Just squeaking in under the wire, the recent Star Chamber, a 4X/board/card game for the PC, is one of the more unique releases this year. Furthermore, it's a free, and has free online play with ladder rankings. (The card booster packs are what costs you).
So go to their web site and check it out. There is no excuse not to. Or at least read this glowing review from Gamespot.
Basically, the current US administration wants to hurt, as badly as is conveniently possible, and as often as is conveniently possible, any county that does not cooperate fully with the whims of the US government. Regardless of the convictions and ideals of the populace or the government.
No it's not just military plans. They have the intention to actually invade those countries.
Well, we'll just have to see then, won't we?
The Saudi government wanted to get those Wahhabists off there back. No doubt that paying them to back off is a bad policy but that sure doesn't mean that they're friends with them. Bad policy? Yes. Bad leadership? Yes. Is the house of Saud our enemy? No, but they've been loosing there grip on power during the last decade.
An excellent summary of the Saudi situation.
As for the sept. 11th hijackers, most of them came from a region in Saudi Arabia who's supportive of Ben Laden but Saudi Arabia censors people from expressing there support and doesn't even make an attempt at dialogue until recently. Hiding the truth isn't exactly a good solution.
Like I said, recent events have motivated the house of Saud to start dealing with their Wahhabi problem. I'd guess that its a combination of American pressure and actual fear of revolution.
My relatives left Iraq during the invasion, they no longer have a country. If they where happy to live under occupation they would've stayed.
Of course now that they're there they're supposed to stay for a little while. I didn't support the war and yet I think that they shouldn't leave just yet. You failed to mention that even though most Iraqis don't want the US to leave immediately, a majority of them want the US to leave within a year. The majority of Iraqis also believe that the US hurts Iraq.
Firstly, you didn't elaborate on why your family left Iraq. Perhaps they simply didn't feel safe? There was a war going on, you know.
Secondly, good job at not getting your theres and they'res mixed up. I'm not patronizing you, I just hate when people get those mixed up.
And Thirdly, I'm not sure of the source of your final statement. I'd advise you to look at where that poll was conducted, by whom, when, and how the questions were phrased. There are many pitfalls in public polling.
I'm beginning to suspect that you've never lived in a country that's been occupied.
Read Wesley Clark's book, they have plans to invade those countries. Wether pressure works or not doesn't really matter, Bush will tell you that it didn't work.
Oh, you mean military plans? Of course, we have war plans drawn up for everyone. Standard procedure. We have plans for England, Canada, France, Australia, etc.
The Saudis have no choice but to do those elections not to mention that that's what they said they'd do if the US leaves there country. And they
always cracked down on terrorists in their borders.
Does "always" include before Sept 11th, when a crew of mostly Saudi Arabians hijacked a bunch of planes? The Saudi government was ignoring and/or supporting Wahhabism for years, and it's only recently come back to bite them.
Obviously you're not an Iraqi so it's hard for you to give a damn wether or not they're occupied. No it doesn't lead to no more occupation, US puppets will be in power.
I don't know which Iraqis you're talking about, but most of the ones I've heard are glad that the U.S. came in and ousted Saddam. Furthermore, most are willing to work with us for a better future in Iraq.
Let me repeat that, a minority want the coalition forces to leave immediately. Tell me, what kind of "occupation" is it when the "occupiers" are welcomed by the majority of the population? (Hint: It's a ten letter word beginning with an "L")
So why exactly is Bush planning to invade Syria and 5 other countries?
Hm? Bush is certainly pressuring five other countries, but invasion is far from definite. And, by all accounts, the pressure is working.
Just yesterday Iran decided to give inspectors full access to their nuclear facilities. They also continue to have problems with their pro-democracy movement.
The Syrians are having elections, though are still being pushed about their terrorist activities.
Pakistan's leader is coming around (especially after that attempt on his life by Al-Qaeda).
The Saudis have promised some elections, and are starting to crack down on the terrorists in their borders.
North Korea is an especially tough nut to crack, but it looks like a deal might be made.
Can I assume those are the five countries you're talking about?
My original question was : Do you think money is gonna take away the fact that they're under occupation?
And my original answer was Yes. Strong Infrastructure leads to Stable Government leads to No More Occupation.
Or do you think the people will be happy with sketchy electicity, bad water, and wrecked roads?
A very deft attempt to change the subject, but it won't work. I'm merely talking about the (re)building of a country we've invaded, not about the original justifications.
As for those, let me just point out that the finishing of the Gulf War (never ended, dontchaknow) has been a long time coming. It almost happened in 1998, for instance, for all the same reasons that it happened this spring. Might I suggest you do a little research, or at least do a search on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
What, do you deny my little factoid about the Marsh Arabs? Don't believe Dubya and Rumsfeld? How about the Human Rights Watch, you dick:
Starting shortly after the end of the Gulf war in 1991, Marsh Arabs have been singled out for even more direct assault: mass arrests, enforced "disappearances," torture, and execution of political opponents have been accompanied by ecologically catastrophic drainage of the marshlands and the large-scale and systematic forcible transfer of part of the local population.
You think money is gonna take away the fact that they're occupied?
Do I think a rebuilt infrastructure will help them? Yes, when coupled with a revitalized economy and a shiny new democratic government. Our monetary investment is vital for their future governmental stability.
Not only will you see that the news is generally favorable (and this was before the killing/capture of Saddam and sons), but the result you're quoting is from the question: "Will they [the US] help or hurt Iraq over the next five years?"
And that was a loaded question anyway, as it implies that the US would still be in full-occupation mode five years from now.
Or you can check it this one, who actually represents what most of the Iraqis feel.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Oh, I'd take everything she says with a grain of salt, if I were you. It is quite obvious that she and her family lived quite well under the old regime, and her opinions differ dramatically from those of the other ten or so Iraqi bloggers I've seen.
I wouldn't even hesitate to say that she preferred Saddam to be in power. She had no reaction to his capture, and actually complained when they showed the bodies of Uday and Qusay. The whole nation was shouting to see the bodies, and she complained! Even snarky old Salam Pax disagrees with her.
The best Iraqi blog out there right now has to be Healing Iraq. Nicely written, frequently updated, and very informative. Not that you should limit yourself to one source, mind you.
The people of Southern Iraq are sometimes known as "Marsh Arabs" Because of the flood plains of the rivers.
I think the parent post was referring to how Saddam Hussein drained the marshes by diverting the water -- in order to starve the "Marsh Arabs" out of their livelihood. They're being refilled now, though.
What more do you want? Iraq had WMD's, that's not in dispute. They have been destroyed. Like you yourtself said: "because the killer has had ample time (months) to hide or destroy it.".
And then the investigators reported his compliance, all the resolutions were absolved, the sanctions on Iraq were lifted, and the tenuous (broken) cease-fire turned into an official peace treaty.
Right? I mean, if you're going to revise history, you might as well go all the way. Otherwise people might start asking why all those things I listed didn't happen.
Hey hey, I found a document proving the existence of WMD -- turns out they declared them to the UN! And that they had the ability to manufacture more! Check it out:
Anthrax, Botulinum, VX... Totally awesome, eh? Better yet, the agents and methods of production were never accounted for. I'm going to contact this contest guy right now. That trophy is as good as mine.
First, the people in Camp X-Ray are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
Says who? GWB?
Says everybody. No soldiers there, just terrorists. That is, foreign criminals unassociated with a specific government. Geneva convention only covers actual soldiers.
No. If you did, then wouldn't FInland (for example) have the right to invade USA and seize GWB while we look for evidence about US's WMD's?
Yep, totally agree. We couldn't have detained Saddam and his government while we searched for WMDs. So, we used intelligence agencies and broken resolutions as our evidence. Kind of like investigating a domestic murder when the killer won't let you in to inspect his house.
To continue the analogy, we then tapped his phones, spied through the windows, and after several demands to be let in peacefully, broke down the door and invaded. And naturally its hard to find the murder weapon now, because the killer has had ample time (months) to hide or destroy it.
1) another terrorist attack would get people to rally around him. Ever wonder why there has been no followup to 9/11? They're afraid it'd bolster W's stance.
2) Maybe Osama still being at large gives a good scare-factor, though. Can't really tell.
3) Any "embarrassing" secrets about the U.S. are already out in the open. All he could tell us now is what happened after 1991 or so.
4) more insurgents would be bad, I'll give you that. Though your analysis of the "Mission Accomplished" speech is a little shallow.
5) North Korea... what? What about them? War? That would help Dubya's re-election chances, but I think we'd have more pressing matters to think about.
6) Yep, economic downturn would be bad.
7) You forgot about the finding-WMD issue. The final report of the Iraq Survey Group should help put that to rest, though.
First, the people in Camp X-Ray are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
Second, as for Iraq, a country is not the same as a person. Your analogy falls apart under closer inspection. In most criminal cases, the defendant is not able to conceal or tamper with evidence, since he or she is put into holding while that happens, or kept away from the crime scene while the investigation takes place.
Should we have arrested and detained Saddam and his regime while we searched his country for WMD and terrorist links?
That is simply the paranoid mode of thought which leads to unilateralism. It's ridiculous.
I might agree with you, but what about those "war crimes" charges filed in Sweden against that tank crew that accidently shot the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad? (You know, the one where all the journalists were staying.)
Are we supposed to belive the USA is somehow unique? It is in quite a unique position, actually. It is also very much hated around the world, ever since the end of the Cold War.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, not "Best", but "Best Original". Unless you think a WWII-based FPS is something new.
Just squeaking in under the wire, the recent Star Chamber, a 4X/board/card game for the PC, is one of the more unique releases this year. Furthermore, it's a free, and has free online play with ladder rankings. (The card booster packs are what costs you).
So go to their web site and check it out. There is no excuse not to. Or at least read this glowing review from Gamespot.
In Metal Gear Solid 3? Knowing Hideo Kojima, it's probably "Trot off into the jungle and learn to write poetry."
Perhaps. But, arguably, they started it.
Well, we'll just have to see then, won't we?
An excellent summary of the Saudi situation.
Like I said, recent events have motivated the house of Saud to start dealing with their Wahhabi problem. I'd guess that its a combination of American pressure and actual fear of revolution.
Firstly, you didn't elaborate on why your family left Iraq. Perhaps they simply didn't feel safe? There was a war going on, you know.
Secondly, good job at not getting your theres and they'res mixed up. I'm not patronizing you, I just hate when people get those mixed up.
And Thirdly, I'm not sure of the source of your final statement. I'd advise you to look at where that poll was conducted, by whom, when, and how the questions were phrased. There are many pitfalls in public polling.
I'm beginning to suspect that you've never lived in a country that's been occupied.
Oh, you mean military plans? Of course, we have war plans drawn up for everyone. Standard procedure. We have plans for England, Canada, France, Australia, etc.
Does "always" include before Sept 11th, when a crew of mostly Saudi Arabians hijacked a bunch of planes? The Saudi government was ignoring and/or supporting Wahhabism for years, and it's only recently come back to bite them.
I don't know which Iraqis you're talking about, but most of the ones I've heard are glad that the U.S. came in and ousted Saddam. Furthermore, most are willing to work with us for a better future in Iraq.
Let me repeat that, a minority want the coalition forces to leave immediately. Tell me, what kind of "occupation" is it when the "occupiers" are welcomed by the majority of the population? (Hint: It's a ten letter word beginning with an "L")
Hm? Bush is certainly pressuring five other countries, but invasion is far from definite. And, by all accounts, the pressure is working.
Just yesterday Iran decided to give inspectors full access to their nuclear facilities. They also continue to have problems with their pro-democracy movement.
The Syrians are having elections, though are still being pushed about their terrorist activities.
Pakistan's leader is coming around (especially after that attempt on his life by Al-Qaeda).
The Saudis have promised some elections, and are starting to crack down on the terrorists in their borders.
North Korea is an especially tough nut to crack, but it looks like a deal might be made.
Can I assume those are the five countries you're talking about?
And my original answer was Yes. Strong Infrastructure leads to Stable Government leads to No More Occupation.
Or do you think the people will be happy with sketchy electicity, bad water, and wrecked roads?
You know, I probably shouldn't say this in public, but I played through that game [Platoon for NES]. But... I've never seen the movie.
Ah well. Feels good to get that off my chest.
Okay, whatever.
This was your original question? I'll answer.
Yes, I would be against it. Unless the Syrian government did something drastic, we have yet to exhaust all diplomatic options with them.
Saddam, on the other hand, blew all his last chances well before GWB was president. (In my long-standing and humble opinion.)
Wait, all of a sudden, I don't want GTA anymore at all.
My god, you don't have any of the GTA games yet? Where do you live, the moon?
A very deft attempt to change the subject, but it won't work. I'm merely talking about the (re)building of a country we've invaded, not about the original justifications.
As for those, let me just point out that the finishing of the Gulf War (never ended, dontchaknow) has been a long time coming. It almost happened in 1998, for instance, for all the same reasons that it happened this spring. Might I suggest you do a little research, or at least do a search on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
And here is a nice CBS story on recent developments in the marshlands.
Google before posting, so next time you don't look so foolish.
You think money is gonna take away the fact that they're occupied?
Do I think a rebuilt infrastructure will help them? Yes, when coupled with a revitalized economy and a shiny new democratic government. Our monetary investment is vital for their future governmental stability.
Don't worry. Think of how unstoppable Iraq will be once you master Paragraph technology. :-)
See the real results of that survey here.
Not only will you see that the news is generally favorable (and this was before the killing/capture of Saddam and sons), but the result you're quoting is from the question: "Will they [the US] help or hurt Iraq over the next five years?"
And that was a loaded question anyway, as it implies that the US would still be in full-occupation mode five years from now.
Oh, I'd take everything she says with a grain of salt, if I were you. It is quite obvious that she and her family lived quite well under the old regime, and her opinions differ dramatically from those of the other ten or so Iraqi bloggers I've seen.
I wouldn't even hesitate to say that she preferred Saddam to be in power. She had no reaction to his capture, and actually complained when they showed the bodies of Uday and Qusay. The whole nation was shouting to see the bodies, and she complained! Even snarky old Salam Pax disagrees with her.
The best Iraqi blog out there right now has to be Healing Iraq. Nicely written, frequently updated, and very informative. Not that you should limit yourself to one source, mind you.
The people of Southern Iraq are sometimes known as "Marsh Arabs" Because of the flood plains of the rivers.
I think the parent post was referring to how Saddam Hussein drained the marshes by diverting the water -- in order to starve the "Marsh Arabs" out of their livelihood. They're being refilled now, though.
You're forgetting your history. Think, what world-wide event could have bolstered the Zionist case among the Jews? That's right, WORLD WAR 2!
That you would pass over such a huge event puts a shadow of doubt over your entire summary.
And then the investigators reported his compliance, all the resolutions were absolved, the sanctions on Iraq were lifted, and the tenuous (broken) cease-fire turned into an official peace treaty.
Right? I mean, if you're going to revise history, you might as well go all the way. Otherwise people might start asking why all those things I listed didn't happen.
Hey hey, I found a document proving the existence of WMD -- turns out they declared them to the UN! And that they had the ability to manufacture more! Check it out:
. pdf
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18130
Anthrax, Botulinum, VX... Totally awesome, eh? Better yet, the agents and methods of production were never accounted for. I'm going to contact this contest guy right now. That trophy is as good as mine.
Says everybody. No soldiers there, just terrorists. That is, foreign criminals unassociated with a specific government. Geneva convention only covers actual soldiers.
Yep, totally agree. We couldn't have detained Saddam and his government while we searched for WMDs. So, we used intelligence agencies and broken resolutions as our evidence. Kind of like investigating a domestic murder when the killer won't let you in to inspect his house.
To continue the analogy, we then tapped his phones, spied through the windows, and after several demands to be let in peacefully, broke down the door and invaded. And naturally its hard to find the murder weapon now, because the killer has had ample time (months) to hide or destroy it.
Sounds pefectly resonable to me.
I'm sure if he buried himself under 50 feet of sand we'd never find him either.
:-)
Let's find out. Scavanger hunt!
1) another terrorist attack would get people to rally around him. Ever wonder why there has been no followup to 9/11? They're afraid it'd bolster W's stance.
2) Maybe Osama still being at large gives a good scare-factor, though. Can't really tell.
3) Any "embarrassing" secrets about the U.S. are already out in the open. All he could tell us now is what happened after 1991 or so.
4) more insurgents would be bad, I'll give you that. Though your analysis of the "Mission Accomplished" speech is a little shallow.
5) North Korea... what? What about them? War? That would help Dubya's re-election chances, but I think we'd have more pressing matters to think about.
6) Yep, economic downturn would be bad.
7) You forgot about the finding-WMD issue. The final report of the Iraq Survey Group should help put that to rest, though.
First, the people in Camp X-Ray are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
Second, as for Iraq, a country is not the same as a person. Your analogy falls apart under closer inspection. In most criminal cases, the defendant is not able to conceal or tamper with evidence, since he or she is put into holding while that happens, or kept away from the crime scene while the investigation takes place.
Should we have arrested and detained Saddam and his regime while we searched his country for WMD and terrorist links?
That is simply the paranoid mode of thought which leads to unilateralism. It's ridiculous.
I might agree with you, but what about those "war crimes" charges filed in Sweden against that tank crew that accidently shot the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad? (You know, the one where all the journalists were staying.)
Are we supposed to belive the USA is somehow unique?
It is in quite a unique position, actually. It is also very much hated around the world, ever since the end of the Cold War.