cbacon

I can't wait to see this. Probably tomorrow during a once in the blue moon family get together at the movies. My younger brother loves Spongebob.

"Everything is stupid! Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!" Yes 2Gold, everything is stupid.

I'll get to much of the drivel posted by MikeSC and Powerplay later since i'm strapped for time at the moment. However, i'd like to refer to 2 points that each made that really stuck out: 1. Powerplay, you had the audacity to compare the death counts between Pinochet and Pol Pot. Not only were these dictators of 2 seperate countries, they weren't even on the same continent! Once Pinochet was put into power by the US, 3000 Chilians were slaughtered. I'm sure those famalies of the dead Chilians would really take solace in the fact that millions more were dying all the way in Cambodia, since more people were slaughtered somewhere else, it takes the heat off the US right? Well, no not really when you take into acount the US also had a hand in Pol Pot's regieme anyway. Amazing logic. 2. Mike, the quote in your sig is another example of your ability to misconstrue the past and take things out of context. Chomsky did not flat out deny the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rogue. In fact, he's written VASTS amounts on the subject, which I could provide you with if you wish. Getting back to your quote, which was taken out of context; I can see how that standing alone would lead one to think that Chomsky denies the genocide, but he was merely referring to Robert Moss' reports of the actual numbers. Here is the exact paragraph from which the quote was taken: Of course both of you forget to mention that Pol Pot's most serious atrocities occured in 1978, when the US were supporting him. And let us not forget that in 1975 the US not only helped to create the conditions that brought the Khmer Rouge to power by bombing Cambodia and killing thousands, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. They were also secretly funding Pol Pot's exiled forces. And that's scratching the surface one of the many atrocities that US either directly or indirectly committed during this era.

Zing~!

C-Bacon. And who was this Unger character and why was he banned? Sounds like quite the upstanding chap.

I think it has to be done in PPV mode.

Control Room

Out of curiousty, when/where was this mentioned? Pre-invasion Bush was touting that the reason for going to war would be if Saddam would not leave and disarm, the latter of which he obviously couldnt do with any WMD. That was the justification what was fed to the public. So I ask you, why now all of a sudden does the US care? Why, conveniently after the attacks of 9/11, did they choose to liberate the Iraqi's? Why did the US 12 years to tell the UN to go fuck themselves? It's been reported by the Red Cross. http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/ar...000121.php#more Iraqi body count had the number up to 600 this weekend http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/ I can't belive your using that as excuse. "But they did it too!". Weak. It's only irrelevant because it's inconvenient for you to admit. Constantly pointing the finger at Europe to focus the blame on them dosen't exactly cover up for the US's own atrocities. And doing something to you means going to war and wiping out civlians to achieve this goal. Obviously the US won't do this to their pals, but a moral stance should at least should be taken, like not supporting them. The US is no stranged to allowing worse goverments take over, or even placing them in power for that matter. And what I said didn't imply that anyway, so I don't know what your getting at. Where exactly? The average American would have to look up guerrila media outlets to find of such relationships and it's rendevous with tyranny. Most Americans are in the dark as to what they're government has done or is presently doing. As does the US, what's your point? That it's ok if other nations have a history with tyranny? Yes, i'm a heartless shit for condoning actions that led to the deaths of thousands. Good one. Good to know your waging wars on assumptions of what he might do. That, my friend, is an outright lie. Go tell that to the people of El Salvador, Chile or Nicaragua. In fact why don't you tell me why i'm wrong about places like this? You've told me in the past that i'm wrong about Nicaragua and that the US actually HELPED people there, but nothing more. Apparently your the be-all and know-all of such coup's, so how did the Nicaraguans benefit? Why is it necessary for the US to install contras that led massive attacks on the city and intentionally attack soft targets in the form of civlians? Why was it necessary for the US to install a regieme the Nicaraguans didn't vote for and ultimately led to brutal living coniditions? And the argument for using past communist regiemes as a pre-text for military coup's holds absolutely no merit. If the oppression of citizens was really the intentions for intevention, the US wouldn't have aided military attacks on various cities or installed regiemes that were in many cases WORSE than how a communist regime MIGHT have been. The truth of the matter is , they intervened for the reasons I previously outlined. That statement is quite the contradiction of itself. "Bush Sr." and "morality" should never be that close together. Furthermore, that dosen't exactly justify the sanctions, but anything other than passing the blame onto the world seems to help further your cause, so be it. He did not deny the existance of the Cambodian genocide. That's a huge mis-conception that critics have. I'm very doubtful that he's close with neo-Nazi's , if he is, I wonder if his relationships are closer to that of Prescott Bush back in the day. Hmmmm. Given Chomsky's activism and his advocacy of human rights and political unjustices, I highly doubt he is anything but anti-semtic. But if you can provide me with some that isn't some right-wing slander piece, i'll be happy to read it. I do follow his citations, I have many of them infront of me, all of which are diverse ranging from various sources around the world, and none of which actually cite himself or appear to be other people citing him. Sure you are, your own administration . I defended tyrannies? Buh!? I don't know how your able to mis-interpret or spin-doctor some of the things I say, but hey, if it helps justify your 'arguments'.....

Sarcastically spouting off "you would know Article 317!" "Article 84!" "The soldiers handbook" and the like would indicate that that you were. *cries* Never claimed I got all my news from such sites, but they usually include items often missed by the media radar. Of course it's easy to just label Chomsky as someone who merely dislikes Bush, and to assume i'm a fan of his for merely that reason. Chomsky has been writing about politics for decades, and his works are some of the most revered. The fact that he's also a linguist only furthers his understanding of such issues. And Mike, if you checked the bibliographies in any of his books, you'd see that he dosen't merely reference himself. You've got quite the thing of finding parelles between supposed anti-American ideology and masturbation. I'd look into that. Um, I 'praised' him all of a sudden? I merely pointed out that women's rights were worse in other US supported dictatorships. Talk about getting the wrong message...

You also claimed that Saddam was on the verge of obtaining weapons. But I guess thats not that big of a deal, so you didn't mention it here. Even if that was the case, there's no evidence that it would point towards an attack on the US, the basis of this whole 'war on terror'. So lets look at the other reasons: WMD's: Well, we all know about those Humanitarian reasons: This wasn't mentioned before the war. There's been humanitarian crisis in Iraq for years. So that whole agrument can basically be used as an excuse to pander to already duped American public into thinking that they're the good guys. Nevermind my already mentioned points about other dicatorships and the fact that thousands of Iraqi's are dying in vast numbers, 800 of them since the attack on Fallujah. Regieme change: Bingo. Although to think this change is a result of my aforementioned points in regards to "Iraqi freedom" is false. The reasons are rather obvious and i've mentioned them before. By providing Saddam with weapons , yes the US had it's hand in the oppression of the Iraqi people. I'm not saying that was their intentions, but it happened, and they knew what was going on. The sanctions they imposed proved to be far disasterous. And in regards to European nations, they're not the ones waging war on the country. Here's a cheery quote from the US Secretary of State regarding the issue: "When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."" -- John Pilger, "Squeezed to Death", Guardian, March 4, 2000 Glad you questioned the US suppport of Saddam, even during his most dispicable crimes: http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php I don't know where you got the notion that I would advocate invading Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In case you haven't noticed, i've been very vocal against this war, and using violence for the sake of political means in general . That's quite the outrageous accusation for you to make. How about the US stop supporting dicatorships? Heck, even acknowledge that they are and that these counrties are with atrocious human rights records. To the individual who believes the war was waged on to help the Iraqi's, then waging war on Saudi Arabia and Egypt would make sense. The only 'time' you speak of is the time needed for the US to extended it's influence and power in the Middle East. You really honsetly believe that the US are over there to fight for the typical stuggling Arab man? Like I said, I never advocated for invading the country, you implied that I did. Tell me , how much time will be needed for the Saudi Arabians or Egyptians to be liberated? Or will the US cut off ties before that? Somehow, I suspect neither will be happening. The outrage I 'seem' to think is happening around the world you say? Buddy, the world is outraged by what is going on right now, all you have to do is look at any international media source or look at the results of polls in Europe to find the world is most definetly outraged. The invasion thing I covered, but the part I bolded is quite accurate. I never claimed that his military was in shambles, but rather his strength was not as prominent as it was during the Gulf War, and since it's been proven that he did not possess any WMD's before the invasion. Never said Saddam was democratically elected, but pointed out that the US had removed other leaders that were. You also conveniently selected all of the communist leaders that were oppressing their citizens at the time, failing to mention the atrocities that occured in Latin America. You said something along the lines of 'well, they'll turn out like their predecessors anyway, so we have to invade before it gets bad'. To say that communist regimes oppress populations and are detrimental to their citizens is an argument that simply cannot be made effectively. The problem for the US in Latin America was that these populist/socialist/communist (whatever label you want to give them) started nationalizing lands owned by foreigners (US owned). That's a recipe for disaster in Latin America - when you nationalize lands or corporations you have problems usually in the form of the CIA. So, if you take away foreign ownership and give the land to the people (usually indigenous, which you can read as 'communist' if you like) it removes high profit margins for US companies, control of the country's elite business class, and you get overthrown (Guatemala, Chile, etc etc). Then you get replaced with a brutal military junta in the form of, say, Pinochet or School of the Americas trained Guatemalan hit squads. These people usually win elections, much like Kim Jong Il wins elections, and the US has delivered democracy yet again to a poor, commie-threatened country. "Whoops, our bad! No hard feelings though?" Of course the US did nothing after install various brutal tyrants in places like Chile and Panama so that right there contradicts removing the threat of evil dictators for the sake of the people as justification. Um, no, I suggested that the Shiite uprising could have worked without the sanctions and if they had the support of the US. Obviously that wouldn't fit in with the US best intersts at the time, so they were SOL.

1: Cerberus: Give yourself a pat on the back for being the leading guru on the Geneva Convention and other military legalities. If you step down from your high horse for a second, you'd realize that various war crimes have been committed during this invasion/occupation, which was the point I was trying to make . And thank you, I will continue to read articles from Common Dreams and other progressive sites, since they relay stories that might otherwise be ignored by the 'big media' and often depict a realistic picture of what is going on the world. Chomsky, although controversial also exemplifies these truths that escape the media, and does so through extensively with footnotes and resources in all of his works. I would however, like to hear your conservative spin on Iraq's past, be sure to include the part where the US supported Saddam during his rise to power (which mainstram media typically ignores) and how they were still supporting him as the injustices the Iraqi people suffered, which ironically they are saving them from now. 2. Powerplay: Yes, women in Iraq basically had to vote for Saddam, but the point of that statement was in relation to how women's rights are worse in other US supported dictatorships. Mike's point about such support being reasonable is very weak, and dosen't validate the hypocrisy involved here. The initial reason for this war was WMD and regieme change. Only the latter can be considered a reasonable excuse since there were no WMD. So to save face, we have the notion of bringing 'democracy' to a country that the US essentially helped to oppress in yesteryears and all of a sudden the US cares about them? But the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt amongst others, are of lesser concern? Because the US still supports their regiemes? The 'threat of terror' is all to convenient of an excuse. Which leads to... 3. Mike: The sanctions placed led to a dependency on Saddam. Money was not flowing into the country as well as it could be, so they were essentially forced to cooperate with the Ba'ath government. Had the US supported the Shiite uprising, he would have been gone. And why not? It's not like the US hasn't overthrown enough democratically elected leaders they didn't like in the past, so why not Saddam? Instead, they sat back and refused to supporrt the uprising and tens of thousands died as a result, and torture rooms, rapes and other horrible atrocities became even more the norm.

I'll get right too that once i'm at school. I'd also like to say that besides somewhat downplaying the oppression of women in Iraq, INXS has been on the ball so far in this thread. *awaits the obvious flames after making such a comment*

Yeah, of course without the sanctions, the Iraqi's could have rebelled and removed this problem in the first place. You need not say it Mike, it's ever so clear. Just an example of hypocrisy

If i'm not mistaken, Iraqi women had the right to vote under Saddam. So they had a few more rights than other US supported dictatorships *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* Egypt *cough*

Hawksley Workman - Live at Lille

Question: By that token, do you also condem the shooting of the Iraqi in cold blood, insurgent or not? The fucker was shooting at Marines and more than a few insurgents have grenades, IEDs, or pistols hidden away. By the way, do you know anything about basic infantry SOPs, mission specific SOPs related to Fallujah, Marine AIT infantry training, the UCMJ, MOUT tactics, or the Geneva Convention? You don't?! Then maybe you, and most people in this thread, should shut your fucking mouth. I'm aware of the basics of the Geneva Convention and usually look it up for referencing as news breaks, so yes. I'm also aware of what constitutes a war crime. So no, I won't 'shut up' when pointing out a blatant injustice.

Compassion for prisoners of war? Sure, they're not beheading people, but to say that the US military is 'compassionate' towards prisoners is wrong, and that don't necessarily relate to Abu Gharib alone. It's not a way to demonize the American military as a whole, or defend the insurgents for that matter, but to act as is if the US are playing by the rules of war is very inaccurate.

Question: By that token, do you also condem the shooting of the Iraqi in cold blood, insurgent or not?

I went to a Sunrise in Mississauga today and they said it's been delayed a couple of days over here.

Any Canadians seen this DVD yet? At Sunrise perhaps?

Conservatives, and religious fanatics, yes. Oh, and cowboys. Can't forget them.

Alternate spelling based on regional and cultural differences. Much like the different variations of al-Qaeda. Since it's from someone in the country, I wouldn't be so quick to disregard their statements.

The reports coming in indicate that 600 cilvians have died in Falluja. Even more disturbing: There are also reports that the US are employing gas attacks in the city. Insurgernts and military alike are both guilty of breeching rules for war: Article (for those anal about Common Dreams, it was originally published by Reuters) In terms of oil, it's only part of the equation. The war falls under the banner of 'state-sponsored terrorism.' The inital goal of this war was regime change. The use of force to change forms of government falls under 'terrorism.' So, in effect, the US are not only fighting a war against terrorism, but engaged in the act itself. Oil plays a part in this yes, but maintaining control over Iraq and making sure whatever regieme is in place plays ball is essential to gaining greater influence and control in the Middle East. Mike pointed out that the US supports Israel, thus claiming that the US really isn't in it for the oil. Hegemony isn't just about oil however, it is about using economic, political, and military means to maintain sole superpower status. Control of the Middle East is critical in their strategey, since the entire world depends on oil. Israel is by far the most well-armed state in that region, including nuclear arms. The US corporations gave the Israli's all these apache helcopters and F-16's. They support Israel and, indeed helped create Israel, as one more method to ensure control/influence over the Middle East. From the point of view of the U.S., the current state of Israel is essentially an offshore U.S. military base. There's that, and fanatical religious ideology too. America's domestic majority of fundamentalist christians (not a few of whom occupy the White House) who believe that in order for Armegeddon to happen, the Jewish Temple, which currently serves as the foundation for a crucial mosque, must be rebuilt. Obviously i'm not saying this is the view of all fanatical conservatives, but it's not that far off in some cases, where religious wackos that run the country use this kind of mind set . Skeptical? Frightening commentary like this: http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/. . is an example of what this kind of thinking entails.

This one is a little more accurate

How about the truth: That Bush is a monster personally responsible for over the deaths of over a thousand plus American soldier as well as one who doesn't give a fuck about avenging the deaths of those who died in the 911 attacks? Bingo. The next 4 years: rinse, later, repeat.