Don't bash Hannity. He is Latinlover's hero.

quote:

Originally posted by Kinezi Actually I can, I can inform the mods in here about your penny posts, and get your little ass banned from this room, but I wont do so.. cos its much more fun to taunt you everytime you post something really stupid and meaningless. I like it this way.

Yes go cry to Lira that you don't like my posts, I'm sure he'll get right to the ol' banstick.

You like it this way because there's literally no other option.

If anything, you'll be banned here for this continued baseless provocation...that'll make it your what...6th, 7th ban?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

yeah we had no idea it was going to be this bad... total BS


Dick Cheney had a different view of invading Iraq in 1994, as evident in this discussion of the first Iraq war, a war where he was the Secretary of Defense.

After you take down Saddam Hussain's government, he asks, "then what are you gonna put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off... it's a quagmire ... if you try to take over Iraq... How many additional American causalities was Saddam worth? Our judgment was not very many, and I think we got it right."

see for yourself

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Yeah, there is no control of the oil as pointed out. There is no way that the administration wants to be in Iraq. They would have prefered to set up a puppet in the first 6 months and then leave only enough troops to keep some control. The war has been a disaster and neither Bush nor Cheney is getting that much out of it. There's actually a pretty good case to try both of them, along with others in the admin, for war crimes.

I understand Iraq "controls" the oil, but I wonder why the US has spent so much effort protecting major pipelines in Iraq? Just for shits and giggles? Surely there must be some incentive.

link to article talking about US protecting Iraq pipelines

quote:

You will notice the Russian action in Georgia recently. That would never have happened if the US were a viable military force. Or the retoric of Chavez, nut or not he's still nationalizing the country and firing volly after volly at Bush. He knows he can do it because the US is weak. Or how about Iran? Where is the back up to the US threats? I bet the Iranian leadership is sleeping well right now, even as they continue to enrich more uranium. On the technological front I'd like to point out that the Chinese can track and shoot down satalites from the ground, the US can not. Iran and China have both been developing anti ship missiles that are designed to take out air craft carriers. Russia has a missile that can be alter it's course to avoid missile shields.

This is all talk about the US military being "weak" and why other countries aren't afraid of us.
Here's a nice link for you regarding your claim that the US can not shoot down satellites. China was finally able to in 2007, while it says that the US has been doing the same thing SINCE 1985. Let me repeat, SINCE 1985. This makes me not even bother looking at your other arguments for how weak our technology is compared to the rest of the world.

quote:

The only reason you believe the US has a technological advantage is because the media in the English world tells you so.

So are other countries' media telling you the same bullshit the English media is, or is the English media lying about our technology and telling the truth about the rest of the worlds'?

quote:

What about the Humvee's that are being destroyed, the troops without armour, or the fact that kitchen sink IED's are ripping appart the APCs as insurgents stand by and video tape the results.

Can I get a link to all this destruction?

quote:

So let me get this straight, you think that it is a good idea to bankrupt a country through continuous spending of billions on a war that will go on in perpetuity? The economic situation in the US is abismal and it's getting worse. How long do you really think peioe are going to accept US$ for anything?

Using the same link I have posted, you will see that the US is protecting Iraqi pipelines, and Iraq is benefiting. Just look how much money they are reeling in, and you believe they are going bankrupt?

quote:

There is no balencing act here and the US military can not handle the terorists. You seem to be naive to the dificulties of fighting in a mountain range while maintaining a supply line through hostile teritory. Have you not been following the fact that the Taliban have been making a come back in recent weeks? They've gained control of significant parts of the Southern reaches of the country using little more then what they carry on thier back.

Ok, now stop for a moment. Do you really think that these "Talibans" are gaining ground again using little more than what they carry on their backs, against the US army, who have shot down satellites from earth over 20 years before China finally was able to?

Or do you suppose what actually is happening is the US is allowing the Taliban gain their ground and have their little fun, so the American government can relay this news back to the American people and use it as a continued reason to stay in Iraq to be a force to be reckoned with anyone that tries fucking with the oil we are pursuing there?

___________________
Class Tunes:

Hardfloor - Don't Trust Chief Wiggum
The Black Dog - Train by the Autobahn (Part 2)
Luke Solomon - Space Invaders (Andromat 3000 Remix)
Shed - Well Done (033472 Edit)
Shlomi Aber feat. Lemon - Moods

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Always find it hilarious when people sitting at home on the internet are defending an invasion of a foreign country under the pretext of forcefully turning it into a democracy...a beautiful, lofty ideal indeed. Like a democracy is as easy to make as an Easy Mac dinner. 4,000+ dead American soldiers, the complete decimation of a country's middle class, untold numbers of dead civilians. Again, really funny when a guy sitting on his computer is arguing all of their lives were worth it on an internet forum. I'm sure all those dead people agree it was the right thing to do. Your idea that this war is about "more", about that great shining beacon of freedom that is democracy, basically proves that this is a 21st century Vietnam...

let me guess, if you had the oppurtunity tell an Iraqi Parliament they don't belong there you'd do it as some sort of favor you'd think you would be doing for them?

thats what you're basically doing in front of your computer. the question stands, would you have the courage to do it in person? i'm guessing no.

i didn't twist those boy's and girl's arms to answer a calling for changing an entire world, but thats exactly what they did. you act like they're conscripts or something but the fact is, 5 years down the road, despite all the needless demagoguery, they're still answering the call. some of them died doing it. some of them watched others die. some came back home and probably wished they had died.

i'm not going to cheapen their sacrifices with shallow references to Vietnam. thats your job as a young, progressive, "nuanced" voice of reason, not unlike those during the real Vietnam. again, you think you're doing them favors but i'm going to assume they know better than to make ridiculous references Vietnam. not because i support what they've been assigned, but because i keep seeing smiles on their faces and thats the God's honest truth.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell There is no way that the administration wants to be in Iraq.

of course we don't want to be in Iraq. the question has always been and always will be can Iraq stand on it's own? if it can't, what do we need to do to make it that way?

you're projecting what atbell wants, not necessarily what needs to be done.

quote:

They would have prefered to set up a puppet in the first 6 months and then leave only enough troops to keep some control.

WRONG. try again. history owns you or whoever told you that.

after occupation we went back to the UN (remember they wouldn't help us overthrow Saddam) looking for international cooperation and legal guidance on what could be done about the reconstruction, funding and new elections. UN resolution 1443 was born. followed by the Iraq interim government. followed by the Iraq Transitional government. elections. followed by the government we know today.

NONE of those entities once expressed for us to leave Iraq. we were prepared to stand Iraq up as quickly as possible or remain however long it going to take, but assuredly it was going to be done no matter what and thats exactly what we did.

quote:

s actually a pretty good case to try both of them, along with others in the admin, for war crimes.

says who? the Iraqi government would have to want that. not just you and likeminded individuals in the West. try again.

quote:

You will notice the Russian action in Georgia recently. That would never have happened if the US were a viable military force.

wrong. Russia's much more proud than that. they don't wait for us to do anything. Georgia is not a NATO country even though we support their inclusion to NATO. we can't do anything regardless.

besides, if you honestly believe what you're saying, how in the f**k do you explain this? >LINK< kinda blows your entire theory out of the water doesn't it

quote:

Or the retoric of Chavez, nut or not he's still nationalizing the country and firing volly after volly at Bush. He knows he can do it because the US is weak.

you have it backwards. he's nationalizing his oil and vomits all over the nearest microphone and does the nutty things he does in his country because he knows He's weak and he needs to be seen as stronger...and he's a nut.

when Bushitler leaves office and Chavez continues to do what he does you'll see what i mean. he's a Marxist. thats what weak, nutty Marxists do.

btw, the Columbians are his nearest concern anyways

quote:

Or how about Iran? Where is the back up to the US threats? I bet the Iranian leadership is sleeping well right now, even as they continue to enrich more uranium.

what about Iran? what threats? name one specific military threat we've made. we've made, not Israel.

this is the same process we went through with Saddam Hussein or the North Koreans. a decade or so of UN resolutions and International sanctions and where will W be? on a ranch somewhere i suppose.

Last edited by Q5echo on Aug-29-2008 at 11:26

quote:

Originally posted by digitalEyes So are other countries' media telling you the same bullshit the English media is, or is the English media lying about our technology and telling the truth about the rest of the worlds'?

No. Most countries don't brag about thier military prowess, it's only really needed if it doesn't exist. Do you think the Germans let the world know about the skills of thier air force before WWII? When wars break out then technology is tested. Before then it's all propoganda.

quote:

Can I get a link to all this destruction?

Yes, a google search should reveal them. The militants were using them for training videos. I saw one and I'm not looking for more, it's a little disturbing, like looking for the video's of beheadings.

quote:

Just look how much money they are reeling in, and you believe they are going bankrupt?

Who is realing in? The US federal government is now loosing over 700 million dollars a year while the private sector is loosing over 800 million dollars a year.

I do have a link for this one...

http://www.economist.com/markets/in...ory_id=12010725

This is particularily striking when compared to the financial situation in Argentina between 1991 and 2002 when the country defaulted on its debt obligations. Between those dates the deficit to GDP ratio twice crested -4.3 %, currently the US is running a deficit to GDP ratio of -4.8 %.

quote:

Ok, now stop for a moment. Do you really think that these "Talibans" are gaining ground again using little more than what they carry on their backs, against the US army, who have shot down satellites from earth over 20 years before China finally was able to?

Yes. Many of the other militaries around the world, Canadian, French, and British have noted as much. The BBC, the Financial Times, and the Economist have all noted increased activity in the past two months. They have also pointed to increases in the amount of teritory controled by the Taliban and a change in tactics to a more confrontational and coordinated attack, such as the ambush laid that killed 20 French soilders in Sarobi (about 50km close of Kabul) and the two pronged attack on the US base at Camp Salemo and it's air field.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia...ory_id=11983659

quote:

Or do you suppose what actually is happening is the US is allowing the Taliban gain their ground and have their little fun, so the American government can relay this news back to the American people and use it as a continued reason to stay in Iraq to be a force to be reckoned with anyone that tries fucking with the oil we are pursuing there?

Ah... the Taliban are in Afganistan. Iraq is a good 3000 miles away. Iraq has oil, Afganistan has poppies. Iraq is mostly sandy except for the mountains in the North East which are controled by the heavily armed 150,000 man Kurdish army who are vaugely frendly to the US. Afganistan is mostly mountanous with especially big ranges all around the ...

Oh never mind. Look it up, they are different.

You don't seem to have much of a clue. It's nice to see a healthy "maybe this is part of the plan" but it's unlikely. The American forces are in no position to "let" anyone do anything.

If you do want to look at a possible case of US shit disturbing check out Putin's claim that American agitators were integral in the Georgian offensive that was a disaster. That is one that sounds about right. Putin even went as far as to aledge that the rabble rousers were doing so to inflame tensions for the sake of one of the presidential candidates.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo of course we don't want to be in Iraq. the question has always been and always will be can Iraq stand on it's own? if it can't, what do we need to do to make it that way? you're projecting what atbell wants, not necessarily what needs to be done.

I'm not projecting, we agree on this point.

quote:

WRONG. try again. history owns you or whoever told you that. after occupation we went back to the UN (remember they wouldn't help us overthrow Saddam) looking for international cooperation and legal guidance on what could be done about the reconstruction, funding and new elections. UN resolution 1443 was born. followed by the Iraq interim government. followed by the Iraq Transitional government. elections. followed by the government we know today.

Right, I'm speculating here. That would have been thier optimal strategy. Remember a short war? That's what they (the administration) thought they were getting. The return to the tenates of the UN, after the invation that was illegal and broke all of the principles of national soverienty that have been the staple of European peace since the pair of world wars, was a consession of failure. The administration realied the short war wasn't going to happen and they wanted all the help the could get to stabalize the place and get the .... out.

quote:

NONE of those entities once expressed for us to leave Iraq. we were prepared to stand Iraq up as quickly as possible or remain however long it going to take, but assuredly it was going to be done no matter what and thats exactly what we did.

"We" who? No one was prepared for staying as long as it took. The administration and many republicans thought it would be a cake walk and wanted nothing with a protracted war. The American people started to wince at about casualty 1500 (4000 now) and still people can't bear the sight of flag covered coffins returning.

One thing I had agreed with a majority of Republicans on is that staying to ensure stability is the morally right thing to do. But, also like many republicans, I'm begining to doubt that the costs to the US will be worth the gains from staying in.

quote:

says who? the Iraqi government would have to want that. not just you and likeminded individuals in the West. try again.

Say a lot of people. Chompsky is one, his book failed states is worth a read, it sets the case out rather well. But I'm going to bet my generalization that republicans don't read is true of you too.

The fact of the matter is that when the US signed the UN charters into law those laws became part of the US constitution. The invation of Iraq breached those laws, in effect breaching the constitution and international law. Thus those people who are responsible should be held acountable.

www.pinkyshow.com has a good point by point break down but it's narated by a cartoon cat.

quote:

wrong. Russia's much more proud than that. they don't wait for us to do anything. Georgia is not a NATO country even though we support their inclusion to NATO. we can't do anything regardless.

Except send troops or weapons (which happened) or do anything. When Kwiat was invaded the US was there, and rightly so. It was a breach of a soverign state, just like the Russian action was. That is illegal by UN standards. The same law should apply to the Russians as to the Bush admin. By now though most treaties have become junk (thanks Bush).

quote:

besides, if you honestly believe what you're saying, how in the f**k do you explain this? >LINK< kinda blows your entire theory out of the water doesn't it

I don't understand how your link supports your point.

A US interest, possible alligned to a presidential candidate, was noted as instigating a fight that they lost.

What you're proving is that who ever did this is inhumane (if true) because they caused the death of thousands for political gains half way around the world.

It doesn't say that the US is strong and fended Russia off.

quote:

you have it backwards. he's nationalizing his oil and vomits all over the nearest microphone and does the nutty things he does in his country because he knows He's weak and he needs to be seen as stronger...and he's a nut.

Hum, I suspect I'm write about the amount you read.

"nationalizing the country" is an allusion to the fact that Chavez has gone far beyond oil. This is something you should be mad at him for. He's gone after media, concrete, and a number of other industries too.

Yes. Chavez is pretty weak but he hardly vomits on a mic. He's had some very salient points which is why he was gaining coverage and friends around the world. Since then he's lost a lot of power because he is to reactionary.

quote:

what about Iran? what threats? name one specific military threat we've made. we've made, not Israel. this is the same process we went through with Saddam Hussein or the North Koreans. a decade or so of UN resolutions and International sanctions and where will W be? on a ranch somewhere i suppose.

Here is a google search for "Iran enriching uranium" 76,000 articles
http://www.google.ca/search?sourcei...riching+uranium

The US has repeatedly said "stop enriching uranium because it scares us" (that's paraphrazing)

The Iranians have repeatedly said "The non-perifelation treaty we have with you and almost every other country sais we are allowed to to this so f.c. off!" (also paraphrased).

Saddam and the Taliban tried this and got screwed. North Korea and Iran are now able to give the US the finger because the hands of the administration are tied. They have no military option that can even be put on the table... unless of course you're ready to try your chances in the draft...

THIS WEEK IN IRAQ...

quote:

Thursday 28 August: 7 dead Baghdad: gunmen kill woman; 2 bodies found. Diyala Baquba: roadside bomb kills shepherd. Tameem Kirkuk: roadside bomb kills 1. Ninewa Mosul: gunmen kill policeman. Salahuddin Tikrit: US troops kill shop owner during raid. Wednesday 27 August: 16 dead Baghdad: bombs kill 4; 2 bodies found. Ninewa Mosul: gunmen kill 1. Diyala Baquba: bombs kill 3 policemen. Wassit Hay: 4 die in shootings. Numaniya: 1 body found. Anbar Kilo: roadside bomb kills policeman. Tuesday 26 August: 49 dead Baghdad: 1 body found. Diyala Jalawla: suicide bomber kills 35 at recruitment centre. Mandili: roadside bomb kills 5 family members in their car. Salahuddin Tikrit: car bomb at Health Dept. kills 4. Shirqat: bomb kills 2. Babil Hilla: 2 beheaded women's bodies found. Monday 25 August, 9 dead Baghdad: professor shot; 2 bodies found Anbar Falluja: 1 policeman by roadside bomb Diyala Kan'an: 1 by air strike Salah al-Din Shirqat: 2 by roadside bomb Ninewa Mosul: 1 guard shot; 1 policeman shot Sunday 24 August, 42 dead Baghdad: 7 by roadside bombs; 1 body found; 25 by suicide bomb in Abu Ghraib Babylon Mussayab: daughter of a security official by roadside bomb Diyala Baquba: 3 shot dead in ambush Dayniyah: 3 by roadside bomb Wassit Suwayra: 2 bodies found Saturday 23 August, 17 dead Baghdad: Culture Ministry advisor shot dead; 1 body found Diyala Mansuriya: 1 by roadside bomb Erbil: 1 shot dead Ninewa Mosul: 1 body found Salah al-Din Baiji: 4 Sahwa members shot dead Tameem Kirkuk: 5 by suicide bomb Wassit Suwaira: 3 bodies found Friday 22 August, 5 dead Baghdad: 1 guard shot; 1 body found Tameem Kirkuk: 3 by helicopter strike

___________________

Bring on the SURGE!!!

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

I've figured out what the surge was actually intended to do!

Keep journalists away!

and it seems to be working.


................

What is that total for the week, about 100 people?

Now lets say this was a stable country, that's about 5,200 people per year that die in combat.

Iraq has a population of 28 million.

So that's about 0.2 violent deaths / 1000 people per year. How's that rank with other countries around the world?

What's NY's homicide rate these days?