The Iraq Thread

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 08 2003,00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And Paladin, what the fuck, man? You want to talk, let's talk. But I didn't waste several minutes of my life typing that stuff just so you can pull an FSPilot on me. But at least I know where it's at now.<span id='postcolor'>

Cut him some slack, its 1am at his place I'm sure he can come up with something better tomorrow

Very interesting point of view you have, btw

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 08 2003,00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Be honest, had you even heard of Maher before this?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes indeed I have. I enjoyed his show and it sucked that it was cancelled. I havn't seen his new one though since it's not aired here.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maher's freedom of speech was never infringed -- after cancellation he remained free to say whatever he liked.  The Bill of Rights, however, does not guarantee a person the right to host a television show.  Unfortunately for some celebrities, one person's freedom of speech is another person's freedom to ignore.<span id='postcolor'>

My point is that the system looks good on paper but for all practical considerations it sucks. As I said, the legal limitations are not the issue when well funded special interest groups rule the game. The fact is that he got his show cancelled because he gave some controversial remarks. General Motors pulled the financing of his show after Ari Fleischer said "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." . General Motors one of the biggest campaign contributors to the Bush campaign. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. I'll make sure that we withdraw from the Kyoto and you won't finance the critics of our administration. Perfectly legal and logical. General Motors has the right to do what it wishes with its money, right? Sure, but you have to realize that corporations do have a large say in politics. Money runs the wheel so that's the name of the game.

Is it a coincidence that father and son have been elected president? All law abiding US citizens can in theory become president and what do you get? A family inheritance. And the choice of the American people? At the time you get to vote the list of possible candidates has been so pre-chewed and filtered that the choice is virtual. And then, at best 50% of the people with a right to vote show up. And to top it all off, due to the electoral college  system the candidate with the least votes gets to be president. So in the end you have a president that is supported by a minority of under 25% of the people that can vote. Woohoo for democracy!   The system is no less a sham then when you can choose between "The Chinese Communist Party" and "The Chinese Communist Party".

Bush coming to power is the prime example of how the system is flawed. In a fair and just system a chimp would have a better chance then George Jr. to become the president. If I was to be very gracious and kind, I'd call him at best 'mediocre'. Or are you seriously trying to suggest that he is one of Americas' finest? That you want him to represent your country - to be a row model for Americans and that he gives America the representation abroad that it deserves?

For anybody interested in a detailed look on how the primary elections and presidential elections work, I very much recommend Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72". Excellent book.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 07 2003,17:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In my opinion Pres. Bush is a dangerous, littleminded man in a position that gives him a lot of might and who does what he wants (well, ok, there are still the hawks behind him) . He thinks he stands above anything else and that he`s not responsible to anybody or any institution in the world (UN, Pope, other politicians like Pres. Putin e.g. who is a lot smarter than Pres. Bush as former intelligence man, demonstrations all over the world, ... ) .

<span id='postcolor'>

Let's be very clear. President Bush is only responsible to one entity. Do you know who it is? It is not the U.N., it is not the Catholic Church, and it is not the Russian president. Give up yet?

It's the American public.<span id='postcolor'>

Bush would never get the right answer.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 07 2003,08:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"I completely agree that if WMD are found then the entire inspection process needs to be looked into, as well as inspectors comptency being called into question. But why should those countries write a written letter of apology? All they were asking for was to give UN inspectors more time, which is what the inspectors themselves were asking for. Not Saddam, not Chirac, but the inspectors - the good guys."

So, just because the inspectors didnt manage to find WMD's in Iraq, a fairly large country whose government has had ample time to specialize in deciept and treachery, they are incompetent?<span id='postcolor'>

Hey hey! I am FOR the inspectors, not against them. I think they should have been given the extra time they need! I didn't say they were incompetent, I just said if WMD are found then their methods need to be looked into. When I say their competency needs to be looked into, I mean just that - looked into. Not automatically found incompetent.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point is that the system looks good on paper but for all practical considerations it sucks. As I said, the legal limitations are not the issue when well funded special interest groups rule the game. The fact is that he got his show cancelled because he gave some controversial remarks. General Motors pulled the financing of his show after Ari Fleischer said "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." . General Motors one of the biggest campaign contributors to the Bush campaign. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. I'll make sure that we withdraw from the Kyoto and you won't finance the critics of our administration. Perfectly legal and logical. General Motors has the right to do what it wishes with its money, right? Sure, but you have to realize that corporations do have a large say in politics. Money runs the wheel so that's the name of the game.

<span id='postcolor'>

GM pulled its advertising, but that was by no means the sole reason the show got cancelled. Besides, don't you think that what you are laying out is more than a little conspiracy theory? Of all the deals to make, why would TBA make this one:

"Okay, we'll unilaterally pull out of an international treaty, creating huge amounts of ill-will toward us, and in return you'll withdraw your advertising from a low-rated talk show because of its host's commentary on an event 6 months in the future that noone can even imagine happening and besides which, the commentary doesn't even directly criticize our administration. Deal?"

Although for the record, look for situations like this to change. The last big harvestings of soft money happened in 2001, and soon the slush funds will run dry. And then you will start to see significant changes within our political system; I'm willing to bet on it. See, we are changing, maybe slowly, but changing nonetheless. Please keep in mind that a decadent, capitalist state of 280 million people can be a bit more unwieldy than a near-utopian socialist state of a little less than 9 million. Cut us a little slack, please

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it a coincidence that father and son have been elected president? All law abiding US citizens can in theory become president and what do you get? A family inheritance. And the choice of the American people? At the time you get to vote the list of possible candidates has been so pre-chewed and filtered that the choice is virtual. And then, at best 50% of the people with a right to vote show up. And to top it all off, due to the electoral college system the candidate with the least votes gets to be president. So in the end you have a president that is supported by a minority of under 25% of the people that can vote. Woohoo for democracy! The system is no less a sham then when you can choose between "The Chinese Communist Party" and "The Chinese Communist Party".

<span id='postcolor'>

At first glance I'd have to say it is simply an odd alignment of money, politics, and post-Clinton backlash- it won't happen again, at least for a while. Also, I think you can go ahead and thank Osama and Saddam if Bush gets reelected, because his domestic agenda sucks hard. But I want to go back to the fact that despite the whining, Democrat and Republican candidates do indeed differ significantly in their policies and actions when in office. Now, of course it isn't as wide a selection as you have in Sweden, but it is worthy of note that a Republican is not just a conservative, and a Democrat is not just a liberal. There is a large level of nuance between each politician, which alot of outside observers dont realize. Of course there will always be the dime-a-dozen party hacks, but there are lots of variety out there, and more than many realize.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush coming to power is the prime example of how the system is flawed. In a fair and just system a chimp would have a better chance then George Jr. to become the president. If I was to be very gracious and kind, I'd call him at best 'mediocre'. Or are you seriously trying to suggest that he is one of Americas' finest? That you want him to represent your country - to be a row model for Americans and that he gives America the representation abroad that it deserves?

<span id='postcolor'>

Bush isn't the strongest candidate, yes. But look at his opposition: Al Gore, who measured the opinion polls to see which side of the bed it would be more politically advantageous for him to get out of. Plus, Dubya, while being very mediocre by himself, is backed up by a crack political staff that leads people to constantly underestimate him. When he ran for Governor in Texas, he defeated one of the most popular incumbents in recent history, Ann Richards. I have no doubt the guy couldn't pass muster in Sweden, but in a post-Clinton America, a simplistic good ol' boy candidate who doesn't run around banging interns is very attractive to the average voter. Look, we're all slightly nuts in America, depending on how you look at it that can be either a good or bad thing. Dubya's presidency is merely a coincidental alignment of several factors, all of which will not be existent during the 2004 Election.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 08 2003,02:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GM pulled its advertising, but that was by no means the sole reason the show got cancelled. Besides, don't you think that what you are laying out is more than a little conspiracy theory? Of all the deals to make, why would TBA make this one:<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not trying to suggest that there was an explicit deal or that W. phoned the chairman of GM and saind "Listen Bob, we have a problem...". No, it's all just in the good spirit of cooperation. Flesicher got indeed his message through and the loyal people/corporations stepped in line.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please keep in mind that a decadent, capitalist state of 280 million people can be a bit more unwieldy than a near-utopian socialist state of a little less than 9 million. Cut us a little slack, please  

<span id='postcolor'>

Don't let me get into Swedish politics. The social democrats have done enough damage to this country that we don't serve as a shining example, especially in the economic arena.

But tell me, who is going to guarantee a fair transformation. Ashcroft?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I want to go back to the fact that despite the whining, Democrat and Republican candidates do indeed differ significantly in their policies and actions when in office.<span id='postcolor'>

So they represent different interests. Nothing new, different sectors of the industry benifit from different policies. My point is that if you look at the process of the presidential elections you'll that it all comes down to money and as long as corporations are allowed to make economical contributions to political parties, they will decide which candidates will "pass" and which will "fail". Funding is the big key here. When you (the people) get down to the actual voting (and very few of you take the opportunity) the candidates between which you can choose have already been 'selected' by the industry and special interest groups. From a wide spectrum of political ideas that exist, you get the ones that are accepted by those holding the money. It's democracy on the paper, but the practical reality is different.

That's why I find it so absurd when Bush preeches about democracy and the establishment of a 'democratic Iraq'. Not being persecuted and terrorized by your government is not equal to having a functioning democracy. (Yes, desperate attempt of getting this into the Iraq direction )

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When he ran for Governor in Texas, he defeated one of the most popular incumbents in recent history, Ann Richards.<span id='postcolor'>

And you don't think Daddy's money and contacts had anything to do with it?

Good night folks

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I can't argue with you if you keep hedging, Denoir

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But tell me, who is going to guarantee a fair transformation. Ashcroft?

<span id='postcolor'>

Luckily, he has nothing to do with it, as it is miles away from his jurisdiction.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So they represent different interests. Nothing new, different sectors of the industry benifit from different policies. My point is that if you look at the process of the presidential elections you'll that it all comes down to money and as long as corporations are allowed to make economical contributions to political parties, they will decide which candidates will "pass" and which will "fail". Funding is the big key here. When you (the people) get down to the actual voting (and very few of you take the opportunity) the candidates between which you can choose have already been 'selected' by the industry and special interest groups. From a wide spectrum of political ideas that exist, you get the ones that are accepted by those holding the money. It's democracy on the paper, but the practical reality is different.

<span id='postcolor'>

To a certain extent, this is indeed true. However, what I'm saying is that a large amount of this is going to change, very soon. The McCain/Feingold CFR bill, while slightly watered down, is an enormous step towards taking the money out of American politics. Probably the biggest indication that the jig is truly up was the political equivalent of a 40 yard dash to grab as much soft-money as possible within the small time period allowed in 2000-2001. If the bill was in fact crippled by myriad loopholes, then we would not have seen this rush; rather, the staus quo would have ensued with a vengeance. Now, what's really going to change? This. From now on, contributors will have a cap placed on their donations (I believe it is something like a few thousand dollars), they will only be able to contribute to specific campaigns, and they must publish the specific details of what they donated. No more 5,000 dollar a plate dinners, no 50,000 dollar hunting trips, and, for all you Democrats out there, no more fundraisers at the Playboy Mansion (I think I speak for all of [heterosexual] mankind when I say 'NOOOOOOOOOO!!!' ). Keep in mind that this is extremely general; it would take far too long to get into the nuances of the bill. Suffice it to say it is complex lol.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you don't think Daddy's money and contacts had anything to do with it?

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the main reason was daddy's political guru, as it were. that would of course be Karl Rove. When they started the campagin, Rove gave Dubya a sheet of paper. "These are your key issues, George. Stick with these, and you'll win." And guess what? he did. Of course, being the president's son couldn't have hurt.

[Mister 5 0]

Sorry if this is considered spamming, but...

Wow, this is one of the better debates if ever seen in this forum. Good job Tex and Denoir, this is how a healthy debate should be conducted! No useless diatribe, long and intelligent posts, etc., keep up the good work! I'm actually enjoying reading the off topic forum now!

[red oct 2]

My home state seems to have a rather interesting news turning up since this war began.

'Candy Bomber' Wants to Fly Over Baghdad

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister 5 @ April 08 2003,03:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry if this is considered spamming, but...

Wow, this is one of the better debates if ever seen in this forum. Good job Tex and Denoir, this is how a healthy debate should be conducted! No useless diatribe, long and intelligent posts, etc., keep up the good work! I'm actually enjoying reading the off topic forum now!<span id='postcolor'>

Yea, its getting better than....100 pages ago

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ April 08 2003,04:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My home state seems to have a rather interesting news turning up since this war began.

'Candy Bomber' Wants to Fly Over Baghdad <span id='postcolor'>

Hey!

I met him once. Back in '86 or something I think. I was going to school at Rhein-Main Elem. School (as it was then called). Rhein-Main is where most of the Berlin Airlift planes took off from. My father (Deputy Base Commander) at the time brought him over for the unveiling of the Berlin Airlift Memorial, and our school was renamed Halvorsen Elem. School. Had a big ceremony and everything.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ April 07 2003,23:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister 5 @ April 08 2003,03:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry if this is considered spamming, but...

Wow, this is one of the better debates if ever seen in this forum. Good job Tex and Denoir, this is how a healthy debate should be conducted! No useless diatribe, long and intelligent posts, etc., keep up the good work! I'm actually enjoying reading the off topic forum now!<span id='postcolor'>

Yea, its getting better than....100 pages ago <span id='postcolor'>

I personally can't stand long winded posts. Thank you. I enjoy reading summaries of important points, otherwise it's all about the sugar coating and persuasive wording in the text that "wins" an argument. KISS

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is a distinct difference between playing God and following God's commands (real or imagined). I'll let you know when I find that difference<span id='postcolor'> Aha, right , the difference is God supposidly was immortal and had some amazing wisdom. So playing God (ESPECIALLY for Bush) is very dangerous. Depends on which level I think. Judging and rearranging nations is going much too far.

To possibly end this religious thing, something that seems proper: let God sort em out.

[Longinius 1]

There is one thing I don't understand, hopefully someone can explain it.

If the coalition went in on behalf of the Iraqi people, to liberate them from the oppressor and to make their lives better, why arent they upholding order in the "liberated" districts? I mean, there is open looting going in in Basra while coalition forces look on. They have liberated a people and now they just leave them to fend for themselves, without any government or appointed officials in charge. No police force, no security. Is that a good solution?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 08 2003,14:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the coalition went in on behalf of the Iraqi people, to liberate them from the oppressor and to make their lives better, why arent they upholding order in the "liberated" districts? I mean, there is open looting going in in Basra while coalition forces look on. They have liberated a people and now they just leave them to fend for themselves, without any government or appointed officials in charge. No police force, no security. Is that a good solution?<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe it takes more that 48 hours to put a country back together again?

Besides, they're starting to do just that.

"Rome wasn't built in a day."

[Longinius 1]

Of course it takes a while, but I dont understand why coalition troops dont atleast try to stop the looting.

[theavonlady 2]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 08 2003,156)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course it takes a while, but I dont understand why coalition troops dont atleast try to stop the looting.<span id='postcolor'>

My guess is they have to make a choice between not making waves at this juncture where they're getting a general popular response from the locals versus clamping down hard right now and risking their relations with the Iraqis and possibly the lives of both Iraqis and UK troops in an immediate enforcement campaign.

I sort of expect an "OK, the party's over" announcement from the Brits within the next few days.

edit: Considerring that Basra is a Shi'ite bastion that's been ruled with an Iron hand by Saddam's Baath Party for the last 12 years, I bet a lot of the plundering is from Baath owned businesses and their collaberators.

If there's any truth to that, I'd just like to ask if I can have a DVD player.

[PitViper 0]

What the hell? the last five pages aren't even on the subject of Iraq.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 07 2003,10:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"What do you base this assessment on? How were people "safe" under Taliban rule?"

The Taliban kept many of the warlords at bay. They upheld the law (granted, not law as we would see it but still a set of fixed rules which everyone knew about and could adhere(sp?) to). In general people living under the Taliban had little to fear as long as they didnt break the laws.<span id='postcolor'>

So you fully agree with sharia law as state law? theocracy?

beating women.. killing women for being alone... killing homosexuals... forcing women into burqas... banning music... banning literature...

?

[PitViper 0]

I still have yet to figure out how the inspectors would find WMD if Saddam simply placed them in private residences.  He IS a dictator so he could simply walk into someone's house, tell them he is placing his weapons in their guest room and that if they peep, he'll kill their whole family.

Did the inspectors check every house in Iraq? hah!

Some people are so enamored with the hope of the "process" that they can't see how simply it can't be circumvented.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 08 2003,16:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">forcing women into burqas<span id='postcolor'>

Don't tell me they had a one-size-fits-all policy?!

[WhoCares 0]

Who posted this picture, that proved, that coalition forces participate in the looting? You know, this picture of this US Army Captain with the french wine from 1983

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ April 08 2003,16:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who posted this picture, that proved, that coalition forces participate in the looting? You know, this picture of this US Army Captain with the french wine from 1983      <span id='postcolor'>

[Longinius 1]

"So you fully agree with sharia law as state law? theocracy?"

Where in any of my posts did I say I agree with Sharia law? I said a kind of law existed, a fixed set of rules people should follow. I never said I agreed with those rules. But its still better than total anarchy.

[Longinius 1]

"edit: Considerring that Basra is a Shi'ite bastion that's been ruled with an Iron hand by Saddam's Baath Party for the last 12 years, I bet a lot of the plundering is from Baath owned businesses and their collaberators."

They are basically looting anything and everything. Private homes, businesses, army barracks, the university...you name it, they are looting it. Except Saddams palace, which has been secured by british forces.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 08 2003,15:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I still have yet to figure out how the inspectors would find WMD if Saddam simply placed them in private residences.  He IS a dictator so he could simply walk into someone's house, tell them he is placing his weapons in their guest room and that if they peep, he'll kill their whole family.

Did the inspectors check every house in Iraq? hah!<span id='postcolor'>

You can't just put intermediate ballistic missiles in somebody's bathroom. They don't fit. These are not weapons that you keep in your fridge, they have to have the right infrastructure and logistics which private homes don't have.

That's however all irrelevant. The fact that Saddam hasn't used them renders the Bush regimes claim that Iraq was a "clear and present danger" useless. There was no danger from Saddam. If he didn't use them now when his regime is collapsing then he wouldn't have used them at all (if he now had them). So your choice remains between:

1) He didn't have them in the first place

2) He would not have used them anyway