www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/11/iraq.main/index.html)

Shit makes me sick.

>:

I'm not surprised, but that doesn't make it any less sad.

At least the Japanese used a katana to behead prisoners in WWII.

Ugh.

Now, why in the hell did they have to go and tape that crap. Come on, our guys just took pictures and didn't behead anyone. I don't feel as bad for the insurgants anymore. Tape wires to their asses and tell them they'll be zapped if they don't give up what they know. Damn bastards, they can kiss my ghostwhite, american ass!!!

That's the whole problem, they don't understand anything but this, treat them the same way...start executing them, filming it and sending body parts off to their children in boxes of cereal that we leave with the good will drops and see how they react...it's a war, lets get it over with, we've been there too long, fully commit to this shit, get off the pot and wipe and let it be over and done with when you flush the toilet or don't bother going to the bathroom in the first place...

I say its time to take the damn leash off and let the troops do what the hell they are trained for.

I find it ironic that the majority of the US was disgusted and apalled at the way the Iraqi prisoners wre treated, yet half the Arab world is probably dancing with joy over this.

/pullsontheHalomask

Oh, but we brought this upon our selfs! We walked over there and removed there beloved leader who killed 100k's of people because he had at one time WMD's and might have them again. How dare we make them pile up naked. We are fucking animals. We should have never touched this country 'cause well... we had it coming.

/takesoffHalomask


Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth is how they like it. I wonder just how much bigger our teeth really are. I agree lets get this shit done and come home. Time to let the boys have some fun and win this fast.

So how many hand-wringing speeches by our Democrat Congressmen have to be the same as what bin Laden and Al-Queda are spewing against our President and military before we wake the fuck up and get into this war unified?

Go Yanks !!!

You are all right, they are all a bunch of bastards and deserve to be liberated to death. Now herd them all onto concentration camps and gas them, or to make it quicker, just drop a few nukes for instant liberation.

Go on Yanks, God is on your side, anything you do to those heathen non-white sons of whores is fair play innit?

Dont mind us Euros, we'll just sit back and watch you screw up and collapse on the weight of your own shit.

i didn't know hartmut had two accounts

Lin, no one ever said nuke em all, or yay to the all whites in this thread you LITTLE BITCH.

Now shut your fucking cock holster, as that was even more retarded than Hartmut. At least he tries.

Been over 7 hours and John Kerry has yet to issue a statement. Is that so fucking hard to come out condemn this as barbarism ? Gotta write a speech to blame Bush and Rumsfeld first ? Can't come out unified on something, because his campaign is so bankrupt and only running on "anyone but Bush" ?

Fucking pathetic.

If you are willing to become what you hate in your fight against it, you lose your moral imperitive to wage that war.

YES, there is evil out there, lurking and waiting for opportunities to hurt and kill us. But how do you want to fight and defeat this evil? By becoming it? We cannot, we must not betray who we are as a people. We cant betray the responibities that have been graced to us.
We have been blessed, being born in America, for most of us, is like winning the lottery. But with that blessing comes great responsibilities. Thats what Christ meant when he said that it easier for Camel to pass through the eye of needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of god. The bar is set higher for the fortunate. More is expected.

War DOES NOT JUSTIFY ANYTHING. War REQUIRES justification. Yet the script has been reversed.
War is being used to justify infringement on rights.
War is being used to justify censoring of dissident voices.
War is being used to excuse torture.

And the War itself.. Where is the justification? A edict from the UN whom we ignore every other edict they come down with? Its not a buffet where you can pick and chose where the UN as a body is relevant.. Either reject it, or adhere to it.

In "1984" Orwell wrote about the War Oceania was waging against Eurasia (or was it Europa this week?). The war was used as a justification for the bending of society to a totalitarian society of nightmarish extremes. Big Brother was watching, looking for spies who would hurt the war effort. The thought police were around to make sure society was focused at the task at hand, and the news media told reports of great victories when a morale boost was needed and great defeats when society needed pinning down.
The reality was.. there was no war.
Im not saying there is an attempt to create an Orwellian society. Orwells book at heart was a sociological commentary of what a society was capable of. An extreme end to realistic phenomenon. A warning not to start down that road, and to be vigiliant against moves in this direction.

What we have now is an administration who has declared a n all encompassing "War on Terror" that wraps whatever it does in this cloak. They tell us this war will have no real end, that it will last at least this entire generation.
People are saying that the Freedom of the press should have been repressed "because we are war"
Parts of the "Patriot Act" (Remeber, Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel") infringe on sacred civil rights.
Pre-Emptive war on Iraq? War on Terror..
Justify Torture and violation of our laws because we are war..

STOP BEING AFRAID. Scared people are easiest to control. Question everything. Demand Answers. Hold your standards as high as ever.
1000 9/11s shouldnt change who we are as people by one iota.

But how do you want to fight and defeat this evil? By becoming it?

To catch a thief you must think like a thief.

/salute Lleauaric

Well stated. Well stated, indeed.

STOP BEING AFRAID. Scared people are easiest to control.

LMAO!

You just spent a few minutes in your "stream of thought" doing nothing but conjuring up images of 1984 Orwellian big brother fear mongering, bashing the Patriot Act (that even the ACLU can't find any abuse of), accusing our nation of condoning torture, and acting like your voice or some other looney has his voice censored. And you have the gaul to accuse others of it? You're the one wearing the tin hat.

Get a grip on reality L2!

Thank you indeed, L2, for your reply. I read the first handful of responses to this terrible event and was truly horrified at the cries for blood, the eagerness to stoop to their level, and the simple inability to see that be dragging us down to that level, the terrorists have won...

If we are truly a 'freedom loving people', as Bush so loves to use as a catch phrase, then how does our trampling on human rights feed into that, exactly? Do you really think that engaging in atrocities will help make a more stable Iraq, or a more stable region? And I'm not talking about us remaining in there by massive force (although yes, a military force, hopefully truly international, is going to have to be on the ground there for a while), but by actually restoring the rest of the world's faith that we offer a different way, a civilized way, and that we actually want Iraq to become self-determining... Evidence of atrocities there only intensifies hatred of us by the Islamic world, including folks we need support from in order for this transition to happen, and breeds more terrorists.

I was not reminded so much of Orwell's 1984 (although there are some scary parallels being used as justification for recent events), as the scene in the movie 'Cabaret' where the pretty Hitler youth starts singing a patriotic song at an afternoon park luncheon, and the folks attending join in, and it swells into a thunderous crescendo, and Michael York's character looks at his friend and says: "Do you still think you can control them?"

It scares me how close we may be to that point.

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Fucking sick.

3 words:

Glass Parking Lot.

--Cen

Yes yes, just let them do what they please. Hopefully they kill off your whole family with a sledgehammer, then I can get up on my horse and ride around preaching about turn the other cheek and not stooping to their level.

Easy to talk about tolerance when its not your son having his head sawed off.

Picture yourself as the mother, or the father, of this person.

On tape, you watch him being beheaded, a summary execution, by people he does not even know about, with a (dull, more than likely) knife.

I have lost ALL (if any little had remained) compassion for the plight of the prisoners in Iraq.

For all I care, they can sodomize them with Louisville Sluggers until they're begging for the nubile virgins they're supposedly promised for doing Allah's work.

***

On a less bloodthirsty note, this is going to have massive political reprecussions and could potentially be a windfall for Bush. The fallout from prisoner mistreatment that has been occurring in the prisons of late by those fucking retarded grunts will, in my opinion, by lessened to a great extent once this becomes more widely viewed.

If anything, it's just going to polarize opinions on ALL sides even further.

--Cen

For all I care, they can sodomize them with Louisville Sluggers until they're begging for the nubile virgins they're supposedly promised for doing Allah's work.

But the question is.. who is "them"?
Suspects? All Arabs? All Arabs opposed to our being there?
The guys who did it.. ya.. if we prove they did it, then no hell we can submit them to is bad enough.
There are people in the Prisons across Iraq who didnt know anything. They were being submitted to "pre interrogation conditioning", later found to know nothing and released.
They were basically being exposed to this due to the complete failure of our intelligence.
Forget Rumsfeld, Fire Tenet, when was this guy actually RIGHT about anything?
Wrong about the 9/11 Threat.
Wrong about WMDs
Wrong about how Iraqis would react
Jeter is allowed a slump... The Director of Central Intelligence isnt.

Oh and Akipt. Shouldnt you be getting back to your limp little death threats to me right about now? They were much funnier. :rollin

An eye for an eye and a tooth for the tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless.

Our guys did this to their guys so their guys do that to our guys and on and on and on through the millenium. It never ends.

There's been war in that part of the world for around 6000 years, since the time of the first settlements of the nomadic peoples there. We are all taking sides in a conflict that is nearly beginingless. And if we keep it up, endless.

The only way to evolve out of these horrors is not through more violence. Obviously more violence has lead no where. The only way is to understand that every human being is basically the same as ourselves, just as dangerous, just as loving in other situations, just as much able to experience suffering and worthy of forgiveness. Only the non-violent approach can end the mess in the middle east - and we can't wait until "they" start to be non-violent. We have to take the first step.

Ruthey you are so naive and young it makes muh heart and brain ache.

Non Violence will not work with this rabble. Their own religious dogma being preached by their own version of priests states.

And I paraphrase here...

"If he doesn't believe as you do kill him, his family and any who support him"

There are no avenues of peace to them other than to hold the stronger hand.

They've been taught , as a culture, for far longer than our own culture has been alive to slay those that are different.

Listen lil one, you are different ...I am different....

To them we are fodder to be slain and abused as they see fit...

Fandros

The only way is to understand that every human being is basically the same as ourselves, just as dangerous, just as loving in other situations, just as much able to experience suffering and worthy of forgiveness. Only the non-violent approach can end the mess in the middle east - and we can't wait until "they" start to be non-violent. We have to take the first step.

The question to this approach is:

How do you deal with someone being violent towards you if nonviolence is the only way to break the cycle? If you don't fight back, you don't survive. That simple.

Unfortunately, I believe that there IS no way to break the cycle. Human nature is intrinsically unchangeable as a fundamental part of being in this carbon-based body.

To take it to a primal level, why does the animal that fights back have a greater chance of survival against predators than one that simply offers up itself to be eaten or consumed? For that matter, why were the defensive mechanisms of nature evolved (or, for those of you who may still be at odds with the idea of adaptation and macroscopic/microscopic evolution - created) at all? Surely the sea urchin didn't evolve its spines to make itself easier to eat for fish.

Species that responded to violence with nonviolence (in reference to the carnivorous predation of the animalia kingdom; it may be different for plants, but then, we don't photosynthesize as humans, do we? [well, except for people like hartmut]) died out or became targets for consumption by those of higher intelligence or evolved capability - us. Humans.

It is no different amongst human interactions. There will always be human beings which prey upon the weak; who will opportunistically take advantage of another in spite of the distress or possible harm it may result in, and always those who simply wish to do harm for harm's sake. We call them psychopaths. They do exist and they always will, despite what one may believe about the capability of human beings to "transcend", as it were, to some higher level of overcoming fundamental natural interaction.

Back to the Middle East and Iraq. How does this apply here?

It is natural for them to want to be fighting against us. "They" - meaning, the Middle East, other countries of comparatively low influence economically, culturally, politically and militarily - perceive us as oppressors; for many the only reason being that we are simply better off than they are.

A basic lesson in economics:

Limited Resources - Unlimited Wants = Conflict. And violence, inevitably, results as a part of these conflicts.

Violence will always be a part of the human race. This does not mean that violence is always right. Some violence is fundamentally wrong - I do believe in moral absolutes - and should never be perpetuated (e.g., genocide), but to say that all violence is wrong, or violence should never be committed is contrary to the most basic instincts within all of us.

If something threatens my interests that will affect me or those I am attached to (extending this to the nation-state level), I will respond; if necessary, with violence.

It has been fortunate that this bleak outlook has been proved somewhat wrong in the case of democratic nations. As democracy has become more and more integrated into world systems of government, wars have become far LESS prevalent and the ratio of deaths for the human race caused by war/violence as a whole has fallen precipitously. I also believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another. Therefore - wouldn't it make sense for those in the democratic world to continue to pursue foreign policies which would establish democracy in other nations? This is not to say that all policies implemented are particularly successful in promoting democracy; rather, is it not our imperative to promote a state which is ideal for the avoidance of violence? Hence, the effort to promote democracy in the middle east (removing Saddam Hussein by force, encouraging revolution in Iran, etc. etc.).

Reduction of violence that is endemic to the system in which we live is something I believe nearly all individuals pursue. But it will never be eliminated as a factor of change and disruption in society.

--Cen

Nobody is saying dont fight.

But whats the end game with retaliation? Are we to kill until they "learn"?
Are we to commit to violence as our chief means as an instrument of change? You say Non- Violence doesnt work? Violence doesnt either.
In WW2 Nazis tried to suppress resistance movements by killing villagers on a 10 for 1 basis. Its didnt work, it made the resistance stronger. Does the Palestinian resistance become less committed when Israel retaliates? That cycle of violence will NEVER end. Hamas will organize, they will adapt and become more elusive, but they will continue with suicide bombings because the actions of Israel justify their own in their minds and feed their motivations.
Look at the Roman Empire. One thing they had in abundance were rebellions. Constantly. Especially in the mid-east. The took the gloves off too. They Crucified people in public places. Crucifixtion is the most brutal form of "revenge" ever contrived. It was a message to the local population "Dont even fucking thing about it"
At best, no matter how hard they pressed, they only got temporary results. While the thumb was pressed down hard, violence may have worked, but once the thumb was removed rebellion came back.
In fact in all of history I can only come up with one example where violence was used as an effective means of control. Stalin. But it took the killing of 20 Million of his citizens.
You want to start down that path? "The Gloves should come off", "Glass Parking lot"... mass graves?

Actually, human beings are not unchangeable - we are the most changeable animals. Why? Because we have the possibility to reason, to make decisions, and not to just re-act to circumstances. We have the possibility not to take the path of dog-eat-dog but to transcend the animal facets of our nature.

Of course, there are many cases in which the non-violent solution worked. South Africa. United States Civil Rights Movement. India's independence. Yes, there was some violence mixed into those struggles, but overwhelmingly it was the non-violent approaches (boycotts, sit-ins, and so on) that created change.

Of course there are bullies in this world. Of course. But what spawns bullies? Well if we examine ourselves, since we're widely considered to be one of the bullies in the world, you can see it is because we think we have the right to take retribution, to get revenge, to stick up for what we consider right. Or, as you say Cen, because your family is threatened in some way.

The problem is, that's exactly what our "enemies" think. They are defending their families, their beliefs - the same as us. They are the same as us because we would act the same way in their situation, no matter what the religion. The religion just determines the flavor (suicide bomber, kamikaze, Navy Seal).

So what is the result of this kind of thinking? 6000 years of war in mesopotamia. How can it ever end? There will be those who will never let this go until every single person in the middle east, Europe and the US are dead.

The war solution has been tried for a very long time. It's time to take another approach. I am not sure the change can come from our leadership, it has to start with each one of us, individually. We have to start questioning the role of Halliburton in this current conflict and what is really at the root of the attack on Iraq. We have to start paying closer attention to the activities of our elected leaders, to what companies we are supporting when we do something as simple as buy a plastic container or fill up our gas tank.

This is why you don't hire terrorists to tape your wedding. Did anybody actually see that video? The quality was horrible and the audio was all out of sync. The media could have played about 10 more seconds of that video. They zoomed in on legs and feet for quite a while before they figured out you wouldn't be able to understand wtf they were doing...

Now for something somewhat serious.. To those that those that will post about "nuke the fukers!" How much sense does this make? If you nuke a country that has a shit load of oil we're dying to get at you're gonna fuck it all up....

I am NOT saying this is our agenda, but a lot of people want to just Nuke and Loot. We have more level headed people on these boards than I imagined, but I'm sure we'll see this idea pop up sooner or later. It has on a few messageboards and newgroupsk I'm sure.

You're right, we must understand the reason why they beheaded one of our citizens. Then we must hunt them down, and explain to them real gentle like why they won't be able to do it anymore.

And war never solved anything, except for ending slavery, Fascism, Nazism, Imperialism, and Communism. And that's just in the past two centuries...

War is hell. Yup, woe on those sons of bitches who want to threaten my civilization.

Palestine or any other shit hole that arises on Earth will not be in peace until someone conquers them and sets up a democracy.

Funny thing is, if only one american prisoner of war would have been treated like the prisoners of war in iraq were treated you would scream - hand those fuckers over to american justice so we all can have a nice barbecue in Texas with them.

Now some of you say - one nation can't be held accountable for the wrong actions of a few. Guess the Iraqis think different here. And America would think different also, if the same thing would happen to you.

Some of you folks really have a twisted relationship to reality.

And this is when the US learns what Israel has learned in the past half a century.

There won't be peace in the middle east.

No matter how hard you try, no matter how many fanatics you gonna kill, no matter how tight your security is, the radical islam movements will keep on creating an endless supply of brainwashed solders for their holy war.

There is no solution, there is no salvation, just endless war.

To catch a thief you must think like a thief.

No, to catch a theif, you have to be *better* than the thief.

And war never solved anything, except for ending slavery, Fascism, Nazism, Imperialism, and Communism

As best I can tell, slavery, Communism and Fascism are alive and well through the world.

The war solution has been tried for a very long time. It's time to take another approach. I am not sure the change can come from our leadership, it has to start with each one of us, individually

Cenaden has already touched upon this. Your approach is unworkable. All it takes is one violent element to scatter your pacifist house of cards to the wind. That is why we have standing armies.

If Utopia was workable, it would have happened by now. There is a reason it only exsists in works of fiction or various flavors of otherworldly religious reward realms.

As best I can tell, slavery, Communism and Fascism are alive and well through the world.

In those countries in which war was implied as a solution they are no more. That it still exists is a blight on the world that will have to be resolved sooner or later.

You people that say "war solves nothing", "we need a new solution", blah blah blah. Somehow, killing makes us less humane? That's just all pure pussy laced bullshit.

Every freedom, every right we possess in western civilization was given to us by God. But the price paid for us to be able to exercise those freedoms came at a very high cost in blood by our forefathers. You wouldn't be here today if it weren't for someone giving their life for you. "War solves nothing" is just spitting on their unselfish sacrifices.

These people... no these animals over in the Middle East that support terrorism are no better than a dog that chases down a farmer's cattle. The only solution for that type of thing is to shoot it in the head. Does that stop another dog from doing the same thing? No, of course not. But it ended the immediate threat. One day of lapse vigilence and the farmer and his family starve the coming winter.

Fuck the dog's feelings. Fuck why he did it. Fuck the bitch that gave it birth. The farmer's survival is at stack.

That's the fight we're in right now.

You are on the same level as these 'animals' are, Aikpt. Exactly the same supidity, demagogue and narrow-mind mentality.

Tho, at least you had a good chance to be 'normal' and civilized, while out there - middle-east - children has much worse chance to grow up normally.

What western civilization differs from the arab world is, the piece of shit ppl like you is less than 5% of the overall population.

nothing else.

Every freedom, every right we possess in western civilization was given to us by God.
How so? I don't recall anything being gift-wrapped for our ancestors. Rights are given by rulers. The more involved the masses are with rule, the more rights we expect. Every ritht we possess we owe to men wise enough to establish political frameworks that grant us those rights and that inspire mortal men to protect them.

The enemy invokes their own god (or the same god, depending on how you look at it), and cite the cost in blood paid by their ancestors and themselves as the price to be paid to achieve their own goals.

[/quote]But the price paid for us to be able to exercise those freedoms came at a very high cost in blood by our forefathers.[/quote]
And those our forefathers conquered.

We need to redefine our role in Iraq and how we're going to tackle it. Democracy isn't going to come easily to a culture where that form of government is entirely foreign in concept and execution. How do we deal with the terrorism that's a constant threat to any stability in Iraq, especially once the transition to an Iraqi government is implemented? Shall we pull out and hope all goes well, remain a constant presence and thus subject to further attacks on our personnel, or have the UN take over, with expected mixed results?

I'm all for taking out terrorists with extreme prejudice, but we seem to be foundering in that regard, as in the entire post-war mess.

But thats the good thing Iamasci

For every wacko advocating violence and hate, there are 1000 people who know better. Most Americans know that some level of violence is unfortuanatly necessary. But it should be used extremely sparringly and avoided whenever possible. People in the miltary want to do their jobs, like a sharp sword wants to be swung, and thats a good thing, but its up to our government to use that sword only when all other options are gone.
There are people who know the difference between finding those responsible and wholesale genocide of a people. Akipt would be right on board with doing a "Dresden" Bombing on Najaf, Fallujah, Tikrit and where ever else didnt get in line. Arabs arent really humans anyway. So what if some US soliders abused them a bit, they are used to far worse from their own people, they should THANK us for being so easy on them. If those animals would just behave we would be so much nicer to them.
KILL KILL KILL.
Oh ya.. be like us. Aspire to hold our ideals up and become our allies. Well, dont deal with problems like we do, Do as we SAY, not as we DO.

Its surprising that some people have never moved beyond the point of a 2 year old who cant figure something out so he breaks it in a tantrum.

You are on the same level as these 'animals' are, Aikpt. Exactly the same supidity, demagogue and narrow-mind mentality.

Terrorists and those who support them need a bullet in the head. If you think that's stupid, demagoguery, and narrow-minded then I need say no more. You're a moron and hapless fool treading in your own delusions.

How so? I don't recall anything being gift-wrapped for our ancestors. Rights are given by rulers. The more involved the masses are with rule, the more rights we expect. Every ritht we possess we owe to men wise enough to establish political frameworks that grant us those rights and that inspire mortal men to protect them.

I seriously hope you're a product of some secularist European socialist education, because if you were taught that about America's foundation of government here in America, then your high school history teacher must have been your football coach well.

... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
~ The Declaration of Independence

My Creator gave me rights, that I can neither abolish nor alienate seperately from others. We don't get these rights from government, but government get's its right to govern from us.

Go back and kick your high school American history teacher in the balls for me.

Akipt would be right on board with doing a "Dresden" Bombing on Najaf, Fallujah, Tikrit and where ever else didnt get in line. Arabs arent really humans anyway. So what if some US soliders abused them a bit, they are used to far worse from their own people, they should THANK us for being so easy on them. If those animals would just behave we would be so much nicer to them.

Thank you Halo. You prick, I never condoned or even insinuated any such thing. But go on, that will fit your "anyone that doesn't agree with me must be evil and inferior."

You jackass.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
Whatever that creator might be. Some might take it as a god; I'd take it as the natural processes that brought me to be. And it doesn't matter to whom these rights are ascribed; if the government doesn't grant them to the governed, it's all moot. Medieval kings also claimed that their rule arose from divine right; that didn't mean the average peasant enjoyed the kind of rights we do in the US.

We don't get these rights from government, but government get's its right to govern from us.
Which is exactly what I said.

You might ask your god for the right of reading comprehension.

Which is exactly what I said... You might ask your god for the right of reading comprehension.

Really?

You said:
Rights are given by rulers.

I said:
We don't get these rights from government, but government get's its right to govern from us.

What exactly did you mean, because you didn't say it.

And btw here's a little hint: we're not living in the Middle Ages.

Terrorists and those who support them need a bullet in the head. If you think that's stupid, demagoguery, and narrow-minded then I need say no more. You're a moron and hapless fool treading in your own delusions

Ask yourself this: If our (meaning the United States) society was threatened by an invader who was determined to change our very way of life... to what degree would you fight?

Ruthey you are so naive and young it makes muh heart and brain ache.

ROFLMAO!!! Ruthey young and naive??? Idealistic, some what pureistic maybe, but not young and naive! She definately has a level of inner peace that most people will never achieve though!

What exactly did you mean, because you didn't say it.
I said that rights, meaning de facto rights, are granted by those who rule. I then stated that the more the common man is involved in rulership, the more rights are given. One can argue philosophically that we have such and such rights (and I wouldn't argue against it), but our freedom to exercise those rights depends on our involvement in the government.

And btw here's a little hint: we're not living in the Middle Ages.
We're not living in 1776 either. The point is, wherever you claim your rights are or where they originate, it's up to men to ensure their protection. Anyone can invoke gods for their own purposes.

Ask yourself this: If our (meaning the United States) society was threatened by an invader who was determined to change our very way of life... to what degree would you fight?

Till they're all dead and the places from where they came no longer has the will or ability to threaten us.

Ever heard of "Don't hate the player, hate the game"?

Military force is not something used like a pair of pruning sheers in the garden, it's more like a roto tiller to plow the whole thing up.

Make people remember why you don't wanna commit to war in the first place, otherwise you end up with these endless "confrontations" where you've got military shooting rockets at civilians and people screaming bloody murder except for the fact that it's the women and children carrying bombs into places of business and killing civilians in the first place, and retaliating to military response brought on by such actions by capturing civilians torturing and mutilating them..it's an endless cycle and there has been shown time and time again that you simply cannot reason with the barbaric attituded because they are just fanatics at this point, much like a sheepish group following Jim Jones looking for their cool-aid or bunch of nuts in Wako, or goose-stepping SS soldiers rolling through, or David Duke following cross burners. People beyond reason can be found in any culture. Not everyone can be "rehabilitated" back into society, deal with it, and deal with them.

Till they're all dead and the places from where they came no longer has the will or ability to threaten us.

So you'd strap a bomb to yourself and blow up whomever it took? Or crash airliners into office buildings?

The race for moron of the year is in a close three-way tie now. Congratulations.

But to answer your stupid question... I neither believe that I'll get a multitude of virgins to satsify me in some satanic heaven if I did such things, nor do I have to - because my God has blessed me with a country and a military that doesn't have to ask me to do it.

So please tell me you're not going to equivocate these terrorists who chop off innocent peoples' heads while shouting "god is great", while they hide cowardly behind masks... to what our military is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So you'd strap a bomb to yourself and blow up whomever it took? Or crash airliners into office buildings?

9/11/01 happened before we invaded anyone in the Middle East (recently) and "threatened their way of life".

Sorry...

Anyone who still believes that turning the other cheek and sticking the olive branch of peace up our asses will work with the ME Islamic fundamentalists is extremely naive.

Very naive and very very unaware of life in the ME.

Been there??

Fandros

Anyone who still believes that turning the other cheek and sticking the olive branch of peace up our asses will work with the ME Islamic fundamentalists is extremely naive.
I agree, but there's an irony in that a subsciber to a religion that supposedly promotes just that kind of peaceful mindset is such a strong proponent of bloodshed.

Funny how once I question you about the depth of your conviction, you call me a moron. Now, just so we are clear:

You said, when asked "to what degree would you fight" that you would do so:
Till they're all dead and the places from where they came no longer has the will or ability to threaten us.

Now, that implies you will do whatever it takes. YOU.
You then went on to say:

I neither believe that I'll get a multitude of virgins to satsify me in some satanic heaven if I did such things, nor do I have to - because my God has blessed me with a country and a military that doesn't have to ask me to do it

From your statement, you are more than happy to let others do your fighting for you.

So what you should have said was:
I'm willing to let others fight those my country considers enemies "Till they're all dead and the places from where they came no longer has the will or ability to threaten us."

Which is it? Would you do whatever it takes, or will you let others fight and accept the outcome, be what it may?

9/11/01 happened before we invaded anyone in the Middle East (recently) and "threatened their way of life".

Applying our thought process to the mindset of someone who crashes a plane into an office building might not be the best way to view it.

Now, WE said the war was over when we left Iraq the first time. We probably thought that it began when Iraq rolled into Kuwait.

But to the people we are taking about, the US represents a threat to their lifestyle *every day we breathe the same air they do*.

Which is it? Would you do whatever it takes, or will you let others fight and accept the outcome, be what it may?

What's the difference to you?

Do I have to kill someone to have my "manhood" confirmed?

Do I have to chop someone's head off to get into heaven?

Or can I donate $100 to Operation Iraqi Children (http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/mission.html) to help with the reconstruction of Iraq?

Or can I work for a company (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=13517&rsbci=0&fti=101&ti=0&sc=400) that helps to protect the way of life of billions of peace loving people around the world?

Or do I have to throw a M24 Sniper Rifle (http://www.remingtonle.com/rifle/m24.htm) over my shoulder and find a high perch overlooking a target rich environment somewhere to be a man?

If I had to, I'd do more. What's your point? If you're going to the "they're just fighting the invaders" it'll be the end of our discussion.

What's the difference to you?

Oh, it doesn't matter to me beyond a discussion on an internet forum. But, in that context, I had to ask those questions to understand your position.

Oh, it doesn't matter to me beyond a discussion on an internet forum. But, in that context, I had to ask those questions to understand your position.

So you wanted to know if I would become a terrorist? I rest my case, a moronic question.

But to the people we are taking about, the US represents a threat to their lifestyle *every day we breathe the same air they do*.

I couldn't agree more. I'd feel threatened if there was a foreign presence on what I considered *my* soil.

The trouble is, see, that *every day we breathe the same air they do*, no matter where we are we represent a threat to their "lifestyle", as you so easily underexaggerate the term.

These theocratic/despotic/autocratic governments in the Middle East are DETERMINED to stop us from breathing the same air they do. Western Civilization is an affront to nearly everything the primary tenets of Islam stand for and the beliefs of many Arabic citizens.

The only way these regimes will - possibly - change for the better, and perhaps see the chance for coexistence with "Western Civilization", is if democracy is introduced to their societies.

They - governments in the Middle East - do not listen to movements for change (Iran). They restrict the personal freedoms of their citizens (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq...ad nauseum).
In none of these countries have the conditions for a truly free society existed in thousands of years. The people living in these Middle Eastern areas for thousands of years have existed primarily under mind-boggling xenophobic and repressive governments. That would tend to breed the kind of reckless fanatacism, nationalism and extremism we see today and which, by the by, these governments do nearly nothing to discourage.

Nothing so far has been successful in breaking through this seemingly impenetrable cultural barrier. Life, faith and culture are so interwoven that the majority of these people cannot handle the complexities and freedoms of other societies - especially Western society. Anything which seems to be a threat to this triumvirate is cause for conflict. More transparency amongst Middle Eastern governments and encouragement of freedoms is essential for communication to begin, to help western civilization understand middle eastern culture and vice versa.

It is unfortunate that it increasingly appears that the only communication these governments will respond to is violence.

--Cen

Let me ask you all something. Are you going to effect fundamental change in the middle east by running over there, sticking a gun in everyone's face, and saying "You will love democracy or die?"

Um, no you will not.

This is pretty basic. If you want to effect a real change, and not just commit genocide, the *only* way is to take the moral high ground, to take the non-violent approach.

You can say "Well, *they* should take the non-violent approach first."

But that can never be. Why? Because retribution and revenge never ever ends. It goes on and on and on like an endless post in these forums, quid pro quo for eternity. Never an solution in sight.

The only solution is the inner revolution, seeing those fellow human beings suffering in the Middle East as the same as us. Compelled into circumstances and just wanting a better life at the end of the day.

The parents of the poor guy who was beheaded have an amazing opportunity before them, actually. They could speak out in forgiveness and show the world their own good hearts, their humanity. If they speak out for revenge it will only add fuel to the already out-of-control fire. Which is the better conclusion to a life, more violence? More endless suffering? More fear?

Nicely put Cen.

The parents of the poor guy who was beheaded have an amazing opportunity before them, actually. They could speak out in forgiveness and show the world their own good hearts, their humanity. If they speak out for revenge it will only add fuel to the already out-of-control fire. Which is the better conclusion to a life, more violence? More endless suffering? More fear?

Amazing opportunity? To what walk away after they bury their son? You gotta be shitting me.

This is pretty basic. If you want to effect a real change, and not just commit genocide, the *only* way is to take the moral high ground, to take the non-violent approach.

Obviously you have no fucking clue what they're really doing over there Ruthey.

Try these:

www.operationiraqichildren.org/mission.html (http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/mission.html)

www.spiritofamerica.net/ (http://www.spiritofamerica.net/)

www.networkforgood.org/topics/international/iraq/ (http://www.networkforgood.org/topics/international/iraq/)

www.afsc.org/human-face/relief_updates/default.htm (http://www.afsc.org/human-face/relief_updates/default.htm)

www.mercycorps.org/iraq/ (http://www.mercycorps.org/iraq/)

www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=57 (http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=57)

Get educated and stop watching the BBC.

Let me ask you all something. Are you going to effect fundamental change in the middle east by running over there, sticking a gun in everyone's face, and saying "You will love democracy or die?"


Exaggeration. Show me where I said that's what I was suggesting. I said that violence is something they understand.

This is pretty basic. If you want to effect a real change, and not just commit genocide, the *only* way is to take the moral high ground, to take the non-violent approach.

You can say "Well, *they* should take the non-violent approach first."


Why? Why is the non-violent approach the high moral ground? If someone is threatening/menacing to kill me and I kill him first, am I wrong? If someone is threatening to kill those around me and is seen to have the means to do so, am I not right for putting a stop to this person's ability to do so? I'm sorry, but that's the way it will always be. Self-preservation instinct and reaction against mortal threats will always generate a response in human beings, for the majority a violent (retaliatory) one.

The only solution is the inner revolution, seeing those fellow human beings suffering in the Middle East as the same as us. Compelled into circumstances and just wanting a better life at the end of the day.

Idealism. You assume that your "better life" is even compatible with their better life. What if their "better life" involves the extermination of Western Civilization? Don't get me wrong; I have compassion for innocents that are killed, most definitely. But to say that, "same as us" they want a better life - in the same way - is incorrect.

--Cen

Hmm.

"Pats not in heaven, Pat wasnt religious, Pats fucking Dead, okay... He's just fucking gone"
That was what a pretty drunk Pat Tillmans brother said at his memorial service.
Hold onto that thought for moment.


Our civilization here in the west, wether you are religous or not, is based on the Christian tradition of ethics. What we are is based on the experiences of those that have come before us and laid a ground of society, of technology and of morality.
In the Christian tradition we have a view of life that differs in small but extremely significant ways from that of the muslim world. Our foundation of morality is based on the example of Christ (wether you believe in him or not is irrelevant, understand I am dealing with tradition of beliefs, not in the validity or ultimate truthfulness of a religion). The main focus of a persons moral being is his or her view of life.
We in the west have view that the experience of life is of great value and the worth of a person is how he lives. Even Christ, in the garden before guards came to arrest him for his execution, sweated blood he was so afraid of what was ahead of him. And he fought his final end with every breath of life he had in his body.
Paul once said that "Death is the final enemy"
Western Culture teaches us to RAGE, RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT. Carpe Diem...
Fight against death, wage war against it. This is who we are.

Muslim culture is a bit different
Muhammad was above all other things a great general. He founded the religion and lead his people into massive wars of liberation from forces oppressing them. They waged a bloody war after war to establish themselves.
Lots of Qu'ran is based from a martial viewpoint. So therefore the view of death is a bit different too.
The value of man is equal in his death as to his life. If a man lays down his life in Jihad, he is holy and is blessed.
There is glory and honor in a rightous death. The Blood of Martyrs defends Islam.
Is this saying that Islam is bad religion. No.. dont get me wrong. Islam has other aspects of it that are less focused on.
But, draw a line. Now draw 1000 lines right next that that one, each following the contour of the one before it, each in succession. In a perfectly straight line, the 1st line and 1000th line will both be perfect. If the original line has a bump, or a flaw, the 1000th line will have a grotesque mutation of that original small, tiny flaw.

Is nihilistic fatalism and cultural suicide the end result of a Martial based culture and religion? Look at the road Japan went on with the code of Bushido. The battle of Iwo Jimo was a suicidal orgy. Japan would have been a nightmarish bloodbath of scale and proportion that is horrific to even comprehend.

Is this the fate of Islam? To impale itself on the swords of the west in a fatalistic extasy devoid of hope and locked in a love embrace with death? Make no mistake, if Al-Queda or people of like minds capture the hearts and minds of Arab people, they will lead the Middle East into a "suicide by cop" situation.
Can we in good conscious as a people willing offer up our sword? Do we allow ourselves to be goaded into the mass annihliation of an entire people?
Or do we come up with another way?

How do we do this though? What is the way?
IMO, we have to somehow free the minds of the people of the middle east. Look at Iran. Technology, communication, openess, contact... thats how you win. Not guns, tanks, bombs, killing, torture.
Press these nations to open up, to take part in the global economy, capitalism, free trade. Get people working and busy.
Religion right now in the Middle East is a tool of survival. A way to cope with a harsh surrounding and to keep despair from overcoming them. A way to face each day without giving into the insanity that envelopes them.
Busy people dont act like that. For people with hope and jobs and income and lives, religion becomes what it is for us. A philosophy, a collection of thoughts given to individual interpretation as a general guide line for living life. Not a strict code imposed.

To get back to that quote from Tillmans brother. It illustrates how a person can have strong beliefs and morals and convictions free from religion or doctrine in a free society.
How many Muslim terrorists have that kind of courage of conviction?
ehh.. thats my rambling.

Good post L2 :D

So does this mean you approve of the democratization of the middle east as Bush is doing?

Cen, interesting that you misunderstand my post to be directed at you. Actually, I meantion "you all" and didn't really have you in mind so much when I wrote.

So, let's take the example of misunderstanding. Let's say someone misunderstood me enough to want to harm me physically.

What would my response be as a practitioner of non-violence?

Maybe I wouldn't know about the plan of such violence too, but we'll deal with that in a second.

OK, so if so confronted, my response should be to calm my mind as much as possible. Don't know if I could do it consistently - I live in NYC and have had people get up in my face in the subway before due to misunderstanding. Misunderstandings on the subway tend to be thinking that someone is pushing you when in fact they are just bumping you, barely conscious of their surroundings. Well I've been the victim - and the perpetrator - of bumping.

So on one occastion this person thought I'd pushed them (I had bumped). I could have started shrieking "I did not push you - I bumped you!" but instead, I gave up my attachment to fighting the person back for their accusation. Instead my reaction was to look them deeply and kindly in the eye and apologize whole-heartedly and sincerely and with a calm mind. And with confidence. That diffused things immediately. Why? It's hard to really get yourself to bitch slap someone who confronts you with clear, sincere confident human kindness. It showed me I can change the emotional environment of a moment just by keeping a good command of my own mind.

Whereas on one occasion, I was in a rotten mood, someone thought I intentially pushed them (which it was just me knocked by the train). In that case I drew myself up angrily too, trying to be intimidating, and furious that this person was bothering me when I already was tired and grumpy. It just lead to a dumb annoying argument that went no where and left me with a raging headache.

So let's say someone wants to harm me, maybe the whole-hearted approach doesn't work. Maybe that approach is seen as insincere, fake, and just a strategy - or maybe the person is so consumed with evil - and I'm harmed anyway. Could I have escaped this? Am I completely innocent? Well, I did involve myself in something that lead to a misunderstanding, you could argue. Maybe you could even say I asked for it. Maybe I wasn't sincere after all.

So when you say (and this time I do mean Cen): "If someone is threatening/menacing to kill me and I kill him first, am I wrong? If someone is threatening to kill those around me and is seen to have the means to do so, am I not right for putting a stop to this person's ability to do so?" I have to respond that maybe there is a way of stopping someone from killing you which is not a violent approach.

People do things for reasons. They do things based on what is going on in their minds. Remove the reason for the action and the action will not follow. Remove the circumstances that lead to insane sociopathic behavior and that behavior will become less prevalent.

Let's say I am murdered. How do I want my family to react? Do I want them to go out in hot-headed vengence, mowing down my murderer? Or do I want them to focus on trying to return to their own happy life, leaving anger, hatred and aggression towards this person behind? And leaving me behind, letting me go. The cruelest thing about vengence is that it shows no consideration for those who are already harmed. It shows no respect for death.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/125197/8_26_051204_nick_berg.jpg

Was this a good time for Nick Berg to "look them deeply and kindly in the eye and apologize whole-heartedly and sincerely and with a calm mind" ?

So does this mean you approve of the democratization of the middle east as Bush is doing?


I sure do.

So when you say (and this time I do mean Cen): "If someone is threatening/menacing to kill me and I kill him first, am I wrong? If someone is threatening to kill those around me and is seen to have the means to do so, am I not right for putting a stop to this person's ability to do so?" I have to respond that maybe there is a way of stopping someone from killing you which is not a violent approach.


I did believe your post was originally directed at me; my mistake and apologies. :)

I would like to clarify two things in my examples to address your aforementioned point(s): intention/discretion and instinct.

Firstly, I believe that the majority of human beings are capable of reasoning to the intentions of another human being, even if solely by watching repetition of actions. To use your subway example - if someone pushes me once on the Subway, I will turn, see if it was just an accidental nudge, and more than likely turn away and forget about the incident. If I get pushed repeatedly however, without seeming cause, I will turn and confront who is pushing me.

A rational, mentally capable human being will be able to reason out what the intentions are behind another action and use discretion in responding to that action. However, there is a limit and variation to this discretion in all people - for some, it is that first shove in the back before they retaliate (extremists in many societies), for others (I am assuming you), it is only after repeated aggressive behavior and possibly to the point of real physical harm.

A human being that uses a violent response 100% of the time is someone that needs to be stopped - that's exactly my point in this whole debate. It is a matter of a lack of discretion. Violence breeds in the Middle East because people there, unexposed to information and freedom as we have come to know it lack this discretion.

Second. Instinct. We all have it. When you say:
People do things for reasons. They do things based on what is going on in their minds. Remove the reason for the action and the action will not follow.
I tend to disagree. You can remove the reason behind the action and it'll still happen. Some actions occur simply because of basic human instinct. You dodge a ball thrown at you; you jump out of the way of an oncoming car; you take a baseball bat to the back of the head of a burglar who's brandishing a steak knife on the off chance that he's not just admiring the cutlery. You can attempt to eliminate all the circumstances behind sociopathic behavior - extremely unlikely - and it'll still occur.

In my opinion, it is presumptuous to assume that humans can overcome basic instincts like these. One may, in some situations, be able to overcome one's natural responses through mental training or experience with similar ordeals, but that does not encompass the majority of human individuals - or situations. Greater than 90% of the time, one reacts based upon survival instincts we came to rely on while still swinging through the treetops. You don't always have time to think your through a situation. Fight or Flight. Life or Death. The clock's ticking, do you know how long you have?

To not completely derail the thread (as if it hasn't already) removing the reason behind an action - for example, the roadside bombing - will not necessarily stop the act.

Say in a fantasy dreamworld the violence in the mideast stops tomorrow. The leaders of the League of Arab Nations convenes and agrees to voluntarily accept change within their governments, grant their citizens unalienable rights and provide freedom of information, speech, and natural rights thereof, as long as noninterference in sovereign Arab nations' affairs is promised by the Western world. The United States withdraws its military forces, along with the UN, and a historic accord is reached.

Does the bombing stop? No. Why? One's removed the reason behind it, right? Peace. Happiness. Everyone to their own business. It would be a better world if it worked that way.

For some, in this dreamworld, the change will not happen fast enough - bombing will occur. For others, they will see it as just a continuation of western corruption - bombing will occur. Point being, one can talk about removing the reasons until your tongue falls out, but one is never going to be able to eliminate all of them. Extremism. People who will never settle. People that kill someone because of that first push on the subway.

Aristotle said it best, and said it first. Extremes are bad and extremes are dangerous. The problem now is how to get a culture to adjust to not reacting in such extreme ways.

--Cen

So you wanted to know if I would become a terrorist? I rest my case, a moronic question.

Not at all. See, you said this:
Till they're all dead and the places from where they came no longer has the will or ability to threaten us.

About the only way you can get that is to commit genocide or lock down the population to such a degree you could retrain the thought processes to better suit the way you want them to act. Because they aren't going to back off, and all it takes is one yahoo with some explosives strapped to his belly to be a threat.
Now, if you are willing to do that, you might be willing to fly airplanes into skyskrapers.
Also, given your heated tirades and willingness to dismiss everyone as morons, you're displaying as much flexibility of thought as some of those who you claim to despise.

Which is a good segue into this:
The trouble is, see, that *every day we breathe the same air they do*, no matter where we are we represent a threat to their "lifestyle", as you so easily underexaggerate the term.

That is what I meant- I can see where the misunderstanding would come in. When I said "breathe the same air they do" I meant being alive- as in, as long as our culture is present, we are a threat.

So does this mean you approve of the democratization of the middle east as Bush is doing?

I support the democratization of the middle east, but not as Bush is doing it.

Ya know the ironic thing.. Conservatives are always saying that Liberals ask people to judge them on their intentions, not on what they actually do.
How about we apply that same criteria to Bush.
YES, he has wonderful intentions, but the implementation of these noble concepts has been an unmitigated disaster.

We need to do this in the Middle East and Iraq, but we need a better way.

Actually, Gass, yes. (Re: "Was this a good time for Nick Berg to "look them deeply and kindly in the eye and apologize whole-heartedly and sincerely and with a calm mind" ? ")

Regarding: "Say in a fantasy dreamworld the violence in the mideast stops tomorrow. The leaders of the League of Arab Nations convenes and agrees to voluntarily accept change within their governments, grant their citizens unalienable rights and provide freedom of information, speech, and natural rights thereof, as long as noninterference in sovereign Arab nations' affairs is promised by the Western world..."

The cause of the violence of the middle east is not just that their governments aren't democratic. The cause is much more complex. It has to do with how Israel was created after WWII - and that has causes and conditions stretching back through the millienia. It has to do with the IMF and its unfair behavior. It has to do with lack of education. Plus taking into account how our country has been behaving in respect to Israel's behavior, in respect to the oil trade, etc. We may be a democracy here, but we certainly have not behaved democratically abroad. So many causes and conditions - that we are a part of creating, each one of us.



Anyway - that is true this has partially been a thread derailment.

The only way these regimes will - possibly - change for the better, and perhaps see the chance for coexistence with "Western Civilization", is if democracy is introduced to their societies....That would tend to breed the kind of reckless fanatacism, nationalism and extremism we see today and which, by the by, these governments do nearly nothing to discourage.
Among the many pitfalls of introducing democracy is the effect it would have on the clergy. Giving power to the people would diminish their own power and influence, which is something they cannot abide. If they are placated, we have another Iran/Saudi Arabia, and democracy effectively goes down the tubes. If not, we'll effectively see civil war as terrorists seek to destroy the "puppets of the corrupt West."

God Ruthey...

shhhhhhh you speak of non-violence as if it's possible atm.

You obviously have nothing more to do than to sit outside your local 7-11 and look at pretty flowers....

Life is hard, life smacks you about and trust me Islamic hardcore folks will skull fuck you and not look back.

I suggest you make a trip over there and pronounce how American you are.

Let's see at that point if you turn the other cheek...after they flay the very skin from your bones...

Gee sir, I forgive you and I'm sorry I dulled your knife with my flesh.....

Fandros

We are back to the beginning.

It's easy...noone has to 'make a trip over there and pronounce how American you are'.

"The Al-Zarqawi group is a criminal, deviant and un-Islamic group, allied with bin Laden and the criminals of Al Qaeda who are killing even Muslims and Arabs for no reason."

They are a gang of thugs..nothing different than a gang banger running up to some inocent on the street at capping him in the head for what ever reason. This is horrible thing to happen but It shouldnt change the American view of the good that is still comming out of helping Iraqi's whether you think we are or not.

Now, if you are willing to do that, you might be willing to fly airplanes into skyskrapers.
Also, given your heated tirades and willingness to dismiss everyone as morons, you're displaying as much flexibility of thought as some of those who you claim to despise.

If you're the same type of idiot who thinks we're just over there for oil, or revenge for trying to kill daddy, Bush lied about the WMD, they're just defending their homeland, or some such tin hat myth, then yeah, I guess I can see how you'd ask such a question. I've lost patience with that line of thinking, so we can't even have an argument - thus my lacking "flexibility of thought" to you.

That is what I meant- I can see where the misunderstanding would come in. When I said "breathe the same air they do" I meant being alive- as in, as long as our culture is present, we are a threat.

Statements like this make me think that you and others on here are stereotyping Muslims. Does America not have the largest Muslim or Islamic population outside of the Middle East ? We can coexist, we just have to give them the same environment they enjoy here - democracy and security.

I support the democratization of the middle east, but not as Bush is doing it.

You're a neo-con in talk, but I don't see it in reality. You're telling me, Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and their other friends would have had the balls to take out Saddam? I don't see it ever happening. It's easy to say they would have set up a democracy for Afghanistan - their hand would have been forced the same as it was for Bush.

We've had this argument before. Go through the UN? Got news for you, France would have vetoed Kerry or Gore the same as they did Bush. Which leads me to this...

Ya know the ironic thing.. Conservatives are always saying that Liberals ask people to judge them on their intentions, not on what they actually do.
How about we apply that same criteria to Bush.
YES, he has wonderful intentions, but the implementation of these noble concepts has been an unmitigated disaster.

We need to do this in the Middle East and Iraq, but we need a better way.

There's always a better way, so it's really easy for you and Kerry to stand back and say you'd do it better.

/shrug

I'm still waiting on Kerry's "better way" in Iraq. But I have to reconcile that with Kerry's past. How, after telling Tim Russert that he was the Anti-War candidate during the primaries, come out before the American people and convince us he would have gone into Iraq? He wouldn't have. No war in Iraq, means no democracy there, ever. (Ruthey - see a valid use of violence) Or did he expect Saddam and all his henchmen to just give up to the UN's diplomacy? I don't have to remind you about their Oil-for-I-Will-Cockblock-America-For-You program.

France would have vetoed Kerry or Gore the same as they did BushYou mean if they used the same lie?
blah blah, dead horse, blah blah.

Heres the better way.

The mightiest weapon in the arsenal is not a bomb or a ship or a plane.
The strongest weapon is the same one that tore down the Soviet Union and defeated Communism there and is eroding it to non existance in China.
Our Economy.
Of all the Targets the Terrorists could have struck, what did they attack? What were the things they feared about the most?
The Pentagon? Sure..
But the World Trade Center? Why? They do not fear our bombs, or our soliders, they embrace death. They welcome war, thats what want.
They fear our economy. They fear the exportation of free trade, and capitalism. The fear the prosperity of Islamic people, who in the enrichment of their personal lives through economic opportunity would find them irrelevant.

You want to minimize the importance of Religious figures? Create a middle class. People with nice houses, good jobs, cars, children in college generally want no part of Jihad. Give people things to care about that are personal and they are no longer willing to become homocidal over these more extroverted issues.
Now, im gonna admit something that Kerry is wrong about. >shock< I know.
Exporting of jobs isnt necessarily a bad thing if the exportation is controlled to the right places.
India for example. The mass exodus of IT jobs in there in the long run is a pretty good thing if it creates a strong middle class.
What does a middle class do? A middle class BUYS things, a middle class consumes and spends. A middle class produce children with the training and education of continue and expand its existance.
A emerging middle class in India would mean the second most populous nation on the earth is suddenly in the market for TVs and Cars and Computers and whatever else they want.
That means jobs here. In the long run.
Now turn that on the Middle East. Create wealth, create a middle class. Get people working, get people educated, give them opportunity, give them hope, give them something to lose.
Thats how you win in the Middle East.
Not with "boots on the ground"

Great post L2 but I don't think any of that is possible with out
"Boots on the ground" first. Key part is give them something important in life to live for. At the moment dieing is more appealing to them...the radicals anyways. Then again can you change the mindset of those individuals..ever? Probably not in yours or my life time.

Ibudin

Thats how you win in the Middle East.
Not with "boots on the ground"

OOOooooh you're so close L2.

Back to this:

You want to minimize the importance of Religious figures? Create a middle class. People with nice houses, good jobs, cars, children in college generally want no part of Jihad. Give people things to care about that are personal and they are no longer willing to become homocidal over these more extroverted issues.

Won't happen till the Kim Jon Ils and the Saddams and the Saudi Royals and the whoever-the-fuck-ruling-in Iran is out of power. And you have to have boots on the ground to do it.

We're all hoping and praying the Iranian students are going to rise up and take over. Won't happen, until we and our allies put "boots on the ground" military pressure to make it happen.

www.bergen.org/AAST/Proje...esses.html (http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/depression/successes.html)

Something like that would be a good start.

Who is causing most of the problems.. Unemployed young men.
Get them working, get them doing SOMETHING.. FDR knew this was crucial.
Give the economy time to develop and keep the streets safe for people to conduct business...

Who is causing most of the problems.. Unemployed young men.
Get them working, get them doing SOMETHING.. FDR knew this was crucial.
Give the economy time to develop and keep the streets safe for people to conduct business...

... L2, I just can't get my mind around your fantasy world.

So explain how to set up welfare states in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea (oops already have that there) Syria, Palestine, and where ever else these corrupt regimes are that allow terrorism to fester or are even supported, without going in and taking out their tyrannical governments?

Shower them with the blessed UN resolutions? hahaha

So explain how to set up welfare states in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea (oops already have that there) Syria, Palestine, and where ever else these corrupt regimes are that allow terrorism to fester or are even supported, without going in and taking out their tyrannical governments?


I suggest we have France do it.

They did a real bangup job with Iraq and oil for food.

If you're the same type of idiot who thinks we're just over there for oil, or revenge for trying to kill daddy, Bush lied about the WMD, they're just defending their homeland, or some such tin hat myth, then yeah, I guess I can see how you'd ask such a question

The way you throw around insults to everyone else's brainpower, I'm expecting you at any moment to start saying "Inconceivable" to complete your transformation into Vecini from The Princess Bride.

Anyhow, I've been less than fair, I've not stated my stance on the whole thing.

At this stage of things, it doesn't matter what our reasons for going over there were. As more facts come (or don't come) to light, it will be examined and picked apart by people in political science and history classes for years and years to come. I seem to remember you being in school, still- maybe you'll write a thesis on it or something. Who knows. For me, it is a moot point.

The fact of the matter is we are there, and we've stepped into a gigantic pile of dogshit. I'm not an expert on anti-terrorism or global politics, but I don't think there is any easy way to solve the problem we have made for ourselves.

However, now that we've stepped in it, we have to clean it up. We should stay and finish the job of stabilizing that area and trying to develop a culture that is more friendly to the United States, no matter how long it takes.

We should keep our troops in the area until the threat of violence is gone. Then we should keep them there a while longer, just to make sure somebody isn't trying to play silly buggers with us.

We should also not even speak of transferring power to anyone until we have some measure of stability in the country. Then, there should be open elections.

We also must spread the mission into other countries- It doesn't do a damn bit of good to clean up Iraq unless the hotspots and training grounds in other countries are also eliminated.

Obviously, we don't want to invade every country. There are ways to fight terrorism without sending troops or invading. Perhaps working with the governments of (for example) the Phillipines to help eliminate the terrorist groups forming there would help with the mission.

There is a long road ahead of us. How we handle things in Iraq and other places around the world *from this point on* is going to determine what happens.

Dont switch the topic.

We arent discussing those places. We are discussing Iraq.
Iraq is the lynch pin to a more stable Middle East. Or the end of our ability to make change there. Depending on how it goes.
If you are going to take what im saying about Iraq and apply to a situations that are not at present actual, nor what I am talking about.. then there really is no point debating nor defending something I never actually said.
The question was, whats a better way to transform Iraq, I just told you a better way, now you completly ignore what I said by removing it from the intended context.
Strange..

As far as Welfare to North Korea and Saudi Arabia... heh.. we already are doing it.
And dont expect us to try to change Saudi Arabia with Bush in the office as members of the Royal Family are close and personal friends with George and his Dad.

Dont switch the topic. We arent discussing those places. We are discussing Iraq.

?! The only place I slipped in there that we weren't discussing before was North Korea, but we were certainly arguing more than just about Iraq.

We need to do this in the Middle East and Iraq, but we need a better way.
Now turn that on the Middle East. Create wealth, create a middle class. Get people working, get people educated, give them opportunity, give them hope, give them something to lose.

Thats how you win in the Middle East.
Not with "boots on the ground"
You're back to circle jerking again.

You agree we need to have democracy in these places, including Iraq.

That means going in and taking out the tyrannical leaders.

Kerry, as he's clearly stated in this election process, is anti-war. He wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

You've clearly stated you can't do it "with boots on the ground." I'll assume that means no military force removing these regimes from power by force or by threat.

Kind words and pats on the backs do not work, you have more sense than that. So explain to me how the fuck we get freedom and democracy in these place without military force and boots on the ground.

And Amhorach, I couldn't agree more.

And Amhorach, I couldn't agree more.

errr... what is worse.. being called a moron or having akpit agree with you?
Just kidding.

Smartass :p

And for the record I never really called you a moron, just your question. But if I did, can I have it back? There's plenty more on here that deserve it.

Until someone provide a decent alternative to counter-violence then the standard, "There's a better way! There has to be a better way!" argument, I'm all for violence.

If anyone wants to see the actual video to perhaps change their stance on the subject, let me know and I'll post a downloadable link.

I think this was mentioned once before, but one of the biggest problems we currently have in Iraq is the large number of unemployed and frustrated citizens (there was some very enlightening footage of some Iraqi citizens being interviewed in a barbershop in Baghdad on CNN recently where they were quite outspoken about what they saw as the problems facing the country). Our objective was to go in there and do nation building, right? So that Iraq could stand on its own two feet and support a democracy? Then why the hell are we paying companies like Haliburton untold millions of dollars for reconstruction when we have a vast pool of folks who need jobs right there on the ground in Iraq? Why not, what a concept, *enfranchise* the Iraqi people in their own rebuilding, by starting W.P.A. type projects, employ these folks, and let that reconstruction money actually go into the Iraqi economy instead of into the pockets of foreign contractors?

Here's a somewhat outdated link btw, from the Baghdad Bulletin, which unfortunately had to stop publishing late last year due to financial concerns:

www.baghdadbulletin.com/p...b36cc2e18e (http://www.baghdadbulletin.com/pageArticle.php?article_id=162&cat_id=1&PHPSESSID=77a0c03b8c3231212d2e74b36cc2e18e)

Iraq needs its infrastructure totally rebuilt, and much of that rebuilding can be done by semiskilled labor. What's going to restore confidence of the Iraqi people in us there is not APCs of American troops patrolling the streets (although yes that serves a needed function), but the lights being on, clean water flowing, the streets being maintained, etc etc. Provide them both with some material comfort and stability in their day-to-day lives, and a source of income and 'investment' in their own improvement, and the liklihood of democracy or something that resembles it emerging has been greatly improved...

Desparation breeds desparate acts, and providing the stick, without the carrot, is only going to provide a breeding ground for more foment - and recruits for terrorist organizations who wish only to exploit them and care nothing about Iraq or its people, who, believe it or not, are not all terrorists.

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

Iraq needs its infrastructure totally rebuilt, and much of that rebuilding can be done by semiskilled labor. What's going to restore confidence of the Iraqi people in us there is not APCs of American troops patrolling the streets (although yes that serves a needed function), but the lights being on, clean water flowing, the streets being maintained, etc etc. Provide them both with some material comfort and stability in their day-to-day lives, and a source of income and 'investment' in their own improvement, and the liklihood of democracy or something that resembles it emerging has been greatly improved...


This I most certainly agree with. If it's true that we are paying other countries to go in and help rebuild Iraq then the money for rebuilding Iraq is going to the wrong place. Let the Iraqi construction workers, or would be contruction workers, do the rebuilding, they need to start standing on their own feet somewhere why not there.

I believe an angry young man by the name of Dave once said

If there's a new way,
I'll be the first in line.
But it better work this time.

Peace sells....but who's buying!


I think ol'Zehn's comment summs it up for alot of folks. Until they do figure it out with this grand new way I vote kill'em all.

www.schnittshow.com/timag...Reward.jpg (http://www.schnittshow.com/timages/page/IraqiReward.jpg)

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

Are Our Troops Doing Enough to Torture Unsaved Iraqis?
Sermon By Brother Harry Hardwick

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by this time, you've all had a chance to study the photos of those naked Iraqi men we have hanging up in Fellowship Hall. Seeing those prisoners being tortured and made to act like a pack of pyramid-loving homos by American troops shook me to the core. And as always, I turned to the warm embrace of the all-knowing Lord to make sense of what I saw. And do you know what? Jesus gave me an epiphany (that means a personal broadcast from the Savior’s lips to my ears, for those of you sitting up in the balcony). Friends, I’ve got to tell you, a revelation struck me with blinding clarity: if we had only bombed the Allah-loving daylights out of that whole blasted country when we had a chance, there never would have been any still-living Iraqis to take any photographs of! That would have put a stop to the communist traitors at the liberal media shoving unpleasant photographs under our noses simply to besmirch our fine men and women in uniform! Friends, The Lord Jesus filled my angry head with beautiful, calming daydreams of how wonderful life would have been had we dropped just enough nukes on Iraq to collaterally wipe out the Middle East – except for Israel, which would be protected by Star Wars technology, which, I was told by Mr. Cheney while fly fishing, is already in place thanks to the secret diversion of a trillion health and education budget dollars. We, of course, want to save Israel for the Lord to delight in burning and killing after the Rapture. I hear some of you grumbling, but remember: we can't have all the fun.

Just think, my friends, we would have rid ourselves of most of the towel-heads and a large number of Christ-killers (Jews, that is, not Romans – the Italian government, after all, supported our Godly President. So, I mean Christ-killers as portrayed in the Gibson flick and Paul's epistles, not in the unreliable contradictions of secular history). But, no. We had to go do the politically correct thing and limit casualties to a measly 7,000 Iraqi civilians rather than the millions of Muslims we could have sent back to Satan with a single MX missile.

Friends, I don’t know if you all realize this, but the good Lord has given us the technology to kill folks without destroying His precious oil fields. And that’s important, when you consider the fact that those turban-wearing, moon-worshipping, dirt people have the second largest supply of oil in the world. I see from your faces that some of you petrochemical folks in the Gold Tither pews know where I am going with this! With a reason for the war on the table, we could have flattened Babylon and been looking at a long, steaming summer full of cheap gas instead of unseemly court martials, which are just like catnip to America-hating pansies.

Well, now we’re stuck, because we let most of them survive. Now they’re over there lollygagging in Saddam's gulag, prancing about shamelessly without a stitch of clothing. We’re forced to allow them to do disgusting things like shimmy-shagging their uncircumcised willies in front of that sweet, innocent little hillbilly girl, Army Pfc. Lynndie England, who was so embarrassed she had to laugh just to relieve the tension.Yet, with amazing restraint in the face of such debauchery, we have kept prison deaths in a negligible range of under a thousand. But still, these Sand Negroes complain. Just like their ungrateful cousins, the real McCoy Negroes in Birmingham, used to complain when my dear, departed friend Eugene "Bull" Connor, out of Christian kindness, used city fire hydrant water – free of charge – to give them coloreds something most of them needed a whole lot more than a right to vote – a shower.

Well, honestly folks, we brought this whole mess on ourselves by sugarcoating the reasons we’re over there. My wife will tell you, I love our President, almost as much as I love Jesus, but that boy was so hell bent on outdoing his daddy by getting reelected, he kowtowed to popular sentiment and came up with a phony but politically palatable reason for the invasion of Iraq – weapons of mass destruction. Of course, since we knew Iraq didn’t have those things, we had no choice but to try to torture the Iraqi captives into admitting that WMD was there (since they certainly wouldn’t have played along absent a few welts, bruises and sore rectums). Yet, even with a concerted effort at coercion fashioned after the Mary Worshipers' useful model employed successfully by Mr. Torquemada, we still couldn’t get the American public to believe there were WMDs. You can pull a torture hood over an Iraqi prisonor, but you can't pull the wool over the eyes of even the least educated American media watchers because folks who watch Fox News know you can't believe a dang word an Arab says, tortured or otherwise.

So, now we’re left with the fallback position – we overthrew a so-called sovereign nation and tortured its people because its government tortured its people. You see, it violates our sense of honor and fair play for folks to torture their own people and we won't tolerate it And now that we are forced to kowtow at the socialistic shrine of the so-called “human rights” horsepucky of those pinkos at Amnesty International and whatnot, -- beating, torturing, raping, assaulting, burning, molesting, branding, stripping and humiliating the people we took time out of our busy days to liberate is no longer viewed as just a positive and necessary part of getting a job done; it is cast as something negative by the weak-kneed Henny Pennies in the Kerry-worshiping media.

Yes, folks, as if you didn't know it already, our country has become ridiculously liberal. We put such innocuous liberal intelligentsia concepts as so-called "freedom" and so-called "dignity" -- some of you out there are spitting and laughing, but this is serious business -- above fundamental Biblical principles like God’s command that we slaughter those with different religious beliefs – killing every man, woman and child -- in any country we conquer that has a different mystical power figure in charge,1 (with the exception, perhaps, of those tantalizing virgins we wish to enslave as our own2). In fact, if we decline to kill heathens, we run the risk of God slaughtering us, as He has done to so many in the past3.

Our President and his Biblical brothers, Pat and Jerry (not to be confused with their liberal nemeses Ben and Jerry), have correctly noted that Dubya is merely enforcing God’s will. After all, God, the Father, having never watched Dr. Phil, is a manly and unapologetically vindictive deity, who kills those who don’t follow His will at the drop of a turban. He engages in acts of violence that make the current Iraqi situation look like a debutante cotillion. Drowning, burning,4 starving,5 stabbing with a sword,6 blinding,7 breaking people into pieces,8 breaking knees and legs – in fact, every body part from the sole of the foot to the top of the head,9 slaughtering pregnant women’s unborn children,10 and the dreaded inflicting of hemorrhoids11 are but a few of God’s favorite methods of torture. By comparison, our soldiers are hesitant amateurs. Urinating on a prisoner doesn’t hold a candle to making your creations drink their own urine12 and bake human excrement into their bread.13 Having dogs intimidate prisoners doesn’t come close to having dogs actually devour people who rub you the wrong way.14 And sodomizing someone with a foreign object isn’t nearly as painful as making them so sick, their bowels actually fall out of their bodies where they can be sodomized at leisure long after the victim has left the room.15

Those Arabiacs should be glad God sent American soldiers as proxies to do his bidding instead of going in there and whipping their butts, Himself. God, having created man long before 12-step programs, is a boldly jealous and vengeful divinity who has promised certain demise of anyone who doesn’t constantly compliment Him, instead focusing their attention on other, more Geneva Convention compliant deities.16 God has promised that, “All of the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy” (Zephaniah 3:8) . God will kill so many nonbelievers that there will be no place large enough to bury them all.17 If a nation, like Iraq, does not believe in Him, He “will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation,”18 laughing at the heathens as He kills them.19 Even in the New Testament, God promised to kill those who don’t flatter Him,20 eventually hurling them into a “lake of fire”21 where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.22
Our brave soldiers’ minimal torture can only serve to prepare these heathens for the far greater abuse they will face come Judgment Day, when horse-like locusts with human heads, women’s hair, lion’s teeth and scorpion’s tails will sting them for five months23 before they are burned to death.24

So, what’s all the hullabaloo about? Our soldiers are inflicting but a fraction of the torment God has promised on these Godless heathens, come Judgment Day. By alienating the godless nations of the world from America, permitting corporate degradation of the environment because the Lord gave us this Earth to use up as quickly as we can before He gets back, threatening economic depression with tax cuts for those who matter and with no other hocus-pocus secular economic plan in the works, President Bush is bringing us even closer to the glorious apocalypse that will immediately precede every person in this room's rapture and Judgment Day for non-Baptists. Our soldiers are just getting a head-start on inflicting the horrors promised by God in the Book of Revelation. Let us praise them for their Biblical insight. And if we raise our voices in criticism of their efforts, let it be only to chide them for being so darnblasted timid! Next time they get out those dog leashes, they will ask, "What would Jesus do?" and those naked Iraqi suckers will find themselves yanked across a steaming pile of their own godless excrement! Praise Jesus!

-----------------------------------

[1] Deuteronomy 3:3, 6; 7:2, 4; 20:16; 25:19; 1 Samuel 15:2-3; see also Joshua 8:22-26 (God orders slaughtger of inhabitants of Ai); 1 Samuel 15:2-3 (God orders Saul to kill all Amalekites – men, women, children and even animals); 1 Samuel 27:8-11 (David kills all men and women in area). In fact, even the cows should be killed (Deuteronomy 13:12-16). God wants us to kill everyone with different religious beliefs (Dueteronomy 12:2-7), stoning to death those who blaspheme our religion (Leviticus 24:16). This includes even our children, if they worship the wrong “god” (Joshua 6:24). Indeed, if our brothers, sons, daughters, wives or friends try to get us to worship a different god, we should kill them (Deuteronomy 13:6-10).

[2] Numbers 31:1-54; Deutonomy 20:13-16).

[3] 1 Kings 20:35.

[4] Psalms 66:24.

[5] Deuteronomy 28:48-52; 32:21-26.

[6] Jeremiah 11:22.

[7] 2 Kings 6:18.

[8] Jeremiah 51:21.

[9] Deuteronomy 28:35.

[10] Hosea 9:16; 13:16.

[11] Deuteronomy 28:27-38.

[12] 2 Kings 8:27; Isaiah 36:12.

[13] Ezekiel 4:12-15.

[14] 2 Kings 9:10.

[15] 2 Chronicles 21:14-19.

[16] Deuteronomy 32:35; 2 Kings 1:4, 17; Jeremiah 6:11 (“I am full of the fury of the Lord; I am weary with holding it in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.”); Jeremiah 44:6 (“Wherefore my fury and mine anger was poured forth, and was kindled in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; and they are wasted and desolate, as at this day”).
[17] Jeremiah 19:11-13; Jeremiah 25:33 (“And the slain of the Lord shall be at day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground”).

[18] Jeremiah 12:17.

[19] Psalms 59:8.

[20] Acts 3:23.

[21] John 15:6.

[22] Matthew 13:41-42, 50: 25:41; Revelation 21:8.

[23] Revelation 9:7-10).

[24] 2 Peter 3:7.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!


ps Damn.. I have a measly car crash, and end up arriving late at a damn juicy thread. Typical eh. Oh, I'm OK by the way, just some bumps and bruises. Only, I figured you'd be worried, and very concerned, so I thought I'd fill you in. Who knows, probably a stupid Arab fucked with my brakes.

Who knows, probably a stupid Arab fucked with my brakes.

Are you sure it was not Akpit? Oh and paragraphs make the baby jesus cry..just to steal someone elses line.

Are you sure it was not Akpit? Oh and paragraphs make the baby jesus cry..just to steal someone elses line.

Actually, it's: "No paragraphs make baby jesus cry". Just fyi. If that was one long paragraph, his eyeballs would have fallen out just typing it.

Anyway.

Halo - you didn't write that, did you?

--Cen

Noo, noo. Far too funny to be my work.
I'm trying to find the site I got it from.. was bloody hillarious.
They write the best Christian/Republican spoof articles ever.

"Accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, and get a free playstation 2!"

Now you are contradicting yourself Akipt.

We arent going to Invade Iran or Syria or anywhere else.

The entire POINT of invading Iraq was the concept that the region would be changed by the emergance of strong, stable secular democracy in Iraq.
I believe in this concept.
Are you going against your beloved Bush in this?

Iraq, from the moment the Tanks rolled last year became the linchpin on which the entire middle east will swing. Success changes the dynamic in the region as does failure. There is no in between. There is no partial victory or small failure. Its all or nothing.
Whatever way Iraq goes, so goes the rest of the Middle East. Thats why Success is SO important, thats why Failure is not an option.
Thats why you cant just go blindly along with whatever Bush wants. Voices of dissent and other perspectives are VITAL to creating a level of discourse and an exchange of ideas which will come up with a path that gives us the greatest chance of success with the lowest possible body count.

'Whatever way Iraq goes, so goes the rest of the Middle East'

- Really? I'm not too sure.
I mean.. why would they follow suite? Surely, if the entire fascade materializes in to a success, it would only become the object of hate and a centre for the crazy suicide bombers to detonate themselves at.
Why would the entire Middle East transform itself in to a capitalist, free-trading, democratic template for everything Western, simply because Iraq was invaded and forced to do just that?
I'm just not so sure that's how it's going to be.
One has to admit that anything Western-built tends to become the object of hate - not of influence.

Look at China.

OK.
It's big and full of china-type-people.

Oh wait.. they werent ready..

LOOK NOW!

But seriously

They are abandoning communism and throwing themselves into free trade and quickly into a ally of the west.

Not so sure China is becoming an ally of anyone but China, no matter how much free enterprise and the like they incorporate into their system.

But I think L2's point, in part, is that if common people from other nations see how the common people live in a successfully democritized Iraq, then they will want in on the action. I don't know that it'd be that simple, but I think a ripple effect of some sort is very likely.

L2, hate to say this, but actually dont' believe the hype about China.

China still fundamentally has a communist bully approach. It is an incredibly repressive society. So long as you shut up and make money for the state, you are okay. And the state often means the corrupt local officials.

Talk to any Tibetan about the successes of our policies with China. I've spoken with Tibetans who have been escaped from Kham (East Tibet - which the Chinese call the "Western Treasure box") and it is no picnic over there. The elite benefits the so-called "progress" (pollution, strip mines, stripped forests, prison factories) they've created over there.

But for another thread - a tad off-topic here.

Oh, and Fandros, dear, we don't have 7-11s in New York City. We have Delis. I daresay I've seen more violence with my own eyes than most of the people posting in this thread, sadly. Actually, going to the ME and standing there and pronouncing "I am American" would be a violent act - so I wouldn't do it. It's not a question of doing something reeediculous. It's a question of having the attitude here, now and spreading it. And it's a question of taking a non-violent approach to policies overseas. Like not allong the IMF to enforce policies on countries they are "helping" which actually traps those same countries in the dark ages. Like not propping up dictators (wasn't Saddam a friend once? War is peace, after all - didn't we train Osama?) Like not turning our backs on starvation and want so that companies like the Halliburton country can enrich itself.

I agree with L2 a bit in that there is a solution in economics, but I do think that is a double-edged sword.

I agree with L2 a bit in that there is a solution in economics, but I do think that is a double-edged sword.

What is wrong with a capitalistic democracy?

And your hatred for Halliburton is asinine.

LOL I don't *hate* Halliburton. I think that getting us into a war so that a company that Dick Cheney was once CEO of could profit, exclusively (they have been awarded contracts with *no* competition - you know - that free market stuff?) - that I think is criminal.

PS: Kellogg Root and Brown = Halliburton.

...oh ok, you don't hate them, you just think they're a bunch of criminals.

Polish up that tin hat Ruthey, Kerry needs you!

Sorry, Ruthey's call to arms against the evil empire of Halliburton distracted me...

Now you are contradicting yourself Akipt.

I am?

We arent going to Invade Iran or Syria or anywhere else.

We aren't?

The entire POINT of invading Iraq was the concept that the region would be changed by the emergance of strong, stable secular democracy in Iraq. I believe in this concept.

Yes! Amen brother! But who's limiting it to just Iraq? A good thing needs to be shared!

Are you going against your beloved Bush in this?

I don't recall Bush ever saying that Afghanistan and Iraq were the end of the War on Terror.

But anyway, since you obviously feel strongly about a stable secular democracy in Iraq you will not be voting for Kerry in November eh? Afterall, he only wants "stability" at whatever cost.

It's this type of waffling political opportunism and lack of leadership that MAY come this November from a Kerry win that makes freedom and liberty aspiring Iraqis doubt our determination. America used to put forth in times of war a unified vision of foreign policy that could be counted upon. What a shame.

So we can all look forward to you putting a big American gun in your mouth come November, when Bush is kicked out of the House that is White?
Your constant whinning is beyond pathetic.

Woot! I hit a Halo g-spot. Still like to be fist fucked Halo? I bought that new flavor of KY gel you liked last time. Just gimme a call, kkthx.

'Still like to be fist fucked Halo? I bought that new flavor of KY gel you liked last time. Just gimme a call, kkthx. '

- Did I just miss something?

When they were handing out clues, you had your head up your ass and missed out. Sorry.

Well Halo, you ARE always asking if people are "coming on" to you... :x

--Cen

P.S. I swear I'll have more to contribute - eventually

'When they were handing out clues, you had your head up your ass and missed out. Sorry. '

- HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
OMGOSH HAHAHAHAHRHAHAHRHAHAHR!111onetwo!11
ROFFFELELOLAL AKIPT

'Well Halo, you ARE always asking if people are "coming on" to you...'

- NOW you know why! :P
It's the accent I think. Yeargh matey! Yeeargh! Or.. something similar.

PS: Kellogg Root and Brown = Halliburton.

For fucks sake, is it THAT Hard to say Kellogg Brown and Root, or spell any names properly?

You're definitely not helping the 'Ruthey isn't a complete moron' campaign.

Pacifism is a nice Idea, I think I'll try that next time the locals decide to burn down the local churches. I'll stand on top of my Humvee and look at them lovingly in their eyes and ask them quietly to put down their Molotov cocktails, their bricks, and sticks with sharp pointy nails in them (some even have rust on them! Oh the horror!) as you suggest. I'm sure it will work splendidly...

Yeah... right

It's almost cute how naive you are, I mean like aww look at that little girl there she thinks her kitty cat went to the 'farm' to live with her grandpa....

Welcome back to reality, when you're ready they'll perform the operation to pull your head out.

Though for all your naivety there is one definite advantage to sitting around the campfire singing kumbaya, I could really go for some good s'mores right about now, I dunno just have a craving.

Nicely written flame. You work for Halliburton (http://www.halliburton.com/about/index.jsp) by chance? ;)

Ok, now I can understand that perhaps you have not read any of my many other posts, where I have stated that I work for the Army. Or that My sig file is of the Combat Medic Badge which is an award given to those with my military occupational specialty (MOS) when serving in a combat zone.

Now then do I work for Halliburton, or KBR or any of their other appellations? No, but a lot of em work 'with' me meaning they supply the man power for a lot of our "basic needs" cooks, laundry service etc, etc.

Oh and did I mention 90% of the KBR employees are locals from here in the Balkan region?

Uh Oh Mr. Bill The evil Halliburton is employing the locals and stimulating the economy of NO! We can't have that now can we.

I'd say push them all in front of a speeding bus to make them pay for their insolence, but that wouldn't fit in very well with our new found pacifistic policies now would it?

Granted, they have overcharged us in Iraq, but I don't think it was all part of an evil plot, it probably more of somebody came in and said "We need this, this and this done yesterday" They came up with the price tag, it happened, then when someone came in to audit the books to make sure everything was right they found problems.

However, it wouldn't surprise me that in such a large corporation someone had/has their hands in the cookie jar. It's bound to happen eventually.

But then if it weren't for that, and then the ensuing news stories about it, how could I ever have the chance to sit back and laugh at people when they respond with their typical knee-jerk bullshit. And I wouldn't have pointless arguments to discuss on the Internet to help kill time during the night shift.

So for your stupidity I thank you, it gives me something to do.

Well, yes, there's many reasons why people find themselves in the position to profit wrongly - but of course, they weren't exactly refunding the over-charge as far as I can tell.

Also, bear in mind, Dick Cheney was CEO of the company prior to becoming VP of the US and the plan, if we want to call it that, was in place to attack Iraq long before 9/11.

It's a pity because now folks like you are at the mercy of Bush Administration election year politics. Actually this NYT op-ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/opinion/15SAT1.html?hp) pretty much sums up the situation you are being subjected to.

I respect your choice of occupation - but I am actually one of the people you folks in the army are defending, dontcha know. So perhaps you could respect the possibility of points of view that differ from yours, no? That's what this freedom stuff (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/print_friendly.html?page=bill_of_rights_transcript _content.html&title=NARA%20%7C%20The%20Bill%20of%20Rights%3A%20A %20Transcription) is all about.

He can respect it AND still think you're a naive little girl.

So for your stupidity I thank you, it gives me something to do.
That's hardly a sign of "respect."

Osgiliath's logic is a bit different from our Earth logic.
You're talking about a guy who gets pissed off about Iraqi's killing Americans, while "hooraying" Arab-arse-kickings.

Uh, Hmmm.. Boy, Halo you sure got me that time. Geepeers. I was taling about Ruthey ya wanking twat.

Wanking twat? That doesn't even make sense.

It's like this, I respect her right to have an opinion, but I don't have to respect her opinion itself.

I believe what she thinks to be largely mis-informed, knee-jerk reactions, and in this case a bit behind the curve, the whole KBR-Halliburton scandal has burned through it's 15 minutes of fame already. Given these things and a few other factors, in my opinion, she's stupid, or perhaps more correctly she has a dumbass opinion based on bad information, and it is reflecting badly on her level of intelligence.

It's a pity because now folks like you are at the mercy of Bush Administration election year politics. Actually this NYT op-ed piece pretty much sums up the situation you are being subjected to.

Hmm being subjected to? Unless I hallucinated through the whole enlistment process, I chose to be in the Army, I knew that even though i was National Guard, there was a good chance I would be deployed with the state of the world as it was. I knew what I was getting myself into.

So again I ask just what am I being subjected to?

I suppose sometimes the crap they try to feed us in the chow hall might fit into that, but otherwise I'm not doing anything I didn't know might happen ahead of time.

So while I appreciate the support (And I do, trust me) It's a bit off target, I'm here, we're here and even though some of us may not like it all the time, we knew it could/would happen, so nobody has anyone to blame but themselves for being where they are really. Except for maybe blaming the assholes that caused all the trouble in the first place, so that we'd have to come and kick their ass.

On a side note, more aimed towards the whole pacifism, can't we all just get a bong way of life.

I'm willing to bet, most of the people who think it works in real life, have never been in a "combat" situation. Trust me, when you start hearing bullets zip past your head, all that philosophical bullshit goes straight out the window.

Which reminds me, I want some damn s'mores

Actually, one more thing to say.... from the Hearst newservice a few days ago:

The Army last year awarded an Iraq reconstruction contract worth up to $8.2 billion to a Halliburton Co. subsidiary, despite warnings from Pentagon auditors that the Houston-based company had a shoddy billing system that could lead to overcharges.

The no-competition contract to help Iraq's oil industry was awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers eight months after a separate Pentagon unit, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, reported on Aug. 2, 2002, that it had found "significant deficiencies" in the billing methods of Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root Services unit.

The deficiencies "have adversely affected the organization's ability to record, process, summarize and report billings" charged to U.S. military contracts, said the audit, which was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act over Halliburton's objections. Unless the company fixed its billing system, the auditors warned, "the result is significant over- and under-billed costs" to the government.

Titled "Report on Audit of Billing System Internal Controls," the audit was performed by the audit agency's Houston branch office.

The agency said last week that those deficiencies have not been fixed but were not sufficiently grave to disqualify KBR from additional Pentagon contracts.

The Iraqi oil contract was awarded on a noncompetitive basis and came after the Pentagon had signed up KBR for a contract worth up to $9.4 billion to provide logistics for American troops around the world.

Since the 2002 audit report, KBR has faced a series of problems with its government contracts.

Officials at the Army Corps of Engineers did not respond to repeated inquiries about why they awarded the contract in light of KBR'S billing problems.

Halliburton, an energy services giant headed by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000, is one of the largest American companies operating in Iraq.

Since the audit, KBR has come under fire for an array of alleged financial irregularities, including overcharges related to fuel and food for troops.

In a written statement, Wendy Hall, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said the conclusions of the 2002 audit were "unrelated" to the other alleged irregularities and that all "current billings have been prepared properly, processed efficiently and paid by the government in a timely manner."

"At present, we have no issues with our government invoice preparation methods, form, structure or content," she said.

Hall's assessment was disputed by the audit agency.

Marine Corps Lt. Col. Rose-Ann L. Lynch, a spokeswoman for the agency, said in a written statement last week that the company has not fixed the billing problems and the agency has uncovered six more failures since the 2002 report that outlined three problem areas. The agency is preparing a final report on the company's billing system by the end of the month.

"There are still two deficiencies listed in the August 2002 report that are still not corrected," Lynch said. One of the six new deficiencies -- poor financial controls at KBRs troop dining facility operations -- has resulted in "significant over billings to the government," she said.

It's not an old issue - it's an ongoing issue. Actually there's plenty of political activity our government takes part in with no oversight by the people because the activity is engaged in by private corporations. If you are interested in this sort of thing, visit The Center for Public Integrity's website (http://www.publicintegrity.org/bow/)

I got one last thing to say:

Kumbaya!

"The Center for Public Integrity" needs a name change, of which even the liberal Slate would agree (http://slate.msn.com//id/2090636/).

Whatever. Your talk of the two-edged sword is truth. Spend too much, people like you scream corruption. Spend too little, people like you scream we're not doing enough.

the plan, if we want to call it that, was in place to attack Iraq long before 9/11


No kidding?

You'd almost think they have plans for that sort of thing for other places too...

Welcome to 50 years ago dear.

Nice website link Ruthey!

Impresario Almadar Tegleftyln
Retired

Yeah, I saw that Slate article, Gass, and was scratching my head because 1) the campaign contributions of a certain company are still in the top ten and 2) regardless, administration people are ex-employees of the top two contract winners. So their argument that CPI's report has no back-up makes no sense to me.

www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/S...44,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221644,00.html)

I would expect a father who is a Communist dictator hugging International ANSWER preacher to write nothing less.

You want to minimize the importance of Religious figures? Create a middle class. People with nice houses, good jobs, cars, children in college generally want no part of Jihad. Give people things to care about that are personal and they are no longer willing to become homocidal over these more extroverted issues.
Now, im gonna admit something that Kerry is wrong about. >shock< I know.
Exporting of jobs isnt necessarily a bad thing if the exportation is controlled to the right places.
India for example. The mass exodus of IT jobs in there in the long run is a pretty good thing if it creates a strong middle class.
What does a middle class do? A middle class BUYS things, a middle class consumes and spends. A middle class produce children with the training and education of continue and expand its existance.
A emerging middle class in India would mean the second most populous nation on the earth is suddenly in the market for TVs and Cars and Computers and whatever else they want.
That means jobs here. In the long run.
Now turn that on the Middle East. Create wealth, create a middle class. Get people working, get people educated, give them opportunity, give them hope, give them something to lose.

This is hilarious. It really made me laugh.
The iraq wouldnt be in this disasterous economic situation without the economic sanctions and embargo from the US.

I don't know the source of this quote, but he is extremely right. Unfortunately it is easier to say than do, but this is the only way to end violance in the middle-east in long term (not counting Aikpt's nuke :P)

err you put the iraq in its situation and now you claim the only way out would be to build up its economics? Why did you destroy it in the first place then?

Because the economy was being used to fund Al-Qaede.





HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

err you put the iraq in its situation and now you claim the only way out would be to build up its economics? Why did you destroy it in the first place then?
The quote refers to dealing with the power of religious leaders. That wasn't an issue under Saddam, who was about as religious as I am. Sanctions were in place to pressure Saddam into following the UN's rulings; he chose to disobey, and thus the sanctions remained. Saddam is at fault for the state of his people (gassed and ungassed).

In postwar Iraq, religious extremism is an important concern. L2 offered a plausible solution to that problem, though its implementation is far from easy.

I never said it should have been destroyed. That was the 'oooops, sorry'.


Saddam is at fault for the state of his people (gassed and ungassed).

Bullshit. You go in, it is your responsible from that time...more than a year now.

The quote refers to dealing with the power of religious leaders. That wasn't an issue under Saddam, who was about as religious as I am. Sanctions were in place to pressure Saddam into following the UN's rulings; he chose to disobey, and thus the sanctions remained. Saddam is at fault for the state of his people (gassed and ungassed).

a nother hilarious post. Incomming cluetrain, last stop is you. Following your post would mean to put the US under sanctions because US didnt give a shit on the UN either when they attacked iraq.
americans...no brains.

Hey, Moron.
Read the whole thread you stupid fuck.

Unless your retarded ass has a motherfucking time machine, we cant go back in time and undo the invasion, shit for brains. My post was what to do now.

whos lleauaric?
Anyway to answer your question: thinking b4 invading could have been an option. i admit assuming that bush can think is asked too much :)

/bangs head against desk.

Someone please tell me Akipt or Crist0 made an anon account. You are so fucking stupid you make me wanna become a "dittohead".

Whos, Lleauaric?

HAHAH

Who the fuck are YOU bitch?

good answer lleauaric...im impressed

Someone please tell me Akipt or Crist0 made an anon account.


Again you show your incredible skills of deduction, Junior!

If you'd read what he posted you would see he's on your side, right down to pot shots at the Bush instead of dealing with the topic at hand.

Again you show your incredible skills of deduction, Junior!

and your "follow the thread of the conversation" skills are lacking.

Sharookan has somehow lumped L2 and Mandari in with you and Akipt. A mistake regular readers aren't likely to make ever

a nother hilarious post. Incomming cluetrain, last stop is you. Following your post would mean to put the US under sanctions because US didnt give a shit on the UN either when they attacked iraq.
americans...no brains.
Please list UN resolutions in place against the United States (such as those the UN put in place against Iraq) and any sanctions those resolutions mandate.

lol Crist0,
I know, I was hoping that it was some 733t neo-con tactic to invent the exact perfect conservative sterotype of a "liberal".
Wasnt an insult at you that time...

I don't need to invent a liberal poster for the purpose of mockery, there's way too much material on hand for that to be required.