ie. iraq is less stable now and people are suffering for lack of basic ammenities.


I don't get the difference. Civilian casualities are those people who died because there was a war on (started by us) among those who were not enemy combatants. Since very few of the dead, percentagewise, were actually enrolled in any of the insurgent enterprises attempting to overtake Iraq, viturally everyone is a civillian casualty. If a guy throws stones at americans, that doesn't make him an insurgent in Iraq anymore than it makes someone a militant in Palestine. Most of the deaths probably come form our bombing of overcrowded neighborhoods in arial attacks on cities.

Quote:

True enough, unfortunate circumstance will lead to high death rates. But my point remains; who do you blame for the civilian deaths from the current instability, the radical elements of arab/iraqi society who are causing it or the americans who are failing to prevent it? I'm not trying to plead the innocence of the US I just think people should give blame where it's due.


Oh, that's extremely easy. I blame Bush, there's no one else to blame. The Iraqis are doing the only sane thing they can: resisting a foreign occupation which is attempting to radically alter their society in its favor. (Which we are trying to do) Any red blooded American would do the same thing if we were invaded by some foreign power which sought to 'correct' our society. The Soviets as I recall once suggested that if they ruled America they would correct our economic inequality by forcing universal govt. employment and eliminating non-employment related wealth. I remember the speech, it was maybe andrepov? Anyway, sure, but if they tried, do you honestly think no one in America would have resisted that effort to 'help' us?

Quote:

You're assuming that I support the war in Iraq. Huh.


I wasn't sure. Your low numbers were probably feeding that idea. I don't think those figures are realistic given what's going on in Iraq. The importance of accurate numbers is that the arument to some extent hinges on the numbers. If Saddam remained in power, there would be a certian amount of death and destruction. I think at this point the argument that Saddam would have been worse than US is beyond absurd, and it's probable that we've killed more people than Saddam would have done between now and his death. But if you lowball the estimate too much, you might end up under that figure.

The govt. seeks to lowball estimates for obvous reasons. Death doesn't have a lot of fans (outside of the democratic party <- just a reference to right to die, etc.) but seriously, I think the greatest lowball estimates recently came out of Katrina. What I heard from the inside was estimates of 25-40K dead, with the lions share of that coming from a relatively unrecorded vagrant regional homeless population. Now even if that's high or alarmist, it's still way off base from the official 3Kish figure of dead and missing. It's more like mini-tsunami. But that would make the total bungling of FEMA even worse.

It's hard when you have to always guess at the truth.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 16, 2006 7:09 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Well, regardless of what people in here may say and think about America


PN has his reasons, and it's fair, he's not speaking from a random anti-american position. I really encourage you, go to his website, read about this stuff. He's really coming from an insiders prospective, not by any means a hate-america one. His position, and PN, please, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the fed govt. has betrayed America. I think he's really strongly pro-American.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 16, 2006 7:22 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

You could also include the death toll caused by the sanctions against Iraq for the WMD that they didn't have.....


Oh, I did. I don't think it's that high, it's between 500 and 600K. Clinton is an evil bastard. I'm not sure yet that Bush is an evil bastard, he might just be an incompetent moron. Also, the first Gulf war. But it's not just us, I think Saddam gets some credit, but still, you can't blame the wolf for being a wolf, at some point you have to take responsiblity for the fact that you locked it in the hen house.

For this war, I think honestly, the 30K figure is low, and while I think the 150K figure is high, it's likely to be somewhere in between the two.

I guess, objectively, not as bad as Clinton or Kerry is really damning with faith praise. To the extent Bush is Clinton, he's as bad, to the extent he's a republican, he's nto as bad, and on the budget, for whatever reason, he's clearly worse, as in - look at the budget - but even and average of 'better than Clinton' is not enough - I'm not grading on a curve.

Clearly there are many things worse than having Bush as president. For instance, we could have Osama Bin Laden as president, or even school building contractor. Or Al Zarqawi roaming about telling the democrats and republicans to bomb each others houses and places of work. Or we could have any of a number of presidents of other countries such as Kim Jong Il, Thabo Mbeki, Vladimir Putin or Robert Mugabe. Or anyone from Hamas. We could be the new Bolivarian Socialist Republican of America.

But again, this isn't the contest at hand. My objections to Bush come from "he's not better than any random republican senator" I think even someone from Bush's corner of the political spectrum, there are a number of people who do be far better. I'd be completely up for putting all 55 names in a hat and drawing a new Prez and VP.

What I'm really dreading is the new Hillary admin. This is a woman who has essentially already promised us a war to conquer Iran and install a new govt. This will be potentially harder than Vietnam, because Iran will have not just China backing it up, but also Russia. It'll be pretty easy for the Hillster to spend a trillion dollars killing a million people and failing to take Iran.




I think your numbers are low, I wish I had time to look for some estimates I read before, but here is what I found with the time I have

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html

" *Citing information on maternal and child mortality rates collected by UNICEF, Professor Richard Garfield estimates that between 1991 and 2002, the number of excess deaths in Iraq among children under age 5 is 343,900 to 525,400. "

And that is only five and under in age....

Other factors are the denial of chlorine products for water purification and the increase in chorea
and related diease... denial of equipment to clean up debris from depleted uranium munitions and increases in cancers and related diease...

Even if the wolf wanted to fix some of these problems, he actually had no opportunity to......



" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:59 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Cartoon:
Well, regardless of what people in here may say and think about America, it's still the one place in the world that everyone else is trying to get into so they can live the best life imaginable on earth.


As ussual Cartoon talking bollocks again. It would be nice if you could say something that's true for a change.

Here's a hint, there's plenty of developed countries in the world outside of the US (yes really, the USA isn't the only country in the world) which have immigration. If you look on a map (well get someone to do it for you, I realise you're incapable of doing it yourself) you'll see what I mean.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 17, 2006 9:39 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Cartoon:
Well, regardless of what people in here may say and think about America, it's still the one place in the world that everyone else is trying to get into so they can live the best life imaginable on earth.


As ussual Cartoon talking bollocks again. It would be nice if you could say something that's true for a change.

Here's a hint, there's plenty of developed countries in the world outside of the US (yes really, the USA isn't the only country in the world) which have immigration. If you look on a map (well get someone to do it for you, I realise you're incapable of doing it yourself) you'll see what I mean.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.




I think the sad thing is that much of the immigration you speak of is from places that have been screwed over by the US and others in the first place causing the economic conditions that force people to leave...





" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 17, 2006 11:12 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I'm not off in paranoia city, but I'm not sure this is true. I think that the Iraq Body Count, though it started as an anti-war group, is not an official US govt. source. The govt uses it, Bush himself has used their figures. I think their estimates are seriously low by any serious attempt at a realistic projection.


I like what you did here. You made the one cosy assumption that my figures are wrong, and then you ran with it for the rest of your post. You completely failed to face up to the point I was making.

And to prove it:

Quote:

I don't get the difference


Quote:

Most of the deaths probably come form our bombing of overcrowded neighborhoods in arial attacks on cities


No! No! No! Look, I don't claim to be an expert, but unlike you I took some care to understand exactly what the figures were before I quoted them, and I don't come up with outrageous conclusions like this just because it's what I'd like to think.

In your post you made a lot of points - Some I thought were ok, some not particularly relevant (although you are free to say them) and some ones I could argue over.

But I'm not going to be drawn on any point but the original one. Partly because we'd be deviating from the original thread topic but mainly because I don't think I'd ever be able to nail you down on any single point.

So back to the beginning, one false notion at a time

The figures. I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you exactly what both our sets of figures are, without being 100% sure (I don't want to have to hunt down the report you got your figures from to find the true context for you).

So. I quoted a figure of about 10,000. This is a tally of all the reported civilian deaths at the hands of the coalition forces. It likely is an underestimate because some things will not have been reported, but there's no way someone could do the same tally and get 150,000, agreed? No, those people were counting something different - still dead Iraqis but ones that died anywhere for whatever reason. People die of natural causes all the time - you can't blame Bush for everything.

Now it could be you were quoting excess deaths, which means (i think) that 150,000 more people since the invasion have died than would have been the case if Sadaam was still in charge of them. This is sad, but possibly less alarming than you think. Do you know that summer heatwaves killed tens of thousands across europe in 2003? Certain people in any society are susceptible in harsh conditions. With the poor sanitation and electricity supply in Iraq due to the current chaos death from these more natural causes (as opposed to direct military action) will be accelerated.

So, I think my figure is more relevant in terms of 'the amount of blood George Bush has on his hands' as you might like to say. You didn't have any good grounds for dismissing my figure - Bush may have quoted these figures himself but that just means he's being honest when it would be transparently stupid not to. He can't well con us with a lowball 'official civilian death toll' when there are people totting up the numbers from the media reports such as Iraq body count. As a Bushaphobe you may well take issue with a version of events that supposes an instance where Bush has failed to be either stupid or dishonest. In that case go ahead and believe iraq body count is a government conspiracy.

Now I suppose you will want to talk about the 150,000 dead some more. 'They wouldn't have died if we hadn't gone in', and so forth. That's true enough - and so you say 'Bush has killed all those people, even if he didn't achieve it with bombs'. And here I disagree, and I'm not sure you have acknowledged why even though I said it in both of my previous posts and it was the kind of thing the arab-american lady was referring to at the start of this thread.

Quote:

The Iraqis are doing the only sane thing they can: resisting a foreign occupation


Do you watch the news? Radical Sunni muslims are killing Shia muslims and bombing holy shrines trying to provoke a civil war, and some radical shias are retaliating in much the same way. I'd guess that this has accounted for more deaths than US troops who stopped killing almost entirely nearly 3 years ago.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 17, 2006 12:07 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Now it could be you were quoting excess deaths, which means (i think) that 150,000 more people since the invasion have died than would have been the case if Sadaam was still in charge of them.


Sure, this was a eurofigure, and that's what it meant. But also there was a 30,000 figure from Iraq of bomb victims in the morgue. Not all of those bomb victims were ours, many were killed by terrorists, but they are still a result of the war.

I meant the majority of the 30K were probably arial bombardment numbers, the bulk of the 150K were civilians, as likely were the bulk of the 30K.

As for the rest, I don't know what you're on about. No offense, but your argument comes across like democrats, ie. not taking a strong enough stance.

Quote:

Do you watch the news?


Of course not. I don't own a TV. I read the news. I was refering to the Iraqis we fight who fight us, the insurgents, they are doing the natural thing. 700 Al Qaeda and a few looneys bent on civil war are another thing.

It's by no means anywhere near the tally of our slaughter, which is still going on right now today. The civil war has killed upwards of 2500 people. Right now, right this second, we're engaged in a massive bombing campaign with more explosive force than hiroshima. It's bound to kill a couple folk.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:43 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I meant the majority of the 30K were probably arial bombardment numbers


Ah, that's much less outrageous - apologies for misinterpreting you. Not too far off, IBC has a running total of some 35,000, about 10,000 killed by us. And I was always agreeing that they are mainly civilians, not combatants.

Quote:

Of course not. I don't own a TV. I read the news.


Haha, cool. But it depends what you read I guess.

Quote:

I was refering to the Iraqis we fight who fight us, the insurgents, they are doing the natural thing. 700 Al Qaeda and a few looneys bent on civil war are another thing.


But I still don't think you have a realistic view of what's going on, glorifying and upscaling the 'iraqi resistance' and downplaying al qaeda and rival sunni/shia factions.

The only thing we are forcing on the iraqi people is democracy, which is pretty much letting the people choose themselves how things are run, instead of the previous psychotic dictator. Your idea that the iraqi people are united in resisting the occupying americans is a strange one, since the two rival factions are carrying out attacks on each other pushing the country to the brink of civil war. I don't see how you can downplay this in light of the figures:

Coalition forces killed by Iraqi militants - about 2k

Iraqi civilians killed by Iraqi militants - at least 25k and rising all the time

Look - you see exactly who the Iraqi militants are fighting aginst? The Iraqi militants are killing their countrymen and you call them freedom fighters and blame the deaths on George Bush!!! Crazy stuff. And you also blame all the civilian deaths from the resulting instability on Bush as well.

As for the current operation, this is the largest scale military action for some time, and it's not a regular thing. I say, best thing for long term peace and stability is to try to take out the insurgents if you can, even at the risk of civilian casualties. If you disagree, fine, but at least keep some perspective. Get a media reported civilian casualty figure, double it, and compare it to the estimated deaths this month from sectarian violence.

Quote:

No offense, but your argument comes across like democrats, ie. not taking a strong enough stance.


Hmm, ok. Well I'm not a democrat. If my stance isn't strong on something it's usually because I'm not sure where I ought to stand. Iraq is controversial for good reason - it's a complicated mess with lots of blame to be dished out. I think in hindsight we will all have a better understanding of who was to blame where and whether it was all worth it. In short, no offence taken - i'm quite secure holding the opinions I do as lightly as I do - I think for someone like me who only dabbles in politics now and then it's for the best. It doesn't stop me pulling up people as ignorant as me with much stronger views that I don't think are justified though

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:59 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Ah, that's much less outrageous - apologies for misinterpreting you. Not too far off, IBC has a running total of some 35,000, about 10,000 killed by us. And I was always agreeing that they are mainly civilians, not combatants.


The rootbeer company? just kidding. Seriously, The sheer quantity of explosives dropped on Iraqi cities by use mandates a higher toll then 10,000. My gut tells me this. That would unsdoubtedly be less than one casualty per bomb, perhaps far less.

Quote:

Haha, cool. But it depends what you read I guess.


Fox, Newsmax, Chrisitan Science Monitor, Guardian.co.uk, and google news. Also blogs.

Quote:

But I still don't think you have a realistic view of what's going on, glorifying and upscaling the 'iraqi resistance' and downplaying al qaeda and rival sunni/shia factions.


Oh, I completely disagree. I'm not only not glofying it, I'm giving far too much compromise here. The reality is there are 700 oppositon soldiers who are technically literally "Al Qaeda" and 200,000 which are "Saddam Loyalist" My compromise is based on the idea that a lot of the former millitary are now fighting for Al Qaeda, but even so, I'm certainly not conceding that this is a majoirty by any means. It may even be a remote fringe.

Furthermore, from the reports I read daily, the civil war seems to be being sparked by a few isolated perpetrators who are seeking to create a larger scale conflict than exists. Becuase of this, the 2,000 dead would likely be disporportionately high for the number of combatants involved, which is like in the hundreds. So, Civil War Agonists and Al Qaeda I think we're talking about a thousand, maybe two. Add in their mindless followings, maybe we have it up to 10,000.

Quote:

The only thing we are forcing on the iraqi people is democracy,


Not at all. We also are forcing westernization, which to them means gays, whores and AIDS. Furthermore, we actually did force on them a law which allows foreign ownership of business, which, to a country which has only one asset, is a total and complete distruction of their society. I don't doubt that the Iraqis are "right" to oppose us, from a moral perspective, but they are not realistic in doing so. I think it would be better for the Iraqis to surrender, and then renegotiate their relationship with us after the attacking administration has left office, which it will do shortly. This is what SK and Japan did to good effect.

Quote:

which is pretty much letting the people choose themselves how things are run, instead of the previous psychotic dictator.


Not a fan of Hussein, or any socialists. But this statement is completely unrealistic. The vast majority of democracies in the world are de facto dictatorships, one party rule where all votes are rigged. This is extremely widespread in the third world, and is common in some parts of the devloped world. The idea that democracy will bring self rule to the Iraqis is probably just patently absurd.

Quote:

Your idea that the iraqi people are united in resisting the occupying americans is a strange one,


Not my idea at all. I never said they were uniting. I think Americans and brits come into a town, shoot some guy's cock off, pull the fingers off of children, and rape some eight year olds, and then what does it matter that 99.9% of allied forces don't do these things?
If you know anything at all about the muslim world you know that these stories spread like wildfire, and especially when they are accompanied by photos, they lead people to action. Individually, Iraqis decide to resist.

Quite frankly, I think the same thing would happen here.

Quote:

since the two rival factions are carrying out attacks on each other pushing the country to the brink of civil war.


Isolated groups with an interest in sparking civil war, to take over in the ensuing chaos, are doing this. This is probably Al Qaeda, it really seems to like chaos.

Quote:

I don't see how you can downplay this in light of the figures:
Coalition forces killed by Iraqi militants - about 2k
Iraqi civilians killed by Iraqi militants - at least 25k and rising all the time



Not downplaying them at all. I don't see this as civil war. When the Iraqis targetted by iraqis are working with us, they are collaborators, and therefore represent us, not iraq, just as the viche represented germany, in spite of being french. This is not civil war, it's resistance. The Iraqis attack the collaborators for two reasons:
1. They are easier targets by far than American forces.
2. It discourages others from collaborating.
This is exactly what the french did in WWII

Quote:

Look - you see exactly who the Iraqi militants are fighting aginst? The Iraqi militants are killing their countrymen and you call them freedom fighters


Oh, please.

Stop the spin machine already. I didn't call them freedom fighters. That's rediculous. I called them a resistace. Even Bush has called them a resistance. They are resisting us. Freedom fighters are ideological, these guys aren't ideologues, they were happy with Saddam Hussein, who was a brutal tyrant, and they'll probably accept the theocratic mullahs that will likely replace him. This doesn't qualify them for "Freedom fighters"

Quote:

and blame the deaths on George Bush!!!


Why not? Who else could they possibly be blamed on? Maybe Tony Blair, or Ahmed Chalabi, but if you start a war, then people die, you are to blame. It really is that simple.

Quote:

Crazy stuff.


Crazy to speak my free opinion against beloved leader. Have you ever read the constitution? Do you want a Saddam Hussein of your own?

Quote:

And you also blame all the civilian deaths from the resulting instability on Bush as well.


Of course. All consequence of any war are on the head of he who started the war.

Quote:

As for the current operation, this is the largest scale military action for some time, and it's not a regular thing. I say, best thing for long term peace and stability is to try to take out the insurgents if you can, even at the risk of civilian casualties.


Not arguing this.

Quote:

If you disagree, fine, but at least keep some perspective. Get a media reported civilian casualty figure, double it, and compare it to the estimated deaths this month from sectarian violence.


Quote:
No offense, but your argument comes across like democrats, ie. not taking a strong enough stance.

Quote:

Hmm, ok. Well I'm not a democrat.


I didn't get this until you reacting violently to a criticism of Bush, who, IMHO, is a terrible leader. By Bush, I of course mean Cheney. I think Bush is like Reagan, far more of a Media man than a decision maker.

Quote:

If my stance isn't strong on something it's usually because I'm not sure where I ought to stand.


Okay, sure. After you nixed the idea that you were pro-war, I thought you were coming from a position of anti-war and then watering down your own argument. Democrats do this all the time, because they're afraid of the 'tinfoil hat' label. This is because they've had their respective gonadal tissues surgically removed.

Quote:

Iraq is controversial for good reason - it's a complicated mess with lots of blame to be dished out.


Sure, and I agree that the blame game doesn't get us anywhere in the end, except hopefully to destroy the credibility of those that started the war in hopes of preventing them from making a similar mess out of Iran.

Quote:

I think in hindsight we will all have a better understanding of who was to blame where and whether it was all worth it.


Sure, to me it was an obvious mark of hubrus, the concept of pre-emptive war was discredited half a century ago, if not earlier. But really, war creates chaos, that was well known, and anyone who supported initiating a conflict and is upset at the resulting chaos was most likely unduly swayed by rhettoric, and hopefull in the future will be a little more cautious. A large number of senators voted for this conflict, and they really shouldn't have.

Quote:

In short, no offence taken - i'm quite secure holding the opinions I do as lightly as I do - I think for someone like me who only dabbles in politics now and then it's for the best. It doesn't stop me pulling up people as ignorant as me with much stronger views that I don't think are justified though


I actually think I'm quite moderate on the subject. I'm not jump up and down and saying "bring them home now" by any means, or god forbid "kerry was right" which he wasn't. You probably missed my "maybe we were right to go into iraq" thread some time ago,

but I think clearly, now, we were wrong. But the far more important issue is how to fix it.

On a positive note, the Bush Admin, who I think is about the worst the GOP could possibly have selected, competencywise, actually moved up a few notched for me today. Enlisting the help of Iran is a rare admission o ftheir own arrogance, and is a sound stategic move. I hesitate to say brilliant, because I know this administration can probably screw it up, but I'm very hopeful. Not only will it bring a regional muslim credibility to the effort, but it simultaneously gives Iran a vested interest in our mission, which opens up the possibility that they may be far more ready to deal with us on the nuclear front than they have been to deal with Europe.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:45 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Oh, I completely disagree. I'm not only not glofying it, I'm giving far too much compromise here. The reality is there are 700 oppositon soldiers who are technically literally "Al Qaeda" and 200,000 which are "Saddam Loyalist" My compromise is based on the idea that a lot of the former millitary are now fighting for Al Qaeda, but even so, I'm certainly not conceding that this is a majoirty by any means. It may even be a remote fringe.


I think you've glorified the insurgents just by saying their cause is a 'moral' one. From then on it seems, you are free to blame the deaths of all the people they murder on Bush.

It seems likely to me that the insurgency is to a large extent made up by Al Qaeda and Sadaam Loyalists. I think we can both agree that these are bad guys.

These are the people with an obvious motive for disrupting the process of forming a new governement. They are also the ones who will have had the arms and expertise to carry out the violence. We have seen from the high turnout in the elections that the Iraqi people in general are not as opposed to a democratic Iraq as you think.

So my conclusion is Sadaam loyalists and Al Qaeda are to blame for the insurgency (remove Al Qaeda from the equation if you want). I'm sure they are constantly recruiting members from the disaffected civilian population all the time (Seems it's possible to recruit suicide bombers anywhere in the muslim world), but the core leadership, the weapons and the expertise must be in their hands. This just seems like a sensible deduction to me, but if you have any other insight i'm happy to hear it.

Most Iraqi's hated Sadaam and his henchmen, and most celebrated on the streets the day they were removed from power. Any Iraqis joining the ranks of the insurgency will likely be the minority Sunnis, who got a taste for power under Sadaam's Baath party and don't like the idea of a ruling Shiaite government. I'm sure almost all Iraqi's dislike the presence of coalition troops, but you will notice in the Shia south of the country there is much less violence targetted against them and even less against the 'collabotrators'.

Anyway, that's how I look at things. With this view the insurgents are not fighting for their country but for their own grip on power. When they kidnap and murder iraqi security forces they are not slaying infidel 'collaborators', but murdering iraqi people who work for the democratically elected provisional iraqi government. In analysing everyone's motives i'm no doubt over simplifying, but don't you see something like this as the reality?

Quote:

This is exactly what the french did in WWII


Nowhere near as brutal and indiscriminate.

Quote:

Quite frankly, I think the same thing would happen here.


Nowhere near as brutal and indiscriminate. Ok, I can only guess but that's my honest opinion. At the risk of scandalising liberals everywhere, I'll say I think it's a commentary on muslim society.

Quote:

I didn't get this until you reacting violently to a criticism of Bush


What? Now you've got me pegged as a Bush lover? Honestly, it's like all you do is skim over my post to try and gauge my political mindset and then you rail against it - taunting me with sarcastic quips thus:

Quote:

Crazy to speak my free opinion against beloved leader.


Ok, I'll help you out. He's not beloved, and he's not my leader. Honestly, my 'Crazy stuff' exclamation was a criticism of your crazy logic, not a protest that you dare denigrate George Bush - otherwise I think I would have use'd the term 'blasphemy'.

Quote:

Have you ever read the constitution?


Nope. Reckon i've gathered the gist of it from american tv so I can guess the kind of thing you're alluding to.

Quote:

Do you want a Saddam Hussein of your own?


no...

Seriously, I'm not a fan of Bush - I feel like I'm repeating myself when I say this but I'm suspicious of the motives and competence of the administration. I'm right leaning politically, but I'm not American and therefore not republican and therefore not swayed by any kind of party allegiance. I'm more ready than most to attack pre-emptively those showing intent and capability to hurt us (the west) but I think both of these have to be proven - so far not the case with iraq.

Quote:

the concept of pre-emptive war was discredited half a century ago


I'm intrigued. What are you referring to?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:00 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

I think you've glorified the insurgents just by saying their cause is a 'moral' one. From then on it seems, you are free to blame the deaths of all the people they murder on Bush.


This is just spin. Of course it's a moral one, they're defending their country, ie, they are driven by their conscience. It's far easier for them to capitulate. The fact that they don't isn't because they're corrupt, it's because they're patriotic. Loyal to Saddam or the state of Iraq. I'm not agreeing with their position, I personally think Saddam should be locked up and Iraq should be dissolved into three smaller states. But it's no glorification, it's the least you can credit them with. I think anything less falls in the spectrum of pure racism.

Quote:

It seems likely to me that the insurgency is to a large extent made up by Al Qaeda and Sadaam Loyalists. I think we can both agree that these are bad guys.


Intelligence reports repeatedly report that Al Qaeda is a very small portion of the Iraqi resistance, and it is probably present only as an opporunist, and sure, they're blatantly bad guys. I just watched both republicans and democrats from the senate intelligence community, and the consensus was clear in line with this.

Many are Saddam Loyalists, and I agree, they're loyalties are misplaced. But they are still loyal, so it's a moral issue for them, just not one I agree with. Loyalty, BTW, according to the Tao te Ching, is a failing, and not a virtue. Which really only effects me. You should follow the leader because he is right, not because he is the leader. I followed Bush for a while, then he was wrong, many many times. It took a while for me to give up on him completely. I try to avoid being loyal to a fault.

Quote:

So my conclusion is Sadaam loyalists and Al Qaeda are to blame for the insurgency (remove Al Qaeda from the equation if you want).


Sure, in part. I won't remove Al Qaeda completely, I think they're largely responsible for the civil war aspect.

But moreover, I can't blame the loyalists for being loyalists. It's not evil or immoral of them. It's a position I disagree with, but in a free society, they should have the right to hold that position. Resistance is what happens when you invade and subject people to your will. Our will, at the very least as perceived by them, is to steal the oil. To what extent that is true is irrelevant, because they believe it to be so. They also believe that our will is to create greater Israel. Since we do seek to establish a multi-natioinal mid-east union, there is a chance that such an institution might represnt more Israeli and penninsular power, and the Iraqis, like Pirate News, view the pneninsular kingdoms more or less as in collusion with Israel. To what extent any of this is true, again, is irrelevent, because they believe it to be so. We have failed to prove them wrong, not only to their own satisfication, but in the eyes of the world, since internationally, most of the people of the world seem to agree with them, particularly in the muslim world.

Personally, I think they're mistaken, but that to a lesser degree, there may be some truth in their position. I know for certain we have taken some oil to offset reconstruction costs, which feeds this image, and that we are much closer with countries they view as enemies (Israel and the pennisular kingdoms) and we are not at all close to their potential allies (Syria for the Sunnis, Iran for the Shiia)

It's a war of conquest, as any war of liberation which comes from outside is. Even arguing that this is a war of liberation is very weak, since our wars in Europe and Asia have all been to free a foreign occupying force. Saddam Husseins Baathists are at least Iraqis, so it's hard to credit that we are removing an occupier. In fact, we are an occupier. This is a statement of objective fact, even Bush has used the term "Occupation." But in any event, it's a war of conquest, and resistance is a natural part of that. The degree of resistance is connected most strongly to the behavior of the occupier, which, at the very least in the eyes of the occupied, has been appalling.

Quote:

I'm sure they are constantly recruiting members from the disaffected civilian population all the time (Seems it's possible to recruit suicide bombers anywhere in the muslim world), but the core leadership, the weapons and the expertise must be in their hands. This just seems like a sensible deduction to me, but if you have any other insight i'm happy to hear it.


I'm certain you are correct. Also bear in mind that things like Abu Ghraib are big recruitment posters for them. If we had come in and behaved as we did in old Europe, there would be little fodder for recruitment. Somehow "They are very slow building us a new school" wouldn't do the same for recruitment. I'm aware that there's been some of that, but a few stories of torturing children on the street for fun goes miles towards recruiting a new hoard of suicidal morons.

Quote:

Nowhere near as brutal and indiscriminate.


Okay, that may not have been fair to the french, but I meant, organizing to commit terrorist attacks on the occupier.

Quote:

What? Now you've got me pegged as a Bush lover? Honestly, it's like all you do is skim over my post to try and gauge my political mindset and then you rail against it - taunting me with sarcastic quips thus:


No, I read them, and I'm by no means an opposition-bot. I think there are a few on this forum, but that's not me. You do really try to keep me guessing. Sounds like in reality we're probably coming from the same political perspective.

Quote:

Ok, I'll help you out. He's not beloved, and he's not my leader.


Oh. Sorry Made the mistaken assumption you were American. You're a brit?
An awful lot of brits on this forum. I had no idea before I came on here that this show even aired in the UK.

Quote:

Reckon i've gathered the gist of it from american tv so I can guess the kind of thing you're alluding to.


It's a good read, short. Declaration of independence too. I think these Bush guys are pretty far off mark, according to wha tthe founding fathers had planned.

Quote:

Seriously, I'm not a fan of Bush - I feel like I'm repeating myself when I say this but I'm suspicious of the motives and competence of the administration.


I said the something very similar myself in a recent thread. It's like it's two separate problems, or maybe three. Incompetence, Ideology and Corruption.

Quote:

I'm right leaning politically, but I'm not American and therefore not republican and therefore not swayed by any kind of party allegiance.


I'm a republican, I used to support Bush, I don't now. I thought Clinton was well and truly awful, And I'm still trying to guage if maybe Bush is worse, or as bad. DeathToll-wise Clinton is still worse, but economically Bush is worse. I would like to see an old breed of politician come
Quote:

I'm more ready than most to attack pre-emptively those showing intent and capability to hurt us (the west) but I think both of these have to be proven - so far not the case with iraq.


I think pre-emptive strikes should just be ruled out. It's too easily spun into a justification for an agenda. These guys (Cheney and friends) have an ideological desire to redraw the map of the middle east, and are using war to do it, I think that's just bad policy, but I do think it's the policy. The case for a pre-emptive strike was made on what is clearly now erroneous data, but the case was made not because of the perceived threat, but because of the desire to follow the agenda. Realistically, Saddam was not a threat on the level of the USSR or communist China.

It would be hard to find a case where pre-emptive strike was necessary. Even with Germany, one could have responded to Spain, Austria or Czechoslovaki. Or even Poland. The proper thing for the US to do was probably to agreesively move in to block germany in one of those early conflicts, in the manner in which we did in Kuwait. It wouldn't have been that easy, but it's what we should have done.

I think this was not the best way to deal with Iraq, which I admit was a problem. But now we're there, and I think we need to find a solution. The sensible solution to me is the three state one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:36 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
The proper thing for the US to do was probably to agreesively move in to block germany in one of those early conflicts, in the manner in which we did in Kuwait. It wouldn't have been that easy, but it's what we should have done.


The US wasn't capable of that at the time. Link that with the population desire to stay well out and if you'd tried, it would have been a disaster.

I have to agree on preemptive strikes. I'm currently reading a book about the battle of Stalingrad, that also goes into some detail on the lead up. I didn't know this but Hitler's declaration of war was given as a pre-emptive strike with a list of 'offences' commited by Russia.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 24, 2006 2:16 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
The proper thing for the US to do was probably to agreesively move in to block germany in one of those early conflicts, in the manner in which we did in Kuwait. It wouldn't have been that easy, but it's what we should have done.


The US wasn't capable of that at the time. Link that with the population desire to stay well out and if you'd tried, it would have been a disaster.

I have to agree on preemptive strikes. I'm currently reading a book about the battle of Stalingrad, that also goes into some detail on the lead up. I didn't know this but Hitler's declaration of war was given as a pre-emptive strike with a list of 'offences' commited by Russia.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
]

Not to mention there was a movement in the US to back Germany that had some influence.....



" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 24, 2006 2:18 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


I think the question " Which Terrorists "
should also be asked :

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/117BC38E-1187-4075-B7F4-CCCD001
AB620.htm




" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:25 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Hey DT I’m back in the game. Sorry to take so long to reply, I’ve been out of the world for a spell – by which I mean in the world, but away from my computer. So, where were we?

Quote:

KPO: “I think you've glorified the insurgents just by saying their cause is a 'moral' one. From then on it seems, you are free to blame the deaths of all the people they murder on Bush.”

DT: "This is just spin"



Can this be the last time you accuse me of spin? All I do is state a condensed version of your argument so I can say exactly where I disagree with it, or where I think you have wrong assumptions. I’m not really trying to achieve anything with my wording other than conciseness. You don’t seem to like your own arguments when they’re stripped down to their barest points and recited back to you. My point, which I think you missed, is that you see the insurgents as 'good guys', with honest motives, ordinary iraqis doing the only 'sane' thing they can to protect their country - it's almost like you'd think less of them if they weren't blowing themselves up to kill their fellow countrymen. If you see them like this then you can make excuses for them when they kill innocent people, eg. 'George Bush is driving them to these actions by occupying their land'.

I can see why this is a valid point in your mind, I just think you've been unrealistic getting there, with your views on the nature of the insurgency.

Quote:

Of course it's a moral one, they're defending their country, ie, they are driven by their conscience


I made the argument in my previous post that these were BAD GUYS. My point was a generalisation, but I think a much more accurate one than yours. It went something like:

‘Of course it’s not a moral one, they’re defending their own grip on power, i.e., they are driven by their own selfish motives’.

Quite an opposite view to yours. Now we are both guessing at the motives of the insurgents – some reasons why I think my view of things is more accurate:

1)The insurgents do not represent the people or iraq, who are mostly in favour of democracy. Therefore they have no right to resist in the name of the country of iraq.
2) The insurgents are killing their own countrymen quite indiscriminately. I think resistance driven by purely patriotic motives would not be so indiscriminate. Labelling the victims ‘collaborators’ is just a way to make it seem they are fighting for the iraqi people. But they don’t represent the iraqi people - in fact, I am quite sure they are hated by them.

So. I think it makes all the difference how you look at the insurgents. See them as Sadaam’s bitter, ousted henchmen, instead of freedom fighters and you can attach blame to them quite easily for all the deaths, which is what I do. And since they are the ones doing the killing it kinda works, don't you think? There's a beautiful simplicity to my theory.

One other thing I want to address, is this:

Quote:

But moreover, I can't blame the loyalists for being loyalists. It's not evil or immoral of them. It's a position I disagree with, but in a free society, they should have the right to hold that position. Resistance is what happens when you invade and subject people to your will. Our will, at the very least as perceived by them, is to steal the oil. To what extent that is true is irrelevant, because they believe it to be so. They also believe that our will is to create greater Israel. Since we do seek to establish a multi-natioinal mid-east union, there is a chance that such an institution might represnt more Israeli and penninsular power, and the Iraqis, like Pirate News, view the pneninsular kingdoms more or less as in collusion with Israel. To what extent any of this is true, again, is irrelevent, because they believe it to be so.


I don’t like where you are going with this. I’ve said what I think are the motivations of the insurgents. If they cite largely groundless grievances as reasons for their acts of terrorism does that make it ok? Even if they’ve convinced themselves that these grievances are true, and they think they are really doing the people of Iraq a favour I still hold them accountable – it’s inexcusable and indulgent folly. Every human being and community of human beings should be responsible for their actions. If you soothe yourself with comforting lies to make the murderous acts easier, you are still responsible (not talking so much about the young, impressionable suicide bombers, but those who recruit them – to believe a lie from someone else is more excusable than believing a lie from yourself).


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And what is our motive for killing? You can hardly call it "self defense" since Saddam never posed a threat. And if you say that we're interested in spreading freedom (or democracy, however you want to call it) with the business end of a gun then are we any better than the jihadist who wants to spread Islam at the point of a sword? With ONE wording change I could take your argument and apply it to Bush & Co:

"Even if they’ve* convinced themselve that these grievances are true, and they think they are really doing the people of Iraq a favour** I still hold them accountable – it’s inexcusable and indulgent folly. Every human being and community of human beings should be responsible for their actions. If you soothe yourself with comforting lies to make the murderous acts easier, you are still responsible (not talking so much about the young, impressionable soldier, but those who recruit them – to believe a lie from someone else is more excusable than believing a lie from yourself).

* neocons
** "spreading democracy"
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No comment?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:29 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
And what is our motive for killing? You can hardly call it "self defense" since Saddam never posed a threat. And if you say that we're interested in spreading freedom (or democracy, however you want to call it) with the business end of a gun then are we any better than the jihadist who wants to spread Islam at the point of a sword?

Your implication is that there is a moral equivalency between a totalitarian theocracy and a democratic republic. Most people don’t believe that, even in much of the Middle East I would imagine, and they shouldn’t. Only if you believe moral equivalency between these two things are these two examples similar. So for most intelligent people, the answer is yes. Spreading “freedom with the business end of a gun” is better then similarly spreading totalitarianism. That’s pretty well established thought, and that’s probably why no one commented.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Finn- The goals are different and I would argue that democracy is a better goal. But war in Iraq was entirely optional. We weren't forced into it by circumstances of dire, immediate threat. That means we chose to impose "collateral damage" to the tune of more than ten thousand civilian dead. Once you start killing people to impose your ideology because you are so entirely convinced that you're right... well, making that kind of calculation requires the same mind-set as a terrorist.



---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:14 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

No comment?


Not immediately no, I went to bed after posting and I've been busy until now (1500 GMT).

Quote:

And what is our motive for killing?


There you go with the present tense again. It was you earlier, right? Presently we're not killing many people at all.

Who exactly is your heart bleeding for? I don't think even you are clear on this. Lots of people have died - in the war a couple of years ago and in the ongoing insurgency, civilians and combatants - it's too complex to say George Bush has killed all of them.

So who have we killed? You are probably thinking of the small (percentagewise) portion of the iraqi civilian casualties killed by coalition forces. You ask me what was our motive for killing them, when you know as well as I do that they were killed by accident? Or were you thinking of the armed forces - 'enemy combatants', who died defending Sadaam? Does your heart really bleed for them? I'm sure that to some extent the Iraqi people were sad for their fallen countrymen but it didn't stop them celebrating in the streets the day that Sadaam was deposed.

The only point that I can see you making is that it's regrettable that anyone had to die at all. War is a terrible thing and people get killed, including civilians. True, but civilians were also dying under Sadaam.

If you ask me I think the Bush administration went to war in America's interests, but at the same time were confident that in the long run it would be benificial to the people of Iraq. Currently Iraq is in chaos and its future is in jeopardy, so where do you put the blame? For me you can blame (or just suspect, depending on how well informed you are) the Bush administration competence-wise. They set out wanting to benefit the Iraqi people, and you might say they have failed (I'd say it's too soon to tell, long term).
But I think you have to give some blame to the people behind the insurgency, causing the chaos. I don't think romantacising their cause is accurate or helpful, and most liberals are guilty of it.

Still, I think we are agreed that the war in Iraq wasn't legal; military action can only be sanctioned in my book if a country is a real threat to us, or if the head of state is carrying out genocide on his own people. Sadaam was only halfway on both counts. Having said that, are you utterly convinced that trying to oust Sadaam was worse in the long term for the Iraqi people than leaving him in power? If Iraq breaks down through civil war into a 'failed state', and the country is left in chaos will you completely blame George Bush, and give no credit to the different sections of society determined to wage war on each other?

Quote:

if you say that we're interested in spreading freedom


Haha no. The words 'freedom' and 'liberty' don't hold the same political sway outside of your borders my friend. I can't think of 'freedom fries' without laughing. Not as hard as I do at 'liberty cabbage' though. I prefer to use more descriptive terms.

Quote:

or democracy


Yeah, let's go with that

Quote:

with the business end of a gun then are we any better than the jihadist who wants to spread Islam at the point of a sword?


Yes. Because installing democracy in Iraq is taking power from the hands of one tyrant and putting it in the hands of the people. Perhaps here you are trying to set me up so that I say "but democracy is better than Islam!" and then you can say "Aha!" and rail against my intolerance and arrogant presumption. Well, unlike with Islam, forcing democracy on someone isn't really doing anything more than giving them a choice. So let the people of Iraq choose, and if they want they can vote in another tyrant.

As for what you did repeating my whole paragraph and changing one word - yeah, nicely done, very clever. I don't think it works though - you'd have to explain exactly what you are talking about.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Still, I think we are agreed that the war in Iraq wasn't legal; military action can only be sanctioned in my book if a country is a real threat to us, or if the head of state is carrying out genocide on his own people. Sadaam was only halfway on both counts. Having said that, are you utterly convinced that trying to oust Sadaam was worse in the long term for the Iraqi people than leaving him in power?
It depends on when and how that would be accomplished. What makes a terrorist a terrorist is not his (or her) goals but methods. We effected "regime change" by spending Russsia into the ground (altho Afghanistan helped), we chose trade as our "weapon of choice" for China, South African apartheid was broken by sanctions and internal dissent, and we certainly destabilized our share of South American governments. But Bush's chose war and death...
Quote:

If Iraq breaks down through civil war into a 'failed state', and the country is left in chaos will you completely blame George Bush
Yes. Absolutely. There was a reason why Bush Sr didn't remove Saddam from power: It's because he saw a gaping power vacuum. And Bush certainly had enough top brass advice that it would take 350,000 troops- not 150,000- to stabilize Iraq post-invasion. But he chose not only to "sex up" intelligence to scare everyone into invading, he also chose to believe the rosy but entirely erroneous notion that we would be welcomed as liberators. Now, right after the "Liberation Of Iraq" I thought long and hard (okay, I though for fifteen minutes on the topic) about whether this invasion would succeed and realized that it would only work if there was a natural constituency in for the solution proposed by the USA: a unified, democratic, secular Iraqi government. And I realized that
1) the Sunnis (being a minority) would have absolutely no interest in democracy- payback being such a b*tch and all that
2) the Shiites would abhor a secular government and
3) The Kurds wouldn't want to be unified because they would have to give up control of their oil and their autonomy. If I can figure this out in a few minutes, don't you think that teams of analysts already saw this coming? Of course they did.
Quote:

Because installing democracy in Iraq is taking power from the hands of one tyrant and putting it in the hands of the people.
Oh yeah, good luck on that!

So here we are, having killed more than ten thousand civilians (Oops, yeah sorry about that. It was sort of an accidental consequence of a deliberate war) all because Bush had a notion to "spread democracy"? To beat my point to death- given the other options that were available, how does that NOT make Bush a terrorist?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:25 AM

FLETCH2


All of these things are questions of political will. If you have standout politicians in each faction who see the posibilities for a unified Iraq they can make the case to their own groups.

1) Sunnis realistically have no choice but unify or die. If the place fragments they are the smallest a weakest group. You could see a case for them being the most vocal advocates for a unified Iraqi identity.

2) Shiites, want something better than Iran has. I suspect a theocracy would not be their first choice in a free vote. Even Sadar seems more of a modernist than many in Iran.

3) Being part of Iraq protects the Kurds from the Turks while offering the posibility of a seperate Kurdish state.

There are cases for both sides to stick with it, the right men could make those arguments stick with their communities.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:52 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kpo:
Because installing democracy in Iraq is taking power from the hands of one tyrant and putting it in the hands of the people.


Except people vote for who their religious leaders tell them to vote for in Iraq, so if anything we're making the tyrants job easier.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


There are at least two big bones of contention in Iraq:

1) Who gets the oil revenue.
2) Who controls internal security.

Some Sunnis want to be part of a central government because they then get a share of the oil revenue. But they really, really don't want Shiites to be controlling internal security in "their" areas. It seems like the best solution is to allow a loose federation, where each group controls the internal security of its area.

I could also make strong case for why Iraq should be broken into three. Iraq seems very similar to the former Yugoslavia, which was an entirely synthetic state created out of religious, ethnic and language factions for the superpowers' convenience. After years of being on life-support, Yugoslavia was finally allowed to dissolve. Each portion or Iraq could have a regional "patron saint"- Iran for Shiite Iraq, Saudi Arabia for Sunni Iraq, and possibly even Russia protecting Northern Iraq. Since a "united Iraq" is such a big, tempting prize, surrounding nations have a serious interest in who dominates the outcome. The violence is even spilling over into Saudi Arabia.

BTW- Sadr is NOT a "moderate".
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:17 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It depends on when and how that would be accomplished. What makes a terrorist a terrorist is not his (or her) goals but methods. We effected "regime change" by spending Russsia into the ground (altho Afghanistan helped), we chose trade as our "weapon of choice" for China, South African apartheid was broken by sanctions and internal dissent, and we certainly destabilized our share of South American governments. But Bush's chose war and death...

According to the United Nations somewhere between 1.2 – 1.5 million innocent Iraqis (largely children, women and elderly) were killed as a result of Saddam misuse of Sanctions. Sanctions were levied against Iraq for about 10 years, and there’s little reason to believe that these sanctions had any appreciable positive net affect on moving Iraq in the direction of UN goals. But if we assume that sanctions would have worked if given another 10 years that is basically advocating a method that had already resulted in the death of over a million innocent people. This is as much collateral damage, as the 10,000 that you claim has been killed in Iraq as a result of the war. Therefore if your concern is for the innocent Iraqis caught up in Saddam’s reckless international policy then we can decide, with almost mathematical certainty, whether sanctions or the war were better options. The simple question is which number is larger, 1 million or 10,000? And if your concern is for the number of innocent Iraqis killed as a result of collateral damage then it is the war and not sanctions that was preferable.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:22 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Only you would compare a (low biased) documented list against an estimate. If you want to compare apples to apples, you need to look at the estimated excess post-invasion deaths due to lack of medical care, malnutrition, increased crime and so forth, which is about 100,000 as reported in the Lancet.

I'm not in favor of sanctions. I just listed it as a possible option. INCREASED trade might have worked better.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:36 PM

FLETCH2


Awefully easy to smuggle bad things into a nation with increased trade though. Can you be sure the materials being imported wont be used to gas a Kurdish villiage next week?

The problem with Iraq is that there were no good options, just a list of terrible ones each with a potential cost in human lives. It's easy now to say that solution X has to be better than solution Y but that's only because we have the deathtoll for Y and have to believe that X would have been better. Had we done X we might now be wishing we had gone with Y.

20/20 hindsight is a bitch.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:48 PM

KHYRON


To latch on to what Fletch was saying, even with hindsight it's still not clear what the best way was to deal with Iraq. Most people, including pretty much everybody in world politics that have commented on the situation, don't know what a workable strategy would have been, even with hindsight.



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Let's start out with the assumption that we HAD to deal with Iraq.

Why?

With atrocities being committed around the world- many of them worse than Iraq ever was- why focus on that particular nation? Maybe the best thing would have been to do... nothing. Yes, that's right- nothing.

Or, if you insist on bringing human rights to every nation, then maybe a good incentive is economic. A 5% tariff for not having UN-certified elections. Another 5% tariff for not recognizing human rights. A 10% tariff for not allowing UN inpsectors (BTW- inspections DO work). You can construct tariffs any way you want to reward good behavior, and the nice thing is you can apply this to any nation. Even better if you can get WTO to buy off on it. Or get the World Bank or IMF involved- better rates for better nations.

The point is that there are LOTS of alternatives, and if one doesn't work you try another. We're only stuck with a narrow model if we want to be. The only reason to invade was simple disinterest in alternatives. {HINT HINT)


---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:12 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
And what is our motive for killing? You can hardly call it "self defense" since Saddam never posed a threat. And if you say that we're interested in spreading freedom (or democracy, however you want to call it) with the business end of a gun then are we any better than the jihadist who wants to spread Islam at the point of a sword?



Your implication is that there is a moral equivalency between a totalitarian theocracy and a democratic republic.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero





No, there isn't a moral equivalent between a totalitarian Theocracy and a Democratic Republic. But we are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Corporate Aristocracy parading around pretending to be a Dem. Republic, which, in my book, is just as bad as the Theocracy. The war was fought for profit and the personal gain of a few corporations. The Islamic Fundamentalists fight for their ancient "holy" literature. Both reasons are equally wrong.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:24 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
... installing democracy in Iraq is taking power from the hands of one tyrant and putting it in the hands of the people.



HA!!! Democracy!!! That's a good one ! Oh... you weren't joking? C'mon, do you really think that we have given the power to the people? We've given it to a few people (just like in the U.S.) who are corrupt, self serving bootlickers (also just like in the U.S.), and who are pretty much guaranteed to back U.S. policy. We didn't give them Democracy. We made them a puppet.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 4:39 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverman:
But we are no longer a Democratic Republic. We are now a Corporate Aristocracy parading around pretending to be a Dem. Republic, which, in my book, is just as bad as the Theocracy. The war was fought for profit and the personal gain of a few corporations. The Islamic Fundamentalists fight for their ancient "holy" literature. Both reasons are equally wrong.

The US is a federal democratic republic by definition, and the US was much more aristocratic in the past then it is today. People who seek to equate the totalitarian theocratic philosophies of groups like the Taliban with the democratic republic of the US have very little perspective on the issue. You know, disagreement with this war would carry more credibility if they weren’t based on fantasies. Calling Bush a terrorist or claiming that the US is a totalitarian state doesn’t make your anti-war argument more plausible; it just diminishes your credibility and reliability, thereby making your arguments appear less plausible. This is what we call shooting your argument in the foot.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 23:51 - 10 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL