Breaking news from the cesspool of Earth...

Dozens slain in Iraq

EDIT: First image unnecessary. - Rabban.

Last edited: Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 3:29:50 PM

Pai, with all due respect, I refuse to consider a country like Iraq as a 'cesspool'. This is actually a stunningly disrespectful image. As far as I know it is said the first large cities on this planet have risen in Mesopotamia. Iraq is also one of the richest land on Earth. There's so much more to this place then what corporate medias presents.

Arent corparate medias like the press? If so, then why would any1 think that they wouldnt just show the downside of events. They exploit every subject they can to make a profit if not just for their own gain.

@Hugo
Sorry for the bad choice of words. I meant to describe the entire region, the middle east, and all the "crap" going down.
Also, I am not saying we're not part of the problem either. Mankind has turned that whole place into the mess it is today.
Of course there are countless good, decent human beings in Iraq and elsewhere. I just can't believe just how many evil, misguided, murderous thugs there are in that area. Feeling justified or not, it is pure insanity what is going on over there....from all sides.

I'm not sure about what you're trying to infer here. Well, maybe I am, but I don't think they're connected. Does an American lead invasion of Iraq also make them responsible for a civil war that occurs in that country? I suppose if you can make the stretch, some will say "yes", but I think the situation is more like the Balkan situation. Tito held Yugoslavia together with an iron fist. When Tito was out, ethnic cleansing followed. With Saddam out, the same thing is happening, though on a slower time table since there wasn't a complete power vacuum as in the Balkans. I also think the insurgents are using this tactic since their previous attempts to attack and disperse the coalition forces isn't working out like they planned. I think their goal is to destabilize Iraq at any costs and if that means civil war and killing their own people, then they're going to do it. And if things do escalate, then I definitely think its time for us to get out of Iraq because it really will become a quagmire.

Last edited: Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 6:48:10 PM

Rabban's been taking smart pills. :)

Lol!

I'm sure you all remember my stance on the subject. The news today has been VERY depressing for me. I hope they are able to turn it around, but it always seems so much easier to incite anger than to defuse it. I hope hope HOPE this is just a temporary breakout, and that calmer heads will prevail.

I've always said that there has been a chance that civil war would break out even with our troops there providing as much stability as possible. Without us there, it would be civil war nearly immediately.

*dejected sigh*

Fighting for peace is like f**king for virginity. (excuse the language)
why is their a "war" on terror?

Yeah, I totally agree, we should stop the "liberating" and return all our murderous thugs back home, to america and the west!

In any case why are we "liberating"? Are we trying to overturn an oppressive regime who abuses human rights and denies citizens their rights as agreed through the geneva convention? Is it because we are "saving" them from a propaganda led world? Is it because we are trying to make sure all persons have the right to vote in a democratic state? Is it because we are stopping known terrorist-states from gaining nuclear weapons? Could it be because while on our high horses we have decided to banish fundamentalist religion?

In that case we should "liberate"america and britain, lets start bombing innocent civilians homes and destroying pharmaceutical plants which provide much of the drugs (meaning we are dependant on trade from the invading nations for drugs at much inflated prices)

Last edited: Friday, February 24, 2006 at 5:02:40 AM

To make it easy for those of you misinformed enough or victims to this "propaganda-led world"...

Abuses human rights: guantanamo bay. Torture without trial of people "deported" to axis of evil beforebeing returned after a confession for the cia. No "innocent until proven guilty" due to the "patriot act" and similar acts in effect in the uk.

Denies citizens their rights as agreed through the geneva convention: even those who have not been paying attention should know this one... 'patriot acts' stripping people of their rights to free speech and the ability to detain people for being "terrorists" without trial indefinately.

Propaganda led world: see above

Right to vote in a democratic state: the fact that the bush administration stopped many people (mainly black) from voting in the recent elections. The fact that trhe voting machines (the ones which skewwed the balance in the elections could not be tried or tested at all due to the fact that the insides of the boxes had been designated as "trade secrets" which means it unknown whether they were indeed recording votes or as many independent witnesses have reported, recording the exact opposite to what the states in question were predicted to vote from deed-polls.

Stopping known terrorist-states from gaining nuclear weapons: america HAS nuclear weapons, america has the MOST nuclear weapons in the world, it is a widely suppressed fact, that in the armies own definitions of "terrorism" it implicates the us as a terrorist state, america is THE ONLY state in the world to have been formally charged under international law as being a "terrorist state" and formally asked to desist and pay reparations. To the countries concerned (sudan, nicaragua, vietnam, cuba etc.) america responded to this formal charge with contempt.

Fundamentalism: america is one of the most religously fundamentalist countries in the world!

As one of my favourite lyrics goes (and a very apt one at that)...

Bloop (been reading lots of chomsky over the last few days)

Last edited: Friday, February 24, 2006 at 5:04:55 AM

Well said. I like your initial analogy. The claim that our troops are "providing stability" could come only from someone with a predisposition to confuse invaders with benefactors.

Last edited: Friday, February 24, 2006 at 5:08:44 AM

Alright. Last time I will explain this.

Civil War = Chaos
No Civil War = Less Chaos
Less Chaos = More Stability

I believe we should not have invaded, but since we did, we need to help fix what we broke. Just leaving and letting a civil war break out IS NOT HELPING FIX IT. All it is is abandoning those that need our help.

Granted, a civil war may still happen, even with foreign troops trying to provide stability (remember kids, less chaos equals more stability); but without the troops, it's almost guaranteed.

Again, I think it ironic that the "liberal left", the social softies who want to help everyone, are the ones who want to just abandon our responsibilities in the area. Sure, let them all kill each other! And then in 5 years or so, when you see an ad on TV asking you to adopt this cute little Iraqi girl and for just 50 cents a day you can feed her, you can donate your money and feel good about how you're 'helping those less fortunate'.

*sigh*

Not that the right is doing it for altruistic reasons, of course. They're doing it to prevent getting embarrassed again.

So, the question I want you to ask yourselves is: Are you willing to sacrifice thousands of lives to embarrass the right further in local politics?

"Again, I think it ironic that the "liberal left", the social softies who want to help everyone, are the ones who want to just abandon our responsibilities in the area"

Please don't forget that it was pretty much ONLY us "liberal lefties" that fought going to war in the first place. Also remember that we did not reward the man who got us into this illegal, immoral war/quagmire with another vote in 2004.

Lefties have been put in an unfortunate position by short-sighted war mongers and the unthinking classes. Now, some of us, and not just lefties, feel as though regardless of how long we stay, the outcome will inevitably be the same...more instability, more violence, not less. Certainly, that understanding is supported by analysis of current events. I agree that the "we" as in the US have a responsibility to fix what we helped break. Focusing the lens more closely at the "we", you will notice that the "we" who are lefties didn't make this damn mess, you guys did. Thanks fellas. "our responsibilities" didn't come from "our" actions. They were your actions. We knew better, and you helped marginalize us. Now we have to own up to our collective responsibilities...(perhaps not you...i can't remember if you supported this war or not...).now we are forced to choose the lesser of evils again. Leaving=irresponsible, and dangeours for future generations; staying=futile, expensive, deadly to our soldiers.

I don't see the irony. I see someone playing with their own notion of what it means to be a "liberal lefty." I find it more ironic that you would reward the man that commited this accident -- accident? No, outright crime -- with your vote in 2004 because he was forced to pursue a policy that entailed not abandoning iraq. Rewarding the perpetraitor -- how's that for irony?

I sigh a dejected sigh also. Because all this eats at my craw, but I have to agree with your conclusions...i tell you what: if we could just punish the jack-asses that lied and coerced us into this craven enterprise, I'd feel much happier living up to "our" responsibilities in iraq. Impeach the president/vice president, and stand by our responsiblities in iraq. Deal?

Last edited: Friday, February 24, 2006 at 8:08:47 PM

OK, this is very offensive.

So I'm a "murderous thug"? James Bomb, a murderous thug? Any other active duty, reserve, national guard member, or veteran is a "murderous thug"?

You know, I'm sure you were just trying to be clever, but think about what you say a little more before you type whatever comes to mind. Any American serviceperson is sacrificing a lot when it comes to serving their country, especially those deployed hot zones like Iraq. Honestly, right now, I wish I were stinkfingers because only then do I think I could write a fitting response to your comment.

However, these words are fitting.

Stinky.... Well written.

Rabby.. Perfect quote from "A few good men"

The troops are not the problem, they are just doing their job and they deserve to have their feet washed by every one of us who enjoy our freedom from their sacrifices.

The Bush administration should be blasted into oblivion. The history books are not going to be kind to this administration.... Bush is an idiot and he is succeeding in doing more damage to our country than the past 20 presidents combined. This administration is leaving a scar that our children and our grand children will be feeling.

Last edited: Friday, February 24, 2006 at 8:55:25 PM

"Honestly, right now, I wish I were stinkfingers"
lol!
you really have been taking smart pills!
anyway, I think that response works nicely.

Sorry rab, I take that back, didn't mean to be offensive. But im not naive enough to think that these things don't go on. Servicemen im sure signed up to 'fight the good fight' but the problem here is that this is NOT the good fight and in effect is turning into a u.s colony. If you want to provide stability in these areas you need to give the people their country back! Why sell off all the assets and business deals to u.s companies? It is IRAQI land, IRAQI infrastructure and in effect it NEEDS to be IRAQI business!

Yes we do have to "guard" ourselves. "guarding" however, is very different to invading.

Raping and pillaging, murdering, torturing.

Its no secret, these things happen in war, these things happen in all wars, you think the coalition forces are somehow an exception? Their may be many good men in iraq but they don't excuse the murdering swine, the murdering swine who speak for us and represent our interests in the eyes of the middle east.
...not in MY name!

Last edited: Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 4:27:13 AM

@stink - I wasn't for the war, but I was not vocally outspoken against it. I do reserve opinion on whether or not it was a crime; but I've got no objections to it going to court or tribunal.

And I've already explained (several times) my voting choice. If you really want me to do so again, it's quite easy: 4 more years of Bush for us was a lesser evil than civil war in Iraq. Especially given there's a term limit for Bush. Civil war has no term limits. If I could have believed the Democrats would let pass the chance to embarrass the GOP by leaving the troops there, I would have voted for them in 04.

And we can't do anything to change the past other than punish those responsible if necessary. What we can still change is the future. Or at least try to.

At any rate, enough of the soapbox. I'm not normally a soapbox kinda guy - it's antitheitical to just about my entire personality. So, do what you want, believe what you want, and don't let my opinions bother you unless what I've said happens to strike a chord. Either you agree, or you don't, and from some of the comments above, nothing I can say will change your mind short of brain-transplant surgery.

TMO out.

As to me, anyone killing someone else for whatever reason is a murderer, period. 'Thug' is just ornament. Weather you're guerilla or in uniform or drunk or drugged or on a crusade for democracy or to defend your religion: TO KILL A FELLOW HUMAN IS MURDER.
There's of course one exception: legitimate defense. Please note the 'legitimate' word..
From the dawn of time this is the only exception to 'thou shall not kill'.

"4 more years of Bush for us was a lesser evil than civil war in Iraq. "
but now we are looking at having both, are we not?

"And we can't do anything to change the past other than punish those responsible if necessary"
I believe it is necessary.

As I said above, I generally agree with your conclusions on iraq, but disagreed with your support for this administration. I do believe that nefarious means were used to promote this war, and that some sort of genuine investigation should be conducted. There has been an avalanche of information, much of it very solid which indicated that the iraqi enterprise was pursued for reasons other than those listed by the bush admin. Larry wilkerson, paul o'neil, richard clark spring to mind. The downing street memo springs to mind.

I don't suppose it would change your mind if it were demonstrated beyond a doubt that bush purposefully misled us into a war unjustifiably, with regard to what we do now. Nor should it. Its not like we say, since this was a bullshit war, we should leave it. Good luck iraqis. I also don't think that the democrats would have abandoned iraq to make a political point.

As you said, you've explained your rationale before. But I can't help to find it somewhat of an ironic rationale...therefore, when you discuss the irony in liberals abandoning people in need in iraq, the irony in your rationale stood out to me again.

As I said, I don't find the liberals who call for immediate withdrawal to be demonstrating an irony. Whether they support immediate withdrawal, or gradual, they are forced to support terrible realities which they had absolutely no hand in the making. The irony here is that they..."we" were right. And no one listened. We were marginalized by politicians from both parties, and by the corporate press. Yet we were right.

Pardon us if we are more than just a little bit angry about this whole thing. Pardon us if we have a hard time coming around to the pragmatic approach of dealing with the problem as it exists today, irrespective of its causes...

Which brings me around to this: this administration has done nothing but exclude any voice that doesn't match its preconceptions. It has never honored or considered dissenting opinions and it has excluded the minority, democratic party from all realms of the decision making process. The arrogance and self-righteousness of this crew make it a grave threat to the notion of democracy itself. Had it given at least cursory attention to contrary opinion, it may have been convinced to pursue other actions in iraq. But this was not the case. This administration deliberately ignored the intelligence that suggested there was no iraq/al qaeda link, and that which suggested there was not immediate threat from WMD, while it 'cherry picked' intelligence often from dubious sources which indicated these two threats existed.

The case against this administration has been building and building. It takes a strong will and or iron-clad ideology to overlook all this. Now for me, the sun doesn't rise and set on the issue of iraq. I've expressed to you before what I consider the fallacy of elevating a single position and subsuming all others. Democracy is bigger than any single issue. For me, the principles of democracy are far more important than any issue. In this particular situation, we have clear and mounting evidence that this administration has violated the principles of democracy willfully, and for its own purposes. I find that in and of itself 100 times more dangerous to american democracy than any action we might pursue in iraq. True, the iraqis didn't have this coming...but then again, we tried to tell you that.

Whatever outcome we choose, more blood will be spilled. Neither conservatives or liberals like our choices, I think it is fair to say. Leave with our lives, and live with the guilt? Or stay and bleed out young americans in the desert while the iraqis kill each other over religious interpretation?

Shitty choices...

And not liking either, I turn to chase my tail again. How did we get here in the first place? I say....

Last edited: Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 7:15:05 PM

Yah, we've been down this path before.

Doesnt george bush remind you of that child book nonkey named uh curious George lol