Reading Current Events

May 21, 2004 02:16 # 22616

mclaincausey *** replies...

Re: Iraq: A rant

?% | 1

Yeah, you're right.

Who knows for sure. But there were an awful lot of kids killed.

The bombings were at 2:45 AM according to the military, but the survivors claim they cut the party short and went to bed at 9PM when they heard warplanes.

Regardless, atrocities have been committed against civilians in Iraq, even if this particular incident wasn't one of them.

And we still tacitly support genocide in Israel... sorry , off-topic there.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

May 21, 2004 02:25 # 22620

mclaincausey *** replies...

Re: Iraq: A rant

Interesting article detailing intelligence linking the Soviets to bin Laden.

http://www.geocities.com/graymada/SRJ/rbl.html

Ewige Blumenkraft!

May 18, 2004 07:11 # 22531

null throws in his two cents...

Re: Iraq: A rant

96% | 3

Yes oil may have been a part of it, but I extremely doubt, unless our current politicians have the IQ of a cumquat, the primary reason was oil.

I'm not saying that oil was the only reason, but there's this funny story I like to tell:
Before the actual war started, I publicly offered a bet basically saying that if there's a war, and if the USA take control over Iraq, one of the first 'reconstruction' actions will be a pipeline (preferably built by Halliburton) to tap the Iraqi oil resources. Funny enough, even the most avid Bush defenders chose to ignore the bet. In fact I haven't yet found anybody who would accept the bet.
(And look what the Halliburton guys are working on just now while I'm writing this.)

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on May 18, 2004.

May 18, 2004 21:13 # 22556

eljefe *** replies...

Re: Iraq: A rant

That is pretty funny

Fond memories

May 17, 2004 22:00 # 22518

Atheist_Uprising *** replies...

Re: Iraq: A rant

77% | 2

Saddam wasn't a good person, but the situation was contained and there was no evidence he pas harboring or abetting terrorists. In fact, Saddam really wasn't a fan of terrorists outside his own secret police and military.

I think there is sufficient evidence to support the fact that Saddam was in cahoots with terrorists. The reports vary on the Iraq- Al Qaeda connection but here is one of them ONE OF THEMI don't know the credibility of this online newspaper, I found it in a search but there are other links... Another one.

Another point I'd like to point, besides any connection between Saddam and Terrorists there is a well known Terrorist organization in Iraq called the PKK/Kadek

Is it bad to ask for ratings? I want to write more- if i'm that bad shoot me down.

"Boredom is the Ultimate Gateway Drug"- Atheist_Uprising

May 17, 2004 23:14 # 22522

mclaincausey *** replies...

Re: Iraq: A rant

72% | 2

Given the way this administration has manipulated intelligence and ouright lied to her citizens, I take this memo with a big grain of salt. If this were known, it should have been presented prior to the war. But it more than likely was assembled as an ex post facto defense for US imperialism.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on May 17, 2004.

May 17, 2004 04:09 # 22498

Bunk *** replies...

Re: Iraq: A rant

?% | 1

MrVicious, you seem a lot more reasonable/thoughtful now, and you've changed my mind about a couple things (oh no!!). But...

Now as for the rest of Iraq, you think we should just leave them like that? I don't think we should keep our army just sitting there, but we have to set SOMETHING up in Saddam's place. And not something half-assed, but something with a solid foundation.

While I now agree in principle, leaving anything of meaningful value that the Iraqi people would trust at this point would be a tough, if not impossible, task. And patience does not seem to be Bush's strong suit.

It's my theory most of them hate us because we're not stuck in the 17th Century like they are.

I've heard this before... and once again, though it's impossible to know for certain, I find it this explanation quite implausible. They MIGHT be a touch annoyed that Americans have the latest toys (weapons, I mean) while they are stuck with soviet hand-me-downs. Perhaps they resent their deplorable living conditions. But just plain envy? There are far more glaring reasons (bombing, invasion, occupation, manipulation, religious sacriledge), viable or not, for them to hate America(ns), and other nations.

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

May 16, 2004 05:22 # 22447

broken * replies...

Re: Iraq: A rant

?% | 1

That makes you no better than a terrorist.

Well, sometimes, when horrible things appear and need to be delt with, that's how far you have to go.

All I will say is this.. when we, as humans, need to obtain information, such as interrogating the prisoners about whatever, might end up beating the living shit out of the prisoner to get it. It's just the way it is. I mean, you can't expect a captured, suspected terrorist to spill his guts over a cup of tea and sandwiches. But pulling a naked man around on a dog leash might not be good, either. I just don't see how the painful beheading of an innocent man justifies a ridiculous action performed by one ignorant solider (and the photographer). It just happens.

Nonetheless, good rant. Good rant.

"It is remarkable how similar the pattern of love is to the pattern of insanity."

May 17, 2004 02:26 # 22492

mclaincausey *** replies...

Re: Iraq: A rant

?% | 1

I just don't see how the painful beheading of an innocent man justifies a ridiculous action performed by one ignorant solider (and the photographer). It just happens.

Who said it does?

btw, it was more than one soldier doing these things.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

May 15, 2004 13:06 # 22430

wizz *** replies...

Re: Iraq: A rant

95% | 2

I'm really very fed up with that whole part of the world and how some people in our country feel sorry for them. I'm not usually one to say things like this, because I do acknowledge that there are good people that live there. Innocent people. But I say nuke them all and have a nice big campfire where they used to be. If they want to do this back-and-forth shit trying to top each other, let's just go straight to the end, because that IS the end.

I am not only appalled I keep hearing this in a serious context (or am I mistaken?), I also completely fail to see the logic.

Why was and is this war fought, in your opinion?
I think we have established, it was not for the weapons of mass destruction and we shall ignore the oil for a moment, too. Then, was it fought to liberate Iraqis from Saddam? It does not seem to me as you were caring for them a lot.

What I am getting at:
I have the impression you feel as if America somehow had to start this war to react to something, to retaliate, to fight terrorism or similar. But what is this "back-and-forth shit" you were talking about? Do you refer to what is happening in Iraq now (a "reaction" to the American attack) or to a broader context?

If the latter, I wanted to point out that the connection occasionally drawn between Iraq and terrorism is a very dubious one. Saddam was for all we know not involved in 9/11, there is no known link to Al-Quaida. America did not need to defend itself.

Nuking Iraq would irrevocably give America the role of the aggressor.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.


Favorites (edit)

Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)