Falluja Iraq

[sahyo]

post ooped while editing some links which wouldn't link
....will repost :D

[sahyo]

reports from Falluja/h Iraq:


http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action...item&itemid=169 (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=169)

http://www.empirenotes.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3619661.stm

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C...6863A64A7E6.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79CAAE90-3E7F-4815-B47D-46863A64A7E6.htm)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D33...08BB9E53567.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D334DDD4-F26F-483F-9AE4-E08BB9E53567.htm)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0412-01.htm

[zygoat]

asheera,
"Obviously I pray every day there's less casualty. But I know what we're doing in Iraq is right," the president said, after spending Easter Day with troops in Texas. Tony Blair made a similar pledge of resolve yesterday.


i too pray for less casualty,it didn't have to be this way,(17 U.N. resolutions)the sad thing is that Saddam is still mistreating his people,he played a deadly hand and LOST!!! <_<

[sonrisa]

the real losers are anybody unfortunate enough to be in Iraq. Check out this factoid about Uranium Dust:
"When US Troopers or Iraqis breathe even a tiny amount (of UD) into their lungs, as little as One Gram, it is the same as getting an X-ray every hour for the rest of their shortened lives." Apparently, this is irreversible.

to read the whole article, click here (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm)

[sahyo]

sonrisa

the links weren't used to point "losers"
....bush stated isn't happening, fallujah, which happening

thanks posting link :thumbsup:

[sahyo]

:) zygoat

bush-saddam

[sahyo]

oh...perhaps "losers" was responsing "LOST!!!"

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by asheera@Apr 15 2004, 07:24 PM
sonrisa

the links weren't used to point "losers"
....bush stated isn't happening, fallujah, which happening

thanks posting link :thumbsup:

asheera, was responding to zygoat. Saddam ain't the loser, the folx living over there are

thanx for posting your linx, the mainstream media won't tell you this stuff

ps dubya lies

[zygoat]

asheera,
Bush=great president=free IRAQ=fightin the War on terror=one of the best economies in 40years=moral clarity=non-waivering=better teachers=better students

saddam=idi amin=joseph stalin=hitler=noriega=nero=ayatolloh khomeini=genghis khan=yasser arafat=terrorist bombings =rape rooms=corrupt food for oil programs=radical islam calling for infitadas and jihad against infidels=madrassas=strapping bombs on children=gassing your own people=93 world trade center bombing=embassy bombings=USS COLE=somalia=SEPT.11TH

Kerry=Kennedy(Ted,chappaquiddick)=Carter=FLIP-FLOP=higher taxes=hypocrisy=war criminal=anti American=cutting defense spending=cutting money for intelligience=BENEDICT ARNOLD=Heinz 57(the # of companies NOT in the US)=LOSER!!! :angry:

[sahyo]

zygoat :D

"moral clarity"?....
bush-saddam clarity when painingfear imagining
as though re-acting as though past?

"moral"?

[sahyo]

:D sonrisa...yp

[sonrisa]

asheera :D


click here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/041604E.shtml) for more Falluja stories


best economy in 40 years? :huh: on what planet?

[sonrisa]

this is a link to a House website re:Iraq (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/)

re:Falluja- found this in my hotmailbox the other day:

The following series of emails came to me from eyewitnesses to the civilian uprising against the occupation of Iraq. Paola Gaspiroli is an Italian woman from Occupation Watch and Bridges to Baghdad whom I met in Baghdad in January. She is devoted to humanitarian work and spreading the truth of her experiences in Iraq. I trust Paola's words as she writes:
>
> Dear All,
> I want to stay in Iraq but I believe its best to leave. It's getting really dangerous as Italians are being targeted. (Italy has a 2,500 plus force including Carabinieri occupying Nassiriyah. The town has been subject to a number of resistance attacks including a devastating attack on the police station: four soldiers, one civilian, one documentary film maker, twelve Carabinieri police and eight Iraqis were killed.)
> An 'elastic' sheikh ('elastic' because his interpretations of Islam and moral conduct is flexible) in Sadr City told me I should leave as even he can't control his people. He says foreigners are targeted and already six foreigners are hostage, four of whom are Italian security firm employees kidnapped from their car. Some Iraqis and NGO people are driving back and forth into Falluja to bring people out. We've not been able to help as the situation is getting much worse.

Below journalist Ewa Jasiewicz describes present events in Iraq where a great many innocent people are dying yet only a small part is reported in the media. Ewa worked with Voices in the Wilderness and Occupatio Watch in Iraq, lived in Basra and Baghdad for eight months as well as in Palestine's Jenin camp for six months. She speaks Arabic, got back from Iraq two months ago, and is in regular contact with friends in Basra and Baghdad. On Friday, April 10, she spoke to friends in Baghdad who have been ferrying the injured from Falluja to Baghdad for the past three days. They report ambulances have been barred from entry into the blood-drenched city.
> Please spread the information below as widely as possible, and act upon it.
>
> Iraq Solidarity Action - Resist the Massacre in Falluja
> Falluja is under siege. At least 470 people have been killed, and over 1,700 injured in the last few days. American military snipers are followin and discouraging ambulances by firing on them. There has been no ceasefire. Instead, American forces told people they have eight hours to leave. Many left but are now they're trapped and under attack in the desert. Iraqi people are trying to bring them supplies as well as support civilians in Falluja.
> Baghdad was quiet today except for Abu Ghraib in west Baghdad, where a vast prison is bursting at the seams with over 12,000 prisoners. An American convoy was attacked there and nine soldiers injured and 27 kidnapped. No newswires are reporting this incident. My team, Bridges to Baghdad is leaving. We have flights booked from Amma but, first, tomorrow a team will go to Sadr City -- fifty people have been killed there -- to deliver medicines. People were told to leave Falluja and now thousands are trapped in the Desert. There is a 13 km long convoy of people trying to reach Baghdad. The American military is dropping bombs -- everything, everything, they have -- on families, children, old men and women in the dessert. Even after agreeing there'd be a ceasefire I saw planes and helicopters fly over and drop cluster bombs and new mortars that jump three to four meters. People lie dead in the streets. Hospitals, too, are attacked.
> Fallujans are fighting back but we're expecting the main attack in 24-48 hours when the military takes the town street by street. Everyone here is going crazy. It's not safe for foreigners and a Sheikh from Falluja says he can't guarantee my safety and that it will get more crazy. I think foreigners will start getting killed soon as people get more desperate. As their families, houses, pets, everything is bombed they'll fight back ferociously.
> The American military says this operation will last only five days and that it's drawing to an end as they need troops on the fronts breaking out all over the country. But no one is safe. We'll probably be killed tomorrow.
>
> Falluja, a city with a population of 232,000), is now undergoing trauma similar to the massacre in Jenin but with a larger, more powerful, better armed military that is carpet bombing the town. We have to do what w can in solidarity with the dying, the bereaved, and those still struggling, defending, and fighting back. There is honor and dignity in resisting and the Iraqi intifada is raging. Iraq is on fire. We cannot be silent.
> Remember the massacre in Jenin. Never Again. Stop the massacre in Falluja. Please help, get people to protest, ask them to go to the Embassies, the the streets, to do something. This is a massacre. We need world attention on this. I have photos and film but I need to get it out of the country.
> Do everything you can. Meanwhile, we're going back. Here's what you can do:
> Demonstrate, organize, protest, occupy; block roads to catch people's attention; practice civil disobedience; stop working; prevent B52s from taking off at Fairford Military base.
> Resist! Take action in your neighborhoods; print leaflets; paint banners.
> Take to the streets. Even small groups can change this situation.
> Learn more:
> Find addresses of US Embassies in London, Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff and complain (seven hundred more British troops have been flown in to quell the uprising in the South.): http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ukaddres.html provides Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases:
> http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/caab / has a list of the locations of all the main US air bases used in the UK.
> Find a full list of arms companies, including BAE Systems, and Lockheed Martin, that have been principal supplies of weapons of mass destruction for the war on Iraq: http://www.caat.org.uk/links/companies.php
> For tips on confronting arms companies see Campaign Against the Arms Trade:
> http://www.caat.org.uk/support/confronting...g-companies.php (http://www.caat.org.uk/support/confronting-companies.php)
>
> Read Al Jazeera for breaking news in Iraq that mainstream media won't report: http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
>
> Create leaflets with the following text:
> A massacre is taking place in Falluja, a town currently resisting the occupation of Iraq and regularly pummeled by F16 fighter jets and Apache Helicopter gun ships. Well over 470 civilians have been killed this week, and over 1,700 injured. This toll will rise as the military cordon closes around the town. Eyewitnesses report that ambulances trying to enter the town are fired upon. Bodies lie dead in the streets. Hospitals are attacked and medical supplies and personnel are in short supply. People from all over the country are attempting to get into Falluja to evacuate the injured with private cars. People are donating food, medical supplies, and water to those fleeing.
>
> At this time (04/10/04) a 13km column of Falluja residents, fleeing their bomb-smashed town, is trapped in the desert and surrounded by US troops. Eyewitnesses report firing upon elderly men, women and children. US soldiers stationed near the town are in an impossible situation. Now that the brewing discontent, frustration, humiliation, and mounting rage against the occupation has exploded against the occupation, blood of American soldiers is being shed for the market-profit-chasing corporate interests of the US and UK governments. The climate in Iraq has moved on from protest to resistance, and now to insurgency. Demonstrations have been taking place every day all over the country since the occupation began, with protestors ranging from students to pensioners,unemployed, women, former soldiers and children.
> Here is a brief list of Iraqi grievances and objections to the occupation:
> * The Coalition Provisional Authority is re-writing Iraqi law. For example, Order 30, Salaries and Employment Conditions for Civil Service Employees, sets the minimum wage for Iraqi Public Sector workers at 69,000 ID ($40 per month - less than half the recommended wage of a sweatshop worker in a free trade zone neighboring Iran); Order 39, Foreign Investment, allows 100% foreign ownership - privatization - and slashes the highest income tax rate from 45% to 15%.
> * There is a recycling and re-empowering of a neo-Baathist ruling elite
> * There is a re-training and re-hiring of over 10,000 Baathist intelligence agents.
>
> Occupying forces label this revolt in support of the anti-occupation cleric Muqtada al Sadr but it is a more widespread,uncontrollable, inchoate, and varied than that. It is not just Islamic, not just nationalist, not just Baathist. Instead, it is a general struggle against the Occupation.
> Stand in solidarity with the people in Iraq. Join the protest against the bloody massacre in Falluja, which will spread if the occupation armies continue unchecked and without international challenge. Stop the ongoing war on Iraq. Get troops out of Iraq; Bring 'em home now!
>
> For views from the British military perspective see: "US tactics condemned by British officers: Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate. By Sean
> Rayment, Defense Correspondent (Filed: 04/11/2004)
>
>
>
> =====
> Mark Hull-Richter, U.S. Citizen & Patriot
> U.S.A. - From democracy to kakistocracy in one fell coup.
> http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-01.htm
> http://verifiedvoting.org http://blackboxvoting.org
>
> __________________________________



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sahyo]

:hug:

[sonrisa]

more on Falluja.....

We are passing this email along from Sheila Provencher, a member of Christian Peacemaker Teams.

("we" is my friend Kristen, from where I work- sonrisa)

4/14/2004

Dear friends,

I am writing from the Al-Monzer Hotel in Amman, Jordan.

Yesterday, we were trying to find a way to get to either Fallujah or Najaf. But Doctors Without Borders (with whom we hoped to work in Fallujah) did not want foreign volunteers. They were only accepting Iraqis because of the security situation. In addition, our contact in Najaf fell through, so we were not able to go there.

CPT's friends and colleagues in Baghdad were warning us of the increasing danger. They suggested that the current situation makes it almost impossible for us to engage in open engagements with Iraqis or fulfill our mandate to deter violence. They have also suggested that our presence as foreigners might actually endanger our local Iraqi partners in the emerging violent chaos. Last night when Stewart went to say good-bye to Siham, a CPT friend, she asked "Will they come after me, because so many foreigners come in and out of my house?"

Putting our friends at such risk was unacceptable. So . . . we planned to leave our neighborhood and move to a hotel, to lay low, keep trying to find a way to help out, and, if nothing changed, to take the emergency flight out next Monday, April 19. Well, it didn't work out that way! Instead, we got a call at 6:00pm last night (Tuesday) that the April 19th flight might not happen, and that an extra emergency flight was taking off on Wednesday (today), which very well could be our only chance to leave.

It was a terrible decision to have to make. And what a 24 hours it has been. Last night at 10:30pm our neighbor Sahab came to the door. He had arranged our transportation to the airport, just a few hours before. But now he said, "I have some very bad news. The other two drivers are frightened to take the road to the airport, and they are not coming." We had a hectic hour calling all of our friends trying to find another ride. Thankfully, Siham's husband Abbas and his brother came through, taking a great risk to drive us to the airport today. On the way, we passed two burnt-out oil tankers that had been bombed along the road a few days ago.

So . . . this is the story of the past day. I know that many of you have been praying for me and for CPT and for all of the people -- U.S. and Coalition soldiers as well as Iraqis -- who are suffering right now. Thank you. I may be here now in relative safety, but they are still living in fear, fighting, and dying.

I hope that we can go back soon. I hope that all of us -- all of us -- can find new ways to respond to this violence, instead of continuing in the same spiral.

Much peace be with you,

Sheila Provencher
Christian Peacemaker Teams


.
Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center
www.ijpc-cincinnati.org
kristen@ijpc-cincinnati.org
513-579-8547

If you were sent this email from a friend and would like to subscribe to this list go to www.ijpc-cincinnati.org

[sonrisa]

click here to read an excellent speech (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/050504A.shtml) :thumbsup:

[slayer]

Hey Zygoat,

I read your earlier post, the one Keon quotes above, and I agree with pretty much all of it.

If anyone were seriously interested in arguing any of these claims, and I have to say that you too gave no arguments, I think there are strong arguments for all your claims. But such an effort would generally be wasted on many of the regulars here, Keon being no exception.

It's laughable what he considers refutations, namely "True, False, False, etc." When did he acquire such clout? ! And then there's the all-compelling picture of Bush made to appear like Hitler. Oh, yes, I see the reasoning: I can cut and paste, therefore Bush is Hitler. Nice. Morons never cease to amaze me.

The war is just, the policy is sound, and Bush offers solutions to very real problems.

Then there is the UN, a corrupt, inept, and racist institution for all practical purposes. Check out The Wall Street Journal's or Commentary's article of the Food-for-Oil scam. This program was abused by Saddam to strengthen his grip on Iraq, fatten his coffers, and sidestep almost all the UN sanctions. Thus the UN contributed to Saddam's tyrranic rule, while accepting kickbacks from Saddam.

Everyone harps about the weapons of mass destruction. This is such a joke. They focus on the WMDs because it diverts attention from the following facts. Saddam flouted UN sanctions for ten years, the UN was so inept that it couldn't enforce their sanctions, the UN was a co-conspirator with Saddam in strengthening his grip on Iraq while becoming richer, Saddam ordered the death of all non-Muslims in Iraq, he had agreements with Al Queada to the effect that he helped train them in chemical weapons, Saddam butchered thousands of Kurds, Saddam tortured his own athletes, Saddam installed rape rooms to deal with dissidents, Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people, Saddam impoverished his country while building lavishly ornate mansions and castles, Saddam was building his military again beyond the restrictions of the UN, and Saddam was political instigator against America and Americans. There are more to list, but why continue. These are just reasons for invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. We have accomplished that task. Bush's plan is working. So, the war is just and the plan is sound.

And that's not even to consider what we've accomplished in Afghanistan and our effects on Al Queada thus far. Have you heard about any activity from them lately? No. The policy is to replace despots and countries that aid terrorists by implementing democracies.

All of you pseudo-intellectuals -- which is a euphemism in itself because you're not intellectuals by any stretch -- don't realize what our military personnel do, and that's that something had to be done. You can argue whether invading Iraq should have been done second, after invading Iran or Saudia Arabia, but not that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. If none of you noticed, there was this thing we all refer to as 9/11. Well, this changed our lives, because we were forced to defend against a completely new threat. Well, since terrorists need host nations to support their activities, then the plan is to punish those host nations and implement democracies. This is sound policy, because it cuts the head off the terrorist chicken. If terrorists had their one single country, then the problem wouldn't be a problem: simply go to war against the terrorist state. But, since you geniusses can't fathom the difficulties of fighting terrorism, you just sit and wail at the current policy, because you cannot understand it. The failing is yours, not Bush's.

four more years!

slayer

[Pamela Canaday]

Slayer,
Fancy seeing you in these parts again.

They focus on the WMDs because it diverts attention from the following facts...

Did you ever stop to think that people focus on WMD's because that was the primary reason that President Bush gave to justify the invasion? Are you saying that he shouldn't be taken at face value?
The Bush Administration clearly wanted to give the impression that a preemptive strike was justified because Saddam posed a "clear and present danger."

Nobody questioned Saddam's brutality.
What I heard the vast majority of people question was the relative lack of international support, the lack of planning, and the assumption that everything would be peaches and cream.

Whether or not the Iraqi war was really a success will probably not be knowable for another 10 years. It's had it's high points and low points. Do you see an end that the rest of us are overlooking?

Concerning Afghanistan and democracy in general...

Have you heard about any activity from them lately? No.

Just because Afghanistan no longer makes the front page news doesn't mean that it's peachy keen.

http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1...2138707,00.html (http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2138707,00.html)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2903375a12,00.html

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/...lls_us_soldier/ (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/05/09/afghan_attack_kills_us_soldier/)


The policy is to replace despots and countries that aid terrorists by implementing democracies.

Great idea in theory.

It took the United States almost 200 years to end up with a democracy where the biases and prejudices were no longer in the Constitution. What makes you think that we can implement a successful democracy in either Afghanistan or Iraq over a period of only a few years?

If we were truly concerned about promoting democracy then why not follow through with Afghanistan first?

[keon]

"The war is just, the policy is sound, and Bush offers solutions to very real problems."-slayer - oh,thats nice =)
the problem is: every has got at least one family member, who is still alive or they still remember
with the war scarring and smithereens in they bodies, while america 'd never had a single war on it's own body.
in generall
IRAQ
2003-PRESENT
PALESTINE
1948-PRESENT
IRAQ
1991-2003
AFGHANISTAN
2001-PRESENT
COLOMBIA
1960S-PRESENT
YUGOSLAVIA
1992-PRESENT - i won't forget and won't forgive that.for the friends were killed for the city i loved. every f_ng brick of every house were bombed was older all-American history. how did they dear . " Morons never cease to amaze me." - what do know , how can u judge
CONGO/ZAIRE
1961-PRESENT
CUBA
1959-PRESENT
GUATEMALA
1953-PRESENT
EL SALVADOR
1980-PRESENT
EAST TIMOR
1975-1999
HAITI
1987-1994
SOMALIA
1993
AFGHANISTAN
1979-1992
NICARAGUA
1981-1990
PANAMA
1989
LIBYA
1981-1989
IRAN
1988
GRENADA
1979-1984
GREECE
1964-1974
CHILE
1964-1973
COSTA RICA
MID-1950S, 1970-71
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1963-1966
VIETNAM
1945-1974
CAMBODIA
1955-1973
LAOS
1957-1973
THAILAND
1965-1973
ITALY
1947-1970S
INDONESIA
1965
BRAZIL
1961-1964
BRITISH GUIANA/GUYANA
1953-1964
IRAQ
1963
SOVIET UNION
1940S-1960S
WESTERN EUROPE
1950S-1960S
HAITI
1959
INDONESIA
1957-1958
MIDDLE EAST
1956-1958
IRAN
1953
GERMANY, ITALY, EUROPE
1950S
EASTERN EUROPE
1948-1956
ALBANIA
1949-1953
KOREA
1945-1953
PHILIPPINES
1945-1953
GREECE
1947-1949
MARSHALL ISLANDS
1946-1958
ITALY
1947-1948
FRANCE
1947
CHINA
1945-1951
HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI
AUGUST 1945
DRESDEN, GERMANY
FEBRUARY 1945
JAPAN, GERMANY, FRANCE
1942-1945
AROUND THE WORLD
1800S-1930S
PHILIPPINES
1899-1902
AFRICA
1607-1890


just an example of 10 thousand sites in particular (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html)

[sonrisa]

about that foto....

this link is an interesting read (http://www.romm.org/prescott.html)


this one too (http://www.rense.com/general26/dutch.htm)

also this one (http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm)

these 2 are both long, but are full of details & background info if anybody has time to read them...

click here (http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm)

and here (http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5a.htm)

[zygoat]

Pamela,
Did you ever stop to think that people focus on WMD's because that was the primary reason that President Bush gave to justify the invasion? Are you saying that he shouldn't be taken at face value?
The Bush Administration clearly wanted to give the impression that a preemptive strike was justified because Saddam posed a "clear and present danger."
Bush only went that route because Colin Powell,screwed up,but I bet you don't remember that,those 16 words that Bush used were plagiarized from Clinton speech from 1998,but I'll bet you don't remember that either.

Nobody questioned Saddam's brutality.
What I heard the vast majority of people question was the relative lack of international support, the lack of planning, and the assumption that everything would be peaches and cream.
if it were up to the liberals he would still be murdering raping,torturing his own people,and the reason for the lack of support is beacause the french,germans and the russians were all involved in the food for oil scam!!bet you weren't aware of that either!! :blink: :duh: :blink: :think: <_<

[Pamela Canaday]

Bush only went that route because Colin Powell,screwed up,but I bet you don't remember that,those 16 words that Bush used were plagiarized from Clinton speech from 1998,but I'll bet you don't remember that either.

It appears to me that you have two, possibly three different thoughts here.
Care to sort them out?

Where did Powell screw up? And what route did that force Bush to take?

Are you talking about Bush's nomination acceptance speech or did he plagarize something else from Clinton too?
If so, please present a quote.

As far as what I remember goes...
Do you remember the Reagan ketchup scandal? ;)

if it were up to the liberals he would still be murdering raping,torturing his own people,and the reason for the lack of support is beacause the french,germans and the russians were all involved in the food for oil scam!!bet you weren't aware of that either!!

:rolleyes: I bet you have no idea what I'm aware of and that you do not have anything of substance to add to this discussion.

I'll be you assume I'm a democrat/liberal.

[a random hack]

Morons never cease to amaze me.


why doesn't that surprise me? :lol:

[slayer]

Pamela,

Here is the much-awaited response. Yeah, much-awaited.

[Pamela...] Did you ever stop to think that people focus on WMD's because that was the primary reason that President Bush gave to justify the invasion? Are you saying that he shouldn't be taken at face value?
The Bush Administration clearly wanted to give the impression that a preemptive strike was justified because Saddam posed a "clear and present danger."

You're conflating two things: one, the reasons that make a war just; and, two, the reasons Bush gave in order to get approval for the war. I've been talking about the former, while you keep countering my claims with talk of the latter.

[Pam...] Whether or not the Iraqi war was really a success will probably not be knowable for another 10 years. It's had it's high points and low points. Do you see an end that the rest of us are overlooking?

I agree with the first part of what you say here. It's not that I see an end that the rest are overlooking, it's that my estimation of how things are going right now is different than yours. I think the war is going as generally expected. I think that when people see aspects of the war as completely unexpected that they then surmize that things aren't going well, because they think we don't have contingency plans for the current developments. I can understand the mentality, but I don't agreee with their assessment of things, is all. So our disagreement lies with how we are assessing the current situation and how well we think the Bush policy can handle them and any new developments (new to us, though maybe not 'new' to Bush).

[Pam...] Just because Afghanistan no longer makes the front page news doesn't mean that it's peachy keen.

I agree, but unless you have news to the contrary, then the non-news should be reason to think things are for the better there. Now, I didn't intend to imply that we've installed a democracy in Afghanistan, but only that we ended the corrupt reign of the Taliban. We think Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in Afghanistan, which explains our, even if limited, military presence there. Our work in Afghanistan is far from over, and it might prove more difficult to help set up a democracy there than in Iraq, but that's another topic.

You say that our policy is a great idea in theory, but that it probably isn't going to work. Now, I truly appreciate you saying even this much, and I want to explain the reasoning behind such a policy. If you can come up with a better one, then I think the Bush Administration should rightly be faulted for not having come up with it first. But, if we judge the policy a sound one for addressing the threats that now face us, then perhaps we can understand why this is the policy we're following.

Here is my take on the reasoning. 9/11 made us come to terms with the fact that we are no longer safe in our haven that we call North America. Now, it had long been known that we were susceptible to terrorist attacks, the problem was how to stop such attacks and how to get public support to stop such attacks. I'll admit, prior to 9/11 I myself probably wouldn't have supported some of the legislation that has been a direct result of 9/11. The Patriot Act does infringe on some of our rights, but I think we should concede some in the face of this new threat. I say 'new threat' only because 9/11 made the problem palpable -- it made it no longer a possibility, but a reality. Americans thus want something to be done to prevent such future attacks, and something to be done to those who committed these crimes. Well, the problem is that some terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda have no homeland, they aren't foreign nations attacking us. If it were that simple, then we'd respond and it would all soon be over. No nation in the world can stand up militarily to the United States. This is great when you're dealing with a foreign nation, but what good are our defenses when we don't know where to direct them? It's not like these groups have permanent positions or camps that once eradicated would eradicate the organization. So what to do!? Well, these organizations nevertheless need host countries to harbor them and sometimes to support them financially. Our plan then is to go after those countries that host or support them. We are attempting to pull the rug from underneath these organizations first, to cripple them slightly, and then to hunt the members down, a process that looks difficult and long. I think in the face of such circumstances that this is a sound policy. I'm not saying it's the only alternative, but it does seem the best one I've heard of so far.

If you disagree and have a different approach, I'd truly be glad to hear it. If it makes more sense than the Bush policy, then I'd press for the Bush Administration to adopt it. But if you only have objections, then that's not going to help us with the problem we have. I cannot stand and do nothing, unless standing and doing nothing (which too will be a policy) is shown to be better than doing what we're doing.

sincerely,

slayer

[a random hack]

this one is quite easy to read, tho graphic (http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/)

also (http://www.irregulartimes.com/dead.html)

would show you pictures of dead americans, but it seems their government doesn't want you to see them :(

[sahyo]

also (http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm)

[Pamela Canaday]

Pamela,

Here is the much-awaited response. Yeah, much-awaited.

And an answer without name-calling from you!
It is also a pleasure.

[Pamela...] Did you ever stop to think that people focus on WMD's because that was the primary reason that President Bush gave to justify the invasion? Are you saying that he shouldn't be taken at face value?
The Bush Administration clearly wanted to give the impression that a preemptive strike was justified because Saddam posed a "clear and present danger."

You're conflating two things: one, the reasons that make a war just; and, two, the reasons Bush gave in order to get approval for the war. I've been talking about the former, while you keep countering my claims with talk of the latter.

I'm not conflating anything. Take my response literally. I'll elaborate on what you're talking about later in this post.

I agree with the first part of what you say here. It's not that I see an end that the rest are overlooking, it's that my estimation of how things are going right now is different than yours. I think the war is going as generally expected.
It's about what I expected too. However, the general public was unprepared for it. I blame this on the administration. I think they painted a prettier picture then was reasonable. Sure, they needed public support. But public support for a war needs to run deep. Temporary support until things look uglier then they expected isn't very helpful.

I think that when people see aspects of the war as completely unexpected that they then surmize that things aren't going well, because they think we don't have contingency plans for the current developments. I can understand the mentality, but I don't agreee with their assessment of things, is all. So our disagreement lies with how we are assessing the current situation and how well we think the Bush policy can handle them and any new developments (new to us, though maybe not 'new' to Bush).

You think they have a contingency plan for this? Do you have any idea what it might be or are you just assuming that they do?

And, for the sake of clarity, are you referring to Bush only or to the entire administration (Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz...etc). When I say "Bush" I am generally referring to the administration. I don't think he acts alone. (There's no judgement on that. I think it's a good thing that a world leader has advisors and such.)



[Pam...] Just because Afghanistan no longer makes the front page news doesn't mean that it's peachy keen.

I agree, but unless you have news to the contrary, then the non-news should be reason to think things are for the better there.

There's one place we differ. I don't have that much faith in the press.
Also, when compared with Iraq, things went much better with Afghanistan. But, if it wasn't for Iraq, then the things happening in Afghanistan would be worthy of the front page.


Now, I didn't intend to imply that we've installed a democracy in Afghanistan, but only that we ended the corrupt reign of the Taliban. We think Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in Afghanistan, which explains our, even if limited, military presence there. Our work in Afghanistan is far from over, and it might prove more difficult to help set up a democracy there than in Iraq, but that's another topic.
Yeah. In a way it is another topic. But if this is all connected with terrorism then Iraq and Afghanistan are not two different topics.
Also, I was under the impression that we thought Osama is in Pakistan. Have I missed a new development?

You say that our policy is a great idea in theory, but that it probably isn't going to work. Now, I truly appreciate you saying even this much, and I want to explain the reasoning behind such a policy. If you can come up with a better one, then I think the Bush Administration should rightly be faulted for not having come up with it first. But, if we judge the policy a sound one for addressing the threats that now face us, then perhaps we can understand why this is the policy we're following.

Maybe I should have said "goals" instead of "policy."
I think it's great to want to promote the ideals of equality. I just don't think that, historically speaking, there has been overwhelming success from the use of military force. Not at this stage of the game at least.
I don't think the policy of preemptive strike based on shaky ground is a good one.
Here's where we get into reasons vs. excuses.
The war in Iraq happened very quickly. It only took a few months between the UN meetings and our first strikes. Everybody saw it coming but it came fast and most people didn't know what to expect. Or, they expected something, and now they're faced with something different. Now, every day, people are confronted with images of the war.

They are seeing that the reasons the war was (supposedly) legally justified are wrong and they are seeing that the honeymoon is over. "Oh shit. Maybe this isn't going to work afterall."

It's a grand goal to want to introduce democracy anywhere. We had the opportunity to do something grand if Afghanistan. There didn't even have to be any ulterior motives for that invasion. The lack of follow-through there makes me question the sincerity of the Bush administration's claims.

There has been mention that a free Iraq would be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. I'm still not sure why a free and democratic Afghanistan wouldn't serve the same purpose. If you can explain this to me then that might change my mind about at least some aspects of this war.

In the wake of 9-11 the threat of terrorists was very real to the American people. The Bush administration played on the fear of the people of the United States to get public support for the war in Iraq. It doesn't even matter what they're real reasons were. What matters is what people thought. If the Bush administration wants credibility anywhere then it needs to stop being so elusive and secretive.

Here is my take on the reasoning. 9/11 made us come to terms with the fact that we are no longer safe in our haven that we call North America.

I agree. It changed the paradigm.

Now, it had long been known that we were susceptible to terrorist attacks, the problem was how to stop such attacks and how to get public support to stop such attacks. I'll admit, prior to 9/11 I myself probably wouldn't have supported some of the legislation that has been a direct result of 9/11. The Patriot Act does infringe on some of our rights, but I think we should concede some in the face of this new threat. I say 'new threat' only because 9/11 made the problem palpable -- it made it no longer a possibility, but a reality. Americans thus want something to be done to prevent such future attacks, and something to be done to those who committed these crimes. Well, the problem is that some terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda have no homeland, they aren't foreign nations attacking us. If it were that simple, then we'd respond and it would all soon be over. No nation in the world can stand up militarily to the United States. This is great when you're dealing with a foreign nation, but what good are our defenses when we don't know where to direct them? It's not like these groups have permanent positions or camps that once eradicated would eradicate the organization. So what to do!? Well, these organizations nevertheless need host countries to harbor them and sometimes to support them financially. Our plan then is to go after those countries that host or support them. We are attempting to pull the rug from underneath these organizations first, to cripple them slightly, and then to hunt the members down, a process that looks difficult and long. I think in the face of such circumstances that this is a sound policy. I'm not saying it's the only alternative, but it does seem the best one I've heard of so far.
Are you talking about Afghanistan or Iraq? Even Cheney admitted that they couldn't make a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

If you disagree and have a different approach, I'd truly be glad to hear it. If it makes more sense than the Bush policy, then I'd press for the Bush Administration to adopt it. But if you only have objections, then that's not going to help us with the problem we have. I cannot stand and do nothing, unless standing and doing nothing (which too will be a policy) is shown to be better than doing what we're doing.
I realize this request is largely rhetorical. (I'd like to see you do better sort of thing.)
The thing is, I don't think it's wrong to criticize a government simply because I might not be able to do better.
If a doctor botched a surgery because he was drinking then he might say, "I'd like to see you do better." And I wouldn't be able to but I could easily see that if he wasn't drunk at the table then he might have done better.
So, while I admit that I am not technically qualified to make reccomendations, I propose that you are not qualified to judge the current approach as the best one either.
Neither of us have access to the inner-workings of the White House. All we can judge things on is what we see.
That said...

I would have cleaned up the mess in Afghanistan first. A working democracy in Afghanistan would have done wonders for faith in the US. It would have increased overall public support. Maybe it will happen, as with Iraq, only time will tell. But things aren't over there yet.

If the Bush administration was less secretive then I might feel better about them. If I didn't get the impression that they are repeatedly hiding something, or telling half-truths, then I might be less skeptical.

But I do get that impression. From Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings to Abu Ghraib... I don't like what I'm seeing.

Part of what makes a democracy work well is people's access to information and faith in their government. If Bush can't set a good example with that then they loose credibility both domestically and abroad. Public opinion matters when you're fighting a war for and against ideals. If a nation cannot be an outstanding example of the ideals it claims to be spreading then it will not be able to spread those ideals. Suspicion breads fear. It does not make a good foundation for democracy.

[slayer]

Pamela,

I got lost on what response I was supposed to take literally. There are two distinct questions I've been considering. 1) Did Bush lie to the American people about the reasons for going to war? 2) Is the war in Iraq a just war?

I continue to say that the answer to 2 is yes, and it's yes irrespective of whether or not there ever were WMDs and a link to Al Qaeda. I also do not concede the answer to 1 is yes, because the jury is out on that one, and I happen to grant Bush the benefit of the doubt.

That said, I too think these decisions are a collective thing, which is good, so by Bush let's say we're referring to the Bush Administration.

I think IF the Bush Admininstration had painted a prettier picture, then there would be cause to criticize them, because this would open the door for public disapproval when things got less rosy. I though don't think that Bush painted a rosy picture. I thought he painted a sober picture.

That said, I think this sober picture leaned on the more optimistic side rather on the pessimistic side. But I hardly think any Administration, especially these days, should be faulted for opting for the more optimistic picture, and that's because today's squeamish Americans can't stomach death. If this war had happened 100 years ago, public disapproval would not be what it is today. I think we've gone past the point of prudence, and we're now at the point where the public is something a good Administration must overcome. This squeaming and stupid public is partly the reason why Clinton chose not to invade Iraq the first time, and instead spent billions on air strikes, leaving the job undone.

I think that since Vietnam there have been good reasons to go to war, not just with Iraq, but those reasons weren't good enough for today's American public. The problem is the American public's, and derivatively the American public's problem becomes a good Administration's problem.

No, I am not aware of any specific contingency plans. My point was that our government has the kind of people that can anticipate many of the developments that have occurred in Iraq and many that might still occur, so it makes sense to think that they've come up with contingency plans. I have nine years of military experience, and I have so far been pretty accurate as to what would unfold in Iraq. I'm pretty damn sure that our government has far smarter and more able people than I planning our policy in Iraq. So I have to believe that they've seen the developments I had anticipated and others which I haven't. So while the American public might find all of these things so surprising and unpredictable, anyone with the remotest experience in the military, foreign affairs, or both, would not be so surprised, and would adopt the attitude that our government is well prepared for what's happening and going to happen in Iraq.

I'm with you, I don't have much faith in the press either. But when you consider that the majority of papers are liberal rags, then you should think that maybe things are going well in Afghanistan, otherwise the press would be all over it. Of course they're silent about Afghanistan, which is now a second reason to think that things are going well.

We started our search for Bin Laden in Afhganistan, and in the process of rooting him out we took care of the Taliban. I think you're right, that we now think Bin Laden is in Pakistan, but we know that many Al Qaeda members are still in Afghanistan. This, among other things, explains why we're still there.

A democratic Iraq would be a bigger beacon because of its historical role in the Middle East and because Saddam's regime is more notorious than any other. Iraq is simply the bigger fish in that sea, so it makes sense to think that if Iraq were a democracy, with its recent history of brutality and tyrrany, that citizens of other countries would think democracy would be possible in their country, thereby, hopefully, pushing for it.

[Pamela...] The thing is, I don't think it's wrong to criticize a government simply because I might not be able to do better.

I have never claimed it is wrong. I have claimed that you should criticize a government when you think they're doing things the wrong way, which is why you'd criticize them. If you didn't think they were doing it wrong, then why would we criticize in the first place, right? Anyway, I'm not saying you have to have your own distinct plan to criticize, I'm saying that if you're going to say that we shouldn't be doing it the government's way, then what way do you propose? And notice that you should have a different way if your criticism is that the government's way isn't the right way. But if you're going to criticize certain details of a plan you generally agree with, then you're not saying we should change plans, but simply fix the current plan. This is a huge distinction. And what people do, especially liberals, is that they find fault with some part of the plan and then conclude that we shouldn't be following that plan. Well, why not? Why is doing nothing a better plan? And in light of no new plan proferred, then that's the liberal plan -- do nothing. Of course 'do nothing' is then a new plan/policy, one which has many more faults than the one we're undertaking.

So, criticize the Bush policy all you want. I welcome all such criticisms, but don't conclude from it that we should change the plan, unless you're presenting another plan. If you're only criticizing how it should be implemented, then you're not suggesting that the plan is no good, it just needs some work.

Now, you have actually given a different plan, which is truly rare, so let me thank you. I want to give reasons for why it's not better than the current plan. I think Bush would give similar reasons.

[Pamela...] I would have cleaned up the mess in Afghanistan first. A working democracy in Afghanistan would have done wonders for faith in the US. It would have increased overall public support.

Afghanistan, I think, is going to be more problematic with regards to setting up a democracy there. It's also a more formidable terrain, which is why the Russians got their asses kicked there and why Al Qaeda is still holed up there, so a military take over would be more difficult there. This means that setting up a democratic Afghanistan would theoretically take longer than setting up a deomcratic Iraq. And, as I mentioned earlier, a democratic Iraq will be a bigger beacon than a democratic Afghanistan. Furthermore, Afghanistan doesn't have a single figure as Saddam which lends himself to just ousting (to phrase things poorly). So, democratizing Iraq makes more sense to me.

I realize that I didn't address all of your remarks, especially about the Bush Administration, but I have tried to address the more pertinent ones. If you ask any questions again which you think I should have answered, then I will the next time.

sincerely,

slayer

[sahyo]

If this war had happened 100 years ago, public disapproval would not be what it is today.

not all people believe which politicians would like them to

[slayer]

[Asheera....] not all people believe which politicians would like them to

Why would anyone think it was important that this triviality be expressed? How does expressing it add to the discussion?

yawning,

slayer

[sahyo]

Why would anyone think it was important that this triviality be expressed? How does expressing it add to the discussion?

maybe slayer confused?

[slayer]

Asheera,

Let's just say that I am confused. Now do me the favor of explaing the need for your triviality. This is where you'll have to actually explain the reasons for posting what you posted.

Another "slayer confused?" won't suffice, because though you're fond of that response, it doesn't explain anything.

waiting for the attempted "explanation",

slayer

[sahyo]

do me the favor of explaing the need for your triviality. This is where you'll have to actually explain the reasons for posting what you posted.

wasn't reasons for the posting, slayer...just responded:
that's because today's squeamish Americans can't stomach death. If this war had happened 100 years ago, public disapproval would not be what it is today.

Another "slayer confused?" won't suffice, because though you're fond of that response, it doesn't explain anything.

"slayer confused?" wasn't an attempt to explain

waiting for the attempted "explanation"

:dance:

:dancing:

[sahyo]

slayer

searching for the name a man, for reading,
which used logic for ceasing imagining
...don't remember the name exactly...maybe will interest you
if happens finding

:)

[sahyo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...1221658,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html)

[sonrisa]

some linx:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110804V.shtml


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904Y.shtml

[sonrisa]

another link (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111204X.shtml)

[sonrisa]

here's another link (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111704Y.shtml)

[sahyo]

:) ta

[sonrisa]

link to more articles (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111804Z.shtml)

[sahyo]

:)

[venom mama]

i watched all the beheadings on the internet. it was so awful. they use little knives and saw the heads off. its not quick and they scream. oh how they scream. when the head is off the terrorists hold it up for the camera. the eyes are still looking around and the mouth is still moving, gasping maybe? in one as soon as the head was off they held it down to look at it's body. in another they are cutting the mans head off with a knife no bigger than a steak knife. when they cut through the windpipe you can hear it, sounds like the squealing of a stuck pig. there is nothing trivial about that. the terrorists chant and cheer. **** those bastards.

[sahyo]

some people usa act as though silly too

[sonrisa]

click here to read a comparison (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122404I.shtml)

[sonrisa]

link to 3 articles (http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011205A.shtml)

[sahyo]

thanking sweeting

[sonrisa]

more articles (http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011505F.shtml)

[sahyo]

moved it

[sonrisa]

to where?

[sahyo]

used it for "The Tsunami Of Iraq" thread :)

[sonrisa]

but your link goes to a different article. Which is fine. That dude's site is really good :)

[sahyo]

thanking telling
so could post a link directly to it
since was nolonger the feature

That dude's site is really good :)

yes :)

[sonrisa]

click here to read the latest (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031405K.shtml)



Extreme Cinema Verite
By Louise Roug
The Los Angeles Times

Monday 14 March 2005

GIs shoot Iraq battle footage and edit it into music videos filled with death and destruction. And they display their work as entertainment.
BAQUBAH, Iraq - When Pfc. Chase McCollough went home on leave in November, he brought a movie made by fellow soldiers in Iraq. On his first night back at his parents' house in Texas, he showed the video to his fiancee, family and friends.

This is what they saw: a handful of American soldiers filmed through the green haze of night-vision goggles. Radio communication between two soldiers crackles in the background before it's drowned out by a heavy-metal soundtrack.

"Don't need your forgiveness," the song by the band Dope begins as images unfurl: armed soldiers posing in front of Bradley fighting vehicles, two women covered in black abayas walking along a dusty road, a blue-domed mosque, a poster of radical cleric Muqtada Sadr. Then, to the fast, hard beat of the music ' "Die, don't need your resistance. Die, don't need your prayers" ' charred, decapitated and bloody corpses fill the screen.

"It's like a trophy, something to keep," McCullough, 20, said back at his cramped living quarters at Camp Warhorse near Baqubah. "I was there. I did this."


that's something to be proud of? :shakehead:

[jesupocaplypse]

When your in that situation. When you know that those people want to kill me and that you have no real choice but to either kill or be killed. Quite often, the only way the mind can survive, intact, is to form mental defenses. Not to think of them as people, fellow human beings, but purely as the enemy an opponent to overcome and defeat. I don't feel proud of my experiences, overcoming my enemies, but i can Understand where their coming from. I've done things that movies and videogames would glorify as heroic and valorous, but I don't feel that way at all. Often I wish i could, because then i might have less sleepless tearfilled nights, but i can't.

Those guys convinced themselves to feel pride for what they've done, instead of feeling remorse and guilt, because it's easier to deal with, and move on from. I sympathize for them, because inside they are likely still hurting, and always will.

[sahyo]

I've done things that movies and videogames would glorify as heroic and valorous, but I don't feel that way at all. Often I wish i could, because then i might have less sleepless tearfilled nights, but i can't.



is gone sweeting

[sahyo]

I've done things



believe that?

[jesupocaplypse]

Umm... Yes? ... things, or more specifically; actions. deeds, events...

Help me here, I'm not quite following you....

Believe that I have done things? Yes. memory.


But no; "I've done things" is extremely over simplifying and unspecifying... much like saying, the universe is filled with stuff.

[sahyo]

Believe that I have done things? Yes. memory.



was there 'a you' which did?....can memory 'a you'?


But no; "I've done things" is extremely over simplifying and unspecifying



that is simplifying and unspecifying?

[sahyo]

Believe that I have done things? Yes. memory.



is believer which can believe?

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by jesupocaplypse@Mar 17 2005, 02:00 AM
much like saying, the universe is filled with stuff.

but the universe is filled with stuff

[Thomas Knierim]

sonrisa: "It's like a trophy, something to keep," McCullough, 20, said back at his cramped living quarters at Camp Warhorse near Baqubah. "I was there. I did this."

that's something to be proud of?

No, it's not.

It is the manifestation of an unfeeling and hateful mind, which is an aberration rather than an achievement. It may also be a rationalization/denial behavior, a result of being submitted to a traumatic experience, which is not unusual in a war. Somehow, the soldier may be seeking a justification for being involved in the horrors of the Iraq war. At any rate it is pathological.

Unfortunately, organizations like the military are prone to this sort of thing. Callousness makes being a soldier a lot easier, and military training tends to instill callousness in recruits. This doesn't mean that all soldiers are callous psychopaths, but it means that the business of killing people is not only dangerous to the body, but also to the mind. It should be avoided at all costs.

Thomas

[jesupocaplypse]

:blink:

umm...

yes

yes

yes?

yes it is. I wasn't saying it isn't. maybe you missed my point. maybe i missed my point. i dunno.
Thomas summed it up quite well. He's got a much better way with words than I..

[sahyo]

He's got a much better way with words than I

'haps don't compare? ;)

[sonrisa]

actually my question was rhetorical.

but thanx for your repsective answers to it, just the same. Thomas your observatiuon that those soldiers are pathological is something I never considered. At the very least I figured they were losers who had nothing to be proud of, really. At the worst, I figured they were brainwashed by the military into thinking they had done some wonderful glorious deed. I'm sick of how war is glorified in this country into some grandiose, wonderful adventure, when it's really something horrific that should be avoided. There are truth in advertizing laws in this country, but the military seems to be exempt from them. Their recruiting ads never seem to show the horrors that their potential recruits will be exposed/subjected to. Only stuff like "get an education", "learn leadership skills", etc... which may contain a grain of truth, but is essentially misleading. Their latest ad is some pablum about a girl who finally decides what she wants to do with her life- help alot of people be successful, so she in turn will be successful. I'm sure any number of Iraqis will attest to how helped & successful they're feeling right now. Fortunately, the kidz ain't stupid- recruiting is waaaaay down, despite these sappy misleading ads .

But enough of my soap box rant. I'm thinking your observation makes sense. The military is a good haven for those kinds of people. They can act on their violent, hateful tendencies, pretty much with impunity. Look at the torturers at Abu Gharib- all they got was a slap on their wrists for the all the awful things they did.

[sonrisa]

click here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042705C.shtml)
maybe somebody should do a painting

[sahyo]

.....................http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/fashah.jpg

[bito]

paintingcrackingfeelingnocrackingbeing

:loveyou:

[bito]

In a January CNN/USA Today/Gallop poll, in answer to the question whether President Bush is a "uniter" or a "divider", exactly 49% of Americans said he was a uniter, and exactly 49 percent said he was a divider.

:rofl:

[CSwriter1]

A really off the wall question- as opinions of the activity in Iraq are expressed, are people aware of the Baghdad Railroad and historical efforts to get control of Baghdad, along with the historical resistance of Iraqis? I am concerned that the point of view is too restricted to here and now, and therefore, ineffective.

War is insanity and to stop it requires sanity or the total exhaustion of warring parties. Remembering a concerned public ended the war in Vietnam, and remembering the blood shed at the end. I believe we can influence the present situation, but I do not know the best way to do so.
For sure, I think Bush made a terrible error, and I think those who voted him into power, made a terrible error. I wish everyone were more aware of why are more involved with mid east countries than Africa or South America or Canada. Why is our attention drawn to war not building friendships? Is this wise leadership?

[jesupocaplypse]

I liken canada and america to two friends walking down the street, but America, keeps interupting the conversation they were having, to dash across the street and start beating up a stranger, take the things he has while telling him that it's for his own good; Canada meanwhile, tries to stop and arbitrate the situation, but cannot do much, because he's afraid of provoking America to turn on him, (you know how he is when he gets in those moods...) so he speaks softly, and america doesn't hear, cause he's too busy punching the stranger, when America finally stops, and walks away feeling high and mighty and big on himself, while counting the loot in the strangers wallet... Canada, tries to help the stranger a little, but only has so much to give, knowing that there are a lot of bruised strangers now lining that street, that need help... Canada hurries to catch up to America, and tries to get the conversation started again, tries to show peace and understanding to America, in hopes they can change him... But his bullying mentality came from being abused as a kid by his father, Britain, who has since, somewhat seen the error of his ways, by viewing the violent kid he produced, but he's still in denial, because he's afraid to admit his failures. Canadas now starting to realise that America isn't really a friend and isn't listening to him, but only hanging around with him, to make himself look better, and Canada stay buy their big dumb goon of a 'friend' because there is a long line up of angry beaten strangers forming behind, that are eager to find a victim for a petty revenge, as soon as the goon leaves his side...

But further down the street is a gang of asians who know how to kick ass, and canreally hold their own in a fight, and may finally prove a match for the goon...



:think: Or maybe i'm just overtired.... :P

[CSwriter1]

jesupocaplypse,

That was a wonderful analogy. Sometimes sleep deprivation can lead to embarrassing errors, and sometimes it leads to genius, because there isn't enough energy for the critical voice to block the intuitive, creative flow.

But now there are other subjects to discuss. First I wouldn't blame England as the abusive parent, but feeling intense excitement about exploring the root of abusive imperialistic behavior. This belongs under another heading if anyone is interested.

Secondly, I am anxious to explain the Prussian connection to the US brutish behavior, but this doesn't seem to get much interest. I will fall back on, what do people know of the historic importance of Baghdad, because the action there now, seems to be of interest to others.

[sahyo]

:loveyou:



:loveyou:

[todd]

Today, one of the people I work with sent an email that he will take the rest of the day off.
His brother's whole family was killed by american soldiers in Iraq. The brother, his wife and 2 kids.

[MidnightSun]

but why?

[todd]

do you think it may be a reason for it?

[sahyo]

Today, one of the people I work with sent an email that he will take the rest of the day off.
His brother's whole family was killed by american soldiers in Iraq. The brother, his wife and 2 kids.



todd

didn't see this when was posted

thanks for posting

tearing