Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian) NewsFlash Suspected 9/11 mastermind arrested   (guardian.co.uk ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

15033 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2003 at 2:20 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

439 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2003-03-01 02:22:53 PM  
ic
 
2003-03-01 02:22:54 PM  
Hmph. My headline was better. Had the word "asshat."

:)
 
2003-03-01 02:23:03 PM  
Well, that's that, time to invade Iraq....
 
2003-03-01 02:23:04 PM  
Nice - fire up Ol' Sparky!
 
2003-03-01 02:23:22 PM  
you know, i'd love to turn on the tv and hear that osama was captured. i'd drink to that.

/non-cynical uncharacteristic of fark comment
 
2003-03-01 02:23:25 PM  
So that means I can call the FBI right now and claim my $25m?

/brb - on phone - 1-800-CALL-FBI
 
2003-03-01 02:23:35 PM  
agree, asshat is the appropriate term. Perhaps Master Asshat?
 
2003-03-01 02:23:39 PM  
Kick. Ass.
 
2003-03-01 02:23:40 PM  
I think they should opt for a public beheading. You know, make him feel at home.
 
2003-03-01 02:24:06 PM  
Watch your cornhole.
 
2003-03-01 02:25:25 PM  
Not sure I understand the headline. I thought they had to get all four colours in a row and in the right order? How can you only suspect you have a mastermind?

Fark the CIA. I say call in the Parker Bros.
 
2003-03-01 02:25:57 PM  
woohoo! (i guess)
 
2003-03-01 02:26:08 PM  
[image from battle.net too old to be available]

mastermind, you say?
 
2003-03-01 02:26:36 PM  
Um... I thought Osama was the 9/11 mastermind? The guy in the picture is not Osama.
 
2003-03-01 02:27:05 PM  
And what, exactly, does this have to do with Cheetos?
 
2003-03-01 02:27:26 PM  
I too, included the word "asshat". Seemed appropriate.

This is really great news. It's amazing how few of these little farkers we've caught so far. Hopefully, the helpless feelings from 9/11 can be lessened with the capturing and prosecuting of those responsible (directly responsible, you conspiracy theory nut-nuzzlers).
 
2003-03-01 02:28:06 PM  
I thought Osama was the mastermind too. I've never heard of this guy.
 
2003-03-01 02:28:13 PM  
playjim: youve spammed every set of comments today. go post somewhere else. please.
 
2003-03-01 02:28:15 PM  
What a poorly written, and uninformative article.
 
2003-03-01 02:28:50 PM  
Synesthesia: The dude busted is a high-ranking operative and he probably came up with this plan. Osama probably laughed a la Renfield and said go for it.
 
2003-03-01 02:29:16 PM  
Since when is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed head of the C.I.A.?

this poor bastard's just another patsy

</Oswald>
 
2003-03-01 02:31:32 PM  
Sung to the tune: "If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands"

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.

If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'.
That Saddam will soon be croakin',
Bomb Iraq.

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing,
Some things we prefer not knowing.
Though our ignorance is showing!
Bomb Iraq.

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favourite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
 
2003-03-01 02:32:27 PM  
Heh, heh. Filter got "g0at5e"... Probably for the best.

Thank You Filter!!
 
2003-03-01 02:35:05 PM  
Haha, wow! You dislike Bush AND you can Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V a stupid poem that appears in nearly every Fark thread? Someone get this man/woman a medal!
 
2003-03-01 02:35:42 PM  
LMAO @ Joxette
 
2003-03-01 02:36:13 PM  
03-01-03 02:26:36 PM Synesthesia
Um... I thought Osama was the 9/11 mastermind?


Well, you thought wrong.


This is a big arrest. This asshat was involved in much more than 9/11, too.
 
2003-03-01 02:37:09 PM  
I'll have to go w/Zim1 on this one. Enough already.
 
2003-03-01 02:37:42 PM  
Maybe this will clear some things up: Osama is the head of Al-Qaeda, which was behind 9/11. I don't think it necessarily means that he thought up this scheme. Probably this asshat did and Osama's like, hey, let's work on that.
 
2003-03-01 02:38:07 PM  
Perhaps we can help you get to your destination.
 
2003-03-01 02:38:16 PM  
if you have not heard of this man, it does not make him a patsy. it makes you undeducated.
 
2003-03-01 02:39:31 PM  
He was caught in Pakistan, not Iraq. Huh. Go figure.
 
jph
2003-03-01 02:39:39 PM  
Uneducated, as well?
 
2003-03-01 02:39:57 PM  
Commodore69:

Zim1:

both correct.
 
2003-03-01 02:40:23 PM  
Here's the FBI page on him.
 
2003-03-01 02:40:25 PM  
Ditto to Vroomazoom</B?.
I just hope Khalid Shaikh Mohammed doesn't manage to kill himself before they get everything they can out of him.
 
2003-03-01 02:40:33 PM  
yeah, DrToast has the right idea. everyone saying "big deal, ive never heard of him" is being really moronic.

Joxette
YOU are definetely mediocre. That song pops up in every political FARK thread. Get over yourself.
 
2003-03-01 02:41:04 PM  
Jph:

is that a complete thought?
 
2003-03-01 02:41:18 PM  
sorry bout the unclosed tag
 
2003-03-01 02:41:53 PM  
03-01-03 02:31:32 PM Joxette [insert stupid song]

I think I've figured out why 68% of americans support the war (Info from a survey taken by MSNBC). Conservatives offer up fact based, poignant arguements, while Liberals wave signs, scream simplistic chants, and make up childish songs.
 
2003-03-01 02:42:33 PM  
Damn unfetchable links. Never mind, ignore me.
 
2003-03-01 02:44:11 PM  
So can we still nuke Iraq?

The news media says 68% of me wants the war. :P
 
2003-03-01 02:44:43 PM  
any body that thinks this man is not important check out the FBI link provided by B0rg9
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2003-03-01 02:45:45 PM  
This is a big one.

Though he is the leader of al Qaeda, calling Osama the "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks makes no more sense than calling Dubya the "mastermind" of the war on terror.
 
2003-03-01 02:45:47 PM  
Just clicked on the link B0rg9 provided. That guy definitely looks familiar. Probably because I've visited the Most Wanted web site on occasion.
 
2003-03-01 02:45:50 PM  
Alexandra: LMAO @ Joxette

Same here...what a maroon.
 
2003-03-01 02:46:08 PM  
Dattaway: 0% of me wants the war so 136% of you must want it :P
 
2003-03-01 02:46:20 PM  
Squirrelw/nuts

good point... i think both left and right wing can get together and demand an end to stuff like that stupid song.

and although i havent seen that particular survey, 68% of Americans dont support the war. Every survey ive seen says the majority are against it, and certainly the sentiment seems to be shifting that way.
 
jph
2003-03-01 02:46:21 PM  
Vroomazoom: I'm just pointing out the irony in you calling someone uneducated, and yet managing to mispell the word.
 
jph
2003-03-01 02:47:14 PM  
Alph: You're kidding, right? What liberal rag did you get your statistics out of?
 
2003-03-01 02:47:26 PM  
I can't believe the nerve of this Saddam Hussien recruiting all these Saudis to attack the US.. Its almost like he wanted us to believe the saudis were responsible for all this.

Pure evil Genius
 
2003-03-01 02:47:33 PM  
Jph
pointing out a spelling error on FARK is the last resort of a desperate person.

There IS a difference between being uneducated, and mistyping something on a comment board. obviously.
 
2003-03-01 02:47:37 PM  
I agree with you SquirrelWithLargeNuts, but I think that the key words are "fact - based". I don't necessarily consider them to be factual any more than I consider the ONDCP's "fact - based" arguments against marijuana use to be factual.

lies, damn lies and statistics. spin. rinse. repeat as necessary to lull population into a stupor while selling them soap and beer and feminine hygene products.
 
2003-03-01 02:48:08 PM  
This is how Bush said it would work all along. We won't know whats going on- we'll just hear about stuff randomly. This is how its going to be with Bin Laden- we'll just wake up one day and he'll be dead.
 
2003-03-01 02:48:12 PM  
So, now it is only me or should maybe Pakistan consider changing the name of ISLAMaBAD to something more positive?

STRONGaBAD?
NOTsoBAD?
AMiBAD?

Just a thought...

...oh yeah - fry the farker, trials are for people with rights.

dj
 
2003-03-01 02:48:48 PM  
This guy's been on the most wanted list for over a year now. Sweet they finally caught one. One by one those assclowns will pay, one by one.
 
2003-03-01 02:49:11 PM  
Getting back on the subject at hand, I hope this Khalid asshat can lead us to bin Laden. After he talks, throw him in with general population and watch hilarity ensue.
 
2003-03-01 02:50:07 PM  
I hope more inroads are made on the real war on terrorism so that this Iraq conflict is put in perspective.
 
2003-03-01 02:50:08 PM  
03-01-03 02:41:53 PM SquirrelWithLargeNuts
03-01-03 02:31:32 PM Joxette [insert stupid song]

I think I've figured out why 68% of americans support the war (Info from a survey taken by MSNBC). Conservatives offer up fact based, poignant arguements, while Liberals wave signs, scream simplistic chants, and make up childish songs.

I dunno, I thought the song was funny. Pro-war or not it's worth a chuckle.
 
2003-03-01 02:50:17 PM  
From cnn.com:
One U.S. official has called Mohammed the Forrest Gump of al Qaeda because of all the attacks to which he's connected.

My mama always said Jihad is like a box of chocolates.
 
2003-03-01 02:50:49 PM  
Jph

Well, i go to a university, so it is entirely possible that all of the media i read is leftist slanted. I dont think my school lets you publish or distribute anything on campus if you arent left.
 
2003-03-01 02:51:14 PM  
"To march against the war is not to give peace a
chance. It is to give tyranny a chance. It is to give the Iraqi
nuke a chance. It is to give the next terrorist mass murder a
chance. It is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of
the vanquishing of evil." -- George W Bush


I am ashaimed to be an American right now for having a President who honestly believes this....
 
2003-03-01 02:52:12 PM  
LOL at Zim1! Good one!
 
2003-03-01 02:52:31 PM  
Terrorist punishment: Dig a Giant hole, put asshat terrorists at the bottom. Fly EVERYONE in the U.S. to this giant hole at their leisure to urinate on the asshats. Terrorists drown in America's piss.
 
2003-03-01 02:53:38 PM  
To the above cut-n-pasted stupid pome:

If you cannot find Phish tickets, protest Bush
If you hate your father and don't know it, protest Bush
If the Ramen hunger's packin'
And your GPA is slackin'
Nader deserves attackin'
Protest Bush
 
2003-03-01 02:54:03 PM  
The FBI profile page is actually just an overview. Just enough to let you know he is bad news. He's been in volved in many things over the last decade.

Here is an article with a little more detail of who he is.

The 'Forrest Gump' of al Qaeda
One U.S. official has called Mohammed the Forrest Gump of al Qaeda because of all the attacks to which he's connected. Gump was a movie character who found himself at the center of many key moments in modern U.S. history.
 
2003-03-01 02:54:07 PM  
Jph :

Is there any irony in trying to point out that I am uneducated with this literary abortion?

"Uneducated, as well?"

My point was clear, and nothing was lost due to my misspelling. You should not insult others spelling until you can complete a sentence, or at the very least produce a sentence fragment that has a discernable meaning.
 
2003-03-01 02:54:07 PM  

Hey, Joxette, just for you.




If You're Dopey and You Know It Help Saddam


If you don't know true evil, help Saddam.
If the real world is a bore, help Saddam.
If socialism is dreamy,
Kim and Castro are too seamy,
All you care is what's for me me,
Help Saddam.
If France won't back us up, let's Go Home.
If it gets hot there, let's go home.
We're just cowards making a fuss,
All the great ones died for us,
We're just here for dope on the bus,
Let's go Home.

 
2003-03-01 02:56:06 PM  
Alph: Here's a survey for you

And here are some thoughts from Iraqis about the war (Should be noted that they're not in Iraq, and so have nothing to fear from the government 'minders')
 
2003-03-01 02:56:12 PM  
Thanks DrToast for the better article, I just linked the top Google search for a quick look.
 
2003-03-01 02:56:40 PM  
On the issue of Iraq just ask yourselves, what would jesus do?


[image from ananova.com too old to be available]
"Surf's Up!"
 
2003-03-01 02:58:52 PM  
Sorry. I didn't realize that it had been posted to the point of overkill. I am no farkin hippy and I am not anti-Bush.

Carry on.
 
2003-03-01 02:59:11 PM  
BTW, SquirrelWithLargeNuts...if it is at all within your powers to banish forever the singing of tired lame and ineffective leftie protest songs ad nauseum, could you please start with:

"hey hey. ho ho. [fill in the blank] has got to go."

even when i support the cause i cringe.
 
2003-03-01 03:00:38 PM  
Good, now fly a plane into him.
 
2003-03-01 03:01:03 PM  
or

were here were queer and we arn't here to shop

/giggle
 
2003-03-01 03:02:12 PM  
al-qaeda! how 2002, everyone knows iraq is the new enemy for 2003.
 
2003-03-01 03:03:14 PM  
Mikey_B: I propose putting some of those terrorist asshats in a plane that's controlled by remote-control. Put more of those asshats into a building. Fly the plane into it. Poetic justice.
 
2003-03-01 03:03:26 PM  

excellent

/mr. burns voice

 
2003-03-01 03:03:34 PM  
Squirrelw/nuts

well, i dont know how much meaning the poll has either way... its not hard to realize how phone polls of 1000 people are fundamentally flawed.

But the other article is very good. Its essentially what I've been saying all along. The second Saddam is removed from power, the people will fill the streets in exaltation. I dont see how people cant realize that.
 
2003-03-01 03:05:06 PM  
al-qaeda! how 2002, everyone knows iraq is the new enemy for 2003.

Mediocre.
 
2003-03-01 03:05:23 PM  
47% of statistics are made up on the spot.
 
2003-03-01 03:06:04 PM  
Alph, but true.
 
2003-03-01 03:06:21 PM  
Feukulor: one word oil the rich get rich off the deaths of others
 
2003-03-01 03:08:47 PM  
Feukulor-
PRO-I've read too much history and seen too much to sit back and watch another Hitler grow.
 
2003-03-01 03:11:18 PM  
Feukulor: Basic human compassion. Saddam is a horrible, cruel dictator who threatens the rest of the region and supports terrorism.

This is what happens when you disagree with the Ba'ath party.
 
2003-03-01 03:11:29 PM  
WOOFYSF your joking right? If not it's hard to believe your not on Bush's side, you know being that Saddam is a dictator and kills his own people. But hey, as long as your not feeling the brute of his evilness it doesnt matter right?

p.s. AnonymousGuy's song is better.
 
2003-03-01 03:12:08 PM  
Bill_Wick's_Friend: BTW, SquirrelWithLargeNuts...if it is at all within your powers to banish forever the singing of tired lame and ineffective leftie protest songs ad nauseum

They aren't going to band lame songs--they know their crowd.
 
2003-03-01 03:12:10 PM  
Feukulor: 21st century nations should practice diplomacy first and should only be going to war when the cause is just. I don't think diplomacy has been exhausted as an option and I dont belive that, until it does, the cause is just.
 
2003-03-01 03:13:11 PM  
Walt-baby, one flaw in your argument. Hitler had the german manufacturing industry behind him. Hussein does not. In fact to maintain his oil industry, he had to import hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment. Guess who supplied it? Cheney via Haliburton.
 
2003-03-01 03:13:15 PM  
Caught one of the 9/11 organizers. In Pakistan. Boy, I sure am glad we're going to attack Iraq, though. Because, you know, they had so much to do with the whole thing.
 
2003-03-01 03:13:18 PM  
Feukulor: I'm a pacifist, and war, in my opinion, should only be a last resort.
 
2003-03-01 03:14:07 PM  
Why is it every time the arrest a terrorist he was a "mastermind?" Something tells me if these people are so easily duped the only things things they are "Masters" of is Jack and Sh*t.
 
2003-03-01 03:14:41 PM  
Feukulor
i tend to have a hatred of all females, and i know that anything which has a significantly higher proportion of female followers than male is fundamentally flawed.

e.g. NO BLOOD FOR OIL rants, other stupid political views, crappy movies, crappy music, etc.

Basically, women have bad taste in everything.

what?
 
2003-03-01 03:14:51 PM  
Canberra, don't forget bating.
 
2003-03-01 03:14:56 PM  
Mandrake: Are you aware that we would've let Saddam get off with self-exhile, but he refused?
 
2003-03-01 03:16:33 PM  
03-01-03 03:02:12 PM Inignot
al-qaeda! how 2002, everyone knows iraq is the new enemy for 2003.


Inignot: I'd laugh at that except for the sad reality of it. What ever happened to the aggressive ten-year plan to thwart terrorism? I'm guessing that too many countries are still harboring terrorists and not allowing us the leverage to push them out a la Afghanistan (and are they even completely gone there?). Combine that with the fact that it is still a huge world we live in and routing out terrorists, even within our own borders, can be difficult to impossible. I think 9/11 proved that with all the preparation that took place here in the US.

Short of turning half of the globe into glass we seem to be at the mercy of the terrorists outing themselves through indiscretion rather than being able to find them solely on our own.

I hope I'm wrong.
 
2003-03-01 03:17:05 PM  
Skail

so your reason for why Iraq had nothing to do with it is because these people were found in Pakistan?

You've got to be kidding
 
2003-03-01 03:17:24 PM  
Does this mean that we still get to bomb Iraq?


I blame all those hippy tree huggers who wouldn't let Bush drill a few holes up in the frozed wastelands of Alaska. They forced Bush to go looking for oil in other places. It's all the hippies fault that we will soon invade Iraq.
 
2003-03-01 03:17:53 PM  
Doccm9-
Regardless, the man has killed anybody that has openly disaggreed with him, not to mention over a million of his own people, that sounds like a Hitler in training to me!
 
2003-03-01 03:17:58 PM  
Guess_Who: OMG for what reason should i be on his side? he is worse then saddam he is a big bully to other nations and lets not forget about N. Korea they are the ones with the bombs and said they will use them at least saddam is dismantaling them ( sorry i am not a good speller )

/ anti-war
 
2003-03-01 03:19:15 PM  
This is great. Now we can interview him to fnd out why Al Qaeda hates us and what we can give them to buy their love.
 
2003-03-01 03:19:21 PM  
personally, I think anything we can do to better iraq needs to be done, and that includes removing someone who's into torture from power.

However, I think GW has a hidden agenda (addmittedly one that's not so hidden) and is being ignorant about the why and the when. As far as world events go, this was more or less out of the blue, and it reeks of 'war is peace'.
 
2003-03-01 03:19:26 PM  
SquirrelWithLargeNuts: no I hadn't been aware of that, but I'm not surprised that he refused. Also, my own ignorance of current events is what usually keeps me from spreading my mental faeces around when these fights come up.
 
2003-03-01 03:19:45 PM  
Mandrake, pacifists can only exist if others will do their fighting for them.

Lame. Lame. Lame.
 
2003-03-01 03:19:56 PM  
not a bad catch. this guy even tried to assassinate the Pope on his visit to Manila.

-guac
 
2003-03-01 03:21:43 PM  
GEAH: you're misunderstanding me, in the event that force is necesarry, I say we fark 'em up, but that force should always be a last resort.
 
2003-03-01 03:21:44 PM  
I say bring him to the U.S. and just release him at ground zero-after you notify the friendly folks of New York of his arrival. Vegas can take bets on how far he gets before he caught and skinned alive. Maybe some pay per view on HBO to boot.

Than it's off to the 72 virgins that await him.
 
2003-03-01 03:22:04 PM  
Hey Feuk, what was your point?
 
2003-03-01 03:23:37 PM  
Short of turning half of the globe into glass we seem to be at the mercy of the terrorists outing themselves through indiscretion rather than being able to find them solely on our own.
I hope I'm wrong.


Getting rid of every terrorist isn't something that is likely to be accomplished. What can be accomplished, hopefully, is to destroy the leadership of the terrorist organizations. If you take out the leadership of Al Qaeda and cut off their funding, you're still going to have the operatives left behind, but their ability to inflict mass casualties will be severly hampered if not destroyed.

You may never be able to stop someone from blowing up a bus every so often, but you probably can prevent attacks of the magnitude that occured on 9/11. Hopefully.
 
2003-03-01 03:25:01 PM  
Put him in a boxing ring with Mike Tyson, or 100 rabid wolverines, or a riled up bear or something.

Whatever we do, we should put it on pay-per-view.

I bet that would go some ways into paying back our national debt.
 
2003-03-01 03:25:30 PM  
Tktommy-
NO that's too easy, if he did do the things they say he did, put him in the biggest baddest Jersey State Pen, let the 72 virgins get him after 25 years of ass pounding that await him.
 
2003-03-01 03:26:29 PM  
Irascible Technically he wouldn't bother with the board...ya think?
[image from image.inkfrog.com too old to be available]
 
2003-03-01 03:26:32 PM  
DrToast:
"and cut off their funding, you're still going to have the operatives left behind"


that will soon rise up and become a leader them selfs

there will allways be terrorist's ALLWAYS
 
2003-03-01 03:27:20 PM  
Walt, he wouldn't last an hour. That would be perfect for pay-per-view.
 
2003-03-01 03:27:25 PM  
This guy doesn't know how lucky he is. In 5 years, he will be on a reality show on Fox.
 
2003-03-01 03:28:02 PM  
03-01-03 02:23:22 PM SDKaneda
you know, i'd love to turn on the tv and hear that osama was captured. i'd drink to that.

/non-cynical uncharacteristic of fark comment
_________________________________________

That's never going to happen. Years from now, it will be 'discovered' that osama never made it out of Torra Borra. It's true.

A very sharp old military guy from WWII (a regional commander) told me that you get the best info from your Seargents. Well, Seargents on the ground spotted Usama on a mule in a valley trying to escape Torra Borra right before they dropped a daisey cutter on his coordinates.

Osama's dead, we just can't make a martyer out of him. FWIW, these 'UBL' tapes are wishful thinking, and only serve our purpose, for as long as "Usama's out there", we have more leverage in operations overseas...much like the one that netted this asshole.

P.S. you idiots saying that you've never heard of this cat are showing your ignorance. Funny thing is that it's the same folks who are against deposing Saddam Hussein. Coincidence? Clearly you guys aren't paying attention...so why should we listen to you on Iraq? ...well?
 
2003-03-01 03:28:39 PM  
Lucidavid, that's a Zerg Overlord you putz, not a mastermind
 
2003-03-01 03:29:14 PM  
Begoggle
"Joe not a terrorist mastermind"
 
2003-03-01 03:29:31 PM  
DarkJohnson: You read my mind and put it in jpg format!
 
2003-03-01 03:30:31 PM  
Let's go Mengele on his ass until he spills the beans.
 
2003-03-01 03:30:40 PM  
Yes we do still get to fight Iraq. This has nothing to do with the fact that Iraq is still in breach of 1441 and there are still plenty of terrorists he could give his WMD to so they can attack us without his fingerprints.
 
2003-03-01 03:31:14 PM  
Feukulor-

Pro-war: I think claiming oil is a motive is idiotic. If anyone is motivated by oil it's the French. I support war because Saddam is a monster and his people want him gone. To paraphrase Three Kings, we can go show them the "bright shining light of American democracy". Or something =p I'm hopeful it will help spread political freedom in the region, with the resulting economic upturn creating more jobs for young Arabs, who can then stop turning to extremism.
 
2003-03-01 03:31:15 PM  
DeCypher44:

got one and thanks yes i am a He and in S.F. gotta love it here (EG)
 
2003-03-01 03:31:27 PM  
now there is a new number 3...
 
2003-03-01 03:33:10 PM  
that will soon rise up and become a leader them selfs

there will allways be terrorist's ALLWAYS


Uh...didn't I just say there will always be terrorists?

But you're mistaken if you think anyone can lead a terrorist organization. Al Qaeda is a unique group; they've pulled off things nobody has been able to. They've been able to because they have access to lots of money and they've been able to have free reign of a country for several years. Their country is gone and that has already clearly hurt them. Take away their leadership and their money and they'll become another group of extremists rather than a global threat.
 
2003-03-01 03:33:26 PM  
HOORAY!!! We captured the bad evil terrorists!

Can I have my civil rights back now?
 
2003-03-01 03:35:52 PM  
Feukulor:
Short-term: This won't be a new war, it will be the resumption of the '91 war. Saddam agreed to a shiatload of conditions for cease-fire back then and has spent the last 12 years not holding up his end of the deal. It's only now that we have an administration in place willing to insist that the game-playing be ended and that the U.N. stand up and enforce its own treaty.
Long-term: The Arab world is one huge festering armpit of corrupt regimes and the civilized world is seeing firsthand the spillover effects. If a stable, secular, reasonably democratic government can be established in one Arab state, and allowed to take root, others will eventually follow and the extremist influence will be marginalized. Iraq has a modern infrastructure and will offer a pretty decent opportunity for such cultivation.
I'm not saying this will be anything other than monumentally difficult, and there is no guarantee of success. But the long-term benefits to the world of a stable, functioning Middle East will be incalculable. It's time to Dare Greatly.
 
2003-03-01 03:36:53 PM  
DrToast:

i bow down to you. you are right! but i got a gut feeling that there is more groups out there that we should be afraid of as well
 
2003-03-01 03:38:11 PM  
it's been fun guys see you on the flip off work ..
 
2003-03-01 03:38:52 PM  
Code_Archeologist no shiat - I mean because of these aszhats one of my favorite freedoms is on the ropes.

Check this shiat out.
 
2003-03-01 03:39:00 PM  
Doc_attheRadarStation:

Right on. Who Dares, Wins.
 
2003-03-01 03:40:01 PM  
HOORAY!!! We captured the bad evil terrorists!

Can I have my civil rights back now?


yeah, i know somewhere in the constitution im guaranteed the right to fly without waiting in line at a security check for "too long"
 
2003-03-01 03:41:51 PM  
I've never seen the dumb song before....but I really do have a problem with fellow liberals and their seeming inability to create an intellegent argument against the war. I'm against the war, but i'm not posting silly parody songs, or pictures of poor little Iraqi children.

LittleCamel are you military? Where did you hear about that? Just interested. Thanks.

--TPR
 
2003-03-01 03:42:11 PM  
Interesting footnote to this: According to AOL news (I'm only using the free trial, then I'm going to People PC), this asshat's nephew was the guy responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing. Terrorism runs in that family big-time.
 
2003-03-01 03:42:47 PM  
Link dropped from my previous post, here it is fixed.

Check this shiat out.

If this isn't fixed, Aszhats like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed win another victory.

dj
 
2003-03-01 03:44:20 PM  
SquirrelWithLargeNuts
03-01-03 02:31:32 PM Joxette [insert stupid song]

I think I've figured out why 68% of americans support the war (Info from a survey taken by MSNBC). Conservatives offer up fact based, poignant arguements, while Liberals wave signs, scream simplistic chants, and make up childish songs.


Oh for farks sake dude, do you have to turn everything into a flame war? I think everyone, conservative or liberal, will be happy to hear this asshole is caught.

farking chill for a bit, ok?
 
2003-03-01 03:44:22 PM  
You are correct Alph there is no constitutional guarantee about short lines. But there is a right in there about unreasonable search and seizure... and personally I am getting tired of the body cavity searches and the suggestive winks the airport security people are giving me.
 
2003-03-01 03:44:26 PM  
Score one for the good guys
 
2003-03-01 03:45:20 PM  
The real reasons to invade Iraq.


-The annual military budget of Irak is estimated at 396 billion dollars. Nearly six times the millitary budget of Russia. Irak has a permanent Army of 1,5 million men as well as a reserve of 2 million soldiers.

-Iraq has the world's largest carceral population in the world with over 2 million men and women in jail.

-According to Amnesty international, Iraq has the forth largest execution rate in the world, behind China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. In the last decade 65% of all executions of young offenders took place in Iraq. As of 2002, Iraq is the only country in the world to execute people under the age of 18. Many among them, it has since been known, were innocent.

-In Iraq, individuals identified as « fighting adversaries » have no legal recourses. They can be held in small jail cell 24 hours a day without access to a lawyer or contact with their families. Any information regarding the date of their trial (if such trial is to happen) is kept from them.

-In 2002, Iraq has requested to foreign governments not to ratify an agreement stipulating that they will not deliver to the international penal court any Iraqi nationals accused of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity.

-Over the course of last year, Iraq as substentially augmented the surveilance of its own people under pretext of preserving national security. The Iraqi Government has looked for ways to established a national network consisting of informant who will report any «suspicious» behavior.

-Officialy, internet access is legal in Iraq, The Government annouced measures in order to establish a centralised system allowing to control a large portion of the web and, quite possibly, using it as surveillance of its users.

-In Iraq, private sector employees can be fired from their jobs for any reasons. Those employees can be subjected to drug testing and can also be punished for their political views. It is legal for the employer to exercise secret control of their employees by electronic means, be it video, computer and/or telephone surveillance.

-Iraqi police have the right to seize the personal property of any Iraqi citizens as long as the police has any « reasonable motive ». The police can seize the residence, vehicule and life savings of a citizen.

-In Iraq, the right to assembly is forbiden. A citizen who wishes to organize a public protest must request a permit. The name of that citizen can be filed in a permanent record.

The facts mentioned above are true. Anybody who values freedom and liberty can legitimately be outraged... and what is even more outrageous is the fact that all of this does not apply to Iraq but to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
 
2003-03-01 03:47:22 PM  
Feuklor - I am anti-Bush, but I am actually pro-war, and for none of the reasons that Bush has given us. I think that if we don't go to war, Saddam will work hard at either retailiting, or gathering more allies in the region so that it would be much more difficult politically to attack him.

We are not invading because of oil. We are not invading because we feel bad for the Iraqis. I'm pretty darn sure that we're going to war because Bush jr. feels the need to clean up the mess that Bush Sr. left behind. I don't think he's going to get a lot of disagreements with Dick Cheney and Colin Powell as his aides (both who may feel personally responsible for letting Hussein live).
 
2003-03-01 03:47:31 PM  
LittleCamel:

Interesting theory, and i agree with you on your last point.
People are asking why go to war with Iraq if these guys are hiding in Pakistan. Pakistan has arrested hundreds of terrorists so far and Iraq has arrested 0. I would rather have Pakistan as an ally than Iraq.
 
2003-03-01 03:47:49 PM  
Very cool that this buttplug has been captured. For torture he should forced to watch the Anna NIcole show non-stop. Just loop a single episode and let the bastard's mind be consumed by the torture. He'd probably crack inside of 48-hours.

/seeker of technically 'humane' condition of imprisonment/interrogation
 
2003-03-01 03:48:19 PM  
I want my civil right to say, "Hi", to my friend Jack while seated in 8C.
 
2003-03-01 03:48:48 PM  
QuithEx
You do realize that Joxette's post was in response to someone who posted a non-sequitor, childish anti-war remark. Basically, someone had already initiated the flame war

Archeologist
true. and to be fair, the airport security system is moronic. maximum amount of inconvienence without any real security.
 
2003-03-01 03:50:32 PM  
TentaclePr0nRocks you want a good liberal arguement against going to war? Here is my best one. Twelve years of containment has worked so far, why invade now? Oh and here is another one. North Korea has admitted that they have a weapons program and are also in breach of UN resolutions and have nuclear weapons that CAN hit US interests and cities... so why are we invading Iraq? I have plenty of them...
 
2003-03-01 03:50:53 PM  
B0rg9 you forgot the "ta da bump" - but on a similar none you can say it to your buddy Gene and no one will complain.

cha ching

thank you, I'm here all weeek

dj
 
2003-03-01 03:51:11 PM  
Bashturn,

Hehe. That was Beautiful. I hope your comments fool cause a few flames from careless people. That would be quite amusing to see.
 
2003-03-01 03:52:01 PM  
Feukulor
There is a point to this question, so bear with me.

Nu? Your point was......?
 
2003-03-01 03:56:00 PM  
Why is it every time I see anti-USA propaganda, Bashturn is at the top of the shiate pile? Could he be the sultan of shiate?!? YES
 
2003-03-01 03:56:33 PM  
They arrested Karl Rove?

heh heh!
 
2003-03-01 03:57:13 PM  
Where were the people screaming for Saddam's head five years ago? Eight years ago? The man has been in a position of power since 1968, and has been dictator since 1979. How long have we known that he uses chemical weapons on the Kurds?
What nuclear weapons have we found in Iraq? I have yet see a headline on Fark saying Hans Blix has found anything. Why has Iraq, in the last year, become such a larger threat than usual? Becuase they are developing weapons of mass destruction? They've been doing that for years. Ohh, and they're linked to al-Queda? Who the hell isn't! Good god, one of the operatives they gave up in interrogation was a hispanic guy that worked in a Taco Bell!
Is Saddam evil? Yes. Does he need to be dealt with? Definitely. Is Bush dumber than smegma? Yup (I wanted McCain). It's like Ari said, "I can only say the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, the Iraqi people taking it (on) themselves, is substantially less than that, the cost of war is more than that."

Do we really want to INVADE Iraq and create a whole new generation of people that hate and want to destroy us. We will never win the war on terror. It is an intangible. It will exist as long as there is hatred. All we can do is monitor our actions and work towards the dismantling of the network and ensuring it can build back up to its former strength. Saddam is not another Hitler, he is a Stalin.
And let's not forget all the military aid we gave him when he attacked Iran.
 
2003-03-01 03:59:11 PM  
WTF, I thought the mastermind was Jerry's friend Babo. So what it really turns out to be is "whoever is the last one arrested is the mastermind"????

Silly me... I thought OBL had something to do with it but then BushWacker43 sez it's Sadam. Can't get either of them so we settle for Babo's brother-in-law in Pakistran; thatis, for today anyway. Maybe tomorrow it will be Depak Chopra?
 
2003-03-01 03:59:15 PM  
Code
You cant have it both ways though... you imply that North Korea is more worthy of this action, but if we were doing the same to Korea, the same people who make that argument would be against it.

When you bring korea into it, you're grasping at straws, and making a logical fallacy.


Twelve years of containment has worked so far

i couldnt have said it better myself, which is why im in favor of this war.
 
2003-03-01 04:00:51 PM  
Can some conservative person please explain this to me:
In all seriousness, I'm not trying to start (or add to) a flame war, this is an honest question:
Human rights violations occur all over the world. Why, now, are we suddenly so concerned with them in Iraq, and not in so many other places? I think this is why many liberals believe there to be an ulterior motive (e.g. OIL) for attacking Iraq.
 
2003-03-01 04:02:46 PM  
Thanks, Code_Archeologist...I'll go read the rest of the thread now
;)
 
2003-03-01 04:03:37 PM  
Tusnami

Deepak Chopra. lol.
 
2003-03-01 04:03:52 PM  
Where were the people screaming for Saddam's head five years ago?

The offical policy of the United States has been to force a regime change in Iraq since the Clinton Administration (in 1998).
 
2003-03-01 04:05:48 PM  
DarkJohnson: That would suck. Here's one from my collection.

"You can have my C-65's when you pry 'em from my cold dead hands."
 
2003-03-01 04:06:12 PM  
...and this guy is related to iraq how?
 
2003-03-01 04:06:18 PM  
QuithEx
first of all, you shouldnt bash the liberals like that.

Liberals dont believe this war is for oil, morons do. It is an ignorant, uninformed viewpoint, and most people see through it.

you would be pretty hard pressed to find human rights violations on the same scale as Iraq...

... and we never said we were doing this out of compassion, that was one of the tertiary motives. We want to disable funding to terrorist organizations. Topplin Saddam would go a long way in accomplishing that.
 
2003-03-01 04:10:28 PM  
Feukulor-
Nice one! Personally I try and read everything I can find, the only time I don't read anti-war stuff is when they start out "Bush is out for oil" or if it's written by some celebrity.
 
2003-03-01 04:10:56 PM  
I'm against the war because there is no evidence. Even if there was evidence that Saddam has WMDs, there's no evidence that he's going to use them anytime soon. Contrast this to North Korea, which is not only known to have WMDs, but is shouting at the top of its lungs, "YES, WE HAVE WMDS AND WANT TO USE THEM, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO US!" Iraq is also not linked to al-Qaeda; in fact, al-Qaeda hates Saddam and the Ba'ath Party. Therefore, the only justifications I can come up with for this war are the want for oil and Bush's need for revenge for the planned assassination of his daddy.

As for the defense that the Iraqi government is evil: If that were a sufficient criterion for going to war with another sovereign country, we'd be at war with half of the world right now. There has to be something that makes Iraq more important than any other evil dictatorship, and I'm not seeing what it is.

How's that for a reasoned argument, those of you who base your entire perception of the left on stereotypes?

Rob
 
2003-03-01 04:11:41 PM  
A_Pinkus
obviously, it isnt. I mean, if the guy was found in Pakistan, there is no way that there could be ANY link to Iraq. None whatsoever.

And that somehow means our war in iraq is bogus, because all our reasons for it were predicated on the fact that this one guy lived in iraq. yup.
 
2003-03-01 04:11:56 PM  
LittleCamel must have sources of intell that no one else does...

But thats quite possible, since she was once in the military, I am sure that she has all kinds of contacts for this kind of information....
 
2003-03-01 04:12:47 PM  
But folks, the real important point here is "Who gets the 25 mil?"
 
2003-03-01 04:14:02 PM  
Alph
Explain to me why this war isn't (primarily) about oil. And please don't say that we don't get any oil from Iraq, I realize that. But he who controls the middle east controls the oil prices.


And thanks for calling me a moron.
 
2003-03-01 04:14:41 PM  
A reward is not automatic. If the CIA or the ISI was responsible for the intelligence leading to his arrest, there will be no reward.
 
2003-03-01 04:14:52 PM  
disabling terrorist fuding be a compassionate motive, by attempting to prevent people from being victimized by terrorism?

uuuuh... sure dude. if you want to make that connection. i dont care about other peoples slippery slopes.
 
2003-03-01 04:15:28 PM  
Alph here is my point about twelve years of containment. We have contained Iraq for twelve years and kept them pretty much unable to redevelop their weapons program or rebuild any army to speak of. We have also have a nuclear deterent that pretty much keeps Saddam from doing anything (and as insane as people say Saddam is he has shown a healthy respect for our ability to reduce his nation to a smouldering atomic dust pile by not using chemical weapons during Gulf War I). And our interests there in the Middle East (who are the ones really threatened by Iraq) presently have more than enough power to kick Saddam's arse if he decides to get uppity.

My biggest opposition to attacking Iraq though is that in our non-stop charge for Iraq we have squandered the unity of purpose we had through out the world in the war on terror. Now most of the world is willing to let us hang out to dry... we need to get our focus back on fighting terrorist organizations... and forget this Iraq bullshiat.
 
2003-03-01 04:15:54 PM  
For Allah's sake, people. It's SATURDAY. Lighten up a bit.
 
2003-03-01 04:16:07 PM  
In fact, LittleCamel is probably the one that tipped the authorities to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's location :)
 
2003-03-01 04:16:43 PM  
Cool, they caught one of the head diaper heads....kick ass, let's put him in front of a firing squad...but first, show him naked women, shave his head and beard, and make him listen to Christian sermons...hehe
 
2003-03-01 04:17:56 PM  
Well folks it's been fun but I gotta run.

/I'll be baaack
 
2003-03-01 04:18:50 PM  
Propoganda aside, this is the man (NOT Osama, NOT Saddam) that planned the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on America. Ive been waiting for his capture since that date. Its a shame that this proud moment is overshadowed by the partisan bickering. I hope that the people who lost loved ones on 9/11 can appreciate this moment.
 
2003-03-01 04:20:08 PM  
Variable
I agree. A very good thing happened here.
 
2003-03-01 04:20:51 PM  
Feukulor

I dunno. I would think that the US would release as much evidence as possible in order to get the support of other countries.

Rob
 
2003-03-01 04:21:29 PM  
Code
well, we presume we've limited his weapons development, but its not far fetched to believe he hasnt followed those guidelines.

i know he would never directly attack us, but i personally believe he contributes money and lots of other resources to organizations and entities and what have you with the goal of killing US citizens. Which is what i think we should stop.

Yeah, we dont have much unity, but keep in mind, the US and England are in agreement with the UN resolution. France and Germany, and those other states are in opposition. The agreement states that its not our job to show that Iraq has no WMD, its Iraq's job to show they dont have them.

We are simply going along with the resolution as planned. If other states get cold feet, it doesnt matter.

Lets face it, even if the other countries did support us, they wouldnt contribute any significant number of troops.
 
2003-03-01 04:23:07 PM  
Variable

Yeah, I don't know why we're talking about Iraq either. Seems like the capture of this guy is a lot more important.

Rob
 
2003-03-01 04:23:54 PM  
Feukulor

yeah, thats interesting theory, and ive always been fascinated by how two smart, rational people can come to different conclusions.

But the reality is that time will show one of these sides to be on the wrong side of history (so to speak)
 
2003-03-01 04:24:52 PM  
IamEvil
and make him listen to Christian sermons...hehe

Dear god, what kind of monster are you??!!
 
2003-03-01 04:26:57 PM  
no matter your thoughts on the war on iraq (ie: threadjacks aside) can we all agree that the capture of this asshat is a good good good thing?
 
2003-03-01 04:28:53 PM  
Here me now and believe me later... This flabby terrorist is about to get pumped up.


Just wanted to revive 1990-ish icons.
 
2003-03-01 04:30:39 PM  
B0rg9 SCHWEEET - An Estes Explorer Aquarius!!!

The ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs, or so I'm told! (did I really say that?)

Anyway, I'm sure by now you've traced my links to see some of my fleet. Looks like you built it up nice.

dj
 
2003-03-01 04:31:04 PM  
BTW, I don't think it has as much to do with the reading of different articles as it does with basic personality differences between intelligent pro-war people and intelligent anti-war people. I personally don't find the idea of "acceptable losses" so acceptable, especially not in a war with as little solid justification as this one. Pro-war people, on the other hand, seem to tend towards the idea that people in the military are there because they want to be, therefore their dying for their country is not as important of a consideration. Pro-war people also seem to focus more on the short-term than anti-war people. Saddam is evil, therefore he must be stopped, even if stopping him accomplishes nothing because the next government is as bad or worse.

Rob
 
2003-03-01 04:31:46 PM  
QuithEx
Why, now, are we suddenly so concerned with them in Iraq, and not in so many other places? I think this is why many liberals believe there to be an ulterior motive (e.g. OIL) for attacking Iraq.

Because it's in our best interests. I heard about the women's rights violations in Afghanistan as soon as the Taliban came to power. It wasn't until it concerned us that we even bothered to invade Afghanistan. (I think the fact that it was just women also had something to do with it too...but I have PMS and therefore automatically hate everything male that crosses my path this week, including my cat.)

I was all for taking the Taliban out, and it wasn't because of 9/11. If we had gotten off of our asses before hand, and actually acted on the moral values that we claim to uphold, there may have not been a 9/11 to speak of. We aren't concerned about human rights violations, we're just concerned with our best interests.

Same with Iraq, there HAS to be an ulterior motive, because no one else wants to go to war with them, with the exception of the US and the UK. I just can't trust Bush...I've tried to, and I feel really stupid whenever I manage to trick myself into doing it.

I don't intentionally go against everything that is upheld by he government, I just see so much that's in need of improvement that it's sickening. I can't blindly follow a guy who can't make a compelling "factual" speech without making up a few reports to back him up. I can't watch the President say something about how he needs to uphold morals...blah...blah...take out the Axis of Evil...yadda yadda, same shiat every time, but I never believe it.

But at the same time, I know that Oil isn't really our main concern, either. I've actually had to explain where we get our oil to some of the more conservative people I know. Oil is another tool...which is why the FTC isn't really doing anything about those high gas prices. It's just another way to manipulate us into supporting impending war.

I've also seen a number floating around here, supposedly depicting the amount of people who support the war. There is no way I am going to believe that 68% of the population actually supports this. Polls can be very easily skewed, and you probably want to look at the article that accompanied the poll. If the article was more pro-war than not, then the pollers could have easily picked and called more traditionally conservative areas of the country. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the political party that you've declared is also public knowledge. How hard would it be to get a voting roster and call mostly Republican, or other conservative parties?

I'm not saying that these things definately happened, but you should think before you take poll numbers as gospel truth.
 
2003-03-01 04:32:02 PM  
Dammit I just came back to try and be the voice of reason but good ol' Variable beat me to it, war talk aside, fark saddam in his dildo hole, let's get back to ways of torturing this terrorist bastard for payback, last we left off, I said ass rape, FarkinFarker said drown in piss, and various others agreed it should be pay-per-view......now proceed....

/this time I am gone
 
2003-03-01 04:32:54 PM  
[image from 64.49.221.207 too old to be available]
 
2003-03-01 04:33:30 PM  
Don't capture kill
 
2003-03-01 04:36:00 PM  
Y' know, this is the least flame-filled thread about the war that I've seen on Fark. I'm proud of you guys.

Rob
 
2003-03-01 04:37:39 PM  
Pluvius
It's been civil because some of the All Star flame throwers aren't around.
 
2003-03-01 04:37:49 PM  
I prefer this kind of mastermind
[image from terra.es too old to be available]
 
2003-03-01 04:38:33 PM  
Code_Archeologist
Great post.

Feukulor
I'm against the war because that to me is like a default setting. I don't know much about it, I don't care if it has to do with oil or not, but something I do notice is that it's about power. Pretty much anything stems from the thirst of power. Can we or can we not wage this war. What does it take? Power. If it is about the euro, why would we want to preserve the dollar? Power. Why do we want to remove Saddam and install a friendly (to us) puppet regime? Power. Why are our civil liberties being curttailed? (Bongs being confiscated, etc.) Power. The government can do this because they can. Obviously there are some checks to prevent excessive power getting out of hand, but what happens when those checks no longer retain the authority they once had? In 1984, it is revealed to the protagonist that the ultimate ends is power. Power is not only a means, it is an end unto itself.

Fight the power.
 
2003-03-01 04:38:47 PM  
Boo farkin YAH!!

This motherfarker planned an attack (among many others) that flew a plane into my building.

I've been numb since I've heard the news and don't know whether to shout out with joy or break down and cry.

Flame on about Iraq or the U.S. and joke around all you want. One of the people who had a hand in murdering my co-workers has been caught and I'm going out to have a drink in their memory.
 
2003-03-01 04:39:37 PM  
Ya Baby! Glad to Here it!
 
2003-03-01 04:40:08 PM  

Alright, I'll bite on Bashturn's falem:



The annual military budget is estimated at 396 billion dollars. Nearly six times the millitary budget of Russia. They have a permanent Army of 1.5 million men as well as a reserve of 2 million soldiers. - Because of the enormous military buildup of the previous generations. The current Army, and the military as a whole, is currently being reduced, in order to free up some of the budget. But why is it so huge? Because the interest of America is spread over a very large area (worldwide), with political influence around the world, as well as a need to protect the homeland. Many soldiers are delegated to diplomates, while others ahve to be police in very hostile countries, where the current government is on the brink of losing control.
The world's largest carceral population in the world with over 2 million men and women in jail. - And we need more jails. Seriously, this is just a stupid farking point. The more people you have in a nation, the more people you're going to have behind bars.
According to Amnesty international, they have the forth largest execution rate in the world, behind China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. In the last decade 65% of all executions of young offenders took place there. As of 2002, they are the only country in the world to execute people under the age of 18. Many among them, it has since been known, were innocent. - You say many, I say less than 30%. Over half of them were guilty. Yes, it's a shame that the innocent were killed, but you're pointing out smaller facts within an entire truth. I say everyone above the legal age of 12, where the law says that right and wrong are officially distinguishable, should get the "opportunity" to face the death penalty in such cases that warrent it.
Individuals identified as fighting adversaries have no legal recourses. They can be held in small jail cell 24 hours a day without access to a lawyer or contact with their families. Any information regarding the date of their trial (if such trial is to happen) is kept from them. - Again, only a half truth. fighting advisaries are only declared when they fire upon a military target, or perform an act of terrorism. If you're stupid enough to fight against the military, you deserve the be flogged
In 2002, they have requested to foreign governments not to ratify an agreement stipulating that they will not deliver to the international penal court any nationals accused of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity. - Again, another half truth. This was a political action, not a more sinister action than you make it appear to be. The agreement was not very sound. Look it up, it had problems, lot's of them.
Over the course of last year, they have substentially augmented the surveilance of its own people under pretext of preserving national security. The Government has looked for ways to established a national network consisting of informant who will report any suspicious behavior. Once more, this has been taken out of context. The government, and every law-enforcing body, does surveilance. It's NOT NEW. The government has been almost powerless when it comes to internel surveilance, relying soley on city, state and county surveilance.
Officialy, internet access is legal. The Government annouced measures in order to establish a centralised system allowing to control a large portion of the web and, quite possibly, using it as surveillance of its users. I like how you interjected your own little bit at the end, when NOTHING the government mentions has anything to do with surveilance. It's just like idiots like you to automatically assume crap like that. Plus, that bill has died out. So, this argument is an outdated point of view.
Private sector employees can be fired from their jobs for any reasons. WRONG - You've obviously never run a business. If I fire somone because I "feel like it," they will come down on me with a crapload of lawyers so fast, it would make your head spin. When you're fired, there is a reason. Those employees can be subjected to drug testing and can also be punished for their political views. - ONLY if you contract for the government. I can support Al-CaCa and still work for Microsoft, but I CANNOT support them and contract out to the government, and for good reason: I wouldn't want somone who doesn't support our government making our bombs for us. It is legal for the employer to exercise secret control of their employees by electronic means, be it video, computer and/or telephone surveillance. AND IT DAMN WELL SHOULD BE. Running a business is tough enough, but with the OVERWHELMING ammount of people who work for a company just to steal from them is absolutly staggering. You're damn right I put security cameras everywhere, except bathrooms and the break room, not only that, but all data transmitted over the network is logged. We deal directly with customer information, and there is NO WAY I want to get screwed by some punk from the ghetto who want's to steal for a living.
Police have the right to seize the personal property of any citizen as long as the police has any reasonable motive. The police can seize the residence, vehicule and life savings of a citizen. - And wrongful seizure can be upheld in court. If you seize the property of somone who is innocent, there is a good chance you can recieve monetary rewards for damages.
The right to assembly is forbiden. Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. The right to assembly is a right to gather in a place of meeting that you own. I cannot start an assembly outside of City Hall with thousands of people, because it will cause serious problems. Contingency is an issue you need to deal with, that's why we have permits. A citizen who wishes to organize a public protest must request a permit. The name of that citizen can be filed in a permanent record. - Yes, you need a permit to assemble in any public place. You do not need a permit to assemble in a private place, ie: a residence. If you want to do an anti-war protest at your house, you're more than welcome to, but if you want to protest out in front of the white house, you better damn well have a permit. Not only does it place responcibility on the person(s) filing it, it also gives government officials a chance to prepare for the ensuing chaos. Streets have to be cleared, and security must be set in place. All in all, it's a good thing that some goofball can't get a bunch of psychos together and start marching up and down 5th avenue, it would be chaotic.


I appologize in advance if any of the HTML tags are broken.


Laconia Bums Inc. - Damnit, after biting into that flame, I deserve a plug! >:(

 
2003-03-01 04:41:16 PM  
Pro-war people also seem to focus more on the short-term than anti-war people. Saddam is evil, therefore he must be stopped,

interesting. I view being anti-war as very short term. I'm willing to accept losses now, to avoid larger losses in the future. Thats the basic idea behind the war i thought.

Of course people are going to be against war at the current time... its like asking who wants to pay higher taxes. Just because you dont want to, doesnt mean you dont need to.
 
2003-03-01 04:41:24 PM  
[image from almostaproverb.com too old to be available]
 
2003-03-01 04:43:05 PM  
Walt-baby : Why is it every time I see anti-USA propaganda, Bashturn is at the top of the shiate pile? Could he be the sultan of shiate?!? YES

you know what ?... If my post stand out from the others that means I must strike a nerve with you... and I'm glad.
That post was not anti-US "propaganda"... it was an anti-war statement.

A true patriot must always question his government.
 
2003-03-01 04:43:20 PM  
Getting back to this Mohammed guy, I'm glad we finally caught him. Maybe we can get some useful information by tortu--I mean, interrogating him.

I also can't wait to see what Jon Stewart has to say, assuming that there's going to be a new show on Monday.

Rob
 
2003-03-01 04:45:03 PM  
Mohammed Asshat
 
2003-03-01 04:46:41 PM  
DrToast
Who's on the All Star team?
 
2003-03-01 04:50:02 PM  
Liberal: The war is about oil and it's wrong.

Non-Liberal: Err...what about the possibility that he has all those messed-up weapons? Doesn't Iraq have a little responsibility in avoiding this war? I mean...basically we are saying that their pride is worth a war? If not, why has he been so non-cooperative? Wouldn't simply being straightforward be worth a knock to your pride?

Liberal: But it's about oil. I just know it is.

Non-Liberal: Ok, so the whole thing about the weapons of mass destruction, chemical/biological weapons has nothing to do with it, despite the support we have from other nations?

Liberal: Uh...no, because Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn said it was about oil, and I just really, really think it's about oil. I can FEEL it. Hussein has such a great record as a leader that there is NO WAY possible that he has these weapons you...you WARMONGERS are talking about. Besides, I thought I have established that it is about oil and not those weapons...don't you listen? War isn't pleasant, and anything unpleasant should be avoided at all costs.

Non-Liberal: Ok. I think I see your point. America (and other involved countries) see a threat from Iraq in the form of a combination of a crazy leader and powerful weapons. We should abandon this operation because an even greater threat looms if IRAQ is the "bigger person" and let's the inspectors do their jobs and follow every demand given them by the UN...the threat of a hit to their pride and the reminder that they are answerable to the rest of the planet. Brilliant. I now see that our silly notion of a madman with hugely powerful weapons and an axe to grind pales in significance to that great man's pride.

I'm converted. It IS about oil. See, this way, problems are solved, and all that scary stuff goes away. I now realize that World War 2 was a war of American agression just to get Germanys cool cars. And we raped Japan of all their Pokemon. It was us all along. Share my shame, America.

Hehe...silly stuff. Stupid liberals.
 
2003-03-01 04:50:30 PM  
All right! Another one bites the dust.

We're gonna keep coming as long as it takes, muthafarkas!


/angry over 9-11
 
2003-03-01 04:56:18 PM  
Walt-Baby

Torture for this asshat? I believe we should take a page from the book of Marcellus:
"What now? Well let me tell you what now. I'm gonna call a couple of pipe-hittin' n*ggers, who'll go to work on homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. Hear me talkin' hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'm gonna get medieval on your ass."
 
2003-03-01 04:56:42 PM  
Ahhh, Jon Stewart will point out how Bush has basically caught the big meanie bad guy behind 9/11, but because he kept hammering home that Osama is the huge guy wanted dead or alive, this capture will have no effect on Shrub's '04 election hopes. Too bad.

Later.

RJS
 
2003-03-01 04:57:42 PM  
According to Amnesty international, they have the forth largest execution rate in the world, behind China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. In the last decade 65% of all executions of young offenders took place there. As of 2002, they are the only country in the world to execute people under the age of 18. Many among them, it has since been known, were innocent. - You say many, I say less than 30%.

Even if it was less than 1%, it would be a good argument against the death penalty. Why kill people when you can just imprison them for life?

I say everyone above the legal age of 12, where the law says that right and wrong are officially distinguishable, should get the "opportunity" to face the death penalty in such cases that warrent it.

Only if twelve-year-olds are allowed to vote.

Individuals identified as fighting adversaries have no legal recourses. They can be held in small jail cell 24 hours a day without access to a lawyer or contact with their families. Any information regarding the date of their trial (if such trial is to happen) is kept from them. - Again, only a half truth. fighting advisaries are only declared when they fire upon a military target, or perform an act of terrorism.

The problem is that "act of terrorism" is a vague phrase. Also, fighting adversaries deserve the same rights that any other criminal gets in the US justice system.

Over the course of last year, they have substentially augmented the surveilance of its own people under pretext of preserving national security. The Government has looked for ways to established a national network consisting of informant who will report any suspicious behavior. Once more, this has been taken out of context. The government, and every law-enforcing body, does surveilance. It's NOT NEW. The government has been almost powerless when it comes to internel surveilance, relying soley on city, state and county surveilance.

Yes, the government performs surveillance. However, the Patriot Act and TADS far surpass acceptable levels of surveillance. The fact that someone is allowed to perform surveillance does not mean that he should be allowed to perform any amount of surveillance that he wishes.

Officialy, internet access is legal. The Government annouced measures in order to establish a centralised system allowing to control a large portion of the web and, quite possibly, using it as surveillance of its users. I like how you interjected your own little bit at the end, when NOTHING the government mentions has anything to do with surveilance. It's just like idiots like you to automatically assume crap like that. Plus, that bill has died out. So, this argument is an outdated point of view.

Tell that to ISONews.

Rob
 
2003-03-01 04:58:12 PM  
DocToast and Variable, I couldn't agree more. Some people are so friggin' primed for the 'war in Iraq/no war in Iraq' argument that anything that even remotely touches on terrorism or politics automatically becomes license to pull out the old cyber quills and start attempting to make converts or just revel in flaming one another. Foo. Feh. Meh. Bleh. Do these folks not give a shiat about the fact that there's a real good chance that one of the dickweeds behind 9/11 will get what he has coming?
 
2003-03-01 04:58:31 PM  
interesting. I view being anti-war as very short term. I'm willing to accept losses now, to avoid larger losses in the future.

What evidence is there that there will be larger losses in the future if we don't attack now?

Rob
 
2003-03-01 04:58:44 PM  
And yeah, the put-it-on-PPV idea is great. Credit George Carlin for the massive ripoff, fellas. But yep, tell New Yorkers the day before that this dude's getting dropped off somewhere in Manhattan and look what happens. There goes the deficit.

Later.

RJS
 
2003-03-01 04:59:37 PM  
Way back when, Doccm9 wrote:

"47% of statistics are made up on the spot."

I believe that's actually supposed to be 74%.

(taking the day off from serious comment)
 
2003-03-01 04:59:50 PM  
Pluvious --

1. Without complete Iraqi cooperation, at what point can the inspectors be sure that they've found anything? And no, they haven't been cooperating. Destroying four out of an estimated one hundred twenty banned missiles isn't a very significant start; and scientists asking to be able to record their interviews with the UN "for their own protection" isn't, either (as, clearly, such recordings would be most useful to the Iraqi security services).

2. Once the inspectors leave, if they ever do, how do you ensure that Iraq stays on its best behavior? You can't afford to "cordon" an entire country for very long. Hell, large amounts of oil are getting smuggled out of Iraq, and oil isn't a very compact item; knowledge and small amounts of uranium should be far harder to detect than large amounts of oil.

3. What message does it send to the rest of the world if the UN backs down? You think that the negative consequences of that will be merely "short term"? Or do you think that it will merely encourage despots around the world to face down the UN, knowing full well that "humanitarians" will work against those who try to stop them?


"Peace", by itself, is not a good. There are acceptable peaces and unacceptable peaces, and failure to act does not absolve one from the consequences of that inaction.
 
2003-03-01 05:01:36 PM  
Feukulor

I was joking about the torture. I don't think torture is ever an acceptable form of interrogation, even if the asshat has it coming.

Rob
 
2003-03-01 05:02:32 PM  
Nah, I haven't read anything about who actually DID the capturing. Although I had a screwed up dream last night about some crazy Marine finding Osama in a cave, calling CNN, MSNBC, etc., it being broadcast all over the world that this one wacked dude got him, and then the dude demands $100B and the Twin Towers rebuilt instead of the Spire of Doom. Wacky.

Later.

RJS
 
2003-03-01 05:03:28 PM  
Robsul82

"...and their heads could roll down a little hill & fall into one of three numbered holes. We could gamble on it!"

/Carlin
 
2003-03-01 05:04:16 PM  
Too much reading...nothing new being said...wish I was blind and this was a boobies link in brail.

Well I do.

dj
 
2003-03-01 05:04:36 PM  
It was credited to a partnership between US intel officials and the Pakistanis, I believe.
 
2003-03-01 05:05:03 PM  
"We could start crucifying these fat, white, overstuffed, overpaid upper-class bankers to stop the drug traffic. Upside down, and naked! When? Halftime at Monday Night Football!"

/Carlin

Later.

RJS
 
2003-03-01 05:06:07 PM  
Lordkat : If you want to be selective about my post more power to you... where I stated facts, you stated opinions. Therefore this could hardly qualify as a debate
 
2003-03-01 05:10:45 PM  
Ok, how's this for a reasoned opposition to the war?

U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has always dealt with oil as a paramount political force. It would be silly not to. But the other paramount political force -- a much more destablilizing one, to boot -- is the state of Israel. The United States has huge interests in the State of Israel's military superiority and nuclear hegemony in the region. The foreign policy of the United States says that if any of the Muslim countries of the Middle East acquires nuclear weapons, and by extension any WMD's, then the stability dynamic of the region will be irreparably compromised. The United States has built its regional policies on the fact that the region is disunified, poor, and wracked by infighting.

Now, one country in the region is developing WMD's. No sane person, even the CIA, thinks they are for offensive use. Hoewever, the capabilty to strike Tel Aviv in the wake of Israeli aggression, in a MAD scenario, is an unacceptable situation for the hawks in Washington, because it would mean that Iraq, as a potential champion of real economic development in the Middle East, could now use the leverage from his independence from the American masters that the rest of the region has to build an economic coalition free of US/British hegemony.

The Middle East has the cultural possibility to become as powerful, both economically and militarily, and as developed a nation as the United States. The US should, instead of playing all sides against each other, be working toward the goal of ensuring that, when that day comes, the men in power are just and the place is governed for the common good. A war in its present form is the farthest possible option than that, and the worst possible option for preserving any semblance of peace in the nation and probably in the world.
 
2003-03-01 05:13:07 PM  
Commodore69 --

Yeah, the BBC cites the White House as calling it a "successful joint operation" between the US and Pakistani authorities. The same article indicates that "...reports say [Mohammed] may be turned over to US authorities and interrogated in an undisclosed foreign country", which, under legal doctrines espoused by the current administration, would reduce the number of rights Mohammed would be entitled to.

He's a good catch. However, he's probably not a walking "Who's Who in al-Qaeda" despite his position, assuming that they're generally intelligent enough to compartmentalize information on a need-to-know basis, so breaking out the champagne would be premature...
 
2003-03-01 05:21:15 PM  
Korovyov--I might be a bit more on board for the coming festivities in the Middle-East if our leadership were a bit more honest about our motives. Wrapping ourselves in the broad cloth of the flag, mouthing platitudes, and then citing that we "know" better than anyone else isn't the way to sway me.

It is interesting that Powell has finally admitted that we would be administrating Iraq, until they could get their own government up and running, and releasing some of their oil reserves for sale, and essential re-building contracts would be laded out as well, something that the administration has been a bit reticient commenting on.

Of course we will put one of our boys into office. The consequences of the invasion will mean a dictator will either be killed or exiled, there will be significant loss of infra-structure, and in the mean time, fat contracts will be handed out to various businesses. Looking out for American interests in this manner, it behooves the US to get our feet in the door, as opposed to a rising EU, which is perhaps the most telling reason for coming war. We are playing some serious games with peoples' lives, and essentially for the joy of handing out trinkets to GW's cronies.

I liken it to pulling a woman from a burning car, and then feeling her up after you give her CPR.

I question GW's motives in this matter. I think it's less about wanting to help the poor Iraqi people than lining other peoples' pockets.
 
2003-03-01 05:29:27 PM  
Pluvious

obviously, thats the point. I have the same amount of evidence as you have evidence to suggest the other point. We've just arrived at different opinions, and of course, as far as I'm concerned, i know im right.

:)
 
2003-03-01 05:30:36 PM  
Joxette: You're now on record as opposing a just war. Your embarrassment is sure to follow.

You just hate The President, if Clinton bombed Iraq, you'd have no problem with it. Come to think of it, he did bomb Iraq during impeachment hearings, and he didn't consult the French. What say you?

You've lost the argument and your friend Saddam will lose the war despite the moral support you are giving him.

You coddle someone who tortures children while parents watch. The French side with the murderer for money and oil, you side with him for hatred and spite.

People such as you are the reason the great Democrat party is reduced to filibustering a qualified Hispanic in order to show off the meager power they have remaining.

Too bad for you, Saddam and the French. We don't take cr*p from people like you anymore.

The adults are in charge now and you are a sicko.
 
2003-03-01 05:30:50 PM  
Korovyov

Probably true, but I'll break out a vodka cran on this nice, sunny day here in Seattle. I'd guess this guy knows quite a bit, but may be more hardcore than the common foot soldier in giving up info. He'll probably off himself (if given a chance) or go to the chair without saying much. Then again, these guys are farked up (i.e. hijackers getting ripped, going to strip clubs before certain death, falling apart at borders [Rassam], etc.) - maybe he'll say something. In any event, if nothing else comes out of it, it's good that a big fish in this organization has been captured.
 
2003-03-01 05:31:44 PM  
As of 2002, they are the only country in the world to execute people under the age of 18. Many among them, it has since been known, were innocent.

Interesting... I've not heard of a single instance of a person under 18 being executed in this country. Much less, one who was later found to have been innocent. Can someone cite an example? ...one?
 
2003-03-01 05:32:16 PM  
I haven't read this whole thread (haven't had time), so I don't know if anyone pointed this out. The sonofabiatch they caught today went to a US university.

Traitor. I hope when they finish with him, there's nothing left to bury. Damn bastard.
 
2003-03-01 05:33:08 PM  
Elevation are you, as your name suggests, smoking something? Or was that an attempt at satire?
 
2003-03-01 05:34:39 PM  
Hubiestubert --

Yes, the aftermath could be quite interesting. In particular, the Turks have made some requests that could liven up the situation rather greatly, such as their intention to send troops into parts of northern Iraq -- allegedly, to disarm the Kurds. Given that Bush is asking the currently autonomous Kurds to take up arms and assist the invasion, this calls for careful diplomacy. I don't envy Colin Powell, who might well have the roughest job of any Cabinet member except, possibly, Tom Ridge.

It might be considered premature to talk about rebuilding contract assignments, in that it's unclear as to how much damage is to be expected -- and such estimates themselves may be overly suggestive of likely targets and tactics. On the other hand, should the invasion take place (and that's something I wouldn't bet against except at very, very extreme odds), it'll be up to the press and voters to maintain pressure for opennness. I'm inclined to think that invading a country for the benefits of one's fiscal cronies would be a sufficient abuse of power to justify impeachment and war crimes trials of the President and other conspirators.
 
2003-03-01 05:35:25 PM  
Well, if all the thread-jackers don't mind me stating my $.02:

Weekend with Mossad.

(Oh . . . we were talking about an Al Qaeda guy getting captured . . . remember?)

Now, as for the TJ:
I question GW's motives in this matter. I think it's less about wanting to help the poor Iraqi people than lining other peoples' pockets.

What's to question, Hubiestubert?
When have GW's motives been about anything but lining his and his friends' pockets?
Slam dunk bet of the year: that Haliburton will end up in control of Iraq's oil.
 
fb-
2003-03-01 05:35:27 PM  
The state of America is laughable. The jingoistic, brainwashed, goose-stepping, God invoking, Bush loving, blood thristy croud of people that make up the majority of the American populace is frightening. It's sick to see the fark job that Bush did on the majority of ignorant Americans after 9/11. Some of you moral majority, back woods, jesus loving dullards are so farking scared shiatless thanks to Bush working you over and exploiting your ignorance that you'll do anything he says at this point. Especially if he mentions 'terrah' and 'evil doers.'

I'm glad I got out of that farking country when I did.. just like anybody that values life, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness probably has done or is seriously considering.
 
2003-03-01 05:37:31 PM  
Dorf11: "He was caught in Pakistan, not Iraq. Huh. Go figure."

Hey nitwit, We're in Pakistan - Duh.

Oh and we'll soon be in Iraq finding more terrorists.
 
2003-03-01 05:37:50 PM  
Well, it's another sunny day in George W. Bush's Amerika. Another country says no to his war, another MASTERMIND! of the 9/11 attacks pops up as captured.

Later.

RJS
 
2003-03-01 05:38:34 PM  
Fb- : From one former American to another ... Kudos !
 
2003-03-01 05:39:58 PM  
Sorry to be out of the loop, fb, but where did you leave for again?
 
fb-
2003-03-01 05:41:10 PM  
Zagloba,

A tiny caribbean island.
 
2003-03-01 05:41:39 PM  
"I'm glad I got out of that farking country when I did"

Yup, if there's a problem the best solution is to run away-you must have moved to France.
 
2003-03-01 05:41:47 PM  
Hey!! that's no Osama bin Laden.

I demand Bush stop banging the Iraqi war drums and actually catch this guy like he said he was going to!
 
2003-03-01 05:42:27 PM  
Robsul, azctually Carlin said Upside-down crucifixtions.
 
2003-03-01 05:42:41 PM  
Aztex999 --

Israeli interests aren't necessarily American interests; for instance, the temptation to tie al-Qaeda to the Palestinian intifada might be pretty strong... If the Mossad were at all involved in interrogation, I'd definitely want US personnel to be there observing, just to make sure that any intelligence product yielded is correct and complete.
 
fb-
2003-03-01 05:44:41 PM  
Shut........UP,

Yeah.. and the better solution is living in that polluted, backwards police-state that's nothing more than a giant strip mall and trailer park, smashing my head against a wall to try to change things that are so out of whack that they can never be fixed?!? No thanks.. I'm going somewhere that I'm free to live my life, somewhere that my vote matters.
 
2003-03-01 05:47:48 PM  
Zagloba: I skydive.

No satire. I'm not backing down, nor is Bush. Tough for you and your ilk.

For those who say the war is about oil, for the French it is. For us it's about freedom. Saddam would sell us all we wanted. The French have great development contracts with Saddam. We could also but we supported sanctions for 12 years while France broke them.

9/11 changed everything. Thank God for Bush.
Go ahead and protest while Republicans save your ass.
 
2003-03-01 05:51:53 PM  
Just out of interest, what happened to kinghorse and harmonia? Haven't seen them around for a couple of weeks.
 
2003-03-01 05:51:54 PM  
Fb-

time to move to Canada then
 
2003-03-01 05:52:34 PM  
Feukulor --

Some may not want to admit that war is, almost certainly, inevitable unless Saddam and his close followers do a sharp U-turn(*). Others might not want to admit that things could go quite badly wrong in a variety of ways, or how long the American commitment to the region might have to be -- e.g. Rumsfeld trying to quash the notion that several hundred thousand troops might be needed to occupy the country.

(*) Theoretically possible, but it seems unlikely. After all, Saddam still appears to be convinced that Iraq won the first Gulf War in a battle of wills -- perhaps it is incomprehensible to him the decision to stop at restoring the Kuwaiti monarchy was not a sign of fatal weakness or war fatigue, or the end of the US's capabilities.
 
fb-
2003-03-01 05:52:34 PM  
Feukulor,

Causes? What cause is going to change America?
 
2003-03-01 05:52:57 PM  
Chonny69 "I'm against the war because that to me is like my default setting."

Perfect. And lacks the flame value of calling yourself a 'pacifist.' Which I am. Please don't kill me.
 
2003-03-01 05:54:27 PM  
Elevation:

When Iraq made it's initial weapons declarating the United States immediately seized the document and distrubuted it around to the world, minus 8000 pages naming various worldwide companies that had dealt with Iraq. Many such companies were based in the US and some, such as Kodak and Hewlett-Packard supplied parts related to the production of long range missiles and nuclear weaponry.
 
2003-03-01 05:54:31 PM  
Feukulor
I think that means none.
 
fb-
2003-03-01 05:54:45 PM  
KnightShyfte,

Canada is too cold. There are lots of fine, warmer places available.
 
2003-03-01 05:56:06 PM  
Radicals in Turkey set aside a help the US vote, and the US is getting this guy... sounds like things are a wash today. Except we'll get Turkey yet, and if we don't its not a real show stopper. And on the balance, we're going to get alot of G2 out of this clown.

I take it back - its been a good day.
 
2003-03-01 05:56:14 PM  
I've heard Fiji is good this time of year... or any time for that matter :)
 
2003-03-01 06:01:05 PM  
Ruptured--Kinghorse got booted for some unkind words, and as far as I know, Harmonia usually posts from work, and being across the ocean, long ways away, these threads are a bit late for him--somewhere around midnight or so, and I suspect that he has a life away from the phosphor screen.
 
2003-03-01 06:02:55 PM  
KnightShyfte:

If the US removed 8000 pages how did you see them? In any case our involvment was before the UN sanctions. If any US companies broke the sanctions they will be prosecuted.

The French, Germans and Russians continued to help Iraq after the UN imposed sanctions, or at least it appears that they did. Time will tell, because we are going in.

I think Saddam is blackmailing France.
 
2003-03-01 06:04:16 PM  
KnightShyfte, pretty funny. You are being silly, aren't you? ObL is irrelevant these days. Is he alive or dead? It doesn't much matter. As you know, if he's buried deep in a cave in the Afghan mountains, no one will ever find him.
 
2003-03-01 06:05:49 PM  
Elevation:

Such things have a tendency to get out. The only reason I have even heard of these pages is due to some fantastic expository journalism on a UK reporter's part...

While these US companies traded with Iraq before the sanctions, the nuclear and missile related parts sold to Iraq makes them far more guilty.
 
2003-03-01 06:06:06 PM  
Hubiestubert Thanks for that.
 
2003-03-01 06:06:48 PM  
GEAH:

OBL is NOT irrelevant and everyone will realize this when he masterminds the NEXT big terrorist attack on US soil.
 
2003-03-01 06:06:55 PM  
KnightShyfte --

The permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the inspectors themselves, all received complete versions. The permanent members are all declared, confirmed nuclear powers so the additional information wouldn't assist nuclear arms proliferation in their hands. Giving the other members a guidebook as to arms procurement and what exact materials are helpful for nuclear weapons development might, in fact, violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, because the latter -- if memory serves -- prohibits not only the providing of physical materials but also of know-how.
 
2003-03-01 06:09:00 PM  
KnightShyfte --

And it wasn't exactly hidden, either. I only have access to public news services and it was all over television, print and web at the time it was happening. Syria's irritation was also a matter of public record at the time.
 
2003-03-01 06:09:08 PM  
Korovyov:

Do you even realize what was in that weapons declaration? There was no instructional material on how to build nuclear weapons at all.
 
2003-03-01 06:09:34 PM  
Elevation

I think Saddam is blackmailing France.

Interesting. Why do you say that?
 
2003-03-01 06:10:36 PM  
And the non-proliferation treaty does NOT restrict know-ho. Anybody can go to their local university library and access and large volume on how to construct a nuclear device (not like I've ever done such a thing... heheh)
 
2003-03-01 06:12:29 PM  
03-01-03 05:42:41 PM Korovyov
Aztex999 --Israeli interests aren't necessarily American interests

My comment was only half-serious (Well - eight tenths). However, I believe Mossad would be much more efficient at "extracting information", up to and including bin Laden's whereabouts (or at least his whereabouts up to 10 minutes after news of Mohammed's capture) than Americans ever will be. Of course I think Americans should be present at the "interrogation." It'll never happen, though.
 
2003-03-01 06:12:36 PM  
today is one of his two birthdates...

interesting..
 
2003-03-01 06:14:23 PM  
KnightShyfte --

I've followed accounts of it. And as for know-how... knowing which suppliers would provide equipment would certainly be helpful. For instance, knowing that you need a gas centrifuge to separate your uranium hexafluoride gas into U-235-based and U-238-based isn't very helpful information if you don't know how to build or buy such a centrifuge. Likewise, some companies might be more willing than others in overlooking the military purposes of dual-use equipment.
 
2003-03-01 06:17:09 PM  
Only far enough to build an old fashioned uranium-based implosion type weapon....
 
2003-03-01 06:18:23 PM  
Keyamb

He was probably arrested for trying to get a free birthday ice cream at the T.G.I.Fridays in karachi and then they realized who he was.
 
2003-03-01 06:18:25 PM  
Synesthesia --

Bin Laden never was the mastermind; he was the financier and in essence the CEO behind Al Quaeda. This bum they arrested today was the organizer of the 9/11 attack. The guy they really need to get now is an Egyptian doctor -- fellow named al Zawahiri IIRC. Al Zawahiri is the overall brains behind the entire organization, essentially their COO.
 
2003-03-01 06:20:40 PM  
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terkmohammed.htm
 
2003-03-01 06:22:18 PM  
KnightShyfte --

Wrong. The NPT bans "assistance", not just the providing of actual materials. Go read Article II of the text.

And a library book likely isn't going to give you the exact engineering diagrams. For instance, you still need to know how much material to use, how precise your manufacturing tolerances need to be, how to make the device small enough to make it useful, et al.
 
2003-03-01 06:23:15 PM  
Korovyov--Sadly, MOST of our wars have been about cold, hard valuta in the end.

The question has always been how do you couch the economic factors to balance out the emotional and ethical questions of taking up arms against folks. What is most profitable for the nation, or the party in power at the time. Clinton's crew had little invested in taking Saadam to the mountain, so there he sat. Now, we have a "Can Do" President, with a chip on his shoulder, and a lot of backers to pay back, and the clock is starting to run out on the first term, and he's been able to serve up some tasty tax breaks, some legislation that helps large business, and has rolled back the environmental policies that were hitting some of his friends in the pocketbook.

We can say we're doing it for the poor, beleaguered Iraqi people, or to protect our intersts, or to relieve the Middle-East from the spectre of WMD, but it's all lip service to get our boys and girls into the heart of region. Nothing new here, but I'd much rather see an administration just flat out say:

"We're going to take out Saadam, put in a friendly government, and when we're done, there are going to be Micky D's from Basra to Bursa. Oil rights are being purchased as we speak by primarily American held corporations, and we will be focusing on putting the knuckle on OPEC and the EU in the next few years. The next stop is Tehran!"

At least then the average American would understand why the EU and the rest of the world gets nervous when we start tossing our weight around.
 
2003-03-01 06:24:08 PM  
Quast147: Saddam threatened in 1992 to expose the French after they sided with the US in the last war. They didn't have a lot to fear then as sanctions hadn't been imposed.

If they have continued to arm Iraq after sanctions, they have much to fear. I think the truth will come out of the French collaboration once we go in.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/313y​cqje.asp

Registration may be required for this link but here is the gist of it.

"The threat by the Iraqi leader, published here for the first time in English, was reported in a 1992 French book, now out of print, titled "Notre Allié Saddam" (Our Ally Saddam). Here's what Saddam said:

As for financiers, industrialists and above all those responsible for military industry, the question must be put to French politicians: Who did not benefit from these business contracts and relationships with Iraq? . . . With respect to the politicians, one need only refer back to the declarations of all the political parties of France, Right and Left. All were happy to brag about their friendship with Iraq and to refer to common interests. From Mr. Chirac [now the center-right president] to Mr. Chevenement [the socialist former defense minister] . . . politicians and economic leaders were in open competition to spend time with us and flatter us. We have now grasped the reality of the situation [of France's support for the 1991 Gulf War, a betrayal in Saddam's eyes]. If the trickery continues, we will be forced to unmask them, all of them, before the French public."
 
2003-03-01 06:25:23 PM  
They arrested Dick Cheney? Woah!
 
2003-03-01 06:28:10 PM  
Hubiestubert --

I don't think the administration would last very long if they said that.

Of course, his speech to the American Enterprise Institute wasn't exactly very diplomatic, either -- it went far beyond the "get rid of WMDs" and "Saddam is eeeeeeevil" themes by declaring an intent to transform the entire Middle East. That is, he seemed to be talking about making Iraq into a thriving democracy and letting it serve as an example for the rest of the locals to aspire to...

It would not surprise me if American ambassadors to the various kingdoms and sultanates were immediately approached for clarifications on that point, as the monarchies were probably not thrilled at the prospect.
 
2003-03-01 06:33:12 PM  
PinkNoise Might've been funny if it hadn't be said already.

Double Plus unfunny
 
2003-03-01 06:37:54 PM  
Unless my ears deceived me (rather possible, as I'm splitting attention right now; might not have been the Pres but one of his aides) NBC's news anchor just reported that when the President was asked whether or not Mohammad was a big fish, the response was "He's a whale!".

/rolls eyes
 
2003-03-01 06:38:05 PM  
Korovyov--Regrets for the length of the following post, but this found its way to my mailbox recently, and I think it is a bit pertinent to this portion of the thread as it's moving.

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

"Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share."
 
2003-03-01 06:39:30 PM  
Boobies
fark
 
2003-03-01 06:41:16 PM  
Wrap his entire body in a towell and light it on fire.
 
2003-03-01 06:41:29 PM  
A catch this big could lead to bin Laden. Any takers on how soon?

USA! USA! USA!
 
2003-03-01 06:43:45 PM  
Hubiestubert:

Wow, thanks for posting that letter. It's nice to know not all of the US goverment is composed of asshats.
 
2003-03-01 06:48:02 PM  
Hubiestubert --

I'm surprised that it took him twenty years inside State to make that decision -- US foreign policy was remarkably amoral during the Cold War, with cynical alliances with anti-Communist anti-democrats pretty much all the way up to the fall of the Soviet system. "Moral capital" hasn't been the nation's strong suit at any point, really, if you take into account its failure to promote its own allegedly democratic values and eagerness to compromise.
 
2003-03-01 06:49:41 PM  
KnightShyfte--Not my style. I'm wordy enough without having to forge credentials. Check out the NY Times article that it came from though.
 
2003-03-01 06:52:43 PM  
Here's an excellent 9,000 word story about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed from December 22nd of last year. (LA Times, may require free registration, I forget) Salient quote:

Pakistani and American officials say catching Mohammed now could turn the tide in the war on terrorism. The senior Pakistani intelligence official said: "If you catch Khalid Shaikh at this point, you will break the backbone of the entire network."
 
2003-03-01 06:55:01 PM  
KnightShyfte--Oops. Read your post completely wrong. Must sleep soon. Apologies.

Korovyov--Could be a collection of reasons that led to his breaking, as well as the differences between a firey young man filled with the knowledge of his inherent goodness, and the world weariness and cynicism of age. I just thought it might add spice to the pot.
 
2003-03-01 07:03:43 PM  
Eh. At least the US intelligence establishment actually succeeded in an operation they can admit -- seems much of the press 'bout them focuses on their all too frequent screwups. It's time to me to sign off and eat.
 
2003-03-01 07:08:44 PM  
Gotta love the folks like Bashturn who post the "facts"
 
2003-03-01 07:13:04 PM  
This is yet another reason to attack Iraq!
 
2003-03-01 07:14:19 PM  
so why didn't John Brady Kiesling resign during our involvement with bosnia, kosovo, et al?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world.

let's take away all of our foreign aid to the rest of the world and see how fast they change their tune.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration.

buh bye. don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out.
 
2003-03-01 07:22:01 PM  

I can see both sides of the pro/anti war argument. Although I do strongly disagree with the way we got here.



Anyway, I decided I'd support the war if Tony Blair sent his son in the first wave. Then I'd believe him that it's a just cause and a price worth paying.

 
2003-03-01 07:33:27 PM  
here's my bit on invading and occupying a sovereign nation:
Iraq did not threaten us. Did not attack us and does not have the capability to attack us. It's neighbors don't see them as a threat.

Our reason isn't about humanitarian reasons. We still sold military materials to him after we knew he gassed the kurds. And there are stil worse regimes around the world, some of which we helped to install.

there is no link between iraq and al-queada. Al-queada called for the death of the infidel, Saddam Hussein.

Saddam's military capacity is one third of what it was in 1991. Ours is ten times what it was.

50% of the Iraqi population is under the age of 15.

Being anti-war is not being pro-saddam. To say so is a straw-man argument. I wouold love to see the people of Iraq be free, but I don't think one cruise missile every 4 minutes for 48 hours into a city the size of LA is really going to help. Using tactical nukes won't either.

The comparison betwen Saddam and Hitler is ridiculous.

I think the greatest threat to the population of the world has to be a nation that has a military budget equal to the next 27 countries combined, yet is not under attack or risk of invasion by any other nation. This same country defies the UN, international community, and public opion over all and takes a stance of preemption as a viable option. This country also has discussed using nukes in this preemptive crusade.
 
2003-03-01 07:36:37 PM  
Um....yep, there it is, I said upside down. *cough*

Later.

RJS
 
2003-03-01 07:54:37 PM  
http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm

this is interesting. The guardian did an article saying the same thing
 
2003-03-01 08:02:27 PM  
I post this with a prayer that if you read nothing else about the ongoing "Showdown with Saddam", you will read the attached alarming piece by William Rivers Pitt, a high school teacher in Boston.

We are at a perilous point in our nations history. Our country has been lulled into sleep by corporate dominated media and government propaganda, while our armed forces prepare to unleash what they have named "Shock and Awe" on the Iraqi population, with is simply another name for pre-emptive blitzkrieg not seen since World War II. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be slaughtered as a result. Do you want some real answers to the questions "Why are we going to war on Iraq?", and "Who is running the show?" Please, read this article. Because the time has arrived for all of us to stop, think, and make some very difficult decisions about who we are, what we stand for, and what is truly means to be an American and a patriot.

Keep in mind, while reading, the recent Newsweek article detailing the Bush administration's attempt to cover up key evidence that Iraq destroyed most or all weapons of mass distruction back in 1991( http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html ), and their unreasonable defiance of the UN and the majority of the world who would seek a peaceful resolution.

And you won't get the truth on cable television (in the words of Gil Scott Heron, the revolution will not be televised...). The following regards CNN's recently imposed censorship policy regarding coverage of the conflict, i.e. what you don't know won't hurt them!: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0225-08.htm

The author of the following piece is a high school teacher. We should follow his example, as professionals and/or educated individuals, and start speaking out loudly. Silence, at this point in time, is no longer an option. Again, please read this article, and if you are not feeling outrage, please email me and tell me why, because I must be missing something. And because we must challenge each other in times such as these! Thanks everyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------​-------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------​-------- ---------------------------------
"Blood Money" William Rivers Pitt

George W. Bush gave a speech Wednesday night before the Godfather of conservative Washington think tanks, the American
Enterprise Institute. In his speech, Bush quantified his coming war with Iraq as part of a larger struggle to bring pro-western
governments into power in the Middle East. Couched in hopeful language describing peace and freedom for all, the speech was in fact the closest articulation of the actual plan for Iraq that has yet been heard from the administration.

In a previous truthout article from February 21, the ideological connections between an extremist right-wing Washington think tank and the foreign policy aspirations of the Bush administration were detailed.

The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad.

PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's
heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison on 31counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq.

Most recently, PNAC created a new group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee has set out to "educate" Americans via cable news connections about the need for war in Iraq. This group met recently with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education.

Who is PNAC? Its members include:

* Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;

* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;

* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;

* Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;

* Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;

* John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;

* Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;

* Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;

* Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein;

* William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.

The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.

The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list.

The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the
establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States.

Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz, quantified this aspect of the grand plan in the September 2002 issue of his
journal, 'Commentary'. In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz, this action is about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam."

This casts Bush's speech to AEI on Wednesday in a completely different light.

Weapons of mass destruction are a smokescreen. Paeans to the idea of Iraqi liberation and democratization are cynical in their
inception. At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten lanes wide and steppin' out over the line.

At the end of the day, however, ideology is only good for bull sessions in the board room and the bar. Something has to grease the skids, to make the whole thing worthwhile to those involved, and entice those outside the loop to get into the game.

Thus, the payout.

It is well known by now that Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, served as chairman and chief executive of the
Dallas-based petroleum corporation Halliburton. During his tenure, according to oil industry executives and United Nations records,
Halliburton did a brisk $73 million in business with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. While working face-to-face with Hussein, Cheney and
Halliburton were also moving into position to capitalize upon Hussein's removal from power. In October of 1995, the same month
Cheney was made CEO of Halliburton, that company announced a deal that would put it first in line should war break out in Iraq. Their job: To take control of burning oil wells, put out the fires, and prepare them for service.

Another corporation that stands to do well by a war in Iraq is Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Ostensibly, Brown & Root is in the construction business, and thus has won a share of the $900 million government contract for the rebuilding of post-war Iraqi bridges, roads and other basic infrastructure. This is but the tip of the financial iceberg, as the oil wells will also have to be repaired after parent-company Halliburton puts out the fires.

More ominously is Brown & Root's stock in trade: the building of permanent American military bases. There are twelve permanent
U.S. bases in Kosovo today, all built and maintained by Brown & Root for a multi-billion dollar profit. If anyone should wonder why the administration has not offered an exit strategy to the Iraq war plans, the presence of Brown & Root should answer them succinctly. We do not plan on exiting. In all likelihood, Brown & Root is in Iraq to build permanent bases there, from which attacks upon other Middle Eastern nations can be staged and managed.

Again, this casts Bush's speech on Wednesday in a new light.

Being at the center of the action is nothing new for Halliburton and Brown & Root. The two companies have worked closely with
governments in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Burma, Croatia, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Somalia during the worst chapters in those nation's histories. Many environmental and human rights groups claim that Cheney, Halliburton and Brown & Root were, in fact, centrally involved in these fiascos. More recently, Brown & Root was contracted by the Defense Department to build cells for detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill for that one project came to $300 million.

Cheney became involved with PNAC officially in 1997, while still profiting from deals between Halliburton and Hussein. One year
later, Cheney and PNAC began actively and publicly agitating for war on Iraq. They have not stopped to this very day.

Another company with a vested interest in both war on Iraq and massively increased defense spending is the Carlyle Group. Carlyle, a private global investment firm with more than $12.5 billion in capital under management, was formed in 1987. Its interests are spread across 164 companies, including telecommunications firms and defense contractors. It is staffed at the highest levels by former members of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Former President George H. W. Bush is himself employed by Carlyle as a senior advisor, as is long-time Bush family advisor and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

One company acquired by Carlyle is United Defense, a weapons manufacturer based in Arlington, VA. United Defense provides the Defense Department with combat vehicle systems, fire support, combat support vehicle systems, weapons delivery systems,
amphibious assault vehicles, combat support services and naval armaments. Specifically, United Defense manufactures the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M113 armored personnel carrier, the M88A2 Recovery Vehicle, the Grizzly, the M9 ACE, the Composite Armored Vehicle, the M6 Linebacker, the M7 BFIST, the Armored Gun System, the M4 Command and Control Vehicle, the Battle Command Vehicle, the Paladin, the Crusader, and Electric Gun/Pulse Power weapons technology.

In other words, everything a growing Defense Department, a war in Iraq, and a burgeoning American military empire needs.

Ironically, one group that won't profit from Carlyle's involvement in American military buildup is the family of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family fortune was amassed by Mohammed bin Laden, father of Osama, who built a multi-billion dollar construction empire through contracts with the Saudi government. The Saudi BinLaden Group, as this company is called, was heavily invested in Carlyle for years. Specifically, they were invested in Carlyle's Partners II Fund, which includes in that portfolio United Defense and other weapons manufacturers.

This relationship was described in a September 27, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled 'Bin Laden Family Could Profit
From Jump in Defense Spending Due to Ties to US Bank.' The 'bank' in question was the Carlyle Group. A follow-up article published by the Journal on September 28 entitled ' Bin Laden Family Has Intricate Ties With Washington - Saudi Clan Has Had Access To Influential Republicans ' further describes the relationship. In October of 2001, Saudi BinLaden and Carlyle severed their relationship by mutual agreement. The timing is auspicious.

There are a number of depths to be plumbed in all of this. The Bush administration has claimed all along that this war with Iraq is
about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, though through it all they have roundly failed to establish any basis for either accusation. On Wednesday, Bush went further to claim that the war is about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to the Middle East. This ignores cultural realities on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region that, salted with decades of deep mistrust for American motives, make such a democracy movement brought at the point of the sword utterly impossible to achieve.

This movement, cloaked in democracy, is in fact a PNAC-inspired push for an American global empire. It behooves Americans to
understand that there is a great difference between being the citizen of a constitutional democracy and being a citizen of an empire. The establishment of an empire requires some significant sacrifices.

Essential social, medical, educational and retirement services will have to be gutted so that those funds can be directed towards a necessary military buildup. Actions taken abroad to establish the preeminence of American power, most specifically in the Middle East, will bring a torrent of terrorist attacks to the home front. Such attacks will bring about the final suspension of constitutional rights and the rule of habeas corpus, as we will find ourselves under martial law. In the end, however, this may be inevitable. An empire cannot function with the slow, cumbersome machine of a constitutional democracy on its back. Empires must be ruled with speed and ruthlessness, in a manner utterly antithetical to the way in which America has been
governed for 227 years.

And yes, of course, a great many people will die.

It would be one thing if all of this was based purely on the ideology of our leaders. It is another thing altogether to consider the
incredible profit motive behind it all. The President, his father, the Vice President, a whole host of powerful government officials, along with stockholders and executives from Halliburton and Carlyle, stand to make a mint off this war. Long-time corporate sponsors from the defense, construction and petroleum industries will likewise profit enormously.

Critics of the Bush administration like to bandy about the word "fascist" when speaking of George. The image that word conjures is of Nazi stormtroopers marching in unison towards Hitler's Final Solution. This does not at all fit. It is better, in this matter, to view the Bush administration through the eyes of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini, dubbed 'the father of Fascism,' defined the word in a far more pertinent fashion. "Fascism," said Mussolini, "should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Boycott the French, the Germans, and the other 114 nations who stand against this Iraq war all you wish. France and Germany do not oppose Bush because they are cowards, or because they enjoy the existence of Saddam Hussein. France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again.

Would that we Americans could be so wise.

-------

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA
 
2003-03-01 08:04:01 PM  
http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/IraqWar.html
here's a better one
 
2003-03-01 08:04:42 PM  
D8vo:You can believe Wesley Clark if you wish but I trust George Bush.

The actions after this war will prove Clark wrong.
The whole world will be free to develop the oil of Iraq,
because we won't force them to favor the US. The proof is Kuwait. They didn't favor the US after the war.
 
2003-03-01 08:05:32 PM  
BloBBrain: Shut the Fux Up Negro.
 
2003-03-01 08:07:24 PM  
Fedor

We are at a very important point in the history of our nation. If you don't care, go find some boobies.
 
2003-03-01 08:07:30 PM  
D8vo--Thanks for the link. I'll add that to my collection.

Night folks. Bed calls. Been an interesting evening.
 
2003-03-01 08:10:56 PM  
BlobBrain--Another good one. NOW I'm going to bed...
 
2003-03-01 08:15:52 PM  
Just remember to hook the red jumper cable up to his left nut and the black jumper cable to the right.
 
2003-03-01 08:17:15 PM  
Did not attack us and does not have the capability to attack us. It's neighbors don't see them as a threat.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation, which, though I hope it never happens, is very possible.

Saddam: Hey, Qaeda Al-Jihad, I've got some chemical weapons and some mustard gas...
OBL: Well, give them to me...I'll give you money to fight off the Great Satan
Saddam: Well, I suppose...

(two weeks later)

News reporter: We're very sad to report right now that 5 canisters of mustard gas were released in Times Square. Casualties are in the thousands, and steadily climbing. We aren't sure who's to blame yet...
 
2003-03-01 08:18:28 PM  
You unimaginative bastards.

Fire up old sparky. Hell.

How about 50 pounds of pork scrapple, a two inch food press and a jar of vaseline...?

Don't be constrained by tradition ;-)
 
2003-03-01 08:23:11 PM  
BlobBrain - That article contains the most logical arguments supporting the idea that war is about oil. I never believed that this war was about oil for a minute, but now that article is starting to make me think.

Damn you if you're wrong though.
 
2003-03-01 08:23:44 PM  
blobbrain, excellent article. thank you. where did you get it?
 
2003-03-01 08:25:06 PM  
BlobBrain: You're such a BlobBrain.

You championed this statement:

"France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again."
-----
Facism is evil and should be feared. Democracy is not evil and is welcomed. Free people will decide the course of world events.

To compare Facism to a world where individuals can vote and decide for themselves is itself evil.

Seriously, how can you be so deluded to think this is bad?

Are you a Communist or a Dictator? Democracy should be spread around the world by the only nation which can do it.

If that is Pax Americana, then too bad for you.
 
2003-03-01 08:27:52 PM  
SquirrelWithLargeNuts... you gotta be right... Invading Iraq is asure fire way to prevent anymore terrorists attack...

/as sarcastic as I have ever been


Fedor : You are class-A moron... Go back to your trailer
 
2003-03-01 08:28:47 PM  
03-01-03 08:17:15 PM SquirrelWithLargeNuts
Did not attack us and does not have the capability to attack us. It's neighbors don't see them as a threat.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation, which, though I hope it never happens, is very possible.


so under that logic i suppose if saddam is removed from power al-queada won't be able to get chem weapons? Saddam, if he does have any, would probably be harder to get them to al-queada than others. And don't you think an attack on the Middle East would encourage terrorists and possible create more?
 
2003-03-01 08:32:00 PM  
03-01-03 08:04:42 PM Elevation
D8vo:You can believe Wesley Clark if you wish but I trust George Bush.

'nuff said
 
2003-03-01 08:35:32 PM  
D8vo: Amen
 
2003-03-01 08:35:54 PM  
03-01-03 08:25:06 PM Elevation
BlobBrain: You're such a BlobBrain.

You championed this statement:

"France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again."
-----
Facism is evil and should be feared. Democracy is not evil and is welcomed. Free people will decide the course of world events.

To compare Facism to a world where individuals can vote and decide for themselves is itself evil.


did you read the article?
do you seriously think that we are the only nation capable of spreading democarcy and ythat is our intention?

chew on this...

Definition of fascism:
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of the state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Did you catch that? merging of the state and business leadership.

Bush and Cheney are both former CEO's of oil companies.
Condi Rice sat on the board of Chevron and has a tanker named after her
Bush appointments?
Nominated David Lauriski - ex-mining company executive - to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior.
Nominated Linda Fisher - an executive with Monsanto - for the number-two job at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Nominated J. Steven Giles - an oil and coal lobbyist - for Deputy Secretary of the Interior.

So we have the corporation/government connection. Let's reflect on a quote from Mussolini.
"Fascism would better be called corporatism as it is the merging of corporations and government."

Wake up people. We are indeed the employed being governed by the employers.

But surely this alone doesn't make the freedom loving USA a fascist dictatorship. I mean, Fascist dictatorships don't just pop up over night. And we still have the right to dissent, don't we?

First we should look at the definition of a "terrorist" under the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act. A document sped through legislation in the wake of 9-11 that was voted on and approved before the legislators even had an opportunity to read it. IT WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW. Let's look at the definition of a "terrorist":
"One who appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce the government or government policy by any illegal means."
"appears to be intended to"? Read:"looks like they might kinda maybe".
So here's an example of a terrorist. Anyone who demonstrates or protests without a permit. That would fit the definition of "appearing to be intended to coerce government policy through illegal means". Organizing or participating in a non-state sanctioned demonstration now makes you a terrorist. And thanks to the Patriot Act and Der Fatherland Security bill for the first time in the history of the United states, any citizen arrested for such a crime as participating in a non-state sanctioned demonstration could be subject to secret arrest, secret detention, and secret trial without representation. Not only that but also at risk of having the house broken into in secret, property confiscated, all without your knowledge or even a receipt for your property.
This is how I define fascism.
But surely if one million of us marched on the capitol and laid our bodies down on Pennsylvania Avenue until the Act was repealed, they wouldn't be able to jail us all and the will of the people would be served, right? Wrong. The Fatherland Security Bill mandates that FEMA have working plans for camps to temporarily house up to 1 million people for a period of up to two years by January of this year. And they met that deadline.
This is how I define fascism.
Furthermore, any one of the agencies encompassed in the new Department of Fatherland security are not protected by the whistle-blower Act. The whistle blower act, the act that protects those who witness abuses of power and report it to the authorities or the media in their workplace from repercussions. Thus if you see any abuse of power and attempt to report it, you can be fired on the spot, no 30 warning, and replaced with someone else who is willing to tow the fundamentalist fascist line. This is how I define fascism.

If you don't believe any part of this do a google search. It's all there plain to see. But you won't hear about it in our corporate owned media. They have that too.
 
2003-03-01 08:37:40 PM  
"...organizer of the terror mission that sent hijacked passenger jets crashing into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, killing more than 3,000 people."

that poor field =(
 
2003-03-01 08:37:48 PM  
Elevation: Talk about missing the point completely... Need I remind you that Adolf Hitler was democraticly elected in 1933...
it was facism, even worst, it was democratic facism. Does it ring a bell ?
 
2003-03-01 08:42:54 PM  
Elevation - democracy's great and all, but what happens when an ignorant nation votes in an equally ignorant leader and in their collective ignorance inflict harm on themselves or the world.

i'm talking about nazi-germany of course. no yankee bashing from this canuck. =)


...yet
 
2003-03-01 08:44:53 PM  
Elevation
"Facism is evil and should be feared. Democracy is not evil and is welcomed. Free people will decide the course of world events."

Actually, Democracy was not evil and was welcomed.
Our agendas have changed.
 
2003-03-01 08:48:35 PM  
b>03-01-03 08:05:32 PM FedorBloBBrain: Shut the Fux Up Negro.

Wow, Fedor. If you're not simply just baiting for a flamewar you are one ignorant damn SOB that only deserves to be referred to as what you have tried to use as a slur against another. You must be a "Negro!"

/anyone who's immediately offended needs to take a look a Fedor's dumbass Weeners
 
2003-03-01 08:50:09 PM  
How come I can't get the bacon I cook at home to be crispyand chewy like they do at the Cornerstone restaurant? It's either raw and rubbery or as brittle as glass. Hmpf.

What's this thread about, again?
 
2003-03-01 08:55:13 PM  
Elevation

Go back and read the article again. Give up and find some boobies, or realize WE ARE ON THE SAME FREAKING SIDE and Bush and his cronies are on the other.

Thanks for playing!
 
2003-03-01 08:56:24 PM  
Lessee if a little html correction and additional vowel and consonant will get the original intent visible:


03-01-03 08:05:32 PM FedorBloBBrain: Shut the Fux Up Negro.

Wow, Fedor. If you're not simply just baiting for a flamewar you are one ignorant damn SOB that only deserves to be referred to as what you have tried to use as a slur against another. You must be a "Negro!"

/anyone who's immediately offended needs to take a look a Fedor's dumbass poost firsst
 
2003-03-01 08:57:27 PM  
D8vo: Trust Bush and stop your paranoid delusions. The laws enacted to defend America don't portend Fascism.

You act as if business leaders should never enter Government. I'd rather have someone who has run a business, lead our Government than someone who never created a bit of wealth or held a productive job in his lifetime.

Sorry but I think my men, Bush and Ashcroft are doing a great job. Your concerns are so trivial compared to the great dangers facing the world. I'm glad my guys are in power and not yours. Soon the world will be glad when Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and the new Palestine state are all free Democracies. These are worthy achievable goals. Go protest somewhere. Let the adults solve the world's problems.
 
2003-03-01 08:57:46 PM  
*gives GrumpyRabbit a hug*

Did you work at the WTC or are you at the Pentagon? I say put this asshat in a room with you and friends, relatives, and co-workers of those murdered and let you guys have at it.
 
2003-03-01 09:08:05 PM  
By the way the UK Observer was caught faking a letter from the US NSA. Who would have thought they would do such a thing. Thank you Drudge.
 
2003-03-01 09:10:57 PM  
03-01-03 08:57:27 PM Elevation
Trust Bush and stop your paranoid delusions. The laws enacted to defend America don't portend Fascism.
you realize that after the burning of the reichstag by "terrorists" Hitler used the destruction of this national symbol as a rally to get the people to back him in his effort to root out the enemy within their own borders. The people were convinced to give up these freedoms and liberties in the name of rooting out these evil doers. Sound familiar?
 
2003-03-01 09:14:15 PM  
Hey Fb-, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. :)

she who had Canadian ancestors
 
2003-03-01 09:14:54 PM  
You act as if business leaders should never enter Government. I'd rather have someone who has run a business, lead our Government than someone who never created a bit of wealth or held a productive job in his lifetime.

no sir, you are incorrect. PLacing industry executives in positions to police the very industries that they control is a conflict of interest to the detriment of the workers. go back. read it again and look who was appointed to what.
 
2003-03-01 09:15:50 PM  
If you compare trusting people who wanted to kill jews with those who want to kill terrorists, then no it doesn't sound familiar.
 
2003-03-01 09:23:20 PM  
Business leaders should run the Government because they understand the problems faced by the large employers in our country. Germany has a problem, because business is afraid to hire new employees, because the law makes is almost impossible to get rid of them if business slows again.

Industry employs people. It is not evil.
 
2003-03-01 09:28:14 PM  
are you reading the posts that you are responding to?
 
2003-03-01 09:29:29 PM  
The key word here is incompetence, not ignorence.

GWB has proven his incompetence not by his malapropism but by the way he has chosen his cabinet. Sending Rumsfeld to Europe in order to convince European nations to join the war effort is a stuning display of poor judgement. Going to an Ari Fleisher press conference is now seen by journalist as the equivalent of going to a comedy club.

Bush does not even have to talk to show is incompetence, over the past 2 years, most of GWB public speaking was done in front of backdrops outlandishly adorned with catchprase and buzzwords i.e. "economic strenght", "Made in the USA", "Healthy America". those are all signs that this is a man who cannot get his message across verbally. This is componded by his now notorious one-sided press conferences. No president since FDR has been so shielded from the press.

GWB's answer to an economic crisis was, predictably, tax cuts. This is akin to healing a broken leg by breaking the other one. Even the American financial press agreed with that analogy. This was again, a display of incompetency.

There is an obvious and justified mistrust of the international community regarding the GWB cabinet. Unlike some American citizens, the rest of the world does not get it's news from CNN or Bill O'Reily. The world press reports it as a potential war for oil because it is a war for Oil.

The European community, and especially France, has been accused of cowardice by the conservative media (in my humble opinion, this is a slap in the face to the 1,5 million + french soldiers who died in WWI and WWII fighting the same cause as Americans... but I digress). But put your self in EU's shoes for a second...: Would you follow an incompetent into war ?

I can appreciate the American people standing up for their leader, but please remember that on september 10th 2001, his approval rating was merely 31%. On september 12th he was, sadly, the same incompetent.
 
2003-03-01 09:45:56 PM  
Elevation

So you are convinced Bush intends to establish democracy in the middle east. Need a history lesson? Why don't you just take this little pop quiz, put together by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

Quick Political Awareness Test: This test consists of one (1)multiple-choice question.
First, look at this list of countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end of World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:

China 1945-46;
Korea 1950-53;
China 1950-53;
Guatemala 1954;
Indonesia 1958;
Cuba 1959-60;
Guatemala 1960;
Congo 1964;
Peru 1965;
Laos 1964-73;
Vietnam 1961-73;
Cambodia 1969-70;
Guatemala 1967-69;
Grenada 1983;
Libya 1986;
El Salvador 1980s;
Nicaragua 1980s;
Panama 1989;
Iraq 1991-2003;
Sudan 1998;
Afghanistan 1998;
Yugoslavia 1999;
Afghanistan 2001-2003.

Question: In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose one of the following:

(a) 0 ; (b) zero; (c) none; (d) not a one; (e) a whole number between -1 and +1 .

Thanks for playing!
 
2003-03-01 09:47:00 PM  
D8vo: Nice try. You say Hitler used the threat of terrorism to unite the people into allowing Fascism to take root in his country. He was an evil man and had an evil agenda.

You're comparing a man who had in his mind the desire to exterminate an entire race, with a man who has no such desire. How can you be so simple minded?

Hitler killed innocent people and exported his evil.

Bush is killing murderers and exporting Democracy.

Not similar at all. The changes in the law will help us beat the evil in the world and export Freedom not Fascism.
 
2003-03-01 09:48:24 PM  
I can't believe all the dumbasses comparing Bush to Hitler. It's just so retarded as to boggle the mind.

Hitler wasn't "elected" the same way Bush was. Not by a long shot. Not did Bush rise to power on the death of the leader (Hindenberg). Did Bush campaign on a platform hatred of Jews? Mind you most bleeding hearts LOVE the Palestinians.

If you libs think he's really going to seize power, begin genocide, and try to take over the world you really need to take the cyanide now. Because you are so seriously warped you are a danger to society.

If most people dislike him enough, Bush will be gone after 2004 elections. He will be replaced by another
 
2003-03-01 09:52:02 PM  
Bashturn: Bush's approval rating never fell below to 31%

CNN/Gallup/USA Today 9/21 -9/22 90% 6% + 84%
Newsweek 9/20 - 9/21 88% 10% + 76%
FOX News 9/19 - 9/20 81% 12% + 69%
NBC News/WSJ 9/15 - 9/16 82% 12% + 70%
Pew Research 9/13 - 9/17 80% 9% + 71%
CNN/Gallup/USA Today 9/14 -9/15 86% 10% + 76%
Los Angeles Times 9/13 - 9/14 77% 17% + 60%
Newsweek 9/13 - 9/14 82% 11% + 71%
CBS News/NY Times 9/13 - 9/14 84% 9% + 75%
CNN/Time 9/13 78% 15% + 63%
Wash Post/ABC News 9/13 86% 12% + 74%
CBS News/NY Times 9/11 - 9/12 72% 15% + 57%
CNN/Gallup/USA Today 9/7 -9/10 51% 39% + 12%
Wash Post/ABC News 9/6 - 9/9 55% 41% + 14%
CBS News/NY Times 8/28 - 8/31 50% 38% + 12%
Zogby** 8/28 - 8/30 50% 49% + 1%
Pew Research 8/21 - 9/5 51% 34% + 17%
CNN/Gallup/USA Today 8/24 -8/26 55% 36% + 19%
FOX News 8/22 -8/23 55% 32% + 23%
CNN/Gallup/USA Today 8/16 -8/19 57% 34% + 23%
CNN/Gallup/USA Today 8/3 -8/5 55% 35% + 20%
Bloomberg 7/31 - 8/5 55% 30% + 25%
Wash Post/ABC News 7/26 - 7/30 59% 38% + 21%
 
2003-03-01 09:52:12 PM  
Elevation

"Bush is killing murderers and exporting Democracy."

Which of the 1.2 million dead Iraqis who have perished in the last decade as a direct result of U.S. military action or economic sanctions are you referring to? Were they all murderers?

Which of the 1 to 2 hundred thousand Iraqis projected to perish in Gulf War 2 are murderers? All of them?

Can you name a democracy the U.S. has "exported" since the rise of our modern foreign policy in 1946?

Thanks for playing!
 
2003-03-01 09:55:56 PM  
Elevation : you say that Bush is exporting democracy... ok... then explain to me what the CIA is trying so hard to get Hugo Chavez out of Venezuela ?
 
2003-03-01 09:57:11 PM  
Bashturn? You act as if Elevation knows any US history whatsoever! Funny!
 
2003-03-01 10:01:06 PM  
BlobBrain: The goal in the actions you mention was not always Democracy. It is now. That is the "Bush Doctrine"

The world has changed after September 11th.

We freed the world from Hitler and now Eastern Europe is also free thanks to the cold war. I've been to South Korea recently and they love us there. They try to touch you as you pass by. I saw the people bowing on the street corners asking for votes. Democracy in action thanks to US bombs.

Do you see people who have escaped Iraq demonstrating about the upcoming war? Didn't think so.
 
2003-03-01 10:01:22 PM  
BlobBrain:

Korea's a democracy. So is Nicaragua. So is El Salvador. Nitwit. I win. Thanks for playing. You get the booby prize.

Cuba's your type of country. Why complain about that?

Nicaragua and El Salvador and Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada were Communist insurrections. We bombed China? News to me!
 
2003-03-01 10:03:47 PM  
Elevation: My mistake about the rating, my stats were regional and not national as they should have been.... but do you still get the point ?
 
2003-03-01 10:04:56 PM  
Oooooo, booby prizes!

Just exactly how big are these prizes?

/threadjacking
 
2003-03-01 10:05:42 PM  
On Granada:

One of the smallest independent countries in the western hemisphere, Grenada was seized by a Marxist military council on 19 October 1983. Six days later the island was invaded by US forces and those of six other Caribbean nations, which quickly captured the ringleaders and their hundreds of Cuban advisers. Free elections were reinstituted the following year.

Love liberals just lying about the facts. You are a now a proven liar Blobby.
 
2003-03-01 10:07:34 PM  
BlobBrain: Saddam killed those people by his actions. In a few short weeks you can ask any number of newly freed Iraqis if they agree with you or me. Thanks for playing, but in the world of GWB "The Game is Over" and we win.
 
2003-03-01 10:14:33 PM  
Peterthx : Ah selective memory...

You seem to forget that Grenada happened has Reagan was sheepishly pulling troops out of Lebanon... Classic wag the dog scenario where the Joint Chiefs of Staff needed a morale booster.

Historians agree on this
 
2003-03-01 10:15:53 PM  
[image from lbjhs.net too old to be available]
 
2003-03-01 10:16:47 PM  
Bashturn: The point that Bush was a nitwit, before 9/11 and a nitwit on a mission after 9/11?

He's outsmarted so many liberals that even they are staring to re-think that dogma. A year ago France didn't even want any new inspections. Only by threatening to go it alone did he force action.

In two short years he's reduced the opposition to minority status and to committing political suicide by the unfair filibuster of a qualified Hispanic.

He's not a nitwit.
 
2003-03-01 10:20:29 PM  
does it filter tubgirl?
 
2003-03-01 10:23:34 PM  
Elevation: of France had no choice, they are a member of the security council !
 
2003-03-01 10:24:57 PM  
*of course* (long night)
 
2003-03-01 10:25:53 PM  
03-01-03 02:26:08 PM Lucidavid

i havnt played starcraft in a long time but isnt that an overlord youve got pictured there?
 
2003-03-01 10:26:17 PM  
Elevation

"The goal in the actions you mention was not always Democracy. It is now. That is the "Bush Doctrine""

The goal was NEVER democracy. That is the point. Is wasn't then, and you are naive and ignorant of history if you believe it is now. Where is this "Bush Doctrine" you speak of, by the way? Are you refering to the Project for a New American Century's blueprint for United States global domination? The blueprint from the think tank whose members now dominate the administration, and whose first goal is the elimination of Saddamn Hussein? That is a blueprint taken directly out of Mussolini's playbook.

Bush is trumpeting the causes of democracy, peace, human rights, freedom, etc. as the basis for our planned invasion of Iraq (and again, I have yet to see him mention anything about one hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians, but then again, that would require dealing honestly with the American
people, which is something no administration has done since before I was born).

Back in 1948, George Kennan, the State Department planning staff head, noted that the US has 50% of the worlds wealth but only 6.3% of its population: "...our real task in the coming period is to maintain this position of disparity." This has been, and continues to be, the basis for U.S. foriegn policy. It has nothing to do with freedom, democracy, human rights, etc. Inside, you KNOW this is true, but for one reason or another, as with so
many other U.S. citizens, you refuse to acknowledge this reality.

Let's look at Guatemala. From 1931 to 1944, dictator Jorqe Ubico ruled Guatemala, a period of time in which American-owned United Fruit Company(UFC) gained control of forty-two percent of Guatemala's land. UFC was exempted from taxes and import duties. UFC controlled the railroads, utilities, harbors, and plantations. Seventy-seven percent of all exports went to the US and sixty-five percent of imports came from the US.

In 1951, the people of Guatemala democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz, by a landslide. There was full and overwheming support for his platform of redistribution of land to peasants (the people who actually lived in Guatemala). 2% of the population legally controlled 70% of the arable land, and farm laborers were, in fact, slaves. Unfortunetly for the Guatemalans, UFC did not stand by idly, but used all of their influence in Washington to
prevent this redistribution.

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' law firm had prepared United Fruit's contracts with Guatemala; his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, belonged to United Fruit's law firm; John Moors Cabot, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, was the brother of a former United Fruit president; President Eisenhower's personal secretary was married to the head of United Fruit's Public Relations Department.

In 1954 the United States instigated a coup, putting a military regime in place that would protect our corporate interests. We interevened because it WAS a democractic movement based on human rights that threatened our influence in Guatemala and in all neighboring countries. Sucessive U.S. backed military regimes killed more than 200,000 Guatemalans between 1954 and 1990.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c12-s17.html

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/poli/soa/guatemala.htm

Were we peace lovers then? Are we a peace loving nation? What about Vietnam? Do you honestly believe that the death of 60,000 US military personnel, including a member of my family, and the unthinkable hell we unleased on the people of Vietnam was justified? Even though we entered that war on a lie as well? Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell for you? My father came back from Vietnam and it took him fifteen years to recover (in process driving his entire family away from him). We killed over 2 million Vietnamese, the majority of whom where just average folk getting by, just like you and me. What for? To stop the spread of Communism? Please....
The reasons were no different than Guatemala. The excuse of "fighting communisim" has now been replaced by "fighting terrorism," and once again, a bunch of people have to die. When is enough enough? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11 terrorism? Nothing whatsoever.

My father was a B-52 navigator in Vietnam. When that crook Nixon ordered those squadrons to start carpet bombing Cambodia (in violation of every imaginable law), he finally took his stand and refused, with a handful of other officers. The act was clearly illegal, justifying their refusal. They were involved in a lawsuit, on 60 Minutes, and played a major role in forcing Nixon to finally end the senseless bloodshed. (of course, this bombing campaign did result in the rise of Pol Pot in Cambodia, millions more
slaughtered for no reason, another example of US foreign policy "exporting democracy").

Was my father just a misguided hippy freak to you?

How about East Timor? Heck, the U.S. already lost all influence in Vietnam and Cambodia by 1975. We couldn't take a chance on losing favor with Indonesia, who was at the time the 5th most populous country in the world, a
leading member of OPEC, a lucrative center for multinational corporate activity, and geopolitically, straddled the two key sea passages between the Pacific and Indian Oceans. After Vietnam, our foreign policy in the area was to maintain, at all costs, pro-U.S. regimes. When Suharto of Indonesia wanted to annex the tiny island of East Timor, we were more than happy to lend our support.

Just two days before East Timor was invaded, President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissenger visited Indonesia. Documents show that Ford and Kissenger were very concerned that the use of U.S. supplied arms in
this invasion could cause concern at home. The requested that the invasion be termed a self-defense measure and to wait until they had returned to Washington. Less than two days after Ford and Kissenger got on the plane home, Indonesia invaded East Timor. 60,000 East Timorese died in the first few months. At one point, Indonesia was running low on bullets and arms, and we immediately flew in more arms so the slaughter could continue unabated.

Indonesia occupied East Timor for 24 years, during which time 1 out of every 3 East Timorese lost their lives. 1 out of every 3. This slaughter continued, will full US support and backing, up through 1999. In 1999, 78%
of East Timorese voted for independence from Indonesia, sparking an Indonesian military rampage which drove 80% of East Timorese citizens from their homes, and destroyed most of the country. The U.S. Government maintained their support even then, until public outrage in Australia and the US finally created enough pressure on President Clinton to contact Indonesia and them them to call the whole thing off. Within 48 hours, the Indonesian Army was GONE, which begs the question of how many lives would have been saved if the U.S. had made such a plea 24 years earlier.

Were you as upset about the East Timorese as you appear to be about those the US installed tyrant Saddam Hussein killed? I wrote letters on behalf of East Timor, did you? Or was that not a proper thing to do, since our Government was feeding the sheep a different line about what was happening in Indonesia?

How about El Salvador, Elevator? Do you know where that is? Most U.S. citizens don't (just as most don't know where Iraq is...) Same story, different place. During the Reagan Administration, El Salvador voted in a government,
by a vast majority, that elected to pursue a path that deviated from the U.S. model. So Reagan pumped 1 million dollars a day into El Salvador to feed a war to prevent such an undesired outcome. You know, an outcome where a free people make their own decisions and cost U.S. corporations money. Our money and covert training instigated a coup, and installed a military regime (which Reagan called "democratic") to fight the evil "guerillas" i.e. the people of El Salvador. There was no rhyme or reason to the ensuing slaughter. Entire geographic regions would be labled enemy, and would be obliterated. Everyday folk, just like you and me, were slaughtered, tortured, orphaned, raped, all the while, the so-called "liberal media" fed the U.S. public a diet of lies and distortions, straight from the Reagan propaganda team, about what our goal was in this region.

"The world has changed after September 11th."

The world did change. The world was 100% behind the United States in its goal to eliminate terrorism. You had Palentinians lighting candles to mourn the dead, for goodness sakes! Now Bush has, in less then 2 years, sparked world wide protests in the multi-millions against our foreign policy. Way to go, W!

Our foreign policy has not changed, and actually appears more sinister than ever. Pre-emptive war (nazi tactic), "Shock and Awe" military assault on Iraq (i.e. blitzkrieg). Instead of "fighin' and containin' communism" we now trumpet "fightin' terrorism" as our excuse to keep the war machine cranked up, and keep the sheep in line.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing. Good god, you will let them keep you running in circles, snapping at your liberal tail with your conservative teeth forever, wont you.

"We freed the world from Hitler..."

I'm sorry, are you from Soviet Russia?

"Do you see people who have escaped Iraq demonstrating about the upcoming war? Didn't think so."

Try this on for size, Elevation...

http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/16feb03bp.html
 
2003-03-01 10:27:32 PM  
Peterthx:
If you libs think he's really going to seize power, begin genocide, and try to take over the world you really need to take the cyanide now. Because you are so seriously warped you are a danger to society.

Spoken like a true Nazi.
 
2003-03-01 10:31:38 PM  
Taken from the Department of Homeland Security FAQ on the website:

How do we know that the DHS leadership will make decisions based on merit, not political patronage?
Written into the legislation that President George W. Bush asked for and signed into law is the affirmation of civil service protections. The Department of Homeland Security will afford its employees and job applicants the full protections of the Merit System Principles and protection against Prohibited Personnel Practices (e.g. protection for whistleblowers, prohibition against political favoritism and coercing political activity, etc.).


That's for you D8vo.
 
2003-03-01 10:34:13 PM  
BlobBrain: I bow to you sir !
 
2003-03-01 10:35:34 PM  
Elevation:
Industry employs people. It is not evil.

Tell that to all those who have lost their jobs to someone in a 3rd world country who will work for well below the U.S. minimum wage. Tell that to all the underage children Nike employs.
 
2003-03-01 10:39:06 PM  
Peterthx

"We bombed China? News to me!"

Yes, in 1945-46, and 1950-53. Your fly is down, sir.
 
2003-03-01 10:39:16 PM  
Remind me to call my broker Monday to buy HAL. Haliburton stock is sitting around 20, up from a low of last year but well under its pre-May-2001 highs.

shiat, if the conspiracy theorists are right, HAL will soar, and if they're wrong, it may outperform the market anyway.
 
2003-03-01 10:42:34 PM  
Telemakhos

Agreed! It will soar. Maybe you can also find some children to boil and eat tonight, if you get hungry.
 
2003-03-01 10:43:14 PM  
 
2003-03-01 10:49:11 PM  
Yumm.... boiled children....
 
2003-03-01 10:52:52 PM  
Telemakhos: had he been in Schindler's shoes, there would have been no movie...
 
2003-03-01 10:58:46 PM  
My name is Patrick Bateman, I am 27 years old. I believe in taking care of myself, in a balanced diet and a rigorous exercise routine. In the morning if my face is a little puffy, I'll put on an icepack while doing my stomach crunches; I can do a thousand now. After I remove the ice pack, I use a deep pore cleanser lotion. In the shower I use a water-activated gel cleanser. Then a honey-almond body scrub. And on the face, an exfoliating gel scrub. Then I apply an herb mint facial masque, which I leave on for ten minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine. I always use an aftershave lotion with little or no alcohol, because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer. Then an anti-aging eye balm, followed by a final moisturizing protecting lotion. There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, somekind of abstraction, but there is no real me. Only an entity-- something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours, and maybe you can eve sense our lifestyles are probably comparable. I simply am not there.
 
2003-03-01 11:01:43 PM  
BlobBrain: You write much in such a short time. Are you a college professor? In any case the US was wrong not to support the uprising after the 1st Gulf War. That much is true and it will not be repeated. Those Iraqis support this new war despite that experience and this fellow is the exception.

As for your father, that is interesting because I worked in Bomb Nav in the 70's on the D-Model B-52. So I maintained the Navigation equipment he used. Perhaps I worked on a bomber that he flew. Brings back good memories for me, but I never flew them, just kept them flying so as to eventually break the back of the Russian bear.

The events in the past that you mention are eclipsed by the goodness of America toward the world. If not for the US, the world would a frightening place. Rail against Germany China or Russia if you must, because the damage those countries have done to the world dwarf any supposed US offense.

My son will fight in this war. He went into Afghanistan to help rescue those missionaries the Taliban were holding, and will go in on the ground into Iraq. My daughters asked me yesterday if their brother would die. The odds are good he will survive, but there is a risk. I trust the President and that is the difference between you and me.
 
2003-03-01 11:05:03 PM  
Yumm.... Schilnder's List... profitable movie for Hollywood... $317 million gross off a $25 million budget... nothing like making scads of money off the stories of the Holocaust.
 
2003-03-01 11:09:19 PM  
My son will fight in this war.

I wish him all the best. And thank God there are people like him.
 
2003-03-01 11:12:54 PM  
My son will fight in this war.
Good, my SUV is getting friggin' expensive to fill up.
 
2003-03-01 11:13:15 PM  
The Observer got a hell of a scoop for tomorow's paper...

In case some of you still had doubts about the US Govt. being evil :

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905954,00.html
 
2003-03-01 11:15:23 PM  
now thats the shiat america needs...
 
2003-03-01 11:18:41 PM  
Bashturn: That scoop is a fraud. UK spelling. UK time. Name spelled wrong. See Drudge.
 
2003-03-01 11:19:49 PM  
Bashturn -- why does that e-mail use the British spellings "emphasise" and "recognise" if it's really from the NSA?
 
2003-03-01 11:21:15 PM  
Throughout the 8 years of the Clinton administration we heard regular ranting from the extreme, psychotic right wing lunatics about how Slick Willy was a murderer, a drug runner,a rapist, consorter with whores, and general embodiment of evil. How he and Hilary gleefully offed Vince Foster in the White House, as just the latest in a long string of tawdry murders and related felonies, from Mina, Arkansas to Washington. By God, Ken Starr would ferret out the truth; the indictments would be coming down any day now. ...Except that Clinton was planning on declaring martial law so he wouldn't have to leave office at the end of his 2nd term. "Honest, you can look it all up on the internet. It's all there."

Funny how the postings of BlobBrain, Bashturn, D8vo, etc. brought that thought to mind. ...You know, the psychotic rantings of paranoid extremists.

How about let's agree to meet back here in about 6 years, as W's term is winding down, and see just how many of these dire predictions have come to pass? I'll even spring for the first round.
 
2003-03-01 11:21:59 PM  
[image from 2003specialolympics.com too old to be available]
 
2003-03-01 11:23:19 PM  
Drudge !?! come on... Let's just say that the credibility of The Observer far outweighs Drudge <------ UNDENIABLE !
 
2003-03-01 11:23:34 PM  
Csc10000: Thanks.
 
2003-03-01 11:27:58 PM  
Doc_attheRadarStation:

6 years? I think you meant 2...

/counting the seconds
 
2003-03-01 11:29:41 PM  
And as for the spelling abilities of high-powered civil-servants: Remember POTATOE.... Does it ring a bell ?

Doc_attheRadarStation : "Honest, you can look it all up on the internet. It's all there."

Ooooh... the Internet... then it must be true !
 
2003-03-01 11:31:38 PM  
Drudge's credibility is not on the line here. Drudge only notes the problems in the letter.

Read it for yourself and decide. The Observer has to explain the obvious problems Drudge or any observant reader would note.

Your bias is showing.
 
2003-03-01 11:34:54 PM  
Funny how you cannot be a critic of the US Govt. without being labelled a extremist nowadays....
 
2003-03-01 11:39:37 PM  
Elevation:

Godspeed to your son. Extend our thanks for his service.
 
2003-03-01 11:43:46 PM  
Thanks Doc and I will.
 
2003-03-01 11:46:25 PM  
Elevation : Drudge's credibility is not on the line here. Drudge only notes the problems in the letter.
Read it for yourself and decide. The Observer has to explain the obvious problems Drudge or any observant reader would note.
Your bias is showing.


And yours is not ???

That really piss me off, I have been in the print news business all my adult life... You cannot print something like this without confirming your source... this is print ! not electronic media à la Drudge or Fox News.

I can tell you this much, no editor in the world would allow such article to go to press unless he has solid evidence that it is true.

Need I remind you The Observer does not fall under the category of a sleazy tabloid.

If you people want to play blind man, go ahead, read Time Magazine... It amazes me how people only wants to see things the way they want to see it.
 
2003-03-02 12:01:49 AM  
Blah blah, blah blahdy blah. Yadda yadda, blah yadda blady. Blah blee, bloo bloo blahdy bloo....."Blahee blahoo, yaddiddly blah".

Blah yaddiddle, (blee blee yaddo) yammer yammer yahootle blah. YADDA!!!
 
2003-03-02 12:03:30 AM  
Bashturn: In your earlier comment you derided Drudge's comments because of who he is, without dealing with the problems he noted.

It was a leaked memo. You may believe it's authentic because of your trust in print editors, but I don't share this trust.

I trust Bush, you trust the print media. That explains alot.
 
2003-03-02 12:16:18 AM  
Elevation I do trust the print media, a lot more that I trust a web page that will be lost in cyberspace in a matter of hours. I also trust the leaders of 114 nations who in their turn, trust that UN inspections are effective. You trust Bush... And that, my friend, explains a lot.

Don't get me wrong, I would be the first one supporting millitary intervention in Iraq if it was justified, but I am affraid that under the current reasons given by the US Govt. Invasion will only provoke more attacks on US soil and global Anti-American sentiments.

Gentlemen, may I say that this evening was enlightening and I respect you all for your convictions. Good night.
 
2003-03-02 12:19:47 AM  
Good night and sleep well. It was fun.
 
2003-03-02 12:24:37 AM  
blob
we didn't install hussein
 
2003-03-02 12:33:16 AM  
Zednaught: Fill me in, my friend. (that's not a pass)
 
2003-03-02 12:41:33 AM  
A good capture. Now, if we can get the good Doctor who is second in command. Does anyone wonder why Usama has not sent videos instead of just audio tapes?
 
2003-03-02 12:42:45 AM  
I need a donut.
 
2003-03-02 01:00:57 AM  
BigPeeler My thoughts exactly. After reading this entire thread thats about all I can manage to think or say.
 
2003-03-02 01:06:28 AM  
Elevation:

"In any case the US was wrong not to support the uprising after the 1st Gulf War. That much is true and it will not be repeated."

Really? Why do you believe that? Because Bush says so? Did you forget that presidents routinely lie to the public? Check these out: http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2549

http://www.rense.com/general31/bushlies.htm

This isn't a democrat/republican thing. Gore? Bush? I didn't vote for either one of those assholes...

"Those Iraqis support this new war despite that experience and this fellow is the exception."

Are you refering to the Iraqi National Congress to whom the PNAC has been funneling millions of taxpayer dollars, so the Bush Administration can hand pick Hussein's successor and ensure all big money contracts go to the "right" corporations? Or are you referring to the 100 to 200 thousand innocent Iraqi civilians who will be blown to pieces? Are you saying they support this war?

"As for your father, that is interesting because I worked in Bomb Nav in the 70's on the D-Model B-52. So I maintained the Navigation equipment he used. Perhaps I worked on a bomber that he flew. Brings back good memories for me, but I never flew them, just kept them flying so as to eventually break the back of the Russian bear."

Good memories. 2,000,000 Vietnamese killed because they attempted to choose a path different from the one the United States Government had in mind. 60,000 dead U.S. soldiers (including an uncle) for no justifiable reason whatsoever. Good memories. I remember some of my father's good memories. Waking up in terror in the middle of the night. Throwing away a CB radio that sounded too much like the radio in the B-52. Freaking out when the tornado siren went off one night, getting all of us out of bed and dressed post-haste so we could get into the bomber. Moving the family into the Ozark wilderness to live in tents, off the grid. Driving his family away from him. Keeping all the savings in silver under the house, and stock piling firearms and ammunition in preparation for the breakdown of society. Nice stuff. Be all that you can be. Fly high. (He got it all back together after 15 years).

"The events in the past that you mention are eclipsed by the goodness of America toward the world."

That is simply not true. Granted we directed taxpayer money to some good causes, but only a drop in the bucket. Our foreign policy, post WWII, has and continues to have nothing to do with peace, freedom or democracy. Nothing. Compared to what we could have and could do in this world, we should hang our heads.

"If not for the US, the world would a frightening place."

For the vast majority of the people on this planet, the world IS a frightening place. Good lord!

"Rail against Germany China or Russia if you must, because the damage those countries have done to the world dwarf any supposed US offense."

Even if that is true (and you supply no support for this assertion), that is no excuse for the hell we have inflicted on millions all over the globe.

And I don't give a damn what anybody thinks, I love my country, and if you say I am not a patriot because I wont kiss the ass of whatever president happens to be the flavor of the day, I'll knock your gay ass down, and spit tobacco in your eye. Damn sheep...

Why is it that we must automatically bow in reverence whenever anybody mentions the military, as if somehow soldiers should be held in reverence simply because they are soldiers? As if nobody else understands and lives by a code of honor?

In the words of Bill Hicks, shut the f/uck up! You are a bunch of hired thugs! When we want you to go blow the hell out of bunch of brown people, we'll let you know. Until then, SHUT THE F/UCK UP!

This country needs to reinstate the draft. First thing, right now. Otherwise, we have nothing more than a mercenary army ready to jump when the executive branch says jump, and despite whatever Hallmark bulls/hit sentimentality we are force fed about worshipping the ground the military walks on.

If we had a draft in place, there would be no plans to invade a country THAT HAS DONE NOTHING TO US!!!!


My son will fight in this war. He went into Afghanistan to help rescue those missionaries the Taliban were holding, and will go in on the ground into Iraq. My daughters asked me yesterday if their brother would die. The odds are good he will survive, but there is a risk. I trust the President and that is the difference between you and me.
 
2003-03-02 01:08:31 AM  
Elevation:

"My son will fight in this war. He went into Afghanistan to help rescue those missionaries the Taliban were holding, and will go in on the ground into Iraq. My daughters asked me yesterday if their brother would die. The odds are good he will survive, but there is a risk. I trust the President and that is the difference between you and me."

I hope your boy comes home in better shape than the 1/3 of the gulf war vets who are crippled with gulf war syndrome (approx. 200,000 of them). I wish you had some basis for trusting Bush other than it feels good.
 
2003-03-02 01:19:06 AM  
Strangely familiar wording for this link submission ... and in a couple others ...

Meanwhile, Khalid, meet Lolita,Tanqueray, Moose, Rocco, Stamper ...
 
2003-03-02 01:20:29 AM  
BlobBrain Do you have devine insight? How do you know how many people will die? No one knows how this war, if it comes, will turn out. Where did you get that no. of casualties? We don't know if there will be much resistance. On the other hand, the whole country may oppose us.
 
2003-03-02 01:30:32 AM  
JAdamS

"The report found that 'credible estimates of the total possible deaths on all sides during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to over 260,000. Civil war within Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths. Additional later deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000.' "

"And here's another conclusion from the report that major U.S. news outlets keep ignoring: 'In all scenarios, the majority of casualties will be civilians.'"

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/021205.html

Also:

"A newly leaked report from a special UN taskforce that summarises the assessments calculates that about 500,000 people could 'require medical treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries', according to the World Health Organisation.

WHO estimates that 100,000 Iraqi civilians could be wounded and another 400,000 hit by disease after the bombing of water and sewage facilities and the disruption of food supplies.

'The nutritional status of some 3.03 million people will be dire and they will require therapeutic feeding,' says the UN children's fund. About four-fifths of these victims will be children under five. The rest will be pregnant and lactating women.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4593608,00.html
 
2003-03-02 01:34:26 AM  
I certainly hope war will not occur. However, I think it will unless Saddam quits. History will reveal motives and anyone attempting to know the Bush admin. motives is just guessing are they not? I think there are so many factors in this situation that it's hard to sort them out if not impossible. Personally, I like to think our government leaders are doing their best and always hope for their success not matter the party.
I think the plan MAY BE to defeat Saddam because(1) He's vulnerable, (2) Iraq has one of the best infrastructures in the middle east, (3) if we can set up an Iraqi govt that is successful the rest of the dictatorships will become vulnerable and this could force earlier reform,(4) we can then put the pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to come around,(5) the fertile ground for terroism would deminish,(6) the rest of the world will come back around ,(7) evil regimes elsewhere will be at risk. A lot of BIG ifs. To do nothing means the status quo in the unstable area? So maybe the administrations' motives are noble? History only will tell.
 
2003-03-02 01:37:47 AM  
So that wonderful military think tank the WHO knows what our tactics might be?
 
2003-03-02 01:52:08 AM  
JAdamsS:

"I certainly hope war will not occur. However, I think it will unless Saddam quits."

But where is the justification for war?

"History will reveal motives and anyone attempting to know the Bush admin. motives is just guessing are they not?"

Have you read any parts of this thread at all? Please refer to my posts above. History tells us plenty. We should not limited ourselves to "ah, shucks, Opie, I shore do hopes we can trust the Administration" when we already have a wealth of information about U.S. foreign policy for the past 57 years (and it has NEVER been directed toward establishing freedom and democracy for others)

"I think there are so many factors in this situation that it's hard to sort them out if not impossible."

That's certainly what the Bush Administration wants you to think. And its not true. The U.S. population is not performing its patriotic duty to remain educated about current issues and keep an eye on the government.

"Personally, I like to think our government leaders are doing their best and always hope for their success not matter the party."

They are not doing their best, at least not for you or me, 99% of the time, no matter the party. History has proven this over and over and over and over again. We have no basis to believe otherwise now, and plenty of evidence that supports the conclusion that Bush's gameplan is ill-advised at best.

"I think the plan MAY BE to defeat Saddam because(1) He's vulnerable,"

Yeah, unlike North Korea, who is the real threat. Saddam is vulnerable because he is weak and poses no threat to us whatsoever. All the more reason not to kill a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians.

"(2) Iraq has one of the best infrastructures in the middle east,"

??? My god, you've hit it! You're right! Send the bombers now!!!! (wtf?)

"(3) if we can set up an Iraqi govt that is successful the rest of the dictatorships will become vulnerable and this could force earlier reform,"

That "if" will take you decades to chew and you will likely never swallow it. You have the stomach for that? I doubt the American public does... Then there are a few other ifs, woulds, and coulds in there. This is a reason for war?

"(4) we can then put the pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to come around,"

Yeah, war is peace, peace is war, war is peace, peace is war.... We'll bomb the s/hit out of Iraq for no reason, and the Palestinians will "come around." Yeah, the will come around, probably with bombs strapped to their chests...

"(5) the fertile ground for terroism would deminish,"
Mr. President? Eat your cookie, finish your milk, and its off to bed!
Ahhh, Uncle Cheny, do I hafta?

"(6) the rest of the world will come back around ,(7) evil regimes elsewhere will be at risk."

Look, up in the sky! Its Pie!

"To do nothing means the status quo in the unstable area?"

Why is our only choice bombing or nothing?
 
2003-03-02 01:54:51 AM  
JAdamS: "So that wonderful military think tank the WHO knows what our tactics might be?"

Those were United Nations figures. They have some experience in this area. Hundreds of thousands will likely die. Quibble about the exact number if it pleases you--how many dead children and mothers are too much for you?
 
2003-03-02 01:56:27 AM  
Elevation & Telemakhos complain about British spellings in NSA letter.

This is nothing new. British media routinely "correct" American spelling when presenting the text of a document or speech. BBC News is my favorite source of information -- but, they always (I've never seen a case where they didn't) Anglicize the spelling in US documents and present them as faithful reporoductions.
 
2003-03-02 02:03:52 AM  
"but, they always (I've never seen a case where they didn't) Anglicize the spelling in US documents and present them as faithful reporoductions."

If its being presented as the actual memo, as it is in the artlice, no journalist or editor would correct the spelling.

Thats either BS or bad journalism.
 
2003-03-02 02:18:12 AM  
Well, I hope the US doesn't want him back immediately or anything. There was an article in the news today how Pakistan tortured a confession out of some other airline hijacker a few years back, before killing him.

I think exactly the same sort of treatment would be beneficial here. The US could just sit back and wait for the intel to roll in and still keep their hands clean...

N.
 
2003-03-02 02:19:44 AM  
Shut........UP writes: If its being presented as the actual memo, as it is in the artlice, no journalist or editor would correct the spelling.

When it comes to British publications, you're flat wrong on that. This is just the first example I found, but there are many more:

In 1998, the White House produced a document rebutting charges made by the Office of Independent Counsel. The BBC published the document with the preface that "[t]his is the text of the executive summary of the rebuttal to Kenneth Starr's report, issued by the White House."

The second sentence of the rebuttal is published as follows:

"He has taken responsibility for his actions, and he has apologised to the country, to his friends, leaders of his party, the cabinet and most importantly, his family."

But, the original text did not use apologised. The spelling in the original is apologiZed -- as correctly noted by ABC News. The British publication "corrected" the spelling of a written document and represented it as accurate. That is their standard practice.
 
2003-03-02 02:20:52 AM  
I'm not saying I'm for a war, in fact hope and pray it doesn't happen. One death is too many whether by "collateral damage" or by a despot killing his own people.
I would point out that the "cold war" was fought to maintain the freedom of many and resulted in release from soviet rule of many easter Europeans.
What would you propose, BlobBrain, as to how to resolve the Iraqi and Korean situations?
 
2003-03-02 02:25:20 AM  
JAdamS writes: I would point out that the "cold war" was fought to maintain the freedom of many and resulted in release from soviet rule of many easter Europeans.

I would point out that the Cold War was one of containment. Would an armed attack against the Soviet Union have produced a better resolution?

If containment worked against the Soviets, why is it such a leap of faith to think it might work against the Iraqis as well?
 
2003-03-02 02:32:28 AM  
im drunk.
I say meh. Farkemm..
 
2003-03-02 02:53:53 AM  
There were, of course, battles in the "cold war". Korea and Vietnam being the most costly on both sides. The present situation and the soviet situation were so much different that there is little comparison. The present Korean situation is much more like the soviet although in much smaller scale. Both USSR and Perhaps Korea have nuclear weapons and likely more public support than Mr Hussein. Iraq is surrounded by other sovereign states,not satellites. One can learn history, I'm not sure one can learn from history. Let's all hope war doesn't happen, but I just hope for success for our leaders and for the best for the Iraqi people.
 
2003-03-02 03:00:15 AM  
Pseudo-Intellectuals are quite possibely the greatest threat the world stability. It's said really, they speak about the brainwashed people who back bush, when they themselves have been indoctrinated and programed by their far left high school and college faculties. They all spew out the same tired arguments they have been programed to believe and call it individuality and intelligence. Evil exists, war is a horrible but sometimes neccessary thing and the people in power are not sending us to war for oil.

War is not the worst thing possible. A society that has degenerated to the point were it will not accept a war for any reason, even their own protection is worse. A society that looks for the short term easy way out of everything is worse.

Saddam hussein ended the last war because he agreed to disarm. He has not. To believe otherwise to exist in a dream world. The inspectors will never find anything of importance and if they do the Iraq's won't destroy it. War is neccessary. In this day of age we can not afford to wait, we cannot afford to be weak, and we cannot be on the defense versus our enemies, because we have seen the terrible things that an enemy offensive can do to America. The old axiom still holds true. Nobody ever won a war by staying on the defensive. Sorry for the long winded post.
 
2003-03-02 03:05:39 AM  
JAdamS writes: There were, of course, battles in the "cold war".

But, the United States never invaded the Soviet Union. Would the world have been better off if we had? Or, was a policy of containment better?

The present situation and the soviet situation were so much different that there is little comparison.

Containment is such a broad concept that it comfortably comprehends both the Soviet era and the current one. Why would you think that containment could not work?
 
2003-03-02 03:07:08 AM  
BlobBrain-
So I'm a mercenary for choosing to defend my country? Your son knew the dangers when he joined. The army is for fighting not college money. Draftees are useless. Draftees are what brings on vietnams and such heroic fights as the Iraqi defense of kuwait. Nobody should have to fight that didn't sign up for it. If they did sign up then it's not really their choice where they go.
 
2003-03-02 03:20:27 AM  
Im my mind, I don't know what is the best tactic. If I were an Iraqi, I might want war to end the misery for the country although people will die. There are things worth dying for. I'm not sure if containment has worked with Saddam. Again only time will tell.
 
2003-03-02 03:45:07 AM  
50% of the world's wealth and 6% of the population? I'm not giving it back. If France or Germany were in the our situation (all the wealth, little population) they wouldn't give it back either...
 
2003-03-02 03:55:02 AM  
But, the original text did not use apologised. The spelling in the original is apologiZed -- as correctly noted by ABC News. The British publication "corrected" the spelling of a written document and represented it as accurate. That is their standard practice.

Hang on. The Starr report was a public document. Fixing some spellings to match the British spellings of words in a publicly available document is quite a bit different than altering the content of a document you claim is a scoop.
 
2003-03-02 03:56:31 AM  
BlobBrain-

Not posting much here lately but I have to say your posts are well thought out and I appreciate what you have to say. Keep it up and don't burn out.

Eraser8- Fighting the cold war with Russia was bankrupting both the U.S and the U.S.S.R. They just went belly-up before we did. Of course containment of Iraq would not hurt and cost us a fortune the way the cold war did. The problem I have with it is the sanctions against the Iraqi people. Sanctions do not hurt Saddam in anyway but they are killing the Iraqi people. Gotta figure out something else. And bombing them isn't a good answer either. I think the word "containment" needs to be better defined if it is going to be policy.
 
2003-03-02 04:14:20 AM  
JJOtt - I'm going to play Devil's advocate here because I do respect soldiers, but I want your honest opinion.

In what way are you defending the USA? Being a soldier is not an answer to that question. Being a soldier means that you will do what your commanding officer tells you.

By being a soldier attacking Iraq, you aren't directly defending the US against terrorism, because we haven't established a link between Iraq and terrorism in the US. How exactly are you defending this country?
 
2003-03-02 04:59:34 AM  
DrToast writes: Fixing some spellings to match the British spellings of words in a publicly available document is quite a bit different than altering the content of a document you claim is a scoop.

How, exactly, is it different?
 
2003-03-02 05:02:54 AM  
Sonnyboy11 writes: Fighting the cold war with Russia was bankrupting both the U.S and the U.S.S.R.

Would war have been cheaper?

The problem I have with it is the sanctions against the Iraqi people.

Sanctions are only one part of a policy of containment. There is no reason why they must (or, even, should) be part of a comprehensive program.
 
2003-03-02 10:20:20 AM  
(sigh)

Allright...I'm only gonna tell you once...

We're attacking Iraq to secure American oil supplies so we can then go after the SAUDIS who are the REAL source of the problem.

That's why the Bushies are having such a hard time explaining this to us -- THEY CAN'T TELL US THE REAL REASON!

.<
 
2003-03-02 10:23:33 AM  
Why bother argueing, nobody is going to convert anyone. At the end of the day, liberals will go to bed thinking they'll change the world, and sock it to those eeeeviiiil greeeeeedy republicans who enjoy killing innocent children, and the conservatives will go to sleep knowing that they are right, and those long haired, sign waving, flag burning imbeciles are meaningless in the grand scheme of things..
 
2003-03-02 10:55:51 AM  
i'm glad they caught him. pump him up with truth serom, get all the info. then take hime up in a plane and throw him out.
 
2003-03-02 01:17:55 PM  
Oh, I get it now!

Osama Bin Laden is like "Dr.Evil"

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is like Robert Wagner as"#2"

I can't quite tell if Saddam Hussein is supposed to be "Frau Farbissina", or maybe "Goldmember"?

And George W. Bush must be our "Austin Powers". In this light I now understand the "good vs.evil" struggle our current administration is marketing to the public.

"Bushie Jr. - he's the man....FOR YOU!"
 
2003-03-02 01:26:46 PM  
Actually, what I would like to see, is the next time they implode an old Las Vegas hotel, coat "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed" with bacon grease, stuff a big-ass ham in his mouth, lock him in what remains of the High Rollers suite, and blast away.
 
2003-03-02 02:51:07 PM  
Well, I'm late to this thread and there's no way I'm reading the whole thread. So I'll add my two cents:

Drook him with truth serums and let him spill his evil little secrets and be a weapon against his cohorts. And make him aware of the consequences of his testimony to each fellow "martyr" he makes with his chemical indiscretions. Then keep him alive, healthy, imprisoned, and terrified. Forever. For f'ing ever.
 
zub
2003-03-02 03:02:25 PM  
Should've added: "...and will be held without trial, along with loads of innocent Arabs."
 
2003-03-02 05:41:07 PM  
How will Osama sleep without his nightly ass pounding. Poor Osama. (Flight 187 bound for Kansas now leaving) <--Worse than Hell. :)
 
2003-03-02 07:03:54 PM  
Dogs of war (Dubya) and men of hate (Al-Qaeda)
With no cause, we don't discriminate
Discovery is to be disowned
Our currency is flesh and bone
Hell opened up and put on sale
Gather round and haggle
For hard cash, we will lie and deceive (United Nations)
Even our masters (US) don't know the webs we weave

On world, it's a battleground
One world and they smash it down
One world...one world

Invisible transfers, long distance calls
Hollow laughter in marble halls
Steps have been taken, a silent uproar
Has unleashed, the dogs of war
You can't stop what has begun

Signed, sealed, they deliver oblivion
We all have a dark side, to say the least
And dealing in death is the nature of the beast

One world, it's a battleground
One world and they smash it down
One world...one world

The Dogs of War don't negotiate
The Dogs of War won't capitulate
They will take and you will give
And you must die so that they may live
You can knock at any door
But wherever you go, you know they've been there before
Well winners can lose and things can get strained
But whatever you change, you know the dogs remain

On world, it's a battleground
One world and we're going to smash it down
One world...one world
 
2003-03-02 08:35:41 PM  
What the...Ron Jeremy is a terrorist???

[image from i.cnn.net too old to be available]
 
2003-03-02 09:21:34 PM  
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: Much worse is the
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight - nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety - is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions and blood of better men than himself."

- John Stuart Mill
 
2003-03-02 10:02:49 PM  
ObscureRef

Thanks for tossing off a quote that has nothing to do with the current situation we all find ourselves in.

/bangs head on table...
 
2003-03-02 10:29:41 PM  
BlobBrain: It's done. The decision has been made and the world will salute the wisdom of Bush. Nothing will stop the war at this point, except for the capture of Saddam.
 
2003-03-02 10:29:41 PM  
BlobBrain: It's done. The decision has been made and the world will salute the wisdom of Bush. Nothing will stop the war at this point, except for the capture of Saddam.
 
2003-03-02 10:38:03 PM  
BlobBrain: You're entirely welcome.
 
2003-03-02 10:41:53 PM  
[image from 216.136.200.194 too old to be available]
I think you're on the money, Tarmon
 
2003-03-02 11:56:45 PM  
lol, Yammering_Splat_Vector... I was thinking the same thing. :D Bravo.
 
2003-03-03 12:03:29 AM  
[image from 216.136.200.194 too old to be available]
Bombs away.
It's off subject but a cool pic nevertheless.
 
2003-03-03 12:03:51 AM  
[image from dnash.org too old to be available]
 
2003-03-03 11:08:19 AM  
[image from 216.136.200.194 too old to be available]

"Can I least get some coffee? Sheesh...."
 
2003-03-03 03:38:06 PM  
Dr. Strangelove: As late to this post as I am, that has got to be the best song on the whole album.

As far as this Al-Qaeda guy, fark him. I hope they do torture him. Makes up for having to watch my fellow Americans jump from 110 stories.
 
2003-03-03 04:24:50 PM  
BlobBrain...

Nice thread-jack. This isn't about Iraq, but I'll placate you. Chew on these three simple words as a reason to go to war with Iraq: ANSAR AL ISLAM.

Not trying to launch flames at you, so don't take this in that manner. As far as Ansar al Islam goes, you should look 'em up (terrorist organization), look where they operate (Iraq proper), & look at who they have very close connections to (al Qaeda). This is rarely, if ever, spoken about & I don't really know why. Don't try to play the "they operate in areas of Iraq that are out of Saddam's control" card, because it's not valid. The only thing within Iraq that Saddam doesn't control is the air-space in the NFZs. He controls everything that happens on the ground & that's where these pricks are based and operate from.

The bottom line is that we're already at war man & the fronts are everywhere these bastards decide to go, even on our own soil. If you want to deny that and say that we're not at war, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Like it or not, 9/11 was AN ACT OF WAR. It's too bad that it doesn't fit the conventional criteria, where the perpitrator is a clearly defined soverign nation with a military. You can't really throw terrorists into a convenient "bucket" like you could Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan around the time of the second world war. Instead, this enemy swears no national alligance and hides behind a human shield. The rules of war have changed, we've finally gotten a new rule-book, and it's long overdue. One of the pillars of their game plan is to use our own system against us. It just so happens that we've got a President that acknowledges this FACT and is willing to act against it. Regardless of your stance on the current administration, as an American, you're entitled to it and I can respect your conflicting view. That's the great thing about OUR country.

Back to the subject: This guy's a first class asshole & it's an answered prayer that he was caught. His name pops up just about anytime you look at terrorist activity over the past decade. Hopefully they'll be able to pull some useful info out of him & will be able to weed through the copious amounts of disinformation he's sure to spew and use it to save lives. If al Qaeda operates similar to Hammas or Hezbollah, be on the look-out for a scorched earth policy where sleeper cells execute lots of small-scale suicide bombings, as opposed to sitting around waiting to be captured. Mardi Gras really worries me. Think about a soft target like The Quarter where you've got about a million drunk people crammed in a very localized area. It could easily be a recipe for disaster. Of course this is pure speculation, but I sincerely hope the authorities are really on top of it this week down in New Orleans.
 
2003-03-03 04:34:06 PM  
Suebhoney...

We need to do more than torture this prick. I vote that we envoke the Jordanian policy of executing the families of al Qaeda members. They don't care about themselves, but they do care deeply for their wives and children. By doing so, we not only eliminate the current terrorist, but also future generations that feel the need to avenge the death of their "Uncle Achknad" at the hands of the "Great Satan".

*dons kevlar vest*
 
2003-03-04 03:33:54 PM  
Simply do what was done to curb terrorism in the Philippines. Gen. John Pershing had a very interesting and effective method. Please excuse the cut-and-paste:

"Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists
were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as martyrs."

All but one was shot, their bodies were dumped into the mass grave, and the hog guts were dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.

Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won't make them flinch. They welcome the chance to die for God.

Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won't get to Paradise (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil. The spectre of going to hell creates far more fear in the mind of a religious zealot than simple death, so if these folks want a war, we'll give 'em one. One in which dying in any manner means an immediate trip to hell.
 
Displayed 439 of 439 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report