Slashdot Mirror
Senator Alleges White House Wrote Allawi's Speech
Jeremiah Cornelius writes "In a letter to the White House, a leading US Senate Democrat, Diane Feinstein, expressed 'profound dismay' that the White House allegedly wrote a large portion of Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's speech to Congress last week. 'His speech gave me hope that reconstruction efforts were proceeding in most of the country and that elections could be held on schedule. To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks.'"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is this really news to anyone? I watched only a small clip of the speech and said "Bush's speechwriters wrote that speech.
I wonder how this will affect Bush's votes.
Just re-emphasises the fact that the US thinks that it should place it's influence on everything and everybody.
Writing the speeches of your conquered enemies. You know this is the exact same tactic Julius Caesar used against the nations he conquered, and he was one of Rome's greatest leaders.
To sum up, worked-for-caesar.
nobody writes their own speeches all the time any more. There are spin doctors and there are teams of spin doctors. Under Clinton the model was to use competing teams of writers, similar to the model used by TV show Friends I'm told, to come up with the best speech possible.
Having said that, I would have thought his own spin doctors would have written it, not White House staff, but really this idea that Iraq is somehow sovereign and no longer merely existing at the whim of the US is bollocks. The White House is the final authority in Iraq today and will be for many years to come.
Flame away...
I am a leaf on the wind
Why should we be surprised by this? The entire Iraq war has been managed more as a political event than a military action. That this administration, which is profoundly unwilling to consider any views than those expressed in its own talking points, would spoon feed self-serving rhetoric to its hand picked Iraqi puppet shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.
I suspect Senator Finestein's shock is strictly rhetorical. I certainly hope it is.
Hey, I watched the debate... Bush praised Allawi very much... sure ... because he really is a puppet ... he was a CIA agent for christ's sake ... but Kerry surely won it ...
To mile high flames ;)
This should work.
Because I distinctly saw President Bush take a drink of water while he was speaking.
Unknown host pong.
Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is just a whitehouse puppet as is everything that will bring Bush money and votes.
Stuff that matters?
Where are my Star Wars action figures?
Where are my Natalie Portman pics?
Where are my eye-burning lasers?
Where are my new programming languages?
I want my Slashdot back!
I wish Kerry had mentioned this fact in today's debate... that Allawi's speech was influenced by the Bush election (not *re-election, mind you) campaign.
It's pretty sad how slashdot has devolved into a Bush-bash fest.
You can't tell me he doesn't deserve it.
Bush is fucking loathsome and a disaster for our country.
These are not the issues you are looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.
Stop beating around the Bush!
In the last week, there has been a spin war going on between the campaigns about whether Allawi is a US puppet. I'd like to know what most of you guys think: is he independent, sort of independent, or a puppet. I'm especially interested in what non-Americans think.
I really don't want to see what Kerry could do to it. I vote Bush in a heartbeat (just my opinion though)
Debate Transcript
BUSH:
You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina....
You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can...
Is she really that naive? Those of us with half an ear toward the news knew a week ago that he was here to spin the war for consumption by the American public instead of for the benefit of Joe Iraqi, and his talking points were just sound bites from the Bush campaign.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This kinda news, whether true or not, doesn't help Bush kill the rumors that Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi isn't some kind of a puppet. But, hey, we wrote the Japanese constitution and made the Empiror publicly declare he wasn't a god, and that all worked out.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
I mean, this is the most secretive, control freak administration since Nixon. And on a similar vein, does anyone think Bush and Kerry will have a real debate?
The lawyers have given them a string of things to talk about and a string of things not to. The whole thing might as well be as scripted as the Iraqi stooge^H^H^H^H^H^HPrime Minister's speech.
please vote the right way, it affects the rest of world too.
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
(I HAVE read the article)
I am a professional speaker, and I am also a security auditor. I get paid to give people an honest opinion of what I think. Even then, I will still ask the parties with whom I am going to speak for input on what they want to get out of a meeting with their group.
It would be silly to think that the US Government didn't have input into Allawi's speech. I believe that all of what was said was true because I do not believe that Allawi would take a script and stand and lie to the congress. He is not a puppet, he is one tough sucker. I believe that ALL the major media outlets ARE NOT being fair on their coverage on how well things are actually going out there.
That being said. Allawi may not be a public speaker and he's about to give the most important speech of his life. It would be silly to think that he didn't practice the test in front of folks that could give some meaningful feedback.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Not just YOUR country mate.
Though, half my blame lands on our esteemed prime-minister John Howard...
So when it is forged memos... we should ignore the minor detail of who actually wrote them and stay focused on what the memo's say... but when it is a speech we have to disregard it, regardless of content because someone may have helped with the message?
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Incidentally, Al Lorentz is under the threat of serious jail time for speaking out.
Well, it is nice to see that someone in Washington watches the Daily Show, I guess. The night after the speech they did a segment showing that several of the phrases in the speech were exactly the same as the president uses.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Isn't this the Bush admininstration in a nutshell? If you disagree with us, you are un-American, disloyal, unpatriotic.
That's what America is all about: blindly following our commander-in-chief, not questioning their policies, always agreeing.
Just give me my 12 hours of TV, and my low-carb 2000 calorie retired dairy cow hamburgers, and my gas-guzzling SUVs, and I WILL BE HAPPY.
Sounds good.
wtf does it mean in this context?
It's just an excuse to discuss the Debate. Perhaps they should have created Discussion.Slashdot.org instead of politics.
Just look at Africa -- after Britain and France pulled out, everything went to straight to hell. America is doing th right thing by keeping a firm hand on Iraq. A decade from now, pulling out completely will be viable. Doing so now would create a situation so bad that the rest of the middle east would look like a picnic.
Good timing by one of the senate's most liberal politicians. Dan Rather could make great use of this.
It's interesting that Bush tonight stated that calling the new Iraqi Prime Minister a "puppet" is preposterous.
But Kerry didn't call him a puppet in the debate.. Bush broght it up. Bush's subcouncious seems to have gotten in his way a few times tonight.
...just not the freedom for Allawi to write his own speeches, or possibly say something that won't make him look like a US puppet.
I gotta agree that this is totally inappropriate for Slashdot, and something that isn't the full and total truth!
Did he have help? Of course! He can hardly speak a word of English, and he was talking to the American people. But the facts are that Allawi said what he wanted to say, and no one was seen holding a gun to his head to say it. Just because he's the leader of a new country does NOT mean that everything he says was written by the Iraqi oil industry! After all, most of the Iraqi oil contracts were held by France (Gasp!) until the U.S. liberated the Iraqi people! Why is Kerry too scared to talk about the French oil connection????
So everyone should just cool their jets. If you didn't see Allawi give his speech on TV, then you have no right to criticize what he had to say.
...cause it made him mean.
"the humanity that goes into choosing targets..."
You should ignore the memos, slap upside the head anyone who still claimed they were legitimate once the Microsoft Word and Selectric typewriter recreations were available, and be aware of the large body of valid circumstantial evidence of irregularities in Bush's National Guard service record.
You should also be aware of what it means when a political leader supposedly chosen to be autonomous is literally acting as a spokesperson of the group that put him in power.
You should also never take on faith the words of either 60 minutes or the Bush Administration, but that should have been clear before this latest incident.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
.. is how the President of any other soverign country would behave if he / she was handed a speech to be read while the invited guest of a foreign country.
Imagine the outcry if Bush or Kerry went to China to address the National People's Congress and was handed a speech and told to read it.
Iraq is not a US, EU or UN state; it is a soverign country.
A dream is good. A plan is better.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Politicians are shady characters.
Movie at 11.
I'm glad President Bush has set upon this crusade at taking out our foes one by one, and remaking it in our image. Their dictators fall, and their citizens live in freedom, meanwhile we gain a foothold in another part of the world.
The sad thing is that America's image in the rest of the world is so bad right now, that as a foreigner, I am not entirely sure that this guy is trolling.
We all know Slashdot has a liberal slant, so why flaunt it.
I'm done with Slashdot... good luck.
Bushe's speeches are COPYLEFT!!!1OMGLOL
/ public/somerights20.gif<a> ^_____^
<a href="goatse.cx>http://creativecommons.org/images
Sure, Saddam Hussein is in jail, the torture chambers are empty, the children are out of prison, the flow of money to suicide bombers from Saddam is stopped, Lybia has folded, and the mass graves are no longer being filled... But hey let's keep some perspective and remember that Allawi might not have written the speech!
If Bush had walked accros a river on his way to a children's hospital and then healed all of the children, I'm sure we would be having this little flame war under the heading of:
Bush evades bridge toll on way to photo-op
--This sig is in beta. Please let us know abut any errors you find.
come on its more a comedy than anything else
from TAPPED:
But it turns out that "the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi." The same article notes that the official response to some negative data that USAID released a few days ago is going to be to stop releasing the data. The whole story's a must-read, revealing how the entire federal government has been mobilized to fight not the war on terrorism but the president's reelection campaign."
OK, that last sentence is partisan, but read the article.
You can permanently disable individual slashdot sections, such as politics.slashdot.org, from appearing on the slashdot front page by going to your user preferences.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
As opposed to publishing uncorroborated half-truths from OSS advocates on the state of the MS monopoly?
To think, Cheney et al ripped Kerry for being disrespectful of Alawi.
I despise, but have to admire the tenacity of these guys..
-- jimmycarter
wtf?
Howard's just a lackey for G.W. As Latham said he's an arselicker or something along those lines. Of course my comments could be misconstrued as yank bashing, leftist, pinko bull......
Is it more credible to believe Diane Feinstein? Has Slashdot turned into Michael Moore?
My President would never allow his operatives to write the speech of a head of state. That would mean that he wasn't in charge...oh, wait.
The point isn't that "people dont write their own speeches" the point is that a foreign government's party (the Republicans) wrote a speech for an Iraqi national AND Prime Minister (Allawi) to deliver to the US congress.
That's not "spin" or "status quo" thats outright imperialism.
Tonight during the debate, Bush bumbled along and got his ass handed it him.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Cheney was the one you should have been watching. . . and both arms were busy.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Hope I don't regret this...
Why in the world is this Slashdot news? How is this "News for Nerds"?
I've refused to meta-moderate comments that are obviously from the Politics section. This story demonstrates why.
I for one, am sick of the obvious bias of Slashdot editors against conservative values. This is site is suppossed to be about technology, not technology and slander of Republicans. How many articles did slashdot run about crazed liberal Dan Rather, and his attempt to undermine the US election process by coordinateing with the DNC's "[i]operation Fortunate Son[/i]" by airing forged documents provided by the Kerrry Campaign? I would think that this would have been an excellent story considering the use of self assembling netowrks of documenting authenticators over the web to disect those obvious forgeries. What we need to know, is what did Kerry know about these forgeries and when did he know it? Does this apparent collussion between CBS and the Kerry Campaign create a legal requirement for CBS to register as a Democrat 527 so unsuspecting voters won't be fooled into thinking CBS is a respectable news organization? And since Slashdot is very concerned about US politics, you can also start covering the recently uncovered, unreleased Kerry After action report of which proves conclusively that Kerry lied to get his silver star and completely vindicates the Swift Boat Veterans. Look, if slashdot is going to act as an advocate of the DNC, it should post such information in a disclaimer ontop of each such story, stating "We are supporting the Kerry Campaign". To not do so would be dishonest.
This is nothing more than a continuation of the Democrat talking point (see Joe Lockhart's comments) that Allawi is a puppet of the US. Blatant partisanship is fine, I guess, as entertainment, but it's hardly a reasonable way to make political decisions.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
How on Earth did this make the Slashdot cut? This has absolutely nothing to do with news for nerds or even political issues that involve technology. This sounds like an obvious example of editors showing their bias.
Bushy is continuing to drone that we will be better served by iraq and afganistan becoming democracies. What he's glossing is that the citizenry of either place seems far more likely to elect for theocracy.
'We' may not like it but if that's the people's choice in that place then it is ineed democracy.
But then Bushy's a moron, no news there either.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
I just assumed it would be obvious from the fact that Allawi repeated not one, but almost every catchphrase that Bush throws into all of his speeches on the "war on terror". Anyway, read the speech for yourself and see if it sounds like chunks of it came from the same speechwriters Bush uses. Mind you, I'd expect Allawi to be thankful and congratulatory, since he needs the US's continued commitment right now, but I wouldn't expect his own speechwriters to parrot back Bush's campaign slogans word-for-word.
Anyway, this doesn't come as a surprise to me, it was just much more blatant and obvious than I would have thought possible. Another poster brought up Julius Caesar, who wrote his conquered enemies speeches for them. His long lived and immensely successful successor, Caesar Augustus, was the master of running an authoritarian regime while maintaining all the dressings of the Republic, practically the inventor of political spin and authoritarianism cloaked in democracy.
Unfortunately, the analogies don't end there. Trading freedom for security under authoritarian regimes was practically pioneered by the Romans. If our schoolchildren were forced to read some of the classics, I wonder how different things might be in America today.
John kerry agrees with the Senator that the speech was doctored...
**NEWS FLASH**
do {
This just in...John Kerry belives that Allawi's speech was infact authentic....(few minutes later)...John Kerry agrees with the senator that the speech was doctored...
} while(kerry == "confused")
Huh. So, you don't see a problem with the Bush administration writing Allawi's speech for him? A man that they are setting up as an independent leader of 'free' Iraq? You don't see anything wrong with them then turning around and using his speech to justify their view of how well the war in Iraq is going over the last week, and then again in the debate tonight?
I reckon you're pretty far gone, mate.
A.
Bush is still leading polls. Affect the rest of the world is right -- maybe next the USA can liberate us Canadians and take our tar sands. Maybe they could invade Argentina in order to stop the flow of cocaine from Colobmia's. Hurray!
from TAPPED:
But it turns out that "the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi." The same article notes that the official response to some negative data that USAID released a few days ago is going to be to stop releasing the data. The whole story's a must-read, revealing how the entire federal government has been mobilized to fight not the war on terrorism but the president's reelection campaign."
That last sentence is obviously partisan, as suggested by the source, but read the article it links to.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why is it that all of this new political thrust slashdot is doing seems to be skewed left?
i tics/9802008.htm?1c
How about a story on how the Dems are sponsoring a Bill to Bring Back the Draft in both the House and Senate so that Kerry can go out on the stump and say
"See there, they are bringing back the draft"
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/pol
There's you a conspiracy Cowboy, you wanna talk some RatherGate next?
did I click on Plastic by mistake?
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Man, you're right.
:(
Yeah, so, really sorry about Bush, guys
The puppet prime minister of the puppet government of a half-conquered nation is saying what his puppet boss' bosses tell him.
I for one welcome our puppet overlords.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I love America but even I admit that it smells a bit like sulfur, fish and military steel. But that's just the sweat of a big man!! The United States of America's freedom and success makes it need this.
There is another explenation.
Allawi may or may not be an American Puppet, but it is not necessary to assume this to explain the way he dressed up the description of Iraq. If he is a decent politician he is going to try to work a crowd as best he can in order to get the help he needs. He may even consult with Bush about what needed to be said.
This works well for Bush-- he gets to play politics with Allawi (which was *clearly* going on to anyone who actually follows any reasonable news channel). It works well for Allawi who gets the ability to tell the Congress what they want to hear so as to get the foreign aid he needs....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
We haven't even had elections yet, and we have a prime minister? WTF? Guard the Oil Get contracts with US companies Install a Prime Minister Is this what you call democracy in action?
welcome our new American overlords!
Apparently Dan Rather has a fax copy of the orignal speech!
This will not give it to them. It is likely that instead more Iraqis will see people like al-Sadr (for the Shia at least) as true Iraqi leaders. If it is true that the Administration wrote the speech, I'm surprised by the stupidity of Iyad Allawi.
Oh my!
A post from the Political forum actually made it to the Slashdot front page?
*deep sigh*
I guess I should just start reading news from cnn.com and its technology pages.
(Heck, I didn't even realize that Slashdot -had- a political forum until now)
I suspect Thomas Jefferson would have a few choice speeches to make to the Senate about the First Amendment as a rejoinder. Then again if he saw folks like Feinstein running the Senate he might just bypass the exercise of his First Amendment rights and proceed directly to the Second Amendment.
Seastead this.
Come on, CowboyNeal. You and I both know that this doesn't belong on the front page of slashdot. Of all the political news coming through the pipe, you choose this one to hit the front page of a tech website?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Seeing how the comments so far have been moderated, it's quite clear that the moderators are either unaware, or unwilling to be aware of a serious problem in America.
-1 mod for overrated? For posting two editorials critical of the war?
This is a prime example of why America is headed for disaster.
If you're genuinely interested in knowing what's really happening in the world, I would suggest looking beyond CNN, FOX, Wall Street journal and the New York Times. All of America's big media is owned by a very small group with very strong political leanings. When you look to them, you only get one side of the story.
If you want the other side, places like www.cursor.org are a good place to start.
Shocked, I am.
Shocked and astonished by this news.
Namely, that there's a senator stupid enough to have accepted the speech as independent material.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
Of course... slashdot ... ... in perfecting his delivery of the speech..." Nothing there about writing the speech for him. But of course. I forgot. Anything he could have said about anything positive happening in Iraq can't possibly be true. The evil Republicans are distorting the facts that everything there is horrible and much worse than ever before.
But in this case it seems even Senator Feinstein is guilty of this. She refers to a Washington Post article that "alleged that Allawi was coached
How dare you demean the name of President George W. Bush! We need solidarity behind our government, you filthy creature, not dissent from within. This is insulting to America, you little child animal.
Oh My God, The PTA has disbanded!!
*jumps thru window*
A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
...allegedly wrote...
Is this the part where I get to assume it's already fact?
Ms. Feinstein, who seems to only profess profound emotional injury when non-Democrats speak or are in the news. She was deeply injured by Ahnold's "girly-man" remark. She was appalled by GWB's gayrriage ban proposal.
I am all for presenting the facts. Just because she is from CA does not mean she needs to go for the cheesy emotion crap.
Off topic, yes, but how many people here think the Daily Show will have infinite material after tonight's debates? The Puppet comments alone could be used to make a miniseries.
Wait until next week. The source of her allegations will turn out to be bogus and she'll look like a complete fool.
FORMULA FOR VOTING:
if osama captured or killed then
vote for bush
else
vote for kerry
end
I guess the front page is good enough to sell ad space to the DNC after all.
He was talking about the statements made by other people. From the transcript:
Please read the transcript (hell, skim it) before coming to any conclusions about Kerry's actions in '72. The 'media' sure ain't going to clarify any of this. We need to do it ourselves.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks
As if ANY politician these days (including Diane Feinstein) writes their own speeches, instead of having them "massaged by their campaign operatives"...
Why don't they just run 'we love Kerry' ads all over the place? Maybe start running articles by Dan Rather?
To break the political silence for this?
As we've seen in the replies already, people seem to have two views on this. Either Iraq is a sort of puppet to the president, or it simply sought the help of the president's speech writers to polish his speech. I think it's maybe a little of both. Even if Iraq were completely independent, it would make sense, IMHO, to run it by the presidential writers to make sure it has the right style, etc. I wouldn't want to make a speech before Congress without being familiar with their typical style and how they like to be approached, and I'm American. That said, what I find confusing (no matter what the viewpoint), is why would they choose to use phrases nearly identical to those used by the president in a recent talk? If we're taking the puppet POV, surely Bush and his Cabinet aren't *that* dumb--every one would (and did) notice. It would have been better to be more subtle. And if not, if Allawi was just seeking help, why would they do that? Just to make Congress remember the points better through repetition? It doesn't make sense to me.
Speaking of repetition, in the presidential debate tonight, Bush kept talking about Kerry's view of the war, repeatedly saying Kerry sees it as "the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place." That's the only thing I'll remember from that debate. Seems like something that could help Kerry...
Live free or die
The article on Allawi over at wikipedia is quite informative, though it raises more questions than it answers... there are a lot of wild theories and accusations out there, hard to know which are true. At the very least, he's led an interesting life. Since he's worked so closely with the CIA, MI6, and the Baath party in his earlier years, and seems to have a (possibly undeserved) reputation as some kind of hitman/thug/loose cannon, I wouldn't blame an Iraqi for not trusting him.
Does anyone have a link to the washington post article that Feinstein is quoting? This is close, but not it.
-jim
How does speaking the truth get moderated as Troll?
goddamn it GW! why the hell did you have to suck so badly tonight?
next time, I fucking swear, kerry will get his ass kicked by GW!!!!
I don't come to slashdot for this kind of story. There's no techy or geek angle to this story at all. It's fine for politics./., but it doesn't belong on the front page.
Slashdot... Propaganda for news, spin that doesn't belong.
News for nerds? How? I come to /. to get away from the idiocy of the rest of the world and I'm greeted with an obviously left leaning article quoting one of the worst of the worst when it comes to politicians. Before the flames begin, I have not, nor will I vote for Bush. I will not be voting for Kerry either. This is bullcrap, it's worse than the tech support articles and the hey look it's a new geek store that OSDN has some interest in selling articles combined.
rm -Rf politics.slashdot.org
Thanks.
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
What's new in government. I've worked for the Air Force for 20 years. This is nothing new. Disappointing, yes. But it shows something that insiders have known for years, and that is that most Americans are ignorant and will believe whatever they hear, because who would lie?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
please mod parent down for being an obvious troll.
since for sure they cannot read. Now if they can only get a Hooked on Phonics (TM) expert, so they can learn the correct pronunciation for Iraq, Iran, Quatar and nuclear, and also an expert on syllabiliation for words with more than two syllables.
A couple of weeks ago NewYorker had an interesting article on Bob Schrum, Kerry's speech writer. I hope Schrum's record is not a reflection of things to come.
I know your agendas are very important to you, but if it's not news, we don't want to hear about it.
Senator Alleges White House Wrote Allawi's Speech
first of all, where is the credibility? This is a NEWS site. Just because something is anti-Bush, anti-Microsoft, anti-religion does NOT mean that it is viable news.
The guy who gave this speech is not going to LIE. If I were to give a speech to potentially millions of people, I would want some help from a professional so that I can get my point across.
True democracy comes from within. We can't impose it on a country and it keeps looking like we're trying to do that even though a simple examination of the historical evidence indicates that this is a difficult if not impossible task at beset.
It is my humble but thoughtful opinion that most of the current strength of the U.S. was actually forged during the time of the physical, bloody rejection of British governance 225 years ago. Ironically, as a result I wonder if the ideal solution to the Iraqi problem would actually be to pull out and allow the forces at work there to believe they HAD fought for their independence and won.
I look at Germany (the homeland of my parents) as a rare, good, but definitely not ideal, outcome of "nation-building". Germany to this day continues to struggle (I feel) with a definition of itself that works in this century. Why else are there these irrational resurgences in interest in Nazi ideas. It was the last time that Germany was the world leader in engineering, science, and was getting lots of attention. Now they're known as the source of oom-pah music, all kinds of wurst, that country that Mike Myers makes fun of, kinky porn, and beer. Ideally, I think the people of a country would like a better fate than that. A defining moment... Where is Iraq's defining moment??
...they don't trust him. With his foreign speeches, he sounds like every taxi driver in Bagdhad (Which are all named Kevin by the way).
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
We'll "capture" osama in about 2 weeks. I'm willing to lay 3-to-1 odds.
Then, after Bush wins in a massive landslide, the "Republicans" in power can get back to raping this nation and the world.
Have a nice day!
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
That's it. THe politics categories still aren't fixed. I come to slashdot to read about tech shit, not politics like EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE FUCKING MEDIA. Since it's obviously not going to get fixed (you can't keep politics from showing up on the front page, even if you select for it to be removed), I'm leaving.
Time to find a new site.
... when the posters on Slashdot can spell correctly.
"sentances"? Seriously now. Don't insult the President for being stupid when you can't even spell.
What does this have to do with "news for nerds?"?
If there's to be a politics topic on slashdot, it should be related to policies and positions that have to do with technology.
Heck, an election night thread might be acceptable too, as that is a big event. But a story about a letter from Senator Feinstein from California, goodness gracious, that's pushing it a bit much now.
- sigs are for wimps.
For some reason, there are no check boxes under Sections when I goto my preferences page.
There are two Politicses under Topics to exclude, but that doesn't whack this story off my front page.
So let's get this straight. Rumor gets to Washington Post that Allawi was coached by members from the Provisional Authority. The leader of Bush's political opposition gets wind of this and says the speech was jaundiced. And the title on Slashdot reads "Senator Alleges White House Wrote Allawi's Speech".
Apart from the fact that this has no place on Slashdot's frontpage other than that the editors have a beef with Bush, could we maybe avoid contributing to the rumor mill?
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Even though there's not a shred of sense in it, this was very popular in the blogosphere about a week ago, according to Daypop which tracks these things.
This barely seems like it's newsworthy *anywhere*, not just on a news for nerds site. Unless there's a very strong bias by the topic selectors for (once again) no good reason.
Can any of this have any factual base. I believe in a number of sources to resolve the facts not just one source. One source is always biased. Where are the sources and can the be backed up????
It is just me or is slashdot politics sounding awful similar to Democratic Underground.
The shrill nature of the allegations and insinuations are just laughable against President Bush.
My Weblog
"Public's Wariness Of Liberal Bias Pushes Bush To Easy Victory"
both families are in the carlysle group. which produces millitary equipment like the amored personel carriers that are being used by our troops. one wonders if perhaps gw.bush was in on the 9\11 plot.
it seems strange that bush ordered our intelligence agencies to ignore the 9\11 hijackers movements. futhermore it's odd that bush kept special forces to a minimum in afghanastan and allowed osama to escape.
maybe i'm paranoid. but what if osama was some sort of covert operative who has his followers convinced he has a real grudge against the west, and bush used 9\11 to invade iraq so he could get rid of sadam and make a tidy profit from defense contracts and oil rights. this would benefit both bin laden and bush. also it seems to me that the iraq war may also serve the purpose of diverting attention away from these facts as well as his 'failure' to capture bin laden.
by establishing a puppet goverment in iraq, it further destablises the region providing an incentive for our continued involement. this is all basically a few very rich people playing games with geo-politics so they can make more money. although i personaly believe the situation has gotten worse than they expected it would.
anyway this all a theory i don't put that much stock in it. btw sorry for the spelling and grammar errors.
Hey dude, I think it's still here. Just click the other links.
Credibility:Diane Feinstein::Coherency:Homeless Drunk
Writers imply. Readers infer.
someone alleging that something is true doesn't make it so.
That's ok.
paintball
Although some of the content of the parent post can be argued as flamebait, it does have a point in that this slashdot article, along with many like it in the politics section, is grasping at straws on behalf of the left of the political spectrum.
Posting this article in the slashdot main page is about the same as a conservative posting an article about Dan Rather lieing.
Slashdot claims that it is unbiased but that is clearly NOT the case, and I think it would be best that this is fixed by the editors.
Mod all Wikipedia posts down.
Wikipedia is often a synonym for "uninformed shithead"
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Iraq is not a US, EU or UN state; it is a soverign country.
Iraq is a US territory.
paintball
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why on earth would you waste a perfectly good mod point to mod someone a troll just becuase it goes against what you believe (speaking, of course, to the person who modded you a troll)?
You are, in fact, reenforcing ACs point that if you disagree, you must be unpatriotic and a troll.
Jeezus.
He writes.. "I am obviously against the Bush family war but not because I don't think we can win (I know we can win)." Seems to me he is more like a Kerry Flipper
I'm curious what slashdot's visitor numbers look like since they've gone onto constant liberal political rants. There are any number of liberal message boards out there, why hijack a technology one, not everybody feels like looking at political news all the time, regardless of their political affiliations. I used to come to slashdot looking for news on video cards, etc...not a step by step analysis of what Michael Moore had for lunch, or what this democrat or that democrat had to say. Surely they're driving their viewership down as they alienate their non-kook base.
Here's a hint:
1. Click on the Preferences link right under your username.
2. Click on the Homepage link under where it says Customize Slashdot's Display.
3. Click any Topic you don't want to appear on your homepage.
4. We all Profit! by not having to hear you whine about this!
Generally, smart people.
It's not skewed to the left. It's skewed to the middle, and the middle is skewing to Kerry.
Not because Kerry is a great guy, but because Bush is SO bad, and has screwed us over SO much, that we can't even consider voting for a 3rd party anymore.
Bush vs. Clinton, I could see picking either side based on your values. Clinton vs. Dole, I could see picking either side based on your values. Bush vs. Gore, I could see picking either side based on your values.
But now we know better. If you support Bush, it's because you will support whoever is the Republican candidate NO MATTER WHAT. You just can not rationally support Bush. Everything he has done is wrong.
A monkey can stay the course, and they're much cheper.
paintball
I was encouraged by that and it seems to point in a different direction than this news item.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Senator *ALLEGES* White House Wrote Allawi's Speech... and this from a democrat. There is no news here, except for the fact /. can no longer hide it's bias.
Prior to the invasion Allawi and Chalabi between them appeared to have been the source of all the US government's intelligence information. It's about time the US reciprocated.
The crooks in the "interim" (soon to be permanent) government gave us the fantasies of mobile weapons laboratories and chemical weapons delivered in 45 minutes (or your money back), and the US government has returned the compliment with fantasies of democracy in occupied Iraq and a safer world.
The pretexts are false, only the bloodshed is real.
Look at the Vietnam mess. We were incountry with real soldiers, not just so-called advisors, for 9 years, 1964-1973. The situation never improved. There is no time when it would not have been better to have left the country and gotten it over. Maybe that's not very clear; I mean that absolutely nothing was better for having stayed in that long, or any length of time. We did not salvage pride or any political goals by staying there at all. One day was too long.
This war in Iraq sure looks similar; deja vu all over again. Bogus reasons for getting the authorizing resolution through Congress. Bogus press releases about light at the end of the tunnel or turning the corner. Nonsense body counts, bogus other statistics. It is just getting worse and worse. We cannot "win", winning isn't even in the dictionary there.
We ought to just get out, now, there is nothing whatsoever to salvage by staying in one day longer. The elections will do nothing to cut down the insurgency. The greedy power hungry idiots who win that election will not be popular and will have no say. Pretty soon some general will assasinate the elected president just as happened in Vietnam.
We ought to just get out.
Infuriate left and right
You could talk about cybercafes in Iraq.
You could talk about the technology of the war in Iraq.
You could talk about the mesh of websites that the terrorists are using to spread their beheading videos.
You could talk about how Bush is losing the high tech war.
You could talk about the low tech improvised explosives technologies being used by the insurgents.
You could talk about many different nerdy things that are related to the war on Iraq.
BUT An allegation that a speech by an Iraqi president was written for him?
You've got to freakin' kidding me.
Item: Proof
Location: On the table
Come on lets have out with it. Straight into the eyes of Justice and true investigative journalism!
How common is it for the political party of another country to write the ruler's speech? That's what is really stinko here. They weren't Allawi's speechwriters, they were Bush's. Gaaaak. The man has no pride whatsover, either of them.
Infuriate left and right
let me guess ... an intern?
I recommend a new book, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty. Don't expect any author to be perfect. However, this book is an excellent overview of the Bush family, and the best book by this author. Here is a quote which shows just one more fact about the chronic lying of George Herbert Walker Bush and his son George W. Bush:
"The official family tree provided by the Bush archivists does not include the two mentally retarded daughters of John M. Walker, and lists only two of James Smith Bush's wives, not all four of them; one of Ray Walker's two wives is omitted, and George Herbert Walker III is listed with only two, instead of three, wives."
Note that the author of that book has never lost a lawsuit, for any of her writings. As you would expect from a major publishing house like Doubleday: "Before publication, each book is vetted by several sets of lawyers; facts and sources are checked and rechecked and sources documented."
--
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. Gov. is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?
Not really a response to this post/article, I'm just interested that /. is branching out more, into politics. It may not go with the original theme of the website (tech), but I think it's a positive step.
Also, the color scheme is great, especially when compared to, oh I dunno... it.slashdot. Ugh.
Funny, I thought Microsoft Word wrote most speeches to Congress.
I'm more interested in how the whitehouse will keep a puppet after an election ... oh wait - they already trialled this in Florida
I'm glad to see we've set a new high standard for intellectual debate here on slashdot today. One reason why I posted the gradparent was because I'm honestly curious what people think of Allawi, and if anyone has any good insight to support or refute what the wikipedia article says (both in terms of accepted fact and accusations by various parties). If you have some, then please post it.
-jim
a leading US Senate Democrat
hehe sorry i found that sortea funny.
"Seeing how the comments so far have been moderated, it's quite clear that the moderators are either unaware, or unwilling to be aware of a serious problem in America."
MOD PARENT UP!!!! Exactly right.
You cannot develop an accurate opinion by listening to the innuendo from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.
Please don't be intimidated by someone with unspecified objections, or objections that merely try to draw attention away from the major issues. Consider everything in the light of your own experiences and your own extensive investigation.
If you have never read the books about the Bush family and Bush administration, I suggest you do so. If you read the books, you will see that the corruption is far worse than you are being told.
--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.
This is news?
I thought it was a given that Allawi's speech was written by the White House.
They did do a nice post-production job on the video of the speech, though. You could barely see the strings.
As if ANY politician these days (including Diane Feinstein) writes their own speeches, instead of having them "massaged by their campaign operatives"...
No one is complaining that Allawi didn't write his own speech. What they are complaining about is that it was written by Bush's campaign operatives.
Don't you see a difference between Allawi having his speech written by his own, independent speech writers and having it written by Bush campaign operatives? Allawi is supposed to be the leader of a sovereign nation, not a member of the Republican party giving stump speeches to promote Bush's reelection.
This "story" pushed me over the edge, to the point where I tried to exercise my slashpowers and permanently remove democratpartisanpolitics.slashdot.org from my homepage view. This "story" has absolutely nothing to do with what I expect from experience for this site to provide. It is as blatantly partisan and as factually inaccurate as a Dan Blather memo.
And the damned preference function doesn't work, either.
Where do we vote to remove politics from this tech site???
...so no comment.
Sadly, he's probably not. A sizable portion of the country say such things in all seriousness.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
I'm worried about the fact that the senatr doesn't know that this is quite common. The two or more leaders, meaning their flukies, spend quite a bit of time agreeing on what they will say about the progress made in whatever meeting.
If this senator doesn't know this then she still has lots of hard lessons to learn.
'I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds'
Nope, it doesn't work for me. (Why's there 2 politics sections listed?)
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
Last week, Karl Rove pulled off a spectacular victory by suckering Dan Rather to present obviously forged documents as real. This week, the plot thickens.
... (keeps talking) ...
GEORGE AND ALLAWI ARE TALKING ON THE PHONE
ALLAWI'S HOUSE IS BEING ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS SHOUTING "Allah Ackbar! Saddam is great! We love Kerry!" BOMBS ARE EXPLODING AND THERE IS GUNFIRE.
ALLAWI: George, I'm kind of busy. You know, the whole "Iraq" thing?
GEORGE: But that was solved a long time ago. Didn't you hear my speech from the carrier? I said, "IRAQ IS NOW A FREE COUNTRY, AND EVERYONE SHOULD GO HOME NOW."
ALLAWI: Okay, George, if you say so. What time do you want me to drop by the congress?
GEORGE: Right when my convention bubble starts to burst. Oh, and I have the speech we wrote for you.
ALLAWI: Alright, I'll see you there.
LATER, AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE FOLLOWING ALLAWI'S SPEECH
REPORTER: Prime Minister Allawi, what do you say to your critics who call you a "dundering idiot" who "can't even write his own speeches" and "who obviously doesn't know anything about Iraq, despite the fact that he is an Iraqi and living in Iraq and leading Iraq"?
ALLAWI: Well, I
GEORGE DRINKS A GLASS OF WATER
REPORTERS OOH AND AAH
REPORTER: (Interrupting Allawi) George, where did you learn to do ventriloquism so well?
GEORGE: I'd tell you Karl Rove taught me, but that would be a lie. (chuckles anxiously) Okay, you got me. Karl Rove taught me.
KARL ROVE RUNS ON TO THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN WITH A ROLLED UP NEWSPAPER
KARL: (Hitting George with the newspaper) Bad George, bad George! No biscuit for you today!
LATER THAT DAY, JOHN KERRY INTERVIEWS REPORTERS
JOHN: I knew all along that Allawi is a stooge. In fact, his nickname was "Larry". Or was it "Moe"? I don't recall. But that's not the point. The point is that Allawi is a stooge.
REPORTER: Senator Kerry, how did you know this? You've never been to an intelligence committee for years!
JOHN: Well, as you know, (or as *I* know), I am omniscient. I am also omnipotent. Here, watch this. Using my mind I will cause an earthquake in Southern California.
JOHN CONCENTRATES.
CUT SCENE TO SAN FRANCISCO SHAKING IN AN EARTHQUAKE
JOHN: As you can see, I am clearly superior to George Bush in every way, and I will solve all the problems in Iraq and the rest of the world. However, you have to elect me president first. Otherwise, I will be powerless.
REPORTERS ARE AWWED AND STUNNED AND REVERENTLY KNEEL. A LIGHT SHINES AROUND JOHN KERRY AND HE LIFTS HIS ARMS AS IF TO BLESS THE REPORTERS.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
If you were Allawi what would you do if you were in the US and you wanted to get as much support for your government as possible from the US government?
Well if I was Allawi I would ask the current administration, who is also the leader of the republican party who happen to control both houses of congrees, "what can say to help get more support for my people and administration in Iraq?"
Just becouse the Bush adminisration may of helped with Allawi's speach does not mean it was inacurrate or insincere.
In fact I am wondering why this would be an issue at all....when two leaders meet they often hold press confrences and make speaches...I am sure in every case there is some discussion between the two leaders what they will say before the actual speach.
nothing to see here, move along.
stendec@gmail.com
Did you notice the ads? They'll publish whatever sells more ads. They have employees and employees (may) have families. Basic economics.
The elction will be over soon. Then everyone will go back to not caring about politics until 2008 :)
See here. It's pretty darn funny actually.
then you'll whine aloud at the slightest, unproven, partisan assertation that the UN is writing *his* speeches about *our* country, right?
/boggled/
No? I didn't think so...
Kerry can't wait to bow before his UN Overlords. He's absolutely slavering at the chance to do just that. I DON"T want our foreign policy to be determined by whether or not it passes some "global test". Not mine, those are Kerry's words and sentiments from the debate this evening. Being such a politically-minded AC, you *did* watch the debate, right?
I *like* our sovereign nation. Please don't let him give it away.
Of course, there's always the (very) likely possibility that he would change his position on this...
The record seems to show that George W. Bush became a cheerleader because he wanted to be close to the campus leaders, who were, at the time, athletes. Since he did not excel at athletics, being a cheerleader was the only way he could be one of the student leaders. The captain of the cheerleaders was part of the social group that included the captains of the teams.
George W. Bush was an obnoxious alcoholic then. The culture of alcoholics is very different from the male gay culture. There is no hint George W. Bush was gay. He was interested in partying, and being close to the student leaders was a way to be involved in the parties. Two of his arrests came from stunts that seem like something a drunk person would do. The third arrest was for drunk driving.
I can cite numerous authorities for this. For example, see George W. Bush: Living the Bush Legacy.
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
(Note: I haven't heard the speech in question or the Bush speeches, my mind was made up for Kerry some time ago)
We borrow (or steal if you like) phrases from others all the time. The more current and topical the subject, the more well known the speaker, and the more relivant to our point, the more likely we are to do it. You may not know you do it, but you do.
Thus that phrases were taken from Bush's speeches doesn't mean anything other than that he's listened to Bush's speeches and liked what he's heard.
Not saying the Whitehouse didn't write his speech, but use of phrases isn't proof he did. I'm known to use Southparkism pretty frequently but alas, Matt and Trey do not write for me, I just watch their show and pick up expressions I like.
The U.S. government is building 16 permanent bases in Iraq. This was mentioned in the debate tonight. They apparently want control over the oil. They apparently care about nothing else. A democratic country is one that has control over its own resources.
Anyone else with any other political rumors to spread around?
How about that draft, huh?
Anyone else alleging anything else we need to know about?
Then vote for Bush. If not, don't worry about your taxes - Kerry will pay for what needs to be paid for by cutting corporate welfare, cutting tax cuts for the rich, and rolling back the excessive pork spending of a republican congress coupled with a republican president.
paintball
Remember: Allawi and his speech-writers write in Arabic for an Iraqi audience. Of course he is going to get help on a speech delivered in English for an American audience. If you want more authentic Allawi, read his speech to the U.N. General Assembly he gave the next day. The Arabic translated into English is far more bland and unappealing but the content is the same. You can also read the press conference he gave afterward, or an interview to the Washington Post, or anything else you can google if you want to read what Allawi says without assistance from American speech writers.
Men elect to become cheerleaders in the hopes of being able to hold a female cheerleader aloft by her crotch. Sometimes they try to sneak a peek up there, too. That hardly seems homosexual to me.
Mod me down if you like, but you know it's true.
http://harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
I watched the debate too, maybe was paying a bit more attention?
Interesting. I'd never actually tried it.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
---
Dear mum,
our flatulant, pompus general lost another battle. This is hopeless. We've lost every battle so far, and General Washington keeps retreating. Will we retreat all the way to the territories? How am I to get back to this fall's harvest if the British burn our fields?
Indeed, the times are grim, and I wonder what is to become of us. All we hear is how things are going well, but all I see is death and retreat.
-----
People on the ground rarely have any idea of what's going on.
"Same story"
Not quite the advent of the digital camera and expedent digital media conveyance made the Abu Ghraib Prison story different.
I listened to an interview of the guy who broke the Abu Ghraib prison story. He said he could have written pages and pages with all sorts of details concerning the incident and it would have never be noticed. But a single image drove the point lucidly home and made all the difference.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
(2003 report)
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
Biological weapons
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,50
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
(2003 report)
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.
There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.
I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.
Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.
Biological weapons
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which i
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
Tell me I'm wrong. This report was filed in January of 2003. 2 months before the "evil" George Bush began the war.
Ha'e ye not haird o' paragraphs????
[ 1036068 ] Favicon not displaying in firefox bookmarks toolbar
Favicon not displaying in firefox bookmarks toolbar
I have a slashdot link on my firefox bookmarks tool bar. It doesnt show the slashdot icon. Other sites such as google or sourceforge do without issue. The icon appears fine in the address box and on tabs.
Im using firefox preview release, but this is also a problem in previous versions and Microsofts IE.
I have attached a screenshot showing the issue.
__________
You, sir, are an idiot.
On a related note - the CIA had plans "to put an operation in place to affect the outcome of the elections." before it was stopped by Nancy Pelosi:
1 ,1 101041004-702122,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917
Whether or not Iran is influencing the elections, this idea is very very wrong. The biggest problem any politician elected will be credibility, to be more exact, they need to be seen to be independent of the US. Even *rumours* of CIA interference in elections will derail the reputation of anyone elected. As academic Juan Cole writes, if it is wide-spread opinion that the US rigged the elections (esp. through the CIA bogeyman), it does not mean only failure of democracy in Iraq but in the entire Middle East:
"The first is to point out that this sort of behavior by the Bush administration fatally undermines the ideal of democracy in the Middle East. If Muslims think that "democracy" is a stalking horse for CIA control of their country, then they will flee the system and prefer independent-minded strongmen that denounce the US. The constitutional monarchies established in the Middle East by the British were similarly undermined in the popular imagination by the impression they gave of being mere British puppets. This was true of the Wafd Party in Egypt in the 1940s and early 1950s, which the Free Officers overthrew in 1952 in the name of national indepencence. It was also true in Iraq, where in 1958 popular mobs dragged the corpse of the pro-British Prime Minister Nuri al-Said through the streets and finished off the British-installed monarchy."
http://www.juancole.com/
I can't pass these exams. I give up. I can't do this job, I give up. It's been one year since I tried to get a job and now I give up. Ladies and Gentlemen, it takes years to succeed at anything. Some people take their entire lifetimes to suceed. Why are we giving up on this war after one year? Also, the voters in El Salvador had bombs blowing up and bullets wizzing past their ears when they went to the polls and they didn't give up. Get over yourselves, democracy is no cake walk.
Al Lorentz is the former Chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas. He was against the war in Iraq, because Lorentz believes in isolationism (even after 9/11). So while he is not "some politically idealistic and naÃve young soldier", that's only true because he's not young. He is a political ideologue, with an anti-Bush paranoia.
That made my Bullshit Detector go off like a Claymore in a cattle drive.
Al Lorentz spent most of his career in the Reserves.
A noncomm in Civil Affairs doesn't have a "muds-eye view" of the war at all. He may as well be back in Texas, for all the fighting he'll see. This guy is an armchair General. Why isn't he an officer? Because he's incompetent for a commission, that's why.
Al Lorentz was a Bush basher before he went to Iraq, and he's a Bush basher now.
From another article by Lorentz:sigs, as if you care.
Really? I dare you to find a war the US got involved in where there wasn't widespread protests.
WWII, check. Spanish-American, check, WWI, check. Mexican-American, check. Desert Storm, check.
Just because a bunch of college kids on break didn't block traffic doens't mean protests didn't happen.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
If the soldier's letter were written in Arabic (by an Iraqi), your letter might be a reasonable parallel. Or perhaps if it were written in 18th Century French, by a foreign liberator, as part of a doomed war where the colonists attacked their liberators in order to join a neighboring Puritan colony in Canada, which freed itself from the French 20 years prior, that they'd been sent to war against in the intervening decade.
Who, in your opinion, *does* know what's going on in Iraq? Allawi, their new leader, whose speeches are written for him by the White House who chose him for his past CIA work? You?
--
make install -not war
This is true. Why doesn't that bother you?
--
make install -not war
Feinstein is a crock. Sadly a sham and a player and a disgrace to California. She pretty much considers herself a God among peons and for most all of her positions I cannot trust her to represent this state.
Which is a pity, really. Because it lends discredit to her statements. And as far as being a "leading US Senator", well, that opinion must come from somebody outside CA. Bush is evil, sure. But do you trust a nafarious liar such as Feinstein to point out his administrations evils? Its just hard to swallow...
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
It could be filed two years before for all its importance. Not only this report is a lot of "maybe-coulda-woulda", it is also quite silly that otherwise intelligent people are so easilly fooled by all of this Iraq WMD talk. VX is known to be possessed by just about any two-bit country on the planet, including places like Serbia. Anthrax is produced from cow dung. A few nutcases were able to make it in a bathtub in England. Etc. Etc. If Saddam was truly bent on using this (rather awkward and unreliable weapon), he would have done so looong ago. Actually he did in 1980s on the Kurds and probably like every military before him, decided the thing was useless. Did you ever wonder why during WWII noone used chemical weapons on the battlefield? All sides had them. They are just extremely useless things in combat. Additionally, Iraq had no capability to produce nuclear technology in any meaningful way for a foreseeable future due to constant oversight.
Truly frightening bio-weapons are of genetic nature and at this point in time beyond reach of the terrorists. This will unforunately change in not so remote future and because of the nature of the technology they will become the primary, cheap and widely available weapon of unspeakable terror.
Or are you just illiterate?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Maybe some of the insurgency is inspired by the feeling that the country shouldn't have a U.S./Israeli mole installed as chief executive, no?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Practically every posting under this article is bashing Bush one way or another. We finally get a president in the white house that isn't getting his wang sucked off by an intern, and is actually DOING something to make our world safer, and we sound like whinny babies. Disagree with the way he got rid of Saddam. Poke fun at him for not being a great public speaker (are you any better?). Disagree with his stance towards the UN's gun control agenda. But you know what? I'd rather have a president who's honest, rather than one who lies about infidelity. One who's trying to make our world SAFER for us to live in. One who isn't changing his mind every minute on where we should be. Who can read the reports from Flordia, Ohio, and other states that actually bothered to track their crime rates before and after they inacted a concealled weapons permit law, and were able to statistically show that an armed city is a safer city. Not one who wants nothing more than to bow to UN pressure to restrict our right to defend our lives.
You don't close your eyes, put your hands behind your back and let a bully take a swing at you. Will you be the one cowering and whimpering in isle 11 as another madman with a gun bought illegally causually kills innocent after innocent, while someone else in the store capable of killing him could, if only his right to defend his life and others wasn't denied him by corrupt and misguided politicians!
WE (Americans) are the most greedy, selfish people people in the world. Everyone is bitching about our gas prices, our taxes, how the world views us... How many lives did we save by getting rid of Saddam? How many people weren't forced to drink gasoline and then get shot for amusement? How many didn't have electrical wires fry off their genitals? How many didn't end up in a mass grave after being tourtured and raped repeatedly? Oh, wait, you're an American and your gas prices are higher - so you don't give a shit. You people make me sick.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
I'm inside California, and I realize Feinstein is a leading Senator. She's scum, a spendthrift and beholden to media interests over my own. I voted against her, and I'd do it again if I had to (she allegedly cannot run again due to our term limit laws). But that doesn't change her position in the Senate. I don't like Tom DeLay either and I wouldn't say that just because I feel that way he isn't a leading Representative.
As to her allegations here, I wouldn't be surprised if she is right. I also know it's going to be impossible to prove. She made a big mistake here.
The following text was located at BoingBoing, and is supposed to be from Wall Street Journalist, Farnaz Fassihi, located in Bagdhad. I Googled her name a bit, and Farnaz Fassihi is indeed on WSJ staff as a journalist. I do not know if this e-mail she sent is real so I asked her. A reply is pending. Anyway, it is good reading, and it is A LOT more like the AP and AFP newswire reports I see every day than the hard-ass edited Fox News and CNN stuff I see (Yes, we get Fox News in Norway. No, it is not "fair and balanced")
9/30/2004
Farnaz Fassihi, a Wall Street Journal correspondent in Iraq, confirmed that a widely-redistributed letter she emailed to friends about the nightmarish situation in Iraq was indeed written by her. Too bad the WSJ doesn't allow this reporter to write these kinds of stories for the paper.
=====
Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.
Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't.
There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.
It's hard to pinpoint when the turning point exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a potential threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to imminent and active threat, a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.
Iraqis like to call this mess the situation. ÊWhen asked how are things? they reply: the situation is very bad.
What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war.
In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health, which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers-- has now stopped disclosing them.
Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.
A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trap
Isn't this the Bush admininstration in a nutshell? If you disagree with us, you are un-American, disloyal, unpatriotic.
I'm tired of linking the following quote : People don't want War by Herman Goering . That in a few sentences covers what you have saidQuidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
sadly, they always have and probably always will in a free country.
you guys are screwed. sort it out for god's sakes.
...is slashdot pulling content from the Yahoo boards?
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
OKay you say Allawi is CIA? ok.but why do u want to bravely put up your name? Want the US Govt to do something to you?
...I think it's the first time I've ever seen it used correctly on Slashdot!
Yes, you can shoot yourself in the head.
what goddamm difference does it make? vote for the man based on his policies, not on his private life. as al sharpton put it - the government should be able what's happening in the kitchen, not the bedroom. that could be generalised much more broadly to all of politics.
What's in the water in hickass western Michigan that makes you people so far left?
Launch War on Terrorism
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq 15033
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
plus
Deaths due to kidnapping and beheading of citizens of countries [ some that have noting to do with war ] - Kenya,Egypt,India,Australia,Britain,France..etc etc.
plus death of military persona of USA,Britain and other countries whose soldiers are present in Iraq.
Taking an active role in a club where you'll be surrounded by fit, flexible, good-looking 19 year old girls on a regular basis?
Don't know about you but I wouldn't describe that as evidence of homosexuality...
A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum
400 meters? That should be about 250(?) yards, isn't it? Is that a typo maybe, i would think 40m would sound about right? I'm really just asking, i have no idea about the damage a 500 pound does...
That article has some interesting information, for sure. I don't know what to make of it.
Klein tries to slam the free market system but all she really manages to do is prove how futile violence is. Our and the Iraqis.
She tries to blame the failure on Bremer's market policies as much as she does his military ones when in fact they are two different animals. She makes it seem like the people in the soap factory should stay employed even if the factory could be run by a third as many employees. A rather bizzare article overall, in my opinion, but really interesting.
--HC
So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
There are more than 16 U.S. Bases in Germany, but does that make it not free? What about Japan, or Kosovo, or Korea... most reasonable people would concider them to be free. Not having permanent bases there after such a large scale change in governments would be short sighted and extremely hurtful to any chance Iraq has of being free of brutal murdering dictators.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=400m +in+yards&btnG=Google+Search
It has already been ordained. Bush will defeat Kerry by a wide margin. Anyone who doesn't already see this is delusional -- in part because big media needs you glued to the idiot box for five more weeks!
Go write some code and chill people!
Are you crazy? The destruction that 250 kg of high-explosives cause is enormous.
see subject.
Of course, there are many new-liberals here (not liberal in the classical, US founder's sense, but liberal in the neo-modern sense). I should expect many to flame Bush, but look at the alternative. Do you really one the former governer of the most highly taxed state in office?
Was Saddam better than anarchy?
In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
Are you serious? Claiming that any American author has any standing because they have never lost a lawsuit is ridiculous because it is damn near impossible for a celebrity to sue - research the "Actual Malice" standard for libel set in N.Y vs Sullivan. Furthermore, having *lawyers* do fact checking sounds more like lawsuit insulation than fact checking.
ostiguy
Rather than read 'indymedia' propaganda' try an Iraqi blog. Google them or start here: http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com
Chemical weapons are far from useless. Even tear gas is extremely effective at making an unprotected combatant and lot more docile. It's victims tend to flee, or uncontrolably fall over eyes bleary, choking, drooling, snotting, and expelling god knows what else from their bodies. Even a protected combatant may feel his exposed flesh itch and/or burn.
But even with those less than desirable effects, you take solice in the fact that it didn't blister your lungs and cause you to drown in your own blood, or something equally unfathomably wretched.
Did you ever wonder why during WWII noone used chemical weapons on the battlefield?
It's true that the high-speed tank movement of WWII made chemical weapons mostly obselete.
But it's also true that Adolf Hitler was traumatized by watching the results of Britsh and Belgian use of poison gas in WWI (where he won two Iron Crosses). He forbid their use on principle. (Yes, he actually had some principles. Note that he didn't mind using poison gas on 'non-humans')
I love the quote "leading US Senate Democrat, Diane Feinstein". The last I checked, she was not leading and represented only a tiny sliver of ultra-neo-liberals.
Try public television and public radio. They're about the only media outlets I've found here in the states that don't seem like "news for dummies".
Free will is just an illusion
Appeal to greed? :)
The problems as I see it: 1. Kerry is a shady politician. 2. Bush is a shady politician. 3. Feinsten is a shady politician. 4. The media exaggerates anything negative. We can't do anything about the media, because negative stories grab people's attention, and when you have people's attention, you can charge a lot for advertising. That's how media works. As long as we have two shady parties in control continually writing laws to make it more and more difficult for a third party, politicians will *always* be shady. The system encourages lies and deceit towards the general public. Politicians are kind of like the WWE. They get on TV and tell lies about each other then go backstage and laugh and joke about it over a scotch and cigar. It's all a big production geared towards deceiving us into voting for one of them so their party can have power. Go vote for a 3rd party. Any 3rd party. It's time to make a vote for democracy in our own nation first. As for Iraq... Allawi was put in control *temporarily* until elections can be held. Would you honestly expect the US to put someone in charge who wasn't at least slightly controlled by the US? That would be stupid. The first round of elections will be similar. Certainly, we want to make sure that radical muslims from the opposition don't win any elections. That would be stupid as well. Kerry and Bush really have the same opinions on Iraq so I don't really care which one wins the election. Either way, it will be "more of the same."
No mention of the forged documents from CBS, the spurious "Bush is reinstating the draft!!11one" story from CBS, sKerry's numerous flip-flops, mendacities, and evasions.
I'm not even gonna mention the overwhelming majority of sKerry's former comrades-in-arms who feel that the man is in no way CinC material, and how they have been pilloried by the Left for speaking.
Blame America first, because the USA is eeeevil and wants nothing but oil! sheesh. Y'all are sick.
Why is my post further up the thread tree being voted up, but not the parent?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
while (1) {
cout << "Halliburton" << endl;
}
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
What an amazing sense of compasion Ms. Feinstein has for the Bush administration: She's dismayed that there are reports of this, that, and the other! There can be no other explaination as to why she would bother to be so outspoken about such an allegation, unless there were cold hard facts about what was allegedly perertrated.
This jumping the gun on this issue is no more astute than Dan Rather and his brillant, yet revealing, ways.
... we must give them great respect, and curry their favor.
Er, unless they actually help us in Iraq (UK, Australia, etc), or are trying at great personal risk to rebuild a country and hold elections (Allawi). Then we sneer at them and call them Bush puppets.
Who's doing exactly the wrong thing for political purposes, again?
You're asking someone else if they're serious? You're the one lising your "MCSE" in your sig!
I was watchin newsnight a week or two ago and the interviewer was giving an Iraqi government spokesman (i think?) stick and saying things like "isnt your government just a puppet for America?" and this guy was defending himself "oh no no we are independent" etc.. the deal was that they were planning to release some women over the hostage crisis - next day, i turn on the news and the fucking US government says "no we don't want to release them"! So the Iraqi government says "we're going to do this" and the US says "nope, sorry".
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Struck a nerve, eh?
damn, you should think about learning the English language. It might come in handy when you want people to respect your opinions.
Chemical weapons are far from useless. Even tear gas is extremely effective at making an unprotected combatant and(1) lot more docile. It's(2) victims tend to flee, or uncontrolably fall over eyes bleary,(3) choking, drooling, snotting,(4) and expelling god knows what else from their bodies. Even a protected combatant may feel his exposed flesh itch and/or burn.
But even with those less than desirable(5) effects, you take solice(6) in the fact that it didn't blister your lungs and cause you to drown in your own blood, or something equally unfathomably wretched.
(1) a
(2) Its
(3) or fall over, eyes bleary,
You also misspelled 'uncontrollably'
(4) try not to make up words. (unless you can do better than 'snotting'. I mean...come on.
(5)less-than-desirable
(6) solace
5 sentances, 6 errors. Well, I guess you're doing better than a lot of other people here.
Not as a member of the military. It's also almost as bad for a member of the armed forces to publicly criticise anyone else in the government. Including Senators. Something having to do with civilian control of the military.
The only reason it's a bit more of an infraction is that the President is also the Commander-in-Chief. So criticizing the President is not only criticizing the representative of civilian control over the military, it's also criticizing the servicemembers most senior military commander. Double whammy.
That's the long answer. The short answer is that it violates the UCMJ.
I think you should change your nick, bud.
All those countries have (or had) US military bases established in them - most of them for over 60 years.
If you believe that, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. The book is total BS.
The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong broke themsleves in the Feb 1968 Tet offensive but they kept on going. And maybe if we had not had those idiotic rules of engagement, we could have "won", if winning means utterly destroying the enemy, just as maybe we could "win" in Iraq if we had no rules of engagement, like leaving mosques alone even when used as firebases. But there's that famous quote -- we had to destroy the village in order to save it -- and what's the point? What would there be left worth having fought for?
It's their country. They are willing to die to give us the finger. We aren't prepared to destroy their country in order to "save" them.
The problem is the same as in Vietnam. War is serious business, it is not a game, and when you make up rules of engagement that tie both hands behind your back, then you aren't serious enough about it and should stay out. If you aren't prepared to destroy the enemy, then you should not go to war. If you have to wave around fact sheets full of moonshine statistics and rosy projections and speculate that another year, or two, or ever-so-many would win, then you aren't serious about it, and you should not be there at all.
This war was fought because Shrub wanted to finish Daddy's war. We ought to send Shrub and all those armchair neocon experts over there to finish what they started.
Infuriate left and right
Or maybe it was a mooooooolah.
shit. im gioing to write twice on this one. badbadbadbadbadb etc. surely this is obvious to everyone? how can you stop the runaway train that is america
And that's why the US Constitution says Electors are selected as state legislatures direct - period. If a state legislature directs the selection of Electors for Mickey Mouse there is nothing anyone can do. Period. End of story. Yes, the state's voters can replace their legislators - but only after the fact?
Why the reliance on state legislatures? Because the selection of a President is a political process, and the legislatures are political bodies. And it's a whole lot harder to gain complete control over a whole legislature than it is to, say, pack a supreme court with a bunch of justices who lean in one direction or another.
The US system of electing a President is based on getting the best result possible given that the electoral system as a whole is corrupt.
So if Saddam was in breach of the agreements, it wasn't really that bad, yes? Especially since the genetic super Shazam! bioweapon of the future would always be unavailable to him, correct?
You gave yourself an appropriate screen name.
Surprised? Allawi and his fellows gave the CIA a "hint" for weapons of mass destruction in iraq. He told the CIA that Saddam could deploy chemical and biological WMDs in 45 minutes. Now, he returns to iraq to earn his reward.
_ Allawi t m d +Allawi+45+minutes+WMD+iraq&btnG=Suche&met a=
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Iyad
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0529-02.h
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Iya
Because we should all believe everything Diane Feinstein says.
Not exactly the strongest defense of independent African statehood: "Hey, they did OK for a whole twenty years before they went to hell."
Also, if you're going to cite conservative sources, your best bets are the Weekly Standard or Reason. Free Republic? My God.
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
Instead of everyone jumping on the bandwagon, why not ask where her proof is? I realize it's only the intentions that matter with liberals, but you'd think after CBS/Rather-gate truth would at least be in the ingredients.
great grandparent: I'm glad President Bush has set upon this crusade at taking out our foes one by one, and remaking it in our image. Their dictators fall, and their citizens live in freedom, meanwhile we gain a foothold in another part of the world.
grandparent: as a foreigner, I am not entirely sure that this guy is trolling.
parent: Sadly, he's probably not. A sizable portion of the country say such things in all seriousness.
DING...DING...DING...BULLSHIT! I defy you to show any evidence of any "sizable portion of the country" that says such crap. The great grandparents statement is rubish, but that doesn't mean that there's some kind of immoral majority spouting off the same BS, and it doesn't help anyones cause to for you to start some kind of conspiracy theory. Sure there are plenty of nutcases, but on a percentage basis, the numbers that would support such a comment have gotta be tiny.
Just another day in Paradise
You'all are forget'n the context of the big picture, YOUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED!!
But heaven forfend a soldier speaks out his mind or opinion!
And where can I line up to criticise the US for being "unilateral" in Iraq (although where is it written that telling France to go to hell is "unilateral"?) while as the same time complaining about how we're "too multilateral" in our dealings with North Korea (despite the utter failure of Jimmy Carter's unilateral agreement with North Korea...).
A cynic would note that being multilateral in Iraq or being unilateral with North Korea would both eventually wind up being in the worst interests in the US. In Iraq because we'd limit ourselves to actions approved by states that openly want us to fail, while in North Korea unilateral talks would only encourage Kimmie to break another agreement.
"Before publication, each book is vetted by several sets of lawyers; facts and sources are checked and rechecked and sources documented."
Wasn't this the author who was grilled on Hardball and eventually conceded to the fact that she could not back up any of her sources for this book. Chris Matthews ripped her a new one in this interview.
The difference lies not in the what but the why. The US bases in Europe are there as a hold over from the cold war, there incase the reds decided they'd just take the rest of Europe.
Remember we'd all just kicked the fuck out of Germany, and France wasn't exactly in good shape after they'd been occupied for so long. The Soviets however had just raised a huge army, beaten the shit out of Germany, (You're fooling yourself if you think the Allies had more to do with the win vs Germany than the Soviets, or even thinking they couldn't have done it without the Allies. We however could not have done it without them.) and were quite happy to go one for one in retoric with the US.
You should also look at the make up of your military hardware. The attack helicopters are designed for a war in a European theatre. Tanks, same again. All this stuff had to be retrofited for work in the desert, and even then performance was sub-par.
All that and the history of posturing between the US and USSR shows WHY the 16 bases in Germany, also, Germany was on the front lines with the Warsaw pact nations, it was a sensible place to build some defenses.
What clear threat is there in the mid east that justifies 16 permanent bases? No, sorry terrorists wont be stopped by a force the see as occupying Arab lands, it will just piss them off, and provide them with more fuel for thier hate retoric.
So the why, and why Iraq? Why not Afganistan? Iraq has all that Texas black gold is why. 16 bases assures that no matter what, the US never needs to re-invade to get it if reserves reach crisis levels, they're already there.
To be honest, what Bush is doing is arguably the best thing for the strategic future of your country. I for one would opt for a policy of cooperation with other developed nations on alternate energy sources... but that wouldn't work in the alarmingly and increasingly fascist policies and politics of the White House.
Yes, fascist, not not flame bait, look the definition and history of the word up. It's a system of govenment for and by Corporations.
Assuming that the soldier's letter is true, I can't assume that one NCO speaks for the entire effort. Dissenting letters like these loom large, simply because the word from the other 99.99% of the field is perpendicular to it. Even a soldier with 20 years of experience can be wrong, especially since he IS, after all, an NCO and there is a different perspective available from high-ranking commanders such as Tommy Franks. Think about it in the perspective as a company employee. I've been that disgruntled employee before, and just because I'd been there for several years doesn't make me the end-all authority on whether the company is going down the toilet.
In short (unlike the parent post), ALWAYS be skeptical... ALWAYS view communications like these with a critical eye - even if they validate your own opinions.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
3 words: terms of surrender
does anyone disagree that iraq repeatedly violated their terms of surrender? then what's the f'n problem? the debate should've ended there. instead, all the bleeding hearts press for a 'better' reason to go to war - terrorism, WMDs. then when they don't pan out as 'expected', we must've rushed to war or lied.
you violate your terms of surrender, you get thumped. too bad more people won't stand behind their convictions.
Honestly, the entire idea that the war was fought over Iraq's oil is so inane that I can't help but be shocked each time I see someone write it. Let me state this very clearly for you. Saddam was more then happy to give the US oil. If oil is all the US wanted, then it didn't need to invade. It could have gotten all the oil it wanted just by sending Saddam a few bucks.
What the US wants IS a democracy. If you think the US has any other goal then that, you are fooling yourself. The US wants a democracy in the middle east, and there was no other country it had an excuse to invade other then Iraq. If it was simply a matter of oil then the US would have merrily kept buying it from Saddam.
Damn!!!! I fed the troll again!
BBC World is on at 6 EST, but I am a Groening addict so I get my Beeb from news.bbc.co.uk ... and for the ever vigilant news junkie, you can follow the Israeli view of the middle east conflict at debka.com
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Someone modded this crap out?
"If you are in the U.S., you just said something very dangerous."
Are you fucking joking me? No he didn't. The secret police are not on their way. For fucks sake, go take a walk to washinting D.C. some time and see the hordes of people walking around with "Bush is a murdering facist pig" signs that are completely and utterly ignored by the police. Only the extremely ignorant and stupid person would think that saying that they agree with Iraq insurgants could get them in trouble in the US.
I've got no problem with some craphole little country at the ass end of the world needing their ass kicked. Fine. We've got the tools and we've got the people to get it done. War is about killing people. If it's bad enough to start a war, then go in and kill people. Lots of them. Forget precision munitions, carpet bomb them back to the stone age, then send the Army in to pave what's left and go home.
When did we get to be such pussies about inflicting casualties? I don't care of other countries are dictatorships, socialist, democratic or are ruled by a giant 8 Ball as long as they don't let terrorists train and operate in their crapass little country.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
There are 35 states with higher tax rates than Mass. Montana is one of them. When you have a bad employee (the President is our employee) you fire them. You don't look at his potential replacement and think, "What if he does a worse job than the current guy?".
Point missed: the allegations are just that, allegations. This is a political season- don't be so naive and believe everything you hear. I have not seen a shred of proof to back this up.
I would not be so quick to side with this Al Lorentz. I too have just returned from Iraq and this is not the sentiment being held by my comrades.
What Al represents is the cancer within the ranks, the enemy's best friend. It's bad for you and the country. He is pushing a political agenda that is misleading you on the facts. He has had no access to planning docs or intel and draws misinformed conclusions.
We are not paid for our political opinion- we are paid to follow orders and protect this country. The last thing you want is every soldier you pay to protect you questioning the political validity of every order. When the enemy puts the gun to you head should I base my decision on his political agenda? No, I am paid to protect you. I do that and keep my mouth shut.
If you must read this book, then for God's sake, borrow a copy, but DON'T PAY FOR IT. You'll only encourage her.
I've only seen those parallels trotted out by the Left. And trolls. Yeah, I'm talking to you, grandparent.
By the way, Rome, in all its time, was never a democracy. At one point it was a republic.
Just wondering, they're the only ones I know of who are so virulently anti-psychology.
Weed out this insidious cult, Americans! The organized movements of Pscyhology which have your government in their grips are Working Against The American Public.
You've got it backwards. The manipulation of minds is just a tool to them, the people in power who seek to stay in power. Politicians have been messing with people's heads since before anyone ever heard of "psychology".
Freedom: "I won't!"
Well, you just destroyed any shred of credibility you had. This guy may be an asshole with an agenda, but I dare you to walk up to a First Sergeant and tell him the only reason he isn't a felching butterbar Lieutenant is that he's incompetent. I will gladly administer first aid afterward, you'll need it.
Hell, I know a couple of officers who would gladly hold you while the said noncom fed you your balls, if he had the optical magnification equipment to find them.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Can we get some "Funny" mod points around here?
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
"Remember we'd all just kicked the fuck out of Germany, and France wasn't exactly in good shape after they'd been occupied for so long. The Soviets however had just raised a huge army, beaten the shit out of Germany"
Er, replace Germany with Iraq, and France with Israel and Soviets with Iran and you may understand.
It's called a paragraph, dude!
I hardly know where to start with this. Ideally it would be "insightful" viewpoints which are modded up as "insightful" independent of their political background. But what makes your post totally silly is that, despite the fact that people say slashdot has liberal leanings, liberals are kept on the defensive. Liberal viewpoints are modded down just for being liberal.
And the rest of what you said is totally inane- it is conservatives, not liberals, who seek to (and frequently manage to) quench "opposing viewpoints".
The republican noise machine's ability to shout louder than anyone else is great for conservative politicians, but it's hurting our country. How is a democracy supposed to adjust to circumstances when the debate is brought to the level of an elementary school playground fight?
I met an informed, reasonable republican on slashdot the other day. I praised him for his character, but in fact I was shocked because usually I only meet people like you, who gloss over reality because they came up with a witty barb to toss at the other party.
You guys are really good at that, credit where credit is due; it's only to bad that you are fucking us all over by removing the substance of the conversation.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
(Copied from The American Thinker, the link in my sig)
Letter from Iraq
September 28th, 2004
[Editor's note: The letter which follows has reached mevia a number of American military officers. They tell me that it has privately circulated widely in military circles, and is generally regarded as credible by knowledgeable people. The version which appears below has had many corroborating details removed, to avoid compromising possibly sensitive military information.
The author must remain anonymous. Thus, no guarantee of its provenance can be made. Nevertheless, the argument made by The Major is compelling enough that American Thinker readers deserve to see it. Caveat lector.]
I'm a Major in the United States Military, in Iraq. The analysts and pundits, who don't see what I see on a daily basis, have no factual basis to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. The media filters out most events, through a sieve of their latent prejudices - personal, political, and professional.*
The US media recently buzzed with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's website said, "[The]National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war."
That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days, were portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency. From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. The public is being misled about what is happening.
The media types who think this "National Intelligence Estimate" is the last word on the situation either don't know, or don't want to know the realities of the process behind it. It was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events was gathered in the Spring.
The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September. The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close.
The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles, people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again.
Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.
You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.
Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are lea
At the time, gays would not risk drawing attention to themselves by being abusive toward the people around them.
I'd be very interested for you to expand upon the "culture of alcoholics".
Okay, here it is. Remember that this is just a part-time effort by someone who should be resolving hardware and software issues. Also, part of this was posted elsewhere. I have been examining alcoholism as a part of a general social breakdown happening in the United States. My family's idea of drinking alcohol is to have half a glass of wine every 6 or 9 months. I first got started studying the Bush family's alcoholism and alcoholism in general because an alcoholic friend claimed that "George W. Bush is one of us. I spent years with alcoholics, and I know how they act":
Most people in the U.S. are not aware of the social breakdown in the United States because they have never known anything else. It would take several books to show how severe the breakdown is, so I will offer just a little evidence here.
Symptom of social breakdown: The U.S. government is heavily influenced by alcoholism. The United States has been having a difficult time getting qualified people to run for president.
First, here is some initial information about alcoholism:
1) The first thing you should know is that alcoholics are often extremely likable in some settings. That doesn't mean that all likable people are alcoholics, of course. It does mean that many people who don't have experience with the effects of alcoholism are deceived when they think that alcholism-influenced people are likable. The likability is just an act. 2) The personality disorders of being an alcoholic do not stop if the alcoholic stops drinking. "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic". 3) The third valuable insight is that often the non-drinking children of alcholics have some of the disorders of alcoholics.
It is also valuable to know that alcoholics and ACOAs often share severe disorders: 1) They are usually chronic liars. 2) They usually have a very strong anger problem. 3) They are often unable to analyze, because their inner conflict is so great that they cannot think clearly. 4) Usually they don't read, so they are often poorly educated about many issues that matter. 5) Usually they involve themselves with inappropriate sexuality. 6) They are often violent. 7) They often use other drugs. Alcoholics often use cocaine, because that reduces the negative effects of drinking, so that they can drink more. 8) They are extremely secretive. Secrecy is necessary to sustain the lies.
You can do your own research into alcoholism by contacting an Alcoholics Anonymous chapter or ACOA chapter in your city.
Ronald Reagan: He was an ACOA, a child of a severe alcoholic. Effect on the the country: He caused the U.S. government to borrow money so that his administration would look good. The U.S. government went far more heavily into debt during his presidency; the government borrowed $4.5 trillion. Some of the money went to weapons makers in California, Reagan's home state. Symptoms: Likability. Chronic liar. Read only very simple western novels. Called his wife "Mommy".
Comment: Most people in the U.S. have little experience with alcoholism, still do not see the signs, and think Ronald Reagan was a great president.
George H.W. Bush, the father of the present president: An ACOA, a child of a severe, physically abusive, alcoholic, his father Preston Bush. Effect on the country: Continued the borrowing of Ronald Reagan. It is not only borrowing money that is destructive; most of the corruption is directing that money to those who want corruption in government. Did you get some of the money that was borrowed? Only if you were rich or powerful, or both. Symptoms: Chronic liar. Very weak man. Expected his wife, Barbara, to look and act like his mother. Often could not express himself well, showing the extreme disorganization in his mind. Had little understanding of g
The US is fast becoming a theocracy. When the president quotes the Bible on 9/11 and uses it for launching a holy "crusade" against terrorism, what more do you want? How bout an "axis of Evil"?
Instead of a war on terror, we have Christian religious fanatics fighting their crusade against an extremist muslim jihad. I hope the Ottoman empire wins.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Sorry, that's an example of too-quick googling. There is a discussion of Bush's cheerleading in The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, but, amazingly, the index includes only names, and not other nouns, and I could not find the discussion of George W. Bush's cheerleading without putting in more time than I had.
One thing to remember: If you are exposed to tear gas, do not try to get rid of the nasty smell from the gas, by taking a shower.
We were exposed during a drill in the army. Afterwards eveything, clothes, equipment, hair had that characteristic smell that you will never quite forget. Our solution was the dumb one... "Let's hit the showers and get rid of it at once..."
The thing is, when mixed with water, the unseen tear gas remaining on your skin will sort of "activate", with lack for a better word, and the feeling is somewhat similar to having boiling water poured all over you.
That said, being exposed to tear gas is not as bad as some movies would have you believe. Your eyes will tear and you will get a seriously irritated throat combined with a lot of coughing, but unless exposed in a confined space, with a high concentration of gas, you will not fall down on the floor and be rendered totally defenseless.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
The difference is that in one case it is a "unilateral war", and in the other case, it is "bilateral negotiations" in addition to the "multilateral talks".
Do you see there is a difference, or you think it is too much flip-flopping?
? what are you talking about???
If the White House wrote Allawi's speech, that would be one thing. If the Bush campaign wrote it, that would be quite another.
As I think you go on to point out, there is no credible difference between the White House and the Bush Campaign. Political advisors like Karl Rove have their grubby fat white hands on all decisions. Much like that smarmy sick fuck Dick Morris was for Clinton.
Except that Yale was a male-only school when Bush went there. It didn't become coed until 1969.
The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.
My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He said "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"
"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." He replied.
"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush."
Our son giggled and said "OK."
"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.
"OK Dad, I'm pretending."
"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are screaming and crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and they are afraid of their father. You see all of this son.... what do you do?"
"Dad?"
"What do you do son?"
"I'd call the police, Dad."
"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"
"Dad.......... but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.
"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.
"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?"
"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.
"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.
"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.
"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?"
"What Daddy?"
"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
"Daddy..."
"WHAT DO YOU DO?"
Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I'd close the blinds, Daddy."
My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him..."Why?"
"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help people who needs them...and they won't help.... You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself Daddy.....I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds.... so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."
I start to cry.
My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he says..."Son"
"Ye
Is there ANYONE that doesn't know that Allawi is USA's stooge in Iraq? I thought this was common knowledge... Until open elections are held (which will take another 20 years), the politicians are just in it for themselves...
Note that he uses the word "crusade". That's exactly how Christian fundamentalists in the US -- including those inside and close to the Bush administration -- see the Iraq adventure. I'd give at least even odds that given a second term, Bush will do an encore on Iran and/or Syria as well.
Let me help you out buddy: http://www.omplace.com/articles/NaderElectoral.htm l
Score:-1, Redundant
Serves you right for saying something other than "Bush Sucks."
It's quite entertaining to watch Slashdot start politics coverage. I think we'll see at least six months of no-news stories like this, until they get a feel for what's post-worthy.
Covering Senator X, expressing negative emotion Y, at the opposition party for slimeball tactic Z, is very much like covering rain. Somebody's all wet.
Any chance you could find another site to complain about this? A political site maybe?
Allegedly, I did not ake a shower this morning....that does not mean it is true. Let both sides talk about it before you make statements. Miss Diane Feinstein is a DEMOCRAT. She's against the war and against Bush. This alledged item could be nothing more then Bushes aide's translating Arabic to English. Nothing more then advising him what to say for the good of Iraq. I also DO believe Kerry would pul us out. Let me remind you Bill Clinton was President when alot of the Air Stations on NORAD control were reduced. During the Cold War, we had a high of 26 Air Bases with 2 fighters on 24 hour alert. That high number is now down to 7. MAJOR reductions in the miltary have happened under the Democrats. Granted, at times during the reduction, both sides had the ability to stop the bleeding but neither did anything because they thought they were doing what the people wanted. Sometimes, the people don't know what they want and you have to do the RIGHT thing for the country instead. I am not saying more air stations and the like would have prevented 9/11, but they certainly would have given the ability to vector more aircraft and possibly even quicker. If you have not read the 9/11 Commision report, I highly reccomend reading it. Just don't go into with a biased view. Read it as if you were standing in their shoes and you will realize that 9/11 and the new war on terror is something that regardless of who's in office, it WOULD have happened anyway. Under Clinton, Bush Number one or Bush number 2 and even Al Gore.
Gorkman
How does building military bases equate to to oil? I would assume military bases would be built as centers for military control, but that would be too obvious.
I guess I should be wearing my tin-foil hat so I can fit in with the rest of you loons.
...come on - what did you expect?
No, I'm not just trying to be a tinfoil-hat-carrying left-wing anti-US conspiration theorist - but seriously, have you read a paper the past few years?
How this can be "news" is beyond me. How it ever became "news for nerds" that's a whole other story...
Please, can we go back to Xeon vs. Opteron bashing?
And what did they have before? I suppose it was a stable, inhumane dictatorship. Granted, we shouldn't be footing the bill for their freedom, however, I think the "destabilizing" argument is moot.
Should we have gone to war? Possibly not. But now that we're there, shouldn't we finish the job, and finish it well? Which candidate do you think would do a better job of it? The ends could justify the means if Bush would only kick ass and take names, however, his hands are tied by the election. He're hoping he makes a difference after this election is over *fingers crossed*.
I think Bush is far from perfect. In fact, I was looking for another candidate to vote for as I really don't like Bush, but the Democrats delivered us Kerry. I think Bush is currently the "least of the evils", including Badnarik (whom is a little too radical and anarchistic for my taste).
/independent conservative
Mod parent up +1 funny!
----
This concludes our transmission to Oceania.
I am tired of hearing everyone argue about everything..the problem with America today is that we are too free, and we are spoiled. It's not the leaders, but the people's attitudes that is the problem.
...he kicked your ass. You're babbling about old ladies and polisci crap when you should be taking your honest licking for making a dumb statement.
Of course this is just a game of thought and not a 100% precise analogy (most Arabs have no particular liking for Iran, for instance), it still gives you a vague impression of the other side's mindset. (Just to anticipate likely responses: your analogy has its limits, too. Israel is in a rather good state, except for the terrorism threat that, well, they've brought upon themselves to deal with somehow. And Iran isn't exactly on the scale of the Soviet Union as a global threat. And Iran has oil, too.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
Sizable portion does not mean majority. It means way the hell more than there should be. And I have heard such statements. check out Rush Limbaugh's intro to Ann Coulter's Slander
The US can solve the problems in Iraq tomorrow. It would be the end of GW's presidency, and US foriegn policy would suffer for decades to come as a result, but I think it's time to cut our losses and gain the best possible outcome that we can.
1) Arrange to slack Mr. Allawi's protection just enough that he can be killed (I'm not suggesting that we do it, just that we let it happen). He knew the risks when he went in, and he will be dying for the cause he claims to advocate.
2) Have GW make an appearance on Al J the next day BEFORE he speaks to the US press (very important).
3) He says that the US mourns Allawi. Make it clear that he's one of "ours".
4) Admit that western forces cannot control Iraq's "strong spirit and determination." It's important to not be negative toward the Iraqi's. They need to feel like they have the power to make the next move or OUR next move won't work.
5) Point to the most anti-western, pro-Islam, fundamentalist we can find who has a large base of followers, but is generally not a terrorist so much as an honest freedom fighter for Iraq, the way I hope GW would be if the US were occupied by a foreign force. Someone who won't just bomb the crap out the Kurds and set up his own rape rooms, but everyone knows isn't going to be our friend.
6) Make the offer. US troops will withdraw, entirely with no conditions, in a two week period the moment he takes over the Iraqi government.
7) Walk away and never explain. If someone asks about Iraq, you have to look at your shoes and say, "it's a shame... it's just a shame."
If we do that, and do it soon, we win. Iraq will be no more anti-western than when we stared (that would be impossible). They will have no more or less love for Israel (that too would be impossible). The problems in the region will not have been solved. However, someone with the political clout to re-build Iraq without being attacked by guerilla bombings every day will be able to establish order. It will be slow and painful. There will be abuses, but it will work because he will appear to have "kicked out the Americans". In the end we will have removed the largest source of instability in the region (which we created) and accomplished our goal of removing S.H.
If our twin goals are to liberate the Iraqis and reduce the threat of terrorism world-wide, this is, IMHO, the strongest step we can make.
The interview you cited does not establish anything negative about the author, only about the verbally aggressive Chris Matthews.
Do you disagree that George W. Bush stopped his Guard service in April, 1972? Or, do you disagree that the Guard started drug testing in the same month? Or, do you disagree that alcoholics use cocaine to help them drink more?
I find it really, really frightening that you did not already know the things in the book. There's nothing particularly remarkable, if you understand the issues from other sources. The interview discusses someone who said he thought George W. Bush was involved with a prostitute. It should not come as a surprise that an alcoholic abused sexuality. I don't know if George W. Bush was involved with a prostitute, but such a story does not seem surprising for an admitted alcoholic. They usually abuse sexuality. For example, Dick Cheney was known as a drinker and "womanizer" when he worked in Wyoming as CEO of Halliburton.
(George W. Bush admitted only to years of problem drinking, but said he did not think he was an alcoholic. However, this is normal behavior for alcoholics, to deny that they are alcoholics.)
The book just lists things you would hear if you did the research yourself. If you go out to ask people, and 10 people who don't know each other all say that they had knowledge of an abusive drunk, it begins to have credibility. Anyhow, the matter is not in contention, since George W. Bush has admitted publicly his problems with alcohol, and his wife Laura Bush told him she was thinking of leaving him because of his drinking.
George W. Bush would say that his abusiveness was only having fun. This is normal for alcoholics. For example, he called Russian leader Vladimir Putin, "Pootie-Poot". English commentators are not able to analyze this adequately. They don't know that "poot" is a slang American term for a baby's defecation.
George W. Bush's grandfather, Senator Preston Bush, had real ability as a politician, but he was a physically violent alcoholic. George W. Bush's daughters have problems, too. See the story Laura's Girls. It is common that highly stressful families who abuse alcohol induce abuse of alcohol and/or drugs in their children.
Do some googling. For example, see this admiring article from Time Magazine: How George got his groove. Or, see this less-admiring article: Bush's Life-Changing Year. Remember, these journalists were covering a political candidate who might win, and the journalists depend on access to keep their jobs.
Innocent people die in war, but your statement is rediculous on its face....
"I consider people who are doing nothing more than defending their country against invasion to be innocents."
If you're talking about the Sadr militia's and other Islamic-State enthusiasts, as well as the bitter left-over Saddamites, they're not defending their country from invasion. They're engaging in Jihad (at least the Islamists). There's nothing innocent about these fighters. They blow up their own children, and then hide in Mosques for safety afterwords. We have it doubly hard in that, while these men are absolutely ruthless, some of the Iraqi population just can't bring themselves to blame other Arabs for the murders. They'd rather believe we did it, or even more incredibly, the Mossad. But to call anyone from the Sadr militia or its ilk innocent or freedom fighters is to lose all moral credibility. This is the same kind of moral relativsm that allowed communism a free pass from our intellectuals, all while Stalin was murdering 20 million of his own people in firing squads and labor camps.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
One of the lawsuits was by Frank Sinatra. He claimed that only he could write a book about himself. Humorous, only that.
I read the book about Sinatra. Nothing surprising in it, if you had been reading about Sinatra during his life.
Allawi is the "INTERIM" prime minister. That means he is a selected official, not an elected one, and that makes a whole lot of difference, in the deference associated with that post.
Because anything that critises US interest isn't news?
No... because this is a site about technology. This isn't supposed to be CNN, you self-righteous twat.
It's not about buying oil. It's about controlling the oil. Democracy is the 2nd stupid excuse the US used, since nobody believes the 1st excuse any more (WMDs ... remember?).
I think the only person fooling themselves, sadly, is you. Good day.
I don't know chrono325, but this fits with my understanding.
The point is that being a cheerleader conferred social benefits. If you weren't an athlete, the only way to get those benefits was as a cheerleader. Andover is a feeder school for Yale, and, supposedly, the customs were a lot the same.
--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.
"Bush kept attacking Kerry on the basis that Kerry is critical of Bush's own war policy and is therefore unfit to be president."
Bullshit. Bush attacked Kerry on his multilateralism, not because of his criticism of Bush's policies. Bush made it clear that he didn't need international authority to defend US interests. That pretty much sums up the difference between the two. Like that approach or not, if you have a shred of honesty, you have to admit that Bush was upfront about his policy ideals, and that he'll tell you, upfront, that those ideas are very different from Kerrys. You make it sound like Bush went "How dare you criticize me?". That's utter crap. There are very big differences between the ideas of these two men, and that's what they debated last night.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So was it just me, or did Kerry slip up at one point and refer to Iraq as Israel?
Something to the effect of "it's important for Isreal, it's important for the U.S, it's important..."
Was I just in need of sleep or what?
Tivo users, I wanna know!
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Common mistake: It is not about oil. It is about who controls, and profits from, the oil contracts. The oil would appear on the market regardless of who controls the contracts.
Do you think many Iraqis will mind the resources of their country being stolen by US companies? If we 'impose' democracy on them, what happens if they vote to control their own resources, and kick out the US oil companies? Is that just too much democracy? The wrong kind?
Or perhaps they will elect someone who tells them Israel is a threat to their country, and they are unpatriotic if they do not enlist in the army and fight israel...
Will the US step in, in either of these 2 cases, and install an occupation government 'more in tune with US interests'?
Living in California and have Diane Feinstein as one of our members of government I can tell you she only cares about herself and no one else.
I had a problem with social security and I wrote the same letter to all my representatives both democrats and republicans asking for help. We have some of the supposedly most caring democrats in the country, like Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. Not one of them answered their email, so I sent a real letter to their offices which also went unanswered...not even a form letter. Yet every republican I emailed contacted my either in person or through a representative and were very helpful, pointing me in the right direction and even arranging meetings in my local community.
I have seen all the news articles and one thing Diane Feinstein does not offer is any kind of proof that this happened....she just said it did. Those in California my also remember how she said she helped San Francisco when she was mayor but how it was bankrupt when she left and how it barely pulled itself up from that debt.
Diane we here in California know you are long on words but woefully short on action.
Isn't it interesting how this author of this post makes a blanket statement with no sources or substantive argument and he gets rated as informative... /. readers and moderators would be educated enough to ask where some of his facts are instead of the "blind acceptance" that the other posters relate to followers of Bush. Oh, the irony of partisanship.
Statements are dangerous when you go on hearsay. I would assume that
Why isn't he an officer? Because he's incompetent for a commission, that's why.
My bullshit detector just went off...
Not being a non commissioned officer does not make him incompetant. You have obviously never been in the military and it shows. Coms and Non-coms are two different paths that you can take. There is no better "choice". It is what he chose.
If you are in Iraq right now, then you have a muds eye view of what's going on. Obviously you aren't there, so you have no idea what he is seeing. Being in Civil Affairs also allows him to see some of the more political aspects of some of the desicions. Besides, it doesn't matter where you are in Iraq, it is very dangerous, what with the car bombs and all. No one is safe in that country.
Al Lorentz spent most of his career in the Reserves.
Note: MOST, that would mean he spent some years on active duty. So he is "seasoned".
Mod this guy down, he is talking from the other end of his body. There is nothing insightful about his ill-informed spouting. You sir, are definitely the armchair general.
"They apparently want control over the oil."
I'm sick of hearing this. What's your basis for saying this? Any US trucks loading up on Iraqi crude, taking it back to the states like booty from a raid? If we were just interested in the oil, there were easier ways to get it than to go to war. Hell, Kuwait has as much oil, and they'd be easier to conquer. The Saudi's too.
As for the bases, we're going by the post world war II playbook. After the war, set up a long term military presence to provide protection and stability to a fledgling democracy. It took a hell of a long time in Germany and Japan, and it'll take a long time now. No one has ever denied that. But did we cart natural resources wholesale out of Germany and Japan after the war? No, we helped build two of the mostle stable and strong democracies in the world, despite their being NO tradition of freedom in either country previously. That's a pretty damn good accomplishment, and it's what we're trying to do now; plant a seed in the totalitarian middle-east that will sprout into a strong tree, and begin to influence it's neighbors. You think Syria wants a democratic Iraq? How about Iran? Hell, some of our so called allies in the middle east are afraid of a free, strong, stable Iraq. The Islamists are terrified of the prospect.
But, I suppose its just easier to scream "No blood for oil!" than for you to actually see what we're trying to do.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Then you must hate Bush who has brought great dishonor and distrust to the White House.
"One who's trying to make our world SAFER for us to live in."
Then Bush must scare you half to death considering the rise in terrorism around the world in the last year.
"One who isn't changing his mind every minute on where we should be. "
Then Bush must embarrass you greatly when he keeps changing his rationale for Iraq, who flip-flopped on nation building, who couldn't keep straight his rationale for tax cuts.
err, we weren't attacked by Iraq, dude. That would be Bin Laden. Who we're doing what about exactly?
Please go back and re-read my last sentence. I never said the word "majority", but "sizable portion" certainly insinuates a large percentage. Obviously, any number greater than one (the idiot who made the original statement) is "way the hell more than there should be." But we don't need Chicken Little comments...and shouldn't expect them from geeks who should pride themselves on their accuracy. I haven't heard Rush's commentary, but I'd be surprised if even he would say those words...got linkage?
Just another day in Paradise
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/limewireayane-Ed wards_1.jpgm ewireayane-Ke rry_1.jpg
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/li
The Sydny Morning Herald ran a story a while back detailing accusations that Allawi, in his capacity of Prime Minister of Iraq, gunned down prisoners in cold blood. This story never made it over to the US, but I've never seen any specific refutations of it.
Just to set the record straight- Bush1 didnt encourage the rebelion against Sadam in 91. I dont have the exact quote but it was something like 'we'd like to see it happen.' Unfortunately this was taken as encouragement by some Iraqis. Bush1 was constrained by the deals he made with (mostly arab) governments that we were just liberating kuwait not removing sadam.and of course Dick Cheney said at the time that he didnt know what would happen if we got our hands around 'that (occupied iraq) "tarbaby"'
Oh some irony from last nights debate: Bush asked (repeatedly I believe) how Kerry could form a coalition when he was denigrating the contributions of countries like poland. And of course the Polish president Kwasniewski says that he was taken for a ride by Bush with Bush's false claims about WMDs. So maybe Kerry could make a good start of it by not lying like Bush.
p.s.- I dont think slashdot should have politics, outside of the issues directly related to tech.
This is the only remedy to slashdot faggotry:w ireayane-Ed wards_1.jpgm ewireayane-Ke rry_1.jpg
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/lime
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/li
In the debate, Bush referred to statements the Prime Minister made in defending the status of Iraq. I guess that would be circular reasoning?
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
You may need to raise the ceiling for this one.
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
Saddam was in breach of the agreements (maybe, sorta, possibly) and he was a bad dude. In the future, he might have gotten hold of the genetic weapons. This put together still makes no case for war. You see, the evil tyrant that he was, he was in no shape of form more dangerous or hell-bent on using this shit then any other wacko out there. As a matter of fact, Saddam had way more to lose then some others b y doing so and he was a sworn enemy of the Al-Queida style Jihadists. Anyone with a modicum of undertstanding of the situation and some common sense would tell you (as all the experienced State Department dudes were telling anyone who listened) that combination made for a contained, controllable tin pot dictator whose regime might have with some skill been preassured into making reforms. Whichever way you slice it, what US has done was in the most likelyhood the stupidest of all options.
Shazam! bioweapon of the future would always be unavailable to him, correct?
Brainwash alert! Yes it might have been and it would have changed little because Saddam was not bent of destruction of his ass more the that of USA. Use of such weapon is only available to terrorists, whose, I repeat for the slow in comprehension, he was a sworn, mortal enemy.
Michael reaches into his anal cavity, and produces documents! Dan Rather: blah blah blah blah SLASHDOT TONIGHT BABY! Slashdot: Dan Rather documents PROOF poop?
- Edwards_1.jpg
- Kerry_1.jpg
d wards_1.jpg
e rry_1.jpg
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/limewireayane
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/limewireayane
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/limewireayane-E
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/limewireayane-K
Ah, classic right wing tactic. When you can't debunk someone's statement, just speak out of your ass. And I'm talking about you, not the PP.
If you are really curious, the BBC has links to stuff like that, you can visit the arabic TV and radio stations websites, the official webpages of any government, etc. Just remember before you click, "who is watching me do this?"
Where can you run, where can you hide, when the man in blue is on the inside...
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
No, what made it obsolete is that it is completely uncontrollable and counter-productive weapon. A chemical will have all sorts of undesirable effects like lingering where its not supposed to and affecting your own troops, but most times it will disperse or react with the environment rendering it useless for any combat purposes. Bio weapons screw up both the enemy and your own troops. In neither case these have wide spread effects because the curse of chem/bio weapons is delivery which is extremely difficult to achieve. They simply do not work well.
The US maintains bases in Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) as a means of containing China's influence in the Pacific. None of the past administrations have wanted China as a superpower.
Oil, is of course, a big reason to build bases in Iraq. But strategically, it gives the US a lot of leverage against Iran, Syria, and Central Asia.
"Teachers leave us kids alone
chrono325, I am 3,000 miles away, and know only as much about Andover as I read. Point taken.
Anyhow, the main point stands. Being a cheerleader was certainly not evidence of being gay. At that time, gays did not want notoriety or public attention.
Yes, and as an American having been a university student in Germany I can tell you that a significant number of Germans hate our guts for it. Germany may be free, but the fact that our military (and the British) decided to camp out for so long has not helped the relationship with the German people.
You've got it backwards. The manipulation of minds is just a tool to them, the people in power who seek to stay in power. Politicians have been messing with people's heads since before anyone ever heard of "psychology".
Yeah, well, 'psychology' is something thats been around for a long time, in one form or another.
Always beware the men behind the curtain, 'telling people how to think about the world'! Study History if you want to know more of how insidious it is! As a virulent meme, it is truly insidious in todays society!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Before, Saddam was killing. Now, the U.S. Gov. is killing and destabilizing, and you pay. Improvement?
You do realise that in war billions of dollars are just "lost", this whole Iraqi thing is just a money grab. This whole presidency has been nothing more than a money grab by a few at the top.
Did Cheney get money from Halliburton after he became vice-president? Did Halliburton get oil-related contracts?
Everyone who reports on this says yes. However, I wasn't there.
...have no business discussing politics.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Terms of surrender only apply if we are following the conventions of war and treaties we have signed. Since the U.S. has violated both the non-proliferation treaty and the Geneva convention, and has blatently invaded another country and siezed power from it's democratically elected leader, I am sure we will be submitting to the UN and President Bush will be stepping down immediatly and submitting to a trial for war crimes. Right?
No one is saying that Hussien was a good guy, what people are saying is the Bush fricking lied to us, which he, and most every other politician does daily. The big difference is he is not very good at it, or just doesn't care, and thousands have been killed as a result to bring "freedom" to a country that would probably re-elect Hussien, given the chance. Did you know we planned to bring democracy to Vietnam too? MACVSOG polls indicated that Ho-Chi-Mihn, a devout communist would be elected, so we scrapped the election there too.
There are more than 16 U.S. Bases in Germany, but does that make it not free?
Yes, it does. Other questions?
You do realise that in war billions of dollars are just "lost".
Probably should read, You do realise that in war billions of dollars are NOT just "lost".
The two sets of policies are inter-related. Think of the scale of change. If the odd factory was inefficient then the redundancies may be tolerable. What about if all the factories were in the same situation, and in fact two thirds of the population could be made redundant without affecting production.
In the long term, the redundancies could be argued as beneficial. The economy is suddenly more efficient, and people are freed up to take on new enterprises. Market forces will eventually sort it all out...
... There may well be some interim social problems though. Like a couple of million angry people.
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
Yep, going into the streets sure stopped the bombs from falling.
Back to my original point. Every war has had people protesting it. They did it in the Capitol bulding and their names began with words such as "Senator" and "Congressmen". You know, people that can actually make a difference, not people who just want their voice heard.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
One has to mention that the first Gulf War prodcued over 150000 dead Iraqi soldiers and civilians, bulk of them killed on the famous slauther on the "Highway of Death" over which they were withdrawing from Kuwait when the war was essentially over.
I call bullshit. I call bullshit on the total (which cannot be supported reliably and defies reasonable belief), and I call bullshit most particularly on your laughable estimate of the Highway of Death toll. The Highway of Death was a tactical action. Most of those "trapped" there ran a couple of hundred yards away into the desert and escaped. What you saw, and the only result for which there is evidence, is a bunch of burned out vehicles and a few dozen to MAYBE a couple of hundred dead. The bulk of 150,000? Snort.
It doesn't help your point (which I agree with) that sensational figures have to be taken with a grain of salt, when you put forth even more laughably sensational figures.
Fuck her and her agenda!
please expound. What violations did Saddam make? He fully complied with all the UN inspections. The only UN inspectors that where thrown out where thrown out because it was widely suspected that they were US spies (which it turned out THEY WERE US SPIES)
y .jsp?story=444483
Think he still had WMD's? Hans Blix disagrees http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/stor
as does the rest of the world.
Gassing the Kurds? guess again, that was Iran.
Tell us, what exactly is it that Saddam is guilty of, running a brutal dictatorship? How is that against the law? Are we now going to start hunting down all leaders of brutal dictatorships? or just the ones with oil?
The only major crime i can see Saddam being guilty of is being a threat to our favorite lap-dog, the nation of Isreal, (who has their own problematic brutal regime)
Sorry It took so long to get back to you on this. I was in the Bathroom taking a "poot".
You say that the article established nothing negative about the Author, only about "the verbally aggressive Matthews". Ok, newsflash, there are people in this world that request that the information they receive about important people and issues be based on something other than hearsay. Stating hearsay as fact invalidates any form of proper journalism. Hearsay is how we get tabloids. To trust the author after this discussion is like trusting that the Loch Ness Monster married bigfoot, or that Duke Nukem Forever is going to be released next week.
Notice I said nothing about my politics. I distrust hearsay from both sides of the political spectrum. Remember, just because something is convenient to believe (to reinforce our personal bias) does not make it true.
Unlike the attitude of Kitty Kelley, "It isn't so much in terms of truth."
This has little to do with the election or who won the debate. This is a treasonous act intended to sway congress and the American public to fulfill someone's agenda.
Rick B.
When there are similar posts against the administration and they are getting 5 interesting and what not . . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Im sorry, I thought the first gulf war was about oil? Oops guess not, its the second. thanks for pointing that out.
Ok. Following that logic, I'm sre that you agree that it's high time that America unilaterally invade:
- Sudan: to stop the Genocide in Darfur and the civil war in the South (FYI the UN Charter *mandates* military action in cases of Genocide, how come the US isn't pushing this harder?)
- North Korea: Kim Jong-Il is a nucular-armed (sic) madman who oppresses and starves his subjects while maintaining a massive military complex and threatening his neigbors
- Iran: A major sponsor of global terrorism, has its own nuclear program, and has been working covertly to undermine US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
- Myanmar: A brutal, bloody and tyrannical regime by any standard
- Syria: Fellow Baathists, also tyrannical, also supporters of terrorism (Hamas, hezbollah, Islamic Jihad). Somehow our friends in the War on Terror (?!). Oh yeah, they're the US torture outsourcer of choice!
- Pick any one of at least a dozen regimes in Africa that are as Brutal as the Iraqi Baathist regime. Or more so.
Y'know what I find funny? Many of the same people who are now saying that it was good for America to invade Iraq to liberate its people would have said the exact opposite a few years earlier. I remember much grouching about the 'new world order' and America's role as 'Global Cop'. I remember a presidential candidate who said he would not be a nation builder. I guess it's ok to change your philosophy ('flip-flop') once your guy's in power, though, right?
Don't get me wrong. Even though I knew, in March 2003 (it was well-knowneven then) that the rationale for going to war (WMD's *NOT* liberation) was a sack of BS and that the war had been predicided by mid '02, I thought the war was a good thing: Saddam was a monster and his kids were even worse. If the American's are even halfways competent the Iraqis would be free and it would all be worth it. But they weren't. And it wasn't. And now Iraq is a far more dangerous place than it was before 03/03.
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
O'crap. Sorry for the typos. Grammar Nazis please move on, nothing to see here
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
The math is correct. The headline says, "Bomb kills 10 insurgents and 20 civilians." The simpleton says, "That's 10 less bad guys, we're winning." The realist says all 20 of those civilians has a family. If some of them were on the fence before, they're ready to join the insurrection now.
And the math appears to be borne out in real life. We are now at a stage where every month is becoming more perilous for foreigners (not to mention locals who happen to be in the wrong place) than the month before, so you have to understand why some are able to doubt that the end is in sight.
Ironically (sadly) for the first time ever, terrorist attacks on Americans have now become a daily event. Again please understand the skepticism many feel when Bush asks people to believe the answer is "more of the same". More appalling are his appeals that these attacks defray the energy the enemy would otherwise employ in attacks on American soil. So the soldiers are decoys then?
To make things more difficult the enemy does not think like we do. Westerners go to war thinking in terms of winning and losing. We go to war with a goal in mind, what we hope to accomplish when hostilities cease. The enemies come from a culture where sometimes the fight itself can be the goal. If victory occurs it is the icing on the cake. The goal is to struggle. The stronger the adversary the better - and who is a stronger adversary than the U.S.?
The next question is can Kerry do much better? Certainly he stands a better chance of making the world a more friendly place toward Americans, but I don't see how he's going to get all her allies into Iraq. Countries who begged America not to rush into war are understandbly unhappy to send their youth into a volatile situation which they did not create.
I realize there are still many who feel the president is immune to error, that he has done the right thing and is on the right course and that America cannot fail in this regard. There were such people at the time of the Vietnam conflict as well.
What is the answer? Please post if you know. One still hopes that America can hand over power and make a clean exit sooner rather than later.
with the world's second largest oil reserves almost secured for the US, do you really think Bush and his oil cronies are going to leave ANYTHING to coincidence?
But I think it's starting to improve.
A democratic country is one that has control over its own resources.
Let me know when the expressed will of the voters in the United States influences policy on natural resources.
You probably meant that sovereign countries have control over their own natural resources.
Even then, the issue of exactly what entity is exercising sovereignty in a country and with whose help can be argued, but most agree that Halliburton plays some role both in Iraq and in the United States.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Regarding the pull outs, you're right, Kerry said (from the transcript) "if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months." That's putting a lot of faith that he can accomplish any better on the ground what has already been attempted since the turn over of power.
The Iraqi forces are being trained. How is that any different then what what is being done now? Does Kerry have some new magical abilty to train troops better then is being done by the military right now?
Bush has been trying to press that America is not an occupier but an enabler...although I believe his terms are more like, "we are bringing freedom and liberty to the Iraqi people" and that we are not occupier just as Kerry suggests. That being said though it's easy to say that and then have to perform actions to regain security in the reason and not be viewed as an occupier.
I hate to say it, but the "no real substance" comes from the Kerry camp as well as the Bush camp. They are not saying anything that hasn't already being said or attempted right now.
I think many ways the one thing that I hope to stress is that hind sight is 20-20. Bush pushed for going to Iraqi based on intelligence which was believed (by not only Bush, Kerry, all of congress, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, Europe, etc) true has since been shown false. Kerry voted to go to Iraqi. it can't be said it's alright for Kerry to say he was mislead and not give the president the same creedance.
I found that there were a number of mixed message by Kerry. An example of mixed messages is that they indicate they want to build a coalition to handle these matters in Iraq ( although there is some coalition already ) and then when it comes to Korea, he feels we should do it unilaterally and not include the coalition of the regional powers included in talks.
But then Korea is a sticky situation which basically involves North Korea (more specifically Kim Chong-il) trying to hold the international and Korea penisula hostage, seeking the international community (in this context this equals America) to provide ransom in the form of monitary relief put simple. Bush, in keeping with the "don't negotiate with terrorist" belief, does not agree with these methods. I beleive this type of tactic by North Korea is now starting to be formed in Iran as well...but that's a whole other issue. Does negotiating in such ways solve the problem or promote more such actions?
It's easy to say you can provide additional funding and difficult to do so with out taking from other areas. It's easy to take money from the public in the form of taxes and not expect the public as a whole to be able to continue to improving the economy without help. It's simple to say something...it's difficult to implement it.
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
I havent done research on this,but the soldier who wrote an account of whats happening in iraq, which was also posted in first comments page , i hear , is arrested.
?
Look, anyone can speak what they want to or do what they want - not only in US / any other country.But the question is what happens after you do it .Constitution will not necessarily protect you like bullet proof shield.
In my informal sample, Americans often say things like this about Iraq:
Nuke 'em.
We help them too much and they just hate us, I say we leave them to rot.
They're all just terrorists anyway so who cares.
Etc. etc. Seriously, a large portion of America seems to not value the lives of Iraqi and Afghani people at all. They genually believe that we are helping them and that we're being attacked for it, poor us!
Thank you god for informing me of that. Now i can believe in the truth!
Adolf? Is that you?
Making prisoners strip naked and taking a picture of them with a bag on their head is torture? Sounds like a good means of coercing them without using force, if you ask me.
~ now you know
Oh fsck ... now we're doing it for the children. "Daddy, who can I bomb when I grow up?"
Saddam Hussein was an elected official as well.
He won with 100% of the vote, IIRC
~ now you know
"I defy you to show any evidence of any "sizable portion of the country" ... Sure there are plenty of nutcases, but on a percentage basis, the numbers that would support such a comment have gotta be tiny.
o /words/ Quisling.html)
First, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander", meaning if he should show evidence, why shouldn't you? A claim of "gotta be" is hardly awe inspiring evidence. (Why, gee, Mr. Procecutor and jury, I'm innocent. After all I just GOTTA BE.)
Second, "sizable portion" could very well be EQUAL or synonomous with "plenty", in which case you AGREE with the person you are debating in how many (too many), you MERELY disagree on SEMANTICS; i.e. do we call "too many" "sizable" or "plenty".
In any case, register to vote, vote for Kerry; and someone please tell the quislings running Iraq to order out the Americans NOW. The deaths on both sides can only be stopped by a complete withdrawl, regrouping, rethinking, AND THE WEST COMING BACK TO HELP IF AND WHEN WE ARE INVITED BACK.
(Quisling: A word Norwegians are not very proud of having given to the world: it derives from Vidkun Quisling (1887-1945), a Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. He established his name as a synonym for "traitor", someone who collaborates with the invaders of his country, especially by serving in a puppet government. Definition from:
http://www.cyberclip.com/Katrine/NorwayInf
>>I'm glad President Bush has set upon this crusade at taking out our foes one by one, and remaking it in our image. Their dictators fall, and their citizens live in freedom, meanwhile we gain a foothold in another part of the world.
>The sad thing is that America's image in the rest of the world is so bad right now, that as a foreigner, I am not entirely sure that this guy is trolling.
I live here and I am still not sure he was trolling or not. So confused....
400 meters = 437.445319 yards
A 500 lb bomb has 500 lbs of explosives. Fragmentation grenades, which have a couple of ounces of explosives, can kill you from farther away than you can throw them.
That was not intelligence, it was political arm-twisting, to get the intelligence agencies to say what the White House wanted to hear. That means that those big-wigs like rumsfeld, wolfowitz etc. are such a bunch of morons, way past their best years, to be holding positions of such power and impact. I heard an american diplomat returning from Iraq say, for every American soldier killed, there are 25 iraqis that are killed. This is inhuman. 90% of the U.S soldiers killed are in their early 20s. How could these gray haired men in their 60s and 70s do this? And then to claim that we are good Christians! What a piece of Crap!
YOU SAY, "Face it, the person the DNC selected to run for the white house is a war criminal."
Bush has run America into the ground and FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES KILLED thousands of Americans.
Kerry being elected will SAVE us from the war criminal that is now in the white house.
16 bases in Iraq aren't about "controlling the oil" - because, unless you secure hundreds of miles of pipelines against sabotage (which 16, or even 100 bases woulcn't be able to do), you're not "controlling the oil".
16 bases in Iraq are about continuing to fellate the Likud party.
16 bases in Iraq are about perpetuating fundamentalist Islamic hatred, and conflict, which props up oil prices. (it's about making sure that the oil isn't controlled by anybody).
16 bases in Iraq are about capitulating to bin Laden's demand that American Infidels get out of Saudi Arabia.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
What the fuck is it with you Bush sycophants? During the rush to war anytime someone raised questions about invading Iraq you all went on about how they didn't "support the troops". Now here you are mocking a soldier and demeaning his service because he is sharing his first-hand knowledge about how poorly the war is being handled. What the hell is that?!
My suggestion to you RealProgrammer, and to all of you who support this war and/or mock our soldiers when they complain about how shitty the war is going: SIGN THE FUCK UP FOR THE MILITARY!
You cheered the war on when Bush started it, and you continue to defend it and claim things are going great over there - well nows your chance, get your ass in the shit and demand to be sent to Iraq or SHUT THE FUCK UP GIRLYMAN!
Several little items seemed to have been missed: 1. Reports of Saddam's WMD being moved out of country prior to the war. I do believe that the Russian advisors that were in the country up until the bombs started falling were telling Saddam to get rid of the stuff. Not hard to truck it out through Syria. 2. The media glossed over the three dump truck chemical truck bombs that were destined for Amman Jordan. The perps caught before they could be detonated. Trucks nabbed as well. They contained a deadly cocktail of chemicals that would make applying antidotes very hard as well as identification of what it was hard as well. The bombs were designed to go off and spread the cloud without the chemicals being destroyed in the blast. Estimated dead: 20,000+. Source of the trucks, Syria. The mix of chemicals were of a highly refined nature such that you needed specialized facilities to make. 3. Ever notice all those drums of chemicals found in Iraq in ammo dumps that "turned out to be insecticide." ? Odd that Iraq would have a bug problem in their ammo dumps. Guess what insecticide is, Nerver agent. Just in small doses to kill bugs and not people. Get enough of RIAD and you'll be harmed. Those were most likely precursors for nerve weapons waiting to be refined once the inspectors were out of the way. 4. New chemical suits provided to Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard troops. Plus there were new antidote kits for immediate use. The US has no bio or chemical weapons. Iraq had no reason to fear our use of chemical or Bio weapons. Why issue new suits? Self protection when they launched the chem attacks against coalitian troops and Iraqi civilians. Antidote for when somebody screwed up. Chemical weapons are only of use against people that are unprotected. Saddam used it against the Kurds, unprotected. He also used it against the Iranians in that war to devestating effect against their poorly equipped and trained troops. US troops are trained in how to deal with Chemical warfare. Yeah it slows things down for a bit. The unit hit can still operate until follow on units can bypass the affected area and the contaminated unit can pull back to a decon area. Once taken care of they're back in action. Combat tanks have overpressure systems and integrated chemical protection systems so the crew is unaffected. (Trust me. Ya don't want to be an Iraqi unit on the wrong end of a pissed off tank unit) Why didn't the Iraqis use the WMD?? Most Army units understood that to use them against us would be futile. The unit commanders would be put on trial (ala Nuremburg) as war criminals. Chances are they'd kill more of their own troops than ours. The retaliation against their unit would be devistating (can you say MOAB). All very good reasons why they would refuse to release WMD. Plus, they know they're going to lose.
I defy you to show any evidence of any "sizable portion of the country" that says such crap.
The fact that there is a chance in hell that Bush will get elected is pretty damning evidence.
Given how he led us into this war through lies, misirection, and scare tactics anybody who would even consider voting for him is saying essentially just that.
Add in the fact that he only started throwing the "saving the Iraqi people" bullshit after his lies were falling apart, and you have almost half the country who are supporting exactly this attitude even if they aren't saying it out loud.
I doubt many Americans would actually have the courage to look in the mirror and admit that this is what they are supporting, but it doesn't change the simple fact that that is what they are doing.
Kerry voted to go to Iraqi. it can't be said it's alright for Kerry to say he was mislead and not give the president the same creedance.
I and the 9-11 commission would disagree....
I do agree that as far as ultimate goals for the Iraq war Bush and Kerry's positions are quite similar with the main impetus from Kerry being "I can do better." Consequently, I would point out the errors in judgement as found by the commission as well as current members of the administration's support of Sadam Hussein in the past (Ah Hem, Rumsfeld, chemical weapons, gassing of the Kurds and Iranian's anyone) and lack of ability to significantly cripple Osama's network in defense of this assumption.Than I would point out Bush's failure in domestic areas such as economy, human rights, benefits cuts to soldiers, tax breaks for the rich, quelching of the very principle of capitalism our country's economy is based on with no bid/uncontested contracts awarded to Haliburton, corporate welfare thinly veiled as an AID's relief package by writing in that no drugs can be generic, largest deficit ever seen in the history of the modern world, alienation of allies through failed diplomacy, worst security record of any president in our country's history allowing (you can argue that no one could have done better, but the only certaintity is that the Bush admin. didn't do good enough).
*NOTE* you can google for any one of these with any common news network like cnn, cbs, abc, etc to 'read all about it'.
Governments are legitimate insofar as they respect the will of their people. When a leader is manipulated by others either for personal gain or out of foolishness, he is no longer respected because he no longer represents his people, but the interests of another person or country.
The UK and Australian leaders supported us, but at the cost of alienating and ignoring the people they represented. Allawi was chosen by us; he may or may not represent the interests of the Iraqi people, but he was chosen to represent our interests - hence, his legitimacy as an Iraqi leader is suspect. (Having been a CIA asset doesn't help that either - would we tolerate the President having worked as an "asset" for British, Russian, or Chinese intelligence services?) Time will tell his true motives and effectiveness, but his past gives reason to question.
It seems pretty simple. Countries run by despots, dictators, etc. are denigrated because they ignore their people and do what they (or those who give them money or power) wish. After all, this is why (after other claims failed to pan out) we got rid of Saddam. Yet now the Dems criticize the Iraqi leader for being a paid political operative for our President, for acting in our interests rather than those of his people (they may or may not be the same thing) and the Dems are considered wrong for doing so. Democracy and legitimacy come from the interests of your people being first - not as an afterthought to what your previous employer tells you to do.
Criticizing countries for ignoring their people and doing what our President wants is wrong, but manipulating the leaders of other countries into being political operatives for your benefit is appropriate and just (all in the name of "democracy")? I must have missed Republican logic 101...
Actually, what he said was:
The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That's why they're fighting so vociferously."
What does he mean by that? Is the enemy shouting too much? Sheesh.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
"Point to the most anti-western, pro-Islam, fundamentalist we can find who has a large base of followers, but is generally not a terrorist so much as an honest freedom fighter for Iraq, the way I hope GW would be if the US were occupied by a foreign force. Someone who won't just bomb the crap out the Kurds and set up his own rape rooms, but everyone knows isn't going to be our friend."
Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Saddam was probably the best stabalizing force in Iraq we could have ever hoped for. He wouldn't play ball with terrorists, because he'd be risking his own security. He ditched all territorial aspirations. His extra-military forces were in a shambles, but his local autonomy was uncontested. He wasn't a radical fundamentalist, but a pragmatic secularist.
We should hope to get someone as stabailizing as Saddam ever again. And hell, if we're supposed to be giving them "free elections," there's no reason he can't run. Even in this country, we have people convicted of crimes running for office all the time.
All of this stuff is concocted-on-the-spot mumbo jumbo intended to obfuscate the obvious and common sense things: One: Saddam had no intention/capability/motivation to use these weapons (if they existed in any useful condition after all those successful UN controls, outside the fantasy world of Tom Clancy and people like you, made up hear-say baldedash from Rush Limbaugh not withstading). Two: many other people/countries have superior capabilites and are equally or more hostile to the US; and: Three: the neocons believed there were great spoils of war to be had, both financial and ideological and that is the true reason people are dying there by the bucket from real as opposed to imaginary weapons. Not to mention the massive increase in support for the cause of the Jihadists.
angry people with guns and nothing to do...oh wait
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
The embassy kidnappings in Tehran were done by a highly radicalized group of religious students active in the Islamic Revolution. Khomeini called the US embassy in Tehran a "US den of espionage" and ordered it kidnapped, and these students did it.
wrong. That's part of the public misconception. There were actually two invasions of the US embassy by radicals. The First one was in June, if I remember correctly. After that takeover, Khomeini talked them out after the first embassy taking and told them not to do that again. After the second taking, he sent his own sun in to talk them out again, but he failed.
The reason why he failed on the second time was public sentiment. Iranians at the time still remembered that the US had caused a counter-revolution in the early 60's that had returned the Shaw to power (and marked the beginning of serious brutality on his part). All along, they had simply been asking for an apology from the US for the (illegal) interference in Iranian government affairs and a promise not to do it again. (the later alone probably would have been sufficient).
When The Shah entered the US ostensibly (OK, and actually, too, but try and tell that to fearful Iranians) for medical treatment, radicals in Iran claimed that it was really to organize a second counter-revolution. The Iranians were too scared of a repeat of that fate to think straight (sound familiar?). The irony is that it was the US's unwillingness to verify it's compliance with international law that resulted in one of the most serious violation of the US's international law rights. (sound familiar?).
Khomeini made a number of attempts at moderating the hostage situation. Every time he did so, the US ignored his actions and undercut his intentions. The portrayal of Khomeini as able to get the hostages out with a snap of his fingers is entirely contrary to the effort that he had to take in the face of public sentiment and fears. Khomeini was in power by dint of public support only..
A couple of samples:
I think that it was about this time that Khomeini's moderate former prime minister was executed.
For the record: I have nothing against the rescue attempt, per se. but the timing sucked bigtime
This is part of the reason why (I think) Khomeini arranged to get the hostages out the same day that Regan was sworn into office. He wanted to get rid of
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Jafac, you are obviously very knowledgeable about this issue. However, you have made your comments in such a brief manner that most people will not understand.
Here is some background: Senator Biden says the Saudi government cannot continue in power without U.S. government support.
The U.S. government has, in effect, declared war on Arabs so that U.S. politicians can get the Jewish vote: New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war. This works, of course, only if the average U.S. citizen is not aware it is happening. The average U.S. citizen seems to understand very little about what the U.S. government does.
The fact is, U.S. citizens are not allowed to know why the U.S. bases are being built in Iraq. United States citizens are only expected to pay, and trust that what their government does is in their interest.
So we MUST go make war with unrelated countries.
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
Shrub probably ain't gay, but given that he graudated in 1964 from an all boy's school (Andover wasn't coed until the '70s), you gotta wonder just who's crotch he was holding.
I don't know though. I don't think the federal Government could make deals with Saddam Hussein. They only make deals with benign people like Momar Khadafi and Islam Karamov. Very idealistic is our Federal Government, with only the best interests of people at heart.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
It's the claim-maker's responsibility to cite sources. Not the people arguing against him.
Idiot.
Saddam was probably the best stabalizing force in Iraq we could have ever hoped for
I absolutely agree. We did, however, choose removing him as the priority, and stability in the region will likely suffer from it for the long term. There's nothing we can do about that now. Best thing to do is to step back and let someone who is slightly less repugnant organize the American flag-burning rather than staying on the political sidelines and burn Americans.
I did not mean to make it sound like I thought that was a GOOD solution or one that I would have wanted going in. I was naive. I thought Bush was smart enough to take out S.H. and his top aids, make a few grand gestures of stopping riots and looting and then present the plan for transitioning to a 1/2 Arab 1/2 UN peacekeeping force within 6 months. Needless to say, he failed to do any of the above OTHER than accomplish the military objective. Doh.
In retrospect, I was being bitter and harsh. We don't have to let anyone kill Allawi. We could just as easily make a show of shipping him out by plane and setting him up in a townhouse in NY City. The point is that we have to "take our boy out" as a prelude to publicly eating our own hat and leaving. That's the only way to make the Iraqis feel that we're really giving up on occupying them, and that they can start focusing on the state of their country.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
So Al Gore didn't get 60% of the votes in the last election?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence (via National Archives, www.archives.gov)
I don't think the people that signed the above document considered it a logic problem, either - the government they fought against was illegitimate because it imposed on them without their consent, and so the government they instituted was one where the consent of the people was required to exist. Other messages on this thread indicate that we intend only to let such areas of Iraq vote in national elections as agree with us - that doesn't sound either like freedom from tyranny or "consent of the governed". It sounds more like tyranny - a better tyranny than Saddam provided, but tyranny nonetheless.
Bush never says ANYTHING bad! He always has SOMEONE ELSE say it FOR him! Look at the Swift Boat veterans, a hatchet job devoid of truth if there ever was one! Yet Bush has "plausible deniability".
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!!!
THEY (and others) do has dirty work FOR him. In some ways, Bush is like a mafia Dom. He gives the orders, and others get their hands dirty doing his bidding while his hands stay completely clean!
You might find this interesting:
Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defense
There's now (alledged) doubts about whether Saddam was the one that ordered the gassing of kurds. The article claims there's evidence that Iran was responsible, in an effort to start a civil war between the Kurds and Saddam's forces.
I did understand that side of the equation I just thought it was way overstated.
If, for one, we weren't in the process of killing thousands of inoccent civilians over there or putting the in the like of Abu Gabi (sp?) they wouldn't be as angry. If we coupled that with some sort of temporary aid of food and water etc., maybe something like the Sadr Centers the article mentions, for those laid off and kept the situation non volatile for a while things would probably have worked out. We could easily have provided that aid for less than the cost of the additional security now required. Market forces will enventually sort it all out. Klein even gives numerous examples of companies wanting to invest in Iraq but deciding not to do so because of the voilence over there.
About the only good point (not the only good information, but the only good point) that Klein makes is about the refusal of the governing authorities to use local materials instead of imported ones such as the example of the concrete barriers.
Overall the article just felt as if Klein were looking for every reason to bash the free-market system but doesn't admit that the voilence was what really didn't give it a chance but with the type of violence over there currently no economic system stands a chance.
So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It has about as much basis in reality as "the Matrix" It's propaganda and wishful thinking, along with terrible acting. FICTION
If this letter is genuine, and the Major isn't kidding, I fear for his troops (and his sanity). He might as well refer to the Errol Flynn "They Died with Their Boots On" for an understanding of Native American affairs. Or "Little Mermaid", for that matter.
And let's face it: John Wayne was a fag.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087995/quotes
ignored the guy or given him lucrative trading agreements and attacked some other house.
It WAS the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. But it's ours now. Bush should be fired for starting it. Based on the conduct of the war, he should be fired for how he waged it.
We have decide whether to continue with the doctor who's sawing away at the liver during a heart transplant. Now that he's started, someone has to finish the liver operation. But I don't think we go with the guy who started it.
Other posters have pointed out there are worse monsters in the world. Many of them are U.S. allies. This little fable is horseshit. It's also widely spread - do a google on ""WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry."
Yeah, you do, if you can only hire one specific replacement. If he looks worse, you wait until one that's actually better comes along.
Most job positions allow you to choose from a pool... but in this election at least, there is only one even remotely plausible replacement. And he looks worse.
http://www.bettybowers.com/isbushgay.html
He does say "fabulous" an amazing amount.
"It's been a fabulous year for Laura and me."
-- George W. Bush., three months after the World Trade Center towers went down.
I admit I've only met one NCAA div I male cheerleader, and he was straight.
But his activity was gay. And so it was when W was a cheerleader rather than an infielder like his dad.
(Kerry fuckin' plays HOCKEY with PROS! Which is not like a pro-am golf tournement. For one thing, hockey is an actual sport.)
Lots of gays hang with chicks. Lots of shared interests. In glamour. And men.
"Propaganda alert!"
and
"Three: the neocons believed there were great spoils of war to be had, both financial and ideological and that is the true reason people are dying there"
You keep trying to make this emotional - your posts are the propaganda here.
Hawaii, Mexico, Phillipines were all more than the 100 years that you specified, but they are significant.
The U.S. has an extensive record of indisputable imperialism. In the 19th Century, not many were ashamed of that. Mark Twain was ahead of his time. The Mexican War was pretty naked aggression and we took about half of the country. In the Phillipines U.S. forces faught an insurgency with brutality, including torture. Against a democratic movement that had opposed the Spanish.
Since then, the U.S. has maintained an empire in fact in Latin America. We have overthrown dozens of governments this century, usually to protect commercial interests. This is historical fact. The goons we put in place were not democrats. Those they replaced often were. I grant that the Sandinistas were thugs, but they weren't any worse than Somoza. And it took MASSIVE US influence on the elections to keep them from winning election after the U.S. proxy war drove them out. Big time money and threats.
Arguments here usually devolve into the personal really quickly. I'll try hard to avoid that. But I think we both need to get off our butts. I have not heard any evidence that the U.S.-led Iraqi forces have performed well. Bush wildly exaggerated the numbers of troops trained. Maybe 100,000 are in uniform, but far fewer have been through even rudimentary training. In April, it appears Bush ordered the Marines into Falluja, contrary to ground commanders' wishes, and then ordered them to stop a couple of weeks later, contrary to even the grunts' wishes. This is the type of behavior the civilian leadership exhibited in Vietnam. It's also vacillation. The Iraqi government force sent in has been disbanded.
The U.S. picked the Council that picked Allawi. I'm not sure we'd actually know the extent of U.S. influence. This administration controls information flow like none before. Soldiers are disciplined for expressing their opinions.
It's true that the U.S. can win every battle it fights there (if not ordered to stop by vacillating politicians). The trick is to stop having to fight battles. I think when we kill an Iraqi fighter, two of his cousins take up arms. When we kill a civilian, half a dozen do so. There is not some finite number of "terrorists and dead-enders" that we have to put through a meat-grinder to attain peace. The actions we take affect the numbers of the opposition, and sometimes killing them has the opposite effect.
And regardless of whether the war is now (or ever was) winnable, it's definitely time to replace the leadership. Nobody fired over 9/11? Come on. Rice and Ashcroft, at a minimum. Nobody fired over the chaos in Iraq? Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, report to Human Resources for your exit interview. They went in cheap, let the thugs run wild, and the place was trashed. To the surprise of NOBODY who thought about it for 10 minutes. And whoever is in charge of reconstruction - if anybody is - should not be responsible for managing anything more complex than a hot dog cart. Fired big-time, with overkill. They should be fired from whatever job they have after being fired from this one from the remaining fired-ness.
Nobody is under indictment for the Halliburton corruption. This sends a mixed message. "We're here to liberate you" and "Your country is spoils for connected corporations". Well, every time they go through a checkpoint manned by U.S. troops, they feel less liberated. But when they see nothing being done with reconstruction money, well, that lends strength to the other message.
This has been a clusterfuck, and there has been zero accountability. So it's time to fire the boss. It's not going to get better unless the administration is voted out.
One of Kerry's points in opposition to the war was that it was leading Americans to commit attrocities.
one...two...three...
HE WAS RIGHT! The Swift Boat Liars are pissed at him for dishonouring servicemen by saying what were amply documented facts. Truth doesn't dishonour anybody.
Look - the historical verdict is in: Vietnam was a mistake. Anybody who thinks differently should cancel their cable subscription and quit watching Rambo movies. It was a war of occupation, not liberation. It might not have been intended that way by the dumbasses who led us into it, but that's what it turned into. Wars of occupation soil those who have to fight them.
Now - we have a president whose administration defines torture as something that can only happen on thursdays to left handed martians. Who excercised no leadership on the question of prisoner abuse, unless it was to encourage it. This may have cost us the war, all by itself. 80% of detainees not previously involved. I imagine a few of them are now, as well as their friends and relations. This dimwit has turned a war of liberation into an occupation. Now is a WONDERFUL time to get another president, one who has firsthand experience with an occupation and a clue about what it'll take to move it back to liberation.
and I'm inclined to cut them some slack.
It's true that most of the Republicans are chickenhawks, and couldn't commit any such war crimes in person. But they certainly put others in a position to do so, and bear responsibility.
Do you really think none of the kids who faught in Najaf or Falluja are entitled to hold political office when they get home? What the hell? Should we prosecute Ollie North and Colin Powell for Vietnam-era war crimes? Or just the guy who spoke up to stop it? Do you insist on moral blindness from all your political candidates, or is Kerry a special case?
(Powell, by the way, had a role in attempting to cover up the My Lai Massacre, so maybe prosecution is in order. Ollie got off on technicalities for later crimes - damn liberals and their criminal-friendly laws!)
It may fail the realtpolitik test, but after much flip-flopping, liberation is apparently why we we invaded.
I have not heard even a trial balloon to the effect of "We invaded to establish a client state." I don't think that's what Congress voted for, and I don't think that's what Bush is running on.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not a shock... That's what they would have been fed by the current mullahs -- that Khomeini (may allah's graces be upon him [or however they say it)) was as anti-american and anti-western as they are.
(You know -- kinda like the way that Bush is now swearing that WMDs were never the reason why he went into Iraq.)
Khomeini spent a good deal of time in France during his exile, and I would expect that he was probably at least a bit thankful to the west for giving him a safe place to live during those years.
I damn near wrote a book on the issue, but I had no idea how to publish it at the time (I was fresh out of High School).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
there are many new-liberals here (not liberal in the classical, US founder's sense, but liberal in the neo-modern sense
You mean liberal in the American sense. In other countries, the term hasn't been bastardised nearly as much.
OLPC Australia
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're right. It's not just about oil. It's about opening a new market. Walmart, Nike, and Tommy Hilfiger need a new market to push their wares.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
no kidding. this crazy. linux, natalie portman these are the important things in life. all this venom here is silly. i am hungry.
well maybe if the germans hadn't invaded half the planet there wouldn't be 16 bases there. same goes for iraq and the terrorists there.
sheesh its not really that complicated folks. but oh its all a big conspiracy to steal oil. hello! the US wants to BUY the oil. iraqis will be rich. the US will get their oil. everyone is happy except the far left who think money and oil (and therefore any sort of success or progress) are evil.
just go away
the american soldiers are dying to protect you're sorry ass and the entire world. i mean really? you are the side of the people beheading people in iraq? fuck you asshole.
I don't think the people that signed the above document considered it a logic problem, either - the government they fought against was illegitimate because it imposed on them without their consent, and so the government they instituted was one where the consent of the people was required to exist. Other messages on this thread indicate that we intend only to let such areas of Iraq vote in national elections as agree with us - that doesn't sound either like freedom from tyranny or "consent of the governed". It sounds more like tyranny - a better tyranny than Saddam provided, but tyranny nonetheless.
I don't think that the founding fathers would have tolerated violent enclaves of British sympathisers who continuously schemed and fought to return the entire country to foreign control, and to abolish the democratic republic which they had institited.
Agreed, and the same occured in the UK. As for all those Bushies replying that all intelligence agencies -even France's!- thought Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, just remember that the first country that would have said otherwise would have been labelled as a fool at best, or as a traitor. So no country came publicly to claim that Iraq had probably no credible WMDs, except Iraq itself...
Meanwhile, as the debates in the UN have proven, most countries were very skeptical and were relying on MM. Blix and El Baradei honesty and competence. They were right.
Unfortunately those two were bypassed and dismissed as too cautious or spineless...
I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
Ah yes, grammar nazi strikes deems all improperly formatted ideas invalid.
And you misspelled sentence.
*shrug*
If Bush loses the election, it is likely that investigations into his behaviour over Iraq and his handling of Allawi will be carried out by a less sympathetic collection of officials. This will undoubtedly uncover things that Mr. Bush does not want to see daylight.
:v)
Knowing this, Bush has four options:
1. Lose gracefully - I don't believe he is capable of this.
2. Destroy the evidence. Could be done, but this involves close personell. A "terrorist attack" might provide cover for it and lead to:
3. Cancel the elections due to terrorist activity.
4. Fix the elections, which is going to be hard as the Europeans are monitoring them.
5. Something else.
Vik
anonymous,
What are you talking about... "Ah, classic right wing tactic."
I will debunk his statement with the following: I searched for evidence that the poster did not provide and could find nothing. He made a blanket statement, with no proof, accusing a prime minister of being a CIA asset. Who is the person that should provide proof? It should be the accuser.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"... there are people in this world that request that the information they receive about important people and issues be based on something other than hearsay."
"Hearsay" is not someone saying "I saw this myself". Hearsay is someone saying, "I heard this, but wasn't there myself." For example, Sharon Bush said she herself saw George W. Bush using cocaine at Camp David. It's plausible; alcoholics use cocaine to lessen the negative effects of drunkenness. George W. Bush and his wife Laura Bush both have said publicly that he was a problem drinker, which is a polite phrase for alcoholic.
You cannot develop an accurate opinion by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Remember, the media exists to make money. Unfortunately, we don't have directly supported media, only ad supported media, and advertisers, understandably, are careful not to alienate anyone.
Read the reviews of 3 movies and 35 books yourself: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. Then read the books themselves. If you didn't read any of the books, you probably don't suspect the strength of the evidence.
The Bush administration is the most secretive in the history of the United States. There is an entire book written by a Rebublican that talks about the secrecy: Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. There are many situations in which there is information about obvious corruption that will probably never be fully understood because the secrecy is legal, especially after the Bush administration wrote new secrecy laws.
For example, video of George W. Bush's brother was shown on 20/20 last Friday night talking about his prostitutes and situations that obviously involve conflict of interest and misuse of government influence.
"Neil-sie", as their mother Barbara Bush calls him, is fully supported by her. He divorced his wife of 23 years and married a volunteer in Barbara Bush's office.
Read the transcript. What will you do when you hear of literally hundreds of situations like those in which the Bush family is able to hide the full truth, but something inappropriate and probably dishonest obviously happened?
This is an administration that cannot be re-elected, literally cannot be re-elected, unless a large number of people are convinced of the Bush family's Christian and moral and family values. Kerry will win if the voters know the truth. George W. Bush would never have been elected to anything if the voters had known the truth.
--
Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good.
As I predicted, he has already accused you of being a "sock puppet." Thanks for trying.
would be if the French (who helped us in our Revolutionary War) decided to choose our interim leaders and set conditions for elections of independent leaders but excluded those sections of the US from the elections that were opposed to them.
(The fights in Iraq now aren't to restore Saddam, since that is likely not possible, but either to eject the US and/or impose Islamic law on Iraq - the settlers in your analogy would not be fighting to restore the British, but either fighting to eject the French or fighting to welcome someone else - the Spanish perhaps?)
Our record on removing tyranny has been decidely mixed. Japan and Germany have been successes and independent of us, but much of Central (Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama) and South America (Chile) has been a playground for our interests for a long time. We helped to rectify that problem in Panama (and in Haiti), but that doesn't negate the fact that it was a problem we created. The Middle East has been a playground for lots of nations because of its oil - Iran and Iraq both have had a variety of "regime changes" facilitated by other nations without regard to the people who lived there, and a fair number of which the US participated in if not masterminded. It's not hard to see why people might not trust our motives (or our manipulation) as being well-intentioned and as being simply to remove Iraq from the arms of tyranny.
I'm sure this thread is stale and will never get answered but I will comment anyway
Very well said. With regards to this:
Kerry voted to go to Iraqi. it can't be said it's alright for Kerry to say he was mislead and not give the president the same creedance.
I and the 9-11 commission would disagree....
Can you be more specific on what specifically would disagree with you and the 9/11 commission?
I do agree that as far as ultimate goals for the Iraq war Bush and Kerry's positions are quite similar with the main impetus from Kerry being "I can do better." Consequently, I would point out the errors in judgement as found by the commission as well as current members of the administration's support of Sadam Hussein in the past (Ah Hem, Rumsfeld, chemical weapons, gassing of the Kurds and Iranian's anyone)
A lot of that is a matter of context...at the time, the Iraqi's and the Iranians were at war at the time. The Iranian's were responsible for the hostage in Beruit at that time. As such the US was more likely to deal with the Iraqi's then the Iranians.
and lack of ability to significantly cripple Osama's network in defense of this assumption.
Depends upon your definition ofcripple the network. They've taken out a large faction..regretfully due to buracracy failing to allow jobs to be created in the region more are replacing those that are taken out.
Than I would point out Bush's failure in domestic areas such as economy,
This is dependent upon your perspective. Bush started his administration in the light of an economic down turn at the tail end of the Clinton administration (including the Dot Com Bubble Bust) and when 9/11 occur, that added an additional 1 million people out of work. Relative to those perspectives, getting unemployment to the level it is is quite impressive.
Globalization is hurting some with outsourcing of jobs, but this is not as grave as many make it out to be. The alternative of course is to only have jobs locally while the rest of the world continues in poverty...which is better.
human rights,
Can you be specific?
If your concerned about the Patriot Act, see currently Supreme Court rulings about this.
Although it does not justify it, during times of war, military people do things which are terrible, but the alternative is to let the enemy do the same or worse things unhindered.. Shall we open our airports and let anyone drive a plane into any building they want? Maybe blow something up?
benefits cuts to soldiers,
I am not in favor of that, but then barring more taxes, how do you raise that and not add even more to the deficit which I'm sure everyone loves to point out.
tax breaks for the rich,
I'm not necessarily in favor of this either. If the rich reinvest that money back into businesses, then it's alright, but barring any additional oversite, it's hard to ensure that happens.
quelching of the very principle of capitalism our country's economy is based on with no bid/uncontested contracts awarded to Haliburton,
The shere size of such a contract can limit the number of business capable of doing such work for the military. In addition to that, you have to take into account the speed at which they need to have things done. The miltary needs to feed the troops immediately. Haliburton has provided these services in the past in such situations. Finding others that can do the same under the requirements is uncertain. Also as has been seen when all the required oversite starts being applied, then you get situations where you have plenty of money but they won't release the money until the take care of all the paperwork and bueracracy.
corporate welfare thinly veiled as an AID's relief package by writing in that no drugs can be generic,
I don't favor the lack of ability to have generics nor ruling out other countries
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
A lot of that is a matter of context...at the time, the Iraqi's and the Iranians were at war at the time.
It was a well known fact that the helicopters and poison gas given to Sadam were used to gas civilian populations including the Kurds. It is one of most significant human rights violations of our lifetimes. The Reagan administration (many members of whom are in Bush's admin including Rumsfeld) continued to supply and so tacitly condoned such violations. When it comes to gassing children there is no gray area, my friend.
but the alternative is to let the enemy do the same or worse things unhindered If you must become the enemy to beat the enemy, he's already won.
I am not in favor of that, but then barring more taxes, how do you raise that and not add even more to the deficit which I'm sure everyone loves to point out.
If you want to fight a war, you pay the soldiers. You should gladly accept a tax to accomplish this.....or oh wait, maybe you can just NOT give a tax break to the rich and use those funds....yeah, that's the ticket!
The shere size of such a contract can limit the number of business capable of doing such work for the military.
Limit perhaps, eliminate all but one....doubtful. Eliminate all but the company of the VP, curious. Eliminate to the point where bids are not even accepted....fraud.
but then the question is, how are you sure these drugs perform the same as the name brands which have gone through riggour testing to avoid possible law suites.
Not all generics are produced in some back cabin of a 3rd world country. Many are produced right in the good 'ole US of A. And how can you tell? It's called chemistry, yep you got it, you can call benzodiazapam Valium, but it's still the same thing. In fact, I would hope the gov would take a random sampling of any large order (generic or otherwise) to ensure that they are receiving at least the minimum standards.
As indicated above, to get the economy moving you have to spend money. . . .
Rhetoric. "To win the game, you have to play hard." and all that jive. I'm not an economist, I'm betting you aren't either. However, I can look at the president's fiscal policy and tell that keeping america's head above water was not its primary interest: refer to above points->tax breaks for rich, anti-competitive policies, and buying less of the same product for more. That's just bad business.
After 17 UN resolutions...still no one succeeded in getting anything accomplished in Iraq.
- Eliminated WMD's from Iraq.
- crippled Iraq Economy.
- Eliminated Iraq as a threat to the entire world (refer to 9-11 commision findings again)
Not really sure what else you were looking for.The case could be made their is a overlap between administrations where by what happened during the second was a result of actions during the previous or earlier administration.
Well as I pointed out earlier, the 9-11 commission found the Bush admin to be incompetant in several areas. They also uncovered several instances where the admin was previously warned of exactly the sort of attack that occured but dropped the ball.
Do you include Fox in that or are only left leaning biased new coverage allowed to be included in that list.
Actually I don't consider FOX much of a news station at all, more along the lines of a tv talk show, like Geraldo....oh wait.
Fred, if you're as tired of this ad hominem business as I am, then knock it off, and and I'll do likewise. If you'd care to discuss the the authorship of Allawi's speech, or any of the other subjects at hand, and can do so in a civil manner, then have at it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
But those who do are usually quite willing to sign their names to such, rather than hiding in anonymity.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
*Note, grandparent was intened as sarcasm, which is why I referred to those beacons of goodness (and current CIA assets) Islam "Boil Them Alive" Karimov and Momar "Wasn't He One of the Big Terrorists Under Reagan" Khadafi. (i.e. They are exactly like Hussein was when he was a CIA asset.)
Though I endorse any chance to link to that picture.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)