Iraq inches closer to civil war

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Exactly...yeah, their opinion shows are mostly conservative (though O'Reilly isn't anywhere close to being the evil conservative people make him out to be...), but their actual news reports seem pretty even handed to me.

[Art Sandusky 0]

My problem isn't with their effectiveness in reporting, but even there some slant manages to creep in. It might not be overt, but their choice of words and whatever their headline at the bottom of the screen is may show signs of either bad journalism or their attitude toward it.

 

For example, the other day there was some car chase out in California that both CNN and Fox happened to be monitoring. CNN had "Woman steals police vehicle in California." Okay, that's cool. Fox said "Woman steals cop's SUV." Now what national (and global soon) news agency uses "cop," especially in a headline?

[SuperJerk 0]

What's wrong with using "Cop" on a national network?

[Vampiro69 0]

I honestly don't think that using either cop or police is a big deal.

[Justice 0]

I'll excuse your ignorance of their level of technology because I'd rather point out that the political, cultural, and biological devastation that Europeans brought to Africa is being completely overlooked here.

 

I apologize; apparently, African tribes were far more advanced that stone or iron. I would like proof of further advancement, though. Oh, wait, they weren't. Stop being an ass.

 

But the problem is having what is basically still over a millenia behind the times in terms of advancement in general is going to cause incredibly drastic and even at points catastrophic growing pains, both necessary (a great deal of problems with culture clashing with technology and such) and unnecessary (The arbitrary slaughter of many tribes, examples being the Germans with the Herero and Namaqua and Leopold's Free Congo).

 

But it would happen anyways: Just look at what it took to bring Russia into the Industrial Age. I'm arguing that they were in a situation that couldn't last, and I'd hope you'd be able to logically say that it could not last as a continent unto itself. Someone was going to come in and eventually do it because that is what is going to realistically happen when an entire continent falls behind that far on the scale of general advancement. I'm not justifying it, but it would have happened anyways. Europeans just get blamed because they were the first ones who were able to do it.

 

Political, cultural, and biological devestation is what is happening NOW. Do you honestly think that Africa is better off without Europe than when it had Europeans? It's not like AIDS showed up because of the Europeans, and that has devestated the continent far more biologically than anything the Euros did during colonization. Politically, trade eventually stablized and most European Colonies (places like Leopold's Congo excluded) were far better than just about any country in Africa today. Culturally... well, just look at the Hutus and the Tutsis for that.

 

I'm saying bigger problems started when Europe LEFT, because that basically left an entire continent that political wasn't ready to be on its own. I'm not arguing that Europe didn't do anything bad, as many bad things happen when empires are simply scrambling for land.

 

But whatever.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Justice

[Art Sandusky 0]

What's wrong with using "Cop" on a national network?

Maybe it was just how I was raised. That and I've never seen it used in text by something that was meant to be "official" or "important," as news services usually use proper titles.

[SuperJerk 0]

I apologize; apparently, African tribes were far more advanced that stone or iron. I would like proof of further advancement, though. Oh, wait, they weren't. Stop being an ass.

Africa's a big place. Not all of it was Kunta Kinte running around in a loin-cloth protecting the she-goats from leopards. Eventually some form of trade probably would've developed between more advanced the outer coast and the less developed interior bringing more modern technology to the continent as a whole.

 

And now an episode of "Justice tries to rationalize criminal behavior"...

 

But it would happen anyways: Just look at what it took to bring Russia into the Industrial Age. I'm arguing that they were in a situation that couldn't last, and I'd hope you'd be able to logically say that it could not last as a continent unto itself. Someone was going to come in and eventually do it because that is what is going to realistically happen when an entire continent falls behind that far on the scale of general advancement. I'm not justifying it, but it would have happened anyways. Europeans just get blamed because they were the first ones who were able to do it.

 

That's a little like saying "I know I raped that girl, but someone else would've raped her eventually." You're still going to jail.

This should be pretty simple:

You do something wrong. You get blamed for it.

 

 

Political, cultural, and biological devestation is what is happening NOW. Do you honestly think that Africa is better off without Europe than when it had Europeans?

You're so missing the point. I'm saying they were better off BEFORE they were, you know, kidnapped and subjugated for 300 years. Europeans screwed that place up royally. Hence the guilt trip.

 

It's not like AIDS showed up because of the Europeans, and that has devestated the continent far more biologically than anything the Euros did during colonization.

 

"No, officer, you shouldn't arrest me for raping that girl because the next day someone came along and murdered her!"

 

 

I'm saying bigger problems started when Europe LEFT, because that basically left an entire continent that political wasn't ready to be on its own. I'm not arguing that Europe didn't do anything bad, as many bad things happen when empires are simply scrambling for land.

 

"I may have raped this girl, but now she's so trashed you might as well let me keep fucking her."

[Justice 0]

Africa's a big place. Not all of it was Kunta Kinte running around in a loin-cloth protecting the she-goats from leopards. Eventually some form of trade probably would've developed between more advanced the outer coast and the less developed interior bringing more modern technology to the continent as a whole.

 

For the most part, it was. Sorry, but welcomet to reality: the general whole of Africa, outside the parts that had already had longstanding contact with Europe or the Middle East in the first place, were generally not past the Stone or Bronze Age of development. There are a few places that were somewhat modern, mostly places that had been under the reigns of Europe for a while.

 

And I agree, modernization should have been taken much slower. But once is started, cutting and running was not the right way to leave Africa. The reason Africa is in such turmoil today is because Europe was not able to

 

That's a little like saying "I know I raped that girl, but someone else would've raped her eventually." You're still going to jail.

This should be pretty simple:

You do something wrong. You get blamed for it.

 

Okay, whatever. That's not what I meant, but fuck it, I guess I approve of people getting raped nowadays. Go me! Here, lemme try to make it clear for you:

 

The Euros did fuck up in Africa, in a variety of new and exciting ways. But, frankly speaking, they did a lot more good for it than they did harm. They ended the Slave Trade that had been going on for a millenia or so, started to modernize the continent and brought in stable trade to the place along with regular contact with the outside world. I hope you do understand that not all trade from Africa involved the trafficking of humans. The Europeans leaving fucked up Africa far, far worse than anything else. That is a far better argument than any of your useless rape comparisons. The subsequent power vacuum, coupled with an incomplete modernization of the continent hurt Africa and turned it into the political horror zone it is today. I, therefore, argue that had the Euros brought a great deal of good things to Africa, and their greatest failure is leaving before properly finishing the job or at least acting as a better guide throughout the 20th Century. The Cold War certainly didn't help anything.

 

You're so missing the point. I'm saying they were better off BEFORE they were, you know, kidnapped and subjugated for 300 years. Europeans screwed that place up royally. Hence the guilt trip.

 

Uh, historically speaking, it'd be a lot longer than that, dating all the way back Rome and Ancient Greece. Just to make sure you, er, understand that: Not something that the Euros started, though they should be blamed for continuing it. But they also ended it. Pretty much the whole of Europe outlawed the slave trade in the late 1700s. Oops! In fact, the British Royal Navy was pretty instrumental in ending it once and for all. While I don't approve the Europeans continuing it from ancient times, I do feel that actually ending it was a fairly good improvement for Africa. The British taking Zanzibar's political power away also helped.

 

Fantastic use of basic assumptions have done wonders for your argument. I really hope that you have, you know, facts to back up your assumptions rather than useless rape comparisons.

 

"No, officer, you shouldn't arrest me for raping that girl because the next day someone came along and murdered her!"

 

*Watches everything fly over Y2Jerk's head*

 

Biologically speaking, how the hell did the Europeans devestate Africa? What did they do? This isn't a case of 'smallpox and blankets' like you are trying to make it out. Speaking right now, if the European Nations still had a reasonable amount of power on the continent, they'd be doing a whole lot better fighting the AIDS epidemic than most of the humanitarian aid going over there right now.

 

"I may have raped this girl, but now she's so trashed you might as well let me keep fucking her."

 

*boggles the mind*

 

What the fuck are you talking about? A lot of places in Africa were far better off under European control, because Imperial powers could actually provide stability in the political realm to maintain an actual government. I understand that shitty things happened. SHITTIER THINGS HAPPENED WHEN THE EUROS LEFT. The Euros brought a powerful stabilizing effect in most regions they were in. The British, especially, were good for properly modernizing parts of Africa. Bring an actual argument next time.

 

Y2Jerk: "I lack actual historical facts or knowledge, but I'll just spout off rape comparisons and hope that works out for me!"

Edited March 6, 2006 by Justice

[EricMM 0]

For God's sake, this is really ridiculous.

 

Noone is complaining that Africa had contact with Europe, we blame Europe for colonizing the entire fucking continent, splitting it into arbitrary pieces, and then abandoning it.

 

Colonialism fucked the continent up, as it does for most continents and indigenous peoples. Face it. Most of the tech that is imported into Africa is of the firearm variety.

[SuperJerk 0]

THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED DUE TO LATE NIGHT INCOHERENT RANTING. Edited March 6, 2006 by Y2Jerk

[Justice 0]

Okay, take a fucking chill pill and back off.

 

I'm saying it fucking hurt Africa MORE that the Euros left. Holy shit, I don't recognize that we fucked it up in the first place? When colonalism started, the Euros needlessly killed and fucked up a lot of indigenious people.

 

I'm not saying the Euros didn't do anything wrong. They did. They sure as hell did. I only wish that imperialism and colonialism didn't take place, as it caused the deaths of probably 75 million fucking people (Two world wars, numerous attrocities). You're right: Just because someone else was going to do it isn't a justification or proper rationalization of anything.

 

Nor am I arguing the Euros did it out of the goodness of their hearts, because God knows they were probably only thinking about profit and/or power when they started shipping people out of there in the 1500s and 1600s, and you'r e right, part of the ending of the slave trade was because it simply wasn't profitable anymore.

 

But fuck, man, the Euros DID bring good things to the God-damn continent. Very, very little of it was immediate. But eventually, the colonial governments DID help the area. When they actually started colonizing the place, they did do some actual beneficial things. The problem was that they cut out before they could establish anything really good. Is it that hard to believe that Africa was better off near the end of imperialism than it is today?

 

I'm not saying 'Europeans Superior, Africans Inferior'. The only reasons people like the Europeans and the Middle East advanced so fucking quickly was because they were so close together, they fought each other enough times that they just kept thinking of better ways to kill each other. We aren't the pinnacle of civilization; we're simply the most efficient killers, and frankly it's pretty sad.

 

And I'll tell my roommate to shit kick me next time. I'll probably wear my hood and wave my Swastika while I'm doing it. I guess I should have seen this whole 'racist' thing coming for a while now.

[SuperJerk 0]

RANT RANT RANT...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...SOMEONE WAS UP PAST HIS BEDTIME... Edited March 6, 2006 by Y2Jerk

[theintensifier 0]

Their close to civil war, and we're close to dishing out billions of dollars to people who hate and fear the United States. Ridiculous.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

quote name='Y2Jerk' date='Mar 6 2006, 02:19 AM' post='2147162']

RANT RANT RANT...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...SOMEONE WAS UP PAST HIS BEDTIME...

 

Both of you are both right and wrong.

 

It's not as cut and dry as blaming it on one source, as there's far too many.

 

Yes, Europe is at fault for colonizing. Western nations are at fault for unfair trade practises.

 

Just as much, Mother Nature is at fault for drought. And of course, Africa is to blame.

 

As for hate/fear the west, I don't necessarily agree with that. There's plenty of missionary work in Africa being done, the majority of what I've seen, have been welcomed. I'm not gonna tell you to go wave a Yankee flag in the streets of Somalia.

 

Come to think of it, Operation Restore Hope does illustrate all of our points anyway. It was hardly paradise anyway, but flimisly put together operations and miscommunications placed the allied UN forces just as much at fault as "Africa" did.

 

As for the dictator argument, that too is also grey, not black and white. We look down our noses at a guy like Mugabe who doesn't do much to help his country, but lives in lavash palaces and beefs up the military.

 

How many homeless people are in the States right now? By comparison, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and a 328 billion dollar military budget? I'm certainly not saying Zimbabwe > U.S., but I think that also kinda proves that Africa isn't as god awful as we make it out to be.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

See, but why can't Africa pull itself out now, almost fifty years after colonialism ended? They've gotten billions upon billions of dollars in aid, but they always squander it...so you can't say the West hasn't tried to help. You can't blame mother nature...there are other parts of the world where people live in equally hostile conditions but get by. It's just a matter of introducing and practicing extremely basic irrigation and farming techniques. Africa needs to unify to some extent, and pull itself up.

[Art Sandusky 0]

The Africans don't squander it, their leaders do. The average sub-Saharan nation is rife with graft and corruption.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED DUE TO LATE NIGHT INCOHERENT RANTING.

This must have been good for him to come back and delete it later.

[SuperJerk 0]

THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED DUE TO LATE NIGHT INCOHERENT RANTING.

This must have been good for him to come back and delete it later.

Let's just say that sometimes I type before I think things through and leave it at that. Some of my comments geared towards Justice were uncalled for and I am very sorry I posted them. Like I said, it was late and I wasn't thinking clearly.

[Guest InuYasha]

Getting back on topic.....

 

It seems Iran is determined to get into a pissing match with the US in the near future.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nuclear_agency_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

 

These kinds of statements are all Bush needs to defend him turning Iran into a parking lot.

 

Between Iran being a major supporter of international terrorism, and Hamas winning a majority control of the Palestinian gov't, WW3 seems to be only match strike away.

 

Also, news of the latest atrocity in Iraq:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq;_ylt=AhTsA...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[SuperJerk 0]

Rumsfeld's Iraq-Germany analogy disputed

Former top officials disagree with comparison

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former top officials in two presidential administrations -- one Democratic, one Republican -- disagreed Sunday with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's characterization of what would happen if the United States were to pull out of the war in Iraq.

 

"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," Rumsfeld wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday -- the third anniversary of the beginning of the U.S.-led war in Iraq -- in the Washington Post.

 

The anniversary came as officials from Iraq and the United States differed on whether there is all-out civil war there.

 

Henry Kissinger, who served with U.S. forces in Germany at the end of World War II and who served as secretary of state under Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford, said the situations are not analogous.

 

"In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement," the German-born diplomat told CNN's "Late Edition."

 

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser under President Carter, a Democrat, was less charitable.

 

"That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," he said. "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."

 

Rumsfeld has been a lightning rod for complaints against the wars on terrorism and Iraq since shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

He told CNN in February 2005 that he had twice offered President Bush his resignation during the height of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, but the president refused to accept it.

 

His record in Iraq came in for fresh criticism Sunday from a man who worked under him.

 

"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq," said Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.

 

"Mr. Rumsfeld must step down," he wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday in the New York Times.

 

"Secretary Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the president," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said in a written statement Sunday. "Retired Gen. Eaton is certainly entitled to his opinion."

 

Eaton's opinion was shared by Sen. Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the defense secretary.

 

"Imagine what would happen if it were announced tomorrow in the headlines of the papers of America and throughout the world that Rumsfeld was fired," the Delaware senator told CNN.

 

"It would energize, energize the rest of the world, to be willing to help us. It would energize American forces, it would energize the political environment. Yes, he should step down."

 

Asked his opinion, Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, chose neither to defend nor to criticize Rumsfeld.

 

"If President Bush ever wants to visit with me privately about my counsel on his Cabinet, I am sure he will ask me, but it appears to me it would not be helpful for me to make a comment," the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said.

 

U.S. officials have expressed hopes that the number of troops in Iraq could be reduced later this year depending on the country's progress with security and politics.

 

Bush delivered a speech last week at George Washington University where he said "as more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come on line, they will assume responsibility for more territory with the goal of having the Iraqis control more territory than the coalition, by the end of 2006."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/19/rum...azis/index.html

 

"Leave me out of this!"

[theintensifier 0]

This is getting out of hand. I've never understood our (American) government, not even in the least. They seem to keep making grave errors and mistakes, for christ sakes, the Vice President shot someone in the face and neck. But, that's beside the point of this post.

 

I don't understand why we, the United States give one rats ass about Iraq, the people of Iraq, the middle east, or their petty and senseless cival war. People that are soooooo consumed by religion, yet they kill each other daily, doesn't make any logical sense. They complain about the American troops being in their country, but they still attack us. Again, no sense. They rape and pillage they country side, use up every available resource, spread diseases, kill, maim, destroy anything that's of worth or value. It's ridiculous. Yet, we use our own valuable resources, millions, if not billions of dollars, our soldiers, etc to try and "restore peace" in a country famous for bloodshed. Again, I do not comprehend. No, what we should do is simple, spend that money on our own people, the less fortunate, the homeless, the diseased, the people without insurance, and with no hope left. Will it ever happen ? No.

 

We stay in Iraq, and the middle east, not to help the people of Iraq, or the middle east. We're there entirely for one reason. Oil. It's what keeps this nation running. Even though they say it's not true, and say they are really there to help the Iraqi citizens and end terrorism. Yeah, ok.

[EricMM 0]

if not billions?

 

oh yes billions.

 

very much billions.

[SuperJerk 0]

if not billions?

 

oh yes billions.

 

very much billions.

 

[SuperJerk 0]

Pentagon: Russia fed U.S. war plans to Iraq

Russian official: Report 'unfounded'

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As U.S. troops moved toward Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein received intelligence about their battle strategy and troop movements from a Russian ambassador, according to a Pentagon report.

 

The Russians claimed they obtained the information from sources inside the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Doha, Qatar, and conveyed it to Hussein via the Russian ambassador to Iraq, the report said.

 

Russia dismissed the report on Saturday. "Such unfounded accusations have been voiced regularly," said a Russian spokesman. "We do not see fit to comment on these insinuations."

 

Brig. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, one of the Pentagon officials who helped put the report together, was quick to say that there was no indication the Russians had a spy inside Central Command.

 

Also, key details provided to Hussein by the Russians were wrong -- not that it would've mattered because the Iraqi dictator ignored the intelligence in formulating his losing war strategy, Cucolo said.

 

Word of Russian-Iraqi collaboration came as part of an analysis by U.S. Joint Forces Command, which looked at combat operations from an Iraqi perspective as a tool for shaping future U.S. operations. An unclassified version of the analysis was released Friday.

 

The Pentagon said its report was based on thousands of Iraqi documents and postwar interviews with more than a dozen Iraqi officials, not including Hussein.

 

One of the documents, the report states, came five days after the invasion of Iraq -- March 24, 2003 -- and was sent to Hussein by the Russians.

 

It warned that as U.S. forces moved north from neighboring Kuwait, troops would bypass Iraqi cities and instead occupy the countryside, thereby isolating the rest of the country from its western border, according to the report.

 

The Russians further told Hussein that the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division, which was not allowed to stage its invasion from Turkey as hoped, would move into the country from the west via Jordan.

 

On April 2, 2003, Iraq's foreign minister sent a memo to Hussein telling him he had been given more information from the Russian ambassador in Baghdad, the report states. The memo said that U.S. forces would not invade Baghdad until after the 4th Infantry Division arrived, which would be sometime around April 15.

 

That intelligence proved wrong.

 

U.S. troops already were approaching the capital and took Saddam Hussein International Airport the next day. A week later, Baghdad itself fell, and the 4th Infantry Division was still on board ships in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/25/...ssia/index.html

[Art Sandusky 0]

The fuck?! How is this not all over the news?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The fuck?! How is this not all over the news?

 

Russia sucks.

 

Putin 'copied uni thesis'

 

THE career of Russian President Vladimir Putin was built at least in part on a lie, according to US researchers.

 

A new study of an economics thesis written by Mr Putin in the mid-1990s has revealed that large chunks of it were copied from an American text.

 

Mr Putin was labelled a plagiarist at the weekend after a pair of researchers at the Brookings Institution, a Washington DC think tank, established that the President's academic credentials were based on a dissertation he had lifted in part verbatim from the Russian translation of a management study written by two professors at the University of Pittsburgh in 1978.

 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18612...0.html?from=rss

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6040900890.html

 

Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi

Jordanian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability

 

The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The documents state that the U.S. campaign aims to turn Iraqis against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, by playing on their perceived dislike of foreigners. U.S. authorities claim some success with that effort, noting that some tribal Iraqi insurgents have attacked Zarqawi loyalists.

 

For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi's role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.

 

One slide in the same briefing, for example, noted that a "selective leak" about Zarqawi was made to Dexter Filkins, a New York Times reporter based in Baghdad. Filkins's resulting article, about a letter supposedly written by Zarqawi and boasting of suicide attacks in Iraq, ran on the Times front page on Feb. 9, 2004.

Leaks to reporters from U.S. officials in Iraq are common, but official evidence of a propaganda operation using an American reporter is rare.

 

Filkins, reached by e-mail, said that he was not told at the time that there was a psychological operations campaign aimed at Zarqawi, but said he assumed that the military was releasing the letter "because it had decided it was in its best interest to have it publicized." No special conditions were placed upon him in being briefed on its contents, he said. He said he was skeptical about the document's authenticity then, and remains so now, and so at the time tried to confirm its authenticity with officials outside the U.S. military.

[Art Sandusky 0]

The West Texas Rednecks are going to bring their whole party down in flames. I can't wait for the renaissance to come.

[Jingus 0]

Just a quick trip back to the Africa argument: yes, the Europeans did a LOT of nasty, reprehensible things during the colonial era. But it was just a matter of time before someone did that, plain and simple. One part of the world or another was going to develop superior technology and then take over the rest of the world. Europe was just lucky enough to get there first. Otherwise, we might have black and white people both bitching about how the Chinese have kept us down for the last few hundred years.

 

And in the case of places like Africa and Iraq, where we've spent billions of dollars and untold American lives, and yet the situation never improves. Well, simply, what should we do? If we try to aid them, things get worse. If we don't and just stay away, things get worse. The locals are so petty and factional in their disagreements, but they're willing to commit genocide over their beliefs. It seems like every possible plan of action has been tried, and they've all failed. What could possibly be done by the West that might actually end in lasting improvement?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It's been done and done well before, but not often. I'm thinking of Malaysia and Singapore, mostly.

 

And I disagree that it was inevitable that part of the world would eventually brutalize another part of the world. But that's a deeper argument than I really care to get into.