I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Oh, my, g-d.
aimai
But what about all the good things that are happening?
Suddenly, Bush is demanding he get a chance to finish his book about the Goat.
That Al Zarqawi is like Savoir Faire, he's everywhere!.
I hope Allawi's first act next week is to request that we drop some daisy-cutters on Fallujah ---a toilet that not even Saddam could flush.
I wish the anti-war Left would stop supporting the insurgents and terrorists by attacking the President. They are not fighting for human and civil rights. Then again, neither are any of you. Maybe you're more like allies than I would like to admit.
"Never mind," he finally mumbled to the klavern of dead-eyed Stalinist cocksuckers.
The explosion was at the hotel Bush was to stay at when he visited Ankara, and the shootings in Iraq (Reuters had 75, Venerable had 70, everybody else is saying 69) were supposed to be carefully targeting important people like doctors and teachers.
Honestly and horribly, we'd seen all this crap but didn't think to link to it because we didn't consider it news. Thus is life under Bush-as with Reagan, you hear about monstrosities and murderous chaos and think, "so what? That happened yesterday and will happen tomorrow".
And, breaking news -- explosion in Istanbul.
Guess Bush won't be staying at THAT hotel...
I hope Allawi's first act next week is to request that we drop some daisy-cutters on Fallujah ---a toilet that not even Saddam could flush.
I hope he drops some on your toilet.
This just proves we're winning the war on terror.
Paul Wolfowitz says so, and it must be true. He wouldn't lie to us, would he?
So Bush is in Turkey on Monday, hmmm? Any bets that he was planning to spring a suprise visit to Iraq just before or on the 30th?
Until today, that is. I'll be the Secret Service is throwing a hissy fit over the hotel bombing.
Khalid Mohammed? Isn't he an al Qaeda guy? And now he's at a hospital in Iraq...hmmm, I guess there really is a link between AQ and Iraq.
Is it Istanbul or Ankara?
We'll see Iraqis dance in the streets.
We'll see rose petals thrown at our feet.
Those predictions that sucked
Have now all been chucked,
But the "mindreader" still holds his seat.
I hope someone explodes a firework up Toby's arse.
Actually, I'm still a supporter of Bush... you see, I don't believe in no gosh darn tootin' flip flopperutin', with Bush the message stays the same. So I'm sure you'll join me in chanting...
BRING IT ON!
BRING IT ON!
BRING IT ON!
Won't you Tony? After all, if the insurgents DON'T attack us in Iraq, it makes a nonsense of the whole flypaper strategy of fighting there. Why do you want America to fail by Iraq being peaceful, you cock sucking traitor Tony?
The hotel Bush will be at NEXT WEEK was bombed?
This is bad... he doesn't need the kind of sympathy this could generate.
Holy shit, it's both Ankara (our earlier mention of the hotel) and a city bus in Istanbul!
Waiting for Toby to explain why killing civilians is a good thing.
But then again, it doesn't bother him in the least that every single one of the first fifty-odd airstrikes of the BushCo invasion last year wound up going off-course and killing far more civilians than were killed in the WTC and the Pentagon.
Come on, just say it, Toby: Iraqi civilian deaths are fine because they're not white people like you.
if the insurgents DON'T attack us in Iraq, it makes a nonsense of the whole flypaper strategy of fighting there. Why do you want America to fail by Iraq being peaceful, you cock sucking traitor Tony?
The Real America's Nemesis, I presume. Beautiful.
This just shows we are winning because of the "enemies" desperation.
This is NO surprise. w the omniprescient (God tells him remember) predicted this.
w told us that Iraq situation would get worse before the Jun 30 handoever AND after the handover.
Guys, Toby is not "real". We once constructed an elaborate anal rape fantasy for this fake troll disparaging female military victims of he-manliness during the Air Force thing. It is not worth it.
Tony: I know your posting will tempt many here to lash back at you. However, in the interests of (hopefully) some sort of rational and reasoned discourse on the issue of our "support" for the President or your belief that a lack of support somehow aids the insurgents, let me ask a few questions:
1- To what extent do you believe our treatment of Iraqi prisoners has played a role in the recent treatment of captured Korean and US hostages in Iraq and Saudi Arabia?
2- Was the President well served by the legal advice he received from the Justice Department (memos) regarding whether prisoners in Iraq were subject to protections of the Geneva Convention?
3- Did the Administration act wisely in apparently ignoring memos from the military and the state department warning in strong terms that abandoning Geneva Convention protocols would place our own troops at great risk if they were subsequently captured by opposition forces?
4- Do you believe that the current situation in Iraq can be solved militarily?
5- Do you believe that the current administration, given the demonstrated lack of support for its actions among our traditional allies and the UN, can find a solution in Iraq on its own, either militarily OR politically?
6- Given the events of the p ast 24 hours, do you believe we have sufficient troops in Iraq to maintain order and provide for political and economic stability and if not, do we have the resources, the will and the funding to rectify the situation in a timely manner.
7- and finally, do you believe this Administration has been truthful in the rationale it provided the American public and the world on why we needed to invade Iraq?
Toby Petzold,
Maybe in your fantasy land, people who oppose Dear Leader are pro-terror, but in America, I and millions of people wish they would just stop killing all those teenagers who just wanted to go to college.
And that would be best served by them leaving Iraq.
Do you really care who runs Iraq? I know I stopped caring 700 dead Americans ago. Once we dumped Saddam, the subject was of little interest to me.
If the Iraqis want a theocracy, fine. I'm not moving there, are you?
Indeed, the real one. Incidentally, the reports of chaos in Iraq have the Pentagon still insisting that it's Saddam loyalists to blame, and not Al Qaeda... which, whilst it allows the White House to state that they aren't losing the War On Terror with every attack, somehow also allows them to hint that they are actually are in fact winning it too, because *nudge nudge wink wink* it might be Al Qaeda too. Plus if you only count up until October this year is the lowest worldwide for terrorist attacks since records began!
Who are the insurgents fighting for? Do you understand the question? I know they're fighting against the American soldier and Marine (as y'all also are in your own ways), but what is it that these terrorists are trying to accomplish? Doesn't it matter to you people that they are actively killing the innocent? Shouldn't you at least pretend to be outraged? After all, these terrorists are intent on instituting Sharia and slaying the infidel. What sort of useful idiots are y'all becoming that you would remain silent in the face of such illiberalism and intolerance?
I see Toby the pretzel boy has wandered over here from Steve Soto's blog.
Pretzel boy doesnt really believe his own bullshit. He just likes to roll in and make inane statements with no back up, stir the pot, and then run like the little bitch he is.
No need to even talk to him, and if you read the RNC talking points in the morning (gag), you will know what Toby thinks before he even thinks it.
Ya see, they hate freedom, they want us to fail because they hate freedom. But we won't fail, we'll stay the course, no matter how many deaths staying the course brings on. Bring 'em on?
Our cause is just. We love freedom; they hate freedom. We good guys; they bad guys. God loves us; God hates them. God loves me. I love you. And Dick Cheney loves Halliburton.
Thank you and good night, and God Bless America!
Now my head hurts. No wonder Toby keeps coming here "Looking for an argument". His mind must be like a giant fuzzy ball of fluff, rolled around randomly by the giant chaos-kitten that is the Bush Doctrine. Oh no! Now it's gotten bored of the fluff and is into the catnip covered pretzels again... Quick Tony! Don't try and make any sense of what this means you should think now! Go and lash out angrily at Liberals! Then the confusion will all go away...
The "terrorists" are fighting for their country.
I have a friend in the US forces in Baqouba. Well, she didn't tell me that's where she's stationed, but I'm fairly sure that's where it is, from the context of her emails. Haven't heard from her since Sunday.
I hate you, G. W. Bush.
Please let her be safe.
Maybe w will follow the O'Reeally plan, just bomb and kill all of the ungrateful bastards that did not want or ask for w's compassionate benevolance of the brown skinned people.
I can't understand why so many Iraqi's do not want to be w-ized. They can see what a wonderful job he has done running Amerika.
Maybe w will follow the O'Reeally plan, just bomb and kill all of the ungrateful bastards that did not want or ask for w's compassionate benevolance of the brown skinned people.
Better find a few to put up on the Bush/Cheney 2004.com "Compassion" page first.
Deliberately killing the innocent is wrong. Unintentionally killing them in the course of exterminating the cockroaches around them is unavoidable. Therefore, if the people of Iraq want to be free, they should rat these things out to the nearest intelligence officer they can find and wait for justice to be done.
"After all, these terrorists are intent on instituting Sharia and slaying the infidel. What sort of useful idiots are y'all becoming that you would remain silent in the face of such illiberalism and intolerance?"
I marched against the course of action that allowed them to do this. Wrote my MP too. For all the good either did. For all Saddam's crimes, women weren't subject to Sharia law. Now they get both the violence and death, Sharia law... and less electricity too. Where as you, Mr Pragmatism, you did what, exactly though Tony? Oh that's right...
BRING IT ON!
This is so cool.
This is really turning into another Viet Nam, where we used hundreds of thousands of American troops to prop up a puppet regime in the South for years and years against a groundswell of popular resistance and insurgency.
The same thing is going to happen here. This new Iraqi government is going to have a hell of a time, and in the end, I predict failure, many more dead people (including dead American soldiers) and more wasted money.
Fuck Bush. Fuck his cronies. Fuck them all up the ass with an electric cattle prod.
if the people of Iraq want to be free, they should rat these things out to the nearest intelligence officer they can find and wait for justice to be done.
I think their idea of freedom and how to achieve it is different from ours. But it's nice to see White Man's Burden is alive and well...
I just fucked my sister last night.
I want to fuck my mother too.
Don't pay attention to a damned thing I say as my mind is warped by all the dysfunction I was raised with in my family.
I'm basically just really fucked in the head.
Oh, also I want to toss Dubya's salad. I think he's such a manly man, and everything that I aspire to be. So, I constantly fantasize about performing intimate acts with him so that maybe, someday, I can be just like him.
Toby, if you want to bring Iraqis democracy somuch, why are you here? You coward and traitor in chief Bush is calling you to join the army. Why don't you go fight there you coward and cockroach.
"Therefore, if the people of Iraq want to be free, they should rat these things out to the nearest intelligence officer they can find and wait for justice to be done"
But Toooooooooby: they aren't Iraqi's. How can they rat out foriegn fighters they don't know? The whole point is to make Iraq the battleground for Al Qaeda (based in Syria, then Afghanistan, now worldwide, Saudi funded...) and every other terrorist organisation who fancies coming and having a go at bringing it on. Most of Iraq is desert, remember? That's what we were supposed to believe made it so easy to find the WMD's when we went in, wasn't it? Perhaps those foriegn devils are hiding in that desert too eh? Where neither the US nor the Iraqis can see them?
Anyway! Better they do it there than in America, isn't it? Well, isn't it? No wait they are really Saddam Loyalists who want Saddam back in power! Except, aha ha ha ha, we took Saddam away, thus giving them their cause... but it's ok if innocents get killed fighting to kill the people who weren't there until we were and...
Tony, oh Tony... there there there, it'll be alright, just shout at liberals some more. Or if we torture some more Iraqis. Yes, that'll get 'em queing up for US justice.
Every time we read something just nuts going on in Iraq, we should see that "Mission Accomplished" picture.
I'm working to put it on a Freeway blog.
Oh, the reason that I never volunteered to fight in Iraq (although I sure have no problem pontificating about what should and shouldn't be done, as well as what those sand niggers should and shouldn't do) is because I've been busy covering up my cowardice by compulsive acting out in the stalls of public mens' rooms.
I'm sorry. I'm just a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Hey, guys, you're feeding the trolls.
I also think Jack Ryan is cool. I wish he'd asked ME to perform all those acts with him, instead of his ex-wife Jeri.
Let's brace ourselves for another announcement that this proves how successful we are in Iraq. The Bush administration tried to inoculate itself against this sort of thing by predicting escalation by Iraqi insurgents on the eve of "sovereignty" for the new government. The real point, however, is that the Bush league has neither the foresight nor the power to actually withstand these assaults. Lucky for Bush and his cabinet members, their children aren't the ones dying in American uniforms in this godforsaken and misbegotten venture.
Daily atleast, on average hundred Iraqis are killed in Iraq. and what is their population 5,6 million right?Maybe Bush junta wants to annihilate the Iraqis in the guise of bringing democracy, fill with white Christio-Jeudo population. Don't say we never did this kind of thing.
Feed Not The Troll.
Dweb:
I know your posting will tempt many here to lash back at you. However, in the interests of (hopefully) some sort of rational and reasoned discourse on the issue of our "support" for the President or your belief that a lack of support somehow aids the insurgents, let me ask a few questions:
1- To what extent do you believe our treatment of Iraqi prisoners has played a role in the recent treatment of captured Korean and US hostages in Iraq and Saudi Arabia?
These animals would do that, anyway. But when they see how the anti-war Left/Big Media has gone masturbatory over the Abu Ghraib porno pix, they know how to dress their victims for the cameras.
2- Was the President well served by the legal advice he received from the Justice Department (memos) regarding whether prisoners in Iraq were subject to protections of the Geneva Convention?
Yes. The mistake was in making them public.
3- Did the Administration act wisely in apparently ignoring memos from the military and the state department warning in strong terms that abandoning Geneva Convention protocols would place our own troops at great risk if they were subsequently captured by opposition forces?
I don't accept the premise of your question. We are not legally obligated to observe the Geneva Conventions with respect to terrorists. That's a stone fact. And the protocols we do observe are perfectly reasonable. The actions at Abu Ghraib were aberrations, but none of you will admit that.
4- Do you believe that the current situation in Iraq can be solved militarily?
Yes. It has worked that way throughout History. There is always a political component, too, but smashing the enemy militarily will work if Uncle Walter's hippie grandchildren will shut up for a while.
5- Do you believe that the current administration, given the demonstrated lack of support for its actions among our traditional allies and the UN, can find a solution in Iraq on its own, either militarily OR politically?
Since "our traditional allies" is code for France, your question is moot.
6- Given the events of the past 24 hours, do you believe we have sufficient troops in Iraq to maintain order and provide for political and economic stability and if not, do we have the resources, the will and the funding to rectify the situation in a timely manner.
Yes. Absolutely. The terrorists cannot defeat us face to face. Eventually, they will be found and exterminated before they can do harm. They are not inexhaustible.
7- and finally, do you believe this Administration has been truthful in the rationale it provided the American public and the world on why we needed to invade Iraq?
Yes. But it is foolish to maintain that the aims of wars do not evolve from contigencies.
Tut tut though. Stealing Toby's name... bad show. Having recently discovered my very own fanboy, whilst I find his crush rather endearingly simple, I must say that as liberals are higher orders of intelligence, who ever is pretending to be Toby is letting the side down. His web page has enough insane material to quote if you fancy letting him hang himself with his own words... just make sure to quote in the academically correct fashion, and not the anaemically Coulteresque one. Meaning no innuendo with what he might say, with a bad footnote attached to what he actually said, natch.
Hey, guys, you're feeding the trolls.
It's fun! Besides, if we "accidentally" overfeed it, maybe it will die just like my goldfish.
Jeremiah, your analysis is shit. But that's only because you don't have any facts on your side.
This just proves we're winning the war on terror. Paul Wolfowitz says so, and it must be true. He wouldn't lie to us, would he?
Actually, none of this is really happening. Its just that rumors are flying around Baghdad because those yellow journalists are too scared to go outside.
Also, since there were two bombings in Turkey, I would like to inquire as to what is the latest on the Kurds. We don't here as much about them as we should, they're real, Saddam's loyalists aren't.
Why October Surprise is off the menu.
Aww shit, I broke a nail.
Here's a good example of how to use Tony's own words, for instance:
"Yes. The mistake was in making them public."
"but smashing the enemy militarily will work if Uncle Walter's hippie grandchildren will shut up for a while."
"Yes. But it is foolish to maintain that the aims of wars do not evolve from contigencies."
So... bearing in mind that you think the people are easily manipulated sheep, have no right to information or a voice in saying how Government should be run, and that winning a War can have no other aim than that it is won... the question is:
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY TONY?
Hate to break in to all the troll-feeding here, but my reaction on hearing this news is just that it stopped being even remotely satisfying to be right about Iraq a long time ago. This is just horrible.
yeah, whatever- white chicks is opening this weekend.
Notice how it doesn't answer the question of why it isn't breaking down the door to enlist.
Is there a "fight song" for the 101st keyboarder brigade? I'd like to know the lyrics.
Boy, it's a good thing we "defeated" al Sadr! Imagine how much worse Bush's war would be going otherwise!
I'm also a racist. My racism displays itself in the belief in the innate superiority of my culture over all others, especially the culture of the sand niggers, who just won't capitulate and do what we tell them to do. It's obvious to me that WE KNOW what's best for them and they don't.
But you see, the belief in my tribe's superiority is really no more than a compensation mechanism for how small and inferior I feel inside.
In case anyone was wondering, I really am a piece of shit. I'm not just pretending to be one.
Essay from George W. Bush:
"Why I wanna be preznit, by George W. Bush"
I wanna be preznit because I wanna get Sad-dam Hussein. I want him in jale wear I can decide his fate. Whatever God tells me. And I wanna kill his sons, cuz Sad-dam try'd to kill my daddy. I also want his gun on my desk in the oval office. No Dick, you got your own guns. You can't touch it, it's mine.
Dead people, economy, congress, the truth. I can't be bothered with details.
The End.
Wolfowitz sounded insane and delusional when he was reporting on progress in Iraq before Congress. I hope the representatives he lied to then are watching the news today.
The Iraqis have decided they are going to have a transition of power on the 29th of June, without having to pay attention to the flat out lies and manipulations of the nation grabbers working at the CPA...
BTW - the first explosion in Istanbul was a smaller parcel bomb, close to the Hilton. The latest, larger explosion, was also close to the area that the NATO summit will take place in.
Repeat after me: "This is how we go about bringing stability and harmony to this region..."
"The actions at Abu Ghraib were aberrations, but none of you will admit that."
When will the pro-war Right finally "admit" that terrorism is an illusion created by the mutant leprechauns of Venus???
I hate democracy. I feel frightened inside and our leaders and their toughness make me feel safe. Anyone who questions them, therefore, is my enemy. Because without our leaders, what would I do? I'd be lost? I'd be vulnerable? Those sand nigger terrorists might get me.
I need safety. I'm scared. I'm so scared. I'm a frightened little boy. No one ever loved me when I was little. They just used to come into my bedroom and examine my private parts in the dead of the night.
I really am pathetic, or haven't you figured this out yet?
Us right wingers are fucked in the head, and remember: You heard it right from the horse's mouth.
bring 'em on!
Fellow Traveler thinks that "terrorism is an illusion." Hmmm. What a goddamned idiot.
Toby, my analysis is NOT for shit. It is just that you, like most right wingers, are fucking ignorant of history. And I don't feel like making up for your educational deficiencies here. Go read some books for once.
By the way, you say my analysis is for shit? Well you ARE shit, you little coward.
Are you a member of the 101st blogger brigade, you little cunt? Why aren't you in Iraq fighthing this war for which you advocate?
Toby: Your belief that might makes right and that we can simply smash the opposition reveals a terribly idiotic view of the modern world. We tried that in Vietnam. It didn't work.
Do you see ANY connect between our actions in Abe Gareib and the increasing intensity of the opposition we face not just in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East?
Do you see ANY connect between our blind suport of Sharon's "might makes right" policies against the Palestinians and Middle Eastern beliefs that this whole Iraq matter is just another fight over control of oil? (And yes...BOTH sides in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute are to blame for the ongoing mess there.)
Given the fact that you believe that the whole problem with our allies can be summed up by the word FRANCE (see Spain, Korea, Germany, the UK -- its voters and not its leader-- and the sheer shallowness of the "Coalition of the Willing", and your belief that this can be solved militarily and your belief that our actions against prisoners in Abu Gareib were justified (the vast majority of those held, it turns out, had simply been swept up in troop sweeps and were being held without justification for long periods of time), I must conclude that you, like Mr. Bush, don't do "nuance" very well and that as a result, further dialogue with you on this is, as others have stated, "feeding the troll."
ok,Its not a clusterfuck anymore,not a quagmire,how about BLOODY HELL!
Does anyone know if the Optimists Club is still holding meetings in Baghdad these days? (Grin)
Every time I see the resulting violence and instability because of the invasion of Iraq, I think of the real success we could have had lessening the terrorist threat if Bush and his neocon puppets hadn't pulled such a boneheaded stunt. What a freaking waste of lives, time, money, and effort.
I can't wait to get rid of this band of incompetent, power-hungry, self-serving lunatics.
Come on Chimpy is a uniter. The Shia and Sunni have banded together at last! Just he united Hindu's and Muslim's in street protests in India. He united the world in opposition to efforts by the US to get immunity against warcrimes for soldiers.
Problem is definitional Toby, were the Contra's terrorists? Were the folks at the Boston Tea Party terrorists? Were the Muj, when we trained them to fight the Soviets, terrorists? Or, is it rather only when they oppose US hegemony that they become a menace?
Pitt (Lord Chatham) to Parliament in 1778: "My lords, if I were an American as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country I would never lay down my arms- never, never, never".
I think that ignoring Toby is wise. He deserves no better.
We are not going to convert him; he's just making noise; he's not going to convert us.
===
BTW - it's quite interesting to note how troll activity in blogland gets an uptick whenever there's bad news for the administration. Quite a few journalists and opinion makers follow the blogosphere in order to get a day's lead on the topic of tomorrow - and it obviously makes sense to toss a few brybabies into the pot, in order to have people tune out.
I fear the next person to utter the words "Mission accomplished" will be whoever the hell it is that is leading the insurgency in Iraq.
Jeremiah, the reason why your analysis is shit is because Iraq is entirely different from Viet Nam. The Communists in Viet Nam were an organized government and military who invaded the South and neighboring countries, as well. The insurgency we are facing now is an asymmetrical and essentially stateless pack of terrorists operating on a far smaller scale. They have no hope of succeeding, whereas the Communists had that hope because of the imminence of their regime in the north. Today, the Kurdish north is quite solid against the insurgents. The Shia holy cities and the south are relatively stable because Sadr and his "Mahdi Army" have been discredited and have had their asses kicked.
I hate to see our men and women killed and wounded. And I hate to see good Iraqis harmed, too. But we are not going away and Iraq will be free, no matter how much you can't stand the thought of it.
"Us right wingers are fucked in the head, and remember: You heard it right from the horse's mouth."
Of course, if we suggest a hypothetical situation whereby trolls troll themselves in order to make liberals look bad, perhaps even adding a little line to try and show off how clever they are for doing so (and no truly sensible person would try and prove their intelligence by using a code that doesn't say anything unless you know the code. Proving something to yourself is hardly difficult now, is it? The true art of intelligence is communication, not belief), then one must assume a high level of understanding of people's minds: After all, one must believe that what you do works as actually intend, yes?
For instance, one must assume that people have sympathy for right wing trolls when they get flamed, because otherwise there's no point trying to evoke sympathy. Especially not if they'd, for instance, just logged onto a liberal board looking for liberal discussion, and just seen someone run off their ignorant and potty mouth. No, in such situations, everyone would come away thinking "ooh those nasty liberals, that poor man", wouldn't they? I mean, apart from my own purist and pedantic tutting, everyone really cares about how Tony's being treated, don't they? The graphs of Atrios' traffic have trended down enormously, haven't they? Endless first time/last time posters have said they are avoiding the site. It must be true. There must be a point to behaving so. Otherwise, why try and drop 'clever' hints to the fact that you are doing it?
*sounds of crickets chirping*
I mean, Toby has proven his worth by answering every single problem addressed to him intelligently and in depth, hasn't he?
*sounds of crickets getting bored and flying off*
Surely we all sympathise with...
*ahem*
Still, why DO you hate American Democracy Tony? You do know the classic arguments for Democracy I assume, and how what you said goes against all of them?
I do agree with him though that Terrorism isn't illusionary. There's a shit load of it in Iraq again today No WMD's though. Mission Accomplished!
I think Bushco should now claim that the Iraq Mission's codename was Accomplished. They could then claim that Mission Accomplished is an ongoing fight that is going quite well.
It'd be as believable as most of the crap they squeeze out.
Piggs, opposing American hegemony is the same as supporting the Islamofascists' view of the world. In that world, it is better not to be a woman outside her own home or a little girl wanting to go to school or a homosexual living his life naturally or a dissenter wishing to speak his mind. The longer you anti-war types rail against the Bushitler Imperial War Machine, Inc., the harder it will be to see that good Arabs have the same democratic rights that we enjoy.
Is it okay if I use some of it's fear to wash down my breakfast?
Toby - I just wrote that you should be ignored, and then I do not take my own advice.
You compare Vietnam and Iraq, stating that the latter threat to the US is composed of an asymmetrical and unorganized, small force of terrorists.
This is a convenient delusion, which Rumsfeld has been touting for well over a year.
Here's the truth: the US is up against a well organized, tribal society which follows a religion that has a level of involvement in society that knows no equal in the world.
In Iraq, the war is framed as one of Islam against the nation grabbing crusaders. Has nothing to do with terrorism, has everything to do with sovereignty and religion.
Since the administration is afraid of even touching upon the religious dimension (except for Bush managing to say that he was on a Crusade, following 9/11, until he got his talking points adjusted) - we have been pretending that this has nothing to do with religion.
Ask a Muslim, any Muslim - and that's not the answer you'll get.
Dweb, on Abu Ghraib:
(the vast majority of those held, it turns out, had simply been swept up in troop sweeps and were being held without justification for long periods of time)
Say, that's almost a fair rendering! It's almost as though you were implying that such things might easily and routinely occur in a war zone. Keep up the good work.
" but my reaction on hearing this news is just that it stopped being even remotely satisfying to be right about Iraq a long time ago. This is just horrible."
longtime lurker
Thanks, Lurker- you put into words exactly what I've been feeling the last little while.
Toby,
Ok, so if everyone that opposes american hegemony is the enemy then we are alone in the world.
Please answer the original question. Which of those groups were terror groups?
There is no such thing as a "good" anyone. There are no "Good Americans" or "Good Arabs." That type of statement brings up notions from the civil rights struggle with "Good Blacks" who by extension know their place.
In addition, democracy is not a one size fits all deal, it does not work for everyone and imposing democracy is code for imposing a parasitic form of capitalism.
Stein, we are in a Crusade. 'm sorry Bush ever backed away from that term because if that's what will put the fear of Jehovah in these Submitters, then so be it.
If there's anything to be learned from the past century or so it's that there is no custom or law on Earth ---no matter how "traditional" or "aboriginal"--- that cannot be circumvented or superseded through the corrupting influence of democracy, whisky, and sexy.
Know what I mean?
MkDonald's uber Alles, beeyotch!
RE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
As far as w was concerned he was correct.
The oil fields were under AmeriKan control.
"The Communists in Viet Nam were an organized government and military who invaded the South and neighboring countries, as well. "
Which country did the Viet Cong or NVA invade? No points for saying Laos: they were invited in. No points for saying Cambodia either, the same there, Prince Sihanouk's cabinet made mucho money from the VC camps.
The first true invasion of another country comes after the US has left Vietnam. And it was against the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia. Why do you prefer the Khmer Rouge, killers of between 1/7th and 1/3rd approximately of their own people, over the Vietnamese? Why didn't you want the poor Cambodian's to be free?!
"The insurgency we are facing now is an asymmetrical...."
I seem to recall Vietnam being fought largely that way too. No wait... message coming in on the Toby-vision; " Dorothy... Ignore those Viet Cong behind the Demilitarized zone"
"and essentially stateless pack of terrorists operating on a far smaller scale"
Ahahaha! Thanks to GWB there's no end to the number of sponsers queuing up to fund attacks on the US. Bearing in mind that Osama Bin Laden alone has a personal worth greater than many small countries, and that US intelligence was so accurate that it supported an Iranian double agent for Iraqi President, but couldn't find the WMD's supposedly already in country, do you really think just because you can't name a country openly supporting the Insurgents doesn't mean that they aren't being supported, and well supported at that? Remember the cleric Abu Hamza, with the hook for a hand? Have a guess which country he was fund raising for Al Qaeda in?
"But we are not going away and Iraq will be free, no matter how much you can't stand the thought of it."
As long as the US is there, Iraq isn't free is it, irrespective of who else is there? Tut tut Tony. You really do have problems with elemental logic. The Iraqi's want their own Government, and not to be killed or tortured too, of course. Over here at Eschaton we just want what they want. Or are Iraqi's just too thick to realise that if they truly want freedom, they should stop attacking US troops and instead come over to America and blow up Uncle Hippy? After all, it's all his fault Iraqi's can't yet have democracy. Kill American civilians! That'll... Wait... image forming... conflict with flypaper strategy again... must... change... subject.
Democracy, eh? No, wait I mean...
Too many puppies,
Too many PUPPIES!!
"If there's anything to be learned from the past century or so it's that there is no custom or law on Earth..."
... terrorism excepted. That Gavrilo Princeps, eh? What a wacky guy he was! Hands were a bit black though, but he made a nice Duke soup all the same.
Are they actually gonna have a ceremony there for the handoff? I mean is the chimporer actually gonna attend?
Where the heck are they gonna hold this thing, in a tend surrounded by 50 miles of desert in each direction?
You know they damn well want to have a full out PR propoganda effort...crowds of jubulent Iraqis all haling the great chimporer, waving US flags and yelling BooooshBooosh...how the hell they gonna provide security?
Without mentioning any names, someone on this thread has apparently learned his history from Professor Limbaugh.
I, along with many other "anti-war liberals" are veterans that can distinguish between imperialistic war (Iraq) and justified war (Afghanistan).
Piggs:
Problem is definitional Toby, were the Contra's terrorists?
They weren't as dirty as the commies they were fighting.
Were the folks at the Boston Tea Party terrorists?
No. They were practicing civil disobedience.
Were the Muj, when we trained them to fight the Soviets, terrorists? Or, is it rather only when they oppose US hegemony that they become a menace?
Your problem is that you want some ideological purity and some unattainable consistency. That's pure polyanna. Too bad for you that superpowers must sometimes make alliances at one point that will later look like huge errors in judgement. Nixon, a staunch anti-Communist, opened up China. Which opened up the USSR. Carter and Reagan supplied the mujahideen against the Soviets because that was the nature of triangulation. But we were allies to the Soviets a generation before when the scourge of Europe was Hitler. It's all about contingencies and staying several moves ahead of your opponent. But the bottom line is that liberty and security and economic prosperity through the exercise of basic democratic values are the end of human struggling. Our system is superior to the totalitarian Muslim models in the Middle East with their closed societies and state-run economies. Therefore, right makes might makes right ad infinitum.
We are justified in smashing these societies and seeing them reconstituted.
Hey Toby, you dumbfuck,
Iraq will be "free" when America is gone from its country. It will be then be "free" of its conquerors and occupiers, who (you so conveniently forget) helped prop up Saddam throughout the 1980s.
The Viet Cong were a grass roots insurgency.
By the way, it's clear you don't believe in either freedom or democracy. You are basically a fascist at heart, and you use the words "freedome" and "democracy" only when they serve your rhetorical purposes.
By the way, you still haven't accounted for your cowardice in not signing up to fight in Iraq.
So, I'll put it point blank to you: If you believe in this war so much, why aren't you over there fighting it?
One last thing: For a lesson on "liberation" check out Thucydidies writing in 408 B.C. and read about how the Spartans came to a city-state that was loosely aligned with Sparta's rival Athens, and and in attempt to get them to surrender aand align themselves with Sparta, told them that they were there to "liberate" them (from the rival Athenians) and that they had a duty and right to "liberate" them even against their own will and even if they didn't WANT to be so "liberated."
Your rhetorical use of words like 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'liberation' is empty and cheap. You don't even know what those words mean, or if you do, you certainly don't believe in them.
I frankly never understood the Vietam/Iraq connection. I think Iraq2003/Iraq1917 would be much more appropriate comparison.
Piggs said "In addition, democracy is not a one size fits all deal, it does not work for everyone and imposing democracy is code for imposing a parasitic form of capitalism."
Nice quote, Piggs! Parasitic form of capitalism...really describes what the neocons have been trying to bomb into the minds of the Iraqis. When they find it isn't working? Bigger bombs!
Oops. Ignore the homepage, that was a discussion about Hannity.
spotted on a wall somewhere in Central America: let's save pessimism for better times
Problem is definitional Toby, were the Contra's terrorists?
They weren't as dirty as the commies they were fighting.
Soldiers of a government supported by Reagan and the U.S. shot Oscar Romero as he stood at the altar during the Mass. Previously, they raped and killed nuns, who were trying to help the poor.
Romero was killed because he became a champion of their work, and tried to carry it on. As a priest, he didn't carry a gun, or engage in any violent acts.
Glad to know the "commies" were worse than that. I'd sure love to have evidence of it, though.
RE Our system is superior to the totalitarian Muslim models in the Middle East with their closed societies and state-run economies.
Hitler thought his system was superior too.
"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."
Bush? Blair? Try General Stanley Maude, 1917, after the capture of Baghdad.
Nemesis, your chickenshit remarks about this "flypaper" strategy lead me to believe that you actually want a dirty bomb to go off here.
We've seen no atrocities on American soil in almost three years. Of course, none of you terrorist-sympathizer assholes will give Ridge or Ashcroft or our military any credit for that, right?
Well, Veritas, if you can't discern between Nazism and Americanism than you ought to go to the head of The List.
Toby, if you want to bring Iraqis democracy somuch, why are you here? You coward and traitor in chief Bush is calling you to join the army.
please. toby won't be eligible to enlist for another six years.
"Which opened up the USSR. Carter and Reagan supplied the mujahideen against the Soviets because that was the nature of triangulation."
Well, well, well... I had him pegged as our good friend Ricky originally, but it seems it's actually Toby who was our recent infestation of troll shit (or Ricky stealing Toby's ID, but frankly at that level of meta-understanding it doesn't make any difference at all)
You see, I pointed this out to you the other day: The correct description of the Kissinger Doctrine is not "Triangulation", because that implies a 3 pointed relationship, but is bilateral. What's good for America and bad for her enemies and so forth. The (supposed) breaking of China away from the Soviet Union (someone doesn't know their Sino-Soviet history, something for another day that)? Valid because what the Soviet Union loses, America gains. Two spheres of influence you see? And the latin for two is?
And here you are again today, telling us about *snort* the Nixon doctrine of "Triangulation". Don't make me tell you what Triangulation actually is, you dumb lying identity stealing sack of fat American crap. That is what you were accusing Michael Moore of being, wasn't it, Sockie?
I thought Romero was a commie stooge. What did the Vatican think of him?
Toby said: "We are justified in smashing these societies and seeing them reconstituted."
--Spoken like a true imperialist who believes in the innate superiority of his own tribe.
--Spoken like the Spartan general Brasidas in the Fifth Century B.C. as he set about to "liberate" city states aligned with the Athenian Empire by getting them to surrender to and align themselves with the Spartan Empire or else face the onslaught of the Spartan military forces.
--Once again, if you believe this crap you spew so much, why aren't you over there in Iraq fighting for this imperialism you advocate? Or, like most modern imperialists, are you also an innate elitist who, blinded by his own grandiosity, believes that the task of fighting and dying in wars is appropriate for his "inferiors" while he sits back in the relative safety and comfort of his own country pontificating on what should and shouldn't be done?
BREAKING NEWS- the supremes have decided that the Cheney energy task force documents, are not to be decided by them, but a lower court.
shorter supremes- we realize that keeping this secret is unconstitutional, but we don't want to say so. Therefore a lower court will decide, and hopefully stall the decision until after election.
I give Ashcroft some credit for the attack on 9/11. Does that count? He was uninterested in the terrorist threat before then.
Ridge and Ashcroft haven't done anything to prevent further attacks, because they CAN'T prevent further attacks. Their actions are done solely to give little fraidy cats like you a certain level of illusionary comfort.
Notice how it avoids the question no matter how many ask.
So why does Bush publicly announce that’s he going to Turkey? So that there is carnage wherever his
hallowed ass goes?
Perhaps other nations will start telling Bush to please NOT visit us anymore?
Bush doesn't like dealing with other nations anyway and it appears that this is becoming a mutual understanding. If Bush hates someone in the Middle East, he just announces that he is visiting them and thus the carnage ensues in the wake of Bush's visceral hate for all other nations nasty little footsteps. Bush should visit Saudi Arabia more often.
This is why the dollar continues to fall against the euro and American exports decline. Japan and China will buy more of us and until there is no us and then other nations will call the shots, hell they're aready halfway there now. Bush's hate and bullying of other nations only insured that other nations stop working with us and actively labored to find ways around us. They grow and the US stops growing. France's president was right and about need to put the pinch on the US. The only nations helping the US in Iraq or either hopelessly tied to the US economically (South Korea and Japan or only want oilfeild rights like Poland publicly announced as well as why Australia helps in it's very small, limited way.
Like I said, Bush has already lost this war in the court of global public opinion.
So why does Bush publicly announce that’s he going to Turkey? So that there is carnage wherever his
hallowed ass goes?
Perhaps other nations will start telling Bush to please NOT visit us anymore?
Bush doesn't like dealing with other nations anyway and it appears that this is becoming a mutual understanding. If Bush hates someone in the Middle East, he just announces that he is visiting them and thus the carnage ensues in the wake of Bush's visceral hate for all other nations nasty little footsteps. Bush should visit Saudi Arabia more often.
This is why the dollar continues to fall against the euro and American exports decline. Japan and China will buy more of us and until there is no us and then other nations will call the shots, hell they're aready halfway there now. Bush's hate and bullying of other nations only insured that other nations stop working with us and actively labored to find ways around us. They grow and the US stops growing. France's president was right and about need to put the pinch on the US. The only nations helping the US in Iraq or either hopelessly tied to the US economically (South Korea and Japan or only want oilfeild rights like Poland publicly announced as well as why Australia helps in it's very small, limited way.
Like I said, Bush has already lost this war in the court of global public opinion.
To troll- 3 years ago it was easy to distinguish between nazism, fascism, and America.
The distinction is rapidly losing its difference under the w 4th Reich.
I thought Romero was a commie stooge. What did the Vatican think of him?
He was an Archbishop. While the Vatican has distanced itself from the liberation theology he proclaimed (and your ignorance of liberation theology is profund if you think it had anything to do with either Communism or Marxism), the Vatican couldn't really "do" much to him.
But at least they didn't shoot him in the back during the Mass.
Your implication is, however, that since he was a "commie stooge," his murder was appropriate.
You've told me all I need to know.
"We've seen no atrocities on American soil in almost three years. Of course, none of you terrorist-sympathizer assholes will give Ridge or Ashcroft or our military any credit for that, right?"
I'll give them credit, you lying sack of crap, when you accept the second part of the "flypaper" theory (which, incidentally, is YOUR theory) which means that there must therefore be conflict abroad. Otherwise, Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, does it? So you HAVE to cheer disaster in Iraq, otherwise what you've just said is stupid. Speared on your own false dichotomy. Or should that be 'trichotomy'? You dumb fuck.
Jeremiah, if you're so opposed to American involvement in Iraq, why aren't you signing up with the Mahdis? Go stuff your Che Guevara action figure up your Ted Kennedy.
"We've seen no atrocities on American soil in almost three years. Of course, none of you terrorist-sympathizer assholes will give Ridge or Ashcroft or our military any credit for that, right?"
I'll give them credit, you lying sack of crap, when you accept the second part of the "flypaper" theory (which, incidentally, is YOUR theory) which means that there must therefore be conflict abroad. Otherwise, Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, does it? So you HAVE to cheer disaster in Iraq, otherwise what you've just said is stupid. Speared on your own false dichotomy. Or should that be 'trichotomy'? You dumb fuck.
And it is utter bullshit that this was never about oil. It has always been about oil.
The British held possesion of Basra and its oilwells as early as 1914. They had also occupied the terminal of the oil pipeline and the refineries on the island of Abadan in the river of Shatt El Arab, in the south-western corner of then Persia. Early on safeguarding these oilfields was first and only priority. Maude persuaded the army to conquer Baghdad and the other large oilfields.
In 1920, after a troublesome rebellion led by Iraqi nationalists Britain installed figurehead Prince Faisal as king. King Faisal promised to safeguard British oil-interests and he indeed granted large oil-concessions to British firms.
In 1941, during World War II, Iraqi army commanders staged a coup d'etat under the leadership of Rashid Ali al-Gaylani. Britian thought that the coup threatened their oil supply that ran their war machines.
How is Sparta like modern America? I'm not seeing the connection.
Misdirection is not an answer.
PS- please Toby please. I beg you, do not put me on "the list". I spent 8 years active duty after volunteering for the draft under Nixon.
My wife put in 6 years active duty army.
I realize in your fascist mind that anyone who opposes the Dear Leader is not patriotic but an enemy of the state. After all in your mind w IS the state.
Ahh what the hell: Witness our dishonest identity stealing lying sack of craps intellect at it's finest... Behold Sockie/Tony/et all's knowledge of international politics... Fear Henry Kissingers l33t powaz of Triangulation!.
Was it also you who used Thorazine to "send me to fairyland" I wonder? My word, what a remarkable roll of stupidity you've been on recently!
Yawn. A troll comes along, and a thread is shot to shit. QUIT RESPONDING TO HIM! It's like trying to discuss economics with a hardened Marxist. Forget about it.
"We've seen no atrocities on American soil in almost three years. Of course, none of you terrorist-sympathizer assholes will give Ridge or Ashcroft or our military any credit for that, right?"
I think we haven't been attacked because w hasn't needed another one YET.
I think that AQ is a private US govt. contractor.
Veritas:
He needs one in October.
How can there be any insurgents left in Iraq? Day after day we hear the tally -- 50 Iraqi terrists dead, one US soldier wounded. Yet still they come on and on and on....
Okay, that was me channeling the great unwashed who sit at Hannity's feet. Seriously, though, does anyone have a good source for insurgent casualties? Why do I have the sickening feeling that there is no army big enough to suppress their actions without reverting to the kind of system Saddam used to suppress all opposition?
after the 1993 WTC bombing, we had Zero suceessful attacks on the US for the remaining 8 years of clinton's presidency. that's why toby loves the big dog so much.
Toby also said: "Therefore, right makes might makes right ad infinitum."
--Again for historical precedent I refer to Thucydides. When the Athenians decided that the neutral and unaligned island city-state of Melos (from where we get the Venus de Milo) had to be subjugated to the Athenian empire for fear that its independence would set a bad example for the other island city-states that were already under Athens' thumb in that it would give them ideas about being free from Athens, the Athenians sent an embassy to Melos and told them to surrender to Athens and become part of their empire.
--The Melisians basically said to them, "You are acting unjustly. We pose no threat to you nor have we threatened you in any way. You are acting in a way that is wrong."
--In the famous Melesian dialogue, the Athenians basically responded to the much weaker Melesians with the following message: "In matters of international relations, only equals in power can talk about 'right' or 'just.' In your case, you are much weaker than we are and, we are so much stronger than you, and we will therefore crush you in a military contest if it comes to that. Therefore, it's in your best interests to abandon any discussion of 'right' and 'wrong' and just work to get the best deal out of us that you can."
--The Melesians did not submit. The Athenians went to war against them and eventually subdued them. After they did so, the Melesian men were all put to death by the Athenians and their children and wives were taken as slaves.
--Less than ten years later, the Athenians' military supremacy was crushed when the Athenians over reached in the infamous Sicilian expedition against the city-state of Syracuse.
--Soon after this crushing defeat, the Athenian Empire was no more.
--And remember, Athens was a democracy during the whole time that these events went on, and they prided themselves on their "freedom" and the superiority and liberality of their system of government and their society. Nonetheless, it did not keep them from being imperialists with respect to their relations with other countries.
--Might makes right, huh? The problem is that no one stays on top forever. It's been tried, but NO ONE in recorded history has ever succeeded.
"How is Sparta like modern America? I'm not seeing the connection."
--It's like modern America in that it uses words like "liberation" and "freedom" to mask its own international military adventures that have only one aim: The preservation and aggrandizement of its own empire.
--I thought that was clear from my post. Or do you also need a remedial reading course in addition to a basic introduction to histroy?
"We've seen no atrocities on American soil in almost three years. Of course, none of you terrorist-sympathizer assholes will give Ridge or Ashcroft or our military any credit for that, right?"
Well, between the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and September 11, 2001, we also saw no atrocities on American soil (except for Oklahoma City, but that was done by a white, Christian guy, so it doesn't count).
Why won't you freepers give props to Attorney General Janet Reno?
Flatulus:
after the 1993 WTC bombing, we had Zero suceessful attacks on the US for the remaining 8 years of clinton's presidency.
That's a lie.
where were these attacks, toby?
"We've seen no atrocities on American soil in almost three years. Of course, none of you terrorist-sympathizer assholes will give Ridge or Ashcroft or our military any credit for that, right?"
--What I love about this statement is that the one "atrocity" we did see--9/11--happened on Bush's watch and was due to Bush Administration malfeasance.
--How conveniently the right wing ignores glaringly obvious facts.
--But, because they are senseless beasts, why should I expect them to put two plus two together?
I thank you for your service to our country, Veritas. Unlike you, I never had the personal discipline to take on that responsibility. I commend you for it.
Like your lie, was it Toby? No attacks in 3 years? Don't make me have to get Bacillus anthracis on your ignorant ass this time!
How can there be any insurgents left in Iraq? Day after day we hear the tally -- 50 Iraqi terrists dead, one US soldier wounded. Yet still they come on and on and on....
Reminds me of the body counts during Vietnam.
Everyday, hundreds of VietCong dead for every one soldier we lost.
And still they came on and on and on....
Baghdad's always been easy to take, difficult to near impossible to hold onto.
Scott Peterson killed his wife. Some basketball player may have raped someone. One of the Olsen twins is anorexic. It's summertime for real now, and we've got sharks attacking swimmers and hurricane's a-comin'. Bread and Circuses right this way, folks! Ok, no bread, but circuses for sure.
I guess my statement/question was not clear. What is a terrorist?
According to your answers it depends. Contra's=good, Muj=good for a while, tea party=good. To others at the time and now those people were hell-bent on destroying a way of life and were eeevil do'ers. I agree, it depends on one's perspective.
I don't want some form of pure ideology-we all know where that leads. Rather my point is that terrorism/freedom fighting is subjective.
But if my country was invaded, even with world approval, I'd grab a rifle and head to the streets to become in your mind Toby; a terrorist. Since you are so rational and pragmatic what would you do?
None of the deaths in Iraq are justified and everyone there that's has died, did so pointlessly in some imperialist orgasm.
"Therefore, right makes might makes right ad infinitum. We are justified in smashing these societies and seeing them reconstituted."
Ok tautology-man, I'll keep that wisdom in mind.
Embassies are American soil, Flatulus. And there was also the attack on the Cole.
And guess where the guy who constructed the 1993 WTC bomb fled to?
Bonus points if you can tell me who murdered him before we invaded Iraq last year.
Could we have more Robert Jeffers and fewer Toby Petzbolds in these threads? Alternately, could the Petzbolds who have come to argue please do so in a thoughtful, civil manner, ala Mr. Jeffers?
Thank you.
"Jeremiah, if you're so opposed to American involvement in Iraq, why aren't you signing up with the Mahdis? Go stuff your Che Guevara action figure up your Ted Kennedy."
--Because I'm not so opposed to the Iraq War that I'm willing to risk my life for it. Nor is there any reason why I should be willing to risk my life for it as it is not my country. And in this case, my own country is the aggressor and therefore I make my displeasure felt by protesting my own government. I'm not repsonsible for the actions of other governments. I'm responsible for the actions of my own.
--However, if my own borders were being attacked by an invader, you had better believe that I'd go to war against it for then my self-interest would be directly threatened. You, on the other hand, who advocates for the Iraq war based upon some skewed notion of national self-interest that you have, should go fight it. Why haven't you done so instead of serving with the 101st Internet Poster Battalion?
--Now, I've answered your question, even BEFORE you answered mine. So, now answer my question.
when and where were the post-93 attacks on america during the clinton administration? oh, i forgot - mcveigh was an iraqi agent. is that what you were referring to?
"The hotel Bush will be at NEXT WEEK was bombed"
Poor timing.
Bread and Circuses right this way, folks! Ok, no bread, but circuses for sure.
Copy that, Hecate.
Sorry, "Petzold," not "Petzbold." Honest spelling error.
Washington, DC, Jun. 24 (UPI) -- No U.S. State Department official is likely to be fired over an error-filled terror report, Secretary of State Colin Powell says.
"So far, I haven't found any malfeasance or any willingness to do wrong on the part of anyone," he told the Los Angeles Times in an interview published Thursday.
He acknowledged, however, "the State Department should have looked at it more carefully."
The Patterns of Global Terrorism Report, which was first released April 29, was found to have underestimated by more than half the number of killed and injured in attacks last year. A revised report was released Tuesday, showing showed the number of significant attacks were at their highest levels since 1982.
The error-filled report was initially used by the Bush administration to bolster its claim that it was winning the war on terrorism.
"The insurgency we are facing now is an asymmetrical and essentially stateless pack of terrorists...They have no hope of succeeding"
-----
So said Leonid Brezhnev circa 1980...
Hecate:
"The hotel Bush will be at NEXT WEEK was bombed"
Poor timing.
Wishing that Bush would be killed, right? How [shocking].
Oh for god's sake Tony. You are seriously stupid. I've tried to be jocular at least, but you really are an ignorant fucking nob. I mean, you say this:
"Embassies are American soil, Flatulus. And there was also the attack on the Cole."
But if American embassies are US soil, then THE US GREEN ZONE AND EMBASSY IN IRAQ IS US SOIL AND THEREFORE THERE HAVE BEEN ENDLESS TERRORIST ATTACKS SINCE 2001 ON US SOIL
I was going to resist pointing out that it's not even 3 years since September 11th 2001 yet, because it would be like kicking a cripple when he was down. But you just invite the kicks. You won't serve in the US Armed Forces because you are too ill disciplined, yet you dare come here and lecture those with far more disciplined minds on Iraq? In a thread which started because of how bad it actually was? You are why America get's attacked, because you are too fucking stupid to ever educate yourself properly, yet you demand tens of thousands of people in other countries die every single decade for your ignorance. And you say you are doing it for "democracy" whilst demanding dissent at home be squashed.
Fuck you, you terrorist enabling lying sack of crap.
This whole damn thing is about dividing Americans and isolating the ones that believe we're supposted to behave civilly, with generosity and true compassion in the world from those who think we're supposed to whip it into the shape they think it's supposed to take. This is going to lead to civil war in this country and nuclear bombs. We never should have invaded Afghanistan. We never should have invaded Iraq. We never should have done so many things. And the things we should have done -- a manhattan project for renewable energies back in the 70s, fighting poverty, injustice, hatred and AID and HIV. We never failed to do the opposite of wise and healing thing. The psychotic part of America is lookin' for a victory that destroys the Constitutional protections that are our greatest gift to the world and upthread Toby Petzold asks what are the insurgents fightin' for?
A revised report was released Tuesday, showing showed the number of significant attacks were at their highest levels since 1982.
The error-filled report was initially used by the Bush administration to bolster its claim that it was winning the war on terrorism.
oddly enough, the corrected report also shows we're winning the war on terrorism. cause the terrorists are so desperate, see? yeah, that's the ticket. remember when jessica lynch was decapitated? that sucked.
My name is Toby.
I'm a right-wing idealogue.
I'm a fascist.
I'm basically an authoritarian.
My head is full of shit.
I'm a sick and ugly American of the type that makes the rest of the world hate, fear and/or want to attack the United States.
Thank me for my existence and for all the gifts I've given to you, my fellow Americans, who are ungrateful for and unappreciative of my wisdom.
Man, and then the foul things they did to despoil Lynch's innocent blonde head after the decapitation -- that shows us who we're really fighting. I mean, we didn't do *that* with severed heads at Abu Ghraib....
I made an error. Yasin was not the one who was murdered by Saddam before we invaded. That was Abu Nidal. Sorry for maligning your heroes.
"In that world, it is better not to be a woman outside her own home or a little girl wanting to go to school or a homosexual living his life naturally or a dissenter wishing to speak his mind"
Oooooooookaaaaaaaaaaay, And exactly hoooooooooow does this differ from Bush's and Ashcroft's vision for America?????????
Hey, America's Nemesis,
With respect to all the attacks on the Green Zone, thanks for using Toby's logic against him such that his claim of no terrorist attacks on American soil in three years is shown for the bullshit it is.
He still hasn't answered my question about why he hasn't volunteered to aid the policies of the government that he supports by fighting in Iraq.
His silence on this front is so telling.
America's Nemesis said that "And you say you are doing it for "democracy" whilst demanding dissent at home be squashed."
Earlier you said dissent was ok in the form of the Boston Tea Party, an act of civil disobedience.
So its only ok to dissent if we agree with you and Chimpy?
Toby, is that YOU on the cover of Internet Tough Guy magazine?
How are you doing on the computer, down there, Toby sweetie? You're not tiring yourself out are you? Would you like me to come down with your twinkies now? We're also running out of Cheezie-poofs, would you like me to go to the store for some more?
Oh, someone else remembers the Vietnam war scores.
I was in Grade School when that was going on, but I do remember seeing figures showing we lost a dozen, they lost hundreds. Then folks would say we were losing the war. It was confusing to me as a child.
Don't forget the mantra from last year... Iraq can't become another Vietnam because Iraq has sand and Vietnam has jungles.
How do you argue with such an insightful analysis as that?
Let me just peep up about trolls a moment. WHY do we feed 'em? Why do we let the bastards co-opt our threads? They stick their fetid heads into our discussions and get us off track. They don't care about debate; they care only about disruption. And some of us aid and abet them! I'm a grown man, at least most of the time, and this sort of thing makes me weep. WEEP I tell you. *Sniffle*
Pardon my li'l whinefest, but never have I been enlightened by anything a troll has written. Ever. A question to my fellow Atriosites: Have YOU ever been informed or enlightened or edified by these nutjobs? If so, lemme know and I'll shut up and hang my head and shuffle away....
two from Deadwood:
"august commencement to my administration, standing stymied outside a saloon beside a degenerare titlicker."
-'mayor' e.b. farnum
"it wouldn't surprise me if you had a lesion in your goddamned head, and that's what's giving you seizures and your chats with the goddamned divinity. no goddamn offense intended."
-doc cochran to the late rev. smith
Hellhound -- you're correct in stating that there is nothing to be learned from a Troll.
But the responses to the Trolls often surface all kinds of juicy factual tidbits that we can use in fighting the good fight, both on other sites and even in real-world interactions....
I guess my statement/question was not clear. What is a terrorist?
According to your answers it depends. Contra's=good, Muj=good for a while, tea party=good. To others at the time and now those people were hell-bent on destroying a way of life and were eeevil do'ers. I agree, it depends on one's perspective.
To me, that question always came down to one thing: the IRA.
Then again, being an Irish-American with distant (Catholic) relatives in Co. Tyrone (which is in the north), it would come down to the IRA.
And I'll tell you, that question, "Were the IRA terrorists or freedom fighters?" is a question I've never been able to completely answer to myself.
In fact, I've often thought the true answer was, "Both."
It's not a black-and-white world. Which is why W and his apologists are so damn dangerous, because they see no shades of grey.
I agree with Steve,
Trolls help us hone our arguments, get a sense of current RNC talking points, and subject our arguments to a peer review process. People, not trolls, on the board correct, revise and make us think about our positions. That's my take on it. When trolls descend into tautology then its over...
I'd just like to say that this pigg is not one of mr. wu's....
Heres hoping someone can enlighten me.
The war in Iraq is ALWAYS referred to by the w admin as the war on terror. Yet the numbers of attacks and deaths and injuries are not included in the World Terrorism Report.
Instead these statistics are considered combat related.
Often when the more learned amongst us use the lessons of history to smack down trolls, I end up reading interesting things I didn't know, such as the story of Athens + Melos illustrated above.
Besides, I need some right-wing fear to sweeten my Corn Chex. Closest thing I could find to apple pie...
wait. does this mean we aren't winning?
Blumenthal says Reality is unravelling for Bush
.
CofB-
wasn't it labor organizer james connolly (later strapped injured to a chair and executed by a british firing squad) who opined that "there are none so free to break their chains as they that wear them"?
off to work. keep fighting. 131 days 'til victory.
kerry/clark '04
Heres hoping someone can enlighten me.
The war in Iraq is ALWAYS referred to by the w admin as the war on terror. Yet the numbers of attacks and deaths and injuries are not included in the World Terrorism Report.
Instead these statistics are considered combat related.
veritas
veritas,
we are living in Alice in Wonderland.
Smarty:
See upthread. War in Iraq first and foremost about securing oil. Been that way since WWI.
we are living in Alice in Wonderland.
Running as fast as we can to stay in one place?
Or was that "Through the Looking Glass?"
Bush fuck-ed up serious in 'Raq. Now you'll know why the flammer-jammers be trying to CENSOR the Fahrenheit.
http://www.thehill.com/news/0624...2404/
moore.aspx
"Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, 'Fahrenheit 9/11', on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel."
Read it. Un(bleepin')believable!
CofB,
I agree, it is shades of grey. The question is who decides what is legitmate action?
The world, a policy wonk in an office, someone on the street? The IRA is a great example. Because of where I was born Hezbollah and some of the related groups are ones that resonate with me.
What is legitimate struggle, how do we account for perspectives on the actions of terrorists/freedom fighters that may differ from our own?
It seems that the criteria used is if we agree with the actions i.e. John Brown, the Contra's, the Zapatista's, etc, then they are freedom fighters, while if we hate them, they are terrorists.
Frankly I agree with your final assessment though, most groups are both.
Craig in New Vatican City
But that doesn't answer veritas' question.
How can W. get away with saying that Iraq is a war on terror and all these people being killed in Iraq are being killed by terrorists but when the numbers are reported in official documents of The United States of America, these deaths are listed as combat-related?
Why do we allow this to stand?
Or maybe the war in Iraq had something to do with SPECTRE's Plan Omega, which involves blackmailing NATO with stolen atomic weapons. I suspect we would have bagged Emilio Largo if he hadn't been killed by Domino first. Flypaper indeed!
There were TWO bombs in Turkey - one at the Ankara hotel Bush was due to stay at, and a bus bomb in Istanbul:
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) -- A bomb blast aboard a bus killed at least three people and injured eight, a senior police official said. Earlier, a bomb exploded outside the Ankara hotel where President Bush is expected to stay before Monday's NATO summit.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/...plosion.html?
hp
Why does W get away with it? Dunno? Because they are really not terrorists even though W says so. How does the State Dept. classify an act of "terrorism" in the report?
"we are living in Alice in Wonderland."
The one where the red queen frequently believed six impossible things before breakfast?
fred fantum--
I'm not sure I'd worry too much even if the FEC does decide to treat F911 ads as campaign ads. As I read the article, it will only mean that the ads cannot refer to Bush in any specific way. By 7/30 the film will have been playing for over a month, and the controversy will have been raging long enough to create a buzz.
After the cutoff, Moore can just refer to 9/11 and Iraq in the ads--no need to mention Bush at all. For example, he could use a phrase like "Mission Accomplished" in an ironic way, and everyone would know what he was talking about, but it wouldn't be in violation because it wouldn't refer explicitly to Flightsuit Boy. The FEC can't stop the projectors.
OFF THE REUTERS WIRE...
GOP BACKS TORTURE
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Backing President Bush, Republicans in the Senate on Wednesday defeated a bid by Democrats to force the administration to release documents on the treatment of enemy combatants in the wake of the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq.
On a party-line vote, the Senate defeated 50-46 an amendment demanding Attorney General John Ashcroft turn over documents on the interrogation and treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...
Oy, Oy, OY! Somebody wake me in November. Peace!
Whoa! I stayed in that hotel in Istanbul in 1999. Yikes. OK, sorry, OT!
Boy, I go away for a coupla hours, and Toby's still an asshat. Fun thread, it appears...
So what the hell is the insta-asshole saying today?
BTW, that mother fucker needs to be rounded up and meet the soldiers who were wounded by the Mahdi Army and the families of those who were killed.
al sadr is in a stronger position than we began the assault on him. Insta-asshole is a sorry-ass human being.
Now they're gonna shut down Moore's free speech on the ground that this is a "political ad."
What a bunch of crap.
The movie is a movie, first and foremost. If the FEC rules to censor this movie (and it WOULD be official government censorship) then in essence no political speech could air on television within certain stated time windows. Somehow, I don't think this is what McCain-Feingold had in mind.
Furthermore, it brings up all sorts of consitutional issues, not the least of which is the idea of "prior restraint" on free speech.
Let's be clear: Moore's ad for F/911 is first and foremst and ad for a movie designed to get people to go out and see his damned film and to make money off of it. The fact that a substantial byproduct of it may be that it will make Bush look bad does not qualify it as political advocacy advertising.
This is complete utter bullshit.
But what else should we expect from Bush partisans and right-wingers? They are all fascists and totalitarians at heart.
Seen on Lucianne.com:
Less than a week until the new Iraqi govt. takes over.
The terrorists are in full panic mode.
Pardon me, but the sentence should have read "if the FEC moves to censor this movie AD . . ."
Smarty's right, unfortunately: last we read of the informed opinion of the learned Professor Cole, Sadr was jockeying for a Parliament seat. The problem here is not the likelihood but the viability: he was supposed to be nobody, then he was supposed to be dead, then he was supposed to be a freedom-hating terrorist, now he's in the running for a possible government position or a role in some kind of party. Mission accomplished.
But what else should we expect from Bush partisans and right-wingers? They are all fascists and totalitarians at heart.
When they lose, they will angrily denounce the *power and influence* of liberals and whine that they've been wronged again. Poor babies.
Gotta keep your base fired up.
Interesting.....
I feel this way, too
Ooo, when Trollby got burned by America's Nemesis he bravely turned his tail and fled!
Brave, brave, brave cur Trollby!
Bush Interviewed in Gov't CIA Leak Probe
WASHINGTON - President Bush was interviewed by government prosecutors Thursday in connection with the federal investigation of who leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative to the news media.
The president was questioned for 70 minutes in the Oval Office by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is heading the Justice Department investigation.
I wish the anti-war Left would stop supporting the insurgents and terrorists by attacking the President. They are not fighting for human and civil rights. Then again, neither are any of you.
You are a cretin. Being anti-war or anti-Bush is in no way pro-insurgent, you pile of dog crap.
And if you think Bush sent Americans to die for human rights in Iraq, you are hopelessly delusional. It's about oil and power. Americans are dying so that Bush can reward his connections and supporters in the energy biz.
If Bush cared a WHIT about human rights, and was willing to back up his convictions with bullets and bombs, we would be in dozens of countries without connection to oil. Like, say, Israel. But, no oil, no American might.
You poor, misguided twit.
Bush could be called up for active duty in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/24...oops/
index.html
A thought: Orwell blew it in 1984. A daily broadcast of the Hate Rally through the view screen is not the key to brainwashing people.
Constant exposure to propaganda disguised as news and commentary via AM radio and cable news works far, far better.
Still, old George was shockingly prescient....
NEWS FLASH= w questioned today in Plame outing!!!
All vitriol aside. What is the motivation of these attacks? If these attacks are from an anti-US insurgency hell bent on kicking us out of Iraq why coordinate horrific attacks all over the country at this time?
What these attacks have done is provide proof that Iraqis cannot provide security by themselves and therefore US forces must stay for humanitarian reasons. If the goal is to kick us out quickly why not lay low for one more week and then attack US puppets after the "handover"?
I know that this will qualify me for tin foil hat of the year award but I have to wonder if the people behind these attacks are in league with the neo-cons. The real motivation for the attacks is to justify a continued huge US presence in Iraq in order to secure oil flows far into the future. The imposition of martial law will be welcomed by the populace just to stop the bloodshed. This "conspiracy theory" would not represent unprecedented evil. Faking an enemy attack that kills innocent civilians has long been approved by our own spooks in order to win public support and it has been a winning strategy in the past.
I hope I am wrong but I do not see the logic in the approach of the "insurgency". Maybe they are just irrational, but I doubt it.
OT but troubling..
I guess the rich guys NEED a permanent tax break
June 24 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. orders for durable goods unexpectedly dropped for a second month in May, suggesting a rebound in corporate spending is losing momentum, and initial jobless claims rose more than forecast.
Tom,
you have now been inducted into the Tin Foil Hall of Fame! Congratulations!
Seriously, though, I think this insurgency is less about the United States and more about positioning for a power struggle that will only get worse.
For a long time I thought that the real conflict will come once this phase was reached. In a way, I think our troops are a side-show in the sense that they cannot prevent escalating conflict. And, unfortunately, we are only getting a small picture of the overall violence.
Hi,
Has anybody else here heard the rumor that the Bush administration wants to
re-instate the draft after his re-elction???? Due to the shortage of soldiers right now..?
I heard it when I was kind of half asleep watching some political talking head on a late night cnn program..
Apparently the volunteer military is facing over a 25% drop in signups this year.
Just curious....
Thanks!
Dave
St. Louis, MO
davep- its no rumor.
My sides hurt from laughing (crying too)
The congress today had to take out a raise the debt limit provision to pass the defense budget.
The r's desperately do NOT want to vote on raising the debt limit, although unless the huge rich guy tax breaks are ended.
the LOL part- r's blame the rising debt on Iraq war and HA HA HA- the WEAK economy.
There have been rumours of discussion on the topic.
I think that due to the deteriating situation in the ME, the general draft is a foregone conclusion.
I doubt it matters whether Kerry or Bush wins. The draft will have to be reinstated becuase Bush has so royally screwed our nation's secruity.
The situation in the ME will get worse, and keeping some access to the oil fields is of vital national interest to the United States. Bush has put that access in jeopardy and now there's no option of returning to peace. The war will have to get worse and burn itself out, while the US itself get's accustomed to a declining economy and fuel rationing.
I have further arguments on my blog...
Is there a "fight song" for the 101st keyboarder brigade? I'd like to know the lyrics.
I'm surprised you forgot it:
Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken,
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!
His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his pen--
Seriously, though, I think this insurgency is less about the United States and more about positioning for a power struggle that will only get worse.
Makes more sense than calling the insurgency "anti-US" when mostly Iraqis seem to be getting killed in these attacks. The tinfoil-hat option occurred to me as well, along with the possibility that the various insurgent groups are more interested in targeting collaborators than the actual occupiers--which I think would more likely produce sympathy for the occupation and its supporters than less. In any event, something is truly screwy, and I don't think we'll know the half of it for a couple decades.
Allawi the bullying former CIA hitman in power, the Chalabis probably still crawling around somewhere, Iran playing "which Shi'a faction will come out on top?", the Kurds are slowly angling for independence (and what may prove to be an ugly power struggle between Massoud, Barzani, and the inevitable US oil-interested intervention), Friends of Bush and Western (NA and European) corporations trying to lock in eternal profit-making schemes... what a mess.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan looks like 1994 all over again
Tom, although I'll speculate the NeoCon supported arms dealers are making money off the violence, not to mention the mercenary contractors who view it all as money in the bank, I'd think the motivation behind a lot of it is simple opportunistic revenge against collaborators with the Bu$hCo invaders.
Bu$h will reinstate the draft here if the Scalia court can re-install him.
I look for a major terror incident here "cancelling" the election or a massive screw up of the electoral polling to guarantee it goes to the $upremes again.
Otherwise I really doubt it happens. Because although I think Kerry will have to keep pouring money into IWreck, the smart thing will be to turn over management to the UN as soon as possible.
Plus, if he fires the contractors he will suddenly have much more money to spend on troops.
No draft is needed.
I've kept quiet about the shameless wagering around here due to my own tinfoil distrust of the poll numbers on the 4th.
I figure $50 to Kerry on that date is my due anyway.
Besides, I don't look good in dress.
Mark,
Afghanistan? Didn't Bush declare victory just this week?
Smarty Jones:
Thanks for the tin foil award.
I was trying to start a discussion on motivation for these attacks. I was being a devils advocate (very devilish) when I made the conspiracy suggestion.
However, Iyad Allawi, the new Iraqi Prime Minister does have prior involvement in bombs that happen to kill civilians. His past opposition to Saddam was supported by the CIA. See http://www.commondreams.org/head...s04/0609-
02.htm.
A majority of Iraqs, according to a CPA commissioned poll, now feel that Iraq would be safer and more stable if we left---no kidding--while I have consistently argued that we have to do what it takes to gain the legitimacy necessary to do what we should to rebuild the country we destroyed, I think that we must begin to debate whether 1) we really think we can regain the trust of the Iraqi people, and 2) if not, is our presence adding to the instability in Iraq?
Firing the contractors will just mean that more US troops will be needed. I don't see how more funds translates into, fewer troops needed.
I don't see the UN getting heavily involved until other nations can see a profit motive.
My notion of a return to the draft is based on the notion that the troops being pulled from other assignments to Iraq, will need to be replaced as those spots turn hot. Also, I expect we'll soon enough need a major troops presence in Saudi Arabia. Likely as many troops as we have in Iraq now.
Iyad Allawi, the new Iraqi Prime Minister does have prior involvement in bombs that happen to kill civilians. His past opposition to Saddam was supported by the CIA.
And, it's thought he helped Saddam get into power.
Holy crap, with all the concern about Chalabi, it looks like someone just as driven to seize the reins of power pulled off the coup he's wanted for a long, long time.
crap crap crap crap crap crap... did Iraq just get doomed to suffering under another US-approved dictator, at least until he does something Washington doesn't like?
I think I'm going to cry now.
It's not legal in Iraq, to give reconstruction contracts to Iraqis.
As a result, unemployment in Iraq is high. Young Iraqi men have nothing to do but wonder around and watch foriegners take over Iraqi jobs.
Imagine how things would be in the US, if all government jobs, and government contracts were denied to citizens and only Mexican Nationals could bid on US government contracts.
Also, I expect we'll soon enough need a major troops presence in Saudi Arabia. Likely as many troops as we have in Iraq now.
Perhaps only in the event of a coup overthrowing the House of Saud--I have this suspicion that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was partly an attempt to reduce pressure on the royal family from hardline elements in the Kingdom sympathetic to al Qaeda. Recall that one of Osama's original beefs with the kingdom was allowing infidel troops to be stationed in the land of Makkah.
There are almost certainly other motivations for moving the bulk of US legions from one oil-rich country to another, but I suspect a half-hearted favour to the House of Saud from the House of Bush is one of them--but perhaps only long enough for the House of Bush to find an even more pliant ally in KSA.
Ahh, power struggles--our leaders can't protect us, but they can get us killed.
What do the contractors do?
The contractors protect energy intrests first and foremost. The better paid ones are making something like a half-million dollars a year apiece. Even the lower paid ones are making big bucks.
And again, they aren't doing the logistics right. They're involved in black ops or protecting the oil flow. I'm sorry, but I think it likely our tactical situation will improve once we have a government that abandons the strategic base of the Bu$hCo operation: Oil over All.
A UN-controlled operation will bring in troops from Europe and Pakistan and other places as Coalition troops phase out.
Al Qaeda's influence among the revenge-seeking Iraqi youth will diminish once the main provocation, christian Fundamentalist-backed privateers, are removed from their streets.
There will be violence: it took 8 years to settle Bosnia with the UN leading the way. But without the black hole of Bu$hCo black ops sucking the budget, things will settle out. Not perfectly, but better than they are now.
IMHO.
So, do you think the Saudi Royal family will still be maintaining their station at the end of the next presidential term?
Gwahar is peaking. Few nations have escaped severe economic and political hardships when their oil supplies went into decline.
For now, the myth that the Saudi Royal Family are in control of their oil output, is essential to their ability to maintain control. Once it's clear that the gravy train has peaked and in fact the bribes and corruption must be reduced, I expect US helicopters will be swooping in to rescue the Royals.
That's a really good question.
If the Saudi's were smart they'd figure out how to get on top of the next energy wave now before their supplies peak.
For example, if they worked out a way to sit on top of the methane that could be bacterially produced from biomass they'd remain at least major players in the world economy.
Or figure out how to harness solar energy and convert it into an economically viable fuel source (photosynthetic fixation of CO2 into methane?).
But they're not that smart. Being basically brigand robbers who carved a kingdom out of the ruins of the Ottomans. So I expect them to try to keep the rest of the world in chaos for the next 50 years as global oil output diminshes and the old economic systems fragment.
After all, if everything goes to hell, they just may be able to ride the wave and stay on top. Much like Bu$hCo.
As long as they control the lion's share of a diminshing resource, their stock- relative to every one else's- will only improve.
If alternative energy systems are developed they don't control, much less understand, their kingdom will end.
Smarty Jones:
Thanks for the tin foil award.
I was trying to start a discussion on motivation for these attacks. I was being a devils advocate (very devilish) when I made the conspiracy suggestion.
Tom
Tom,
so are you keeping or rejecting your induction to the Tin Foil Hall Of Fame Award?
BTW, the induction ceremony is going to be July 27.
Bush/Cheney '04- Four More Reichs!
I haven't heard that any humans are as smart as to do the things you argue.
For instance, I've heard that in oil alone, we consume four times more carbon per year, than is created by the biomass of the entire planet.
If you look at the sheer quantity of energy provided by oil and how it dwarfs all other sources, it's difficult to see how alternatives can do more than provide a small percentage of that energy, at any maximum production values you may deem reasonable.
At the moment, the notion of dropping oil and going to alternative energy sources, appears to be akin to planning to live a Donald Trump lifestyle on a grade school janitor's payscale.
To sort of toss the question back into you court, why doesn't the US implement these systems and leave the ME oil in the ground?
Yes, Weaseldog, but my reasoning is sooner or later we're going to have to have some other energy source to run our economy.
Even fossil fuel is (energetically) derived from solar-driven carbon fixation.
Being a scientist, I think if an effort was made we could produce methane industrially from genetically engineered bacteria. A lot of research needs to go into it: but solar energy drives the normal fixation of carbon, so I think with careful genetic and chemical engineering we could use solar energy to control atmospheric carbon dioxide as well as derive a source of energy to fuel industrial economies.
But that's a long way off. Lots of research and development needs to be done for us to get to that point. Kerry is interested in developing alternatives.
If the Saudis and Bu$hCo are involved, it won't happen, because they lose their energy monopoly if it does.
I expect the Chinese will do it first, and possibly best, since it is the logical way for them to build up their economy without dependency on the Islamo-Judeo-Christian oil axis.
Thanks Kelly,
But I don't see how the scale can be matched or approached.
We consume roughly five times the energy per year, that the entire biosphere of the Earth currently captures.
As a scientist, surely you can appreciate the magnitude of the problem in bridging that energy gap. Regardless of what technology you choose. I fail to see how technology is going to allow us to spend more energy than we can capture.
I'm sure you're also aware that it took nature something on the order of one million years to produce each year's worth of man's energy consumption, and in a very inefficient way. Knowing this makes it difficult for me to put your observation that oil is in effect captured solar energy, in a meaningful context. Unless you're suggesting some sort of energy burst mode, in which we only use energy every million years or something like that.
Also as a scientist, I'm sure you're very well aware of the 'Laws of Thermodynamics' and the fact that energy will have to be fed to those bacteria, in order for them to concentrate a fraction of it into methane. Much of the energy we feed them, will be lost to metabolic processes.
I appreciate that you can see paths to capturing various forms of energy from different processes, but I don't think you've ever examined the scale of the problem. I also don't think you've yet attempted to work out the requirements that each of these processes would require, when scaled to the point that they could power a menaingful aspect of modern civilization.
On top of these issues, we can also add in the energy requirements to build the energy capture infrastructure and to power it. Keeping your vast vats of genetically engineered bacteria pure and preventing invasions of more competitive wild types, in itself would be an incredibly energy expensive feat. After all is said and done, using wild types might still give you the best bang for the BTU invested.
Thanks, Weaseldog, I have, and I don't suggest we're ready to tackle it today, either.
Which is why I stress the need for R&D.
Let me speculate.
Solar input is the only input into the terrestrial system I can think of to drive this.
The scale needed is tremendous- but if you had engineered a halophyte that could use photosynthesis to reduce carbon dioxide to methane as well as utilize biomass and waste to make methane, the deserts of the world might be economically useful. Pump in seawater to grown the bugs (on sludge?)- harvest methane gas.
A halophytic organism would pretty much be the top dog microbially- most terrestrial bugs can't stand the half molar sodium in seawater. It would do better in a desert environment. It would not contaminate terrestrial ecosystems.
There's an incredible amount of calories produced by solar energy on the soils of the subtropical deserts. If a photosynthetic process could capture it, think of the yield. It couldn't be easily monopolized, either.
If you are a scientist, you realize this is pure speculation- but something must be done. Hydrogen's even got a worse thermodynamic feasibility than methane- it's energetically harder to produce, and it's much less stable to handle industrially.
And finally- a good renewable energy source would take the wind out of the sails of all the wingnuts. Islamic, Christian, or Jewish. If there's no more need for oil, there's no more need to fight over it.
Imagine.
Just to nitpick Kelly, I don't know of a desert on the planet that doesn't contain an ecosystem.
Even in Antartica, the ice contains living photosynthetic bacteria.
You'd still have to wipe out a few ecosystems to do this.
I also have a suspicion that this system wouldn't be able to produce much more energy than it consumes.
But as you point out, the notion is just fantasy for now.
vacuity, thy picture is bush.
kelley b. - something even better - figure out how to bacterially decompose garbage into usable fuels. Garbage is (phew - do garbage dumps smell) certainly fermentible/decomposable - so it does have energy. The problem would be genetically engineering bacteria so that they store their garbage derived energy in a form we could use (as well as store enough of it so we can skim some for our own purposes).
cs:
This whole damn thing is about dividing Americans and isolating the ones that believe we're supposted to behave civilly, with generosity and true compassion in the world from those who think we're supposed to whip it into the shape they think it's supposed to take.
You wouldn't have a problem with American hegemony if you had a stronger devotion to the rights and advantages that we enjoy and are trying to bring to the rest of the world.
This is going to lead to civil war in this country and nuclear bombs.
Probably not, although I will say that this is probably a time when anti-war Leftists are wishing that they weren't such vehement opponents of gun ownership.
We never should have invaded Afghanistan.
Pacifism is a vice when Liberty is at stake.
We never should have invaded Iraq.
Most Iraqis disagree. They may not want us there are as occupiers, but they are grateful to be done with Saddam and have a chance at self-government now. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
We never should have done so many things.
A pretty nauseating perspective, frankly.
And the things we should have done -- a manhattan project for renewable energies back in the 70s, fighting poverty, injustice, hatred and AID and HIV.
Most of what you just mentioned is not susceptible to taxpayer-funded fixes. A lot of it is cultural. But if you're committed to helping America move towards alternative energy sources, I wish you all the best.
We never failed to do the opposite of wise and healing thing.
That is simply not true. America has done more good for more people than any other society of the last hundred years. Only self-loathing assholes would deny that. Don't listen to them.
The psychotic part of America is lookin' for a victory that destroys the Constitutional protections that are our greatest gift to the world and upthread Toby Petzold asks what are the insurgents fightin' for?
The rest of the world is not protected by the United States Constitution. What makes you think it is or even should be? Aren't you one of those that blasts Bush for presuming to make the Muslim world over with an imperial American face? It seems to me that if you think the rest of the world would benefit from having the kinds of rights and responsibilities we have, you'd be better served by believing in our mission in Iraq instead of tearing it down because you have some aversion to the exercise of American military power.
Jeremiah:
"Jeremiah, if you're so opposed to American involvement in Iraq, why aren't you signing up with the Mahdis? Go stuff your Che Guevara action figure up your Ted Kennedy."
--Because I'm not so opposed to the Iraq War that I'm willing to risk my life for it.
If you're less committed in opposing American involvement there than I am in supporting and justifying it, then why should your opinions matter to me?
Nor is there any reason why I should be willing to risk my life for it as it is not my country.
But when you oppose our war for Iraq, you are essentially taking the side of the Saddamites and terrorists. How is that not so?
And in this case, my own country is the aggressor and therefore I make my displeasure felt by protesting my own government.
I think what you're admitting is that the anti-war position is inherently less valid and valuable because it does not require the same sacrifices for its own defense that it insists on for others. And, anyway, it is already the lesser argument because it denies countries like Iraq the hope for liberty and security that we ourselves enjoy. Liberal idealism in America is dead when the Democratic Party cannot bring itself to fight for human freedoms anymore.
I'm not repsonsible for the actions of other governments. I'm responsible for the actions of my own.
As I say, you have abandoned your principles. You do not believe in the liberation of others from tyrannical regimes like Saddam's. You tear down a President who is actually fighting against those who kill the innocent. And why? Because you're a partisan.
--However, if my own borders were being attacked by an invader, you had better believe that I'd go to war against it for then my self-interest would be directly threatened.
Your notion of self-interest is retarded. We didn't become the greatest power on Earth by following your example. You can be sure of that.
You, on the other hand, who advocates for the Iraq war based upon some skewed notion of national self-interest that you have, should go fight it. Why haven't you done so instead of serving with the 101st Internet Poster Battalion?
It's funny how some people fixate on a joke or a meme, mistaking it for having their own argument. Which they don't, owing to the depravity of their own logic.
Nemesis:
You are why America get's attacked, because you are too fucking stupid to ever educate yourself properly, yet you demand tens of thousands of people in other countries die every single decade for your ignorance. And you say you are doing it for "democracy" whilst demanding dissent at home be squashed.
I haven't advocated squashing anyone's right to speak his mind. But if I've made such a devastation of your case that you have perceived it that way, then that's no one's fault but yours.
Fuck you, you terrorist enabling lying sack of crap.
Zarqawi dresses up his beheading victims in orange jumpsuits because he knows that you and your friends in Big Media will eat it up. You know: watching the Abu Ghraib Porno Channel and pissing on the President for somehow being responsible.
Zarqawi's taking his cues from you, not me. I know how to keep Abu Ghraib in proportion; you do not. Therefore, you and your kind are the "enablers."
Certain commenters are not real and do not require nutriment.
Make that:
Certain commenters who commonly dwell under bridges are not real and do not require nutriment.
"four years after remember how those courtiers took their final bow"
if we had invented writing rather than indoor plumbing and then been sanctioned into near starvation for a decade only to be accused in some retarded shakespearian fashion of a smorgasbord of nefarious intents beyond our overly monitored and limited means and then bombed from above without the benefit of an air force until the populational equivalent of 55 9/11s worth of death had been rained down upon us for doing nothing i have to wonder how many flowers we would be throwing.
Agreed, DAS, that's a first step.
It's a step that has already been made, although it's not economically viable for mass production yet.
If a substantial fraction of the money we're pouring into Bechtel and Halliburton for Iraq was used for alternative energy development instead, we would completely disable the Saudi-Bu$h hold on middle eastern politics.
Again, engineering bacteria to produce methane using photosynthetic genes normally found in algae is science fiction at this point, but it's a lot easier to do than sending people to Mars to drill for oil.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
