Time Capsule News Collage No. 1
 

• SAN ANTONIO, Texas (March 30) - An emotional former President George H.W. Bush on Tuesday defended his son's Iraq war and lashed out at White House critics.

• FALLUJAH, Iraq (March 31) - A vengeful crowd of cheering Iraqis dragged the burned and mutilated bodies of four American contractors through the streets of Fallujah Wednesday after killing them in a vehicle ambush.

• It is "deeply offensive and contemptible" to hear "elites and intellectuals on the campaign trail" dismiss progress in Iraq since last year's overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the elder Bush said in a speech to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association annual convention.

"There is something ignorant in the way they dismiss the overthrow of a brutal dictator and the sowing of the seeds of basic human freedom in that troubled part of the world," he said.

• Some had predicted that after Saddam's capture Dec. 13, the insurgency would lose momentum and security for Iraqis and U.S. troops would improve. Instead the killing has continued at roughly a constant pace, and attacks against Iraqi civilians have increased.

• The former president appeared to fight back tears as he complained about media coverage of the younger Bush that he called "something short of fair and balanced."

• BAGHDAD (March 31) - Thousands of Iraqi protesters blocked streets in central Baghdad for hours on Wednesday, demanding the reopening of a newspaper U.S. authorities shut down for what they called incitement to violence.

• Associated Press Television News pictures showed one man beating a charred corpse with a metal pole. Others tied a yellow rope to a body, hooked it to a car and dragged it down the main street of town. Two blackened and mangled corpses were hung from a green iron bridge across the Euphrates.

• "It hurts an awful lot more when it's your son that is being criticized than when they used to get all over my case," said Bush, who has often complained about media coverage of both Bush presidencies.

• "We denounce the occupation and its methods," cleric Sheikh Tahsin al-Itabi said. "They claim to represent freedom -- stopping a newspaper is against freedom..."

• Though none of the alleged weapons of mass destruction have been found, the Bush administration says progress toward a stable democracy is being made.

• In all, at least 597 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the war began March 20, 2003. Of the total, 459 have died since May 1 when Bush flew onto an aircraft carrier off the California coast to declare the end of major combat.

• The former president, who waged the first Gulf War against Saddam in 1991, described progress in Iraq as "a miracle."

• A man held a printed sign with a skull and crossbones and the phrase ''Fallujah is the cemetery for Americans'' beneath the blackened corpses after they were pulled from the vehicles.

• More than a hundred of Sadr's supporters protesting on Wednesday wore black shirts with Mehdi Army written on them. Four clerics went inside the fortified U.S. compound to meet the Iraqi Governing Council. "If they don't listen to us, I'm ready to go inside without weapons and fight to the death," protester Ali Yasseri said.

• "Iraq is moving forward in hope and not sliding back into despair and terrorism," the senior Bush said.

• ''This is the fate of all Americans who come to Falluja,'' said Mohammad Nafik, one of the crowd surrounding the bodies.

Some body parts were pulled off and left hanging from a telephone cable, while two incinerated bodies were later strung from a bridge and left dangling there.

"they'll welcome us with open nooses."

- js.

:sus: its all about hearts and minds..:er:

"It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog," Rumsfeld wrote.
- October 16, 2003

136k

Think the title should read "Propaganda Capsule News Collage No. 1", RAS, some Iraqi's, some News Media and others are just trying to sway the hearts and minds of Americans, to get the masses wanting the troops pulled from Iraq. It is to bad some need to glorify it with pictures and video. (some media). Alot like John Kerry did with his Anti-soliders and Military campaign's in the 70's.

IRAQ: How to Clean Up Fallujah


April 2, 2004: The original plan was to let the Iraqi police "clean up" places like Fallujah. This is a Sunni Arab town full of people with blood on their hands. Fallujah was long a prime recruiting ground for the secret police and Republican Guard. Saddam was good to Fallujah, and the thugs of Fallujah were merciless against Saddam's enemies. But Saddam's enemies are the majority of the Iraqi population and soon that majority will be electing a government. This government would send as many police and soldiers to Fallujah as is needed to round up and punish all the guilty. Unfortunately, the way things work in the Middle East, this could easily leave Fallujah a pile of smoking rubble, and most of the population dead or fled. The Arab world would have had to deal with it. Arabs killing Arabs is nothing new, in fact it's quite normal in the Middle East, a land of tyrants, torture chambers and secret police.

However, coalition trainers hoped to have convinced the new Iraqi police to go in Fallujah and smoke out the guilty hordes more precisely and with less bloodshed. Flood Fallujah with Iraqi police and soldiers and go house to house looking for weapons and known, and suspected, criminals. Most of Saddam's thugs operated quite openly. People knew the names. They still know the names. Next year, the Iraqi police could arrest the names, put them on trial, convict them for crimes against humanity and imprison or execute them. This is why the people of Fallujah are so eager to kill outsiders. It's not just a habit they can't shake, it's a defensive mechanism. Eventually, someone is going to come to Fallujah to look for Saddam's thugs, and the thugs know it.

But killing four Americans, and mutilating and displaying the bodies, and doing it joyfully in front of cameras, would have pleased Saddam, and brought rewards to Fallujah. But now it will bring the marines, and the marines are not as good as Iraqi police at telling the good from the bad in Fallujah.



Any Iraqi civilian with a gun will be quickly killed. The most likely plan is to assemble a force of Iraqi police to go in with the marines and quickly interrogate the people of Fallujah and try and find the gunmen before marine bullets do. The police will also spread the word that the marines will keep fighting, and killings Iraqis, until the Iraqi police are told where the killers are and can arrest the bad guys.

All this could get ugly, especially if most of the police brought in are not Sunni Arabs. Using Shia and Kurdish police means you have Iraqi cops with guns, and mental images of much worse atrocities than four dead Americans. But one way or another, Fallujah will "get cleaned up." Actually, most people in Fallujah want it that way. Not everyone in Fallujah supported Saddam, but a large minority did. The rest went along. You don't argue with guys who have short tempers and large guns. The majority is also more likely to identify the guilty if there is some assurance that all, or most of the thugs, are going down quickly. The thugs of Fallujah are still intimidating Iraqis, but for the past year they have only been doing it to the good people of Fallujah. Talk to the Americans and you die. The Sunni Arab police died by the dozens at the hands of these thugs. But if enough police and marines come in and stay long enough, people will talk. What is uncertain at the moment is how much and how long is enough. We're going to find out in the next few weeks.

Tao Te Ching, chapter 36
 

Yeah I guess it'd be better if we were just kept in the dark about it.

It's funny that when the videos are of us killing Iraqis, you think it's "AWESOME."

from Appache killing video


I guess you might prefer that the media only show us killing the enemy and purge all images of the enemy killing us. It would certainly be good PR for the war effort, but one can't help notice that while you whine about the reportage of actual events in Fallujah being "propaganda," you'd seem to prefer your own brand. I won't call this ironic since I realize the supposed ultimate practicality of such an approach.

This in fact cuts to very intention of my post, simply an observation of how truly ironic it is that the president's dad gives "glorified" lip service to sonny-boy while the facts of what's really going on in Iraq shoot completely over his head in technicolor real time. How we love self-congratulatory assurances being lathered on the American public (at a petrochemical organization function, no less) about the certain success of their 'miraculous' reshaping of Iraq from within--when it's almost exactly a year to the day that Little Lord Bushleroy declared "major combat over" and this last month was the second deadliest since the beginning of the war. Roll it all up in a package of framing anyone who discusses reality being "ignorant elites on the campaign trail" and the irony is truly fucking mind-searing.

It didn't make me "giddy," as span suggested, and I found it far from funny. I didn't see juxtaposing these events from my "high horse" as a particularly stellar intellectual feat as they were already there in the bald reportage that spilled across my monitor on a given day. It was done without comment as I was pretty certain the contrasts would jar any sentient being.

Of course it didn't seem to work any particular magic on span, because apparently he felt that a 6 month old understatement by Rumsfeld somehow smoothed over the ragged edges of the data and made it all just perfectly palatable.

I find myself in the position of having to constantly lubricate all discourse in order to insert the seemingly unthinkable idea that when a politician starts a war, stakes his image on it and clings to it for dear life through a campaign season, he and everyone around him develop a greater and greater tendency to talk out their asses about it. In fact, the more the actual effort may falter or prove difficult, the more gas gets expelled, until eventually the official noise bears no resemblance to reality at all. I'm not comparing this war itself to Vietnam, but the homefront attitudes look and behave exactly as they did in that war--and this in itself is a war of information.

Of course I don't expect Georgie Senior to lament about the astoundingly low morale and startingly high suicide rates among troops over the summer, or to break down and freak out about how glaring the pure hatred of the occupation is among many Iraqis, or talk about a stressed American military or the possibility of needing to reinstate the draft, or even to amplify Rummy's little warnings. He can "nearly cry" while talking about how he was mistreated by the liberal press, but I don't expect him to weep from the podium about how many future lives this war will cost.

None of this would be good PR. Got to keep the public psyched, gotta talk loud and fast to cover the sound of the meat grinders.

The real war against terror will become more and more a war of information, just like Vietnam did, and you gotta hand it to Old King George for knowing this good and well, which is precisely why he bitches about and wishes he could discredit the press. The administration is at war with tiny pockets of almost infallible remote media events which are designed by master craftsmen of terror. These guys can work very effectively and almost indefinitely with a handful of nothing and cut through layers and layers of media filters like butter.

You don't have to drag charred American bodies through the streets on any massive scale to achieve the psychological aim in your target audience, which is basically creating an Iraq where Americans are less than entirely comfortable to be. Over the long term, this works remarkably well, but it can be a long and painful process to learn... just like Rummy sez.

A vigorous morale isn't just necessary in the boys on the front line, it's critical in the public opinion and and the world view. To sustain the effort none of these dynamics must fall below critical mass.

Col. Virgil Patterson, chief of the Army Mental Health Advisory Team which conducted a troop moral survey pointed out the morale issues in the Iraqi theater, with 23 suicides so far, are very significant. They point mostly to long, 'vague' missions for many deployed there, the inhospitable climate, 30 day waits for mail from home and other factors added to the normal stress.

The results of this survey were discussed on Talk of the Nation, NPR, also, coincidentally, on March 31st:

Obviously the reality of war is very different when you're in it than when you're sitting on the sidelines cheering over 'Apache killing videos' or jeering at hateful third world assholes. This is easy enough to concede even while admitting we can't imagine the order of magnitude. When people are getting hung up like coyotes on fenceposts down the street from you, it feels much different than viewing it on the internet from a quiet suburban nook.

The fact is our soldiers find themselves in a significantly different environment than most of them--and their families--expected.

Expectations. Now how do those get created? Perhaps by people who sold this conflict as a "quick and easy war"? Perhaps by politicians talking about the wonderful Walt Disney quality of Democracy and freedom and how thankful the Iraqi people would be to have us as their saviours?

How many more Americans will have to die at the hands of small mobs or in the snares of juvenile pedestrian kamikazes, and at what rate, before the futility of hanging around sets in?

...It's just another curious irony that some of you armchair war quarterbacks seem--seem mind you, thank god I can't read your minds--to take the fact that Americans are dying at the hands of small groups who are violently opposed to the occupation as all the more reason to be there. The idea of "getting in, doing the job and getting out," where the job was taking Hussein out and handing the affairs of Iraq back to the Iraqi people, seems to have taken a back seat, (in fact this whole forum being almost devoid of such topics indicates a larger climate of relative cluelessness about when, how and if this is going to happen, and whether it could or should).

And yet it also never seems to cross your minds that this is exactly what terrorists want: a target-rich audience.

Couldn't help but notice that the 'latest comment' posted at the site with the article Sinner posted, above, which I just read in full, reflects my own views on this strikingly:

If you find me "giddy" or on a "high horse" about this, I can only suggest that it's because these have been consistently my views about terrorism and enantiodromia, and they seem to be becoming clearer and clearer to more and more people. I don't take any particular pleasure in being right--in fact I will take less and less pleasure the longer, the harder and the sloggier is the road to it becoming consensus.

gee ramona, you talk as if your words might actually make a difference to the wars’ cheerleaders. putting aside that for the moment, and the fact that i agree with you wholeheartedly, and the irony that the bushes qualify squarely as dynastic elites themselves, none of the criticisms you mention can possibly influence the supporters of this war because this is not a war that bears any relationship to one fought for the normal goals of political change or the acquisition of material. this is religious war, fought by those who believe they have been chosen by god to prepare the earth the for return of a mythological figure they believe to be their savior – and theirs alone. the one who has the power to grant them eternal life (if they obey his commands). that the iraqi’s pretend to believe this nonsense is obvious, but i’m not referring to them, i’m talking about bush and company, and the hordes of right wingers addicted to this peculiar brand of armageddon christianity they believe puts them in charge of the planet. logic does not apply, not when you think the ultimate big brother is quite literally watching your every step, and listening to your every thought (especially the thoughts), and judging you in real time while recording you for all time. this puts rooting for the home team in a whole new light. you gotta read the subtext here if you want to know what’s happening. all of the justifications for going to war were merely polite nonsense barely masking the fact that the us is now run by a theocracy appointed by gawd hisseslf (not elected) and that would much rather be teaching creationism in the schools (bush’s words) than dealing with the logical ideas that really get things done, like treating parkinson’s or even starting your car in the morning. this is not a group comfortable with nuance in the normal sense, as it applies to politics and science, but they’re well prepared and happy to spend weeks dissecting the various differences between religious dogmas that to the less obsessed seem exactly the same. you want to reach these guys? tell ‘em why slaughtering the hordes won’t get ‘em to heaven. it’s the only thing on their minds.

- js.

That's such bullshit............... Just a month ago this was a war about oil now you claim a religious war. Make up your frickin minds people:MAD:

no, it's not.

first of all i'm not "people," so i'm not responsible for all the views of all the people opposed to the war. there are many of them and most are valid. but yes, it is a administration waging a religious war on many fronts including here in the united states. as to the iraqi front well, like any war it needed support from many sectors. the petroleum people were more than happy to get behind it. you might even say they were ecstatic. they are connected to both bushes and to cheney. regardless of their theological leanings they all worship mammon.

- js.

enantiodromia :AP:

I have heard alot of theories, alot of reasons some are reasonable and some are not. Some are the truth and some are not. But your latest theory is so far out there Jack that you should consider some type of therapy:ND:

The whole problem with the Democrats right now is they have absolutely no idea and or plan how to win this election on issues. No matter what the issue they always find the negative approach that is their plan. Flip flopping on every issue no matter the position as long as the position is against Bush.

What is the truth of the Iraq war? Who cares.... tell me the Iraqi people are not better off without Saddam in power.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

fuckin' tard

right. like religion isn't the number one priority for bush. blow your nose, there might be a peice of brain left in there. it's getting in your way.

- js.

Usually ppl who suggest someone should get therapy are the one who need it the most or truly crave to have some therapy of their own. Basically therapists are professionnals who listen to your problem(s) Threapist never find what is wrong with ya, they only help you to make you see what is wrong with ya:ND:

The whole problem is about politics views. Republican don't see eyes to eyes with the dems, each party has a different view. To a rep to say to a dem that he should get his head examined is wrong as a dem that replys the rep policies are way too right wing or or this or that is also wrong. Beside, don't they say that 2 wrongs makes a right:PO:

To make one point clear, first of all, bush senior should have kept quiet instead of shedding croco's tears about his son being bashed! Hey, ain't Jr the president after all. Can't he take care of himself? Jr Wanted to pick up Daddy's war, he should handle it himself, without daddy's backup or very bad emotionnal plea to try to understand his disfonctionnal son:ND: Media coverage is all about free speach is it not? Also, in my truly honnest opinion, it's the first time i've seen such a load of crap.

If I have to recap, how many iraq ppl got killed a year under Saddan regime compaired to how many iraq ppl got killed in the last year? Sure, the reply "They were for SADDAM" will pop out soon but... Trading a regime for another one, is it better? The US is far from leaving iraq to fend for itself, in fact, ain't the Bush adm are doing it for their own good (iraq) ? Think they were more interested to keep their oil monopoly intact and Saddam free imho. The point is that it's a dead end as much of the rescue of afganistan is still a dead end, meaning that, Troops will need to always be there in order to keep an uncertain peace, if they pull out, either the Taliban or the Saddam supporters might/will take over again.

It just would be nice to know that atleast (really need proofs on this) that the Bush adm are liberating those ppl for humane reasons and not for their own gain.

Also, it would be nice to remain polite and not treating ppl retard or have not them suggest to get their head probed by a therapist because they don't see the way other does.

If a decent person were to fall on the PA, he'd run away like hell:ND: Some ppl are too mean in here, feel sometimes like it's a troll fest every day of the week.

As for the religious war issue, It goes both ways either for the christians vs islam or islam vs christianity. Religions have a way to truly screw up or devide ppl on trivial issues :MAD: :MAD: :m:

yeah i see him all the time at church...oh wait that was Clinton.

you know someone can be religious without being a book burning puritan.

yeah well, trying to move it along here and provide some entertainment/food for thought. but seriously i know religion permeates everything bush does and it permates this war as well.

- js.

what would make you think that? would it be the religious nutjobs killing 3000 of us in the name of their god? just remember fruitcake, they asked for this, not us.

oh yeah? listen span, if you have info linking iraq to 911 you'd better get your righteous ass down to dc for the hearings before they subpoena it out from under you. you're like the only guy on the planet making that claim.

- js.

it's called a War on Terror, not a War on Al-Queda, if you think Saddam was some saintly figure with no terrorism connections then you need to get down to the clue factory.

Yassim, Abu Nidal, palestinian Suicide money...i can go on and on, do you understand the meaning of "I'm tired of swating at flies"?

hmmm...lets count the number of reasons why we went to war according to our resident moonbats:
War for OiL
War because "he tried to kill my daddy"
War for Jews
War for religion
War for Empire

i guess if you change it around enough eventually you'll hit on the right reason (hint; it has to do with protecting America)

I don't think we'll ever know? All we know is there was mass graves full of senseless killings. Chemical attacks against his own people. Selective raping of women by his sons. Torture of Olympic athletes. Unexplained disappearances of hundreds if not thousands of people.
But your not sure if they will be better off?

Which gain?

Sure in no way did I mean disrespect. Is this place not a place just to speak your mind and have fun. It's an Internet BB things happen. People say things all the time that can be taken several different ways because they are written not spoken. Clearly you took things in a whole different manner than they were meant. If Jack is offended I will apologize and edit my post. All I was saying is that the theory was really reaching out there for help maybe I worded it to harshly for some?


You try to play the middle yet do as others do ? Hmmmm

Clearly you take things way too personal around here.

Welcome to the internet

:BL:

True, Saddan is a tyrant. It's a good thing that he's not in power anymore and I was glad he was finally caught:ND: Correct me on this but those chimical attacks, weren't they against the kurds:PO: If the internationnal troops pull out, it will be civil war in Iraq. The Sunnies and the Chiites will kill eachother and we will be witnessing another Rowanda. Also, the US/UK has been meddling into Iraq affairs since 1946. A lot of ppl can easily forget this fact but the iraq ppl surely didn't.

Petrolium, black oil :PO: They have been at it since 1946. What other gain for the US would there be? Bush Senior declared War on Iraq because Saddam was stealing the oil from Kuwait. Atleast there was a fiber of truth for his reason to wage war on Iraq. Bush JR is another matter. His reason to invade Iraq were based on hearsay and lack of proofs and we have yet to find those 'weapons of mass destruction' . If we would have to compare which country has the most destructive weapons, USA win the contest. Those weapons are of course "to protect the citizen of the United States" Just playing a worst case scenario, lest just say that the arab world unites against the US and decided to not export oil anymore to your country but instead, they would favor China and Russia with oil, What would the US gov do to secure their oil supply? On this, I have no doubt that this would truly be WW3. Hey, i'm not forgetting the humane side that Iraq is now Saddam free but I truly doubt that it was a humane effort to liberate those poor souls that led the US to overthrow Saddam. The excuse of WMD is very week excuse and a obvious lie. Jeebus, Can't we learn from history anymore:no:

Hey, wasn't defending Jack :uu: And yes, it is an internet bb. I happened to be part of several bb's and from personnal experience, they don't play as harsh as this or show evident lack of respects to other users or do not label other users of this and that because they do not agree with them. Yes, I do speak my mind and have fun researching the net for articles to post to back my statements, Infact, never learned so much about outside politics than on the PA bb. It's also true that what is written will upset someone far more that when it is spoken, totally agree with you on this:tu: As for the matter of taking it in a different way that it was ment, just wanted to make a point that we can actually argue and remain friendly and polite to one and other, that's all :beer:



Politics and religions tends to bring out the ugly part of us:(

Don't we all;)

I thought arguing was to take it personnal since it sparks response to the thread. If you didn't take it personnal, would you have posted a reply in this thread;) Dude, If I were to take things personnal, I wouldn't even be in the PA.

So far, i've been labeled

A Fashist
A Jhiad Lover
A Communist
A nut Case
A lover of Yassin
An anti-semite

and the list grows long:ND:

But i'm still here:AF:

no offense taken aweshucks. ;)

- js.

Yes the chemical attacks were against the Kurd who happen to live in Iraq.

True.. There is a large ethnic and religious split among the Iraqi people. Neither see eye to eye just like us dems and reps however they tend to use violence not words.

Saddam stole the whole damn country!


Alot of that hearsay and lack of proofs were passed on to him by the Clinton Administration do not forget that. After all during the Clinton Admin we knew full well that Iraq had those weapons then. Also we have yet to find any weapons but we do know he had the programs in place to make them. Or was developing programs to make them. Letting Saddam get the A-Bomb would of been a huge mistake. We know he had a partial program for it at one time. He had been trying to get the bomb for years. The French were even kind enough to give him some technology at one point. That is until Israel blew it up on him :)






Maybe then we would finally develop an energy plan?? Something neither politcal party has managed to do yet or even seriously considered.
Actually Russia is still broke they can't buy squat. China is the one who will become the superpower over the next decade. No thanks to Bill Clinton for signing NAFTA. However shutting the US off of oil would most likely spell economic hell to any Arab nation.

Democrats critisize Bush for acting on intelligence that appeared to be valid "Iraq". Then on the flipside they also critisize him for not acting on intelligence that appeared to be too vague "9/11" Odd how things work out isn't it?
Quite franctly I'd blame the CIA and Director Tenet who quite honestly should not have a job.
Makes complete sense to me:uu:

We buy oil from Arabs???? :help: :help: :N: :N: :N:


Might wanna read this

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_exp_net

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_imp_net

I do like to argue with you on politics AweShucks :ND: Even though i'm no democrat. Couldn't be since I don't live in your country.

Yes, unfortunately, the Kurds do live in iraq but i serouisly doubt that the Kurds called themselves Iraqies if givin the choice.

I've seen shitload of doc about saddam regime and the one who marked me the most is "Uncle Saddam" Played on 'The Passionnate eye' aired on CBC Newsworld every night. Basically it showed Saddam as a sick person with the illness wanting to beat the US ass at any price. Also saw about chimical Ali, the one who is truly behind the kurds chimical murder.

Aye on this one:tu: truly sad that some ppl needs automatic weapons to make their point heard. Violence always lead to more violence.

He did not! True enough, he's a real monster but did not steal the country, through political channels, he was the next in line for presidency from Of course, nobody could foresaw what he would do with his newly acquired power.

Ok, in another point of view, I need proofs on this:p Just to say that according to a lot of info i've read (keep in mind that there is no impartial journalists, it's a mith) that Bush didn't think al-Q was a menace but saddam was. In it's first year of presidency, he mostly didn't give a flying fuck nor was scared of al-Q or bin ladden. Sadly, a year later, 2 towers fell and a lot of ppl got killed, including the ones who threw themselves off the tower:( Again, sadly enough, it was a mistake to dismissing this treath. IMO, if the US keeps trying to subjucate middle east countries, a lot more terrorists attacks will occur. Now, i'm not talking for the dems or the reps here, but, from what i've seen so far from history is that, what US wants, US will get regardless of the means they will use:( Blame any adm you want about the Iraqie regime, Al-Q was the foremost threath against the US ant Bush Ignored it completely. Now because of this, the US has inplicated a lot of countries on their "War on terrorists" Just to say that, true, Al-Q did give you a run for your money on this even though it was one of the sadest event I had to witness in history, even saw the second plain hit the other tower, live from cnn. I remember that at the time when the first tower was hit, a lot of ppl thought it was a bomb, took a second airplain to change opinions. Hey, I remember one day when my youth group took us to NY, one of them in charge told us to just streach our arms and try to locate the end of the tower (of course, we were on the ground) but I remember my neck hurting in the morning;) Just couldn't do it since the towers were so tall.

Needless to say I was shocked and shook to my bones when I saw the first tower collapse, ditto for the second one. I also remember that Bush was no where to be found on this sad day when He truly heard the music. Also remember a certain mayor covered in white dust after the 2 tower fell. Where were Bush Jr at that time? He was being a chicken shit scared out of his mind for not listening the warning issued to him for a whole year. Even if saddam had plans for the a bomb, it was still hearsay (proofs please):) Clinton adm were more scared of al-q than Saddam. Guess they were right on this... Strange enough that the tower weren't hit sooner under clinton 8 years. Just saying.


Now yar talking:tu: Unfortunately, beleive it or not, over here we had developped a very performant electrical motor, the research were snuff out, no electrical motor in this era until oil deplition i'm afraid, also had a fascility on how they were trying to develop a stable plasma stream to power up centrals safely without the nuclear byproducts, this too got shut down unfortunately:( Seems that the quest to find other alternative to fossil fuel always get shut down.

About Clinton and Nafta, The only thing he did was to bring the mexican into the deal. Before that it was only the US and Canada. I don't see how you can blame Clinton on this unless you have something against the mexican ppl (truly hope not). Now, to quote you on this again

Don't think so, they have the right to sell to anyone they choose. They will only truly get broke when the oil runs out, and it will. It would only be hell for America. C'mon, they hold us by the balls on this And USA hates it. Also, given the stats, run will run out in abour 20 years and that is being hopefully 20 years still, yet, so far even though it is predicted, no effort is truly made to develop another energy sources in the US af you so correctly pointed out

Considering that Bush was reading a goat story to a bunch of kids at the time they informed him that a first tower was hit (not clear at the time about being a bomb or a plain) and when the second tower was hit (obviously by a plain caught on film) he still didn't do squat, meaning, calling the airforce to shoot down the other 2 hijack planes. One hit the pentagone and if it werent for the courage and sacrifice of the other passengers on the fourth plane, according to intelligence, this one was ment for the white house.

AweShucks, i've met other rep on this board that made more sense than supporting the Bush adm. Also remember on how Mc Cain was snuffed out by the Bush publicity during the choosing of the next rep representative for the white house. I have nothing against the reps, only have something against the Bush adm and how he got into power (Florida Ballots scam) Over here, we might be a primitive country by counting by hands the vote, but atleast, we are truly sure as to who won the election, there is no bad dimple of half punch ballot issue. We do not rely on computers or informatised way to count the votes of our citizen.

Just to say that it should remain a local issue, why did the US/UK needed to drag along shithoad of other countries into this war? Was the US lacking money to wage war into iraq? Was it the infamous quote from Bush JR that if a country is not with us (our ideaology) is against us?

With all the weapon you have, such a statement could be considered as a treath to other countries:MAD:

The US are not the cops or police state of the whole world :m: The US has no right to meddle into the world affairs since if the whole world does not go with their point of view, they are against them. What a fucked up conspiracy theory and what a load of egotistic crap.

Wonder what will happen when you run out of drikable water, will the US invade us next for our natural ressources:PO:

And what is your point on this pace?

Why not show us where Canada buys it's oil instead of showing me a map on who produce the Black Oil:NS:

Check back a little you will see I was meaning to refer to Saddam invading Kuwait "Gulf war 1"
But seeing as how you brought up how Saddam gained power........How about the systematic killing of any and all political rivals after he took power to ensure his reign?


There was no proof of a specific threat! A very popular misconception is he let it happen. Let what happen? There was only speculation of a threat with no specifics. And it wasn't a year it was barely 9 months 200 some odd days. I don't remember it being taken very seriously before Bush? And that was after how many attacks under the Clinton Admin?


No more than Clinton did for 8 years! Clinton and his Administration let Al-Q fester for nearly a decade with virtually no action.




There is a specific protocal the secret service follows. The less the public knows of the where abouts and travel plans of the President the better. As I recall the Bush demanded to be taken back to the white house and not hide depite the Secret Service suggesting otherwise. Don't think Air Force One doesn't have a phone on it!

Quote:

He was being a chicken shit scared out of his mind for not listening the warning issued to him for a whole year. Even if saddam had plans for the a bomb, it was still hearsay (proofs please):) Clinton adm were more scared of al-q than Saddam. Guess they were right on this... Strange enough that the tower weren't hit sooner under clinton 8 years.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/.../clinton.iraq/

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

If you want to read more about Clintons stance views and action on Iraq do a google search string with this " clinton iraq threat"
Franctly I wish the democrats would read more of it. Sounds very familiar:ND:



True about Nafta he did allow mexico in. Nothing against Mexicans. But we lost alot of job to mexico because of this. But I do have something against Bill Clintons stance on free trade. Free trade is fine providing it does not include the systematic exporting of our jobs and not our goods:mad: Is it a coincidence that a recession started shortly after all these free trade agreements?



Don't forget that the President has a huge staff of advisors. Don't think that things weren't being done behind the scenes. The president typically gives the go ahead to suggestions. Not the other way around. Typically the President is the last to know because of the chain of command. To be quite honest if Bush would of come unglued I would have been worried.

Quote:

AweShucks, i've met other rep on this board that made more sense than supporting the Bush adm. Also remember on how Mc Cain was snuffed out by the Bush publicity during the choosing of the next rep representative for the white house. I have nothing against the reps, only have something against the Bush adm and how he got into power (Florida Ballots scam) Over here, we might be a primitive country by counting by hands the vote, but atleast, we are truly sure as to who won the election, there is no bad dimple of half punch ballot issue. We do not rely on computers or informatised way to count the votes of our citizen.

McCain is a borderline Democrat or as some would say a moderate republican.

Nobody likes what happened in Florida don't think that the ballot issue is new. It's just that the count was so close they finally had to deal with it.


Consider this quote by Bill Clinton "nations that sponsor and permit terrorist acts must face strong sanctions"

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/28/clinton.speech/

No we are not the Cops of the world but often times we are the only ones willing to take a chance or are able to take a chance.

Consider all the countries that ask for our help or we give help to. Too many to list.........How many Billions of foriegn aid has the U.S. sent out and never recieved repayment or even asked for repayment. Often times this gets confused as meddling.

ack we have bottled water it's rather good!:BL:

I meant Russia. You said "what if arab nations begin start selling all of their oil to Russia"; which could never be the case, since Russia is the second largest exporter of oil; and doesn't import any

Here's some questions for Miss Silver and any other anti-war nutjob:

1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?



2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?


3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March?


4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York?


5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"?


6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us?


7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?


Here's another.

Say you live down the street from a slightly deranged man that has threatened you and threatened all your neighbors and that you believe has a large cache of weapons to use against you and any of those neighbors at the time of his choosing, now say you call the cops about his threats, they beat down his door...they don't find any weapons but they do find out that he had killed his entire family and buried them in a large mass grave in his basement, now would you consider it a good thing that he was stopped?

Look... quit making sense - someones brain might explode. :eke:

i love your nutty hypotheticals. :D

that's some long street isn't it.

would it be ok if it killed a thousand cops? ten thousand? would it be ok if thugs killed members of your own family - and were planning to kill all the rest - but the cops couldn’t respond because your idiot mayor sent them halfway around the world to get killed where they weren't wanted mediating some 5000 year old dysfunctional neighborhood dispute, and drum up some business for his family friends?

you don't have to quit making sense - you haven't started yet.

- js.

Yes. I would. And we now have Hussein in custody. Hurray.

But, one of the many sloppy holes in the analogy is that Hussein "killed his entire family". He didn't. The cops beat down the door saying they were going to put an end to this "slightly deranged man's" power and stop him from killing and subjugating the rest of his family, ostensibly. Great. Standing at the door before they beat it down, the cops gave loud and clear lip-service about freeing the surviving family members and giving control of the house respectfully over to them, so they could lead a "normal, wholesome, democratic family life" with the big head asshole safely in jail.

So why are the cops still in the house killing members of the family and why are the survivors killing the cops? How many cops are going to disappear into that house, never to come out again? Why are the cops still in the house telling the families which newspapers to read? Do the cops think that the surviving members of the family didn't hear the cops promising to free them to run their house the way they wanted? And what will the cops do if the newly elected head of the house isn't any less threatening to the neighborhood?

Clearly the situation is much more complex than that handful of cops said it would be, more complex than you seem to be able to grasp. Clearly this incessant, nauseating appeal that Hussein, the head of the house was "the neighborhood's whole problem" was far wide of the mark. Clearly the cops were talkiing out their asses in more ways than one before breaking that door down, in order to assure the neighborhood everything was under control, minimalizing the situation as cops so often do.

"Don't worry folks, we'll have this fixed in a jiffy. No need to worry about any kind of escalation."

It's as if in your fantasy/analogy, all Iraqis are in mass graves. That would wrap up your attempt at logic very neatly if it were true, but it obviously isn't.

...

And since the rest of your post consisted of questions originally posed by Christopher Hitchens from Vanity Fair, and because my new policy is not to answer questions that are prefaced by calling people "nutjobs" because of their opinions, I'm going to spend as little of my time and original thought as you did and reply in kind by simply pasting some other people's opinions, collage style, from various sites on the web. Hope you find them at least as entertaining as being dismissed as a nutjob.

Quote:

1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not? not. hussein's regime was effectively contained 2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? the underlying assumption of this question is that one of saddam's sons would have succeeded him. i'm not sure that's true. when someone like saddam dies, plenty of people would be in a position to throw a monkey wrench into the whole succession thing. but assuming uday or qusay did end up in charge, i don't think a confrontation with them would be inevitable either. but if it did happen it would probably have been the same as with saddam. 3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? yes, but so what. the weapons system was not a WMD but a longer-range scud missile. the system is famously inaccurate and unable to reach the u.s. besides, iraq probably would not have been able to complete the transaction if the u.n. inspectors had flooded the country per france's proposal. iraq was effectively contained. 4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? i tried a bunch of searches and can find no record (other than other blogs quoting this one) of clarke saying that. where's the link? 5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? eventually, yes. i think everyone would. even the warbloggers do not seem to be against the fact that it is over now. under what circumstances are we talking about? frankly, this question on its own is pretty content-less. 6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? they were not doing any fighting for us. once again, the entire question rests on an assumption that your opponent does not share. if you want to actually have a dialogue, you have to stop assuming away all of the most pertinent issues. the shi'ite resistence was pretty much dead after bush the first double-crossed them after the gulf war. the kurds were not actively fighting saddam anymore by the end of the 1990s, they had reached a stalemate and had their own statelette under the protection of the no-fly zone. most of the fighting in the early part of the 00s decade in the kurdish region was between different kurdish factions 7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose? again, you are assuming that a confrontation is inevitable. it wasn't. half your questions have that unfounded assumption. did you even consider how these questions should proceed if someone answered "no" to question #1? Posted by: upyernoz at April 5, 2004 at 07:03 AM • 1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not? If "confrontation" means "war requiring 100,000 ground troups and $100B", certainly no. We might have faced another 1998-level confrontation (in 1 or 5 or 10) years, we might not. Turning the question around, is it inevitable that we will have a confrontation with Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? If yes, why are we spending our money and tieing down our forces in Iraq? If no, what makes Iraq so special that we can be certain a war there was inevitable? 2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? It's impossible to know, but there's no reason to believe it definitely would have been worse. Saddam had a proven ability to keep control of his country; his sons had not been tested in the same ways. Their heinous personal behavior did not necessarily make them more dangerous to U.S. interests. 3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? I do know that Saddam had vigorously pursued unconventional weapons for decades; the total U.S. casualties from such weapons is zero, and at the time of his defeat he was further away from having usable weapons than he had been in a decade. The threat was not significant, immediate, or growing. 4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? For any of a number of reasons, e.g. to tweak the U.S., or to associate himself with a (however puny) blow against the U.S. Did this "succor" add significantly to the ability of Islamic terrorists to strike the U.S.? Not at all. 5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? No; they were a relatively cheap way to keep Hussein under wraps, and provided some freedom to the population in those zones. 6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? They were fighting for themselves. Was I content to have the U.S. not do their fighting for them? Yes. 7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose? Yes, because Baghadad had no good cards to play, and it was not in Hussein's power to force a confrontation that would hurt the U.S. or cost us what the war has cost us. Posted by: jm, April 5, 2004 at 02:59 AM • Here are seven questions to answer his questions: 1. Was war in Iraq worth damage to our international credibility, and the damage done to key, longstanding friendships? 2. How did taking on a removing Saddam Hussein from power make it any safer to live in Dayton, Ohio, or Tulsa, Oklahoma (anyplace else in the United States, for that matter)? 3. How many casualities will be too many? 4. Would you be willing to forego repairs to interstate highways and health care assistance for the poor and elderly to pay for the war? 5. Was the War in Iraq worth stretching our military to almost its breaking point, and the call up and extended duty for reservists and National Guardsmen? 6. If Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and did not have conclusive ties to terrorist groups, then what made Iraq such a grave and gathering threat? 7. (This question is for the armchair warriors of both genders between the ages of 18-35) If the war was so freaking important to fight, then why didn't you quit your jobs and enlist? To the rest of you -- Saddam Hussein was contained, or have you missed David Kay saying for the last three months that the administration should just own up to it? Finally, to claim that war in Iraq would send any sort of message to the rest of the Arab world: They got the message. We are unable to invade one country, topple a largely defanged regime, and pacify a country that had lived under an iron boot for three decades. The rest of them can pretty much do whatever they want. Posted by: Captain Salty at April 5, 2004 at 12:36 PM • 1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not? Big word, "inevitable". Absolutely not. 2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? "Better". Odd question. Better than attacking Saddam, presumably? Irrelevant. 3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? "Trying to". Wow. But as to the question: Yes, and uranium from Niger. Irrelevant. 4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Irrelevant. 5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? Perhaps.(But irrelevant). 6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Really, really stupid question. Irrelevant. 7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose? Another really, really stupid question. And irrelevant. Yawn. Posted by: Nemesis at April 5, 2004 at 04:49 PM • If Hitch can use Clarke's words, then perhaps some more: "And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq -- something I was not asked about by the commission, it's something I chose write about a lot in the book -- BY INVADING IRAQ THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS GREATLY UNDERMINED THE WAR ON TERRORISM." Posted by: Good for the Gander at April 5, 2004 at 05:09 AM • Containment's a tough policy to follow. It requires consistency and determination. Some people will always be impatient with it and want to say "Let's fight now." The good sense of the European and American people resisted such calls during the Cold War, when much more was at stake. They were right. Posted by: cartographer at April 5, 2004 at 05:47 AM • I've got some questions: 1) Now that we've "brought freedom" to Iraq, when free elections are held and the Iraqi's legally vote in some wackjob cleric will the US respect the results? 2) Assume for the moment at some point in the future the US is ruled by a nutcase dictator. If the US were then invaded & occupied by an Islamic state in the name of liberation, how far would you go to get rid of the occupiers? What would YOU do to the occupiers? 3) Now that we've pissed away world support for the war on terror and shot our collective wad on the poorly thought out pnac war in iraq, how do we define victory in iraq? Or is the war in Iraq another unwinnable war on drugs type war were every admistration (republican or democrat) for 30 years has lacked the stones to say we have failed? Posted by: hugh jorgan at April 5, 2004 at 08:32 AM • My question for Hitchens is this: If the Iraqis are so damn happy with the "freedom" we have given them, how come they keep killing us? How come they burn and multilate the bodies of dead Americans? I mean, now it's the Shiites, who aren't exactly holdovers from the Hussein regime, so that whole argument that this insurgency is just leftover Baathist elements is ludicrous and patently false. We are on the verge of a full-scale armed revolt across Iraq. What is our response going to be -- should we kill more Iraqis now that they have the "freedom" we gave them and are using it to eject us from their country? Do we now kill more Iraqis in order to "liberate" them? Posted by: john at April 5, 2004 at 03:40 PM • Firstly you have to remember what and who Hitchens is. Hitchens was a Marxist (indeed, a Trotskyite), not only in the 'seventies (when it was just about excusable) but in the 'eighties (unusual) and throughout the 'nineties (i.e. AFTER the fall of the Berlin wall). Does this strike any of the readers of this blog as an intelligent or moral political commitment? And don't give me any of the 'well he's changed his mind now' thing: he has NEVER apologised, and has NEVER backtracked from any of those political commitments. So: remember, when you ask your glib questions: Hitchens did and does think that the war in Vietnam was American imperialism, he did and does think that Clinton's attack on the Sudan was a war crime, and he did and does think that the first war in Iraq was wholly and completely unjustified (check out some of his books of essays for proof of this). He is also the man who said (extremely recently) October 2000, "To use 'vile' for 'viable' might look like misfortune, but to employ 'inebriating' for 'enthralling' looks like carelessness, especially in someone with his booze and cocaine record." In the same column he remarked, "Seeking to explain away his wastrel life and his obnoxious manner--nagging problems that persisted until his mid-40s--Bush invites us to believe that he mutated into finer personhood after having a personal encounter with God." speaking of Bush. Do you all agree with THIS as well? Or will you see, as less biased minds do, that Hitchens is a political whore of the first order, who simply jumps on any bandwagon that passes? He was a Marxist when it was fashionable, now he is 'pro-war' when it is fashionable. Perhaps he will shift back to Marxism later on, who knows? In any case, his 'political position' is completely incoherent and makes no sense at all: I do not for the life of me see how you can support the second but not the first gulf war. Hitchens 'questions' (which i don't believe for a minute he has actually 'asked' any anti-war person, a penchant for being 'economical with the actualite' being one of Hitchen's most notable characteristics) are rhetorical, play to the gallery, and are essentially meaningless. 'Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?' What sort of confrontation? Between whom? Define inevitable? Do you mean soon or in twenty years, or what? If you mean a confrontation between the Iraqi people and Saddam, then the answer is 'probably' If you mean the Iraqi people and the Iraqi regime then the answer is 'yes'. But if you mean: do you think a war between the United States and Iraq was inevitable (what he actually) means, then the answer is clearly 'no': just ask colin powell and 'condi' both of whom clearly thought so in 2000. What evidence does he have (apart from Bush's desire for a war) that war was inevitable? 'Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? ' oh please less of your euphemisms. You mean 'war'. And the answer is probably not. For the Iraqi people. The question implicitly admits, incidentally, that war with Iraq was 'not good' or else the 'better' aspect of the question would have been meaningless. 3: yes i knew that. So what? Kay didn't think that Saddam was pursuing WMD (the reason for the war, as we have been told), and in any case, Saddam was allowed to have weapons. What state isn't? What's your point? 4: who cares? There are terrorist living in the US in the UK, in Spain, in France....almost everywhere in fact. A state terrorist (Pinochet) was given exclusive private healthcare in the UK until recently until the Spaniards had him arrested: Margaret Thatcher was outraged. Whats your point? 5: Given, Hitchens, that you opposed (and still do) the first Gulf War, and that, therefore, if you had been in charge, there would not have BEEN any 'no fly zones' will you accept that your question is totally meaningless? 6: What do you mean 'for us'? They fought for THEM!!!! What breathtaking arrogance and self-involvement!!! you accept, therefore that this was was about the US and US interests? Otherwise the question is meaningless. If the question is: should Bush (senior) have stabbed the resistance in teh back in '91, then the answer is clearly 'no'. But as i look at the papers i see the 'Shi-ites' doing quite a lot of fighting nowadays AGAINST us. Do YOU support THAT? If not, why not? 7: again, please, when you mean 'war' say 'war'. Since this question relies upon an affirmative response to question 1, and i have not given that, then as usual a rhetorical ploy. The fact is that, as Colin Powell and 'Condi' proclaimed, Saddam was contained by 2001, as we now know for sure (and we do know it). The real threats were from Al-Qaeda and its sponsors, specifically those in Saudi, Pakistan and Egypt. However those are our allies so naturally we have done everything in our power to help them. The US is not a global policeman, and it is not incumbent upon the US to invade every totalitarian regime. Go through all the above questions and substitute 'China', or 'Vietnam' for all of them: they fit as well. Why shouldn't the US invade Vietnam after all? is it not a totalitarian regime? or what about Cuba? The fact is that, like Poland and Russia, totalitarian regimes are essentially unstable, they fall, and US interference normally makes things worse, as it now has done in Iraq. Posted by: Brendan at April 5, 2004 at 07:54 PM

well gee. that was a way better answer than mine.

- js.

Re: Tao Te Ching, chapter 36
 

but....








Know the reason I shouted out "That was Awesome" was because I wanted to say something just as if not more stupid then what knife wrote. Of course I don't think it was Awesome. A solider is a solider, doesn't matter what side they are on. But they do have a job to do and the Americans are doing it very well.



I don't need or want to see any killing on my TV or the net. I read CNN, I know how many men are being killed over there. That is bad enough, showing Americans being killed and dragged in the streets is not something people need to see. And it is Propaganda, face it....


Paper Tiger comes to my mind......



but I will have to come back.....your post is long, good, but long.....I gots no Time,

Had I known that we would engage half-heartedly in a war where we allowed our forces to become sitting ducks for the enemy, I would have been against going in, too. It's time to get down to business over there and quit pussyfooting around with the Iraqis. Change is going to happen there, whether they fucking like it or not. I can only hope our military coordinators take off the pink panties.

Yeah. If they're going to use mosques as forts, the military should be allowed to blow them up like forts.

And if a mullah is killing his rivals and Iraqi police, the military should be allowed to arrest or kill him instead of worrying about public opinion.

The politicians are once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by putting their political games ahead of soldiers lives.

When the fighting is over then they can do their government building and economic development. But the military should be allow to finish its job first.

lol

I consider myself a decent person, and you seem to be as well, and we don't run away. True, at times I do consider it more or less like a trip to a bargain basement 'natural dentistry' clinic which doubles as a kennel for emotionally challenged pit bulls, and I usually feel the graffiti I leave on these walls would proabably be just as well mailed to the North Pole with no return address, but I don't participate to try to persuade anyone of anything, even though the appearance of my participation may seem entirely contrary to that statement.

I just do it to clarify my own conscience.

Of course there may be some semantic blur here, but if an event truly occurs and is actually reported--and I don't think anyone here is going to submit that the digital evidence and reportage of the deaths of the four Americans in this story were faked--then there is no implication of dishonesty. Certainly actual events can become propaganda in their spin and amplification, in their usage. In fact singular real events can be used for the purposes of propagandizing multiple, even opposite agendas.

enantiodromia

The data exists, so in a sense every usage of it, right down to talking about it on the internet, can become a tool for propagating and distorting other ideas.

But we do all credit these 'terrorists' with creating these events to 'send a message.' They hung bits of these dudes from a bridge, which harkens back to the prechristian Roman practice of crucifixion--significant here because it was the equivalent of nailing up errant slaves to walls, trees or bridges or whatever was handy with a sign stating their crimes, using bodies as billboards for deterrence. Such bodies advertised facts, not spun hypotheticals. Four dead slaves caught stealing hung in the square meant that if you were a slave caught stealing, you was a dead motherfuckin slave. The tragic sign hung on these guys couldn't have been more aptly wrought than in the phrase "Fallujah is the graveyard of Americans." The message is don't come here.

This isn't propaganda, it's just plain old classic terrorism, doing what terrorism does best: scare people.

Fear focuses the mind on the options of fight or flight.

enantiodromia

Of course those who wanted to fight at the outset may want to fight all the more as a result of this and every spike of escalation, they may even feel this is all the more proof they were right to fight in the first place, and those who didn't want to fight may want to fight even less, but this does not mean that those who were opposed to it at the outset are somehow more susceptible to fear--advocating de-occupation is consistent with not advocating occupation in the first place.

Both had intrinsic arguable validity at the outset, however at this point it really does us no good to deny the validity of both approaches because A: we are there now and B: our ultimate "leaving" is now and always has been inclusive to our stated intent. All we have to argue about is the timing and indicators of our leaving.

For most, an election will not be an indicator. If this occurs at the projected date it will not be a magic talisman against Americans getting killed in Iraq, and let's not forget the guys in this story were contractors and the Japanese hostages are aid workers and a journalist, pointing up that the intended coalition presence extends beyond the military in both space and time, providing all too easy targets.

No one can say with any sense of certainty how long Americans in Iraq might be targets, but I'll be willing to bet it will be right up to the moment the last soldier comes home and beyond. (And anyone currently reading this is probably naive to think such a time will ever come in their lifetime.) And we can't forget that Iraqis are also targets for other Iraqis and we've taken on the responsibilities in these conflicts as well, ideological, tribal conflicts. We can only 'alienate' the Shiites by 'favoring' the Sunnis and vice versa at every given decision and with every condensed radical sect vying for voice and every such voice having resonance in a broader spectrum of social fabric, the potential for us to irritate and deepen divisions is as great if not greater than the chance of our bringing about unity.

How would you like to be an invading force occupying, say, America and have the job of trying to get the liberals and the conservatives to agree on anything? ...except perhaps that they were both equally pissed at you for occupying thier country and wanted you the hell out. It's incredibly ironic to label insurgents as "freedom hating" while we are occupying their country.

And if the invading force took out your local Baptist preacher and Catholic priest it wouldn't be just the churchgoing flocks who would react, you'd find "Catholic and Baptist sympathizers" coming out of the woodwork. Imagine America itself occupied by a force it even knew for a fact was hopelessly overwhelming and ask yourself how many rural and suburban American civilians would fight to their last breath anyway, most of them in whatever dirty little way they could devise.

But even this is a weak analogy compared the depth and profundity of Iraq's internal schisms, and the global ambiguity in its collective perception of us, and the Islamic celebration of the concept of martyrdom.

But, Jack, the important distinction between 'religious leaders' in the Christian and Islamic worlds is that the former rarely advocate ad hoc violence in dealing with 'infidels.' There are exceptions to every rule, and yes it is disturbing and unhelpful that Bush is a self-proclaimed 'religious leader,' but to view this conflict as truly originating from a clash of religious ideation is just to fuel the fires of Jihad.

Pray we never as a people earn or accept the use of that word, or even entertain the idea.

Certainly the clash is cultural and disparate religious approaches are inherent to our respective behaviours and psyches, but even the anointed Bush knows an agenda of purging Islamic sympathies root and branch could never sustain support and would be doomed from the outset. Does he regret this? lol, the fact that this question exists is scary enough.

But, 25,000 separate denominations of Christianity do peacefully coexist in our nation while as few as two or three subtle denominations of Islam existing in the same place are historically deadly more often than chance would dictate. Another fine moral line, but a line nonetheless.

I actually find a sense of patriotism by clinging to the idea that this is not a religious war from my country's point of view, a sense that can still pertain even if the war is about oil or even pure ignorance. I'll take empire building or a fight against elusive ghosts of human evil being fought in the wrong place before a war over whose imaginary deity has bigger balls.

We'd lose that one.

With all due respect that's a surprisingly irrational statement, exactly the kind of sentiment that anti-American Iraqis hope to engender, and belies that you're laboring under the unrealistic visage of "victory" so dishonestly crafted for this affair.

I guess it's because Americans are taught a version of history with themselves always at the center as the heroic protagonist, how we regale ourselves with oral traditions of repeatedly and neatly and almost single-handedly saving the world from Idols of Menace which predisposes us to think of war, when we're not in one, in the abstract as a sort of irrefutable panacea. If you look honestly at the broader history of war, it's a far filthier and more futile feeling it ultimately creates in all parties than the cut-and-dry adrenalized save-the-world propostion which usually motivates the well-intentioned advocate, and generations seem to need to learn this over and over again.

This idea of "victory" is going to remain very problematic for Americans until we affirm beyond all doubt that it will not be up to us to define or claim this moment. If there is to be a victory in Iraq, it will not be a victory for America but for Iraq. This is inclusive in our mission statement.

It's behooved Mr. Bush politically to appeal to our primal nationalistic instincts, to constantly mix the dual concepts of America's 'victory in the war on terror' with our heroism in the freeing of an alien people. But the unfortunate result is that even while the subsequent increased safety of Americans remains arguable at best, the logistics and the very definition of the freedom of this alien people seems even more unpredictable, even less definable and even, sometimes, less important.

In what version of experience does such a philosphy apply? It's certainly not a principle that has much bearing on Human experience as far as I can tell. Try applying it to your spouse, your kid, your parent, a friend, your boss or an angry mob. Hell, it barely even pertains to physical reality. Tell it to the wind.

It seems to me that it would be truer to say that if there is change in Iraq it will be because they fucking like it regardless of what we do or do not do--and most probably at this point in spite of it.

I also can't believe you are citing the 'pussification' of the American military in the situation with 135,000 troops deployed, which even Rumsfeld himself has called "an unusually high level," and is far more than was expected or projected to be required to contain the situation. What, if anything, this could say other than that we committed the classic and dire mistake of underestimating the enemy, I can't imagine. I also can't imagine what color of ultramasculine tactical undergarments you would have us wear that would make less of our boys die or win more 'hearts and minds' of Iraqis. I'm not sure how much more butch you can get than tanks full of Marines. Perhaps we should just cut our losses and revert to the old classic "NUKE IRAQ" strategy?

Your comment is antithetical to the essential core process of "supporting the troops" and disrespectful to the 'military coordinators' as well, because we are putting American lives into an unbelievably complex situation where they not only barely know who the enemy is, but the perception of it can change at any place at any moment. I'd repeat from my earlier post the comment by Dr. Ragan, "you can't just suddenly turn around and mow down a whole bunch of people because someone's lobbed a homemade explosive at you and then fade it off into the marketplace." We are confronting a living mesh of interconnected human reactions we can scarcely grasp, and it has drawn us fully into its own territory.

I'd like to point out that if you don't think they're doing their jobs with enough gusto, they'd probably be more than happy to get you enlisted and on the front lines yourself.



I had Fox News on in the background the other morning (for the strange comic relief factor) and I heard an interesting comment by a retired general whose name I didn't catch. He was talking about the video of the bloody Marines climbing out of the tank which they were looping endlessly, and he was saying, basically, "oh yeah this always happens when you get a group of new young Marines coming into the field, they always get in there headlong and get a bloody nose but things calm down."

The grim subtext of this is that the boys we pour into the front lines barely know why they are there. We may know on principle and have a headful of tactical hypotheticals, but we do not know who we are fighting or what door they will be behind.

Stay tuned for endless hostage situations, car bombs and insurgency flare-ups. Stay tuned for a continuous body count that will make the staunchest advocate vomit. It's been that way there for over two-thousand years and I doubt our presence there will significantly change it any time soon.



And hello albed, I got all nostalgic seeing you here. You might be happy to know you are the author of a comment that had a profound effect on me, something I still think of from time to time and may never forget.

good post there..
but i have to pounce on this bit..
to me
that seems to sum up what is the main problem over there ..atm

I also can't believe you are citing the 'pussification' of the American military in the situation with 135,000 troops deployed, which even Rumsfeld himself has called "an unusually high level," and is far more than was expected or projected to be required to contain the situation. What, if anything, this could say other than that we committed the classic and dire mistake of underestimating the enemy, I can't imagine. I also can't imagine what color of ultramasculine tactical undergarments you would have us wear that would make less of our boys die or win more 'hearts and minds' of Iraqis. I'm not sure how much more butch you can get than tanks full of Marines. Perhaps we should just cut our losses and revert to the old classic "NUKE IRAQ" strategy?


You're getting warmer. In no way am I saying our troops are pussies--I am implying that their hands are tied when maybe they ought not to be. Take that anyway you want to.

Apparently I'm not very good at taking intentionally vague things the way I want to. How exactly are our hands tied tactically? Is it along the lines that we can't bomb Fallujah into a pile of rubble and corpses, or are we envisioning something more like the helicopter gunner from Full Metal Jacket yelling "get you some" as he indiscriminately mows down fleeing gooks?

As far as I'm concerned it's a damned good thing we see our hands as tied, it shows we have at least a marginal respect for life, can make an at least marginal distinction that all Iraqis are not 'the enemy' and it makes us look like some of us might actually believe we are there to give them something better than they had.

Nice to know we have a choice:o

The whole Falluja shit started when those american soldiers decided to make use of a girl school as their stronghold in the city. By doing so, the army totally insulted (even if they were clueless about it) the population of Falluja. Then protester started to march on the streets and some of em got shot down by the army thus leading to more daily massacre.

The killing of those 4 contractors escalated the violence into new hights because the way it was done reminds me of what happened in Somalia 10 years ago.

If that batallion just had the decency to have appologised to the citizen of Falluja for occupying a girl school and moved elsewhere to established their coumpound, this shit prolly would never happened.

To recap this hold situation

1) american troops enter Falluja, occupy a school, protest occurs because they fell insulted about one of their school being occupied.

2) Because they protest and some of the protesters have weapond, the american shoots at them ank kill 13 of them.

How does ppl think the Falluja citizens will respond in the eyes of such disrespect coming from ''The liberators of Iraq?''

Violence only brings more violence and it's a good thing that their hands are loosly tied.

http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...threadid=15761
And of all those many people you only remembered me.... :V:




Of course they're no longer free to murder their countrymen over petty differences. How unjust.



Ooh, count me as naive. I'll think of this from time to time and may never forget.




While they forget over and over again the genocides in Iraq, Rwanda, Cambodia, Nazi Europe, etc. where world leaders wouldn't send in their militaries and were accused of not caring to save-the-world.

Full Metal Jockstrap
 

Well, we'll let the head of the Fallujah Hospital and Col. Byrne argue about the indentities of the dead, but hey, killing only 600 people to get 40 insurgents sounds like a helluva bargain don't it?

Everyone feel more secure now? I know the Iraqis probably do.

soon rummy and the pnac neocons will start blaming iran and syria for the insurgent terror.

north korea is still ready to distract us as well if things get too bad in iraq.