Justice

Perhaps it wouldn't be a conspiratorial thing if 1) You could prove a motive for why they would want to target any journalists, and 2) Give some credibile proof that they deliberately targeted the journalists in question.

Okay, fair enough. Yes, it is a conspiracy theory. It was a tank in a battlezone under attack. It came under enemy fire, which could easily have been identified as the hotel. It's not that hard to believe. Do you really think that B'aathists would have any qualms about using a hotel that had civilians in it as a base of fire? The problem is with dealing an adequate answer: The military probably doesn't want the Tank Commander crucified for what was probably an honest-to-God mistake. It costed lives, but so would not immediately trying to identify and eliminate a threat. What good would come of this if he followed standard procedure and simply had bad info? How much can you punish him besides the fact that he'll have to live with killing 3 innocent people for the rest of his life? Okay, how about this: Can you give us a plausible motive for why they would want to fire on International Reporters if they knew they were there? Pot, kettle. That doesn't make them any more credible, nor does it absolve you from pushing the stupidity of a view like this. Yeah, I'm really sure that we have Snipers targetting civilians and journalists, because that nets us so much in the long run. Seriously, if Bush and Co are completely profit driven people, what do they have to profit by killing these people? It doesn't add up, even under your own views.

NoCal, you never cease to amaze me with the crap you say. Do we really have to bring up the "RPGs and Camera look VERY VERY similar from the front" debate? Or shall you just spew horrid conspiracy theories about soldiers trying to eliminate international journalists for absolutely no gain? Edit: I just realized, are you talking about the Incident where the Arab news agency had a cameraman set up on the top of a building overlooking one of the bridges, and was fired upon by the Tanks with their 50 Cals? I remember watching that live, and I frankly didn't see how it they were that at fault for anything in that one.

Um, my only problem is that they haven't done anything to deserve this. Perhaps if we had, well, some improvements or something from the Palestinians we could pledge aid, but nothing has really happened.

... Alright, let's close this thread.

Well, as it sometimes does happens, Mike has produced evidence of pretty good reput. I haven't found ANY other stories involving this. And hey, Sek, I'm not orgasming over all this. It just looks like you had a case of premature ejaculation on this story. *Rimshot*

I'm gonna call you on rhetorical bullshit on this one, Jobber. The poll did not say "Of those few who knew about Darfur", it said "Of all Americans". You are trying to play down something that is pretty damn obvious that we want to do something, but are letting the UN do (or, better put, fail) at their job.

My personal opinion is similar to Hogan Made Wrestling: Howard is far from the perfect candidate, but he has fire and charisma, and he doesn't come off as the biggest political tool of all time (MacCaulife). If they want ot move towards a more 'progressive' style, they may be able to find a real base rather than a tossed-together bunch of interest groups that the Republicans have rejected.

What the fuck are you talking about?

So, exactly what would be a better way to bring the world together for diplomatic meetings and discussion? Because, again, that's the UN's goal. Not to maintain a worldwide military. The problem is that main of it's actions REQUIRE some sort of military action to enforce said diplomacy. It's this view that it should be purely diplomatic is what makes it such an utterly useless and ineffective.

Frankly, since it stopped Operation "Cherry Blossoms at Night", I'm fairly sure we should have dropped at least one bomb. The second one is justifiable simply for the fact that the Japanese Military had seized control and refused to surrender, despite what the diplomats wanted. Considering Operation Olympic would have had probably in excess of 1,000,000 Million casualties on the American side, and likely 20x that on the Japanese side (If one looks at the spike in casualties and last stands as one got closer and closer to the Japanese Mainland), I'd say the second bomb was just as necessary.

Uh, it be "Justice" now, Zed. You might have a little older list there.

"We're sending in someone to negotiate!" *BLAM, BLAM* "Anybody else want to negotiate?" what is this a Clint Eastwood movie? If I had the technology, why would I stop it. I might be producing weapons, or new forms of power. (Probably weapons). It's like this. You win the lottery, a massive lottery, then a charity asks you to donate all of it, would you? No it's The Fifth Element, dumbass.

CNN: Praise for Iraq elections There are about a dozen more articles on the net that are pretty much say the same thing: The elections seem to have been a massive success. Even the Sunnis turned out (I forgot which article I read, but they said around 40% of Sunnis look to have turned out, with higher percentages in the Baghdad Sunni 'Burbs). So, any opinons? I for one approach this with a cautious optomism.

They were voting for a 275 person parliment that would have an 11-month term, in addition to a President and two Vice Presidents, I believe. This parliment would go about creating a Constitution for ratifying in one year, which the Iraqis will vote on. If it passes, then it is ratified as the new Constitution. If not, then the Iraqis will have another year to create one and so and so on... And yes, they most likely did. They aren't as ignorant as you would all like to believe.

Why? The ideologies hinge directly on the war itself, so I don't see how you can still draw the parallel. It's still the same old ignorant hype that "Vietnam is similar to Iraq" when there isn't anything similar about one country (NV) invading another (SV) and one country fighting off an insurgency. No, it's not done. Not by a long shot. But watching you continually try to undercut it (I really do love the 'impossibility' of a democracy in a hetrogenous society, since you really have a basis for that assumption) is quite humorous, to say the least.

by gawd, what are you implying? That he lacks little knowledge of what Vietnam actually was, apparently. I guess fighting an actual country is the same as fighting an insurgency, considering that the NVA caused far more damage than the VC ever could have hoped for.

It's not 'technically sports', but I always thought Chris Moneymaker in the Poker Circuit was an incredibly lucky name.

Well, there aren't any of the normal characters running counter, so I'll post a 'counter-article' for the sake of debate: Common Dreams: Low Level of Sunni Turnout Tarnishes Iraq Election Ugh... I feel dirty after posting that.

Come on, guys! Where's that good 'ole European try? Don't we remember who the REAL enemy in international politics is? America! Yay![/sarcasm]

That's not exactly true. Bin Laden funded the mujaheddin and recruited abroad for the cause. That's got a lot more significance than you're willing to admit. I think what Mike's trying to say is that Bin Laden wasn't a big player. Yes, he did both of those, but he wasn't in command of as much as you are trying to let on. He was one of the smaller cogs in the organization.

I have my sources.

SE Asia = Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam. India is more of it's own cultural zone than anything else.

Rane being gay is not as serious a matter as it is a weird one.

Well, I don't honestly believe their policies are the worst. Actively fixing the Middle East is something that has been a long time coming. Question: Should each administration appoligize for every mistake and wrong that administrations past have made? Perhaps we should get a "State of Apologies" address.