PDA

View Full Version : Poli-kido...


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Adam Alexander
06-07-2005, 01:57 PM
Come to my demonstration. I will show you the following techniques:

Uke: He has WMD.
Sh'te: No he doesn't.
Uke: OK, then we're liberators.
Sh'te: But now they're starving and over 15,000!! have died because of you.
Uke: I'm going to feed Africa.

I'm guessing, this will be effective to divert attention.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

Hogan
06-07-2005, 03:04 PM
Come to my demonstration. I will show you the following techniques:

Uke: He has WMD.
Sh'te: No he doesn't.
Uke: OK, then we're liberators.
Sh'te: But now they're starving and over 15,000!! have died because of you.
Uke: I'm going to feed Africa.

I'm guessing, this will be effective to divert attention.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.


Well, I guess they COULD go back to their killer of millions to lead them again. Would you like that ? Just bust him out of prison - but bring a clean pair of undewear.

Neil Mick
06-07-2005, 05:43 PM
Well, I guess they COULD go back to their killer of millions to lead them again. Would you like that ?

But, we're such kindly, loving liberators, right? Butter wouldn't melt in our collective mouths.

Who Cares? (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000253.php#more)

It continues to be clear that the plans of the Bush Administration in Iraq either do not include the protection of Iraqis, they don’t care, or both.

I received an email from someone today along these lines which I found interesting:

“I operated out of Camp Anaconda, near Balad. What almost everyone, both in uniform and those as contractors, agreed on (was) the objective of the Bush Administration’s long term (plan) is focused primarily on oil. Hearts and minds are secondary, far behind the issue of petroleum products, as the US continues to compete for resources around the world. I hope more media conversation is forthcoming on this issue.”

Also along these lines, an Iraqi friend of mine who is a doctor in Baghdad told me that when he was in Ramadi yesterday, US soldiers attacked the Anbar Medical School while students were taking their exams. As he said, “They (US soldiers) smashed the front gates of the school in a barbaric way using Humvees…and terrorized the female students while arresting two students while they were working on their exams. They then lay siege to the homes of the dean of the university, along with homes of lecturers, even though their families were inside.”

My friend also reported that after he recently visited Haditha (remember “Operation Open Market”) he found that a large number of civilians had been detained.

“They even detained a friend of mine and his father because they found papers in their home about an upcoming demonstration,” he told me.

Recently, the US-backed Iraqi “government” announced it had detained nearly 900 “suspected militants.” A “suspected militant” in Iraq looks more and more like anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time when Iraqi or US forces conduct an operation.

Of course the looting of homes during raids continues along with the detentions of innocent Iraqis. So much so that as a result of the huge “security” operation in Baghdad, Laith Kuba, a spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari found it necessary to make the following statement:

“Some people complained there are cases where soldiers took advantage and helped themselves to cash and other items. One doesn’t rule it out. The complaints I heard from people were the aggressiveness of some of these forces as they do things. Some people have half-hinted that they have copied some of the mannerisms of other foreign troops. I think that is a valid criticism in some cases.”

Adam Alexander
06-08-2005, 02:10 PM
Well, I guess they COULD go back to their killer of millions to lead them again. Would you like that ? Just bust him out of prison - but bring a clean pair of undewear.


I'm sorry, can you explain how that post is relevant? Seems to me, the subject is Bush playing politics...oh, wait, that's what you're doing. Just like a good Bush-person, changing the subject in order to detract from the point--he's responsible for the killings of over 20,000 Iraq civilians...not to mention the nearly 2,000 dead Coalition Forces...not to mention injuries...You know, the ones that Dems pointed out and the Reps did a tap dance that went like this...

Dems: Injuries (that means lots of limbs torn up and off) due to the war =x
Reps: Oh, you're upset that there's not more deaths?

Bush is a torturer and a murderer. End of story.

Hogan
06-08-2005, 03:18 PM
I'm sorry, can you explain how that post is relevant? Seems to me, the subject is Bush playing politics...oh, wait, that's what you're doing. Just like a good Bush-person, changing the subject in order to detract from the point--he's responsible for the killings of over 20,000 Iraq civilians...not to mention the nearly 2,000 dead Coalition Forces...not to mention injuries...You know, the ones that Dems pointed out and the Reps did a tap dance that went like this...

Dems: Injuries (that means lots of limbs torn up and off) due to the war =x
Reps: Oh, you're upset that there's not more deaths?

Bush is a torturer and a murderer. End of story.

OK, I will try to make it simple. Bush has never tortured or killed anyone. He has ordered military into combat and people have died, just like practically every other President. Uncle Saddamy, on the other hand, had personally tortured and killed, as have his sons and cronies. And Uncle Saddamy's orders have killed more muslims than any other person in history. Yet, you go on being mad at Bush instead. End of story.

Neil Mick
06-08-2005, 05:04 PM
Uncle Saddamy, on the other hand, had personally tortured and killed,

source?


And Uncle Saddamy's orders have killed more muslims than any other person in history.

You're definitely overreaching, here. Got ay independent (read: non-Fox-type) sources to back up this assertion? I'm positive some European rulers and popes have one up on Hussein, in the killing of Muslim's.

Yet, you go on being mad at Bush instead. End of story.

But your whole argument is misdirection. Even if we did invade Iraq solely out of the goodness of our (johnny-come-lately, by-about-13-years) hearts: your claim to human rights is misdirected.

Empirical evidence reveals that we couldn't give a fig about human rights.

Here, consider these countries (just off the top of my head):

-Uzbekistan
-Libya
-Indonesia
-Pakistan
-Haiti
-Sudan
-Israel

We have "special relationships" with these countries. Funny, how each country listed has a not-so-special-relationship with certain sectors of its society. Even "funnier," is how some American's are so loud to toot the "human rights" horn, yet oh-so-silent, when it comes to the human rights of Uzbek's, the Achehenese, Aristede's Lavalas members, et al.

Maybe you ought to coin a new term for your selective concern: how about "convenient humanitarian's?"

It has a nice ring to it... :dead: :rolleyes:

GLWeeks
06-09-2005, 07:48 AM
John, just let these guys be... Anyone who needs a source for proof of Saddam's atrocities doesn't deserve our time... It wouldn't do any good anyway...

Hogan
06-09-2005, 12:31 PM
But, we're such kindly, loving liberators, right? Butter wouldn't melt in our collective mouths.

Who Cares? (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000253.php#more)


"I operated out of Camp Anaconda, near Balad. What almost everyone, both in uniform and those as contractors, agreed on (was) the objective of the Bush Administration's long term (plan) is focused primarily on oil. Hearts and minds are secondary, far behind the issue of petroleum products, as the US continues to compete for resources around the world. I hope more media conversation is forthcoming on this issue."
Strictly third hand opinion.

Also along these lines, an Iraqi friend of mine who is a doctor in Baghdad told me that when he was in Ramadi yesterday, US soldiers attacked the Anbar Medical School while students were taking their exams. As he said, "They (US soldiers) smashed the front gates of the school in a barbaric way using Humvees…and terrorized the female students while arresting two students while they were working on their exams. They then lay siege to the homes of the dean of the university, along with homes of lecturers, even though their families were inside."
Along these lines ?? Of oil ??? Oil leads soldiers to go into a school ? Ummm, ok.

First of all, you don't know why they went into a school, if they did at all given this third hand acct. Secondly, even if they did, given that the terrorists use mosques as weapons storage rooms and mtg rooms and torture chambers, hey, anything can be in a school. Thirdly, smashed in a barbaric way ? How does one smash in a non-barbaric way ? Fourthly, even if they did go into the school, the element of surprise in any operation is essential. Would they have preferred an invitation ?

The rest of this third hand acct, isn't even worth responding.

Hogan
06-09-2005, 12:34 PM
source?You're definitely overreaching, here. Got ay independent (read: non-Fox-type) sources to back up this assertion? I'm positive some European rulers and popes have one up on Hussein, in the killing of Muslim's.

I find it fascinating that you would not ask anyone for a source when they claim Bush has murdered anyone, yet you would ask anyone for a source that Saddam is reponsible for a million of muslim deaths throughout his "governance".


But your whole argument is misdirection. Even if we did invade Iraq solely out of the goodness of our (johnny-come-lately, by-about-13-years) hearts: your claim to human rights is misdirected.

Empirical evidence reveals that we couldn't give a fig about human rights.

Here, consider these countries (just off the top of my head):

-Uzbekistan
-Libya
-Indonesia
-Pakistan
-Haiti
-Sudan
-Israel

We have "special relationships" with these countries. Funny, how each country listed has a not-so-special-relationship with certain sectors of its society. Even "funnier," is how some American's are so loud to toot the "human rights" horn, yet oh-so-silent, when it comes to the human rights of Uzbek's, the Achehenese, Aristede's Lavalas members, et al.

Maybe you ought to coin a new term for your selective concern: how about "convenient humanitarian's?"

It has a nice ring to it... :dead: :rolleyes:

Who says I am concerned about human rights ? It is AMERICAN INTERESTS that is of concern. They don't always merge.

Adam Alexander
06-09-2005, 02:21 PM
OK, I will try to make it simple. Bush has never tortured or killed anyone. He has ordered military into combat and people have died, just like practically every other President. Uncle Saddamy, on the other hand, had personally tortured and killed, as have his sons and cronies. And Uncle Saddamy's orders have killed more muslims than any other person in history. Yet, you go on being mad at Bush instead. End of story.


You've got to excuse me. I get worked-up pretty easy about this stuff.

Here's my problem: I voted for Bush (HW) the first time he was president. I voted for him again when Clinton ran against him. I voted for Dole. I voted for Bush (W) the first time.

I've fought on the front in Desert Storm--never questioning my orders because I'm a soldier, not a civilian.

I supported invading Afghanistan (by that time, I was a desk-jockey in the private sector)--questioning the motives because that's what a good American does. I deemed the invasion the necessary thing to do.

Then Bush invaded Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, with Iraq we had a lot of time to think about things (if it would of turned out "wrong" to invade Afghanistan, I could be lenient with blame because there was so much pressure to respond).

From the beginning, I had a fishy feeling about it (as all of us know, what happens on the news and what happens on the inside are two totally different things).

When things started coming out, I had to do my duty as an American and question the motives of my government and Representatives. Beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe that Bush lied and constructed an environment to take my country to war.

Hussein might be a killer of millions, but that's not why Bush told us he was sending my Brothers to war.

I say that every person that dies in Afghanistan is a necessary death that was volunteered to preserve our freedom. However, because Iraq is an unjust war, all the blood that falls, falls on the hands of George Bush.

Finally, in regard to this subject, I believe that as a voter, I hold responsibility for the actions of my government. Therefore, as Bush is responsible for the bloodshed, so to do I carry responsibility for it and am ashamed for voting for him.

To the poster who implied that we shouldn't require proof of Hussein's evil, I say to you that a good American must always question their government--for our freedom, for our children's freedom and for the longevity of our country.

Hogan
06-09-2005, 02:40 PM
You've got to excuse me. I get worked-up pretty easy about this stuff.

Here's my problem: I voted for Bush (HW) the first time he was president. I voted for him again when Clinton ran against him. I voted for Dole. I voted for Bush (W) the first time.

I've fought on the front in Desert Storm--never questioning my orders because I'm a soldier, not a civilian.

I supported invading Afghanistan (by that time, I was a desk-jockey in the private sector)--questioning the motives because that's what a good American does. I deemed the invasion the necessary thing to do.

Then Bush invaded Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, with Iraq we had a lot of time to think about things (if it would of turned out "wrong" to invade Afghanistan, I could be lenient with blame because there was so much pressure to respond).

From the beginning, I had a fishy feeling about it (as all of us know, what happens on the news and what happens on the inside are two totally different things).

When things started coming out, I had to do my duty as an American and question the motives of my government and Representatives. Beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe that Bush lied and constructed an environment to take my country to war.

Hussein might be a killer of millions, but that's not why Bush told us he was sending my Brothers to war.

I say that every person that dies in Afghanistan is a necessary death that was volunteered to preserve our freedom. However, because Iraq is an unjust war, all the blood that falls, falls on the hands of George Bush.

Finally, in regard to this subject, I believe that as a voter, I hold responsibility for the actions of my government. Therefore, as Bush is responsible for the bloodshed, so to do I carry responsibility for it and am ashamed for voting for him.
Very nice post. However, whether the current Iraq war was just or not is just something we don't agree on.

To the poster who implied that we shouldn't require proof of Hussein's evil, I say to you that a good American must always question their government--for our freedom, for our children's freedom and for the longevity of our country.
Info on Hussein's evil does not just come form the american government, but it comes from the world. It is/was there to see. The US didn't make up his behavior, Saddam did.

Adam Alexander
06-09-2005, 02:44 PM
Very nice post. However, whether the current Iraq war was just or not is just something we don't agree on.


Info on Hussein's evil does not just come form the american government, but it comes from the world. It is/was there to see. The US didn't make up his behavior, Saddam did.


What grounds make it justified to you?

Hogan
06-09-2005, 03:47 PM
What grounds make it justified to you?

Ugh. I really don't want to get into this, again. (Not with you, but with Neil). There are too many to write, and I don't feel like hitting my head against a wall with people like Niel. Neel has his own views and I have mine. Nothing against you....

Neil Mick
06-09-2005, 05:29 PM
John, just let these guys be... Anyone who needs a source for proof of Saddam's atrocities doesn't deserve our time... It wouldn't do any good anyway...

Amazing. I think that that's the most you've ever posted. Wow. :blush:

Neil Mick
06-09-2005, 05:34 PM
Strictly third hand opinion.

Along these lines ?? Of oil ??? Oil leads soldiers to go into a school ? Ummm, ok.

Yeah, it had a few editing problems: so what? Dahr Jamail's accounts have generally been a well-documented account of a non-embedded journalist's view, in Iraq.

Third-hand? Sure. That's why you don't take it solely on its merits.

The rest of this third hand acct, isn't even worth responding.

If you even could.

Neil Mick
06-09-2005, 05:40 PM
Ugh. I really don't want to get into this, again.

Because you can't. Look, just explain yourself. I am not interested in attacking your opinions, more than hearing them explained. You leave these big holes in your explanations, that leave the reader with nothing but assumption.

I still cannot fathom how "US World Domination = Freedom," other than as another from of "Manifest destiny." Sans explanation, it's the only hook you give me to hang my hat.

Neil Mick
06-09-2005, 05:46 PM
You've got to excuse me. I get worked-up pretty easy about this stuff.
(snip)
To the poster who implied that we shouldn't require proof of Hussein's evil, I say to you that a good American must always question their government--for our freedom, for our children's freedom and for the longevity of our country.

Yes, good post.

Freedom to criticize the lawbreaking US gov't, esp in wartime: is an important right, and civic responsibility, of US citizens.

Hogan
06-09-2005, 06:24 PM
...

If you even could.


ahahha... I guess this is one of those "Exactly. What next, "I'm rubber: you're glue?"" things you talked about ?

Adam Alexander
06-09-2005, 07:33 PM
Ugh. I really don't want to get into this, again. (Not with you, but with Neil). There are too many to write, and I don't feel like hitting my head against a wall with people like Niel. Neel has his own views and I have mine. Nothing against you....

Yeah, I can understand that. There's been a few occasions where I posted and then just didn't bother pursuing it because there was no apparent logical flow throughout the thread...not to mention the senseless flaming.

Well, I guess I'd just say one thing about the whole war thing. My public education wasn't much worth mentioning when it comes to government (go figure, a government body telling you how to criticize the government). Since this war started, I've begun reading about our government, governments in general and philosophy.

I have yet to find justification for this war in any of our pre-20th century history.

If you've got time, what's your thoughts? If not, best of luck to you.

Neil Mick
06-10-2005, 02:47 AM
ahahha... I guess this is one of those "Exactly. What next, "I'm rubber: you're glue?"" things you talked about ?

Sort of,,,but what I'm wondering is why the sudden dyslexia in spelling my name... :freaky:

Ugh. I really don't want to get into this, again. (Not with you, but with Neil). There are too many to write, and I don't feel like hitting my head against a wall with people like Niel. Neel has his own views and I have mine. Nothing against you....

But nevermind. You have your reasons for not elaborating: so there you are.

Adam Alexander
06-10-2005, 12:51 PM
Hogan,

I spent twenty minutes looking through threads for your reason of approval for the war. However, I only found an article you posted stating positive effects of it in '04.

After looking through way over 500 posts, I figured that maybe you meant that your views were within what the others had written, is that the case?

Hogan
06-10-2005, 01:09 PM
Hogan,

I spent twenty minutes looking through threads for your reason of approval for the war. However, I only found an article you posted stating positive effects of it in '04.

After looking through way over 500 posts, I figured that maybe you meant that your views were within what the others had written, is that the case?

Good god, you have more patience than I. I am sure I either posted info or mentioned at least some points why I favored getting rid of Uncle Saddammy or why the world is better off, etc... If not, then they remain in my mind.