Guest BROWNer Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 the nigerian guy is probably bang on, ain't no excuse though. also, i'm fucking glad to shit ritter has been vindicated. when i saw him talk, he predicted everything that has happened. so many suckers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Æ° Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg'> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallix Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 hey motherfucker's lets not forget that the reason where in this war is to keep our FOSSIL FUEL ADDICTION supplied. Why Don't WE CREATE A NATIONAL STRATEGY TO REDUCE PETROLEUM CONSUMPTION? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 operative word: WE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekro Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Originally posted by Æ° http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg'> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effyoo Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 I just read an article in esquire magazine about how the US is spending billions of dollars on hiring civillian soliders to do alot of the dirty work: Never before in a war zone has the United States relied so much on private citizens to perform military functions. Security firms such as DynCorp and Kroll, retained on State Department and Pentagon contracts worth billions of dollars, have sent thousands of civilian contractors to do the work that the undermanned U. S. military can't. Here, for the first time, the inside story of the private armies of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Here's the link: http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.d...&item_id=366991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted March 3, 2004 Author Share Posted March 3, 2004 TPM: Just a thought on these horrific coordinated bombings today in Iraq. Americans have become numbed over the last eight months or so by the sheer regularity of the carnage from the various suicide bombing attacks in Iraq. The Ashura attacks today have been major news in the United States. But they haven't driven various other stories from the headlines. And I think it's easy to understate their significance. Just consider one crude measure. We don't know yet the exact death toll from these attacks. And it may be some time before we do. But the New York Times has an estimate tonight placing the number of dead at 170. Iraq has a population of just under 25 million. The United States is home to a tad over 290 million. In other words, there are well over ten times as many Americans as Iraqis. So, to get a feel for the impact of these attacks on the country, the number of people who lost loved ones, know others who did, and so forth, multiply that death toll by 11 or 12 times in order to get a feel for the number in American terms. A good ballpark point of comparison is what it would be like to have around 2000 people killed in one day in this country. And, of course, that's not that different from the 3000 who were killed here on September 11th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effyoo Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 http://www.siatlanta.com/forumpics/toreup.jpg'> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Originally posted by TheoHuxtable Hint: there was never a suicide bombing in Iraqi history, until after George W. Bush initiated the "regime change". Now there are currently more frequent and deadly suicide bombings in Iraq than any other country in the world (including Israel, which is currently pretty quiet on the suicide bombing note). Seeking was right. I'm not saying he's wrong, what I meant is that I'm not sure if that's the best way to look at the situation. And anyways, the more correct observation would be to specify that none of those people would have been killed in a suicide bombing. They could very well have been killed for other reasons under any oppressive regime, be it Saddam's, the US, etc. Although I know what seeking is saying, it kinda comes off as saying that these people would be better off under Saddam. Saddam had to go, period. What I dislike is the way the USA has carried it out, and the pretenses it claimed for carrying it out... now they've created a huge clusterfuck of a mess, and yes, for the time being, Iraq is worse off... only time will tell if it's gonna take a turn for the best in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TEARZ Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 bien hecho mamszki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAustin Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Originally posted by effyoo I just read an article in esquire magazine about how the US is spending billions of dollars on hiring civillian soliders to do alot of the dirty work: Never before in a war zone has the United States relied so much on private citizens to perform military functions. Security firms such as DynCorp and Kroll, retained on State Department and Pentagon contracts worth billions of dollars, have sent thousands of civilian contractors to do the work that the undermanned U. S. military can't. Here, for the first time, the inside story of the private armies of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Here's the link: http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.d...&item_id=366991 damn interesting article about life inside Iraq. definitely worth reading all 5 pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 nice one PMB, mams, i was saying that your average iraqi citizen DID have a better standard of living under saddam...they admit it themselves. atleast they had jobs, water, electricity and didn't have to worry that at any given moment, someone might just walk into their mosque and blow the whole effing place up. now none of that is to say that saddam was 'good', or that people were 'free' or anything like that, but your average citizen, the same ones who are being murdered for trying to join the police department, because they lost their jobs and cant afford to feed their families, are now living in sub-human conditions. saddam did need to be removed, but this was absolutely the wrong way to go about it. if we had let the UN do their job, none of this would have happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 I know, I agree, at the time being, they ARE worse off. But I have yet hope that in the end, at least some degree of stability is achieved such that the standards of living are substantially better than under Saddam. We all expected a period of crazyness, just not for so long and with such intensity. I think making such a comment is warranted in 5 years or so, after a new government has been installed and has been given time to excercise its function. If, by then, the situation is worse, then it is perfectly OK to say "If Saddam was still in power, then..." I just think it's not fair to make such a comparison this soon, when the intensity and sudden violence of the current situation is fresh in our minds, and seems to eclipse the slow, torturous dragging of the past regime. They're both equally terrible in their own way. And PMB, that article is the hotness. I shall pass it on forth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 not to anyone in particular> also, i hope no one forgets that 'life under saddam' was in relative terms, shit city for the most part, but that even though he was a scumbag, at one time he had iraq rocking shit. there is a tendency to completely disregard the guy's whole ouevre. now from there, we all know he made some serious errors from which people lay blame in all directions, right, wrong, whatever, and he killed thousands etcetry...you definitely do not want to defend the guy. that said, when you look at the media presentation, or the white house spin, the admin's rhetoric NEVER touches sanctions, which were much more harmful to iraqi's than saddam was. i think this should always be pointed out, even if your logic is that saddam brought it on himself and his people, therefore reference to it specifically is the same as the larger reference of his dictatorship. in ritter's analysis, the power set up benefitted sunni's..under that paradigm, saddam's dictatorship was pretty functional at keeping the tribal differences, in a civil sense, from ripping the country apart. i suppose an optimist could be commend team bush for finally ending the sanctions..anyhow.. i'm not trying to defend him here, i'm just sayin'... as far as where this is all going..i hate to be such a friggin' pessimist, but.. i think this war was a massively irresponsible move that will never be won..and if it is(the definition of 'win' will be interesting i'm sure), the telos will NOT be a democracy. i think people are really kidding themselves if they are hoping for some nice little outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 true all that. it's far easier to slip into lawlessness than it is to restore order. we basically took one of the more 'civilized' countries in the area, and reduced it to shambles. regardless of how much money saddam 'stole' from his people, iraq was never afghanistan...it was never a bombed out shell of a country. they were very modern, and even pretty 'western' by most standards. again, i'm not trying to defend saddam, but as browner said, we've had 15 years of 'saddam is the devil' slammed down our throats, so nothing that he did that was 'right' will ever be mentioned. finally, our sanctions killed more iraqi's than saddam did. our 'operation iraqi freedom' is killing more iraqi's than saddam did. i'm having serious issues accepting that the (possible) ends justify the means....especially when in the last 50 years, we have arguably NEVER left a country in better shape than when we 'aided' it. seeks/if im not making sense today, it's because i'm asleep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 I don't believe in any way that the outcome will be happiness and sunshine, but I can't hope for the opposite... I don't find a reason why not to wish for a good resolution for this mess. I know people who actually both believe and WANT the result to be a total fucking failure, just cause it'll give them a chance to dance, chant "I told you so!!", and have further reason and base to rant against the US. The whole thing from the beginning has been a huge fucking error... and for the most part I think that sanctions were a huge part of this error. However, soon enough down the line of alternative options you run into a dead end where you realize there's no easy way out. If Saddam has to go, or persuaded to change his way of government, how do you achieve this without affecting the population adversely? I have yet to hear very convincing solutions, at the bottom of the list of which are economic sanctions, which barely even make any sense to me. We can find positives in Saddam's rule, just as we can find them in any government, tyranic, democratic, communist, etc. I am very much aware of Saddam's role in bringing Iraq into prosperity. But does it justify or outweigh the negatives that came afterwards? I'm not gonna disregard his period of dopeness, but if, when averaged out, the whole thing still amounts to shit city... I might have not been against the war had it been at a later time, with enough time given to adequate planning for post-war rebuilding, more global agreement, and after the real immediate threats to the country had been taken care of (ie: NOT Saddam). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Originally posted by El Mamerro I know, I agree, at the time being, they ARE worse off. But I have yet hope that in the end, at least some degree of stability is achieved such that the standards of living are substantially better than under Saddam. We all expected a period of crazyness, just not for so long and with such intensity. I think making such a comment is warranted in 5 years or so, after a new government has been installed and has been given time to excercise its function. If, by then, the situation is worse, then it is perfectly OK to say "If Saddam was still in power, then..." I just think it's not fair to make such a comparison this soon, when the intensity and sudden violence of the current situation is fresh in our minds, and seems to eclipse the slow, torturous dragging of the past regime. They're both equally terrible in their own way. And PMB, that article is the hotness. I shall pass it on forth... This insurgency may seem long and it may seem like a "mess" but it's incredibly light by Vietnam standards. In Vietnam the U.S. was losing on average about 40 soldiers a day. In Iraq it seems to be about 1 or 2 a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted March 3, 2004 Author Share Posted March 3, 2004 Theo - I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that those one or two lives being lost daily are dying due to lies. Plus, the fact that you can compare a current situation to one that was much worse in the past doesn't take away from the high shit factor of the here and now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HESHIANDET Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 aren't you people out of breath yet? yawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S@T@N Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 I've been gone for a month, and I come back to one of the most relevant and enlightening discussions of our situation in Iraq that I've heard in a very long time, and I'm only half through. Thanks guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 death toll rises to 271; the u.s. places blame... http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39910000/jpg/_39910685_203i_zarqawi_ap.jpg'> Zarqawi blamed for Iraq massacre Shias blame the US for failing to protect them The US says it has evidence linking a Jordanian-born al-Qaeda suspect to Tuesday's devastating attacks in Iraq which killed up to 271 people. The American commander in Iraq, Gen John Abizaid, hardened the US line on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in testimony to Congress in Washington. A letter purporting to be from al-Qaeda has denied any involvement. The blasts on Tuesday came at the climax of a Shia festival and marked Iraq's bloodiest day since the war. Three days of national mourning are being observed in Iraq where thousands of people have taken part in the first funerals. Fifteen people were arrested in Karbala after the blasts, including five people believed to be Iranians. Top US administrator for Iraq Paul Bremer blamed infiltrators for the attack and said new measures would be taken to increase security on Iraq's borders. Zarqawi role One day after the attacks, the death toll rose sharply, although there is a discrepancy between figures given by Iraqis and US officials. The level of organisation and the desire to cause casualties among innocent worshippers is a clear hallmark of the Zarqawi network "The number of martyrs from the two cities as of this afternoon is 271," Iraqi Governing Council President Mohammed Bahr al-Uloum told a news conference in Baghdad on Wednesday. US officials earlier said 117 had died. "We have clear intelligence that ties Zarqawi to this attack," Gen John Abizaid told the House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee. The head of the US Central Command did not give any details of the role in the attacks by the Jordanian-born suspect. "The level of organisation and the desire to cause casualties among innocent worshippers is a clear hallmark of the Zarqawi network," Gen Abizaid said. "We also have intelligence that shows there are some linkages between Zarqawi and former regime elements, particularly the Iraqi intelligence services," he added. US officials say a letter from Mr Zarqawi urging attacks on Shia Muslims was intercepted last month. In London, journalists at the al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, which received a letter signed by a group said to be linked to al-Qaeda - the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades - said they believed the document, denying responsibility, was genuine. Tens of thousands of people turned out in Baghdad and Karbala to bury the dead. Chanting "God is greatest", the Karbala mourners carried aloft the coffins draped with palm leaves and Iraqi flags. A top Shia cleric, Ayatollah al-Sistani, criticised the US for inadequately securing the country's borders from foreign attackers. A US official said terrorists were believed to have crossed into Iraq with Iranian pilgrims planning to celebrate Ashura - a commemoration of the death of Imam Hussein in 680. MAJOR ATTACKS SINCE 1 MAY 2 Mar 2004: Up to 271 Shias killed in Baghdad and Karbala during the Ashura religious festival 1 Feb 2004: At least 101 killed by twin suicide bombings during celebrations in Kurdish city of Irbil 18 Jan 2004: 18 reported killed outside coalition HQ, Baghdad 14 Dec 2003: Car bomb at police station kills 17 in Khalidiya, west of Baghdad 12 Nov: 26 die in suicide attack on Italian base in Nasiriya 2 Nov: 16 US soldiers die as Chinook helicopter downed 27 Oct: Red Cross and other buildings in Baghdad bombed, more than 30 killed 29 Aug: Mosque near Najaf bombed, at least 80 dead including top Shia cleric 19 Aug: UN headquarters in Baghdad bombed, 23 killed including head of mission List covers attacks since US declared war effectively over "Bush said the aim of this was is to make the world safer, well surely it did not make it safe for us Iraqis" Dia, Baghdad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Metallix has a great idea Actually, it's the only reasonable solution. We Americans are addicted to the ease and convenience of owning our own cars. The proliferation of the automobile has had a terrible effect on every society which has introduced them, but it is just so cool to be able to go where you want, when you want, and in relative safety and privacy, that just about everybody who can afford a car owns one, or at least wants to own one. There are a lot of downsides to car ownership, of course. One of the worst things is that we have let public transportation become marginalized, and in the case of the bus and trolley and streetcar companies (like the Red Cars in Los Angeles) after WWII, we let GMC corporation buy them all up. Then, of course, they took them out of service and replaced them with uncomfortable, nasty, stinky GMC diesel buses that were more profitable for GMC but less satisfactory for the rest of us. In collusion with the petroleum companies, they then pushed the idea that everybody needed a car, in the late 1940's and during the 1950's. We have nobody to blame but ourselves (well, our grandparents, maybe.) This situation is not irreversible. STEP ONE: If you own a car, stop using it. If you don't own a car, don't buy one. STEP TWO: Start using public transportation or ride a bicycle. Don't use anything with an internal combustion engine. STEP THREE: Move as close to where you work as you can, so you won't have as far to commute. Better yet, start your own business in your home, so you can just stay home and work in your pajamas. Do I do any of this shit? Of course not. But if enough OTHER people do so, maybe if some of these assholes will GET OFF THE GOD DAMNED FREEWAY, I will be able to drive around without getting stuck in traffic and driving will be fun again, like in 1965, when we had eight lanes of EMPTY FREEWAY to drive around on. People used to say, about the Gulf Freeway in Houston, "What in the world will we ever use all those empty lanes for? It was a waste of money!" Today, it's eight lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic crawling through the smog. There are more than twice as many people now than when I was born. In one generation, we DOUBLED the population of the world. So, you guys not only need to stop driving, you need to stop fucking too. Then everything will be wonderful, there will be no pollution, the fish will return to the oceans, the snail-darters won't be endangered any more, the Iraqis will be peaceful and enlightened, the suicide bombers will stop blowing themselves up, and I can go ride freight trains and be a happy old fart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effyoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 you forgot to include the sarcasm part, Kabar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Re: Metallix has a great idea What about electric or hydro-electric cars? Aren't they supposed to be taking over? Eventually something will have to, because if I recall correctly the world's oil reserves are supposed to be fully used up before the end of this century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 Re: Metallix has a great idea Originally posted by KaBar2 Do I do any of this shit? Of course not. But if enough OTHER people do so, maybe if some of these assholes will GET OFF THE GOD DAMNED FREEWAY, I will be able to drive around without getting stuck in traffic ... I assume you're being sarcastic ... but if not, that sentence pretty much sums up the US's approach towards public transportation - "Why can't people ride the bus so I can have more room to drive my car?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I = 1 less car i gave up my car after someone totaled it...(he ran a red light and t-boned me) i just never got another one. now i ride a bike. this is not a new idea. but a perfect illustration of why i don't think i should keep on living in this country... no one cares, no one does anything themselves. america is spoiled rotten. http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/03122215011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/7220000/7227429.jpg'> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAustin Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Re: I = 1 less car Originally posted by !@#$% now i ride a bike. you're not the only one. while I still have my car and the speed addiction that goes along with it, I ride my bike all over the place. I neglected my car for so long that when I started it up...it was blowing a little white smoke from sitting so long. I try and ride to work and do my grocery shopping as often as possible on the bike. I've even managed to get a few of my dates to drive when going out...testing the waters on the no car bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallix Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 well abandoning cars might be the wrong idea. cars give great benefit to society. just the fuel and engine type should be modified. there is no reason we should be accelerating global warming (and global catastrophe now.) i suppose the only way society en mass will convert to alternate energy fuels will be once the fossil fuels actually do run out. which is slated for 2020 peak global oil production.. perhaps more dollars and cents should be contributed towards developing viable alternate energies? what if the entire $400 billion spent on our war budget was re-directed towards developing a hydrogen economy? hmm MAKES YOU WONDER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by metallix perhaps more dollars and cents should be contributed towards developing viable alternate energies? what if the entire $400 billion spent on our war budget was re-directed towards developing a hydrogen economy? hmm MAKES YOU WONDER. How Hydrogen can Save America A 5-point plan to develop reasonable infrastructure for hydrogen by 2013, with $100 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 i wish someone would invent a car that ran on 'love'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.